Climate responses to SATIRE and SIM-based spectral solar forcing in a 3D atmosphere-ocean coupled GCM
Abstract
We apply two reconstructed spectral solar forcing scenarios, one SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) based, the other the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) modeled, as inputs to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GCMAM (Global Climate Middle Atmosphere Model) to examine climate responses on decadal to centennial time scales, focusing on quantifying the difference of climate response between the two solar forcing scenarios. We run the GCMAM for about 400 years with present day trace gas and aerosol for the two solar forcing inputs. We find that the SIM-based solar forcing induces much larger long-term response and 11-year variation in global averaged stratospheric temperature and column ozone. We find significant decreasing trends of planetary albedo for both forcing scenarios in the 400-year model runs. However the mechanisms for the decrease are very different. For SATIRE solar forcing, the decreasing trend of planetary albedo is associated with changes in cloud cover. For SIM-based solar forcing, without significant change in cloud cover on centennial and longer time scales, the apparent decreasing trend of planetary albedo is mainly due to out-of-phase variation in shortwave radiative forcing proxy (downwelling flux for wavelength >330 nm) and total solar irradiance (TSI). From the Maunder Minimum to present, global averaged annual mean surface air temperature has a response of ~0.1 °C to SATIRE solar forcing compared to ~0.04 °C to SIM-based solar forcing. For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence. However, the global surface air temperature response to 11-year SIM-based solar forcing is insignificant and inconsistent with observation-based evidence.
A link to solar forcing? No, no, no! That CAN’T be true. Everyone knows that a trace gas is the one-and-only, all-powerful driver of climate in the universe.
Such a basic, unsophisticated analysis. The entire system consists of solar irradiance and Earthly response, with lunar and solar tidal effects playing a significant role in that Earthly response. The Earthly response also is cyclical, and the modulation of solar cycles and response cycles produces a response which has the frequencies displaced via modulation.
It is very foolish to imagine that the response to solar radiation must manifest solely at the frequencies of the solar excitation. There is no requirement for a linear response.
physical responses on earth are what i am interested in.particularly in the oceans. the effect of uv light on plankton in particular. plankton are negatively effected by uv light .there were suggestions in a paper around 2010 that phytoplankton levels in the ocean had dropped around 40% since 2050.this corresponds with an increase in uv light from the same period. that is a huge biomass no longer using visible light for photosynthesis . that visible light is then warming the oceans .
if phytoplankton numbers did drop by that amount it would suggest plankton numbers overall would drop by a similar amount as phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain.
food for thought, for me at least.
Moonbattery
“The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C, similar to recent multi-model estimates, and comparable to the observational-based evidence“
Just so I’m clear on the concept…..would that observational-based evidence be on the one that the past was cooled…..or the one the present was warmed?
It is how much the temperature varies between minimum solar activity and maximum solar activity.
given the adjustments to the historical temperature record, whether justified or not, i think latitude is highlighting the fact that number would constantly be changing ?
The number from solar min to solar max will not be ever changing. The ‘adjustments impact the long-term record.
Looking at the big picture, I’m wondering how much good it would have done people in 1617 to have known the temperature in 2017, even if it was exactly right.
So much will change in 400 years, we have no idea what the world will be like then, or what people would desire, or what will be important to them.
The main point then is the fact that this is the temperature change that we see during the period of investigation from the little ice age up to today, the problem is we did not see any of the little ice age period and the data has been altered to reflect our view of the way they were not accurate, perhaps the temperature will change going forward in a way that is unexpected.
Perhaps it will…and then things will get REALLY interesting, huh?
I am not hoping for any substantial global cooling, but there is one reason to hope for exactly that…to put an end to the notions that the science is settled, that CAGW is a fact, that natural variations are insignificant compared to the climate effect of a few molecules per 10,000 more of CO2…that we are all doomed if we do not deindustrialize.
