Solar cycle 24 continues the slump

Sunspot counting with the plethora of micro-specs in this cycle makes the subject a bit wooly, and finding a second peak is like finding a castle in the clouds. However, F10.7 is a measurement that sidesteps the sunspot size issue, and I see no “double peak” there. In fact, I am unclear why there is an effort to look for a second peak. Also, TSI does not look like it is throwing in the towel for this cycle. UVE peak looks like it’s long gone, though, for those that look for that.
It will be an interesting winter.

Don’t blame me. It’s not my fault that we’re doomed.

Kev-in-Uk says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:22 am
But according to sources, the solar changes will have little to no effect on the earths climate?
I mean TSI only varies by a mere smidgen (+/- 0.1%), right?
and of course, the rising CO2 levels will keep us nice and warm anyway?
=========================================================
Its an attractive thought that the extra CO2 will keep us warm despite the sun going into doldrums. Is there any scientific evidence showing whether the additional CO2 will or won’t keep us warm? Or do we keep arguing the same old talking points depending on what side of the AGW fence we happen to be on until the evidence is in.

@Kev-in-UK I think any drop in temps from a low-activity sun is not going to show up as a distinct signal – there are so many other factors in play with regards to surface temps.
Let’s suppose there is an actual effect of -1C over 10 years. How would you spot a 0.1C / yr effect amidst the noise of natural variability and be able to assign certainty to the cause being a quiet sun?

Vukcevic, I agree reduction in solar activity in of itself will not cause cooling and it certainly will not happen over night. First, the cooling most likely will happen and quite probably we will be able to distinctly see it the empirical data. This is probably due to a phase shift in PDO, now I do not want to rile up the Ocean people, I now know PDO is NOT a climate mechanic, it is simply a tool in the tool box for possibly predicting future climate shifts, We have seen clearly from multiple authors on WUWT that temperature has plateaued over the past 17 years and quite possibly has begun to decrease since 05 (HADCRUT4 is showing a slight decline, albeit a VERY short period of time).
The diminished solar activity will only heighten the cooling, that ‘should’ come from the shift in PDO.
Now the lag, I am attacking this from logic not any scientific literature. It is intuitive that after a natural warm up as we have experienced, that if you turn off the heat it will take some time to cool. Take this analogy:
You are at Grandma’s for Christmas, shes turned the heat up like normal, everyone’s running around having a great time, it gets warm in the house. You secretly turn off the heat (solar output diminishes) this you can hide from the family but outwardly you ask if you can open the door to let the heat out. Does the room immediately? No, it takes time, our atmosphere has a tremendous amount of inertia built up, so once there is a shift in climate it will take sometime for us to physically see it and then of course to measure it even longer to see a trend.
Here it comes though, When it is all said and done, by 2030 I (unscientifically) predict a reduction in global temperatures to around .25 – .3C. I say unscientifically, but the last time PDO was in this phase, 1945 – 1975 (roughly), temps decreased approximately .23C (HADCRUT3 before some of that cooling disappeared in V4, now only .12C) while solar output was the highest in the past 1000 years.
Who knows, V5 of these data sets will find a way to, adjust/ hide the cooling.
Stay vigilant Anthony, thanks again!
Brian

It is SO exhausting to observe otherwise knowledgeable folks still feeling the need to publicly hang on by bleeding fingernails to the totally unproven meme of “small warming influence of CO2”. Come on! You know it’s a crock. Out of context lab physics inappropriately applied to a hugely complex system.
Just let go! It’s not that HARD!

The Maunder Minimum was a period of very low Sunspot activity, & we had the LIA which ha been shown to have been a global occurrence. A variability of an object – the primary source of all life – of one tenth of one percent, that contains 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, would suggest to me it would be folly to discount it’s potential effects upon the Earth & its climate! It possess around 332,900 times the mass of the Earth, come on chaps & chapesses! On top of which the paleo-geological record dating back 500 million years, suggests that whilst possessing some 7000pm of CO2 in the atmosphere, we still suffered from Ice-ages! Go figure, something (multiple?) other than CO2 must be having an affect. Just a thought! Anyway, must get back to my X-Box 360 Lara Croft is about to take on the baddies………..whoops I mean I have to re-run my GCM model to determine how warm we will be when we all die at some predetermined point in the future! 🙁

How many times are they going to fail in their predictions before they start a rethink? The attitude does seem to be fingers in ears eyes tightly shut shouting bla, bla, bla, bla, bla….it’s not the Sun, it’s not the Sun! Reminds me of Lenin,” if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth!”

Seen “double peak” Mentioned Here & By Dr. Robert M. Schoch Tonite On @coasttocoastam http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/08/12 #SolarReversal POPULAR!!! #SUN

I often look at data for unusual features, then suggest possible scenario (call it playing devils advocate) and often infuriate those in the know by this kind of pseudoscience.
If one assumes that the Ap index is yet another measure of the solar input (the others being measured by the SSN, TSI and F10.7) make an attempt to correlate global (land as longer and more reliable) temperature records to the Ap, the result is shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ApGLT.htm
It can be concluded that solar output on this measure is responsible to about 0.4C pp
This could be also result of variability in the TSI and or the ‘Svensmark factor’ (see post by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, further up the thread)
So assumed solar variability is currently lifted by some other factor/s (of which CO2 could be one even if only minor contributor) to amount of about ~0.65C.
Assuming that the Ap index, due to low solar activity, falls to its base level, than a temperature fall of 0.4 C from the current levels could be expected.
This is more or less in line with the Viscount Monckton’s assessment :
In that event, there could be half a Celsius degree of global cooling by 2020.

In 2003 (published January 2004) I devised a formula, extrapolating to the unusually low solar activity in the late 2020s
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which is now widely accepted as a likely scenario, but then ridiculed by the most eminent solar scientists (from NASA to Stanford) with lone exception of a British academic also a winner of the Hale Prize, awarded by the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.

Thanks for the update Anthony. We really need to see some cooling (rather than non-warming) soon….

