A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?

Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs

In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.

Edited abstract:

Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.

The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.

* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.

* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
475 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 11, 2014 12:18 pm

“Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.”
If this is true, then mankind is in for some very, very hard times. We have built our societies and infrastructure based on the mistaken belief that the climate could never return to that of the Little Ice Age but we might be very wrong in that. Feeding 7 Billion people in a little ice age will be demanding at best.

Alan Robertson
August 11, 2014 12:26 pm

* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.
_______________________
Any attempt to overlay even the most accurate solar cycle prediction onto the dynamic earth climate and then to predict an outcome, is akin to making a wild guess.

JRM
August 11, 2014 12:38 pm

I am sure this will be the reason for the pause in the next few weeks, once the next little ice age is over in 30 years, we all gonna burn baby burn. If I follow all the wag’s, I need to move south before I move back north.

NZPete54
August 11, 2014 12:38 pm

@Alan Robertson
Well, Alan, it’s just another piece to the jigsaw. Not sure if you’re being deliberately negative, but it’s interesting, and another dot to join.

August 11, 2014 12:41 pm

I wonder what happens to comments that are not shown?
[They sit in the “To be Looked At” pool until a well-paid, handsome, over-vacationed, healthy, wealthy and infinitely wise moderator gets around to approving them. Since there aren’t any of those this week, the rest of us stumble across them as we get time and sign them in. .mod]

MarkW
August 11, 2014 12:43 pm

markstoval says:
August 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm
——–
Here in the US we pay farmers to not grow crops as well as paying them to grow crops for fuel.
There are also millions of acres that have allowed to go fallow because they couldn’t compete with richer farmlands in the mid-west.

ren
August 11, 2014 12:54 pm

“The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC) is a 90-100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The CGC is expressed as a systematic variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reality of the CGC was a matter of some debate, but the very weak solar wind that occurred during the recent transition from solar cycle 23 to 24 followed by a low cycle 24 maximum sunspot number, strongly supports the concept. In this paper we demonstrate the strong similarities among the CGC minima observed at the beginnings of the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st century. These similarities support the notion that we are now experiencing a typical CGC minimum solar wind that is significantly different from the solar wind observed earlier in the space age. We suggest that the current CGC minimum may be implicated in producing some aspects of the unexpected observations at the heliosphere boundary reported at this conference.”
http://aspbooks.org/custom/publications/paper/484-0036.html

August 11, 2014 12:54 pm

That this Gleissberg cycle is true, can be seen in the second curve here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
where I had very good data from the Elmendorff weather station in Anchorage, going back to 1942.
Every place on earth is apparently on its own ca. 88 year curve depending on its specific composition TOA.

ren
August 11, 2014 1:02 pm

‘In Section 3.3we summarized the characterization of the CGC cycle minimum as a period of several years when galactic cosmic-ray fluxes are intense, geomagnetic activity is very low, mid-latitude auroras are rarely seen and high-latitude auroras are common. Figure 2 shows that the period of lowest geomagnetic activity during the 23/24 cycle can be identified as the time when the ring current index Dst is consistently close to zero i.e. from November 2005 until the present i.e. March 2011.
Record breaking cosmic-ray intensities were reported for a 1.5-year period during 2008 – 2010 (Mewaldt et al., 2010). A comparison of the cosmic-ray intensities over five solar minima showed that the estimates for late 2009 exceeded those in 1997 by 20% and those in 1965 and 1987 by about 40 percent. Most neutron monitors were also at record levels during 2009 (Ahluwalia and Ygbuhay, 2010).”
http://www.predsci.com/eswe-workshop/session2_9/The%20Sun%E2%80%99s%20Strange%20Behavior%20Maunder%20Minimum%20or%20Gleissberg%20Cycle.pdf

August 11, 2014 1:03 pm

Groups of sunspot cycles do form longer centennial patterns characterised by about a century (~103 years) of longer and a century (~97 years) of shorter cycles.
Centennial SC pattern
Very recently I also found that the Maunder minimum, although did not have distinct sunspot cycles, spectral analysis of the cosmic rays modulation suggest strong 11 years magnetic cycles were present.
see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/#comment-1706707

August 11, 2014 1:04 pm

Alan Robertson says: August 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
>Any attempt … is akin to making a wild guess.
And what wild guesses do you support Alan? I have a guess…

ren
August 11, 2014 1:10 pm

Real-time solar activity.
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en

JJM Gommers
August 11, 2014 1:20 pm

There is a clear advantage, the forecast is short term, the coming years are decisive. In contrast with the forecast 25 years ago that I would experience Mediterinean type climate on my North Sea beach.
That didn’t materialise.

August 11, 2014 1:22 pm

“Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.”
He is already falsified. His WAG depended on the last minimum having a low TSI http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa1.png but since TSI did not show such a dip [it was an artifact in the PMOD dataset] and since TSI since then [blue trace on http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png ] has not decreased as extrapolated [‘predicted’ is too strong a word for this], there does not seem to be any basis for Abdussa’s claim.

Ulric Lyons
August 11, 2014 1:29 pm

I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima. This minimum will be shorter like the last two, with the colder years roughly between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak cycles, e.g. 1807-1817, 1885-1896, and 2016-2024. The latter half of SC 25 will not be so cold, and SC 26 will be well past the grand minimum.
I would be pleased to demonstrate these findings to Anthony Watts when he is in the UK in September if he is interested.

SunSword
August 11, 2014 1:44 pm

However — is it the case that TSI correlates with solar wind and magnetic field strength? Because the magnetic field strength has been decreasing while TSI has not — correct?

August 11, 2014 1:51 pm

SunSword says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:44 pm
However — is it the case that TSI correlates with solar wind and magnetic field strength? Because the magnetic field strength has been decreasing while TSI has not — correct?
It is a little bit more complicated than that. TSI basically correlates with the magnetic field at low latitudes [e.g. with the sunspot number] while the solar wind magnetic field at solar minimum basically comes out of higher latitudes, including the poles: http://www.leif.org/research/AMJ-100-Years-Polar-Fields.pdf

AnonyMoose
August 11, 2014 2:00 pm
August 11, 2014 2:05 pm

“I would be pleased to demonstrate these findings to Anthony Watts when he is in the UK in September if he is interested.”
post your code and data.. saves on the air faire.. and more eyes on the problem.. always a good thing.

August 11, 2014 2:09 pm

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Very recently I also found that the Maunder minimum, although did not have distinct sunspot cycles, spectral analysis of the cosmic rays modulation suggest strong 11 years magnetic cycles were present.
Vuk, this has been known for 20 years, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Breggren.pdf

Jeff L
August 11, 2014 2:09 pm

From a pure science standpoint, having an extended minimum would be very good for categorically testing the solar driven climate hypothesis. From the outside looking in, I think both sides of this argument make some good points but I don’t feel either side has enough data to slam the door on the other side (at least from the arguments / data I have seen presented). Perhaps an extended minimum could provide that data.

August 11, 2014 2:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: August 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Vuk, this has been known for 20 years
Not exactly.
In your presentation
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
you quote 12.5 years (page 25), now you have a more accurate value, you are welcome to quote my finding of 11.4 years.
11.4 years with the amplitude of 9.3% is very close to number of cycles with the 11+ years periods.
Additionally I found (of almost equal amplitudes to the 11.5 year one)
two more periods that distinguish the Maunder Minimum epoch from the rest of the solar cycles progression and that was not known 20 years ago, actually was not known not until earlier this morning when it was announced on the WUWI blog.
These two additional periods within the GCR magnetic modulation, strictly specific to the Maunder Minimum are:
16,7 years at 8.5%
16 years is one of the three most prominent component of the Earth’s magnetic field (Jackson & Bloxham based on Jault Gire & LeMouel)
27.5 years at 8.2%
28 years is GCR modulation period quoted by Hiroko Miyahara (University of Tokyo), most likely a cross-modulation product between 5 and 21.3 years, the two other most prominent components of the Earth’s magnetic spectrum.

Alan Robertson
August 11, 2014 2:50 pm

NZPete54 says:
August 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm
@Alan Robertson
Well, Alan, it’s just another piece to the jigsaw. Not sure if you’re being deliberately negative, but it’s interesting, and another dot to join.
________________
My intent was to comment on the reliability of long range climate predictions, especially since correlations of past climate response to solar influence fail at some point.

August 11, 2014 3:21 pm

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
“Vuk, this has been known for 20 years”
Not exactly.

Yes, exactly [as far as the data goes [back to Beer 1998]]. The quality of the data does not allow a finer determination. The rest of your comment is garbage.

Doug Proctor
August 11, 2014 3:35 pm

Leif has already noted it: the 2014 “prediction” for TSI hasn’t been observed. So …. why the paper?

August 11, 2014 3:41 pm

This is all playing out as we speak. I am confident based on the recent solar lull that solar activity is quite variable and will be shown to be so as we go forward into this decade.

Anachronda
August 11, 2014 4:28 pm

> I wonder what happens to comments that are not shown?
They eventually wind up being sold for pennies on the dollar on the comment offset market?

RWhite
August 11, 2014 4:36 pm

“They eventually wind up being sold for pennies on the dollar on the comment offset market?”
Worth more than a carbon credit.

August 11, 2014 4:52 pm

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Additionally I found (of almost equal amplitudes to the 11.5 year one)
Let me break this to you as gently as I can: you have never found anything of scientific value.

Dr. Deanster
August 11, 2014 5:00 pm

LIef …
“It is a little bit more complicated than that. TSI basically correlates with the magnetic field at low latitudes [e.g. with the sunspot number] “
Leif … explain this to me, because above just doesn’t jibe well to me. While TSI basically correlates with the sun spot number as you say, yet the % change in sun spots is magnitudes higher than that of TSI, which is what .. 0.1% or something.
It seems to me that the value of the TSI being set up at some 1360-something makes it a poor proxy for what ever in the heck is going on with the sun magnetically. As I said, sun spots go from 0 at minimum to anywhere from 50-200 at maximum. Those are big changes. Solar Wind changes are large as well. The aa index changes are huge comparatively .. YET .. TSI, has only changed 0.4% over the entirety of the temp rise since the Maunder Min. and varies 0.1% from min to min.
Climate guys have replaced Sun Spot numbers with TSI, but, IMO, they aren’t interchangeable, even if they do correlate with some sort of factor. I mean, a 50% change in sun spot number over several cycles, when pluged into a mathmatical formula is going to have a heck of lot bigger influence on the final product than will a 0.1% TSI change. I’m not saying I buy the solar gig, but IF the solar wind, or the aa index or something like that interacts with Climate, it would seem impossible to detect that using just the TSI, which is only a measure of w/m.

August 11, 2014 5:15 pm

Dr. Deanster says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:00 pm
It seems to me that the value of the TSI being set up at some 1360-something makes it a poor proxy for what ever in the heck is going on with the sun magnetically. As I said, sun spots go from 0 at minimum to anywhere from 50-200 at maximum. Those are big changes. Solar Wind changes are large as well. The aa index changes are huge comparatively .. YET .. TSI, has only changed 0.4% over the entirety of the temp rise since the Maunder Min. and varies 0.1% from min to min.
The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big. In addition to that, there are magnetic fields near the surface of the Sun. The phenomena caused by those vary with the sunspot number etc, but are still a very small part of the whole [the 0.1-0.2%]. In addition to the tiny, tiny magnetic changes, TSI changes some 70 W/m2 through the year due to the changing distance to the Sun. Here is an illustration of the changes: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png What you see is a full solar cycle [11 years] plotted such that all the January 1st,s are plotted on top of one another, all the Jan 2nd on top of each other, so all 365 days are plotted for each year. They look like a single curve because they all fall on top of one another [i.e.the Sun is very constant]. If you look VERY carefully you may see little wiggles now and then. They are major solar storms and give you a feeling for how insignificant hey actually are compared to the steady outpouring from the solar core.

August 11, 2014 5:18 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm
This is all playing out as we speak. I am confident based on the recent solar lull that solar activity is quite variable
A lull means basically no variation: “a temporary interval of quiet or lack of activity”

Pamela Gray
August 11, 2014 5:24 pm

It is the cyclic variation in sunspots and faculae that changes TSI. Dark sunspots decrease the total solar irradiance (TSI), while the bright structures called faculae increase it. The balance is towards increased TSI at maximum and decreased TSI at minimum as these two TSI opposing structures battle it out on the way up and down the cycle.
Chime in Leif. This is clearly not at my pay scale. Not even close.

John Francis
August 11, 2014 5:41 pm

Feynman? That name rings a bell. If only we had had our own Richard Feynman in the last 20 years!

August 11, 2014 5:50 pm

Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs

The name is “Albert Jacobs”. The item comes from Albert Jacobs’ Climate Science Newsletter, issue CliSci # 176, second item at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=771
This newsletter is emailed to the public about three times per month, then posted on the FriendsofScience.org website. This is one of three newsletter issued by the Friends of Science Society. http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=605

Mario Lento
August 11, 2014 6:38 pm

Regarding Leif’s link: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png.
I bet if you plot “Global Temperature” versus month, there would barely be a signal, within an order of magnitude of the irradiance that the earth sees. The earth must respond slowly to delta irradiance! There must be a cumulative effect. Of course the north and south hemispheres are radically different.

Matt Schilling
August 11, 2014 7:21 pm

Leif’s “TSI through a year” graph is very impressive. What a succinct demonstration of the constancy of our sun!
(Yet, with something as immense and powerful – and close – as our sun, don’t the “tiny” variations represent an enormous delta in power? At least to this orbiting piece of rock we affectionately call home? I mean, if a billionaire’s stock portfolio changed by a mere single percent in an afternoon, it could represent more money made or lost than I will earn in my lifetime.)

JimBob
August 11, 2014 8:51 pm

But….But…I was told that the CO2 buildup would override EVERYTHING! /sarc off

Kajajuk
August 11, 2014 8:53 pm

Was waiting for a perspective….
Thx Lief

richard verney
August 11, 2014 9:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
////////////////////////
I do not disagree with what you said, but you completely ignored Dr Deanster’s question. Since you very obviously know more about the sun than anyone else on this blog, it would be interesting to read your views on the point that he is postulating.
Should there be no warming, or indeed should there be some cooling, over the course of the next 15 to 20 years, and if the solar cycle(s) exhibit a low sunspot count, do you rule out that the sun may have played a role in the continuance of the pause (or cooling) on the basis that TSI will have remained ‘constant’ during that period? (when I say ‘constant’ I mean stayed within the the very small and usual variations that you have so often evidenced). .

August 11, 2014 9:17 pm

TYPO:
Mod: Please correct to Albert (not Alberta) Jacobs.
My computer is mocking me – il se moque de moi (compulsory French – Canadian you know). 🙂

August 11, 2014 9:18 pm

Alan Robertson says:
August 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Habibullo Abdussamatov in fact say we will see the start of the cooling this year.
Matt Schilling says:
August 11, 2014 at 7:21 pm
And yet cooling periods correlate quite well with SSNs. Maunder. Dalton. etc.

Pamela Gray
August 11, 2014 9:23 pm

Richard, I would be more interested in what amount of energy is needed to make a change in temperature trend. All temperature trends are based on weather, and weather systems are rather hard to change. They eat energy. What amount of solar change would there need to be in order to affect weather patterns? Think pushing the jet stream out of its present location and into another location. It would take a lot of energy to move something like that. Try moving a blocking high. Not easy. Imagine heating the oceans more than they are normally heated. That would take a LOT of energy. I don’t see change in any solar parameter having that kind of energy. Heck, the change in TSI from max in min isn’t enough so you have have to go beyond that. Can you imagine the panic in the streets to see a change greater than a sun full of spots or a sun rather blank? It would be news.

