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

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

      • 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!

      • I looked at the sun today and could not see the large “1”.

        Is the “1” on the other side of the sun currently?

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

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

      • ..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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      Ergo: With sun winding down, the north summers cool, they start late and end early.
      “Summer’s lease hath all too short a date.”

      • 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.

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

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

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

    • 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

      • 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.

      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.

  2. 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!’

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

      • 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.)

      • 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/

  3. 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!!!

    • …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…

  4. 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.

    • 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.”

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

  7. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  8. 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?

    • “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.

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

  10. 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.

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

  12. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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?)

      • 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.

  13. 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.

      • 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?

      • The greatest exponential effect of TSI is at incoming Earth’s thermosphere.

        Can’t touch this.

    • 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.

      • 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

      • 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

      • 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?

      • 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.’

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

      • 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

      • 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

      • 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?

      • 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:

        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)

      • 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.

    • The North Atlantic is said to be the saltiest sea water on the planet. This is it’s temperature trend.

      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.

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

      • The baseline of this graph probably represents how the oceans of the Earth have been getting progressively colder during the current Quaternary Ice Age.

        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.

        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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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:

      • 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.

      • 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 .

    • “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.

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

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  14. 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • @ 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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
        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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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”.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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’

      • 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]

      • 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.

      • 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

        Supersonic is the word that [correctly] is used by all space scientists.

    • [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 .

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • 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

    • 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.

  15. 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 !

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

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

      • 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.

    • “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.

    • “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.

    • 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

    • 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.

  19. 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. .

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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 .

      • 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.

  20. 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.

  21. @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’.

    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’.

    • 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?

    • “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.

      • 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.”

      • 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…

  22. 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

      This puts the current cycle in perspective. Note that F10.7 [and its proxy rY] reaches the same low value in every sunspot cycle/

      • 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.

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

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • 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:

        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.

      • “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]:

        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.

      • “…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:

      • “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

      • “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.

      • “…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.

      • “…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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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.

      • “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…

      • “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.

      • 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:

        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:

        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),

        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.”

    • “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?

      • “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:

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

      • 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

    • 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

  26. 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…..

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

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

  30. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

    • 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? :)

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

        Source: Climate Audit from Jiang et al., 2015.

  31. 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?

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

      • 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.

  32. 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.

  33. Land Northern Hemisphere in total (40% land) and the global Land only temperatures show clear presence of the solar Hale cycle periodic component.

    Since science has no explanation for this phenomenon it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

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

      • 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.

      • 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 !

      • 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.

      • 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.

  34. 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

    • “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.

  35. 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/

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • “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.?

      • 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.

    • Specific heat is the amount of energy that raises one kilogram of matter by 1 Kelvin.
      For seawater, specific heat is 4000 Joules per kilogram.
      For air, specific heat is 1000 Joules per kilogram.
      On a volume basis, seawater has 800 times the density of the atmosphere above the surface. So, for equal volumes, the ocean surface has 3200 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
      Also, the ocean absorbs and thermalizes almost all solar energy, it has a very low albedo.
      Rocks have a greater density than water, but have lower specific heat capacity.
      So on a global basis, yes the sun heats the oceans, and the oceans then heat the atmosphere.
      Just compare the annual temperature variance of Hawaii or Guam to any central continental weather station.

      • Acceptable for a first-order approximation. However, there are some things to consider. You left out the latent heat of water vapor in the air. Also, while the reflectivity of water is very low when the sun is directly overhead, and even with angles of incidence up to about 60 deg, the reflectivity approaches 100% at glancing angles, i.e. the limbs of Earth have very high reflectivity.

      • I did that for those of us who buy milk by the half gallon and spray weeds with a 3-gallon capacity backpack sprayer. It is something that is very familiar to a farm girl in NE Oregon and to the rest of the US. Which explains the BTU mention. It’s apparently a guy thing, kinda like a mancave.

      • You must love it when you need a new air conditioner and they start talking about tons, Pamela.
        Do you know why AC is measured in tons?

  36. No one has and no one will be changing his/her opinion. The only way it could change is if the data supports one way or another the opinions that are out there.

    The data going forward will go a long way in proving who is correct and who is not correct.

    • Salvatore, no. The data will not go a long way to proving your thesis. You must develop a reasonable series of mechanisms, and then put those to test. Start with a literature review. Uh oh. So far, the literature is rather thin regarding your thesis. For everyone you may find that supports your mechanisms, there are multiple ones that say the opposite. You have a very rough road ahead.

      • Pam what do you think me and others have been reporting all these months . I listed many mechanisms on my post sent june 30 12:16 pm.

        You choose not to believe them . Again I want to see if the climate responds to my low average value solar parameters if it does you and the ones that agree with you will have to explain and prove why it is not correct .

      • The oceans are what help to keep our temperatures relatively stable. But they are not the driver. I know you want to believe that, but it is purely wishful thinking on your part. Give it a rest.

      • Salvatore, if you’re shown to be in the right, nobody’s going to stick around to prove nuthin’! AGW will be over, anthony will take up golf, and the rest of us will have to find another hobbie… (☺)

      • No, I think the warmistas will simply find a new way to torture us, or at least try.
        Until they are all hogtied in a dungeon somewhere.
        ( Hey, that was a joke, for all the hate miners.)

  37. Oh deary me.
    Since AGW is faith based let’s all convert to group mindlessness. Works on the crime rate.

  38. Leif,

    Very off topic but I’m interested in your take on this question I have asked the ligo folks:

    Since time theoretically stops at the singularity (or the event horizon depending upon whom one listens to), in our reference frame as the observer, how can we ever measure or detect something that should take an eternity, again from our reference frame, to play out?  Or posing the question another way, where in the spiral inward in the merger does the large spike in the gravitational wave get generated and how can we ever know given the relativistic time dilation effects of the high gravities involved even before the “merger”? From our reference frame, as the observers, all of this should take a very, very, very, long time and the actual merger an infinitely long time.

    • The simplest answer is that what we have observed is just what is predicted by General Relativity. To get an intuitive feeling for what is going on is very hard, as our experience does not cover the situation.

      • Ossqss,
        Depends upon your reference frame. For an observer in our frame of reference, time stops at the black hole per GR. For the two black holes, in their frame of reference, they merge. However, we could never observe it from our frame of reference, per GR. A conundrum of high order.

      • AF,

        I’m looking at the graph of the spike in the ligo observation of the subject gravitational wave and thinking that GR says we could never observe that from here. Mimsy, indeed.

      • Or best theory says infinity.
        Reality says otherwise.
        What does that tell you about our best theory?

      • How do you know what reality is?
        One answer is that reality is what we measure. Our theories are shorthand expressions for all the measurements we have ever made. So far we know of no measurements contradicting our theories. when we find such, we extend or change the theory to match.

      • Leif,

        The fact that we can make the subject ligo observation from our reference frame, so we say, violates the GR theory we are assisting in validating with that observation. This “measurement” is in conflict with our theory or it is incorrect.

      • Leif,

        I’m reading a book called Biocentrism by Bob Berman and Robert Lanza, MD, which you might find interesting. Perhaps we create reality by observing and taking our measurements. It’s about issues like how we collapse the probability distribution wave function of a particle when we observe it. You should read at least the first few chapters. Not sure it has any answers but it sure brings the questions into sharper focus.

      • Have not yet read enough of the Biocentrism but we, our consciousness, would still seem to be the causal factor, be it wave fuction collapse or split of time line or universe. Multiple universe or string theory, or multiple dimensions or “many worlds” theory seems to avoid ability to observe and measure in that “other place”.

      • Amazing what happens when you study the weather:
        it all works like a clock and it seems all parts of the clock sit inside the sun….
        Must be that somebody carefully designed it?

      • HP,
        For me, intelligent design is beyond question. All else is vanity. For every answer we find there are several more questions which arise. Keeps us on our toes.

      • Leif,

        The older I get the more I would agree and those few friends I have that are older than I am tell me it only gets worse.

  39. Let’s not ignore implications from land use changes.
    Terrestrially 47% but is that good data?

    • interesting. I also found some inconsistencies in the SSN records that made me suspicious…. SSN is a subjective measurement and it is better to look at the solar polar magnetic field strengths.

      • The SSN [or even better the Group Number] is a VERY good measure of solar activity. The polar field is a VERY good predictor of the SSN, but only goes back a few cycles, and is not a measure of what hits the Earth. For long-term work, the SSN is the measure to use. To see how well the SSN matches the magnetic field of the Sun check out http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf “the average unsigned vertical magnetic flux density has a remarkably tight correlation with the sunspot number”.
        Often, people disparage the SSN because it does not match their pet theory. Don’t be one of those people.

      • Hi Leif
        I quote from the paper you quote to me:
        “SSN  is  an  index  with considerable  subjectivity,  depending on manual  
        determinations  with  small telescopes,”

        eye strength and magnification probably being the main factors of subjectivity.

        I rest my case. I will go along with it for about 90 years back, but that is it.
        Before that, everything becomes murky, just like the temperature record before the 1950s….

      • One overcomes the subjectivity by scaling the observers to a standard observer. In this way an objective measure is obtained, where the scaled values from different people closely agree.
        If you rest your case, you just become of of those people I referred to who don’t like the SSN because it does not match their pet theory. There are [sadly] many such people, so you are not alone, but that does not make you reasonable or right.

      • HenryP,

        No measurement, and especially no series of measurements, is without error. Estimating the total area of sunspots is more subjective than counting the number. There is good agreement between different SSN observers over time, which should give one confidence that they are reliable. Because the means to measure polar field strengths did not exist before modern times, if one wants to try to estimate their past values, then some proxy has to be found. It seems that SSNs make a good proxy. Sometimes less than ideal measurements must be relied upon when trying to explain things. That is particularly true for trying to reconstruct changes in the past. And, sometimes that is absolutely essential when phenomena change periodically over a span of time that is greater than a single human’s adult lifespan. It is better to try to understand the nature of the deficiency of past measurements and correct for them, if possible, than to discard them entirely.

      • Henry,
        There is no ‘difficulty’. When normalized to a common standard, observers agree on the SSN, and we find that the SSN is a good proxy for the magnetic field, the Total Solar Irradiance, the microwave flux, the cosmic ray flux, the geomagnetic variations, and just about any other index you might come up with.

      • dear Leif
        I only observe my own test results, compile and evaluate. I postulate. Where other people’s results agree with mine they must be right/
        where other people’s results disagree, with mine, they must be wrong.
        that must be in our nature.
        Anyway, it seems you did not challenge me too much anymore on the existence and reality of the Gleissberg cycle affecting the global weather (causing 43 yrs warming and 43 yrs cooling) so it seems we are moving closer together.

      • Anyway, it seems you did not challenge me too much anymore on the existence and reality of the Gleissberg cycle affecting the global weather
        Not every silly idea is worth a challenge…

      • you must be getting old, talking to yourself a lot now, are you?
        anyway, you heard God’s voice again inviting you to the party beyond life. He is still calling you. Best wishes.

      • God? she has no impact on me, and her shouting does not really belong in any scientific debate. Of course, if you are not doing science, perhaps she can be your guiding light.

  40. May I complain again about how cold it is here in Brisbane?

    Well, I’m going to, anyway.

    It’s chilly here. Could someone turn the sun up a bit, please?

