The sun is as blank as a billiard ball, solar activity dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years

Guest essay by David Archibald

The latest image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) shows our sun as a blank canvas. No sunspots. Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years

06-30-16-solar-SDO-latest_512_HMIIC

According to NASA’s Spaceweather.com:

Sunspot number: 0

Updated 30 Jun 2016

Spotless Days

Current Stretch: 7 days

2016 total: 11 days (6%)

2015 total: 0 days (0%)

2014 total: 1 day (<1%)

2013 total: 0 days (0%)

2012 total: 0 days (0%)

2011 total: 2 days (<1%)

2010 total: 51 days (14%)

2009 total: 260 days (71%)

 

The last time sunspots vanished for a whole week was in Dec. 2010–a time when the sun was bouncing back from a long Solar Minimum. In this case, the 7 week interregnum is a sign that a new Solar Minimum is coming.

The sunspot cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth every 11-years or so between times of high and low sunspot number.  The next low is expected in 2019-2020. Between now and then sunspots will become increasingly rare with stretches of days, then weeks, then months of “billiard-ball suns.”

The F10.7 flux has been in a disciplined downtrend for nigh on 18 months now. It is now only nine units above the immutable floor of activity of 64:

clip_image002

Figure 1: F10.7 flux 2014 – 2016

We have F10.7 data from 1948. Plotting up the whole solar cycles since then, Solar Cycle 24 has been following Solar Cycle 22:

clip_image004

Figure 2: F10.7 flux of Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 22

In Figure 2 above, Solar Cycle 24 (red line) has been following the activity of Solar Cycle 22 (black line) for the last two years. If it keeps following Solar Cycle 22’s activity, that will make it a weak, short cycle. Strong cycles such as Solar Cycle 22 are generally shorter than average and weak cycles are generally longer. The other solar cycles are shown as dotted lines.

The solar polar field strength divergence continues to build and is unprecedented in the record:

clip_image006

Figure 3: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere

Finally, Figure 4 following shows that the peak of the F10.7 flux in Solar Cycle 24 was in February 2014. The Oulu neutron count duly turned up a year later (inverted in Figure 4) in March 2015.

clip_image008

Figure 4: F10.7 Flux and Inverted Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016

What is interesting from Figure 4 is that there has been a consistent increase in the neutron count relative to F10.7 flux over Solar Cycle 24 relative to the relationship in the previous four cycles.


David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
LoganSix

So, will the new ice age be caused by Global Warming?

Logos_wrench

Yes. Nothing says warming like cooling.

Auto

Logos, Logan,
‘As blank as a billiard ball’
– forgive me, but there are three balls in billiards – Red, and two whites.
The red is indeed spotless.
One of the whites is also spotless.
But the other white is called ‘spot’ [in some parts of the UK, at least] – as it has a noticeable – um – spot.
That said, a spotless Sun – as spotless as a very spotless thing, to paraphrase Blackadder’s wingman Baldrick [played by Tony Timeteam, the leftie actor] – is significant, I gather.
Unhappily, it is likely to mean cooling – so more cold, on average, where it does get cold [in winter, especially!]
I prefer a little warming, thanks.
Please arrange it so.
Action this day.
Auto – a knowledge of billiards does not, necessarily, indicate a mis-spent youth! Honestly!

PA

comment image
I looked at the sun today and could not see the large “1”.
Is the “1” on the other side of the sun currently?

DC Cowboy

Maybe he meant to say ‘cue ball’?

Menicholas

Or a snooker ball?
They have no numbers on them.

MarkW

Yes. No. Maybe.
Do I get a grant now?

LoganSix

I knew I forgot the ‘maybe’ option on my grant application. Oh well, I’ll send in a new one.

Mark from the Midwest

You failed to state that it is “unequivocally maybe.” Remember that the science is settled, and it is important to waffle with absolute conviction.

Winnipeg boy

Yes is all they need to hear. Check please.

Steamboat McGoo

“…it is important to waffle with absolute conviction.”
Stunning insight! LOL

Marcus

..The above comments show what a sad state of affairs scientific research has become !! Thank God we still have WUWT to guide/teach us ( and Janice) !…From an Agnostic persons view !

MarkW, there’s not enough panic in your tone for you to get a grant just yet. I’m sure you can work on that. While you’re at it, wave your arms around a little more. That ought to do it.

Paul Mackey

You forgot “unprecedented”.

Because CO2 is causing uncontrollable warming of the Earth, the strong feedback is sucking all the heat from the Sun (where else is all the heat coming from?), causing it to cool, so of course, CO2 emissions will cause an ice age arising from a cooler Sun.

LoganSix

Wait…is that’s how they sucked the suns energy to the death ray weapon in Star Wars VII?

Cool summers in the Northern Hemisphere could be just as responsible as much as cold winters since all of the new ice and snow fails to melt.
For the Northern Hemisphere the CET is a good proxy, with the 360 year long summer temperatures records, it shows that for most of that time the summer temperatures closely follow changes in the solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs1.gif
Ergo: With sun winding down, the north summers cool, they start late and end early.
“Summer’s lease hath all too short a date.”

Goldrider

We’re already having a cool summer here in New England. The weather in coastal CT has resembled that of upper NH, with nights in the low 50’s, a notable lack of humidity and rain, and days at most a tepid 82F, this in the month just past that normally sees our most intense heat. I’m thinking the shorts will be put away by Labor Day, and the wood stove stokin’ by mid-September. Completely unscientific opinion! 😉

We’re having a cool summer here in old England! Two evenings ago, we had our heating on – the first time (evah!) in late June. It was 14 deg c here in Southern England, with an internal temp of 18 deg c – which automatically brings our heating on, and is our nighttime temp inside.

David Smith

bazzer:
We’re in SE England (London) and we had the heating on too.
All this global warming is bloody chilly!

vukcevic

Mr. Smith
1st of July: is it the Wimbledon weather or is it the late October?

David Schofield

Bazzer, you’ll be amazed to know that June in the UK was 1 degree C ABOVE average,

John law

It can’t possibly be anything else! More windmills needed.

Frederick Michael

Well, we’re going to find out how much impact a big solar minimum has on climate, that’s for sure.

My guess is several big solar minimums in a row have a small but noticeable impact.

george e. smith

Well the earth solid/liquid surface TSI remnant as regulated by cloud modulation, is likely to be fairly stable. If it can deal with the earth orbital eccentricity, it can surely deal with a quiet sun; even with CO2 fluctuations.
G

Pop Piasa

Ageed. The maddening factor is that we humans don’t live long enough to see the substantial global changes which geology and paleoclimatology studies have discovered.

And – If we are lucky we get a test of the hypothesis by IPCC that the sun got virtually nothing to do with variation in global temperature. The sun is the only natural contributor to radiative forcing identified by IPCC, and IPCC has quantified it to be insignificant (See: Changes in solar irradiance in the figure below). The figure below is figure SPM.5 from Summary for Policy makers. It shows the forcing in 2011 relative to preindustrial times in 1750 – which is virtually the end of the little ice age.comment image
It follows from the figure that mankind must unwittingly have succeeded in pulling the earth out from the little ice age. (That is – if the little ice age happened at all – i´m not sure if IPCC thinks it happened or not.)

“And – If we are lucky we get a test of the hypothesis by IPCC that the sun got virtually nothing to do with variation in global temperature.”
Gawww … will this be with the ‘usual’ biased-assessment using thumb-on-the-scale GISS and NOAA tweaked numbers (station data massaged by Thomas Karl and company)?

I´m afraid that might be an issue. I really don´t know which temperature data product to trust. It is remarkable that the best correlation ever found within climate science has been the one found by Tony Heller – near perfect correlation between CO2 and adjustments! – beat that.

emsnews

The global warmists desperately tried to erase the Little Ice Age so I expect them to be in denial during this coming ‘1970’s All Over Again!’

ulriclyons

The 1970’s had a cold AMO, low solar gives a warm AMO because negative AO/NAO is increased through solar minima.

Menicholas

Or not?

Evan Jones

Not so fast. Sounds like an interesting proposition, AMO being a pressure dipole. How does it work? (Also, in 1970, PDO was negative, and it has flipped negative again, by now.)

ulriclyons

Wind control of the AMOC, with negative AO/NAO episodes driving low MOC events, resulting in the warm gulf stream speeding up slightly, and spilling into the N Atlantic and Arctic instead of overturning. E.g. both ends of 2010, summer 2012, March 2013 etc:
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/

tomwys1

The first 30 minutes below is illustrative of what was already known at 2016’s onset. The timing of the orchestrated attack on Dr. Willie Soon was not random.

I think the world will get it right “Sooner” than later!!!

Marcus

…As a Canadian born in the frigid North, I demand “Glob.Bull Warming” to start happening now !! If the N.Y. A.G.’s cannot produce some “Glo.Bull Warming”, I will sue the ^^^^^ out them !!…I am tired of freezing my Canadian balls !

tom,
Very interesting video, thanks for posting. One of the speakers said we may be close to a nuclear war. War or not, I have no doubt that once a radical group gets hold of a nuke, they will use it. That’s somewhat more worrying than the effect of sunspots, no?
The average citizen can’t do much; maybe buy a cheap gas mask for each family member, and some iodine pills (do a search for “nuclear, thyroid, iodine pills”). It’s probably better than nothing… oh, and we can vote, too. That’s something.
The best, and the only effective way to prevent a nuclear war (or any major war) is with a large, strong military: Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you desire peace, prepare for war). Unfortunately, our once great military is being politicized, demoralized, reduced, and starved of materiel support by this Administration.
The Army lost 40,000 soldiers in the most recent purge, and more generals and admirals have been cashiered/forced into retirement for their pro-America views than under all previous Presidents combined. Under Obama they must now pass a litmus test to keep their jobs and rank.
Our most experienced soldiers and sailors are being hounded out, the formerly rigorous standards are being drastically lowered so women and trans-whatevers can pass the physicals, and our 600 ship Navy under President Reagan has now sunk below 200. Parts for the Air Force’s front line jets are being cannabalized from aircraft boneyards, instead of stockpiling the necessary replacement parts.
National defense is the one Constitutional requirement of the federal government that benefits everyone equally. If the country or even a small part of it (such as our military outposts like Diego Garcia) is lost because of a stronger opponent, that would negatively affect everyone. Needless to say, any kind of nuclear exchange, even a very limited one, would be totally devastating to the country.
Malcolm X said that ‘power never retreats, except in the face of greater power’. The old Soviet Union is once again ascendant. Putin is flexing his muscles as usual, and China is doing its usual barking. But this time it’s not a bluff: as the U.S. military continues to decline under Obama’s direction, Russia’s and China’s military continues to grow rapidly.
The gutting of our national defense must be reversed. Human nature being what it is, if the leadership of a country with a strong military perceives its opponent as being weak and demoralized, they will push for more and more. They will take what they can unless they’re stopped. If they cannot be stopped, they will take it all. Any other conclusion is just wishful thinking.
The U.S. military is as weak now as it was on the eve of WWII, and the erosion continues. But there is no President FDR working behind the scenes to rebuild it because the public doesn’t want a strong military. Now it’s reversed: the public wants a strong military.
Now it’s the President who continues to give away the store; national defense secrets are kept on a private, unsecured server in a Cabinet member’s basement. Four Defense Secretaries in a row have quit the Administration for unexplained reasons. NATO is neglected, and the UN is filled from top to bottm with America-haters.
The money that should fund our defense is being diverted to windmills, and to dozens of companies like Solyndra, and wasted on grants to ‘study climate change’. Taxpayer dollars that once kept up our large defense organization are now being spent on things unrelated to the defense of our country — plus $Trillions more in a fast-rising national debt that goes for anything except defense, and which will have to be repaid first.
If a neutral, outside observer came here from Mars, watching this situation might cause it to think that a true Manchurian Candidate must have won the last two elections.
But that’s just stuff that a ‘conspiracy theorist’ would mention.
Everything is fine, really. Probably. Maybe. So don’t worry, be happy…

You might consider that these sorts of things are the natural result of a Kondratieff Cycle bottom.
https://www.hotgas.net/2016/05/the-ins-and-the-outs/

Into in the vid: Executive Intelligence Review – LaRouche Publications
“Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) is a weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 by the American political activist Lyndon LaRouche”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Intelligence_Review
Tread lightly with that one, dbs …

catcracking

Thanks for the link, very good presentation

Severian

Most of the government provided temperature record is so corrupted and continues to be manipulated that the temps will not be seen to respond to this by going down even if they really do. The only hope is the UAH record as they aren’t true “believers” in AGW but maintain a data driven not ideology approach.

Evan Jones

Couple of points.
I have had a game-designer’s eye view of the NOAA adjustment process and have been up to my eyeballs in the data, both raw and in various stages of adjustment. And the metadata.
I think NOAA is loose in the joints and is subject to two serious, significant systematic errors. But I do not think they are dishonest. This is not fraud, It is error.
This sort of error is easy to make. It is the same sort of error I have often made. In fact, our team made very similar errors in our original Fall (2011). So I cannot in any good faith presume dishonesty on the part of NOAA.

John Harmsworth

So what are the two errors you detect?

Philip Schaeffer

Can you provide some details? What is the nature of the error, and how far out are their results, as a result of the error?

I found this rather confusing: “What is interesting from Figure 4 is that there has been a consistent increase in the neutron count relative to F10.7 flux over Solar Cycle 24 relative to the relationship in the previous four cycles.”
It seems that the neutron to 10.7 flux ratio decreased.

Oops, I just reviewed the graph again. The label is Inverted Neutron Count.

Resourceguy

All the cycles with vastly different periodicity are lining up (down in this case). They are Solar, AMO, and ENSO. You have maybe two years to prepare individually, while public policy moves rapidly in the opposite direction with public funds and public debt. The resulting train wreck will be labeled “who could have known” or “AGW caused this too.”

Or “look how successful we are! We saved you from global warming. Now give us more money to save you from global cooling”.

DC Cowboy

COP21 saved us! Let’s get the Chinese & Indians to agree to do more nothing and give them money besides.

Matt G

The many numerous spotless days brought back the UK cold winters and have receded again with the increase in activity after. Speculation by the alarmists was the low Arctic sea ice caused this, but we have had relatively low Arctic sea ice over last few years and it’s had no influence on UK winters. It was no coincidence the annual CET was it’s coldest for decades during 2010, just after one of most spotless years in recent decades.
My prediction is when the numerous spotless days resume again, the UK will get back it’s cold winters. This winter will probably be too soon for spotless days to influence with the lag. If there is strong La Nina by Autumn, 2016/17 can be ruled out, but more likely 2017/18 instead. A UK cold winter is also dependant on the ENSO not being strong in ether direction.because it infuences the QBO too much.

ulriclyons

The low Arctic sea ice and the cold UK winters are both the result of increased negative AO/NAO, due to weaker indirect solar forcings.

Matt G

I do agree that a more negative AO/NAO relatively lowers Arctic sea ice, but it is influenced significantly more by the AMOC and therefore AMO.

