Guest essay by David Archibald
A couple of years ago the question was asked “When will it start cooling?” Of course solar denialists misconstrued this innocent enquiry. There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when. Solar activity is much lower than it was at a similar stage of the last solar cycle but Earthly temperatures have remained stubbornly flat. Nobody is happy with this situation. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have now been invalidated and my own model is looking iffy.
Friss-Christenson and Lassen theory, as per Solheim et al’s prediction, has the planet having a temperature decrease of 0.9°C on average over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. The more years that pass without the temperature falling, the greater the fall required over the remaining years of the cycle for this prediction to be validated.
The question may very well have been answered. David Evans has developed a climate model based on a number of inputs including total solar irradiance (TSI), carbon dioxide, nuclear testing and other factors. His notch-filter model is optimised on an eleven year lag between Earthly temperature and climate. The hindcast match is as good as you could expect from a climate model given the vagaries of ENSO, lunar effects and the rest of it, which gives us a lot of confidence in what it is predicting. What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003. From the latest of a series of posts on Jo Nova’s blog:
The model has temperature falling out of bed to about 2020 and then going sideways in response to the peak in Solar Cycle 24. What happens after that? David Evans will release his model of 20 megs in Excel in the near future. I have been using a beta version. The only forecast of Solar Cycle 25 activity is Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of a peak amplitude of seven in sunspot number. The last time that sort of activity level happened was in the Maunder Minimum. So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstuction, this is what we get:
This graph shows the CET record in blue with the hindcast of the notch-filter model using modern TSI data in red with a projection to 2040. The projected temperature decline of about 2.0°C is within the historic range of the CET record. Climate variability will see spikes up and down from that level. The spikes down will be killers. The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.
I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon. Then stock up on tinned lard with 9,020 calories per kg. A pallet load could be a life-saver.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
UPDATE:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understating, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
Steve Keohane says,
“Too bad UV can’t get through the atmosphere, the plants need it to live.”
Nothing at shorter wavelengths than ~305 nm gets through. The problem is, of course, that UV generally refers to < 400 nm, so there is room for hair splitting.
It is good to see “Tom in FL”, one of Mr Svalgaard’s friends, coming to his assistance. However, Mr Svalgaard made a baseless and serious allegation against Dr Evans in terms that went beyond those of civilized scientific discourse, and decided not to back off and apologize while the backing off and apologizing was good. Refusal to apologize when apology is appropriate is the mark of a quack.
And, I dare say, if and when Dr Evans has the time to address Mr Svalgaard’s malevolently-expressed criticisms, I suspect that it will become evident to all honest onlookers that Mr Svalgaard has made a quite spectacular scientific ass of himself. Well, it’s his reputation, and if he wants to trash it by calling fellow-scientists names and making vicious allegations against them rather than politely pointing out what he thought should be corrected, then he must take the painful consequences to his reputation.
His university will now be dealing with his misconduct, which is a very plain breach of the explicit terms of its academic conduct policy. If one belongs to a university, one plays by its rules, and cannot complain if one is called out for a flagrant and persisting breach.
In the meantime, I note that Mr Svalgaard appears to have disappeared the graph in which he had falsely applied a 27-day smoothing to a period when there were many months of missing data. I knew he had produced a new version with the false “27-year smoothing” line removed, but I hadn’t realized he had gotten rid of the original embarrassingly unscientific version.
Finally, if Tom in Florida wants to call me names from behind the anonymity of a pseudonym, then I am going to ask the moderators to act. If you want to post from behind a pseudonym, it is against site policy for you to call anyone names. You want to call me names, you post under your own name. Cowards have no place at WUWT.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:36 pm
In the meantime, I note that Mr Svalgaard appears to have disappeared the graph in which he had falsely applied a 27-day smoothing to a period when there were many months of missing data. I knew he had produced a new version with the false “27-year smoothing” line removed, but I hadn’t realized he had gotten rid of the original embarrassingly unscientific version.
Yes, all this time you have been complaining about a line which was not there. The very first version did have a line put in by the plotting program which simply connected adjacent data points, but since you didn’t understand that this had no consequence at all, I helped you out. Hope you agree.