Kev-in-UK writes,” But according to sources, the solar changes will have little to no effect on the earth’s climate? I mean TSI only varies by a mere smidgen (+/- 0.1%), right?” Now, I know that in recent times the coronation of King CO2 has made it unnecessary to look at other correlations. Here’s one I’ve followed since 1955 when I got my ham ticket at age 15. That small solar cycle change of +/- 0.1% TSI results in dramatic changes in ionization at the F2 layer which reflects high frequency radio waves (so-called short wave radio) back to Earth- the only wireless communication beyond line-of-sight that existed for most of the 20th century. At the top of “strong” solar cycles, the maximum usable frequency (MUF) is around 50 MHz. At the bottom, the MUF is around 10 MHz. This is a stunning difference of a physical mechanism, F layer ionization and MUF, resulting or correlating with that puny difference in TSI. I’m not sure what the implication is beyond something I see little of by many climate scientists and their combative cheerleaders- modesty in claims of understanding and prediction.

James Allison says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:21 am
Is there any scientific evidence showing whether the additional CO2 will or won’t keep us warm?
How much will today’s temp increase fall tonight.
Over 100 million station records say that on average the fall in temp tonight will match how much it warms up today, so no Co2 isn’t going to keep us warm.

Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am

At the top of “strong” solar cycles, the maximum usable frequency (MUF) is around 50 MHz. At the bottom, the MUF is around 10 MHz.

I was eating dinner Sunday with my brother-in and his brother, both ham operators. I mentioned the weakening Sun, and got the impression from Bill that the Sun was interfering more than normal with his ham radio signal, which kind of surprised me. I didn’t realize there was a inverse relationship with MUF.

I suppose that a figure of .1 % less solar radiation that a quiet sun gives seems quite the stretch to suggest that this makes any difference upon the world’s climate. However, I hear tell that there exist some extremist climate scientists who actually think that a rise of .00012% of CO2 raised the global temperature of the earth by .74 C in the last hundred years. I wonder which one is the real stretch?

andrewuwe says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:54 am
It is often said that TSI can’t effect changes in climate because it only varies by 0.1%. But I don’t get this as the global average temp is 287 and one thousandth of that is 0.28. 0.28 is a large cut of the temperature anomaly isn’t it?
The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law states that radiation depends on the fourth power of temperature, from which is follows that a 0.1% change in radiation corresponds to a change in temperature of one quarter of that, so your 0.28C should be 0.07C.

Dr. Deanster says: “I can see the global temp dropping by a good 0.5C”
You might be right, here’s the fundamental problem, when we wrote our equations for feedback, it was written with predisposed conclusions towards CO2. We really do not know how much of the cooling, 1880-1910, was the drop off in solar activity (equal to solar cycle 24) combined with a negative PDO, how much of the cooling 1940-ish till 1975, was natural neg PDO w/ high solar activity or unnatural aerosols. Then how much of the equal warming .5c 1910-1940 & 1975-2000, was natural or man-made. There is no denying, CO2 can trap heat, then again the last half of the 20th century was characterized by a solar maximum last seen 1000 yrs ago. So how much is natural and how much is from CO2.
The only way to make accurate predictions is to remove predisposed biases towards CO2 and start from scratch!

Dermot O’Logical says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:26 am
totally agree – but then if the climate boyz can find ‘The AGW Warming’ in all that natural variablilty, hopefully they can find the cooling too! LOL
Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am
absolutely – the solar energy is not just TSI – but probably a zillion other interactions of magnetic influences, x-rays, UVE, etc, etc. Perhaps I should have put /sarc ? – but to be fair, at this stage, AFAIK, nobody, but NOBODY has a sh*tload of applicable modern solar data through a very weak sun yet (?) and so the solar guys must be pretty excited if we start to see some strange readings?.
I for one, still think that the time lags of relatively minor solar effects to earth effects are likely to be in the multidecadal to ‘centuries’ scale – so don’t think we will get any answers soon, but if solar energy (in all its forms) is seen to vary a lot more than some currently think, during the possible quiet phase, it will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons…..especially as we simply have insufficient data to even model possible ‘solar’ effects. (I can’t see a few decades of solar obs and thermal obs being much use, can you?)
In any event, no doubt the guv’ment/alarmists will come up with some upside down theory, e.g. that we are taking too much solar energy instead of reflecting it back to the sun (to keep it warm), or some such rubbish! to prolong further taxation, etc,etc – damn, that’s another idea I’ve given them…….

JimS, if you are so sure that .00012% of CO2 cannot have a significant effect, consider that 0.00012% of body weight is very close to the lethal dose of sodium cynanide to a human.
And many other substances are much more toxic than cyanide.
Small amounts of things really can matter.

@steveta_uk Writes:
“JimS, if you are so sure that .00012% of CO2 cannot have a significant effect, consider that 0.00012% of body weight is very close to the lethal dose of sodium cynanide to a human.
And many other substances are much more toxic than cyanide.
Small amounts of things really can matter.”
JimS responds:
Yes, very small amounts of poison can have a significant affect upon the human body, since poison brings about death.
Since CO2 is not poison or pollution, but is a necessity for life continuing upon this planet, your logic is faulty. Given that earth has experienced significantly higher levels of CO2 for the past 500 million years and life thrived on the earth as a result, your logic goes from being faulty to being the antithesis of logic.
You really should take some time and explore the past history of the earth, as you might find this venture quite illuminating. Listening to Catastrophic Anthropongenic Global Warming extremists, and to no one else, is rather poisonous to the mind.

Ian W says: @ August 13, 2013 at 2:12 am
…As already apparent in UK and Germany the provision of energy is already too high for some domestic customers and 5000 extra deaths were recorded in UK just in March 2013 due to cold and energy poverty – with no political response. IFF the global temperatures do drop the cold winters will be concurrent with extreme increases in energy costs (which will have ‘necessarily sky rocketed’ TM Obama) . Expect progressive politicians at that point to attempt to apportion blame for these deaths probably to the ‘climate science Team’. Nevertheless, their policies and governance can be expected to remain regardless of increasing deaths from cold as they were the long term aim of the AGW scare…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heck Obama is ALREADY SHIFTING BLAME

TOP NEWS TODAY: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Just days away from the 10-year anniversary of the worst power outage in U.S. history, the White House and the Energy Department released a report on Monday evaluating the resiliency of the nation’s electric grid and recommending steps to prevent future blackouts. full story

It is also on YAHOO: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid

The report called storms and severe weather “the leading cause of power outages in the United States,” and warned against the steep cost of weather-related damage to the electric grid. It put the price tag for electrical failures caused by inclement weather at between $18 billion and $33 billion annually, and noted that costs have increased in recent years, jumping from a range of $14 billion to $26 billion in 2003 to $27 billion to $52 billion in 2012. Storms exceeding a billion dollars in damages (electrical and otherwise) have also become more frequent in the past decade, as the chart below shows.
Senior administration officials told reporters during a conference call Monday morning that investing in improvements to the grid is the best way to make sure this figure does not continue to rise.
Officials said the electrical distribution system, largely made up of power lines, is the most vulnerable part of the grid….

