New paper suggests the sun's magnetic fields defines climate over the long term

“It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields”. No it doesn’t. “Is solely due to” is wrong as it implies a causality. All it really shows is that the two appear to be correlated to some degree.

“After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity.”
Asserted, not proven, and even the assertion leaves things such as land-use, soot, and other anthropogenic factors to be possible causes, not merely CO2 (although no doubt the CAGW crowd will insist that it’s all CO2.)

Not surprising to anyone not looking for a government grant…

Mod – please correct above to 17th century. Ta.

A bit confusing is the fact that De Jager in this paper says that the uptick in global temperature in the 20th century ‘most probably’ has an anthropogenic origin, without proving that statement. This rebuts an earlier publication of De Jager et al ( see http://dare.uva.nl/document/190066 ) , in which the anthropogenic component wasn’t underlined as strongly. In his new paper De Jager writes about the polar influences: “Yet, the total polar flux is comparable in magnitude with the total equatorial one and offhand it does not seem that it wouldn’t affect terrestrial climate.”. Well, that is at least hypothetic!
In the second part of the paper De Jager turns to the current cycle 24. He recognizes ‘trasition points’, the latest took place between 2005-2010. De Jager predicts a phase of Regular Oscillations, there is no new Maunder Minimum in prospect. This is another aspect in which De Jager breaks with his preceding papers. Is this a cosequence of progress in scientific knowledge, or is the polair component of the sun’s activity not such a reliable proxie?

Look how nicely those lines match each other, along with the up-tick at the end. Clearly another clear case of our carbon pollution influencing the sun. If only the heroic, Nobel-prize-winning Michael Mann had known about this research earlier, why nobody except those Koch-funded righties would be able to deny his hockey stick…

I’m sure glad they got rid of that historical 800-year lag between CO2 and temperature increase. For a moment there I was sure the glaciers were lying to us.
/sarc.

@kcrucible, the Dutch are an odd folk, but their English is usually outstanding, and well-versed in the connotative meanings of words, (perhaps since Dutch is quite idiomatically rich). All that aside they used ascribed which I believe they are using the fancy term for ‘assigned to’. Hence, they could be entirely agreeing with you!

D.Potter thinks
still think there is solar influence on climate beyond just the TSI variation, but not sure this paper throws any light on the issue.
henry says
you figured that one right
a quiet sun produces more UV, apparently
hence more ozone, more peroxides & n-oxides, TOA, …
hence more UV deflected to space..
hence we are cooling…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-suggests-the-suns-magnetic-fields-defines-climate-over-the-long-term/#comment-1462293

I wonder what the inclusion of the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period would do to their analysis?

Since the uptick in terrestrial temperatures (above the unexplained background rate) is almost entirely a product of data manipulation it is unsurprising that the recent temperature data appears to diverge from historical norms. I would love to see this work redone only using temperature data from the satellite era to check if the correlation holds. Also, by using a “relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature” this will effectively mask the recent hiatus in global temperature increase.
Rigged data + hide the decline = epic fail.
However, very nice to see that even the CAGW crowd are capable of doing some good science and revealing a strong link between the sun and climate where unmolested data is available i.e. pre 1900 or so.

The more recent astronomical knowledge reveals that space is anything but. The best way to visualize the Universe is as a fabric of plasma and a continuously varying E/M field whose nodes and H(x,y,z,t) can be described via some sort of grand tensor which itself is a function of time. Within this fabric reside the stars, black holes, quasars, planets, other celestial bodies, dust, gas etc. As Mr. Spock noted: “Fascinating.”

climate reason says (in his quoted article)….
Or merely a hiatus in the ever upwards rise of temperatures since the start of the record in 1659 which may or may not be affected by CO2 and radiative physics?
henry says
I wonder if ever you got what I was saying, here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
it is the (extra) warming of the oceans that caused more CO2 to be released
as there are giga tons of bicarbonates in the oceans
HCO3- + heat => CO2 + OH-
there is a causal relationship
not that CO2 causes any more warming, whatsoever
there is really no proof of that….