Since you didn’t understand what the issue was, let me repeat an earlier summary:
“The fact is that I and others have pointed out that the assertion by Mr Evans that there has been a sharp drop in TSI from the 2003-2005 time frame to the present is false [and he should have known that] and that therefore his prediction is spurious. This is what I disapprove of. In addition to the fact that Mr Evans has fabricated 900 days of data at the end of the data series. Both of those are serious breaches of scientific propriety.”
Mr Svalgaard should realize that he will be on very weak ground with the authorities of his university when I show them his doctored graph, demonstrate that he earlier described the curve that joined the two data-points many months apart as “27-day smoothing” and now says it is not a 27-day smoothing but “a line … that connected adjacent datapoints” [separated by many months, so it cannot have been any sort of “27-day smoothing”, whatever else it was], and then used that doctored graph as the basis for a false allegation that Dr Evans had used the wrong data in his own graph, and had thus acted “almost fraudulently” and with an “agenda”. That is not scientific language, and Mr Svalgaard knows it.
Mr Svalgaard, or whatever incompetent program he used, had added many months of false data to his doctored graph. He then complained that Dr Evans had added many months of false data to his own graph. And he is sufficiently un-self-aware to appreciate that a third party, looking on, would see very little difference between the two errors – if, that is, Dr Evans’ graph contains an error. And on that point, Mr Svalgaard – who has throughout fatally misunderstood what Dr Evans has done – may yet be in for a most unwelcome surprise.
The point, really, is that Mr Svalgaard has himself been caught out using a doctored graph, then disappearing it and replacing it with a graph with the doctoring removed, providing at different times mutually-inconsistent explanations for the false data that he had added to the graph (which I noticed only because I was listing his needlessly vituperative and discourteous insults to Dr Evans by way of an attachment to my letter to his university), then using the doctored graph as the basis for making his false allegation. The matter begins to move from mere misconduct under the university’s academic conduct policy to research misconduct – and perhaps even serious research misconduct – in that Mr Svalgaard, having given two mutually inconsistent explanations for the doctoring of his own graph, cannot have been telling the truth in one of the two explanations, and yet considers it appropriate to call Mr Evans “almost fraudulent”. That will not do, it really won’t.
The first time Mr Svalgaard described the doctored portion of the graph, he told me it was not a trend-line, as I had characterized it, but a “27-day smoothing”. Now he says it is a line after all. Can he not see how very bad that is going to look, particularly in the context of Mr Svalgaard’s having falsely accused Dr Evans of having deliberately and “almost fraudulently” committed an error which Mr Svalgaard himself had perpetrated on his own graph – adding data to it that did not belong there and for which there was no scientific basis or justification whatsoever?
When in a hole, stop digging. Apologize to Dr Evans and the matter will rest there, albeit with monumental but deserved damage to your reputation for scientific integrity and probity, and to your standing within your university. And learn to be polite in future, for if you start out by being libelously impolite you must not be surprised if you are called out for what you are – a quack.
Milodonharlani,
I’m not sure what the significance of your observation is, but the way you format your comment makes it appear that you were quoting me, which isn’t the case. I just wanted to clarify that.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“Finally, if Tom in Florida wants to call me names from behind the anonymity of a pseudonym, then I am going to ask the moderators to act. If you want to post from behind a pseudonym, it is against site policy for you to call anyone names. You want to call me names, you post under your own name. Cowards have no place at WUWT.”
————————————————————————————————————————-
My name is Tom Bruno and I live in Venice Florida. I use “Tom in Florida” as there have been others named Tom who have posted here. It is easier to remember that I am in Florida when reading a post of mine. I have not used any other name on this blog. I spent 9 years in the
U. S. Marine Corps after which I worked in sales, mostly insurance and real estate. I am an average person who has raised two children and worked several side jobs to do that. In the past I have attempted to become active in local politics but could not stand the lies and back stabbing. I am 63 years old and intend on enjoying my later years working on my house and yard, playing golf, and keeping my wife happy. I also enjoy this blog (most of the time) and have learned very much from the writers and posters here, especially Dr Svalgaard.
So now I am no longer anonymous but you are still a pompous ass, in my opinion.