Tally Ho And Away we go to, wait for it… The SMART GRID Interesting that the report on the Smart Grid is from 2009 but Obama waits until AFTER the election and the start of the hurricane season to blame it on ‘Climate Change’

The Department of Energy Report 2009

A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….
These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

No mention of course that the EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings and many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity.

Energy InSight FAQs
….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.
There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

JimS and BobW – you’ve both completely missed my point.
I was pointing out that claming that anything in low concentrations cannot have a major effect is simply wrong. I could just have easily have used a vitamin as an example, or some of the rarer elements we need, where tiny amounts are required for life.
I was not suggesting that CO2 is in any way harmful, nor was I suggesting that CO2 is connected to CAGW.

Nigel Harris says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:12 am
JimS
The valid comparison is: TSI may fall by around 0.1%, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 42% (280 ppm to 400 ppm)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
So a 0.1% decrease in the Pacific ocean is less water than a 42% decrease in the water in a mud puddle.
Same logic.

@steveta_uk
I apologize for not understanding your position. However, I have come across too many CAGW extremists who used this same argument that you used. Therefore, I assumed you would be in that category.
Regards

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:18 am
Updated correlation for the evolution of the sun’s magnetic Polar Fields calculates at R^2=0.915
It is not correct to omit MWO as their data is good back to at least 1970 [following an upgrade of the instrument], as you can see from the close relationship with WSO when they overlap: slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf

@bubbagyro
“Also, TSI, that is, the relatively low energy electromagnetic energy, probably is not the primary energy to look at when the sun’s influence on climate is attempted to be quantified. High energy waves are by and large neglected, as well as the high energy particles in the solar wind, e.g. neutrinos and protons, …”
The “T” in TSI stands for “total”, so accounts for _all_ of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) energy radiated by the Sun (from low-frequency RF up to X-ray and gamma radiation). Most of this EMR is in the visible light spectrum and nearby IR and UV bands, according to its black-body temperature (~5800K) and the Planck distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
Yes, this is mathematic model, but solar EMR observations fit the model very well.
The most reliable TSI measurements are made by the orbiting NASA SORCE/TIM instrument, which measures temperature changes caused capturing all solar radiation impinging on its ‘sensor’. The ‘sensor’ is actually a small aperture on the surface of an insulated calorimeter chamber. Because the diameter of the hole is relatively small compared to the size of the chamber, virtually all of the admitted EMR is absorbed by chamber and converted to heat, i.e. simulating an ideal black-body which, by definition, absorbs all incoming radiation.
http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/tim/
Because of this precise design, SORCE/TIM has changed the ‘consensus’ estimate of 1366 w/m^2 for TSI at TOA. It is now estimated at 1362 w/m^2 due to the greater precision of TIM’s aperture:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/#mission_highlights
Energy radiated by other forms of solar energy, e.g. particles is a small fraction of the solar EMR solar output. For example, solar neutrinos constitute 3% of total solar energy. But neutrinos barely interact with other forms of matter and so do not get absorbed by the atmosphere or Earth’s surface.

Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:28 am
Reality check. Solar-anything driving weather pattern variation is easily refuted. A strong El Nino (which actually spits out heat from the oceans, thus cooling them) can warm things up on land in the face of a weak solar cycle. Therefore Oceanic conditions are more powerful than solar affects…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pam, you haven’t followed that back to where that strong El Nino comes from. The Drakes Passage constricts the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and shoots some of the cold Antarctic water up the coast of South America where El Nino/La Nina originates. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is driven by wind.
These winds are then connected to ozone:
Decadal Changes of Wind Stress over the Southern Ocean Associated with Antarctic Ozone Depletion
Ozone Thinning Has Changed Ocean Circulation “Jan. 31, 2013 — A hole in the Antarctic ozone layer has changed the way that waters in the southern oceans mix,… In a paper published in this week’s issue of the journal Science, Darryn W. Waugh and his team show that subtropical intermediate waters in the southern oceans have become “younger” as the upwelling, circumpolar waters have gotten “older” — changes that are consistent with the fact that surface winds have strengthened as the ozone layer has thinned. “

NASA: Ozone Production and Destruction
Stratospheric ozone is created and destroyed primarily by ultraviolet radiation. The air in the stratosphere is bombarded continuously with ultraviolet radiation from the Sun.When high energy ultraviolet rays strike molecules of ordinary oxygen (O2), they split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms. The free oxygen atoms can then combine with oxygen molecules (O2) to form ozone (O3) molecules….
Ozone production is driven by UV radiation of wavelengths less than 240 nm. Ozone dissociation typically produces atomic oxygen that is stable when exposed to longer wavelengths, up to 320 nm, and shorter wavelenghts of 400 to 700 nm. Longer wavelength photons penetrate deeper into the atmosphere, creating regions of ozone production and destruction. When an ozone molecule absorbs even low energy ultraviolet, it splits into an ordinary oxygen molecule and a free oxygen atom….

NASA Leads Study Of Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss
WASHINGTON — A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth’s protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere.
The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature, finds the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone “hole” has formed each spring since the mid 1980s. The stratospheric ozone layer, extending from about 10 to 20 miles (15 to 35 kilometers) above the surface…

NASA SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
“We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle…
Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate….

This is just a glimpse of other possibilities.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:48 am
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:35 am
(LS) “No it is not, as your ‘formula’ predicts that the solar polar fields will not reverse in the next cycle. That is not accepted by anybody.”
(Vuk) That remains to be seen
(LS) It does not remain to be seen whether your ‘prediction’ of no reversal is accepted. It simply is not.
………………..
Doc
You just have to go and buy yourself a new hat.
I have enlarged the relevant section and added to the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
and as you can see formula does predict reversal, albeit a short one, but reversal is a reversal. ‘Vukcevic formula rules. OK!’