Retired Engineer John

Even though we have had 7 days of no sunspots, we still have some areas of plages. How long will it take with no sunspots for these plages to disappear? Are the areas of plages the source of the increased extreme ultraviolet that we see during solar max and are they the result of energy in the sun being blocked by sunspots?

coolclimateinfo

“How long will it take with no sunspots for these plages to disappear?”
According to the monthly Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) F10.7cm & Ap index forecast, the latest one issued June 6 (the next one will be out in about one week), ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/Predict.txt, F10.7cm flux will drop below a monthly average of 64 sfu possibly in as soon as two years, using their “low” range, in three years using their “predicted” range (the middle), and into 2020 using their “high” range forecast.
My opinion is F10.7cm will reach 64 sfu sooner rather than later.
June F10.7cm is ending at 82 sfu/day, almost 10 sfu/day lower than the SWPC June “low” range forecast of 91.4. This month marks the fourth month in a row actual monthly F10.7cm was below the SWPC “low” range forecasts, indicating that obviously the sun’s activity is declining more rapidly than the forecast specialists first thought earlier this year.
“Are the areas of plages the source of the increased extreme ultraviolet that we see during solar max and are they the result of energy in the sun being blocked by sunspots?”
Part one, yes. Part two is more complicated. TSI can bump up slightly when the sunspot number drops to zero all except during the actual solar minimum period, such as during 2008/9, because the sunspot area(s) actually reduce TSI while the active network counterbalances TSI upwards. When both sunspots and F10.7cm are at a minimum, we’ve reached the solar minimum.
Judith Lean et al have used this basic idea to reconstruct TSI back to the Maunder minimum. I daily examine all solar indices together and regularly witness the give and take between SSN, F10.7, and TSI.
TSI has mostly ranged between 1360.5 and 1362.5, a 2W difference. If June TSI comes in the way I think it will, we will have had three months in a row of TSI averaging just below 1361, clearly in the bottom 25% of the SORCE TSI range. http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Of special note the SWPC has forecast possible F10.7cm values of 60 sfu, from their “low” forecast range, starting in 2018 through 2019. Should that actually occur, we will be breaking new ground into the lowest monthly F10.7cm values since 1947. That would mean an eventually lower TSI than the ‘usual’ ground state of 1360.5 at the solar minimum.

coolclimateinfo

Minor mistake – the SWPC forecast is for sunspot numbers and F10.7cm.
I also use the Air Force’s daily 45 day F10.7cm & Ap index forecast. http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/45-day-ap-forecast.txt

Retired Engineer John

Thank you, Bob

Latitude

I’m beginning to think our “science” has advanced just enough to give me a headache…..

Steve R

Could this be evidence that our sun is about to supernova? Maybe its time for astrophysicists to wrestle the reigns of doom away from the climate scientists.

Steve Fraser

‘Reigns of doom’… I like the play on words!

Eugene WR Gallun

Steve R — Hilarious! — Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Hey, a new word to describe Clinton’s lies — Hill-larious??

BFL

The Clinton News Network thinks all her lies are Hillarious…

ClimateOtter

Steve R — Hilarious! — Eugene WR Gallun
Sun: *BOOM!*
(well, you never know…)

Don’t tell those pushing the EU – they’ll blame it on brexit!

AZ1971

What is the significance of “the immutable floor of activity of 64” in the F10.7 flux record?

PA

http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
The umbral magnetic field, pre-1990 is assumed to be above 3000.
It has been declining as long as we have been measuring it. 1500 gauss is the point at which sunspots cease. The less than 2000 gauss current level is the reason for the current anemic solar cycle.
The good news: CO2 forcing against solar forcing mano-y-mano. We will actually get to see which influence is stronger.

Tom in Florida

I do not believe they cease, they simply cannot be seen at less than 1500 gauss.

PA

Here is an actual discussion of the topic.
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Penn2.pdf
The “umbral magnetic field” is the average maximum of a distribution. So in theory if you were at 1500 gauss you would see half as many sunspots.
Back when the UMB was 2500 the distribution was +- 900 gauss and presumably no sunspots were suppressed.
There is this though: “Schad & Penn (2010): power law relation from Bill’s data between IR B and intensity extrapolates to quiet Sun intensity at 1463 +/- 13 Gauss”
Oh, you said ” do not believe they cease/cannot be seen”. Well, yeah, that’s true.
But a magnetic disruption can’t be seen is in the “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound” catagory.

Tom in Florida

Perhaps semantics at play. As I understand it, at less than 1500 gauss the temperature difference between the spot and the surrounding plasma is reduced so a dark spot cannot be seen however the magnetic action is still there.

littlepeaks

Thanks for showing the umbral magnetic field intensity chart again. Do you know if there is a website where you can look up the umbral magnetic field intensity of a current sunspot? Looks like determining the umbral magnetic field intensity is a complex task.

PA

Not that I am aware of. There should be information on some spots that are being studied.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027311771500616X
It seems they determine the field strength by looking at the iron (FE) emission lines.
This article also notes that “It was shown that for sunspots of 22–44 Mm, the average annual strengths in umbra vary in the range of 2100–2900 G.” So there must be a size to strength rule of thumb.

Evan Jones

The good news: CO2 forcing against solar forcing mano-y-mano. We will actually get to see which influence is stronger.
With trying to establish one if the other is unknown is not so easy. (With a little luck and pluck, maybe not impossible at least to get a gauge on it — but at what MoE?)

PA

Well, we don’t know the total effect of an increase in solar activity in terms of watts per meter. We have crude measures of the EM portion of the energy contribution.
We don’t know the actual CO2 forcing. The measured direct forcing is about 1/6 the worst case ECS.
However all the post 1950s warming (110%) is supposedly due to GHG.
A 100+ year low in solar activity should in theory lead us back to pre-1900 temperatures.
Global warming theory says that increasing CO2 is like twisting the oven know and we are twisting it further than at any time in history.
The solar and GHG claimants can’t both be right. Either the temperature will go up – pleasing the alarmist, the temperature will go down, pleasing the sun worshipers, or the temperature will remain the same, pleasing the rest of us.
If the temperature remains the same, well, global forcing has an effect but it is mostly of scientific interest and not a concern. If the ocean starts cooling but the land keeps warming, that would indicate that much of the anthropogenic land warming is unrelated to GHG.

Pamela Gray

hmmm. I really don’t see anything unusual about this slide to solar minimum. Nor do I see anything tracking it regarding our current weather patterns.
Some have spoken of cloud nucleation while the Sun is quiet. This would have an impact were it visible. Since cloud nucleation is an immediate response without any kind of significant lag (just as Earthly measures to seed aerosols and water vapor has no lag), the 11 year solar cycle would also modulate the cloud index. Does it? You would have to mathematically tease that out with microscopic calculations because the intrinsic water cycle, sourced from the oceans, would have a far greater effect.
Some have spoken of solar irradiance decreases. That topic has been put to bed. The change from solar sunspots-everywhere maximum to solar nospots-anywhere minimum has been directly measured and translated into W/m2. No dice. While there is a change, it is not enough to rise above intrinsic weather pattern temperature variations that do not follow the solar cycle.
The portion of atmospheric CO2 put there by human industrial activity is also very tiny. It barely rises above the measly change in solar irradiance from maximum to minimum, and at best would simply speed up the water cycle, releasing heat to the upper atmosphere as increased evaporation turns to rain.
So if incoming energy is fairly constant, it must have been getting stored and is now being released. And in copious amounts. What on Earth serves as a storage battery large enough to hold that much energy?????
This is what worries me. If indeed the oceans serve as that storage battery, once you open up the valve and begin letting that heat out, you can’t recycle it and put it back in. At least not anywhere near the amount that was initially released. I can only hope that somehow the oceans are replenishing what they are losing.

coolclimateinfo

You don’t know what you’re talking about whatsoever.

Pamela Gray

I welcome the debate if you would be so kind to direct me to which part? Or shall we discuss all of them in sequential order?

KLohrn

The greatest exponential effect of TSI is at incoming Earth’s thermosphere.
Can’t touch this.

Willis Eschenbach

Pamela Gray June 30, 2016 at 10:29 am

hmmm. I really don’t see anything unusual about this slide to solar minimum. Nor do I see anything tracking it regarding our current weather patterns.
Some have spoken of cloud nucleation while the Sun is quiet. This would have an impact were it visible. Since cloud nucleation is an immediate response without any kind of significant lag (just as Earthly measures to seed aerosols and water vapor has no lag), the 11 year solar cycle would also modulate the cloud index. Does it? You would have to mathematically tease that out with microscopic calculations because the intrinsic water cycle, sourced from the oceans, would have a far greater effect.

Pamela, always good to hear from you. I looked at the question of the ~ 11-year or ~ 22-year solar activity cycle in the largest collection of ground-based cloud data I know of in the following post:

Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01
So once again, I have donned my Don Quixote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…

I looked at records from a total of 192 different locations around the US. I found no sign of a solar influence. There was no significant signal at either ~ 11 years or ~ 22 years as people have predicted from theory. This was true for both individual stations and for the average of the stations.
All the best,
w.

Pamela Gray

Hi Willis. I agree entirely with your comment. Like I said, microscopic calculations of potential cosmic ray seeding modulation on clouds. Direct observations can’t detect it. Reminds me of trying to find a lost needle, not in a haystack, but floating with space junk.
As contrast, actual seeding, under controlled parameters, increased precipitation by 3% with a near 30% chance it would have rained anyway. Now use the tiny change in nucleation that cosmic rays “might” do, and we have here a dead case for cosmic ray modulation of cloud seeding.
http://wwdc.state.wy.us/weathermod/WYWeatherModPilotProgramExecSummary.html

george e. smith

Willis; I don’t remember if you have addressed this or not.
Does the total SURFACE solar energy that makes it past the clouds, for the total earth, show any annual (seasonal) cycle ??
If the solar cycle P-P TSI change over the 11 years is only about 0.1% of the mean value, the earth orbital radius, must give a much bigger daily TSI change than 0.1%.
In other words; how effective is the cloud modulation in keeping earth’s total surface solar energy budget constant over the seasons ??
G

Clyde Spencer

Willis,
I have done Fourier analyses of temperature records with different temporal resolutions and different time spans and they all show approximately 22-year and smaller 11-year periodicities. What did I do wrong?

henryp

It is as you determined it to. But you missed a few others.

Clyde Spencer

If you meant that there are other periodicities, then yes, of course. But the only stronger periods were very long ones, longer than the post-industrialization time that has elapsed. The periods representing noise were literally down in the ‘noise.’

RH

The cloud data are limited to 10,000 feet and below, correct? At least as far as the NWS ASOS data are concerned.

MarkW

Another possibility is that the thermal inertia etc, of the earth/sea system forms a low pass filter that is longer than 11 years.
That is you need several weak cycles or strong cycles in a row before the climate reacts to it.

“The cloud data are limited to 10,000 feet and below, correct? At least as far as the NWS ASOS data are concerned.”
satellite cover all of it.
I did the same thing as willis with a different satellite.. clouds from 1000 hpa to the top of the atmopshere
NOTHING
here is a clue… There is enough CCN from trees and dust etc.. to explain all the clouds you see.
there is no strange anomalous cloud behavior that demands GCR explanations..
and if you are not seeing clouds its from lack of enough water vapor.. not a CCN deficet

Noel Davies

Willis
I am a great supporter of your posts generally and have and am sympathetic to the view you expressed above. The only caveat I would have is that the earths weather and climate tends to exhibit a fair dose of thermal inertia which means that if (and I reinforce if) the sunspot or solar activity cycle is significant it may take a while for the effect to appear in global temperature data – Let’s see how things ubfold.
At the same time I urge you to have a look at the abnormal rain and cloud behavior occurring off Australia’s north-west coast (Pilbara coast). I sent a message on another site suggesting your analytical brain may be able to deduce some support for your clouds/thunderstorms regulating tropical temperatures theory which I strongly support. Mother earth is into homeostasis.
Noel Davies

Duster

Noelle, the point that Pamela, Willis and Mosher are making is that there is no detectable signal. Svensmark’s hypothesis is parallel to the “CO2 as a climate control knob.” It makes sense based on laboratory evidence but once you enter the realm of natural phenomena, the “sense” gets lost in the noise. There is a lot more going out doors than in a lab and with being able to actually fully enumerate and quantify all those effects, an experimental result is simply that. One of the major problems in science is that of confirmation bias. And walking out of a lab with a shiny, “strong” result seeds not clouds bu expectations.

@Clyde Spencer
“I have done Fourier analyses of temperature records with different temporal resolutions and different time spans and they all show approximately 22-year and smaller 11-year periodicities. ”
Have you published and/or posted this on the web?
Has Willis addressed your claim?

Clyde Spencer

metamars,
I have not published my results. It was something I stumbled on while trying some filtering approaches. Willis claims he does not get the same results and does not see any nominal 11/22 cycles.

looking at the solar magnetic field strength:comment image
strictly speaking you see the Schwabe starting cycles 1969-1980
Schwabe is the half Hale cycle.
The whole Hale cycle is when the sun completes the whole plus and minus cycle starting 1969-1990
You can also see the half Gleissberg cycle, namely 1971-2014
don’t pay too much attention to SSN,
especially not too far back in the past

don’t pay too much attention to SSN
The sunspot number is a VERY good measure of solar activity on the longer timescale.
Gleissberg himself ‘discovered’ his cycle using sunspots from past centuries.

true enough
but he was looking at the original data
not the corrected data….
(does that sound a bell to what is happening with the T record now, seeing that we are globally cooling, rather than warming)

The corrected data does not change the timing of maxima and minima, so makes no difference to cycles.

Steven Mosher June 30, 2016 at 8:06 pm:
satellite cover all of it.
I did the same thing as willis with a different satellite.. clouds from 1000 hpa to the top of the atmopshere
NOTHING

maybe, when looking at gross effects.
I’ve noticed that IR imagery (used for nighttime cloud detection) does not do so well with low-level warm cloud decks for instance. Sometimes hard to tell a low cloud deck from ground.
#2. Imagery is taken at what – 1/4 to 1/2 hr intervals? So your conclusion would not consider ‘effects around the edge’ vis-a-vis if there is any marginal changes in rate of cloud formation. So, depends on your granularity of the time series.
Remember, these effects, in many cases, including CO2 warming effects, are effects around the margin as opposed to ‘gross’ or wholesale effects.

rbabcock

Unless the oceans are getting heated from below.

PA

The North Atlantic is said to be the saltiest sea water on the planet. This is it’s temperature trend.comment image
I don’t see a lot of mention of this – but if the densest ocean water is getting colder presumably the ocean depths are getting colder.

PA

Well that actually is heat content but if the heat content is going down the temperature is going down.

Javier

The baseline of this graph probably represents how the oceans of the Earth have been getting progressively colder during the current Quaternary Ice Age.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/LR04b_zpsqfndq0yr.png
Since about 800,000 years ago the oceans are not cooling anymore, but they are so cold now (about 3.9°C average temperature) that is very difficult to get the planet out of glacial conditions, and hence temperature oscillations have a higher amplitude and lower frequency.
During an interglacial like the Holocene the oceans don’t have enough time to warm significantly. All this talk about the oceans storing a huge amount of heat equivalent to millions of nuclear bombs is bullshit. They are a huge very cold thermal sink.
Peak obliquity took place 9500 years ago, a quarter of a cycle has past. The oceans will continue to warm for some time, but the planet has started its slow return to glacial conditions. However we live so briefly that we can spend several generations in a short warming trend of a few centuries.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Figure%2035_zpsf4vksezw.png
We should not worry about the oceans getting warmer. It will take millions of years of warming the oceans to take the Earth out of the Quaternary Ice Age.

MarkW

I don’t remember the exact number, but it takes several months for changes in the sun’s magnetic field to propagate all the way out to the heliopause.

More than a year, in fact

Clyde Spencer

This may be getting a little off topic, but doesn’t anyone find it interesting that magnetic fields apparently don’t propagate at the speed of light? Light reaches Earth in about 8 minutes. So, I would presume that what we are observing is what is known as dispersion with wavelength of the refractive index.

I would presume that what we are observing is what is known as dispersion with wavelength of the refractive index
Not at all. What we are observing is that the magnetic flux is tied to the plasma [Alfven got his Nobel Prize for showing us how], and since the plasma takes four days to get from the Sun to the Earth, the magnetic field also takes that long.

PA

The magnetic fields (as I understand it) are a result of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence in the sun. Internal convection in the sun is probably 2-20 m/s.

No, much faster: 500 m/sec

Actually, the speed depends on the depth. My 500 m/s is for the upper layers. Averaged over the entire convection zone the speed is somewhat lower: more like 70-100 m/s.