    • Heat comes from bodies of water. Jump in the tub! Turn out the light and see if the water gets cold. Report results to P. Grey.

      • Yep. And in a hurry. Most tubs are not made for a Calgon appointment with the tub. Water gets too cold before I would wish. By the way, you forgot the “light the candle” after you turn out the light.

  41. If solar activity has no measurable effects on climate, why is there a strong repetitive correlation throughout history?

  42. Clyde Spencer June 30, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    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?

    I have no idea, Clyde, but if you will post a link to the dataset that you were analyzing, I’m happy to take a look at it.

    Regards,

    w.

    • I used two different sets of BEST land surface temperatures. If you need more specific information, I’ll have to dig into my files because I haven’t done anything with it for several months. I have corresponded with David Evans and he agreed that the 11 and 22-year periodicities are present, with large Fourier coefficients. Only periods with much longer times have larger coefficients.

      • Thanks, Clyde. I just took a look at the BEST global land temperatures Jan 1750 – May 2016. The full dataset has no significant cycle at 11 years. It does have a pretty large cycle at 24 years … but the solar data doesn’t contain such any such cycle.

        In addition, when we split the dataset into two halves in order to see whether the 24-year signal persists through the two halves, it gets odder. The last half of the data has a signal at 25 years … but in the first half of the data, the signal cycle is much shorter, only 20 years.

        All of which is clear evidence that there isn’t any solar signal of any significant strength in the BEST data. If there were we’d see persistent signals at ~ 11 years, and MAYBE at 22 years … but we find nothing like that at all. Instead, we’re finding a signal at 20 and 25 years, and nothing at all at 11 years. In fact, it was this lack of an 11-year signal that led David Evans to postulate his curious “solar notch” theory of climate.

        Finally, although David Evans is a good guy, his advice on matters mathematical and solar is … well … let me just say you might want to get a second opinion. The previous discussion of Evans’ “solar notch” model spanned three threads, First, Second, and Third. Read all the threads through including the comments and you’ll get a sense of arguments as well as of David’s hypothesis.

        w.

      • At least the average of 20 and 25 gives you 22.5 which brings you close to the Hale cycle?

    • Willis,

      Doing a 1024-sample DFT on the BEST high, land-temperature monthly averages from 1929 through 2014, the third highest coefficient is for 21.3 years, and the fourth highest is for 28.4 years per cycle. There is a significant spike at 10.7 years with a slightly smaller spike at 12.2 years per cycle.

      Doing the same for the BEST low, land-temperature monthly averages similarly produces the third highest coefficient at 21.3 years with the fourth highest at 28.4 years per cycle. Again, there is a spike at 10.7 years, and a slightly lower spike at 12.2 years.

      Doing a 2048-sample DFT on the BEST average, land-temperature monthly averages from 1843 through 2013 Produced a periodogram with the 6th highest spike at 21.3 years, comparable in height to the spike at 1.0 year per cycle. There is, again, a spike at 28.4 years that is the 7th highest of the long-period cycles. There is also a subdued spike at 24.4 years. The spike at 10.7 years is much lower than in the previous DFTsl

      No zero padding was used in any of the decompositions, which is why the start and end dates vary in the DFTs.

      I suppose it could be entirely coincidence that there are periodicities near the nominal sunspot cycle values. On the other hand, the spikes in the vicinity of 11/22 years could be reflecting the variations between cycles as recorded by temperatures, rather than the somewhat subjective definitions of the length of asymmetrical cycles used by solar observers. In any event, if we aren’t seeing sunspot influence at periods of approximately 20 to 28 years, the question of what IS responsible begs to be answered.

      • @clyde spencer
        perhaps I should also explain to you that the main solar cycles that we are certain of
        11 year (Schwabe)
        22 year (Hale or Hale- Nicholson)
        87 year (Gleisberg}
        210 year (de Vries)
        these cycles can be proven from various records
        (ask me if you don’t know)

      • HenryP,
        I was unaware of the Gleisberg solar cycle. I have a strong period of a little over 85 years on all periodgrams. Since this is a DFT instead of an FFT, the periods are going to be affected by the number of discreet samples and the length of time. So, 85 years may be close enough to 87 for government work.

      • HenryP,
        It looks like it is worth my time to read your link more carefully later this evening. As a passing remark, The author characterizes a typical sunspot cycle as being between 10 and 11 years. I’d say that my observed spikes at 10.66 years seem to fit that. Doubling that to 21.32 seems a good match for the the magnetic cycle, despite not being ‘exactly’ 22 years. More importantly, the Fourier coefficients for these periods are quite strong, generally well above what appears to be largely noise. I’m at a loss as to why Willis and others report they can’t find the solar periods in the temperature data.

      • Clyde, when you use a discrete fourier transform (DFT) on a 1024-month sample, the sample is decomposed into underlying sine waves with the following periods, in years:

        > matrix( 1024 / (12 * c(1:10)) , ncol=1)
        
              [,1]
         [1,] 85.3
         [2,] 42.7
         [3,] 28.4
         [4,] 21.3
         [5,] 17.1
         [6,] 14.2
         [7,] 12.2
         [8,] 10.7
         [9,]  9.5
        [10,]  8.5

        And indeed, these are the frequencies that you say in your comment that you found , viz (emphasis mine):

        Doing a 1024-sample DFT on the BEST high, land-temperature monthly averages from 1929 through 2014, the third highest coefficient is for 21.3 years, and the fourth highest is for 28.4 years per cycle. There is a significant spike at 10.7 years with a slightly smaller spike at 12.2 years per cycle.

        However, note that the length of these periods you’ve found (e.g. 28.4 years, 21.3 years, etc.) is solely the result of the length of your sample. It has nothing to do with whatever frequencies might actually be present in the signal you are analyzing. You will find those same frequencies in a DFT analysis of ANY 1024-month signal.

        To avoid this problem, you can zero-pad the data. I’m not fond of this method, however. Instead, I use a Fourier analysis method I developed myself that I called the Slow Fourier Transform (SFT), only to find out that it was first developed in the 1970s and is called the Date-Compensated Discrete Fourier Transform, or DCDFT (Ferraz-Mello, S. 1981, Astron. J., 86, 619). (h/t to tamino for pointing out the previous art.) I love it when that happens, when something I developed myself was actually discovered previously by another researcher. It proves I’m on the right track, that I actually understand the subject. But I digress …

        The Slow Fourier Transform has some big advantages over DFT. It is linear in period rather than in frequency, and more importantly, it is tolerant of missing data.

        Using the Slow Fourier Transform allows me to use the monthly data and analyze periods of all lengths, month by month. This is called a “periodogram”. When I do that, I don’t find anything significant in the Berkeley Earth data at either the ~11 or the ~22-year period lengths.

        Best regards,

        w.

      • Willis,

        Thank you for the more detailed explanation of what you have done. But, I get similar results with a 2048-sample decomposition. I’m not an expert in FFTs, but I think that I see some issues with your explanation. If I were to do an analysis of just any 1024 samples, then I would expect to get 512 unique cycles that had no basis in time. But, when I then take into account the number of years that those samples span, that is when the arbitrary cycles get converted to a period in years. So, I accept that because the sampling is discreet, there may be some rounding that gives results that are slightly different from a continuous FFT result. That is why I have made reference to adjacent spikes on the time line. Incidentally, I see a strong spike at 1.00 year per cycle that I interpret as being annual variations in temperature. I would not expect to see that 1.00-year spike if there was no relation to actual time.

        If I remember correctly, in my exchange with David Evans, he finds similar periods and observes that the nominal 22-year period is much stronger than the 11-year. Incidentally, he has similarly developed code to do a real FFT that is slow, like yours. You have already cast aspersions on Evans’ competence and I don’t think it would serve you or your claims well to repeat them. I think that the burden of proof is on you to prove that you haven’t made a mistake. What kind of periods are you finding?

        I’m dubious of any FFT being tolerant of missing data. The implication is that if there is missing data then a contribution to reconstruct that data will also be missing or at least have the wrong coefficients. Do your FFT, delete some data, and then re-do the FFT. I would expect you will find differences. The differences might depend on just what data is missing.

        I have an inherent distrust of zero padding, which is why I have not explored it.

        I think that this issue is too important to dismiss lightly. When I get some free time, I’ll revisit the work that I did several months ago.

      • hi Willis
        like I have said before, it is clear to me that the last Gleissberg was from ca. 1927 to 2014.
        Hale and Nicholson never believed in looking at the Schwabe cycle, they always looked at the Hale cycle when the sun has run the whole plus and minus cycle as explained before.. I agree with them.
        For example, here is a graph on rainfall patterns in South Africa from a station with good rainfall data going back to before 1927

        You see the chaos of rainfall in the first graph but the trend line over the last Gleissberg cycle is exactly zero! If you group the data according to Hale, you notice the emergence of the pendulum. The weather (rainfall) is exactly constant over a period of 87 years. (4 Hale cycles) and it is possible for me to predict the average rainfall for the next Hale cycle.

        I have repeated this test with rainfall of a good station in the UK and NZ and found the same results. In the case of Wellington, the pendulum was just up side down, a parabola rather than a hyperbola.

        The weather (rainfall) is constant if you look at it in periods of 4 Hale cycles……

        .

      • Clyde Spencer July 2, 2016 at 3:24 pm Edit

        Willis,

        Thank you for the more detailed explanation of what you have done. But, I get similar results with a 2048-sample decomposition.

        Thanks, Clyde. However, I fear I haven’t made my point clear. The periods that you find are uniquely determined by the series x, x/2, x/3, x/4 and so on, where “x” is the length of the dataset in years.

        And since 2048 is two times the previous number of months (1024), it will contain the following frequencies.

        > round(matrix(2048 /(12* c(1:18)),ncol=1),1)
               [,1]
         [1,] 170.7
         [2,]  85.3
         [3,]  56.9
         [4,]  42.7
         [5,]  34.1
         [6,]  28.4
         [7,]  24.4
         [8,]  21.3
         [9,]  19.0
        [10,]  17.1
        [11,]  15.5
        [12,]  14.2
        [13,]  13.1
        [14,]  12.2
        [15,]  11.4
        [16,]  10.7
        [17,]  10.0
        [18,]   9.5

        As you can see, this contains all of the frequencies that you found in your 1024-month analyses, plus intermediate points.

        You go on to say:

        I’m not an expert in FFTs, but I think that I see some issues with your explanation. If I were to do an analysis of just any 1024 samples, then I would expect to get 512 unique cycles that had no basis in time. But, when I then take into account the number of years that those samples span, that is when the arbitrary cycles get converted to a period in years. So, I accept that because the sampling is discreet, there may be some rounding that gives results that are slightly different from a continuous FFT result. That is why I have made reference to adjacent spikes on the time line.

        I did not say that there was “some rounding”. I said that the periods (e.g. 28.4 years, 21.3 years) are uniquely fixed by the length of the data. So even if the underlying signal is 63 years exactly with nothing else going on, a 1024 or 2048 month DFT will NEVER have a peak at 63 years. It is an inherent problem with the DFT. It decomposes a series into the addition of specific sine waves of specific sizes … but that does NOT mean that such sine waves at those frequencies are physically present. Those frequencies are FIXED by the length of the dataset.