No it is not ridiculous, your attempt to discredit product of my ‘fertile imagination’ is
Why not ask Ilya Usoskin or Kalevi Mursula?
Cycle 4a lasted only 3 years, and forthcoming minimum may be more severe than one in 1800
A SOLAR CYCLE LOST IN 1793-1800: EARLY SUNSPOT OBSERVATIONS RESOLVE THE OLD MYSTERY
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/700/2/L154/fulltext/apjl_700_2_154.text.html

Gail, energy bills will skyrocket, us poor folks can’t win for losing. Here’s something I put together, not near as good as you do it because I’m so time constrained. Copy and paste. But something you can chew on.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/11/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg
Looking back at annualized growth in federal spending, the biggest spender was Ronald Reagan (8.7%) followed closely by Bush II (8.1%), Bush I (5.4%), and Bill Clinton (3.2%). As a matter of fact, even Clinton’s low of 3.2% federal spending growth is nearly two-and-a-half times higher than President Obama’s 1.4% during his first term in office.
http://m.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
One simple fact Republicans understand, but many in the population do not, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a previous administration’s budget approved by Congress.  Republicans began their lying by counting 2009′s fiscal year budget as the President’s even though it began four months before he moved into the White House, and included spending increases of hundreds of billions of dollars in response to Bush-Republicans’ economic and financial catastrophe. In the 2009 fiscal year budget, the last of George W. Bush’s presidency, federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion, and the first budget attributable to President Obama (fiscal 2010), spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the final budget of the President’s first term, spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and extended out means that over the President’s first four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. Obviously, there has been no huge increase in spending under President Obama, and yet Republicans claim he has been on a spending binge that is the sole cause of the nation’s economic woes.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905
The utter failure of Republicans is acknowledging that President Obama is stingy with federal dollars, and that their spending cut propensity is directly correlated to which party is in the White House. Republicans had no problem blowing up the deficit when Bush II was in the White House, and most Americans are unaware that Bush’s folly in Iraq and Afghanistan were kept out of the budget and still old George and Republicans presided over the second highest federal spending increase since Reagan was president. President Obama gave Republicans a good offer to avoid the dreaded fiscal cliff that included over $800 billion in spending cuts they hardly considered adequate because in their world view, one can never cut enough from services and safety nets.
It is a hard pill for Republicans to swallow, but this President has reduced spending to the point that there is little left to cut without causing more undue harm to tens-of-millions of Americans. However, one must remember that causing harm to the poor, children, Veterans, and seniors is the prime directive of Republicans and their policy machine the Heritage Foundation, and regardless that President Obama leads the pack in reducing spending, Republicans and Heritage will always find more ways to punish Americans whether it is robbing them of their Social Security retirement accounts, cutting food stamps, cutting healthcare spending, slashing Veterans benefits, or eliminating school lunch programs that not only reduces spending, it reduces life expectancy.
1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel to our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder.  They assured us, as the father of Conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority.  Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.”  Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.
2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.
Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.
But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor,  they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.
Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property.  After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”
3) Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
4) Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
5) Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
6) Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
7) Conservatives oppose clean air and water
8 ) Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
9) Conservatives opposed Medicare
10) Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law

Nigel, it really IS an increase of only 0.00012 (0.012%) of the atmosphere.
Making percentages of tiny numbers vs other tiny numbers in order to make the comparator look bigger is an old propaganda trick.

. Let’s review what happened during low sunspot or lower solar flux activity according to historical CET temperature records. I seriously question the claim of only 0.1C drop due to the sun during solar minimums .
Record CET Coldest winter temperatures during major solar minimums
19 of the 30 coldest annual CET temperatures were during the three very low sunspot periods of Maunder Minimum. Dalton Minimum and the Modern Minimum of 1880-1910
20 of the 30 coldest winter CET temperatures were during the same three major minimums, regular minimums, or sustained low solar sunspot years
During Maunder minimum and looking at CET temperature data 1645-1715
The period 1690-1699, the coldest decade, had an average annual temperature of 8.107C. The average annual decade temperature during 1981-2010 was 9.9 C. The annual average temperature 1940-1979 [the era before global warming was 9.48C] The annual average temperature shortly after MM, namely 1720-1729 was 9.3 C and 1730-1739 was 9.8 C. So on an annual basis the temperatures dropped about 1.2 -1.7C during MM
During Dalton Minimum [1790-1720
The same analysis of the period 1807-1816 during the Dalton Minimum shows annual temperatures of about 8.6C when annual sunspot number was zero during 1810. The winter of 1814 was the 4th coldest in CET records at – 2.9 C again -5.3C colder than 2010
During other low solar activity periods
If we further check the record, global temperatures tend to drop near the end of long solar cycles and at the beginning of the next decade. One can see the global temperatures decline at the end of cycles # 9, 13, 14, and 20.
If we also check the impact on Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures as measured by Hadcrutgl3, the temperatures drops for 3-4 years around each of the last 3 solar minimums or whenever the solar flux F 10.7 level drops to between 100 and 70 [ unless there happens to be an El Nino during the same years] Just check the years 2009, 2010 2011
CET Winter temperatures dropped at the solar minimum year or the years before or after for 30 of the last 31 solar minimums.
Thus we note that these historical temperature drops during low solar activity are significantly more than -0.1 C when looking at winter temperatures
If the sun is not somehow involved in these changes , the so called “other climate factors “ must have a very smart calendar to come on and off each time the sun drops to a certain threshold after a sustained and declining period of about 5-10 years .

On to 25, to the extent it will exist at all.

It is exactly what happened at the time of the Dalton Minimum if transposed to the Polar Fields few years earlier
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
You may not observe any sunspots at location at the time of observations of Dalton Minimum, and even if were some, they will be obscured by frequent cloud cover (Svensmark effect)
Bye.

Ed,
I agree with almost all the above, but most of the younger conservatives here are probably not aware of the above history, and it’s unfair to paint them with the same brush as former generation conservatives. I’m one of those center left- I prefer that term- luke warmers who is very upset by the liberal establishment’s groupthink and uncritical embrace of CAGW, but equally upset by much of the right wing groupthink and uncritical embrace of conspiracy theories about liberal CAGW motivations. The belief we know other’s motivations is like the belief we know the future of global warming and cooling- self satisfying, but unhelpful.
“Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire,
But if it had to perish twice,
I think that for destruction, ice
Is also great and would suffice.”
Robert Frost

Why is my comment awaiting moderation for the first time since in months? WUWT?