MikeUK says:
June 30, 2014 at 9:23 am
“… just the problem of establishing an average TSI for recent years where the averaging “filter” runs out of data to operate on.”
Yeah. I figured anyone worth his salt would have realized that, but I didn’t want to jump into the ridiculous fray.
To Lord M: A personal message, in regard to nothing in particular. Are you aware that there are certain insects in temperate climes which like to burrow under the skin and cause itching? When the afflicted person scratches the itch, it serves the purpose of bringing blood to the site, upon which the parasite feasts. The more one scratches, the more the little bugger delights in it. The only way to make it stop is to stop scratching the itch. Nature is fascinating, don’t you agree?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Mr Svalgaard should realize that he will be on very weak ground with the authorities of his university when I show them his doctored graph, demonstrate that he earlier described the curve that joined the two data-points many months , etc, etc, etc
Your broken record is not making any sense as should be clear to everybody involved, but does seem to scratch your itch.
While many are arguing over what I consider to be minutiae, I would like to remind everyone that the whole point and purpose of Science – is the ability to predict.
That’s it.
All of our climate and resultant weather is forced, from space.
That is where our Earth lives and we certainly are in the midst of climate change alright – to global cooling – and the one on its way will be a strong one at that.
There’s little time to prepare for it.
In my astrometeorological climate forecast, as I’ve been saying for years, global cooling will be soon among us by mid-December 2017.
It will last approximately 36 years and will be a pretty deep climate event. It’s going to get very cold and wet with blasting storms featuring long winter seasons and cold and wet spring seasons.
The Sun is going to enter a hibernation state as it nears solar cycle #25 and anyone who knows astrophysics and space weather knows for a fact that it is the Sun that controls the temperature on Earth (and everything else as well.)
We are currently in-between climate regimes, that of solar-forced global warming and that of solar-forced global cooling and this is the cause of the extremes of weather we’ve been seeing since the last decade.
The reason for global cooling will be the dramatic drop in solar radiation along with planetary modulation of the Sun’s condition and its coming hibernation state.
This affects the entire heliosphere of the Sun throughout our solar system. Now, according to solar records, there have been three strong declines in solar radiation over the last 400 years.
The first drop was in the 1600s that was called the Maunder Minimum, or the ‘Little Ice Age’ and noted as the coldest era of the previous four centuries.
The second drop came in the mid-to-late 1700s/early 1800s, and preceded the second coldest era also known as the ‘Dalton Minimum.’
The third fall is now gradually building and will lead to the official start of a new global cooling era, according to my calculations.
It will begin in mid-December 2017, as I have forecasted, and last 36 years.
Now, as much as everyone would like to argue over what I consider minor issues, also the fact that climate science is still very much in its infancy – all the talk in the world will not halt global cooling for a nanosecond.
It is incumbent upon everyone to get themselves prepared for what will turn out to be a rather strong era of global cooling for three plus decades.
I’ve also forecasted that the next ENSO cycle will arrive 2020-2022, with a major La Nina to strike under the new climate regime of global cooling. The winter of 2021-2022 will be particularly fierce, very cold and long. It will break all previous modern cold event records.
We will see a bad winter season at that time; worse than the most recent winter of 2013-2014 that featured brutal cold temperatures, heavy snowfall and ice throughout the northern hemisphere, including the Middle East.
In reality, the Earth has been cooling at 0.1C a decade since 2001-2002. And in my climate forecast, I see a cooling of 0.2C from now through 2017 at a rate of about 0.5C a decade with big temperature drops between 2017-2033.
If anyone wants to look at this mathematically; at the data that has not been tainted by the ‘man-made global warming’ nutcases in climate science, then you will note that since 2001-2002 we have observed a gradually cooling world and that overall trend has been negative since 1996.
This is climate change – the end of an interglacial period and the start of another round of global cooling – the worst one yet in modern memory.
We have proxy records that clearly show Interstadial pulses of the past. They persist for about half a precession cycle with the rate governed by orbital eccentricity.
I would like to mention the Bond Cycle here – abrupt cooling is coming.
The cycle is 1,470yrs, plus or minus 30 years, and is documented in all the ice core temperature proxies, or isotope analysis. That last very deep global cooling period coincided with an era historians called the ‘Dark Ages.’