        Incidentally, I see a strong spike at 1.00 year per cycle that I interpret as being annual variations in temperature. I would not expect to see that 1.00-year spike if there was no relation to actual time.

        I have not said there is “no relation to actual time”. A signal at any frequency gets aliased to the nearest intervals. Suppose there’s a signal at 26 years. Since with 1024 data points the decomposition gives periods of 28.4 year and 21.3 years, those two will get the majority of the power that exists in the 26 year signal.

        As to why there is a strong 1-year cycle, it’s because down at the short-period end the intervals are very narrow, e.g.

        [81,]  1.05
         [82,]  1.04
         [83,]  1.03
         [84,]  1.02
         [85,]  1.00
         [86,]  0.99
         [87,]  0.98
         [88,]  0.97
         [89,]  0.96

        So unlike the situation where 26 gets aliased as 21.3 and 28.4, down near 1 year there is an interval very near to exactly one year.

        If I remember correctly, in my exchange with David Evans, he finds similar periods and observes that the nominal 22-year period is much stronger than the 11-year. Incidentally, he has similarly developed code to do a real FFT that is slow, like yours. You have already cast aspersions on Evans’ competence and I don’t think it would serve you or your claims well to repeat them. I think that the burden of proof is on you to prove that you haven’t made a mistake. What kind of periods are you finding?

        Here are the periodogramss for the sunspots:

        Note that the peak size of the ~ 11-year-period waves is around 30% of the total signal size for the full dataset. Note also that in the full dataset (red line) we can see more detail, in that over the full period there’s been a combination of ten and eleven year signals.

        And here are the corresponding periodograms for the Berkeley Earth mean temperature:

        The first thing to note is that the scale on the vertical axis is much different from the sunspot periodogram. As you note, in the full dataset there is no significant signal at all at 11 years (~ 1%). David Evans ascribes this lack of an 11-year signal to a natural “Notch Filter” that cuts out the 11-year signal. You’re free to believe him.

        As to the ~ 22-year signal, neither the halves nor the full dataset have a peak at 22 years. Using the full dataset, there is a peak at ~24 years which is about 3% of the signal. Even if this 24-year peak persists, it is trivially small.

        Now, the error increases as the length of the period goes up (right side of the graph). On that right side of the graph, we’re estimating periods that are up to a quarter of the length of the dataset. So although there is a small 24-25 year cycle in the full dataset, I wouldn’t trust that result a whole lot.

        I’m dubious of any FFT being tolerant of missing data. The implication is that if there is missing data then a contribution to reconstruct that data will also be missing or at least have the wrong coefficients. Do your FFT, delete some data, and then re-do the FFT. I would expect you will find differences. The differences might depend on just what data is missing.

        You are correct that the differences do depend on what data is missing, and I have done that very “knockout” exercise on both observational and synthetic datasets. The algorithm is indeed surprisingly robust, particularly if the knockouts are random.

        This is because of the brute-force method I used. I simply do a “best-fit” of a sine wave of each frequency to the dataset. Put them together and voilá! Periodogram. And that method is resistant to missing data.

        I have an inherent distrust of zero padding, which is why I have not explored it.

        Yeah, I’m not all that fond of it either, which was one of the things that impelled me to develop an improved method.

        I think that this issue is too important to dismiss lightly. When I get some free time, I’ll revisit the work that I did several months ago.

        Thanks,

        w.

  43. The Sun is not quite blank, there is a developing region in the south-eastern hemisphere [and, of course, there is the backside too with spots]:

  44. Global oceans make fine batteries. Trouble is, research came to a screeching halt with regard to just how long oceans hold onto heat, having been put on the shelf to make room for scary human caused boiling cauldrons of oceans. This link does a pretty good job of highlighting what was possible before the train left the tracts. The global oceans as storage batteries:

    “Simpson (4) conducted the first study of Earth’s heat balance which concluded that the Earth system is not in local radiative balance, and therefore transport of heat from the tropics to the poles is required for the Earth system to be in global radiative balance. Identifying the mechanisms by which heat is transported from the tropics to the poles is one of the central problems of climate research. In addition, Rossby (5) drew attention to the fact that because of its large specific heat capacity and mass, the world ocean could store large amounts of heat and remove this heat from direct contact with the atmosphere for long periods of time.”

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NESDIS/NODC/journal_articles/science_2000_warming-world-ocean.pdf

    • Yes, I think we see a short term battery effect in the ENSO patterns. The challenge is to find the longer term storage mechanisms. Human enlightenment is too recent to see chronic patterns on the millenial scale.

    • The oceans do not have time to equilibrate to interglacial temperatures. They are much closer to glacial temperatures even now. Average ocean temperature is about 3.9°C. There is no enough warming in an interglacial to seriously affect that. Only when the planet starts getting out of the Quaternary Ice Age will the oceans start to rise their average temperature significantly.

      • “Average ocean temperature is about 3.9C.” I did not realize that the average temperature was so cold. Where do you find data like this. I am interested because of the characteristics of salt, sodium chloride. Sodium chloride is a hydrate that takes approximate 4 kilojoules per mole from water when it is dissolved. This energy must be removed from the hydrate before water can freeze and is the reason salt water has a lower freezing point. When water reaches near 4C, the energy of hydration starts to be removed and makes it require additional energy be removed to continue to lower the temperate. This requirement for increased energy removal makes it harder for the temperature to get colder.

      • It is pretty much everywhere:

        Wikipedia: Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from −1 °C to 3 °C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 °C

        Temperature of the Ocean: The Physics Factbook: The average temperature of the ocean is 3.9 °C (39 F).

        Windows to the Universe: Temperature of Ocean Water: 90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)! It’s really, really cold down there!

  45. Sally: If anyone had told me I’d be waiting in a pumpkin patch on Halloween night, I’d have said they were crazy.
    Linus: Just think, Sally, when the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch, we’ll be there to see him. What’s that? Was that… I hear the Great Pumpkin! There he is! There he is!

  46. This has been all over the Australian MSM too. In articles posted at News.com.au and SMH.com.au the claim is this could be the start of another mini-ice age (What about the one we are in right now?). And here is me thinking the science was settled, climate is driven by ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2.

  47. Now there was me wanting to make a serious comment!
    I don’t get the solar/non solar divide! WattsUpWith y’all?
    Pretty much all the energy we know about comes from the sun, but why anyone would expect to see air temperature correlate with short-term TSI is beyond me. Simple correlation is not the way the climate system works. It’s not in equilibrium (anywhere, anytime – no matter how much steady-staters might wish it to be so) and so any quantity we ever measure is in a state of flux. So do we make fast measurements? No, we resort to ever longer averages to try and get rid of the ‘noise’. But the noise is actually the signal. The planet is integrating everything involving energy over every millimeter of it’s spherical surface and oceans and atmosphere every millisecond of every day.

    But to go to the other extreme and think TSI has no effect on temperatures seems even more bizarre. It seems to me that the sun is rather like a huge bonfire and the Earth is happily warming itself by it. The bonfire flickers away doing it’s very complex and very beautiful thing, but whether Earth gets hotter or colder depends on how long since a log was last chucked onto the fire (lets not worry about ‘who’ or ‘what’ did that, it’s an analogy folks) and whether you are putting clothes on or taking them off (ocean currents). A brief consideration of the energy buffers, or reservoirs, as I think Pamela was mentioning, means you’d expect NOT to see any correlation between air temps and long term TSI changes because of the immense lags you’d expect from geological processes and ocean circulation

    Classic reductionism isn’t going to solve this – at least not in the 40 odd years left of my lifetime.

    • if you do it right, you will get the right results….
      e.g.
      looking at 44 years of minimum temperatures at 54 stations, balanced by latitude, – not caring about longitude as long as we look at the rate of change in K/annum –

      I obtained the following results:

      seeing that AGW is supposed to affect minimum temepratures, I conclude:
      there is no discernible man made global warming.
      Note that he drop in minima corresponds exactly with the drop in the strengths of the solar polar magnetic fields.

    • Dear Youngster,
      You said, “…but why anyone would expect to see air temperature correlate with short-term TSI is beyond me.”

      In the early ’90s some friends and I flew down to La Paz (Baja) to observe a long, total solar eclipse. During the totality, the air temperature dropped about 1° F per minute. I’d call that an excellent correlation between short-term TSI and air temperature. Of course, one can observe a similar effect when a puffy cumulus floats overhead in the Summer in an otherwise clear blue sky.

  48. Chuck orbital variation into that mix as well since that’s probably another significant one. Large volcanoes too…etc…there’s a post on here somewhere of all the drivers and how big they might be…

  49. Sunspot counting, GSN, its all irrelevant.

    F10.7 is the true measure of modulations (over centuries) to our climate.
    TSI is the true measure of modulation (over multi-millenia, including orbital effects aka Malinkovitch).

    Stop wasting time on counting pimples.

    EUV (with the F10.7 proxy) is where it is for (answers in) changing climate in the Holocene.

    F10.7 has been well below 100 for over a full solar rotation. La Nina is developing. She asks for warming UV with her clear tropical skies. Sol (unlike 99-01) takes a pass. La Nina 16-18 will be step-down in GMST.

  50. I apologize for not having read every comment here but it seems to me that it would be easy enough for someone who is knowledgeable to check the climate models and see if this seemingly well understood phenomenon is included in the model.

    If it is, and the temperature anomaly goes down while the prediction goes up then it would be another indication that the models are flawed. If the anomaly goes up, and the model predicts that, then it would support the model…right?

    Let’s say the sun spot activity is quieter and the minimum goes on longer than the model anticipates but the temperature anomaly rises. That would mean that the Earth is warming enough to overpower the cooling effects of the Sun inactivity. That being the case, the models might be predicting something useful.

    After all, the models are the sum total of the “evidence” for AGW.

    • Right, Proud Skeptic. The next decade or two are crucial for the two competing explanations for global warming. The increase in CO2 demands an acceleration of the 21st century warming trend, while the quieter sun and decreasing AMO require that the rate of warming does not accelerate. Natural versus man-made.

      • Then I should assume that the models generally have at least attempted to include the coming downturn in sunspot activity.

        If the models predict “up” and the temperature goes up then it still resolves nothing but gives the models more credence. If the models predict “down” (which I understand they don’t) and the temperatures go down then the same is true. If the models predict “up” and we get a leveling out or a drop in temperature then it is bad news for the models. If they predict “down” and the temperature goes up then they will be wrong but will still be able to spin it effectively.

        If the models have failed to predict the decrease in sunspot activity or predict it incorrectly then the models need to be adjusted to reflect reality. That could result in a whole new effort to rejigger them to make them look credible.

        Pretty sad stuff. The timeframe for this kind of science goes well beyond years or decades. Talking about what happens from year to year is a waste of time.

      • It doesn’t matter if the models include or not a decrease in solar activity, because they rely only on total irradiation changes that are very small, so the effect in the models is very small, about 0.1°C. It gets completely swamped by CO2 forcing. If temperatures don’t go up they’ll have to change the current assumptions about forcings and climate sensitivity. The main consequence would be that global warming would not be as dangerous as purported, No way about it.

    • “I apologize for not having read every comment here but it seems to me that it would be easy enough for someone who is knowledgeable to check the climate models and see if this seemingly well understood phenomenon is included in the model.”

      the models are not interested in predicting the temperature over short time scales.

      The way solar forcing is handled is basically two approaches.

