Solar cycle 24 continues the slump

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.