If Leif is correct about the weighted sunspot numbers since after 1945 (which is very plausible) then the “grand modern maximum” is reduced by 20%, there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19) and what makes this 20% reduction very interesting is that there was a sharp decline in solar cycle 20 during the 1970s and then activity increased again with SC-21 during the 1980s and gradually declined again with solar cycles 22 and 23 over the 1990s and 2000s and has continued to decline until the present, solar cycle 24. If the earths temperature is greatly influenced by the sun then there should be no temperature hockey-stick.
The relationship between solar activity and temperature should resemble this http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif

Sparks says:
October 31, 2013 at 11:51 am
there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19)
Cherry picking end points is a common thing for people to do when they peddle their view point. You should start with 1859 [max of a cycle] and end with 2012 [also max].

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 31, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Cherry picking end points is a common thing for people to do when they peddle their view point. You should start with 1859 [max of a cycle] and end with 2012 [also max].
Do you mean in my the graph? to start with 1859 and end with 2012? If you do, I don’t have a problem with doing that, how would it be mistaken for ‘cherry picking’ when there are two identical trends no-matter where the data begins or ends?
Elaborate for me, thanks.

Leif,
Is your wolf corrected Sunspot Number available online somewhere?

lsvalgaard says:
October 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Since the two cycles before when you began were large sunspot cycles that changes the trend.
Okay I see, thanks, I’ll correct that.

lsvalgaard
I did mention the LIA and the major ice age previous ending approximately 11,700 years ago. The essence of my thought, whether right or wrong, was of course we were warming after these periods. However, even as we experience a less then predicted rate of warming we are still warming – just not at the rate previously predicted. The question is whether it is man made, according to the AGW side, or natural as I like to claim.

Timothy Sorenson,
I agree, I believe this is a translation muddle. The “is ascribed to” here I believe means “is said to be caused by”, i.e. the authors do not necessarily agree with that.

No records of a million years here and a million years there, soon you got billions of years not in the data set.
The earth most likely does not know, feel or care that humans burn oil and gas, for sure the sun has no reason to care as it burns things we know not of at all ourselves.
We over rate our impact by unknown non existing powers.
These global warming cult people can not even build a web site to over charge humans for health insurance. That they have any knowing the long term effect of the sun seems a bit odd.

Mike Jonas says:
October 31, 2013 at 3:08 pm
“This paper is nonsense.”
I agree completely. The correlation between deltaTsun and deltaTearth is 0.43; between deltaTearth and residual, 0.91. (These are ballpark numbers, because the authors provide raw deltaTearth data only, and I used my own smoother…but I don’t think using their smooth would change these correlations by much). If I look at pre-1970 only, the respective numbers are 0.41 and 0.62. My conclusion is that there is nothing here at all.
They do get points for linking to the data 🙂

Can’t be other way round? Teprature influences the magnetic field? I will be very happy if you could click on my name for the cause and solutions to CC.

I was suspicious about the curves and wiggles and particularly the endpoints when I realized that the smoothing period of 18 years was larger (by one) than the “hiatus”. That is exactly how declines are hidden.
A rotating conductive object in a varying magnetic field responds by changing its rotating rate. Is it too bold to say climate change correlates with changes in the length of the day (LOD)? I don’t think so.
Maybe gravitational influences exceed Tesla’s torque by 2 orders of magnitude. Maybe the torques only affect some fluid portion of the planet.

Leif,
I assume that during most recent cycles the solar activity in the southern hemisphere was higher than the activity in the northern hemisphere. If one simply adds up the SSNs per hemisphere, one finds for SC 23:
– northern hemisphere: ‘3838’
– southern hemisphere: ‘4308’. So the activity is about 12% higher in the southern hemisphere.
How can this huge difference between the activity in two hemispheres be explained?
Concerning SC 24, the most recent data show
– northern hemisphere: ‘1256’
– southern hemisphere: ‘946’.
Can we conclude that from now on – during SC 24-, the activity in the southern hemisphere will be mostly higher than in the northern hemisphere?

lsvalgaard says: “My problem with the paper is: After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20th century There was no such thing.”
Sorry Lief, but pointing to your Sun Spot counting disagreement paper, (again), is not going to cut it.
Do you have scientific method of counting and weighting Sun Spots accurately that eliminates human bias, and the results from that method of counting and weighting? Results that can then be compared to current means of counting Sun Spots that you are in disagreement with.