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 11, 2014 9:27 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Here is an illustration of the changes: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png What you see is a full solar cycle [11 years] plotted such that all the January 1st,s are plotted on top of one another, all the Jan 2nd on top of each other, so all 365 days are plotted for each year. They look like a single curve because they all fall on top of one another [i.e.the Sun is very constant].

But I understand from an earlier reply you made was that Top Of Atmosphere radiation over the day-of-year could be expressed in Excel terms by:
TOA =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((H1-3)/365))))
Where TSI = 1362 for recent years. H1 = day of year.
Am I incorrect, or just not accurate enough?
Is there a better formula: The plot hits a low of 1320 at the end of July, and a high of 1420 watts/sec on the first week of January, neither of which matches the plot.

August 11, 2014 9:39 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/jli-final-forecasts-for-2014/#comment-1585141
I cannot make short term predictions of weather / temperature.
I can only make long term predictions – about 15- 20 years or more. 🙂
I wrote an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, which included this prediction of global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
When I wrote this in 2002, SC 24 was predicted to be strong, and we now know it is quite weak.
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Good people, if you must worry about something, worry about global cooling.
Bundle up!
Regards, Allan
____________________________________________________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/jli-final-forecasts-for-2014/#comment-1585378
To be clear, the serious work on the 2020-2030 global cooling forecast came from Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University.
I was writing an article for the Calgary Herald and phoned Tim and said: “Tim, you and I both believe climate change is natural and cyclical, correct?” Tim immediately agreed. So I said “OK, when is it going to get colder?” He then said, with a pause of just a few seconds, “2020 to 2030”. I asked why, and he explained that he based his answer on his research into the Gleissberg Cycle, which is about 90 years long. I asked Tim if the ~60 year PDO cycle might be a better fit, but he preferred the Gleissberg.
If the PDO governs, then global cooling has probably already begun, but it will take a few more years to be sure.
I am increasingly convinced that CO2 is utterly irrelevant as a driver of global temperature. Wait ten years and this will be the new conventional wisdom in climate science. Some people will say they knew it all along… 🙂
Regards to all, Allan
_________________________________________________________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/23/study-volcanoes-contribute-to-recent-warming-hiatus/#comment-1575178
From a previous post – note the coldest CET in the Dalton was 1814, one year BEFORE Pinatubo.
______________
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner.
Best regards, Allan

August 11, 2014 9:39 pm

richard verney says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm
I do not disagree with what you said, but you completely ignored Dr Deanster’s question
I didn’t see a question mark in his comment. What question do you see?
Should there be no warming, or indeed should there be some cooling, over the course of the next 15 to 20 years, and if the solar cycle(s) exhibit a low sunspot count, do you rule out that the sun may have played a role in the continuance of the pause
A low sunspot count should make a difference of something like 0.05C from that alone. I doubt that we can even measure that.

August 11, 2014 9:44 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Is there a better formula: The plot hits a low of 1320 at the end of July, and a high of 1420 watts/sec on the first week of January, neither of which matches the plot.
The low [as plotted] is on July 4th [not end of July] and the high on Jan. 3rd.

August 11, 2014 9:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:39 pm
And yet low sun spot numbers correlate well with periods of cooling.

August 11, 2014 9:52 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
But I understand from an earlier reply you made was that Top Of Atmosphere radiation over the day-of-year could be expressed in Excel terms by: TOA =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((H1-3)/365))))
A bit too crude. The actual value of TSI as measured at Earth is in column 10 of
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
which is what is plotted.

August 11, 2014 9:54 pm

M Simon says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:52 pm
And yet low sun spot numbers correlate well with periods of cooling.
Doesn’t look that way to me. The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs.

August 11, 2014 11:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:21 pm
The quality of the data does not allow a finer determination.
…………..
Not exactly correct.
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
(see page 25),

August 11, 2014 11:24 pm

Alan says
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
Henry says
It already did. Global cooling already started. Don’t trust any other data set but the ones that you have established yourself from trusted sources.
Look at all three graphs underneath my tables and tell me where we are going?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Danger from global cooling is real and it will start with the droughts coming to the great plains of America, similar to 1932-1939, starting around 2020 or 2021.
BTW, if you take the time to look at my last graph, would you agree with me that there is no room for any AGW whatsoever? So don’t think that by putting morre GHG up in the air that we will escape global cooling. Global cooling will stay with us until around 2040. As per the current Gleissberg cycle.

Edim
August 11, 2014 11:25 pm

Leif, supposedly low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cooling (temperature gradient, not level) with some lag.

Khwarizmi
August 11, 2014 11:35 pm

Leif said:
The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs.
===
That’s the continuously-adjusted historically-revised Orwellian temperature record.
But when did “all time highs” ever correlate with Niagara freezing twice in the same year?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572681/Niagara-Falls-comes-frozen-halt-AGAIN-subfreezing-temperatures-freeze-millions-gallons-water-normally-flow-Falls.html
When did “all time highs” correlate with record ice extent for the Great Lakes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/great-lakes-ice-cover_n_5483993.html
When did “all times” correlate with a blizzard of cold weather reports in the UK?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010
When did “all time highs” ever correlate with meridional circulation patterns normally associated with global cooling?
When did “all time highs” correlate with the polar vortex extending itself almost precisely over formerly glaciated regions of Nth America?
When did “all time highs” correlate with record lows outnumbering record highs by 10:1?
Why are those “all times highs” going to show up in the weather on Earth where people live?

Khwarizmi
August 11, 2014 11:39 pm

When are those “all time highs” going to show up in the weather, on Earth where people live? (arrrgh)

Alan Robertson
August 11, 2014 11:59 pm

“The temperature will rise, our models say so.”
Baloney
“The temperature will fall, my prediction says so”.
Baloney
…..
Whatever happens, whichever camp turns out be right, it won’t be due to mankind’s present level of climate knowledge, just luck. We don’t know enough yet to know what we don’t know.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead and explain the pause.
We do have tremendous understanding in certain areas and we are getting better at formulating creative hypotheses while dismantling false ones, but we are still far from seeing the big picture. The more of us which exist, well fed and safe, with access to accumulated knowledge and inspiration, with easy and available communications, then the better able we shall be to peer beyond the edge of what we can not yet either conceive of, or perceive.
Fjord = (fewered + fee-ewe-erred + f’your’d) / 3
You see? Understanding can be achieved.

August 12, 2014 12:08 am

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm
“The quality of the data does not allow a finer determination.”
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
It can’t be both. There is an error bar or uncertainty associated with those numbers.

August 12, 2014 12:11 am

Edim says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Leif, supposedly low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cooling (temperature gradient, not level) with some lag.
With the proper lag [possibly even variable to fit] you can correlate anything. What lag do you prefer?

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 12, 2014 12:16 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:52 pm
Thank you. I will modify the programs using the incorrect equation.

Alan Robertson
August 12, 2014 12:29 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:11 am
Edim says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Leif, supposedly low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cooling (temperature gradient, not level) with some lag.
—–
With the proper lag [possibly even variable to fit] you can correlate anything. What lag do you prefer?”
_______________________
Why go through all the extra computational work? One can go right over to WoodForTrees and use their cool graphing tools. Any amateur can use that online etch a sketch to maneuver parameters around all over the place and fit just about anything.

August 12, 2014 12:39 am

Alan Robertson says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:29 am
maneuver parameters around all over the place and fit just about anything.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” [von Neumann].

Edim
August 12, 2014 12:51 am

Leif, I don’t prefer any lag. The weakish SC 23 already had an effect – the temperature plateaued and are cooling this century (roughly).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/pmod/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1975/normalise/plot/wti/from:2002/trend
I expect the global temperature indices to start plummeting after ~2015. Furthermore, like Khwarizmi said, the reality is probably somewhat cooler than the ‘continuously-adjusted historically-revised’ records.

August 12, 2014 12:55 am

Leif,
Looking at the L&P graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png:
– Is it still allowed to conclude that the next solar cycle would have no spots at all?
– Earlier you declared that the ‘flattening’ of decline is a consequence of the bottom of the distribution being cut off. Is the still an acceptable explanation for the persistent flattening of the curve?

August 12, 2014 1:00 am

Edim says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:51 am
Leif, I don’t prefer any lag. The weakish SC 23 already had an effect
And [according to your graph] when we went from the strong cycles 21 and 22 into the weakish SC23, temperatures shot up.
Rik Gheysens says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:55 am
Looking at the L&P graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png:
– Is it still allowed to conclude that the next solar cycle would have no spots at all?

That is probably going too far. The behavior right now is consistent with losing the small spots, but how far that will go is anybody’s guess. We must just keep observing and learn.

Alan Robertson
August 12, 2014 1:03 am

Henry says,
“Do you understand probability theory?”
___________________
I understand etch a sketch.

Edim
August 12, 2014 1:49 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
“And [according to your graph] when we went from the strong cycles 21 and 22 into the weakish SC23, temperatures shot up.”
So what? Numerous factors influence global temperature indices (including AGW confirmation bias). Surface temperatures shooting up for a few years is short-term ‘noise’. It does increase the surface cooling flux though and helps with the upcoming cooling.
Sun seems to be the main knob, but it’s not the only influence. By ~2020 we will know much more.

August 12, 2014 2:29 am

vukcevic says: August 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm
If data allows determination of 12.5 years that you found, then it does for 11.4 years which I found in the factual McCracken data.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 12, 2014 at 12:08 am
It can’t be both. There is an error bar or uncertainty associated with those numbers.
…………..
Now, you are finally correct
indeed, it can not be both, but as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion your FFT spectrum analysis lacks good resolution.
See link bellow showing higher resolution output ; your McCracken data appear to be a bit fuzzy too.
vukcevic says: August 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707088
Leif Svalgaard says:
you have never found anything of scientific value. The rest of your comment is garbage.
…………………..
Well that is rather funny, since your spectrum is of very similar content to what I found but lacks good resolution (hence your error of about one year in the principal component).
The world’s most prominent expert on the Maunder Minimum, Hiroko Miyahara from University of Tokyo, also found same frequencies as I did and ‘almost’ you did.
Here Maunder min spectrum Svalgaard, Miyahara, etc
I compare similarities and minor differences between findings from:Svalgaard, Miyahara and vukcevic. All three contain common elements, that you describe so figuratively as garbage .

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 2:50 am

M Simon says:
“And yet low sun spot numbers correlate well with periods of cooling.”
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation. The period seems more clearly related to period of precession of lunar apsides:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
The centennial scale variability does seem to follow SSN reasonably well with a relaxation to equilibrium response. There is a divergence in this relationship starting around 1990, When temperatures fail to drop noticeably despite reducing solar activity.
This may be due to the surface warming effect of major volcanoes caused by the reduction in stratospheric ozone that they cause.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
The step nature of the drops in TLS and no significant long term trend since 1995 ( as opposed to the steady downward trend that would result from GH effect ) is now recognised by IPCC AR5 WG1 in chapter 10. But they avoid following through to what this implies for surface temps.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tls_icoads_70s-20s.png
Thompson and Solomon, 2009 shows most of the change in TLS outside the immediate (warming) effects of volcanoes can be attributed to ozone variation. The biggest changes in ozone are coincident with the two major eruptions.
I derived the change in energy budgetat the tropopause after Pinatubo settled out to be 1.8W/m2 extra SW making it into the lower climate system ( ERBE data ) . Estimating El Chichon to have a comparable effect would account for much of the late 20th c. warming that was the cause for the initial alarm calling.
It would also explain why temperatures failed to drop noticeably and hence the divergence between the surface SST record and SSN relaxation response.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 3:39 am

Edim says: “I expect the global temperature indices to start plummeting after ~2015. ”
The thermal inertia of the system to far too big for it to “plummet” on our yearly time-scales.
However, the downward drift may accentuate a bit.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 3:50 am

From the peaks I identified as lunar driven in above links:
( 1996.46 – 1952.28 ) / 5.0 = 8.836 years
1996.46+8.85=2005.3
2005.3+8.85=2014.16 : recent rise in SST, false “super El Nino” excitement

August 12, 2014 3:52 am

Greg Goodman says: August 12, 2014 at 2:50 am
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation.
Good quote, but incomplete, I would say:
The decadal ‘cycles’ in surface temperature drift in and out of phase with SSN cycles. Not good for correlation until the geomagnetic effect is taken into the account
Sun-Earth link
Why? You might ask
As my early ‘mentor’ Dr. J. Feynman says (quote from above)
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century.
( on Jun 16, 2003 she also said: Best of luck to you, joan Feynman, since than I took a long pause, but recently have more time available to pursue the hobby)
Then NASA adds their recent discovery:
Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .

wayne Job
August 12, 2014 4:08 am

I always enjoy a blog here about the sun, it is interesting reading. The fact that the sun is our only source of heat, and the world varies wildly between glacials and interglacials, gives me pause to imagine that the sun, our companion planets and our place in our galaxy must interplay to vary our climate. TSI is probably the only thing about the sun that is nearly a constant and seems irrelevant to our constantly changing climate.
People such as Lief seem incapable of seeing the forest for the trees and to my mind the information in data he is capable of accessing and analysing is wasted on what appears to me to be a closed mind. Unless one thinks outside the square occasionally in science nothing ever changes and nothing new is discovered. Superiority in attitude is a failing not an attribute.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:03 am

Vuk’ says: Not good for correlation until the geomagnetic effect is taken into the account
Sun-Earth link
What is your point here? This shows exactly the phase drift I referred to.
You’re in phase around 1965; anti-phase in 1935; in phase in 1915 and anti-phase in 1885
Over that time I see 8.5 “geo” cycles and 11 SST cycles. The phase drift is fairly steady, not random back and forth.
That seems to be a fairly clear indication of a period mismatch. I don’t see anything in your graph that goes contrary to what I posted, it is essentially showing the same thing. Whether you want to measure it using SSN or ‘geo’ , you get the same answer: this decadal SST pattern is not solar induced,

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:04 am

“Over that time I see 8.5 “geo” cycles and 11 SST cycles. ”
cf solar cycle circa 11y, lunar cycle 8.85 😉

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:14 am

Ulric Lyons “I would be pleased to demonstrate these findings to Ant*ony Watts when he is in the UK in September if he is interested. ”
I’m sure he will be very flattered. Is there any reason you don’t demonstrate that here? Sounds like important stuff. If it’s a secret, no point in posting about it , just keep quite about it and hide you results in a safe place.

Tom in Florida
August 12, 2014 5:27 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
” In addition to the tiny, tiny magnetic changes, TSI changes some 70 W/m2 through the year due to the changing distance to the Sun”
————————————————————————————————————————–
My understanding is that the TSI you are referring to here is TOA. However, I believe too many people do not understand that and believe the actual output of the Sun changes by that amount. Is there a better way to refer to TSI so the meaning is clear to all, or is the TSI always TOA by definition?

