There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:
The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:
The new paper suggest that changes in the quantity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux:
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The wider variation in CCNs makes the Svenmark’s hypothesis more plausible since the effect on clouds would also be proportionately larger.
They conclude:
The measured 0.1% level of the longterm TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.
Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle formation, using a global aerosol model (GEOSChem/APM) optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. Based on the GEOSChem/ APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of the impact of 0.2 C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%.
The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and about a factor of two larger during the corresponding summer seasons. The average solar cycle signals are stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed. The regions and seasons of stronger solar signals are associated with the higher concentrations of precursor gases which increase the growth rate of nucleated particles and the probability of these nucleated particles to become CCN. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.
Note the bold in the last paragraph.
WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
The paper at ERL:
Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei
Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2 °C temperature increase enhances the CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 [cloud condensation nuclei] based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf
h/t to The Hockey Schtick and Bishop Hill
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Jonas asks
What mechanism could have had a controlling influence on the temperature on centennial scales, yet not measurably affect the temperature on decadal scales?
An answer to that question will advance climate science immensely.
Henry says
I have all those things figured out
pity that nobody is interested…
a few things to help you on the way
this is assuming that my best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
is correct, which actually determines where we are exactly within the Gleissberg cycle.
(2016 is the deep end of the cooling curve)
1)
You don’t need svensmark to show there is more deflection by clouds (in a cooling period).
Namely, as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
@Mike Jonas cont.
2)
the ozone is increasing again, causing more back radiation to space
I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the E-UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV.
Also, the solar polar field strengths have weakened and will continue to be weak for the next two years, at least. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 43-44 year, affecting this change in the sun’s behavior. How? That was the question.
@Mike Jonas cont.
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.
HenryP says:
April 13, 2014 at 10:22 am
I have all those things figured out
pity that nobody is interested…
Perhaps you might consider that you have not figured it all out…
@Mike Jonas cont.
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
@Mike Jonas cont.
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
@Mike Jonas
I am trying to get the third part of my answer in but it seems I am completely blocked now here by the moderator
[Nothing pending. Mod]
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
@Mike Jonas
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
@Mike Jonas (third part)
3)
go back to look at the stars
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
@Mike Jonas (third part)
3)
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
[Multiple copies of this in the “Spam/Pending folder. Were there multiple submittals? Mod]
I cannot carry on unless we get another moderator?
So come 2016, we will see something special happening on the sun. I will admit that I don’t know exactly what – I am not an expert on the sun – but my guess is that the poles will switch over again and we will start our (slow) drive up the hill again.
3)
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. My graphs quote earlier 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 William Arnold,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
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:
a) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
b) 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:
a) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
b) 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 or direction of warming….!!!!
In fact, I had a 100% correlation on that, 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 shortening or extending the normal cycle times a little bit. Hence, the average time is 86.5 years per Gleissberg but I suspect the current cycle is in fact close to 88 years. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
HenryP says:
April 13, 2014 at 7:07 am
I seem to recall somebody taking a damn whip and whipping a bunch of people out of the temple. The same guy also cursed a poor fig tree that never did anything to anybody.
Once you’ve preached that man out of his anger with your meddlesome interference with other people’s lives, then and only then you can come and talk to me, OK? Until you cure him, you’re not qualified to cure anyone else.
w.
PS—I also seem to recall something about how only the guy without sin can throw the first stone … are you seriously claiming that that guy is you?
William Astley says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:39 am
Oh, my goodness. Another charming fellow who thinks we should all discuss what HE wants to discuss … sorry, William, I have no interest in “HOW the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate”.
Why not? Well, mainly because I’m busy discussing IF the 11-year solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary climate at all on another thread … short answer is, I can’t find a scrap of evidence that it modulates the climate in any way.
So I’ve thrown the question open, and I pass it on to you. Find me some kind of climate-related temperature dataset that shows power in the ~ 11-year cycle. Nobody’s come up with one yet.
Sorry, no interest in logical pillars. I’m looking for some dataset, any dataset, that shows the imprint of the 11-year sunspot cycle. That’s what I’m asking for. Perhaps peer-reviewed papers impress you. I’ve torn too many to shreds to think that peer review is anything but a rubber-stamp trap for the unwary.