HenryP says:
November 1, 2013 at 11:42 am
“1) I did a similar thing with the ssn data that I got somewhere and also found an upward trend, but the correlation rsquared was 0.0, (less than 0.05)
that tells you something?”
Yes, tells (I somehow happen to have couple of university exams from statistics…), but you somehow forgot to tell me what correlation. Correlation of what with what?
“if you look from 1950 to now the line is pretty straight.”
Again, line of what? If you mean a linear trend of SSN 1950-2000, it is actually even descending – only petty problem with it is, that if you don’t understand statistics, you can’t know that it has no meaning whatsoever, because it is arbitrary period trend-line from high amplitude, asymmetric (in both dimensions – if it tells you something) quasi-periodic signal on arbitrary scale, with population of only ~5 cycles. If you want to get something meaningful from quasiperiodic signals as SSN for shorter periods you must pretty well know what you are actually doing.
There are of course ways how to make meaningful linear trends with periodic signal – it is not rocket science: you must chose meaningful periods – and there is also way how to estimate meaningful trends without OLS at all – that’s the way of averaging – as on the second picture I linked (again for you).
There is also way how to show linear trends from SSN using its OLS trends. If you want idea how to show there was prominent trend in the 20th century SSN, and also in its 2nd half and with profile exactly coinciding with the last warming period, look here – as you can see, animated for easier understanding, the points for constructing the red and blue curves are the OLS trend right tails, trend vectors, I note the beginning of the periods are exactly official SSN beginnings of SC13 and SC20 – or here – the points for constructing the red and blue curves are trend means for the periods (exactly minima to minima and minima to maxima) – which is the central value of the OLS trend describing periodic signal level change for the period.
The reasons why researchers don’t find the trends in the solar indices are very likely that they don’t understand statistics sufficiently for them to get meaningful results – it is most probably the reason of the epic fail of Lockwood and Frohlich 2007 “1987 claim” that the solar activity declined since 1987 although at period length scales where it has any sense to make trends of solar activity from SSN it in fact rose well into the 2000s – and their claim can be ultimately falsified by sole, moreover flat OLS trendline 1964.8-2006.12 from ISN – so their claim is now obsolete and was obsolete already in time of their infamous paper publication in 2007, because the rising SSN trend actually turned into descending already in March 2006, so they could find out then …if only they would know what they’re doing (…of course if they just don’t want to get the meaningful results, because it would inevitably collapse their confirmation bias.)
The reasons why researchers don’t find good correlation between say sea surface temperature and solar activity indices are that the relation between temperature and insolation is physically mediated by heat content, constantly dissipating from the sea surface (at rate dependent on 4th power of the sea surface temperature, moreover in considerable part escaping as latent heat, because water has actually ways lower emissivity than useful fachidiots like Trenberth imagine) but created by solar EM radiation absorbtion in considerable depths, way below the points where the sea surface temperature is actually measured, moreover different wavelengths penetrate different depths and some of them variate in phase with solar cycle (UV), some in counter-phase (visible) and some once in phase and once in counterphase – so they can’t find good correlation solar activity-sea surface temperature in the first place, for reasons rarely anybody from them understands, which nevertheles are in fact established and sound physics and statistics of more or less college level. -That somebody isn’t able to find some relation, say because the one is not cappable to find it, doesn’t in any sense mean the relation doesn’t exist.
2) it is globally cooling now but that is not a catastrophe other than the droughts at >[40] latitudes from around 2021-2028 on the great plains of the americas (Canada & USA)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Here you most probably don’t know a bit about what I was talking about – intentionally cryptically, only intended for Leif to which the reply was originally addressed to – because I’m responsible decent person and I don’t want to cause confusion and alarm with some ominous finds I made from the SORCE SIM spectral data when going beyond the Ermolli et al 2013 methods and conclusions – at least before I check with NASA the data integrity to make sure that what I’ve found is not another artifact of some sort and prepare whole thing for official publication, explaining thoroughly what I think my finds mean (which only what I’m willing to elaborate for now have to do with IR variability, which in some important regions behaves in the current solar cycle considerably differently than Ermolli et al purport and with possible global implications way beyond just droughts at some places in America).