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 11:56 am
But back to the issue. You predict that the maximum of cycle 26 will occur only two years after the maximum of cycle 25. so when will the minimum be? halfway between the two maxima? in 2024? that gives SC25 only one year to descend from maximum to minimum. You are stretching things a bit too much here. But such is the lot of a pseudo-scientist.
I am not scientist, just an ordinary Joe Blog, looking at the data, I don’t predict anything, I am not in such business, I am just reporting to what my equation extrapolates to.
It is exactly what happened at the time of the Dalton Minimum if transposed to the Polar Fields few years earlier as anyone can see here, by comparing two
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
You may not observe any sunspots at location at the time of observations of Dalton Minimum, and even if were some, they will be obscured by frequent cloud cover (Svensmark effect)
I do not know what might happen or not, I think neither you.
Let me say it again:
In 2003 (published January 2004) I devised a formula, extrapolating to the unusually low solar activity in the late 2020s, which is now widely accepted as a likely scenario, but then ridiculed by the most eminent solar scientists (from NASA to Stanford) with lone exception of a British academic also a winner of the Hale Prize, awarded by the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.
And that is as the current state is, you may not like it, you may wriggle back and fourth to get out of the hole you fell in (further up the thread).

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:23 pm
“You may not observe any sunspots at location at the time of observations of Dalton Minimum, and even if were some, they will be obscured by frequent cloud cover”
So now you are suggesting that the cause of Grand Minima is frequent cloud cover. So, climate is controlling the Sun [or at least our record of it]. More ‘fertile imagination’ it seems.
Now, now, doc, you do not want readers to get wrong impression of your ways, do you now?
What happened to reference to the Svensmark effect?
Correct quote is:
“You may not observe any sunspots at location at the time of observations of Dalton Minimum, and even if were some, they will be obscured by frequent cloud cover (Svensmark effect)”
and here is the relevant graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
a good case study.
I think it is best if I decline any further conversation until you mend your ways.

I remember that as a child I was fascinated by the planets and stars, but after hearing the lessons, they always seem so distant and cold to me. I never thought that they could hold a key to our life here on earth. The 2 graphs here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from that I quoted frequently from William Arnold, he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates did not make sense.
Observe from my a-c curves:
1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
2) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
1919, 1965, 2009,
In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign….!!!! Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit. So it appears William Arnold report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Then again I don’t think you subscribe to thresholds or that the climate can change abruptly or that the climate system is non linear. In addition I think you under estimate solar variability.
You ‘think’ this and you ‘think’ that. You are allowed to have your own opinion, but without anything to back it up, it is just opinion, and I ‘think’ we have seen enough of your opinion to know now what it is.

You , or for that matter no one in the field of climatalogy can back up their opinions. It is all spin and if one spins it hard enough you can make it appear to be correct.
I can make any theory seem correct if I spin it, even the AGW theory.
What I am trying to say is we may have the once in a lifetime oportunity (this decade)to sort much of this out given the prolonged solar minimum versus co2 increases, and the resulting climate as a consequence of all of this.
My thoughts if anything can be backed up more then the AGW theory which is failing on all cylinders as this decade proceeds. They can not or I should say have failed so far to back up any claims they have made thus far.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Now, now, doc, you do not want readers to get wrong impression of your ways, do you now?
Have you no shame?
…………..
That is good for a laugh. You shouldn’t be making up things
“So, climate is controlling the Sun.”
in defence of your failure
and then you have a cheek to say: “Have you no shame?”
I don’t really care what Hoyt & Schatten retrieved or not, in the bottom graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
is monthly data from SIDC.
Further more I have no idea what Hoyt & Schatten were doing during Napoleonic wars in Europe, but many contemporary records talk of incessant rain and muddy battlefields.
http://www.elke-rehder.de/images/Antiquariat-DGMS/DGMS0146.JPG
Vukcevic has shown: His equation is good, polar fields reverse, repeat of Dalton minimum (214 =2x 107 years, yet another Vukcevic equation )
Dr. Svalgaard badly failed to prove any of his assertions and resorts to. “So, climate is controlling the Sun.” selective and trncated quote in defence of his failure, followed by impertinent “Have you no shame?”
I make that
Vukcevic 3 (three) : Dr. Svalgaard -1 (minus one)
Off you go to a battle where you have some chance of winning, you lost this one rather badly!

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I don’t really care what Hoyt & Schatten retrieved or not
Typical of a pseudo-scientist to not care about data that doesn’t fit. The fact is that out of the 730 days in 1809 and 1811 there were observations by FLAUGERGUES, HERSCHEL, HEINRICH, FRITSCH, BUGGE, GRUITHUISEN, ENDE, BODE, and LINDENER, covering all these 730 days except 17. That is the solar data we have. I consider that disproof of your formula and of your claim that the two solar maxima you predicted [1809, 1811] could not be observed because of clouds. The Svensmark ‘effect’ would actually not explain anything as that should operate at solar minimum [most cosmic rays] rather than at maximum.

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Only 17 days ?! presumably due to cloudy sky, were this observations made from the Atakama desert, or Europe was at the time of the Dalton minimum and the Napoleonic wars a land of ever lasting sunshine ?
From the muddy locations at Viviers, France; London, England; Munich, Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; Celle, Germany; Berlin, Germany; Glatz, Poland.

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Or SC max =1.5 (one point five !)
And you call that Solar cycle’s Max !?
Perhaps your PFs are just wrong.
Now you have gone quiet on what matters:
Why not ask Ilya Usoskin or Kalevi Mursula? Cycle 4a lasted only 3 years
A bit of honesty would do you good. If you would care to check, they say 7 years. And their 4a cycle has already been discredited and gone the way of the Dodo, e.g. http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/cycle4.pdf “Taken together, the evidence from these various tests strongly suggests that no cycle was missed and that the official sunspot cycle numbering and parameters are correct”
But back to the issue. You predict that the maximum of cycle 26 will occur only two years after the maximum of cycle 25. so when will the minimum be? halfway between the two maxima? in 2024? that gives SC25 only one year to descend from maximum to minimum. You are stretching things a bit too much here. But such is the lot of a pseudo-scientist. Sooner or later, reality catches up with him. Most of the time he will ignore that and invent some excuse. What will be yours?

denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Then look at the height and density in the exosphere. Known to vary quite a bit from solar cycle to solar cycle. The smallest extent of the exosphere in the space era was the 23/24 minimum. That is direct experimental evidence of some influence from the variance in short wavelength radiation.
And of the ionosphere even below the exosphere. But those are not involved in climate apart from possibly being influenced a bit by upward travelling waves from the troposphere.