PA

100+ m/s???
1-3 m/s on Venus is the equivalent of an earth hurricane.
100+ m/s per second at much higher density is an unimaginable amount of power.
Surprising given the sun energy output per unit volume is about the same as a basic human.

Except that the outer layers of the Sun are very tenuous, a lot thinner than ordinary air. The flow in the granules have a speed of up to 2000 m/s.
And the Sun’s energy production per unit [mass or volume – makes no difference] is many orders of magnitude smaller than that of a human being.

PA

The solar average is 141% of the density of water.
A gas ball that on average is heavier than heavy water isn’t very tenuous.

Most of the solar mass is concentrated in the small core. The rest of the Sun is very tenuous.
This Figure shows the density of the solar interior. At the bottom of the convection zone the density is only one tenth of that of water, and near the surface we can see, the density is only a ten-thousandth of water, ten times thinner than the air you breathe, tenuous indeed:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Matter-Density.png

PA

Well…
Surface Density Earth: 0.001217 g/cm3
Surface Density Venus 0.067 g/cm3
Density water 1 g/cm3
The sun is denser than the Venus atmosphere out to about 0.9 radii.
A 33 m/s (119 km/h) hurricane on earth has an energy per cm3 of 0.00067 joules. This is about the same as a 4.5 m/s hurricane on Venus or at the 0.9 radii point on the Sun. At the density of water (1 g/cm3 or the 0.55 radii point) the equivalent hurricane is about 1.15 m/s.
It takes enormous amounts of energy to drive convection in dense atmospheres.

First of all the Sun’s atmosphere is not dense, second, the sun has lots of energy.

Clyde Spencer July 2, 2016 at 9:57 am:
“This may be getting a little off topic, but doesn’t anyone find it interesting that magnetic fields apparently don’t propagate at the speed of light?”
Violation of Maxwell if true. This would also be news to a lot of us doing antenna (EM ‘fields and waves’) work,

Thoughtful, interesting comment.
How MUCH change in W/m2 insolation effect translates to how much temperature change? Is it my prejudice or did the human-haters really say 4 W/m2 would increase temps 2.2C plus amplification?
If space is no more than 3K aren’t we 285K warmer? Can’t be a linear relation but the dividend is under 5.
Over how much time does the change occur, loosely, how long would it take to give off the energy to space or store an increase?
Finally, the comparative storage of the hydrosphere is nearly 1100 time that of the atmosphere. Over decades a cooler ocean would release less heat to the air and lower the thermometer readings.
Your expanded view would be enlightening, I think. It does seem small changes should have small effects.

The 3K cold of space temperature meme is pretty irrelevant . The best temperature to be assigned to a point in space is that given by StefanBoltzmann for the total power impinging on the point .
In our orbit that comes almost totally from the 5 millionths of the celestial sphere subtended by the ~ 5800K disk of the Sun , ie : the TSI . That works out to the 278.5+-2.3 of a uniform gray ball in our orbit , around 4 or 5 Celsius .
That this is the relevant temperature for any calculation was somewhat demonstrated by the Apollo 13 disaster . They quickly got cold , down to about that 4c temperature . But were the temperature of the space around them the endlessly parroted 255K , -18c , they would have been ice cubes well before they got back to Earth .

Jim G1

“If indeed the oceans serve as that storage battery,”
I say it makes sense that 70% of the earth’s surface covered to an average depth of 12, 000 ft is going to have a big effect……somehow.
” once you open up the valve and begin letting that heat out, you can’t recycle it and put it back in. At least not anywhere near the amount that was initially released”.
Why not? It may need to happen on geologic time frames, however. Scary.

Jim G1

This was for Pamela, don’t know how it got here!

“Battery” (chemical storage of energy) – or JUST a really large thermal (no chemical – energy storage changes) mass? The two are distinctly different …

John Harmsworth

Covers quite a bit of the ground of potential medium term climate effectors, Pamela. On the question of ocean heat reserves, do we know enough about ocean temperatures to say whether long period flows and upwelling might bring enough SST change on a regional basis (say, Western Pacific), to effect global temps on multi- decadal time frames?

Pamela Gray

My answer is based on how much heat the oceans release before they go into long term net absorption. This is a wicked question because of confounding factors. That heat is not well mixed. Cooler and warmer waters ride on currents. Some are on the top, some are under the surface, some are relatively vertical, and some are relatively horizontal. What I don’t know is whether or not it is total heat absorbed and released that sets the swings or only for example, the equatorial basins that matter. Or maybe it’s a changed difference in heat content between oceanic regions that matters and not the total joules in certain areas or globally.
I wonder if there is a proxy somewhere that examines oceanic currents during the previous 800,000 years worth of ups and downs. Because continental positioning has been relatively static during this same time period, maybe we need only one full stadial-interstadial cycle (the last one?) of up, down, and back up proxies of what-were-the-ocean-currents-doing, to suggest the relationships and have a stab at figuring it out.
Here’s is what my gut tells me about controlling it. Can’t be done. We can only try to survive it.

Pamela Gray

There are suggestions that the down slope towards ice advance stadial is dryer than the interstadial top, and ice advance is less because of precipitated snow and more because of rivers freezing up which causes flooding and freezing build-up. If we know what a current wet versus dry regime looks like in terms of ENSO oceanic and atmospheric patterns and concurrent flora/fauna marine and land responses, then land based flora proxies would be preferable to ocean based flora and fauna. I speculate that ocean productivity is tempered compared to land productivity when looking for these trends. Besides you might be plumbing proxies that reside in a current that may not change much compared to other oceanic currents. It may also be the case that currents appear and disappear in response to heat loss or gain. It just seems better to concentrate on land proxies to suggest oceanic currents and ENSO conditions.

Duster

Pamela, the shift between the Pleistocene and Holocene is marked.by a very definite change in the sign of the correlation between temperature (as measured by various proxies) and precipitation as measured by ice accumulations in Green and in in Antarctica. During the Pleistocene the correlation is positive, which suggests the planet is so cold that evaporative processes are absolutely constrained by insolation. In short there is no excess heat stored on the planet in any significant form. Around 10 to 8 kya the sign switches to a negative correlation. Temperatures decrease and ice accumulations increase. Willis wrote two posts about this a while back, well I believe he focused on the Pleistocene pattern. However that change in sign could be a very important clue to how glacial epochs are initiated.

Tom in Florida
DWR54

Is this the same David Archibald who predicted global cooling following the onset of solar cycle 24?: http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf
As predictions go, not exactly a runaway success: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2008/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

Willis Eschenbach

At least David has had the albondigas to make a testable prediction, viz:

Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.

However … so far no sign of that.
w.

Willis Eschenbach

Thanks for your work in preparing a very clear post, David. However, I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, solar cycle 24 is a very weak cycle, just as was predicted over a decade ago by Leif Svalgaard.
As you point out, this is the weakest solar cycle in a hundred years or more, again just as Leif predicted. However, we are not experiencing the coolest temperatures in a hundred years. Nor are we seeing the greatest cooling rate in a hundred years. In fact, despite the decrease in solar activity, as near as we can tell the earth is not currently cooling at all.
So I’m not clear what the main point of your post is, unless it is to demonstrate how little effect the variations in solar activity have on the climate …
w.

coolclimateinfo

You don’t know what you’re talking about whatsoever.
You’re the guy who wrote umpteen articles about TSI, and you still fail to grasp the significance of the following from SORCE TSI:
Year 1au TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2012 1361.2413
2016 1361.1115
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
You and Pamela are simply Leif’s disciples, spreading his bogus ‘gospel’. You might as well call yourselves warmists.

Tom in Florida

Bob perhaps you could explain the significance of an increase of less than 1 W/m2 over the 14 year period you show.

Pamela Gray

Let me try to preempt answers. Let’s take less than 1% change in W/m2. Way less. Use only a part of the the total spectrum that makes up solar W/m2 by using only a part of the frequency spectrum. That part then does something to something (clouds, oceans, jet streams, did I forget any?). Then something amplifies the tiny wiggle, likely followed by something else that amplifies it, and abracadabra: Climate Change.

RHS

So Bob, what is your point? Is it that you can spout numbers without a conclusion?
I see from your limited post that TSI has been slightly increasing, but no info on correlation or a conclusion or importance to anything.
In short, this isn’t very different than showing the more you practice darts, the better you get.

george e. smith

So Bob, I will take it as gospel truth that the 2008-2015 TSI numbers are exactly as you posted.
However, it is my understanding (largely from reading Dr. Svalgaard) that TSI is measured from a satellite or several satellites.
That it entirely outside the earth weather / climate system.
To affect either our weather in any location on earth, or the climate in any location on earth, that variable TSI which you have tabulated (thank you), has to run the gauntlet of the earth’s cloud and atmospheric system, before it can interact with the liquid and solid surfaces of the planet to create weather or climate changes.
I get a P-P TSI fluctuation of 0.06568 % of the mean from your tabulation.
Such a change in an ideal black body radiator total radiant intensity, would imply a BB Temperature difference of about 47.3 milli-deg. Celsius.
So if cloud modulation has any measurable attenuation of TSI fluctuations, one would expect to get less than 47.3 mdeg. C over the solar cycle, for a nominal mean earth Temperature of 288 K.
I don’t see how that is even perceptible in surface measurements over the eleven year solar cycle.
G
PS I DO have some understanding of what I am talking about; more than half a century of it.

Willis Eschenbach

Bob Weber June 30, 2016 at 11:07 am, to me

You don’t know what you’re talking about whatsoever.

Bob Weber June 30, 2016 at 10:51 am, to Pamela

You don’t know what you’re talking about whatsoever.

Man, that’s pathetic—you’re reduced to copying and pasting your own meaningless insults … in any case, if you’d be so kind as to QUOTE THE WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH and let us know why you disagree with them, we’d all be clear regarding what you are on about.
If you do that, we can have a conversation. Until then, you’re just throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks … sorry, around here the walls are Teflon.
And my rule of thumb is that when a man starts throwing mud, it’s because he’s out of real ammunition …
w.

Bob you are right on.

Michael Carter

@ Pamela – Yup. Spot – on IMO. Until we fully understand feedbacks we cannot make accurate predictions. Try making predictions within the web of ecology. It is little different in principle. Nature has patterns throughout all its systems – chaos loosely organised. Its a wonderful system really. Without the constant cycles and variation there could be no evolution due to adaptation. Without cycles and the systems that controls them we would spiral into oblivion.

coolclimateinfo

Pamela, I’ve never seen you actually discuss the solar issue seriously, nor without you resorting to Leif’s or the IPCC’s dogmatic position(s) and/or the impossible and magical “natural internal variation that creates and stores its own heat” (my words not yours) . The idea of using the IPCC reductionist and attribution methods have steered the discussion into a dead-end, which is where questions like yours always lead. It’s a non-starter.
Tom, your question is also based on the assumption that the IPCC reductionist method of supposedly “knowing” what their (Trenberth et al) made-up “forcings” of how many w/m^2 the surface gets will yield useful answers, which we skeptics can all see fails to provide useful answers.
Too many skeptics are playing the warmists’ dead-end dogma game – it’s an endless loop going nowhere.

coolclimateinfo

Willis Eshenbach, whether he explicitly stated it or not in his many TSI papers, implicitly assumed there should be an exact 11-year match in temps to TSI.
The only way that would ever be possible is if the ocean/ behaved like a perfect reflector every day with no solar energy absorbed below the surface – an obvious impossibility. What becomes of solar heat absorbed below the ocean surface is the question, along with what solar conditions bring it about.
If Willis can’t figure that out why are you listening to him?

Matt G

Recent decades solar TSI has shown swings up to 0.2% TSI in the early 1960’s for example.
0.2% of 255k = 0.51c.
A change of 0.51c is a significant increase or decrease in global temperature compared to what we have observed.
Another factor been missed that unfortunately we don’t know about yet. How much of this change in TSI has corresponded with very high short wave energy? If the sun TSI changes at it longest or shortest wavelength results in significant differences to how it warm the planets oceans and atmosphere.

Matt , TSI is energy . It’s the 4th root of the variation which is commensurate with temperature . That’s a variation of just 0.05% ( whereas the total variation in temperature over century+ is ~ 0.3% .
Also , as I keep repeating , the 255K number is an irrelevant totally useless value . The number which counts is the temperature of a gray body in orbit which corresponds to the application of StefanBoltzmann to TSI before any consideration of spectrum . that’s about 278.5 averaged over the orbit . The total temperature variation explained ends up being about 0.13K .
But I really appreciate seeing the basic quantitative computations being presented . They form the non-optional basis upon which any more nuanced explanations must be layered .

Tom in Florida

Tom in Florida
June 30, 2016 at 11:45 am
“Bob perhaps you could explain the significance of an increase of less than 1 W/m2 over the 14 year period you show.”
Bob Weber
June 30, 2016 at 12:53 pm
“Tom, your question is also based on the assumption that the IPCC reductionist method of supposedly “knowing” what their (Trenberth et al) made-up “forcings” of how many w/m^2 the surface gets will yield useful”
———————————————————————————————————————————
You didn’t answer my question.

Pamela Gray

Bob, please find the quote where you say I said “natural internal variation that creates and stores its own heat”. If you can find that quote, I would have to agree with you that I don’t know what I am talking about. While the Earth can create some heat, that source is not my focus. The Earth can and does store solar heat. Lots of it.

Pamela Gray

I read and wrote too quickly. Bob was not quoting my words. He was quoting himself. My apologies Bob.

Matt G

Matt , TSI is energy . It’s the 4th root of the variation which is commensurate with temperature . That’s a variation of just 0.05% ( whereas the total variation in temperature over century+ is ~ 0.3% .
Also , as I keep repeating , the 255K number is an irrelevant totally useless value . The number which counts is the temperature of a gray body in orbit which corresponds to the application of StefanBoltzmann to TSI before any consideration of spectrum . that’s about 278.5 averaged over the orbit . The total temperature variation explained ends up being about 0.13K .

The 255k is roughly the surface temperature without greenhouse gases. The radiating gases are not distinguished in black or grey body.
I know TSI is energy in watts per square meter and the 4th root is correct when this energy reaches the planets surface.
What is not correct is using this 4th root with the percentage (0.05%) it should be used with the value. Why?
1361 W/m2, 2W/m2 =0.15%
(4th root) 340.25 W/m2, 2W/m2 = 0.59%, 0.5W/m2 = 0.15%
The correct energy using the 4th root is 0.5 W/m2 when it reaches the surface. If you divide the percentage 0.15% by 4 = 0.038%.
Remember the surface received was 0.5 W/m2 from 2W/m2 at TOA. Using 0.038% instead of 0.15% of 340.25 W/m2 at the surface doesn’t give 0.5 W/m2 = 0.125 W/m2.
That value is wrong when it should be 0.5 W/m2. Therefore the values given in the previous post were correct taking greenhouse gases into account that obviously have a value of 33c that generally accepted. I don’t agree with 33c value should be considerably lower as it doesn’t take the energy in ocean into account.
Therefore 255k represents the temperature from all the energy 340.25 W/m2 that’s reached the surface not taking greenhouse gases into account.
0.2% of 255k = 0.51c.
A change of 0.51c is a significant increase or decrease in global temperature compared to what we have observed.

John Harmsworth

Wow! That’s like swearing at somebody in church! Say 10 Hail Anthony’s!

Matt G

During the 20th century cooling was occurring in HADCRUT3 until it’s replacement HADCRUT4 (2014) and RSS until the strong El Nino (2015). GISS even showed no warming for a 10 year period, until much changes after. There has definitely been signs of global cooling during this century until tampering, but a strong El Nino recently disrupted this. Surely one temporary strong El Nino doesn’t change things unless there is a step up in near future?
There have been signs of solar/temperature connection cooling, but the alarmists have been doing there best to change global data to doubt it. There are doubts that the temperature global data sets even show what is truly happening. What I do agree with is that the Strong El Nino has temporary changed things at the moment.

Matt G

*21st century, not 20th of course.

Jay Hope

‘just as Lief predicted’. You mean Lief and others, do you not?

Willis Eschenbach

Indeed, Leif et al.
w.

archibaldperth

Willis, Willis, where’s your sense of wonder? Hemispheric asymmetry is still building! There has been a shift of neutron count from the F10.7 flux which itself is headed for the immutable floor at a great rate. This cycle could be over in two years flat. We have been at this for ten years now – me doing work and you whining. As I say to anyone who complains, do better work and you will displace me in Anthony’s affections. But nobody does so you will just continue to complain. On another note, notice how much better the charts have become – crisp with nice colors.

Pamela Gray

I take it you prefer accolades to critique then. You ask of the reading public exactly what I prefer they not do, which is to take proposed science discovery without question. Good scientists invite critique, or in your preferred vernacular, “whining”.

If food scientists invite critique, then Leif is not a golod scientist.

If good scientists invite critique, then Leif is not a good scientist.

Pamela Gray

Alex, it matters the level of excellence being examined in the material you are critiquing. Everyone knows, or should know, that lots of published research is rubbish. Yet, there are also very good efforts that see the light of day. Our job as ordinary citizens is to be schooled enough in research methods and statistical analysis to question whether or not we are being led down the primrose path.

Pamela,
Words and more words. Not so. Every mistaken scientists last refuge is to say (in however euphemistuic terms): “I am a scientist, and you are not! Therefore, you are an ignorant fool!” Your problem is, there are many scientists with very respectable academic credentials who support Svensmark’s hypothesis (not to mention Narlikar’s cosmology). Thus, your argument is moot.
The fact is, Earth is not a black body but a geoilogically and ecologically active biosphere, and no simplistic formula can predict, which of the thousand factors influenced by the change in total solar irradiation shall act in resonance and ruin your theories. Besides, it takes a special kind of willfull blindness not to make a very reasonable connection between solar activity and meteorological activity, including temperature, precipitation, cloud cover and biochemical processes. Yawn.

Carla

archibaldperth June 30, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Willis, Willis, where’s your sense of wonder? Hemispheric asymmetry is still building!
—————————————————–
Finally, someone besides me noticed.
Like omg where is the POSITIVE solar fluxes, what is up with thaaaat??
They are being negated by negative fluxes??
And if the suns magnetic field strength is the solar systems first defense of galactic cosmic rays, where is the northern solar polar field strength…?? .
Foot in my mouth… says…
Higher energy Galactic Cosmic Rays
(>500 MeV, TeV, PeV,> the strength of which, know no solar boundaries )
are contributing to the neutralization of the positive solar fluxes, in the Northern solar hemisphere.
You wanna mess up total irradiance (total radiation values) figure out solar goes down and the other, galactic cosmic radiation, goes up. Are the satellite sensors, that measure solar radiation values differentiating between the types of radiation that is out there?
Takes foot out of mouth…

Takes foot out of mouth
Better leave it in. It might prevent further spewing.
It is the supersonic solar wind plasma [not the magnetic field] that makes the heliosphere and keeps the interstellar stuff at bay.

Clyde Spencer

Supersonic?
How can particles traveling in a vacuum have a speed greater than the speed of sound when sound can’t be propagated in a vacuum?

The speed with which magnetic influence can travel in a plasma is called the Alfven speed. The solar wind plasma moves about 10 times faster, so its ‘Alfven Mach Number’ is about 10. So the solar wind moves outwards 10 times faster than a magnetic effect.

Clyde Spencer

Leif,
OK, so the density of the solar plasma is great enough to have an effective index of refraction that measurably slows down the propagation of a magnetic field (and presumably also electromagnetic fields). No surprise here. But, unless a longitudinal pressure wave can be propagated through the plasma, I would maintain that the use of the term “sonic” is inappropriate.

No, these comparisons are not accurate. We are not talking about refraction. Due to its high temperature, the solar corona is expanding into space. The expansion is, of course, hindered by the sun’s gravity that will provide a retarding force directed back towards the sun. Parker in 1958 pointed out that since solar gravity decreases with distance, the retarding force would be slowly relaxed. The decrease of the force would accelerate the solar wind matter to supersonic speeds, much the same way a de Laval nozzle in a rocket engine works to make the outflow supersonic, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle
To get much more information google ‘solar wind supersonic parker’

Clyde Spencer

Leif,
I’m not talking about refraction, which is a consequence of “index of refraction.” A common definition of index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of propagation of an electromagnetic (EM) wave (or photon) in a vacuum, compared to the speed through a medium that interacts with the EM wave. My only complaint is the use of “sonic” for a phenomena that doesn’t involve sound, or compression longitudinal to the direction of propagation. Just because some scientists carelessly call something by a misnomer does not make it correct. Is there modulation of the outgoing plasma with compressional waves that would justify calling it sound if perceived by the human ear?

The process is completely analogous to what happens in a de Laval nozzle so the ‘supersonic’ is well-chosen. In addition, what is important is whether the same restriction on backwards influence holds, and it does. If you want to avoid established terminology you just make communication that more difficult [at your peril]

Clyde Spencer

From your Laval link: “Its operation relies on the different properties of gases flowing at subsonic and supersonic speeds.” A dense gas does have a property of transmitting compressional waves at a characteristic speed, called the speed of sound, determined by its temperature, density, and molecular composition, as in PV=nRT.
However, you didn’t answer my question; “Is there modulation of the outgoing plasma with compressional waves that would justify calling it sound if perceived by the human ear?” My peril is to make communication more precise and thus communicate better than when using inappropriate words.

There are lots of waves in the solar wind. None of which you could hear [as the wind is too thin].
Supersonic is the appropriate word, as the solar wind starts out sub-sonic near the sun, then goes through the sonic point at about three solar radii to become supersonic [Mach number greater than one].
If it helps you, here is the theory:
http://ham.space.umn.edu/cattell/PHYS4611/lecture_5oct.pdf

Clyde Spencer

You said “[as the wind is too thin]” You mean that the plasma is rarified? The most important thing I found in your link was “things that were ignored,” such as, “Hydrodynamics requires collisional (short mean free path)” I would interpret that as meaning that compressional waves above a critical frequency will be attenuated severely, depending on the density of the plasma. That is, the effectiveness of propagation declines with increasing frequency and decreasing density. I suspect the density of the solar wind is low enough that, at best, only subaudible frequencies would have any chance of propagation. So, let me rephrase my question: What is the speed of SOUND (in km/sec) in the plasma composing the solar wind ? Is it 40km/sec? I’m not asking for Mach 1 in some analogous measurement. redefining the original speed of an object in the atmosphere compared to the speed of sound in the atmosphere.
Instead of “superSONIC” perhaps hydrodynamicists could use supercalifragilisticexpealidocious.” That could be shortened to superalfven and subalfven. That way, specialists in other fields would know that you weren’t talking about phenomena in an atmosphere.

Read the link I gave you carefully. In lieu of that: the things that were omitted were so because they are just minor effects and do not alter the conclusion. The solar wind is so thin that no sound could propagate. Nevertheless we treat it as a fluid because the particles are electrically charged and as such exert an influence on each other over large distances. They don’t have to actually collide [they don’t] to give the wind hydrodynamic properties. Whether you will come to an understanding of this is immaterial to the actual facts. One of the hallmarks of supersonic movement is the formation of a shock wave [the sonic boom jet fighter planes makes]. The solar wind generates precisely such a wave whenever it meets an obstacle, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock_(aerodynamics). An example is the bow shock in front of the Earth
http://wind.nasa.gov/mfi/images/magscloud.gif
Supersonic is the word that [correctly] is used by all space scientists.

Matt G

[blockquote]
Matt , TSI is energy . It’s the 4th root of the variation which is commensurate with temperature . That’s a variation of just 0.05% ( whereas the total variation in temperature over century+ is ~ 0.3% .
Also , as I keep repeating , the 255K number is an irrelevant totally useless value . The number which counts is the temperature of a gray body in orbit which corresponds to the application of StefanBoltzmann to TSI before any consideration of spectrum . that’s about 278.5 averaged over the orbit . The total temperature variation explained ends up being about 0.13K .
[/blockquote]
The 255k is roughly the surface temperature without greenhouse temperatures. The radiating gases are not distinguished in black or grey body.
I know TSI is energy in watts per square meter and the 4th root is correct when this energy reaches the planets surface.
What is not correct is using this 4th root with the percentage (0.05%) it should be used with the value. Why?
1361 W/m2, 2W/m2 =0.15%
(4th root) 340.25 W/m2, 2W/m2 = 0.59%, 0.5W/m2 = 0.15%
The correct energy using the 4th root is 0.5 W/m2 when it reaches the surface. If you divide the percentage 0.15% by 4 = 0.038%.
Remember the surface received was 0.5 W/m2 from 2W/m2 at TOA. Using 0.038% instead of 0.15% of 340.25 W/m2 at the surface doesn’t give 0.5 W/m2.
That value is wrong when it should be 0.5 W/m2. Therefore the values given in the previous post were correct taking greenhouse gases into account that obviously have a value of 33c that generally accepted. I don’t agree with 33c value should be considerably lower as it doesn’t take the energy in ocean into account.

“roughly” doesn’t cut it when the total variation in temperature all this is about is in the 4th decimal place . Furthermore the 255K number does not in any derivation I’ve ever seen correspond to the surface spectrum of the Earth without an atmosphere . It apparently more or less corresponds to the spectrum for the lumped Earth+atmosphere spectrum as seen from space , approximated as 0.7 absorptivity=emissivity over the peak of the solar spectrum and 1.0 at longer wavelengths .
This is a useless number because we can , and I believe have , measured the actual spectrum and can calculate the equilibrium temperature for any spectrum . See my http://CoSy.com for the essential equation .
Frankly I can’t figure out the rest of your logic . It appears you are saying that the 4th root relationship would apply to a ball next to us in orbit but for some reason not at the bottom of our atmosphere .
I see this exchange as a good example of why an experimentally validated undergraduate engineering level textbook understanding of radiative heat transfer is sorely lacking in the entire “climate science” debate .
The fact is that no equation nor experimental demonstration exists showing how any spectral phenomenon can “trap” the 10K ( 3% ) excess of our surface temperature over the gray ball 278.5 temperature in our orbit much less the much lower temperature at some point in our atmosphere at which the ( 0.7 ; 1.0 ) approximation holds . It is absolutely beyond any possible spectral phenomenon to explain Venus’s 400K , 125% , surface excess over the gray body temperature in its orbit .

PA

“The 255k is roughly the surface temperature without greenhouse temperatures. The radiating gases are not distinguished in black or grey body

(4th root) 340.25 W/m2, 2W/m2 = 0.59%, 0.5W/m2 = 0.15%”.

Well, the moon emits at roughly 255K. Most of the lunar surface is at 255K (briefly) twice a lunar day.
Further the 340 W/m2 is BS. There is roughly 190 W/m2 of incident radiation of which 30 W/m2 is reflected. The roughly 160 W/m2 of energy is lost through evaporation, convection, and radiation in roughly an 80/24/56 split.
NASA has different numbers and keeps tweaking them presumably to support global warming.
Solar radiation does exceed 1000 W/m2 peak at many places on the surface. But the 12 hour daytime average average is 500 watts/m2 (roughly) or 250 W/m2 (24 hours) before clouds cut that down to about 190.W/m2. The atmosphere absorbs 67 W/m2 and reflects 77 W/m2. About 107 W/m2 of the incoming 340 (77 atmosphere 30 ground) never sticks to anything and just goes back out again.
Several points::
1. Depending on whose chart you use and the year of the chart the numbers vary +/- 10% or more (particularly for convection).
2. CO2 cools the planet to some extent by absorbing incoming IR.
3. The lower 100 meter surface layer is somewhat independent of the rest of the atmosphere. The CO2 effect is twice as strong for the 100 m surface layer than it is for the next 8 km.
4. 340 is an imaginary number that is irrelevant except to TOA satellite radiometric studies.

Matt G

“roughly” doesn’t cut it when the total variation in temperature all this is about is in the 4th decimal place . Furthermore the 255K number does not in any derivation I’ve ever seen correspond to the surface spectrum of the Earth without an atmosphere . It apparently more or less corresponds to the spectrum for the lumped Earth+atmosphere spectrum as seen from space , approximated as 0.7 absorptivity=emissivity over the peak of the solar spectrum and 1.0 at longer wavelengths .

Whether it is 220k or 270k makes very little difference to the contribution of just 0.1% or 0.2% TSI.
220k at 0.1%= 0.22c
255k at 0.1%= 0.255c or 0.26c
270k at 0.1%= 0.27c
The moon is closest example we have with no atmosphere nearby and that varies from 185k to almost 255k with no atmosphere during a new moon and full moon cycle. The Earth with no atmosphere will be closer to this range than a black or grey body of it.
http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:25097/eth-25097-01.pdf
“Frankly I can’t figure out the rest of your logic . It appears you are saying that the 4th root relationship would apply to a ball next to us in orbit but for some reason not at the bottom of our atmosphere .”
Yes and No, the change in the ball next to us is the same at the bottom of atmosphere. If you were to remove 100% TSI, you do not dived it by 4 and say 25% removed at the bottom of our atmosphere. Relative to the ball next to us and the bottom of the atmosphere 25% of the 100% is removed. Relative to the bottom of our atmosphere and the change at the bottom of the atmosphere 100% removed, not 25%. Relative to the bottom of the atmosphere and the changes at the bottom of the atmosphere is what determines how much TSI contributes to the plants energy changes.

Matt G

Typo.
“……..planets energy changes.”

Matt G

PA
June 30, 2016 at 7:37 pm
Nothing there I can argue against due to there being no certain values. Thin high clouds can especially reflect solar radiation and get values easily above 1000 W/m2 at the surface. The 340 W/m2 I only used as an example to illustrate a different point and rightly doesn’t even include albedo.
The value would be closer 224 W/m2 with albedo included.
The paper below backs you with the moon.
http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:25097/eth-25097-01.pdf

Frederik Michiels

felt to reply but one weak solar cycle doesn’t make the temperature to drop if the next one will be again at a high. imvho it ll will depend on what solar cycle 25 and 26 will do… if these will be lower then solar cycle 24 then we’re in for cooling.

Marcus

From the last post that is now closed !
“Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years”
I was a “High Steel ” worker for 15 years (before the harness laws). Most of my life I feared nothing….Now I fear a second ” Little Ice Age” !! Preparing for excess heat is going in the wrong direction !
.. I may not like Trump, but he is the only chance we have of saving America !

Eugene WR Gallun

Obviously both high and low sunspot activity are caused by climate change. — Eugene WR Gallun

Since the current F10.7 data shows a correlation to Cycle 22, and Cycle 22 was a very strong sunspot cycle, then doesn’t this argue that Cycle 25 will be stronger, too?
Early magnetic data shown in Figure 3 already shows that southern hemisphere activity has blown away what happened in Cycle 24. That, too, suggests a stronger Cycle 25.
Hasn’t Dr. Leif Svagaard, arguably the world’s leading solar physicist, already noted that early indicators show that Cycle 25 will be stronger than Cycle 24 and closer to normal?

Willis Eschenbach

David, I’m curious as to why you say this sunspot cycle (Cycle 24) is the weakest cycle in 200 years. Here’s the latest sunspot data from SIDC/ SILSO:

As you can see, in the last 200 years there have been no less than four cycles smaller than the most recent cycle (24) … WUWT?
w.

At least, it looks to me it is the lowest sunspot count in 87 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend
I don’t trust much what they were measuring before the 19th century.

I meant before 1900

Willis Eschenbach

HenryP June 30, 2016 at 11:46 am

I don’t trust much what they were measuring before the 19th century.

Not sure why not. Sunspots are one of the few areas of measurement where we still possess the early devices used to make the measurements. We observe them the same way now as long ago. Your comment is likely valid for say temperature, but not for sunspots.
w.

spot counting is a subjective measurement depending on strength of eyesight and magnification.
anyway what I was trying to show in that graph is that the spots can be placed in a natural parabolic fashion.
This is best seen by looking at the actual solar polar magnetic field strengths where we have good measurement data for the past 45 years or so.
Before 1900 you cannot discern that trend in sunspots so it is better not to spend too much time on it.

Matt G

There is nothing wrong with sunspot data back to 17th century using the same technique throughout until the satellite era.
https://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html
The only doubt is compared over recent decades, seeing sun specks from satellite that would not have been seen back even in the mid 20th century.

Pamela Gray

The current sunspot activity is not counted using satellites.

Mike Webb

“As you can see, in the last 200 years there have been no less than four cycles smaller than the most recent cycle (24) …”
During a solar minimum, since the sunspot count can not be less than zero, the count is an asymptotic proxy for solar activity, making the proxy a poor choice of inferring other aspects of solar activity, such as the height of the thermosphere, the level of EUV irradiance, the direction of polar stratospheric winds, and so forth.
EUV irradiance is already below that of the 1996 minimum. The 10 minute 26 – 34 nm flux the 1996 minimum reached a low of 0.10686E+11 (SEM data rev. 3.10) on May 24, while the minimum *daily* 26 – 34 nm flux recently fell to 9.94255E09 on June 25, 2016, representing 7.4% decrease thus far. See 96_04_v3.10 and 16_v3.day
The fact that F 10.7 cm index and the solar quiet variation accurately track sunspots, but do not track the reduced drag on satellites nor the decrease in Extreme Ultraviolet irradiance, only call into question the usefulness of F 10.7 cm index and the solar quiet variation when modelling solar minimum behavior. The decline of the f0f2 critical frequency during the 2008-2009 minimum confirms the EUV flux anomaly, according to Does the F10.7 index correctly describe solar EUV flux during the deep solar minimum of 2007–2009? and The ionosphere under extremely prolonged low solar activity.
Other proxies, such as the Mg II index more accurately the track EUV flux, however,

Although missing observations can be filled in by using data regression based on time series of solar proxies such as the Mg II index, which are well correlated with UV variations (DeLand and Cebula, 1993; Viereck et al., 2001; Lean, 1997), none of the existing solar proxies can properly reproduce solar irradiance in a spectral band on all timescales (Dudokde Wit et al., 2009). (From Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling by I. Ermolli et al.)

Solomon et al. in their 2010 paper, Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum, conclude:

[12] Speculation that the Sun might be entering a new “Maunder Minimum,” turned out to be unfounded, but it is possible that the extended intercycle minimum period has given us a glimpse what it might have been like. Future investigation of upper atmosphere climate change will be complicated by the fact that the concept of a “typical” solar minimum is no longer tenable.

jonesingforozone

“As you can see, in the last 200 years there have been no less than four cycles smaller than the most recent cycle (24) …”
During a solar minimum, since the sunspot count can not be less than zero, the count is an asymptotic proxy for solar activity, making the proxy a poor choice of inferring other aspects of solar activity, such as the height of the thermosphere, the level of EUV irradiance, the direction of polar stratospheric winds, and so forth.
For example, EUV irradiance is already below that of the 1996 minimum. The 10 minute 26 – 34 nm flux the 1996 minimum reached a low of 0.10686E+11 (SEM data rev. 3.10) on May 24, while the minimum *daily* 26 – 34 nm flux recently fell to 9.94255E09 on June 25, 2016, representing 7.4% decrease thus far. See 96_04_v3.10 and 16_v3.day (the 10 minute flux is more variable than the daily flux, and SEM version 3.10 has not yet been applied to the 1996 daily data set).
The fact that F 10.7 cm index and the solar quiet variation accurately track sunspots, but do not track the reduced drag on satellites nor the decrease in Extreme Ultraviolet irradiance, only call into question the usefulness of F 10.7 cm index and the solar quiet variation when modelling solar minimum behavior. The decline of the f0f2 critical frequency during the 2008-2009 minimum confirms the EUV flux anomaly, according to Does the F10.7 index correctly describe solar EUV flux during the deep solar minimum of 2007–2009? and The ionosphere under extremely prolonged low solar activity.
Other proxies, such as the Mg II index more accurately track EUV flux, however,

Although missing observations can be filled in by using data regression based on time series of solar proxies such as the Mg II index, which are well correlated with UV variations (DeLand and Cebula, 1993; Viereck et al., 2001; Lean, 1997), none of the existing solar proxies can properly reproduce solar irradiance in a spectral band on all timescales (Dudokde Wit et al., 2009). (From Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling by I. Ermolli et al.)

Solomon et al. in their 2010 paper, Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum, conclude:

[12] Speculation that the Sun might be entering a new “Maunder Minimum,” turned out to be unfounded, but it is possible that the extended intercycle minimum period has given us a glimpse what it might have been like. Future investigation of upper atmosphere climate change will be complicated by the fact that the concept of a “typical” solar minimum is no longer tenable.

It comes as no surprise that anecdotal evidence of greater global temperatures and humidity immediately follow an El Nino event.

jonesingforozone

Oh, I posted the same comment twice…

jonesingforozone

@w
btw
when compared to mine I note your graph is not up to date?

Willis Eschenbach

Thanks, Henry. My graph is annual data through 2015, I used annual for clarity … not sure how annual data can be more up-to-date than that. Yours is monthly.
w.

sorry I missed that
so the situation is that when we look at monthly, Archibald is right;
when we look at it yearly: we don’t know yet

I’m amazed by the approximately 3x range of the 10.7 flux . What’s the functional relationship between that and TSI ?

Johanus

TSI is defined as the _total_ solar irradiance, i.e. the sum of all electromagnetic energy waves emitted by the Sun. It is computed by allowing sunlight to enter a narrow opening in a calorimeter (on the SORCE spacecraft) and measuring the resulting change in temperature.
Since 10.7cm solar flux is electromagnetic energy (equivalent to 2800MHz), it is part of the TSI. But it is a very small component of TSI (probably on the order of nanowatts per sq meter). Most of the Sun’s TSI power is in the IR, Visible and UV regions of the solar spectrum (on the order of a kilowatt per sq meter).
So, the solar flux never goes below a minimum level (SFI=64) established by modeling the Sun as an approximately “black body” radiator. This minimum is very constant, as Leif points out elsewhere in this post, when solar magnetic activity subsides (i.e. “no sunspots”).
But the sunspot counts and the microwave radio fluxes are both merely “proxies” to estimate the levels of increased activity during the 11year solar cycle manifested by distortion and twisting of magnetic field lines caused by the fact that the Sun does not rotate and at a constant rate. The equator regions move faster than regions closer to the poles.

I assumed the 64 * 10^-22 watt%(meter^2)*hertz value for a blank sun was , well , just that : the really long wavelength tail of the blank sun more or less Planck spectrum . Since apparently TSI hardly varies with sunspots , it appears the tripling in energy in that band must come from the spots themselves and they output prodigiously in those WiFi wavelengths . They are correlated with perhaps a very small change in effective temperature of the sun , really , a very small change .

Johanus

Yes, sunspots can be very bright objects in the microwave spectrum.
http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/10mins/2016/04/12/movie.html
You may be surprised to learn that there is a solar microwave observatory at Nobeyama Japan, which records solar imagery on 17GHz collected daily from a large array of dish antennas.
http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/daily/2016/06/ifa160622.png
http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norh/html/daily/2016/06/movie.html

If the cooling is accompanied by an increase in global cloud coverage, a more meridional atmospheric circulation, and a fall in global sea surface temperatures, and an increase in volcanic activity then the case for a solar/climate connection in my opinion will be strengthened. exist.
IF SOLAR RELATED
INCREASE IN CLOUD COVERAGE- related to an increase in galactic cosmic rays when the solar wind is weak.350km/sec or less.
MERIDIONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION – this at the very least would distribute the cold /warm areas of the globe differently. This is related to OZONE concentrations in a vertical /horizontal sense in the atmosphere which is related to EUV light intensity coming from the sun. If EUV light is weak say 100 units or less it should effect the OZONE distribution in the atmosphere in a way that causes the temp gradient between the poles and equator to weaken thus creating a weak polar vortex and a more meridional atmospheric circulation. This kind of atmospheric circulation especially in the N.H. should increase sea ice/ snow coverage and global cloud coverage.
It would likely increase snow coverage due to the fact that Arctic out breaks would be driven further south into areas normally not covered with snow for much of the year while although warmth would be driven toward the Arctic regions temperatures would still be cold enough to maintain snow coverage, giving a net increase in global snow coverage. Higher albedo lower temperatures.
GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES- have been shown to be related to UV LIGHT intensity for the most part just below the visible light wavelengths, since light in these wavelengths penetrates the ocean surface to the greatest depths. When solar activity is weak UV light decreases hence sea surface temperatures should decrease.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY – according to history over 80% of major volcanic eruptions which have at least a temporary cooling effect on global temperature occur at times of prolonged solar minimums. This is the case at least from 1600 AD- present.
One theory is when solar activity is weak more galactic cosmic rays penetrate the earth ‘s atmosphere and an increase in MUONS a by product of these cosmic rays reaches the calderas of existing volcanos making them more unstable.
MINIMUM SOLAR CRITERIA NEEDED FOLLOWING SEVERAL YEARS OF SUB – SOLAR ACTIVITY IN GENERAL WHICH STARTED IN EARNEST IN YEAR 2005 TO IMPAC THE CLIMATE.
AP INDEX 5 OR LESS
COSMIC RAY COUT 6500 UNITS
EUV LIGHT 100 UNITS OR LESS
SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF BY .15%
SOLAR WIND 350 KM/SEC OR LESS.
SOLAR FLUX 90 OR LESS,
If all met and sustained they should drive the natural climatic oscillations to extreme enough change that should impact the climate if not bring the climate to thresholds .
Bob , we are going to be proven correct in the near future. .

Javier

I don’t believe the volcanic activity – solar activity relation. I am highly skeptical, and it also looks like you are selecting the data by choosing the period and the type of volcano.

Javier

That article is mainly pseudoscience garbage without a single scientific citation. I seriously doubt that this John Cassey guy has published any of this. The domain spaceandscience.net has expired which is not a very good sign.
Frankly I don’t understand why would you believe any of this. Volcanic eruptions are rare enough as to make for a dicey statistics where it is very difficult to prove anything. Do you believe in things just because you like them? I usually distrust the things I like more to fight cognitive bias.

Javier your just ignore the data if you don’t agree with it. Just like AGW enthusiast do , they are like you are in denial of the data.

Javier

What data, for Christ sake???
There is absolutely no data in the information you provided. And usually the problem is the interpretation of the data, not the data itself.
There is a lot of data about the existence of Santa Claus (multiple sightings and a good statistics between Santa’s day and toys)), and you might choose to believe in him, but that doesn’t make him any more real.

Pamela Gray

Your list sounds like a kitchen sink list. But do not despair. If the past 800,000 years of proxy reconstructions is anywhere near reflective of actual events, and it appears so, whoever puts forth your kitchen sink list in the decade of the next slide down, you will have nailed it as far as timing goes.
Still won’t make you correct. Any more than my hypothesis will be proven correct.

Pam , I have stated the solar criteria I think is needed to have an impact on the climate.
If my solar criteria is met and the climate does not respond in the manner I have said I will be wrong, if it does I will be correct. It is that simple.
If the climate does respond in the manner I said, the burden of proof will be on you and others who agree with you to prove me .

me wrong.

Pamela Gray

Correlation does not and indeed cannot prove causation, else we are back in the dark ages with you as a proponent of such poor science.

Rather then looking at past history as a guide to future solar activity which does have merit I will not deny that, I think looking at the many solar current parameters which I sent could be more telling.
These parameters have been quite weak and telling since year 2005 and how these solar parameters behave especially over the next year or two should give us clues as to how deep this solar quite period may turn out to be.
Along those lines are the solar polar fields which are out of sync at record levels. Look at that data and all of the data I sent on my post sent at 10:58 am June 28.
For my part this data gives credence that the sun is now in a different mode of operation, the inactive mode post 2005 (very significant) in contrast to an active mode post 1840- 2005.That despite some weak solar cycles around 1900.
The difference was back around then I think the sun was still in it’s active mode. I think now the sun at the very least is gong to be in a mode of activity similar to when it was in the mode of activity that resulted in the Dalton Minimum.
The Dalton Minimum unlike the rather weak solar activity (ex. solar cycle 14) represents the sun being in it’s inactive mode of operation which I believe the sun has entered post 2005.
I say follow the data post 2005 and going forward for the clues of what the sun may or may not do going forward rather then trying to use past history ,although that is a viable way to approach this.

Johanus

@Archibald
“The sun is as blank as a billiard ball…”
No, it’s not. You forgot to check the far side of the ‘billiard ball’.
http://i66.tinypic.com/263935j.png
So your implication that the solar magnetic activity has somehow shut down is obviously false. And the solar flux index (SFI) is 74, still somewhat above the quiescent level (SFI=64) observed during the solar minima.
You seem to be unaware that sunspots are merely manifestation of the solar dynamo, the process which generates the Sun’s magnetic field. It has very little to do with the Sun’s thermonuclear radiant power generation.
Yes, this magnetic activity slightly modulates the irradiance received by the Earth. But for all practical purpose, the TSI is a constant, wavering only 0.1% or so over the 11 years of the solar cycle. (That’s why TSI used to be call the solar constant.).
If solar magnetic activity had any significant effect on terrestrial temperatures, then there should be a clear 11-year signal in temperature record. It may be there, but is too faint to be detected against other natural noise.
If there were any credible evidence that declining solar activity induces cooler climate, then the CAGW activists would be the first to use to try to explain the ‘pause’.

wrong on all counts

Johanus

I count six active regions currently on the Sun’s ball.
https://www.raben.com/maps
Archibald says there are none. What is your count?

Acidohm

Problem is Yoanus….we can’t tell how many sunspots were on the farside 20 years ago let alone 100.
But we have record of the earthside….only comparison we have got…..should average out over a cycle don’t ya think??

henryp

Good point!

Clyde Spencer

Johanus,
You said, “If solar magnetic activity had any significant effect on terrestrial temperatures, then there should be a clear 11-year signal in temperature record. It may be there, but is too faint to be detected against other natural noise.” That has not been my experience. An FFT shows it clearly, but dwarfed by a 22-year periodicity.
Have you been following the work by David Evans on Joann Nova’s website?

Johanus

No. Can you provide a link to a paper or web page detailing Evans’ work?

Clyde Spencer

The most recent in David Evans’ series of posts can be found here: http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/new-science-25-seven-possible-ways-the-sun-could-change-our-cloud-cover/
Some of his earlier posts do a better job of explaining the role of the solar sunspot and magnetic cycles in affecting weather and climate. I have corresponded with Dr. Evans and he confirms my observations of 11 and 22-year periodicities in land surface temperatures.

coolclimateinfo

“If there were any credible evidence that declining solar activity induces cooler climate, then the CAGW activists would be the first to use to try to explain the ‘pause’.”
Were you trying to be funny? Who are you kidding? The AGW proponents will never give an inch away from their position.
As far as the “gotcha” you laid on Archibald wrt the farside spots – by convention the earth-facing side of the sun is what is referred to when anyone talks about a ‘blank sun’. Take it up with NASA if you don’t approve.
“If solar magnetic activity had any significant effect on terrestrial temperatures, then there should be a clear 11-year signal in temperature record. It may be there, but is too faint to be detected against other natural noise.”
The following image depicts sunspot numbers. If we use PMOD and SORCE TSI instead we can then understand that TSI peaked on an annual basis in 2002. Using sunspot numbers alone can be deceiving.
Futhermore, heat accumulation in the ocean from high TSI is not depicted here, and yet is crucial to understanding the record heat in 2015 and 2016 thus far, despite TSI being lower in 2015 than in 2002.
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

Johanus

The AGW proponents will never give an inch away from their position.
But their model predictions are clearly too warm and they’re having difficulty explaining the ‘pause’. So a strong solar effect, decreasing temps as sunspots decline, would allow them to save face by saying “it’s really worse than we thought”.
… by convention the earth-facing side of the sun is what is referred to when anyone talks about a ‘blank sun’.
I was merely trying to show that Archibald was clearly wrong when he said the sun was as “blank as a billiard ball”. In any case, when Archibald pontificates about the general state of “solar activity”, IMHO, he should use all of the data available, not just half of it.
. Using sunspot numbers alone can be deceiving.
That was my point too. I didn’t say a relationship to temperature didn’t exist, but only that it would be hard to detect in the presence of other natural signals. I recall that Svalgaard estimated a temperature change on the order of 0.1-0.2 C based on observed TSI variance of 0.1% over a solar cycle.
So, yes, it could get a bit warmer due to increased solar activity at the peak of a single solar cycle compared to its minimum. But that would not be sufficient to make broad claims like “Earth always tends to be cooler during solar minima than during solar maxima.” There are too many other variables in the equation.
So that’s why I cringe when I hear someone say: “Sunspots are disappearing, so it’s going to get colder.”

afonzarelli

Bob, it boggles the mind that people insist that there is no corelation between solar activity and global temps. Now, perhaps it can be argued that the correlation is spurious (or that we don’t know why there is a correlation), but to insist that there is no correlation is pure DENIAL…

What happened to Leif? And where’s Vukcevic? I’d expect an article like this would draw them here like flies to a butter churn. Hope they’re OK. (PS: Thanks, Willis. There’s no one better to carry the ball…)
I recall some time around the mid to late ’90’s, seeing a picture of the Sun and thinking, ‘It looks angry!’ because of the very big sunspots it had all over. There were lots of pics in the media then, showing numerous large sunspots.
But now it’s just the opposite; there are none at all. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the late 1990’s were a time of rapid global warming.
That warming was probably due to El Nino. But this will be an interesting observation. As usual, time will tell — and also as usual, the real world (including the Sun) trumps all human authorities. Reality is the final arbiter.
So make your solar/global warming predictions now. Winners get bragging rights! Losers are chumps! ☺
Ready…
Set…
GO!

I’m here, but the comments are just the same old nonsense by the same small number of people. We have been there many times before, and it makes little sense to rehash all of that.
Perhaps only one thing: we can confidently reconstruction F10.7 back to the middle of the 18th century:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/f107-rY-1740-2015.png
This puts the current cycle in perspective. Note that F10.7 [and its proxy rY] reaches the same low value in every sunspot cycle/

Gibo

Good Doctor
Do you have any comments on this paper?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.07809.pdf

Short reply: Lockwood et al. are trying to defend their old papers which are at variance with the new sunspot numbers. Their arguments are invalid. A longer reply can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cliver-Comparison-SSN.pdf with the conclusion “At the present juncture, the preponderance of evidence points to a time series that will more closely resemble the RI series developed by Rudolf Wolf during the second half of the nineteenth century (and its update, Clette and Lefèvre, 2016; Figure 4) than either the Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) or the Usoskin et al. (2016) time series that were developed to replace it.”
Further discussion would be OT, but could be a topic for another post, if there is interest.

Pamela Gray

OMGosh yes! The entire subject is worthy of a book! Please write it and don’t leave out a single hallway argument.

jonesingforozone

“Note that F10.7 [and its proxy rY] reaches the same low value in every sunspot cycle”
Use of the solar quiet variation as a proxy for EUX flux assumes that the ohmic resistance to the current in the E layer is constant.
If fact, the ohmic resistance is not constant, and does vary with the EUV flux itself due to Joule heating, resulting in the EUV flux anomaly when EUV flux is compared to the solar quiet variation, F 10.7 cm index, or the sunspot number:

At heights between about 85 and 200 km however -the dynamo region-, solar X- and extreme ultraviolet radiation (XUV) is almost completely absorbed generating the ionospheric D-, E-, and F-layers. Here, the electrons are already bound to the geomagnetic field gyrating several times about these lines before they collide with the neutrals, while the positive ions still essentially move with the neutral gas. Thus, the electric conductivity becomes anisotropic. The conductivity parallel to an electric field E is called Pedersen conductivity. The conductivity orthogonal to E and the geomagnetic field Bo is the Hall conductivity. Ohmic losses and thus Joule heating occur when Pedersen currents flow. – from Wikipedia: Ionospheric dynamo region

The Mg II index provides a better correlation with the EUV flux than does the F 10.7 cm index, however, no proxy to date models the EUV flux:

Although missing observations can be filled in by using data regression based on time series of solar proxies such as the Mg II index, which are well correlated with UV variations (DeLand and Cebula, 1993; Viereck et al., 2001; Lean, 1997), none of the existing solar proxies can properly reproduce solar irradiance in a spectral band on all timescales (Dudokde Wit et al., 2009). – from Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling by I. Ermolli et al.)

Use of the solar quiet variation as a proxy for EUX flux assumes that the ohmic resistance to the current in the E layer is constant.
If you would care to read the paper, you will see that there is no such assumption.

jonesingforozone

“If you would care to read the paper, you will see that there is no such assumption”
I’ve been following your reconstruction of the EUV flux for some time now.
You’re denial of the EUX flux anomaly and your conclusion that every solar cycle is the same are evidence that you do make that assumption.
Your abuse of the SEM Ver. 3.1 data in your numerous revisions has doubtless caused your subscription to SEM Ver. 4.0 to be revoked.

The magnetic effect from the current [and thus the current and thus the conductivity] is an observed quantity and that is what reaches the same level at every minimum. No assumptions needed for that.

jonesingforozone

“The magnetic effect from the current [and thus the current and thus the conductivity] is an observed quantity and that is what reaches the same level at every minimum. No assumptions needed for that”
The current is a quotient of the potential, primarily caused by ionization through the absorption of EUV rays, and the resistance, also due in part to the same ionization. thus the equation:

I=V/R

is transformed, for a given solar minimum n, to:

In=Vn/(Rn+An*In)

where An is a currently unknown constant.
This reduces to the quadratic equation:

AnIn^2 + RnIn – Vn = 0

To assert that Vn = Vn+1, where Vn represents EUV flux, is beyond the scope of your paper.
You only calculate In in the form of rYn and do not prove the required equality.
In fact, the EUV flux as of June 25th is 7.4% less than the EUV flux recorded on May 24th, 1996 using SEM ver. 3.1 data.

The current In follows from its magnetic effect rYn. Since rYn = rYn+1, it follows that In = In+1 and hence that EUVn = EUVn+1. The SEM has residual degradation as comparison with TIMED shows. I could have used TIMED only and not needed SEM, so SEM is irrelevant.

henryp

Say what?

what

jonesingforozone

“The current In follows from its magnetic effect rYn. Since rYn = rYn+1, it follows that In = In+1 and hence that EUVn = EUVn+1. The SEM has residual degradation…”
You’ve done it again! You have left out the ohmic resistance enhanced by Joule heating!
The only thing you “observe” is the current, the solar quiet variation rY. You do not observe the EUV flux. The ohmic resistance is equal to the quotient of the EUV flux and rY, according to the equation:

R=V/I

The ohmic resistance is variable, by time of day, by season, and by the current itself. As the current decreases, so too does the Joule heating decrease, and thus, the ohmic resistance decreases (to an equilibrium).
The ohmic resistance is not constant.
Some instrument degradation is to be expected in space.
The degradation is shown to be negative exponential though the outgas of synthetic materials. Initially, the outgas is high, though as time progresses, the rate of degradation is reduced. See slide 10 of http://www.stce.be/euvworkshop2013/presentations/Wieman.pdf
Sounding rockets carrying duplicate instrumentation have provided the data points for calculating the degradation. See http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~leonid/papers/SolPhys2010.pdf, esp. Figure 21.
Similar degradation occurs on the SORCE instrument that measures total solar irradiance, though you swear on the bible that the total irradiance observations are correct.

henryp

Man you figured it out. I never trust those instruments in space. They dont have an atmosphere to protect them at the spotless sun….

The current [given by rY] should vary with the square root of the EUV flux, and that is what it does:
http://www.leif.org/research/rY-and-EUV.png
So regardless of your hand wringing is an observational fact that rY = 22 SQRT(EUV) [in units of 10^10], hence that EUV = 0.0453 rY
Observation beats hand wringing every time.

jonesingforozone

“The current [given by rY] should vary with the square root of the EUV flux, and that is what it does…”
The reason it varied with the square root of the EUV flux for the small number of cycles that you sampled is that the current appears also in the resistance term due to Joule heating. See the quadratic equation of my previous post here.
However, since your paper does not measure EUV flux, only the solar quiet variation, your logic concerning the equality of the EUV flux with the (scaled) square of the current is circular and is only valid for the cycles that you sampled.

Since F10.7 is a very good proxy for EUV, we also expect rY to be proportional to the square root of the F10.7 flux, and such it is,. all the way back to 1947 [cycle 18]:
http://www.leif.org/research/rY-and-F107.png
Hence the relationship is valid all the way back to 1947 or for 6 solar cycles. There is no valid reason to believe that this does not hold generally.
Your claim of circularity is silly. I showed you a simple, tight observational fact. No circles there.

jonesingforozone

“…Hence the relationship is valid all the way back to 1947 or for 6 solar cycles. There is no valid reason to believe that this does not hold generally…”
Yes. It reason to believe it does not hold is the EUV flux anomalies that have been observed since 1996.
You can offer no evidence to the contrary.

The TIMED measurements of EUV do not show any anomalies. SEM has residual degradation not corrected for as comparison with F10.7 and TIMED so clearly shows:
http://www.leif.org/research/SEM-Degradation.png

jonesingforozone

“Yes. The reason to believe it does not hold is the EUV flux anomalies that have been observed since 1996.
You can offer no evidence to the contrary.”
By the way, your graph of SEM 0.1-50 nm Observed is rotated to fit your assumptions which were obviously made in the years prior to 1996.

By the way, your graph of SEM 0.1-50 nm Observed is rotated to fit your assumptions which were obviously made in the years prior to 1996.
Nonsense. No rotation [whatever that means] as I simply show the observations as a function of time.

I forgot the square in “So regardless of your hand wringing is an observational fact that rY = 22 SQRT(EUV) [in units of 10^10], hence that EUV = 0.0453 rY”, but you get the message:
EUV = rY^2/22^2

jonesingforozone

“The TIMED measurements of EUV do not show any anomalies. SEM has residual degradation not corrected for as comparison with F10.7 and TIMED so clearly shows:”
Again, you have rotated the data sets, so that SEM raw series is actually the SEM ver. 3.1 series.
You have fabricated the SEM 0.1-50 nm and TIMED 0.1-105 nm series to suit your own purposes, perhaps citing the paper by Emmert et al (2014) in which the authors rotate the series for their own thought experiment.

Again, you have rotated the data sets, so that SEM raw series is actually the SEM ver. 3.1 series.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘rotated’. For clarification [read the caption], what I call ‘raw’ is the data set I download [version 3.1 it seems], as opposed to the corrected data. But we can dispose of SEM, because the TIMED data gives an even better series. So, you can stop whining about SEM.

jonesingforozone

“…No rotation [whatever that means]…”
You simply add a sloped line to the SEM data, adjusting the curve increasingly upward as time progresses.
Did you simply copy the data from the Emmert et al thought experiment (that you cite in your reconstruction paper), and suppose that you could extend the experiment by a number of years without anyone noticing?
The degradation of SEM data is not linear with time as you have graphed. Instead, it is negative exponential with time.
SEM Ver. 3.1 takes into account this degradation by calibration with a series of sounding rockets distributed over time.
(See prior post here.)
Again, you have rotated the data sets, so that SEM raw series is actually the SEM ver. 3.1 series.
Thus, the agreement you seek with the EUV flux is a fabrication.

1: forget SEM, as TIMED shows the relationship.
2: I like SEM as it extends before 2002. The ratio between SEM and F10.7 shows a steady decrease showing that even though the original SEM data [with its exponential degradation] has been corrected for the large 1st order degradation, there is still a [much] smaller residual degradation present and that I correct for to match SEM to TIME and F10.7.
It is not clear what you mean by ‘rotation’. Sometimes when people don’t know what they are talking about, they invent a non-standard notation or word. Assuming that this is what is going on here, I guess that by ‘rotation’ you mean the inverse relationship, so if A = k * B, we also have B = A / k. This inversion is OK if the correlation is VERY good [as here].

It is also possible that by ‘rotation’ you mean that the SEM [raw, i.e. without the residual degradation] cyan curve after correction for the residual degradation of -0.0000382 per month moves up [red curve] to almost perfectly match the SEE curve from TIMED. In any case after the correction SEM, TIMED, and F10.7 [and rY] all agree nicely, as the should according to the theory.

jonesingforozone

“…there is still a [much] smaller residual degradation present and that I correct for to match SEM to TIME and F10.7…”
The small residual degradation is accounted for in the SEM 3.1 data set.
The large, increasing differences between the SEM raw data set versus the SEM 0.1-50.0 nm and the TIMED 0.1-105 nm data sets is entirely fabricated.
Can you show me the results of your personal sounding rockets to justify your data?

The increasing difference between TIMED and SEM is just what the datasets that you can download from the URLs given in the paper give you.

jonesingforozone

“It is not clear what you mean by ‘rotation’. Sometimes when people don’t know what they are talking about, they invent a non-standard notation or word”
For a rotation from the right most point as the origin and for a small angle, Y = Y’ + aX’ and X = X’ provides good graphical approximation for Y = bY’ + aX’ and X = -aY’ + bX’.
In other words, the rotation constant b is close to 1.0 and a is close to 0.0.
Still, the angle is large enough to fit your own SEM 0.1-50 nm Observed data series with your own EUV reconstructed from rY
Its no wonder that your (homogenized) data agrees with itself.

jonesingforozone

“The increasing difference between TIMED and SEM is just what the datasets that you can download from the URLs given in the paper give you.”
Again, the paper by Emmert et al[2014] which provides your SEM 0.1-50 nm and your TIMED 0.1-105 nm is from a thought experiment.
First step, Emmert et al compares the SEM data with the F 10.7 cm data:

As shown below, F10.7 is a robust descriptor of annual-scale thermospheric mass density variations for all of 1967–2012 except (possibly) the cycle 23/24 solar minimum period of 2006–2009. We fitted running annual averages of the SEM data to the corresponding average F10.7 using the following formulation:

ln(EUVsem) = a ln(F10.7) + bt + c (4)

Next step, Emmert et al adjusts the SEM data so that it most closely matches the F 10.7 data from 2006 through 2009, and extends the adjustment from 1999 to 2013:

We computed an adjusted SEM time series with the drift removed as follows:

EUVsemadj = exp[ ln(EUVsem) – b(t-t0)] (5)

Thus, Emmert et al succeeded in rotating the SEM data to fit the F 10.7 cm index for the period 1999 – 2013.
No sounding rockets used and no calibration performed.
It was nothing more than a thought experiment.

Again, the paper by Emmert et al[2014] which provides your SEM 0.1-50 nm and your TIMED 0.1-105 nm is from a thought experiment.
Not at all. If you care to actually read my paper [now peer-reviewed and accepted by Solar Physics] you would see that the data comes from these two websites [maintained by the experimenters]:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/long/daily_avg/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/see/data/
I often wonder why people [like you in this case] will say something so blatantly false when they should know that it is trivial to show that they are false. But I guess it takes all kinds of people to populate this Earth of ours.

On ‘rotation’: the data was not rotated, but simply corrected for the drift [-0.0000382/month] since the beginning. That this happens to make SEM agree with TIMED simply shows that the correction is justified.

jonesingforozone

“Not at all. If you care to actually read my paper [now peer-reviewed and accepted by Solar Physics] you would see that the data comes from these two websites…”
The websites provide the SEM ver 3.1 data for your SEM raw results. They are not the source of your SEM 0.1-50 nm and your TIMED 0.1-105 nm data. These data are derived from the thought experiment by Emmert et al[2014]. As your own reconstruction clearly states:

We constrain the SEM flux to match F10.7 as suggested by Emmert et al. (2014).

So, it is no surprise that your solar quiet variation scales to match the F 10.7 cm index, and not to the EUV flux.
The SEM 3.1 data exhibit a pronounced anomaly at 2008/2009 minimum point as compared to the 1996 minimum point.
Near the left side of your graph, the EUV flux minimum is correctly shown to be about 0.20970E+11 photons cm-2 sourced from the USC website here.
However, close to the 2008/2009 minimum, the SEM 3.1 data from the website here is 1.67440E10 photons cm-2 which matches the data you have labelled as “SEM raw”.
Your SEM 0.1-50 nm data series for the 2008/2009 minimum takes on the same minimum value as does the 1996 minimum, just as the F 10.7 cm index does according to Emmert et al[2014] (fig.2).
Your EUV flux data does not come from the websites you list. Instead, they come from a thought experiment, so that your solar quiet variation closely matches the F 10.7 cm index, and not the observed EUV flux.
There is no excuse for your abuse of the SEM Ver. 3.10 data that you published on Arxiv.org 14 Jun 2015.

The websites provide the SEM ver 3.1 data for your SEM raw results. They are not the source of your SEM 0.1-50 nm and your TIMED 0.1-105 nm data.
Who knows that best? You or the one making the analysis and using the data?
I used the data from the websites. Period. Emmert suggested that SEM had residual degradation which could be determined by comparison with F10.7. I agree that that was reasonable and determined the SEM was decreasing 0.0000382 per month, hence corrected for that. After the correction, SEM matches TIMED exceedingly well, thus justifying the correction. As I said, one could forget about SEM and only use TIMED and the conclusion would be precisely the same. It is, however useful to include SEM as that extends the analysis before 2002. It would be useful if you would layoff your prejudice and leanr how the analysis was actually done. At any rate, none of this has any influence on the important conclusion that rY [and thus EUV] and F10.7 reaches the same floor value at every solar minimum as far back [some 250 years] as our data goes. The SEM values only serves to set the scale in photons.

jonesingforozone

“Not at all. If you care to actually read my paper [now peer-reviewed and accepted by Solar Physics] you would see that the data comes from these two websites…”
Thank you for the heads up.
I’ve sent the Solar Physics journal staff Dr. Didkovsky’s summary of your paper:

Dear Dr. Webb,
We at the USC Space Sciences Center agree with your notes
about both confusing and misleading use of the SOHO/SEM
data by Dr. Leif Svalgaard. We prove this evaluation in the attached
file. An appropriate way to deal with the SEM data (even published)
is to contact our SSC Team and discuss all related issues directly
with us. I will copy this email to my colleague Dr. Seth Wieman.
is to contact our SSC Team and discuss all related issues directly
with us. I will copy this email to my colleague Dr. Seth Wieman.
Thanks,
Leonid Didkovsky
Space Sciences Center
Director

Attached pdf file:

Dear Dr. Webb,
Thank you for bringing Dr. Svalgaard’s work to our attention. Dr. Svalgaard’s adjustment of the SEM data based on a linear trend established relative to the F10.7 proxy does appear (with the exception of the smoothing window applied) to be quite similar to that presented earlier by Emmert et al. 2014, and raises a few additional concerns:

1. As you noted (and was recognized to some degree by Emmert et al., 2014), the mode of SEM degradation is not linear with time. This has been demonstrated both through comparisons with our rocket flight measurements and through measurements from the SDO EVE ESP (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-009-9485-8 ) which is very similar in design to SEM but includes a filter wheel with redundant filters for monitoring degradation in-flight. Thus we are skeptical of any claimed linear “corrections for residual degradation.” The nature of SEM degradation and the manner in which it is corrected in the official data product is reported in Wieman, Didkovsky and Judge, 2014 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207-014-0519-5 ). A revised SEM time series based on an updated degradation model which incorporates a larger number of sounding rocket measurements (including more recent flights which were not part of the SEM Version 3.1 data) was reported in Didkovsky and Wieman 2014 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA019977/abstract ) and will soon be available for download.
2. Further, it is not clear from Dr. Svalgaard’s paper for which you provided a link, whether dates around solar minimum (where it has been established that the F10.7 proxy does not vary linearly with EUV irradiance) were excluded in establishing a trend between the proxy and the SEM measurements. Dates before 1997.3 and from 2005.5 to 2010.5 were excluded in the formulation by Emmert et al. for this reason. However, Dr. Svalgaard’s plot showing the SEM/F10.7 ratios (purple points) from which his “correction” were derived, includes the ratios throughout both solar minima which could further reduce the accuracy of his adjusted SEM time series.
3. Use of the term “SEM raw” is misleading as SEM raw data numbers are available as part of the SEM data available for download, however it is evident from the units in Dr. Svalgaard’s plot that these raw data numbers are not what is shown.
4. Dr. Svalgaard states that a comparison with TIMED/SEE “data serves as validation of the corrected SEM data,” however, the TIMED/SEE is also susceptible to degradation and its EUV irradiance values exhibit trending relative to other EUV instruments including the newer SDO/EVE instrument (Woods et al. 2012) for which calibration is maintained both through sounding rocket underflights as well as provisions for monitoring degradation in flight. For example, the attached plot compares the TIMED/SEE irradiance integrated over the 6-50.4 nm band to that from SDO EVE MEGS. Significant trending is evident from this comparison and the EVE/TIMED ratios which drift by approximately 20% over the rising phase of Solar Cycle 24, thus the exclusive use of TIMED/SEE as a standard for validation seems highly questionable.

[graph of TIMED SEE ver. 11 compared with SDO ver. 4 daily integrated irradiance 2010-2014]
[graph of TIMED SEE ver. 11 ratio with SDO ver. 4 less 1.0]

I do in the paper say:
” The issue of degradation of SEM has been controversial (Lean et al., 2011; Emmert et al., 2014; Didkovsky and Wieman, 2014) and is, perhaps, still not completely resolved (Wieman, Didkovsky, and Judge, 2014)”.
But as I noted, has no influence on the result. I welcome a properly written, submitted, and peer-reviewed comment to Solar Physics by the authors, rather than just your whining and misrepresentations.

jonesingforozone

“Who knows that best? You or the one making the analysis and using the data?…”
Your misrepresentation of the SOHO SEM EUV flux and the TIMED SEE EUV flux remain unproven.
The F 10.7 cm index closely matches your solar quiet variation only because you have tuned it to do so.
The solar EUV flux is beyond the scope of your reconstruction, as you admit by pointing to a thought experiment from another paper.

The F 10.7 cm index closely matches your solar quiet variation only because you have tuned it to do so.
No, the relationship between rY and F10.7 has not been tuned, and has nothing to do with SEM.

Your misrepresentation of the SOHO SEM EUV flux and the TIMED SEE EUV flux remain unproven.
As I said: you can forget about SEM [if you don’t like it]. TIMED is a reported by the experimenter and is therefore not misrepresented, unless you imply that the experimenter has done so.

jonesingforozone

“TIMED is a reported by the experimenter and is therefore not misrepresented”
That your TIMED SEE 0.1-105 nm scales to your SEM 0.1-50 nm data series, which is the product of the thought experiment by Emmert et al.[2014], is damning enough.
I’ll let you keep digging on this one.
he difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al.
My correction of SEM is also smaller than the uncertainty [15-20%], so is totally consistent with the published data, so why the whining?”
You data series for TIMED SEE and SEM is based on the adjustment algorithm that Emmert et al[2014] proposed in their thought experiment as your paper admits.
The negative exponential degradation was already taken into account in your “SEM raw” data series. A total of five additional sounding flights after SEM ver 3.10 were in agreement with the degradation model as reported in Ionospheric total electron contents (TECs) as indicators of solar EUV changes during the last two solar minima by Didkovsky, L., and S. Wieman (2014).
The increasing linear correction that you make is after Emmert et al.[2014]’s thought experiment.
A 15-20% deviation is much greater than a 4% deviation.
Your “SEM 0.1-50 nm” data is not from the USC website.

That your TIMED SEE 0.1-105 nm scales to your SEM 0.1-50 nm data series
There are no my series, both TIMED and [raw] SEM are directly from the experimenters websites. For plotting purposes the two scales are brought together using 10^10 photons/cm2 ↔ 0.955 mW/m2, which does not alter the trend of the data, but simply allows the curves to be shown on the same plot.
A 15-20% deviation is much greater than a 4% deviation.
Your quote was “The difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al.”, thus the difference [i.e. 12%] is less than but within the uncertainty…

jonesingforozone

“My correction of SEM is also smaller than the uncertainty [15-20%], so is totally consistent with the published data, so why the whining?”
The deviation stated in Didkovsky, L., and S. Wieman (2014) was only +/- 4%:

In section 6, a new SOHO/SEM absolute EUV irradiance time series from 1996 up to 2013, which incorporates
more sounding rocket underflights and a more accurate calibration and irradiance calculation procedure
[Wieman et al., 2014], which is in good agreement with the SDO/EVE data. This plot provides additional
evidence of a solar (not instrumental) decrease in the 2008–2009 irradiance compared to the 1996 irradiance
with a change of about 12 ± 4%.

The mean value of the anomaly was 12%.
Your paper is an attempt to erase that anomaly.

Your quote was “The difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al.”, thus the difference [i.e. 12%] is less than but within the uncertainty…
TIMED does not show any anomaly.
F10.7 does not show any anomaly.
rY does not show any anomaly.
Mg II does not show any anomaly.
If SEM does, too bad for SEM.
But I don’t think SEM shows any anomaly either.
My paper is not directed at SEM and its purported anomaly.
If some people think the SEM data is anomalous, perhaps they should take a fresh hard look at it again.

jonesingforozone

The TIMED SEE noticeably diverges from both the SDO/EVE and the SOHO SEM from 2012 on.
In fact, the TIMED SEE website refers to SDO/EVE data for He and Fe EUV spectra:

“Since May 2010, SDO/EVE has been providing higher resolution, higher cadence spectra from 6-37 nm, and daily spectra from 6-65 nm.” – from http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/see/level3/3_ssi.html

Presumably, this is due to a lack of EUV flux during the cycle 24 maximum as projected by the TIMED SEE ver, 11 degradation model.
SDO/EVE and the SOHO SEM suffer only from a negative exponential degradation due to carbon buildup from outgassing of synthetic components.
Unlike the TIMED SEE, the SDO/EVE and the SOHO SEM don’t degrade due to the continued level of EUV flux.
See SDO/EVE/ESP and SOHO/SEM Inter-Calibration and Degradation, esp. slide 11, SOHO/Solar EUV Monitor (SEM) and SDO/EVE/EUV SpectroPhotometer (ESP) Calibration, Degradation and Comparisons, esp. slide 10, and EUV SpectroPhotometer (ESP) in Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE): Algorithms and Calibrations, esp. Figure 21.
Is there nothing that does not scale to the to the F 10.7 cm index, Dr. Svalgaard?

If you do the comparison right [taking into account that there are missing data] you get:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-TIMED-and-EVE.png
As you can see SDO-EVE and TIMED-SEE match each other very well until on of EVE’s channels failed in 2014. The ratio between the two measurements is very close to unity as it should be if both were calibrated correctly and if degradation is handled correctly.
And everything [except uncorrected SOHO-SEM] matches F10.7 if they are measured and calibrated correctly, e.g. TIMED and the Unsigned Magnetic Flux integrated over the solar disk:
http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-HMI-107-Flux.png
as we also point out in our HMI Nugget:
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1510
Everything fits [as it should] and we can with confidence reconstruct EUV back to 1740 as described in my peer-reviewed and accepted paper in Solar Physics:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
This is major breakthrough [that also resolves the issue about EUV differences between solar minima – there aren’t any]. F10.7, EUV, the magnetic field, the geomagnetic response all relax to the same levels at all solar minima, for which we have data covering the last 270 years [and thus by extension also during the Maunder Minimum].

u.k(us)

@ dbstealey,
No need to do it all your self.
We’ve got your back.

u.k(us),
Does that mean you won’t make a prediction? I’m not that foolish either. ☺
Making predictions like that is very easy. The hard part is getting them right…
As a great philosopher once said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Menicholas

I predict that as time passes, we will know more and more.

jonesingforozone

“The issue of degradation of SEM has been controversial (Lean et al., 2011; Emmert et al., 2014; Didkovsky and Wieman, 2014) and is, perhaps, still not completely resolved (Wieman, Didkovsky, and Judge, 2014)”
To the contrary, Wieman, Didkovsky, and Judge, 2014, state:

The difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al. [2010] based on published Version 3.1 data. The good agreement, with no apparent trending, between the SOHO/SEM and the SDO/EVE measurements suggests that SEM degradation has been appropriately corrected. – from Ionospheric total electron contents (TECs) as indicators of solar EUV changes during the last two solar minima by Wieman, S et al.(2014)

The degradation is shown to be negative exponential though the outgas of synthetic materials, not linear as your graphs suggest. Initially, the outgas is high, though as time progresses, the rate of degradation is reduced. See slide 10 of http://www.stce.be/euvworkshop2013/presentations/Wieman.pdf
Sounding rockets carrying duplicate instrumentation have provided the data points for calculating the degradation. See http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~leonid/papers/SolPhys2010.pdf, esp. Figure 21.
Can you show me the calibration results of your personal sounding rockets to justify your data?

Your very comments show that there is controversy.
The calibration of SEM can be done with TIMED which matches what I get by using F10.7.
This should be enough.

The degradation is shown to be negative exponential though the outgas of synthetic materials, not linear as your graphs suggest.
You seem not to have read/understood the paper. The primary degradation is indeed exponential, but need not concern us here as it is already taking care of by the experimenters. I am talking about a much smaller residual degradation that still is not corrected for. As soon as the changes are small enough they are all linear, as shown. when I use the ‘SEM raw’ designation I mean the data as downloaded, that for me is ‘raw’ data.

he difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al.
My correction of SEM is also smaller than the uncertainty [15-20%], so is totally consistent with the published data, so why the whining?

jonesingforozone

“My correction of SEM is also smaller than the uncertainty [15-20%], so is totally consistent with the published data, so why the whining?”
You have no evidence to support your claims, you misrepresent the SEM data as though it were “SEM raw”, and use your own linear degradation model in addition to the negative exponential model calibrated by under-flights of sounding rockets.
The uncertainty is only +/- 4%. The mean value of the anomaly from the 1996 minimum to the 2008/2009 minimum is 12%.
This anomaly has continued throughout the weakening cycle 24.
The 10 minute 26 – 34 nm flux the 1996 minimum reached a low of 0.10686E+11 (SEM data rev. 3.10) on May 24 of that year, while the minimum *daily* 26 – 34 nm flux recently fell to 9.94255E09 on June 25, 2016, representing 7.4% decrease thus far. See 96_04_v3.10 and 16_v3.day (the 10 minute flux is more variable than the daily flux, and SEM version 3.10 has not yet been applied to the 1996 daily data set).
Where is your sounding rocket data, Dr. Svalgaard?