lsvalgaard says: “Counting sunspots is very scientific. Human bias can be eliminated by comparing with the geomagnetic record.”
I am taking that as a No in answer to my question.
In that your answer implies that counting of sunspots is still done by human, thus subject to bias, and requiring bias corrections dependent and unique to human doing the counting. Bias corrections that would be open to debate. Along with results being unverifiable in that each sunspot counting is a one time event.
Instead of say using a program written to determine size and count of sunspots based on scanned in images that capture a window in time. A program which provides reproducible results, when fed same previously analyzed images. A program by its nature that would eliminate individual bias, and would also encourage an agreed upon grouping of sunspot sizes by those using the program to analyze sunspots.

“It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields.”
I don’t understand the above at all. Can someone explain how they come to this conclusion ?

New paper suggests the sun’s magnetic fields defines climate over the long term
What is defining the sun’s magnetic fields?
The sun’s magnetic fields have a dipolar and quadrapolar features.
The earth’s magnetic fields have a dipolar and quadrapole features.
The earth’s magnetic field, in particular the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA or SAA) increases in size, as the overall dipole strength decreases. This occurs when the solar dipolar field decreases over a solar cycle.
But at the same time both sun and earth’s quadrapole increases?
Too many open windows on my laptop. Need to find the article which refers to the increase in earth’s quadrapole components. Something about a slow drizzle of electrons over the Antarctic peninsula in close proximity to the SAMA/radiation belt anomaly.
And they call it a hotspot..go figure.

When to drizzle and when not to drizzle..
but there is a “steady drizzle” of electrons that is varying with the solar magnetic cycle.
“Longitudinal hot-spots in the mesospheric OH variations due to
energetic electron precipitation”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/13/19895/2013/acpd-13-19895-2013.pdf
M. E. Andersson 1, P. T. Verronen 1, C. J. Rodger 2, M. A. Clilverd 3, and S. Wang 4
© Author(s) 2013.
Abstract
..Analysis of selected OH data sets
for periods of different geomagnetic activity levels shows that the longitudinal OH hotspot
south of the SAMA (the Antarctic Peninsula region) is partly caused by strong,
regional electron forcing, although atmospheric conditions also seem to play a role.
This OH hot-spot is even seen weakly during periods of lower geomagnetic activity,
which suggest that there is a steady drizzle of electrons affecting the atmosphere, due
to the Earth’s magnetic field being weaker in this region.
1 Introduction
An important source of variability of mesospheric OH comes from energetic particle
precipitation events that originate from explosions on the surface of the Sun (Thorne,
1977; Heaps, 1978; Verronen et al., 2006, 2007, 2011; Damiani et al., 2008, 2010b;
Jackman et al., 2011). In contrast to solar protons, which propagate directly from the
Sun into Earth’s atmosphere, energetic electrons are first stored and energized in the
radiation belts. During geomagnetic storms, strong acceleration and loss process occur
( Reeves et al., 2003), which can both boost the trapped population and lead to significant
loss of electrons into the atmosphere. Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) from
the radiation belts affects the neutral atmosphere at magnetic latitudes of about 55–
72deg.  and results in the enhancement of HOx through water cluster ion chemistry. This
process is only effective below about 80 km, where enough water vapor is available
(Solomon et al., 1981; Verronen and Lehmann, 2013). The atmospheric penetration
depth depends on the energy of the particle, e.g. electrons with 100 keV and 3 MeV
energy can reach 80 km and 50 km, respectively (see e.g. Turunen et al., 2009, Fig. 3).
now where’s that quadrapolar thingy?

The Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field change is synchrony ?
That’s interesting. Maybe Leif has a graph and an explanation for that ?

J Martin says:
November 2, 2013 at 9:55 am
__The Earth and the Sun’s magnetic field change is synchrony ?_
That’s kinda what I’m looking for..but their scales are different..sun changes and everything follows..in a similar way..all planetary bodies having dipole and quadrapolar magnetic fields..and also similarily “hot-spots.”
“Time evolution of the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly”
Gelvam A. Hartmann; Igor G. Pacca
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652009000200010&script=sci_arttext
June 2009
..The analysis of non-dipole fields in historical period suggests that SAMA is governed by (i) quadrupolar field for drift, and (ii) quadrupolar and octupolar fields for intensity and area of influence. Furthermore, our study reinforces the possibility that SAMA may be related to reverse fluxes in the outer core under the South Atlantic region. ..
..The analysis of the non-dipole geomagnetic field for the historical period shows that SAMA is an anomaly that is governed by quadrupolar and octupolar terms The SAMA center drift (westward and southward) seems to be characterized by quadrupolar field. Intensity variation and area of influence is governed by quadrupolar and octupolar terms..
Which region (SAMA) we know couples with the radiation belts, which we know are highly sensitive to solar wind pressures and parameters. Wonder how the new Van Allen Belt Radiation Probes are doing..
Might there also be some gravitational focusing of some of these fluxes..here on Earth?

And what about the “electron halo,” in the outer solar corona. Which in my mind (outer corona) looks like the biggest baddest radiation belt in the solar system.
What changes are created in the outer corona when the electron density is increased that might affect the amount heat produced in the corona?

lsvalgaard says:
November 2, 2013 at 11:01 am
—
… An important property of the multipolar expansion is that the higher orders [quadrupoles and up] diminish in strength with distance, such that from far only the dipole effectively remains and all these higher orders are gone. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipole_expansion
The quadrupoles need not propagate far out, as the Earth’s radiation belt or Sun’s corona (haloes) are in close proximity to the rotating sphere. In the case of the Van Allen radiation belts as low as 100km above the “hot spot.” (SAMA) And we know the radiation belts fluctuate with solar cycle.
Hot spots where more radiation belt precipitation occurs are also found in higher latitudes in both N. and S. hemispheres. other anomalies etc. not so messy as Earth’s field is being defined and changes incurred seem to be related to rotational (dipolar) and solar influences affecting quadrupoles and higher.
So..how does changes in the sun’s dipolar field and quadrupole field affect Earth’s rotational differential? Could it be through the coupling of the radiation belts with the quadrupole (higher), via solar activity?

lsvalgaard says:
November 2, 2013 at 11:58 am
…The heating is mostly accomplished by very hot electrons [‘halo’ electrons], where ‘halo’ does not refer to something surrounding the sun, but to electrons at the outer limits of the distribution of electron velocities, e.g. …
___
ee Yes, Dr. S., sometimes it does mean a Halo surrounding the sun. Having an eerily similarity to Earth’s radiation belt.
On the existence of a cosmic ray electron halo
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MitAG..43..285S
Schlickeiser, R.; Thielheim, K. O.
Astronomische Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftliche Tagung, Basel, Switzerland, Sept. 19-23, 1977. Astronomische Gesellschaft, Mitteilungen, no. 43, 1978, p. 285-288.
It is shown that a one-dimensional stationary diffusion-energy loss propagation model can provide a reasonable explanation for the existence of a cosmic ray electron halo, that is, a rather broad disk-shaped confinement region of cosmic ray electron. A defined injection term, a power-law energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient, and an E-squared energy loss term are used in the calculation. With a proper choice of parameter values the model provides a good fit to the observed electron energy spectrum in the vicinity of the sun.
ELECTRON HALO AND STRAHL FORMATION IN THE SOLAR WIND BY RESONANT
INTERACTION WITH WHISTLER WAVES
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2005_aj_540.pdf
C. Vocks,1 C. Salem, and R. P. Lin
Space Sciences Laboratory, 7 Gauss Way, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
and
G. Mann
Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany; cvocks@aip.de
Received 2004 October 11; accepted 2005 March 3
ABSTRACT
Observations of solar wind electron distribution functions (VDFs) reveal considerable deviations from a simple
Maxwellian VDF. A thermal core and a suprathermal halo and antisunward, magnetic field–aligned beam, or ‘‘strahl,’’
can be distinguished. At higher energies above 2 keV, a superhalo can even be observed.Akinetic description of electrons
in the solar corona and wind, including resonant interaction between electrons and whistler waves, can reproduce
an enhancement of suprathermal electron fluxes compared to the core flux. The whistler waves are assumed to
be generated below the solar coronal base and propagate through the corona into interplanetary space. However, the
resonance condition with these whistlers can only be fulfilled by electrons that move sunward.

Should we add “counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons,” to the “electron halo,” which is very much apart of the solar corona. Gee. Dr, S., these guys can paddle upstream.
ee suprathermal sounds hot to me.
Statistics of counter-streaming solar wind suprathermal electrons at solar minimum:
STEREO observations
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/45/54/66/PDF/halo_depletion_lavraud.pdf
B. Lavraud,1,2 A. Opitz,1,2 J. T. Gosling,3 A. P. Rouillard,4 K. Meziane,5 J.-A.
Sauvaud,1,2 A. Fedorov,1,2 I. Dandouras,1,2 V. Génot,1,2 C. Jacquey,1,2 P.
Louarn,1,2 C. Mazelle,1,2 E. Penou,1,2 D. E. Larson,6 J. G. Luhmann,6 P.
Schroeder,6 L. Jian,7 C. T. Russell,7 C. Foullon,8 R. M. Skoug,9 J. T.
Steinberg,9 K. D. Simunac,10 and A. B. Galvin10
10 Feb 2010
Abstract. Previous work has shown that solar wind suprathermal electrons can display a
number of features in terms of their anisotropy. Of importance is the occurrence of counterstreaming
electron patterns, i.e., with “beams” both parallel and anti-parallel to the local
magnetic field, which is believed to shed light on the heliospheric magnetic field topology. In
the present study, we use STEREO data to obtain the statistical properties of counterstreaming
suprathermal electrons (CSEs) in the vicinity of corotating interaction regions
(CIRs) during the period March – December 2007. Because this period corresponds to a
minimum of solar activity, the results are unrelated to the sampling of large-scale coronal
mass ejections, which can lead to CSE owing to their closed magnetic field topology. The
present study statistically confirms that CSEs are primarily the result of suprathermal electron
leakage from the compressed CIR into the upstream regions with the combined occurrence of
halo depletion at 90° pitch angle…

Leif, even though the timing was a bit off I still think it is impressive to predict SC24 to be weakest for 100 years Using the precursor method, you should look into methods that deal with timing and use them with your precursor method.
The relationship between length and size is not absolute
This appears to be true for maximum peak to peak, though weaker cycles generally have longer solar minimums can this relationship between solar minimums and sunspot number be used?

Make it simple they sometimes say,
If you were outward halfway between A Centuri and the sun and were to look back with your special telescope you would see an ever increasing intensity of light as you near the disk, which may be called halo.
Said halo would include interactions stated in above articles and include an Electron population contained therein.
What’s the deal, the solar corona cannot be loosely defined by graduating halo densitys.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1080%2F15715124.2013.826234&ei=yaR1UvWnEKrg2wWn2YHQAw&usg=AFQjCNF6jAGwNP4h_n5eP4KPv2yX3psACA
It’s paywalled but it’s Sept. 2013 and it’s Mr. Guerro. Anyone out there have a subscription to the…..International Journal of River Basin Management????
It’s title is: Parana River Morphodynamics in the age of Climate Change