Instead of pathetic peer-reviewed predigested pabulum, I’m interested in facts. Observations. Data. My guide in these matters is the noted scientist, Robert A. Heinlein, who said:
So here’s your big chance, William—bring in the facts. Find the dataset with the 11-year cycle, and I’ll be glad to discuss it.
w.
Mod.
Multiple copies of this in the “Spam/Pending folder. Were there multiple submittals? Mod]
Henry says
yes
clearly the length of reply was not sanctioned?
[There are a number of “key words and tricky phrases” that trigger a “Pending” (Wait for Moderator) status, plus a few criteria such as multiple links, length of submittal, ratio of links to words, where the links hook to, etc. that route a submittal into the “Spam and Advertising” folder. Best is not to re-submit many times – since without editing or changes, you will merely trigger the same filter and get the same response, but alert the mods that a particular long (or multi-linked) submittal has been pushed into the queue or has been popped over to Spam by the robo-de-spammer. Mod]
Willis says
PS—I also seem to recall something about how only the guy without sin can throw the first stone … are you seriously claiming that that guy is you?
Henry says
I hope that means that you too want to have a seat at the table of grace…
Otherwise, Christianity is not the only religion forbidding anger:
http://origin.org/ucs/ws/theme130.cfm
please try and control it
HenryP says:
April 13, 2014 at 11:22 am
Otherwise, Christianity is not the only religion forbidding anger
Except, of course for God himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Angry_God
@leif
You only have to worry abt that if you don’t want to sit at the table of grace?
HenryP says:
April 13, 2014 at 12:58 pm
You only have to worry abt that if you don’t want to sit at the table of grace?
I cannot imagine anything more boring than sitting at the table of grace [or any table for that matter] for eternity, so no thanks.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Where did you get the idea that Svensmark doesn’t think that cosmic rays affect climate on the scale of decades? He surely does:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
You & Leif might not like data sets used by Svensmark & his colleagues or their statistical handling (such as smoothing) thereof, but I don’t know how you could have missed the existence of the correlations which they allege, regardless of what you think of the validity of the correlations which they claim.
“lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am
Tilo says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:07 am
This ignores a buffered or delayed effect.
Svensmark in his various papers claim a direct effect with no delay….”
In the paper linked above, he does indeed claim a delay in sea surface temperature response.
John Tillman says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm
In the paper linked above, he does indeed claim a delay in sea surface temperature response.
No, he does not. The word ‘sea’ occurs exactly once in the text with no mention of any delay.
It is people like you that makes this so hard, by making false claims, or linking to the wrong paper, or whatever other reason you have to be economical with the truth.
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm
From the linked paper:
“One problem with this interpretation was that the SST is highly influenced by the thermal inertia of the oceans which may imply a considerable delay in the temperature response. That this is the case was demonstrated by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) who demonstrated that the smoothed land surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere preceded both the smoothed sunspot number and the smoothed SST curve by nearly twenty years. If a causal relationship between solar activity variations and temperature was to be maintained, the smoothed sunspot number could not be an appropriate representation of solar activity. Instead they pointed at another fundamental solar activity parameter, namely the length of the sunspot cycle. On the average the period is about 11 years, but it is known that it does vary from cycle to cycle. It had been demonstrated that the length of the sunspot cycle is usually shorter during strong activity cycles than during low activity cycles. Since the sunspot cycle is related to the varying solar surface magnetic fields it was not quite inconceivable that the period length contained information about some, still not well understood, processes on the surface related to the energy output of the Sun. In fact a comparison with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature during the last 130 years did show a remarkably good correlation with the smoothed curve of the varying solar cycle length (see Figure 1) indicating that this parameter was possibly a better indicator of a solar activity variations that could affect the Earth’s climate (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991).”
I look forward to your apology.
milodonharlani says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) who demonstrated that the smoothed land surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere preceded both the smoothed sunspot number and the smoothed SST curve by nearly twenty years
Ok, I overlooked the SST, but now it is even worse: If the land temps precede BOTH the sunspot number AND the SST, then the sunspot number and the SST must correlate with no delay. And it it seems hard to believe that the land temps knows what the sun is up to 20 years in advance. Still terrible.