A question that arises is will we ever get to a point where the temperature data that we are taking today is accurate enough that it does not need large adjustments going forward , it seems to me that now we have started doing this we are going to find ever more reasons to change the data in future, and while greater accuracy may be claimed it can still favour one view of time series of data over another unfairly.
You get the same answer for solar using un adjusted data.
Never forget this.
SST represents 70 % of the record. SST is Cooled!!!!! By adjustments. Land temps or 30% of the data is Slightly warmed…and only warmed in a few places..The usa and Australia. .
Hear that Don…it does not matter.
The adjustments have no effect…that is why they make them I suppose.
“Never forget this” sounds a lot lie “The science is settled”…IOW, words to ignore, spoken by someone with an agenda and a vested interested in convincing you about a predetermined set of facts.
Leif Svalgaard, I read
“For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
________________________________________
11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,
ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.
________________________________________
feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.
Cheers – Hans
11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,
ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.
Where you go wrong is that the 11-year response is cyclic: 0.12C up and 0.12C down, so over 11 years the net response is zero. Over 22 years it is zero. Over 99 years it is zero, over 999 years it is zero…etc
OK !
“Cyclic” + “Cyclic” = double Cyclic
is not implied in
“For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
_________________________________________
Thanks anyway for responding.
Cheers – Hans
But we know that cycle and cycle+ cycle and cycle+cycle+cycle etc is how nature works. At every minimum between every cycle the sun returns to the same state.
OK !
So what You should have said is
“For
the 1st
11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about
0.12 °C,”
and “for the following
2nd
11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about
– 0.12 °C,”
equalling them damn cycles
one another out.
Cheers – Hans
No, that is not what happens.
This is how it works: in cycle 1 the temperature response increases from 0 at minimum to 0.12 at maximum 5 years later, then falls to 0 at the next minimum 6 years later, then rises in cycle 2 from 0 to 0.12 at the next maximum 5 years later, then falls to 0 at the minimum 6 years later, then rises in cycle 3 from 0 to 0.12 etc…
OK with me; Thanks
Really love that sociopathic nonbiased real world scientific approach.
Hell’s gonna burn over – leaving heavy metal.
Cheers.
Don’t lie to me:
“Where you go wrong is that the 11-year response is cyclic: 0.12C up and 0.12C down,”
is not your your original citation – your original citation is
“For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
_________________________________________
Can you explain ?
In every cycle of 11 years the temperature response rises 0.12 degrees at maximum, then falls back to 0 at the end of the cycle, then it all repeats in the next cycle. Not difficult to explain. If you still have problems then think of a year here on Earth: the temperature rises from winter to a high in the summer, then falls again at the next winter, and repeats in the next year.
Leif, ‘falling back to 0’ doesn’t wipe out the before 0.12.
But I don’t want to argue with you – I accept your ‘it’s not the sun’ !
https://youtu.be/v_xtTxuYAPU
What’s loose with you –
we have your
+ 0.12 °C
Where’s your
– 0.12 °C
aghast: full stop.
Hey wuwt,
overhelmed contributers like SV.
Move along.
In the end, Leif Svalgaard is our hero for he’s originally right:
“For 11-year solar cycle, the global surface air temperature response has 3-year lagged response to either forcing scenario. The global surface air 11-year temperature response to SATIRE forcing is about 0.12 °C,”
________________________________________
11-year temperature response is about 0.12°C,
ACCORDING 0.01°C / year natural warming since LIA.
________________________________________
Cheers – Hans
https://youtu.be/hJMEaKHbnao
What’s left for wuwt is
how to cope with defaitism.
Lot of defaitists strain the parapet.
Withdrawal battles.
The hardest.
Finish dinner with big beans from venus:
https://youtu.be/XF177Aj59C8
https://youtu.be/Toq8mGRKEPs
Thanks – Hans
“On planet earth
I’ll probably stay
On planet earth
It’s a place to live your life
Where pleasure follows pain
People go insane
Fly around in planes
Pray that it won’t rain
Drive around in cars
Get drunk in local bars
Dream of being stars
Well I lived all my life on planet earth”
v’
Those that monitor and measure the sun seem to think that the sun does not vary the climate on Earth.