August 12, 2014 5:28 am

A glorious sunrise is developing in Calgary today. The sun is coming up, and I predict with some confidence that the day will be warmer than the night (who knew?). I suspect a correlation, but cannot be sure… 🙂
We have been enjoying a wonderful summer, after a long cold winter – but central and eastern North America had it even colder and longer – record ice on the Great Lakes, and Chicago (among many other locations) had the coldest four winter months on record.
I’m guessing that the Sun has something to do with the climate, although I have not studied the matter in detail – those who do have many different opinions, and clarity seems to be a distant hope.
Here is a compilation of predictions for SC24. As you can see, there are 45 of them, more than enough to fill a roulette wheel, and they are “all over the map” ranging from a low of 42 to a high of 169, so somebody had to be close. Not sure that this supports any conclusion, except fundamental concepts of probability. 🙂
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
SC25 is just around the corner and predictions can start soon – Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!
God, I hope to be wrong about imminent global cooling – I’m getting old and hate the cold.
Regards to all, Allan
Skill Testing Question:
How many people predicted imminent global cooling more than a decade ago?
Answer:
A very few people predicted global cooling more than a decade ago, but most “coolists” were stoned or burned at the stake by warmist zealots. Since then, “the pause” has caused global warming fanaticism to be debunked, and former warmist fanatics have covertly formed a new group, reportedly called ISIS.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:35 am

re Vuk’s graph.
The roughly 80y period I picked out by eye ( since you refuse to provide a clear explanation for a reproducing your results ) gives the following estimated average cycles: 80/11=7.2 , 80/8.5=9.4
Within the accuracy of my eyeballed “8.5” cycles, I would guess that latter in 9.3*8.6=80
The former may be 7.5*10.7=80 , note how Hadley adjustments to SST severely attenuate the circa 9y periodicity and accentuate 7.5y.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoad_v_hadsst3_ddt_n_pac_chirp.png
I’m guessing your AMO is derived from Kaplan et al which adopts most of the Hadley “corrections”.
So I was incorrect in thinking that your graph was showing the same lunar cycle this I had identified but it does show the same kind of phase drift which disputes your claimed linkage.
It may be interesting to plot your geo index against ICOADS and see how well the phase lines up.
9.3 is suggestive of 18.6/2 : lunar declination Perhaps E-M-S alignments is a key factor in determining the variation in your ‘geo’ index.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:49 am

PS, the 9.04 period shown in the spectrogram of ICOADS SST, corresponds to the mean frequency of 8.85 and 9.3y
Maybe this ‘geo’ index is a hint to the mechanism of an effect on lower climate.

August 12, 2014 5:53 am

wayne Job
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707464
henry says
there is so much fiddling with the data that one has wonder……Better to rather establish your own data sets. My data set says we are currently cooling at a rate of -0.015K/annum since 2000 but it appears we are still accelerating further downwards. Up to now, that is 14 x -0.015 = -0.2 K
The other 4 major data sets that I quoted earlier say it is around -0.1K but none of those data sets are properly balanced NH / SH
I have a [simple] theory as to why we are cooling, and why it will continue to cool…
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 more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
That ozone is increasing, is easily proven. About the others, I don’t know [if we can measure them]
In any case, you can see that the acceleration of the cooling can be correlated with the decreasing solar polar field strengths.
Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output.
{that 2 x 44 years brings the total actual Gleissberg cycle at around 87 or 88 years}
We are now waiting for the switch on the sun, where we cycle back to increasing polar field strengths again, which I predict must happen around 2016.

August 12, 2014 5:56 am

henry said
The other 4 major data sets that I quoted earlier say it is around -0.1K but none of those data sets are properly balanced NH / SH
henry says
The other 4 major data sets that I quoted earlier say it is around -0.1K but [ I think] none of those data sets are properly balanced NH / SH

Pamela Gray
August 12, 2014 6:08 am

It seems to me that a buried [insert favorite driver] signal in noisy temperature data kinda closes the case re: [repeat name of favorite driver]. Most solar proponents stipulate that there are any number of Earthly bottom up confounding/amplifying factors, ergo case closed in my opinion. CO2 modelers stipulate that there are any number of natural confounding/amplifying factors, ergo case closed in my opinion.
I’m all for looking for a needle in a haystack, but it has to be a pretty goddamn big one. So far the only big one I have seen is over on Bob Tisdale’s site related to El Nino correlated step-rises in sea surface temperature. Each one of those steps indicates warm water evaporating off the surface into the air, adding heat to the atmosphere from the ocean’s gas tank. Now that’s a pretty goddamn big needle.

August 12, 2014 6:29 am

Pamela Gray
Each one of those steps indicates warm water evaporating off the surface into the air, adding heat to the atmosphere from the ocean’s gas tank. Now that’s a pretty goddamn big needle.
Henry says
What you say is true. In fact that is the reason we are cooling. The reason why we are cooling is that there is less [UV] radiation coming into the oceans.
This can be easily understood from this graphic presentation:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2011/08/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
If ozone is getting more, there is less UV coming through which is a big chunk [look at the chi square distribution]
Obviously this graphic presentation was before we realised that besides ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides are also formed by the most energetic particles coming from the sun {Trenberth’s missing energy}
and just ignore the fact that Sun incoming- and earth outgoing radiation it is completely out of proportion…..
UV into the oceans must eventually convert to heat, even if it is only at higher depths.So if UV is getting less, there is your explanation as to why earth is cooling.
There is no “other” way around this. I hope you understand.

August 12, 2014 6:34 am

Greg Goodman says:
……………..
Hi Greg
GeoSolar cycle is derived directly from geomagnetic field response to the solar activity.
Its spectrum’s principal components are 9.1 and 64.5 years, which is more or less the AMO’s spectral composition.
If you count from 1882 to 2010, there are 14 GS cycles, giving ~ 9.14 years period, while the 60’s periodicity (GS back extrapolated to 1700, varies between 58 and 67) isn’t as obvious. Neither the GS or the AMO cycles are of equal length or shape, one is affected by irregularities in the solar activity and geomagnetic shocks, http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image018.jpg, the other by occasional volcanic eruptions.
How does it work ?
Solar input is totally independent variable.
Terrestrial part of the equation has a degree of positive feedback, i.e. the geomagnetic input contributes to temperature changes (Svensmark, stratosphere etc), the equatorial temperature changes (mainly ENSO and monsoon strengths) move the geomagnetic field by altering the rate of rotation i.e. LOD..
Thus, I would suspect that the + or – 0.1C change, that can be without any doubt directly attributed to the solar cycles (via TSI, even Dr. S admits to that) is enhanced (~ doubled) by this positive feedback, but as every feedback introduces a phase shift (due to delay in the FB loop), so does the above, result decadal/multi-decadal ‘oscillations’.
This does not explain or says anything about the long up/down trends as experienced during the MWP, the LIA or ‘modern epoch’ warming. I attribute those to tectonics, but that is an even more controversial idea.
I do not expect or ask for any support of these ideas, universal rejection is the most likely outcome, just making my views (right or wrong) publicly known.

beng
August 12, 2014 6:45 am

***
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm
In addition to the tiny, tiny magnetic changes, TSI changes some 70 W/m2 through the year due to the changing distance to the Sun. Here is an illustration of the changes: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
***
When I look at this 70W/m2 annual TSI variance and knowing that global avg annual temps actually defy this trend somewhat (I know, land vs ocean in SH vs NH), then I see all kinds of posters linking the tiny 1.5W/m2 solar-cycle variance to significant climate changes, I have to shake my head in wonder….

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 6:45 am

“If ozone is getting more”
Do you see ozone increase , where? Since when?
Ozone decrease was the main reason for late 20th c. warming. Where is the increase?

August 12, 2014 6:55 am

vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:29 am
indeed, it can not be both, but as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion your FFT spectrum analysis lacks good resolution.
The problem is not FFT, but the data themselves that are too noisy. The garbage part is your nonsense about the geomagnetic connection. Noisy data has all kinds of spurious peaks. Garbage in, garbage out. As usual, you have no idea what you talking about.
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 3:52 am
Then NASA adds their recent discovery:
Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north.

This is simply not so. If it were, geomagnetic activity would show a 22-yr variation in phase with the sunspot Hale cycle from minimum to minimum, contrary to observations since the 1840s which show that the variation follows the polar fields, i.e goes from maximum to maximum. All this has been well-understood and observed for decades.
Tom in Florida says:
August 12, 2014 at 5:27 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
My understanding is that the TSI you are referring to here is TOA.
For the climate, TOA at the Earth is the proper measure. For stidy of the Sun, TSI at 1 AU is the proper measure. What is not to understand?

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 7:03 am

Thompson & Solomon 2009:
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon2_JClimate2009.pdf
figure 2 from above showing temp drop in TLS and the drop in ozone following each event.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=1002
changes in TLS compared to changes in SH SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=988

August 12, 2014 7:04 am

@Greg
for example:
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608056146891899248&pid=15.1&w=162&h=126&p=0
Ozone has been increasing since 1995.
CFC scare was a red herring as well. Complete nonsense,
[and to think that I worked on projects getting rid of CFC’s]
I have a complete set of data from 1927 from a station on the swiss alps showing that ozone is decreasing since 1951 and has started increasing again from 1995
exactly 44 years difference
is that not curious?
As I said, it is either warming or it is cooling. There no such thing as a pause.

Unmentionable
August 12, 2014 7:20 am

Think of all the butter that will become too stiff to spread now, and all those torn up slices of bread … oh, the humanity … and was kinda hoping to step into a coffin without the pre-cooling of extremities … I really hope they are wrong.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 7:52 am

HP: “I have a complete set of data from 1927 from a station on the swiss alps showing that ozone is decreasing since 1951 and has started increasing again from 1995”
Can we see it. Where’s the data ? ( BTW that graph is illegible.)
Ozone is not uniformly mixed, hence ozone hole etc.
The paper I linked above concludes a very small rise since 1995. NCAR and IPCC say essentially no significant change in TLS since 1995.. Surface temps say: pause. Ozone seems to be a key player.
Less ozone , less scatter back into space. Also less opacity in stratosphere means this gets down into lower climate system.
Following each eruption 0.5 drop in TLS and 0.1 rise SH SST.
The famous “ozone layer” you were trying to save is in the lower stratosphere. You may have helped stop global warming ! Well done.

August 12, 2014 8:16 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:55 am
The garbage part is your nonsense about the geomagnetic connection. Noisy data has all kinds of spurious peaks. Garbage in, garbage out. As usual, you have no idea what you talking about.
Now we blame data, if it is ‘garbage in’ why do you use it to justify spurious LP effect?
Are you now claiming that changes in the Earth’s magnetic (geo-magnetic) field do not affect 10Be deposition rate?
Despite the great experience and knowledge, when you put in the service of obscurantism, rather than the advance of science, it will not serve well to your legacy.
I have learned a great deal from many of your comments, but I do not read everything anyone says through the rose tinted spectacles, there are plenty of others who do that, one less shouldn’t be a distraction to the intended endeavour. Even a blindfold has its uses.
Near 22 year cycle is observable in:
– Heliospheric current sheet (yes I know ….) inclination, the Earth transverses through it frequently.
– Neutron count (difference between odd and even cycles)
– Global and hemispheric land and ocean temperature records.
Its presence may be ignored but not credibly denied.

AJB
August 12, 2014 8:23 am

Greg Goodman says: August 12, 2014 at 7:52 am
Where’s the data ?
ftp://iaclin2.ethz.ch/pub_read/maeder/totozone_arosa_monthly

Ulric Lyons
August 12, 2014 8:24 am

Steven Mosher says:
“post your code and data.. saves on the air faire.. and more eyes on the problem.. always a good thing.”
It requires demonstration on a solar system model, and I have not yet produced a narrated animation. But I can give very simple instructions to anyone who has a copy of the TheSky or Alcyone astronomy programs on how to track the progression. As well as identifying when solar grand minima occur, it also shows where the sunspot maximum of most cycles occur, typically within less than a year.

Bob Weber
August 12, 2014 8:57 am

Ulric would you be able and willing to give instructions here that illustrate your point using this easy to use program http://www.solarsystemscope.com/ ?

August 12, 2014 9:23 am

If solar activity/solar field strength does not reach minimum in 2016 and pick up after that time – IOW if we miss the switch – then we could be in for a LIA disaster.
Ulric, anyone? What do you think?

milodonharlani
August 12, 2014 9:34 am

Pamela Gray says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:08 am
What do you suppose causes the evaporation?

Ulric Lyons
August 12, 2014 9:41 am

@Bob Weber
No that is not suitable at all, user defined step time periods are required.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 9:42 am

AJB , thanks. The accompanying paper attempts to detect the turnaround expected from Montreal protocol limiting CFCs.
ftp://iaclin2.ethz.ch/pub_read/maeder/CANDIDOZ/documents/deliv1_eth.pdf
Total column ozone at that site seems to have recovered about half the post Mt Pinatubo drop since 1995.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 9:49 am

@greg
Like I said: cfc: red herring
1995 is when global cooling started looking at maximum temperatures.
You can calculate that from my best fit curve

milodonharlani
August 12, 2014 9:45 am

John Francis says:
August 11, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Richard agreed with his sister Joan & colleague with Dyson on climate change.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 9:46 am

Vuk’ , no comment on the phase drift in you geo index vs SST plot ?
9.3 / 9.4 y look more like a lunar signal than solar.

milodonharlani
August 12, 2014 9:46 am

Please cut second “with”.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 9:55 am

“The development of the statistical modelling shown here is based on the homogenized total ozone series of Arosa (Switzerland) ”
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 9:57 am

MoreCarbonOKetcHenryP says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:49 am
@greg
Like I said: cfc: red herring
1995 is when global cooling started looking at maximum temperatures.
You can calculate that from my best fit curve
====
Why does that make it a red herring. It may be a part of reason if there has been a recovery of ozone since that date.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 10:20 am

@greg
There is no AGW whatsoever, caused by any GHG. No room for it in my last equation for minima. 1995 lies exactly in the middle of Gleissberg. Has to do with planets and stuff. I think Ulric figured it out as well.

August 12, 2014 10:09 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:46 am
Vuk’ , no comment on the phase drift in you geo index vs SST plot ?
9.3 / 9.4 y look more like a lunar signal than solar.
…………..
There is another phase drift developing currently, the AMO trails the GSC, complex reasons, but Dr. Dickey’s (JPL-NASA) work on diff rotation of the liquid core (in relation to the mantle) where the primary component of geo-magnetic field is generated (solar being the secondary) gives a good match for the delay.
Nothing is perfect; for some of the reasons see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707534

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 10:27 am

I don’t see either you or Ulric presenting anything credible, just vague claims.
All I recall seeing from you is an attempt to represent the whole to climate by one sinusoid, fitted to a ridiculously small segment of data. There’s “no room” for anything in that kind of model so it’s hardly an argument that carries much weight.
Is your latest equation any more sophisticated?

August 12, 2014 10:32 am

vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:16 am
Now we blame data, if it is ‘garbage in’ why do you use it to justify spurious LP effect?
The data is not good enough to fix the 11-yr cycle with precision better than 1-2 years during the Maunder Minimum. different ice cores and tree data give different results [noise].
The garbage is not the data itself [which is just noisy] but your baseless pseudo-scientific claims.
Are you now claiming that changes in the Earth’s magnetic (geo-magnetic) field do not affect 10Be deposition rate?
The Earth’s magnetic field determines the production rate, not the deposition rate [which is determined mainly by climate and weather and volcanic eruptions].
rather than the advance of science
Nothing of what you post in any way serves the advance of science.
Near 22 year cycle is observable in
The 22-yr cycles [as I have explained many times] are tied to the reversals of the solar polar fields [and goes from maximum to maximum], not to the even and odd cycles. Again you have not learned anything.

August 12, 2014 10:40 am

vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:09 am
diff rotation of the liquid core (in relation to the mantle) where the primary component of geo-magnetic field is generated (solar being the secondary)
There is no solar influence on the mantle-core interaction. Again you are off the rail. This has been explained to you many times, but you are impervious to learning.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 10:46 am

Leif Svalgaard says: Near 22 year cycle is observable in
The 22-yr cycles [as I have explained many times] are tied to the reversals of the solar polar fields [and goes from maximum to maximum], not to the even and odd cycles.
===
I don’t get the point you are making here. Is anything more than an objection to him calling them odd and even?
IIRC, the polarity change happens around max SSN so each half of the Hale cycle ( +ve or -ve in number) has opposite polarity.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 10:48 am

The circa 22y period seems to be found in SST, whereas the 11y apparently not.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 10:53 am

Leif, what is the mathematical fn that is fitted as the generalised skewed bell shape when predicting how a cycle is expected to run?