HenryP says:
November 3, 2013 at 1:54 am
A careful study of maximum temperatures of the recent temperature records reveals that Earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
I was looking into the solar cycle asymmetricity issue. The quasi metacycles one quite well can see in SSN integral. Something from results you can see e.g. here Mind the trends. But I still lack sound theory, what mechanism could cause something like that and the period doesn’t look like fixed, so I’m not much prone to take such things at face value.
so, Tumi, to put you in the picture:
The De Vries/Suess and Gleissberg cycles with periods close to 1470/7 (~210) and 1470/17 (~86.5) years have been proposed to explain our observations.
personally I am sticking to 88 years, for the current cycle (the cycle we are in).
I’m not much into the cyclomania, I don’t belive the things are so simple.
hence my proposal that over this 88 year cycle which in itself consists of 4 full solar cycles of each 22 years, the line of SSN versus time must become flat, more or less.
Indeed according to my own data set of yearly mean SSN the line is flat or nearly flat from 1927 -2010 with an average of 67. The slope of -0.04 could also be due to where we are now in the De Vries cycle? (I have no idea where we are now within the De Vries cycle)
I don’t know what yearly SSN data you have, but the data at WFT are 20% too high after 1947 and doesn’t agree with other solar indices. I definitely don’t believe 1927 -2016 SSN trend will be flat. It is simply utterly impossible given the current low solar activity and given all the indices, indicating the SC24 peak in the beginning of 2012. Even if I would unconditionally believe the quasi-cycle given by rectangular SSN integral, the trend can’t level in 2016, because solar cycles are asymmetric, so it can’t happen in SC24 and most probably not even SC25.
you also have not reacted to your other misunderstanding on what happens TOA.
I actually did.
Don’t tell others here of not understanding the “basics” as it sounds the same as calling me a fool. Always remember this is being like at college / university and we are students and teachers to each other. In such a class we treat each other always with respect and dignity, no matter how much we disagree.
btw
I received my qualification in Datametrics (Statistics) from the University in South Africa cum laude.
Then it is even worse when you’re unable to use what you’ve learned. It is nonsense to make arbitrary period trends through asymmetric periodic signal. It will not work. The SSN scale is too wide and the SSN signal too asymmetric to get meaningful results without extremely careful choosing trend periods.
And btw I don’t much understand what respect to others you find in repeating nonsenses into oblivion, even others tell you, what is wrong with it. If you want dignity, you should first understand what is it – if you don’t want to look or be called fool then first don’t make it from yourself.
I’m definitely not your teacher, nor student. That was you who answered my reply to Leif, mentoring me whether I know what’s correlation, never answering my question what correlation you mean, of what with what, in the first place, claiming that line from 1950 is flat, when it has anyway no meaning whatsoever, moreover directing me that I should forget about SSN and look into your temperatures – where I was anyway looking already, because you already linked me to it and haven’t found there anything much interesting. It doesn’t look to me too polite nor dignified, when it is clear, that my original post here was about SSN, its trends (which are there and quite well coinciding with the last warming period, although there are multiple reasons given by basic of basics physics, why the solar activity can’t correlate well with surface temperatures, especially not with sea surface temperature at short timescales) and generally solar activity – which is the topic of this thread – not speaking that first you must have solar activity, then the resulting surplus radiation absorbed, converted to heat content, then the heat content must get somehow on the surface, because loads of it is generated several meters below it, concentrated enough to produce a temperature change and only then maybe you get some your temperatures. So please don’t try to teach me how to behave, before you learn it yourself.

HenryP says:
November 3, 2013 at 9:36 am
you keep saying this, when I went out of my way to show you in at least three different ways that the choice of a 87 or 88 year (Gleissberg) cycle was not arbitrary
It is the only way to explain my own results?
Yeah, indeed it is not arbitrary – 88 years is 8 solar average cycles which is 2^3, so any harmonic analysis must get the number, which doesn’t mean it is a metacycle.
btw my own ssn data came from here:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_yearly.txt
Yeah, incorrect ISN yearly, published by NOAA, so what? Why you have Leif here, the very man who corrected it and finally it makes sense, when you don’t listen?
The truth is: you have no “own” results
so you rely on observations made by others which could be subjective…
Again the same relativistic nonsense, how many times it was already discussed here…hundreds of times?
yet, you keep on claiming that I am the one who is talking “nonsense in oblivion”
How dare you insulting me when you have no results?
…what results you have? -the non-leveling nonsensical SSN trendlines at WFT? Stating the obvious that 8 solar cycles last 88 years or that southern hemisphere is warmer than the northern?
you can believe and defend whatever opinion you have here as long as you treat or learn to treat others who think or believe differently with respect.
I don’t like flames, but it was you who quite impolitely commented on my reply intended to somebody else and pushed again your spam full of mistakes, we have seen so many times here already. It is really not my fault it doesn’t make much sense and I’m never far to tell the obvious, it is not my fault you don’t listen to objections and instead become defensive – thats usually sign of argument weakness. But you can stay calm, next time I’ll definitely respect your opinions and so to speak leave them to others to be replied, you can be absolutely sure about it.