Mayhaps there is more to the sun than what is being measured.
if a password is needed it is force5 Cheers.
Abstract
“We apply two reconstructed spectral solar forcing scenarios, one SIM (Spectral Irradiance Monitor) based, the other the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) modeled, as inputs to the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) GCMAM (Global Climate Middle Atmosphere Model) to examine climate responses on decadal to centennial time scales, focusing on quantifying the difference of climate response between the two solar forcing scenarios. We run the GCMAM for about 400 years with present day trace gas and aerosol for the two solar forcing inputs. We find that the SIM-based solar forcing induces much larger long-term response and 11-year variation in global averaged stratospheric temperature and column ozone. We find significant decreasing trends of planetary albedo for both forcing scenarios in the 400-year model runs.”
_________________________________________
Anyone here wanting getting related to the above – raise their hands.
Others – wait, smile.
Regards – Hans
“I saw a man on a stage
Scream put me back in my cage
I saw him hang by his tie
I saw enough to make me cry
On planet earth”
v’
Translation of all of the above for those who perceive the conversation is over their heads:
Some people are experts, some are not, and their fields of expertise overlap to varying degrees or not at all.
Some people have very strong opinions, and some have opinions that are less strong.
Opinions are not facts.
Computer models are not based facts, but on the way the models are designed.
So the information they give is not factual data, but the best guess of some people, some of whom have strong opinions about a lot of stuff.
So, the information gleaned by these models are not facts, but opinions.
And model runs are not experiments, except to the degree that a thought experiment based on opinion is an experiment.
Some people believe that their expertise makes their opinions very valuable information.
Other disagree.
BTW:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
-Richard Feynman
Feynman was an expert. I believe in his ignorance.
Hah!
I was going to say what that makes you…but it would be rude to say what I believe about you.
I am with Leif Isvalgaard on this one! He is right!! I think that it is very likely that variations in the level of TSI do not directly produce significant changes in the Earth’s mean temperature over the Holocene period. However, something that is synchronized with long-term changes in the general level of solar activity does. I think that it is the long-term variations in the atmospheric tides that are responsible. These lunar tidal variations are linked long-term changes in the level of solar activity and, in addition, they influence the rate at which the Earth’s atmosphere warms and cools. However, the lunar influence is of the order of <= 0.7 degrees C, about six times larger than that caused by TSI.
Watch this space.
It was Unicorns!!!!!!
The irony of the situation is that I show that the atmospheric lunar tides have an effect using software that was developed by a man whose name almost matches your – i.e. the Alcyon Lunar Ephemeris – developed by Steve Moshier. Is he any relation to you?
astroclimateconnection
May 7, 2017 at 6:44 am
You see, you lose the “plot”, your “plot”, when you mention and rely on the term “Holocene” when trying to regard climate, climate data and climate change……That term really has no any proper or considerable or acceptable bearing for what supposed or considered to have……. but never the less, very effective and at times works wonders though, through the “population” of climate puppets…
The only thing that the term “Holocene” propagates is the clarity of the vision of human stupidity and human megalomania…..nothing else…..
ANY DOUBTS ABOUT IT!?
Just subject it to simple questioning……”When it starts and when supposed to end?”……and then compare the answers to such question, to the answers of the same question when climate change and proper climate periods like interglacials and glacials periods considered and subjected to such a questions…..
Let see what you come up with……..Oh you may very well, come up with a conclusion of a very probable very intentional and a very “devious” default mentally forced AGW……..Something similar to the recipes coming out of the Lewandowsky kitchen……..
cheers
Whiten – I think that you have been subject to too much SATIRE solar forcing.
I only have one question. The paper says the model runs result in an 11 year solar induced temp change of 0.12C, which is comparable to other models on temp, as well as “observational data”
Just where do I find this observational data that measures the contribution of the sun to climate on an 11 year cycle?