August 12, 2014 10:56 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
I don’t get the point you are making here. Is anything more than an objection to him calling them odd and even?
If CMEs have a magnetic field determined by the parity of the solar cycle, geomagnetic activity [and all the other 22-yr cycles he mentions] should be higher in even cycle from minimum to minimum and lower in odd cycles from minimum to minimum. This is not what is observed. Rather geomagnetic activity is higher the last half of even cycles and the first half of the following odd cycle. This is a well-known and well-understood and well-observed and well-documented effect.

August 12, 2014 11:00 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:53 am
Leif, what is the mathematical fn that is fitted as the generalised skewed bell shape when predicting how a cycle is expected to run?
Eq. (6) of http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-1/download/lrsp-2010-1Color.pdf is generally thought to be good.

Bob Weber
August 12, 2014 11:31 am

@Ulric – Alcyone is a real gem. Much more potent software than SSS. Thanks.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 12, 2014 11:37 am

As I grow more knowledgeable, these solar threads get easier to scan quickly. For example, as soon as Ulric Lyons said “I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima.” I knew I could skip over his scribblings, although there still might be something worthwhile in the replies correcting him.
Then there’s Henry Pool, who has no room for any AGW anywhere in his tables and graphs and equations whatsoever, who tosses logic grenades like:

(…) Don’t trust any other data set but the ones that you have established yourself from trusted sources.
Look at all three graphs underneath my tables and tell me where we are going?

Don’t trust any data set other than your own for the truth. Trust my data set and see the truth it shows.
Then there is ultimate curve-fitter Greg Goodman. Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing, amongst other crimes against responsible data handling. His talents might be better used searching for patterns on the grassy knoll.
After noting these and a few others, that removes about 60% of the vertical space from needing closer inspection, sometimes 70% or more. Quite a time saver!

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 11:40 am

Thanks , a interesting paper.
” Rather geomagnetic activity is higher the last half of even cycles and the first half of the following odd cycle. This is a well-known and well-understood and well-observed and well-documented effect. ”
Well-understood as in the mechanism is understood?

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 11:45 am

KDK: Then there is ultimate curve-fitter Greg Goodman. Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing, amongst other crimes against responsible data handling.
LOL, which filter was that that you “caught” me using and why is its use in one field mean it is not suitable for another, for example solar?

August 12, 2014 11:52 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:40 am
Well-understood as in the mechanism is understood?
Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 12:22 pm

Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
Thank you. So the presence of a 22y solar signal in SST is not surprising.
In figure 23, apart from the max appearing later/earlier , from the 3rd to the 7th year the changes seem to be in multiphase, so this seems to be the essence of the 22y component. I’m sure all this has been well dug into over the centuries we’ve been counting spots but it’s all very intriguing.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 12, 2014 12:32 pm

From Greg Goodman on August 12, 2014 at 11:45 am:

LOL, which filter was that that you “caught” me using and why is its use in one field mean it is not suitable for another, for example solar?

You mentioned it here in your first comment on August 12, 2014 at 2:50 am:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Which says:

Processing:
A 75 month low-pass lancos filter was applied to SST. This almost totally removes any variation at or below 5 years in period.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/lanczos-filter-script/

Among many places referencing a Lanczos filter for digital photography (and rarely anything else), there’s Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos_resampling

Lanczos resampling or Lanczos filter is a mathematical formula used to smoothly interpolate the value of a digital signal between its samples. (…)
Lanczos resampling is typically used to increase the sampling rate of a digital signal, or to shift it by a fraction of the sampling interval. It is often used also for multivariate interpolation, for example to resize or rotate a digital image. It has been considered the “best compromise” among several simple filters for this purpose.[1]

It is used for processing huge amounts of digital data like pictures and video of many megabytes and even many gigabytes in size. You used it on piddling bits of monthly SST values while searching for solar signals. It is used for interpolation, to “fill in data” to increase perceived sharpness of images, etc. You say you have used it essentially remove data, to smooth away variations.
Thus I ignore you.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 12:38 pm

KDK: Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing….
Maybe because a gaussian filter is used to ‘soften’ photographs we should not use it in any other kind of data processing.
Or perhaps it’s the Lanczos you refer too, which does sometimes get used in image processing. Not because it is limited to case but because it is a filter with good general properties. Nothing about Lanczos’ theoretical work is specific to image processing, in fact I don’t think he made any reference to such an application. It was a rather abstract mathematical attempt to produce an optimal filter.
Or was it the gaussian-derivatative that you “caught” me using. Quelle horreur!
This can be used for edge detection in medical and other image processing but again that application does not prevent its use elsewhere.
It is also a more efficient ( and slightly more accurate ) way of gaussian “smoothing” the time derivative ( rate of change ) of a time series.
Since the whole debate seems to focus on “trends” which are the ultimate low-pass filter of rate of change, I don’t see why you would see that as a “crime” either.
Your idea that the use of a filter in image processing in some way makes improper to use it in another field seems particularly ill-informed. But for some reason I’m not surprised by that.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 12:44 pm

KDK “It is used for processing huge amounts of digital data like pictures and video of many megabytes and even many gigabytes in size. You used it on piddling bits of monthly SST values while searching for solar signals. It is used for interpolation, to “fill in data” to increase perceived sharpness of images, etc. You say you have used it essentially remove data, to smooth away variations.”
Oh, so it was the Lanczos. If you main source of information is Wankipedia, I’m not surprised you are ill-informed.
Not only that you don’t even seem able to understand what you read at WP. It is a low-pass filter so one this it will not do is “increase perceived sharpness of images”.
Next time you set up a kangaroo court to accuse someone of “crimes” of data processing, don’t forget to call some expert witnesses. 😉

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 12, 2014 12:46 pm

Goodman asks which filter he used and why it is unsuitable. I showed him what and why. Goodman squeals like a stuck pig as he tries to squirm away from the truth.
I smell bacon.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 12:47 pm

Why the size of the dataset seems to be important to you in the use of a filter also seems unclear.
What feature of the frequency response of a Lanczos makes it only suitable for “gigabytes” of data? 😕

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 12:50 pm

I wrote my guesses at what you considered to be my “crime” while you wrote yours, The posts crossed, otherwise I would not have needed to guess.
“I showed him what and why. ”
You showed your ignorance of the subject, that is all.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 1:00 pm

“Processing:
A 75 month low-pass lanczos filter was applied to SST. This almost totally removes any variation at or below 5 years in period.”
What exactly, in your “expert” opinion is wrong with that statement you chose to quote me on?

ren
August 12, 2014 1:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard
Geomagnetic field has a great influence on the ionization of the atmosphere, and hence the climate. Just compare the neutron counts at the pole and at 65 degrees latitude.
http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/TheSpnPlot2.gif
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Isotopes produced in the atmosphere by the GCR react with ozone.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 1:05 pm

“Isotopes produced in the atmosphere by the GCR react with ozone. ”
What’s that about ren? Ozone seems to be a key factor, what’s the link with isotopes?

ren
August 12, 2014 1:09 pm
ren
August 12, 2014 1:19 pm

Greg Goodman
The records of the 14C content of the atmosphere and oceans contain a remarkable array of information about Earth history. Produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, 14CO2 rapidly mixes throughout the troposphere and exchanges with the reactive carbon reservoirs of the oceans and biosphere, where it decays. For the past 11,000 years, fluctuations in the atmospheric 14C have been largely produced by changes in the solar magnetic field. Many researchers believe that carbon cycle changes, tied to deep ocean circulation changes are a significant cause of atmospheric 14C fluctuations between 11,000 and 15,000 years before present. On longer time scales, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity impact the 14C content of the atmosphere, producing positive 14C anomalies during intervals of weaker geomagnetic field.

August 12, 2014 1:24 pm

@Greg@vukcevik
it is really very simple. 4 Hale cycles of 4 x 22 years makes for one whole Gleissberg cycle. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
in 1985, before they started with the CO2 nonsense, William Arnold had all of this figured out more or less correct,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
but he was out with the dates by about 7 years, I think.
I have told you what [I think] the mechanism is for the G cycle.
From earth this cycle appears as a 90-100 year weather cycle. 1995 was the middle of that cycle. This is when we turned from warming to cooling. You can calculate this from the formula of the first graph on the deceleration of maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Note that my tables are not a “model”. The projection forward and backwards in the graphs is only
for illustration. Note the 100% correlation on the [natural] deceleration of minimum temperatures which is supposed to show us chaos, i.e. Rsquare [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry

August 12, 2014 1:29 pm

whilst uploading my last message,the computer made a mistake.
@Greg@vukcevik
it is really very simple. 4 Hale cycles of 4 x 22 years makes for one whole Gleissberg cycle. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
in 1985, before they started with the CO2 nonsense, William Arnold had all of this figured out more or less correct,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
but he was out with the dates by about 7 years, I think.
I have told you what [I think] the mechanism is for the G cycle.
From earth this cycle appears as a 90-100 year weather cycle. 1995 was the middle of that cycle. This is when we turned from warming to cooling. You can calculate this from the formula of the first graph on the deceleration of maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Note that my tables are not a “model”. The projection forward and backwards in the graphs is only
for illustration. Note the 100% correlation on the [natural] deceleration of minimum temperatures which is supposed to show us chaos, i.e. Rsquare [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry

August 12, 2014 1:30 pm

@KD Knoebel
Why don’t you show us your data set that will show us all whether we on earth are currently cooling or warming? We all wait for your show of your own figures in anticipation. But we all know what we get from you: constipation.
If you think I am here to listen wiseguys like you and Leif you are thoroughly mistaken. I am trying to educate you all on what is lying ahead of us. Note the first comment on this thread. It seems markstoval also figured it out.
@all
It really was very cold in 1940′s….In Holland, snowfall in the winter of 1941-1942 was the highest ever recorded. Transport came to a complete standstill. The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the relevant curve, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry

August 12, 2014 1:31 pm

Solar activity has shifted from a very active state prior to 2005 to a very inactive state post 2005. Review the data from the two periods .
The question is what will happen going forward. Those trying to justify future solar conditions based on data post Dalton are making a big mistake in my opinion. Post Dalton to 2005 the sun was in a Grand Maximum Cycle, post 2005 it is very likely in a Grand Minimum Cycle.
Therefore to make solar projections going forward based on what the sun did during a Grand Maximum Cycle is quite absurd.
Also climatic implications will very likely materialize from the sun switching from a Grand Maximum to a Grand Minimum mode of activity.

August 12, 2014 1:37 pm

Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
!977 was a very, very long time ago, many new things have been discovered since, now there are 5 Themis satellites mapping solar-magnetosphere interactions.

August 12, 2014 1:52 pm

Do not miss PART RWO of the video !

August 12, 2014 2:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard wrote:

The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big.

The second sentence is not inherently true. Being big allows for longer oscillations and variations.
Energy production (fusion) is non-linear with T and P. Consider what would happen if fusion totally stopped. The core temperature of Sol would follow an equation equation like:
T(t) = T0 exp(-t/τ)
What is the value of τ?
I believe the second sentence (above) can be paraphrased as:
“There are no significant oscillations in energy production over periods between the time we’ve observed and τ.”
That seems like a pretty big extrapolation.

August 12, 2014 3:42 pm

Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:27 am
I don’t see either you or Ulric presenting anything credible, just vague claims.
All I recall seeing from you is an attempt to represent the whole to climate by one sinusoid, fitted to a ridiculously small segment of data
…………………
I have no idea what Ulric is up to, I am sure he can speak for himself.
Even less it is clear to me why you would you assume that THIS is a single sine; it doesn’t look like one, and certainly doesn’t have properties of one. It is not even a regular oscillation, no two of its ‘cycles’ are the same.
I see it, strong case of confirmation bias, as a complex result of number of major, and multitude of minor variables starting with the sunspot cycles leading into atmo & hydro -spheric forces, angular momentum change, differential rotation of the Earth’s core, all forced into a disorderly positive feedback loop, which by nature of a feedback as it is, with a non-stationary delay, attains a form of very irregular oscillation, as long , that is, as there is an uninterrupted supply of energy to power it, in this case made available by the solar irradiance.
Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all, stick to the already individually held ideas and beliefs, but for the climate natural change understanding direct attention to elsewhere !

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:22 pm

“Even less it is clear to me why you would you assume that THIS is a single sine; ”
What is even less clear is where I said anything that even claim close. How you about you quote my words rather than make a spurious assertion about what I allegedly said.
Would you like to answer my question about the phase drift on that plot?
Counting peaks and troughs it does not support the idea of the geo index correlatiing with the SST measurements.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 5:33 pm

Have you done an FT to see what the main peak is around 9-10y ?
If you would provinde a link to data sources and an adequate description of how to build this “Geo-solar cycle” it would be even better.
If it is showing 9.3y it could be a significant clue.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 6:03 pm

“Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all, stick to the already individually held ideas and beliefs, but for the climate natural change understanding direct attention to elsewhere ! ”
Every couple of months you link this same graph but refuse to provide enough for anyone to recreate it. Now you say it’s “far wise to ignore it”.
Seems like you are in agreement with Leif at last.

Ulric Lyons
August 12, 2014 6:07 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“As I grow more knowledgeable, these solar threads get easier to scan quickly. For example, as soon as Ulric Lyons said “I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima.” I knew I could skip over his scribblings, although there still might be something worthwhile in the replies correcting him.”
I would call that disparaging flippancy rather than knowledge, you have no information by which to form an opinion, at least not that I have supplied, I have only made an offer to disclose my findings. But then if you had bothered to read my scribblings, you would be that much wiser.

Pamela Gray
August 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
Let me guess, done on an IBM Selectric typewriters with the “ball” instead of the “type hammer” models. I remember when our high school got ONE Selectric. We rotated onto using it. The rest of the time in class we were busy separating lodged hammers from their constant hand to hand combat with each other.

August 12, 2014 7:01 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Therefore to make solar projections going forward based on what the sun did during a Grand Maximum Cycle is quite absurd.
since there were no Grand Maximum your opinion is moot.
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:37 pm
!977 was a very, very long time ago, many new things have been discovered since, now there are 5 Themis satellites mapping solar-magnetosphere interactions.
Nothing had been discovered that overturns the 1977 view on this.
Produce a link to a paper that shows the ‘new discovery’ if you persist.
As usual, you do not know what you are talking about.
Q. Daniels says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm
“The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big.”
The second sentence is not inherently true. Being big allows for longer oscillations and variations.

It is true for the Sun, as the time for adjustment of the balance is of the order of hours.

Pamela Gray
August 12, 2014 7:12 pm

Somebody way upstream asks, what causes topical oceans evaporate? If the ocean is warmer than the air above it (IE when it calmly layers itself with the warmest layer on top), the ocean evaporates. If the ocean surface is colder (IE when is it mixed and agitated by wind), less evaporation transpires. There are lots of lectures online about this. Here is just one of them.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 7:15 pm

Vuk: “with a non-stationary delay”
If your non-stationary delay is generally increasing of decreasing over time, (aka phase drift) you have a frequency difference.

Pamela Gray
August 12, 2014 7:15 pm

OMG!! My typing is horrible! I might as well have another glass of wine because the two I have already had have made my fingers stop working.
[The mods note that there were no misspellings nor grammatical curios in Pamela’s previous entries .8<). .mod]

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 7:18 pm

How about you post the FT of your geo-solar cycle or you provide enough information for me to do it.