The uncertainty is only +/- 4%. The mean value of the anomaly from the 1996 minimum to the 2008/2009 minimum is 12%.
Your own link says:
“the difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%, which is less than but within the uncertainty of the estimate of Didkovsky et al.”
Thus the ‘difference’ is 12% or between 8 and 16% if we take the uncertainty into account.

The difference in 26–34 nm irradiance between the 1996 and 2008/2009 based on the 365 day running mean of SOHO/SEM measurements is about 12 ± 4%,
This is typical sleight of hand. The 2008/2009 minimum was a lot flatter than the 1996 minimum so it is natural that the 365-day running mean is lower. In addition, the number is based on only a thin sliver [26-34 nm] of the spectrum below 103 nm [which is what is important for the ionosphere].
The SDO/EVE data record [before one channel failed] is not long enough to show any trend, so it is not surprising that none is seen. Here is the comparison of TIMED and EVE and as you can see they match quite well, suggesting that the TIMED/SEE degradation has been appropriately corrected:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-TIMED-and-EVE.png

One last observation is the stage Milankovitch Cycles are at, along with the earth’s magnetic field strength ,land ocean arrangements/elevation , initial sea ice/snow coverage should be taken into consideration with given solar activity, in order to get a more accurate picture on how effective given solar activity may or may not be.
Also I want to see what happens with the surface of the sun beyond it just being void of sunspots. I want to see if a further break down in the magnetic network takes place.

London247

I am not a solar specialist. Is it not possible that the lack of “safety or release valves” of sunspots are indicating that the magnetic forces are being constrained by inner solar processes ( possibly an inversion of hydrogen/ helium around the core ) and like the lid on a boiling pan of water or a volcano, once the process has completed then the magnetism erupts to reduce the imbalance and the consequence is a coronal ejection with many sunspots and solar flares.

Eugene WR Gallun

I actually wrote this quickie for an article about urban temperature data and never posted. Stumbled across it again while separating papers I once spilled spaghetti sauce on. It does sorta deal with solar cooling.
The Sun And Urban Temperature Data
Effects on daylight temps are none
Proof cooling rays come from the sun
For though the sun is bright
It disappears at night
When averages all upward run
Eugene WR Gallun

Menicholas

Was that a red sauce, or a white sauce, Eugene?

Eugene WR Gallun

Red sauce. Out of a can. I boil the spaghetti, drain it and then open the can of sauce. I pour it directly onto the hot spaghetti. Don’t have to heat the spaghetti sauce that way. And it cools the spaghetti down so that it is immediately eatable. Bachelor cooking is an art form.
Eugene WR Gallun

Menicholas

Indeed.

Eugene WR Gallun

Perhaps my poem needs some explanation. For the fun of it I have tried to write different types of poetry. Yes, there are many schools of poetry (perhaps asylums of poetry would be more descriptive).
For the above poem when the second line came to me I recognized that I had the potential for a true Absurdist poem. Then I preceded to created what I think is a poetic wonder — An Absurdist Limerick. Well, knowing such a wonder would be wasted on the crude science crowd that follows this blog I did not post it. But being a poet — months later — I threw caution to the wind. After I wiped the spaghetti sauce off it a feeling came over me like a tidal wave and I was swearing to my god and on my mother’s grave I would finally post it here on WUWT. Sometimes a poet’s brain glows like the metal on the edge of a knife. It feels so good. It feels so right. Will I regret posting? I don’t know.
Eugene WR Gallun

Alan McIntire

I thought this was interesting
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2016/06/27/sun-has-likely-entered-new-evolutionary-phase-say-astronomers/#49349060278e
The Sun has likely already entered into a new unpredicted long-term phase of its evolution as a hydrogen-burning main sequence star — one characterized by magnetic sputtering indicative of a more quiescent middle-age. Or so say the authors of a new paper submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters…..
“The Sun’s 11-year sunspot cycle is likely to disappear entirely, not just get less pronounced; [since] other stars with similar rotation rates show no sunspot cycles,” Travis Metcalfe, the paper’s lead author and an astronomer at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., told me….
Metcalfe says this transition takes a few hundred million years, but once the Sun completely crosses this Rubicon of middle age, it will remain magnetically inactive for the rest of its hydrogen-burning life…..

pkatt

Sunspots sunspots… blah. Sunspots are not the only source of Earth directed energy from the sun. Ive seen many earth directed magnetic filaments this year, not connected with sunspots. We pass between Solar sector boundaries and the suns activity does indeed effect our magnetic field. The Butterfly effect is in effect and we are barely scratching the surface of most of the interactions. You folks are also not taking into account the heliosphere and that just possibly the sun current state is not the only sun produced energy we get exposed to. We are in what amounts to a bubble where everything bounces around. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/heliosphere.html Maybe just maybe the energy output of the sun takes a while to change the environment of the heliosphere. I do know we are not the only planet experiencing “climate” anomalies. Maybe we should pay attention to our planetary neighbors before we run off like Goldie Locks with the man caused too hot and too cold trick.

henryp

And? Dont we have a T from the moon? I would like to know.

I am going to challenge a few guys here
I say that in the past few years the sun has been at its brightest and most dangerous point [to people] in 87 years….Don’t go in the sun without a hat!
The energy from the sun has a chi-square distribution but the top is moving a bit to the left and to the right, depending on the solar polar field strengths. This would not affect TSI much but the lower field strengths do mean that currently more of the most energetic particles can escape. And that affects the production of ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides TOA. The atmosphere protects us, but the increase in those substances TOA will ask a price from us: global cooling …..aka climate change.

Jay Hope

You’re right, pkatt. These people are just scratching the surface, and refusing to look at the bigger picture!

taxed

l don’t know if there is any link to the lack of sunspots.But whats going on in the Arctic at the moment is interesting. As we know the Arctic was running very warm during the whole of the winter. But now we are into the summer that trend has disappeared. Now this has been a common pattern over recent years. Where all the warming in the Arctic has been confined to the winter months. But with no warming during the summer.
Now AWG science has been saying that this Arctic warming is a sign of long term global warming. But l think it would make more sense to see this as pointing towards a very long term trend towards cooling. Because the warming of the Arctic during the winter months suggests a increase in cold Polar air moving southwards during the winter months. This as a long term trend would surly lead to a greater risk of climate cooling rather then warming. Because there is a risk of a increase in snow cover. Which is a important factor that can cause the climate to cool.

Clyde Spencer

The theory of AGW predicts that there should be less radiative cooling during the 6-month Winter of darkness, or an apparent warming. In my previous analysis of BEST land surface data (published at WUWT) I demonstrated that the global lows have been increasing more rapidly than the highs for most of the last century.

taxed

lt was interesting what happened in NE North America during the spring. When some very cold weather for the time of year invaded southwards even though the Arctic was running well above average temps. lt may have pointed the way how the climate can move from warming to cooling over time.

Clyde Spencer

What is an “above average” temperature for the Arctic in the Spring is going below average for mid-latitudes, I.e. COLD!

OK – many agree with you on “less cold” rather than “more warm” making the “average” temperature “warmer. I have seen several proposed reasons for this. What do you think it is?

Clyde Spencer

If there was symmetry, that is strong warming at both poles, then I would go with GHG influence. However, it appears that the anomalous warming is only occurring at the North Pole. I think that the CAGW people need to explain that. It should be worth a few my grants.

HomeBrewer

The AGW:ers in Sweden have had a hard time explaining the warm winters and cool summers in Sweden, I guess this is consistent with warm ocean water (Gulf stream) reducing cold winter temperatures but not affecting summer temperatures. So the problem is finally solved: increased sun output together with a decrease in cloud cover has warmed the oceans for decades and when the ocean heat has dissipated we’ll return to “normal” temperatures again. Can they stop taxing us to death now? 🙂

Javier

Actually theory would predict that. Increased CO2 should have a higher effect at times of lower humidity, and thus should rise minimum winter and night temperatures preferentially while having little effect on summer days maximum temperatures when humidity is higher. I don’t see why they are having such a hard time in Sweden. The increase in minimum temperatures is very common everywhere.

HomeBrewer

Sorry, meant that they (actually meteorologists = pro AGW in Sweden) have a hard time explaining the decrease in summer temperatures, perhaps this is also covered by the Theory?

Menicholas

Or it is just random, or semi-random.
If you flip a coin over and over again, it is not unusual for heads or tails to come up many times in a row.
It is also not unusual to have a very regular repeating heads-tails-heads-tails pattern for a while.
Randomness (and hence natural variability) has many faces.

Javier

HomeBrewer,
The decrease in summer temperatures is not surprising at all. It has been going on for a very long time and it is probably due to the effect of falling obliquity on ocean temperatures.
This is a biological (summer) diatom proxy from Icelandic waters MD99-2275. It pretty much sums what is going on up North. Although a secondary trend upwards is possible for some time, the primary trend is down, down, down.comment image
Source: Climate Audit from Jiang et al., 2015.

If low solar activity had much of an influence on global temperatures, we wouldn’t have seen the big rise in temperatures last year, and the expected additional rise this year, no?

Clyde Spencer

Unless, as David Evans hypothesizes, there is a significant time delay on the order of one sunspot cycle.

Javier

Yes there is very little correlation on temperatures and solar activity on the short term, but the correlation improves the longer the timeframe considered and it is quite good already at the multidecadal level.

the correlation between declining solar polar field strength and temperature is clearly demonstrated by the character of results on minima as shown above, i.e. like parabola
you can also look at maxima on stations with good records from the past, i.e.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg

bw

Based on 35 years of satellite data.
Actual TSI measured during years between sunspot peaks is about 1361 watts per square meter.
Actual TSI measured during years of higher sunspot activity is about 1361.5 watts per square meter.
Those years with higher sunspot numbers are a little more variable with short times of 1362 watts per square meter. The 2014 paper by Kopp shows the acual data.
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2014/01/swsc130036/swsc130036.html
The amount of solar variability in terms of solar energy reaching Earth is very low, even in historical terms, but TSI before satellites is less certain. No one really knows TSI during the Maunder minimum, or earlier.

Land Northern Hemisphere in total (40% land) and the global Land only temperatures show clear presence of the solar Hale cycle periodic component.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/5Spectra.gif
Since science has no explanation for this phenomenon it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Pamela Gray

Vuc, statistics science (the study of statistical methods) does indeed have an explanation for the graph you have posted. Have you explored that?

Philip Schaeffer

He can’t get past the feeling he gets from his brains pattern detection systems. He is not yet at peace with the reality that our brains seek out and perceive patterns, even where none exist, and that squinting harder when looking at the graphs, instead of using statistical analysis, is not the answer.

vukcevic

Statistics is not a science, it is an art in crafting a ‘numerical origami’; its worth is residing in the mind of the beholder.
I hope your science is a bit more sound than your name spelling ability. good bye !

vukcevic

Mr. Schaeffer , it is so kind of you to explain my emotions and cerebral functionality so concisely; I could have lived rest of my life in a total ignorance of my character.
On the matter of science, it goes without much elaboration that if something has a clear physical explanation the use of statistics is surplus to requirements. On the other hand in the absence of a clear physical explanation ‘theorylogists’ resort to statistics, which “can prove almost anything but the truth”.
Without any intention whatsoever in delving into your personal emotional and other attributes I wish a good day to you sir.

Pamela Gray

The history of statistical science has been chronicled. It is not an art but a legitimate area of research, often using random data to test the strengths and weaknesses of standard and proposed statistical methods. Something as complex as climate demands its use. Why? Most often the issue is that while x appears to be related to y, it is actually a confounding factor z that connects them (think CO2 and long term rise in global temperature – a good case of missing the confounding factor). A close second in climate science is the overly re-worked data making an elephant’s trunk tie itself into knots. Or loop up and down in graceful arcs.

Resourceguy

We already have some evidence of the link between low sun spots and climate from 2009. It was a year in which regional temps (NH) were lowered and the mechanism was also revealed. It came from lack of weakening of the jet stream in summer and unseasonably cool months. So, one year (season) and regional impact does not make a global climate impact for models but it is marked as a likely pattern to watch for in an extended solar minimum over several years of that 2009 experience. Throw on top of that the El Nino decline and AMO multidecade decline and it could get interesting, if not confusing. I’m sure the models will sort it out. sarc

n.n

The sun is as “smooth” as a billiard ball.

Clyde Spencer

“Smooth” refers to the topographic texture. “Blank” means it is featureless, like the uniform color of a billiard ball. I believe that David’s choice of words was better than yours.

Pamela Gray

Let’s do this from the bottom up. I am going to dismiss atmospheric heating by the Sun because on a daily basis, we turn away from the Sun and rather rapidly cool off, all things being equal. Air does not store heat. Since I believe the oceans are the source of heat, stored up and released in swings of various degrees and lengths of time, let’s do some calculations:
The “Specific Heat” property says that water requires 1 calorie for each gram of water present and each degree Celsius that those grams of water heat up. Other materials require a different amount of calories to heat up.
Since it takes 1 calorie to heat a gram of water 1 degree Celsius, and 1 Joule per second (which is also 1 watt) is equal to 0.238902957619 calories, we now know that it takes 4.184 J/s to heat one gram of water 1 degrees Celsius. To expand, 4.184 joule of heat energy (or one calorie) is required to raise the temperature of a unit weight (1 g) of water from 0 degrees C to 1 degree C, or from 32 degrees F to 33.8 degrees F. Now consider the volume of ocean. Granted, ocean water is not pure water, but the exercise will work for illustrative purposes. So consider the volume of ocean. There are 3785.4118 grams of water in a gallon of the stuff. It takes 15,838.163 J/s to heat that gallon by 1 degree. That’s 15,838 Watts consumed to heat that water 1 stinkin degree. The link below will fill you in on how much heat is currently estimated to be stored in the oceans. For those of you who wish to use the British Thermal Unit: 1 Btu (British thermal unit) = 1055.06 J though for the life of me I don’t know why anyone would ever use that awful calculation. Unless you have a caveman sized grill and like to say big numbers followed by BTU. Anyway, it must be clear to you by now that the tiny amount of VARIATION in solar metrics the solar enthusiasts are putting forth has the energy to do anything at all measurable let alone observable to climate via transfer of energy from the top of the atmosphere to its surface and below is just not plausible. Not even when somehow amplified.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Bindidon

I’m afraid nobody will read your excellent comment, and if by exception anyone did, s/he would understand what you are so accurately underlining.
What about a graphical comparison, Pamela?

Pamela Gray

I am terrible at creating graphs I can post. Don’t know how to go from Excel to a picture to an embedded comment. Besides, the scale would have to be reduced to the degree that at least one bar on the graph would not be visible and the other one would not fit on the page.

Clyde Spencer

I did read her long missive and I’m afraid I missed the point she was trying to make. I’m not sure the problem was mine because I don’t encounter the problem very often.

afonzarelli

(shades of gray…)

Clyde Spencer

I don’t suppose that if the delta were cumulative it would make any difference. I never did care for integration anyway.
Are you suggesting that the oceans are the ultimate source of heat? Or are you just ignoring the fact that when warm air passes over water it evaporates some of that water and then transports that water vapor with its latent heat to some other place in the atmosphere?
BTW rocks store heat. That is one of the reasons we have an UHI effect.

Pamela Gray

The oceans store and release absorbed solar energy.

Clyde Spencer

“The oceans store and release absorbed solar energy.”
As do the land masses. Its just that the land rises to higher temperatures for the same insolation and releases the solar energy more quickly. Water vapor also stores and transports solar energy. Your Point?
However, the oceans can only release the absorbed solar energy if the atmosphere is colder than the water. Where are you going with this.?

Matt G

This diagram sums up the ocean and atmosphere. Where I disagree, I do see science that the sun contributes quite a bit towards temperature during numerous cycles. The time scale I estimate is roughly two and half cycles until the planet reaches equilibrium with a constant change in solar activity, say 0.5 W/m2 at the surface.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/atmosphere-vs-ocean-heat-capacity2_zpsjjwuhpbk.jpg

bw