      1. Pick a nomimal TSI and use that for the future
      2. modulate TSI in a simple 11 year cycle

      You can also do a what if? LIA in the future… answer the planet still warms

    • “After all, the models are the sum total of the “evidence” for AGW.”

      err No.

      the models are not evidence for AGW.

      the evidence for AGW is physics we have known for over 100 years.

      • “the evidence for AGW is physics we have known for over 100 years.”
        No it isn’t .
        If it is , show us the equations and experiments demonstrating them .

        What is shown and known is that the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated body is a function of the correlation between the spectrum of the body and its radiant sources – and this applies to gases just as to any other materials . In a computable APL notation this equilibrium can be expressed as T:
        dot[ sourceSpectrum ; objSpectrum ] = dot[ Planck[ T ] ; objSpectrum ]
        where dot[ ; ] is simply the ubiquitous sum over products of corresponding , in this case , frequencies .

        This is the equation which produces the 255K value which is as magically inviolable as the 97% meme when a step function spectrum of 0.7 over the peak of the solar spectrum , and a 1.0 over the longer wavelengths is plugged in for the object spectrum . This is the relationship which has been understood , more or less for over a century but is all too poorly taught today . It should be taught and demonstrated even at a highschool physics level and should be an absolute required fundamental for anybody claiming an undergraduate degree in “climate science” .

        It provides no mechanism explaining why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops , 3% in the case of the Earth , 125% in the case of Venus . And it is that falsehood promulgated by James Hansen in particular upon which this hysteria is based . If you have equations which explain that , or experimental demonstration of the phenomenon , PLEASE present them .

        I’m an APL programmer . ( See my remote demo last Saturday at Silicon Valley Forth Interest Group Hangout , https://youtu.be/Mi_xfD9cURI?t=1h37m24s ) I understand things one equation at a time . And I’m interested in the next equation to implement which explains that excess 3% for Earth and 125% for Venus before even attempting to get into the details of the 0.3% variations we have recorded . One takeaway for me from this discussion of sunspot cycles , fascinating tho it is , is that they make damn little difference in solar output — to little to explain even that 0.3% .

        So , if you claim that the physics has been known for more than a century , please show us your calculations deriving the 400K excess of Venus’s surface temperature over the 335K gray body temperature in its orbit .

      • I agree with Bob! Tyndall and Arrhenius looked at closed box experiments but in practice this is not at all what is happening. For example, to detect the presence of CO2 on other planets, they look at the deflection of sunlight in a certain UV range, meaning that this light is being bounced off …..i.e. cooling.
        What I have been asking since: where is the balance sheet, showing how much cooling and how much warming is caused by each green house gas?

  51. As it happens the SIDC (SILSO) has just published the June sunspot number, which in the old Wolf numbers is about 14.6, while the Svalgaard number is quoted as 20.9
    As it can be seen from the graph below

    SC24 is nearly done, and contrary to some claims (‘weak cycles tend to be long ones’ to which I don’t subscribe) the SC24 may be a weak and a short cycle.
    The weak solar activity’s imperative: Cool summers in the N. Hemisphere in the years to come.

    • Yes, thank you. The cool summers in the NH multiplied by X number of years represents the lack of cognition in the models.

  52. Who cares about Sunspots, other than a Solar activity gauge? For actual energy reaching the surface of the Earth, use the 10.7 cm Flux!
    By the way, it is well documented that the average Earth temperature difference between the Solar Peak and the Solar Minimum is about -0.1C.

    My model shows Earth average temperature changing at (-0.1C)/(2.5syears) as long as the Flux is consistently less than 80sfu for the 2.5 year period. {Need to remove the temporary effects of El Nino or La Nina}.

    • That’s the ticket. Get rid of confounding factors using filters and whatnot to rework your data. Rinse. Repeat.

      • The advantage is the 10.7cm Flux is a proxy for the energy actually reaching the Earth’s surface.
        Ask Dr. Isvalgaard, that where I got it from.

      • I never used Sunspots. I always used the Flux. But, your brilliant sarcasm is appreciated. I never used a filter. I used standard control systems model for incoming energy and conversion to heat. What do you use? Shampoo for your Rinse, Repeat??

    • jlurtz July 1, 2016 at 6:10 am

      Who cares about Sunspots, other than a Solar activity gauge? For actual energy reaching the surface of the Earth, use the 10.7 cm Flux!

      I don’t understand this claim at all. The correlation between monthly sunspots and monthly 10.7 cm radio flux is an amazing 0.98, meaning they are moving almost exactly in lockstep. And given that we have sunspot records much further back than 10.7 flux records, just what is the advantage of using the flux data?

      By the way, it is well documented that the average Earth temperature difference between the Solar Peak and the Solar Minimum is about -0.1C.

      As far as I know, a global temperature change related to sunspots is not “well documented”. It is more accurately described as “often claimed but NEVER documented” …

      However, a link to your “documentation” would settle the question easily, so just where is it “well documented”?

      w.

  53. There is a reason why there are piles and piles of incorrect theories in modern science. Observations which the current theories cannot explain are ignored, not included in text books, not summarized.

    There must be a cause, a physical explanation for all observational paradoxes and anomalies.

    In the case of the sun, there has been an astonishing gradual change in the appearance, the size and lifetime of the sunspots groups. What change in the sun to cause that observational change?

    In the last month, sunspots have abruptly disappeared, three years before the solar minimum. Why?

    What physically changed in the sun, to cause the solar sunspot mechanism to change from the production of large, long lasting sunspot groups, to the production of tiny, tiny, tiny sunspot groups that disappear in a few days, and now to a spotless sun.

    As I have stated previously, the solar cycle has been interrupted, which is different than a slowdown in the solar cycle. There will be no solar cycle 25.

    We are going to have a front row seat to observe how an interruption to the solar cycle causes a Heinrich event. There are piles and piles of astronomical and solar system observations that support the assertion that the sun is significantly different than the standard solar model.

    I will explain in detail what is happening to the sun and how the sun is different than the standard model when there is the start of in your face planetary cooling. We live in surreal times.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    By S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer

    Figure 1 Atmospheric radiocarbon level D14C (expressed as deviation, in ‰, from the AD 1950 standard level15) derived from mostly decadal samples of absolutely dated tree-ring chronologies (INTCAL98 data set)16. The D14C measurement precision is generally 2–3‰, although in the earlier part of the time series it can reach up to 4–5‰. The INTCAL98 data for times earlier than 11,400 BP are not directly employed for the reconstruction because of larger errors and uncertainties in the carbon cycle acting at that time. See Supplementary Information for more information on the data set, initial conditions used for the reconstruction, and error estimates. The long-term decline (indicated by the red curve) is caused by a reduction in 14C production rate due mainly to an increase in the geomagnetic shielding of the cosmic ray flux. The short-term fluctuations (duration one to two centuries) reflect changes of the production rate due to solar variability. Years BC are shown negative here and in other figures.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    • Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not solar in origin. There have been good advances in the understanding of D-O events these last years. You should keep current with the bibliography.

      As Heinrich events are related to D-O events, they are not either solar in origin. And both D-O and Heinrich events are features of glacial periods. Neither has been described during an interglacial. The chances of having a Heinrich event during an interglacial are probably nil.

      There is nothing unusual with the Sun. Solanki was wrong. That the Sun goes spotless is pretty common. As this cycle is the less active since we have modern instruments, we really don’t know how it should behave, but as far as we can tell everything looks as normal as around 1900.

      • I have repeatedly pointed out to William that he is wrong on several points, but nothing can shake the outwards confidence of a true charlatan who asserts that he knows everything. As far as we know, the sun is behaving [as you say] just as it did a century ago. The dynamo is not ‘interrupted’. The Standard Model is very successful in explaining what we observe, etc, etc.

  54. @leif
    could you perhaps help me?
    I wonder why this graph showing the double polar exchange (around 2014) is not being updated/
    clearly you can see that the average solar polar strengths are declining, like parabolic (south) and hyperbolic (north)

  55. @Clyde Spencer
    I used 54 stations
    balanced on latitude (close to zero)
    and we look at the change in K/annum
    like when I started here looking at temperatures in southern Africa

    i.e. minima never increased here a bit meaning there is no man made global warming

  56. leif says

    We cannot pinpoint the ‘end of the about 100-year Gleissberg cycle to any precise year [“end of 2014”].

    henry says
    if you had followed the discussion you would have known that gleissberg is about 86.5 years, on average,
    and exactly half of the cycle is right there in front of you, i.e. the scissors graph….
    1971/2 through to 2014
    so, to correct myself on a previous statement, the next 43 years will be the exact mirror of the previous 43 years, meaning cycle 25 will be equal to 24…..

    more spotless sun coming up
    sorry to disappoint you
    global cooling is coming
    there is no other interpretation of the results

  57. I notice that in the 1940s, 50s and 60s there were increasing sunspot (high) numbers. Wasn’t this actually a global cooling period? I think Willis is right. The sunspot data doesn’t seem to support/link to global temperatures.

  58. I’d said to Bob:

    Willis Eschenbach June 30, 2016 at 12:16 pm
    … 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.

    In response, I get the following:

    Bob Weber June 30, 2016 at 1:40 pm Edit

    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?

    Say what? You can’t find a single quote of mine to support your position, so you claim I “implicitly support” something? Just because you read something into my words does not make it something I implicitly support. Or to put it more clearly, the fact that you infer something is not evidence that I implied it.

    And what is the “something” you think I “implicitly support”? Why, it’s the idea that there should be an “exact 11-year match in temps to TSI”.

    Nope. Never said that, far as I know, and I never implied it. Which is why you are short of quotes.

    However, I would point out that that is exactly the claim made by dozens and dozens of papers out there, that just such a match exists between TSI and temperature (or between TSI and some other variable).

    But when I’ve investigated those claims, when I’ve gone to look for that putative match, I’ve not been able to find it.

    Regards,

    w.

  59. Some people claim it is only TSI that matters. Every few minutes there is a sun-earth’s poles magnetic link. Jupiter is five times further than the earth, so the link should be at least 25 (5^2, or even 125 = 5^3) times weaker than the one affecting the earth, so you might think the effect on the gas giant might be negligible. But according to the latest images from the NASA that may not be the case.

    • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Actually, the magnetic field does not fall of as the square [or cube] of the distance because the rotation of the sun winds up the field, so that a large distance the field is no longer radial but azimuthal and thus falls of linearly with distance. Because Jupiter is so large, it intercepts two orders of magnitude of the solar wind, compensating for the weaker field. The magnetic flux intercepted is thus considerably more than that intercepted by the Earth.

      • come on doc let’s have some fun
        “The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century.
        The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 48 hours.
        Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than seven years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase.”

      • lsvalgaard July 2, 2016 at 9:48 am
        “So what? …..as temperatures during this weak cycle have been among the highest measured.”

        Only in the minds of those who believe in the mal-constructed so called global temperature.
        In the real world where the data is even modestly scrutinised it is not so, fall in temperatures has followed the fall in the solar activity with about five years delay.
        As you can see here the CET average (the real not some kind of imaginary temperature) has been declining pretty sharp since 2005.

        The sharpest short term drop in temperatures since 1875 !

      • I live on the terra firma.
        Nonsense, nonsense
        2005 10.48
        2006 10.87
        2007 10.50
        2008 9.97
        2009 10.14
        2010 8.86
        2011 10.72
        2012 9.72
        2013 9.61
        2014 10.95
        2015 10.31
        2005 was 10.48C and average since 2005 is 10.19C, clearly fall not a rise as you show in your silly little graph
        you said it “I often wonder how some people can post obvious falsehoods and halftruths like you do here”.
        and it boomeranged back.
        CET data http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

      • lsvalgaard July 2, 2016 at 11:18 am
        “Another falsehood”
        Nonsense again
        Short term average (11 year LPF) fell from 10.53C in 2005 fell to 9.97C by 2011

        As a scientist you should check data before throwing misleading statements!

      • And has since risen to within 0.29 of the 2005 value.

        The misleading statement was “CET average (the real not some kind of imaginary temperature) has been declining pretty sharp since 2005″.
        As you can see it has not declined ‘pretty sharp”.

      • sorry Leif
        I don’t trust the satellite data either
        e.g.
        how do you protect the probes against the sun’s most harmful rays? No material can withstand for long. No wonder Roy Spencer is already on his version 6.0…..
        the only way to do it right is to do it my way
        looking at the rate of change in K/annum on a random sample of at least 50 weather stations balanced by latitude.

      • before I forget
        the number stations NH must be equal to the number of stations SH
        A clever man can easily figure out how I got to my results
        here are the results of my home country

      • Your blue graph is not starting in 2005, you are misleading readers! I quoted you data since 2005 and the link were the data can be found.
        CET average (the real not some kind of imaginary temperature) has been declining pretty sharp since 2005. By 11 year average (solar cycle length) LPF, the CET fell from 10.53C in 2005 to 9.97C by 2011, by more than 0.5C, the sharpest fall since 1875 (1870 -1882 recorded fall of 0.76C).
        ! Do the data !
        The CET is as a real temperature data as you can get. I live on the terra firma not in some average ocean’s troposphere covering 75% of the earth’s surface.

      • Your blue graph is not starting in 2005
        It shows that temperatures have recovered from whatever decrease you postulated [in 2010]:
        As you can see here;

        But perhaps you will dispute the satellite data and believe your own cherry-picked, favored data. If so, all bets are off. Perhaps you would respond to HenryP who said that “looking only at CET is exactly NOT doing it right….”.

      • indeed, I do think that looking at only one weather station only is not going to tell you much, and, as stated before, looking at data before 1950 is also a waste of time, mainly because of the differences in measuring and recording techniques.

      • You may try to wriggle out as much as you like. You know where to get the data, you know how to use LPF, you know solar cycle is 11 years long, do the data!
        I am not going to participate in you futile exercise to mislead, just hope that you did your SSN reconstruction with a bit more accuracy than the above CET treatment.
        Adios Amigo

    • Hi Vuk
      indeed, TSI is also a waste of time,
      first of all because I don’t trust any instruments not protected by an atmosphere, but also, as I explained before – or tried to explain –
      the energy coming from the sun has a chi-square distribution but the top can shift a bit, to the left or to the right, depending on the solar polar magnetic field strengths.
      As it shifts, the amount of energy below the curve (TSI) remains more or less the same but if the solar field strengths are lower, obviously more of the most energetic particles can escape. This affects all reactions TOA that produce ozone, peroxide and nitrous oxide.\
      e.g.\
      ozone is increasing

      In turn these substances affect the amount of UV reaching the oceans, hence we are currently globally cooling.
      Interestingly enough, after looking at the A-spectra of ozone and hydrogen peroxide I was stunned. They are exactly the same, i.e. they do exactly the same job {protect us from the most harmful rays coming from the spotless sun]. So there never a ozone “hole” either. Another big hoax. Obviously,above the oceans, more OH radicals are present and the peroxide is formed preferentially to ozone [doing exactly the same thing as ozone]

    • I’m not convinced that this was a result of solar wind like typical Aurora, there were no storms and the sun was actually blank of sunspots, this suggests of a polar field interaction caused by the suns recent polarity reversal… stunning though!

  60. I’m starting to think LS may be correct, I think the sun is basically a very constant stable heat source over 1000’s of years. Maybe over ~100,000 yrs or so there are changes (ie Vuk). As humans we do not experience much climate/weather change due to sun as it does not change flux ect heat output.

  61. So, how does this help us increase taxation, increase government tyranny, and destroy Western civilization??

    That’s all we need to really know.

  62. How clueless some are when it comes to the climate.The climate has reacted pretty much as expected over the past few years due to all the natural climatic factors favoring warmth from moderate to high solar activity due to the weak but still maximum of solar cycle 24 , to a lack of any major volcanic activity , to a warm PDO/AMO, to the recent very strong El Nino and warm ocean temperatures in general which are due to high to very high solar activity all of last century especially 1940 -2005.

    Global cloud cover and snow cover also have been in general below average which allow for the climate to warm.

    Yes solar activity has been less then normal post 2005 but the maximum starting just 5 years later although weak still dampened solar effects. The solar criteria being much above my solar criteria through out the recent maximum of solar cycle 24 which I feel is needed for the sun to impact the climate.

    Now surprisingly sooner then I thought many of the solar parameters have come down or are very close to the solar criteria I have called for which should result global cooling. It is only July 2016 and this down trend is forecasted to bottom out around year 2019 or even later. How low will the solar parameters go as we head forward? The data will show and needs to be closely watched. All of the solar data presented in this article will have to be monitored.

    CURRENT SOLAR PARAMETERS WHAT I CALLED FOR TO CREATE COOLING

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS AROUND 6450 UNITS CALLLED FOR +6500 UNITS

    EUV LIGHT AROUND 90 UNITS CALLED FOR SUB 100 UNITS

    SOLAR FLUX LATELY WELL UNDER 80 CALLED FOR 90 OR LOWER

    SOLAR WIND STILL ABOVE 350 K/SEC CALLED FOR SUB 350KM/SEC

    AP INDEX STILL + 10 LAST FEW MONTHS CALLED FOR 5 OR LOWER

    These conditions once all met which I think will happen and if sustained in duration should effect the natural climatic factors which will bring the climate toward cooler conditions moving forward.

    • Sunspots don’t drive planetary temperature, but they are a very good indicator of what does.

  63. lsvalgaard July 2, 2016 at 7:48 pm
    The dynamo is not ‘interrupted’.
    ———————————————–
    There are issues though Dr. S.

    The Non-Conforming Cycle 24
    http://www.leif.org/research/Non-Conforming-SC24.pdf

    Image snipped from AGU Parker Lecture 2015, illustrating also, non-conformity.

    Still, I think that there are issues with TSI. Good and plenty GCR spallation occuring in the satellite environment.
    Maybe when your brain frees up some extra memory, (SSN revision done now?) you might have a look at this.
    Under heading solar cycle change there are 2 at 100% and GCR at 50%. GCR spallations produce protons too..among lots of other things…………………………..

    Borrowed the above table from;
    SOLAR IRRADIANCE 01.01.08
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html

    …………………………………….Lots of other things……………………………….

    Congratulations Dr. Svalgaard.

    • You should show some understanding of perspective here.
      Here is your table again:
      TSI 1366 W/m2
      MUV 15.4
      FUV 0.05
      EUV 0.01
      GCR 0.0000007
      SProt 0.002
      AProt 0.001
      Joule 0.02
      To give you an idea of the contribution of the various sources.

  64. SOLAR IRRADIANCE
    01.01.08
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html

    “”Energy from other sources also enters our atmosphere. A table of some of them is shown below. Note that the energy input from Joule heating, a coupling of the ionosphere to the magnetosphere, can be about the same as from solar EUV!””
    see table

    The FIRST of several cascades that a GCR produces, generates multiples of:
    Protons, Neutrons, Pions, Electrons, Muons, and Photons.
    see image of Cosmic ray cascade.

    Seems like a strong ionization and photo ionization energy potential in all this…

    • Thanks , Carla . That’s an important link .

      While I’ll agree that the Sun is remarkably stable , a factor in our very existence , it seems that 0.1% variation in TSI correlated with the solar cycle may be only half the total range or less . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php gives the average as 1,368 W/m2 . I have some computations from June 4 which show values of about 1,361 from an article here . But that’s probably here near aphelion and the annual TSI variation amounts to about 4.6 degrees , much larger than the variation this AlGoreWarming fraud is about .

      I’ll be more impressed that we’re really seeing signal thru the noise when the effect of that variation in TSI is detected and accounted for . It’s non-optional .

      • gives the average as 1,368 W/m2 . I have some computations from June 4 which show values of about 1,361 from an article here
        The TSI shining on the Earth varies by some 70 W/m2 during the year due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. The variation of the true TSI [that the Sun puts out] is only a few tenths of one percent.

  65. Keeping within the current standard practice of Anthropogenic Climateers, I fixed that graph for you.

    :D

  66. Flowing through the interior of the heliosphere, with a mach # of 1.97 a secondary “warm breeze,” of ISN.

    Wondering how they get a mach 1.97 out of 11.3 km/s?

    But this fairly newly discovered ISN “warm breeze,” persists…in Earth’s orbit.
    Now how might this contribute to messing up an already messed up TSI value, I mean there is a population, no?

    INTERSTELLAR NEUTRAL HELIUM IN THE HELIOSPHERE FROM IBEX OBSERVATIONS. IV. FLOW VECTOR, MACH NUMBER, AND ABUNDANCE OF THE WARM BREEZE

    Marzena A. Kubiak1, P. Swaczyna1, M. Bzowski1, J. M. Sokół1, S. A. Fuselier2,3, A. Galli4, D. Heirtzler5, H. Kucharek5, T. W. Leonard5, D. J. McComas2,3
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/25
    © 2016. The American Astronomical Society

    From Abstract

    ..””These observations were collected during the ISN observation seasons 2010–2014 and cover the region in the Earth’s orbit where the Warm Breeze (WB) persists””..

    ..””We approximated the parent population of the WB in front of the heliosphere with a homogeneous Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution function and found a temperature of ~9500 K, an inflow speed of 11.3 km s−1, and an inflow longitude and latitude in the J2000 ecliptic coordinates 251.6 deg, 12.0 deg. The abundance of the WB relative to ISN He is 5.7% and the Mach number is 1.97. The newly determined inflow direction of the WB, the inflow directions of ISN H and ISN He, and the direction to the center of the IBEX Ribbon are almost perfectly co-planar, and this plane coincides within relatively narrow statistical uncertainties with the plane fitted only to the inflow directions of ISN He, ISN H, and the WB. This co-planarity lends support to the hypothesis that the WB is the secondary population of ISN He and that the center of the Ribbon coincides with the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field (ISMF).””..

  67. lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 4:54 pm
    Now how might this contribute to messing up an already messed up TSI value
    By nothing at all.
    ———————————————

    You need to start upstream with this, Dr. S.

    Non- Conforming cycle 24 and the Non-Conforming TSI

    Carla Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 3, 2016 at 12:47 pm
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/30/the-sun-is-as-blank-as-a-billiard-ball-solar-activity-dwindling-to-lows-not-seen-in-200-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2251004

    Could be an interaction region or null point, way out thar in the Voyagers new frontier land…
    note.
    Overlapping gyro- radius of GCR> outgoing tailside > incoming upwind side> convergence 0 AU Northern.

  68. Solar Cycle theory by me…

    1. As the sun and solar system traverse through the interstellar magnetic fields over solar cycles, the magneto pressure increases and builds, while the two fields (solar/interstellar) convene with each other.

    2. As the solar cycle progresses the magneto pressure forces magnetic flux towards the solar equator.
    As the solar cycle progresses further, activity at the solar equator increases with sunspots and CME’s and sun breaks the reconnection.

    3. Cycle progresses further and solar magnetic flux goes poleward building solar polar magnetic field strength, until the two fields, solar and interstellar convene again.

    Repeat …
    Process could take ooh let’s see … around 11 or so years to complete.

    • Since magnetic fields cannot penetrate into the solar system because the solar wind is supersonic with respect to propagation of magnetic fields, your ‘mechanism’ will not work.

      • Why are you saying to Carla that the suns polar differential (polarity) doesn’t reach into the solar system?

      • If you care to read what I actually said, you’ll see it is just the opposite: the solar wind [also from the poles] blows outwards to the heliosphere far away and keeps anything magnetic or charged from going the other way [towards the sun] and therefore cannot influence the solar cycle.

      • The “Magnetic Fields” you seem to be referring to are different from polarities. I agree that the suns poles sweep by the solar system and solar winds blow outward.

        Look, the suns poles rotate and reverse, obviously the intensity of the flow of energy is directed outward.

      • No, if the magnetic field is pointed outwards its polarity is positive [or North]. If the magnetic field is pointing inwards [towards the sun] its polarity is negative [or South]. The polarity is simply the direction of the magnetic field.

      • What are you saying “No” for? if the suns polarity either Positive or Negative are at the solar equator, the poles are pointing outward sweeping through the solar system, the suns magnetic poles can not “point inwards”.

        It’s obvious that you’re just being derogatory, trying hard to say I’m wrong…

      • Both poles, positive and negative are directly opposed to each other, they are magnetically aligned in one direction and both sweep through the solar system, one pole is positive and the other is negative, the direction of energy flows from negative to positive, neither pole points inward.
        Both poles +/- have an equal and opposite force and both point outward…

      • Sparks, that is complete nonsense.
        The magnetic fields point in opposite directions at the two poles, but have nothing to do with ‘energy flow’. The solar wind flows away from the sun because it is very hot regardless of the magnetic poles.

      • Make you’re mind up Lief, one minute you’re arguing that one pole points inward and the next you’re arguing that they point in opposite directions, obviously the solar wind flows away from the sun, that point was not brought up by me and I certainly did not say anything to the contrary.

      • Make you’re mind up Lief, one minute you’re arguing that one pole points inward and the next you’re arguing that they point in opposite directions
        Yes, one pole points inwards, and the other pole points outwards, thus the two poles point in opposite directions.

      • Now you’re making sense, this large-scale structure of alternating polarities, obviously this occurs over the course of a solar cycle, it does not occur during minima when these polarities are at rest at the geographic poles.
        Therefore it is only when this ‘large-scale structure of alternating polarities’ sweeps through the plane of the solar system do we see a rise in solar activity.

      • his large-scale structure of alternating polarities, obviously this occurs over the course of a solar cycle, it does not occur during minima when these polarities are at rest at the geographic poles.
        It occurs ALL THE TIME, especially at solar minimum. Here you can see what the polarity was as it swept by the Earth all the way back to 1926: http://www.leif.org/research/spolar.txt
        It has also been possible to extend that back to the 1840s.
        Here is an explanation of how it comes about:
        http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf

      • I had a read through “Model Polar-Sector Solar Magnetic Fields” in the link above, I’ve noticed where your model is back to front, you appear to be taken localized magnetic field observations on the sun and translating that data as the cause of the suns magnetic poles, and the polar reversal, the suns dipole [m] is the cause of the localised magnetic fields [B] not the result of the localized magnetic fields on the surface, it’s my opinion that you revise your model, not your data.

        You can argue that the dipole consists of both [m] and [B] but [m] is produced by way of E=mc2 where the mass of the star is producing [m] and [m] is producing [B]… [B] does not produce [m].

      • the suns dipole [m] is the cause of the localised magnetic fields [B] not the result of the localized magnetic fields on the surface
        The sun’s dipole [m] is observed to be the result of the magnetic fields [B], so you have to modify your beliefs. See e.g. slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
        One can directly see how the magnetic fields from the active regions move to the poles to form the polar fields [and thus the dipole]. Observations beat beliefs, every time.

      • The observations are not in question, your interpretation of the data is.

        The active region is not produced until the poles move towards the solar equator and produce the active region…

        Your belief that an active region is produced before the poles move is what I find questionable.

      • Regardless of the magnetic polarity [in or out], the solar wind always flows out dragging the magnetic polarity with it, so in the outward flowing solar wind there will be both magnetic polarity pointed in to the sun and magnetic polarity pointing away from the sun forming a large-scale structure of alternating polarities [the ‘sector structure’ discovered by Wilcox and Ness in 1965]. Note, that ‘polarity’ is magnetic polarity [the only one there is].

      • RE: “A magnet has two poles, one where the field point out…”

        Both polarities in a closed dipole have an equal and opposite force, the flow of energy travels in one direction and both poles on the sun face toward the solar system as they sweep through during every solar cycle.

        Hypothetically if you could take a star the exact same as our sun and faced each negative pole towards each other the repulsive force between the two stars would repel them away from each other. Therefore both Poles are facing away from the sun.

      • I’m being constructive pointing out your error, you’re too stubborn and your bate ‘n switch style of discussion is hilarious.

  69. Variations in the Interstellar Magnetic Fields create hemispheric asymmetries we see over time in the solar cycle.
    Like now, where we have a non-conforming northern magnetic field asymmetry.

    NOTE size differential between two types of fields

  70. lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    Since magnetic fields cannot penetrate into the solar system because the solar wind is supersonic with respect to propagation of magnetic fields, your ‘mechanism’ will not work.
    __________________________

    Thanks Dr. S.

    But try this on for size.

    The Interstellar Magnetic Fields are able to contain/restrain GCR (trapped between them) of strengths from several electron volts to mega, terra, pata,and higher energys.
    As these, Interstellar Field Lines, build up across/around the heliosphere they are building a containment/pressure system, while converging/convening with the solar Interplanetary magnetic field.

    • Carla July 3, 2016 at 6:13 pm: “The Interstellar Magnetic Fields are able to contain/restrain GCR

      Physics Fail; fields can affect particles, or particles can affect fields, BUT, fields cannot affect fields.

      What you might misinterpret as “constraining” is probably simple superposition where the wave meet, as in applying the superposition principle found in physics and and engineering, and which describes the overlapping of waves. Not the convolution of the product of one and another either, but the simple overlaying of each as they pass in space.

      Its why radio waves do interfere with each other, UNTIL they enter an antenna and interact with matter again (conductors, semiconductors including diodes and transistors,)

  71. If the sun travels 5 AU a year through the ISM how many Interstellar Field Lines pile up over a solar cycle?

    Might be the solar cycle could teach us something about the Local distribution of the Interstellar Magnetic Fields in the vicinity of the solar system over long period of time.

    • No, because the interstellar magnetic field does not penetrate into the solar system because of the supersonic solar wind.
      How many times have I said that? dozens? scores?
      Some people are hard of learning…

    • If the sun travels 5 AU a year through the ISM how many Interstellar Field Lines pile up over a solar cycle?
      And over a billion years?
      Apply a few gray cells and think about it!
      Evidently there is a mechanism [reconnection comes to mind] that removes magnetic fields from the nose of the heliosphere. The same mechanism works for the Earth: solar wind magnetic fields don’t pile up at the nose of the magnetosphere.

  72. lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 6:48 pm
    No, because the interstellar magnetic field does not penetrate into the solar system because of the supersonic solar wind.
    ——————————————–
    I was thinking that it was the Interstellar Field that was piling up, creating a pressure imbalance over time.

    Following article in the abstract, thinks we already have an idea about,
    “”estimate the gradient scale size of the magnetic field.””

    Summary was interesting. see below. Maybe tomorrow can look this over.

    TRIANGULATION OF THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD
    N. A. Schwadron1,2, J. D. Richardson3, L. F. Burlaga4, D. J. McComas2,5, and E. Moebius1
    Published 2015 October 29 • © 2015. The American Astronomical Society.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L20/meta

    summary and conclusions
    ..””This implies that the ordering of the interstellar field persists
    over much larger spatial scales than that of the heliosphere.
    Further, these results strengthen the conclusion that the
    anisotropies in TeV cosmic rays are organized by this field
    direction over many parsecs in the local galactic environment
    (Schwadron et al. 2014).””

  73. Data , not predictions made by some will determine what is happening the sun.

    If sun reaches and stays at my criteria global temperatures will fall, and this is taking into account ENSO impacts.

  74. Today is the 11th and likely last spotless day in a row for the time being. A spot is forming on the face of the sun while another appears to be rotating into view.

      • It would be easy to mistake it for a speck of dust on your screen Salvatore.
        That must be why they circled it.
        It was slightly easier to see last night I think.

      • Spot or no spot solar activity is very low right now and expected to remain so for another couple days.
        http://sidc.oma.be/

        “INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2016 Jul 04 12:30UTC

        The solar activity remains very low. The GOES background X-ray flux is near
        B1-level.
        The period of lacking solar activity is expected to continue. No Earth
        directed CMEs were observed in the last 24 hours.

        The solar wind disturbance due to the influence of the coronal high speed
        streams is weakening. The magnetic field magnitude is currently near 5 nT
        and solar wind speed is stable at about 450 km/s. Geomagnetic conditions is
        quiet to unsettled (K=3 at maximum), which is expected to continue for the
        next 48 hours. An elongated positive polarity coronal hole is currently
        transiting the central meridian which may result in a solar wind
        disturbance within 3 days.”

        So far no blip off the 0 base line.

        I could not help noticing that solar cycle 24 is has the lowest maximum of my 60+ year life time. Even lower than solar cycle 20. Makes me wonder if it will have the most extended minimum.

      • I could not help noticing that solar cycle 24 is has the lowest maximum of my 60+ year life time.
        It was predicted to be lowest in a 100 years

      • lsvalgaard

        This brings up a question. Is there a strict definition for the term “Grand Solar Minima”? Or for the opposite “Grand Solar Maxima”? We having been hearing predictions that we may be entering a “Grand Solar Minima” for some time. But the only definition I have found to describe the term is “several solar cycles which display lower than average activity”. Seems like a rather nebulous definition to me. Is there a more definitive one?

      • Well without a better definition then some will see it while others deny seeing it. I guess then one can just judge that a solar minima actually occurs when there are three or more below average cycles.

  75. lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 8:44 pm
    ……You should show some understanding of perspective here…….
    ———————————————-
    Thanks Dr. S.
    My main concern was with the pesky GCR.
    Depending on electron volt strength, the GCR cascades, go on and on. One GCR, produces multiple cascades. These cascades are producing their own particle populations, that interact with other particle populations. Just this alone, confounds the TSI record. The satellites themselves experience more GCR radiation than ground instrumentation. Being able to differentiate between a solar proton and GCR proton is just one of many cascading issues. IMO

    As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it. eek

    I will keep reminding you that, the outgoing solar wind, which produces this nice little heliosphere bubble we reside in, is being constrained, by the Interstellar Magnetic Field.
    This Interstellar Magnetic Field, pressure dents the heliospheric’s bubble nose and FLATTENs the heliotail.
    Not to mention 1st and 2nd particle populations inflowing from interaction regions.

    TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
    Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
    Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016

    See page 9 Figure 7 for current model.

    Whenever I see one of these types of Interstellar Magnetic Field models draping over the heliosphere, my brain seems to always go back to the seams of a baseball, and at what angle do the fields need to be to produce those seams. The baseball seams are for me, synonymous with the heliospheric current sheet boundary.
    Note- neutral line is the base of the IMF current sheet.

    Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.

    Happy, fun and safe Independence Day to us all..

    • Just this alone, confounds the TSI record.
      No, it does not at all.

      As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it.
      Willful ignorance is the worst of sins in this business.

      Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.
      One should not invent ‘something unknown’ just to explain why your explanation does not fit the facts.

  76. HenryP July 3, 2016 at 2:46 am

    hi Willis
    like I have said before, it is clear to me that the last Gleissberg was from ca. 1927 to 2014.

    As I have said before, it is unclear to me whether the “Gleissberg cycle” actually exists, and if it does exist, just how long it might be. I’ve seen it claimed as having lengths from 80 to 120 years. I’ve written about it here and here. There are serious problems with Gleissberg’s claims.

    Hale and Nicholson never believed in looking at the Schwabe cycle, …

    How does one “not believe in looking at” some physical reality?

    … they always looked at the Hale cycle when the sun has run the whole plus and minus cycle as explained before.. I agree with them.

    “Always looked”? This is just an emotional appeal for recognition of the Hale cycle. And indeed the Hale cycle is real. However, it is a modulation of the Schwabe cycle. In other words, alternate Schwabe cycles are slightly different. There’s a good analysis of the issue here, along with a discussion of the anomalously long Solar Cycle 4.

    For example, here is a graph on rainfall patterns in South Africa from a station with good rainfall data going back to before 1927 …

    Thanks for the graph. However, without a link to the underlying data that you used, I’m unable to comment. If you’d provide such a link I’ll take a look,

    … The weather (rainfall) is constant if you look at it in periods of 4 Hale cycles……

    I fear that the results from one location are less than convincing. You need to repeat your analysis on a bunch of locations. There is precipitation data widely available. If your hypothesis is correct, the effect should show up in both individual stations and global averages. Sounds interesting, let us know.

    Best regards,

    w.

  77. lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 10:44 am
    Just this alone, confounds the TSI record.
    No, it does not at all.

    As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it.
    Willful ignorance is the worst of sins in this business.

    Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.
    One should not invent ‘something unknown’ just to explain why your explanation does not fit the facts.
    ——————————————————

    Ya know, the flattening in the heliotail as described below, reminds me of the Earthly reconnection process.
    In the Earthly process, the earth’s magnetotail rebounds more quickly after the reconnection compression, and subsequent energy release occurs.
    There are some things that still need to be understood when describing those processes at galactic size and time scales. Part of the time scale is in the distance distance the solar system travels over a solar cycle, through the Interstellar Magnetic Field. For all we know the strength of the interstellar field may a have a lower to higher strength variation over the time period. 2 to 6 variable

    TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
    Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
    Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016

  78. lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 1:02 pm
    none of this matters as the magnetic field cannot travel inwards towards the sun, such like a boat moving at 2 knots cannot sail upstream in a river moving at 5 knots.
    ———————————————–

    Yes, Dr. S., I get the little analogy.

    Little analogy back at you..

    Take away the Interstellar Magnetic Field.
    Take away the interstellar headwind blowing into the heliosphere.
    Take away any particle population including GCR.

    Will the solar cycle still be the same as we see it now?

    The sun is a product of its environment.

    • There headwind cannot blow into the heliosphere.
      So the solar cycle will be completely unaffected.
      How many times do I have to say that?

      • “How many times do I have to say that?”

        As many times as it takes you to provide the desired answer…

  79. Dr. S., in the extreme cases, where the solar system is embedded in a very dense cool interstellar cloud the pressure gradients would be greatly affecting the solar activity cycle. And I know, that you know that.
    But for now we have the current not so dense and not so cool interstellar cloud. But maybe seeing converging interstellar field lines where clouds or shells are colliding. Which is not out of the interstellar pictures, yet.
    So below is the here and now we deal with.

    Charge exchanged, pick up ions can, and do get gravitationally focused in.
    WE have that upwind crescent and downwind focusing cone deal, still going on at the earth orbit.

    Solar cycle variation of interstellar neutral He, Ne, O density and pick-up ions
    along the Earth’s orbit

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01186.pdf
    Justyna M. Sok´ol, Maciej Bzowski, Marzena A. Kubiak, and Eberhard Mobius
    Accepted 2016 March 01

    Abstract
    ..””We conclude that the non-zero radial velocity of the ISN flow and the energy range
    of the PUI distribution function that is accumulated are of importance for a precise
    reproduction of the PUI count rate along the Earth orbit. However, the temporal
    and latitudinal variations of the ionization in the heliosphere, and particularly their
    variation on the solar cycle time-scale, may significantly modify the shape of PUI cone
    and crescent and also their peak positions from year to year and thus bias by a few
    degrees the derived longitude of the ISN gas inflow direction.””..

    All the best to you and V.

    • where the solar system is embedded in a very dense cool interstellar cloud the pressure gradients would be greatly affecting the solar activity cycle. And I know, that you know that.

      This COULD happen if the cloud is dense enough, but such a dense cloud would block all sunlight from reaching the Earth and life would go extinct. Since life goes back at least three billion years, this has not happened in three billion years and is thus not something we need to worry about. It is much more likely that the Sun will expand and kill all life in about a billion years from now.
      The solar cycle rules the heliosphere, not the other way around.
      But since you are a slow [even recalcitrant] learner, be happy in your [wrong] beliefs. No need to keep reminding us that you are unwilling to learn anything.

  80. Just of note the solar criteria I have called for, for all of the categories is now starting to be realized which is part one of my solar /climate theory. I always thought this criteria was reachable. Still only time will tell as to how sustained this my be.

    Part two will be does it have the climatic effect (if the solar criteria is sustained) that I have said it will.

  81. If it does have the climatic effect I have called for then those who oppose will have to prove why this is not the case. The tables will be turned. I explained in detail why/how it would happen.

    .

  82. ABSTRACT:
    Based on a quantitative study of the common fluctuations of 14C and 10Be
    production rates, we have derived a time series of the solar magnetic
    variability over the last 1200 years. This record is converted into
    irradiance variations by linear scaling based on previous studies of
    sun-like stars and of the Sun’s behavior over the last few centuries.
    The new solar irradiance record exhibits low values during the well-known
    solar minima centered about 1900, 1810 (Dalton), and 1690 AD (Maunder).
    Further back in time, a rather long period between 1450 and 1750 AD is
    characterized by low irradiance values. A shorter period is centered
    about 1200 AD, with irradiance slightly higher or similar to present
    day values. It is tempting to correlate these periods with the
    so-called “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”, respectively.
    An accurate quantification of the climatic impact of this new
    irradiance record requires the use of coupled atmosphere-ocean
    general circulation models (GCMs). Nevertheless, our record is
    already compatible with a global cooling of about 0.5 – 1 C during
    the “little ice age”, and with a general cooling trend during the
    past millennium followed by global warming during the 20th century
    (Mann et al. 1999).
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt

  83. lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 6:41 pm
    ———————————————-

    Don,t suppose you looked at the current models of the interstellar magnetic field config around the heliosphere?

    TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
    Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
    Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016

    This is just a hobby for me.
    The sun is the central part of this solar system.
    But, just a speck on the ‘you know what’ of the galaxy.
    Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.
    Or for that fact if we are near where the two are merging.
    Now wouldn’t that be a hoot, if a cue ball bigger than our sun, was headed our way soon?
    That would be, bye bye to Ol Sol the so called neighborhood ruler.
    Just my hobby asking inquisitive questions.
    wow

  84. Carla,
    “Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.”

    We are in the milky way… Andromeda did have a part in our galaxies formation, that goes back to when two pressure differences collided.

  85. Sparks July 5, 2016 at 11:24 pm
    Carla,
    “Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.”

    We are in the milky way… Andromeda did have a part in our galaxies formation, that goes back to when two pressure differences collided.
    ——————————————
    Can’t find the original article.
    The two articles below might give you the idea on why scientists do have a degree of uncertainty of which galaxy we might be in. They ‘think’ we are on a spur arm of the Milky Way. A spur..
    Caution: subject to change with each passing new galaxy found to be merging with the Milky Way. Not to mention the a current topic about gravitational waves. Get out your surf board Dr. S. and catch the wave.

    Hundreds of Galaxies Were Found Hiding Behind Our Milky Way
    The objects may help explain why our galaxy and its neighbors are hurtling towards a seemingly blank zone called the Great Attractor
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/hundreds-galaxies-were-found-hiding-behind-our-milky-way-180958078/?no-ist
    by Brian Handwerk smithsonian.com
    February 9, 2016
    “””Hundreds of galaxies have been playing a cosmic game of hide and seek, and astronomers just tagged them “it”.
    Using radio telescopes to peer through the dense plane of the Milky Way, researchers have spotted huge galactic gatherings that have long been obscured from view. These galaxies lie a mere 250 million light-years away—and they will only get closer, because they appear to be pulling us towards them at breakneck speed.

    Scientists had suspected that galaxies existed in this region, says study co-author Renée C. Kraan-Korteweg of the University of Cape Town, South Africa. But seeing them with traditional telescopes presents a challenge.

    “It was not really not that surprising, because the stars and dust in our own Milky Way block a not insignificant part of the sky from our view, in optical light that is,” she says. “So yes, we did expect that many galaxies would be lying behind the plane of the Milky Way, or the so-called Zone of Avoidance. However, we did not know anything about their distribution in space.”

    “””…This galactic cornucopia represents a huge amount of mass, which makes the team suspect that the objects play a role in the intergalactic draw of a strange region called the Great Attractor.

    Decades ago, astronomers noted that our galaxy and its neighbors are headed towards a largely blank spot on the cosmic map at some 14 million miles an hour. That rate is not consistent with the speed at which the universe is thought to be expanding. Instead, the motion suggests something we can’t see is pulling us with the gravitational force of a million billion suns….”””

    DAILY NEWS 14 April 2016
    Never-before-seen galaxy spotted orbiting the Milky Way
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084438-never-before-seen-galaxy-spotted-orbiting-the-milky-way/
    By Ken Croswell

    “””The galaxy’s empire has a new colony. Astronomers have detected a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milky Way whose span stretches farther than nearly all other Milky Way satellites. It may belong to a small group of galaxies that is falling into our own.

    Giant galaxies like the Milky Way grew large when smaller galaxies merged, according to simulations. The simulations also suggest that whole groups of galaxies can fall into a single giant at the same time. The best examples in our cosmic neighbourhood are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, the Milky Way’s two brightest satellites, which probably orbit each other….”””

    doit doit doit lookin out my back door..

    • I cannot see the shed in my backyard because my house is in front of it, so no surprise the Milky Way hides background galaxies.
      But this is highly OT and has nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.

    • I have recently been reading up on how some (or all?) globular clusters are thought to be the remnant cores of small galaxies which have merged with the Milky Way. (I first became interested in the topic when a globular cluster was the cover artwork on a album by the band called Mahavishnu Orchestra. I am including a pic of the one i think it was below…Messier 80).

      BTW, Carla…even when two galaxies merge, the odds of a collisions between any two stars is incredibly remote. A star like the Sun may be a million miles across, but the distances between them, even in the incredibly dense globular clusters, is still vast by comparison. In the core of such clusters, stars are thought to be separated from on another as closely as the Sun is to outer planets like Pluto. OK, OK, dwarf planets like Pluto.
      In our neck of the woods, the distances are much more remote. The closest star to the sun is Proxima Centauri. To get an idea of the relative size and distances involved, it has been pointed out that if the sun were a ping pong ball in Philadelphia, Proxima would be a pea in Nashville.
      Or if the two stars were cars in their lanes, the lanes are wider than the Earth. You would need to be a mighty bad or unlucky driver… (Ok, I made that last one up…just a wild guess)
      But we will have a long wait for Andromeda to merge with the Milky Way…count me as one who does not expect any humans will be around in five billion years to see it.

  86. lsvalgaard July 6, 2016 at 9:08 am

    But this is highly OT and has nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.
    ____________________________

    The Milky Way is full of stars. Each having their own type of activity cycle, based on size, location, age etc..
    The faster rotating stars seem a bit scary to me…eeek Still alot to be learned out there, even by you.
    And may you also continue to do so for a long time.
    Have a nice day ..

    • The faster rotating stars seem a bit scary to me…eeek Still alot to be learned out there
      It is the slower rotating stars that have significant stellar cycles.
      There is nothing to be learned from your drive-by OT comments. Not even you learn anything.

    • The rotational velocity of some of those pulsars and magnetars is very interesting to me, but I am not sure why anyone would be “scared” of something so far away that you need powerful machines to even know they exist, or anything about them.
      No, I think we have a lot of potential world ending disasters much closer at hand and more likely.
      Now, the prospect of a Eta Carinae sort of star exploding in our vicinity may be a tad worrisome. Or even if it’s ultraviolet laser comes a-shinin’ our way, it could be a bad day…but I think the southern hemisphere would take the worst of it, and they could use a little thawing down there.

  87. Jonesingforozone [real(?) name Michael H. Webb m-h-w@cox.net, although picture associated with that email address shows a Miguel del Rio] claimed that:

    You data series for TIMED SEE and SEM is based on the adjustment algorithm that Emmert et al[2014] proposed in their thought experiment. and that I did not actually use the data on the experimenter’s website.

    Miguel has since complained to JGR about my paper [actually accepted by Solar Physics, not JGR] misrepresenting things.Nothing could be further from the truth. One wonders what compels some people to push such blatantly false assertions. But I guess that there are many nasties out there, and now and then they show up here.

    I recently compared the EUV and F10.7 with the magnetic flux on the solar disk measured by our satellites [SOHO and SDO] and found that both are very well described by the magnetic flux. It is generally accepted that variations of the EUV [and F10.7] are simply reflections of variations of the magnetic field of the sun.

    First you go and read our HMI Nugget at http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1510 that concludes “We plot the computed F10.7* flux derived for the magnetic flux and the observed F10.7 flux in Fig. 1. There is a remarkable agreement between the observed and calculated microwave fluxes, lending credence to the accuracy and physical significance of both. Repeating the analysis using the radial magnetic flux yields the same amazing agreement; in fact, even slightly better. Using the magnetic data from Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) yields a similar result, attesting to the stability of the measurements at Stanford. We have also used the result to detect changes in the calibration of the SOLIS series. We suggest that the F10.7 record can serve as an almost absolute reference scale for the solar magnetic field.​”

    Then​ we can plot the TIMED EUV flux integrated over the range 0-103 nm and compare that with the MDI/HMI magnetic flux [and F10.7] and find an almost perfect match​ [plot below]​. Hence TIMED/SEE is a VERY good measure of the magnetic flux, which is what we really want to ascertain, so that we can interpret the geomagnetic response rY in terms of the magnetic flux [and EUV] back to 1740.

    Then Miguel tries to use a strawman: the ionospheric fof2 critical frequency anomaly, but geomagnetic response is due to currents in the E-layer, not the F-layer(s), so dragging in fof2 is a strawman.
    The response rY is very well described by the correct EUV and F10.7 fluxes, which is just what theory predicts:

    Everything fits nicely, and there are no anomalies, except for the anomalous SEM record which is a problem with their data and reduction. Their recent re-analysis of SEM also shows increased degradation compared with version 3.1, but the new series is not on their website. [One wonders why].

    If you match SEM up with TIMED at the beginning of the TIMED mission [attachment 1] you can clearly see the degradation of SEM. Needless to say, SDO-EVE matches TIMED very well:

    If you compare SEM with the Magnetic Flux [aligning at the beginning of the mission in 1996] you can also clearly see the SEM degradation [attachment 2] and also that the TIMED correlation with the magnetic flux is stable, while SEM not having a stable correlation is drifting over time:

    There seems to be little reason to keep flogging that dead horse [and to be a nasty person hiding behind false IDs and names]. SEM needs correction. As science is self-correcting, this will eventually be rectified so we can get on with real science.

  88. george e. smith June 30, 2016 at 11:49 am Edit

    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 ??

    Sure. According to CERES, it varies by 15.7 W/m2.

    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%.

    Indeed. The TOA solar varies by about 22 W/m2.

    In other words; how effective is the cloud modulation in keeping earth’s total surface solar energy budget constant over the seasons ??

    Well, you can see the difference above. However, looking at the whole planet obscures things. You’d likely get a better view by hemispheres.

    w.

  89. 6th of July : sunspots are back on http://spaceweather.com/

    Impossible to see these sunspots without SDO satellite .. even .. with SDO you must have a certain amount of imagination.
    Statement : sunspots count today can not be compared with old sunspots count.
    Even if Mr Svalgaard try to make you believe that we count in the same way, this is the evidence that not !

    • impossible to see these sunspots without SDO satellite .. even .. with SDO you must have a certain amount of imagination.

      Not so, here is Locarno (world reference station) with an aperture of 8 cm [same as Wolf’s in the 1850s]:

      Statement : sunspots count today can not be compared with old sunspots count.
      Yes they can because we compensate for differences in telescope technology:
      see http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspots-with-Ancient-Telescopes.pdf

      Be careful with making statements not based on facts.

    • It will not matter or does not matter ,what matters is how weak will the solar parameters get gong forward.

      It is a waste of time to talk about how sunspots are counted.

      • Going towards the next solar minimum, solar activity will dwindle to practically nothing like it does at every minimum. The Ap index will increase to a peak just before the minimum as it always does. None of this has any predictive value as activity repeats this pattern at every minimum.

    • Hmmm, that does not work, since the image changed when they updated it, which was apparently about ten seconds after I copied and pasted the link.

      Here is the jpg image of the dust specks, from the archive:

      • Yes, and I believe you Dr. Svalgaard, having no reason to think otherwise.
        I was just drawing attention to how paltry the activity is (slow news day I suppose).

        But, since we are on the topic of small spots, I thought I would ask about something related i was wondering about: Is a small spot that does not persist for very long counted the same on the trend charts as a small spot that persists for longer? And do they account for size? Is any account taken of the absolute area of the spots? Are many spots in a group counted differently than the same number of spots spread out in different groups? And are some spots “darker” than others?
        Is the size, persistence, and number of spots in a group, directly proportional to any parameter of magnetic activity?
        Thanks in advance if you care to respond to any of these questions.

      • Many questions. The answers are mostly ‘yes’. Rudolf Wolf’s genius was to realize that the appearance of a new sunspot group [even if it only has a tiny spot] was much more important than the appearance of a new small spot in an existing group that already may have many spots. Wolf therefore fashioned the ‘sunspot number’ as R = 10 * number of Groups + total number of spots, to indicate the importance of groups. Most spots [about 40%] are tiny and live only a day or two. Statistically, there is a good relationship between the area of all the spots and the sunspot number, so the area is important too. The sunspot number is a very good measure of solar activity, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf

      • Small spots are important if they form their own group. Small spots are counted like large spots: one spot, one vote. The sunspot number [Rudolf Wolf’s clever definition] is R = 10 * number of groups + total number of spots in all groups. There is a good statistical relationship between the so-defined sunspot number with all solar parameters: area, magnetic field, etc. The sunspot number [when correctly calibrated] is a VERY good indicator of solar activity. As you may know, we have made considerable progress in the calibration of the sunspot number. Naturally, there will always be people who are whining and squirming about any changes, even if justified.

      • Thank you for the link…good info!
        I like the part about making as few rules as possible.
        And agree that what is important is consistency in the method used.
        There is more than one way to skin a ninja cat.

  90. The sun is years away from it’s minimum according to the predictions and yet all of the solar parameters (who some said it can’t happen) are already just about reaching the low average values I have called for.

    The mode of operation of the sun changed post 2005 from an active mode post 1840 to an inactive mode post 2005.

    Until the data shows otherwise this inactive mode seems to be in place.

    I think it is hard to use predictions for what the sun may be doing moving forward based on when the sun was in an active mode which would be from 1840-2005, this despite relative weakness in solar activity in and around solar cycle 14.

  91. Willis responded to the question below regarding the surface solar energy.
    The difference in average monthly teperature between the coldest (-8C) and warmest (16C) month in Sweden is 24C.
    Assuming a seasonal variation of solar energy by 15.7 W/m2, can’t we roughly calulate the temperature response to solar energy by: 24/15.7 = 1.5
    1 W/m2 increased solar energy => 1.5C temperature increase?

    “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 ??

    Sure. According to CERES, it varies by 15.7 W/m2.”

  92. lsvalgaard July 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm
    From Stenflo’s presentation http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf :
    “This example shows that the average unsigned vertical magnetic flux density has a remarkably tight correlation with the sunspot number, but only when we average the magnetogram over the whole solar disk.”
    ___________________________

    Hi Dr. S., the hobbyist, inquisitor with attitude, back again.

    Not trying to discredit this sunspot revision. And its not hard to see the overall importance of having an accurate account of this record.
    But my question is:
    If sunspots preferred formation region is in the more central portion of the solar disk, why then is it necessary to average the flux density, over the whole disk and not just the central spot forming region?

    Attitude asks, who the heck is basal? Basal flux tripped me up some. And this is just related to the ‘unsigned’ vertical flux density.

    Note to sparks
    Sparks July 5, 2016 at 11:24 pm
    ——————————————–
    My first encounter with Rings round the Milky Way

    Running Rings Around the Galaxy 2007
    http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/news/875-feature07-07-Running-Rings-Around-the-Galaxy

    • If sunspots preferred formation region is in the more central portion of the solar disk, why then is it necessary to average the flux density, over the whole disk and not just the central spot forming region?
      Sunspots can pop up and form everywhere [except the polar regions], so are not confined to the central spot. ‘Basal’ means the magnetic flux when there are no sunspots. The unsigned flux is used because both negative and positive magnetic fields are measures of solar activity.

  93. Thank you Dr. S.

    On another note.
    Images of the ancient telescopes were a hoot..hoot..too by the way. thx

Comments are closed.