Greg Goodman
August 12, 2014 7:20 pm

Pamela: “Somebody way upstream asks, what causes topical oceans evaporate? ”
That’s easy, it’s when people stop talking about them 😉

August 12, 2014 8:01 pm

Pamela Gray says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:56 pm
Let me guess, done on an IBM Selectric typewriters with the “ball”
Very good and correct guess. I typed it myself [which was unusual back then – but there were just too many equations]

milodonharlani
August 12, 2014 8:05 pm

Pamela Gray says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:15 pm
I do as much as I can to increase beneficial plant food in the air by consuming as many bottles of beer and champagne as possible. The more CO2, the merrier.

milodonharlani
August 12, 2014 8:09 pm

Pamela Gray says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:12 pm
You dodge the question. What causes the ocean to evaporate more, ie what warms it enough to cause it to evaporate more than it did before the stepwise increase in something or other which you imagine to occur?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 12, 2014 10:45 pm

From Ulric Lyons on August 12, 2014 at 6:07 pm:

I would call that disparaging flippancy rather than knowledge, you have no information by which to form an opinion, at least not that I have supplied, I have only made an offer to disclose my findings. But then if you had bothered to read my scribblings, you would be that much wiser.

You said, bold added: “I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima.”
Apparent minimums and maximums are caused by the outer layers of the Sun modulating the constant output of the core. The only force the planets could exert on the Sun that is possibly worth mentioning is gravity. The Sun has 99.8% of all the mass in the solar system, most of the rest is Jupiter.
You would have to provide a mechanism whereby planetary movement controls the modulating of the core output by the outer layers, to substantiate that said planetary movement causes solar minimums. But this is like proposing how the regular dispersal of handfuls of rubber ducks onto a certain river will control the output of Niagara Falls.
Thus in that one line you did supply me with enough information to form an opinion, and the opinion was and is you’re spouting quackery. Further reading of your scribblings cannot improve that opinion, only the retraction of your obviously erroneous statement could help. The only way further reading could make me that much wiser, would be wiser in the ways of quackery and deception, presumably self-deception. And I can study more refined versions daily in climate science.
Thus I ignore you.

ren
August 12, 2014 11:59 pm

“2014 has featured a wet and cooler-than-average summer across a wide swath of the country from the central Plains to the mid-Atlantic, including the Northeast and Great Lakes. As children get ready to go back to school, some people are asking where all the summer warmth was and why was it so cool and wet?”
Air circulation in the lower stratosphere.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-88.74,26.93,481
There will be no hurricanes in the Atlantic.

August 13, 2014 12:03 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Nothing had been discovered that overturns the 1977 view on this.
Produce a link to a paper that shows the ‘new discovery’ if you persist.
As usual, you do not know what you are talking about.

Your theoretical treatise from 1977, may have been at the time, the corner stone of understanding, then at the end of 2008 NASA’s Themis project comes with the series of observational data that contradict conclusions of your work. Such things happen all the time, nothing new about that.
It is not me, or anyone on this blog, and I would suggest that may include you, but it is the observational data which will decide (if it hasn’t already) what is the actual reality.
I’ll go with Feynman’s ruling….

ren
August 13, 2014 12:14 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 12:19 am

From ren on August 12, 2014 at 11:59 pm:

There will be no hurricanes in the Atlantic.

Don’t poke Murphy. The hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30, there’s still plenty of time this year for something to blow up, if not several somethings.

August 13, 2014 1:05 am

Greg Goodman says:
………
You probably missed my earlier comment:
Its spectrum’s principal components are 9.1 and 64.5 years, which is more or less the AMO’s spectral composition.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707534
Aliasing frequency? You bet, there is!!
Interaction between variables all run by different clocks.
Solar magnetic input:
Carrington rotation of 27.2753 days
Ocean tidal system:
The draconic month 27.212days
The anomalistic month 27.554days
The tropical month 27.321 days
The sidereal month 27.321 days
Earth’s magnetic input:
The outer liquid core (generator of the magnetic field) also responds to the above luni-solar tides clock (as per A. Jackson, major expert in the field).
Energy input:
Solar insolation at 365.25 days
Monthly data averaged at a rate 11% longer than the luni-solar time base.
Data is synchronized with the energy input, but out of sync with factors controlling the energy distribution. .

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 1:42 am

From moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP (Henry Pool) on August 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm:

If you think I am here to listen wiseguys like you and Leif you are thoroughly mistaken. I am trying to educate you all on what is lying ahead of us. Note the first comment on this thread. It seems markstoval also figured it out.

From markstoval on August 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm:

(…) We have built our societies and infrastructure based on the mistaken belief that the climate could never return to that of the Little Ice Age but we might be very wrong in that. Feeding 7 Billion people in a little ice age will be demanding at best.

We have significantly advanced in agriculture since the previous Little Ice Age. Crop yields per worker have greatly increased from just mechanization. We have developed techniques like nutrient film hydroponics and even aeroponics that allow people to inexpensively grow their own food without tilling soil, even where they have no soil to till.
Feeding 7 billion people in a little ice age will not be demanding at all, from a capability standpoint. We could feed twice that many. What will be demanding then is the same thing making it demanding now, paying for it all, at sufficient levels of financial compensation to induce producers and distributors to continue supplying it.
What Mark Stoval was saying is the colder climate will make the feeding demanding. That is not the case.
And as for our societies and infrastructure, our building codes generally require greater insulation and weatherization than what was known in the LIA, we have more durable roads and snowplows, we have central heating and grid-supplied electricity. We even have safer food supplies, from improved canning to refrigeration to better food preservatives. We have 4×4 and all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles.
We have built our societies and infrastructure to far better withstand the possible conditions of a new little ice age than they were at the end of the last one. If the mistaken belief was we would never see those conditions again, it certainly doesn’t show.
You said it seemed Mark Stoval had figured it out. He’s wrong on both of his two major points. If you agree with him that is what’s to come and why, then you are also wrong.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 1:53 am

Thanks Vuk’ , i had indeed missed that earlier post:
“Hi Greg
GeoSolar cycle is derived directly from geomagnetic field response to the solar activity.
Its spectrum’s principal components are 9.1 and 64.5 years, which is more or less the AMO’s spectral composition.”
This 9.1 is found everywhere ( until Hadley start messing with the spectral content of the data ).
It is a strong component in cross-correlation of N. Atl and N. Pacific SST. Scafetta finds it in Aurora data.
So what IS this “geomagnetic field response”? Give me something I plot and analyse, not words !

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 2:02 am

http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=754
NB refer to the text for accurate periods, graph is approximate cursor readout only.

August 13, 2014 2:11 am

Club ‘ask for no data’ has a free membership, you can join Mann, Scafetta, Vuk, Ulric …

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 2:20 am

http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=755
As I said above this period corresponds to the superposition of two periods of lunar origin 8.85 and 9.3y . That combo will produce a modulation frequency of about 365 _years_. Odd number, but that’s another storey.
If this is a prominent feature in some “geo-solar” magnetic effect, it would be very interesting to see how that could arise but I still have no idea what you are actually plotting and what the data source(s) is(are).
It’s a couple of years that you’ve been posting this graph, it’s long over due that you say _exactly_ what it is you are plotting, so others can reproduce it. Otherwise it becomes a joke.

August 13, 2014 2:49 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:53 am
It (9.1 years) is a strong component in cross-correlation of N. Atl and N. Pacific SST. Scafetta finds it in Aurora data.
…………..
Not surprised, it doesn’t come from the sun directly, it comes from the geo-solar (sun-earth) magnetic cycle
9.1 years is rock steady, while 64 when extrapolated back to 1700, it drifts in range 58-67 years .
GSC-spec

Khwarizmi
August 13, 2014 4:00 am

“The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs.” – Leif Svalgaard

This sequence of flashbacks begins at a time in history when it was still safe to print a story titled “snowfalls are now a thing of the past” in a newspaper without being ridiculed.
==============
Scientists blame sun for global warming
BBC
February 13, 1998
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual – but a mini ice age could soon follow.
==============
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse (BBC)
July 6, 2004
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star’s activity in the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth’s climate became steadily warmer
==============
A First! Snow Falls in Baghdad
By CHRISTOPHER CHESTER (AP)
Jan 11, 2008
==============
Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years
Mark Prigg (Evening Standard)
Oct 10, 2008
It is a sight not seen in the capital since 1934.
Londoners today woke up to the earliest snow cover for more than 70 years as a freezing blast of wind from the Arctic hit the capital.
==============
Spokane, Washington., residents cope with record snow
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS (AP)
Jan 7, 2009
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – More than 6 feet of snow in the past three weeks has left Spokane residents frustrated. Tempers are so frayed that a man was arrested for shooting at a snow plow operator.
==============
The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won’t warm up until Sunday
By Daily Mail Reporter
Jan 8, 2009
Temperatures plunged so low yesterday that the sea actually began to freeze as Arctic conditions continued to grip the UK.
In the exclusive enclave of Sandbanks in Poole, Dorset, a half-mile stretch along the shoreline reaching about 20 yards out to sea is covered in ice.
================
Where’s global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
March 8, 2009
[…] The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.
===================
‘Quiet Sun’ baffling astronomers
By Pallab Ghosh (BBC News)
April 21, 2009
The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.
[…] In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell – known as the Maunder Minimum – lasted 70 years, and led to a “mini ice-age”.
This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,” he said.
=========
Children die in harsh Peru winter
By Dan Collyns (BBC News, Lima)
July 12, 2009
Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.
==========
‘Quiet’ sun could mean cooler days
STEPHEN CAUCHI (The Age)
September 13, 2009
THE number of sunspots has declined dramatically in the past two years – but scientists say it is too early to tell if it is the start of a solar depression that could lead to cooler weather on Earth.
Over the past millennium, whenever the sun has had long periods of low sunspot numbers, Earth has weathered equally long cold snaps. The most famous of these was the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715, when sunspots all but vanished for 70 years. It coincided with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age.
For the past two years, sunspots – dark and intensely magnetic blotches on the sun’s surface – have been at their fewest since 1913.
============
Beijing’s Heaviest Snow in 54 Years Strands Thousand
Bloomberg News
Nov 12, 2009
[…] In Beijing, snowfall is the heaviest since weather data began in 1955, according to the administration’s Web site.
============
Heavy snow continues as temperatures set to plunge minus 20C
Herald, Scotland
Jan 6, 2010
Heavy snow has brought more chaos to parts of Scotland amid warnings that temperatures could plunge to minus 20C this weekend.
The prolonged Arctic blast is now the worst cold spell seen in Scotland for almost 50 years, according to the First Minister.
============
Quiet sun puts Europe on ice
New Scientist
May 4, 2010
[…] The research finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream. These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia. When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions.
Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading in the UK began his investigation because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun’s activity more profound than …
============
Freeze Challenges Power Supply
(Xinhua, China)
Jun 1, 2010
Most parts of China were seized by a sustained cold snap Wednesday, when the minimum temperature hit a 40-year low in Beijing and a rare snowstorm in the central Hubei Province kept all school children at home.
The Beijing weather bureau said the capital had its lowest temperature in 40 years at daybreak Wednesday, when the low was minus 16.7 degrees Celsius.
============
BRITAIN FACES A MINI ‘ICE AGE’
By Laura Caroe (Express UK)
Oct 11, 2011
BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.
And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.
Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.
The climate phenomenon, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific, was linked to our icy winter last year – one of the coldest on record.
And it coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.
The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.
=============
US weather in pictures: ‘Polar vortex’ brings big freeze to North America
Telegraph UK
Aug 13, 2014
=============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_North_American_cold_wave
“The typical polar vortex configuration in November, 2013”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:November2013_polar_vortex_geopotentialheight_mean_Large.jpg
“A wavy polar vortex on January 5, 2014”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan52014_polar_vortex_geopotentialheight_mean_Large.jpg
=============
And that’s only the tip of the Gleissberg.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 4:52 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“The only force the planets could exert on the Sun that is possibly worth mentioning is gravity.”
It’s not really worth mentioning, and as it happens, the nature of the configurations involved precludes any gravitational mechanisms.
“Thus in that one line you did supply me with enough information to form an opinion, and the opinion was and is you’re spouting quackery. Further reading of your scribblings cannot improve that opinion, only the retraction of your obviously erroneous statement could help.”
No it was not enough information to form an opinion, the erroneous statements and quackery are your own, by assuming that you know best about the mechanisms.

ren
August 13, 2014 5:03 am

Predicted shape of the polar vortex on 23 August. Further cooling of the South Pacific. Blockade in the region of Australia.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_sh_f240.gif

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 5:15 am

Vuk : “Not surprised, it doesn’t come from the sun directly, it comes from the geo-solar (sun-earth) magnetic cycle” ….. WHICH IS …. ????
Your reluctance to say exactly what it is that you plotted, despite numerous explicit requests is starting to look suspect.
I’m trying to take what you present seriously but it’s getting harder in the face of this constant evasion.
Greg.

ren
August 13, 2014 5:25 am

Khwarizmi:
500 mb (hPa) is not the polar vortex, but the troposphere (about 5 km). Circulation at this altitude is consistent with the jet stream, which in the winter is strictly dependent on velocity (strength) of the polar vortex.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Jan52014_polar_vortex_geopotentialheight_mean_Large.jpg
“Since polar vortices exist from the stratosphere downward into the mid-troposphere,[2] a variety of heights/pressure levels within the atmosphere can be checked for its existence. Within the stratosphere, strategies such as the use of the 4 mb pressure surface, which correlates to the 1200K isentropic surface, located midway up the stratosphere, is used to create climatologies of the feature.[7] Due to model data unreliability, other techniques use the 50 mb pressure surface to identify its stratospheric location.[8] At the level of the tropopause, the extent of closed contours of potential temperature can be used to determine its strength. Horizontally, most polar vortices have a radius of less than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi).[9] Others have used levels down to the 500 hPa pressure level (about 5,460 metres (17,910 ft) above sea level during the winter) to identify the polar vortex.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

August 13, 2014 5:28 am

Greg Goodman says: August 13, 2014 at 5:15 am
I’m trying to take what you present seriously but…
…………..
I don’t, no reason why you should either, … I did say Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all…

John Finn
August 13, 2014 5:52 am

Khwarizmi says:
August 13, 2014 at 4:00 am

I’m not sure what your list of newspaper article is supposed to show. There are one or two predictions which haven’t been borne out (yet) and a few cold weather related headlines. However, there have been plenty of warm weather records broken over the same period. For example
The CET is currently showing that, to date, 2014 is the warmest year on record.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 6:12 am

From Ulric Lyons on August 13, 2014 at 4:52 am:

It’s not really worth mentioning, and as it happens, the nature of the configurations involved precludes any gravitational mechanisms.

Ah, so in your system it is planetary configurations that cause solar minimums, namely special ones where the gravitational effect of Jupiter is minimized.
Well why don’t you just come right out and say you’re talking about Astrology? I evaluated your statement like you were presenting real-world science. My mistake.

August 13, 2014 6:20 am

Ulric says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1708152
Henry says
My point exactly. That is why I said: better to ignore wise guys here who know it all. What are they doing here anyway?
What is your date for the sun reaching its minimum solar field strengths, I would be interested to know. You don’t have to give me the planetary configurations, I figured that out myself. I just want to check if we have the same date for the switch to higher field strengths.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 6:41 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“Ah, so in your system it is planetary configurations that cause solar minimums, namely special ones where the gravitational effect of Jupiter is minimized.”
I have already told you that the nature of the configurations precludes gravitational mechanisms. I will address the proposed mechanisms after I have exhibited the various configurations.

Pamela Gray
August 13, 2014 6:43 am

Milo, how long have you been reading this blog????
The step wise increase rate as been seen before. Same rate of increase (though at different starting points in term of SST). The mechanism is easily identified. A series of El Nino’s with few strong La Ninas inbetween the step rises. That was a very easy question. I didn’t, as you say, dodge it because the mechanism is so obvious I figured you would understand the El Nino process from my first response, and recall the several excellent posts on how the SST data set has demonstrated this before.
You will love this site. It’s from the EPA. Note the rate of increase in previous decades and then a partial cooling down. It just happens that the increase started again. That is not uncommon given that El Nino increases and La Nina decreases in sea surface temperatures are not opposites of each other. It is a herky jerky battle that sways one way and then another but over long periods of time kinda evens out. Humans do well when oceans are evaporating stored heat.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 6:56 am

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2014 at 5:28 am
Greg Goodman says: August 13, 2014 at 5:15 am
I’m trying to take what you present seriously but…
…………..
I don’t, no reason why you should either, … I did say Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all…
===========
Well I agree about that in relation to your rather vague explanations of feedbacks, delays etc. I was inclined to ignore that but the graph looked interesting. A very strong 9.1y peak in some magnetic data would certainly be worth investigation.
So are you also saying that, having linked to this graph on at least half a dozen threads, you are now too embarrassed to provide a usable account of what it was you were plotting as “geo-solar cycle” and we should better forget you ever mentioned it?
I get the impression there’s a rather big “oops” behind all this, that you’re trying to avoid admitting.
Greg

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 7:04 am

HenryP: “You don’t have to give me the planetary configurations, I figured that out myself”
Oh cool. Then perhaps you could explain what this planetary configurations thing is, Ulric does not yet seem to have this in a form that can be communicated. There have been several attempts but no one seem quite there yet.
Since you’ve already figured it all out, perhaps you can explain it.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 7:07 am

Henry says:
“That is why I said: better to ignore wise guys here who know it all.”
“You don’t have to give me the planetary configurations, I figured that out myself.”
I best leave you to it then.

August 13, 2014 7:12 am

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:03 am
Your theoretical treatise from 1977, may have been at the time, the corner stone of understanding, then at the end of 2008 NASA’s Themis project comes with the series of observational data that contradict conclusions of your work.
Wrong on two points:
1) my 1977 paper was a observational paper. Modern data fully support the earlier findings: http://www.leif.org/research/Coupling-Function-AMS93.pdf
2) no contradictions were found. If you think so, produce links to papers contradicting me

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 7:12 am

Greg Goodman says:
“Ulric does not yet seem to have this in a form that can be communicated.”
Err, yes I do…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707627

Pamela Gray
August 13, 2014 7:13 am

This is hilarious!!!! Vuk, Ulric, and Henry are keeping their secrets from each other!!!!!
I have a new name for this phenom: Gnostic Solar Theory

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 7:14 am

John: “The CET is currently showing that, to date, 2014 is the warmest year on record”
Well it’s mid August, most of the cold part of the year is still missing , quite what they are showing as 2014 seems undocumented. Also it is pretty obvious they are using this spurious incomplete year to pad out the data to run filter up to the end of data. Also undocumented and fundamentally unsound practice, especially since they even use the same line colour for the fictional padded part of the filter.
The Met Office web site no longer seems to show the SST record as a time series !!!
I wonder why that is .

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 7:26 am

Ulric: Err, yes I do…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707627
So we all have to come round for a cup of tea and sit on your lap while you run through it one astronomic software you have.
Let us know when you have it in a more conventional form of scientific communication. But hurry up because it’s looks like HenryP is about to get the jump on you. He’s got it all figured out 😉

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 7:40 am

Greg Goodman says:
“Let us know when you have it in a more conventional form of scientific communication.”
That is the problem, the conventional form is not suitable, and anyone who wishes to inspect the findings in detail would need their own astronomy program anyway.

August 13, 2014 7:48 am

I wonder why some people insist on not evaluating the data properly. As is obvious by looking at the data the sun had a Grand Maximum last century. Post 2005 the sun is likely in a Grand Minimum so to extrapolate future solar activity based on the Grand Maximum of last century is absurd.
If one post data showing sunspot cycles 19-23 versus solar cycle 24 post 2005 one will see that the sun has under gone a significant change in activity.
The severe solar lull of 2008-2010 was not seen by anyone and is a great example of how absurd it is to try to imply what will happen to solar activity going forward based on solar variations last century. The lull of 2008-2010 did not come close to happening during the recent solar maximum of the last century and because it did not happen then it was assumed nothing of the sort would happen post 2005.
The problem is the denial that solar variability is indeed greater then thought and that a dramatic change in solar activity (variability ) took place post 2005 in comparison to the last century.
Based on what has happened expect solar activity to be much weaker then is forecasted which is based on a bogus premise of forecasting future solar activity based on a period of time when the sun was in an extremely active mode of activity.
Again very foolish and absurd.

August 13, 2014 7:55 am

To carry this further expect the climate to also respond since the sun has gone from an extremely active mode of operation last century to an extremely quiet mode of operation post 2005.
The trend in global temperatures was up when the sun displayed very high activity last century conversely the trend in global temperatures will be down this century as the sun now is once again in a very inactive mode of operation.
The data will bear this out and already is indicating this to be so since the global temperature trend rise has now ended and the atmospheric circulation has now become much more meridional.
Two predictions I made several years ago.

August 13, 2014 7:56 am

Pam has at least something correct in that volcanic activity is a part of why the climate changes.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 7:56 am

Greg Goodman says:
“Well it’s mid August, most of the cold part of the year is still missing ,”
Most of the “cold part” of the year is in Jan & Feb, and the deviations from the average can be greater in the winter, which is why CET is running so warm this year.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 8:02 am

“anyone who wishes to inspect the findings in detail would need their own astronomy program anyway.”
Well I don’t know what you are seeing that you think explains solar activity. I would not be at all surprised to find there is a link to planets in some way. Everyone has astronomy software available in the form of the openly accessible JPL ephemeris. You just need to explain what you are doing and it should be reproducible.

August 13, 2014 8:05 am

“The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs.” – Leif Svalgaard
,
The reality is sunspot activity and solar magnetic activity was at an all time high through out last century and global temperatures responded to that high solar/magnetic activity as expected.
Further lag times are involved due to the accumulation of ocean heat content which was due to the high prolonged solar activity of the last century. This has now come to end and global temperatures going forward will no longer rise but fall. They will no longer be near all time highs while the sun exhibits prolonged minimal activity.
More bad assumptions and a lack of understanding of the climatic system and how it responds.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 8:07 am

Greg Goodman says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 13, 2014 at 6:56 am
reposting this one, stuck in moderation for using the name of he shall not be mentioned….
vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 5:28 am
Greg Goodman says: August 13, 2014 at 5:15 am
I’m trying to take what you present seriously but…
…………..
I don’t, no reason why you should either, … I did say Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all…
===========
Well I agree about that in relation to your rather vague explanations of feedbacks, delays etc. I was inclined to ignore that but the graph looked interesting. A very strong 9.1y peak in some magnetic data would certainly be worth investigation.
So are you also saying that, having linked to this graph on at least half a dozen threads, you are now too embarrassed to provide a usable account of what it was you were plotting as “geo-solar cycle” and we should better forget you ever mentioned it?
I get the impression there’s a rather big “oops” behind all this, that you’re trying to avoid admitting.
Greg

August 13, 2014 8:08 am

More of the same and solar is not any where near my criteria for cooling effect, although overall solar activity has been quite low post 2005 despite this recent maximum of solar cycle 24 which is now in the process of ending. Once it ends solar conditions should approach my criteria over a long duration of time which should start global temperatures on the decline.
What has taken place in year 2005 is a complete change from active to inactive solar activity.
This change in my opinion will be more then enough to have another climatic impact just as is the case when one reviews historical climatic data.
My challenge remains- Which is to show me the data which shows a prolonged solar minimum period being associated with a rising temperature trend or a prolonged maximum solar period being associated with a falling temperature trend.
I find no such data and the same result is going to happen as this decade proceeds.
Already solar activity is falling off and we are no where near the bottom of the solar cycle 24-solar cycle 25 minimum.
I think the data (especially post 2005/prior to 2005 ) supports the view that the sun can be quite variable and this variability can happen over a short period of time as is the case in the first decade of this current century.
Expect climate implications if this prolonged solar minimum keeps advancing going forward.
The problem with so many postings is there is a lack of understanding of noise in the climate system, thresholds in the climate system ,lag times in the climate system and that the climate system is non linear and never in the same state.
Therefore my point (which I have made many time previously) is DO NOT EXPECT an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate. This I have preached but with little fanfare.
Why- look read below.
The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability IS NOT going to have the same given climatic impact.
Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Upshot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
This is why solar/climate correlations are hard to come by UNLESS the state of solar activity goes from a very active state to a very prolonged quiet state which is what has happened during year 2005.
So the nonsense that post Dalton no definitive solar /climate correlations exist just supports my notions of what I just expressed.
Meanwhile, a quiet sun is correlated with a stronger more meridional jet stream pattern which should cause a greater persistence in Wx. patterns which I think is evident post 2005 for the most part.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 8:13 am

Greg Goodman says:
“Everyone has astronomy software available in the form of the openly accessible JPL ephemeris.”
That is not suitable as user defined step time periods are required, on a full heliocentric solar system model, as I explained to Bob Weber earlier.

August 13, 2014 8:14 am

vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:03 am
Your theoretical treatise from 1977, may have been at the time, the corner stone of understanding, then at the end of 2008 NASA’s Themis project comes with the series of observational data that contradict conclusions of your work.
Wrong on two points:
1) my 1977 paper was a observational paper. Modern data fully support the earlier findings: http://www.leif.org/research/Coupling-Function-AMS93.pdf
2) no contradictions were found. If you think so, produce links to papers form the Themis project contradicting me

August 13, 2014 8:34 am

http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
Great info. on solar/climate connections which I subscribe to .

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 8:37 am

Ah look, you’re on the tweety!
(1 in 100 might know that line.)
https://twitter.com/Ulric_Lyons

Originator of Planetary Ordered Solar Theory. The only deterministic long range weather and climate forecasts.
Somerset, England
Joined April 2010

You tweeted a reply back on Jan 2, and before that you retweeted, and retweeted, and retweeted…
Why did the little yellow Tweety bird lose a Twitter war with Sylvester the cat? Too many retweets.
Ah, here’s one, October 23, 2013:
https://twitter.com/Ulric_Lyons/status/392955820368883712
“Arctic sea ice loss is due to negative NAO, the opposite of a warming signal.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/month_nao_index.shtml
So from the heights of 1979 at the start of the satellite record, there was a positive NAO regime during the ongoing extent losses to about 1995… Wait, that can’t be right, you said it was negative NAO.
But then it switched over to a negative regime for the ongoing extent loss from which the ice is only now perhaps starting to recover. Likewise it can be seen it was primarily a negative regime from 1950 to 1979… Preceding the 1979 Arctic sea ice highs.
I think that tweet needs some expanding as to what type of negative NAO signal and when it will bring about the sea ice loss. It’s going negative right now. Will this be another terrible year for the ice?

ren
August 13, 2014 8:43 am

Kadaka
Jupiter, on the other hand, is 318 times as massive as Earth. Therefore, the barycenter of Jupiter and the Sun is a bit further from the Sun’s center. So, as Jupiter revolves around the Sun, the Sun itself is actually revolving around this slightly off-center point, located just outside its surface.
The barycenter “wobble” gives us a way to find planets around other stars.
Thus, a planet the size of Jupiter will make its star wobble a tiny bit. This picture shows you that the center of mass of a star and the barycenter of a star and a planet can be slightly different points.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/barycenter.en.gif
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/

August 13, 2014 8:51 am

ren says:
August 13, 2014 at 8:43 am
Jupiter, on the other hand, is 318 times as massive as Earth. Therefore, the barycenter of Jupiter and the Sun is a bit further from the Sun’s center. So, as Jupiter revolves around the Sun, the Sun itself is actually revolving around this slightly off-center point, located just outside its surface.
Consider a double star system with both stars having the same mass. Each star is then ‘actually’ orbiting their common barycenter which is halfway between the two stars, but an observer on either star would not feel a thing. Orbiting a barycenter position, no matter where, has no effect on either star, or on the Sun [for the Sun-Jupiter system].

ren
August 13, 2014 9:25 am

Jupiter’s Magnetosphere

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 9:33 am

“Orbiting a barycenter position, no matter where, has no effect on either star…”
… insofar as the bodies can be treated as point masses.

ren
August 13, 2014 9:40 am

Saturn’s Highly Complex Magnetosphere.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 9:45 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“Why did the little yellow Tweety bird lose a Twitter war with Sylvester the cat?”
No not all, I don’t like using twitter.
“So from the heights of 1979 at the start of the satellite record, there was a positive NAO regime during the ongoing extent losses to about 1995… Wait, that can’t be right, you said it was negative NAO.”
There was a very positive NAO late 1978 which is why the ice extent peaked then. Cherry picking that start point doesn’t prove anything about the trend up to 1995, why not start earlier in the 1970’s: http://snag.gy/gSIaw.jpg
The Arctic ocean cooled from late 1979 to early 1995: http://snag.gy/mfOI7.jpg
As did the heat content of the high Atlantic:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/4-northern-no-atl.png
The acceleration of sea ice loss is in two steps, from 1995-1998, and from 2005 onwards (albeit with a slight recent respite due to moderately more positive NAO conditions in the last ~2yrs):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 10:01 am

“The acceleration of sea ice loss is in two steps, from 1995-1998, and from 2005 onwards ”
Rate of ice loss was increasing until somewhere around 2007 when it started slowing.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 10:16 am

@kadaka
I forgot the NAO link, increased negative NAO 1995-1998, and 2005 onwards:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif

August 13, 2014 10:16 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2014 at 8:05 am
The reality is sunspot activity and solar magnetic activity was at an all time high through out last century
No so. Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.
Greg Goodman says:
August 13, 2014 at 9:33 am
“Orbiting a barycenter position, no matter where, has no effect on either star…”
… insofar as the bodies can be treated as point masses.

Just make the distance between the stars large enough. For small distances, tidal effects become important, but they do not depend on where the barycenter is, only on the ratio between the diameter and distance.

August 13, 2014 10:18 am

Dr. Svalgaard says: produce a paper !
Greg Goodman says: there’s a rather big “oops” behind all this !
Pamela Gray says: Vuk keeps secrets!
I mention a back extrapolation to 1700, so let’s see how it compares with the AMO/NAO.
There is also Mann’s reconstruction (I’ll show that on another occasion), however the rainfall in British isles is well correlated to the AMO; a stalagmite proxy from Scotland :
(ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt
data scaled down by factor of 4)
correlation with the GSO 1710-1815 looks good, but it totally fails during the Dalton minimum.
Miss Gray tells us it is the burst of volcanic activity, managed to cool instantly the ocean surface, no evaporation in the N. Atlantic no rain, but the geo-solar magnetic oscillations suggest positive AMO for the period.
However, there is another well known N. Atlantic variable, the NAO (often in and out of phase with the AMO), reconstruction from C. Folland –MetOffice
data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/snao-folland2009.txt )
Indeed the NAO-GSO correlation at time of Dalton confirms the fact that Dalton SST fell because of the volcanic eruptions at the time.
Comparison result is shown here:
GSO-AMO-NAO-reconstructions 1700+
Thus:
@ Dr. Svalgaard: I don’t bother with papers, data clearly shows that the Earth’s climate parameters responds to solar magnetic polarity input.
@ Greg Goodman: there’s NO a big “oops” (may be a modest ‘wow’) behind all this !
@ Pamela Gray: No secrets, the Dalton AMO was trashed by volcanic eruptions.
Ms Gray, congratulations; you win this contest.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 10:31 am

Greg Goodman says:
“Rate of ice loss was increasing until somewhere around 2007 when it started slowing.”
These are the steps that correlate to the increased negative NAO episodes:
http://snag.gy/3mgZy.jpg

August 13, 2014 11:05 am

Ren
Thanks for the links.
Intensity of solar activity is closely synchronised with the periods when the Jupiter’s magnetosphere tail (once every 19.6) years links into the Saturn’s magnetosphere.

August 13, 2014 11:05 am

vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 10:18 am
Dr. Svalgaard says: produce a paper !
I said: produce a link to papers from the Themis project that contradicts my earlier findings.
You didn’t do that and you “don’t bother with papers”. I say ‘put up or shut up’.

R. de Haan
August 13, 2014 11:26 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:54 pm
“M Simon says:
August 11, 2014 at 9:52 pm
And yet low sun spot numbers correlate well with periods of cooling.
“Doesn’t look that way to me. The sunspot number is the lowest in a hundred years and the global temperature is at all-time highs”.
Leif, with all due respect but the claim you just made of lowest sunspot numbers in a hundred years and all time global temp records is flabbergasting from my point of view and hopefully also from the view of WUWT crowd.
Your all time high global temperature claim is total BS of course and reflects the debunked hockey stick saga.
Nice to know which doctrine you really support.

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 11:33 am

R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:26 am
Global temperature was higher than now c. 1000, 2000, 3000 & 5000 to 8000 years ago. It was probably also higher during the 1930s-40s, but the books have been thoroughly cooked to a crisp, so can’t be sure.
And of course the Eemian & other previous interglacials were warmer than the Holocene, the Pliocene was warmer than the Pleistocene, the Miocene warmer than the Pliocene, at least parts of the Oligocene warmer than the Miocene, the Eocene a lot warmer than the Oligocene, the Paleocene about as warm as the Eocene and parts of the Cretaceous even hotter still.

August 13, 2014 11:36 am

R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:26 am
Your all time high global temperature claim is total BS of course and reflects the debunked hockey stick saga.
We just need to go back a bit more than 100 years [to stay out of hockey-stick trouble]:
http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/global-land-temperature-reconstructions.png
You want to quibble with the data? The data that some people say support their notion that ‘it is the Sun, Stupid’. Keep me out of that.

August 13, 2014 11:39 am

milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:33 am
Global temperature was higher than now c. 1000, 2000, 3000 & 5000 to 8000 years ago.
What is of interest for this discussion is what the temperature was the past two or three centuries.

August 13, 2014 11:39 am

Greg says
Since you’ve already figured it all out, perhaps you can explain it.
Henry says
This is the same old story. William Arnold picked up on it, 1985, I followed up on it and confirmed it, including the bending points on the ozone decrease/increase, as discussed earlier,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
My results are there for everyone to read, if they want to. Ridicule me if you like, check the worry about that in my eyes?
I suspect Ulric also figured it out, since he is not open and honest with me about it [trying to hide it? until when?]
@Salvatore del Prete;
When you make a comment, tell us whom you are addressing it to. That makes the blog more interesting. Otherwise it looks like you are talking to yourself (using an another alias to answer your positions). Please stop this nonsense
FYI
It is globally cooling, from before the millennium. You should be able to work that out from the formulae at the end of each table;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It is either globally cooling or warming. There is no pause. There is no AGW, as my table for minima shows.

August 13, 2014 11:40 am

Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2014 at 11:05 am
You didn’t do that and you “don’t bother with papers”. I say ‘put up or shut up’.
…………….
Some you win, but this one you loose, science doesn’t stay still, new evidence tramps outdated views.
The evidence is in the data all the way back to 1700, and the NASA says there is the observational evidence as shown in their video presentation

There is also the LOD variability as shown from the data by Jeremy Bloxham from Harvard University, who just happen to be in the Ren’s Jupiter video (further up in the thread).
I hope you aren’t going to accuse him of fiddling the data.
Data here, there, everywhere… your honour the defence calls on ‘R. Feynman v.s. Crown’ case.

August 13, 2014 11:40 am

Greg says
Since you’ve already figured it all out, perhaps you can explain it.
Henry says
This is the same old story. William Arnold picked up on it, 1985, I followed up on it and confirmed it, including the bending points on the ozone decrease/increase, as discussed earlier,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
My results are there for everyone to read, if they want to. Ridicule me if you like, check the worry about that in my eyes?
I suspect Ulric also figured it out, since he is not open and honest with me about it [trying to hide it? until when?]
@SdP;
When you make a comment, tell us whom you are addressing it to. That makes the blog more interesting. Otherwise it looks like you are talking to yourself (using an another alias to answer your positions). Please stop this nonsense
FYI
It is globally cooling, from before the millennium. You should be able to work that out from the formulae at the end of each table;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It is either globally cooling or warming. There is no pause. There is no AGW, as my table for minima shows.

August 13, 2014 11:42 am

Greg says
Since you’ve already figured it all out, perhaps you can explain it.
Henry says
This is the same old story. William Arnold picked up on it, 1985, I followed up on it and confirmed it, including the bending points on the ozone decrease/increase, as discussed earlier,
My results are there for everyone to read, if they want to. Ridicule me if you like, check the worry about that in my eyes?
I suspect Ulric also figured it out, since he is not open and honest with me about it [trying to hide it? until when?]
@Salvatore del Prete;
When you make a comment, tell us whom you are addressing it to. That makes the blog more interesting. Otherwise it looks like you are talking to yourself (using an another alias to answer your positions). Please stop this nonsense
FYI
It is globally cooling, from before the millennium. You should be able to work that out from the formulae at the end of each table;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
It is either globally cooling or warming. There is no pause. There is no AGW, as my table for minima shows.

R. de Haan
August 13, 2014 11:54 am
Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 11:56 am

“Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.”
The totals for each century are nothing like equal.

August 13, 2014 12:26 pm

R de Haan [must be a clever dutchman like me]
says
of Leif Svalgaard:
Nice to know which doctrine you really support.
Henry says
You got that right. Anyone can/should be able to figure out that it is globally cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
and that there is no AGW
following the correct sampling technique
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
but he has to find a way to keep the money rolling [into his pocket]?

John Finn
August 13, 2014 12:34 pm

Greg Goodman says:
August 13, 2014 at 7:14 am
John: “The CET is currently showing that, to date, 2014 is the warmest year on record”
Well it’s mid August, most of the cold part of the year is still missing , quite what they are showing as 2014 seems undocumented.

The coldest months are January and February but that’s irrelevant. The comparison I made is with the Jan-July period of previous years. See here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Every month in 2014 has been 1 to 2 degrees above the 1961-90 mean.

Alan Robertson
August 13, 2014 12:38 pm

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:40 am
“The evidence is in the data all the way back to 1700, and the NASA says there is the observational evidence as shown in their video presentation”
_________________________
You have embedded a video which shows the Solar wind’s interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere is influenced by gravitational effects of a mysterious Planet X.
Did I get that right?

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 12:44 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm
The Met’s books are cooked, but even so, every month in 2014 has been lower than many years during the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the even warmer Roman & Minoan Warm Periods & the long Holocene Climatic Optimum. The majority of years during the Holocene have been warmer than 2014, to say nothing of the Eemian & MIS 11 interglacials.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 12:57 pm

Vuk’ : “Greg Goodman says: there’s a rather big “oops” behind all this !”
No, Greg Goodman says: “I get the impression there’s a rather big “oops” behind all this, that you’re trying to avoid admitting.”
Greg Goodman says: “A very strong 9.1y peak in some magnetic data would certainly be worth investigation.”
But yet again, again, you evade saying what the actual data you call “geo-solar cycle” actually is and refuse to provide a source for whatever it is you are plotting.
I have no idea what your game is, or why you keep popping up these plots of meaningless, unreferenced squiggles in the pretence that it shows something.
There is no logical reason in a scientific discussion that you would so pointedly and repeatedly avoid saying what it is you are plotting. It makes the whole thing without any merit or value.
Unattributed squiggles are of ZERO interest.
Looks like Leif is not far off the mark calling your stuff garbage.

August 13, 2014 12:59 pm

Ulric says
The totals for each century are nothing like equal.
Henry says
from my own particular results, I have only been able to identify the Gleissberg cycle & I know where we are in that cycle. I think I can even estimate how much the variation in earth’s global temp. is within that cycle.
But there is also the DeVries/Suess cycle and perhaps even others
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
I have no idea where we are within that cycle, let alone the others
but I think you can figure it out from the planets……
Makes you wonder, does it not: what if something happens to one of our planets?
Ulric: We’d be dead would we not?

Alan Robertson
August 13, 2014 1:01 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Every month in 2014 has been 1 to 2 degrees above the 1961-90 mean.
_________________
How warm were 2014 months compared to the 1930’s?

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 1:02 pm

John Finn. : The coldest months are January and February but that’s irrelevant. The comparison I made is with the Jan-July period of previous years. See here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Every month in 2014 has been 1 to 2 degrees above the 1961-90 mean.
===
No, the comparison you made was “the warmest year on record”
Have the last 6 months of CET been “the warmest on record”. No.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 1:09 pm
August 13, 2014 1:17 pm

@John Finn
Here you are again
I told you, I fixed that problem. There is no AGW. None whatsoever.
My bet is that AGW will go down in history as a scientific erroneous theory, just like the Phlogiston theory.
Unless you have any idea how we can add it, so that my formula for the deceleration of minimum temperatures still shows 100% correlation?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
see graph at the bottom of the last table.

R. de Haan
August 13, 2014 1:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:36 am
“R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:26 am
Your all time high global temperature claim is total BS of course and reflects the debunked hockey stick saga.
We just need to go back a bit more than 100 years [to stay out of hockey-stick trouble]:
http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/global-land-temperature-reconstructions.png
You want to quibble with the data? The data that some people say support their notion that ‘it is the Sun, Stupid’. Keep me out of that.”
Just giving you my personal opinion.
I am the last person on the world to “quibble” any data unless it has become evidently clear the data has been has rigged.
Appreciate to see you correct your own BS claim about current Global temps.
Saves me the trouble.

August 13, 2014 1:30 pm

vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:40 am
I said: produce a link to papers from the Themis project that contradicts my earlier findings.
You didn’t do that and you “don’t bother with papers”. I say ‘put up or shut up’.
You still didn’t do this and keep waffling about irrelevant [and dumbed down presentations].
Try again.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:56 am
“Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.”
The totals for each century are nothing like equal.

We only have ‘good’ sunspot data since 1759, but we can calculate the means of each half-century since then [using the revised sunspot count]. And we can calculate the spread of those means. The result is 56+/-10, that is how small the variation is. Graphically it looks like this
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png

August 13, 2014 1:32 pm

R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Appreciate to see you correct your own BS claim about current Global temps.
I think the graph I showed gets my point across: solar activity now and a century ago were comparable, but the temperatures were not.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Alan: You have embedded a video which shows the Solar wind’s interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere is influenced by gravitational effects of a mysterious Planet X.
Did I get that right?
====
That seems to be copy of some NASA video with some planet X crap text stuck on the screen which has no bearing to the sound track. Not sure why Vuk linked that unless he’s really losing his grip.

latecommer2014
August 13, 2014 1:46 pm

R Dehaan. It’s time to understand that the temperature record has been rigged, and it is obviously clear. How much proof is needed to understand that documented fact?

August 13, 2014 1:50 pm

Greg Goodman says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm
……………
Re: video
If you listen to second part narrative, all the way to the last sentence, ignoring the NASA’s promotional text, you would find out more about the context of Dr. S’s and mine disagreement.
If you are interested to see what “NASA video with some planet X crap text”, here is link to Science at NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/
Re: GSO
I spent months of research, collecting data, emailing institutions, and worked out calculations and now you demand to be served over to you on a plate.
In 2012 I wrote a paper, which has been accepted by an important European scientific institution, copy was sent to an independent scientist, university climate professor, who number of times appeared in front of US Senate climate panel. Response was absolutely positive, only remark was that it would benefit from condensing and have a wider number of references.
Dr. S calls garbage anything he doesn’t like, but he has an advantage over you here, since he knows exactly what and how I have calculated, but then as Chinese say: the rich man’s garbage is the beggar’s treasure.
Now if you consider yourself in Dr. Svalgaard’s class and join the good doctor in attaching ‘the garbage’ attribute to whatever I write, you are not only entitled but also welcome to do it, but do not demand what you are not entitled to
Good day to you, sir.

August 13, 2014 2:02 pm

I think the graph I showed gets my point across: solar activity now and a century ago were comparable, but the temperatures were not
That gets my point across which was solar activity has been quite active and the temperatures have responded in an upward trend.
In addition if one looks at the graph one will see in the two solar lulls the Dalton and the 1890-1910 period global temperatures were down not up..

August 13, 2014 2:03 pm
August 13, 2014 2:09 pm

As one can see from the global temperature data I have just sent the solar /global temperature connection is quite strong even when solar activity subsides only slightly as it did from 1890-1910.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 2:11 pm

“We only have ‘good’ sunspot data since 1759, but we can calculate the means of each half-century since then [using the revised sunspot count]. And we can calculate the spread of those means. The result is 56+/-10, that is how small the variation is.”
Not that the difference between 46 and 66 is small, but we were talking centuries earlier and not half centuries. The 19th century total is clearly much lower than the 20th century total.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 2:21 pm

From Ulric Lyons on August 13, 2014 at 9:45 am:

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“Why did the little yellow Tweety bird lose a Twitter war with Sylvester the cat?”
No not all, I don’t like using twitter.

You cut off the punchline. Philistine.

Cherry picking that start point doesn’t prove anything about the trend up to 1995, why not start earlier in the 1970’s: http://snag.gy/gSIaw.jpg

Because 1979 was the recognized start of the satellite-based Arctic sea ice records. It’s not cherry-picking. Duh!
You made a horrible choice for picture hosting, it never loaded in its own window. I had to resort to the powerful hacking tool favored by Edward Snowden, wget.
I’m seeing an overlain mash-up of two graphs of completely unknown provenance, while the axes are matched up I have no idea if this is extent or area and if both are the same.
Uh-oh, huckster behavior detected. You stole that from Goddard and denied him attribution. The source he lists gives the left side graph, indicating the compilation is his.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/understanding-the-1979-arctic-ice-cherry-pick/

The acceleration of sea ice loss is in two steps, from 1995-1998, and from 2005 onwards (albeit with a slight recent respite due to moderately more positive NAO conditions in the last ~2yrs):

More huckster behavior with a modified Rorschach test, asking us to see what you say is there. Assuming 1995-1998 was inclusive:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2013/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2014/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1995/to:1999/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/to:2014/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2000/to:2007/trend/
Click “Raw data”. The rate of loss from 2000 up to 2007 was greater than those two periods. And as your chosen regions are straddling peaks, indicating deceleration followed by acceleration for as much as such short periods can show, your choice of periods is quite mystifying.

John Finn
August 13, 2014 2:30 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:44 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 12:34 pm
The Met’s books are cooked,

Rubbish. You have no evidence for your accusation. I have compared the CET record with other station records and there is nothing to suggest the CET data is rigged.

but even so, every month in 2014 has been lower than many years during the Medieval Warm Period,

Again Rubbish. The MWP “temperatures” are based on proxies which are no more reliable than any other proxy. Craig Loehle, Ljungqvist (2010) and Moberg (2005)have all produced reconstructions which show a warmer MWP but the timing of the MWP (according to them) is totally different to the Lamb MWP. They can’t all be right. Also Lamb waffles on about wine production in England during the MWP which supposedly declined after the “MWP”. This was not true. At the beginning of the 16th century (reign of Henry VIII) there were 3 times as many vineyards as there were in the 11th century.

let alone the even warmer Roman & Minoan Warm Periods & the long Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Even less reliable evidence for the Roman warm period. There were good reasons for the Holocene warm period.

August 13, 2014 2:32 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:56 am
“Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.”
The totals for each century are nothing like equal.

Here are the Group Number Record since 1749 http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers-21-yr-Means.png
“R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 11:26 am
Appreciate to see you correct your own BS claim about current Global temps.
Here is the temperature record since 1753 http://www.leif.org/research/BEST-Temperature-Anomaly.png
Nice to know which doctrine you really support.
The above two graphs are what I support.

August 13, 2014 2:35 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:11 pm
The 19th century total is clearly much lower than the 20th century total.
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers-21-yr-Means.png
Why cherry pick precisely a century?

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 2:37 pm

@kadaka
Philistine yourself, there’s no difference between 1981 and 1994, and no difference between 1995 and 2004 :
http://snag.gy/3mgZy.jpg

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 2:40 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Why cherry pick precisely a century?”
You did so here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1708384
quote:
“Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.”

August 13, 2014 2:43 pm

And for the slow-witted who still don’t see it, here are the two graphs combined:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Temperature-Anomalies.png

John Finn
August 13, 2014 2:48 pm

R. de Haan says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Just giving you my personal opinion.
I am the last person on the world to “quibble” any data unless it has become evidently clear the data has been has rigged.

Which data has been “rigged”? Hadley? UAH? RSS? GISS?

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 2:49 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.
The Medieval, Roman & Minoan WPs are warmer than present globally, not just in the CET & other Atlantic reconstructions. Any study trying to show otherwise is a crooked CACA concoction.
For whatever reasons, the Holocene “warm period”, by which I assume you mean its Climatic Optimum, since we’re still in the Holocene, was warmer than now, just as were the warm periods since then, which have been getting cooler. The same is true for other interglacials before the Holocene. Since all these prior periods have been so much warmer than now, why do you imagine that human GHGs explain the current not very warm by historical standards warmth?

Bob Weber
August 13, 2014 2:49 pm

Leif, where can we find your new composite GSN time series data? I’d like to sum the SSN from your reconstruction for each century, to compare each of the past centuries. If the century mark is not the best starting point for such 100 year comparisons, please state your preference.

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 2:50 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm
The adjusted “data” of HadCRU & GISS most certainly have been rigged. The satellite sets, not so much.

Tonyb
August 13, 2014 3:10 pm

John Finn
You talk about vineyards but we need some context. Here is a history of English vineyards
http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/background/history/
The Romans established the vine here. There was a vineyard recorded in Exeter near the present day Met office. Tacitus said the climate was not suitable but it seems to have warmed up later in the roman rule.
Expertise was then mostly lost when the Romand departed as the Anglo Saxons preferred mead and it was not until the last couple of decades of the 11 th century that the French Vikings, the Normans, conquered England and restarted vineyards but the record in the domesday book shows an industry in its very early stages.
The reformation of the monasteries, the black death and the English having ready access to good French wine through their poessions in France all had an effect on vineyard numbers. Better husbandry today together with more time and money make comparisons with past times difficult.
The climate blip in the 13 th and 15 th century would not have helped wine production either
Tonyb

John Finn
August 13, 2014 3:15 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.

I take it you can provide some of this evidence?

milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:50 pm
The adjusted “data” of HadCRU & GISS most certainly have been rigged. The satellite sets, not so much.

Well HadCRU and GISS are not making a very good job of their “data rigging”. Since 1990 the surface trends are both lower than the UAH trend.

August 13, 2014 3:15 pm

Bob Weber says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Leif, where can we find your new composite GSN time series data? I’d like to sum the SSN from your reconstruction for each century, to compare each of the past centuries. If the century mark is not the best starting point for such 100 year comparisons, please state your preference.
You can find it here http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls column F
But what is so special about 100-yr periods? Take e.g. the first half [mean 55.3] and the last half [mean 57.1]. In any case, this is a work in progress and the early part is still subject to revision as we learn more.

John Finn
August 13, 2014 3:21 pm

Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.

Not true. No-one has provided me with any evidence. Someone did give a link to Philip Eden’s “alternative CET readings” but these were higher than the CET readings. I’ve actually checked a number of station records which are either in the CE region (but not included in the CET record) or nearby and I can find no evidence of any deliberate inflation recent CET readings. On the contrary, the CET trend is generally lower than other station trends.

Bob Weber
August 13, 2014 3:26 pm

Leif, I don’t know what is so special about 100yr periods- it’s just what people are talking about here lately, so I thought I’d ask. If 100 years isn’t the appropriate time period for a quasi-periodic ssn analysis, how about 5×22=110 years? Thank you for the link.

August 13, 2014 3:27 pm

vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm
If you listen to second part narrative, all the way to the last sentence, ignoring the NASA’s promotional text, you would find out more about the context of Dr. S’s and mine disagreement.
Which is that you claim that the Themis team has ‘discovered’ things which contradict my earlier research, but you are evading producing links to their papers showing such contradiction.
Dr. S…has an advantage over you here, since he knows exactly what and how I have calculated,
Well, not ‘exactly’ as you are at times inconsistent and less than precise [and you are concerned that somebody will steal your brilliant discoveries and deprive you of the serious income you feel must flow from those], but well enough to classify it as first-rate garbage. I’ll state here for the record, that in my opinion you have never produced anything of any value. Referring to un-named institutions and un-named persons does not help your credibility. If you want consideration you must produce your ‘results’ such that they can be evaluated by anybody.

John Finn
August 13, 2014 3:30 pm

Tonyb says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm
John Finn
You talk about vineyards but we need some context. Here is a history of English vineyards

I don’t talk about vineyards as I agree with most of what you write. Using wine production in England as a proxy for climate is flawed. However, there are plenty of commenters who openly cite Roman and medieval wine production on these blogs.

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 3:33 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Did you forget about or miss all the references on how the Met cooks its UHI adjustments?
I recall them, so wonder why you don’t.

Tonyb
August 13, 2014 3:50 pm

John Finn
Yes, using vineyards as a comparison is difficult as there are so many variables. All it demonstrates is that it was warm enough to grow grapes at some points and it wasn’t warm enough at others but that the variables make it difficult to quantify precise temperatures as far as England goes.
Ladurie however produces a very useful temperature/ grape index for the continent which shows the ups and downs of temperatures over some 500 years.
I carried out my own CET temperature reconstruction back in December 2011
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
I started at the instrumental record of 1659 and am back to 1538 .at the same time I compared the reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb.
I am now working on going back further in time with particular emphasis on the period 1200 to 1350 which exhibits astonishing variability from very cold in parts of the first part of the 13 th century to at least as warm as today in the first decades of the 14 th century. I use the met office archives amongst other sources, as well as Cathedral records.
I hope to have the next article ready covering this period by the end of the year. Research takes a great deal of time as it needs to be correlated with other records
Tonyb

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 3:52 pm

From Leif Svalgaard on August 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm:

Here is the temperature record since 1753 http://www.leif.org/research/BEST-Temperature-Anomaly.png

Ideally it should note BEST is land only, thus only 30% of the globe is represented, at best.
But as the historical SST records are sparse crap with the “datasets” modeled advanced guesswork, BEST land-only may just be the best approximation of a global record to that far back.
Thanks for providing the new Group Number values.

August 13, 2014 3:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm
……………
Hi doc
Although it is none of my business to question either your judgment or your memory, it appears that at least the memory is failing you. You had a copy and delivered a judgment that two magnetic fields can’t mix, but I maintain that the data does imply such possibility.
You also said:
“the video is NASA nonsense of the worst kind”
I suppose that is a grade or two above “ the first-rate garbage”
the attribute ‘the first rate’ is a superior to “the worst kind”
It’s getting late, good night doc.

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 3:58 pm

Tonyb says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm
Look forward to your next releases. Comparing them with Manley’s reconstruction back to AD 800 should prove instructive. Thanks.

Greg Goodman
August 13, 2014 4:04 pm

Vuk says: Re: GSO
I spent months of research, collecting data, emailing institutions, and worked out calculations and now you demand to be served over to you on a plate. In 2012 I wrote a paper, which has been accepted by an important European scientific institution,….”
I do not demand to be served on a plate, I demand to know what I’m being asked to look at.
So now we know that it took months of work but we still don’t know what it is we are looking at.
We now know that it is not a currently available and recognised measurement but is a result of “calculations” based on multiple undisclosed sources of some undisclosed presumably physical measurement.
We now know that you have a paper accepted by an undisclosed but important russian journal, presumably to be printed at some undisclosed point in the future.
We still don’t know whether you will make the mysterious data available once published.
So, it seems like, having evaded about a dozen requests for an explanation of what this “data” represents, you are now implying the following reasons for posting a meaningless graph of an unknown quantity:
1. It is part of on going current research, so it is secret pending publication.
2. You have years of work invested in it so why should you let anyone else have it.
If that is the case what prevented you saying so in reply to my first request instead of persistent evasion. It would have looked more credible, not it just looks like a defensive excuse.
You may wish to add :
3. You do not have the permission of all the institutions who provided the data to make it public.
4. You require signature of a non-disclosure agreement before you will provide the data.
5. There is a “distribution charge” of several hundred euros for the work involved in extracting the data from your database.
6. Why should you let me have it , I only want to find something wrong with it.
I get the picture. I apologise for having wasted your time by taking you seriously. My bad.

August 13, 2014 4:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm
“and you are concerned that somebody will steal your brilliant discoveries and deprive you of the serious income you feel must flow from those”
Missed that bit.
Wrong again, everything has been available with a free access to anyone for about two years now.
I did earn living for number of decades with a world wide known, privately owned company, where nonsense was not tolerated, and now and in foreseeable future have no reason to either solicit, look for or work to earn income.

August 13, 2014 4:11 pm

Greg Goodman says: August 13, 2014 at 4:04 pm
………..
Wrong.
Not Russian journal, but a French science institution.
The rest I will not bother with

John Finn
August 13, 2014 4:12 pm

milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Did you forget about or miss all the references on how the Met cooks its UHI adjustments? I recall them, so wonder why you don’t.

A simple link to one of these references would be useful. However, I’m not interested in opinions or baseless accusations. I will look at data which claims to show that the recent CET record includes spurious UHI warming.
Look – when I first started to become interested in global warming a decade or so back, I tried to look for evidence of UHI and I started with the CET record. I live in the CE region so had access to a number of local station records which were in locations I knew very well. I felt sure I’d turn something up but I soon became discouraged. It became obvious to me that, if there was any UHI influence in the CET record, it was pretty small.
At that time, a number of respectable commenters sceptical of CAGW had been praising the quality of the Armagh Observatory record (as constructed by Butler et al). The Armagh Observatory is located in an area which has been virtually unchanged for 200 years. Armagh is about 200 miles from the CE region. I got hold of that data and found the trends over comparable periods were higher at Armagh than CE.
If the CET record is not adequately compensating for UHI then it should be possible to detect it. Philip Eden has produced an alternative record which supposedly reflects the stations that Gordon Manley used in his original reconstruction. The Eden readings are actually higher than the official CET readings.
By all means provide details of a proper analysis which shows a significant UHI influence in the CET record but don’t expect me to read some rubbish which hints at a “problem”.

John Finn
August 13, 2014 4:41 pm

Tonyb says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm
John Finn
I carried out my own CET temperature reconstruction back in December 2011
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

Tony
I will read this but not on a laptop. I’m going to print it. Do you have a PDF/Word version?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 4:54 pm

From Ulric Lyons on August 13, 2014 at 2:37 pm:

Philistine yourself, there’s…

Wait a moment. What myself? That word is not a verb. I think something was lost in the English-to-English translation.

Philistine yourself, there’s no difference between 1981 and 1994, and no difference between 1995 and 2004 :

Your middle yellow highlighter line actually goes to 2005.
It is strange you are also showing 2006 to present as also being flat, after declaring “from 2005 onwards” to be one of the periods of sea ice loss acceleration.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1981/to:1995/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1995/to:2005/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/to:2014/trend/
And now I’m wondering how you are drawing flat lines through what is clearly not flat. Moreover, why go 1995 to 2004 inclusive, when clearly that section of ice loss extends to 2007 inclusive? Likewise 2008 to 2014 inclusive is another run of ice loss.
Are you picking periods that correspond with the NAO to show the NAO corresponds to ice loss?

Alan Robertson
August 13, 2014 5:51 pm

Vuk says @ 1:50pm August 13, ’14
“Re: video
If you listen to second part narrative, all the way to the last sentence, ignoring the NASA’s promotional text, you would find out more about the context of Dr. S’s and mine disagreement.
If you are interested to see what “NASA video with some planet X crap text”, here is link to Science at NASA…”
_______________________
Good grief!
If the best you could muster was a video to support your claims, couldn’t you at least, have found something without all the Planet X looney- bin bait?
————————————
In other news: Finn is a troll and has appeared in these pages, before. He has never displayed anything but classic troll behavior. Any response to him is wasted effort. He will never play it straight.

milodonharlani
August 13, 2014 6:09 pm

John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Strange that you don’t recall the UHI links posted on this blog, since you replied to them. How hard would it have been for you to find them? But because you’re so helpless, I’ll help you:
Even Dr. Phil has been forced to acknowledge problems, post-Climategate. Somehow you didn’t get the memo:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/16/revisiting-temperature-reconstructions-used-in-climate-change-modeling/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/uk.htm
Re. Armagh:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/uhi-study-of-the-uk-armagh-observatory/
You make people foolish enough to respond to your ranting drivel do the same work over & over again, pretending you didn’t see prior replies, classic trollish behavior.
Clearly Alan has you pegged.
Ignore henceforward.

Ulric Lyons
August 13, 2014 6:34 pm

kadaka said
“Your middle yellow highlighter line actually goes to 2005.”
By about a month, so what, I made it clear that the period that I was referring to was 1995-2004.
“And now I’m wondering how you are drawing flat lines through what is clearly not flat. Moreover, why go 1995 to 2004 inclusive, when clearly that section of ice loss extends to 2007 inclusive?
Because with the data series that I am using, there is no real difference between 1995 and 2004:
http://snag.gy/3mgZy.jpg

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 13, 2014 8:32 pm

From Ulric Lyons on August 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm:

Because with the data series that I am using, there is no real difference between 1995 and 2004:

Wait, we have a varying time series, different trends and curves, and you’re picking endpoints that just happen to have about the same value? Are you nucking futs?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2014/compress:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1981/to:1995/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1995/to:2005/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/to:2014/trend
Raw data, “compressed” to annual averages:
1995 11.5667E6 km^2, 2004 11.3475E6 km^2, difference 0.219200E6 km^2.
2002 11.5692E6 km^2, only -0.0025E6 km^2 difference from 1995.
1995 is two whole orders of magnitude closer to 2002 than it is 2004. Why wasn’t 2002 chosen instead?
Of course back at the Cryosphere Today home page it is clear you are using an area chart, which is using data from NSIDC, while I am using the more-common extent data, which is also coming from NSIDC.
You really should make note you have selected the less-common data that people might not be aware even exists, as extent is the default standard when talking about sea ice.
When you don’t note it as such, people might think you are being deceptive.

August 13, 2014 10:57 pm

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Although it is none of my business to question either your judgment or your memo