Named after Gerald Bond, who discovered the evidence of this climate cycle that is externally forced and brings about abrupt cooling.
The last Bond event, or initial abrupt cooling means that all of us are looking at a Grand Solar Minimum that will easily match the Maunder event. I think it will be worse than that in my climate forecast of global cooling.
All the data indicates that our Sun’s internal rope conveyor is essentially shutting down and the Earth’s position in the Eccentricity cycle looks really precarious to say the least.
If you look at the data on the north polar insolation minimum, it is at or below levels of the past six interglacial terminations.
The brutal winter of 2013-2014 in many regions of the northern hemisphere was clear proof of these facts as we will have completed the fourth Eccentric beat in conjunction with the latest completed Precession and that is when all the recorded interglacials have terminated – in our recent era of dominant Obliquity.
In the winter of 2013-2014, we saw a surge in the mobile polar high production that began in December 2013 and that’s when regions like the Middle East got a real dose of winter, where it snowed in Egypt as other regions got blasted with cold and snow during that month.
All this means that the next Bond Cycle is due to begin and it will be the 8th event of the Holocene Interglacial due to the fact that all of the interglacials in the era of dominant Obliquity have ended on the 4th or 8th beat.
That depends on the amplitude and synchronization of the Precession; however it is always in synchronization.
Ulric Lyons has repeatedly – and correctly – said that we will complete the 179-year barycentric COM excursion. He’s right, as these cycles always intersect at interglacial terminations when reconstructed.
According to my climate forecast, it’s going to get very cold and wet out here people.
The winter seasons will be cold and made much longer by the cold and wet spring seasons, along with short cooler summer seasons (in both hemispheres) along with wild fluxes of the circumpolar vortex that will dip far south into North America bringing those powerful jet streams with it.
A heavy archaeomagnetic jerk is about to get itself going. All the interglacials in the era of dominant Obliquity have ended during such a Bond event and the one coming is really intense as our current interglacial period is coming to an end.
World temperatures look to fall at -0.5C a decade at the beginning, then will really start to pick up their temperature drops into the early 2020s and that is when I have forecasted the next ENSO cycle – a MAJOR La Nina.
Weather will go absolutely bonkers during the decade of the 2020s as global cooling will be fully underway.
So, while people want to argue climate change; oh, there’s going to be climate change alright, but it won’t be global warming, which is good for the Earth, but rather, global cooling, which is very bad for the Earth.
It is very wise of those in the know to make serious preparations, as for years now I have forecasted global cooling to officially begin in mid-December 2017. That is just three solar years from now. It will last 36 years long, and brutally cold years.
The party of our most recent interglacial period is about to come to an end.
Anyone who is not prepared is going to be very sorry. Global cooling is nothing to play with and those who made global warming the ‘bad guy’ will have to eat plenty of crow as they burn everything in sight in their effort to stay snug and warm in a brutally cold world climate.
Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci
george e. smith says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:19 pm [ “…” ]
After reading george’s comments for the past few years, it’s my opinion that he knows about as much as anyone how the system works. I’m glad to see him in agreement with Willis, who I would put in the same category.
As far as the recent mudslinging goes, and without naming names, my own policy has always been to not attack folks on the same side. That is the alarmist crowd’s job. And I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to them — no holds barred. But I won’t attack our team, even when they somtimes have a strong opinion about a comment I made.
Maybe the philosopher Rodney King might have had some advice on that for our side.
Theodore White says:
June 30, 2014 at 3:28 pm
While many are arguing over what I consider to be minutiae, I would like to remind everyone that the whole point and purpose of Science – is the ability to predict.
I agree except I think 2014 is the turning year. I will send over my latest. Next post. .
One item to remember is this period of below normal solar activity started in 2005 so the accumulation factor is coming into play.
Secondly it is not just solar activity within itself but the secondary effects associated with solar variability which I feel are extremely hard to predict as far as how strongly (to what degree)they may change and thus effect the climate in response to long prolonged minimum solar activity.
I strongly suspect the degree of magnitude change of the prolonged minimum solar activity combined with the duration of time of the prolonged minimum solar activity is going to have a great impact as to how EFFECTIVE the associated secondary effects associated with prolonged minimal solar activity may have on the climate. An example would be an increased in volcanic activity.To make it more complicated could thresholds come about? An example would be a changing atmospheric circulation pattern which may promote more snow cover/cloud cover and thus increase the earth’s albedo. How will the initial state of the climate play into it? An example of this would be the great amounts of excess Antarctica Sea Ice the globe has presently and how this might play out going forward under a very long period of prolonged minimum solar activity. Will climatic outcomes unknown come out of this?
Then one has to consider where the earth is in respect to Milankovitch Cycles (favorable )and how the earth’s magnetic field may enhance or moderate solar activity.
Given all of that I think at best only general trends in the climate can be forecasted going forward. I am confident enough to say in response to prolonged minimum solar activity going forward the temperature trend for the globe as a whole will be down. The question is how far down /how rapid will the decline be? I really do not have the answer because there are just to many UNKNOWNS. Further when you have unknowns in a system like the climate which is non linear, random and chaotic expect surprises.
NOTE: Ocean heat content could slow down the temperature fall at first. In regards to that I look first for more extremes in the climate due to low solar activity followed by a more pronounced drop in temperature as time goes by.
Still I believe year 2014 is the turning point for global temperatures as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.
It can be shown that a strong correlation exist between sunspot numbers and ocean heat content. When the SIDC sunspot count is well over 40 (the long term average) like it was from 1934-2003 the energy gained from solar to the oceans is positive hence ocean heat content rises.
This is now changing with the exception of the maximum of solar cycle 24(2011-2014 early) which is on it’s way out.
y
lsvalgaard says:
June 30, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Hola! I think I’ve gotten one. Must. Not. Scratch.
Bart says:
June 30, 2014 at 3:50 pm
Hola! I think I’ve gotten one. Must. Not. Scratch.
Stick with that and you’ll be OK.
I am most grateful to Mr Bruno for having had the courage to say who he is. That is the honest way. And of course he is entitled to his opinion. I have come vigorously to the defense of a friend. Perhaps Mr Bruno would do the same. Let us see what Mr Svalgaard’s university thinks of his departure from the fundamental principle of conduct that it enjoins in the simplest and clearest terms upon all who are associated with it. If his university is disinclined to uphold that principle in the face of a manifest and persisting breach, then the libel courts of Australia are of course open to Dr Evans.
In the Britannosphere, accusations of fraud (and adding the word “almost”, particularly given the manner in which Mr Svalgaard has twice interpreted what he meant by “almost”, will not help the defendant much) are taken very seriously indeed by the courts. I have now compiled a list of some of the things Mr Svalgaard has said about Dr Evans. It has taken two hours. That’s a long list.
Thanks to my former career, I have had to become something of an expert in what is and is not libel in multiple jurisdictions. Mr Svalgaard’s remarks constitute what is known in British and Australian law as “a libel of Mr Evans in his calling” – and a grave one at that. Falsely and repeatedly to accuse a fellow scientist, in the most widely-read public forum on the climate worldwide, of having used wrong data and of having fabricated data, just at the moment when Dr Evans is preparing to launch the culmination of many years’ patient work, and to persist in these libels even after having been given numerous plain warnings to desist, would in my not inexpert opinion – if the case were proven – require Mr Svalgaard to pay Dr Evans not less than $100,000 in aggravated damages, particularly because Mr Svalgaard was given so many opportunities to apologize and persistently failed to take them.
Mr Svalgaard is particularly vulnerable because, in his extraordinary attack on Dr Evans, he chose to use a graph that he had himself doctored by the interpolation of a line representing several months for which there were no underlying data at all: yet, in one of his too many comments here, he expressly states that where there are no data no such practice should be adopted. The courts would dismiss any contention on Mr Svalgaard’s part that the doctoring of his graph had no bearing on his accusation that Dr Evans had doctored his, in a very similar way. For if one makes a very serious allegation about a fellow scientist, and if one repeats it over and over again, then one must come to the court with the cleanest of clean hands.
I do not speak for Dr Evans in any way, and I have no idea of whether he will decide to sue. As a first step, he might request Anthony to allow him to answer the allegations in a head posting, which would go some way towards expunging Mr Svalgaard’s nastly libel of him in his calling as a scientist.