You can look at several records. Adjusted or unsdjusted.
Take your pick. ..The sun has little influence..
Really? Name one! All the temp metrics I’ve seen, raw and adjusted are for global temperature. I’ve never seen one that observes the change in temp associated with the sun. Such attribution is never measured. As such, that is how the climate science folks get away with attributing the change in temp to CO2.
So again, where is that observational data that measures the impact of solar on global temp.
I’ve never seen one that observes the change in temp associated with the sun
That you have never seen one, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Try to look for it. Google is your friend.
Here is an interesting thought experiment. Let’s say that CO2 has been substantially (half or all) the cause of the industrial period warming. Now let’s say that in opposition it was the Sun. How much change in the Sun would there have to be under clear sky and cloudy sky conditions to bring about that same increase in temperature?
My hunch is that it will cause us to wonder how only the anthropogenic portion of total atmospheric CO2 can be such a powerful yet tiny substance.
It would also make us understand that only something huge can be responsible. If not the huge Sun nore tiny anthropogenic CO2, then what? Look for something very large that has already demonstrated the ability to naturally send temperatures into up and down trends.
One thing that people here is forgetting [or don’t want to know] is that for the model runs of this paper, CO2 and atmospheric trace gases in general were held constant, so CO2 does not come into play here, no matter what the assumptions about sensitivity are.
Understood. I agree with the paper as it matches the mechanism and the math behind it. That it does match leaves both anthropogenic CO2 as a direct driver, and the Sun, in the dust. The driver must be something else.
CO2 models depend on amplification factors, as do unsubstantiated Solar mechanisms. This paper, when used to create a model that forces the Sun’s parameters to change enough to cause the warming would shock the Solar faithful. And would call into question that a fraction of total atmospheric CO2 would somehow be able to out perform a modeled direct solar driver.
Pamela Gray
May 7, 2017 at 9:04 am
But, Pamela, still, it shows to a degree that the models in question are not so bad in their basics and essential, as in this case do and are confirmed by observations……..:-)
cheers
CO2 was held constant in the model used, and the models in question are not only running too hot but they are highly susceptible to being blind to confounding factors.
The CO2 models only speak to, and poorly to an a priori anthropogenic assumption that has been sexed up with additional amplifiers to match that assumption. This is exactly the research design Achilles heel that confounding factors often attach themselves to. The only way to avoid it is to perform due diligence in ruling out ALL other factors, and especially intrinsic ones. That is the true null hypothesis. That intrinsic natural drivers are at work. And the biggest one, one that already demonstrates the ability to drive short and longer term trends is the most poorly understood and barely researched.
Hell we know more and have explored more about our moon, and Mars than we have our oceans. I dare say we are further along understanding how the Sun works than our own ocean and atmosphere.
lsvalgaard
May 7, 2017 at 8:27 am
Yes, Leif, in the aspect of this model runs what you said could hold, but only up to some point…….if the models that did these runs are so “good” when their results seem to match ok the observation, then the CO2 held constant will not come to play there, unless till the lag time ~ reached, which in nature consist as an ~800 years lag, in a steady long trend.
wondering what such model runs could produce after a 800 years simulation in such a condition of CO2 held constant…….!
hopefully for the sake of AGW, such simulation would not produce a CO2 variation spiking far and above of 20-30 ppm, when the artificial CO2 scenario held as a minimal constant, ~0 emissions over time..
cheers
Let’s be clear what this analysis indicates. It indicates that if the response of the Earth to solar forcing is what they imagine it to be, then solar forcing has little impact.
That’s all it says. It is not comprehensive. It does not rule out a significant impact from solar forcing.
It indicates that if the response of the Earth to solar forcing is what they imagine it to be, then solar forcing has little impact.
No, it says that if we apply what we know about the physics of the atmosphere, then the solar forcing has little impact, in accordance with the observational evidence.
