Baby It’s Cold Outside – evidence of solar cycle affecting Earth’s cloud cover

Guest essay by David Archibald

News comes that the light reflected back from Uranus is affected by the solar cycle.

“The atmosphere around Uranus is one of the coldest in the solar system, but still contains clouds and ice, like our own atmosphere here on Earth.

“The changing brightness of the planet shows that something is happening to the clouds. We have found that the change is caused by two processes.

“One is chemical, caused as fluctuating levels of UV sunlight alters the colour of particles in the atmosphere. The other is due to high-speed particles from outside the solar system, known as galactic , bombarding the atmosphere and influencing the formation of .”

The scientists used data from telescopes on Earth, as well as cosmic rays measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft, to make their assessment.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-sun-remote-planet-uranus-brightness.html#jCp

To put that solar effect into perspective, the following is a schematic representation of the relative distances of the Earth and Uranus from the Sun:

clip_image002

If the solar cycle affects the climate of Uranus then it could reasonably be expected to affect Earth’s climate. The solar irradiance hitting Uranus is 3.69 W/m2, what hits Earth is 368 times greater. Svensmark’s theory of clouds being affected by cosmic rays is eternal; to recap the the changing interplanetary field controls the flux of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth which in turn changes the neutron flux and production of nucleation sites for cloud droplets. Clouds reflect 40 percent of sunlight straight back into space; open ocean absorbs 95 percent so the amount of cloud cover controls global temperature as shown by this graphic:

clip_image004

Figure 1: Tropical cloud cover 15N – 15S and global air surface temperature 1983 – 2009

The cloud cover data in Figure 1 came from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity because it was showing good support for Svensmark’s theory. Despite the fact that Solar Cycle 24 is weaker than Solar Cycle 23 in terms of sunspot number and F10.7 flux, total solar irradiance has been as constant as the northern star as shown by the LASP data in Figure 2:

clip_image006

Figure 2: Total solar irradiance aligned on solar minimum

Figure 2 shows that the Sun in Solar Cycle 24 has been tracking Solar Cycle 23 closely for the last few years. Figure 3 shows that the interplanetary magnetic field has been backloaded for this cycle with a new high in activity after solar maximum:

clip_image008

Figure 3: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2017

The sum of the magnetic field, the flow density and flow speed produces the solar wind flow pressure:

clip_image010

Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1967 – 2017

Sunspot number and F10.7 flux may be weak but the solar wind flow pressure is back to the levels it held over Solar Cycle 23, with the jump up in activity from solar maximum in 2014. The next stage in the process is the neutron flux that initiates cloud formation:

clip_image012

Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017

The neutron count is back to levels above that of recent solar minima and the 1970s cooling period. Until recently climate hasn’t followed in response. The eternal question is the length of the current cycle and thus the timing of the next solar minimum.

clip_image014

Figure 6: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle aligned on solar minima

Figure 6 shows that Solar Cycle 24 (red line) is tracking along with Solar Cycles 21 and 22 which were strong, short cycles. But anything could happen. When the solar wind flow pressure finally collapses into solar minimum, the neutron flux should reach a new high for the instrument record.


David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

Advertisements

227 thoughts on “Baby It’s Cold Outside – evidence of solar cycle affecting Earth’s cloud cover

    • Of course not. But it does require a certain amount of intelligence. Not a lot, but some.

      This guys analysis of the F-35 debacle is enough to get his ideas on the table all by itself, we can almost ignore physics.

    • I published an article “power spectrum analysis” of global solar radiation and net radiation intensities. The results showed sunspot cycle and its multiples [10.5 plus or minus 0.5 years] for Indian stations.

      Cube root of rainfall showed a relationship with solar radiation and evaporation [over northeast Brazil] & cloud cover to Sunshine hours, etc. published in 70s & 80s.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Sorry.
      I thought the ‘Science was Settled’ about fifteen-ish years ago.

      Yet this suggests perhaps it is not.

      Goodness.

      Auto

    • Cosmic rays are deflected from the solar system by magnetic fields associated with outflowing energetic solar particles. The flux of these particles and fields is much weaker at Uranus than at Earth, and thus the influence of the solar cycle on cosmic ray density in Uranus’ atmosphere would be less.
      Evidence does exist of modulation of cosmic ray intensity by the solar cycle at the orbit of asteroids (between Mars and Jupiter).

      • and thus the influence of the solar cycle on cosmic ray density in Uranus’ atmosphere would be less.
        Most of the solar modulation takes place in the outer solar system, way beyond Uranus.

      • It is the magnetic field associated with the outflowing solar particle field that diverts (bends) the charged cosmic ray particles. The degree of bending of such particles is proportional to the strength of that magnetic field. (The same process occurs in a mass spectrometer.) The magnetic field propagated out from the Sun decreases with the square of distance, and thus its effect becomes less.
        You may be thinking of the helio-pause, which is the distance where the Sun’s particle field merges with the inter-stellar field, which does occur far out in the solar system.

        • The magnetic field propagated out from the Sun decreases with the square of distance, and thus its effect becomes less
          The sun is rotating so the fiend is wound up around the sun which causes the field to decrease lineraly with distance far from the sun. Furthermore since the solar wind speed varies with longitude around the sun, solar wind with different speeds are emitted in the same directions as the sun is rotating. This causes the faster wind to crash into the slower wind creating shock waves in the outer solar system with enhanced and very tangled magnetic fields. It are those that deflect the cosmic rays. We also observe that from data from the two voyagers.

      • Solar wind protons propagate with an average energy of about 1 keV. Much more energetic particles are propagated via coronal mass ejections and solar flares, but the flux of these is much lower and much less uniform. If solar particles have a certain space density when near the Sun, how do they maintain that space density when they move outward and occupy a much larger space volume? It is not shock waves by solar particle collisions that bends a cosmic ray proton having 3 GeV of energy or more. It is the action of a relatively small but steady magnetic field operating on those over the vast distances of the solar system.

        • “At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Cosmic-ray_flux

          “A departure point for these time-dependent steps (both increases and decreases) from a global point of view is that ‘propagating barriers’ are formed and later dissipate in the outer heliosphere during the 11-year activity cycle. These ‘barriers’ are basically formed by solar wind and magnetic field co-rotating structures which are inhibiting the easy access of CRs to a relative degree.”
          https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4421.pdf

          These interaction regions occur at latitudes covered by the solar magnetic sectors and as those vary with the solar cycle causes a solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays as first proposed by Svalgaard and Wilcox in 1976:
          http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf

      • lsvalgaard December 31, 2017 at 6:19 pm
        ..“A departure point for these time-dependent steps (both increases and decreases) from a global point of view is that ‘propagating barriers’ are formed and later dissipate in the outer heliosphere during the 11-year activity cycle. These ‘barriers’ are basically formed by solar wind and magnetic field co-rotating structures which are inhibiting the easy access of CRs to a relative degree.”..
        _____________________________
        Happy New Year Dr. S. and V.
        By the time the IBEX was launched the solar system was already in declining solar cycle phases. (23 smaller then 22, 24 smaller than 23)
        The heliosphere outer boundaries were in a state of change due to diminishing solar strength. A shrinking of the heliosphere, if you will.
        But that’s not the question. lol
        Below are the N/S polar strength from WSO. Why the different shape, progression, strength etc. in the North?
        Seven Years of Imaging the Global Heliosphere with IBEX
        D. J. McComas1, E. J. Zirnstein1, M. Bzowski2, M. A. Dayeh3, H. O. Funsten4, S. A. Fuselier3,5, P. H. Janzen6, M. A. Kubiak2, H. Kucharek7, E. Möbius7
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/aa66d8/meta
        2017 April 17
        Abstract
        We are now able to study time variations in the outer heliosphere and interstellar interaction over more than half a solar cycle. We find that the Ribbon has evolved differently than the globally distributed flux (GDF), with a leveling off and partial recovery of ENAs from the GDF, owing to solar wind output flattening and recovery. The Ribbon has now also lost its latitudinal ordering, which reflects the breakdown of solar minimum solar wind conditions and exhibits a greater time delay than for the surrounding GDF. Together, the IBEX observations strongly support a secondary ENA source for the Ribbon, and we suggest that this be adopted as the nominal explanation of the Ribbon going forward.

        http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif

        http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif

      • Carla, if you bother to read what it says on the WSO website you will see the following:
        “Warning: WSO Polarization Sensitivity was reduced from mid-December 2016 to late on 18 May 2017 due to contamination on the Littrow lens. Calibration efforts are underway, but all reported magnetic measurements during that time period are about a factor of 1.6 too small.
        Thanks to Leif Svalgaard for helping discover this anomaly.”

        P.S. The ENA and the ribbon have nothing to do with the magnetic field in the heliosphere.

      • lsvalgaard January 1, 2018 at 9:29 am
        ————————-
        Lighten up. I was just reading the, “WSO Magnetic Fields are
        Suddenly Cut in Half [Again?]”

        “”P.S. The ENA and the ribbon have nothing to do with the magnetic field in the heliosphere.””

        The article I posted ‘was’ paywalled. The price was right. Looking at images now. As I like to do first. lol

        http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0067-0049/229/2/41/Full/apjsaa66d8f22_lr.jpg

        Figure 22. IBEX ENA maps of survival-probability-corrected 1.1 keV ENAs (top) compared to the time series (bottom) of the solar wind dynamic pressure at 1 au (white), and sunspot number (red). For typical “recycle” times across most of the sky of ~2–4 years (shaded for 2009 and 2016) and year-long maps (additional dotted lines), solar wind variations observed at any given time produce ENA emissions with this sort of multi-year time delay.

      • lsvalgaard January 1, 2018 at 10:44 am
        So, the ribbon has nothing to do with the magnetic field.
        ———————————————————
        Magnetic fluxes are relevant to that ahh, question.

        Not so sure about that as yet.

        The Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) wraps around the heliosphere which is composed of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF), solar wind/density. The Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) PILES UP during wrapping around the heliosphere. When it piles up, does it break and mix with IMF during the reconnection processes? Where do those ISMF fluxes go?
        Is the Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) positive or negative?

        We know that propagation of GCR through heliosphere varies dependent of whether the solar cycle’s north pole is positive or negative. And that during solar maximum the polar fields are absent.

        There is an ‘inward’ and outward winding of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field IMF (+-)

        Like the role of geothermal heat from the outer core on Earth, there are still a lot of unanswered questions on the role of the Local Interstellar Medium and its associated Magnetic Fields influence on the heliosphere.

        One of us has to do their dishes, make some split pea and ham soup and vacumn, read a newly downloaded paper yet today.

        fun fun fun

      • Yeah, just walk away and get busy and think of something I should have added to the previous comment.

        And we know that during solar cycle, the flux progression is from the polar regions to the equator and back again to the polar regions.

        We know that propagation of GCR through heliosphere varies dependent of whether the solar cycle’s north pole is positive or negative. And that during solar maximum the polar fields are absent.

        • And we know that during solar cycle, the flux progression is from the polar regions to the equator and back again to the polar regions.
          Not quite correct. A better characterization would be
          “One can look at the solar cycle as a continuous conversion of the poloidal field to the toroidal field and back to the poloidal field. While the generation of the toroidal field is probably a rather deterministic and orderly process, the generation of the poloidal field seems to be a much more random process, as only a very small fraction (1%–2%) of the toroidal field is converted to polar fields by diffusion and/or circulation.”
          From http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

          And again, this has nothing to do with the ribbon or the ENA.

    • Somehow I suspect that the UN’s approach to addresing that world chaos will involve wealth redistribution, an experiment in global Socialism, and Agenda 21.

      • “…Somehow I suspect that the UN’s approach to addresing that world chaos will involve wealth redistribution…”

        Nowadays they just print the money they want for their projects, after keeping a cut for themselves of course. By the time the currency dilution makes its way down to the rest of us we’ll hardly notice that a loaf of bread now costs a percent or two more.

  1. We don’t need to go to outer reaches of the solar system to realise the sun is primary driver
    On this graph we can see that the North Hemisphere’s temperature data (CRUTemp4) has two prominent periodicities ascending well above the noise level:
    – 9 years, most likely associated with the AMO 9 years decadal periodicity
    – 21.8 years, most likely associated with solar magnetic cycle (2 x sunspot cycle) periodicity.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT4spec.gif
    Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant, than it should be, within the reason, accepted to be a reflection of the solar activity effect on the NH’s temperature natural variability.

    • Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant,
      Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…

      • “….. evidence for something else….”

        and what that ‘something else’ might be ?
        When confronted with a certain phenomenon I can not explain it is the luck of knowledge, but others are at liberty to reject it’s existence.

      • Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…

        Like the Sun is the ultimate causal effect on the Earth’s climate?

      • “lsvalgaard December 31, 2017 at 12:04 pm
        Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant,
        Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…”

        Isvalgaard is absolutely correct, vukcevic.

        “vukcevic December 31, 2017 at 12:47 pm
        “….. evidence for something else….”
        and what that ‘something else’ might be ?
        When confronted with a certain phenomenon I can not explain it is the luck of knowledge, but others are at liberty to reject it’s existence.”

        It’s known as “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”, “argument from ignorance” is one of the classic logical fallacies and one continually used by alarmists. Hence their use of waffle words and false adjective boosters; e.g. might, could, may, robust, “must be”, “only remaining thing”, etc.

        The plain truth is such claims are assumptions, beliefs, speculation and of course, opinion. None of theose are science or part of the scientific process.

        “but others are at liberty to reject it’s existence”, when opinions, speculations, assumptions, and belief claims are presented as some sort of science; any description of those claims should clearly identify them as possibilities or theories in progress.

        “vukcevic December 31, 2017 at 10:46 am

        Unless it can be shown that the 21.8 periodicity has some other external source or alternatively some kind of an internal oscillation time constant, than it should be, within the reason, accepted to be a reflection of the solar activity effect on the NH’s temperature natural variability.”

        All assumption and presumptions that self falsifies as unproven assumptions that an assumed correlation may could in a far fetched manner might possibly hold merit…

      • ATheoK
        Thank you for your extensive comment. I’m not sure I understood all of it, perhaps you should followed Dr. Svalgaard and simply say “Vuk you are an ignoramus”.

      • “Ignorance about something cannot be taken as evidence for something else…”
        That doesn’t seem to stop the IPCC!
        Chris

      • There always have been those who relentlessly attempted to halt progress of human understanding of science and natural events in general. Motivations are various and many, ranging from defending institutional status quo, personal income or dubious status to promoting alternative theories.
        More importantly see my comment at : January 1, 2018 at 5:21 am

    • Vuk, either I’ve had too much gin, not enough gin, or I need some replacement memory cells. But I thought the AMO was a 60 year cycle. Isn’t 9 years a lunar cycle ?

      • “We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1 ± 0.4 years and p-value 1.7% (CL 98.3%).”
        Richard A. Muller & Judith Curry : Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

    • I think it is just great that we have so much information on the science behind everything, unfortunately it will change nothing.

  2. ug high temp today in mid maine was 2F.
    started morning out at -13f and tonight will be -16f or so.
    next Saturday the high is supposed to be -3 F.
    cold weather really taking a toll on machinery and fuel usage.

  3. Fig 1 suggests that tropical cloud cover increases as global temperature rises as per the age old historical observation that air above the oceans has a maximum possible temperature whatever the level of insolation.

    Shouldn’t we be seeing less cloud cover with a more active sun and the temperature following (subject to oceanic thermal inertia) ?

    If one considers global cloud cover rather than tropical cloud cover then we get the correct signal, hence my preference as regards consideration of the clouds generated by jet stream tracks. More when the jets are wavy at a time of quiet sun and less when the jets are zonal at a time of active sun.

    That involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which would not need any change in condensation nuclei of which there are more than enough anyway which is why I doubt the Svensmark diagnosis.

    • Stephen your theory can coexist with Svensmark.

      Do you think a wayward jet stream causes blocking highs?

      • ironicman,

        It could coexist with Svensmark but I don’t think it does because there is no shortage of condensation nuclei in the first place so more make little difference.

        The wayward jets are caused by blocking highs which are a consequence of the warmer stratosphere above the poles when the sun is less active pushing tropopause height downward and forcing areas of colder denser air outwards from the poles.
        The jets tend to thread their way between high pressure cells.

  4. David……..”Uranus ……. something is happening to the clouds.”

    What is happening?….more clouds…less clouds?

    On aside….I live on a rock out in the tropical ocean….this has been the cloudiest summer, fall, and winter we’ve ever had….days and weeks of cloudy overcast…not really rain…just cloudy…sorta depressing from what we’re used to

    • Yeah, I “feel” for you and your depression as my toes freeze off. Happy New Year anyway. grumble, grumble.

      • I think we are all pretty much over the “Uranus” jokes.
        Can’t we just change the name of that planet to Urectum and be done with it?

      • Bartleby

        The giggle factor is always there (we’re all guilty) when discussing a planet called ‘Uranus’ it is difficult enough to bring a topic up for debate surrounding the planet, as it really is a fascinating planet,

        Did nurses stand around giggling behind a screen when a proctologist put a finger in your butt or something?

        Try to have a more professional composure.

        By the way, the secret of comedy is.

        Uranus…

      • So, since I was there when this happened, I have an opinion.

        We no longer pronounce Uranus as “your anus”. As soon as we discovered the rings around Uranus back in ’79 or ’80 (I can’t remember, senior moment), we decided the new pronunciation would be “Yer a nus” with emphasis on the “nus” part. Like that helped. No one paid any attention, so we were stuck with discovering the rings around your anus. If I have to live with that, so do the rest of you.

      • Maybe a better example of the acceptable pronunciation is “Yer uh nus”.

        I know this won’t help. I’ve been trying for more than 30 years. But that’s what we decided at the time.

      • It did not help a bit that the rings were dark brown.
        As for life there…Well< I was going to make a Klingon joke, but Javier will tell me to shut up if I do that.

      • Menicholas,

        Bartleby was showing totally inappropriate behavior and insulting Leif. He has been put in moderation, so my view of his behavior is shared by Anthony. I have no problem with jokes no matter how bad or tasteless they are. I think we all stand to win if commenters abstain from personal attacks no matter to whom.

  5. There is more than 50% chance that the solar activity is at the threshold of one of its centenary Grand Minima (late 1600s, early 1810s and almost early 1910s), and if so it is a matter how long it may last, from one or two up to five decades. All of the Grand Minima were accompanied by considerable cooling from the previously warmer periods. More people are brainwashed about supposedly CAGW, more of a surprise or even shock is waiting around the corner.

  6. evidence of solar cycle affecting Earth’s cloud cover
    The title is misleading. The evidence is that the solar cycle is affecting the color of Uranus’ cloud cover.
    The solar cycle is also affecting the Earth’s upper atmosphere [the ionosphere and thermosphere], but there is no evidence that it is affecting the cloud cover.
    .

    • also the formation of clouds…

      “Changes in solar activity influence the colour and formation of clouds around the planet,”

      • “Kind lf like CO2 being the thermostat for Earth’s climate.”

        No!? Say it isn’t so!

        Some absurdly impotent gas might destroy the entire human universe? It couldn’t be!

        Send Leif money. He’ll save you from this disaster. He has a degree. In Science!

      • MODERATOR:

        I would appreciate it very much if you were to take “Dr. Svalgaard’s” commentary on this subject and future subjects in this topic with a large grain of salt.

        Dr. Svalgaard is making claims inconsistent with known science; in fact it is well known and understood that the sun (our star) is responsible for providing all energy available on our planet. To suggest otherwise is pure tomfoolery. I’m myself an emeritus of the institution he claims allegiance with and I find his commentary noisome in the extreme.

      • Bartleby.

        “I would appreciate it very much if you were to take “Dr. Svalgaard’s” commentary on this subject and future subjects in this topic with a large grain of salt.”

        Two things:

        1. Dr, Svalgaard stands behind his words by publishing his full name to his comments, you don’t.

        2. I’ve met and know Dr. Svalgaard personally, he argues from a scientific basis, even if that basis is unpopular.

        So, no.

    • “The solar cycle is also affecting the Earth’s upper atmosphere [the ionosphere and thermosphere], but there is no evidence that it is affecting the cloud cover.”

      Speak for your own anus Leif. The rest of us will take care of managing our own?

      Thanks.

      • [snip – that’s an ugly and pathetic attack, and a policy violation – and you want me to listen to your suggestions about Dr. Svalgaard? I think not. You are on moderation now- Anthony]

      • There is supposed to be moderation for the prevention of such childish ad homs on here.
        But again it fails.

      • Bartleby, apparently you cannot manage your behavior, let alone scientific discourse. As a result, you nullify your own comments. Go away unless you can join adult discussions. So far, I see no such ability in you.

    • Plain language summary from the paper, bold mine:

      “Measurements of the planets Uranus and Neptune have been made using a telescope, for every year from 1972 to 2015. How bright a planet appears to us is an indicator of the cloud cover in its atmosphere. An 11 year brightness variation was spotted in the Neptune observations many years ago, indicating that a process linked to the the Sun’s 11 year activity cycle affects the planet’s clouds. This inspired us to look at the data for Uranus more closely, and we found the same signal as for Neptune. There are two possible explanations. One possibility is chemical, when light from the Sun affects the color of particles in the planet’s atmosphere. Our other possibility is that energetic particles from outside the solar system, cosmic rays, influence particle, or cloud formation. (Cosmic rays are “bent” away from the solar system by the Sun acting as a magnet, so are also affected by its 11 year activity cycle). In our results, we actually find that both of them have a small effect on the clouds on Uranus. This is the first evidence of two planetary atmospheres—Neptune originally and now Uranus—showing similar variations, in both cases originating from their host star.”

      From the abstract-

      “The statistics show that 24% of the variance in reflectivity fluctuations at 472 nm is explained by GCR ion-induced nucleation, compared to 22% for a UV-only mechanism. Similar GCR-related variability exists in Neptune’s atmosphere; hence, the effects found at Uranus provide the first example of common variability in two planetary atmospheres driven through energetic particle modulation by their host star.”

  7. However: if GCR would effect cloud cover (CC) and on this way the GMST one would see some energy in the fourier of the GMST. This is not the case. This says NOT that the arerosols aren’t produced (Svensmark is right perhaps) BUT that these aerosols do not have the impact on Clouds ( aka aerosol-cloud interactions:ACI) that climate models estimate. This has wide ranging influences on the sensivity vs. GHG, those are LOWER than models estimate. One big forcing vs. GHG is calculated from ACI. This is low ( negligible) as some recent papers suggest from observations of ship tracks and volcanos. A direct outcome is: Climate sensivity vs. GHG must be smaller than models estimate.
    BTW: A happy new year 2018 for all following this blog!

  8. “International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity …”

    I agree that this is a useful data set. It suffers from a cross satellite calibration issue owing to its dependence on continuous polar orbiter coverage, but this primarily affects the reconstructed surface temperatures and not the cloud properties. The scatter plots at this link shows how many of the reported and derived variables are related to each other. The relationship between total cloud cover and temperature is particularly interesting as are those between the surface temperature, solar forcing and planet emissions.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens

    While it may be coincidental, the data stopped being updated shortly after I demonstrated to Rossow how his data supported a sensitivity far lower than his source of funding (GISS) wants people to believe. At the time, he was trying to convert to higher resolution pixels which I seem to recall was because they hoped that at a better resolution, the data would show what they were expecting relative to positive cloud feedback which the existing ISCCP data doesn’t confirm.

    I also have the DX data (almost 1 TB) from which I was able to reverse engineer away the cross satellite calibration issues and cross check my reconstructions of planet emissions and cloud reflectivity based on what was reported in the D2 data.

      • Hugs,

        Yes, this was a useful project.

        The data is actually collected by NOAA from the polar orbiters and geosynchronous satellites covering the Americas and also by international agencies collecting data from satellites covering Europe, India and Asia. This data is still being collected by those agencies.

        The value added by the ISCCP project was to convert the data from these various sources into a consistent format and make it available, along with several derived data products. Cross calibration was an added value, except for the flaw in the algorithm that depended on continuous coverage by a polar orbiter whenever another satellite is replaced. In 2001, there was only one polar orbiter left (there have usually been at least 2) which itself was drifting a bit. It was replaced with a new generation of satellite with a different receiver characteristic. The sudden shift in the reference was something the algorithm couldn’t deal with and led to about a 3C jump in the baseline surface temperature. This jump is often pointed to as why the ISCCP data is not useful, but to be clear, it’s only not useful for establishing temperature ‘anomalies’. It’s very useful for understanding the average transfer functions, how clouds behave from a macroscopic point of view and is even useful for measuring trends once the calibration issues are addressed.

      • It is not at all surprising that Obama admin stopped this research that posed a threat to the Gorebull Warming Hoax.

        The Obama admin also stopped a very low cost ($20m annually) research project on Low Dose Radiation Damage that was studying cellular repair mechanisms for radiation damage. This research threatened the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis of radiation damage that is the foundation for the anti nuclear energy alarmists.

        Greens use junk science (Gorebull Warming and LNT) to sideline US nuclear and coal so that the new natural gas from fracking is used to generate electricity rather than to compete with oil in the transportation sector. The beneficiary of this policy is the OPEC monopoly in the transportation sector.

        Greens expose their hypocrisy since coal is attacked for generating CO2 while nuclear is also attacked even though it is the solution to CO2 emissions.

  9. I have spent a long time trying to see a link between the sun and our climate. I mention a few of the things I have considered just to stimulate the thinking of others who may have ideas that I have missed.

    – Modulation of GCRs affect cloud formation as Svensmark suggests.
    – Changes in solar wind affect cloud formation
    – Changes in solar magnetic field affects arrival of cosmic and meteorite dust
    – Changes in solar cycle affect gravimetric changes and ocean overturning
    – Changes in TSI UV content that change atmospheric chemistry

    The solar effect could be a combination of these or perhaps none.

    I hope that Svensmark is correct, but one question I have is what key differences are there between the solar wind and GCRs in terms of interactions leading to cloud seeding?

    Both contain electrons and the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, etc. and have high energies (velocity). Why do the modulated GCRs have a greater effect?

    • The GCRs arrive at a velocity approaching that of the speed of light. The GCRs
      use the atmosphere as their personal cloud chamber. Atom smashers.

      The solar wind is much more sedate.

    • I wonder about the outgoing aspect of the total “energy budget” . . in terms of potential changes in airborne water’s “greenhouse effect” due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field. All that incoming energy from the sun has to go out, and since water is the chief “greenhouse gas”, and water is effected by magnetic fields, it seems to me there is potential for non-incoming changes in the “radiation equation” . .

    • Another difference is that GCR have higher energy, and although they increase with latitude they hit all over the Earth. Solar wind particles are lower energy and enter the Earth almost exclusively at the poles. If there was an effect of solar wind on clouds it should be on polar clouds. In the same manner it is known that the solar magnetic field is capable of affecting surface pressure at the poles (Svalgaard-Mansurov effect).

      So if you want to propose an effect on climate it is easier with GCR. With solar wind you would have to also explain how a polar effect should affect the climate of the entire planet. It is not impossible, but gets more complicated, as the changes have to be bigger.

  10. I remember back in the olden days, when we just called it Winter, and everyone knew that some Winters were very cold in some places, others were very cold in other places, and some Winters were not so cold.
    But no one was all confused or angry about it, one way or the other.

  11. “To put that solar effect into perspective, the following is a schematic representation of the relative distances of the Earth and Uranus from the Sun:”

    Perhaps the distance relationship may be accurate but the size relationship is WAY off.

    • One is too hot, one is too cold and the little one is just right.
      As an old Floridian you know comparing Earth & Uranus is like comparing ‘oranges and lemons’, or the cockney chap I learned English would have it Bells of St. Clements.

      • Not sure why you’re obsessing on this point. The takeaway from the Uranus gig for me was simply that if as demonstrated the Sun is capable of driving observable physical changes in the atmosphere of outer gas giants then it isn’t unlikely that it can do so on Earth.

      • Because Uranus effect is of totally different nature to that what we see on the Earth. Density of both solar wind and CME at clouds Uranus (distance 18 – 19 AU) are only a fraction of what is the case at the Earth’s orbit (1 AU).
        In addition Jupiter & Saturn magnetospheres are huge, they take relatively large spatial angle of heliosphere, and doing so shield Uranus every 19 and 30 years from any effect of solar activity, leaving it open to only its own magnetic field as a defence from the GCR .
        You can clearly see those periodicities in the spectral response of the effect provided:
        https://i0.wp.com/www.leif.org/research/Uranus-Brightness-Solar-Cycle-Power.png
        9 year component is most likely second harmonic of the 19 year one.
        Oranges & lemons.

  12. Back in 2011 which looking through the Met Office climate summaries l was struck by how close the trends for annual sunshine amounts and annual mean temps for the UK matched. Since 1930 when sunshine amounts have fallen so do the mean temps and when sunshine amounts increase so do the mean temps. The match is not perfect but was amazed by how close it was.

  13. From 1997…amazing how far we’ve come in 20 years…
    https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/galleries/clouds-on-uranus

    “…Using visible light, astronomers for the first time this century have detected clouds in the northern hemisphere of Uranus…Uranus has also been called bland and boring, because no clouds have been detectable in ground-based images of the planet. Even to the cameras of the Voyager spacecraft in 1986, Uranus presented a nearly uniform blank disk, and discrete clouds were detectable only in the southern hemisphere…”

  14. There is something odd about those two spectral diagrams. Looking closely I noticed some doted lines; after a bit of enhancement I got this
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Uspec.gif
    Spectral components are the same but amplitudes were greatly reduced in the normally visible version.
    Graphs we see are from Dr. Svalgaard’s library, I don’t know if he noticed this before.

    • What is interesting about Figure 6 is that the peaks are aligned at 47 months into the cycle
      No, that is not interesting at all. It is an artifact of the fact that everything above 55 degrees is just one pixel on the WSO magnetograms. In fact, the tilt should [by definition] go all the way to 90 degrees at every sunspot maximum, but the instrument cannot resolve that because of the coarse spatial resolution.

      • More dezinformatsiya from Dr Svalgaard, or should I say Dr Svalgaardokov, I am inclined to report you to Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation.

      • As a co-discoverer of the Heliospheric Current Sheet and a co-developer of the Wilcox Solar Observatory it may be presumed that I know I am talking about. You, sir, on the other hand show clear evidence that you do not.[In addition your comment is juvenile and demeans WUWT].

  15. What has happened to science?, did science start with the age of internet searchable papers?. The phys.org article states The papers provide the first evidence that two planetary atmospheres have similar variations, in both cases originating from their host star.
    Guess what?, in 1977 BBC popular science documentary Horizon (Season 14 Episode 6) “The Sunspot Mystery” described the very same observations of planetary brightness (and Earth climate) variations with sunspot numbers. And the climate guys back then had a refreshingly guarded approach to climate prediction – save one (you would have to watch it to find out who !).

    • It does seem that old knowledge is having to be revisited for whatever reason.
      Before astrophysicists with their radiation budgets (that is all they have in astrophysics) invaded the climate scene it was well known amongst meteorologists that the greenhouse effect (or whatever nomenclature one prefers) was attributable to conduction and convection operating within a gravity induced pressure and density gradient. That was clear in the 50s and 60s when I first studied the subject.
      Al the old text books to that effect appear to have been disposed of one way or another.

    • Yes, I remember reading about the 11-year variation in the apparent brightness of Uranus and Neptune in the early 70s. Corliss has something about this in his Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Moon and Planets volume).

  16. “The cloud cover data in Figure 1 came from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity because it was showing good support for Svensmark’s theory. ”

    David:
    Could you explain why.
    I know what it “supports”, and it certainly isn’t that.

      • Interesting
        What DOES the Bible say?
        …Thou shalt not lie
        Therefore the entire Bible is then true.
        Genesis 1:14 …Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for SIGNS, and FOR THE SEASON, AND FOR THE DAYS, AND YEARS…
        Therefore, since the sun, a star in the firmament of the heaven, we can now answer the question. Is it the sun?
        Yes!!!
        Looks like someone knew long before CAGW stepped in it. 🙂
        P.S. not mocking…mocking is bad.

  17. Sunspot cycles last approximately 11 years, and their presence in the climate data is hardly detectable, however the ~22 year periodicity is present in both, the land and the land & ocean data
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TempSpec.gif
    the 22 year cycle is caused by change in the polarity of solar magnetic field, and it has an effect on the length of the maximum GCR impact.
    When polarity changes, the trajectory of the GCRs towards the earth also changes from the heliosphere’s polar region to one from the equatorial region, and vice versa.
    Result of this is a considerable change in duration of the maximum impact of the cosmic rays.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCRmod.png
    Following even cycles maxima, the maximum impact of the GCRs can lasts up to 7-10 years while following odd cycles maxima the maximum GCR impact lasts only couple of years.
    Since it is postulated (Svensmark & Kirby) that the GCR variability changes cloudiness, the length of the GCR’s maximum impact will also affect global cloudiness and the global temperature spectral composition (as shown above).

    GCR variability illustration is from lecture Solar Activity and Climate given by a renown solar scientist Hiroko Miyahara, from the University of Tokyo ( link, the relevant bit is at 9.00 min in, while the GCR effect starts at 7.30 min in).
    There will be attempts to refute the above as it has happened on number occasions before, and no doubt it will happen again.
    Happy New Year to all.

    • This is a second order effect and even as such there is no clear evidence that GCRs influence the climate and especially not on a 22-yr time scale. We may presume that Svensmark et al. knows what their hypothesis entails and that does not include a 22-yr variation, but rather an 11-yr cycle.
      In response to another of your comments: what you do is not science and is not progress.

      • What is the average time that it takes the suns polarity to reverse from one geographic location to the other and back again?

        There is a number of 11 years being thrown about as an average of how long the suns polarity goes from the geographic poles to the equator.

        11 years is a polarity reversal of 180 degrees, in your opinion, what constitutes as 360 degrees?

        • The solar poles do not reverse by rotating 180 or 360 degrees. Instead, what happens is that the old polarity is slowly replaced [in place – i.e. in the polar caps] by the new [opposite] polarity coming up from lower latitudes by movements of the solar plasma [from equator to poles]. The process is described here
          http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
          This has nothing whatsoever to do with the movements of the planets.

      • during last 75 years (since peak of 1940s) N.H. temperature change by 0.4C, which is 0.1% of its absolute value, I would call that second order change too.

        “We may presume that Svensmark et al. knows what their hypothesis entails and that does not include a 22-yr variation, but rather an 11-yr cycle.”
        that sounds a bit odd coming from a scientist, I’m not particularly concerned what Svensmark knows or not, I look at the data, do bit of analysis and report, it’s lot of fun, if not much of science as you would insist.

        • Presumably, Svensmark looks at the data too, and perhaps has a better background in science to interpret what he sees and how plausible the result may be. He is not in it for the fun, but for the truth [he may not have gotten it yet] and is trained as a scientist to not be fooled by spurious correlations [although he is not quite successful at this]..

      • Doc
        Searching for truth in science is a hopeless task, there is no final or everlasting scientific truth. Science is bound within the constraints of the laws that the fallible humanity has devised. The nature is an inflexible lady, she couldn’t care less for ‘scientific’ truth as we see it.

        • there is no final or everlasting scientific truth
          Not true. Examples of everlasting scientific truths: the Earth is round, it revolves around the sun [not the other way around],. sunspots are magnetic, the Universe is expanding, there is Helium in the Sun, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, CO2 is plant food, etc, etc, etc.
          Now, for scientific truth there are legions of pseudo-scientific nonsense peddled by ignorant people.

      • Lief,

        “what happens is that the old polarity is slowly replaced [in place – i.e. in the polar caps] by the new [opposite] polarity coming up from lower latitudes by movements of the solar plasma [from equator to poles].”

        Old and new polarity… what? it’s a straight forward concept being expressed,

        if it takes a bar magnet 11 years to turn upside down 180 degrees, how long does it take the bar magnet to turn 360 degrees?

        Lief,
        “This has nothing whatsoever to do with the movements of the planets.”
        I am discussing solar polarity on this issue, I’m open to discuss other components of the solar system too, I enjoy the subject.

        • Polarity denotes the direction of a magnetic field. Perhaps you have a reading problem.
          The sun has a global magnetic field with poles at the North and South poles of the sun. Currently the direction of the magnetic field at the North pole is directed away from the Sun’s surface [we call that positive or north polarity]. At the South pole the magnetic field is currently pointed into the sun. We call that negative of south polarity]. The magnetic field at the poles does not move around on the sun [like rotating from from pole to the other – although there are some people who mistakenly believe so], but grows and shrinks in response to magnetic flux moving up from lower latitudes. The process is described here:
          http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

          P.S. I have no idea what you are talking about [neither does the sun]. I hope you have.

      • Lief,
        “Polarity denotes the direction of a magnetic field.”

        A bar magnet coloured red denotes the direction of its polarity, if it took 11 years to reverse the bar magnet 180 degrees, how long would it be until it reversed 360 degrees?

        Leif,
        “Currently the direction of the magnetic field at the North pole is directed away from the Sun’s surface”

        You’re suggesting that the sun only has a surface towards its equator because the N polarity is at rest over a geographic pole, when in fact you are no longer observing resistance of both polarities interacting through the surface moving toward and away from the equator.

        The suns polarity is 4 dimensional (xyz plus time) and it is instantaneous. it isn’t a photon of visible light and it isn’t mass,

        Here’s a question, just for fun; if you have a sheet of paper over a bar magnet and a sprinkle of iron filings on the paper. How does the Iron filings move the bar magnet?

        • A bar magnet coloured red denotes the direction of its polarity, if it took 11 years to reverse the bar magnet 180 degrees
          To repeat: the sun is not a revolving bar magnet. If you want to keep the image of a bar magnet, think of it this way: the bar magnetic gets weaker and weaker until its magnetism is completely gone, then it gets stronger and stronger [with the opposite direction] until it has recovered [its now reversed magnetic field]. This takes 11 years, and then the process repeats.

      • Leif,

        “If you want to keep the image of a bar magnet, think of it this way: the bar magnetic gets weaker and weaker until its magnetism is completely gone…”

        I like that analogy 😀

        The sun has a self-degaussing mechanism,

        Maybe you can see my concern with this?

        • The sun has a self-degaussing mechanism,
          Well, any time you superpose negative and positive magnetic fields they cancel out.
          Even when the polar regions which are tiny compared to the rest of the Sun go away, there is a lot of magnetic flux elsewhere. In fact, the sun is most magnetic at solar maximum when to polar filds have gone away. Nothing to be concerned about.

      • There you go again letting hubris get in the way of commen sense.
        You say “the Earth is round”, it is not, it is ovoid.
        You say ” the Earth is 4.5 billion years old”, but in fact there is no Absolute proof, you have not gone back in time to see if the earth appeared at 5 Billion years, or 4.7 billion years or 4.25 billion years and yet you state it as a “truth”.
        You can say it is “Estimated to be 4.5 billion years old”, not that it is.

        • There you go again letting hubris get in the way of common sense.
          Your comment shows that perhaps common sense is not so common…
          Picking nits is not productive. ‘Round’ as opposed to ‘flat’ is good enough. And the age of the Earth is well established to be 4.543 billion years [give or take a few million years], etc.

      • No “Established” is not the TRUTH.
        Scientists keep giving Estimated, Established and Concensus “Facts” and at a later date admit they were wrong.
        You yourself should know that as your group has just changed the Wolf Sunspot Numbers that have stood for a very long time.
        As to nit picking, you are correct, you are a very highly regarded Scientist and precise language is necessary when you are making your point and especially when you are describingwhat is Scientific “Truth”
        If you had written “The Earth is not Flat”, fine but you stated the Earth is Round as a Truth and it is not.
        You continually criticise others for getting things wrong or inaccurate, but do not appear to hold yourself to the same standard.

        • If you had written “The Earth is not Flat”, fine but you stated the Earth is Round as a Truth and it is not.
          Your feeble attempt at nit picking falls flat.
          The dictionary definition of ’round’ is like or approximately like a circle or a sphere.
          The Earth certainly falls under that. Mastery of language and clarity of thought are essential ingredients of serious discourse, but you demonstrate deficiency with both.

    • I only put together what is or should have been already known.
      There is another possibility that considers non-TSI, non-Svensmark solar magnetic cycle effect on the global temperatures, but I leave it for another time.

      • I only put together what is or should have been already known.
        By whom?
        Perhaps you might consider that there are things you don’t know. [and don’t even know that you don’t]

      • lsvalgaard says:

        “the Universe is expanding”

        The earth is round suggesting the universe is expanding in the same sentence.

        Galaxies far off in space and time (literally) after they have formed are moving away from each other, therefore the entire universe is expanding!

        Closer to home, our own galaxy “the milky way” has formed,

        Have a guess what the “the milky way” is doing? it is moving toward the Andromeda Galaxy.

        Even Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein both disagreed with the way the interpretation of these observations were being presented.

        There is no workable concept as an “expanding universe” in physics, that’s for media scientists like Bill Nye, Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

        I’lll lean towards Hubble and Einsteins view on this issue.

        The planet is round, spherical in shape 😀

        • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
          The Universe is expanding, but for nearby objects gravity is strong enough to counteract the expansion and nearby [on a cosmological scale] objects move around each other held together by gravity. But gravity gets weaker [fast] with distance so at large distances becomes too weak to overcome the observed expansion of space.

  18. I noticed that the observational data was recorded during the time when Neptune and Uranus’ orbits were being perturbed by each other, they were in a close enough proximity to adjust their orbits slightly, this last occurred just before 1846 when Neptune was discovered,

    If both planets are in close proximity, it would be likely that galactic cosmic rays/particles would be attracted more to that area,

    These two planets have enormous polarities, two strong polar fields in the same place at the same time can effectively double any process taking place.

    And there is the suns polarity sweeping through the solar plane, the movement of the suns polarity reversing increases when these two planets are approaching each other, also during, when the two planets are moving away from each other, the timing of the suns polarity slows down.

  19. This thread, thus this blog is being degraded by unmoderated comments entirely inappropriate for a discussion on scientific matters. Moderators?

    And if archibaldperth is also the author of the post, shame on him! He should step up to the plate and correct this!

      • Such is the case with holiday- not so many people looking at moderation. I’ve removed Bartleby’s offensive and stupid comments that were policy violations, and put him on moderation.

        Sigh…

      • lsvalgaard says:

        “The Universe is expanding, but for nearby objects gravity is strong enough to counteract the expansion and nearby [on a cosmological scale] objects move around each other held together by gravity.”

        (Please refrain from throwing tantrums Leif, just discussing facts)

        What happens when two massively dense bodies “on a cosmological scale” come into contact with each other? they rip each other apart, correct?

        What happens when there is a point in time with a stronger gravitational pull than the speed of light?
        The mass of our sun can bend the light from distant stars, correct?

        Where are you getting the “Universe is expanding” narrative from?
        E=mc2 in physics describes that energy and mass is interchangeable, energy can not be created or destroyed. correct?

        The concept of time and distance is clear,
        Observing objects at an extreme distance such as galaxies should have moved away from each other after they have formed, how are you going to see newly forming galaxies?

        let that last point sink in…

        • What happens when two massively dense bodies “on a cosmological scale” come into contact with each other? they rip each other apart, correct?
          Most of the time they quietly simply merge. That is how giant elliptical galaxies are formed.
          “It is widely accepted that the evolution of elliptical galaxies is primarily composed of the merging of smaller galaxies. Many galaxies in the universe are gravitationally bound to other galaxies, which means that they will never escape the pull of the other galaxy. If the galaxies are of similar size, the resultant galaxy will appear similar to neither of the two galaxies merging, but will instead be an elliptical galaxy.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy#Evolution

          Where are you getting the “Universe is expanding” narrative from?
          From direct observations of the redshift from distant galaxies

          Observing objects at an extreme distance such as galaxies should have moved away from each other after they have formed, how are you going to see newly forming galaxies?
          Because of the finite speed of light, the galaxies we see at large distances are very young. Galaxies in their youth, so to speak. So we can directly see them form and evolve. Let that sink in.

      • You have just argued against Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein’s view on the universe. you have even thrown out the theory of special relativity in favour of a wikkilank,

        You really would argue up is down lol

      • It is true, why on earth would I lie ffs, I could pull anything right now from any of your links and you would argue against it, I actually did that before quoting you word for word and you still disagreed in a negative way.

      • Lief, your patience is commendable.
        Sparks, I often listen to a webcast called Astronomy Cast. It’s been running weekly for about 10 years, so they have an archive of almost 500 shows. They cover all the topics you and Lief are talking about – redshift, expansion, colliding galaxies (because they’re close enough for gravity to overcome expansion), and how we can see billion year old galaxies as they’re formed. And they explain it in layman’s terms, so people like us can understand it.

        http://www.astronomycast.com/archive/

  20. Solar activity crept up a bit during December. Sunspot cycle 24 number for December in the old money (Wolf SSN) rose slightly from 3.4 to about 5 points while the new Svalgaard’s reconstructed number is at 8.2.
    Composite graph is here
    SC24 is nearing what might be the start of a prolong minimum (possible late start of SC25 too), ‘dead cat bounce’ from these levels is unlikely.

    • while the new Svalgaard’s reconstructed number is at 8.2.
      Perhaps you should stop spreading misinformation. Version 2 of the sunspot number is not ‘mine’ but is a community effort promoted by the World Center for Sunspots in Brussels.
      Keep using the old scale is not productive unless, of course, the goal is to sow confusion or demonstrate ignorance.

      • OK, apology.
        Correction: the new SILSO reconstructed number is at 8.2.

        The new SILSO reconstructed number has been in use only for about two years, while there are hundreds of papers published in the last decades using the old Wolf SSN, therefore I provide both numerically and graphically for a quick and easy reference.
        Often we see temperatures quoted in the old Fahrenheit and the more recent Celsius and no one is particularly concerned by seeing two units appearing in parallel.

        • while there are hundreds of papers published in the last decades using the old Wolf SSN, therefore I provide both numerically and graphically for a quick and easy reference.
          Bad idea, as the old one is faulty. You analogy with Fahrenheit and Celsius scales is invalid as they both are valid. And the old SSN is not produced anymore so you must be making it up [perhaps it should be called the Vuk Number].

      • Correction: the new SILSO reconstructed number is at 8.2.
        It is not a reconstructed number. It is a measured number equal to the number of groups times 10 plus the number of spots [normalized to the Locarno station and averaged over about 60 observers].

      • Leif, with great horrify I was aware what happend with this blogpost during the discussion. My approach to the Svensmark-paper and it’s impact on the GMST is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/31/baby-its-cold-outside-evidence-of-solar-cycle-affecting-earths-cloud-cover/#comment-2705940 . A more technical question: What do you think about this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ef/meta ? I tried to replicate their method and failed… sent an email to the lead-author. They claim that SC25 will be weaker than SC24…

        • The paper smacks too much as curve fitting for my taste. The authors carefully do not [as far as I can see] actually predict a number for the size of SC25 so they are somewhat protected from falsification. If we use the polar fields [which are now a bit stronger than during the previous minimum, we would predict a slightly stronger SC25. See: http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=2084

      • lsvalgaard December 21, 2016 at 6:23 pm
        the suns polar reversal has slowed down
        “On the contrary, it had progressed as usual, and is now complete and a new polar field is building. As far as we can observe the new fields are not weaker than the old ones before the reversal, and possibly will be stronger as the field is still growing in the North.”

        Leif,
        Do you still feel the same about pole reversal as you did a year ago?
        Thanks,
        JimG1

      • I figured that but was specifically referring to your feeling about the coming strength “possibly will be stronger”. ?

      • I’ve just apologised, it was meant as a compliment for a great achievement. In future I will credit SILSO, the publishers,

  21. Vukcevic,

    Thanks for the link to the Japanese work. If correct about the polarity and waviness influence on cosmic rays then this adds further colour to Svensmark theory.

    Frankly, I wish Lief would just stop crushing any and all attempts to advance science of climate change. For sure, these cosmic ray theories are weak and in their infancy but the evidence of some kind of link is nevertheless quite strong. The exact mechanism and detail seems poorly understood and indeed it could be just a correlation and not a causation. However, with respected scientists like Lief killing every hypothetical notion out there it seems unlikely any of these alternate theories will ever achieve funding. Perhaps that is Lief’s intent – kill funding for these alternate theories? If it is not his intent then perhaps he should re-consider how aggressively he keeps attacking alternate theories like Svensmark. After all, climate does change and we don’t have a good answer for much of the detail and the CO2 theory is obviously a complete failure, as all the physics and data shows.

    • it could be just a correlation and not a causation.
      The problem is that there is no good correlation, so speculating above causation is just that, speculation.
      Funding and acceptance are usually done on the merits of a proposal, and the merits are not really there either. Scientists are conservative people and require good evidence in order to accept [or fund] new ideas. This is how it should be. There are many examples of hypotheses that were lingering in the shadows until compelling evidence finally was found. Examples: Einstein’s general theory of relativity, plate tectonics, ‘jumping genes’, dark matter, etc, etc. When the evidence is finally there, the change of heart is usually swift and broad.

      CO2 theory is obviously a complete failure
      apart from most scientist disagreeing with that, it is a fallacy to believe that the failure of one theory automatically proves another [or all others!] theory correct.

      • Perhaps what I have seen with regard to cosmic rays is all cherry picked but what I have seen is mildly convincing and seems mildly plausible. It would appear worth investigating since TSI does not seem to do a big enough job.

        You don’t need atmospheric physics PHD to figure out that CO2 is a negligible factor compared to what we see in the paleo climate records. Almost any physics and most engineering degrees are enough. CO2 is most clearly an indicator of climate but not a driver. CO2 being a failure suggests we should invest resources elsewhere even in exploring wacky new theories to a limited extent.

        Plate Tectonics was discovered several times and it took a long time to become accepted. A graduate student at my Physics department called Tuzo Wilson found the most compelling and irrefutable evidence regarding transverse faults but plate tectonics had long been suspected for maybe a century or more. Cosmic Ray cloud theory lacks solid evidence and so did Plate tectonics until the US Navy measured extensively the magnetic field over the oceans and Tuzo put two and two together.

        • Cosmic Ray cloud theory lacks solid evidence
          Well, it is worse. There is good evidence against it. The observed temperatures [and clouds] do not correlate with GCRs. The theory makes specific predictions and they fail. This is why it is not generally accepted. Not because of lack of evidence, but because of direct evidence against it [failed predictions].

      • My mention of Tuzo Wilson is not as clear as it should b – Tuzo found irrefutable evidence that “transverse faults” were in fact transform faults at mid-oceanic ridges. This was the key evidence that clinched long suspected plate tectonics theory.

      • “You don’t need atmospheric physics PHD to figure out that CO2 is a negligible factor compared to what we see in the paleo climate records.”

        That’s the complete opposite of the facts.
        Paleo records show the fact that (then) CO2 was a feed-back, that amplified the change – that is the driver of warming/cooling was changes in the Earth’s orbit. So followed via warming/cooling of the oceans (sink/source).

        When put in the atmosphere first it is a driver.

      • Toneb,

        Climate change happens about 800 years before CO2 rises – this is not a driver. Climate drives or modulates CO2 not the othe4 way round.

      • “Fools rush in where wise men refuse to go, as they say.”

        My bread-making, strawberry picking Viking ancestors decided to rush off to America. Maybe it was wise, maybe it wasn’t, but it *was* carefully decided and worked out well enough.

        • but it *was* carefully decided
          As I recall the story, Eric the Red fled Iceland because he was banned for murder [so had little choice] and it seemed to be a family trait as his father fled to Iceland from Norway also because he was banned for murder…

      • “So you argue that the current rise on CO2 is due to climate 800 years ago.”

        Lief, isn’t it possible that an MWP driven increase in CO2 was underway, but was completely swamped by the industrial revolution?

        • The warmists argue precisely that, namely that the extra CO2 caused by [“swamped by”] the industrial revolution and later human activity are responsible for recent global warming. Is that what you are arguing, too?

    • Jeremy, plausible mechanism is the key here. Atmospheric semi-permanent pressure systems caused by the Coriolis effect, continental positions, and oceanic gyri and currents are immensely powerful components of intrinsic drivers of our climate and its variations. By themselves they produce multidecadal changes in climates throughout the globe. Several act upon solar radiance to produce mind boggling changes in climates. For example, La Niña and El Niño events produce fairly consistent weather pattern changes around the globe. Any extrinsic factors would likely need to demonstrate the ability to overcome Earth’s own weather systems in observable ways. No suggestions presented so far rise to that level. Leif serves a valid role in pointing out lack of plausibility and relevance.

      • Pamela Gray says:

        “oceanic gyri and currents are immensely powerful components of intrinsic drivers of our climate”
        Currents are not a driver of any system, currents are being driven by default in physics. science, life, the universe…

      • Ahh you meant currents are components of natural drivers, it read above that you were including currents along with… sorry 🙂

  22. “The cloud cover data in Figure 1 came from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project which stopped in 2009 which is a pity because it was showing good support for Svensmark’s theory.”

    GCR’s have increased while cloud cover has decreased. That’s a pity.

  23. Everyone should try this, take a fact from an accomplished scientist and pose it to Leif, see what happens, the result is hilarious!

    • Personally, I prefer not to poke folks just for the sake of poking. Make a point and move on be it comical or of seriousness. Leif has had his opinions here for many years now, backed by his and others assumed hard works; which he stands firm by. Correct or not, he remains stead fast which I respect. And just for the record I have agreed and disagreed with him. …now, how about some more Scotch from solar cycle 22.

  24. So, the title is “evidence of solar cycle effecting earths cloud cover”, I see figure 1, air temperature anomaly versus cloud cover, than later figures, the regular swings of solar cycles. What I do not see in figure 1 is those same regular swings. If you are attempting to prove that solar cycles result in regular swings in cloud cover, your hypothesis has been falsified by the data you provided here.

    I suggest a new title, “”evidence of solar cycle NOT effecting earths cloud cover”.

    As far as I can see, the total argument here is that figure 1 is on the same page as the later figures, and thus must have some relation to them, even though none is seen. The text merely says that “if this, then that”, provides no proof of “that” happening, merely states that it will as an article of faith, while figure 1 shows that “if this, than NOT that”.

    Now, if you are attempting to show that a series of lower solar cycles affect cloud cover, you also have a problem. The data on solar cycles shows lower cycles starting in about the year 2000, while the decrease in tropical cloud cover starts in about 1984, peaks in 1997, and then remains steady. In addition, the cloud graph starts in 1983, while the sun graphs start in 1966, and thus cannot really be compared to each other, what did cloud cover do from 1966 to 84, did it track with solar or not? To really show anything, both graphs of cloud cover and solar cycles must cover the longest period each has been measured, to see if there is any correlation.

    In addition, you track AIR temperature anomaly versus cloud cover, the idea being that cloud cover effects air temperature anomaly (why not true air temperature?), a better idea, cloud cover and true sea temperature, and there are other things also that effect cloud cover, ocean currents, winds, ENSO, etc. The idea appears to be to provide no data on anything but solar cycles as effecting cloud cover, thus “proving” that only solar cycles effect cloud cover. If you do not provide data on other things that may effect cloud cover, it is dishonest, the important thing in propaganda isn’t what you say, it’s what you don’t say.

    On purely the basis of logical fallacies and improper use of the scientific method, this article can prove nothing. Well, actually, even with the limited data provided, it appears to prove, or at least suggest, that cloud cover is not effected significantly by solar cycles. Perhaps if you censor even more data, and chop out anything that might be contrary to what you are trying to suggest, you could get it to at lest not disprove the premise you are trying to prove.

    You might want to look up the phrase “The Narrative”.

  25. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-arhQh_Weo-s/Wkvu8bLfLiI/AAAAAAAAA3g/nln5aCuEnPQbRT4-JTdQ8VnafZVGcbyQgCLcBGAs/s1600/GOES_SNOW_Jan02.jpg
    North American snow, January 02, 2018 (GOES-16/EAST)

    Astronomy Picture of the Day
    September 24, 2008
    Active Region 1002 on an Unusually Quiet Sun
    Why has the Sun been so quiet recently? No one is sure. Our Sun has shown few active regions — that house even fewer associated sunspots — for over a year now, and such a period of relative calm is quite unusual.

    In the wake of a quiet sun….

    A First! Snow Falls in Baghdad
    By CHRISTOPHER CHESTER (AP)
    Jan 11, 2008
    ==============

    Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years
    Mark Prigg (Evening Standard)
    Oct 10, 2008
    ==============

    The Alps have best snow conditions “in a generation”
    Telegraph UK, Dec 2008
    ==============

    Spokane, Washington., residents cope with record snow
    By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS (AP)
    Jan 7, 2009
    ==============

    The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won’t warm up until Sunday
    Daily Mail
    Jan 8, 2009
    ================

    Where’s global warming?
    By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
    March 8, 2009

    […] The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.
    ===================

    ‘Quiet Sun’ baffling astronomers
    By Pallab Ghosh (BBC News)
    April 21, 2009

    The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.
    […] In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell – known as the Maunder Minimum – lasted 70 years, and led to a “mini ice-age”. This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
    According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
    I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,” he said.
    =========

    It’s June…so it must be snowing:
    Great British summer goes from sweltering to shivering in just a week
    Daily Mail, UK, June 2009
    =========

    Children die in harsh Peru winter
    By Dan Collyns (BBC News, Lima)
    July 12, 2009
    ==========

    ‘Quiet’ sun could mean cooler days
    The Age
    September 13, 2009
    ============

    Beijing’s Heaviest Snow in 54 Years Strands Thousand
    Bloomberg News
    Nov 12, 2009
    ============

    Coldest October since 1945 in NZ
    ONE News, November 2009
    ============

    Heavy snow continues as temperatures set to plunge minus 20C
    Herald, Scotland
    Jan 6, 2010
    ============

    Quiet sun puts Europe on ice
    New Scientist
    May 4, 2010

    […] The research finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream. These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia. When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions.

    Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading in the UK began his investigation because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun’s activity more profound than …
    ============

    Freeze Challenges Power Supply
    (Xinhua, China)
    Jun 1, 2010
    Most parts of China were seized by a sustained cold snap Wednesday, when the minimum temperature hit a 40-year low in Beijing and a rare snowstorm in the central Hubei Province kept all school children at home.
    The Beijing weather bureau said the capital had its lowest temperature in 40 years at daybreak Wednesday, when the low was minus 16.7 degrees Celsius.
    ============

    Polar vortex’ grips the US in coldest temperatures in decades
    Telegraph.UK
    Jan 04, 2014
    The United States is spending the first days of 2014 in the grips of record-breaking cold and snow as freezing Arctic winds sweep across the country.
    ===========

    Niagara Falls frozen: tourists flock to see icy spectacle
    Guardian
    January 13, 2014
    ===========

    Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument
    WaPo
    February 20, 2014
    ===========

    Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
    NCDC/NOAA
    March 2, 2014
    ===========

    Niagara Falls comes to a halt AGAIN
    DailyMail
    March 4, 2014
    ===========

    Great Lakes covered in record-shattering amount of ice this late in spring
    WaPo
    April 23, 2014
    ===========

    US weather in pictures: ‘Polar vortex’ brings big freeze to North America
    Telegraph UK
    Aug 13, 2014
    ===========

    Stunning satellite images show [Arctic] summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres more than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ice-free by now
    DailyMail
    August 31, 2014
    ===========

    Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
    NASA
    October 7, 2014
    ===========

    Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
    Climate sceptics often claim that recent icy winters show that global warming is not happening. New research suggests the opposite is true.
    Telegraph UK
    Oct 27, 2014
    ===========

    Earliest ice on record appears on Great Lakes
    CBC,
    Nov 24, 2014
    ===========

    Fall snow cover in Northern Hemisphere was most extensive on record, even with temperatures at high mark
    WaPo
    December 4, 2014
    ===========

    NH Snow Cover Extent [2014]
    The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during winter (December 2013–February 2014) was 46.2 million square km (17.8 million square miles), 660,000 square km (255,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average of 45.5 million square km (17.6 million square miles). This was the 18th largest winter SCE since records begain in 1967 for the Northern Hemisphere, but the smallest since the winter of 2008/09.

    Sea Ice Extent [2014]
    […]
    When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, we can examine global sea ice conditions. On a monthly scale, the global monthly sea ice extent was above average during most of 2014, with the exception of February and November.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201413
    ===========

  26. So if 2018 doesn’t turn out to be a really cold year globally, we can safely file this post, alongside many, many others, in the David Archibald bin of ridiculous and unfulfilled forecasts. It’s his speciality.

    • I am assuming that the cooling will take several years due to the oceans being a giant heat sink?

      • Bingo! Cooling takes a longer jagged dance down to a frozen hell as the oceans soak up all the heat and keep it. Warming is a rapid rise to a blessed green Earth, presumably as the oceans evaporate all that heat to the atmosphere. Why? Don’t know exactly but there appears to be a floor and a ceiling, indicating that the present % of Earth covered by water is at play in terms of capacity to store heat till no more can be stored leaving land cold, and then rapidly cool giving it up to warm the land. Just my guess, but it appears to describe what the ice cores show.

    • Most of Australia is cool n the middle of summer, but your Orwellian masters won’t let the records reflect reality.

      Does “global warming” cause MILD winters or COLD winters, DWR???

      Do you make ice by putting trays of water in a hot oven?

Comments are closed.