Perhaps in the United States, as one thoughtful commenter has suggested, persistently and falsely calling someone “almost fraudulent” for allegedly “fabricating” scientific data is thought acceptable. Not in Australia. There, as in any British-law jurisdiction, such a libel is taken very seriously indeed. I had hoped I had made that plain to Mr Svalgaard, so as to give him the chance to get himself off the hook.
For my part, I am referring Mr Svalgaard’s long list of malicious comments about Dr Evans (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university, which will know best how to handle the matter, for there is a rather delicate aspect that I am not at liberty to discuss here. The university will most certainly realize that the do-nothing option is not an option. The libel is too grave and too persistent. My lawyers are looking at it tomorrow to see whether malice is present, in which case the damages would triple, to say nothing of the costs. Their corresponding lawyers in the U.S. will be giving advice on whether Dr Evans would count in U.S. law as a “public figure”, Probably not, from what I know of the “public-figure” test, in which event, in order to enforce the judgement of the Australian courts in the U.S., it would not be necessary to prove malice (for, though malice seems evident, the test in Australian law is high).
It would also be open to Dr Evans simply to apply to the court for a declaration (in Scotland, declarator) that he had not fabricated anything or engaged in any of the other varieties of scientific misconduct of which Mr Svalgaard has seen fit to accuse him with such vicious and unbecoming persistence. Given the sensitivity to which I shall be drawing the university’s attention, that might be the kindest course.
And there, I think, we had better leave it and let the appropriate authorities take over. I have only been as explicit as this because this posting will also go some little way towards expunging the libel and minimizing the damage to Dr Evans’ reputation that Mr Svalgaard seems to have intended.
From Monckton of Brenchley on June 30, 2014 at 4:16 pm:
Which would be very obvious once Dr. Evans releases code and data. I await the releasing of his great creation to the revealing powers of the steady sunshine, that such obvious truths shall be laid bare for all to witness.
Have you obtained his promise that all shall be revealed even if the predictions are proven inaccurate, so science may advance by examining his failure?
I know this is a long way down on an old thread but here goes.
Dr S is bordering on the arrogant, he appears to have no idea how the extraction of the transfer function works. If Lean 2000 remotely preserves the cyclic information, and is reasonably correct in the size of those cycles then Evans will have derived any approximately correct transfer function within limits. If lean 2000 contains “systematic” errors that for example bias sunspot numbers one way or the other, or transient problems with “connecting” different datasets, then the Evans method will largely ignore that. Despite shortcomings with Lean 2000 Evans probably has a reasonable proxy for the climates behaviour in his model, indeed we are not in a position to say otherwise. Evans, prompted by this point has apparently updated the data since freezing it early on and found this did not substantially change the conclusion, are you disputing that finding? And on what basis do you dispute it? do you have your own notch filter model?
Finally Dr S you keep carrying on about UV being a small component of TSI, the problem is that this observation is largely irrelevant, most physical systems, that engineers work with every day, don’t have consistent behaviour with frequency, particularly if there is time lagged feedback. Many have peaks and troughs in their frequency response, and it is possible that UV ( or any other frequency band for that matter) has a response or feedback that opposes the overall effect of TSI. In fact in nature this is pretty much the norm, who would have thought that electric current induced in a wire has a direction that Opposes the current that created it! No Engineer in his right mind would EVER make the assumption that any systems energy response would be flat
As for Willis, frankly, you have been behaving like a child that’s been told he can’t have a lolly at bedtime and will have to wait until tomorrow – Willis, it’s most unbecoming of you, have patience and be polite, take Dr Evans at his word about the code release and be polite enough to allow him to make some final adjustments based on what he has learned in the discussion period. That revision for example, I have no doubt, includes retraining on something other than Lean 2000 based on LS’s comments. That’s the way he wants to do it, and he’s entitled to be allowed that privilege. Keep an open mind, after all this is what being a sceptic is all about.
Wow..
Lots of informative comments and links above.
The TSI, we may learn in the future has its variables, as yet not fully understood, that should be considered. The UV and EUV and one other.. has conflicts already.