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm
PF estimated at [abs (-2.2)] (see bottom graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm )
As usual you become economical with the truth at some point. The red curve you show [including the formula you presumably used to calculate it] does not match what the formula actually returns, as you can see here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-16.png
Furthermore the reversal [indicated by vertical bars] bear no relationship with solar maximum nor with the size of the sunspot cycle following each.

denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:25 pm
This is why your focus on the one parameter, TSI is also not compelling
I’m not focusing on a single parameter, TSI. As I noted, all solar parameters vary to first order just as TSI, so you can substitute any parameter you want for TSI, makes no difference for the correlations.
Thus it is incumbent upon all of us who study these things to integrate what is happening and keep an open mind.
But not so open that the brain has fallen out.
Using computer models of CO2, no matter how fancy, is nothing more today than an advanced appeal to an authority, one that is also flawed.
I fail to see why CO2 models should enter into a debate about the Sun’s lack of influence. You might as well rail against using models of the Dow Jones Index or the spread of linguistic changes.

Sorry I messed up formatting (thunderstorm just hit and lights were flickering)

Gail Combs says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm
OK I will spell it out. (Remember this is not even conjecture but a SWAG)
#1 The high end wavelengths, UV/E UV part of the sun’s spectrum is more variable than the TSI.
Since UV/EUV is [but a tiny] part of TSI, its variation is subsumed into that of TSI. If TSI varied by 2 W/m2 the variation of UV/EUV at the same time would be much less than 2 W/m2, something like 0.02 W/m2 or less.

William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm
How many sunspot groups do you see?
Two?
No, at least six.
There appears to be a pathetic obvious effort to hide the decline in the sunspot number.
Nonsense, by whom? Thousands of amateurs the world over watch the sun and count sunspots. Their counts are close to the official count.
Look at the visual of the sun. Does it agree with the sunspot count? It does not.
The latest drawing for Kanzelhohe http://cesar.kso.ac.at/sunspot_drawings/2013/kanz_drawx_fd_20130813_0610.jpg shows seven groups with 71 spots [for yesterday]. That gives a sunspot number of 10*7+71= 141. To convert that to the official scale multiply by 0.6 to yield 85. Kanzelhohe agrees very well with the official count. Are you accusing the Austrian government to collude with me?
Science cannot progress without honesty and integrity.
you can start by showing some of that
Susann Macklem says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm
1st has the solar cycle double peaked
Cycle 24 will show several more peaks as cycle 14 did http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
2nd has the magnetic poles reversed.
on average yes, the last shred of the old polarity will probably disappear in ~three months

Dr Svalgaard, I think you are misinterpreting the word “peaked” as used in these comments. IMHO, they are referring to the monthly smoothed sunspot number and not an intermediate high of spots that cycle 14 showed on a number of occasions after the flip. I believe they are asking if a new high in the smoothed number has a possibility of occurring in this cycle.

righttimewrongplace says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm
I think you are misinterpreting the word “peaked” as used in these comments. IMHO, they are referring to the monthly smoothed sunspot number
The smoothed sunspot number [black curve] http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png also shows multiple peaks in cycle 14 [I count about 4 of them] and so might also cycle 24. The ‘double peak’ is an unfortunate oversimplification by Dean Pesnell at NASA. Now, interpreted generously he might have been thinking of a hemispheric asymmetry shown by many solar cycles as we show in this paper: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf Figure 7 compares cycles 14 and 24. It is quite possible that there will a similar asymmetry in cycle 24, perhaps changing over more than twice, as in the cycle peaking in 1980.

@Monckton of Brenchley
“The scare will not survive even seven more years without warming. Perhaps the end is in sight.”
Ha! Not even TWO more years your lordship, and there will be no return to warming. The end is indeed in sight… maybe for all of us.

Irregardless of the great bun fight about the roll of the sun between Lief and Vuc et al, solar scientists have to come to terms with why a quite sun corresponds to cold periods in our past.
The sun is our only source of heat both in the rays we see and its invisible tentacles that stir our core and give us our protective magnet. That some thing changes that varies our climatic conditions is beyond doubt, or our climate would be stable forever. It is time for our solar scientists to think outside the square, for all is not as it seems.
I have no expertise in these matters as a lowly engineer but I tend to correlate many diverse things that seem connected, the ebb and flow of human history is directly related to climate changes, both the good and the bad times in our history are keys to climate.
Looking for what was different in the sun and solar and celestial mechanics may give a better idea of what our future holds, it is not us that controls our climate and those that think we do, have much to learn.
For much of the last century and all of this one has seen main stream science close the door to any one thinking out side the square, and not just climate science. The time has come to tear the doors open and let in a bit of light.

wayne Job says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm
solar scientists have to come to terms with why a quite sun corresponds to cold periods in our past.
Except they don’t so what is there to come to terms about?. See slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Climate arm-chair ‘experts’ need to come to terms with why there is no correspondence.

Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Thank you. I just refreshed my page, and still the .gif image shows clearly, Jan 00…. Jan19 on the x axis of all graphs for me.
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant, probably because that is the graph is supposed to look like. Jan 2013 is plotted on the line labeled 13. What is wrong with that?

denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:48 pm
How exactly do you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that these atmospheric density factors do not influence climate?
The shoe is on the other foot. There is no good evidence that they do.
but it is clear from the paleo climate record that the climate of the Earth has been dramatically shaped by many minor contributors. Hell the energy balance equations say that the eccentricity term should not be dominating the glacial cycles yet, it does.
The eccentricity term has a great influence on glacial cycles because the variation in insolation is great.
thus to make blanket statements about solar/terrestrial connections seems to be more hubris than science.
you mean: such as to say that obviously the Sun is the major driver?
My point is that looking at the data I am unimpressed and I have looked hard and long. But as I said: present what you think is the BEST evidence that solar activity is the major driver of climate and we can dissect that. It is clear that there is SOME influence on the 0.1C level, so that does not need be discussed.

William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Lief: It is pathetic that you claim the sun is spotless when it is not.
William: The EOS paper July 28, 2009 states the obvious. The sun will be spotless in 2015.
If you overlay their old graph [that you keep referring to although it is outdated] with what the Sun has actually been doing since, you may see that their old prediction did not come to pass: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Then-and-Now.png
My point is it does not make sense to monkey with the sunspot count as it only makes it more difficult to explain the spotless sun and the cooling planet. Propaganda does not change reality.
Nobody is monkeying with the sunspot count. Thousands of amateurs all over the world are your guarantee for that.
Leif: Most sunspot counting is not done or controlled by the US government, so whatever you propose will have no effect.
William: Give me a break
No, I’ll not give you a break: you don’t deserve any. The US government does not control thousands of amateurs all over the world, e.g.
SIDC: Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, Brussels
SONNE def. : SONNE network, definitive sunspot numbers
AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers – Solar Division
AKS: Arbeitskreis Sonne des Kulturbundes e.V., Germany
BAA: The British Astronomical Association – Solar Section, UK
GFOES: G.F.O.E.S. Commission “Nombre de Wolf”, France
GSRSI: GruppoSole Ricerce Solari Italia, Italy
OAA: The Oriental Astronomical Association – Solar Division, Japan
RWG: Rudolf Wolf Gesellschaft – Solar Obs. Group of Swiss Astron. Society
TOS: Towarzystwo Obserwatorow Slonca – Solar Observers Society, Poland
VVS: Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde, Werkgroep Zon, Belgium

Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:47 pm
how they could not realize with one tremendous head banging that it was much ado about nothing….
Because it is not much ado by nothing. Solar cycle prediction is of great importance. Lives and billions of dollars depend on correct predictions.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:33 pm
…………………….
You are again distorting what is clearly shown, if you look at the two time scales
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
On the graph is compared existing record from the early1800’s and what might (or not ) happen in late 2020’s.
Two theoretical works confirm my findings,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
you may not like it but you can go and reproduce formulae from
Secular Evolution of the Sun’s Polar Fields and Open Flux
M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley
From Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/577/1/L53/fulltext/
and
Solanki et al from Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung,
Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field on the solar surface: A parameter study
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
You will find t is requires 90 degrees switch at around 1800 (Sin instead Cos).

Does anyone know where a current graph similar to the third one on the following link is?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/123844859.html
I did happen across one that was updated (late 2012) at some point but either did not bookmark it or it is in the lost bookmark collection that I know exists but never can find.
I ‘think’ I also read an article in 2009 with an older graphic (iffn I’m recollectin correctly)
Having read this article, and agreed with the premise even though I am an amature, the current low solar max is not a suprise to me. Perhaps I should be suprised. The science they are doing I take at face value, that may be an error.
I do get a kick out of the NASA predictions being wrong and re-predicted lower more than once.
It’s almost as much fun as watching Leif get tag teamed. The predictions of him showing up are rarely incorrect.
We do live in interesting times. People in power are watching what we do.

Leif,
I am asking if any forecast of Las Cruces is standing up. At the press conference, held at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces (June 14, 2011), New Mexico, three scientists gave a forecast of sorts for the next solar cycle, number 25.
1. Hill and colleagues reported on a jet-stream-like flow within the sun that they have been monitoring since 1995 using “helioseismology,” the study of sun-wide oscillations of the solar surface.
What are the implications for the development of Cycle 25 from the latest results based on their global helioseismic observations from GONG and MDI, with recent results from HMI?
2. “Around the peak of a solar cycle, the magnetic field at the sun’s poles reverses direction, with the old field erased by the new, oppositely directed field. But the current delayed cycle may not be strong enough to fully erase the old field. The findings suggest that this cycle’s solar maximum, predicted to occur in 2013, may be weak or not occur at all, Altrock says.” (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331320/description/Next_solar_cycle_could_be_a_no-show__) Meanwhile, the solar polar fields have begun their reversal.
Does it implicate that Altrock’s assumptions have now become obsolete?
3. Penn and Livingston found that the typical field strength of spots began declining in the past cycle. Now we see that the field strength does not continue to decline in this cycle.
Does it mean that the next cycle will have sunspots at solar maximum (while no spots at all were predicted)?

vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:20 am
On the graph is compared existing record from the early 1800’s and what might (or not) happen in late 2020’s.
Oh no, you claimed that the red curve would show what happened in the 1800s, that there were two reversals near 1810 [two years apart] but that cloudy weather and muddy battlefields prevented observations of the solar cycle maxima in 1809 and 1811.
Two theoretical works confirm my findings
You will find it requires 90 degrees switch at around 1800 (Sin instead Cos).
Which just shows how wrong the formula is.
You went quiet on the evidence for 3-year solar cycles.

Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Gail, your comment was a mish mashed soup of correlations. Once again, please focus on mechanism. Ozone depletion may indeed be correlated with changes in wind patterns and amount of water volume pouring through Drakes Passage. But which is driving which and how? You seem to be grasping for a great many straws and hope the answer is somewhere in the soup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Pam, I said it was conjecture, that is an intriguing line of correlations. For what it’s worth, I was so good at putting together miscellaneous pieces of information and solving problems at my division, that a VP at a well know fortune 500 company would ship me off to other factories to solve the problems when everyone else failed. At another company they though there was a high level information leak, again because I ‘correlated’ my observations and figured out the plant was going to be shut down in a year. I am not surprised you and Dr.S can not follow my thoughts, not many people could over my forty years in industry even though I thought the connections were glaringly obvious.
The papers I linked show the sun varies mostly in the UV and shorter wavelengths, UV variation effects ozone formation and destruction as well as the heating of the ionosphere. The amount of ozone has been shown to effect the polar jets. The polar jet strength (winds) effects the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and causes eddies. The eddies cause more cold water to shoot up the coast of South America helping to feed La Nina conditions. More La Nina’s are seen during the cooling cycle of the PDO. Bob Tisdale has shown ENSO has a major effect on SST which in turn effects the earth’s climate as a whole.
Then there is the sun’s direct influence on the pacific ocean:

A correlation of mean period of MJO indices and 11-yr solar variation
We analyze the long-term evolution of seasonal temperature disturbances in a 2.5×2.5° area of the US North Pacific. Late Fall and early Winter display significant correlation of temperature disturbances and are investigated in detail. The long-term evolution of the Fall temperature disturbances from 1945 to 2008 closely follows that of solar activity. The robustness of these results is successfully controlled in a 2.5×2.5° area immediately north of the studied region. The modulation of temperature disturbances is very large (∼30%) compared to the corresponding changes in solar irradiance, and has significant variability, even at small geographical scale. The physical mechanism of solar forcing of temperature disturbances remains to be understood, but a relation with cloudiness and influence of the Madden–Julian oscillation in the North Pacific is suggested.…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000302

I am not for one minute suggesting variations in UV and ONLY variations in UV control the climate. If that was true we wouldn’t need this comment in the first place because it would be glaringly obvious. However UV/solar variation is one of the major factors IMHO and this post was about the sun.
Another possible factor is lunar tides and lunar/sun tides a much more complicated mess then the ordinary person would think.
Jo Nova has a discussion of a new paper about the lunar influence on ENSO link
And there is another paper discussing the lunar influence on the Dansgaard-Oeschger/ Bond events. NOAA plainly states they just don’t know what causes these major climate events. “…The cause of these glacial events is still under debate. Currently, the leading hypothesis involves a slowdown of the ocean’s thermohaline circulation. During the last glacial time, large ice sheets rimmed the North Atlantic (Figure 2). At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic…. The initial trigger for freshwater releases has not yet been identified. One suggestion is that small, gradual changes in solar output could have influenced the timing of abrupt changes (Bond et al., 2001). Other ideas call upon natural oscillations of the ice sheets themselves (MacAyeal, 1993; Hulbe et al., 2004; Alley et al., 2006) or of ocean processes (Shaffer et al., 2004, Flückiger et al., 2006).…”
The Paper:

Key chart from the paper.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 4:36 am
….
Oh, yes, you were talking earlier and again out of your hat about lost cycle and my formula
Here it is
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm
look and learn!

William Astley says: @ August 14, 2013 at 1:32 am
…Cooling is a more serious issue for the warmists to explain. It is not physically possible in a democracy with a free press to hide cooling…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree that cooling is the more serious issue but I hate to tell you we do not have a ‘Free Press’ We have a bought and paid for press. (see my comment at this link )
The most recent example of the ‘Free Press’ lying through their teeth to hoodwink the public is this:
Yahoo: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Top News Today:

Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Just days away from the 10-year anniversary of the worst power outage in U.S. history, the White House and the Energy Department released a report on Monday evaluating the resiliency of the nation’s electric grid and recommending steps to prevent future blackouts. full story

This is an absolute LIE!
The real story is:
The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. Many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
So what about the “Green Energy companies funded with tax payer dollars that are supposed to replace these coal fired plants? They are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
What the politicians neglect to say is their plan for making this work is to install Smart Meters, an attractive opportunity for Investors This theoretically allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced as wind and solar power surges and declines. Of course with renewables bankrupting, smart meters not installed and coal plants closing at three time the rate expected, this put a real big kink in that plan. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated AGAIN so we are looking at rolling blackouts.
Heck they have already started. Rolling Blackouts Hit California Again and Texas Comes Close to Rolling Blackouts
This is the response:

Energy InSight FAQs
… With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.
There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

And the Department of Energy Report that show Obama’s Administration has had this planned since he took office.

The Department of Energy Report 2009
A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….
These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration’ ever And if you believe that I have this very nice bridge, just slightly damaged by Sandy, that I need to sell quickly.

Leif
I know you have this paper on your web page also.
http://spaceref.com/weather/link-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity.html
Any comments . I am finding the best correlation in all the CET winter data as well . Could this be mostly a winter and/or a regional correlation ?

What has changed to explain the sudden significant cooling – William Astley
There is no sudden, significant cooling – Leif Svalgaard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HMMMMmmmm, That is not what the geologists tell us.
Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change.

“Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises” (2002)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
Executive Summary
“…Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….
…climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.
The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers….

In his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years….
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/0691102961

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:49 am
……..
There you go again
Usoskin sais that 4a was 7 years long
Usoskin separated cycles by grey bars
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm
Last two grey bars are separated by 3 years. Done!
Sun changes phase every 105-7 years (1800’s, mid 1910s, late 2020’s)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
you’ve been recently promoting solar 105 year long cycle, then you deny its existence. Make up your mind, man.

vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:58 am
Usoskin said that 4a was 7 years long
Usoskin separated cycles by grey bars [no he didn’t – the grey bars show where there is no data] Last two grey bars are separated by 3 years. Done!
Not done, bottom panel shows where he put his cycle 4a:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1538-4357/700/2/L154/Full/apjl314829f1_lr.jpg
From 1793 to 1800, seven years, Done!
Sun changes phase every 105-7 years (1800’s, mid 1910s, late 2020’s)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
We know that it hasn’t changed ‘phase’ since the 1840s. You are a bit vague what you mean by changing phase, presumably polar field sign.
you’ve been recently promoting solar 105 year long cycle, then you deny its existence.
There has been the past three centuries a stochastic variation of the order of 100 years, that is a random occurrence on longer time scales and is not a ‘cycle’. For example 100 years before the low point around 1700 we had the high solar activity that Galileo and others observed.

VUKCEVIC
The 14 winters noted in the Rhine river frezzing area study were also very cold in the CET records . The average winter temperature for the 14 winters noted was about 2C but if you exclude two El Nino type of winters the average was 1.5 C. This is nearly a degree colder than the 2010 cold winter in UK when the winter temperature was 2.4C . So parts of the Rhine froze when there were extremely cold winters in parts of Europe.. 9 of the 14 winters mentioned were at or near solar minimums . I still think the clue to unraveling the sun /climate connection during solar minimums involves seasonal factors , mostly winters and possibly regional consideartions [perhaps northern Hemisphere , northern regions more ]. Solar eruptions impacts including sunspots [or the lack of ] may affect different parts of the globe differently. There is a need for more study in my opinion , rather than just dismissing this because it does not fit what we know today . You have some great graphs and I look some up regularly ,

Leif, cherry picks the data and or tries to say data he does not agree with is wrong, or not accurate, or incomplete.
It is just endless distortions on his part and , I for one will not let him get away with it.

Gail , you are on the correct path. Keep it up!

Leif needs to educate himself by reading what famed geologist Don Easterbrook has to say about things.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:24 am
Leif needs to educate himself by reading what famed geologist Don Easterbrook has to say about things.
Sal needs to educate himself/herself by reading what famed climatologist Jim Hansen has to say about things.

REPLY: I agree, Salvatore Del Prete is getting way off base here. Time for some self education to prevent yourself from becoming a permanent troll bin resident – Anthony

Hansen has an agenda.