I think that is what I just said, in less obfuscatory words.
Good that you entirely agree with me.
“No…”
Yes… You and Bart just said the exact same thing, just using different language (with the exception of that little bit at the end there about the “observational evidence”)…
Ha! Bart, you beat me to it(!)
Svalgaard, by “observational evidence”, do you mean the .12C per cycle? (and if so, do we really expect that to tell us anything about the long term influence of the sun?)
Yes, it does mean exactly that
I would like to add something to this that I presented in WUWT comments some years ago, and still believe is portentous. The Hockey Schtick blog was kind enough to record it for posterity here.
Temperature depends fundamentally on ocean mixing, and ocean mixing depends significantly on the tides. Lunar and solar tidal forces team up to produce a wobble of the Earth’s axis which traces out an elliptical cone with a period of 18.6 years.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/EarthAxisResidual_zps3352dfa1.jpg
The period of the magnitude of the deviation is 9.3 years:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/EarthAxisResidualMagvTime_zps2234691e.jpg
Sunspots have a nominal cycle period of 11 years, but in fact, are split into short term components at 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years.
http://s1136.photobucket.com/user/Bartemis/media/ssn2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=63
Modulation of 10, 10.8, and 11.8 years with a 9.3 year mixing period produces short term periods of 4.8, 5, and 5.2 years, as well as long term ones at 132, 67, and 44 years, with the dominant modes at 5 and 67 years, though some splitting of the lines is to be expected. These numbers are not particularly precise, and the position of the harmonics is sensitive to small errors, but it is sufficient, I think, to demonstrate what is going on here.
A PSD of HADCRUT global data since 1900 is plotted against inverse frequency below:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tempPSD_zpsytgxxatl.jpg
The higher period portion of the plot lacks resolution because of the relatively short record of data, and we expect to see a smearing out of the 67, and 44 year components, with the peak occurring near the mean of 56 years, and indeed, that is what we see. We also expect a grouping of peaks at or near 5 years, and indeed, that is what we see.
So, in sum, I believe this is evidence of significant solar forcing. The investigation under discussion assumed a simple, linear model, and they did not find anything. I believe they were not looking in the right place.
Those peaks are just harmonics and sub-harmonics of the basic 11-yr cycle caused by its asymmetry. And regardless, there is no observational evidence of more than 0.1 degree.
Keep checking back here. A lengthy post is being held up in moderation.
(better yet, Dr Svalgaard, it’s good that you entirely agree with Bart… ☺)
with some, but mostly not.
lsvalgaard@ur momisugly May 7, 2017 at 4:47 pm
“Those peaks are just harmonics and sub-harmonics of the basic 11-yr cycle caused by its asymmetry.”
No. In the first place, the PSD shown above is of the HADCRUT4 temperature series, not the SSN data. It is there that the ~5 year and ~60 year quasi-periodicities manifest.
In the second place, you cannot get a sub-harmonic from asymmetry. The fundamental harmonic is at 11 years. A memoryless nonlinearity induces harmonics at 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, 11/5, and so on, years. Review Fourier Series for more info.
Observational evidence indicates there exists a ~60 year periodicity with 0.4 degC peak-to-peak variation. It is what is responsible for the accelerated global mean temperature (GMT) from 1910-1940, and from 1970-2000, and the deceleration 1940-1970, and 2000-present.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.8
It was that latest acceleration 1970-2000 that led to the entire AGW panic, and the latest deceleration that deflated it in the “pause” era to date. Once the transient El Nino/PDO blip dissipates, we are in store for a sustained decline from the downcycle of the ~65 year component.
There is nothing outlandish about this. Ocean temperatures are what count for the long term. Ocean mixing is largely produced by the tides. Beat the ~9.3 year tidal mode against the ~11 year solar cycle, and you get the ~5 year and ~60 year patterns that are observed. This is evidence that solar variation is a major temperature driver.