Wow.. Good thing you had your kryptonite for this Dr. S. Forgot the whole point of it by the time I got down here.. Seemed like such a waste of time for you.
Solar wind has differential rotation too…great just great..
..I pointed out to him that the solar wind exhibits two separate rotation rates: 27 d and 28.5 days which are both present at the same time, .. Thanks for that Dr. S.
Vuk’s good link here and info concerning relationship with Earth rotation, climate and the possibility of a solar driver for both.
NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights 03.09.11
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
What about duct work coming out the core, that at one rate of rotation it uses X ducts and at faster rotation rate it uses Y ducts or something.. Switches between the different available ducts.
ren, good links from you..
Cool the way this link below shows both GCR and ACR moving along with the heliocurrent sheet tilt angle.
The upwind crescent at 1Au and the accretion models are similar. Accretion models were showing, by using different stellar magnetic field configurations, how the accretion changes from polar to multipole regions, kinda like we see with the lower solar dipole and heliocurrent sheet movement for ACR and GCR.
Anomalous Cosmic Ray Behavior at 1 AU During the Unusual Solar Minimum
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews136.html
To anyone interested, in understanding the GCR, solar relationship, have go.. on this..
Update on Record-Setting Galactic Cosmic Ray Intensities in 2009-2010
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews134.html
William Astley, good stuff mostly. Because we don’t see many solar sunspots, doesn’t exactly mean that the magnetic cycle has interrupted. I hope. How long will this cycle be? We already know it will be long and slow. Solar rotation variation, why?
rbateman, Polar Vortex Droppings, eeeeek, I live inside of the Great Lakes BASEMENT er ah basin. Watch the duct work that drops out them vortexs and some times from the outer walls eeeek.
Dear George Smith, my simple name also has the distinct reputation of internet notariety. From a googled search of my name, I am apparently, by and large, a … tart.
So.. lower dipole field, less magnetic flux available to flow from the polar regions to the equator. So is all the magnetic flux available at this time being centrally produced?
Carla, to read your long list of interesting links and comments, the warming/cooling could be caused by….I don’t know…say…butterfly wings positively interacting with UV in the equatorial regions which responds to Jupiter and Mars, whose bary manilo song affects TSI which then causes said butterfly to stop flying thus being a negative feedback. Which begs the question, what wouldn’t you think was worth investigating?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 4:16 pm
As little as I relish Dr. Svalgaard’s … well, now that people are talking legal nonsense, maybe I should daintily refer to it as his MO… I abhor the chilling effect of suggesting legal action over comments made in a blog atmosphere. I, personally, have not been influenced by Dr. Svalgaard’s comments to forming an adverse opinion of Dr. Evans capabilities or ethics, as I do not form my opinions based on what some other guy thinks. I doubt many people here do. That’s the kind of people a blog like this specifically attracts.
Let’s not make this into a Mannian circus, shall we? It’s a blog, not a formal conference proceeding. Leif is just some guy. In the end, does it really matter? If it does, I’m just going to quit, because my side will have become no better than the other one.
Slightly revised..
So.. lower dipole field, less magnetic flux available to flow from the polar regions to the equator.
So is all the magnetic flux available for the formation of sunspots at this time being centrally produced?
Lean 2000 results, annual, 1610-2000, easy to stick into spreadsheet.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
When does one use “11yrCYCLE” and when “11yrCYCLE+BKGRND”?
Has the assumption of an 11 year cycle been built into the reconstruction? Since the timing is so loose it is less of a “cycle” and more of an expected pattern. If you tried extending back a rigid timing, it would certainly not match what was reality.
Pamela Gray says:
June 30, 2014 at 6:19 pm
—————————————–
Yah, yah, yah Pamela,
Doggone butterfly wings, giving a winter cloudiness look to the basin I’m in this June.
And Jupiter and Mars will also be Responding to the lower solar outputs toooo… You will see…
I’m writing off June in Wisconsin as being cloudy. Sometimes mostly cloudy, sometimes partly cloudy and points in between. As for temps both ends of the spectrum around here, jeesh.
Plumes coming from plasmasphere or tail or belts? Dusk and or dawn.. With a midday lifting.. Something in the regime is a changin’.