The 5-yr harmonic peak is due to asymmetry. Subharmonics come from forced oscillations of weakly nonlinear systems. The side-peaks just below and just above the 11-yr peak are due to amplitude modulation bya 100-yr long-term variation. Nothing to do with the moon. And none of this show solar control of anything. All of this is well-known and not controversial.
Bartemis might learn something from
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
“This study has found evidence for long-term modulation of the solar cycle over periods of 28 to 450 years. At this stage there is no indication if any of the modulation periodicities are real or if they just represent a Fourier fit to a random variation. It can be noted though that a period of around 100 years, which matches the well-known Gleissberg cycle [9], does seem to be persistent in the data. ”
and
“the longer periods in the modified yearly sunspot data from 1700 to 2011 are all subharmonics of the main 11-year periodicity. It is worth noting though that subharmonics in the frequency spectrum would suggest a non-linear mechanism, possibly with chaotic instability [14].”
“The 5-yr harmonic peak is due to asymmetry.”
Then, we are seeing a 5 year impact on Earthly temperatures from solar forcing?
Yet, there is no 11 year impact. Is that what you are saying?
How do you explain the notion that solar forcing is significant at the 2X harmonic, but not at the fundamental?
Look again, Leif. This is a temperature PSD. Of globally averaged temperature anomaly. On the Earth.
How do you explain the notion that solar forcing is significant at the 2X harmonic, but not at the fundamental?
Simplest explanation is that the ‘significance’ is a fluke.
Here are some more such flukes: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
And, BTW, many people claim there is a very weak [marginal] 11-yr signal in the temperature series, as we would expect from the 11-yr variation of TSI [and all the other solar parameters].
“…if we apply what we know about the physics of the atmosphere…”
Once again, and not to be repetitive, but it is readily acknowledged by pretty much everyone that there are thing we know about the atmosphere that are left out of the models for various reasons.
So it is more correct to qualify this statement with the caveat “…what we know about the physics of the atmosphere and can model…”
Just sayin’.
Once again, and not to be repetitive, but it is readily acknowledged by pretty much everyone that there are thing we know about the atmosphere that are left out of the models for various reasons.
Who is ‘pretty much everybody”?
What is left out is what we estimate is not of importance.
You might earn something by studying
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/ModelDescription/
before you make categorical statements
Study https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/gcm/doc/ModelDescription/
and tell us [‘pretty much everybody] what you think has been left out and why it should be included after having estimated how important it is.
“Simplest explanation is that the ‘significance’ is a fluke.”
The 9.3 year tidal period is there. The ~11 year cycle is there. These would produce a ~5 year and ~60 year periodicity when modulated together, and they do appear in the temperature data.
You say this is a fluke. I say it is unlikely.
“And, BTW, many people claim there is a very weak [marginal] 11-yr signal in the temperature series, as we would expect from the 11-yr variation of TSI [and all the other solar parameters].”
I see no indication of any significant 11 year variation in HADCRUT4. Here is a bigger plot that can be seen more easily:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tempPSD2_zps5xxxlime.jpg
You say this is a fluke. I say it is unlikely.
If you don’t know anything, everything is possible or likely.
Power spectra are not very good if the signal is not stationary. Or have long-term trends.
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Global-Temperatures.png
Mine is, of course, rather better than yours. But, your detrended figure is not terribly far off from mine.
Leif says:
“If you don’t know anything, everything is possible or likely.”
So, what do you truly know, Leif ?
Tell me one thing.
[???? .mod]
OT, but…
Any early word on what the trend chart will show when updated for April?
Was the sunspot number up or down over March?
Thanks in advance.
There have been spots, but they sure look small and isolated for this point in the cycle, and the trend continues to be well below even the updated projection shown in red.
What does this mean for the next cycle, in terms of strength and length?
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
http://www.solarham.net/data/14day.wmv
Plus that descending leg sure seems very smooth compared to previous cycles…it that uncommon for a weak cycle?
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf