Svalgaard #2

continued from Svalgaard #1 here. . Continued at Svalggard #3.

542 Comments

  1. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Steve,
    Leif

  2. Michael Babbitt
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    The link to Svalgaard #1 links to Svalgaard #2.

  3. Julian Droms
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

    Leif, did not see a response to this question of mine that had me curious.. still wondering on your thoughts.

    Forgive my ignorance. I’ve tried reading the Wang 2005 paper, which also presents data about TSI over the same period with different results, and frankly, it’s far to complicated for me to comprehend without reading it for a week. It seems like most of the data is based on analysis of sunspot number. But then, they mention “comparing the calculated open flux with with geomagnetic and cosmogenic isotope record.” Looking at figure 10, they make a comparison with their open flux results and the geomagnetic aa index over the period 1860-2000 and find good correlation. What exactly is the geomagnetic aa index, how is it different from the diurna eastward component of the geomagnetic field (what you use)? Are these two the same?

    Thanks…

  4. Julian Droms
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    Some info on geomagnetic aa index…

    http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/Help/aa.html

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

    I’m still looking for a digital version of the Hoyt and Schattern irradiance – any help?

  6. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    Steve

    I am headed to UAH tomorrow and will look in the library there. Do you have the full reference?

    Also, Leif

    Here is some of the theoretical background and experimental data regarding the vertical lightning.

    http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/publications/theses/cpblThesis/node12.html#SECTION00714000000000000000

    What I will do tomorrow is give you the energy of infrared photons associated with thermal IR in the CO2 band and then the energy of the gamma ray burst in the atmosphere that you can find the energy of at the link. Yes I already know that the GRB is a very localized phenomenon but that is what weather is, not a global averaged phenom. Weather depends on local conditions and I am not going to do a PhD thesis for you here to draw the complete picture.

    I did show in the previous thread the direct correlation between the cosmic ray flux reduction and high energy solar flares down to how individual flares modulate the cosmic ray flux. If I remember right from the long thread, this is something that you were saying did not happen. I apologize in advance if I misquoted you in this regard.

  7. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

    5 (Steve M): I’ve asked my old friend Ken Schatten for the digital data. Now, I wonder why you want to use that particular reconstruction, which is old and believed by most solar researchers to overestimate the change from the Maunder Minimum to today.

    3 (Julian): the aa-index is a measure of the effect of the solar wind [particles from the sun] while the diurnal range is a measure of the Far UltraViolet flux [photons from the sun]. Recent research show that the aa-index is wrong before 1957 [is too low] and that the open flux [calculated from the aa-index] is therefore also too low.

  8. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM | Permalink

    6 (Dennis): solar flares clean the heliosphere of galactic cosmic rays and lead to reductions called Forbush decreases. In very rare cases, the flare supplies solar cosmic rays, that add to the cosmic ray flux. The energy of the photons is not interesting. what is of interest is the integrated energy of the flare compared to the ‘normal’ solar radiation, i.e. TSI. [I have that number, but only if you calculate it yourself do you appreciate its significance]

  9. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 3:37 AM | Permalink

    Leif: In your reply to my query re solar radiation effects re equatorial fountain in 860 you state: Every 50 km of height the atmosphere thins by a factor of 1000, so in the F-layer at 250 km, it is thinner by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000, so whatever happens there in terms of just further thinning of the neutral atmosphere can hardly have any influence on the amount of solar radiation that gets through.

    Agreed. However, what happens at 250 km is linked to what is happening at every height where there is conductivity…..i.e a sufficient ion and electron population to be impacted by the forces that change the electric potential inside the magnetosphere i.e. the solar wind. Dennis Wingo says in 881 ‘Anvil clouds that rise to 40,000 feet have moved into the zone where the atmosphere begins to have a greater conductivity’. That is 12000 metres. That is within the troposphere in the tropics. Dennis also says: We DON’T understand the coupling between the sun and the Earth to the level of detail required in order to develop a comprehensive explanation of global climate.
    In that respect, there is a clear geomagnetic signal in the satellite derived temperature from UAH for the troposphere over the tropics. Is this not causally linked? What else but enhanced solar radiation could cause these major temperature fluctuations? Might it not be that a small change in the density of the mid to upper atmosphere promoted by enhanced pressure of UV radiation associated with shifts in ionic populations and also the neutral atmosphere has the effect of admitting more solar radiation? There is a chain of reinforcing effects within the troposphere that will amplify that change.

    If you can’t agree with this proposition just tell me where the heat is coming from.

    a href=”http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/?action=view&current=Troposphereandaa.jpg” target=”_blank”>

  10. Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 4:30 AM | Permalink

    2. Steve,
    The link to Svalgaard #1 links to Svalgaard #2.

    Try this link.(http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470)

    Thanks
    JK

  11. Alan Woods
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 4:41 AM | Permalink

    Re: 9

    What else but enhanced solar radiation could cause these major temperature fluctuations?

    ENSO.

  12. Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    This is the most interesting and maaybe most significant web log discussion on solar science issues. I am currently on Christmas holidays on the NSW Central Coast and don’t have much of my papers with me and am, as well, communicating via a very slow telephone line. I have been visiting this discussion intermitently since mid December and would now like to raise some queries with Leif Svalgaard. This discussion is a wonderful gift from Steve Mcintyre and Leif Svalgaard, Leif is a scientist I greatly admire. His work covers 40 years. It is original, thorough and path breaking. His 1968 and several subsequent papers, Svalgaard and Mansurov discovered that the shape of diurnal variations of a magnetic field in high latitudes depended on the sign of interplanetary magnetic field sector structure. Later this dependence was named as Svalgaard-Mansurov effect. It is a complex response of the ionospheric currents in the polar region to the magnetic field in the ecliptic plane. I am an Australian and live in Canberra. Earlier this year some Australian scientists in conjunction with some of the world’s leading scientists in this area (Burns et al (2007)) established that via the previously reported Sun-weather linkage known as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect, solar variability causes variations in the global electric circuit which result in substantial surface pressure changes. These give rise to a range of cloud formation, precipitation and temperature variations. This is, I suggest, one of the many ways in which solar activity, via the interactions betwen different solar processes regulates our climate. Given the quality of his work over four decades I am inclined to accept that if Leif calculates that solar activity hasn’t changed as much as previously considered, then it hasn’t. However, I would want to study in detail is published results setting out his methodology etc. I realise that he has posted heaps of relevant work on his website, but a consolodated publication in one of the key journals is in order.

    I have a few questions for Leif. The first relates to his comment at Line 2 that the Sun expands just a little at solar maximum and shrinks just a little at solar minimum.
    I refer to the work of Sophie Pireaux and her colleagues, Rozelot, Lefebvre and others that reasons in the contrary
    direction: at solar maximum the Sun shrinks; it expands as the Sun’s magnetic activity declines. The relevant papers m
    can be found on Sophie Pireaux’s website. She and her colleagues note that the magnetic flux tubes increase as the solar magnetic cycle increases. They theorise that this forces the solar granules near the surface (which don’t interact with the tubes) to decrease in size. Assuming constant numbers of granules per unit area, the outer surface of teh Sun shrinks as the Sun’s maagnetic activity increases. Pireaux and co estimate that the Sun shrinks between 3.87km and 5.83 km, which isn’t much in an object 1.4 million kms in diameter!
    Pireaux et al reason that the various measures of teh Sun’s asphericities (departures from the shape of a perfect sphere) change over the magnetic cycle and throughout the internal structure of the Sun.
    It is as if the Sun is shaped like a football standing upright, but inclines a little, and covered with walnut-like lumps. The football like shape, the walnut like lumpiness and the overall size of the Sun varies over the cycle with max shrinkage, max lumpiness and max footballness at solar max. Pireaux et all argue that this happens throughout all the internal structures of te Sun. They agues that the Sun’s mass shifts around during the cycle giving rise to these variations.
    The French group has published many papers developing these ideas analytically and with considerale evidence. They acknowledge all the conflicting results about the diameter of teh Sun, the shape of teh Sun and the internal processes of the Sun. they have written quite a bit about the Heliod, or Figure of the Sun. Their underlying idea is thatthere is an effect of variations in the gravitational energy of the Sun on its size and shape meaning that as solar magnetic activity increases, the Sun shrinks, etc.

    My question to Leif is therefore this:
    What do you think of this theory?
    Does not the work of the French team suggest that it is more likely than not that the Sun’s shape and size varies as they say, shrinking and becoming more lumpy and more footballish ans magnetic activity increases.

    This is my firts query. I have several others, but am painfully slow at typing them and transmitting them whilst in a beach house on Christmas holidays.

    Refs
    Burns, G. B., Tinsley, B. A., Frank-Kamenetsky, A. V. and Bering, E. A. 2007. Interplanetary magnetic field and atmospheric electric circuit influences on ground-level pressure at Vostok. Journal of Geophysical Research, v112, D04103, doi:10.1029/2006JD007246; published 17 February 2007.

    http://www.oca.eu/gemini/pagesperso/pireaux/index.html

    Solar gravitational energy and luminosity variations”,
    Z. Fazel, J-P. Rozelot, S. Lefebvre, A. Ajabshirizadeh and S. Pireaux, accepted in New Astronomy, May 2007

    http://www.oca.eu/gemini/pagesperso/pireaux/art/solar_gravitational_energy.pdf

    Regards
    Richard Mackey

  13. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    Alan (11): Where does ENSO get it from?

  14. Ulric
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

    Lief #844 from the previous thread, I just looked at every event on this list: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/GLE_List.txt
    If only you guys could be see what I am seeing, Its so obvious when these events
    are likely to be occurring when looking at the heliocentric relative positions of
    the Planets.

  15. Julian Droms
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:41 AM | Permalink

    7 (Leif) Do you have a reference for that?

  16. Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:51 AM | Permalink

    My second query to Leif refers principally to the recently published findings of Camp and Tung; but also to that of Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Young (2006) and two others mentioned below

    The time series of total solar variability, like those of climate variability, are non-stationary, in that the measures within each are interrelated, and non-linear. When analysed using a statistical methodology specially designed to analyse non-stationary and non-linear data, the role of the Sun in regulating the climate is shown clearly and at statistically significant levels. Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) is such a statistical methodology (Huang et al (1998)). EMD, unlike most statistical methodologies for analysing time series, makes no assumptions about the linearity or stationarity of a time series. EMD lets the data speak more directly, revealing its intrinsic functional structure more clearly. It does not does not have the restrictive assumptions of linearity and stationarity that the familiar Fourier-based techniques have, because it uses Hilbert, not Fourier, transforms.
    Using EMD, Coughlin and Tung (2005, 2004a, 2004b and 2001), found that the atmosphere warms during the solar maximum and cools during solar minimum almost everywhere over the planet. The statistically significant correlation with the solar flux is positive everywhere over the globe does imply that, on average, the temperatures increase during solar maxima and decrease with solar minima at all latitudes. Coughlin and Tung (2005, 2004a, 2004b and 2001) also found two underlying nonlinear trends over the last four decades. One is the warming of troposphere; the other is the cooling of the stratosphere.
    Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung (2006) used EMD to analyse the historic time series annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in 622-1470 A.D. They found the longer solar periodicities periodicities. For example, they are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. They found the 11-year solar cycle in the Nile’s high-water level variations, but less prominent in the low-water anomalies. Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung (2006) explained that the phenomena they report would arise from the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Hemisphere Annular Mode (NAM). Solar Ultra-Violet variations act in the stratosphere to modulate the NAM. Furthermore, the NAM’s sea level manifestation (the North Atlantic Oscillation) affects the air circulation over Atlantic and the Indian Oceans during high levels of solar activity. Variations of this air circulation influence rainfall in eastern equatorial Africa at the Nile sources. At high solar activity, the air is descending there and conditions are drier, with the opposite effect occurring at low solar activity.
    Camp and Tung (2007a and 2007b) established for the first time by direct measurement that the Sun heats the Earth directly. They obtained a statistically significant global warming signal of almost 0.2°K due to the 11 year solar cycle.
    Camp and Tung (2007a and 2007b) also revealed the surface pattern of warming caused by the Sun. Amongst other things, polar amplification is shown clearly with the largest warming in the Arctic (treble that of the global mean), followed by that of the Antarctic (double). Surprisingly, the warming over the polar region occurs during late winter and spring.
    The warming is also larger over continents than over the oceans. In the mid-latitudes, there is more warming over the continents than over the oceans. Most of Europe is warmed by 0.5°K and eastern Canada by 0.7°K, while western U.S. sees a smaller warming of 0.4-0.5°K. Iraq, Iran and Pakistan are warmer by 0.7°K and Northern Africa by 0.5°K. The South American Andes is colder by 0.7°K.
    They derived a statistically significant measure of the range climate sensitivity (of 2.3°K to 4.1°K) to the variations in the 11 year solar cycle. It is independent of climate models as it is the result of direct measurement. The climate sensitivity lower bound is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3°K at doubled Carbon Dioxide.
    Salby and Callaghan (2006) established that there is a decadal oscillation in the tropical troposphere that depends on the 11-year oscillation of solar irradiance. They found this occurred over the four solar cycles analysed. The statistical analysis achieved higher levels of statistical significance that had been previously required.
    Gleisner et al (2005) found that statistically significant variations in tropospheric temperatures, geopotential heights, water vapour distribution and global circulation regimes in phase with the solar cycle over the last 44 years. The authors established that there is a statistically significant consistent pattern of atmospheric response to solar variability throughout the low- and mid-latitude troposphere.

    My query to Leif is this:
    Doesn’t all of this work, especially that of Camp & Tung (all papers on Prof Tung’s website,) reveal how sensitive the climate system is to solar variability and reveal, maybe for the first time by direct raather than inferred measurement, how solar variability regulates climate?

    Refs
    Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2006. The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late Winter Stratosphereic Polar Vortex. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in press.
    Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2007a. “Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207. It was published online on Wednesday, July 18 2007.
    Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2007b. “Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity” submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and published by the University of Washington on Ka Kit Tung’s departmental website,

    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2005: Empirical Mode Decomposition of Climate Variability in Hilbert-Huang Transform: Introduction and Applications; edited by N. Huang and S. Shen; World Scientific Publishing.
    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2004a. 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the empirical mode decomposition method. Advances in Space Research 34, 323-329.
    Coughlin, K. and Kung, Ka-Kit, 2004b. Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysics Research, 109 D21105, doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
    Coughlin, K. and Tung, Ka-Kit, 2001. QBO signal found at the extratropical surface through northern annular modes. Geophysics Research Letters, 28, 4563-4566.
    Huang, N. E.; Shen, Z.; Long, S. R.; Wu, M. C.; Shih, H. H.; Zheng, Q.; Yen, N. C.; Tung, C. C.; and Liu, H. H., 1998. The empirical mode decomposition and Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A the Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454 903 – 995.
    Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J. and Yung, Y., 2006. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile river ? Journal of Geophysical Research v. 111 D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462 published 11 November 2006.
    Salby, M. L. and Callaghan, P. F., 2006. “Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133, 2006.
    Gleisner, H., Thejll, P., Stendel, M., Kaas, E., Machenhauer, B., 2005. Solar signals in tropospheric re-analysis data: Comparing NCEP/NCAR and ERA40, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 67 785–791. Available online 21 April 2005.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  17. Alan Woods
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

    Erl (13). During an El Nino event, anomalously warm water accumulates along the equator in the east pacific (due to wind phenomena). The Hadley circulation ensures the rising warm air is pumped into the atmosphere and voila! The heat isn’t generated per se, but redistributed from the ocean to the atmosphere.

  18. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 6:10 AM | Permalink

    #7. It’s referenced in the literature and I want to compare it to other recons.

  19. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    Alan (17) You say: ‘ During an El Nino event, anomalously warm water accumulates along the equator in the east pacific (due to wind phenomena). The Hadley circulation ensures the rising warm air is pumped into the atmosphere and voila! The heat isn’t generated per se, but redistributed from the ocean to the atmosphere’.

    But, that’s not my observation. During El Nino warming events there is enhanced heat transfer from all tropical oceans at all longitudes. Both the western end of the Pacific and the eastern warm up. The west is always warmer than the East because that is where the trades drive the waters at low latitudes. In the passage across the Pacific the waters continue to warm regardless of whether the waters of the eastern Pacific start of relatively warm or relatively cool.

    Conversely during a La Nina event all oceans cool. Take the current one for instance

    Ocean temperature anomaly change between October 2006 and October 2007 is listed below
    North Atlantic 60W-30W 5-20N Lat. Temp anomaly 0.8 to 0.2
    South Atlantic 30W-10E 0-20S Lat Temp anomaly 0.1 to -0.1
    Pacific Nino 1+2 90W-89W Temp anomaly 1.2 to -2.1
    Pacific 170W-120W Temp anomaly 1.1to -1.5
    Global 10N -10S Temp anomaly 0.4 to -0.2
    Southern Oscillation Index Oct 2006 -15.3 Oct 2007, Oct 2007 5.4
    Sorry, no temperatures for the Indian Ocean but negative sea surface temperature anomalies now exist in the west and central Indian Ocean and are moving west. See http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=soi

    What is happening now? Is the Ocean sucking the heat out of the atmosphere?

  20. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

    Leif Re cosmic rays etc you note that ‘cloud cover for 2006 and 2007 should be up as well’. At http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf we have this:
    “Since 2000, ES observations indicate an increasing albedo [Pallé et al., 2004], whereas Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite data report the opposite result [Wielicki et al., 2005].A recent intercomparison of several albedo-related data sets strengthens the case for an increasing global albedo post-2000, consistent with the original ES result [Pallé et al., 2005]. AND ALSO In August 2005, ISCCP global cloud data were released covering 2001–2004, and this most up-to-date set serves to clarify the evolution of the albedo. The data show that the cloud amount increased by 2–3% from 2000 to 2004. In particular, the ISCCP cloud amount data show a sinusoidal behavior over the last 20 years (see top panel in Figure 1), with a decline in all cloud types from the late 1980s through the late 1990s; the total then began increasing in about 2000.”

    So far as this corner of the world is concerned I will swear on a stack of bibles that cloud cover is up in late 2007. In my opinion it is connected with the La Nina currently developing. And the La Nina is connected with the collapse in the solar wind as shown by historically low aa activity. More rain events predicted for January.

  21. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    Query For Dennis Wingo: Is satellite drag correlated to the aa index of geomagnetic activity? What is your interpretaion of what is happening between the stratosphere at the 10km level through to the 100km plus level when the satellites are suffering velocity losses. Let’s keep this in perspective. 10km is a walk that one does in an hour and a half. 100km is a car journey of one hour. At 100 km there are traces of neutral atmosphere present.

  22. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    15 (Julian): JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, A10111, doi:10.1029/2007JA012437, 2007
    Interhourly variability index of geomagnetic activity and its use in deriving the long-term variation of solar wind speed
    Leif Svalgaard and Edward W. Cliver
    published 31 October 2007.
    [1] We describe the detailed derivation of the interhourly variability (IHV) index of geomagnetic activity. The IHV index for a given geomagnetic element is mechanically derived from hourly values or means as the sum of the unsigned differences between adjacent hours over a 7-hour interval centered on local midnight. The index is derived separately for stations in both hemispheres within six longitude sectors spanning the Earth using only local night hours. It is intended as a long-term index and available data allows derivation of the index back well into the 19th century. On a timescale of a 27-day Bartels rotation, IHV averages for stations with corrected geomagnetic latitude less than 55 degrees are strongly correlated with midlatitude range indices (R2 = 0.96 for the am index since 1959; R2 = 0.95 for the aa index since 1980). We find that observed yearly averages of aa before the year 1957 are 3 nT too small compared to values calculated from IHV using the regression constants based on 1980–2004. We interpret this discrepancy as an indication that the calibration of the aa index is in error before 1957. There is no systematic discrepancy between observed and similarly calculated ap values back to 1932. Bartels rotation averages of IHV are also strongly correlated with solar wind parameters (R2 = 0.79 with BV2). On a timescale of a year combining the IHV index (giving BV2 with R2 = 0.93) and the recently developed interdiurnal variability (IDV) index (giving interplanetary magnetic field magnitude, B, with R2 = 0.74) allows determination of solar wind speed, V, from 1890 to present. Over the 120-year series, the yearly mean solar wind speed varied from a low (inferred) of 303 km/s in 1902 to a high (observed) value of 545 km/s in 2003. The calculated yearly values of the product BV using B and V separately derived from IDV and IHV agree quantitatively with (completely independent) BV values derived from the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the horizontal component in the polar caps since 1926 (and sporadically further back).

    If you do not have access to JGR, you can find the paper and many like it at http://www.leif.org/research

    11, 12, 14, and 19: You guys fight it out among you. This kind of divergence is what makes the case not compelling for me.

    12 (Richard): I’m not into the solar radius changes. I was quoting Goode et al. The question is an active research area and the jury is still out. Helioseismology (p-modes) may soon give us more clues. About a publication of the sunspot result: In the works.

    16 (Richard): I’ll look at Camp and Tung’s papers. I have just seen so many papers claiming such relationhips over the years with still no general acceptance that I have become somwhat hardened, but I’m always willing to give things a fresh look should the data look promising.

    12 (Richard): Thanks for the kind words.

    18 (Steve M): Ken Schatten didn’t have a digital version. He referred me to Hoyt, and I’m awaiting Hoyt’s response.

  23. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    21 (Erl): Yes, drag is strongly correlated with aa. Although the Air Force uses the equivalent ap index instead of aa for their calculation of drag.

  24. windansea
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    So far as this corner of the world is concerned I will swear on a stack of bibles that cloud cover is up in late 2007. In my opinion it is connected with the La Nina currently developing.

    same here in Puerto Vallarta Mexico, it’s the coldest cloudiest wintwer in years, ocean is colder than normal too.

  25. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

    Query For Dennis Wingo: Is satellite drag correlated to the aa index of geomagnetic activity? What is your interpretaion of what is happening between the stratosphere at the 10km level through to the 100km plus level when the satellites are suffering velocity losses. Let’s keep this in perspective. 10km is a walk that one does in an hour and a half. 100km is a car journey of one hour. At 100 km there are traces of neutral atmosphere present.

    This is not from a rigorous scientific paper but this is from Hathaway (yep the same guy that makes solar cycle predictions for NASA)

    The solar cycle has a big effect on the thermosphere where satellite drag takes place, agreed David Hathaway. “During solar minimum, the gas temperature in the thermosphere is around 700 °C. That’s high, but not nearly as high as the temperature during Solar Max. When the Sun is active, high levels of solar EUV raise the temperature of the thermosphere all the way to 1,500 °C.”

    Increased solar heating makes the thermosphere puff out as denser layers from lower altitudes expand upward. The density of the thermosphere can soar by a factor of 50 during solar maximum, with a commensurate increase in atmospheric drag on satellites.

    From the NASA site

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast30may_1m.htm

    So to answer your question it is the sunspot count and resulting solar activity that directly influences the temperature of the thermosphere and thus the drag on ISS. Right now the International Space Station is flying lower than it ever has as the drag has been very low for the past year.

    Here is a paper with the altitude history of ISS through 2005.

    http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/downloads/userguides/opsenv.pdf

    There is a drop early on that was due to operational considerations but the thing to note is the “frequency” of the sawtooth wave. That is the drag vs reboost frequency. This frequency has decreased dramatically as the solar cycle drops toward a minimum value.

    Here is a great site from a graduate level class that has direct data and calculations regarding how individual solar flares influence the altitude of the space station along with a means of calculating and modeling those effects.

    http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2001/hammons/

    Anyone who works with low earth orbiting spacecraft knows that there are huge variations in drag that are absolutely unequivocably associated with the sunspot cycle. The numbers that Dr. Hathaway uses for the expansion of the thermosphere are measured numbers. You can’t tell me with a straight face that direct influences on the atmosphere at high altitudes does not have an effect on the global atmosphere at lower altitudes. This is what so boggles my mind when folks like Dr. Svalgaard who I deeply respect make blanket claims that there is no signature of climate due to solar variability. I think that he has made a good case that solar variability is not as much as has been claimed due to inadequacies in the quality of sunspot measurements in the past. With that as an assumption, and with the overwhelming evidence that the solar variability that is known, does have an influence, then it behooves us to cast the net wider to try and understand the mechanisms whereby the sun influences climate. In this regard I think that Dr. Svalgaard has made a significant contribution to science in that maybe now some areas that have not been given adequate attention (the electrical and magnetic coupling between the sun and the atmosphere, as well as a wider bandwidth of sensors to measure short term large scale variations in solar output) and must be further studied.

  26. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    25 (Dennis):
    A recent paper [Surface Warming by the Solar Cycle as Revealed by the Composite Mean Difference Projection] by Camp and Tung states:

    By projecting surface temperature data (1959-2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2 °K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.

    So they are effectively saying that all the other [thousands of] previous papers that purport to have shown a solar connection did not establish significant results, so maybe I’m allowed to be a bit sceptical. Now, I’m always willing to change my mind if I come across data and analysis that are compelling, but I just haven’t seen them yet. [still looking at Camp and Tung]. With better [satellite] data coverage the situation might change. What have always intrigued me is that the ‘signal’ is so weak that one can debate it for hundreds of years without yet establishing a solid result that should stop the bickering. There was a similar debate whether the sun caused geomagnetic activity, but that debate seems to be over [you can always find crackpots that are still arguing]. We have not yet reached that stage with the solar-climate connection, so it cannot be said to be settled in the same strong sense that the solar-geomagnetic connection is settled. And that is my point.

  27. Mike Davis
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    Leif:
    I for one appreciate your taking the time to enlighten me with your knowledge.

  28. Gunnar
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    >> We have not yet reached that stage with the solar-climate connection, so it cannot be said to be settled

    Leif, I find this perplexing. Since the fact of a solar-climate is so self evident, I can only assume that you are making some subtle point that I’m missing.

    Do you deny that when the sun rises, the temperature rises signficantly? Do you deny that the difference between summer and winter temperatures is due to the difference in TSI received at that location?

    I have previously posted calculations that show that the .1% increase in TSI associated with solar maximum amounts to the earth receiving more than an extra days worth of energy. The solar minimum causes the earth to lose a days worth of energy.

    Scientific causality is not established by statistical correlation, yet your #26 implies that it is. The science in this case is very basic and indisputable. During solar maximum, the earth receives a significant additional chunk of energy. It must be reflected in higher temperatures, as surely as the day warms up and as surely as summer is hotter than winter.

    Godt Nytt År!

  29. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    28 (Gunnar): somebody must have told you that before, but here goes:
    The day-night difference is due to the Earth’s rotation, not the sun per se.
    The summer-winter differene is ue to the tilt of the Earth’s axis, not the sun per se.
    0.1% is one in a thousand, corresponding to 0.365 day, not 1.000.
    And is not a “significant additional chunk of energy”.
    Why do you think that Camp and Tung [who are sun-climate believers] claim that
    “The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at
    the surface is established for the first time” by their work?

    Please, no more about day-night etc.

  30. Gunnar
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    >> Please, no more about day-night etc.

    I just wanted to hear you deny it. It’s now on record.

    >> 0.1% is one in a thousand, corresponding to 0.365 day, not 1.000.

    365 x 4 = 1460 * .1% = 1.46

    >> And is not a “significant additional chunk of energy”.

    Actually, as I previously calculated, 1.46 x a day’s worth of energy is enough to result in .9 deg C.

    >> Why do you think that Camp and Tung [who are sun-climate believers] claim that “The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time” by their work?

    I don’t know why anyone would use statistics to provide support for obvious physical facts, ie wet sidewalks are correlated with rain. I’m even more amused by people who need to see such correlations before they believe something. For example, there are currently exactly zero scientific papers that demonstrate any statistical correlation between rain and wet sidewalks. Therefore, I guess there is no relationship.

  31. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    30 (Gunnar): 365 x 4. Why the four? Why should’t the 0.1 % also not be reduced by a factor of four?
    0.9 deg C! Camp and Tung claim 0.2 deg. If you remove your factor of 4, you would agree with them.
    Otherwise, go and fight it out with them. If 0.1% gives you 0.9 deg, then the 7% difference between
    January and July [because of varying distance to the sun] should give you 70 x 0.9 = 63 deg C. Beware
    of the “intoxication from pretended conquest” [Alexander von Humboldt].

  32. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    So they are effectively saying that all the other [thousands of] previous papers that purport to have shown a solar connection did not establish significant results, so maybe I’m allowed to be a bit sceptical. Now, I’m always willing to change my mind if I come across data and analysis that are compelling, but I just haven’t seen them yet. [still looking at Camp and Tung]. With better [satellite] data coverage the situation might change. What have always intrigued me is that the ’signal’ is so weak that one can debate it for hundreds of years without yet establishing a solid result that should stop the bickering. There was a similar debate whether the sun caused geomagnetic activity, but that debate seems to be over [you can always find crackpots that are still arguing]. We have not yet reached that stage with the solar-climate connection, so it cannot be said to be settled in the same strong sense that the solar-geomagnetic connection is settled. And that is my point.

    Well until Plank & Einstein thousands of papers regarding physics were wrong as well so that does not bother me. Data rules over preconceptions and consensus every time. I completely agree that we need better satellite coverage both in quantity and in the quality of the data. I get annoyed with Frolich uses comparisons between calibrated and uncalibrated instruments to deny TSI variations. I get further annoyed when there are clear links between solar flares and solar activity on the atmosphere dismissed as minor variations because you can do a calculation that is inappropriate to the situation.

    It is quite clear from hundreds of thousands of years of proxies that solar variability does have an impact on climate. Again, I really hope that you are right and that cycle 24 is going to be weak and that cycle 25 may be weaker still. If you are right in your hypothesis that TSI variations are small and if the climate cools over the next ten to twenty years we will have the empirical evidence that we require that small TSI variations as well as other more episoidic variations do have a measurable and definite effect on climate.

  33. Gunnar
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    >> 365 x 4. Why the four?

    Alex, eyeballing the data (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m_tn.jpg), it looks like it spends 4 years above +.1%. The total delta is nearly .3% from high to low, so it’s +/- .15%

  34. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    32 (Dennis):

    Again, I really hope that you are right and that cycle 24 is going to be weak and that cycle 25 may be weaker still. If you are right in your hypothesis that TSI variations are small and if the climate cools over the next ten to twenty years we will have the empirical evidence that we require that small TSI variations as well as other more episoidic variations do have a measurable and definite effect on climate.

    As I have said many times, “IF there is a solar-climate connection, THEN the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing is much larger than assumed”, so a couple of very small cycles will be important. I do not claim that there is no solar-climate connection. I say that the evidence so far has not been compelling for me, but that does not mean it cannot be obvious to somebody else. And superior data is still coming in, so perhaps the issue will be resolved in due time, just like the solar-geomagnetic issue. You mention “hundred of thouands of years of proxies that solar variability…”. It is not clear that we have such proxies. I posted a while ago a paper by Bieber et al. raising the possibility that the long-term variation of cosmic rays may not be due to the sun after all.

  35. Gunnar
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

    >> If 0.1% gives you 0.9 deg, then the 7% difference between January and July [because of varying distance to the sun] should give you 70 x 0.9 = 63 deg C

    Alex, even better is the difference between night and day. Day TSI = 1366, while night = 0. If .1% gives us .9 deg, then infinity * .9 = infinite deg C.

  36. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    35 (Gunnar): It seems you are catching on.

  37. Johan i Kanada
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    #29 Leif

    The day-night difference is due to the Earth’s rotation, not the sun per se.
    The summer-winter differene is ue to the tilt of the Earth’s axis, not the sun per se.

    You got it backwards. I.e. the basic variable is the energy input from the sun, which then is affected by rotation/tilting.

  38. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    3 (Johan): The ‘difference’ is due to rotation/tilting. If the Earth rotated much more slowly [f.ex. like the Moon], the difference between day and night would be much larger, irrespective of the sun. But, let’s get back to fuitful discourse.

  39. maksimovich
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    After Peristykh and Damon

    Persistence in a state is equally important as phase variation.

  40. Gunnar
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    >> It seems you are catching on.

    Right, critical thinking is overrated. :)

    >> You got it backwards. I.e. the basic variable is the energy input from the sun, which then is affected by rotation/tilting.

    No Johan, you see with Leif, there is only one cause for everything. If a person wanders across the railroad tracks, the coroner should list the cause of death as carelessness.

  41. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    39 (maksimovich): I don’t know why you posted the graph. The alternation between flat-topped and peaked cosmic ray solar-minimum variations is well understood. It is due to the cosmic rays being influenced by the different polarity of the solar main dipolar field. Particles drift in near the equator and out near the pole from one solar maximum to the next, then reversing direction as the solar polar fields reverse.

  42. Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    Lief, this is precisely why I urge a temperature reconstruction of the moon data. Shaopeng Huang made a good start, we need the rest of the data run to present. http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang07ASR.pdf Tanaka of JAXA/ISAS has some additional Apollo data.

    The data is out there, I found some more of the data from Christian Monstein:

    http://www.monstein.de/astronomypublications/MoonEnglishHtml/Moon2001V2.htm

    Phoenix-2 radiospectrograph at Bleien observatory

    http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/showdir?dir=observations

    The data is in a gzip file format. Now we need some enterprising person who
    can crunch the numbers.

  43. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    dscott #42

    The problem with lunar data from the surface is that it is an extremely low pass filter with a maximum frequency in the millions of years. The solar wind deposition time is just so darned slow. Now Mars may be a different issue as it should be possible to determine the 11 year cycle in ice cores there as well as from the planetary sediment record from dust storms.

  44. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    Oops

    Shuda said minimum frequency.

  45. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    43 (Dennis): Now, ice cores from Mars, that would be interesting.

  46. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    I shuda read the paper before spouting off. This does look interesting.

    Leif #45

    Hopefully some day we will get them!

  47. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    If we had such cores, it would answer a LOT of questions as you may imagine about climate for both the Earth and Mars.

  48. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    I’m not a climate scientist, but I believe I have noticed a pattern between the PDO and solar cycles. It appears to me that major, (i.e. long lasting), changes/flips in the PDO always seem to happen during a low point of a solar cycle. That is not to say that a low point in the solar cycle initiates the change, but if a PDO change, (cause unknown), occurs during a solar cycle low point, the change will be multi-decadal. If a PDO change happens during a high point in the solar cycle it will be “short lived”, (i.e. decade or less).

    It’s almost as if the solar cycle is the engine and in order to change PDO gears the engine needs to slow down.

    From my simple testing, it looks like ~1824, ~1944, and ~1976 were major changes.

    Am I a crackpot or is there some validity to this pattern?

  49. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    48 (Pat): 1824?

  50. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    re 49:

    Yeah the 1824 one is from a PDO reconstruction. I just used a moving average to smooth the data. I think a better method of determining the changes would be more illuminating. Like I said, I’m not a climate scientist, but there still appears to be a pattern.

    If I use the data from here and do a 10 year moving average. The changes I see are 1905+, 1913-, 1922+, 1945-, 1977+. I wonder about the validity of 1905 since I’m using a 10 year average and the data starts in 1900.

    Like I said, I could be just seeing things, but it looks like a pattern to me.

  51. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 28, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

    50 (Pat): and where did you get the data for the 19th century? I’m interested in this.

  52. maksimovich
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    re 41 LS

    I don’t know why you posted the graph

    I needed you to confirm,
    i)The north/south asymmetry.
    ii)The odd/odd even/even topological symmetry.

    You may have seen the Georgieva poster at the ISSC at Sinaia last year?

    Long-term variations in the correlation between NAO and solar activity: The importance of north–south solar activity asymmetry for atmospheric circulation

    Abstract

    General atmospheric circulation is the system of atmospheric motions over the Earth on the scale of the whole globe. Two main types of circulation have been identified: zonal – characterized by low amplitude waves in the troposphere moving quickly from west to east, and meridional with stationary high amplitude waves when the meridional transfer is intensified. The prevailing type of circulation is related to global climate. Based on many years of observations, certain “circulation epochs” have been defined when the same type of circulation prevails for years or decades. Here we study the relation between long-term changes in solar activity and prevailing type of atmospheric circulation, using NAO index reconstructed for the last four centuries as a proxy for large-scale atmospheric circulation. We find that when the southern solar hemisphere is more active, increasing solar activity in the secular solar cycle results in increasing zonality of the circulation, while when the northern solar hemisphere is more active, increasing solar activity increases meridional circulation. In an attempt to explain the observations, we compare the short-term reaction of NAO and NAM indices to different solar drivers: powerful solar flares, high speed solar wind streams, and magnetic clouds.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.091

  53. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 3:19 AM | Permalink

    re 51:

    The PDO reconstruction data came from here. There’s another different one here. I found them by doing a Google search for “PDO reconstruction”.

  54. Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 4:46 AM | Permalink

    I have a third matter to raise with Leif. This relates to his comment at 53 (paragraph 137 Nov 28). Leif wrote:

    “If the planets caused or modulated solar activity, such activity would be very predictable as well [unless we introduce unpredictable time lags and other ad-hoc mechanisms to prevent predictability - but then we have kinda shot ourselves in the foot, eh?]. If so, proponents of planetary influence should be able to predict solar activity accurately. There is an enormous amount of money in ACCURATE prediction [billions]. Nobody has gotten rich predicting solar activity in spite of this large incentive, so I conclude that nobody knows how to. The viability of any scientific theory rests on its ability to predict, so I conclude that the planetary theory is not viable.”

    I have a couple of comments.
    Firstly, the validity of any solar orbital motion theory, indeed of any theory, cannot be contingent upon whether anyone takes note of the theory’s predictions.

    Consider this example, the scientific community has known for many years, and especially since Fergus Wood first published his findings in 1978, that at regularly predictable occassions there will be what he called extreme perigean tides in which the high tides are super high and the low tides super low. Fergus Wood also found that the super high extreme perigean tides are usually accompanied by storms so that there is a storm surge on top of the super high tides. Fergus Wood documented the destruction to coastal USA caused by these extreme perigean tides.

    1974 was such a year. Bryant & Kidd (1975) described the dramatic changes to the character of many beaches along the central and southern New South Wales coast that occurred between May 24 and June 18, 1974 as a result of storm surges occurring on top of extreme proxigean spring tides of that time. The authors cited two coastal engineering reports of the extensive damage to coastal New South Wales from these storms. They also reported that the measures taken by municipal councils to protect beaches did precisely the opposite because the councils had not taken into account the predictable and regular occurences of extreme perigean tides accompanied by storm surges.

    There was another perigean tidal event in 1978. Coastal councils had not learnt anything from the 1974 event.

    Furthermoremore, the Bryant and Kidd advice as well as Wood’s is still ignored by most councils in Australia at great cost. I wonder what the situation is now in the USA and Canada. Perhaps visitors to climateaudit might like to comment.

    What is more extraordinary is that a key photo of the destructive effect of the 1974 extreme proxigean spring tidal event (with storm surge atop) is now an icon of ghg climate change (go to http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/framework/pubs/framework.pdf which has the impressive title of National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management Framework and Implementation Plan issued by authority of the National Resource Management Ministerial Council in 2006. If you go to page 9 you will see two pictures of a devastated piece of Australia’s beaches with houses having tumbled into the ocean. It is positioned under the paragraphs about climate change which allude to the impending catastrophes of human caused climate change. If you go to page 3 which lists the photo credits you will see that these photos are photos of Wamberal Beach as a result of the 1974 storms. Wamberal Beach is only about 4 kms north from my family beach house where I am now. I was here when the incident happened in 1974.

    I was at a coastal science conference in November this year and that photo was used in several government backed ghg/IPCC type presentations supposedly showing what ghg would do very soon becaause of rising sea levels as per eg the Gore film.

    The moral of this story is that even though there is a well established scientific account of some phenomena (in this case newtonian physics and the tides) with easily predictable consequences on which literally billions of dollars rest, if the mind-sets of the relevant authorites are closed to that science, all predictions are ignored and vast amounts of money wasted.

    I doubt if anyone has got rich in relation to the prediction of extreme perigean tides (with storm surges atop), even though municipal authorities in Australia and no doubt every where in the world, could save billions by taking well known appropriate action in relation to them. The predictions and engineering advice are ignored; a well-known image of the destructive effect of the phenomena is highjacked and presented falsly as evidence for a highly speculative, but fashionable idea that has absolutely nothing to do with the tides.

    Secondly, even though the study of the effect (if any) of the Sun’s orbit around the solar system barycentre on climate is not part of mainstream science, hence very little is done with adequate funding, there are numerous well documented predictions. I refer to several Landscheidt papers (details on the John Daly website), the papers of Shahinaz Yousef, numerous papers of Rhodes Fairbridge and others in the volumes dedicated to him, as well as several papers by Ivana Charvatova. Predictions are there, they could be made better using high quality solar systems integrations as has been done for the milankovitch theory.

    References

    Yousaf, S., Gala, A. A. and Bebara, E., 1995. “North and South Major flare periodicities during solar cycle 20″. Astrophysics and Space Science Vol 228 pps 19 to 30 1995.
    Yousef, S. and Ghilly, L. O. M., 2000. “Alert El Sahel countries: Drought is approaching”. ICHM2000, Cairo University Egypt September 2000, pps 209-221.
    Yousef, S., 2005 “Long term solar forcing on Africa” presentation to the conference, Climate Change over Africa Alexandria May 2005. See the website http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~annalisa/climate.ppt. A collection of her recent papers may be found at http://www.virtualacademia.com/Confernces.html
    Yousef, S., 2006. “80–120 yr long-term solar induced effects on the earth: past and predictions”. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C Vol 31, Issues 1-3, pages 113-122, March 2006.
    Yousef, S. and Hady, A., 2006. On The Status Of Solar Wind During The Present – Era Of Weak Solar Cycles. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, Vol 2, pps 277-282; doi:10.1017/S1743921306002006. Published online by Cambridge University Press on 1 November 2006.
    Bryant, E., A., and Kidd, R., 1975. Beach Erosion, May-June, 1974, Central and South Coast, N. S. W. Search Nov-Dec 1975, 6 (11-12), 511-513. Available online at http://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/64
    Wood, Fergus J. 1986. Tidal Dynamics: coastal flooding, and cycles of gravitational force. D Reidel Publishing Co. (Note: this is a revision of Wood, Fergus, J. 1978. The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring Tides in Nautical History and North American Flooding U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Washington D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office).
    Wood, Fergus J., 2001. Tidal Dynamics Volume 1 theory and analysis of tidal forces. Third Edition Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 30. Coastal Education and Research Foundation. (Note: this is a revision of the theoretical and analytic elements of Wood (1986). It includes new material written by Fergus Wood plus several additional papers of the author. It includes new computational material. The author, with the assistance of Emeritus Rhodes Fairbridge, reorganized the text substantially resulting in a book in the standard textbook format. Although the book was completed by Fergus Wood (with the assistance of Rhodes Fairbridge), sadly Fergus Wood died in 2000 before the new work was published in 2001.

    About Rhodes Fairbridge see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Fairbridge and references therein.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  55. kim
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 5:42 AM | Permalink

    Thanks, Leif, I think I’ve got it. The sun’s effect is to put a little ‘English’ on the ball.
    ========================================

  56. Andrey Levin
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    Leif Svaalgard:

    Somewhere in previous thread you mentioned one effect. It is variability of solar irradiance output dependent on “waveness” of solar surface. Could you please elaborate on the subject?

    I understand why it is happening from geometrical point of view, but what is the magnitude of the effect?

  57. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 7:30 AM | Permalink

    Leif

    RE Camp and Tung and the 0.2K difference in terrestrial temperature between solar maximum and solar minimum: These guys are great statisticians. They are about as likely to find a mechanism as all the other people with that speciality.

    If one accepts that the terrestrial temperature fluctuation is driven by solar wind phenomena the geomagnetic cycle becomes more relevant than the sunspot cycle. The peaks and troughs of these two do not coincide and vary in displacement from cycle to cycle. The Camp and Tung result is fortuitous and is likely to vary strongly between sunspot cycles. If Camp and Tung were to compare the strongest warming event with the strongest cooling event within the solar cycle they would obtain a truer measure of the suns ‘within solar cycle’ influence on the Earths temperature variability.

  58. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    Leif
    I am going to keep working on you.

    Here is the recipe for confusion, tail chasing, ignorance and a vast waste of effort and money:
    • Dismiss short term fluctuations in temperature in the tropics that are characterised as ENSO phenomena as irrelevant to long term trends or simply describe them as noise in the signal.
    • Allow specious explanations for short term fluctuations in temperature in the tropics as ‘internal oscillations of the climate system’ that categorises the phenomena as irrelevant. That is what the U.N. IPCC does. You just write the phenomena right out of the field of investigation. Concern yourself only with the forcings that you are interested in promoting.
    • Suggest that any perceived change in short term fluctuations that might alarm the populace is a product of a long term trend called ‘warming’ or ‘global warming’even though it is just the mid to high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere that are actually warming.
    • Begin with a preconceived idea like ‘greenhouse gas accumulation’ and set out to make the data fit.

    The reality is that the long term trend is the result of lots of shorter term trends. When we can explain the short term trends we will very likely find the mechanism that accounts for the long term trend.

    In that respect consider the data below:

    Top graph shows that ocean temperatures are moving at different rates but in the same direction. In October the global anomaly was already below base. So, we are on our way to a bit of cooling. In the last week NOAA ENSO model predicted a La Nina of sufficient intensity to make it cooler than anything in the last thirty years. That part of the globe that is warmer than average global temperature is now cooling and we know what that will do to the average temperature!

    Second figure shows a variation in the aggregated monthly Southern Oscillation Index between cycles. In this graph the brown bars represent warming because the SOI is presented with it’s usual ‘reversed’ signature, quite the opposite of the more logical ENSO index of sea surface temperatures. It is not hard to see a curve with an expanding length and amplitude that should be producing cooling with solar cycle 24 and very probably 25 as well. The dynamics of the SOI index over the last 6 solar cycles happens to fit the recent temperature experience for the Northern hemisphere where the bulk of the temperature change has occurred. The IPCC thought the cooling during SC 18, 19 and 20 might have been due to ‘global dimming’. The evidence says otherwise. It looks as if that period of falling temperatures, particularly during the weak SC 20, was fed by changes in the tropics. It could not possibly be due to any change in irradiance or whole of solar cycle effect because it is so localised. Nor could it be due to GHG for the same reason.

    Second graph also links the ENSO change to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. What is happening in the tropics is driving the PDO. The dip in the PDO around 2000 was caused by a big La Nina at the time and people starded talking about decadal changes…..a bit too quick however.

    Third graph you will recognise. Another interesting curve. Fits the record rather well. Falling sea temperatures in the South Pacific between 1820 and 1878 is documented. That means a long run of La Nina events due to falling geomagnetic activity. You can see a report at http://www.terradaily.com/reports/El_Nino_Affected_By_Global_Warming_999.html
    It’s another bit of climate science where they suggest that the tail is wagging the dog but at least the data fits your estimates for IMF B.

  59. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    52 (maksimovich): north/south asymmetry. The cosmic ray variation (peak, flat, peak, flat, …) is not due to a north-south asymmetry of solar activity, but to cosmic ray particles drifting [i.e. moving guided by the magnetic field] in opposite directions depending on the polarity of the heliospheric field.

    53 (Pat): thanks for the PDO

    54 (Richard): Science is also a social and collaborative endeavor. It doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, if you cannot convince your fellow scientists you have not achieved anything. We build on each others results. If your theory does not contribute to the common edifice you are not advancing the field. For the lone genius out there, this is tough, but such is the reality. This does not mean that you have to agree with the mainstream paradigm. Progress happens when scientists disagree for stated reasons and when you can convince other scientists that your view has merit. A good measure of your impact is the citation count: if many papers cite your work you are making your point. The value of a scientific paper is the degree to which it stimulates other papers and further research.

    56 (Andrey): “what is the magnitude of the effect?” well, it seems that the total variation of TSI is due to the corrugation, which makes the sun a better radiator.

    57 (Erl): Camp and Tung. That you are not impressed by their work just illustrates my point, that sun-climate connection is not yet on firm ground.

    58 (Erl): my graph simply shows that the strength of the IMF follows the sunspot number and is NOT a graph of geomagnetic activity, even though geomagnetic activity was used to derive the IMF.

  60. Jordan
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    I am not sure whether my post will fit in this tread but reading the following argument of Chris Crawford I vcan not walk around another trunkation:

    There remains a small probability that the AGW hypothesis is wrong, and a greater probability that some particular of the hypothesis is wrong. For example, it could well be that the cost of addressing the problem exceeds the cost of ignoring it (although I doubt it). It could well be that we’re screwed anyway because we’ve triggered natural processes that will release a lot more CO2 than we are releasing (again, I’m dubious). In any case, I think we must differentiate between “sure enough that we should warn the public”; “sure enough that we should urge major sacrifices”; and “sure enough that we needn’t bother questioning the basics any more.” I think that we’re somewhere between the first phrase and the second.

    I am not sure whether my post will fit in this tread but reading the above argument of Chris Crawford I can not walk around another truncation. The most profound argument of AGW camp is that the later 20 century warming can not be explained by other natural phenomena because there is no evidence for process with such magnitude that could match the warming. Yes, but this is only because the whole AGW “consensus” clearly ignores the data and research not only in one particular study but in a whole science discipline. The solar activity is presented only as irradiance variations and number of sunspots. No one bothers to look at the findings in the solar astronomy which show that much more complex processes on Sun exist and that there are very solid methods to track and measure these process back in time. This is not only about the sunspot number but the period of particular sunspot group existence; the sunspots polarity; the 22 year cycle of the Sun’s magnetic filed; etc. More that dozen cycles of Sun activity are identified and all of these data series clearly point that at end of 20 century there were amplification between the most important of them. In all well reconstructed and methodically transparent data series in Sun astronomy the MWP is clearly visible as well the late 20 warming. Why the sun astronomy is truncated from the Global Warming debate? We can say that there is another consensus but IPCC is blind for it. Many astronomers agree that there is a 92% chance of global cooling by 2050 at magnitude comparable with that one experienced during the Dalton minimum. If this happen (their arguments are much more convincible than the models predictions) who will pay the cost of ignoring this consensus?

  61. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    re 51 & 59 (Leif):

    Were you interested in my idea or just the 19th century data?

  62. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Agreed, the suns climate connection is not yet on firm ground. And I must say that you are playing the role of devils advocate to perfection.

    You say:

    my graph simply shows that the strength of the IMF follows the sunspot number and is NOT a graph of geomagnetic activity, even though geomagnetic activity was used to derive the IMF.

    But back at 809 you told me that IMF B feeds into the strength of the ring current. The ring current strength relates to the equatorial fountain effect that is symptomatic of the effects in the ionosphere/neutral atmosphere that I am hypothesising.

    Have you no comment at all on the apparent connection between tropical temperatures and the aa index of geomagnetic activity? You don’t want to address the central thrust of the argument? Not much possibility of moving to firmer ground if we can not get to the nub of the question.

    Let us at least get one thing established. Do you admit that it is significant that the entire tropical zone warms at some points in the solar cycle and cools at other times? Is it reasonable to suggest that this might be due to a change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth?

  63. pochas
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    #41 Leif:

    The alternation between flat-topped and peaked cosmic ray solar-minimum variations is well understood. It is due to the cosmic rays being influenced by the different polarity of the solar main dipolar field. Particles drift in near the equator and out near the pole from one solar maximum to the next, then reversing direction as the solar polar fields reverse.

    This may be old hat to you, but please indulge us so we are better able to appreciate the discussion. For Cycle 23 solar north was negative, right? So the earth and sun were aligned magnetically south-to-north. In maksimovitch’s diagram this produced a peak. What does this mean in terms of charged particle migration in the earth’s atmosphere? In at the equator and migrate toward the poles? I suspect the opposite. Thanks.

  64. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    60 (Pat): to evaluate your ideas I needed the data. Not done yet.

    61 (Erl):

    But back at 809 you told me that IMF B feeds into the strength of the ring current. The ring current strength relates to the equatorial fountain effect that is symptomatic of the effects in the ionosphere/neutral atmosphere that I am hypothesising.

    All these things are correlated, but in establishing cause/effect one should first use the variable that is ‘closest’ to the effect. So if B -> ring current -> fountain effect -> weather/climate, or schematically A -> B -> C -> D. We first establish C -> D. When that is on firm ground we extend the data with B -> D [transitively through C], using B as a proxy for C. If that still holds up, we extend the data with A -> D [transitively through B and C]. As there are so many other things involved it becomes tricky [and non-compelling] to use A -> D directly to establish C -> D.

    You have not shown that there is a connection between tropical temperatures and aa. I’m surely not the only one among the thousands of workers in this field that doubt this contention. So, first convince us [or most of us] that there is such a connection.

    And then at the end, you switch from ring current to solar radiation reaching the ground [presumably relying on the 'thinning' of the atmosphere in some way, although I had pointed out that the atmosphere at 250 km height is already so thin as not to impede solar radiation; maybe you don't mean 'thinning' but absorbtion of UV by trace gases, but who is to know], and throws in different effects in different phases of the solar cycle. At this point the mind boggles and you lose me [and I think many others]. You don’t win people over by heaping claim upon claim, but by taking each claim in turn and carefully go through all the pros and cons for each. Then connect them into a chain. This is hard work and some scientists struggle their whole life with this. A famous auroral scientist, Akasofu, spend decades convincing people about the reality of a continuous auroral oval. Now, his life work is described in three lines in textbooks.

    It can be very frustrating to be up against the extreme conservatism of mainstream scientists [I know, as this has happened to me too - just try to claim that the sunspot number is wrong, or aa {at least I won the latter}]. But if they don’t get it, it is not their fault, it is yours [and mine for the things I'm peddling].

  65. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    62 (pochas):

    So the earth and sun were aligned magnetically south-to-north. In maksimovitch’s diagram this produced a peak

    No, this has nothing to do with the Earth at all. It has to do with the modulation of cosmic rays by the entire heliosphere. If there is interest I can try to explain that in a later post. For right now I have some work to do first, so no time to give justice to the subject.

  66. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    62 (pochas): I see that I talked “the equator”. As a solar physicits I, obviously :-) , meant the solar equator, not the Earth’s equator and not the Earth’s pole. But I’ll explain that in more detail later if there is interest.

  67. pochas
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    This is fascinating, but I’ll be patient.

  68. Phil.
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    Re #80

    Perhaps this would have been better posted to the Svalgaard thread where they’re actually talking about the sun? As I recall Leif’s comments predictions of future cycle activity have so far been poor so the ‘92% chance’ seems a stretch.

  69. Phil.
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    Leif any comments about #80 on the Pierrehumbert thread it seems right up your alley?

  70. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    re 64(Leif):

    I appreciate you taking time to look into it. Thanks!

  71. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    67 (pochas):
    Cosmic rays are charged particles and their movements are guided by
    the magnetic fields they encounter. There are generally three effects
    acting simultaneously: gyratio, gradient, and curvature drifts, so
    the resulting movements can become very complicated. Cosmic ray
    modulation is thus a complicated balance of diffusion, drifts, convection,
    and adiabatic cooling [lots of lingo here], none of which can be neglected
    as they are often of the same order of magnitude. Jokipii et al. [Effects
    of particle drift on cosmic-ray transport. I - General properties,
    application to solar modulation; Jokipii, J. R., Levy, E. H., & Hubbard, W. B.;
    in Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 213, May 1, 1977, p. 861-868.] showed
    how the fact that the heliomagnetic field lines are curved lead to an
    additional streaming of cosmic rays [superposed on the ordinary diffusion]
    within the heliosphere. They showed that the cosmic rays would essentially
    enter the heliosphere along the helio-equator and exit via the poles when
    solar polar field is directed out of the sun in the North. In the opposite
    polarity state [what we have right now] the flow would be reversed with
    particles entering over the poles and exiting along the equator. It is
    hard to give a hand-waving explanation for this. Jokipii et al. had to
    solve a complicated ‘transport-equation’ to produce their result. A
    simplified drawing of the streaming can be found at

    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_1/duldig/paper/node5.html

  72. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    From LPSC 2007

    Crawford I. A. Fagents S. A. Joy K. H.
    The Survival of Ancient Solar Wind, Galactic Cosmic Ray Particles and Samples of the Early Earth in Lunar
    Palaeoregolith Deposits [#1323]
    Ancient lunar regoliths (palaeoregoliths) may contain a vital record of early solar system history if they can survive
    the thermal consequences of burial by overlying lava flows. We investigate the preservation potential of this record.

    Good speculative paper on Cosmic ray data.

  73. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    The first image is of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field taken from page 4 of this document by Dr Svalgaard:

    http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf

    Note that the low period from 1965 to 1975 corresponds to the 1970s cooling scare, and is a much lower amplitude than the aa Index and neutron count of that period. Perhaps, inadvertently, Dr Svalgaard has given us a big clue to one of the stronger solar-climate correlations. I would be grateful if anyone can direct me to where one can obtain IMF B data. It would be very useful to track and to predict what this cycle low in IMF B will be.

    The second image is the Oulo neutron count. Relative to the last 40 years, we are now in new territory. My prediction is that we will get to an average monthly count of 7100 by the end of 2008.

  74. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    72 (ulric):

    SSN, SOI, aa index, global temperature can all be plotted perfectly, weekly, by an understanding of the relative heliocentric Planetary positions.

    ulric, this is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence. You made some predictions; how are they panning out? perfection is a rare thing in Nature. There are errors in the aa-index. Does your system match perfectly the erroneous or the correct values of aa?

  75. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    74 (David A): http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/

  76. Posted Dec 29, 2007 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    Regarding the tides, Leif, and your comment at 59 (line 58): Yes, science is a social, communicative activity, yet nevertheless, as the example of the tides illustrates, mindsets that can persist for generations remain closed to the most basic science.

    Tidal phenomena is still poorly understood throughout society and within many standard textbooks where it is wrongly explained. And, on a matter as basic as having soundly engineered structures to protect beaches and areas adjacent to beaches, the elementary science, including tables of predictions: all ignored. So there is a logical, unbridgeable disconnect between the validity of a scientific theory and the degree to which anyone accepts it or not.

    As is well known, there are fads and fashions in science and mathematics, but the truth value of any scientific or maathematical proposition is independent of these fads and fashions.

    My fourth query to Leif is twofold: Firstly, did not Palus, Kurths, Schwarz, Seehafer, Novotna, and Charvatova (2007) in June 2007 show that there is a statistically significant relationship between Sun’s variable activity and output and its orbital motion around the center of mass of the solar system. Using relatively new techniques of nonlinear data analysis (phase synchronisation) have they not confirmed that the solar activity cycle and solar inertial motion are not independent. Have they not shown that there is a measurable influence on the solar cycle by the movement of the giant planets of the solar system.

    Here is the abstract:
    Abstract
    We study possible interrelations between the 300-year record of the yearly sunspot numbers and the solar inertial motion (SIM) using the recently developed technique of synchronization analysis. Phase synchronization of the sunspot cycle and the SIM is found and statistically confirmed in three epochs (1734–1790, 1855–1875 and 1907–1960) of the whole period 1700–2000. These results give quantitative support to the hypothesis that there is a weak interaction between the solar activity and the SIM.
    Reference: Palus, M.; Kurths, J.; Schwarz, U.; Seehafer, N.; Novotna, D.; and Charvatova, I., 2007. “The solar activity cycle is weakly synchronized with the solar inertial motion”. Physics Letters A, Vol 365 Issues 5-6 pps 421 – 428 11 June 2007 doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2007.01.0390.

    Secondly,
    Tobias and Weiss (2000) showed that resonant amplification could be a process that couples solar activity cycles with climate cycles. They use a highly simplified mathematical model of both systems and whether the finding would extrapolate to the immensely complex real life systems, who knows. But somebody should pursue this line of inquiry.

    Here is their abstract:

    Solar magnetic activity exhibits chaotically modulated cycles with a mean period of 11 yr, which are responsible for slight variations in solar luminosity and modulation of the solar wind, while the earth’s atmosphere and oceans support oscillations with many different frequencies. Although there are several mechanisms that might couple solar variability with climate, there is, as yet, no compelling evidence that a direct forcing is sufficiently effective to drive climatic change. In many nonlinear systems resonant coupling allows weak forcing to have a dramatic effect. An idealized model is considered, in which the solar dynamo and the climate are represented by low-order systems, each of which in isolation supports chaotic oscillations. The climate is represented by the Lorenz equations: solutions oscillate about either of two fixed points, representing warm and cold states, flipping sporadically between them. The effect of a weak nonlinear input from the dynamo to the climate that tends to push it toward the warm state is computed. This input has a significant effect when the ‘typical frequencies’ of each system are in resonance. The solution is now asymmetric, with the warm state preferred. The degree of asymmetry is less than might be anticipated, because resonant forcing extends the duration of oscillations about either state, and so increases the timescale for flipping. The presence of grand minima in the solar output leads to complicated intermittent behaviour in the climate. Consequently, the results of frequency analysis are sensitive to the duration of time series that is used. It is clear that the resonance provides a powerful mechanism for amplifying climate forcing by solar activity.

    Reference: “Resonant interactions between solar activity and climate”. Tobias, S.M.; Weiss, N.O. Journal of Climate. Vol. 13, no. 21, pp. 3745-3759. Nov. 2000

    Thus there is an established quantitative support to the hypothesis that there is a weak interaction between the solar activity and the the Sun’s motion around the solar sysstem center of mass and a reasonable hypothesis of resonant amplification between solar activity and climate cycles.

    Maybe QED, Leif?

    Maybe a lot more plausible than the speculative yet fashionable ghg/IPCC theories now known to be full of errors if only as a result of the unrelentling solid science presented elsewhere on this website.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  77. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 1:20 AM | Permalink

    64 (Leif):

    You have not shown that there is a connection between tropical temperatures and aa.

    Did you look at the diagram in my post at 9. Observe the heating events in the troposphere that relates to the aa index late in cycle 22 and in cycle 23. This is a pattern common to solar cycles with heavy peaks in aa activity following sunspot maximum. These peaks in aa and troposphere temperatures are outlined with a red oval.

    Observe too the heating events that coincide with the rise from aa minimum following cooling events coinciding with the fall to aa minimum. These are in the grey oval. Tentatively, these appear to be common to most cycles exhibiting low amplitude of aa activity at aa minimum.

    Cycles with high level of fluctuation of aa index at aa minimum seem to be cycles that show strong fluctuation in aa post sunspot maximum.

    What could I do that would convince you of this connection between temperatures in the tropics and geomagnetic activity? I dont have UAH measurements of tropospheric temperature prior to 1978. Would you accept Hadley centre monthly means or the SOI? I know the aa index is incorrectly scaled before the 1950s but that does not affect the within cycle variation. Is aa acceptible? Your bartel rotations are not easy to convert to monthly data.

    By the way, is there a relationship between the extent of aa activity and sunspot numbers. Have you correctly scaled indices for both? It appears to me that these two manifestations of solar activity exchange one for the other to some extent. Does the proportion of open versus closed flux change in such a way as the total remains the same?

    I notice at http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf you suggest a constant level of open flux. I think that temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere suggest that when the closed flux is low the open flux is very influential in promoting wide swings in terrestrial temperature, just as it appears to do at aa minimum. Big bang for the buck at that time. I assume that this relates to the volume of material emanating from the sun at that time. Any ideas?

  78. Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 6:01 AM | Permalink

    I have another idea to share with discussants and invite Leif to comment.

    The literature reports that solar orbital motion could affect solar activity by means of a variety of processes. These are:

     Sun’s variable torque
     Precessional effect
     Solar orbital non-inertial Coriolis force
     Resonant effect of planets’ orbits
     Superposition of planetary tides
     Spin-orbit coupling
     Phase synchronisation

    But now there is a totally new idea.

    It is a recently reported finding by Fred Bailey. Fred is an amateur British scientist in the best British tradition which is exemplified by people like Sir William Herschel. Sir William was a band leader, music teacher, organist and composer before turning his mind to mathematics, building telescopes and astronomy. He had no scientific training; he was self taught. Fred, in contrast, has a substantial scientific training, perhaps not on the par of a Fellow of the Royal Society. Nevertheless, Fred’s scientific writings seem to me to be more substantial the recent output of the President of the Royal Society who appears to have become preoccupied with the prevailing fashionable nonsense.

    Fred calculated that distance of the Sun from the Earth varies as the Sun orbits the barycentre. The distance varies as the Sun orbits the barycentre. He calculated that the Earth/Sun distance varies by about 2.5 per cent over the entire epitrochoid orbit. This is a significant variation which should have consequences for the Earth’s climate dynamics. Fred Bailey (2006, 2007) was the first to observe and measure this increased Earth/Sun distance. Bailey explained that that the distance varies because the Sun moves closer to, and further away from, the solar system barycenter and experiences variable acceleration/de-acceleration as it does so. The effect of this increased variable distance is that the amount of solar output received by the Earth will vary more extensively than has previously been considered by scientists. The 2.5 per cent variation is sufficient to have significant climate change consequences.

    Fred Bailey pointed out that of the two components relevant to the impact of the Earth/Sun variable distance on the Earth’s climate (the position of the sun relative to the barycentre and the elliptical path of the Earth about the barycentre) the second is likely to have a greater climate change effect. As the ecliptic direction of the Earth about the Sun changes the seasons, the accumulative effect of high or low solar output in a given direction on the ecliptic plane, will affect climate dynamics that certain parts of the planet will experience during its orbit around the barycenter.

    Fred’s findings have not to my knowledge been corroborated by anyone else. However for those with the skills and resources it should not be too difficult to check.

    Interestingly, in one of his papers and as something of a throw away aside, Rhodes Fairbridge reported that the distance of the Sun from the Earth varies as the Sun orbits the barycentre. He calculated that the distance could vary by about 1 percent. He noted that this variation could have climate change consequences in a similar way as happens in Milankovitch theory. He conjectured that may also be a lunisolar tidal consequence of the 1 percent variation in the Sun’s distance that could be calculated.

    If Fred is right the distance from the Earth and orientation to the Earth of the Sun and all attendant solar structures varies significantly more that hitherto considered possible.

    Leif argued that if there is a solar-climate connection, then the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing is much larger than assumed. Fred’s finding could be the missing link, because according to Fred the Sun/Earth distance varies much more than previously considered with consequentially greater variations in the Earth’s experience of solar activity.

    Fred has published two books:

    Bailey, F., 2006. Who is Listening? The Sunspot Mystery: There is a Link. Arthur H. Stockwell Ltd. Great Britain.
    Bailey, F., 2007. Textbook of Gravity, Sunspots and Climate. Arthur H. Stockwell Ltd. Great Britain.
    The second gives a detailed account of the variable Sun/Earth distance and its consequential climate effects.

    A summary account of Fred’s ideas can be found here: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

    Fred argues that it is only the variable Sun/Earth distance arising fro solar orbital motion that has any climate effect on the Earth.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  79. Raven
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    David Archibald:

    The second image is the Oulo neutron count. Relative to the last 40 years, we are now in new territory. My prediction is that we will get to an average monthly count of 7100 by the end of 2008.

    I don’t see any connection between this graph and temperature. Why is the data relevant?

  80. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    It is only fair that I tell you that two days ago I went to the Shinto high shrine at Ise, which includes the shrine to the Sun Goddess Amaterasu, and had my activities blessed by a Shinto priest. If you are going to invoke the Sun, pay homage to the Sun Goddess. No karaoke in Tokyo tonight though.

    Thankyou Dr Svalgaard for the IMF link. Hopefully some graphs have appeared above. The IMF in 2007 has been as low as 1.5. Dr Svalgaard do you still want to say the floor in the IMF is 4 to 5? I also plotted up the last minimum in 1996, which has a lower amplitude, which suggests that are still well off minimum. In the 1965 to 2007 plot, I have drawn a couple of lines bracketting the last few years of activity. This suggests that the monthly average low will reach 3 some time in 2008.

    The IMF has entered uncharted territory, and as Dr Svalgaard has said, it is an interesting time to be alive.

  81. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    Re 80, Raven, if you read through this stuff, you will find Dr Svalgaard referring to the notorius (his word) theory of Dr Svensmark. You have a certain amount of work to do. You can start by reading, understanding, and believing The Chilling Stars.

  82. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

    78 (Erl): Eye-balling noisy [with due deferrence to ulric who can acount perfectly for every wiggle] curves is not enough to be convincing. There are standard statistical techniques [correlation] for testing the purported relationship.

    The aa-index and sunspot numbers are related, but the real driver behind aa is the solar wind. Given solar wind properties, aa can be calculated from [semi-]physical theory to great precision. See http://www.leif.org/research/Physics-based%20Long-term%20Geomagnetic%20Indices.pdf

    The sum of open flux and closed flux is the total flux and it varies with the solar cycle because the closed flux does.

    79 (Richard): The distance between the sun and the earth varies 3.5% because of the excentricity of the earth’s orbit. The varying distance can be verified to great precision from observations of the diameter of the Sun [going back millennia because it influences the totality and timing of solar eclipses], the F10.7 radio flux [7% because of distance-squared dependence going back to 1947], and the TSI [same 7% back to 1978]. There is no room for any additional 2.5% or 1% variation.

    Fred argues that it is only the variable Sun/Earth distance arising fro solar orbital motion that has any climate effect on the Earth.

    Have Fred and Erl and ulric battle it out.

  83. Raven
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    David

    Re 80, Raven, if you read through this stuff, you will find Dr Svalgaard referring to the notorius (his word) theory of Dr Svensmark. You have a certain amount of work to do. You can start by reading, understanding, and believing The Chilling Stars.

    I realize this topic is huge and I am gradually wading through the material (i plan to read Chilling Stars). However, you posted a graph about neutron count and assumed a reader would understand its relevance. More importantly I have seen the same graph used in AGW blogs to ‘disprove’ any cosmic ray-climate link. I would appreciate either a link to another post or a one or two line summary that explains why that graph is relevant to your arguments even though the temperature-neutron correlation is apparently weak.

  84. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    Leif Your comment

    Eye-balling noisy [with due deferrence to ulric who can acount perfectly for every wiggle] curves is not enough to be convincing. There are standard statistical techniques [correlation] for testing the purported relationship.

    What do you think of this proposition:

    ENSO is the Pacific manifestation of a trend for temperatures in the tropics to rise and fall over periods of time as short as six months to as long as four years when a number of heating events are linked together. These events manifest most strongly at aa minimum when the solar wind is strong in mass and relatively settled in origin and direction and very small changes in direction can have a big impact on the magnetosphere. My contention is that aa index does not reflect this properly.

    These disturbances also occur with great frequency and persistence in the declining phase of the solar cycle as the solar wind is driven by eruptive phenomena, arriving generally in high speed spurts from diverse origins across the solar surface, the wind then possessing a highly variable magnetic signature and density and capable of cancelling its effect through lack of persistence or change of character within short periods of time. The result is wild gyrations in the aa index. All this index measures is change in the horizontal component of the Earth’s magnetic field. It reflects the likely impact on the ionosphere rather poorly.

    So, we have a stimulus that changes in its basic character within the period of the cycle. Hence, the response to geomagnetic activity will be quite different at solar minimum to what it is at other times. So, don’t look for correlations. Statisticians will throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  85. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

    81 (David A): The “floor” is better seen in the 27-day rotational average of IMF B. Within a solar rotation the solar wind speed [near the Earth where the measurememts are made] varies between 300 and 800 km/s. This causes faster moving plasma to catch up with slower moving plasma, resulting in compressions [and rarefaction behind them]. These compressions and rarefactions show up as the spikes you so nicely have plotted. To get a measure of the IMF flux you have to average over a rotation to compensate for the distortions caused by these ‘co-rotating interaction regions’ [as they are called].
    Strictly speaking, the floor is defined on ‘yearly averages’. I quote here the starting sentence of our ApJL paper on the floor: “Long-term (130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength has a ‘floor,’ a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum.”

    Your last plot shows the same thing as the red curve in my plot that you showed in #74. You omitted [see the Pierrehumbert thread about omitting data] the left portion of my curve. The current cycle 23 [now ending] was very much like cycle 13. We are not entering ‘unknown’ territory. We have ‘been there, done that’ before. This is the crux of this very [Svalgaard] thread [that there is no secular trend in solar activity]. What is interesting is that we are entering conditions that we had to go back 107 years to find. This will allow us to verify that the [empirical] relationships found also hold for those conditions. It is always dangerous to extrapolate a relationship outside of the domain on which it was determined. The coming low minimum and [probably] low solar cycles will allow us to test the relations over a larger range and move out of the extrapolation regime.

  86. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    85 (Erl): The aa-index [and other geomagnetic indices: ap, am, and our own IHV] measure very nicely the amount of energy input to the ionospehere as measured directly by satellites. See, f. ex. http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf

    That the relationship is different at different times, does not mean that you cannot apply statistics; you just have to do it separately for each ‘phase’. The baby is quite safe.

    The aa-index can be calculated rather accurately from solar wind data [see my previous post] and does properly represent solar wind conditions. If you meant to say that it does not reflect ENSO properly, I might accede to that.

  87. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Re this proposed linkage between the solar wind and solar radiation interception by the atmosphere:

    The heating event at following aa minimum is the most observable and consistent over solar cycle 13 to 23. But, let’s forget this for the moment. I am glad that you recognise the difference in the force involved at aa minimum and after sunspot maximum.

    As Dennis Wingo points out, eloquently, passionately and at length, in (25) “..as the thermosphere inflates satellite drag increases. The lowest satellites travel at the margin of the atmosphere, 100 km out where the bang for the propulsive buck is greatest. The International Space station is travelling lower now, than it has ever travelled, and in the near future it will travel lower again. This represents more than the energising of the outer layers of the ionosphere (F Layer 120-400 Km) because the ionosphere is created from neutral atmosphere by wave lengths shorter than visible light and that process is going on right down into the troposphere. Ozone in the troposphere and the stratosphere is the primarily the result of photo-degradation by short wave radiation. You can get a heavy dose of UV radiation travelling in commercial airliners sitting in the window seat.

    So, we have a more compact and reflective atmosphere at the moment and it is carrying less kinetic energy from Earth surface through to the limits of the neutral atmosphere at about 100km. So, it will be relatively denser. That factor alone will tend to reduce the amount of solar energy getting through to the surface. It will tend to trap very short wave radiation at the outer limits and reduce the heating effect lower down. There are half a dozen ways that the effect can be amplified that I will not go into right now.

    The basic problem is to work out why the entire tropics can warm and cool as they undeniably do. (or do you deny this too) OK, you don’t like the supposed connection between the aa index and temperatures in the troposphere. But, you don’t really need it. The evidence of the connection between the solar wind and the inflation of the neutral atmosphere is there in satellite drag. I really think that you are dragging your feet on this one. We have a perfectly plausible mechanism for solar determination of varying terrestrial temperature over short and very long term scales and you want to give it the flick. This mechanism has great predictive power. It will explain the partial (northern hemisphere only) heating that has occurred. Other whole of Earth and whole of sun mechanisms can not do this.

    We have to look at the patient first up and see what colour the spots are! It’s no good starting at the sun end.

  88. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    82 (David A): “notorius (his word) theory of Dr Svensmark” I don’t recall saying that and not even ‘notorious’.

    88 (Erl): “I really think that you are dragging your feet on this one” I NEVER do that. I have shown great patience where others might have been outright and rudely dismissive. I go where the data takes me [as someone said in this blog]. But I have rather stringent criteria for accepting mechanisms that purport ‘perfection’ [ulric] or ‘great predictive power’ [you].
    About influence from the top down [ionosphere -> troposphere]: there are indications that there is some influence in the other direction ['planetary waves' reaching up into the ionosphere].

  89. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    89: planetary waves: http://helios.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/sww/thursday_am/Fuller-Rowell.zip

  90. kim
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    The mechanisms of development of certain biological structures, and processes have yet to be determined, yet few doubt that the mechanisms are naturalistic and underwent natural selection. Similarly, the mechanisms of the Solar-Earth interaction to regulate climate are undetermined, but certainly the nature of those interactions is strongly suggested.
    ======================================================================

  91. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Thanks for giving me the time of day. I appreciate your argument about patiently fitting the linkages together and explaining things properly. Yes there are lots of mechanisms involved. If I dont ask, I will never know.

    So, the patient is mother Earth she is said to be running a temperature. Can we agree about some elements that you and I might observe about the condition of the patient and the mechanisms that are operating? Can you tick or cross these off for me?
    I use you’re A, B, C and D to present the argument formally for ease of reference. I apologise for the length and the repetition of stuff that I have already said.

    A Observations of patient condition
    1. UAH satellite data shows that the warming is occurring mostly in the mid and especially the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere. See http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg
    2. The tropics between 30°North and 30°South is where temperatures are consistently warmer than the calculated average of 15°C for the Earth as a whole. http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=sstg
    3. ENSO type warming is generalised across the tropics. It is not confined to the Pacific Ocean and it is not properly characterised as a redistribution of heat from one side of the Pacific to the other. See top figure in post 58 that shows the current generalised cooling. Anomalies in the tropics are greater in the upswing and deeper in the downswing and these anomalies in the tropics drive global temperature change. I have a graph for this if you need it.

    B A bit of deduction that enables us to start looking for a mechanism responsible for what we are seeing.
    1. Partial heating that appears in parts of one hemisphere is incompatible with the notion that changes in green house gases or solar irradiance could be responsible.
    2. By and large it is the accumulation of warmth in the tropical oceans where temperatures are greater than 15°C that allows a transfer of warmth from low to high latitudes where land temperatures average less than 15°C, especially in winter.
    3. The distribution of the land masses promotes the transfer of warmth from a large portion of the tropics north of 30°S latitude into the northern portions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
    4. The episodic warming that occurs across the tropics must be related to an increase in the general level of electromagnetic radiation from the sun reaching the surface at these latitudes. There is no other heat source that could account for the fluctuation in temperature of what we used to call the Torrid Zone.

    C Then we have to agree about the nature of the atmosphere and the sun and the processes that might be responsible for a linkage between the sun and the changing level of solar radiation and temperature in the tropics. This involves our understanding of the way things work in the atmosphere.
    1. The amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface at any latitude depends upon the degree of atmospheric attenuation of that radiation. Clouds reflect the visible band.
    2. Oxygen and Nitrogen absorb wave lengths in the ultraviolet and shorter wave lengths, a process called photo-degradation and photo-disassociation depending upon whether we are referring to molecular or atomic attack. This is responsible for ozone in the stratosphere and the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere that is patently possible, even down to the surface, otherwise no lightning. We should be looking for a mechanism that can promote a change in atmospheric conditions for extended periods of six months or more regardless of seasonal influences. This mechanism is likely to be electromagnetic in nature because we know that the atmosphere above the tropopause responds strongly to electromagnetic force by virtue of its increasingly non neutral composition.
    3. 80% of the atmosphere lies within 10 km of the surface with 20% beyond.
    4. The ions of the ionosphere (I call them non-neutrals for simplicity) are conjoint with the neutral atmosphere between the surface of the Earth and the extent of the neutral atmosphere, about 100 km up. Above this level there are mostly non neutrals. The latter is the ionosphere proper. However, ions are created from neutrals and the two are interacting all the time, the persistence of free ions depending upon the level of energy imparted by short wave radiation from the sun.
    5. The atmosphere above the tropopause increases in temperature with elevation at least as far as the top of the stratosphere at about 50km. It does so in response to the absorption of short wave radiation. This increase in temperature might be considered to be an index of the absorption of short wave energy from the sun, increasing with elevation. Temperature at top of tropopause is about minus 60°C warming to as much as plus 20°C at the top of the stratosphere.
    6. Some short wave energy gets right through to the surface in the tropics. That is where the Erythermal UV index is highest. See http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html This tells us that the atmosphere is a heat and radiation shield of partial efficiency. It is least efficient in the tropics.
    7. The general level of atmospheric heat in the tropical atmosphere above and below the tropopause will affect its local density. The degree of penetration of short wave radiation is affected by density. This means that any heating process will be subject to feedbacks accentuating the heating. Some elements of that short wave radiation (Far UV, Gamma and X ray) are related to sunspot faculae that are in turn related to solar wind phenomena. This increased quantum of penetrative short wave energy will tend to accentuate the response of ions and electrons to plasma activity from the sun i.e. geomagnetic phenomena will shift these and UV radiation will tend to create more in their place, adding to kinetic energy levels and promoting the induced shifts in local population.
    8. There is a feedback from infrared radiation from hot land masses in the tropics that accentuates the level of ionisation over the tropics. The Sahara is particularly influential shifting the geomagnetic equator northwards.
    9. The solar wind, magnetised plasma, is known to influence the distribution of the non neutrals in the ionosphere tending to displace them upwards and pole-wards due to the energy imparted to the ring current that is aligned to the equator. Shifts in population tend to persist for months.
    10. Geomagnetic activity is known to inflate the neutral atmosphere beyond 100 km in elevation creating satellite drag. That is all the evidence that we really need to show us that the forces that are described here are significant in their effect.

    D Now, looking at processes in the troposphere that amplifies the results of small changes in the upper atmosphere.
    1. The interception of solar energy in the tropics drives the Hadley cell and determines the height of the tropopause that in turn affects the degree of drying of the atmosphere that occurs before it sets off on its return journey to the surface via the high pressure cells that occur at about 35°South latitude and about 30°North latitude.
    2. The Hadley cell in general and the high pressure cells of the aforementioned latitudes are relatively cloud free due to this drying process. There are large rain shadow areas to the west of continents in the trade wind zone that heat and cool anomalously. This can be seen in pattern of change of sea surface anomalies.
    3. Since the height of the tropopause varies (and with it the temperature and degree of drying of the air) with the energy driving the system so will the humidity and cloud cover in this tropical zone vary. So, any heating of the tropics tends to be a self reinforcing process.
    4. Overshoot from a burgeoning troposphere humidifies the stratosphere reducing ozone and particulate content enhancing the passage of solar radiation in what is a reverse of the volcano effect. While the troposphere warms the stratosphere cools. This is the pattern that has been with us since 1976. This is a feedback mechanism that is very influential over decades.

    E Diagnosis of the possible origin of the heating process within the tropics:
    1. Magnetic force acting on the ionic population of the atmosphere could set off a pattern of heating of the neutral atmosphere. A magnetic force has the capacity to shift and hold material in position as long as the force is periodically renewed.
    2. Here I am hypothesising a change in the amount of kinetic energy present in the Torrid Zone that will maintain a change in density against the gravitational forces promoting subsidence of colder and denser air outside the tropical zone. It’s a bit like Abraham parting the seas to allow the children of Israel safe passage to escape the pursuing Egyptians. Think of the Egyptians as ionising short wave radiation and solar radiation in general. The visible and the infrared component in incoming energy is highly dependent upon water vapour levels in the troposphere as to whether it reaches the surface or not.
    3. The solar wind is magnetic force. We see it in action via the phenomenon of satellite drag bringing about the inflation of the neutral atmosphere. Another force acts in tandem with magnetism. It is the energising potential of very short wave ionising radiation. The Egyptians can not be held at bay at all and more of them appear over the hill at the most inappropriate time. More of the visible and the infrared spectrum gets to the surface as the clouds in the troposphere disappear.
    4. The quanta of the forces acting on the upper atmosphere are related to eruptive activity on the sun. Eruptive activity is most pronounced in the decline phase of solar activity. The magnetic force at this time is inherently different to that at solar minimum. Because sunspot activity varies between cycles the mix between open and closed flux will vary between cycles. The temperature response is accordingly non linear. Lets forget about correlation coefficients. In the upshot it is the solar wind that initiates the process. Many other factors then kick in to reinforce the change.

    The pattern fits. The most prolonged El Nino warming events occur in the decline phase of the solar cycle (closed flux) and in the upswing from aa minimum (mainly open flux). Any theory is useful if it fits the facts and enables prediction. On the basis of this theory and observations of current aa activity, we are entering a period where warming in the tropics will be subdued. This should promote marked cooling in the northern hemisphere with a lag of 6-12 months to allow for the circulation of ocean waters. There is already anomalously cool water in the northern Pacific as a result of the 2006 La Nina and this will be reinforced by the current unprecedentedly cool La Nina. Because of the relatively closed loop in the circulation of warm waters in the North Atlantic, the decline in temperature there will be lower. The Atlantic is not subject to the same injection of very cold waters from high latitudes that we see in the South Pacific. That is the hyper cooling effect that operates in the Pacific that is the distinctive feature of the warm phase in the Pacific. However, we now currently see anomalously cool waters in the tropical Atlantic due to increased cloud cover over zones that are normally cloud free. Transit time from Florida to the UK is 6-12 months. Sea surface anomalies can be viewed at http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=sstag. These are changing by the week.

  92. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    re 89:

    “I have shown great patience where others might have been outright and rudely dismissive.”

    Very true.

  93. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    92 (Erl): I’m a solar physicist, not a terrestrial atmospheric physicist, although some of the basic physics overlap [which is why I can say something on the matter]. There must be many lurkers out there that are much more knowledgeable than me in these matters. And some are very vocal, too. Let us see who of them buys your theory, in whole orin part. So, if you out there agree with Erl, let us know. Again for the record: I’m do not claim that there is no slar-climate relationship, just that I don’t know of any that is compelling enough in its details to form a firm basis that we can all agree on for further research [as there finally is for the solar-geomagnetic relationship - it only took ~100 years]

  94. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    94 (Leif) Very fair. But if there is something that strikes you as highly improbable don’t hesitate.

  95. Mike Davis
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Erl:
    The patient appears to be doing what the patient has been doing for a long time.
    By better understanding what the sun does we can better understand the climate variations.
    Science has come a long way in that understanding but as yet there is still more to learn.
    someone once said”The more you know the more you realize what you do not know”.
    Leif: Again thank you for your time.

  96. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    95 (Erl) “Very fair. But if there is something that strikes you as highly improbable don’t hesitate.”

    Examples are B4, C2, C8, and E1. This does not mean that all the rest are OK.

  97. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    re 51 (Leif):

    Have you had a chance to look into my pattern?

  98. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    99 (Pat): no, Rome was not built in one day. Partience is a virtue…

  99. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Re 84, from memory, a fair proportion of the atmosphere is saturated at any one time but needs a nucleating event to form clouds. Svensmark’s cloud chamber showed that neutrons can cause cloud formationn at atmospheric conditions. Therefore the neutron flux from GCRs is important. Clouds cover 60% of the planet at any one time. Clouds have an albedo of 60%. It only takes a small increase in cloud cover to reflect a lot of TSI into space. Somewhere else on this blog someone from the UK said that he had a correlation of .85 between the neutron count and the diffusivity index (cloudiness) in the UK. For my own part, I have a very good correlation between solar cycle length and the temperature of the following cycle. The rsqd is 0.5. To predict climate, all you have to know is solar cycle length. The relationship is 0.7 degrees per year. This is 0.002 degrees per day of delay in getting to the month of solar minimum. We may never know the actual mechanism.

    [snip]
    The solar-climate relationship will cause a temperature drop next decade. Depending upon the length of Solar Cycle 23, it may be as much as 2.8 degrees. Real suffering will be upon us very soon.

    Back to that graph. The neutron count is in uncharted territory as is the IMF, and we are still probably a year off the month of minimum. Things are heading my way.

  100. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    100 (David A): Would you care to comment on Erl’s mechanism?
    Erl, would you care to comment on David’s?

  101. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    re 99:

    Ok, thanks!

  102. Chuck Ballard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    Not being a climatolgist, and also being a long time out of school, I have been trying to follow the general arguments in this forum and have a generic, engineering-perspective question.

    One major point of controversy centers around the analyzed low variability of the solar thermal input, and therefore lower potential for change to the climate systems.

    Is there any posibility that what we are looking at with the climate response is some form of thermal damped harmonic oscillator? In such a case, the magnitude of the forcing function might indeed be a secondary effect to the effect from the frequency of the forcing function, or missed forcing opportunities.

  103. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    103 (Chuck): The frequencies usually involved in solar thermal input are the daily, yearly, solar cycle, longer solar cycles [e.g. Gleissberg cycles], and orbital changes. I don’t know what the damping processes might be for these. Maybe somebody can enlighten us.

  104. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 30, 2007 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Steve M: please snip this post, but do fix the link:

    Svalgaard #2
    By Steve McIntyre

    continued from Svalgaard #1 here.

  105. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 1:38 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Erl, would you care to comment on David’s mechanism?

    Svensmark’s work does not grip me. If I interpret it correctly, from extremely limited acquaintance, it is a whole of cycle swing that he is talking about and that will not explain the much shorter term temperature swings that I see. Nevertheless that cloud nucleating mechanism might accelerate cloud formation in the low point of the geomagnetic cycle and present as an amplifying effect along with the others I am talking about. However, it will not amplify when geomagnetic activity is high at other points during the cycle.

    So far as the neutron counts are concerned I plead ignorance, am aware that they tend to vary in the location that they appear according to the stage in the Hale cycle and manifest in reverse relation to geomagnetic activity. But I have learnt here that they also change in anomalous ways that are unrelated to solar activity. So, a correlation is possible but it will be variable and like a lot of other correlations tell us nothing about causation.

    I have not sought to test the relation between solar cycle length and the temperature of the atmosphere during the next cycle. I see major temperature fluctuations within cycles and want to see what causes those. I am aware that it is the aggregate of these short term ENSO effects that swing a cycle towards warming or cooling. So, I urge people to concentrate on the things that are more obvious.

  106. pochas
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM | Permalink

    #103 Chuck, #104 Leif:

    In the case of ENSO, the capacitive element of our oscillator might be the thermal heat capacity of the ocean, and I would imagine that the inductive element is the mechanical inertia of the moving ocean currents.

    The Hadley circulation blows warm water to the west along the equator, then to the north, to the Bering Sea area. This induces cold water upwelling off Peru, which weakens the Hadley circulation. But mechanical inertia keeps the westward flow going, so the cold water upwelling tends to continue until the Hadley circulation is killed entirely. Then friction dissipates the inertial energy of the water, the flow slows down, and we are set up for an El Nino, in which the sun heats the stagnant surface water causing convection which again strengthens the Hadley circulation. Ready – aim – fire!

    This leaves the question of how (or whether) the ~4 year ENSO cycle interacts to produce the ~ 55 year full PDO cycle.
    Since PDO would have to be a sub-harmonic of ENSO, I have my doubts. Something else is involved.

  107. Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 3:32 AM | Permalink

    I have another query for you Leif in your capacity as a member of the NASA Solar Cycle 24 Panel.

    It is this:

    Should not the Panel, when it next reports in April 2008, release a critical review of the literature type paper of the hypothesised relationships between the totality of variable solar activity and climate?

    Having reviewed a lot of the literature going back several decades, it seems to me that there is abundant evidence and general agreement within the relevant scientific community that solar variability of all types – irradiance, matter, electromagnetic and gravitational force and shape and the interactions between all five – play a key role in the Earth’s climate dynamics.

    Furthermore, as Tobias and Weiss (2000) argue, in the last few years there has been a shift in understanding about the dominant role of the Sun on the Earth’s climate throughout the last 11,000 years and especially over the last 60 years. They wrote: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) dismissed any significant link between solar variability and climate on the grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an attitude can no longer be sustained.

    Burroughs (2003) also concluded that developments about the role of the Sun in climate change published between 1990 and 2002 could not be dismissed as easily as the IPCC had done.

    As I read the literature, the concerns (as expressed by Tobias, Weiss and Burroughs) have intensified in the last four years as more data, more analyses, new techniques of data analysis, better theories and the increased corroboration of the major theories about the processes whereby solar variability of all types contributes to climate dynamics, and, at the same time, the mindset closes more tightly than ever of the IPCC and the scientists and others who are committed to the IPCC ghg ideas.

    In the last couple of years there have been several major reviews of (some of) the relevant literature. Here are some key extracts:

    Labitzke (2007, 2006, 2005) and Labitzke et al (2006) reviewed many relevant and recent reports of research published in the scientific literature. In her overview, Labitzke (2007) notes:

    The relatively weak, direct radiative forcing of the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere can lead to a large indirect dynamical response in the lower atmosphere through the modulation of the polar night jet as well as through a change in the Brewer Dobson Circulation.

    She explained further that:

    Until recently it was generally doubted that the solar variability in the 11-year sunspot cycle (SSC), as measured by satellites, has a significant influence on weather and climate variations. But several studies, both empirical and modelling, have in recent years pointed to probable and certain influences. Different observations indicate that the mean meridional circulation systems, like the Brewer-Dobson Circulation and the Hadley Circulation are influenced by the 11-year solar cycle. Today, there is general agreement that the direct influence of the changes in the Ultra-Violet part of the spectrum (6% to 8% between solar maxima and solar minima) leads to more Ozone and warming in the upper stratosphere (around 60 km) in solar maxima. This lead to changes in the thermal gradients and thus in the wind systems, which in turn lead to changes in the vertical propagation of the planetary waves that drive the global circulation.

    She stated:

    Based on observations, the results presented demonstrate conclusively the existence of a signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures and heights.

    Her own research published over a twenty year period shows that the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation is regulated by variable solar activity and that the Sun influences the intensity of the Artic Oscillation in the stratosphere in winter.

    Haigh (2006) reviewed many recently published papers about solar influence on the atmosphere. She concludes:

    Multiple regression analysis of zonal mean temperature records from the forty-year reanalysis datasets produced by the US National Center for Environment Prediction and the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has revealed a detectable 11-year solar signal in the troposphere. These show bands of warming in the mid-latitudes when the Sun is more active suggesting a latitudinal widening of the Hadley cells. Careful analysis of upper air data dating back eighty years has broadly confirmed these findings. Furthermore, the patterns identified are similar to those predicted by atmospheric GCMs for the influence of enhanced solar UV, thus tending to confirm the existence of such an influence of the Sun on the climate.

    See also Haigh (2006, 2004).

    Bronnimann et al (2007) concluded that studies based on data from the past 25-45 years show that irradiance changes related to the 11 year solar cycle affect the circulation of the upper troposphere in the subtropics and mid-latitudes.

    More generally, they concluded:

    Our analysis of the relation between solar irradiance variability and zonal mean geopotential height at midlatitudes during the past 82 years reveals an 11 year signal (increasing geopotential height with increasing solar variability) that is consistent with previous studies based on much shorter periods.

    Bronnimann et al (2006) reported that while solar impact on climate is increasingly well accepted in the scientific community, the processes that produce it are not.

    Feynman (2007) reported that

    There are now many empirical and modelling studies that demonstrate that changes in the solar output are associated with widespread changes in climate. The development of quantitative models and a physical understanding of all the underlying mechanisms involved is currently a rapidly developing field of study. There is considerable evidence that climate variations in response to low frequency solar variations have had major effects on cultures during the last 1,500 years.

    Haigh (2007) reviewed some of the evidence for a solar influence on the lower atmosphere. She discussed some of the processes by which the Sun may produce more significant impacts than might be surmised from a consideration only of variations in total solar irradiance. Her paper is published in a new on-line peer reviewed scientific journal, Living Reviews of Solar Physics, which enables the paper to evolve as others contribute new material or engage in additional analyses of her commentary. Her paper is a good example of careful science in which analyses and findings are presented with the understatement of cautious science working to the high standards of the exact sciences such as Physics.

    Haigh (2007) reviewed some of the science summarised in this paper, but in much more detail. She presented many tentative findings throughout her paper including the following:

    There is statistical evidence for solar influence on various meteorological parameters on all timescales, although extracting the signal from the noise in a naturally highly variable system remains a key problem. With regard to the climate, further data-mining and analysis are required to firmly establish the magnitude, geographical distribution and seasonality of its response to various forms of solar activity.

    In addition, there have been some significant new findings such as the results I previously mentioned of Coughlin and Tung; Camp and Tung; Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung; Salby and Collaghan; and Gleisner.

    Here is a selection of further findings.

    Bond et al (2001) demonstrated that:

    The Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial and millennial time scales documented here.

    Furthermore, the authors concluded:

    Our findings support the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future, which up to now has been based on extrapolation of evidence from only the last 1,000 years.

    Bond et al (2001) tested the solar-climate connection by comparing high-resolution measurements of drift ice in three North Atlantic deep-sea cores with proxies of changes in solar irradiance through the entire Holocene. Their analyses imply the footprint of the solar impact on climate extended from polar to tropical latitudes. Amongst other things, the authors found five episodes of markedly reduced rainfall at times of very weak solar minima centered on 6 300, 7 400, 8 300, 9 000 and 9 500 years ago. Their analyses imply that at times of reduced solar irradiance, the downward-propagating effects triggered by changes in stratospheric Ozone lead to a cooling of the high northern latitude atmosphere, a slight downward shift of the northern tropical jet, and a decrease in the Northern Hadley circulation.

    Stager, Ruzmaikin et al (2007) concluded that there is no doubt that solar irradiance plays a central role in establishing the rhythm of diurnal, seasonal, and orbital-scale climate cycles. They reported that solar irradiance drives convection and migrations of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. They showed that significant relationships between the solar cycle and rainfall existed in East Africa during the 20th century. Stager, Ruzmaikin et al (2007) demonstrated how sunspot cycles could be used to predict positive regional rainfall anomalies several years in advance. They recommended that this knowledge be used to improve the circumstances of people, having regard to the serious consequences that heavy rains in East Africa have for soil erosion, hydropower generation, flooding, and insect-borne disease, and that they can also affect regions farther north that respond to the ebb and flow of the Nile.

    Georgieva and Kirov (2007) have shown that the long term variations in terrestrial temperature (that some have attributed to an increased volume of Carbon Dioxide generated by human activity) are due to the Sun’s poloidal fields.

    Variable solar electromagnetic activity directly affects the rate of rotation of the Earth’s core as does the solar wind and the Sun’s variable gravitational field. Variations in the Earth’s rotation change the atmosphere’s angular momentum, and this in turn, changes the climate. There is a highly significant correlation between variations in the Earth’s rotation rate and global surface temperature.

    Duhau (2006) has documented the effect of the Sun’s variable electromagnetic field on climate concludes:

    Summing up, we have presented evidence that solar activity variation excites a semi-secular cycle in the Earth’s rotation rate with a 94 year delay and that this cycle in the earth’s rotation rate in turn forces surface temperature variations…according to our results surface temperature changes by 0.022o C for each millisecond in LoD.

    Duhau (2006) has found that“….long term variations in sunspot maxima will appear about 94 years later in the Earth’ surface temperature.” According to Georgieva (2006), Kirov et al 2002 demonstrated that the Earth’s rotation rate depends on the magnetic polarity of the Sun.

    According to Georgieva (2006) the 22-year Hale solar magnetic cycle is evident also in the Length of Day (LoD) variations. LoD is minimum, and the Earth rotates fastest, in maximum negative polarity in the sunspot minimum between odd and even sunspot maxima. LoD is maximum (the Earth rotation rate is lowest) in maximum positive solar polarity (around sunspot minimum between an even and odd sunspot cycle).

    The one major weakness with all the recently published review type papers is that they do not review the totality of the Sun’s variable activity, i.e.

    1. The Sun’s variable output of:

    (a) radiation, and
    (b) matter;

    2. The Sun’s variable electromagnetic field;
    3. The Sun’s variable gravitational field; and
    4. The Sun’s variable shape.

    The interactions between them, their effect on all of the key climate variables and the interactions between these effects nor present the hypothesised processes by means of which variable solar activity of all types contributes to the Earth’s climate dynamics.

    This could be corrected in the proposed paper.

    When the Panel reported on April 25 2007 it released papers about some of the effects of some aspects of variable solar activity on some Earth processes (e.g. communication channels, electricity grids). Whilst this is useful, its significance pales in comparison to the findings previously summarised (e.g. Labitizke, Feynman and colleagues, Georgieva, Tung and colleagues). Now is the time to address the big picture as NASA has done in the past, e.g. Herman and Goldberg (1978).

    What do you think Leif?

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

    References

    Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M. N., Showers, W., Hoffman, S., Lotti-B, R., Hajdas, I., and Bonani, G. 2001. “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene” Science 294 No. 5549, pps 2130-2136; doi:10.1126/science.1065680, 2001.
    Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
    Burroughs, W. J., 2003. Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary? Cambridge University Press. Second Edition.
    Duhau, Silvia, 2006. “Solar Activity, Earth’s rotation rate and climate variations in the secular and semi-secular time scales” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol. 31 pp 99 to 108.
    Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
    Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2007. “Climate stability and the development of agricultural societies, Climatic Change Vol 84, Nos 3-4. doi10.1007/s10584-007-9248-1.
    Georgieva, K. and Kirov, B., 2007. “Long term changes in solar meridional circulation as the cause for the long-term changes in the correlation between solar and geomagnetic activity” submitted to Annales Geophysicae on 19 March 2007 published on the internet at http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703187.pdf
    Georgieva, K., 2006. “Solar Dynamics and Solar-Terrestrial Influences”. A chapter in Space Science: New Research edited by Nick Maravell (ISBN: 9781600210051) Nova Science Pub Inc.
    Haigh, J. D., 2007. “The Sun and the Earth’s Climate”. Living Reviews of Solar Physics, 4, (2007), 2. [Online Article]: cited [], http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2007-2
    Haigh, J. D., 2006. Introduction. The introductory chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer.
    Haigh, J. D., 2004. The Earth’s Climate and its Response to Solar Variability. Chapter 1 in Haigh, J. D., Lockwood, M. and Giampapa, M. S., Solar Variability and Planetary Climates. Springer; pps 1-107.
    Herman, John R., and Goldberg, Richard A., (1978). Sun, Weather and Climate Scientific and Technical Information Branch National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington D.C.
    Kirov, B.; Georgieva, K.; Javaraiah, J., 2002. In: Proceedings of 10th European Solar Physics Meeting “Solar Variability: From Core to Outer Frontiers”, 2002, ESA SP-506, 149-152
    Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar-Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps445-466.
    Labitzke, K., 2006. Solar Variation and Stratospheric Response. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 247-260.
    Labitzke, K., 2005. On the Solar Cycle-QBO-Relationship: A Summary. Journal of Atmospheric, Solar and Terrestrial Physics Special Issue, 67, 45 – 54.
    Labitzke, K., Kunze, M. and Brinnimann, S., 2006. Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region -20 years later, Meteorologische Zeitschrift (15) No. 3, pps. 355-363.
    Stager, J. C., A. Ruzmaikin, D. Conway, P. Verburg, and P. J. Mason 2007. Sunspots, El Nino, and the levels of Lake Victoria, East Africa, Journal of Geophysics Research, 112, D15106, doi:10.1029/2006JD008362.
    Tobias, S., and Weis, N. O., 2000. Resonant Interactions between Solar Activity and Climate. Journal of Climate, 13, 3745 – 3759.

  108. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 3:36 AM | Permalink

    Re 101, Dr Svalgaard thankyou for the opportunity to comment on Erl Happ’s work. Of course that is a task that is well beyond my abilities so instead I will say what a great bloke he is. Erl invited me down to his winery, 300 km south of Perth, earlier this year. I took down a case of grand cru champagne and my chainsaw, so you can imagine that it was a great weekend. We broke bread, swam in the southern ocean in mid-winter, cooked on open fires, drank deeply of his prize-winning shiraz. Erl is one of the pioneers of viticulture in that area, and has a great love and depth of knowledge of winemaking.

  109. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    David,
    You are a gentleman and a scholar.

  110. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 7:16 AM | Permalink

    re 108 (pochas):

    This leaves the question of how (or whether) the ~4 year ENSO cycle interacts to produce the ~ 55 year full PDO cycle.

    Could you point me to references/links that describe a 55 year PDO cycle? Thanks!

  111. Bob B
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

    Leif, could you comment on the 1470yr cycle? Rahmstorf had published a paper which I can’t seem to find in my paper pile which showed a very clear 1470yr cycle in temperature in the Lake Vostok ice core temperature extractions. His analysis showed the 1470yr period to be accurate to within 2% and his conclusion was that this was from a Solar influence. Looking at the Ice core data you can easlily see +/1 1-2degree swings in temperature.

  112. Pete
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    Patrick M / Erl – Patrick I noticed earlier you mentioned that a PDO flip in Solar Min is more likely to then be a decadal change. Also Erl has detailed various mechanisms that ENSO could be modulated by Solar acitivity. In regard to this, what do you both make of the latest NOAA forecast issued on Xmas Eve shown here : NOAA ENSO UPDATE – It details that the current Moderate La Nina is expected to strengthen into 2008 and may be become Strong by Spring. The Mean Ensemble members show February with an Index of around -2.5, which would be lowest negative Index since at least 1950 I believe. Do you think it is highly likely that the development of this change in ENSO had been catalysed by the current Solar Minimum? In view of the large negative swing being forecast in 2008, do you also feel this is the Big Flip we’ve been waiting for since 1976?

  113. Erl Happ
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    114 (Pete) Right on.

    Notice todays report ‘La Nina poses risk to the corn crop in the US’. http://wallacesfarmer.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpStory&fpsid=31480&fpstid=2

    SYDNEY is experiencing its stormiest summer since 1961 – there have been 13 thunderstorms, and widespread rain, since November 19. In case you havent been told, this La Nina will break the Australian drought. Some regions flooded already. January February and March to follow.

    I think US meteorologists are generally underestimating this La Nina and underestimating the effect of the existing cold pool in the North Pacific that is the result of the 2006 La Nina.

    Geomagnetic activity is at very low levels. IMF B is very low. Hadley cell is stalled and there is generalised high humidity in the latitudes 30N to 30S. There will be wide swings in temperature and unexpected rainfall events due to thunderstorm activity over warm land masses, especially on the western sides of the oceaqns where pools of warm water remain. Frontal systems will travel closer to the Equator. Mid latitude deserts on the west coast of the continents will get rain from fronts and thunderstorms.

  114. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    113 (Bob): In GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 10, 1510, doi:10.1029/2003GL017115, 2003, Rahmstorf himself points out that the cycle is too regular to be in the Earth system and also too regular to be in the Sun, he concludes that “The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery”. And the cycle is in Greenland Ice cores, not Vostok [AFAIK], and one might wonder why not Vostok? Maybe not a global thing. Maybe connected with ocean conditions near Greenland, who knows… The 1470-yr period is close to the ~1500-yr period found by the late Gerard Bond. A good picture of Gerard and me can be found on page 4 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf :-)

  115. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    re 114 (Pete):

    It looks like 2007-2008 is going to be a good test of the pattern I see in the data, (we won’t know for a long time will we? ;-) ). The difficulty I have with the PDO is determining “exactly” when the flips are, and what exactly is a major flip versus a minor flip. Sometimes it’s pretty easy, (1976-1977), and sometimes it’s a cloudier picture, (~1900-~1922). That’s why I’m glad that someone with Leif Svalgaard’s experience and knowledge is looking at the data. It’s easy to fool oneself, especially if we are thinking this is “the Big Flip we’ve been waiting for since 1976″.

    I’ll be interested to hear what Erl has to say about what causes the flips, because I am deliberately staying away from that question. I’m only observing a pattern in the lengths of PDO phases, not what causes the flips, (although I guess that is tangential to what causes them).

  116. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    110 (David A):

    Of course that is a task that is well beyond my abilities

    This is too easy an answer. Erl has many points in his list, are you saying that every single one of those is well beyond your ability? If not, then comment on the ones that you think are within your ability. This is how science progresses, by examining every link in the chain and determining which ones are strong and which are weak, then finding explanations for the strong, or have the weak refute the end result. Same goes for Erl, and everybody else who professses to know what is going on. I’m excempt, of course, as I don’t claim to know how the sun influences the climate, if at all.

  117. kim
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    Sometimes I think you do have it figured out.
    ===========================

  118. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

    109 (Richard):

    Should not the [NASA] Panel, when it next reports in April 2008, release a critical review of the literature type paper of the hypothesised relationships between the totality of variable solar activity and climate?

    While the influence of solar activity on geomagnetic activity, ionospheric conditions, electrical infrastructure, and communications are without doubt and, more importantly, are of a nature that can be predicted [to a point] and acted upon by parties involved, the same cannot be said about possible solar influence on weather and climate. The task of the Panel is not to convince anybody of such relationships, but simply [!] to predict solar activity so that interested parties can act as they see fit.

    One of the problems with solar-climate-weather relations is that there are too many of them. The literature is vast, and many of the claims are contradictory and [truth be told] of dubious quality. Science builds on previous research and progress ensues from interlocking and supporting pieces of evidence. Very little of the sun-climate-weather ‘research’ participates in this effort and thus there is no real progress.

  119. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    113, 116: The 1470-yr cycle.

    http://www.geosci.unc.edu/faculty/rial/GPCLode.pdf

    Global and Planetary Change 41 (2004) 95–109
    Abrupt climate change: chaos and order at orbital and millennial scales
    J.A. Rial

    Abstract: Successful prediction of future global climate is critically dependent on understanding its complex history, some of which is displayed in paleoclimate time series extracted from deep-sea sediment and ice cores. These recordings exhibit frequent episodes of abrupt climate change believed to be the result of nonlinear response of the climate system to internal or external forcing, yet, neither the physical mechanisms nor the nature of the nonlinearities involved are well understood. At the orbital (104–105 years) and millennial scales, abrupt climate change appears as sudden, rapid warming events, each followed by periods of slow cooling. The sequence often forms a distinctive saw-tooth shaped time series, epitomized by the deep-sea records of the last million years and the Dansgaard–Oeschger (D/O) oscillations of the last glacial. Here I introduce a simplified mathematical model consisting of a novel arrangement of coupled nonlinear differential equations that appears to capture some important physics of climate change at Milankovitch and millennial scales, closely reproducing the saw-tooth shape of the deepsea sediment and ice core time series, the relatively abrupt mid-Pleistocene climate switch, and the intriguing D/O oscillations. Named LODE for its use of the logistic-delayed differential equation, the model combines simplicity in the formulation (two equations, small number of adjustable parameters) and sufficient complexity in the dynamics (infinite-dimensional nonlinear delay differential equation) to accurately simulate details of climate change other simplified models cannot. Close agreement with available data suggests that the D/O oscillations are frequency modulated by the third harmonic of the precession forcing, and by the precession itself, but the entrained response is intermittent, mixed with intervals of noise, which corresponds well with the idea that the climate operates at the edge between chaos and order. LODE also predicts a persistent ~1.5 ky oscillation that results from the frequency modulated regional climate oscillation.

  120. pochas
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    #112 Patrick M:

    Could you point me to references/links that describe a 55 year PDO cycle?

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    arrived at by tabulating the dates given in the caption for the chart. I get cool 1890-1924, 35 years: warm 1925-1946, 22 years, cycle total 57 years, then cool 1947-1976, 30 years: warm 1977-1998, 22 years, cycle total 52 years. Other sources do not agree at all.

  121. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    re 121 (pochas):

    Just looking at the graph on the site referenced is enough to convince me that a cool phase PDO from 1890-1924 is in question. In fact I think a case can be made for a warm phase from late 1880’s to somewhere around 1913-1915 followed by a minor cool phase from ~1915-1922 which then yields to warm again until ~1944. It also depends on what data you are using. I have three different sets of data that are not in close agreement.

    As I said before, I find it very tricky to determine when the flips occur. If I use simple smoothing like moving averages I have to watch out for the smoothing possibly moving the dates of the flips. I have also tried a heuristic method that progresively folds the phases up like an accordion to try to find the “major” flips. I always try to step back and look at the result of any filtering with plain old common sense. A cool 1890-1924 is not getting past my common sense filter.

    Go back and look at the graph here and tell me which looks like a better fit, a cool 1890-1924 or my description above.

  122. pochas
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    #122 Patric M:

    In fact I think a case can be made for a warm phase from late 1880’s to somewhere around 1913-1915

    I’d say it is hard to characterize the period prior to 1924.

    If you have a theory about PDO that wants a warm 1890-1915, let’s hear it.

    I have a prejudice that all data prior to 1980 is suspect, and that mankind will survive long enough to get good data.

  123. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    49-50 (Patrick): if the data begins in 1900 or 1850, how can you say anything about 1824? Note, EIGHTEEN hundred 24. If you have data before 1850, where do they come from?

  124. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    re 124(Leif):

    If you look at the reconstructed PDO links I posted in #53 you’ll see that the first one goes from 993 A.D. to 1996 and the second one goes from 1661 A.D. to 1991. The link I posted in #50 is from 1900 to the present. What links were you looking at?

  125. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    re 123 (pochas):

    I’d say it is hard to characterize the period prior to 1924.

    I agree. That was my point in #122. Also see #117

    If you have a theory about PDO that wants a warm 1890-1915, let’s hear it.

    See post #117. I’m working on it. But as I said in 117, it’s very tricky during some time periods.

    I have a prejudice that all data prior to 1980 is suspect, and that mankind will survive long enough to get good data

    Well if you’ve been reading ClimateAudit for any length of time, I’m suprised that you feel 1980+ data is okay. ;-) The only reason I starting looking at the data was because the climatic shift of 1976-1977 got stuck in my head. Such a sudden shift doesn’t seem to go along with AGW. So I started looking at the PDO data. Nothing really stood out until one day I was reading about solar cycles and I saw the date 1976. I started playing around with matching up solar cycles and PDO flips. After a few tries the pattern associating phase length with flip timing popped out, (see 48, 50 and 53). The only problem was the first set of data was from 1900 on. It’s really not enough to verify a real pattern. So I looked and found the reconstructed PDO data. The problem with that data is that it doesn’t seem like such a good match for the more recent PDO data. I’m aware from reading CA that splicing data sets is not usually a good idea, so now I’m pondering how to approach the various data sets without injecting my personal bias, (that a pattern does exist).

  126. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    123-126: PDO: I just barely see some of the things you folks see. First off, the data looks noisy and the several datasets don’t agree too well on a year-by-year basis. I have plotted two of them here:

    The heavy curves are a 5-year running mean. The lower plot shows the common years since 1661 together with the sunspot curve. I don’t see any systematic relation. A power spectrum of PDO does have a (weak) peak at 10 years. If there is any [hard to see] relation with the sunspot numbers it seems to be too weak to have predictive power.

  127. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    If anyone had asked earlier would you have guessed that we would be entering 2008 without a single cycle 24 sunspot? Do you have any thoughts on what that means for the next cycle? And what about that darn cycle 23 active area that is coming back into view now?

    Thanks and Happy new year!!

  128. John Lang
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    The new sunspot system coming into view looks to be a monster.

    The latest Stereo Behind image (actually looks behind the horizon of the Sun as seen from Earth) shows massive magnetic force lines.

  129. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    re 128 (Leif):

    The reconstructed data that you used is showing a pretty negative dip at 1900. But if you look at the historical set from 1900-present, 1900 looks like:

    1900 0.04 1.32 0.49 0.35 0.77 0.65 0.95 0.14 -0.24 0.23 -0.44 1.19
    1901 0.79 -0.12 0.35 0.61 -0.42 -0.05 -0.60 -1.20 -0.33 0.16 -0.60 -0.14
    1902 0.82 1.58 0.48 1.37 1.09 0.52 1.58 1.57 0.44 0.70 0.16 -1.10
    1903 0.86 -0.24 -0.22 -0.50 0.43 0.23 0.40 1.01 -0.24 0.18 0.08 -0.03
    1904 0.63 -0.91 -0.71 -0.07 -0.22 -1.53 -1.58 -0.64 0.06 0.43 1.45 0.06
    1905 0.73 0.91 1.31 1.59 -0.07 0.69 0.85 1.26 -0.03 -0.15 1.11 -0.50

    If I calculate the 5 year average centered on each month and then count the length of runs of positive or negative phases, I get the following, (where it’s ((year, month) +/-) length in months). For example the first entry shows the 5 year smoothed PDO positive for 91 months starting in July 1902.

    ((1902, 7), 1.0) 91
    ((1910, 2), -1.0) 1
    ((1910, 3), 1.0) 7
    ((1910, 10), -1.0) 2
    ((1910, 12), 1.0) 55
    ((1915, 7), -1.0) 92
    ((1923, 3), 1.0) 254
    ((1944, 5), -1.0) 174
    ((1958, 11), 1.0) 5
    ((1959, 4), -1.0) 1
    ((1959, 5), 1.0) 1
    ((1959, 6), -1.0) 2
    ((1959, 8), 1.0) 1
    ((1959, 9), -1.0) 216
    ((1977, 9), 1.0) 257
    ((1999, 2), -1.0) 39
    ((2002, 5), 1.0) 37

    10 year average:

    ((1905, 1), 1.0) 97
    ((1913, 2), -1.0) 107
    ((1922, 1), 1.0) 282
    ((1945, 7), -1.0) 384
    ((1977, 7), 1.0) 305

    The problem is that the reconstructed data doesn’t really match the historical data very well, as you noticed. If I run the same 10 year average on the data from 1661-1991 I get:

    ((1666, 1), -1.0) 114
    ((1675, 7), 1.0) 372
    ((1706, 7), -1.0) 100
    ((1714, 11), 1.0) 145
    ((1726, 12), -1.0) 171
    ((1741, 3), 1.0) 111
    ((1750, 6), -1.0) 132
    ((1761, 6), 1.0) 172
    ((1775, 10), -1.0) 101
    ((1784, 3), 1.0) 306
    ((1809, 9), -1.0) 37
    ((1812, 10), 1.0) 73
    ((1818, 11), -1.0) 109
    ((1827, 12), 1.0) 141
    ((1839, 9), -1.0) 119
    ((1849, 8), 1.0) 125
    ((1860, 1), -1.0) 43
    ((1863, 8), 1.0) 126
    ((1874, 2), -1.0) 133
    ((1885, 3), 1.0) 129
    ((1895, 12), -1.0) 115
    ((1905, 7), 1.0) 287
    ((1929, 6), -1.0) 71
    ((1935, 5), 1.0) 133
    ((1946, 6), -1.0) 367
    ((1977, 1), 1.0) 120

    Ah well, I doubt we’ll get better proxy PDO data going back before 1900. I will continue to think this over. Thanks for your help. Happy New Year!

  130. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    129: (Dennis): Yes I would. I predict the next cycle to be small, and to start late with only weak activity. Cycle 24 is a test of my method. If I’m wrong, the polar field precursor method falls and must be discarded.

    130: (John): the spot is a return of last rotation’s region. Still cycle 23, and probably the last gasp.

  131. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    Re 118, Dr Svalgaard you continue to be too kind in your expectations of what I am capable of, but I am operating at the limits of my intellectual ability, and barely understand the stuff I believe in myself. I am happy if I can make a tiny original contribution in my area of interest. To that end, above is a plot of solar cycle length versus temperature for the following cycle for Hanover, NH. As far as I know, this is the first time that Svensmark-type work has been done on a US temperature series. Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and Nature are suspended? No? I don’t think so either! We have had a couple of solar cycles in a row that were 10 years long, and now we are nearing the end of a solar cycle that is heading for 12.5 years plus. Make your own estimate of Solar Cycle 23’s length, read along the graph and calculate the temperature drop we are heading for. Any high school student can replicate this work as the data is available on the net.

    What I would like to examine from here is that Be10 spike in the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum had one solar cycle 33 years long followed by one that was 17 years long. How closely do the Be10 and C14 spikes match the bounds of the solar cycles, given that the Be10 spike came late in the Maunder Minimum? If anyone can point me to annual Be10 and C14 data, I would be grateful.

  132. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

    Recycling a graph kindly provided by Maksimovich produces the above, with the solar cycles represented by the coloured bars. The high C14 period persisted one cycle beyond expected, so let’s call this solar attribute “momentum”.

  133. David Archibald
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    Quick and dirty Be10 plot shows no easy correlation.

  134. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    #132

    If has you have hypothesized, the previous cycles over the last couple of hundred years have been understated, and if C-24 is as weak as you think (I am in agreement on that part at least and almost convinced of the rest of your argument), what do you think a weak (smoothed sunspot number of 90 or less) means in regards to the medium term of solar activity? Do you still estimate that the smoothed sunspot number will be around 90 or as the cycle continues to be delayed do you think the number will be yet lower, as low as the estimate of 45 by another researcher (I forget the name).

    Separately but linked: Dr. S.T. Wu from UAH used to talk about fairly accurate long term Chinese records of sunspot activity, stretching back for well over a thousand years. Have you heard of this data and if so has it been analyzed?

    Thanks

  135. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    Re 117 (Patrick)

    I’ll be interested to hear what Erl has to say about what causes the flips

    Re: Pacific Decadal Oscillation I believe this index was originally developed to explain the change in fish populations off the coast of North America.

    Ocean temperatures are determined by heating processes in the tropics.

    In (58) I showed two figures coupled together. One shows the aggregate of the Southern Oscillation Index (air pressure Darwin and Tahiti and fundamental measure of ENSO activity that correlates very closely with temperature anomalies at low latitudes when you invert it) and the second the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. You can see that when the aggregate SOI for an entire solar cycle moves in a particular direction so also does the PDO index.

    On that basis, the PDO signal is misnamed. It is not strictly decadal at all. It is as long as three solar cycles and as short as one. Of course there are changes of amplitude in every cycle but in the graph I refer to, we have a clear signal for cooling over three sunspot cycles prior to 1976. That period finishes with the end of the low amplitude, low geomagnetic activity solar cycle 20. Then we have warming for the next three.

    I expect that pattern to switch with the end of cycle 23 in about a years time because of the slow collapse of IMF B. That is shown in Leif’s graph, the lowest of that post. Since it depends upon sea surface temperature it may already have done so with the accumulated effect of the La Nina of 1996 and the current development.

    This recent three solar cycle event is a wave that sits on a long swell of changing IMF B. It is possible that the swell is just a feature sitting on top another even longer swing.

    I don’t know what causes the recent one to three solar cycle switching points. I suspect it relates to sunspots and the changing relationship between open and closed flux, material coming from the sun as Richard Mackey so aptly describes it, bits of the suns corona flying into space, hydrogen and helium stamped with a forceful magnetic signature.

    We have not seen a reverse polarity sunspot at high latitude yet. As David Archibald points out solar minimum is related to the low point as sunspots from the old cycle peter out and from the new gradually increase in numbers. Where the two cross you have sunspot minimum. That puts solar minimum back perhaps a year from now….or even longer. Perhaps short wave radio hams will pass on to another world before it occurs. They are waiting anxiously. The ionosphere is depleted, UV radiation is depleted, the atmosphere is compact and dense and less solar radiation is getting through. Geomagnetic activity and IMB B is very low but Leif tells us that there is a floor to it.

    There will be an upswing in geomagnetic activity. If the experience over the past eleven solar cycles can be taken as a guide to the future the lowest point of aa activity will occur within two years of the low point of sunspot activity and the next heating event will be fully expressed, regardless of its size, within the following two year span. That puts it at 1 plus 1-2 years away and finished two years after that.

    If cycle 24 is anything like cycle 20 geomagnetic activity will stay low. La Nina will be well exprssed within the cycle. The trend in IMF B suggests that geomagnetic activity is on the wane. The Torrid Zone will become less torrid and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to freeze. Polar bears will have plenty of ice to walk on but perhaps little food. On the other hand the PDO tells us the fishing should improve round Monterrey and perhaps points further north and if the bears can fish they should be OK.

    You might be interested in the Southern Hemisphere too. Antarctica will warm as the Torrid Zone cools, reversing the trend that goes back as far as the first temperature measurements were made at the South Pole at the first US base at Amundsen Scott in 1957. That base is now under ice. The second base is built on piles and can be jacked up like an oil drilling rig on the sea. The physics behind the temperature decline in Antarctica is quite different to the temperature increase we have seen in the Arctic. Very little warm water from the tropics finds its way south. There is a lot of ascending air in the Torrid Zone and it is partly balanced by descending air in the place where the air is densest and heaviest…..Antarctica. It’s a cold desert. There is little snow but it accumulates remorselessly. Every year an ice shelf grows that is big as the continent itself, bigger than the area of the U.S. In summer the shelf melts and a lot of cold water enters the southern Ocean.

    Our midsummer water temperature in Margaret River 34° South is 19.5°C. In Monterrey at 36°latitude you have 16°C in mid summer but the water temperature in Santa Barbara at similar latitude to our own is 18.3. It warms quickly once into the trade wind rain shadow. Not right now because there must be more cloud there. In Bordeaux at 45°N the water temperature in August is 21.5°. So, you get much less benefit from tropical sea surface warming than the Europeans do. That is why the temperatures over the US have been relatively stable as Europe has warmed quite steadily since 1976. The Germans along the Rhine are thinking that they might have to grow Bordeaux grape vaieties. All the work they have put into developing cold tolerant grapes is looking misplaced.

    I came by the long route but I reckon the PDO simply reflects the longer term, sometimes multi solar cycle, changes that are evident in the aggregate of the Southern Oscillation Index that in turn reflects the march of temperature in the tropical Pacific Ocean. That, in turn reflects the flux of material emanating from the sun. The main handle on that is our indices of geomagnetic activity. One day perhaps we will find something that is less ambiguous in its relationship to temperature.

    I realise these are extraordinary claims but hope to clarify shortly.

  136. Patrick M.
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    re 137 (Erl):

    Your graph in 58 caught my eye before. By chosing the endpoints of your aggregates to match the endpoints of the solar cycles haven’t you built the solar cycle into your result? I have some SOI data that I will look through. I will have to read up on the aa geomagnetic influence and IMF B.

    [Off Topic] I would like to look through the data today but I’m off with my wife and my 10 year old son, (yep that’s him in the video), to the Liberty Science Museum, in New Jersey, (USA).

  137. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    138 (Patrick) Good point. Why not choose an arbitrary five, seven, 10, 15 year period and see how it compares. I must say I was taken with the clear expression of a cycle that came up when the data was divided according to sunspots. It might be more logical to choose aa cycle length perhaps but the result would be little different. There are good reasons to choose sunspots though in terms of the known variability of irradiance and short wave radiation both of which affect energy levels reaching the surface, especially in the tropics.

    The tropics is the place where most heat is gained, the SOI is the best expression of temperature variability that we have given the lack of reliable temperature data there over a long enough period. Geomagnetic activity drives some aspects of atmospheric behaviour. These are all good reasons to choose solar cycle length.

  138. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    I am going to read these tea leaves tomorrow. Any thoughts? Perhaps what this shows is one good reason to divide temperature data according to the sunspot cycle. Or at least be aware of it and mark the cycle in to your graph on the off chance that something pops up.

    If you can’t see a geomagnetic signal here that is sunspot related, either you are not looking or I am with the fairies.

  139. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    134 (David A): the colored bars don’t match up with the minima in the 14C.

    136 (Dennis): My prediction stands at 71 +/- 7. The Panel settled on 90 for the low forecast because there were a couple of fence-sitters pulling up the vote. Mark Clilverd’d prediction of 42 is based on what Ken Schatten call ‘cyclomania’ and is not credible IMHO.
    Chinse and Korean naked eye sunspot observations have been studied by several workers, including Schove. [Google: schove sunspot]

  140. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    140 (Erl): So based on your graph, you would predict a sharp peak in low-latitude temps rising 0.5 deg above the background [your pink ovals] during the rising phase of cycle 24, say 2009-2011? and a minimum in 2007-2008? Does David agree with the sharp rise?

  141. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

    Here is a nice explanation of the solar dynamo model of the cycle:

    http://www.iiap.res.in/personnel/dipu/xrt/piyali_xrt.pdf

  142. a scientist
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    26 (Leif)

    “…previous papers that purport to have shown a solar connection did not establish significant results, so maybe I’m allowed to be a bit sceptical[sic].”

    This may be your opinion, but it is not what Camp and Tung claimed, to wit:

    “The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.”

    To my mind the words “globally coherent” are at the heart of their claim. By brushing them aside, you seem to have slipped below the standards you yourself have set for reasoned discourse, and ascribed to others a judgment that is actually your own.

  143. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    141 (Leif)

    Wow, 71! As you know, this is a fundamentally interesting drop in the sunspot cycle varation (assuming that you are correct about the last 200 years). I remember that the meridonal circulation has slowed dramatically over the past decade from some SOHO related papers. If this cycle is that low, which is ~40% lower than CY-23, which itself is 35% lower than CY 22, this to me implies a systemic change in solar activity. I have read where others forecast an extremely weak CY-25 (which you don’t as of yet and I understand why).

    Are you willing to make any speculation related to the possibility of a Maunder Minimum type event?

  144. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    144 )a scientist): “globally coherent”. The general debate about how much of global warming might be due to the sun is presumably concerned with a ‘globally coherent’ signal. It is perhaps true that Camp and Tung believe that significant effects have been found on a less than global scale, but their papers did not indicate such. I am not ‘brushing’ them aside. I took their statement as confirmation of my own assessment that no global signal had been established. Their papers also did not indicate that they believed there were ‘incoherent’ signals, so my interpretation of their statement seems to me to be justified. Maybe you can point out where they advocate ‘regional incoherent’ solar effects? I could have missed it.

  145. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    145 (Dennis): I don’t know if a Maunder type minimum is coming. I would welcome it, so that we can calibrate our proxies and confirm/refute some speculations, but I have no valid basis for thinking it is coming.

  146. Gunnar
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    >> 7% difference between January and July

    Leif, I think I know, but does the 7% variation show up in this data?

  147. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    148 (Gunnar): no, 7% of 1365 is 96 W/m^2, and the Figure only shows a variation of a small fraction of one percent, about a hundred times smaller. So, you did know after all.

  148. Gunnar
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    >> So, you did know after all

    No, I was completely wrong. Didn’t think.

    But here is 3 years worth of data, data point every 24 hours, if I’m not mistaken again. Shouldn’t the 96 W/m2 show up here?

  149. a scientist
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    146

    I don’t presume to know what Camp and Tung think about local or regional evidence, except that statistically significant globally coherent evidence is an advance. Apparently for you their silence constitutes support for your judgment that anything less than a globally coherent signal is insignificant. Coming from you, I find that argument surprising and out of character.

  150. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    The graph posted in 140 relates temperature anomalies at low latitudes (I like the old fashioned term Torrid Zone for its brevity and the implied importance to the Earths heat budget) to the sunspot cycle. The cycles are marked as is also the time of sunspot maximum as defined by a group in Belgium. I have these dates courtesy of David Archibald.

    My interpretation is that the peaks in Torrid Zone temperature anomalies that occur after sunspot maximum (blue circles) are clearly related to sunspot activity and closed flux from coronal holes, flares and sunspots from all over the sun. They come in a high speed stream with a variable magnetic signature but of short duration. Their point of origin affects the impact they have on the Earth.

    These peaks in temperature that occur after sunspot maximum therefore depend upon consistent renewal of stimulus. The aa index of geomagnetic activity swings very wildly from month to month at this time and in some cycles there does not appear to be a big response in temperatures or a strict relationship between geomagnetic activity and temperature anomaly. Nevertheless the last three cycles, that have well developed lumps and bumps, exhibit a clear relationship. In others, where swings in sunspot activity and associated geomagnetic activity are more transient and less well defined, the relationship deteriorates.

    Between sunspot minimum and sunspot maximum there are no marked bumps in sunspot activity and yet we have anomalously high temperatures clearly apparent. These are marked with a heavy pink circle. From graphical analysis I know that these peaks occur as the aa index turns up and do so within the space of two years from the aa index minimum. At solar minimum and for a variable period of up to two years afterwards, aa activity is low and the fluctuation in activity from month to month is slight but his feature is variable in length and floor level. From my very limited understanding of the solar wind and geomagnetic activity: at this time the solar wind is streaming from a relatively well defined ring roughly defined by the solar equator. It is interesting that it tends to imbalance on one side or the other and this gradually balances up as we get closer to sunspot minimum. Ulric may have a suggestion as to why this is so. The wind at this time is high in mass but low in speed with a relatively invariable magnetic signature. My interpretation, and it is evolving as I learn more, is that such a wind has little effect on the Earths magnetosphere, the magnetopause will be distant, the ring current relaxed, the ionosphere thin (hence low radio propagation) and the atmosphere uninflated allowing satellites to travel at low altitude without encountering drag. Something causes this situation to change even prior to the upswing in the aa index to produce a major reaction in the near Earth environment to allow more solar radiation to get through the Earths atmosphere. The upswing is evident in the Southern Oscillation Index which precedes the temperature anomaly. What is it? Whatever it is can produce the spectactular result shown by the pink circles. No, I wouldnt project the line and suggest that the next instance will be large. I would suggest that it will behave like the SOI index. A progression, then a drop. A sawtooth arrangement. Something winds up the lackey, then it breaks.

    Very small fluctuations in aa activity, when aa is low around sunspot minimum, seem to be associated with big swings in torrid zone temperature (via Southern Oscillation Index as proxy). This manifests most strongly between Cycle 13 and 14 and 14 and 15. The amplitude of the swings in the aa index declines as solar minimum is approached but variably so between cycles. This factor, I imagine, is responsible for the apparently anomalous heating late in cycle 22 that is identified inside a green circle.

    Because the period at aa minimum, when the inter-monthly variation in aa is low, is of highly variable length it is not possible to define a period where one would test a correlation. This period of flat aa is longest in the early cycles.

    A correlation co-efficient is therefore a big ask. The matter is probably better approached in terms of case study analysis. The first thing I have done is to trace the frequency and examine the expression of falling temperature anomalies in the decline phase of aa and the occurrence of the heating that occurs as aa turns up.

    I am defining time intervals either side of aa minimum. An upswing in the SOI occurred in every cycle but one between 13 and 23 within the space of the two years following the exact time of aa minimum as smoothed with a six months trend line. Solar cycle 17 was the single exception. SC 17 started September 1933. The period between 1932 and 1938 was one of low and invariable aa activity with little temperature movement either way. As I said no heating event occurred before solar maximum. A single massive heating event followed solar maximum lasting from late 1939 to late 1942 with very little increase in total aa activity but large swings in aa index from month to month and the cycle was completed in April 1944.

    Furthermore, the SOI indicates cooling in some part of the two year period prior to aa minimum except in two cases of the eleven and in these two cases there were fillips in aa activity just prior to aa minimum.

    Nowhere in the record except in the first twenty years of the last century is the monthly variation in aa as low as it has been over the last 12 months.

    On the basis of the pattern expressed I would not expect solar minimum until early 2010. On that basis the current La Nina could last for a year from now (highly likely) or even two. Aa minimum has followed sunspot minimum within the space of two years in this dataset that covers solar cycles from 13 to 23. A tiny fillip in aa during this last stage of decline can accelerate the appearance of the El Nino as it did in 1997-8 or establish an early El Nino (2cases in 11) so nothing is sure. It’s a study in probabilities based on the assumption that the past performance can be used as a guide to the future. Without knowing more about the mechanisms driving the sun that is all one can do.

    The graph that I am working on is too large to reproduce here.

  151. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

    147 (Leif) It would really end some of the questions, one way or another about solar vs anthropogenic forces!

    148 (Gunnar) ALL of the data sets shown are “normalized” in that they remove the summer/winter variability. The best numbers that I have seen is that the maximum TSI is about 1388 w/m2 on January 3, and 1326 on July 3rd. changes slowly moving forward over time.

    In the space world we normalize to 1358 watts/m2 for solar irradiance at 1 AU. I don’t know why there is a difference between the engineering number and the normalized scientific number. I can actually see the variation in solar panel output on spacecraft during the year. Just imagine that at the maximum eccentricity the variation is 15% which would result in a huge change in irradiance during the year.

  152. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    152 (Erl): So, no predictions, in spite of the ‘great predictive power expressed in #88.

    151 (a ‘scientist’): This blog is about the science, not about peoples’ character. Please keep that in mind. Now, about C&T: They claim [and I agree] that there has not been statistically significant results on ‘global coherent’ nature before their study [setting aside, whether theirs is]. It is normal procedure in a scientisfic paper to discuss previous result that may have a bearing of the subject of the paper, and had there been statistically significant results of any kind, including of a ‘regional incoherent’ nature, they should have been referred to. Since they were not, there either wasn’t any [my interpretation], or C&T were sloppy and didn’t do their homework or deviated from normal procedure [which should have been caught by the Reviewers or the Editor]. Note, that I’m not brushing aside or belitteling the C&T work. I’m at a loss why you have a problem with the science motivation of my quoting them, but [sigh] understanding human nature is much harder than to understand the science, so maybe we just stick to the latter, shall we?

  153. Gunnar
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    >> 148 (Gunnar) ALL of the data sets shown are “normalized” in that they remove the summer/winter variability.

    Wow! Leif or Dennis, where can I get the raw data, before normalization?

  154. a scientist
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    It seems we can’t communicate. I apologize for anything I wrote that might be interpreted as against your character, because that would be the exact opposite of my intent.

  155. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    You are a hard man Leif. I would have expected that to establish a relationship whereby one could have some probability of defining the course of the current cooling event and the next warming event and to link it to an index that responds to solar emanations, well, at the least you might consider it to be a useful addition to the toolkit.

    Is there nothing in the detail that you want to correct me on? What about the detail of my previous post (92). You mentioned four sections that you could not agree with but, so far, no detail. You are leaving me in the dark.

  156. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    #155 (Gunnar) I have no idea where the raw data is. I have never seen anything but the normalized data. I had to dig through a lot of engineering documentation before I found the min and max numbers. I can see the numbers on solar arrays on spacecraft but that is an uncalibrated number from a scientific perspective.

    Leif

    They have finally put up new numbers on the NOAA website that are much closer to yours on the estimated smoothed sunspot number for C-24

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict_low.txt

    Interesting.

  157. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 9:37 PM | Permalink

    157 (Erl): ‘you are a hard man’. No, it is the problem that is hard. And most of what you imagine about aa is actually wrong, or incorrect, or incomplete and vague to a degree that makes it hard to correct. But, I don’t think it matters that you are incorrect in the details, because you actually don’t use most of them for anything, hence it makes little sense to dwell on them. The key item that I have identified in your posts [and and do take the time to sudy them carefully] is the idea that the atmosphere is ‘thinner’ at times and that at such times more sunlight is let through. The problem I have with this is that it is not clear if you imagine that the rest is reflected or absorbed. In any case, the atmosphere is so thin at 250 km height that it can hardly effect the temperature or energy at the surface. So your mechanism does not seem to be energetically viable. This is something that people have looked at many times over the years and the energetics is not favorable. All this can be calculated in great detail but here is not the place to do this. Other readers can weigh in on this, if they desire, but this is well-trodden ground.
    The temperature record for the last three cycles is not long enough to establish the relation without a theory to guide your interpretation of the wiggles.

    155 (Gunnar): I have posted this before, the data is here

    156: accepted.

  158. Gunnar
    Posted Jan 1, 2008 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

    Dennis, in the data text files at SORCE:

    Column 5: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at 1-AU (W/m^2)
    Column 10: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at Earth distance (W/m^2)

    It was just the graph that I posted in 150 that was the 1-AU data.

  159. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 12:53 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    The only comment of substance that I can glean from 159 is:

    The problem I have with this is that it is not clear if you imagine that the rest is reflected or absorbed. In any case, the atmosphere is so thin at 250 km height that it can hardly affect the temperature or energy at the surface.

    Let us first recognise that the temperature in the tropics fluctuates strongly. It does so due to the change in the amount of radiation that reaches and is absorbed at the surface.

    There is no other medium for attenuation of solar radiation than the atmosphere and one way or another it manages to prevent 50% of the incident radiation reaching the surface. The potential for variation in that proportion is enormous. The most important source is undoubtedly the degree of cloud cover. That is mediated by the Hadley cell.

    You have to have a sense of scale. Take a soccer ball. Pour over a glass of water and you have the thickness of 80% of the neutral atmosphere. The clouds content within this skin is about 60%. What makes the clouds expand and contract in relation to the Torrid zone? Answer: the extent to which it is torrid. This drives the size of the Hadley cell that is equipped with the biggest natural air drier that it is possible to conceive. The temperature at the tropopause above the Inter –Tropical- Convergence gets down as low as minus 80°C. In the industrial manufacture of ozone that is the temperature that must be reached for efficient production. Otherwise, ozone is dissolved as fast as you make it. Unless the stratosphere is dry, ozone can not exist. This also enables the Earth to keep hold of its water. By this process the spatial area that is covered by cloud increases and decreases with the energy driving this cell. It is driven by the release of the latent heat of condensation, in turn dependent upon evaporation in turn dependent upon energy input.

    If the Earth loses its water it will get very hot.

    I have detailed many mechanisms that tend to reinforce each other once the upper atmosphere and the troposphere warms fractionally.

    This phenomenon is the most likely source of interaction between the sun and the earth that has the possibility of affecting terrestrial temperature. The mechanics of its operation are clear and they are powerful.

    I can not imagine why you continue to assert that the impact of the solar wind finishes at 250 km. There is no neutral atmosphere beyond about 100 km. The process that enables elements of the atmosphere to react to electrical and magnetic force does not end at 250 km. It continues right down to the surface with significant ionic population in the D layer at 50km on the dayside, and on the nightside due to the contribution of cosmic rays.

    How is it that a magnetometer situated at the surface can register this force if it is entirely absorbed at 250 kilometres?

    There is in fact plenty of scope for the solar wind to interact with ions and neutrals, at least to the level of the lower stratosphere where the existence of ozone testifies to the impact of short wave radiation that creates the particles with unbalanced electrical charges that do respond. It is a sea of material that is capable of responding and, like a pebble dropped into a pool, the ripple will extend to the limits of the medium.

    OK. You don’t like it. At least test it. Eliminate the possibility by checking relationships. Any high school student could do this by shifting the time slots that are two years either side of aa minimum and looking for the warming and the cooling signal.

    Like to put some money on the result?

  160. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 12:57 AM | Permalink

    Leif
    By the way, if the ground has been well trodden what about some references? I must have missed them.

  161. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

    162 (Erl):

    Well-trodden, here is but one example:
    A. F. C. Bridger and D. E. Stevens:
    The dynamical response of the lower atmosphere to upper atmosphere forcing and the sun-weather problem
    Journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
    ISSN 0177-7971 (Print) 1436-5065 (Online)
    Issue Volume 32, Number 4 / December, 1983

    Summary: A time-dependent, primitive-equation numerical model is used to test the hypothesis that solar variations induce changes in the distributions of basic state variables at high levels in the atmosphere, and thus induce changes in planetary-scale wave structure at lower atmospheric levels. This mechanism was proposed to explain apparent atmospheric responses to solar activity. The changes are brought about in the model by a diabatic heat source, which is taken to be a simple representation of Joule dissipative heating. Lower atmospheric wave structure is found to be insensitive to solar-induced changes in the upper atmosphere. Such changes as do occur are limited to within 25 to 40 km below the level of maximum heating, and are also quite short-lived.

    —–

    The whole subject of sun – solar wind – magnetosphere – ionosphere – upper atmosphere is well-researched and a large number of textbooks and review articles exist. You can find most by simply googling your favorite keywords. My experience with this type of discussion indicates that no amount of literature will have any impact on your ideas.

    The 250 km is not the ‘limit’ of the influence of the sun. It was a convenient approximate height of the f-layer, which is much more complex than a simple number can express. From the Wikipedia of f-layer:

    The F region of the ionosphere is home to the F layer of ionization. As with other ionospheric sectors, ‘layer’ implies a concentration of plasma, while ‘region’ is the area that contains the said layer. The F region contains ionized gases at a height of around 150–800 km above sea level, placing it in the Earth’s thermosphere, a hot region in the upper atmosphere, and also in the heterosphere, where chemical composition varies with height. Generally speaking, the F region has the highest concentration of free electrons and ions anywhere in the atmosphere. It may be thought of as comprising two layers, the F1-and F2-layers.

    The F-region is located directly above the E region and below the protonosphere. It acts as a dependable reflector of radio signals as it is not affected by atmospheric conditions, although its ionic composition varies with the sunspot cycle. It reflects normal-incident frequencies at or below the critical frequency (approximately 10 MHz) and partially absorbs waves of higher frequency.

    The F1 layer is the lower sector of the F layer and exists from about 150 to 220 km above the surface of the Earth and only during daylight hours. It is composed of a mixture of molecular ions O2+ and NO+, and atomic ions O+. Above the F1 region, atomic oxygen becomes the dominant constituent because lighter particles tend to occupy higher altitudes above the turbopause (at ~100 km). This atomic oxygen provides the O+ atomic ions that make up the F2 layer. The F1 layer has approximately 5 × 10^5 e/cm3 (free electrons per cubic centimeter) at noontime and minimum sunspot activity, and increases to roughly 2 × 106 e/cm3 during maximum sunspot activity. The density falls off to below 10^4 e/cm3 at night.

    The F1 layer merges into the F2 layer at night.
    Though fairly regular in its characteristics, it is not observable everywhere or on all days. The principal reflecting layer during the summer for paths of 2,000 to 3,500 km is the F1 layer.
    The F2 layer exists from about 220 to 800 km above the surface of the Earth. The F2 layer is the principal reflecting layer for HF communications during both day and night. The horizon-limited distance for one-hop F2 propagation is usually around 4,000 km. The F2 layer has about 10^6 e/cm3. However, variations are usually large, irregular, and particularly pronounced during magnetic storms.

    All of this is well-known and we should not waste more bandwidth on something you can find out on your own.
    I’m not going to pick at every little statement you made, because as I said already, most of them have no bearing on the problem. If I show that a particular one is wrong, your response will simply be that that one wasn’t central to your idea anyway. And this is precisely the problem: which one is central? Which is the one that if proven wrong will invalidate the whole thing? Such a question is at the crux of how science is made; one identifies a critical experiment, make it and use the result to weed out wrong ideas or to confirm good ones. A good example is my own prediction of cyle 24. If the peak of cycle 24 is not 71 +/- n, my method fails. This is the critical experiment. Note, that I gave the uncertainty as +/- n. I didn’t say was ‘n’ was. By having n be big enough I can always be correct, so to be useful, n must be small enough that I could be proven wrong. The real problem is that I don’t know what ‘n’ is. In the solar prediction game, ‘n’ is often taken as 10%, i.e. 7 in my case. Another way of getting at ‘n’ is to see how well the procedure worked in the past. This yields a lower n, but I’m conservative and bump n up. But it is still unknown. So, what ‘n’ will cause me to abandon my method? 67% of the time the result should be with +/-n. 95% of the time within +/-2n, and 99% of the time within +/-3n. So maybe 3n is my limit. So, if Rmax exceeds 71+3*7 = 92 I have a problem, unless I decide to go with 4n :-). Then I’ll begin to doubt the observations, etc. Anything to keep my idea in the water, but other scientists [and the public] will see that for it is, and I will have lost credibility, so there is a limit to my wiggleroom. Similar considerations should apply to your situation, David’s, ulric’s, anybody’s. If you do not [or cannot] quantify your predictions, forecasts, and the like, to the point where you can be falsified, you can persist in believing in your stuff, but you may find yourself isolated and on the fringe.

  162. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    Leif

    You probably missed this post but I wanted to get your comment:

    They have finally put up new numbers on the NOAA website that are much closer to yours on the estimated smoothed sunspot number for C-24

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict_low.txt

    Their numbers are much closer to yours now!

  163. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    164 (Dennis): Well, they did it partly on my urging, but note that they also have a high prediction [Predict_high.txt]. The max value of 90 is a bit too high for my taste, but does reflect the Panel’s low consensus value, kept high by a couple of fence-sitters.

  164. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    I am actually somewhat surprised in your firmness of mind for a ~70ish high for this cycle. While I applaud nature for cooperating with us on a grand experiment for climate research, it would mark a profound shift in the intensity of the recent historical cycles.

    Care to make any speculation on the driver for this decrease from the perspective of solar physics fundamentals?

    Thanks as always for your patience and replies.

  165. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    166 (Dennis): a small cycle now is not such a break with solar fundamentals. One hundred years ago, there were cycles of equal or smaller size, and two hundred years ago, and three hundred years ago. Whether this 100-yr pattern is physical rather than accidental I don’t know [although some people might think they know], but a 70sh cycle is not out of the ordinary at this time.

  166. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    #167

    Ok now I am slightly confused. Previous to this your contention has been that the cycles of prior times have been of equal magnitude of modern (post 1950) cycles.

    Can you point me back to your paper on this so I can get calibrated on what you consider the magnitude of cycles before and their relationship to the last several cycles that you are confident in the data on?

    Thanks

  167. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    168 (Dennis): Maybe the easiest is my poster at AGU. The point is that within that 100-yr cycle the large cycles all have the same or similar size. The “recent active sun” paradigm stipulates that the large cycles in the latest 100-year batch were exceptionally large. THAT is what I think is wrong. This, of course, means that the proxies we have of solar activity must be wrong too, as they show that the modern cycles are larger.

  168. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    163 Leif

    If you do not [or cannot] quantify your predictions, forecasts, and the like, to the point where you can be falsified, you can persist in believing in your stuff, but you may find yourself isolated and on the fringe.

    Thanks for your patience. I shall pursue the effort to quantify the relationship. Would it be sufficient to do this for aa minimum? I propose to test the cooling signal by aggregating the SOI index over the two year period prior to aa minimum and similarly the warming signal over two years after aa minimum.

    If the relationship has validity shifting the period in either direction away from aa minimum should produce a marked deterioration in the strength of the relationship. Would that be sufficient?

    A query? I am by now means sure that I understand what the aa index responds to. Does it simply reflect closed flux activity? In that case the amplitude of fluctuation in aa from month to month would vary directly with sunspot numbers.

    Is open flux activity measured and how?

    Does the open flux vary over the sunspot cycle?

    Is it possible that the presence of a degree of closed flux warps the open flux in some fashion so as to change its impact on the magnetosphere?

  169. Reference
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Long-term variability of the Sun and recent climate change

    Webcast talk and slides by Prof. Mike Lockwood, Southampton/RAL – 27:47 mins

    topics: Open Solar Flux, Cosmic Rays/Clouds, Paleoclimate, Diffuse Fraction, Climate response time constant, Nelder-Mead simplex method … and more

  170. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    170 (Erl): The aa-index responds to the solar wind magnetic field strength, speed, field angle with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field, density, and the variability of the field. An old [but still good] reference would be Geomagnetic Activity: Dependence on Solar Wind Parameters. The response of aa does not care if the flux is open or closed, so no need to worry about that.

  171. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve M [and others who would care]: I got the Hoyt-Schatten TSI. It is posted on my website. It looks like this [compared to my own reconstruction]:

  172. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    One more time: Steve M [and others who would care]: I got the Hoyt-Schatten TSI. It is posted on my website. It looks like this [compared to my own reconstruction]:

  173. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    Steve M [and others who would care]: I got the Hoyt-Schatten TSI. It is posted on my website. It looks like this [compared to my own reconstruction]:

  174. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    Steve M [and others who would care]: I got the Hoyt-Schatten TSI. It is posted on my website. It looks like this [compared to my own reconstruction]:

  175. Leif
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    176 (me): why is this so hard :-) My website is here

  176. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

    Re 176, Dr Svalgaard, I prefer the Hoyt and Schatten version, which explains all the temperature changes of the last three hundred years. You can see them all in their graph: the rise out of the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, the cold second half of the 19th century, including the last gasp of the Little Ice Age which coincided with a Be10 spike, the fact that the US was warmer in the 1930s than in the last decade is explained by the higher TSI then, the 1970s cooling scare. The Hoyt and Schatten TSI graph reflects the climate record so well. Under your reconstruction, there would have to some currently unknown solar factor at work, the intensity of which changed as per the reconstruction of Hoyt and Schatten. I applaud your efforts as a scientific purist to set the TSI record straight, even though it means that efforts should now be directed to searching for the unknown form of radiation required.

  177. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 2, 2008 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

    178 David,
    If Hoyt and Schatten were right we are still looking at less than a degree difference. Better to look for another mechanism. Seems to be intuitively right to me that the open flux is more or less invariable at solar minimum. I see big variations in aa at the low point of some cycles and not others. We have a closed flux represented in the aa index. That is the bit that relates directly to sunspot activity. It is also, I hope to demonstrate, the bit that relates to short tern temperature variation(within solar cycle). I think we can forget about TSI variations as the prime means of variation in temperature.

    Counting sunspot numbers? Plenty of room for disagreement there. Whatever the mechanism it must be capable of generatuiing at the least the degree of temperature variation we see in the tropics and then some.

  178. Pete
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    Leif: Your graph looks like the secular TSI 11 year cycle. I believe the other re-constructions show TSI + Background ? Would this explain the difference, or have you already accounted for this?

  179. Tom Vonk
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    @ Geoff Sherington

    The J.Annan explanation is wrong and contains at least 5 errors anyway .
    The comment on that is in the unthreaded # 29 () if I am able to get the link right .

  180. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for that comment, Leif, at 120. Having now read the exchanges since this discussion began last November, I am getting a better understanding of your approach to these issues, and the concerns you have reflecting your considerable knowledge and intimate role in the development of this area of science during the last forty years.

    I understand better your frustration with the science of sun/climate relationships. On the downside this area has lots of tribalism, technical narrowness, sometimes the publication of dubious papers, and less building on other papers than is beneficial to the development of the science.

    But on the upside there has been a vast increase in the quality of data reflecting the massive investment in observational strategies using satellites; there is an increasing number of brilliant scholars producing substantial papers; there is, too, I suggest the emergence of a range of relative consistent, increasingly corroborated hypotheses.

    I would like to outline these in another message in a couple of day’s time.

    Looking back to the 1978 NASA book (Herman, J., and Goldberg, R. A., Sun, Weather, and Climate NASA 1978), I have it with me now as I compose these notes), I see from the Preface, Leif, that you played a significant role in the completion of the book, it brought all the tribes together and developed a relatively coherent ‘map’ of the state of the research, distil key analytic and evidentiary threads and sketch a programme of further research.

    Surely this type of stocktake is needed now even more than it was over 30 years ago when the Herman & Goldberg book was drafted.

    In your comment at 120 you stated that:

    “Science builds on previous research and progress ensues from interlocking and supporting pieces of evidence. Very little of the sun-climate-weather ‘research’ participates in this effort and thus there is no real progress.”

    Looking at this area of science as a complete outsider, I find I disagree with your observation: there seems to be considerable participation and real progress. The tribalism, narrowness of technical focus, and other shortcomings characterise many, many areas of scholarship and is probably the norm rather than the exception. This reflects many factors, but some of the factors include:

     the administration of universities and research institutes;
     the career enhancement advantages of rapidly becoming an expert of narrow technical excellence;
     the institutional nature of the tribalism of scholarship, e.g. tribes object to outsiders coming in and reporting findings, critiques, etc, the tribes tend to look down on those outside of them; there is very little promotion to senior positions in the tribes fro the ranks of those outside;
     the fads and fashions problems and the tendency of government $$s to serve these fads and fashions rather than relate directly and solely to scientific criteria and the provision of public goods.

    You noted correctly that:

    “The task of the Panel is not to convince anybody of such relationships, but simply [!] to predict solar activity so that interested parties can act as they see fit.”

    I suggest that a proper task for the Panel is this:

    The Panel inform the US Government (through NASA administration) and thereby the world of its prediction about solar cycle 24 and keep doing so over the next several years.

    In this context, it is entirely appropriate, and I would argue, an obligation placed on the shoulders of responsible, global expert-type scholars, as well, to report as follows:

    “There is a range of theories, bodies of knowledge and published results indicating that if our prediction about solar cycle 24 is correct, these are the probable consequences [details to be set out].

    The Panellists note that there is some controversy associated with [to be specified; range of theories, bodies of knowledge and published results] and [nature of the controversy reviewed].

    The Panellists consider that these matters to be of national importance and recommend that [a map of a research programme outlined] be conducted by [to be specified].

    Furthermore, the Panellists note that [to be specified: range of theories, bodies of knowledge and published results] and the probable consequences [details to be set out] may conflict with the theories of climate change advocated by the IPCC.”

    This type of report is not trying to convince anybody of anything.

    All it is doing is that a bunch of the world’s leading scientists in a particular area of scholarship is putting an information paper out, providing essential contextual information about the subject matter of their prediction.

    I suggest that this is what a bunch of responsible scholars ought to do.

    Just giving a technical prediction and leaving it at that is perhaps just being a bit to technocratic when something more is required. After all there is something of a crisis afoot! Like the main reason the climateaudit website was established!

    I suggest that a report in the style of Herman and Goldberg (1978), but much abridged and as up-to-date as possible would be just right.

    This report could be an exemplar of Archimedean science: careful reasoning, humility before nature, understatement, respect for inherent uncertainties, care with language and definitions, grounded in evidence, presentation of theoretical frameworks, respect for contestability, and so on. As such it would be a wonderful antidote to the post modern ‘science’ that comes from the pens of the IPCC.

    One further thought. One of the strengths of the Panel is that you all set out what you would take as evidence for you to change your predictions completely, i.e. high amplitudes to predict low, and lows to predict high. That takes great discipline and is very Archimedean, if you don’t mind the adjective!

    The proposed contextual report I’m suggesting could also be an exemplar of this spirit.

    I have several more things I would like to raise in this extraordinarily interesting and educative discussion and will do so over the next several days.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  181. Jordan
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 6:51 AM | Permalink

    Erl Happ (107):

    Is everybody dead scared of chancing their hand? Are the institutions that are producing these technicians rewarding the ability to regurgitate and calculate at the expense of creation, wonderment and understanding? Is deduction and logic frowned upon? Is the ‘science’ so settled that it can be ignored or does the science no longer require an understanding of physical principles or the identification of cause and effect? Is this the tyranny of statistics?

    Leif Svaalgard (118):

    This is how science progresses, by examining every link in the chain and determining which ones are strong and which are weak, then finding explanations for the strong, or have the weak refute the end result. Same goes for Erl, and everybody else who professses to know what is going on. I’m excempt, of course, as I don’t claim to know how the sun influences the climate, if at all.

    I am a layman in the physics but I deal in some way with the general theory of systems, and I am watching the climate debate with great interest. The above statements from this discussion point to some issues that should be addressed in some way soon or later. One of these issues is about how every science discipline is developing in the time line.

    The first stage is collecting of empirical data and attempts through induction to build a general picture of the processes observed. Checking the empirical data and looking for correlations is the big part of the science activity at this stage. My opinion is that Dr. Svaalgard represents exactly this way of scientific research.

    The second stage is coming when the first speculative theories about the nature of the observed phenomena are put in front. Yes, such theories could appear (and they do) even when there is no enough collected empirical data to check their validity, and usually they are regarded by the scientific community occupied at this stage with empirical researches as a pseudoscience. But the late speculative theories differ from their earlier predecessors not only because they include a good portion of already collected empirical data, but also in the level of complexity, details and internal interactions put together in one common model of the observed process. Here Erl Happ and David Archibald are trying to put some very serious speculative theories about the climate system. Yes, probably not everything from their hypothesis will survive the empirical checking, even they could be entirely wrong, but on my opinion the climate science needs such theoretical speculations that are trying to find what is going on behind the data series.

    Right now the AGW camp is very unconvincing exactly because of the oversimplification of such complex system like the climate. That’s simply impossible the general pattern of the dynamic of such system to be driven by a single agent whether it would be GHG or something else. AGW theory is exactly a premature speculative attempt to explain something very complicated with very simple words. In the past (and even in present days) this is the way how the myths are born. The myths can be very beautiful in their laconism but never less they are wrong at the end. This laconism is the reason, that defending their postulates, AGW people to impose a oversimplification on the solar connection in the climate system. Lockwood et al are refuting the leading role of the Sun in the climate change just because the TSI hasn’t changed over the last 20 years. But to boil down the whole complex relationship between the Sun and the Earth only to TSI is the same oversimplification like trying to impose the GHG as a main driving force in the climate system.

    In relation to this I will ask one question that seems interesting to me:
    If I am not wrong the TSI includes some internal structure properties related to the different electromagnetic waves and their particular way of interaction with various structures of the earth’s atmosphere. So, analyzing the structure of TSI could lead to a sophisticated and complex theory about the Solar influence on the climate change. Here the final word belongs to the empirical facts and methods of observation. But among the other factors that explain the solar activity which many people here are discussing are the sunspot numbers and the number of sunspot groups. It seems strange to me that I didn’t read nothing about the nature of the sunspots and their properties. Are there any groups of similarities and dissimilarities that could be the base for some sort of sunspot classification? How the sunspot properties are reflected by the whole solar dynamic? Is it possible to say that two 11-year circles could differ not only in the sunspot number but also in the sunspot properties? Are there some researches in this direction and where they can be found? Thank you to any one who would take my layman questions seriously.:)

  182. Stephen Richards
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    Lief; I sent a comment very early on in this discussion summarizing, for my benefit as much as anybody elses, in which I said that I estimated that you were not saying that the sun was not influencing our climate but that if it was then our climate may be very sensitive to changes on the sun.

    In your graph #176, just un clin d’oeil, it seems to show this sensitivity. Its almost like the Hoyt graph is the amplitude modulated signal and your graph is the frequency modulated signal. Am I being silly here?

    Ie The graph shows this extreme sensitivity.
    Thanks for your persistence here, incidently. You have shown great patience.

    Stephen

  183. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    180, 182: these are OT. Please refrain from such.
    181 (pete): that is the point, there is no ‘background’, in my opinion. As I said recently [CAWSES newsletter vol 4, no. 2] “Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the background TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of “floors” in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. I would suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a ‘hidden’ source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.”

    183 (Richard): The job of putting it together should fall on IPCC, in AR5. The NASA Panel has its mandate already given and we can’t go much outside of this. I can try to bring it up, but I’ll not give it much chance.

    184 (jordan): it’s ‘Svalgaard’ :-) Now, to sunspots. Can different cycles not have spots with different properties? This is possible and has been raised from time to time, but no generally accepted opinion has been reached. An extreme example may be the Maunder Minimum, where we know from the cosmic ray proxies that solar modulation was present during the M.M. even though there were no spots to be seen. The suggestion is that there were magnetic active regions with the usual properties, but that the magnetic flux [for some unknown reason] failed to coalesce into visible spots.

  184. kim
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    So the spots don’t represent the active mechanism.
    ==============================

  185. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:35 AM | Permalink

    185 (Stephen R): AM/FM signal: My graph was intended to show the amplitude [including the non-existant background]. If as David A says that the background (Hoyt) TSI matches the climte swings, buu there is no background, then it doesn’t matter how sensitive the climate is [to a zero signal]. It looks to me that if there is a solar influence, it may not be through TSI.

  186. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

    187 (kim): The spots may just be incidental side effects. They may be necessary for the production of some flares, but the basic solar cycle mechanism might function well without spots as long as the magnetic field goes through the proper motions. Be warned that this is not the mainstream dogma [as such of what I say may not be :-) ].

  187. kim
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

    It is so edifying watch main streams break into eddies.
    ================================

  188. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

    190 (kim): To know more about the birth of sunspots, check my website and click on “Percolation and the Solar Dynamo.pdf (Schatten’s percolation model ApJS 2007)” and on “Hinode Movie”. Alternatively just click here. It is a Quicktime movie of the birth of a pair of spots. Watch the left-hand side of the picture. After a little while you’ll se a whole bunch of black and white little ‘knots’ emerge [these are different magnetic polarities]; as the whole area spreads out, the black knots come together and the white knots come together and form large areas with same polarities in which two sunspots sit. So the spots are not formed deep under to surface, but only after the unordered magnetic flux has emerged. The process by which this concentration happens is not known, although Ken Schatten’s paper may contain the germs of an explanation.

  189. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    #121. Leif, I notice that Rial 2004 is not mentioned in AR4.

  190. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    Re 176, Dr Svalgaard, I prefer the Hoyt and Schatten version, which explains all the temperature changes of the last three hundred years.

    David I don’t think Leif’s reconstruction does such a bad job of it. Here it is with a 20 year running average plotted with it.

    The mechanism assumes a simple accumulation of energy over twenty years I haven’t taken into account heat loss from the planet over that time should make some difference.

  191. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

    192 (Steve M): there are many other papers not mentioned in AR4.
    193 (Jan): When you plot a running average it should be centered on the middle year of the window, and not at the end of the window. Otherwise you get the whole average curve shifted half a window, which is so eveident in the graph you showed.

  192. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Leif, you mentioned to me in a short offline comment in response to my inquiry about paleo changes attributed to solar variation:

    The lack of a background TSI variation either shows that any solar influence is not through TSI, or that the climate is extremely sensitive to TSI, so that the integrated effect of the solar cycles is enough to have an effect. Occam’s razor may simply say that the Sun does not influence the climate through TSI.

    How would the Sun affect climate other than through TSI? Do you think that very slight solar changes of the type you’re advocating could explain the Little Ice Age? (I’ll mention in this context that N positions of the ITCZ seem to be associated with warm periods and S positions of the ITCZ with cold periods.

  193. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    194 (Steve M):

    How would the Sun affect climate other than through TSI?

    There are some people [you know who] that advocate a chain from cosmic rays to [some level] clouds and albedo, or maybe the earth’s climate is hypersensitive to TSI, or may be there are mechanisms we haven’t thought of yet [Courtillot et al, perhaps, although that particular one is not high on my list]. My point has been all along that the modelers [e.g. Scafetta & his ilk] that claim to understand the solar-climate relationship via TSI may not know after all. I don’t have an opinion either way. My part in this is limited to get the solar proxies right, which is hard enough. Of course, when one enters this debate, one is subjected to a large amount of abuse, the cranks come out of the woodwork in droves, and it is hard to maintain a level and civil tone, but one must try.

  194. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

    #195. My take on Scafetta and West is that their most recent article asserts indifference to high or low solar variability, arguing that low solar variability merely implies high sensitivity to solar variability. The other side argues that such high sensitivity is physically impossible. But that really leaves a large quandary if you (or even Wang et al) are right and high sensitivity is physically impossible: doesn’t that leave something like the LIA without an explanation?

  195. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    196 (Steve M):

    high sensitivity is physically impossible

    That is my whole point. People make that claim, and it does shows [me, at least] that they don’t have the mechanisms or understanding right. Either that or everything is just coincidences; my aim is to overcome the ‘smugness’ that most people seem to have about this: ‘we know and understand the solar forcing and hence can pontificate on AGW, because we can subtract the sun’.

  196. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    196 (Steve M):

    leave something like the LIA without an explanation?

    Aren’t there people that say that LIA and MWP don’t need explanations because they never happened? :-)

  197. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    I can’t tell whether you’re teasing or not. However, there would still be a quandary of explaining inconsistent regional experience.

  198. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    199 (Steve M): progress happens when scientists disagree for stated reasons. My smiley should have given away my intent. And I think the moral of all this is that we do not understand the climate, global nor regional. That the ‘science is not settled’ and that people should leave us in peace to figure this out over the next century or so. We’ll get there eventually [as we did with the solar-geomagnetic connection, continental drift, the geological time scale, evolution, etc].

  199. bender
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    #200

    Leave us in peace

    Amen. However that is not how the world works anymore. There is a new reality and scientists must adapt.

  200. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    196 & 197 or that someone missed what the scale of 1 w/m^2 TSI actually is? A lack of context will yield confusion, won’t it? 1 W/m^2 applied over the daylight surface of the earth is a massive amount of energy. There are 255 million km^2 on the daylight side of earth and 1 million m^2 per sq km, that’s 255 million million m^2, hence any change in that energy will yield a non linear change (%) in other variables. How many Atom bombs is 255 million million watts? And going off how many times a day?

    So what’s the context here? The earth being in the so called goldie locks zone receives just enough TSI to warm the earth for life but not too far (freeze) or close (bake).

  201. Larry
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    198,

    Aren’t there people that say that LIA and MWP don’t need explanations because they never happened?

    The party line is that they were local European/North Atlantic events that had something to do with the thermohaline circulation. Or something like that.

  202. Larry
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    201, right. Time for the science philosophers to have a congress, and figure out the new rules. This is bigger than the climate issue, and the same issues are coming up in biomedical ethics, and other areas.

  203. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    202 (dscott): there is a 96 W/m^2 difference between January and July, how many atom bombs is that?

    201,204 (several): I’m not sure that are new rules and that science must adapt. The scientific method works well [when you let it] and messing with that will just wreck it. The internet has created a connectivity that allows a wider spectrum of people to have their voices heard. This will eventually lead to better understanding. My hope is that the cranks and the scum will tire and that people will learn to see through their rants. Of course, the US is still a fertile breeding ground for cults, sects, new-age, fundamentalism, and just plain nuttiness, so the process might take a bit longer here, but I’m an optimist. And with that, we stop further comments on ‘science philosophers, and the like. Any attempts to go OT on this might be censured. Let us go back to the science and begin to ponder what the consequences of a low solar variability might be.

  204. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    And I would like to start off with the question of why “high sensitivity is physically impossible”? What is the evidence or theory behind that?

  205. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    205, that’s my point, even a 1 W/m^2 is massive and therefore must have some impact upon the energy balance of the planet. If a joule is equal to one watt/sec, terrawatt = 10^12 watts, and 4186 terrajoules equals a megaton, then over 12 hours of daylight (12 x 60 x 60= 43,200 sec)

    255 x 10^12 (million million) watts x 43,200 sec / 4,186 x 10^12 joules/ megaton = 2,631 megatons over 12 hours. That’s 219 megatons an hour

    The average nuclear bomb is said to have 1 megaton, where as the largest ever was 50 megaton http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/bomb.html

    Feel free to correct my math. Does this give everyone some context on the amount of energy raining down on the earth? Now would someone like to tell me that the sun’s variation of less than 1% in output is negligible and doesn’t impact climate?

  206. bender
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    #204 That is OT, but a very interesting suggestion. I find myself in agreement.

  207. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    btw – Lief, I used the 1 W/m^2 based on SORCE approx. overall average from the last 4 plus years to be conservative. That’s where they got the less than 1% figure from (1/1361). So multiply 96 by my figures.

    [img]http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png[/img]

    I believe the 96 W/m^2 difference is derived from the TSI at earth versus my 1 W/m^2 from TSI at AU as shown above.

  208. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    209 (dscott): what impacts climate is TSI at the Earth, not at 1 AU, but 96 W/m^2 yearly variation does not have a great impact because it is cyclic. Similarly, the hundred times smaller 1 W/m^2 variation over a solar cycle does not have a great impact because it is cyclic too [all depends on the reaction time of the climate system]. But, for the zillionth time, I’m not saying that there is no solar effect, just that IF there is, the climate system must be highly sensitive, something many people claim is impossible [c.f. Steve's comment]. Why do I have to keep saying this? Are people blind, deaf, and dumb?

  209. cba
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    dscott,

    actually, the energy received is the equivalent of that of a disk of the earth’s radius making the 1W/m^2 out to be 125 million megawatts difference or 125 TJ/s. A megaton of tnt is defined in wikipedia as 4.184E+15J or 4184 TJ. This is about 2 megatons per minute. A very rough guess as to the world’s nuclear arsenal, one would be rather hardpressed to think there is anywhere close to 30,000 megatons, but if it were, it would be the equivalent of 10 days worth of extra solar energy.

    The average strategic fusion weapon now is probably around 1 megaton. Huge bombs just blow the atmosphere out of the way and provide far less bang for the buck so to say. That is not to say the majority of bombs are strategic fusion either as there are far more uses for small nuclear devices than for large. Assuming an average of 1MT is probably gross overestimation. A nuclear depth charge (used to be man carryable) or an artillery shell are going to have to be quite small physically and hence somewhat limited in energy compared to strategic types. Also, MIRVs require somewhat smaller devices as well, even though they are strategic.

    this should go towards bringing into focus the puny nature of man and his technology and the vast size of the play pen involved and of the forces at work.

    For comparison, every second over 116,000 TerraJoules are radiated from the earth into space, which balances with the total energy coming in from the sun which is absorbed in the atmosphere and surface rather than reflected or scattered back into space. This is going on 24 hours/day, not 12.

    Simply put, the 1 W/m^2 is a radiative notion based upon what is called trapping of energy in the atmosphere based on increases in co2 concentration. First off, most of the energy from the surface is being diverted (as the term ‘trapping’ might lead to misconceptions)rather than proceeding straight to space, already. Most of the energy is being emitted from the atmosphere already, not from the surface. The increase in the GHGs lowers the distance which this occurs over – the optical depth. However, on average, the co2 optical depth is far far less than the height of the atmospheric column. Even a doubling of the concentration of co2 means only a small increment in additional ‘trapping’. Typical numbers are something like 3.6W/m^2 for a doubling of the concentration from 1750. My numbers indicate a doubling of co2 from 1976 levels would result in around 2.6 or 2.8W/m^2 additional for the straight simple calculation.

    As stated initially, this is a radiative value and it ignores other energy transport – convection and conduction. Note that conduction is rather worthless as air is a great insulator. However, convection is rather active and goes on all the time. Our atmosphere, unlike that of venus, is well mixed – indicating that there is excellent mixing going on, at least in the region where most of the molecules reside. Also, if you look at the structure of the sun, you’ll find there is a convection zone between the core where fusion occurs and where radiation begins to dominate near the surface or photosphere. This is because the convection zone of the sun is opaque to radiant energy, hence, transfer happens by convection.

    Even if the oftimes ignored convection were constrained to not occur or constrained to not change, a pure radiative solution would be an increase in temperature. This increase is most easily understood in terms of stefan’s law which states the power radiated by a body of temperature T (absolute temperature in terms usually of degrees kelvin) radiates energy proportional to the 4th power of T. This is valid for solid bodies. Going a bit more complex, the source of stefan’s law (theoretically speaking) is planck’s law which has a curve of power versus wavelength. Where gases are concerned, it boils down to the absorption curve times the planck function which is a function of temperature that determines the emission. Were the atmosphere at the same temperature as the surface, you would never see an absorption or trapping of power going on.

    However, if you consider there is about 350 – 400 W/m^2 radiating from the surface an additional 1 W/m^2 increase would require T^4 to increase by 1/4%. Since the average surface T is around 288 deg. K, you’re talking about a required increase of about 0.17 deg K to compensate to overcome that power. Again, this is ignoring totally any increase in convection which could also compensate partially or totally.

    What’s even more fun is when you get away from clear skies and start to consider cloud cover, which is between 40 and 60% of the surface. This has a tremendous effect both on reflecting incoming solar energy and in blocking surface emissions. This is also the poorest understood area of all and is evidently the most abused and misused area in the whole GW study. As many have previously stated, this is probably the key crucial area and it’s not understood well enough to model correctly.

    What’s more, it is probably related to some of Leif’s discussion arena via the cloud formation mechanisms which are also poorly understood, and with solar magnetic fields and cosmic ray fluxes, changes, cycles, and events. It could also be why there is apparently such a high sensitivity to such a small effect in variation. And, it well could provide a significant negative feedback swamping of effects that would appear to be significant – such as Leif’s 95W/m^2 annual variance due to the elliptical orbit of earth which brings it in and out from the sun by a few %.

  210. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    210 & 211, the 95 or 96 W/m^2 difference is due to the non circular nature of the earth’s orbit and is not felt in the Northern Hemisphere as the earth is tilted away (winter) at the closest point in the orbit about the sun. That 23.5 degree tilt makes a difference as testified by the fact that it is dog gone cold in the NH in the winter. Hence that extra 96 W/m^2 didn’t go to the NH. On the other hand, since the Southern Hemisphere is in summer at the closest point, and the SH being mostly water whose albedo is significantly greater than land, a greater percentage of TSI is reflected back into space, which probably accounts for the sensitivity. All that speaks to the regional nature of climate and IMO how silly this idea of GAT is given the coarseness of lumping the NH and SH together, let alone oceans and land. So Leif, I’m not misunderstanding you, it’s just that given the complexity of the earth’s various regions, this is like 5 blind men giving different descriptions of an elephant and all of those descriptions are completely true but at the same time in disagreement with each other because everyone listening to the descriptions is demanding that only one description be used to describe the elephant.

    So we are back to the TSI at AU to objectively determine the sun’s output in relationship to earth’s climate as this variation is on top of base TSI delivered to the earth, think of it as a 1 W/m^2 bias. No matter where you are in the orbit, summer or winter, that 1 W/m^2 change is still there and felt upon the ecosystem. IMO if someone can claim CO2 which is less than 1% (380 ppm) of the atmosphere, then it is no stretch to claim a less than 1% change in TSI can affect climate on a global scale.

  211. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    212 (dscott): it is less than 0.1%, not 1%, so we are down by a factor ten. The modelers and ‘experts’ tell us that it is ‘impossible’ that 0.1% can have any effect. So, instead of vague notions like ‘no stretch” we need to see some numbres and some physics. If none are forthcoming, I can only conclude that we are clueless.

  212. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am

    193 (Jan): When you plot a running average it should be centered on the middle year of the window, and not at the end of the window. Otherwise you get the whole average curve shifted half a window, which is so eveident in the graph you showed.

    Leif,

    Why do you see this as a problem? Real time real world filtering/smoothing systems don’t do it. i was not attempting a statistical analysis, if I was I might agree with you, but a rather cavalier, quick and dirty first approximation of how temperature might evolve over time given your reconstruction as input. I would expect similar results, though on a different scale, with a pan of water on a hot plate being fed a similar heating signal. I should then be able to use measured temperature variation to determine actual time constants and sensitivites (or gains). Then perhaps we can get a little closer to answering this:

    And I would like to start off with the question of why “high sensitivity is physically impossible”? What is the evidence or theory behind that?

    The answer could well be there is no evidence for it.

  213. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    214 (jan P):

    Why do you see this as a problem? Real time real world filtering/smoothing systems don’t do it.

    I assume that you are talking about spreadsheet programs. That they don’t do it is a long-standing bug, that can’t be fixed because it would break zillions of existing spreadsheets. It is, however, trivial to have the spreadsheet program calculate the moving average correctly, so a quick and dirty approach can still be made. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right…

  214. cba
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    dscott,

    first off, oceans are pathetically low reflectivity for angles of incoming radiation that are high enough to actually have an effect. They are lower than about 5% at the visible spectrum area which is half of what typical low values one finds for land (excluding snow cover). Whether or not the northern hemisphere gets the direct hit isn’t that relevent as it’s the overall amount that counts. There are atmospherics and ocean currents that distribute the energy that is absorbed. The only reason we get anywhere close to to 30% albedo is because there’s tons of clouds up there reflecting away under normal conditions. During major ice ages, the system gets faked out by the snow cover, reflecting at rates comparable to that of the cloud cover. In any case, most of the energy is coming in to the central region towards the equator. The only reason poles get any energy of any consequence is due to the summer sun that never sets and even though it’s low in the sky – shining through a much thicker slice of atmosphere, that 24 hours does have a bit of an effect.

    Even at the equator region, for a point on the surface, the daily average is going to be more like through 1 1/2 thicknesses of atmosphere, even on the two days a year when the sun is directly overhead.

    Concerning the 1 w/m^2 – that’s only for the 1x thickness path and it only applies when one assumes there is not any convection or conduction. In other words, it’s not anything other than the radiative response of a simple calculation that is applicable only for conceptual purposes. In the real world, it will not be 1w/m^2 and what’s more, without the sensitivity relationship, it’s rather meaningless. In addition, assumptions made by the IPCC make out that the effect of 1w/m^2 for a change in a forcing must have the same sort of effect as 1w/m^2 change of some other type of forcing – such as the effect of 1w/m^2 increase due to added GHGs versus 1w/m^2 increase due to solar insolation. This is an assumption that would appear to be unfounded.

  215. pochas
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    How is TSI measured? Does the instrument see the sun’s disk only, or is radiation from the corona measured as well?

  216. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM | Permalink

    217 (pochas): sunlight falls into the radiometer. That includes the corona as well. But as the corona is only one millionth of the intensity of the photosphere, its contribution is of no import as the measuring accuracy (relative) is of the order of 10 ppm. For how the TSI is measured you might go to TIM at SORCE.

  217. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    There is a disturbing issue with the Hoyt reconstruction. Before ~1970, the Hoyt TSI seems to be shifted 11.5 years (i.e. one cycle) towards earlier times compared to the 21-year running average of my [and others] reconstruction. I don’t know what is the cause of this. Need to ask Hoyt.

  218. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    TSI Hoyt:

    The light grey curve is the running 21-yr mean of my (red) TSI reconstruction. Note how it resembles the Hoyt curve one cycle earlier. In fact, the coefficient of determination [square of linear correlation coefficient] is as high as 0.66, meaning that 2/3rds of the variation is ‘explained’ by the other curve. Also note the strange behaviour of cycle 19-21 from 1954 to 1985.

  219. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    See also page 4 of my article in CAWSES Newsletter Vol 4, no. 2 that compares the Hoyt curve to several others… Hmm, this is somewhat disturbing.

  220. Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, Leif, for offering to bring up the suggestion that the NASA Panel issue a stock take type report to accompany its next prediction. There is no point in tasking the IPCC to do it. That agency now specialises in some strange activity in which what they call science depends on authorities and consensus of a priveledged in group. Further more, if you publicly go against the IPCC authorities they will hound you like the Inquisition did to BRuno, Galileo and would have to Copernicus except he carefully arranged to publish after he died!

    It should not be such a big ask of the NASA Panel. It is merely a stock take type document giving context to the prediction and addressing a vast body of extant science that has been accumulating for many decades.

    I wonder if this press relase of 2 Jan 2008 from Space and Science Research Center
    has a bearing on whether the Panel should now issue a stock take report:

    Who should I email at NASA, Leif, in relation to the role of the solar cycle 24 Panel suggesting the issuing of a stock take type paper using the Herman and Goldberg (1978) as an analogue?

    Here is the link:

    Here is the press release:

    In advance of a press conference for later this month, the first press release for 2008 is issued today:

    PRESS RELEASE: SSRC 1-2008

    Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

    January 2, 2008

    Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

    Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

    “We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

    As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing – an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

    When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”

    Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

    More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: http://www.spaceandscience.net

    The previous NASA announcement was made at:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    The website describes the Space and Science research Center as follows:

    Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is the leading science and engineering research company internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for climate changes based upon the “Relational Cycle Theory.” (See Services)

    SSRC has on its staff of consulting scientists, some of the world’s best known experts in the field of solar physics pertaining to the research into the matter of the coming major solar minimum.

    This major minimum called a “solar hibernation” is forecast to have the potential to cause major world wide agricultural and economic effects. The SSRC also possesses the capability to conduct planning and research into such effects and how best to prepare individuals and governments at all levels for the next climate change to a period of colder weather.

    John L. Casey

    Director, Space and Science Research Center

    Mr. Casey has accumulated over thirty years of professional experience spanning a wide variety of technologies, industries, and international endeavors, to include performing important services as a space policy advisor to the White House, and Congress. He has been a consultant to NASA Headquarters, and conducted satellite launch studies for the Department of Defense. His experience also includes being a former space shuttle engineer, military missile and computer systems officer, advanced rocketry and commercial space developer. He has an extensive executive management background in the start-up and financing of high technology companies. He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in Management. He is active in his community in environmental and conservation activities and was past Chairman of GFSD, an international charity that provided aid to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can contact Mr. Casey directly at mail@spaceandscience.net

    The website describes Relational Cycle Theory as follows:

    The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity ****

    Also called The Relational Cycle Theory or simply the RC Theory, this new solar physics theory was developed from the independent research into solar activity by John L. Casey, the Director of the Space and Science Research Center. It forms the core of research on going at the SSRC and provides a foundation for future scientific research into the next and future global climate changes, which according to the RC Theory, are strictly determined by specific cycles of the Sun’s behavior.

    The RC Theory

    (1) There exists a family of solar activity cycles that has a profound and direct influence on the Earth’s climate.

    (2) These cycles are ‘relational cycles’ since their effects can be experienced or ‘related’ to during one or two human lifetimes.

    (3) There is a “Centennial Cycle” of 90-100 years duration, which manifests itself with solar activity minimums and associated low temperatures with episodes lasting a few years to 1-2 decades.

    (4) There is a “Bi-Centennial Cycle” of about 206 years that is the most powerful of the relational cycles and has significant effects on the climate of the Earth lasting many decades resulting in the most extreme variations in solar activity and in the Earth’s temperatures.

    (5) These cycles are correlated strongly to all past major temperature lows.

    (6) There is remarkable regularity and hence the predictability of these oscillations, such that the theory may be a powerful tool in forecasting of major temperature and climatic cycles on Earth, many decades in advance.

    (7) There may be other relational cycles of shorter duration accounting for lesser solar and climatic events which may be revealed in subsequent research.

    ***********************************************************
    Subsequent to the SSRC’s independent research and development of the RC Theory, all of the findings were then confirmed through an exhaustive corroborative research study. This study also found affirmation of the primary Bi-Centennial and Centennial cycles also known as the Gleissberg and deVries/Suess cycles, in the work of other researchers.

    Further, the solar physics group at NASA has published their own verification of a coming major solar minimum, what the SSRC’s calls a “solar hibernation.” The link below shows NASA’s confirmation of when the next major minimum will occur as well as many other solar information links. Though the SSRC and NASA differ on the exact start of the next solar minimum (Cycle 24 vs.cycle 25, respectively) both have separately concluded a major solar minimum is coming and that premliminary signs of the sun’s activity have verifed the process has begun.

    NASA’s Long Range Solar Forecast through 2022 And Dramatic Slowdown of Sun’s Activity

    The website describes the services of SSRC as follows:

    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), provides services in an authoritative, independent, and unbiased manner within the following areas:

    Development and assessment of space program policy, management, engineering, safety and quality assurance.

    Research into space science and solar physics, including the solar physics

    related to the Earth’s climate.

    Comparative assessment, evaluation, and

    business consulting on leading edge science and advanced technology.

    Climate change research.

    National and international government planning for

    the next climate change to a cold era.

    Strategic business planning and preparation for the
    transition to the next global climate change era.

    National defense preparedness strategies

    for dealing with climate change.

    Development and transfer of space technology to the private sector.

    Science forum and conference hosting.

  221. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

    222 (Richard): The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings ofthe press release.

    The NASA Panel does NOT do climate work and although I mentioned that I would bring up the matter, I also said that I didn’t think anything would happen, because terrestrial climate is not what we do. So, please, do not thank me for this ‘non-offer’.

    If you want a summeary of what some people believe, there is an article by Joanna Haigh at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/.

  222. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 3, 2008 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    Cycle 24 sunspot?

    http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

  223. Jordan
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 12:28 AM | Permalink

    185(Svalgaard):

    Can different cycles not have spots with different properties? This is possible and has been raised from time to time, but no generally accepted opinion has been reached. An extreme example may be the Maunder Minimum, where we know from the cosmic ray proxies that solar modulation was present during the M.M. even though there were no spots to be seen. The suggestion is that there were magnetic active regions with the usual properties, but that the magnetic flux [for some unknown reason] failed to coalesce into visible spots.

    188(Svalgaard):

    The spots may just be incidental side effects. They may be necessary for the production of some flares, but the basic solar cycle mechanism might function well without spots as long as the magnetic field goes through the proper motions.

    If the sunspots are only side effects, could be there another side effect(s) that are still not identified? Also, if the sunspots are representing the variations of the magnetic flux and it is possible to have an usual solar activity without spots, should this points to some changes in the quality properties of the magnetic flux, not only to quantitative shifts? My (mis)understanding is that the number of sunspots is accepted only as an indicator for the strength of the magnetic flux. What if they indicate a quality changes, too?

  224. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    220 Leif

    Also note the strange behaviour of cycle 19-21 from 1954 to 1985.

    The light grey line matches the behaviour of the aggregate of the Southern Oscillation Index for cycles 18-23. In other words cooling for cycles 18, 19, 20 and warming for 21,22, and 23. My graph showing this is at post 58. It is also a very good match for the change in temperatures at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere as is evident in the graph below where I superimpose the bars from the graph in the earlier post.

    Perhaps it is simply inappropriate to imagine that there is a strictly proportional relationship between TSI and terrestrial temperature. Perhaps it is important to take into account the fact that the Torrid zone is the area where the vast bulk of radiation falls and that this has big effects on Hadley cell dynamics that can markedly amplify the small change in solar radiation received.

    By the way, meteorologists invoked Hadley cell dynamics to explain the floods in England last year. Unless the Hadley cell contracts my part of the world does not get rain. The fronts do not travel far enough north. The amazing humidity that has resulted in a continuous stream of thunderstorms down the East coast of Australia in November and December is due to Hadley cell dynamics.

    Whatever the real cause of the decline in temperature between the 40s and 1976 and the advance after 1976 at least the TSI movement is not contradicting the observed change in surface temperatures.

    Furthermore, as can be seen the largest reactions to tropical cooling occur at the highest latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

  225. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

    Looks like the quote box got a bit out of hand in 226

  226. Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 3:19 AM | Permalink

    Re my 222 post, Casey and SSRC. I should have read it more closely before posting. I was too hasty!
    On closer study it is so obviously and clearly phoney.
    I am sorry to have bothered you all with this link.

    You are very well informed Leif!

    Regards

    Richard

  227. Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    Regarding the Camp and Tung and Coughlin and Tung papers I mentioned at post 16. To facilitate the discussion, I have copied the Abstract and Conclusion from three of these (all on KA-Kit Tung’s website,
    http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/tung/publications.html ,)

    These are not the only ones on KK Tung’s website relevant to this discussion.

    I suggest that these are significant papers reporting major findings that warrant incorporation into the science.

    I didn’t follow your comments before on Tung’s work, Leif. I have studied these for a while and can’t fault them in terms of methodology, etc.

    As I read these papers, they establish their hypotheses on the balance of probabilities. Do you see flaws in the methodologies? Or do you think they stand on their merits, pending corroboration by others or refutation by another piece of scholarship.

    Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean
    difference projection
    Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung
    Received 29 March 2007; revised 15 May 2007; accepted 14 June 2007; published 18 July 2007.
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207.
    ABSTRACT
    [1] By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2_K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time. Citation: Camp, C. D., and K. K. Tung (2007), Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207.

    Conclusion
    [11] We propose that spatial information be used to filter the surface-temperature data to obtain a cleaner solar-cycle response. At the global scales, an objectively determined spatial filter can be constructed using the composite difference between the solar-max years and the solar-min years. This filter effectively removes the shorter interannual variations, such as from ENSO. We obtained a globally averaged warming of almost 0.2_K during solar max as compared to solar min, somewhat larger than previously reported. More importantly, we have established that the global-temperature response to the solar cycle is statistically significant at over 95% confidence level. The spatial pattern of the warming is also of interest, and shows the polar amplification expected also for the greenhouse-warming problem. The method used here, the CMD Projection, is one of two methods we have tried that take advantage of the spatial information, the other method being the LDA method. Although not as optimal as the LDA method, the CMD Projection possesses most of the advantages of the former while being much simpler to understand and implement. As it turns out, the spatial patterns deduced by the two different methods are very close to each other. However, the LDA method yields a more accurate estimate of the solar-cycle response in the sense that its error bar is only half as large.

    [12] We will argue in a separate paper that the observed warming is caused mostly by the radiative heating (TSI minus the 15% absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere), when taking into account the positive climate feedbacks (a factor of 2–3) also expected for the greenhouse warming problem.

    Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
    By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
    Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, USA
    Journal of Geophysical Research, submitted.
    ABSTRACT
    The total solar irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978 to vary on an 11-year cycle by about 0.07%. From solar min to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth’s surface increases at a rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next five to six years in the advancing phase of Solar Cycle 24, almost 0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the amount of transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming alone. Deducing the resulting pattern of warming at the earth’s surface promises insights into how our climate reacts to known radiative forcing, and yields an independent measure of climate sensitivity based on instrumental records. This model-independent, observationally-obtained climate sensitivity is equivalent to a global double-CO2 warming of 2.3 -4.1 °K at equilibrium, at 95% confidence level. The problem of solar-cycle response is interesting in its own right, for it is one of the rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained.

    7. Conclusion
    Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.

    11-Year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the
    empirical mode decomposition method
    K.T. Coughlin, K.K. Tung
    University of Washington, Box 352420, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
    Received 19 October 2002; received in revised form 26 February 2003; accepted 26 February 2003
    Advances in Space Research 34 (2004) 323–329
    Abstract
    We apply a novel method to extract the solar cycle signal from stratospheric data. An alternative to traditional analysis is a nonlinear empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method. This method is adaptive and therefore highly efficient at identifying embedded structures, even those with small amplitudes. Using this analysis, the geopotential height in the Northern Hemisphere can be completely decomposed into five non-stationary temporal modes including an annual cycle, a QBO signal, an ENSO-like mode, a solar cycle signal and a trend. High correlations with the sunspot cycle unambiguously establish that the fourth mode is an 11-year solar cycle signal.
    5. Conclusion
    A clear solar cycle signal is observed in the 30 mb geopotential height using the nonlinear, non-stationary EMD method. The total geopotential height at 30 mb is spatially averaged over all longitudes and from 20N to 90N. No specific grouping of the data is used in this analysis. The entire timeseries is completely decomposed into five modes and a trend. Using a Monte-Carlo simulation, the power in each mode is compared to the power in 500 decompositions of random noise. The fourth mode is found to have an average power far above the noise level and therefore is a significant signal. The correlation between this signal and the solar cycle proxy is 0.70 which is also significant given our estimation of the degrees of freedom in the mode. Using a regression with AR errors, the significance of the correlation is verified. The result is both a statistically and visually convincing solar cycle signal in the total 30 mb geopotential height. Further analysis at lower levels and with latitudinal variations will be presented in our forthcoming paper.

    I also mentioned these three papers as likewise advancing knowledge in this science rather than just more papers published with indeterminate conclusions. As with the Tung papers I can’t find any obvious flaw in the methodologies of the papers and consider that they establish their hypotheses on the balance of probabilities and therefore stand until refuted by other scholarship.

    What do you think of these results, Leif?
    Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung (2006) used EMD to analyse the historic time series annual records of the water level of the Nile collected in 622-1470 A.D. They found the longer solar periodicities. For example, they are present in the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere at the same time. They found the 11-year solar cycle in the Nile’s high-water level variations, but less prominent in the low-water anomalies. Ruzmaikin, Feynman and Yung (2006) explained that the phenomena they report would arise from the influence of solar variability on the atmospheric Northern Hemisphere Annular Mode (NAM). Solar Ultra-Violet variations act in the stratosphere to modulate the NAM. Furthermore, the NAM’s sea level manifestation (the North Atlantic Oscillation) affects the air circulation over Atlantic and the Indian Oceans during high levels of solar activity. Variations of this air circulation influence rainfall in eastern equatorial Africa at the Nile sources. At high solar activity, the air is descending there and conditions are drier, with the opposite effect occurring at low solar activity.
    Salby and Callaghan (2006) established that there is a decadal oscillation in the tropical troposphere that depends on the 11-year oscillation of solar irradiance. They found this occurred over the four solar cycles analysed. The statistical analysis achieved higher levels of statistical significance that had been previously required.
    Gleisner et al (2005) found that statistically significant variations in tropospheric temperatures, geopotential heights, water vapour distribution and global circulation regimes in phase with the solar cycle over the last 44 years. The authors established that there is a statistically significant consistent pattern of atmospheric response to solar variability throughout the low- and mid-latitude troposphere
    Ruzmaikin, A., Feynman, J. and Yung, Y., 2006. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile river ? Journal of Geophysical Research v. 111 D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462 published 11 November 2006.
    Salby, M. L. and Callaghan, P. F., 2006. “Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133, 2006.
    Gleisner, H., Thejll, P., Stendel, M., Kaas, E., Machenhauer, B., 2005. Solar signals in tropospheric re-analysis data: Comparing NCEP/NCAR and ERA40, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 67 785–791. Available online 21 April 2005.

  228. Raven
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 6:04 AM | Permalink

    Richard Mackey says @ January 4th, 2008 at 3:19 am

    Re my 222 post, Casey and SSRC. I should have read it more closely before posting. I was too hasty!
    On closer study it is so obviously and clearly phoney.
    I am sorry to have bothered you all with this link.

    Could you point out in more detail why you think the release is phoney? The link to the NASA page seemed to be legit even if the SSRC does seem to a a front for a single individual with a pet hypothesis.

  229. Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 6:38 AM | Permalink

    Hello Raven (post 232): its the language, the style, the tone. Everything about it has the scent of a beat up. Reliance on just one paper, Hathaway about sc25 and the speculative idea of a ‘conveyor’ belt type structure on the Sun as an analogue to the metaphorical one supposed to reside in the oceans of the earth is just too much. Hathaway’s paper is OK as a contribution to scientific debate and in that sense it is a good piece of work as science progresses by people publishing such well-informed speculation. But no gov agency would rely on just one paper, especially such a speculative one. No gov website would present such overstated flippancy as is expressed throughout the website. But this only hit me after several readings, when it should have been obvious! Further evidence: google John L. Casey and solar doesn’t give any substance as it should if it was a genuine agency with a genuine director; same with John L. Casey and NASA. The website is nothing like a valid US gov website. But, as I said, this only occured to me after looking over it all quite a few times when it is really obvious at first blush!

    I hope this helps

    Richard

    So I think it is a hoax, a practical joke or similiar.

  230. Raven
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 6:51 AM | Permalink

    So I think it is a hoax, a practical joke or similiar.

    GW seems to attract a fair number of cranks on either side of the debate so I don’t think it is a joke even if it is completely wrong.

  231. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 7:16 AM | Permalink

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I assume that you are talking about spreadsheet programs. That they don’t do it is a long-standing bug, that can’t be fixed because it would break zillions of existing spreadsheets.

    Er no. I haven’t used a spread sheet since I wrote a small spreadsheet programme in the eighties in Modula 2 as an exercise I have no idea what “features” more modern ones might have so I’m not sure what you are talking about. All I set out to do is prove the concept that the frequency modulated heat energy intensity signal can heat (and allow cool) a body with significant thermal inertia in a way that correlates with the varying frequency or period of the signal. It’s not ground breaking stuff given such heating control methods have been in use for the past 130 years.

    I agree it should be done properly now that I have the proof of concept but for me it means getting back up to speed on control theory (I’ve been out of it 12 years) and more to the point up to speed on System Identification and the nice Matlab/Octave tools now available to do it. For example the lag introduced by the 20 year running average is too long i.e. the system time constant simulated by it too large I also have not allowed for heat losses which will further modify it then we can look at feedback and how that might affect the climate system I expect it will rather a lot of work for which I have limited time but I’m interested enough to do it.

  232. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

    194 (Steve)

    (I’ll mention in this context that N positions of the ITCZ seem to be associated with warm periods and S positions of the ITCZ with cold periods.

    Steve: some queries in relation to this.
    First, where does this observation come from? Is it robust?
    Are the ‘warm periods’ you speak of ENSO related?
    Is position correlated with height?
    Is locaton of ITCZ correlated with movements in the track of the mid latitude fronts?
    What do you think is the mechanism responsible for variation?

  233. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    223 Leif

    If you want a summeary of what some people believe, there is an article by Joanna Haigh at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/.

    The summary finishes with these words:
    “With regard to the climate, further data-mining and analysis are required to firmly establish the magnitude, geographical distribution and seasonality of its response to various forms of solar activity. Understanding the mechanisms involved in the response then becomes the overriding objective. Current ideas suggest three main avenues where further research is needed. Firstly, the means whereby solar radiative heating of the upper and middle atmosphere may influence the lower atmosphere through dynamical coupling needs to be better understood. Secondly, it needs to be established whether or not variations in direct solar heating of the tropical oceans can be of sufficient magnitude to produce apparently observed effects. Thirdly, more work is needed on the microphysical processes involved in ion-induced nucleation, and, probably more importantly, the growth rates of the condensation nuclei produced”.

    First comment: ‘through dynamical coupling’ is a red herring. The most likely coupling is via the varying extent of direct heating from short wave radiation as a result of the changing depth of penetration of the radiation that heats the neutral atmosphere. Ask yourself this question. Why is the Earths atmosphere so exceedingly thin given the massive gravitational force, still strong at the furthest limits of the atmosphere? The answer lies in the relatively weak protection offered by the magnetosphere against the erosive force of the solar wind. So little force it has but so much time to do its work. More helium is released by the Earth than be accounted for in the atmosphere. We are fortunate to have sufficient atmosphere to conserve water.

    The ‘coupling’ will be so gradual as to be unobservable. It will be seen as a change in density or the atmospheric pressure at a given height.

    Second observation is that the direct heating of the tropical oceans can indeed explain the short term (decadal) changes witnessed in the northern hemisphere as one sees in the graph in 226. (Yes Leif, inappropriate smoothing. Yes, ENSO observations are at the very root of the question of climate change.
    The report notes in relation to Figure 13: Results from multiple regression analysis of NCEP zonal mean temperatures and zonal winds.
    “a strong ENSO signal in the tropical troposphere but it is also seen in mid-latitudes and throughout the lower stratosphere”.
    Is this the theatre of the absurd? How can one out to one side the strongest manifestation of the fact of climate fluctuation that we see on Earth in ones deliberations as to the likely cause of short and long term temperature change and treat it as irrelevant to the question in hand?

    Thirdly I note that ‘Correlations have been demonstrated between the NAO and the electric field strength of the solar wind (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002)’

    Fourthly, I note that sea surface temperature change lags behind the sunspot cycle conforming to the timing of the geomagnetic cycle. When geomagnetic forces collapse as in solar cycle 20 sea surface temperatures then follow the sunspot cycle and therefore changes in TSI.

    Otherwise I would say about the report as a whole: lots of sophistcation but not much sense. And the worst of it is the pictorial representaion of the Earths heat budget. A man on a mission.

  234. Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    213, Woe there lets look closer to the comparison. 380 ppm CO2 is .00038 of the atmosphere. The change in TSI at AU being 1 W/m^2 over a mean value of 1361 is 1/1361 or .0007347 How is this not statistically significant? If one can make the arguement about tipping points with CO2 then how can you not make the arguement about TSI?

    211, 216, One can rhetorically dismiss any individual variable by taking it in isolation from the whole just as one can make that same variable the prime driver by elevating it above all the other variables. By the same token even missing one variable will distort the results of any calculation and thus any conclusion based on that calculation will be flawed. It’s called a false proof in geometry. Start with a false assumption (or missing variable), apply flawless logic and come up with a flawlessly false conclusion.

    Of course all the sun’s energy that strikes the earth will eventually be radiated back into space. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance You seem to miss the part in your calculations about residence time of the energy in question, the energy transfer back is not instantaneous, that is where the specific heat of the atmosphere and it’s various components come into play. You seem to explain away a 1 W/m^2 at AU change yet for some reason you don’t explain away the more glaring issue of the 95 or 96 W/m^2 of TSI at earth when NH is closer to the sun in winter (i.e. colder temps). If it were a simple matter of just greater TSI at earth, then the NH would be hotter in the winter time not colder. Observation tells us that the tilt of the earth makes a difference, calculations aren’t needed to state the obvious. At the same time we know that the equator and SH are getting more TSI during this period. So why isn’t the SH hotter in it’s summer than the NH in it’s summer? http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html That’s right, the NH is hotter during it’s summer than the SH during it’s summer even though, the earth is closer to the sun during the SH summer!!!! The Observation tells us that albedo does matter and the percent of land versus ocean surface must be a factor.

    Winter Summer Year Annual Range
    NH 8.1C (46.6F) 22.4C (72.3F) 15.2C (59.4F) 14.3C (25.7F)
    SH 9.7C (49.5F) 17.0C (62.6F) 13.3C (55.9F) 7.3C (13.1F)
    Difference -1.6C (-2.9F) 5.4C (9.7F) 1.9C (3.5F) 7.0C (12.6F)

    Or for that matter, why hasn’t the SH shown any Global Warming in 25 years while the NH has? This is a logical inconsistency that must be explained.

    We can go round and round about the tilt of the earth, albedo, angle of incidence, CO2, etc., etc., but in order to have an energy balance one first must have energy to be balanced. The bottom line is this: were it not for the sun, i.e. TSI, the temperature of the earth would be absolute zero. Would anyone like to dispute that assertion? Therefore any change in TSI on the whole (at AU) must result in a change in earth’s energy balance. I call it straining gnats (endless calculations to the nth degree) and swallowing camels (whole numbers and significant digits). Maybe that’s the difference between my being an engineer and you being a scientist, I’m concerned with camels your concerned with gnats? I don’t mean that as disrepect Leif, our approaches to the problem are completely different.

  235. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    224 (Dennis): Cycle 24 spot ! now it must live 12 hours and be counted by NOAA, but it looks sturdy enough.

    229 (Richar): When I mentioned Camp and Tung’s work I did not criticize their result, I only usd their statement that there hitherto had not been any statistically significant results as a refutation of the notion that there was overwhelming support in the literature for a solar influence. I know Ruzmaikin and Feynman well as they are personal friends of mine. Their work is generally of high quality. What is lacking in the papers you refer to is ‘interconnectedness’. They report isolated pieces that don’t yet fit into a whole. We will have progressed when they are connected, e.g. by a mechanism. We are not there yet. Personally, I’m bothered by the fact that 3-4 cycles don’t contain enough ‘degrees of freedom’. This does not invalidate the results, only shows that they are not yet on firm ground.

    235 (Erl): Joanna Haigh is ‘top of the heap’. Her review is ‘state of the art’. This is the pinnacle we have reached in this field. And you are correct that the paper is not totally convincing. As I said many times, I’ve not seen anything that convinces me of the reality of a solar-climate connection, which does not mean that it isn’t there, because I have not seen anything yet that demonstrates that there is no such connection.

  236. Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

    216, btw, The NH is colder (8.1 C) than the SH (9.7 C) during it’s respective winters even though the earth is closer to the sun during the NH winter! See the link above. One would think that the SH would have colder winters while being further away from the sun. Why not?

  237. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    224 (Dennis): about the new spot, NOAA has this to say:
    “Two spots, Bxo beta, N27, one observatory, plage brightness is 2. It would appear to be growing, which is good. A NOAA press release is being prepared right now. That said, it currently falls below the threshold for being numbered. We need another observatory, an increase in plage brightness to 2.5, or a flare.”

  238. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    239 (me): the Catania solar observatory has the spot too, so it should get a number now.

  239. Richard Sycamore
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Steve M. See Figure 32 in section 6.1 in the Haigh review cited by Erl Happ in #235. Her figure caption is very misleading. The “observational” temperature data back to AD1000 come from Crowley (2000).

  240. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

    236 (dscott): you are completely missing my point, or, alternatively, I’m incapable of making it. Here is my gnat again: variations of the order of 0.05% do not seem [according to people who calculate this for a living] enough to bring about the MWP and the LIA or the modern warming because that would require a sensitivity that is ‘impossible’. I’m not saying that it didn’t, just that with our currently understanding [or lack thereof] we can’t see how it can.
    I certainly cannot, so tell me how [and not by calculating how many atom bombs are exploding in my face].

  241. chuck c
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    216, btw, The NH is colder (8.1 C) than the SH (9.7 C) during it’s respective winters even though the earth is closer to the sun during the NH winter! See the link above. One would think that the SH would have colder winters while being further away from the sun. Why not?

    Ooh–ooh…let me answer!

    The heat capacity of water is lots bigger than the heat capacity of air, and the SH is very ocean-dominated with lots of water, moderating its winters and summers.

    Do I get a prize, or just the box Jay is carrying down the aisle?

  242. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    In 235 I noted

    ‘Correlations have been demonstrated between the NAO and the electric field strength of the solar wind (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002)’

    This paper can be accessed at http://sunspot.lund.irf.se/NAO_article1.pdf

    Extract: The electric field E can be described by BsV. The linear correlation between E and NAO is 0.62.

    My interpretation (in italics and bracketed) of the relationship between the NAO and the ENSO phenomenon is inserted in the following extract from the paper. It will also be apparent why the best correlation between NAO and E (The same force that drives the ENSO warm phase, but yet to be demonstrated to Leif’s satisfaction) is found in winter.

    QUOTE: The dimensionless NAO index, which expresses the temporal behavior of this oscillation, is defined as the normalized sea-level pressure difference between Stykkisholmur, Iceland (65_N, 23_W) and Ponta Delgadas, Azores (38_N, 26_W). Phases with positive NAO index refers to a stronger than usual subtropical high pressure center (ENSO warm phase raises ITCZ, shifts it north towards centres of heavy convection, increases volume of air in Hadley cell and increases the central pressure of both the enlarged subtropical high pressure cells and also the polar high especially in the winter hemisphere where the densest air is to be found. This in turn tends to accelerate convectional forces in the sub polar low pressure systems in the winter hemisphere. However, in the Southern hemisphere the phenomenon of 100 years of summer cooling can be seen in Southern Chile. Similarly, we have seen continuous cooling at the south pole since 1957) and a deeper than normal Icelandic low. Due to the increased pressure difference, more and stronger winter storms cross the Atlantic Ocean in a northeast direction. This results in above-normal temperatures in northern Europe, the eastern United States, and parts of Scandinavia. Negative phases occur during a weak subtropical high (ENSO related cooling lowers ITCZ and shifts it south, reduces volume of air in circulation in Hadley cell, wet tropical air stalls at surface and can be entrained across the surface towards circulations in higher latitudes and drawn towards local centres of convection and thunderstorm activity) and a weak Icelandic low. As a result of the reduced pressure gradient, fewer and weaker winter storms cross the Atlantic Ocean in a more eastward direction. This condition brings moist air into the Mediterranean and cold air to northern Europe. (as the source of warmth, the Gulf Stream cools in the previous summer. There is a six month transit time).

    So, E drives ENSO, drives NAO and also PDO

    Why is it forbidden to look at ENSO as a systematic climate change phenomenon? Because our leading experts on ENSO are in love with greenhouse theory.

    What is wrong with Camp and Tungs selection of years about solar max and minimum to assess the strength of the solar influence? Because it misses the high and low points of the temperature transition that is generated by geomagnetic activity.

  243. Edward
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Leif:

    What is the revised aa index to cycle lenght relationship from your analysis? Does the rule of thumb work? Short length is a strong cycle, etc.

  244. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    244(Erl):

    What is wrong with Camp and Tungs selection of years about solar max and minimum to assess the strength of the solar influence? Because it misses the high and low points of the temperature transition that is generated by geomagnetic activity.

    What is wrong with the solar-climate ‘research’ is that people do not build on each other’s work. You see, one of you or both must be wrong.

  245. cba
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    dscott,

    I’m not sure what you’re driving at concerning 380ppm and 1W/m^2 versus 1367W/m^2.
    according to the studies, co2 has risen from 280 to 380 ppm over the last 250 years or so.
    I believe that this change has resulted in a calculated value of 1W/m^2 increase in absorption of outgoing radiation, based upon the assumptions that only radiative energy transfer is at play and that is through the minimal thickness – straight up through clear skies. That is by ignoring convection. What’s more, it is assuming no change in the temperature of the surface or of the atmosphere.

    As for tipping points, I’m sure there actually are some – like the oceans evaporating. Some of what I’m seeing for tipping points though looks suspiciously like the tipping must be done by the tooth fairy. This is precisely because there are so many variables and random variations that IMHO, there must be a heavy overall negative feedback in the system. The system is also seriously swamped or filtered which affects or limits the impulse response to the system.

  246. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    245 (Edward): aa does not really come into this. Stong cycle = short cycle is a good rule of thumb, but not without exceptions.

  247. John Lang
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    A new high latitude sunspot appeared out of nowhere today. It appears to have the reversed polarity of cycle 24. So that’s two now.

    NOAA declares it the official start of cycle 24.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_sc/sunspot;_ylt=AjCMcmwEGENSmZbKNp6jK0EPLBIF

  248. Jean
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    I have been a believer in the sun is the driving force theory. The “coincidence” of the timing of the maunder minimum and the LIA seems compelling. But Cycle 23 has been a strong solar cycle with a double solar maximum @ 2000 – 2002. Yet the published reports that I am seeing are that statistically the planet has not experienced additional warming since 1999. Additional CO2 has not warmed the planet and apparently neither has Cycle 23. Both theories may be incorrect if the reports of lack of warming are true.

  249. John Lang
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    The longest solar cycles occurred in and preceded the Little Ice Age (and the Maunder Minimum) and the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s. These were the two coldest periods in the last millenium at least. The shortest cycles seem to occur when temperatures are increasing.

    Solar cycle 23, was one of the longest solar cycles since these two colder periods at 11 years 8 months long compared to

    – cycle 21 at 10 years 3 months; and,
    – cycle 22 at 9 years 8 months.

    Solar cycle length theory indicates that we should start cooling off now (which the satellite measurements say is occuring.)

    The good thing is that cycle 23 is not continuing for another 6 months or even longer which would indicate we would be looking at the temperature declines experienced in the Little Ice Age and the early 1800s.

  250. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    249 (Jean): cycle 23 was average, not paticularly strong.

  251. Alan Woods
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    Jean, my reading of the temperature plots is that following the El Nino / La Nina of 98/99 T’s rose again to ~2002. Since that time T’s have plateaued (and fallen in the Southern hemisphere). Of course none of this is statistically significant, but is real according to my superduper eyeballing technique.

    See:

  252. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    Dr Svalgaard thankyou for putting the TSI data on your website, which is a very useful resource. On the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, the above graph shows what happened last time. Source is Jan Janssens, Belgian Solar Section. Dr Svalgaard shows similar graphs on the last page of this document: http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf

    The significance is that we are somewhere between three and eighteen months from the month of solar minimum.

  253. Alan Woods
    Posted Jan 4, 2008 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

    Re: 253

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html

  254. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 4:11 AM | Permalink

    Some observations and speculations on the above
    The relationship between these two variables depends upon the time within the solar cycle and also the time within the broader span of solar cycles where solar cycle amplitude is increasing and decreasing. It appears that the current decline in sunspot activity from cycle to cycle may not be complete until we reach the end of cycle 25, twenty five years from now. If peak of cycle 13 can be taken as the starting point and peak of cycle 25 the end point, the long term cycle length in this case is about 132 years.

    The SOI is an excellent proxy for temperature change in the tropical region bound by latitudes 30°N and 30°S. Being dependent upon air pressure it is not so subject to the variability’s that beset temperature measurement. The record goes back to the 1880’s. Equally, this presentation could use the Hadley centres record of temperature variability in the tropics or the UAH record of temperature in the troposphere. Of the three my choice for directness would be the last but unfortunately it only goes back to 1978. I am not sure that the record of temperature in the tropics is all that good. However, there is generally good agreement between both temperature records and fluctuations in the SOI.

    The question as to the correctness of scaling of the aa index before and after 1957 or the reliability of the sunspot numbers does not affect this presentation. I am primarily concerned with the relationships between aa and SOI within individual cycles.
    1. The most consistent evidence of the relationship between geomagnetic activity and SOI lies in the slope of the SOI prior to and following aa minimum. In each instance over the record of cycle 13 through to cycle 23 cooling is followed by warming and the turning point is the low point of geomagnetic activity. In my view this observation establishes the connection beyond question. However, we are not dealing with a simple relationship that can be satisfactorily tested with a correlation coefficient as will become apparent.
    2. In recent cycles 20 through 23 where the slope of decline and subsequent advance in aa is strong, and the low point is therefore well marked with a tight V shape, the atmospheric response to advance in aa has been an immediate and relatively strong ENSO warming event. The amplitude of this warming event increased in a linear fashion after SC 19, the cycle of strongest sunspot activity within this series. The reader is urged to locate and stretch a ruler across these events. It probably worth while examining the long term temperature record for the tropics to see whether this is a recurring feature and how it relates to the cycle of decline in geomagnetic activity. The explanation for this: Open flux increases in mass as geomagnetic activity declines. I suggest that the marked ENSO event that marks the upswing in aa is a response to a high density low speed particle flow that gains entry into the magnetosphere as the closed flux, high speed, varying polarity events begin to accelerate in frequency. This strong response to small changes in aa activity is seen at all times when geomagnetic activity is low. In the world of farming the analogy is like the opening up a very small crack in the dam wall, very low down where the hydraulic pressure of the water is great. However, if the dam is near empty the same sized crack will yield a much smaller flow. The inference is that when aa activity is comparatively high open flux is low. There is an inverse relationship between these two types of flux over the solar cycle.
    3. It is noticeable that the shape of aa minimum is a very open U in the upswing of the early cycles. The low point in cycles 12-17 is marked with circles. These early cycles saw some of the strongest ENSO events of the series but they occurred in middle and late cycle with very little change in aa activity over the entire cycle. The pattern fits the theory that suggests that open flux gains entry into the magnetosphere via cracks in the wall opened up by closed flux events. It is suggested that open flux remains high in cycles with few sunspots. It is for this reason that the atmospheric response can be so great to small changes in aa during these low amplitude sunspot cycles.
    4. The true measure of solar influence on terrestrial temperature can be gauged by the extent of fluctuation between the height of an ENSO warming event and the depth of an ENSO cooling event over the period of interest, normally at least 30 years in climate studies but we are also interested in the event that will only manifest over say one hundred years. (e.g. The hundred year flood). In terms of solar effects on climate this CAN NOT be assessed in terms of the fluctuation between solar maximum and solar minimum. This choice of period, although it covers the fluctuation in energy due to solar irradiance variations does not capture the variations that are due to geomagnetic effects. Such a choice therefore wholly underestimates the power of the sun to influence temperatures on Earth via relatively tiny but highly variable emissions of strongly magnetised particles. In evaluating the solar effect on climate we need to measure the difference between the temperature during the largest ENSO warming and cooling events.
    5. Perhaps the transition between SC 12 and 13 where there is a strong ENSO event shortly after aa minimum is the marker that is set to disappear when the multi cycle series reaches its lowest point of sunspot activity.

    We will be more able to predict temperature if we learn what it is that governs the strength and shape of the geomagnetic cycle and the relationship between sunspots and open and closed flux. We may then be able to predict the frequency and power of the events that put cracks in our ‘magnetosphere dam wall’ and the impact that will have on the response of the non neutral and the neutral atmosphere that leads to a change in the amount of electromagnetic radiation that passes through the atmosphere and is effective in heating the surface of the Earth.

    Geomagnetic activity and temperature in the tropics is inextricably linked. It is no accident that a general collapse in sunspot and geomagnetic activity in solar cycle 20 saw the Earth cool prior to 1976. The tropics are the place where the Earths heat budget is determined and the dynamics of the Hadley cell drive the circulatory pattern of the atmosphere and the oceans. Whatever happens in the tropics has a large impact upon temperatures at high latitudes and the growing season length in the high latitude grain belts. In ENSO cooling events it is the North Atlantic Ocean that cools most. This can be seen below.

    Lest it be thought that these cooling and warming events are just the wave upon the swell of warming events due to changes in solar irradiance it must be remembered that the aggregate of the SOI over a solar cycle can change dramatically. Recent cycles have seen unprecedented swings in aa activity while sunspot numbers have been in decline. The last three have been El Nino dominant and the previous three La Nina dominant with important consequences for temperature and rainfall that are well documented. Perhaps the long term trend in temperatures may resemble the trend of the interplanetary magnetic field?

    YOUR HONOUR, for the moment, I will let the matter rest there. Is the jury still awake?

  255. Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

    Thanks enormously, Erl, for your analysis. I am learning much from your contributions. This whole discussion, driven much by the seemingly bottomless font of knowledge and boundless generosity of Leif Svalgaard, is like participating in a global tutorial in which new contributions are always coming, with Leif being a Yoda type interlocutor gently overiding the ignorance many of us have with his encyclopediac knowldge of this area.

    Thanks for your comment at 237, Leif and for drawing peoples’ attention to the Joanna Haigh Living Reviews paper.

    At the risk of being a tiresome nagger, at my post 109 of Dec 31, I reported:
    “In the last couple of years there have been several major reviews of (some of) the relevant literature.”
    I then provided key extracts from the major reviews of Karin Labitzke, Joan Feynman, a major review essay by Stefan Bronnimann et al, and several review papers by Joanna Haigh, including her Living Reviews piece (about which I commented “Her paper is published in a new on-line peer reviewed scientific journal, Living Reviews of Solar Physics, which enables the paper to evolve as others contribute new material or engage in additional analyses of her commentary. Her paper is a good example of careful science in which analyses and findings are presented with the understatement of cautious science working to the high standards of the exact sciences such as Physics.”)

    I suggest, Leif, that these papers do draw on very wide fields of publication. They may, and if so, understandably, reflect the focus of the chief author. But there does seem to be a fair degree of interconnectedness between them and the sizable fields of literature they review. The tenor of results is tentative, in recognition that so much is not understood about the Sun and our climate system. The authors don’t pretend to the contrary. Nevertheless they all do make rather definitive findings, some of which I selected as key extracts and included in post 109.

    In addition to these, there are the proceedings of at least six major solar/climate type conferences over the last decade or so, taking the 1994 conference organised by Elizabeth Nesme-Ribes as a starting point. That conference came about because during the late 1980s and early 1990s, much controversy developed between solar physicists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, climate modellers and others.

    Tribalism was noticeably dysfunctional at that time and, as I read the developments then, Elizabeth Nesme-Ribes tried to bring everyone together and get some sort of coherence or interconnectedness. Accordingly, in an effort to address these controversies in a scholarly setting, Elizabeth Nesme-Ribes of the Paris Observatory initiated and organised a NATO Advanced Research Workshop in October 1993 (Nesme-Ribes, E., (ed) 1994. The Solar Engine and Its Influence on Terrestrial Atmosphere and Climate, NATO ASI Series 1, vol 25, Springer-Verlag. I think the 1978 NASA book by Herman and Goldberg tried to do the same.

    A significant ‘bringing the tribes together’ conference took place in Italy in 2005 see the proceedings of the international scientific conference, Solar Variability and Earth’s Climate, in June/July 2005 in Rome, published in the Journal of the Astronomical Society of Italy, Memorie Della Societa Astronomica Italiana Vol 76 n. 4 2005. The papers can be found on the website: found on the website:

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/index.html

    I draw discussants’ attention to Brekke, P., “Closing Remarks on the Sun influence on climate change”; Georgieva, K., Bianchi, C., Kirov, B. “Once again about global warming and solar activity”; and Ponyavin. D. I., Barliava, T. V., Zolotova, N. V. “Hypersenstivity of climate response to solar output during the last 60 years”.

    My chief complaint about all of the review papers, including Haigh’s Living Review one, is that hardly anyone attempts to provide an overview of the totality of the sun’s role in relation to our climate. Nevertheless, the reviews are very substantial and very impressive pieces of work.

    One scientist who did address the totalilty was Rhodes Fairbridge (a geologist). His integrative work does not depend on his thesis about the role of the Sun’s orbital motion.

    His major original efforts came to an end in the mid 1990s, but his key work was a decade before. Much more is understood now than then.

    Rhodes Fairbridge emphasised that the answer to the question,
    Does the Sun affect the Earth’s climate?
    has to be in terms of three considerations:
    •the variations in the quantity, intensity and distribution over the Earth of the solar output, including electromagnetic radiation, matter and the Sun’s electromagnetic field;
    •the variable gravitational force the Sun exerts on the Earth, the Moon and the Moon and the Earth as a system; and
    •the interactions between all these processes, having regard to the time lags associated with each.

    In this regard, he seems to have been a relatively lone voice, then as now.

    de Jager (2005) and Versteegh (2005) made a fairly determined effort at addressing the three solar factors, their interactions, especially having regard to time lags, but seemed to me to miss some important papers and in any case some significant new work has been published since then.

    Interestingly, one of their findings was that the role of the Sun in relation to climate is significant, but as it depends on latitude and longitude, it is incorrect to hypothesise a uniform measure of the Sun’s impact on the Earth’s surface.

    (See de Jager, C. 2005. Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability. Space Science Reviews 120 197-241., and Versteegh, G. J. M., 2005. Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past. Space Science Reviews 120 243-286.

    In terms of other themes in the fascinating and educationally rich discussion, all of this work shows the physical actuality, rather than the physical impossibility, of the climate system’s high sensitivity to variable solar activity in its totality.

    On the matter of climate sensitivity, I encourage you all to study closely the other Camp and Tung paper I mentioned before. Namely:
    Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
    By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
    Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, USA
    Journal of Geophysical Research, submitted.

    ABSTRACT
    The total solar irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978 to vary on an 11-year cycle by about 0.07%. From solar min to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth’s surface increases at a rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next five to six years in the advancing phase of Solar Cycle 24, almost 0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the amount of transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming alone. Deducing the resulting pattern of warming at the earth’s surface promises insights into how our climate reacts to known radiative forcing, and yields an independent measure of climate sensitivity based on instrumental records. This model-independent, observationally-obtained climate sensitivity is equivalent to a global double-CO2 warming of 2.3 -4.1 °K at equilibrium, at 95% confidence level. The problem of solar-cycle response is interesting in its own right, for it is one of the rare natural global phenomena that have not yet been successfully explained.
    7. Conclusion
    Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level. Since the solar-forcing variability has been measured by satellites, we therefore now know both the forcing and the response (assuming cause and effect). This information is then used to deduce the climate sensitivity. Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.

    I think that many of you would find their Appendix, Analysis: Energy balance at the surface, of great interest.

    They wrote “The purpose of this section is to show that the observed solar cycle response is energetically consistent with the magnitude of the forcing and typical and reasonable values of ocean heat flux and atmospheric feedback amplifications. It is not meant to be a model calculation of the solar-cycle response.”

    Regards
    Richard Mackey

  256. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    257 (Richard)
    Richard, Thanks for the commendation.

    What needs to be satisfactorily explained can be seen at http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg

    That record represents a reality that should be the starting point for all analysis.

    The last 25 years have produced a strong warming trend in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. That can not be due to greenhouse gases that are uniformly distributed. Nor can it be due to changes in total solar irradiance now declining with the fall in amplitude of the solar cycle. That is the point that the IPCC is making.

    We do know that there has been a big shift to ENSO related warming events but nobody has ever quantified it or set out to correlate it with the reality of warming trends. Until now we have been at a loss to explain the mechanism behind these warming events.

    Understanding the mechanism allows one to quantify the forcing based upon observed short term change. What extra, if anything, is needed to blow the IPCC scenario out of the water?

  257. pochas
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    Eri,

    It seems to me that the preferential warming of the northern hemisphere lends some credence to the CO2 effect. In the northern hemisphere you have things poking out of the snow in winter that radiate as blackbodies, such as rocks, trees, roads, etc. Thus, there is some radiation from the surface in the CO2 bands. In the southern hemisphere, by contrast there is mostly snow, ice, and water, which will not radiate appreciably in the CO2 bands, and so the presence or absence of CO2 makes little difference.

  258. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    257 (Richard):

    Her {Haigh] paper is a good example of careful science in which analyses and findings are presented with the understatement of cautious science working to the high standards of the exact sciences such as Physics

    Yet, she [uncritically] shows the hockey-stick as an example of climate variation.
    The ‘interconnectednss’ of the various papers you mentioned is not great, apeart from all involving the sun and climate. Review papers [by their nature] is a piling on of other papers. I see little effort in these individual papers to build on other’s work. And THAT is the problem. And some of the papers are marred by untenable mechanisms that tend to put other scientists off [e.g Fairbridge's].

  259. Patrick M.
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    re way back @ 128 (Leif):

    The heavy curves are a 5-year running mean. The lower plot shows the common years since 1661 together with the sunspot curve. I don’t see any systematic relation. A power spectrum of PDO does have a (weak) peak at 10 years. If there is any [hard to see] relation with the sunspot numbers it seems to be too weak to have predictive power.

    I’ve been thinking about this and I wonder about the tools used to detect patterns. The thought occurred to me that I should fabricate some fake data containing a solar-climate pattern such as the one I proposed and see if you could detect the pattern, (which we would now know exists in the data), with the standard tools you would use with real data. One way or another we would get a real result that might actually advance science. We might even develop a new tool.

    What do you think?

  260. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    261 (Patric M): The issue is not if one can see the pattern [BTW, what you propose is a standard technique], but if the pattern is strong enough to have predictive power. The pattern that I see seems to have longer periods of ~30-40 years [these are often called Brueckner cycles].

  261. cba
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    it’s off to the races!

    according to http://spaceweather.com , yesterday a high latitude reverse polarity sunspot was detected, heralding the start of the new cycle 24. While this story sounds familar, like I think I’ve heard it before a while back, there have also been some activity – like class C flares as of late as well.

  262. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    263 (cba): although the flares were from old-cycle (23) regions.

  263. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    This might be of interest to Erl and Patrick M:
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, C01002, doi:10.1029/2006JC004057, 2008

    Resonant excitation of the quasi-decadal oscillation by the 11-year signal in the Sun’s irradiance

    Warren B. White

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

    Zengyu Liu

    Center for Climate Research, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Abstract

    The quasidecadal oscillation (QDO) of 9- to 13-year period in the Earth’s climate system has been found governed by a delayed action oscillator (DAO) mechanism in the tropical Pacific Ocean similar to that governing the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) of 3- to 5-year period. It also fluctuated in phase with the ∼11-year-period signal in the Sun’s total irradiance throughout the twentieth century. In earlier attempts to explain this association, a conceptual ocean-atmosphere coupled model of the DAO mechanism in the tropical Pacific Basin was driven by 11-year-period solar forcing, producing a QDO that was in damped resonance with the solar forcing. In the present study, we likewise force a fully coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (i.e., Fast Ocean-Atmosphere Model (FOAM)) of Jacob et al. (2001), adding an 11-year-period cosine signal of amplitude 2.0 W m^2 to the solar constant in the model. In the presence of this 11-year-period solar forcing the FOAM simulates both the ENSO and the QDO, while in its absence the FOAM simulates only the ENSO. We find the model QDO governed by a tropical DAO mechanism with patterns and evolution similar to those observed. We find its warm phase lagging peak solar forcing by ∼1–3 years, as observed and consistent with damped-resonant excitation of the tropical DAO of the QDO by the 11-year-period solar forcing in the earlier conceptual model.

    Received 14 December 2006; accepted 14 May 2007; published 4 January 2008.

    —-

    I’m a bit at a loss why they assume a 2 W/m^2 solar cycle variation while direct measurements of TSI shows a 1 W/m^2 change.

  264. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    265 (me): The paper may be here: http://www.agu.org/journals/jc/jc0801/2006JC004057/2006JC004057.pdf
    Now reading it, I see that the change of TSI is 4 W/m^2 [their Figure 1), as it should be for an amplitude of 2: variation = amplitude * cosine(phase).

    Either the paper is a bit imprecise or I just can’t see it, but things don’t add up. In paragraph 8, they say:
    “the Sun’s total irradiance is represented by an cosine wave of amplitude 2.0 W/m^2 added to the mean solar irradiance of 1367 W/m^2. This idealized 11-year-period signal in the Sun’s total irradiance (i.e., ~0.1% of the mean)…”.

    I calculate 4/1367 = 0.3%, but maybe they mean 2/1367 = 0.146% rounded down to 0.1%. Anyway, Figure 1 makes it clear that the variation is from 1365 to 1369 W/m^2, twice as large as actually found.

  265. cba
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    sounds like they plugged in a number that would explain things rather than a totally realistic number. Since this is their fancy videogame (model) it could either be the model is incorrect by a serious factor requiring serious kludging of input values or if by some strange coincident, the model’s virtual reality world is somewhat akin to our’s and that an equivalent forcing is needed.

    Perhaps it is the effect on surface ocean temperatures of a changing TSI content (like more uV / less IR moving to more IR / less uV during the cycle) which is providing the appearance of more total TSI variation being needed. As I understand it, uV concentrations can vary in excess of 5% despite overall TSI variations actually changing by no more than about 0.1%. Obviously, if uV concentrations increase by 5% and overall TSI doesn’t change, then there must be 5% less energy from visible and IR to balance.

    If that energy comes from the IR or red to balance an increase in uV, then one can have both effects such as ozone concentration changes in the upper atmosphere and some differences in the amount of energy penetrating into the ocean for some distance. Obviously LW that makes it to the earth isn’t going past the skin of the ocean surface. Near uV or LWuV will penetrate further into the ocean than will even visible red light.

    Perhaps it is the nature of the TSI spectrum change which provides what is apparently a model demand for a much larger TSI variation than is measured in the real world. My guess without spending tremendous efforts trying to find out just what is in their model is that it is probably oriented towards total power numbers rather than towards a far more sophisticated one of spectral power variations.

  266. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    266 (me): Geez, FOUR times as large as actually found.

  267. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    Where do they get 1367 w/m2? None of the instruments that I know of have a minimum TSI that high and the FORCE instrument has its base at under 1361.

    Any thoughts on that?

  268. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 5, 2008 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    269 (Dennis): the 1367 was just out of the blue, I guess. The models don’t really care about the absolute number, only the variation [as long as you are in the ballpark]. The SORCE TIM measurements sit at 1361 as you point out. It is not known why there is this systematic difference of 4.6 W/m^2. But is also doesn’t matter much, as long as we remember to correct for it.

  269. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    259 (Pochas)
    Sorry, I did reply and included a great picture too, but somehow it appeared on Unthreaded as no 658.

  270. Patrick M.
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    re 262 (Leif):

    261 (Patric M): The issue is not if one can see the pattern [BTW, what you propose is a standard technique], but if the pattern is strong enough to have predictive power. The pattern that I see seems to have longer periods of ~30-40 years [these are often called Brueckner cycles].

    So you agree there is a pattern between the solar cycle and the PDO but it’s not predictive enough to be of interest?

  271. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    272 (Patrick M): the pattern I see is not 11 years but 30-40 years. Try googling “Brueckner cycles”.

  272. Patrick M.
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    re 273 (Leif):

    The pattern I see is not 11 years or 30-40 years. The pattern I see is not x years – it’s closer to x * 11 years, (but only if all solar cycles are 11 years, which they aren’t).

    I did Google Brueckner cycles, (and Brikner cycles). That’s more like the cycles you are talking about. The pattern I see is not a cycle, or at least I don’t see a cycle.

    Here’s what I said back in #48:

    “It appears to me that major, (i.e. long lasting), changes/flips in the PDO always seem to happen during a low point of a solar cycle. That is not to say that a low point in the solar cycle initiates the change, but if a PDO change, (cause unknown), occurs during a solar cycle low point, the change will be multi-decadal. If a PDO change happens during a high point in the solar cycle it will be “short lived”, (i.e. decade or less).”

    So in the pattern I see the solar cycle is not generating the pattern, but limiting it.

  273. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    Hey Leif

    Look what I just found when doing some research on lunar temperature anomalies.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001JA900089.shtml

    The gist is that there is an equatorial temperature anomaly that is directly related to an equatorial ionization anomaly that is solar driven.

    Interesting.

  274. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    (270) Leif

    I don’t know about that is that the number is always plugged into the equation that then gives you the earth blackbody temperature. If the W/m2 is several w/m2 lower that should give a lower number to the baseline blackbody temp as well. The more papers that I read on this the more that I see this w/m2 “inflation” with most of the papers these days having a number of 1370 w/m2 which is a full 7/10 of a percent higher than what is actually measured. At the very least it is sloppy science of the type that Steve McIntyre is famous for.

    I don’t know if Steve is reading this thread but if he is, do you (steve) have a comment on this?

  275. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 6, 2008 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    WOOPS

    That last post should have said “is sloppy science of the type that Steve McIntyre is famous for busting!

    Sorry Steve.

  276. Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 4:41 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Leif for your comments at 260.

    I, too, saw that Joanne Haigh uncritically used the hockey stick graph that Steve McIntyre and Ross McKintrick successfully showed to be invalid. I assumed she did this plus a few other things in deference to what I presume to be the stifling atmosphere against free scientific debate in the UK, given the political line so forcefully adopted by the UK’s scientific establishment, most noticeably the Royal Society. Perhaps an historical comparison is the time towards the end of Sir Isaac Newton’s reign as President of the Royal Society and the couple of generations that followed his death in which British mathematics did not progress because orthodoxy insisted that British mathematicians ignore continental maths because of the Newton/Leibnitz fight about who did what first and who stole whose ideas in relation to the calculus.

    I thought that at the very least she should have referenced the controversy initiated by Steve and Ross. But she didn’t.

    I wonder, though, about your use of “untenable mechanisms” in relation to the theories in the literature about a possible relation between the Sun’s motion around the solar system barycenter, variable solar activity and the Earth’s climate. I thought the major problem with the theory of solar orbital motion is that no satisfactory mechanism or process has yet been identified. Authors report volumes of correlation type results, or time series analysis type results but haven’t come up with a testable theoretical explanation that connects well with established bodies of knowledge.

    Various mechanisms or processes have been advocated by various scientists.

    The main mechanisms or processes discussed in the literature are:

     Sun’s variable torque;
     Precessional effect;
     Solar orbital non-inertial Coriolis force;
     Resonant effect of planets’ orbits; and
     Superposition of planetary tides Spin-orbit coupling.

    But none of these possible processes have been presented with sufficient detail or rigor that would enable independent evaluation in the normal manner.

    Apart from the sizable scientific literature related to Rhodes Fairbridge, Ivanka Charvátová, Shahiz Yousef, Katya Georgieva, Javaraiah Javaraiah, amongst others, there is the June 2007 paper, “The solar activity cycle is weakly synchronized with the solar inertial motion” by Palus, Kurths, Schwarz, Seehafer, Novotna, and Charvatova, published in Physics Letters A, Vol 365 Issues 5-6 pps 421–428 11 June 2007 doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2007.01.0390.

    Doesn’t this paper show that there is a statistically significant relationship between Sun’s variable activity and output and its orbital motion around the center of mass of the solar system?

    Using relatively new techniques of nonlinear data analysis (phase synchronisation) haven’t the authors confirmed that the solar activity cycle and solar inertial motion are not independent?

    Haven’t the authors shown that there is a measurable influence on the solar cycle by the movement of the giant planets of the solar system?

    (See my post 77).

    Here is their abstract:

    “We study possible interrelations between the 300-year record of the yearly sunspot numbers and the solar inertial motion (SIM) using the recently developed technique of synchronization analysis. Phase synchronization of the sunspot cycle and the SIM is found and statistically confirmed in three epochs (1734–1790, 1855–1875 and 1907–1960) of the whole period 1700–2000. These results give quantitative support to the hypothesis that there is a weak interaction between the solar activity and the SIM”.

    Here is their conclusion:

    “Using the concept of synchronization analysis, we have quantitatively demonstrated that the solar activity cycle and the solar inertial motion are not independent. These two oscillatory phenomena are phase-synchronized during three epochs together accounting for almost half of the studied three-century observational data.

    It is important that techniques of nonlinear data analysis have a potential to contribute to resolving long disputed problems such as the nature of the solar activity cycle. In an independent study, Paluš and Novotná [44] have recently observed nonlinear behaviour of the sunspot cycle, namely its amplitude frequency correlation. In this study we present quantitative evidence for a weak interaction of solar activity and gravity, i.e., for a weak influence of the movement of the giant planets of the solar system on the solar activity cycle. The existence of this weak interaction with still unknown physical mechanism does not mean that the SIM is the source of the solar cycle, neither is an argument against dynamo models. The phase synchronization is a phenomenon emerging in an interaction of two autonomous processes [19] which could evolve independently, or, due to a weak link, their phases could synchronize.

    Recently, Winterhalder et al. [45] demonstrated that the synchronization analysis might not be specific regarding the dynamics of the underlying processes. This means that the presented analysis provides evidence for a dependence between the phases of the sunspot cycle and the SIM, but this does not automatically imply an explanation of the dependence by the physical mechanism of phase synchronization. The alternative hypothesis in [45], however, considers transfer function systems, in which one signal is obtained just as a filtration of the other, primary signal. We consider phase synchronization of two autonomous processes as the more plausible hypothesis for explaining the observed relation between the instantaneous phases of the sunspot cycle and the SIM. For further research and understanding of a possible coupling mechanism, it would be interesting to select a realistic dynamo model and propose a way how to simulate the interaction with the SIM. It is known from numerical studies of noisy oscillators and chaotic systems that even a very weak interaction can result in phase synchronized dynamics.

    A special point here is to understand why the detected phase synchronization appears just in the observed intervals. In their previous studies, Charvátová [14, 46, 47] and Charvátová and Strestík [13] identified the intervals 1730–1780 and 1910–1960 (almost coinciding with the above periods I and III) as recurring periods of ordered SIM (the SIM trajectories are ordered in a trefoil-like pattern). It is possible that the synchronized epochs recurred in the past and will recur in the future with the trefoil SIM periods which always occur after 178.7 years [13].”

    Just a short comment on Rhodes Fairbridge.

    He showed a sharp ‘scientific intuition’ that led him to pursue interests that were, at the time, against the received wisdom of the day. He would follow up his intuitions with detailed scientific research. Here are a couple of examples:

    Continental drift
    When in his mid 20s and starting out on an academic career he considered that Wegener’s theories of continental drift were probably valid and would be the subject of his academic research. At the time Wegner’s ideas were regarded as junk science and not taught anywhere. A distinguished world ranking senior professor took Rhodes to one side and told him that Rhodes should keep his pro-Wegener thoughts to himself or otherwise his academic career would go now where. Rhodes ignored this advice. His academic career flourished!

    Rise and fall of the sea
    In 1950 Rhodes Fairbridge was the first to document that over long time scales the ocean levels rose and fell. He formulated the hypothesis that the sea levels had been rising for the last 16,000 years and that the rise showed regular periodic oscillations of rise and fall over the period. This hypothesis was radical for its time and roundly rejected. His colleagues mocked him calling his graph “the Fairbridge Curve of the Holocene Eustatic Fluctuations”. Now it is acknowledged to be a feature of the history of the planet.

    Milankovitch theory
    By the 1960s geologists and other scientists had come to reject the Milankovitch hypothesis. This happened during the early 1950s as new techniques for dating the ice ages produced evidence that conflicted with Milankovitch theory. This was in marked contrast to the attitude of geologists in the 1930s and 40s. Most European geologists came to accept the theory shortly after its publication in 1924.

    During the late 1950s and early 1960s when the Milankovitch theory was on the scientific scrap heap, Rhodes advocated the theory. In 1961 he spoke of Milankovitch’s “elegant mathematical theory”, drawing attention to its strengths and weaknesses, including some doubtful assumptions and conflict between evidence and prediction, which have only recently been addressed.

    It is interesting to note that Rhodes was an early champion of the continental drift ideas Alfred Wegener and it was Alfred Wegener and his father-in-law, the great German climatologist of the early 20th Century, Wladimir Koppen, who were the first to accept the Milankovitch theory and actively promoted the theory throughout the scientific world from 1924 onwards

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  277. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    278 Richard,
    Thank you for another enlightening and mightily impressive post. You take matters seriously. Your knowledge of the history of ideas and appreciation of the importance of individuals prepared to put forward new interpretations of long observed phenomena to challenge the orthodoxy of the day is inspirational. Nowhere is this needed more than in this field of climate change. What we lack is the broad synthesis. It’s a big subject and hard to keep a sense of scale.

    I congratulate Leif too for his interpretation and scaling of the basic indices that give us information about what the sun has done over long periods of time. Without good basic data we get nowhere.
    There is the data, and the interpretation. We need more of both.

  278. beng
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    RE 242 Leif says:

    236 (dscott): you are completely missing my point, or, alternatively, I’m incapable of making it. Here is my gnat again: variations of the order of 0.05% do not seem [according to people who calculate this for a living] enough to bring about the MWP and the LIA or the modern warming because that would require a sensitivity that is ‘impossible’. I’m not saying that it didn’t, just that with our currently understanding [or lack thereof] we can’t see how it can.

    Leif, there’s a heckofalot more problem than the LIA or MWP. What about the recent transition from LGM to interglacial over a mere 10k yrs starting just 20kya? Now we’re really talking about impossible. :)

  279. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    278 (Richard):
    I don’t want to go down that road again [have wasted enough time there]. Maybe just this:

    Solar Physics
    ISSN 0038-0938 (Print) 1573-093X (Online)
    Issue Volume 229, Number 1 / June, 2005
    DOI 10.1007/s11207-005-4086-7
    Pages 175-179
    Do Planetary Motions Drive Solar Variability?
    Cornelis De Jager and Gerard J. M. Versteegh

    Abstract We examine the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar activity originates by planetary Newtonian attraction on the Sun. We do this by comparing three accelerations working on solar matter at the tachocline level: Those due to planetary tidal forces, to the motion of the Sun around the planetary system’s centre of gravity, and the observed accelerations at that level. We find that the latter are by a factor of about 1000 larger than the former two and therefore cannot be caused by planetary attractions. We conclude that the cause of the dynamo is purely solar.

  280. Mike B
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    Abstract We examine the occasionally forwarded hypothesis that solar activity originates by planetary Newtonian attraction on the Sun. We do this by comparing three accelerations working on solar matter at the tachocline level: Those due to planetary tidal forces, to the motion of the Sun around the planetary system’s centre of gravity, and the observed accelerations at that level. We find that the latter are by a factor of about 1000 larger than the former two and therefore cannot be caused by planetary attractions. We conclude that the cause of the dynamo is purely solar.

    Is the solar system’s center of gravity (mass?) inside the sun? How far is it from the center of the sun?

  281. John Lang
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    Leif, when we are measuring the change in total solar irradiance (about 0.1% variance observed), do we not need to use a measure which accumulates that irradiance.

    Shouldn’t the measure be the total solar irradiance arriving at earth over the past 30 days, 6 months, 5 years etc.? It seems to me that there would be more variance in this measure.

  282. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    283 (John L): the 0.1% is for the yearly average. From day to day the variations are much bigger, but climate is not determined by the daily variations.

  283. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 7, 2008 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    Did you look at the link in #275? This is a direct satellite observation of an equatorial temperature anomaly associated with solar minimum.

  284. Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Leif. I have studied the de Jager & Versteegh (2005) paper. Unfortunately, as Jim Shirley explained, it has a flaw. The authors’ inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution knocks the stuffing out of their argument. Jim Shirley’s paper, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin–orbit coupling” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 368 Issue 1 Page 280-282, May 2006, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10107.x, explains more fully the point you were making, Leif, at your post 46 of Svalgaard #1 regarding the Sun’s freefall motion around the center of mass of the solar system in relation to the rest of the solar system.

    For the benefit of others, you wrote:
    “The Sun is in free fall in its orbit around the barycenter of the solar system, and [as a astronaut in free fall in orbit around the earth] does not feel any forces due to that movement. Both the Sun and the astronaut will feel ‘tidal’ forces, but these are very weak (falls off as the cube of the distance) and are generally not thought to have any effect on the sun. Much has been made in the past of the ‘closeness’ of Jupiter’s orbital period to the solar cycle, but the tidal forces from Venus are actually stronger than those from Jupiter. So, no serious astronomer [well, almost none] entertains any notions about ‘planetary’ influences back on the Sun.”

    Jim Shirley pointed out that, assuming the Sun is homogeneous, all the components of the Sun will undergo the same freefall motion. As a result, the free-fall motion itself could not be the reason for any relationship between the Sun’s epitrochoid-shaped orbit and variations in solar activity. But the Sun is not homogenous.

    As Jim noted, he used an explanation of tidal phenomena first provided by Sir George Darwin, the second son of Charles of evolution fame, in his 1898 text, The Tides and Kindred Phenomena, republished by Dover in 1961.
    You can get a pdf of George Darwin’s 1898 text here

    http://ia340902.us.archive.org/1/items/tideskindredphen00darwuoft/tideskindredphen00darwuoft.pdf

    There is also a good website about tides and the widespread misconceptions associated with them, including in many standard text books, here: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/scenario/tides.htm

    Thanks for the feedback, Erl. I’ve been studying the history of science and maths, as a hobby, for quite a few years. Whilst I’m no historian, I think there is great wisdom in the aphorism “if you don’t learn the lessons of history you are bound to repeat them.” Also I find the history so endlessly fascinating. I like to use what opportunities come my way to share what I can glean from the history I read (and understand) with other kindred spirits, many of whom I suspect lurk around this website! The opportunity to exchange ideas and test things out with a chap of Leif’s brilliance and achievement is a wonderful experience. I don’t know how you find the time, Leif, for all your contributions here, as well as everything else you do!

    From the history angle, it does seem to me that the IPCC/Al Gore phenomena is unparalleled in history. Although, you can find fascinating precedent of sorts in the Fagan books (FAGAN, B., 1999. Floods, Famines and Emperors. El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations Basic Books. FAGAN, B., 2000. The Little Ice Age. How Climate Made History 1300-1800 Basic Books. FAGAN, B., 2004. The Long Summer. How Climate Changed Civilization Basic Books.

    He shows how many ruling elites in the past used catastrophic climate change to punish the masses, inflict even greater hardships on them and consolidate their grip on power. In a couple of cases, after several generations and no abatement of the climate catastrophes, the remaining rump of the masses rose up butched the remaining rump of the ruling elites. In some cultures the high priests offered human sacrifices (usually teenagers) to the deities (usually sun gods) to appease them and bring back the good times. But there is nothing comparable in civilisations history to the rise of post modern ‘anti-science’ that has occurred under the leadership of the IPCC and affiliated bodies.

    For the benefit of readers of this discussion, here is Jim’s paper. It isn’t a copy of the Monthly Notices paper, it is an earlier version but with no substantial difference, so there is no copyright infringement:

    Axial rotation, orbital revolution, and solar spin-orbit coupling

    James H. Shirley
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, MS 183-601, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA

    ABSTRACT

    The orbital motion of the Sun has been linked with solar variability, but the underlying physics remains unknown. A coupling of the solar axial rotation and the barycentric orbital revolution might account for the relationships found. Some recent published studies addressing the physics of this problem have made use of equations from rotational physics in order to model particle motions. However, our standard equations for rotational velocity do not accurately describe particle motions due to orbital revolution. The Sun’s orbital motion is a state of free fall; in consequence, aside from very small tidal motions, the associated particle velocities do not vary as a function of position on or within the body of the Sun. In this note I describe and illustrate the fundamental difference between particle motions in rotation and revolution, in order to dispel some part of the confusion that has arisen in the past and that which may yet arise in the future. This discussion highlights the principal physical difficulty that must be addressed and overcome by future dynamical spin-orbit coupling hypotheses.

    Key words: Sun: rotation – Sun: interior – Sun: magnetic fields – celestial mechanics

    1 INTRODUCTION

    The first published description of the Sun’s orbital revolution about the barycentre of the solar system appeared in 1687, in Newton’s Principia (Cajori 1936): “… since that centre of gravity is continually at rest, the sun, according to the various positions of the planets, must continually move every way, but will never recede far from that centre.” In 1965 P. D. Jose published curves showing substantial agreement of Hale-cycle sunspot numbers and the rate of change of the solar orbital angular momentum dL/dt (Jose 1965). In subsequent years this and other parameterizations of the solar motion have been related to the occurrence of solar prolonged minima (Fairbridge & Shirley 1987), to torsional oscillations in long-term sunspot group clustering (i.e., in active longitudes) (Juckett 2003), to short-term variations in solar luminosity (Shirley, Sperber & Fairbridge 1990), to violations of the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule and to variability of the solar differential rotation (Javaraiah 2005), and to various other indices of solar variability (Wood & Wood 1965; Landscheidt 1999; Charvátová 2000).
    The solar axial rotation plays a fundamental role in dynamo theories constructed to represent and replicate the solar magnetic and sunspot cycles. Some form of coupling between the solar rotation and the solar orbital revolution has long been suspected, in order to account for the observed relationships linking the orbital revolution with indices of solar variability. However, past attempts to identify a coupling mechanism have not met with success.
    Zaqarashvili (1997) and Juckett (2000) present specific solar spin-orbit coupling hypotheses. However, the mechanism of spin-orbit coupling presented by Zaqarashvili (1997) reflects a subtle but still fundamental misapprehension of the nature of solar particle motions associated with the orbital revolution. The mechanism presented by Juckett (2000) involves an exchange of angular momentum, and thus differs from that of Zaqarashvili, but it too must be disqualified for similar reasons. Our objective in this note is to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type.

    2 THE SUN IN FREE FALL

    Fig. 1 provides a simplified polar view of the system under consideration. The circles represent the body of the Sun at two times (designated T1 and T2). The curved solid arrow represents the trajectory of the centre of mass of the Sun about the barycentre () of the solar system. The label R identifies the orbital radius vector linking the centre of the Sun and the solar system barycentre. r is the position vector for the location A; this vector is referred to and originates at the centre of the Sun.
    In order to isolate the motions of revolution we will initially suppose that our subject body is not rotating. Thus the locations labeled A and A’ on the figure represent the same location on the surface, and the dashed line gives the trajectory of that point during the interval T1 – T2.
    Also shown in Fig. 1 is a bold arrow representing the position of the location A’ at time T2 with respect to the system barycentre . We see immediately that the radial distance (given by R + r) separating the points A and A’ from the barycentre varies significantly over the interval T1-T2.

    Figure 1. “Revolution without rotation.” The circles represent the body of the Sun as viewed from a position to the north of the orbital plane. The curved arrow represents the orbital trajectory of the centre of the Sun about the centre of mass () of the solar system. The dashed line represents the parallel trajectory of an arbitrary point A located on the Sun’s surface. During the interval from T1 to T2 the Sun traverses an arc of 90.

    3 “COUPLING” OF ORBITAL AND ROTATIONAL VELOCITIES

    The rotational velocity of a particle is proportional to the perpendicular distance of the particle from the axis of rotation; this may be obtained from

    V =   r , (1)

    where  represents the angular velocity of rotation. It seems quite reasonable to apply this equation to the case of orbital revolution, by employing an appropriate value for  and substituting (R + r) for r in the equation above. If we do this (as in equation 1 of Zaqarashvili 1997) we obtain different inertial system orbital velocities for particles found at different locations within the body of the Sun. These differences are hypothesized to give rise to material flows within the Sun, thereby altering the rotational velocities, and thus coupling the orbital and rotational motions.
    However the use of the above equation for representing particle motions associated with the solar motion is incorrect. To see why this is so, we must recognize a fundamental difference between rotation and revolution. In rotation, the constituent particles of a subject body move in concentric trajectories with velocities that depend upon their position in relation to the axis of rotation (eq. 1). In revolution, the particles of the body move in parallel trajectories with identical velocities (aside from small differences produced by the gradients that give rise to the tides). In gravitational physics this motion is identified as a state of free fall (Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973).
    Fig. 1 serves to illustrate the essential point. The velocity with respect to the barycentre  of the location A (or A’) is at all times identical to that of the solar centre of mass (CMS). The orbital velocities of A and CMs are identical, but their curvilinear trajectories are not concentric. In effect, each particle of the subject body revolves about its own unique centre of revolution. Thus there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the solar system barycentre; and the spin-orbit coupling hypothesis of Zaqarashvili (1997) must be discarded.

    4 “COUPLING” OF ORBITAL AND ROTATIONAL ANGULAR MOMENTA

    Juckett (2000) presents a solar spin-orbit coupling mechanism that involves a transfer of angular momentum between the orbital and rotational reservoirs. The spin angular momentum for particles may be written

    l = m  r2. (2)

    Substituting (R+r) for r in this equation (see § 3 of Juckett 2000), and referring once more to Fig. 1, it is evident that the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum l for particles situated at the locations A and A’ must differ significantly. Juckett (2000) relates differences such as these to the observed variability of the solar differential rotation, suggesting that the differences in orbital angular momentum are in effect compensated by changes in the spin angular momentum. As noted in the introduction, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that something of this sort may indeed be occurring.
    However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution. This has led many previous investigators to conclude that the motions of rotation and revolution are dynamically independent and uncoupled. Although the instantaneous orbital angular momentum for widely separated solar particles may differ significantly, this difference is considered to be without consequence for solar dynamics.

    5 DISCUSSION

    The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modeling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in § 2 of de Jager & Versteegh 2005). The present discussion is intended to help prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type.
    The principal stumbling-block for dynamical spin-orbit coupling hypotheses evidently lies in our identification of the solar motion as a state of free fall. To be successful, future solar spin-orbit coupling hypotheses must address and overcome this obstacle.
    The disqualification of the particular hypotheses of Zaqarashvili (1997) and Juckett (2000) does not diminish the scientific interest of this problem. Evidence for the existence of some form of solar spin-orbit coupling has accumulated in recent years, and it is possible that some more successful hypothesis will in future resolve this puzzling conundrum.
    The papers by Zaqarashvili (1997) and Juckett (2000) include valuable contributions that are unaffected by the issues discussed here; Zaqarashvili (1997) explores MHD equations for periodic shear flows, and Juckett (2000) presents new findings on north-south asymmetries of solar variability. Finally I note in passing that some of the details of the hypotheses of Zaqarashvili (1997) and Juckett (2000) have been neglected here in the interests of brevity. Zaqarashvili (1997) links the acceleration differences with the eccentricity of the solar orbit, while Juckett (2000) highlights north-south asymmetries in (R + r) due to the obliquity of the solar rotation axis with respect to the invariable plane. The reader is directed to the original sources for further details.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    I thank D. Juckett and T. Zaqarashvili for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The representation of “revolution without rotation” presented here in § 2 and Fig. 1 is based in part on an earlier discussion by G. H. Darwin (1898, pp 95-100). This work was supported by the private resources of the author.

    REFERENCES

    Cajori, F. 1934, Newton’s Principia, (San Francisco: U. Calif. Press)
    Charvátová, I. 2000, Ann. Geophysicae, 18, 399
    Darwin, G. H. 1898, The Tides and Kindred Phenomena, (1962 ed.; New York: Freeman)
    De Jager, C., Versteegh, G. J. M. 2005, Sol. Phys., 229, 175
    Fairbridge, R. W., Shirley, J. H. 1987, Sol. Phys., 100, 191
    Javaraiah, J. 2005, M. N. R. A. S., 362, 1311
    Jose, P. D. 1965, A. J. 70, 193
    Juckett, D. A. 2000, Sol. Phys., 191, 201
    Juckett, D. A. 2003, A. & A., 399, 731
    Landscheidt, T. 1999, Sol. Phys., 189, 413
    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K., Wheeler, J. A. 1973, Gravitation, (San Francisco: Freeman)
    Shirley, J. H., Sperber, K. R., Faribridge, R. W. 1990, Sol. Phys., 127, 329
    Wood, R. M., Wood, K. D. 1965, Nature, 208, 129
    Zaqarashvili, T. V. 1997, Ap. J. 487, 930

  285. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    286 (Richard):

    Shirley states:

    the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution.

    This does not rely on the Sun being homogeneous. It applies to every particle of the Sun. The point of DeJager and Versteegh was that the flows already observed by helioseismology are 1000 times as large as the flows associated with the various gravitational effects. Now can we get off this topic? One more comment of this nature and I quit responding to them and shall censure them [i.e. remove them].

  286. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    285 (Dennis): Yes, but that link describes the temperature variation in the upper thermosphere. I don’t see any relation to anything we have been discussing here.

  287. GeorgeF
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    284 (Leif) Your comment was “From day to day the variations are much bigger, but climate is not determined by the daily variations.”
    This seems to be at odds with some comments (182, 205 and 206)
    on the “Spencer on Cloud Feedback” thread.
    Are your day to day variations about the same order of magnitude as the daily random cloud-induced SW heating variations being discussed in that thread?

  288. John Lang
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Leif, my point was exactly that, we shouldn’t be examining the daily variance (or the average daily variances over a year) but the total irradiance received by the Earth over a period of time, the sum of total irradiance over a 3 month period (90 days of irradiance or 90 * 1,365 W/m2 / 4) – whatever period of time makes sense or exhibits the closest correlation.

    Earth’s climate obviously doesn’t react on daily changes but an accumulation of less or more irradiance over a period of time might show a better correlation.

  289. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    289, 290: you guys slug it out.

  290. cba
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    A quick off topic question. Do you do presentations (public lectures) on solar topics? (location would be in TX).

  291. Leif Svalgaard
    Posted Jan 8, 2008 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

    292 (cba): short answer ‘yes’, but email me at leif@leif.org for more.

  292. ulric
    Posted Jan 9, 2008 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

    Leif #75, changes in SSN/aa/SOI will pan out perfectly it time with heliocentric alignments, that can be guaranteed, and it is quite extraordinary that so few people have noticed the connection between said alignments and changes is solar activity. That is the easy bit, as to giving a value or estimate of how each planetary scenario will affect ultimately, temperature change on Earth, that is a lot harder, but my first set of forecasts since last Oct. have been going remarkably well. I forecast mid/late Nov. to be very cold through to mid Dec. and warming towards Christmas, dipping down briefly into early Jan. but then soon rising again towards mid Jan. with stronger solar activity occurring then, than for the last 3/4 months. These temperature changes have been seen in many locations, and not just the UK. The cold indications for Nov, were similar to early 1963, but not quite so severe. Record lows appeared in many locations for the 17/19th Nov. across the S.Americas`, central Spain, Siberia, and lows in the Nov/Dec period broke 90/100+yr records in many places. I will post a monthly/weekly temperature forecast for the rest of this year soon, based purely on the heliocentric planetary positions, and what I have learned from looking at many examples of similar scenarios. I am currently working with Piers Corbyn on hurricane/typhoon triggers, he has forecast -17 centigrade for the UK mid Jan., but is using cyclic fixed look-back periods rather than the full planetary synthesis that I am employing, so this Jan. is an important test for the effectiveness of my techniques.

  293. Posted Jan 10, 2008 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

    The discussion so far has largely concentrated on relationships between the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation and climate. I wonder if there is any interest here in discussing the other ways in which solar activity might regulate our climate. I would mention these in the interests of exploring all possible solar climate relationships.

    You should let us know, Leif, if you would rather not have much of a discussion of any of these.

    I suggest that, amongst other things, this work is relevant to the significant theme you emphasise about interconnectedness. There does seem to be a disconnect between research in these areas and the irradiance/climate research.

    Other solar variability/climate relationships:

    The first is the complex relationship between the Earth’s variable rotation and climate on the one hand and solar variables on the other, principally the Sun’s electromagnetic field, the solar wind and the lunisolar tides.

    The second is the complex relationship between the global electric circuit and climate on the one hand and solar variables on the other, principally the solar wind, CMEs and SPEs, the Sun’s electromagnetic field.

    The third is the relationship between the Earth’s geomagnetic field and climate variables on the one hand and solar variables on the other, principally the effect of lunisolar tides on the Earth’s inner metallic solid and molten cores, the solar wind, CMEs and SPEs, the Sun’s electromagnetic field.

    The fourth is about relationships between the lunisolar tides and climate through impacts on the major oceanic/atmospheric oscillatory systems such as ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc, the churning of the oceans, geomagnetism, volcanoes and earthquakes.

    The fifth is about relationships between variable solar activity of all types and the Rossby and Kelvin waves that drive global circulation.

    With all the solar variables there are multiple periodicities and various time lags. There are also many interactions between all the solar variables with each other and in relation to their effect on climate. The interaction effects can amplify or neutralise each other.

    Silvia Duhau has published extensively on relationships between solar activity, the geomagnetic field, the Earth’s rotation rate, global surface temperature and other geophysical variables. For example, Duhau (2006) has documented the effect of the Sun’s variable electromagnetic field on climate concludes: Summing up, we have presented evidence that solar activity variation excites a semi-secular cycle in the Earth’s rotation rate with a 94 year delay and that this cycle in the earth’s rotation rate in turn forces surface temperature variations…according to our results surface temperature changes by 0.022o C for each millisecond in LoD. Amongst other things therefore she found that“….long term variations in sunspot maxima will appear about 94 years later in the Earth’ surface temperature.” (Duhau, Silvia, 2006. “Solar Activity, Earth’s rotation rate and climate variations in the secular and semi-secular time scales” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Vol. 31 pp 99 to 108).

    Here is another example of her work:
    “On the origin of the fluctuations in the length of day and in the geomagnetic field on a decadal time scale”. Silvia Duhau Laboratorio de Geofisica, Depto. de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Ernesto A. MartínezLaboratorio de Geofisica, Depto. de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    ABSTRACT
    There is, at present, strong evidence that on a decadal time scale the excess length of day variations are caused by the exchange of angular momentum between the liquid core and the solid mantle. Nevertheless the mechanism which facilitates the momentum exchange is still not understood. In the present work a mechanism by which the magnetospheric equatorial ring current system controls the momentum exchange is introduced, some empirical insights about that mechanism are obtained from relevant data and the magnitudes of the involved magnetic fields are evaluated from these data. © American Geophysical Union 1995.
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 22, NO. 23, PAGES 3283–3286, 1995

  294. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    Discussion of climate change suffers from a tragic disconnect of observation and deduction.

    The top graph is an old presentation from GISS. The latest is at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.txt. The graph had the virtue that it brought together temperature anomalies for the tropics and the globe as a whole.

    The second graph plots the two anomalies on the same axis. It is apparent that temperatures in the tropics increase faster, progress further and peak earlier than for the globe as a whole. It is very likely that the tropics, where the greater proportion of solar energy is absorbed, is driving temperature change for the entire globe. That graph also shows smoothed sunspot numbers. It is apparent that temperature peaks occurred at sunspot maximum on two of five occasions. The major troughs coincided with solar minimum on just two of five occasions. This suggests that if a solar influence on terrestrial temperature is important the major dynamic has nothing to do with changes in irradiance or sunspot number. We see multiple peaks and troughs within the period of the solar cycle that are unrelated to these factors. This too, is a crucial deduction.

    The conventional wisdom is that ENSO is an ‘internal oscillation of the climate system’. If that were the case there should be little change in tropical temperatures as a result of ENSO phenomena. There might be a redistribution of heat but little net change for the region as a whole. This is not what we are seeing in the figures above. The failure to observe this simple dynamic is tragic. How is it that we can entertain this notion of ‘internal oscillation’? Is it the result of a failure to observe, inappropriate deduction or ‘ideological blinkers’? I suspect the latter.

    The third graph reveals that it is ENSO that drives temperature fluctuation in the tropics. Furthermore the Southern Oscillation Index, when inverted, is an excellent proxy for the direction, if not the amount of temperature change. It is apparent that global temperature follows ENSO. Here is the disconnection of observation from deduction that characterises today’s ‘global warming’ debate. One can not entertain notions of ‘greenhouse warming’ as the principle driver without denying the reality of temperature change in the tropics. That denial is soon followed by acceptance of the notion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is exaggerating ENSO events and destabilising the climate. If the notional blanket that is retaining warmth were to be effective at all, it should dampen fluctuation rather than enhance it. Once one starts on the wrong track it is downhill all the way. The tail begins to wag the dog.

    In a further post I will show how cloud cover and rainfall in Australia varies with ENSO activity. These dynamics over a continent that is almost wholly within the tropics, demonstrate the linkage between solar insolation and ENSO. What we lack is knowledge of the factor that drives the change in the level of solar insolation.

    What is absolutely sure is that ENSO is not due to ‘an internal oscillation of the climate system’. Has one ever noticed ones bathwater mysteriously warming? If so, we should investigate the matter. While there could conceivably be several sources of warmth in the bathtub, in the case of the tropical oceans, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the sun is the source of this extra warmth.

    For an illustration of the mumbo jumbo that passes for climate science see the explanation given by NASA for the floods that occurred in December in Indonesia at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17886

    An alternative, somewhat more physical explanation goes like this:
    When the tropics cool due to greater cloud cover during an La Nina event the trade winds slacken as does the ITCZ, the area of concentrated thunderstorm activity and rapidly ascending air that exists where the trades meet. Warm wet air then hangs, the zone of thunderstorm activity becomes dispersed and land masses daily become the site of convection. Monsoonal influences strengthen. Without the vigorous uplift at the ITCZ the entire tropical and subtropical zone experiences higher humidity. Satellite photos reveal cloud streaming away from the equator and it is this highly unstable wet air that brings the flash floods presently being experienced on the western margins of the major oceans where the remnants of warmer waters remain. As the current La Nina event gathered strength flooding occurred in the Caribbean, Bangladesh, China, India and in the Sahara in Africa. In Southern Hemisphere summer floods are manifesting in New Guinea, Indonesia, The Philippines and Eastern Australia. The zone of rainfall at the convergence has shifted from the ocean to the land and the tropical air in the western oceans is profoundly moist.

    Australia is the driest continent on Earth and it lies wholly within the tropics. In December all time record rainfall totals were established across many parts of the normally arid inland. Summer has three months yet to run.

    Getting to grips with ENSO is at the heart of the problem of working out why the Earth periodically warms and cools.

    It is time to connect observation with sound deductive reasoning. This is at the very heart of intelligent problem solving activity.

  295. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 2:28 AM | Permalink

    The collage above shows the dependence of Australian rainfall on La Nina activity. The last three solar cycles have been heavily El Nino dominant and as a result large areas of the country have been drought stricken. The SOI headed southward from January 2007 crossing into cooling territory August 2007.

    At a very basic level:
    1. You don’t get rain without cloud.
    2. You get more cloud over Australia during La Nina events
    3. La Nina events show as a negative SOI (blue line) in the top graph where the SOI is sign inverted.
    4. The SOI follows the aa index of geomagnetic activity (orange line).
    5. Warming and cooling across the tropics is driven by the sun. The current very strong La Nina reflects very low geomagnetic activity.
    6. Conceivably the general increase in geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years is responsible for increasing temperatures in those parts of the globe, principally the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, where warming is most evident.

    Today’s weather summary for Australia reflects the contraction of the Hadley cell. Bear in mind we are now in high mid summer. Current synoptics are described in these words:

    ‘A monsoon trough is causing heavy storms over the northern and eastern tropics, mainly in north QLD near a low. A trough is triggering storms in eastern NSW. A front is causing gales in Tasmania and is bringing showers to Tasmania, western Victoria and southern South Australia.’

    December was a very wet month for parts of the inland and many rainfall records were broken. The floods that occurred in Queensland and the top end in January are not reflected in the map below.

    There is currently no known mechanism that connects geomagnetic activity with a cloud cover over the tropics or a contraction of the Hadley cell. This is just one of many phenomena for which we have no explanation. This does not invalidate or weaken the connection. It simply means that we have got to get those who study the sun, the magnetosphere, the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere and the troposphere to talk to each other, to think rationally and deductively and to work co-operatively rather than to go off on tangents of their own device. Climate science is a dark art and will benefit from the identification of cause and effect.

    To sheet the matter home: Carbon dioxide is not the problem. It is part of the solution to the problem of a rising global population. It will make plants more productive at a given level of moisture availability.

    The level of geomagnetic activity is linked to sunspot numbers. It appears that sunspot numbers are in decline. This should result in a cooling of the tropics and the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. This trend is already apparent and will become more obvious as the supply of warmth from the tropical oceans is gradually cut off. The La Nina of 2006 has resulted in negative anomalies in the northern Pacific Ocean. The current La Nina will accentuate the trend. We will see lots of cold weather from polar incursions over continental land masses in the northern hemisphere in the remaining months of winter. That will simply reflect changed atmospheric dynamics as the sun diminishes as a driver for the atmospheric system.

    More notes on current Australian weather and a taste of Northern Hemisphere summer to come appear below. For those unfamiliar with Australia Darwin is at the top at 12°S, Sydney is 33°S and Devonport is 41°S. Also bear in mind that when the trade winds slacken that air from the inland can get very hot and be drawn south towards the mid latitude low pressure cells. This gives rise to a pendulum effect with big swings of temperature over short time periods.

    Falls of more than 200 millimetres were recorded across the Top End on Sunday as the monsoon brought further thunderstorms and heavy rain, according to weatherzone.com.au. Darwin Airport picked up 242 mm to 9am Sunday, its wettest day in ten years and fifth-highest daily total recorded since observations began there 66 years ago. Among the four wetter days was Christmas Day 1974 when Cyclone Tracy devastated the town. This wet season has been boosted by a La Nina event, which developed in the Pacific Ocean late last year. One indicator of La Nina conditions is the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), based on relative pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin. The SOI has been steadily climbing over the past three months, and over the past 30 days has averaged a healthy +22. (previously 1917, 1950, 1974, 2001)
    Severe thunderstorms swept across Sydney late on Sunday following the hottest day of the summer in some suburbs, according to weatherzone.com.au. By early afternoon, northerly winds had pushed temperatures into the 30’s across the metropolitan area. Penrith peaked at 38 degrees, its hottest day in twelve months. The intense afternoon heat, combined with large quantities of moisture, led to the rapid development of thunderstorms on the Blue Mountains west of Sydney. The storms reached the outer suburbs around 3pm, bringing a gust of 102 km/h at Penrith. Only one stronger gust has been recorded there in more than five years. Penrith’s temperature soon dropped 18 degrees in less than an hour as 14mm of rain fell in a torrential downpour.

    Temperatures have returned to around average today in Tasmania after another scorching summer’s day yesterday and a much cooler front expected tomorrow. Temperatures yesterday were up to 15 above average. Devonport recorded a high of 30 degrees, nine above the January average and their hottest January day in 10 years. Today the city has cooled down to an average 21 degrees. The cool change entered the state just after lunchtime yesterday, bringing only very light or no rainfall due to relatively dry air. Falls were generally below one millimetre. A stronger and cooler front is expected to pass tomorrow bringing some more light showers, mainly in the morning. The front will be the strongest to pass the southeast in about three weeks. With a combination of cold and dry air there is potential for some snow on the higher peaks, above about 1450 metres.

    Steve, thanks for the opportunity.

  296. kim
    Posted Jan 13, 2008 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    The ‘hot’ flash of 1998 was followed by a decadal curve to negative slope of temperature. That hot flash was accompanied by brief rapid changes in what we measure of cosmic rays and magnetism. Was that ripple, inadequately measured, a ‘tipping point’?
    ===============================

  297. Pete
    Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    What is your opinion on the paper below “Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance” ? by P.R. Goode. It seems to support the idea that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer now than historically, and therefore proposes that the 11/22 year signal observed in many Climate/Earth signals could be from a link between The Sun and the Earth’s Albedo.

  298. Pete
    Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    Sorry – Link is here

  299. kim
    Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    Is amplifying by an order of magnitude enough to explain the climate changes? Doesn’t the link almost have to be cloud formation?
    =========================

  300. Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    299-301 (pete & kim): I think their result is compelling [I referred to it already in the very first post of 'Svalgaard #1']. A small complaint: they could have updated their Figures with the latest couple of years worth of data. Especially Figure 1, where the latest data show perhaps a very slight decline even below the previous minimum, reflecting the now lower sunspot activity compared to previous minima.

    Clouds? I don’t know. An alternative is that there is no solar signal so nothing to explain. I know that this is not a popular view, but let me indulge in it for myself. [not trying to convince anybody; I'm the one that need to be convinced...]

  301. kim
    Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    Thank you, Prof. In Missouri, they are wont to say “Show me”.
    ====================================

  302. Posted Jan 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    Re 299 & 300: thanks hugely Pete for the link to the very interesting and authoritative paper by Goode and Palle. I shall study it with great interest.

    Only on a quick scan I do have one little comment, which probably does not affect the author’s main thesis and conclusion.

    I am surprised the authors don’t cite and respond to the several solid and comprehensive papers by Sophie Pireaux and her colleagues Rozelot, Lefebrve, etc at the French Cote D’ Azur Observatory about the variable shape and figure of the Sun (see my post 12 of Svalgaard#2).

    Her papers are on her website http://sophie.pireaux.neuf.fr/public_html/page_web_perso_boulot/index.html

    The authors should have discussed this work as it presents a different account of the variations in the shape and figure of the sun over the activity cycle to that presented by Goode and Palle. It is a wonder that referees did not insist on this.

    I take this to be another illustration of the point that Leif continues to make about the need for greater interconnectedness amongst solar research work, especially solar/climate type work. As I mentioned before (at 77 and 182 of Svalgaard#2), this is a general problem in highly technical areas of research across many disciplines where technical specialisation can result in authors not taking into account even parallel research, let alone quite different work that nevertheless has an important bearing on their findings and conclusions.

    Thanks again for posting the paper.

    Richard

  303. JohnB
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    Erl, when I look at your graphs they seem to be confirming Svensmark: less sunspots and solar activity equals more cosmic rays which equals increased cloud cover. In the introduction to “Chilling Stars” Svensmark and Calder say; “Before they reach us, the cosmic rays must break through three defensive shields – the sun’s magnetism, the Earth’s magnetism, and the air around us…….only the most charged particles can travel right down to sea level….they are called muons. In Svensmark’s theory, the muons help to make clouds low in the air.”

    In #297 (Jan 13 2:28) you say “There is currently no known mechanism that connects geomagnetic activity with a cloud cover over the tropics”;
    is Svensmark’s theory the link?

  304. Ian Wilson
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 5:33 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    A month or so ago you said in relation to planetary influeces:

    “Jupiter makes [one] full rotation around [the] Sun in 11.9 Earth years. Sounds the bell?”: the tides raised by Venus on the Sun are just as big as those raised by Jupiter [because Venus is closer to the Sun] and have a period of 225 days. I don’t hear the bell from that. Mercury and Earth raise about half the tides of Venus [and Jupiter], but I don’t hear them bells either.”

    If you actualy look at the alignments of Earth, Venus and Jupiter, you find that:

    a) inferior conjunctions of Venus and the Earth (this is when Venus is in front of and aligned with the Sun) align with Jupiter once every 22.4 years.

    b) similarly, superior conjunctions of Venus and Earth (this is when Venus is behind and aligned with the Sun) align with Jupiter once every 22.4 years.

    c) The alignments of Jupiter with inferior conjunction are 180 degrees out of phase with Jupiter alignments with superior conjunction

    point c) naturally produces a 11.2 periodicity that closely matches the solar sunspot cycle. Not only that, it provides a natural explanation for the 22.4 year Hale cycle since Jupiter has to go through an alignment with the inferior conjunction of Venus and Earth AND an alignment with the superior conjunction of Venus and Earth to complete one full cycle of 22.4 years.

    [Note: Mercury rarely aligns with other planetary alignmnets (e.g. Venus and Earth) for the simple reason that it is a fast moving highly elliptical orbit - run a version of SKY software and you will see that this is the case]

    Jupiter and Venus provide roughly the same tidal force at the surface of the Sun (~ 3.7 x 10-10 m sec-2) while Earth and Mercury provide about half this tidal force. This is very tiny and it is hard to imagine that it has any effect. However, we may have to start thinking outside the square!

    The is speculative effect that is associated with the alignment of planetary bodies known as the Allais Effect. Variations in gravitational acceleration of ~ 5×10-8 m sec-2 have been attributed to this as yet proven effect. If an unknown effect of this nature turns out to be true then it may, and I stress may, provide a mechanism for planetary influences to effect solar activity.

    I think you dismiss this possibility too easily.

  305. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 7:24 AM | Permalink

    375 (John B)
    Svensmark’s theory may be a factor in the link but not I think the primary factor. I believe the correlations between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity have been questioned. There is some question also about the level in the atmosphere where the cloud is formed. On this blog Leif has pointed out that cosmic ray intensity is not simply a function of the intensity of the solar wind. I wonder also whether a deficiency of condensation nuclei is a critical factor in determining the degree of cloud cover that might form.

    Certainly, the strength of the solar wind and geomagnetic activity is inversely related to the level of cloud cover in the tropics. It could be cosmic rays that are partly responsible for the fluctuation in cloud cover but I think that Hadley cell dynamics that directly drive the ITCZ and determine the level of humidity in the tropics, the degree and the number and the location of centres of atmospheric uplift, are a more plausible driver of change in cloud cover. Hadley cell dynamics are readily observable and can be verified from long term records of cloud cover from surface observations.

    The changing level of electromagnetic radiation impinging on the tropics is responsible for the wide swings in temperature that occur there. These swings are multiple within the cycle and therefore do not conform to the single peak pattern of cosmic ray intensity. Therefore I see the mechanics driving ENSO as relating strongly to observed patterns of climate change both in terms of short term fluctuations about mean temperature and changes in that mean temperature itself.

    I would back the ENSO mechanism against cosmic rays simply on the basis of observation of how temperature actually fluctuates, not simply according to the cycle in cosmic rays that clearly peaks once at solar minimum but according to cycles in geomagnetic activity that are multiple attaining several peaks and troughs within the 11 year period.

    So, reading the pattern of heating events, the cosmic ray theory does not fit the evidence.
    In fact, if I may be permitted the observation, both solar (TSI, Cosmic rays) and the greenhouse gas theories pay so little attention to the observed pattern of temperature change as to be equally implausible.

    The answer lies in the world of plasma physics. Plasma is created by very short wave electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays, X Rays Extreme Ultra Violet and Ultra Violet) from the sun that varies in intensity across the solar cycle much more than does light or infrared. This short wave radiation tends to vary with sunspot activity as do the most corrosive elements (high speed, southward orientation) of the solar wind. Plasma is capable of being moved en-mass when energised by changing electromagnetic fields. Plasma co-exits with the neutral atmosphere from which it is formed. Energy from the solar wind and short wave radiation is imparted both to the neutrals and to the plasma. I think the mechanism highly plausible given the nature of the material and the type of forces involved. I see a cascade of interacting forces all moving in the same direction to alter albedo in the tropics.

    Start with the evidence before ones eyes, namely heavy temperature fluctuation in the tropics, the period and amplitude of that variation and work back from there. See where you get.

    Nothing in this universe is really accidental.

  306. JohnB
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    Erl, thanks for the detailed reply – much food for thought.

  307. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    Erl said:

    Australia is the driest continent on Earth and it lies wholly within the tropics. In December all time record rainfall totals were established across many parts of the normally arid inland. Summer has three months yet to run.

    Did you really mean that?

    My memories and Wikipedia on the definition of the tropics disagree with you.

  308. Stephen Richards
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    ERL

    Will you confirm something for me. You say “Plasma is created by very short wave electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays, X Rays Extreme Ultra Violet and Ultra Violet) from the sun that varies in intensity across the solar cycle much more than does light or infrared.”

    I haven’t checked this anywhere but here goes. I thought that plasma was a gas in which the elemental nuclii and it’s electron(s) have become dis-associated. I’ve seen the orphaned nucleus called a positively charged ion. I also thought that plasmas would be created within a high voltage electric-magnetic field or, as in the sun, by extreme temperature and pressure.
    I did not think there would be enough energy in shortwave radiation, depending on how short of course, or in cosmic radiation except to form an ion or two. The aurora tend to be created by the quantum absorbtion, particle by particle, but I did not consider that they were plasmas.

    What do you think?

  309. Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    309-310 (Stephen and Richard): Now, don’t nit-pick on Erl. A lot of Australia is in the Tropics, and Tropical weather systems are important to the continent.
    About ‘plasma': a gas does not need to be completely disassociated into nuclei and electrons to be called a plasma. It is enough that there are enough free electrons and ions that the movement of the material can be controlled by a magnetic field. The material in the million-degree corona still retains half of its electrons [except Hydrogen] and in the photosphere most of material is not ionized. The conductivity in the photosphere is only that of sea-water. So, we don’t need to get hung up on such details. More important are the other ideas and possible hand-waving explanations. Unfortunately, these are not definite enough to comment on, so we can’t make any progress there.

  310. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    Leif said:

    309-310 (Stephen and Richard): Now, don’t nit-pick on Erl. A lot of Australia is in the Tropics, and Tropical weather systems are important to the continent.

    Well, having been to and driven through (but not as the driver) Camooweal, Cloncurry, Winton, Longreach, not to mention Katherine, Tennant Creek and so forth, much of that country is very arid and not at all what I would think of a tropical. Of course, Darwin, where I lived for many years is close to tropical (but not like similar places on the east coast of Australia. Of course, parts of the Sahara fall in the tropics as well.

  311. Posted Jan 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    312 (Richard): the issue is not if the Tropics is strictly correct, but if its truth value is crucial for the argument; and I don’t think it is, although [I must admit] I don’t quite see what the argument is. As I see it, Tropical weather is important to Australia, because not much else is happening. So, again: what in Erl’s post would be invalidated by not all of Australia being tropical?

  312. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 2:58 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Thanks for springing to my defence. You have done so much better than I could have done myself. My reading about plasma physics is just slightly better than the average farmer who takes an interest in matters of significance beyond his immediate horizon. For anyone interested in the dynamics of how the solar wind interacts with the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and neutral atmosphere I recommend a publication that can be downloaded for free at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10993.html entitled ‘Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos’.
    The writers say: The committee views this report as a primer that will provide a unified view of the field and show its connections to other scientific disciplines, especially astrophysics.

    Re Stephen’s comment: “I did not think there would be enough energy in shortwave radiation, depending on how short of course, or in cosmic radiation except to form an ion or two”. Well, x-ray photons reputedly carry energy far above that needed to ionize an atom or molecule. In such cases, the electron liberated by ionization has so much extra energy that it ionizes other atoms and molecules via collisions.

    The background as I understand it is this: At very short UV wavelengths the variation in energy across and within the solar cycle is more than 100%. These wave lengths create the ionosphere. The ionosphere contains less than 1% of the Earths atmosphere but can be detected at up to 2000 km above its surface. The Earth is 12,752km in diameter. We are thus referring to a layer of the atmosphere that is a not inconsiderable one sixth of the diameter of the Earth in extent. The temperature of the ionosphere varies spectacularly, between 500°C and 2500°C. There is not a lot of material there, but the energy flux in the region is enormous.

    The variation in temperature of the ionosphere demonstrates that it is capable of marked contraction and expansion. This probably parallels marked changes in the volume of the atmosphere that exists in the ionised form due to the variation in ionising energy within the solar cycle. Secondly, the solar wind is capable of driving this material towards the poles and markedly depleting it over the equator. Consequently the density and extent of the ionosphere varies and this has implications for the level of short wave ionising radiation impinging upon atmospheric material at lower elevations, especially in the tropics where the atmospheric path is shortest. This in turn has important consequences for the amount of material in the path of solar radiation on its way to Earth, the potential for dissipation of extremely energetic short wave radiation before it reaches the lower levels of the atmosphere and the form and intensity of radiation reaching the surface of the Earth, especially in the tropics. For the purpose of this argument I define the tropics as the area between 30°N and 30°S, that area that experiences close to the perpendicular angle of incidence of the suns rays at some time during the year.

    The extent of penetration of short wave radiation, and the extent of the area that I refer to as the tropics at this time of the year can be judged here http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/world_uvi.html

    Now, Leif, Perhaps you can be more specific in terms of where I am doing the arm waving and I will try to address the matter.

  313. Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    315 (Richard): I regularly trigger BS-filters. The only remedy is to continue to dish it out :-)

  314. Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    This is an abstract for an upcoming meeting:
    SORCE’s Past, Present, and Future Role in Earth Science Research, Science Meeting 2008
    La Posada de Santa Fe Resort & Spa, Santa Fe, New Mexico, February 5-7, 2008 :

    Fire vs Fire: Do Volcanoes or Solar Variability Contribute More to Past Climate Change?
    Thomas Crowley [thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk] and Gabriele Hegerl, School of Geosciences,
    The University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Geologists in particular are quick to ascribe past centennial scale climate changes to solar variability. But successively refined records of volcanism from ice core studies suggest that pulses of volcanism explain more decadal temperature variance than can be linear linked to cosmogenic isotope variations. Formal statistical detection and attribution studies arrive at the same conclusion. However, there still seems to be some (literally) wiggle room for perhaps a small contribution from solar. An example will be given from a 2000 year northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction that suggests (at least at the time of writing this abstract) that there may be a moderately significant solar linkage at ~200 year period.
    Given time, a somewhat disconcerting apparent correlation between pulses of volcanism with the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer Minima will be discussed. Given the unlikely physically significant correlations between the two, the possibility will be explored that cosmogenic records may have an uncorrected overprint from volcanically driven climate change. Provisional summary judgement: solar may be at best marginally significant on the multidecadal to centennial time scale.

    My comment: 10Be is deposited by adhering to stratospheric aerosols
    which then drift down and rain out. The amount of aerosols in the
    stratosphere is controlled mainly by volcanic eruptions. There
    were such strong eruptions in 1693 (Hekla on Iceland, having
    large effect on nearby Greenland), 1766 (Hekla), 1809 (see
    Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), 1815 (Tambora), 1883 (Krakatoa).

  315. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    Is it possible to ask whether the table that has one leg a bit awry could be of some use before kicking the offending leg out from underneath it? Knocking is easy. Constructing is harder. Ideas have to await their time. There are about 15 models that try to predict the course of ENSO events and they are all revised once a month to fit the circumstances that they failed to predict the month before. Not one predicted the strength of the current La Nina. That tells you something about the current state of the art.

    I don’t expect that we will see much revision of current notions on the origin of climate variation until the Earth cools. Meanwhile it looks as if the pace of warming has slackened. My reading is that Cycle 24 will be ENSO negative. The last three were heavily positive.

    Leif, what is your expectation as to the timing of solar minimum. When are we likely to see a significant increase in geomagnetic activity? Is the floor dropping out of the base? Did that happen in solar cycle 15 when there was a massive cooling event at sunspot maximum between 1916 and late 1918? Are we likely to see a similar collapse in geomagnetic activity within cycle 24?

    Re Seismic activity: I believe the Russians see a connection between geomagnetic activity and seismic events. Leif, what’s your view? How much of geomagnetic activity is due to processes underneath the Earths crust and how much is due to the sun?

    Re volcanic aerosols and climate: Seems to me that the increase in incident energy during the average El Nino warming event swamps the cooling effect of an increase in aerosol concentration due to a major volcanic eruption. Anyone maintaining the opposite view can not have looked at the IPPC reports that compare temperature at the surface with that in the stratosphere.

  316. Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    318 (Erl):

    Leif, what is your expectation as to the timing of solar minimum.

    summer of 2008

    When are we likely to see a significant increase in geomagnetic activity?

    2009-2010

    Is the floor dropping out of the base?

    no

    Did that happen in solar cycle 15 when there was a massive cooling event at sunspot maximum between 1916 and late 1918?

    ‘what’ happened? There was no particular collapse of geomagnetic activity then

    Are we likely to see a similar collapse in geomagnetic activity within cycle 24?

    see above

    ———————–

    How much of geomagnetic activity is due to processes underneath the Earths crust and how much is due to the sun?

    almost none, except what is induced directly from above.

  317. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    Re 317, there is no correlation between aerosols and Be10 in the ice core records, so that fairytale gets blown away.

  318. Raven
    Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    David Archibald says:

    Re 317, there is no correlation between aerosols and Be10 in the ice core records, so that fairytale gets blown away.

    Can you elaborate? Are you saying that ice cores measure aerosols as well as Be10?

  319. Posted Jan 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    320-321 (David A): Ice cores contain a record of aerosol concentrations such as dust and 10Be (which attaches to sulfate aerosols) that reflect climate conditions [in addition to cosmic ray influx]. So, give us a reference that specifically supports your assertion. And learn to be more civil: what other people say are not ‘fairy tales’ and they are not ‘blown away’.

  320. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

    Dr Svalgaard, the notion you are trying to put across is that volcanic activity caused the Maunder and Dalton Minima etc and the correlation with higher Be10 is due to scavenging by volcanic aerosols. You know that if you said that in front of solar researchers in this field you would be laughed out of the room.

    You want a reference? This is a good one:

    http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/talks/Rapporteur-Usoskin.pdf

    I particularly like slide 14, in which they are scratching their navels about the failure of the neutron count in Solar Cycle 20 to match the amplitude of the sunspot number. It suggests to me that the IMF does its own thing.

    Also look at the C14 chart on slide 3. It looks like Craig Loehle’s temperature reconstruction inverted. Let’s plot the two up and see what the correlation is.

    While we are on the subject, there are plenty of papers demonstrating a solar cycle effect on tree rings. Here’s a Chilean example: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/00602/COSPAR04-A-00602.pdf

    If solar activity controls the width of tree rings, it must control climate on the way through.

    As for the Hegerl paper, she is an IPCC lead author – enough said. The structure of this paper follows the formula: we know the Sun exists but it doesn’t do much and therefore can’t affect climate, but will put in a tiny amount of solar wiggle room to make us seem reasonable.

  321. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 12:40 AM | Permalink

    There are plenty of papers demonstrating a solar cycle effect on tree rings

    The most convincing solar connection to tree rings is through drought (not photosynthesis), and the evidence is not nearly as strong as you seem to suggest. Most of it is purely correlative, and we all know now about the dangers of correlating periodic time-series. You say there are “plenty” of papers demonstrating an effect? Please list them. Or enumerate them. And this Chilean abstract – it is associated with what published paper?

  322. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 12:44 AM | Permalink

    More speculative: growing season length effects on tree ring width could be determined as much by volcanic aerosols as by solar activity. There have been tree-ring based reconstructions of past vulcanism that are moderately convincing, for example.

  323. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile

  324. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 1:00 AM | Permalink

    What do you think of Fig 1 vs Fig 2 on p 160?

  325. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 1:07 AM | Permalink

    What do you think of their claim that:

    The 11-yr solar cycle was present during the whole period in tree ring data, being more intense during Maunder minimum (1645–1715).

  326. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    323 (David A): As usual, some folks are just too combative and see only black and white, while reality has a lot of gray in it. Nobody is saying that volcanic activity is ‘causing’ the Maunder Minimum. And Crowley and Hegerl [and no need to go ad-hom on them just because they are IPCC] are not the first to have noticed the ‘disturbing’ possibility that there may be a volcanic contamination of the 10Be signal [from Greenland]. My good friend Ken McCracken has inverted the 10Be series [from Beer] to extract the strength of the IMF back to 1428 [JGR, VOL. 112, A09106, doi:10.1029/2006JA012119, 2007]. He gives this Figure:

    and postulates the existence of several ‘floors’ [black heavy horizontal lines] or plateaus of the IMF. Although we disagree with him about the values attained at these floors [and this is a normal scientific thing: to argue over the correct calibration], there are several ‘spikes’ that look like ‘cracks’ in the floor. A very clear one starts in 1883 and last for a few years; the IMF falling to 1 nT. You can find others yourself. Now, we know from measurements of geomagnetic activity that the IMF did not fall that low [it was around 6 nT] so we need to explain why the 10Be data seem to suggest such a crack. One possible cause could be that effects of Krakatoa [and similar violent eruptions at the time of the other cracks] could be involved, or as C&H put it: “the possibility will be explored that cosmogenic records may have an uncorrected overprint from volcanically driven climate change”. There are problems with this too as the residence time of 10Be in the atmosphere is thought to be rather shorter than the duration of the cracks, but maybe we are wrong about this.

  327. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 4:48 AM | Permalink

    325-328 (bender): the evidence does not hit me as strong enough to justify their claim that:

    These results indicate that solar activity is a very important agent responsible by the tree ring variability and it has visible influence on the climate on the ~11 and 80 yr time scales. It is possible that other climatic factors could be operating together with the solar activity signal, and that this signal could have been amplified in the tree rings. Volcanic signal, through the aerosol optical depth enhancement (Sato et al., 1993), could act as a modulator factor on climate and have important impacts on decadal scale temperature variations (North and Stevens, 1998; Crowley, 2000). Further studies should be made on the extra climatic variables, such as volcanic activity indicators, temperature records and to be approached in future works.

    The last statement may be key. One of the co-authors, Ezequiel Echer, is a good friend and we have published papers together so I would attach some weight to what they say, although their claim is too strong, IMHO.

  328. kim
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 6:41 AM | Permalink

    Is there anyway to determine if the solar signal from the paper is manifested as a temperature proxy, or some other, like precipitation?
    ============================

  329. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 7:06 AM | Permalink

    331 (kim): I’m sure somebody might claim that, but the paper is strictly about power spectra, so does not address the details.

  330. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Are you aware of the study described at http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/public/adt-NWU20040924.142821/index.html
    Palamara finds that ‘Solar-modulated geomagnetic activity is therefore an important forcing mechanism for recent climate change. Specifically, many of the unexplained aspects of the recent changes in northern hemisphere climate, including the climate regime shift of the early 1960s, can be attributed to the effects of geomagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. Interannual variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation should no longer be considered as climatic noise, while the strong positive trend and decadal variations evident since the 1960s can be attributed, in part, to solar forcing. The results also have implications for the relevance of atmosphere-ocean coupling to the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations and the importance of solar activity in southern hemisphere atmospheric circulation. Contrary to claims in the literature, the results of this study indicate that geomagnetic activity is not a viable proxy for solar irradiance variations or the solar-cycle length index.’

    Also pertinent is the report at http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146436
    That links changes in Atlantic temperatures to the North Atlantic Oscillation. This compares air pressures in the Azores with those at high latitudes and my opinion is that these are in turn closely linked to the dynamics of heating in the tropics that are most readily monitored as ENSO events. The authors conclude that changes in temperatures in the Atlantic are largely due to ‘natural variability’ rather than GHG.

    The North Atlantic is a litmus test for climate change. It is here that water temperatures show the widest variations.

  331. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    The discussion at 317 to 325, but especially at 329 and 330, about volcanism and earth quakes having a role in the Earth’s climate dynamics, prompts me to bring to readers’ attention relationships between solar and climate dynamics that result from the lunisolar tides. The main work is that of Yu V Barkin of the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow University and colleagues J Ferrandiz and M. Garcia Ferrandez of Alicante University, Spain, and others.

    Apart from the significance of this work in its own right, the whole area I summarise in the following highlights the importance of the interaction effects of all solar processes when examining solar climate relationships. This area of research also brings to the fore once again the theme that has been continually noted in these discussions about researchers addressing the interconnectedness of solar/climate research and the processes investigated.

    An additional point that also connects with previous themes of the fascinating and informative exchanges that have occurred since this discussion began in November last year, is he unique advantage that flows from the establishment of quantitative lunisolar tidal relationships with climate dynamics because there is accurate quantitative data available about the lunisolar tides. There is long term, accurate astronomical data available about the variable Sun Earth Moon geometry that can be used with confidence to predict reliably future climate change, so long as the underlying processes can be delineated, such as Barkin et al seem to have done with the lunisolar tides and as others, some cited in the following, are doing.

    The Moon and the Sun periodically amplify each other’s gravitational effect on the Earth in a non linear manner that closely correlates with major earthquakes. These periodic non linear amplifications produce elastic energy that resides in the Earth’s core and crust. Barkin and Ferrandiz (2004), Barkin et al (2005) and Barkin et al (2007) have shown that the variable gravitational field of the Sun, interacting with the Moon’s, generates a range of significant periodic changes amongst the Earth’s shell like structures: atmosphere, oceans, liquid core, mantle, another layers and plates.

    Barkin and Ferrandiz (2004) derived an analytic expression for the elastic energy of planet tidal deformations induced by other bodies, including the central star, in a planetary system. The elastic energy is not simply a sum of the elastic energies of the separate pairs of bodies but contains additional terms which are non-linear functions of the superposition of the variable gravitational fields of the Sun, Moon and other planets. As a result, there are large and significant variations in conditionally periodic variations in the elastic energy of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon, especially, but with additional coefficients for the planets. Some of the elastic energy is dissipated as heat and contributes, as the periodicities of the tides determine, to the warming of the Earth and the oceans. Most of the remainder is retained in the solid material of the Earth, resulting in deformations, ultimately in the form of earthquakes and volcanoes. Some of the elastic energy is retained by the Moon, resulting in moonquakes which correlate closely with earthquakes. The Moon and the Sun periodically amplify each other’s gravitational effect on the Earth in a non-linear manner that closely correlates with major earthquakes. Major earthquakes and moonquakes coincide with extreme variations in tidal elastic energy.

    The large additional mechanical forces and moments of interaction of the neighbouring shell like structures of the Earth have significant impacts on climate dynamics, including the sea level. They produce cyclic perturbations of the tensional state of the shell like structures, including deformations, small relative translational displacements and rotational oscillations, and the redistribution of the plastic and fluid masses of which the planet is composed. These additional forces and moments of a cyclic solar system nature produce deformations throughout the all layers of the Earth, regulating variations of almost all natural processes. Apart from the immediate catastrophes that earthquakes and volcanoes induce, there are also longer term climate change consequences. These non linear gravitational effects of the Sun and the Moon on climate change can be calculated with reasonable precision.

    Tidal effects include variations in rainfall, floods and droughts, sea ice, sea surface temperature, sea level, atmospheric pressure, frequency of thunderstorms, deep ocean currents, tidal flooding, and the speed of the major ocean currents. The tides occur throughout the vertical depth of the oceans, mixing and churning the oceans with profound and periodic effects on climate.

    Tidal dynamics operate at all levels of the planet, from the gaseous atmosphere and the global electric circuit to the Earth’s inner structures: the fluid outer core that surrounds the solid inner core. Munk and Wunsch (1998) and Wunsch and Ferrari (2004) have shown that the tides occur throughout the vertical depth of the oceans, mixing and churning the oceans with profound and periodic effects on climate.

    da Silva and Avissar (2005) showed that specific alignments between the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, known as the Luni Solar Oscillation (LSO) that occur at frequencies of nearly 9 and 18 years have been unambiguously correlated with the Artic Oscillation since the 1960s. The authors explain how the LSO tidal forces might regulate the Artic Oscillation, which is a major driver of climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. This finding illustrates interaction effects between solar variables. Other facets of solar variability have contributed to the melting of the ice in the Artic and higher sea surface temperatures at northern latitudes. da Silva and Avissar (2005) showed that the LSO accelerates this warming processes. These processes enable a larger volume of liquid water to respond to the tidal forces. In addition, the changes in ocean stratification that follow improve the mixing efficiency.

    Karin Labitzke (2007), a review article we mentioned in previous posts, reported that the lunisolar tides are very important for the dynamics in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere. Furthermore, she reported that there is an interaction between the tides and the Sun’s heating and cooling of the rotating Earth’s atmosphere.

    References:
    See http://www.euref-iag.net/symposia/book2003/7-03-Barkin.pdf for an overview of Barkin’s work.
    Barkin, Yu, Ferrandiz, J., Ferrandez, M. G., Navarro, J., 2007. Prediction of catastrophic earthquakes in 21 century. Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 9, 08643, 2007, SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2007-A-08643.
    Barkin, Yu. V. and Ferrandiz, J. M., 2004. Tidal Elastic Energy in Planetary Systems and its Dynamic Role. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 23, (4), 369 – 384.
    Barkin, Yu. V. and Ferrandiz, J. M., and Ferrandez, M. G., 2005. Earth, Moon, Mercury and Titan, seismicity: Observed and expected phenomena. 36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2005), Abstract #1076. The paper is available here:

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1076.pdf

    Da Silva, R. R., and Avissar, R., 2006. “The impacts of the Luni Solar Oscillation on the Artic Oscillation”. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L22703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023418,2005.
    Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps445-466.
    Munk, W. and Wunsch, C., 1998. Abyssal recipes II: energetics of tidal and wind mixing. Deep-Sea Research I, 45, 1977 – 2010.
    Wunsch, C. and Ferrari, R., 2004. Vertical mixing and the general circulation of the oceans. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 36, 281–314 doi: 10.1146/ annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121.

  332. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    Folks, I did not imply that I thought volcanoes and earthquakes by virtue of their seismic qualities control anything. I don’t think so. The point [which I did not make clear] was that volcanoes put sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere and thus help flush out the 10Be atoms created by cosmic rays, thus making it look that there are more cosmic rays and a weaker heliospheric magnetic field. The result is that we may find a signal in the 10Be that is NOT solar, and that therefore we cannot assume that EVERY signal in 10Be we see is a proxy for solar activity. I’m not a fan of luni-solar tides controlling the climate as all the tides are simply and strictly cyclic and therefore should give us very sharply tuned climatic responses which are not observed. [what we see is a mess, to wit the numbing discussion of what it is and what causes what]

  333. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    333 (Erl):

    the results of this study indicate that geomagnetic activity is not a viable proxy for solar irradiance variations or the solar-cycle length index.

    The solar-cycle length is not a quantity with physical meaning [and especially not its smoothed version]. The reason is that cycles overlap and that the death of a cycle is a random process. Only in a statistical sense can there be put some meaning in the ‘length': larger cycles are shorter, but then why not just use the size?

    ‘geomagnetic activity’ can be calculated accurately from solar wind data and is thus a good proxy for the solar wind. The wind is a poor proxy for the whole cycle, but its magnetic field might be related to the ‘open flux’ which most solar physicists think is a proxy for the ‘background’ TSI [i.e. not spot/faculae related].

    many of the unexplained aspects of the recent changes in northern hemisphere climate, including the climate regime shift of the early 1960s, can be attributed to the effects of geomagnetic activity

    Then there should also have been a ‘shift’ in geomagnetic activity of some sort at that time. I’m not aware of any such.

  334. bender
    Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    #330

    their claim is too strong

    That is an understandably generous assessment. Myself, I would suggest their claim is unsupported. But maybe I’m just too demanding in terms of things like, say, statistics, that actually provide an objective measure of the degree of association between two processes.

  335. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    333 (Erl):

    Contrary to claims in the literature, the results of this study

    This is the problem with these studies, they contradict one another, claim opposite effects that come and go, and do not build on each other. Just heaping selected paper upon paper of this sort to bolster one’s view does not cut the mustard. To be convincing a paper must say [something like] ‘here is what I think is happening, and these are the observations that support my view, and these are the data that would refute my view if they happen.’
    And on top of that, the physics has to be energetically possible.

  336. Posted Jan 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    337 (bender): There is a very strong correlation between shoe size and reading ability among children. I don’t think statistics can prove anything, just point out that there may be something worth [or not] investigating. What kills many [most?] claims based on statistics is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. Geophysical/solar/atmospheric processes have a very high degree of ‘conservation’, in the sense that high values are often followed by other high values and low values are often followed by other low values, resulting in the number of ‘independent’ data points being much smaller than often assumed. A classical example is the daily sunspot number. There are ~4000 days in a solar cycle and if you observe the sunspot number every day, you might think that you have 4000 independent daily values to go into the statistics, but in reality you have only about 20.

    I don’t disagree with you. In professional science to say that a claim is ‘too strong’ is a way of stating what in this blog often would be called a ‘fairytale’ or something stronger, but less printable.

  337. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    In the diagrams above I am looking at solar cycles between 1884 and the present time.
    • During cycles 13-16 geomagnetic activity rarely rises above 30nT. In cycles after 1935 geomagnetic activity often rises to the 50nT level and above. The right hand axis of the lower diagram is scaled differently in consequence.
    • The base level of geomagnetic activity close to solar minimum rises and then falls over the entire period as indicated by the red lines. If it is going to fall to the 5 nT level in the future (green line) as it did at the end of cycle 13 we have a way to go yet. It may not do so before end of SC 25 if the current rate of decline continues.
    • I suggest that Geomagnetic activity occurs in sub-cycles that are shorter than the sunspot cycle. There appear to be two cycles sandwiched between the long cycles that have their aa minima at sunspot minima time. Sometimes there is only one. These internal sub-cycles are indicated with dotted lines. This device helps to differentiate between the aa activity close to solar minimum (green circles) and outside solar minimum when the solar wind owes more to eruptive activity and is therefore essentially different.
    • The length of the period of low geomagnetic activity at sunspot minimum appears to be long in the early cycles and much shorter of recent times.
    • I have shown the assumed length of solar cycle 23 against all other cycles as a horizontal bar immediately above the time axis. Where cycles are almost as long as the assumed 12.1 years of solar cycle 23 the bars are coloured blue. Very long cycles seem to be associated with prolonged periods of low aa at sunspot minimum. Cycle 23 may be the precursor of a number of long cycles in the same way as occurred from solar cycle 12 through 15. Perhaps we will see a period of prolonged depression of aa activity at solar minimum in forthcoming cycles.
    • Peaks in the SOI frequently occur in conjunction with the end points of mini cycles. The occurrences that conform with this rule are marked with a burgundy coloured rectangle.
    • A pattern of La Nina (red rectangle) followed by strong El Nino (red rectangle) occurs when the aa index declines and accelerates markedly. In many instances this occurs shortly after sunspot minimum but other apparent instances are also marked. On the basis of 9 occurrences in 11 minima this is frequent conjunction.
    • The development of a La Nina cooling event is strongly associated with a marked fall in the aa index. Please observe the strong coincidence of the two indices in all the dotted circles.
    • The three weekly average SOI is currently (mid January 2008) running at -22. This level has rarely been reached in the period since 1884. It coincides with very low levels of aa activity.
    • There are many models that endeavour to predict ENSO behaviour. None predicted the strength of the current La Nina.

    I can not imagine that the relationship I am describing here is co-incidental. On the other hand there is nothing absolute or watertight about any of these observations. One would like good data for several 100 year periods to be really certain of the persistence and the frequency of these patterns. As you have pointed out the solar wind is not well reflected in the aa index of geomagnetic activity and this is in part due to the heterogeneous nature of the wind and its origins. Additionally the rotation of the Earth about the sun is associated with a pattern of semi-annual and annual change in the index. The relationship between the relatively persistent open flux and the closed flux varies within the cycle in a manner which changes from cycle to cycle. That there is as much consistency in the relationship between aa and SOI as appears above, is remarkable. Do you not agree?

    An opportunity to dismiss the relationship lies in the possibility that the current La Nina persists after the aa index begins to rise or the La Nina finishes while the aa index remains low.

    Was the relationship to be accepted it points to a connection between the manifest tendency for the tropics to heat and cool to be connected with changes in temperature elsewhere on the globe and for the globe as a whole and for all this to be related to solar phenomena. In the context of present concerns this is therefore an important hypothesis and should not be dismissed lightly. It should not be dismissed on the basis of our lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which the tropics cool or warm. That can come later. I want to look at cloud cover records in my next post.

    In many fields of endeavour people would be happy to establish that a reasonable proportion of the variance in a particular phenomenon is explained by one variable that is related. They would then set out to discover what other variables might be involved or to try and quantify the changing relationship between open and closed solar flux to see if that explains some of the inconsistencies that do appear.

    If your understanding of the phenomena is different some words of explanation would be appreciated.

  338. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    340 (Erl): You said

    As you have pointed out the solar wind is not well reflected in the aa index of geomagnetic activity

    It is amazing that in spite of my saying it time and time again, that it still has not sunk in. So, now, one more time: “geomagnetic activity activity can be calculated accurately from solar wind wind parameters”. Since you correlate your ‘stuff’ with aa, it might be a good idea to enter into a [long] tutorial on geomagnetic activity, but broken up into many small posts, so each point can be absorbed, questioned, and accepted, as we go. If I were to give you a 100-page reply, my experience is that my effort would be wasted as nobody would take the [considerable] trouble to digest that much information in one go, so, I’m going to dish it out one page at a time. Hopefully, the discussion will be useful to other people too. I ask only one thing, namely that objections, requests for clarifications, and the like be forthcoming from the audience as we go.

  339. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Your reaction to that statement disturbs me. Two things I had in mind. One is your assertion that the index needs re-calibration for the period prior to 1950. The second is that during solar minimum the aa index falls to a minimum while it is my understanding that the mass of the wind is actually greater than at any other time but in other characteristics like speed and orientation it is very steady. Is that not the case?

    Is this the way you choose to negate any possible relationship between heating in the tropics and the solar wind. Is that fair and reasonable?

  340. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    342 (Erl): the answer will be in my forthcoming series of posts. So, stay tuned. I’m not negating anything [me being not convinced is not a negation of somebody's effort]. My hope is that by you gaining enough knowledge about the solar wind and aa, that you can draw your own fair and reasonable conclusions.

  341. kim
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Nous battrons des ailes.
    ============

  342. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    (1) Geomagnetic Indices

    I first note that ‘geomagnetic activity’ is a very complex phenomenon. In order to cope with the complexity, researchers have long ago come up with a device called a ‘geomagnetic index’ which is a ‘short-hand’ encapsulation of the complex phenomenon. A very early one was the C-index, where one would simply look at a magnetogram [a recording of the wiggles in the geomagnetic field] at a given location for a day and classify that day as 0 [quiet], 2 [disturbed], or 1 [moderate, in between]. By averaging such C-values from many locations ['stations'] one would get a ‘global’ average Ci-index ['i' for 'international']. A lot of good science was done with the Ci-index.

    It was, of course, obvious that only part of a day could have disturbances while the rest remained quiet, so for a better result, a finer time resolution was needed. It turns out that a time resolution of three hours is a useful choice. This is also the time it takes the solar wind to pass the Earth’s magnetosphere, so there is even a good physical reason for that choice. Julius Bartels in the late 1930s introduced the so-called K-index with 3-hour resolution. Like so many indices [Richter scale, Stellar Magnitudes, ...] the index [which is a single digit 0 through 9] is logarithmic: each step up corresponds to a doubling of the amplitude of the wiggles over the three hours. Actually, for the higher index values, slightly less than a doubling is used, as otherwise the highest index values would never be reached [but we'll sacrifice such arcane details on the altar of understanding from time to time]. To be able to compute average values we need a linear index, as averages of logarithms have dubious physical meaning. So, to each K-index value, one assigns an ‘equivalent amplitude’ as the size of the wiggle [in physical units such as nanoTeslas] lying at the midpoint of the interval for that K-index value. Say that K=2 is assigned to wiggles between 20 and 30 nT, then the amplitude would be 25 nT.

    There are several issues that need to be addressed concerning the derivation of the K-index [and its equivalent 'amplitudes', a-indices]. We shall get to these in due time. At this point we note that just as with the C-index, one can [carefully] average a-indices from a worldwide network of stations and obtain a ‘global’ a-index. Several such exist [depending on the network] and one is the aa-index [one Northern and one Southern (antipodal - that is the second 'a' of 'aa') station] going back to 1868. Another is the am-index [23 stations worldwide - that is the 'm' in 'am' (from the French word 'mondial' for 'worldwide')] going back to 1959. Both of these indices were conceived and initially provided by the late P.-N. Mayaud.

    The importance of these indices lies in the fact that they are very good proxies of properties of the solar wind and therefore provide a means to prope the solar wind and solar conditions in the past, long before spacecraft measurements of the solar wind. It was realized long ago [Bartels, 1932] that geomagnetic indices “yield supplementary independent information about solar conditions”. In these notes we shall explore how well this goal is realized.

    In a sense, the Earth is a large sensing device, and we have learned how to ‘calibrate’ the ‘response function’ of this instrument in terms of solar conditions. To whet your appetite, the following Figure shows the observed am-index [black curve] versus the am-index calculated from solar wind data measured in Space for several solar rotations. The scale is logarithmic to show how well we can account for the observed variation over the whole range of the index. The agreement is less good for very small values of the am-index [say, below 5 nT]. We shall see that for such low values, it is very difficult to measure geomagnetic activity, so perhaps it is no surprise that the fit is poorer there.

    ———

  343. pochas
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    Leif:

    How is the geomagnetic field sensed? With a wire coil? If so, how is the coil oriented?

  344. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

    346 (pochas): There are many ways of doing this. ‘Wire coil’ is not a bad way of putting it. What is measured are all three ‘components’ of the field [North, East, Vertical] or the total force and its two directions [horizontal - declination, and vertical - inclination]. Historically, the [horizontal] direction of the field was measured simply with a compass needle [where did it point?]. The field strength could be measured by making a suspended magnetized body swing and counting how many swings it would make in [say] a minute. The more swings, the stronger the field, just like a pendulum in a gravitational field.

  345. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    Leif (345)

    It was realized long ago [Bartels, 1932] that geomagnetic indices “yield supplementary independent information about solar conditions”. In these notes we shall explore how well this goal is realized.

    I look forward to that. Particularly as to the portrayal of solar wind conditions at solar minimum versus after solar maximum. And also whether the index properly reflects the solar wind during small solar cycles versus those that are large. The largest ENSO events occur in small amplitude solar cycles.
    I would not be surprised if we come to realise soon that indices of temperature and evaporation in the tropics also yield supplementary independent information about solar conditions.

  346. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    Re 324, Bender, you have entrusted me with your further guidance on solar/tree ring matters. Of course we will start with my own published works: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

    In which I quote:

    Zhou, K. and C. J. Butler 1998, A statistical study of the relationship between the solar cycle length and tree-ring index values, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar– Terrestrial Physics, 60, 1711–1718.

    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364682698001424

    Zhou and Butler say,” We find that the data confirm an association between the sunspot cycle length and climate with a negative maximum correlation coefficient for 80% of the data sets considered. This implies that wider tree-rings (i.e. more optimum growth conditions) are associated with shorter sunspot cycles.”

    This was based on 69 tree-ring data sets of greater than 594 years duration! This is incontrovertible proof which will save a lot of further needless conjecture about this subject.

    Dr Svalgaard, Be10 has a relaxation time of 2 years. So unless you can conjure up a constant stream of volcanic explosions, no correlation with the sustained peaks in Be10.

  347. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    (2) Solar Wind Input: The pressure

    [2.1] The Solar Wind is basically the outer solar atmosphere being heated [by basically unknown processes] to such a high temperature that its random thermal velocity exceeds the gravitational escape velocity of the Sun, thus in a sense ‘evaporating’ of ‘boiling off’ and expanding into free Space. The wind consists mostly of protons [and electrons, of course] with a small [and varying] admixture of [mostly] Helium and heavier ions. At the Earth, the wind is so tenous [a few protons per cubic centimeter] that it is collisionless and would behave as just a bunch of unconnected particles, except that it is pervaded by a magnetic field. This field gives the solar wind ‘fluid like’ properties meaning that a lot of its behavior can be ‘understood’ in terms of the same concepts that apply to fluids, like ‘pressure’, ‘waves’, ‘shocks’ and such.

    [2.2] Let us examine what properties of the solar wind might be important for the generation of geomagnetic activity. If you stand in front of a firehose you’ll certainly feel the effect of the ‘directed’ pressure of the fast-moving water. This ‘dynamic pressure’ P is the flux of momentum P = (nmV) V where n is the number density of particles with mass m coming at you with velocity V. As the solar wind approaches the Earth, the wind will press up against the magnetic field of the Earth. Where the pressure of the solar wind balances the pressure of the magnetic field is the boundary between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere. Electric currents flow along the boundary. Because the density and velocity of the solar wind varies continously [at times abruptly, e.g. at shock waves] the boundary is very unsteady and ‘flaps’ around all the time so the magnetic effect [measured at the ground] of the currents are constantly changing. Furthermore, whatever configurations of magnetic fields, plasma regimes, and electric currents that were established in maintaining the pressure balance are constantly ‘buffeted’ and changing, often explosively. All of these processes involve electric currents having magnetic effects felt on the ground as geomagnetic ‘activity’. So, the dynamic pressure P is one of the inputs that controls the activity.

    [2.3] The magnetic field of the Earth is to first order a dipole with magnetic poles about 11 degrees away from the rotational poles. As the Earth rotates, the solar wind will be up gainst a wobbling magnetic ‘obstacle’ during the [e.g. Universal Time] day. In addition, the rotation axis is inclined 23.5 degrees towards the Earth’s orbital plane, giving rise to an annual wobble. The combined wobble about both axes results in the solar wind seeing a complicated, varying terrestrial magnetic field with which to maintain pressure balance. By properties of a dipole, the magnetic field at the ‘nose’ of the Earth’s ‘magnetosphere’ is given by B = Bo sqrt(1 + 3 (cos(psi))^2), where psi is the angle that the Earth’s magnetic axis makes towards the solar wind direction [coming from the Sun, but see later posts on this] and Bo is the magnetic field strength at the equator [at the same distance from the center of the Earth]. So, the ‘attack’ angle psi is another variable that controls [i.e. modulates] the activity. Note, that this variation does not arise from a solar wind property, but from properties of the Earth.

    [2.4] The influence of the psi-angle gives rise to a semiannual variation with minima near the solstices when the solar wind sees the strongest geomagnetic field. Figure [2.5] shows the variation of the am-index [left] and then of the so-called Svalgaard-function S(psi) = [1 + 3 (cos(psi))^2]^(-2/3) as functions of Universal Time [UT] and time of year [the month]. When we try to extract solar conditions from geomagnetic variations, we need to remove the effect of this purely terrestrial effect. In addition to the Svalgaard-function modulation there are other [generally smaller] effects [to be discussed later] that give rise to semiannual variations. In fact, these variations were discovered ~150 years ago, and we are still [heatedly] debating what causes them, and not everybody agrees with the above.

    [2.5]

  348. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

    All the notes are collected in one html file on my website
    http://www.leif.org/research. Click on:
    Notes on Geomagnetic Activity (From Climate Audit)

    Spelling [and other] errors have been [and will be] corrected as we go. This is a living document. In-depth treatment of selected ares will follow on demand.

  349. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    349 (David A): I noted already in my post that there was that problem. No need to be sarcastic. It is still a mystery where the ‘cracks’ come from. We can be quite sure that the high 10Be concentration does not come from low values of the HMF, especially for the period 1883-1895 where we have good geomagnetic data. Maybe we can work on the provenance of the 2-year residence time? How sure are we on that? Maybe we can think of other ways the contamination can ‘seep’ into overlying layers? I don’t know. Maybe if we can be constructive if might be helpful.

  350. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    351 (me): Arghh. remove the ‘dot’ at the end of the link:

    “All the notes are collected in one html file on my website
    http://www.leif.org/research . Click on:
    Notes on Geomagnetic Activity (From Climate Audit)”

  351. Posted Jan 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

    349 (David A): on solar cycle length: There is a general correlation between the length and the size of the cycle [already known to Wolf], shorter cycles are larger. So, when claiming correlations with cycle length it might be that they are really with cycle size. To show that the cycle length as such is important and not the cycle size, one has to show that for cycles that are very long, yet still very large, the effect follows the length and not the size. Cycle number 4 is a good test case: it is large AND long. How does #4 fit in the scheme? The article you quote also states that the correlations gets better with smoothing. That is generally true for almost every correlation, as smoothing reduces the noise.

  352. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 12:39 AM | Permalink

    Leif
    Does the paper at the address below make sense? Let’s not worry about the physical mechanism, just the geomagnetic aspects?

    http://www.adv-geosci.net/6/87/2006/adgeo-6-87-2006.pdf

    Query 2: You say in 2.4] The influence of the psi-angle gives rise to a semiannual variation with minima near the solstices when the solar wind sees the strongest geomagnetic field.
    Data for the period 1984 onwards exhibits a very regular low point in geomagnetic activity as measured by aa index about April each year. This I take it confirms the point about minima associated with the March Solstice. However, by October aa is hitting a seasonal maximum except in El Nino years where maximum in not reached till early in the following year with the SOI index peaking during or at the end of the southern hemisphere summer.

  353. bender
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 12:59 AM | Permalink

    #349
    I do not accept that conclusion as proven from the data. Their method of computing correlations and significance is not at all transparent. Why report Rmax when you could report r (which does not require bootstrapping for significance estimation)? This quirky method raises a red flag becasue their Rmax values are quite weak. I will report the mean and standard error … unless you’d like to do it? Why the authors don’t do so themselves I don’t know. But I can guess. And as a reviewer I would have insisted on it.

  354. bender
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    data: Rmax
    t = -5.5983, df = 57, p-value = 6.478e-07
    alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0
    95 percent confidence interval:
    -0.17907487 -0.08471823
    sample estimates:
    mean of x
    -0.1318966

    So the Rmax values are significantly less than zero. However -0.13 is very weak. Now, how about r values? I’ll leave that one for you. I will assume they are not significantly different from zero, unless you can prove otherwise. I will not rule out the possibility that the authors did not want to disclose these low r values.

  355. bender
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

    Here are the R commands for #357:
    Rmax<-c(-.35,-.12,-.12,.22,-.39,-.33,-.21,-.16,-.2,-.25,.11,-.2,-.07,.2,-.24,-.25,-.24,-.22,.1,-.17,-.39,-.26,-.25,-.21,-.16,-.17,-.21,-.23,.22,-.12,.14,-.23,-.17,-.25,.21,-.12,-.22,-.25,-.19,.27,-.13,-.12,.2,-.2,-.33,.19,-.28,-.08,-.22,-.27,.27,.15,-.25,-.19,-.23,-.21,-.27,-.2)
    t.test(Rmax)

  356. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

    Re 354, Solar Cycle 4 attracted the attention of other workers, for example Dr Usoskin tried to create another cycle from it. Hathaway found a weakish correlation between cycle length and the strength of the following cycle. There is a good correlation between solar cycle length and temperature on earth during the following cycle, and Solar Cycle 4 plots on the line.

    As for mechanisms, I can’t even get anyone to tell me why the radiative zone rotates differently to the convective zone. I know the latter is only 3% of the solar mass, but doesn’t anybody care? How can you hope to know anything about the Sun if you don’t know that? Where is the energy coming from to offset the frictional losses? Does the rate of rotation of the convection zone change even in the slightest? Dr Svalgaard, you have already passed on that question, but is there anyone else out there in the ether who can point to an explanation? Without knowledge of the reason for the basic architecture of the Sun, pondering other aspects of solar behaviour is made less meaningful.

    Re 356, I look forward to your report on statistical values. I’ve got the porcupines and snowshoe hares to back me up that the solar cycle – climate correlation is valid.

  357. bender
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 2:30 AM | Permalink

    #359
    Wrong. It is ME who looks forward to YOUR report. I did my homework in #358. Now you do yours.

    As for solar-driven porcupines. That is one small site in eastern Canada. Replicate that result in several locations on a few continents and I’ll think about it. Also, those authors do not know what the mechanism is by which solar is supposed to influence the porcupines. Snow depth affecting winter survival or predation? Precipitation affecting bark nutrients? Without a mechanism, a coincidence of n-4 cycles is hardly convincing. Do you cite Yule in your work? Slutsky?

  358. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    Re 357 and 358, Bender thankyou for providing the statistics. Which reminds me, Dr Svalgaard had repeatedly called for a modicum of civility on his eponymous post. It would have been polite to first thank me for providing the reference before complaining about the quality.

    Following is a link to Dr Usoskin’s solar – climate review paper: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/CRAS2A_2712.pdf This is state of the art.

  359. cba
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 5:37 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for the post David. That was most interesting and understandable.

  360. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

    359 (David A):

    Solar Cycle 4 attracted the attention of other workers, for example Dr Usoskin tried to create another cycle from it. Hathaway found a weakish correlation between cycle length and the strength of the following cycle. There is a good correlation between solar cycle length and temperature on earth during the following cycle, and Solar Cycle 4 plots on the line.

    So, you are saying that there is a correlation between the strength (S) of a cycle and temperature (T) on Earth. The length (L) seems to fall out of the equation: L(n) -> S(n+1) and L(n) -> T(n+1), so S(m) T(m). Show us the plot where cycle 4 is on the line.

    Usoskin’s review may be state of the art, but only really shows how sorry a state the art is in. One of the problems is that we do not have a good handle on the cosmic ray intensity in the past [regardless of what the good and the great claim]. Here is McCracken & Beer’s reconstruction of the Neutron Monitor Cosmic Ray count back to 1700 compared to Usoskin et al.’s:

    The problem lies in the reconstruction at solar minima, i.e. the secular varying [or not] trend. The top plot is derived from 10Be while Usoskin’s is simply calculated from the sunspot number [might as well just turned the sunspot curve over]. As the Sun is now returning to conditions of a 100 years ago [unless Dikpati et al. are correct, of course] the cosmic ray count should also return to what it was in ~1900. This does not seem to be happening, so their reconstructions might not be as good as they think they are.

  361. Mike Davis
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

    “associated with the March Solstice” Erl: solstice is summer and winter equinox is spring and fall.

  362. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 8:02 AM | Permalink

    359 (David A):

    As for mechanisms, I can’t even get anyone to tell me why the radiative zone rotates differently to the convective zone. I know the latter is only 3% of the solar mass, but doesn’t anybody care? How can you hope to know anything about the Sun if you don’t know that? Where is the energy coming from to offset the frictional losses? Does the rate of rotation of the convection zone change even in the slightest? Dr Svalgaard, you have already passed on that question, but is there anyone else out there in the ether who can point to an explanation? Without knowledge of the reason for the basic architecture of the Sun, pondering other aspects of solar behaviour is made less meaningful.

    I can think of some reasons. There is very likely a meridional circulation [maybe more than one cell, even] in the convection zone with plasma moving along meridians. The Coriolis force associated with such movements will give rise to different rotation rates. There is enough energy in the Sun to power just about any mechanism you can think of.
    Many heavenly bodies with convective atmospheres show differential rotation in their atmospheres [Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus (an extreme case), ...].
    Whether rotation rates vary with time [not unlikely] can only be ascertained by observations, and there the data is not conclusive.

  363. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    355 (Erl):

    Data for the period 1984 onwards exhibits a very regular low point in geomagnetic activity as measured by aa index about April each year.

    1st: as Mike points out, solstices are summer and winter. The aa index reaches a maximum in April [or rather, late March], not a minimum.

    2nd: The paper you asked about has a couple of problems [besides the stuff about ENSO and SOI - which I shall not comment on - as nothing I say will sway you]. They link their result to the semiannual variation mechanism proposed by Russell and McPherron, and even show [their Figure 2] how the interaction efficiency should vary with UT and with month of year, using a Figure from Cliver et al. [2000]. In that very paper Cliver et al. show that the R-McPh effect does not give the observed UT-MOY dependence as shown by my Figure 2.5. Although the R-McPh effect does operate when you separate the data into the two opposite polarities of the IMF, on an all-day average those two variations practically cancel out [this will be the subject of a further, later note]. Sine you could not [I presume] see from Figure 2 in the K&S paper you cite that the predicted variation does not match the observed, I show below a color version. To the right is the occurrence of southward GSM-component of IMF [as observed by spacecrmiddle is the observed variation for southward IMF. See how there is no resemblance. On the left is activity observed for northward IMF, and you the same general shape as for southward IMF. Thus: the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity is not controlled by the IMF [but by the angle the Earth's magnetic axis makes with the solar wind direction].

    Finally I’m not convinced that the authors resolve the 360-degree ambiguity correctly. Note that the longitude varies from 0 to -4000 degrees. I shall, however, look at this more closely.

  364. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

    Hello Leif. Can you recommend one or two good introductory textbooks, or collections of articles, on solar physics and the workings of the sun? Something comprehensible by a garden-variety masters-level type engineer?

    I have no dog in the fight of the solar/climate question but I find the matter of solar behavior intriguing. Thanks.

  365. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    367 (David S): good ones [all written by good friends of mine, so I'm not totally unbiased] are (most difficult first):
    Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity, Carolus J. Schriver & Cornelius Zwaan, 2000, ISBN 0-521-58286-5 {extensive}
    Solar Astrophysics 2nd Ed., Peter V. Foukal, 2004, ISBN 3-527-40374-4
    Fundamental of Solar Astronomy, Arvind Bhatnagar & William Livingston, 2005, ISBN 981-256-357-1
    Sunquakes, J.B.Zirker, 2003, ISBN 0-8018-7419-X {good easy read}

  366. Jesper
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    Leif, regarding rates of solar processes:

    In the atmosphere, we see generally two kinds of oscillatory processes – those which we can call periodic, resulting from stable astronomical mechanisms (earth’s orbital and rotation rates), and on the other hand, we see squishy quasi-oscillatory fluid dynamical processes like ENSO where variations in the cycle length are of the same order of magnitude of the ‘cycle’ itself. Changes in the length of the sunspot cycle seem to fall in the middle of this spectrum. We see variations in the timing of each maximum, yet there seems to be some periodic physical mechanism which maintains the ~11-yr tendency over many cycles.

    Is the sunspot cycle thought to have a periodic ‘core’ mechanism which is then subject to additional processes which can delay its appearance on the surface? Or, more concisely, what is thought to maintain the 11-year tendency of the sun, despite its variability? And what might cause the variability? Particularly interesting are cycles 3 and 4 of the late 18th century which seemed to arrive ‘too early’ by several years, followed by resumption of the ~11-yr period for another century. There is a climate angle on this as well, as some have demonstrated interesting correlations between cycle length and temperature. Thanks!

  367. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    369 (Jesper): Ronald Bracewell and Robert Dicke many years ago were calling the sun a “high-Q” oscillator precisely because of the ‘lack’ of long-term phase drift of the solar cycle. They thought that this was related to a ‘relic’ magnetic field in the [possibly very fast rotating - invalidating Einstein's General Relativity] sun’s core. There are still ‘relic’-believers around [e.g. Usoskin and company], but they are decidedly not mainstream. We don’t know what the cause of the phase locking [if any exists] could be.

    Cycle length and Temperature? see 363.

  368. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    349 (David A): Residence time of 10Be = 2 years. Where do you have that from? And where do they have it from? and so on. In other words: what is the provenance of that well-known number?

    2/3 of the 10Be is created in the stratosphere. It is hard for aerosols to penetrate the tropopause and that sets the residence time. But where are the detailed calculations/measurements that show that? It is always good now and then to re-examine ‘what we all know’. So, please be helpful and research that for us. Thanks.

  369. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    371 (me): Aerosols and Residence Time: I know this is not science, but just going to google one finds plenty of statements like: “Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space”.
    Several years? Wouldn’t that make the residence time of 10Be (attached to the Sulfur) several years too? The has to be some experts here that can enlighten us [generate 'light' and not 'heat'].

  370. Phil.
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    Re #371

    2/3 of the 10Be is created in the stratosphere. It is hard for aerosols to penetrate the tropopause and that sets the residence time. But where are the detailed calculations/measurements that show that? It is always good now and then to re-examine ‘what we all know’. So, please be helpful and research that for us. Thanks.

    Everything I’ve seen suggests that once in the troposphere the lifetime is short, e.g. this paper gives ~100days

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-47SV2VF-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f3d1dba3ce41130c71247e1431a401c

    I hope that helps?

  371. bender
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    It would have been polite to first thank me for providing the reference before complaining about the quality.

    You take offence to criticism of a paper that you didn’t write? That’s odd. What, do you have an emotional investment in this work? The authors themselves might even be prepared to accept my argument! As for politeness – thanks, but no thanks for the reference. I’ve read the the solar tree-ring literature and am not impressed. Whereas you seem to be lapping it up. My skepticism cuts both ways. Yours?

    So far you have listed three papers, all of them weak or flawed. And yet your are so confident and so assertive. Why should I be polite when you appear to be trying to hoodwink people into believing you’re an authority on this subject? If you’re an authority let’s see some walk to back up the talk.

    In contrast I am very polite to Dr Svalgaard because he puts out, comment after comment. He’s got walk.

  372. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    373 (Phil): thanks, yes, once in the troposphere, 10Be rains out in weeks. The problem is to get it across the tropopause.

  373. Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for proceeding with the tutorial Leif; I look forward to each new installment. I’ve been thinking more about your comments throughout this discussuion about some of the short comings of climate research, especially about solar/climate links. If you have the time, I wonder if you might comment on a paper which I think passes your tests and suggests a credible Sun/climate link ironically via a process that bears your name!

    I refer to the paper I mentioned in post 12 of Svalgaard#2, “Interplanetary magnetic field and atmospheric electric circuit influences on ground-level pressure at Vostok” by G. B. Burns, B. A. Tinsley, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky and E. A. Bering. Here’s the citation:
    Citation: Burns, G. B., B. A. Tinsley, A. V. Frank-Kamenetsky, and E. A. Bering (2007), Interplanetary magnetic field and atmospheric electric circuit influences on ground-level pressure at Vostok, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D04103, doi:10.1029/2006JD007246. and here is the link:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007246.shtml

    The authors note that it has been difficult to gain general scientific acceptance for the reality of physical solar variability/climate connections partly because of the lack of a well understood process to explain them.

    The authors explain that in their paper, they provide observational evidence to support a possible mechanism involving the global atmospheric circuit.

    By way of background, Tinsley and colleagues have shown that the interaction of cosmic ray ionisation and the variable global electric circuit can induce electrofreezing. This ultimately results in cloud formation and increased precipitation. In addition, the latent heat released during electrofreezing is available for modifying the weather systems of which the ice cloud is a part. Judith Haigh in one of her recent review papers explained that “At temperatures between -40oC and 0oC liquid water cannot freeze spontaneously by homogenous nucleation but requires nuclei on which to start freezing. However, only a small proportion of atmospheric aerosols form suitable sites. It has been shown in laboratory experiments that imposition of a large electric field can cause the freezing of supercooled water droplets. Other work has shown that particles which are usually poor ice nuclei become much more efficient when electrically charged. Such processes are collectively known as electrofreezing”.

    In their paper, Burns et al established at that via the previously reported Sun-climate linkage known as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect, solar variability causes variations in the global electric circuit which result in substantial surface pressure changes. These give rise to a range of cloud formation, precipitation and temperature variations.

    I gather from my reading of the literature in the 1960s and 70s you and Mansurov discovered that the shape of diurnal variations of a magnetic field in high latitudes depended on the sign of interplanetary magnetic field sector structure. Later the scientific community named this dependence as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect. I understand that it is a complex response of the ionospheric currents in the polar region to the magnetic field in the ecliptic plane.

    Burns et al report that their findings confirm the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect; provide evidence that the effect operates via the atmospheric electric circuit; and evidence and analysis supporting an inferred and more substantial surface pressure response to changes in the global atmospheric electric circuit.

    If their findings are corroborated by others, and if the more general hypthesised relationships between the global electric circuit and climate dynamics continue to be corroborated, there is then a serious candidate for a Sun/climate relationship.

    In other posts (eg 295) I’ve drawn everyone’s attention to the highly multivariate and nonlinear nature of such hypothesised relationships. The role of the Svalgaard-Mansurov process reported by Burns et al would just be one element of an immensely complex explanation.

    In addition to commenting on the Burns et al hypothesis, I wonder if you might, at an appropriate stage in your tutorial, explain the Svalgaard-Mansurov process properly.

    Regards

    Richard Mackey

  374. maksimovich
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    Re 59(ls) I understand that, the intent was to “paint a portrait “so to speak, as to asymmetric periodicities in the solar cycle. This is a generalization viz a viz, to what extent are the relative contributions of the quite regular deterministic variations, quasi-regular(irregular) oscillations, and stochastic fluctuations to variations in the Earth’s climate system ?

    Interesting we also observe a symmetrical and asymmetrical heliosphere, Changes in the shape of the heliosphere therefore have an influence on the CR intensities at Earth, although relatively small.. So here we can observe a transition from simplistic cause and effect to an area of increasing complexity. Indeed there is more, if we observe the Heliospheric (not solar!) origins of the interplanetary magnetic fields.This was underestimated, (and still not appreciated by many researchers). Heliospheric current sheets are the main contributors to the field.

    The topology of the magnetic field(open closed) is of secondary importance when induced and potential electric fields are present in a continuous media(plasma) (competition,stability-instability,transformation)

    Indeed K. SCHERER ET AL 2006 makes a substantive statement.

    For quantitative studies of interstellar-terrestrial relations it is necessary to have a model of a three-dimensional heliosphere, which is immersed in a dynamic local interstellar medium. There are at least two reasons why such model should be three dimensional.

    First, a comprehensive and self-consistent treatment of the cosmic ray transport must take into account the three-dimensional structure of the turbulent heliospheric plasma and, second, the heliosphere can be in a disturbed state for which no axisymmetric description can be justified.

    This is important insofar as the geometric “shape” is always in a perpetual state of “reorganization”

    The physics are reasonably understood in the laboratory and in Tokomak research. eg Velikhov 1959. Electrodynamics of Continuous Media EM Lifshitz, Landau,1968 V. L. Ginzburg 1989.Katomtsev 1990.

    This is interesting for a number of reasons ,first lets look at the “quiet sun”. For simplicity we will use an example from the International Solar Cycle Studies (scotstep) Pap et al 2006.

    The population of energetic particles in the heliosphere is modulated by the solar activity. At the solar minimum, the main sources of the energetic particles observed at 1 AU are:

    1. The interstellar medium in the form of galactic cosmic rays observed at energies above 200 MeV for protons and above 3 MeV for electrons
    2. The termination shock in the form of anomalous cosmic rays
    3. The corotating interaction regions which accelerate electrons up to around 300 keV and ions up to a few MeV/nucleon; and
    4. the Jovian magnetosphere that generates electrons observed at 1AU during quiet times in the range from a few hundreds keV to a few MeV.

    Or in the 27 day Bartel rotation,

    27-day variations of galactic cosmic rays were studied on the base of neutron monitor data for different epochs of solar activity. It is shown that in maximum epochs of solar activity the inversion of the Sun’s global magnetic field is accompanied by drastic changes both in the solar activity distribution and in the galactic cosmic rays variation. Comparison of the 27-day galactic cosmic rays variation with the North- South asymmetry of the sunspot distribution was carried out for different periods of the solar cycle. The amplitude of the 27-day variation of galactic cosmic rays is greater in qA>0 magnetic cycle than in the qA0 and qA

    We can conclude from this that the solar cycle and the HMF-IMF are in non-stationary states. Inhomogenous changes violate generalized statistical features ,with multiple microstate processes becoming dominant in instability of the macrostate and indeed transformation of the said state. (I.e. The law of large numbers is often not tenable.)

    For example. Inhomogeneity of the mediums motion (e.g. the differential rotation) stretches the particles and hence amplifies the magnetic energy ( transforming part of the kinetic energy of the motion into magnetic energy )This competitive mechanism can generate a strong magnetic field from small beginnings.

    The physics here and mathematical equations can be found in my old friend’s Vladimir Arnold monologue on Topological Methods in Hydrodynamics

    Over simplification does not provide “constants” there are none in systems that are not in equilibrium, but are in a state of continual reorganization.

    (This is a general criticism not intended at Dr Svalgaard,but at those who think that the sun-earth connections are a “closed case” or “debunked” by a group of very ordinary scientists,is far from reality).

    Now moving on to some more simplistic open problems, I will ask in a following post.

  375. maksimovich
    Posted Jan 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    1) Solar activity and the “solar constant “is not a constant why?

    2) The solar cycle is not just a “toroidal-poloidal “magnetic field interplay, what is it?

    During recent cycles, when the sunspot cycle maximizes, solar irradiance maximizes, the solar wind increases and the Aa index increases with the solar wind. On the other hand the galactic cosmic ray flux is at a minimum and production of cosmogenic isotopes is reduced. Delta C-14 variations, in addition to the 11 yr cycle , have other significant periods, for example, the Gleissberg cycle ( 88 yr) and the Suess cycle ( 208 yr).

    3) Is it not possible that solar irradiance also maximizes when these other longer cycles maximize, is solar irradiance proportional to solar activity for all of these cycles?

    Would it not be surprising and even unnatural if the Sun was a perfectly governed “heat engine” with respect to changes in its radius and consequent conversion of potential energy to more or less irradiant energy ?

    4) To what extent is the biospheric response to the solar cycle? We see similarities in the solar cycle and biological signatures. Is this chance or a behavioral response?

    5) Is there a climatic response to the solar cycle?

    These are general open questions(of which questions outweigh answers) and are not necessarily applicable to the “Svalgaard solar theory” at the top of the previous post( of which I do not disagree with ) but we do not need large changes in the energy flows, merely changes to the catalytic processes in the upper atmosphere by amplification and attenuation in the reactive-diffusion complex.

    I will use this example from Ermakov and Stozhkov.

    The variations of solar energy fluxes falling on the top of the atmosphere are much less than 10-6S 1.410-3 W/m2, where S is the solar constant [Livingston, 1982]. The total energy change on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere during a day is not exceed 1.610^16 J/day. If this energy could reach the troposphere, it could produce one cyclone for the several years. If one takes into account that the main part of this energy is absorbed in the upper atmosphere and does not get the troposphere this energy is not enough to markedly change the weather. It follows that the coupling and amplifying agent between the upper atmosphere and the troposphere has to exist.

  376. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 3:54 AM | Permalink

    Re 374, Bender that was a joke. No offence meant.
    Re 371, Dr Svalgaard, I read the 2 year number recently but can’t remember which paper.

  377. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

    Leif and Mike
    Yes the solstices are June and December. And yes, the maxima are in Spring and Autumn. And, yes, the data confirms the point and I am considerably enlightened. So, Leif’s note on geomagnetic activity is definitely helping. Can’t say I really understand what is causing the phenomenon but will read up on it.

    Leif, or anyone, just one question from me: Where can I get a record of cloud cover for the Southern Hemisphere, or preferably for area from the Equator to 30° South. Looking at the data from Goode on global cloud cover there is no support for my thesis whatsoever. If changes in cloud cover are not responsible for big El Nino heating events what is?

  378. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    380 (Erl):

    Can’t say I really understand what is causing the phenomenon but will read up on it.

    I’m not done yet [next note will be on the role of the magnetic field], but wre the roles of the pressure and the semiannual variation as a function of the dipole tilt angle against the solar wind direction clear? If not, let’s get that out of the way first…

  379. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    So, the ‘attack’ angle psi is another variable that controls [i.e. modulates] the activity.

    Is the Earths magnetic field more penetrable the further the angle of attack gets away from a line projected across the Earths Equator forward to the nose of the magnetosphere regardless of which solstice is involved. Is not one pole more susceptible than the other?

    The following seems to contradict the explanation.
    From http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/ga.html I have this “Due to the 7.2 degrees tilt of the solar rotation axis with respect to the normal of ecliptic, the Earth reaches the highest northern and southern heliographic latitude (where solar wind speed is higher) on September 6 and March 5, respectively, and crosses the equator twice a year between these dates. Thus, when observed from Earth, one should expect a semiannual variation in solar wind speed with maxima around these dates.”

    Good animation of the latitude fluctuation at http://www.petermeadows.com/html/sunfromearth.html

  380. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    382 (Erl):
    I said in [2.4]:
    “The influence of the psi-angle gives rise to a semiannual variation with minima near the solstices when the solar wind sees the strongest geomagnetic field.” Because of the formula I gave, the field strength increases by a factor of two from the equator to the poles. Convince yourself of this by inserting 90 and 0 degrees for psi into the formula. [do it!].

    The stronger [at solstices] the Earth’s magnetic field is [seen by the solar wind] the better it ‘keeps’ away the influence from the solar wind, and the weaker [at equinoxes] the Earth’s magnetic field is, the stronger is the impact of the solar wind. This explains the combined UT and MOY variation as observed. I realize that this is pretty hand-waving, but at this level of the discussion that is the best we can do. [To be honest, we actually don't know how it 'really' works, although - as usual - there always are people that claim they know everything]. The different topology of the field might also be important, like the difference between seeing a magnet from the end or from the side.

    The 7.2 degree tilt mechanism was first proposed in 1912 by Cortie [is called the 'axial' hypothesis] and does work except that the variation of this [semiannual] effect of the solar wind is very small and almost impossible to see. Furthermore, it does not vary with time of day. This effect is one of the several small ones I mentioned in [2.4]: “In addition to the Svalgaard-function modulation there are other [generally smaller] effects [to be discussed later] that give rise to further semiannual variations.”

    The animation you show also shows the much larger variation of the effect of the 23.5 [+actually also the 7.2] degree tilt of the Earth against the direction to the Sun. Amazing that you focus on the small wobble and can’t see the big one :-)

    A problem with the Internet is that people can pick up random bits of info without being able to put them in perspective or to form a whole picture. The purpose of these notes is to provide a coherent picture. Here and there I’ll say things that reflect my view [which may differ from others], but I’ll try to say so, like what I did at the end of [2.4]: “and not everybody agrees with the above”.

    I shall in a [much later] post go through all this in great detail, but now is not the time [yet].

  381. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

    383 (Erl): Go to my website and download [long] paper on geomagnetic activity . Go to page A10111 [also page 26 of 32] and look at Figure A7, that shows how the solar wind speed, V, varies through the year. You need a lot of good will to see any semiannual signal as claimed by the axial effect. Don’t believe everything to find on the internet :-) even from scientists…
    The text explains the combined signal of all the various factors playing into this.

  382. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    here is the paper, sorry.

  383. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Yes, minima at solstices. That’s the counter-intuitive bit. Perhaps it’s a question of the enhanced degree of coupling possible with equatorial alignment? That’s the sort of error that happens when one should be in bed sleeping. Is the paper the 68 page ‘Geomagnetic Activity-Dependence on solar wind parameters? I will be slow in part because grape picking season approaches.

  384. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Re the formula: B = Bo sqrt(1 + 3 (cos(psi))^2). Sorry, but I have no mathematics. My graphs tell me that maxima are close to the equinoxes. There seems to be about 5nT variation in this effect. If I fix in my mind the notion of enhanced coupling due to the right angle in relation to the alignment of the magnet I have something to hold onto. I see from your diagram the possibility of a somewhat higher peak in March than in September. The diagrams complicate the issue by combining the spin effect with the rotation effect.So there is a day and night effect too. Lot of things happening at once.

  385. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    386 (Erl): that is also a good paper. But Figure A7 is in the
    Interhourly … from 2007. I gave the link in my earlier post.
    Minima/maxima… If there are maxima at the equinoxes, you must have minima at the solstices. Cliver et al. in their 2000 paper expressed it so: “Mountain building or Valley digging?” and drew an analogy:

    “The Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia, are unusual in that they were not formed by upthrust and folding of the Earth’s mantle (mountain building) but rather resulted from the erosion of a plateau (valley digging). When early explorers of these “mountains” attempted to pass through them in the conventional way by following valleys, they were thwarted by steep walls at the ends of valleys where the erosion began. It was not until 1813 (25 years after the first European settlement of Sydney) when G. Blaxland, W. Lawson, and W. Wentworth successfully traversed the mountains by sticking to high ground that a pass was found and the true nature of the Blue Mountains was indicated. We suggest that a similar “mountain versus valley” misconception in solar-terrestrial physics has hindered space scientists in their attempts to identify the cause of the semiannual variation in geomagnetic activity. The fact that geomagnetic storms are more intense and numerous at the equinoxes than at the solstices has been known for over 150 years [Broun, 1848; Sabine, 1856]. The three [there are now actually four] principal hypotheses to account for the semiannual variation are (1) the axial hypothesis [Cortie, 1912], based on the varying heliographic latitude of Earth throughout the year; (2) the equinoctial hypothesis [Bartels 1925,1932; McIntosh 1959], based on the varying angle between the Earth-Sun line and Earth’s dipole axis; and (3) the Russell-McPherron effect [Russell and McPherron 1973], based on the variation of the angle between the z-axis in the geocentric solar magnetospheric (GSM) coordinate system and the solar equatorial plane. These three mechanisms work in two fundamentally different ways. Geomagnetic activity depends on the following factors (1) the properties of the solar wind and (2) the response of the magnetosphere to the driving wind. The axial and Russell-McPherron (RM) mechanisms create a semiannual variation by modifying factor 1; they provide a stronger solar wind input at the equinoxes. The axial hypothesis established by bringing Earth to higher heliographic latitudes near the equinoxeswhere it is more in line with the sunspot zones [Cortie, 1912] or, in the modern view [Bohlin, 1977], with midlatitude coroanl holes. The RM effect does this via coordinate tranformation. Solar wind magnetic fields lying completely in the solar equinoctial plane can have a southwrds component (in GSM cooridinates) near the equinoxes. The equinoctial hypothesis works in an as yet unknown way [Svalgaard, 1977] by modifying factor 2: it reduces the coupling efficiency of the magnetosphere near the solstices. thus while the axial and RM mechanisms work by “building mountains” at the equinoxes, the equinoctial hypothesis “digs valleys” at the solstices.”

  386. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    That link don’t work. Digging valleys at the solstices by weakening the coupling efficiency works for me.

  387. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    387 (Erl):

    Re the formula: B = Bo sqrt(1 + 3 (cos(psi))^2). Sorry, but I have no mathematics.

    Mathematics is the language of science. Without it you are severely crippled. I’ll try to explain: First you take the ‘cosine’ of the angle ‘psi’. Google ‘cosine’ and see what it means. Then you multiply by 3. Then you add the 1 and take the square root of the result. Finally you multiply that by the number denoted by ‘Bo’. Example: psi = 0, this is looking into the end of the magnet. cosine(0) is 1 [google tells you]. 3 times 1 is 3. Add the 1; the result is 4. The square root of 4 is 2, because 2 times 2 is 4. If the field strength at the equator, the Bo, is 30,000 nT, then B at the pole end would twice as big, i.e. 60,000 nT. nT is a unit of magnetic field strength. Strictly speaking it is a 1-billionth [US not Brit] of a ‘Tesla’ which is the unit of ‘magnetic flux density’. Even scientists gets tired of being so precise all the time. A Tesla is a very strong magnetic field. The Earth’s field is about 0.00005 Tesla. A very large sunspot can have a field up to half a Tesla.

    My graphs tell me that maxima are close to the equinoxes.

    If you look at Figure [2.5] you will see two deep minima [dark blue] in June at 16:30 UT and in December at 4:30 UT. This is the real variation. Separating the two minima you can see two ridges of red/yellow/green high ground. These are the Blue Mountains which are not upthrusts but separators of valleys dug into the landscape.

    If I fix in my mind the notion of enhanced coupling due to the right angle in relation to the alignment of the magnet I have something to hold onto.

    But this is the wrong mental picture and leads to confusion. The ‘right angle’ means a diminished coupling.

    I see from your diagram the possibility of a somewhat higher peak in March than in September.

    This is partly due to some of the smaller contributions. Figure A7 shows that the solar wind speed over the last 40 years have been a bit higher in March [red curve on Fig. A7]. We don’t know how this comes about. Presumably, if we wait another 40-50 years it will even out.

    The diagrams complicate the issue by combining the spin effect with the rotation effect.So there is a day and night effect too.

    The spin/rotation are part of the same mechanism. You might mean orbital/rotation, and not spin. There is no day/night effect [actually there is, but that is another story and another post, and a different mechanism unrelated to the semiannual variation - magnetic activity is highest during the night over most of the Earth]. This is a Universal Time effect that happens because the magnetic poles are tipped towards the Sun at specific times (16:30 Greenwich Mean Time for the Northern pole {which is a South pole, actually} and 4:30 Greenwich Mean time for the Southern Pole).

    Lot of things happening at once.

    And that is the fundamental lesson of all this. Real Science is complicated and it has become more and more difficult to be an armchair scientist :-)

  388. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    390 (me): I even forgot a step: you must square the cosine. A mathematical formula is THE tool to be precise without being wordy [and forgetting things].

  389. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    385, 389 (Erl): http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
    or just click here
    This should teach me not to have different internal and external names. Grrr.

    Yes, Ed’s [Cliver's] picture of valley digging is a good one. I’ll include that in the text for note 2.

  390. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    392 (me): now, why didn’t that [click here] were. Grrrr. Probably forgot a closing quote or something. Would be nice if the preview would let me try things out first…

  391. Alan Woods
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    380 Erl,
    wrt to cloudiness and ENSO, is this link of assistance:

  392. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    394 (Alan): Good that I’m not the only one with link-problems :-)

  393. Alan Woods
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

    Ah crap, thanks Leif.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/matw/maproom/OLR/ts.r4.l.gif

  394. Alan Woods
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    Some information regarding the above linky (from bom.gov.au):

    Cloudiness near the date-line in the central to west Pacific is another important indicator of warm/cool ENSO conditions, as it normally increases/decreases (negative OLR/positive OLR anomalies) during these episodes. Cloudiness around the equatorial date-line has mostly been below average since late May, more so since early September, especially in December, in keeping with the strengthening La Niña.

  395. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    392 (me): now, why didn’t that [click here] were. Grrrr. Probably forgot a closing quote or something. Would be nice if the preview would let me try things out first…

    just a suggestion: you could try starting a thread in the Bulletin Board the previewing is better and you don’t have to depend on someone else to start a new one should the thread get too long. In the preview here I only see “the Bulletin Board” (link) and the following text the rest just didn’t make it.

  396. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Got the IHV paper and will read it later.

    This is a Universal Time effect that happens because the magnetic poles are tipped towards the Sun at specific times (16:30 Greenwich Mean Time for the Northern pole {which is a South pole, actually} and 4:30 Greenwich Mean time for the Southern Pole).

    This is an essential part of the explanation in note 2 that enables people to read your diagrams. What is the variation between daily maxima and minima? Should this effect not equate to the equinoxial effect if there is no change in the base solar wind?
    Does the geomagnetic field strengthen depending upon angle of attack or does the coupling effect vary? Surely the coupling effect varies with the radius of the field that is being approached. I imagine a boat with a fine versus a broad entry to the bow and the effect on streamlining behaviour? Is there a variation in field radius as one approaches the poles?

  397. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    I find I have to remove the quotes the Link quicktag puts in for mine to work. Especially troubling when using more than one link in a post.

  398. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    399 (Erl):

    What is the variation between daily maxima and minima? Should this effect not equate to the equinoxial effect if there is no change in the base solar wind?

    As you can see from the legend of Figure 2.5, the variation goes from 28+ down to 17-, a total of 12 out of a mean of 22.5, thus +/-27%. Significant. And, yes, this effect in on top of what the solar wind does, or rather: the impact of the solar wind is modulated +/-27% by this effect.

    Does the geomagnetic field strengthen depending upon angle of attack or does the coupling effect vary? Surely the coupling effect varies with the radius of the field that is being approached. I imagine a boat with a fine versus a broad entry to the bow and the effect on streamlining behaviour? Is there a variation in field radius as one approaches the poles?

    The coupling varies probably because the field seen by the solar wind varies. If you imagine a sphere around a magnetic dipole [just a small bar magnet], then the field on the sphere at the point just over the poles of the magnet is twice that of the field at the ‘equator’. So, if you travel on the sphere from one pole to the other, the field strength would steadily decrease until the equator is reached [where it will be half], then steadily increase until the other pole is reached. So where the solar wind [imagine] hits the sphere, the wind will encounter the weakest field at the equator and a stronger field if you tip the sphere [with its magnet] towards the sun. Now, the physics is not well known and some scientists would object to this simplified picture and prefer their own pet theory, but at least the simple picture helps you to remember which way the effect goes, when the minima are, etc, in the best tradition of a scientific model of this puzzling and unsolved phenomenon.

    By the radius of the field you probably mean the size of the volume [the 'magnetosphere'] around the Earth that the pressure of the solar wind confines to Earth’s magnetic field to. And, yes, that size does vary: the stronger the solar wind [its 'dynamic pressure'] the smaller and more confined does the that volume become. The shape of the volume is like a windsock, stretching out behind the Earth to about 10 times the distance to the Moon. On the sunward side, the volume is approximately the shape of half a sphere. Now, here is an important point: if you want to use geomagnetic activity to say something about the sun, i.e. as a proxy for solar activity, then you must remove the semiannual modulation, but if you want to study the impact of geomagnetic activity as such, then you have to add the modulation back in.

    Now, we are ready to move to the next point: the influence of the magnetic field…

  399. a scientist
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    369 (Jesper), 370 (Leif)

    This exchange intrigues me. It seemed that Jesper was thinking of oscillatory behavior types involving the consistency or variability of the period of oscillation. Oscillator theory does distinguish harmonic and anharmonic oscillators on the one hand, which have their own strongly preferred frequency, from relaxation oscillators on the other hand, which are easy entrained to a broad range of forcing frequencies. Even though the subject seemed to be about free, not forced, oscillations, I was fine when Leif mentioned “high Q”; but I got lost when he brought in “phase drift” and “phase locking”: wasn’t the question about the variability of period? How did phase get involved? Am I missing something?

  400. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Leif, (401)

    So, if you travel on the sphere from one pole to the other, the field strength would steadily decrease until the equator is reached.

    That makes a lot of sense.

    By the radius of the field you probably mean the size of the volume [the ‘magnetosphere'] around the Earth that the pressure of the solar wind confines to Earth’s magnetic field to.

    I was actually imagining a tighter radius at the polar entry than at the equator irrespective of the amount of confinement. So, rather than a sphere I am imagining an oval with the flattest part at the equator and anticipating a greater dynamic pressure at this point with a greater coupling effect and the greater possibility of breaching the wall.

  401. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    402 (scientist): there could be some looseness of terminology. Let me make an example: image you have cycles of period 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, … and so on indefinitely. Then the average period is 11 with great fidelity [that is the high-Q bit]. But there is a systematic drift in the when the max [or min] for each cycle will occur. those times ‘drift’ from 2 years too early, to 1 year too early, to right on, to 1 year too late, to two years too late, etc, but always coming back to being right on at regular intervals, that is the ‘phase-shift’ bit. It was in this sense that Bracewell and [independently] Dicke thought of the sun as a high-Q oscillator [their words], driven by a deep and very stable oscillator producing a cycle that was accurate as clockwork but slightly perturbed by random motions, but that always found its way ‘home’. What is it that bothers you? Their concept, ideas, or other valuable stuff, or my loose reference to same?

  402. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Alan (396)
    Thanks for that. Could be useful. What I really need though is a wider latitude band up to 30° and a differentiation between the Northern and Southern hemisphere for the entire span across all longitudes. Something that is numerical that can be plotted against the SOI or temperatures in the troposphere. Might be at http://www.gewex.org/datanew.htm

  403. Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    403 (Erl):

    I was actually imagining a tighter radius at the polar entry than at the equator irrespective of the amount of confinement. So, rather than a sphere I am imagining an oval with the flattest part at the equator and anticipating a greater dynamic pressure at this point with a greater coupling effect and the greater possibility of breaching the wall.

    It is actually a bit flattened at the point closest to the Sun [the 'nose'], but that is not the important point [and the exact shape is really irrelevant]. What you have to appreciate is that seen from the point of the solar wind the Earth is a bit of a moving [or at least a 'wobbling'] target. At the ‘nose’, the field strength is changing because of the wobbling and that means that at times [solstices] the Earth pushes back a bit harder, expanding the magnetosphere, and at other times [equinoxes] it pushes back a bit weaker, allowing the magnetosphere to be compressed a bit more. It is this change of shape and geometry that I think is responsible for the semiannual variation. Many people disagree with me on this and the problem is still unsolved even after 150 years. The real import of all this is not the specific mechanism but the realization that the geometry [psi] modulates geomagnetic activity [even if we are not sure about how Mother Nature does the trick] and that that modulation is a property of the Earth and not of the solar wind. Let me repeat that: a part of geomagnetic activity [+/-27%] is due to the Earth and not to the Sun. The good news is that we have a good model of this part and can correct for it, if desired.

    The semiannual variation is a venerable problem that every geomagnetician wants to solve. The various approaches to solving the problem give answers that are too close to clearly distinguish between them, so the problem persists. Now, most other planets have magnetic fields too and their geometry is often different from that of the Earth’s so we shall eventually get enough different cases that there is hope we can figure out what is happening. Then we just have to wait for the old scientists to die off so we can achieve consensus and progress :-)

    There is also a bit of human sociology involved: I think that all of the proposed mechanisms are operating to one degree or other, with the ‘equinoctial’ hypothesis being dominant [say 75%] and all the rest sharing the remainder. The human nature problem arises because every proponent of a mechanism wants his mechanism to be the dominant one.

  404. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 21, 2008 at 11:45 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Leif,
    I think I have a grip on the thing. Practically speaking, if one is looking at presenting the aa index against any other variable of interest and trying to show the solar effect, we can overcome the influence of this particular wiggle, that has everything to do with the Earth and nothing to do with the sun by presenting our data as a six month moving average. However, the wiggles are real forces reflecting a changing susceptibility of the Earth to the external force. So these Earth dependent factors could induce a variation on a similar time scale in the variable of interest.

    Now, the geomagnetic influence results in changing electric currents. Currents have magnetic properties. Ions exist as plasma that respond to these magnetic forces. How do you see these forces playing themselves out in the zone inside the magnetopause in relation to such things as the ring current, the radiation belts, the density of the ionosphere and the neutral atmosphere with particular interest of course in the equatorial zones? And to what extent does the changing flux of radiation, and in particular very short wave radiation play a part in the process.
    Or perhaps, beginning at the beginning, to what extent is the depth and the composition of our atmosphere a reflection of the distance from the sun to the Earth and the erosive force of the solar wind in alliance with very short wave ionising radiation?

  405. Pete
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 3:20 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Wonder if you know the answer to the following. The Earth being around 93m Miles from the Sun, has an average TSI varying from around 1365 to 1367 – although I realise there is some variation in the measurements of this from the two satellites Sorce and Acrim.

    Do you happen to know what is the approximate level of TSI reaching our two neighbours, Venus at 67m Miles from The Sun, and Mars at 143m Miles from the Sun?

  406. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    408 (pete):
    1366*[93/63]^2 = 578 Mars
    1366*[93/93]^2 = 1366 Earth
    1366*[93/143]^2 = 2977 Venus
    TSI falls off as square of distance.

  407. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 5:11 AM | Permalink

    409 (me): spot the error ! correct is:
    1366*[93/143]^2 = 578 Mars
    1366*[93/93]^2 = 1366 Earth
    1366*[93/63]^2 = 2977 Venus

  408. cba
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Is it possible that the previously mentioned venus jupiter gravitational effect actually is in operation – but with secondary effects rather than predominant causing a bit of adjustment to the cycle lengths – in the same way orbital resonances can synchronize orbits of two objects – pulling them back into the fold as they drift out?

  409. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    411 (cba):

    gravitational effect actually is in operation

    The tides raised by the Sun in the Earth’s oceans are about a foot = 0.3 m. The tides raised by the Earth in the Sun are smaller by the ratio of the solar mass to the Earth’s mass, i.e. 300,000 times, so the tides on the sun would be 0.3/300,000 m or a thousandth of a millimeter. I don’t think they have much of an effect. But, as we all know, that does not seem to deter some people.

  410. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Is there a tidal effect of similar amplitude in the Earths atmosphere?

  411. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    413 (Erl): yes, there are tidal effects especially in Tropics. Typical values are 0.05 mm of Hg in pressure. In the ionosphere there are tides too. Subject for another note. But, try to google ‘atmospheric tides’ and you’ll find lots of stuff.

  412. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Does the compression of the magnetosphere by the solar wind affect the distribution and density of the ionosphere and the neutral atmosphere on the dayside and nightside? How would a doubling of Far Ultraviolet affect the result? Is there enough observational work on this to be confident that we have a handle on these dynamics?

  413. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

    415 (Erl): No, the compression as such doesn’t do anything. Geomagnetic activity causes [or are] currents in the ionosphere. These currents HEAT the air and make the upper atmosphere expand, but as I have said so many times in previous posts, the density falls by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km height, so there will be no effect on the lower and much thicker atmosphere. Absorption of FUV also heats the upper atmosphere, but FUV has nothing to do with geomagnetic activity [aa-index] and is another story. Yes, we have enough good data AND understanding of this to be confident. Many billions of $’s worth of commercial and [especially] military satellites depend on this.

  414. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    416 (Leif)
    Is ionosphere density and capacity to conduct electricity not a function of FUV that populates and energises neutrals to create that potential?
    I read that atmospheric tides relate mainly to heating processes that are greatest in the tropics. That density change of 0.05 mm of Hg in pressure is not much in the tropics as a percentage of 1000 mg at the surface and it may be due to daily heating rather than gravity (or am I confusing the two) but how does that change at the height of the tropopause at 16km? Same percentage? I read that the amplitude of the travelling wave due to daytime heating is much expanded in the ionosphere. The impact of FUV diminishes with altitude so that factor would expand the wave more at altitude. I read that the height of the wave has fluctuations at twelve, eight and six hours. Just wonder if it is possible that some of that fluctuation has to do with geomagnetic activity due to the changing tilt angle during the 24 hours, the magnetic poles being different to the geographic as defined by the axis of rotation and this affecting the ability of the magnetopause to withstand the solar wind?

  415. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    417 (Erl):

    Is ionosphere density and capacity to conduct electricity not a function of FUV that populates and energises neutrals to create that potential?

    Of course it is. But that has nothing to do with the solar wind, geomagnetic activity, or the aa-index. The FUV depends on the sunspot number. The FUV has nothing to do with the magnetosphere.

  416. cba
    Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    object of the question was not tides but effects on the sun from venus and jupiter. I believe it was mentioned that it’s an inverse cube relationship making venus and jupiter the prime factors. After all, if there is a resynching to 11 years with the significantly varying SS cycle, then perhaps there is a small small effect that is dragging it back in.

    Anyway, it’s a long day today and I have yet another lab tonight so can’t even take time to think much on it.

    have fun!

  417. Posted Jan 22, 2008 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

    419 (cba):

    object of the question was not tides but effects on the sun from venus and jupiter. I believe it was mentioned that it’s an inverse cube relationship making Venus and Jupiter the prime factors.

    ‘effects’? tides stand in precisely an inverse cubic relationship [with distance]. What other effect than tides are there with that relationship? Anyway, as we have said again and again, there is simply not enough energy in the tides to do the job. I have tried [and will continue] to illustrate how complex the real world is, but also that it can be approached and understanding gained, but not with simple-minded and superficial ideas.
    Science is hard work.

  418. VG
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    Dr Leif Svalgard
    I know absolutely nothing about the sun (although I am a scientist). However I have noticed three things about the sun which may be of interest to earth climate.
    1. There seems to be relatively inactive two poles? is this true?
    http://www.solarcycle24.com/ current image of sun
    2. Geomagnetic effects, sunspots and flip flop cycles: it is at all possible that the NH of the sun affects the NH of the earth and the SH of the sun affects the SH of the earth? (seems a ridiculous concept)
    3 TSI idem as 2?
    Merci beaucoup if you can answer.

  419. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    At 335, Leif, you wrote:

    “I’m not a fan of luni-solar tides controlling the climate as all the tides are simply and strictly cyclic and therefore should give us very sharply tuned climatic responses which are not observed. [what we see is a mess, to wit the numbing discussion of what it is and what causes what].”

    It is true that the situation is complex; it is also true that lunisolar tidal periodicities are complicated with many harmonics, many time periods and all sorts of interactions, usually non-linear, between tidal periodicities. Furthermore, tidal signals are but one of many processes that have climate consequences: there are a great many signals in any given climate time series such as temperature, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover, etc.

    As I read the literature, there are at least five distinct areas of scientific inquiry into relationships between lunisolar tidal and climate phenomena.

    These areas are:

    1. The churning and mixing of the oceans including the transmission of tidal energy to the oceans and the conversion of this into heat (for instance about one terawatt, or 25 to 30 percent, of the total tidal energy deposited into the ocean is released into the deep sea).

    2. Relationships between the lunisolar tides and a whole host of geophysical/climate variables such as volume and flow of rivers and lakes; sea level; rainfall; drought; geomagnetic activity; tree rings; air temperatures; and measures of crop production.

    3. Relationships between the lunisolar tides and with the Earth’s crust.

    4. Relationships between the lunisolar tides, the atmosphere and the global electric circuit.

    5. The family of research to do with relationships between the lunisolar tides and the rotation of the earth, the behaviour of the earth’s cores and consequentials for the earth’s dynamo..

    There is a vast literature on the first area about the churning of the oceans and the transmission and distribution of the tidal energy to the oceans. The two most distinguished oceanographers, Walter Munk and Carl Wunsch are the lead researchers in this area and the careful examination of their work and the heaps of related papers is warranted.

    Here are some interesting titbits:

    A. Extracts from Walter Munk’s The International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans President’s invited lecture, 1997:

    “By and large the ocean community has regarded tides as a subject that went to bed with Victorian mathematicians. The advent of U.S.-French satellite TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry did raise the issue of a more accurate knowledge of global tides, but largely in the context of their elimination so that other, more important, issues can be discussed. But not surprisingly, this new work has led to some new insight about the tides themselves……..

    …….My conclusion is that oceanographers need to pay more attention to the Moon. Our Russian colleagues will be familiar with a fictitious character in their literature, Kozma Prutkov, a private in the Czar’s army who is not very bright but usually gets it right. When asked which is more important, the Sun or the Moon, he replies: ‘the Moon, of course, because the Sun shines only in daytime when it is light anyhow’ “.

    B. From an interview with Walter Munk “The Motion in the Ocean – influence of moon on ocean circulation”, Science News, July 15, 2000 by Kathryn Brown:

    “Walter Munk isn’t afraid to make waves. Thirty years ago, the oceanographer challenged his colleagues to solve a dark mystery: What drives ocean circulation? Today, he’s offering them a brilliant answer: The moon.

    In a classic 1966 paper, Munk launched a continuing effort to quantify ocean mixing. At Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., Munk’s first estimates of deep-sea mixing proved an order of magnitude too high, but his ideas influenced a generation of researchers who’ve gone searching for more precise descriptions of the power behind ocean circulation.

    Two years ago, Munk and oceanographer Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued that the moon’s orbital energy must cause far-reaching ocean tides that mix the open ocean’s warm and cold layers. Perhaps, the scientists suggested, this moony mix-up helps drive ocean circulation. But many researchers scoffed at the idea. “The moon’s relevance to ocean circulation was generally considered a lunatic suggestion,” jokes Munk.

    Scientists agree that the orbiting moon dumps energy into the world’s oceans, causing the telltale ocean tides that make beachgoers inch backward as the day progresses. Most researchers, however, assume that these tides only stir shallow seas. For instance, tidal waves constantly crash against the continental shelf, losing energy and rolling back out to sea.

    By contrast, the deep sea has always appeared calmer, with little tidal turbulence to mix the water. Still, Munk and Wunsch reasoned that up to a fourth of the ocean’s tidal energy might be swallowed by the deep sea, jumbling the ocean’s warm and cold layers. “We’ve been waiting for somebody to show us completely wrong,” Wunsch says.”

    One of the (several) main findings in this area is that certain tidal periodicities churn the oceans mightily bringing cold water from the depths to the surface, driving the warm water down into the abyss with consequential climate consequences, whereas other tidal periodicities do not do so as much, leaving the warm layer on the top also with consequential climate consequences.

    The second area also is a vast area of publications, but it isn’t all that fashionable now. Perhaps the largest single body of work is by Robert Guinn Currie of the Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres at the State University of New York and his associates published during the 1970s to the 1990s. Currie and colleagues used high-resolution spectrum analysis techniques such as maximum entropy spectrum analysis to extract the harmonics from time series. As far as I can tell, Currie’s key findings about correlations between the 18.6 year lunar nodal tidal and a wide range of hydrological, other geophysical climate relevant measures (air and sea temperatures, the Great Plains drought, rainfall, geomagnetic activity and some economic measures, such as crop production indices for Iowa have been repeatedly corroborated. Here is one of many, http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401#B12 . Here’s another, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GL012117.shtml

    In case these links don’t work, the two articles are, respectively:

    Harald Yndestad, “The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”, ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2006 63(3):401-420; doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.07.015.

    Cerveny, R. S., and J. A. Shaffer (2001). “The Moon and El Niño”, Geophysical Research Letters, 28(1), 25–28.

    Apparently, the clearest tidal signal in the thousands of time series analysed is that of the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle. This seems to me to give the give the very sharply tuned climatic response which you would expect to find, Leif.

    The lunar nodes are two points 180 degrees apart where the Moon’s orbital plane intersects the Sun’s orbital plane, the ecliptic. With respect to the vernal equinox, the straight line joining the two nodes revolves slowly from east to west (whereas the Moon revolves from west to east) once every 18.6 years in response to the Sun’s gravitational force. The nodes are, of course, just geometric positions on the imaginary celestial sphere and the cycle describes the movement of these points on this sphere. However, the cycle encodes information about the Moon, Earth, Sun geometry that relates to tidal extremes, at least at high latitudes. The lunar nodal tides detectable in the atmosphere and in sea level, temperature and circulation of oceanic waters are separate from the more familiar lunisolar tidal harmonics. Long time series are needed to identify properly the lunar nodal tides.

    It seems clear that the predictability of tidal periodicities would enable improved accuracy and lead time for climate forecasting, at least in relation to the climate phenomena that tidal periodicities generate. It is puzzling why there is not a greater investment in this research. It is all the more odd given the vast investments in climate research that consists of no more that simulations arising from varying a range of parameters using highly simplified models. The tidal/climate research, in contrast, examines real world time series, identifies statistically significant relationships and proceeds to develop theories to explain the phenomena found.

    Science and mathematics have their fads and fashions which in no way depend on the substantive validity (or lack of it) of the underlying activity: the fads and fashions are driven by different considerations, just as they are in other areas of human activity.

    The third area, tides and the Earth’s crust, I mentioned in relation to the Barkin, et al work at post 334 of Svalgaard #2.

    The fourth area is connected to the research of Tinsley and others that I mentioned at posts 12 and 376 of Svalgaard #2.

    There is a fair bit happening in the fifth area, but that might be for another day.

    The additional consideration is that whilst this work is interesting in its own right, the interactions between lunisolar gravitational processes and the other means by which solar processes affect climate are, perhaps, of greater relevance, given the discussion going on here about whether it is possible or not for the Sun to regulate the climate in any way whatsoever.

    Richard Mackey

  420. kim
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

    It’s useful to think of all this causally backwards and wonder if all these signals are merely the record of the physical framework through which the world spun. And yet, climate changes.
    ===============

  421. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Thanks for your most valuable interaction. You are unbelievably generous in setting up to field questions from all and sundry. You must wonder whether the effort is worthwhile. I look forward to more notes. I will keep up the reading and return when work allows. Be assured, the effort is appreciated.

  422. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    421 (VG): Somewhere in interplanetary space is a surface extending out from the Sun that separates effects from the northern solar hemisphere from those of the southern. The chance that the Earth’s North pole will be on one side of this surface while the South pole will be on the other side is exceedingly small, considering how small the Earth is compared to a sphere with the radius of 93 million miles. So, the answer must be negative.

    422 (Richard): The discussion was not if the Moon through ocean tides have an impact on the climate, but if luni-solar tides in the upper atmosphere have. The general problem with the latter is that of a tail wagging the dog. The upper atmosphere is so tenuous that tidal effects there have a very hard time propagating downwards. Now, I know there are all kinds of claims of correlations. I have not seen them all, but enough of them not to be impressed. I don’t need to see yet another bunch. The importance of papers lie in what other research [and perhaps, practical exploitations] they inspire, and the tidal effects [both lunar, solar, and especially planetary upon the sun] score VERY low on that scale.

  423. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Has there been any attempt to quantify the changing strength and composition of the suns irradiance at different altitudes so as to identify the major points of attenuation? At http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/project/grape/images/images_con.html I see a series of maps showing the changing cloud fraction. On the evidence of these maps the potential for variable attenuation is great because the fractions vary considerably over time. My question relates to the losses that occur above the cloud layer and the extent to which these losses change over time?

    Temperatures in the stratosphere change over time and this appears to relate directly to radiation interception by the atmosphere and particulate matter.

  424. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    At http://climatesci.org/2008/01/22/the-relationship-of-enso-events-to-global-ocean-heat-content-anomaliea-and-its-use-to-diagnose-the-global-radiative-imbalance/
    We see the beginning of an attempt to evaluate the impact of ENSO events on the Earths heat budget. This is a big advance. However, the question that climate scientists should be asking relates to the origin of the increase in the heat content of the ocean and the troposphere during an El Nino event. Remarkably, and dismayingly, this question has in the past been ruled out of order. It has been dismissed via the mantra that ENSO represents an internal oscillation of the climate system. If you read the commentary you will see a statement that mid latitude surface air temperatures drive ocean surface temperatures. That can be taken as an indication of the state of the science. Dog wagging tail or tail wagging dog? Classic case of backward ‘forcing’. Scrap climate models and let’s get back to observation, measurement and deduction. Mathematics is of no use whatsoever if one confuses cause and effect.

    Is this overdue realisation driven by the experience of the current freeze?

  425. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    426-427 (Erl): I think that this blog has a couple of thousand comments addressing that very question.

    About ‘current’ things: can’t use those to infer climatic trends me reckon.

  426. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Re irradiance variation? My question relates to measurement not speculation.

    About ‘current’ things: can’t use those to infer climatic trends me reckon.

    Your reference and meaning is not clear to me.

  427. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    429 (Erl): Surely you have seen schematics of how solar radiation makes its way through the Earth’s atmosphere…
    here is one of the cruder ones:

    Is this overdue realisation driven by the experience of the current freeze?

    I take from this that the current freeze somehow has driven your thinking one way or other, and my comment was that “one swallow does not make a summer”.

  428. Erl Happ
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    Leif,
    Agreed, ‘One swallow does not make a summer’ but the presence of an unusually large number of swallows might lead one to ask if there is anything different about this particular summer and whether it might add an unusual amount of heat to the oceans. In today’s case we are looking at an unusual amount of loss in the heat from the surface of the tropical oceans and, I suspect an unusual burst of cold weather in the northern hemisphere winter. If you want to deny the link between cold waters in the tropics and the ‘Siberian Express’, just say so.
    Yes, I am well aware of the information conveyed by the diagram. My question is a little more subtle. 6% of solar radiation is said to be reflected and 16% absorbed by the atmosphere. The proportions absorbed and the resulting effective incident radiation at the surface vary with atmospheric depth (latitude), surface reflectivity and cloud cover. My question relates to the rate of attenuation with altitude and possible variations in that rate of attenuation above the cloud layer. I repeat, above the cloud layer. My particular interest is in the tropics. So far as I am aware, there is no published information on this.

  429. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    431 (Erl):

    My particular interest is in the tropics. So far as I am aware, there is no published information on this.

    Erl, the amount of solar radiation [above the clouds] can be calculated from known properties of the Earth’s atmosphere. You can find more information here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/sat/glossary.shtml#radiationunits

    see especially the entry for “Satellite derived solar exposure”

  430. Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Somewhat dated, but what is your take on this back and forth, primarily between Laut and Friis-Christensen?

    For example, the charges of this EOS letter?

    http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

    They wrote a response, but it was not published.

    http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/comment%20to%20EOS_28_Sept_04.pdf

  431. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    Re 433, for further amusement read Laut and Gunderman 1998: http://www.dea-ccat.dk/sun/JASTP2.htm

    Laut was for the solar cycle length – temperature connection before he was against it. He achieved this by fiddling with the temperature record.

  432. bender
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42 PM | Permalink

    From the abstract in #434

    Since the discovery of a striking correlation between 1-2-2-2-1 filtered solar cycle lengths and the 11-year running average of Northern Hemisphere land air temperatures …

    They filtered using a MA filter with a frequency reponse equal to that of the main periodicity in the alleged driver. This is known to produce a correlation even with random noise as input. This is called the Slutsky effect.

  433. maksimovich
    Posted Jan 23, 2008 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

    435 So do Damon and Lau2004 fig 2

  434. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 3:23 AM | Permalink

    432-436 (several): The heavy smoothing reduces the ‘number of degrees of freedom’ so much that there is little statistical significance left. I have commented on the use of cycle length vs. cycle size before. Why use the length as a proxy for the size, when we have the size? The various acrimonious accusations don’t carry much weight in my book. Changing one’s mind about a conclusion [because of more data or better analysis] is laudable. I should hope that many others should have that courage. In short, I think the LFC-‘result’ is junk, but they are in good company as such is also the case of 95% of all other solar-climate correlations [allow me to have a personal opinion, please].

  435. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

    Re 437, ah Dr Svalgaard, we know why we use cycle length rather than cycle size, because they are different things. Hathaway found a correlation between cycle length and the strength of the following cycle. The longer a cycle is, the weaker the following cycle, because his conveyor belt or whatever was slowing down. As it happens, we also get a correlation between cycle length and the temperature at places on the Earth in the following cycle, as shown in the Hanover, New Hampshire result somewhere above. As the Royal Society says these days “Respect the facts”.

  436. John Finn
    Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Re: 438

    David A

    What about cycle 20 which ended in 1976 (Len = 11 yr 7m)? Isn’t your “rule” a bit too simplistic?

  437. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    438 (David A):

    we know why we use cycle length rather than cycle size, because they are different things. Hathaway found a correlation between cycle length and the strength of the following cycle. The longer a cycle is, the weaker the following cycle, because his conveyor belt or whatever was slowing down.

    So, cycle length is a proxy for cycle+1 size which is then correlated with temperature. So, Earth temperature knows how to predict the sunspot number… if you believe FCL, because cycle length correlates with temperature.
    It is not what we don’t know that is a problem, it is what we know that ain’t.

    As it happens, we also get a correlation between cycle length and the temperature at places on the Earth in the following cycle, as shown in the Hanover, New Hampshire result somewhere above.

    But here the correlation is different: here temperature follows the size of the next cycle. If so, why not simply correlate with sunspot cycle size in the first place?

    As the Royal Society says these days “Respect the facts”.

    Didn’t Lockwood and Frohlich publish a recent paper in a Royal Society journal claiming no solar connection?

  438. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    439 (John):

    What about cycle 20 which ended in 1976 (Len = 11 yr 7m)? Isn’t your “rule” a bit too simplistic?

    And cycle 23 that may top 12 years. Hathaway is predicting a strong cycle 24, so he doesn’t even believe the rule. Solar physics is not that simple.

  439. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Below is shown the solar cycle length [purple; plotted down] and the cycle size for the same cycle [blue] and for the following cycle [red]. the correlations are poor and dubious. Forget Hathaway and make up your mind by looking at and respecting the “facts”.

    For cycle 24, I have used Rmax = 72 [pink square]. Using Hathahway’s number [140 or 16- or whatever] would just make the correlation worse.

  440. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    Re 440, Dr Svalgaard, the reference to the Royal Society was ironic. The Royal Society used to have “On the word of no-one” as its motto, which means remain quizzical. Now that the Royal Society is a hysterical AGW promoter, they have changed their motto to “Respect the facts”, which translates as believe in groupthink and don’t think for yourself. The irony was to quote a warmer motto against someone who denies the solar-climate connection. If you want an example of the parlous state of UK science, Sir David King (chief scientist in the UK) said that the Indonesian tsunami was caused by global warming – in case I have to spell it out, that is witchdoctor stuff. As for what the Royal Society would publish, they print any amount of warmer drivel, and thus they are a natural home for Lockwood and Frolich.

    Hathaway et al 1993 in “The Shape of the Sunspot Cycle” found a weak correlation between the length of a cycle the strength of the following cycle. On his cycle 24 prediction, I believe he got thrown by the big aa Index spike in 2003 and went high. But why anyone would want to use anything other than the solar dynamo approach developed by yourself, Ken Schatten and others is beyond me, when it has a good track record and a physical basis. I have no doubt that your prediction will be borne out by the result in 2013. You are three off Ken Schatten’s number, and his error bar goes down to 50 odd.

    You keep saying cycle length and amplitude are correlated, so why not use amplitude rather that length, and I keep saying they are different things. We are obsessed by sunspots because we can see them, but interesting things happen in other parameters including the IMF. Perhaps something changes with the faculae. The correlations aren’t easy and as per the Royal Society’s previous motto, it is best to keep an open mind. Hell, solar physicists haven’t figured out what causes the convective zone to rotate differently to the radiative zone, so what hope is there on the tricky stuff?

    Now we get to the dog that didn’t bark in the night. There is a very good correlation between temperature and the length of the previous solar cycle at Hanover, New Hampshire, and also at some other north-eastern US cities with long records. I am only a humble cancer researcher, and it would be good to know the mode of action in detail but I don’t need to know it to believe what my eyes are telling me.

    Roll on, Solar Cycle 23, roll on for another year and take the temperature of Hanover, New Hampshire down by another 0.7 of a degree.

  441. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    Re 439, it is not my rule, it is Hathaway’s, and it is simplistic and the correlation is weak.

  442. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    443 (David A):

    You are three off Ken Schatten’s number

    Actually, Ken also got 75, but he did not want to quote the same number as me, so he decided to pick another number that was close. The choice he had to make was if his number should be a little bit higher or a little bit lower. Since the last many cycles had all been larger than 75, he went with a little bit higher number just to be statistically on the ‘right side’ :-)
    BTW, this is absolutely true and not a joke.

  443. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

    Leif

    I have commented on the use of cycle length vs. cycle size before. Why use the length as a proxy for the size, when we have the size?

    and in 440

    So, cycle length is a proxy for cycle+1 size which is then correlated with temperature

    With respect I don’t really think that the solar cycle length (frequency or whatever) is a proxy for anything but the solar cycle length. With the fact that there can be no negative energy intensity excursions it really is a pulse width + amplitude modulated signal. When pulse width (or pulse density) modulated signal is considered alone the amplitude is irrelevant as it is in:

    Class D amplifiers
    simmer control on electric stove where the “thermostat” is entirely within the switch.
    DC and AC motor speed (and position) controls these are pulse width + amplitude modulated by virtue of the fact that it’s an AC sinusoid that is being rectified and chopped up. However the amplitude component is not essential as you can see here
    I have designed, built, installed and maintained many of the above mainly in food and pharmaceutical industries they have all worked quite well and my knowledge I haven’t been responsible for poisoning anyone.

    Now we come to the next thing in 437 you seem to be complaining:

    The heavy smoothing reduces the ‘number of degrees of freedom’ so much that there is little statistical significance left.

    What if the heavy smoothing is an ineluctable part of the physical process like the smoothing effect of a large capacitor across the power supply to smooth the wrinkles in a power supply or

    the flywheel in the engine of your motor car or

    The rotational inertia of the electric motor or

    the low pass filter in the out put of a class D amplifier or

    the thermal inertia of the ocean with at least one time constant (it looks that there are many) that leads to an 800 year lag in CO levels (interesting isn’t it that what the sun was doing in the 13th century could be having an effect today) is one order of magnitude larger than the Gleisberg cycle of 87 years. Do we need to take this into account – I don’t know but I’m sure it is a factor.

    It all boils down to what is actually know of digetal signal processing, and if you look at this link you';; see all of the usual suspects that the time series statistics like auto-correlation, moving average (as Finite impulse filter), auto-regression (as infinite impulse filters) and so on. I don’t think it is mere coincidence that these similarities exist since it is the statisticians objective to obtain a model of the processes involved.

    I’m sure you’ll allow those of us who build or have built these things for a living and unlike the scientist held legally (and financially) responsible for the things we do we say “it’s obvious”. The basics really are as a straight forward as bring a pot of porridge to the boil then turning down the heat to let it simmer a while before breakfast it is essentially exactly the same process.

  444. Posted Jan 24, 2008 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    446 (Jan): all would be good if Friis-Christensen himself was thinking along the same lines as you lay out, but he does not. The length is a proxy for the size, either measured by TSI, magnetic field, or cosmic ray modulation [he leans heavily towards the last one]. The mechanism seems to be rather direct [especially the cosmic rays theory], not a fifty year average effect. And that is my problem with this. But, I have already given him more ‘thought-space’ than his analysis deserves, IMHO. I’m not saying that you [or others] cannot believe him to your hearts’ content, just that you cannot use his ideas as an argument that will carry weight with me personally.

  445. Pete
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    Just to say. I’ve been analysing the relationship between Solar Length and Solar Amplitude. Using the TSI series (without Background – so it conforms with Leif’s theory there is no Background and a Floor) I calculated the additional TSI energy per Solar Pulse above a notional floor of 1365.5 w/m^2 since 1773, and these are the results.

    The Blue plot is per Solar Cycle. I analysed Cycles 3 to 22. The Pink plot is the data justified if all the Solar Cycles were a notional 11.1 Years in Length.

  446. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:07 AM | Permalink

    448 (pete): This is VERY nice. Tell us how you got the TSI-values. Also, what would the curves look like if you used the TSIs given at my website at http://www.leif.org/research . E.g. pick mine from the file: TSI (Reconstructions).xls (TSI Reconstructions 1700-present, 2008) [as text, as PDF].

  447. Pete
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

    Leif. My original data was Lean, indeed. First time I’ve seen your data. I directly dropped your data over the Lean into my spreadsheet for 1775 to 2006, and here is the response

    Main differences are you have much higher relative changes either side of the Dalton event (almost twice), and the late 20th Century Cycles 21 and 22 are somewhat diminished compared to Cycle 19, which now shows a higher total energy pulse for this Cycle than the Lean data showed.

  448. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 24th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Thanks Leif, for your reply its just that it surprises me that someone would use the cycle length as a proxy for size it the size data is available unless it’s for calibration purposes, but that would strike me as odd too and at best unreliable.

  449. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    450 (pete): Another difference you may note is that now there is now secular trend in the accumulated TSI.

    The reason, I think, can be gleaned from the following entries on my site:

    CAWSES – Sunspots.pdf (CAWSES Newsletter, vol 4, issue 1, 2007)
    GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf ((No?)Century-scale Secular Variation in HMF, EUV, or TSI; AGU Fall 2007)
    SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf (Geomagnetic Underpinning: Wolf’s Sunspot Number; AGU Fall 2007)
    De maculis in Sole observatis.pdf (Showing that Waldmeier introduced a jump in Rz, 2007)

    451 (Jan): Yes, it is odd, and therefore diminishes the paper. If you look at the plots pete has just produced, you can see that they too match the temperature curve to some degree. In fact almost any solar parameter will do this as they all are correlated with the solar cycle.

  450. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    450 (pete): why begin with cycle 3 and not cycle 1? also try to assume that cycle 24 will be like cycle 14 [since cycle 23 was very much like cycle 13] and see what you get.

  451. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am

    451 (Jan): Yes, it is odd, and therefore diminishes the paper. If you look at the plots pete has just produced, you can see that they too match the temperature curve to some degree. In fact almost any solar parameter will do this as they all are correlated with the solar cycle.

    Yes indeed the direct mechanism you mentioned tends to give it away though i did not notice that until you mentioned it. While the weak correlation of size with cycle length would potentiate each others effect, the amplitude effect is generally immediately realised (and more sensitive to noise and other effects ) the effect of cycle length alone can only be realised over time. What an appropriate time for that might be is presently beyond my ken.

  452. Pete
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    No reason to start at Cycle 3. I was only experimenting and wanted to capture the Dalton Minimum in particular!

    Here’s a new plot of Cycles 1 to 24. As you requested this assumes Cycle 24 will follow a similar pattern to Cycle 14, starting 2008 for 12 years in length.

  453. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    455 (pete): Thanks, pete. This is a very telling graph.

  454. kim
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    Telling, and chilling.
    =============

  455. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    So we need a two-pronged “precautionary principle”? One for AAGW, one for Dalton II?

  456. kim
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    How about the McIntyre Minimum?
    ======================

  457. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    452 (me): that should be “no secular trend” and not “now secular trends”, of course. This correction directed at the comedians out there.

  458. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

    459 (kim): it has already been dubbed the “Svalgaard” minimum :-)

  459. pochas
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    Pete:

    I’d like to see a discussion on what you feel may be the significance of this analysis, with Leif’s comments.

  460. Pete
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    pochas: Well. My first aim was to find out if I could amalgamate Cycle Length and Amplitude into a single figure, which would describe the strength of the energy within the TSI envelope for each Cycle. So firstly, is this a valid premise? In its simplest form I am merely analysing the Area within each Cycle. I was at first suprised that I was able to produce the response that you see with just Secular ‘TSI’.

    Second is how to interpret the ‘Additional TSI’. Is it valid to define a Cycle in terms of accumulated TSI over and above a notional ‘floor’. Does this graph show Secular TSI, or near enough decadal TSI forcing. If you wanted an ‘annual’ value would you need to simply divide this by 10 (or 11.1 to be specific).

    May be if Cycle 24 did cause the expected ‘crash’ in overall TSI, then only the monitoring of its effects would reveal the significance – if there is any that is! Interesting times ahead.

  461. windansea
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Since the last many cycles had all been larger than 75, he went with a little bit higher number just to be statistically on the ‘right side’
    BTW, this is absolutely true and not a joke.

    funny! like being the last to guess a number between 1 and 100

    Leif, thanks for all your work here, reading and learning a lot

    Pete’s graphs are most interesting!

  462. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Dr. S.

    Thanks for running a good thread. I like to come here be quiet and read.

  463. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    463 (pete): On ‘secular’ trend. Here are several reconstructions:

    The oldest is Hoyt [gray], then Lean [brown], then Wang et al. [blue] and Krivova et al. [light blue]. My own is red and Dora Preminger’s is pink. Various spacecraft series {ACRIM, PMOD, etc are also shown}. Two things to note:
    1) the ‘swings’ [secular variation] have become smaller with time from Hoyt’s to Lean’s … to mine. The current thinking is that there is almost no [or as I claim, simply no] secular variation. The remaining differences stem from an increase of the minimum level during the 1st half of the 1900s.
    2) the solar cycle amplitudes after ~1950 are larger than before 1950.

    These two are related and seem to be due to changes in the calibration of the sunspot number [in 1945, 1895, and 1849] in the sense that the earlier values were too low relative to modern values. I have discussed all this before in this Topic.

    Pete’s graph is basically the area under the red curve and the 1365.5 line.

  464. Pete
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    Just to say, and I hope Leif doesn’t mind, but if I run the the “Lean+Bkg” data through my calculation, this is the response you get. I ain’t changed my ‘floor’ value so some values go -ve, but the relative changes are quite stark. Obviously Solar Science needs to fight this out over the coming years! But, it is a comparison of using the same methods with a different dataset!

  465. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

    467 (pete): I don’t mind at all, as it clearly illustrates my point that when people thought the TSI-variations were large, it was not a problem to understand the solar influence on climate ["obvious" is a word some have used in this thread]. Now, that it may be that the TSI-variations are tiny, we have the problem that as Steve Mc said such ‘hypersensitivity’ of the climate to solar changes is ‘impossible’. [And THAT was original motivation for my coming here]

  466. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    Re naming rights to a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, I have priority in the literature: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

    That was two years ago. Everybody else was sleepwalking into this thing.

  467. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

    469 (David A): so what do you propose to name it?

  468. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    When it comes to prior publication, Theodor Landsheidt beat you both to it with this paper published in E&E in 2003:

    New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    His reasoning and methods may be unorthodox (and not valid according to Leif), but it is a prior prediction of an upcoming Grand Solar Minima in the published literature …

  469. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

    ‘Svalgaard minimum’ sounds good, but that’s no way to decide (because ‘mcintyre minimum’ sounds better). Who had the first, most credible prediction (i.e. based on a mechanistic model)? Are you guys serious about this prediction?

  470. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    do you really want to honor a guy who uses invalid methods? if so, i have a suggestion …

  471. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    Naming rights: Maunder did not discover the Maunder Maunder Minimum, Spoerer did. Maunder drew attention to Spoerer’s discovery, but was ignored. Jack Eddy drew attention to the minimum and this time people listened. I suggest calling the next Grand Minimum the ‘Eddy Minimum’.

  472. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    1. ‘eddy minimum’ is a terrible name, for a rock band, movie, anything
    2. discovery of a fact vs prediction before the fact – two totally different things

  473. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

    Leif #470

    Al Gores???;-)

  474. Raven
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    How about calling it ‘Gore’s Comeuppance’?

  475. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

    bender, I think all three mentioned here (i.e. Leif, David, Landsheidt) are (were) serious about an upcoming Grand Solar Minima, and BTW, the late Dr. Landsheidt was using a mechanistic methodology.

    It’s just that Leif cannot accept that a change in orbital angular momentum means that there has also been a transference of mechanical energy from orbital momentum to/from the bodies involved by a mechanism as yet not well understood, even though basic physics says the energy must have been transferred somewhere if orbital angular momentum has changed.

    Landsheidt suggested spin orbit coupling as a possible mechanism, but I do not know how to even begin to quantify it given the fact the Sun is not rigid and has differential rotation by both latitude and depth …. but I do not think it wise to simply write Landsheidt off just because what he proposes it is difficult to work out and is different to orthodox thinking.

  476. pochas
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    Leif – I’m not sure that hypersensitivity is necessarily such a problem. I checked on the range of monthly averages for hourly cosmic ray count rates at the Climax counter at Boulder CO for 1953 – 2006. It is 3005 – 4340 counts/hr. The tiny TSI variation may be only a proxy.

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS

  477. Gerald Browning
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    Leif (#474)

    And Jack Eddy was fired by NCAR for his efforts.

    Jerry

  478. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    #478 i did not say anything about landscheidt, although i can see how what i wrote could be misinterpreted

  479. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    #480 why was he fired?

  480. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    A quick observation on differences between solar and ghg forcings.

    With the solar, one has energy TSI coming in, most of which reaches the ground. There is no variations in the makeup of the atmosphere or of the absorption/emission factors and requires compensation totally by T variations – or so it would seem. Additionally, there may be moderately subtle changes in the makeup of the power as a function of wavelength and it is quite possible there are more severe impacts due to shifting of the makeup than would be otherwise felt by a straight forward increase/decrease in TSI. Finally, there may be the addtional effects of magnetic field/CR/clouds involved also.

    On the ghg realm, there is a change in the makeup of the atmosphere and hence the absorption /emission factors that would seem not to limit compensation only by T variations. A shell that absorbs more radiant energy due to an increase in absorption ability is more capable of emitting more energy due to that same factor (although based upon it and upon the current temperature). This would imply less T variation would be required than for the solar change – even without potential variations of the radiation makeup coming in.

  481. Gerald Browning
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    bender (#482),

    I received this information second hand from a solar physicist at NCAR
    so can only relay what I recall he said. Evidently Jack was looking into the solar-earth connection and the powers in control did not believe
    there was a connection. After Jack was let go, he continued
    to work on the problem on his own time and established a connection.
    The humorous thing was that NCAR then invited him back to give a lecture on the subject. If someone knows more of the story than what I recall, feel free to fill in the details.

    Jerry

  482. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    478 (Carl): Angular momentum cannot change, it is conserved. If one part of something rotates slower, another must speed up. The positions of the planets have been known for a long time with exquisite precision and show no sign of such a transfer. But we don’t need the discussion as it is fruitless. Your worry about the sun not being rigid should give you pause, but again, we can’t make any headway here. And it is not that I will not accept, it is that the mechanism and the correlation for that matter have not been worked out or presented in a matter that is convincing enough [to me, at least - and what else can I go with?]

    Maybe we should call it the Gore Maximum to keep in line with the usual misinformation. ‘Eddy’ is still my favorite, rock band or no rock band.

    Cosmic rays, yeah, if you believe that mechanism, which I don’t, and since cosmic rays vary in (anti)phase with the solar activity it is hard to separate the effects [if any], so we can’t make much headway there either.

  483. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    Jack Eddy: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/eddy_int.htm

  484. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    how about the algoreaphobia maximum minimum?

  485. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    487 (cba): would get my vote if you can say it rapidly three times without tripping up. :-)

    483 (cba): as long as these effects are not in the models and are not taught to high-school students we can’t say we understand what is going on. And that is where we are right now.

  486. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    I have a question that is OT, and so please snip if you wish, Dr S. I have been trying to figure out the disconnect between Lorenz/Robock in the 1970s vs Hansen in the 1980s. [Robock (1978) on internal climate variability is not cited in IPCC, for example. And that also seems to be a taboo topic at RC.] … and Gerry’s observation here on NCAR personnel changes makes me wonder if someone was exerting undue control on the research direction at NASA between 1978-1988.

  487. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    #486. thank you. very much.

  488. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

    489 (bender): undue control at NASA? Not that I know of. This seems to be a rather modern thing. Make up your own mind what might be the reason for this. But, just because I haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I just dunno.

  489. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    Mike mann minimum. Only because I like alliterative ironies.

  490. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    From Jack Eddy in #486:

    I knew I had a lot of selling to do if people were to accept the notion of such irregularity in the Sun, and I sought a name that people would remember, “Maunder Minimum”, with all those m’s had a kind of onomatopoeia.

    That’s pretty funny. It’s probably in poor taste to admit that my candidate was ‘Mannomatic Minimum’.

  491. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    #492 crosspost!

  492. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    re 486. thank you lief. you have no idea how much that touched me.

  493. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    492 (steven): Jack Eddy called ‘his’ minimum the Maunder Minimum because of the alliteration [Eddy knew that Spoerer actually saw it first]. The irony will be lost, I’m afraid. Mann should be forgotten, not remembered. Science is self-correcting. After a while nobody knows the names of the ones that were wrong. Quick: who first peddled the phlogiston theory? Answer: rehceB [backwards] And how many even knows what the phlogiston theory was?

  494. steven mosher
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    RE 489. Is robock a dirty little secret? It might be interesting to do
    a search on papers that cite his paper. A student of Lorenz.. what happened to
    him?

  495. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    Maybe we should call it the Gore Maximum to keep in line with the usual misinformation.

    I prefer the Irony of Gore minimum but really I would not honour him in that way.

    How about “Jack Eddy” minimum to disambiguate?

  496. maksimovich
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    re 485 LS

    Angular momentum cannot change, it is conserved. If one part of something rotates slower, another must speed up.

    And with non-rigid bodies interesting things happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorotational_Instability

  497. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    499 (max…): for the instability to happen, the angular velocity must decrease with radius. For the Sun the outer layers in a wide belt around the equator [where the tidal effects presumably occurs because the planets revolve close the the equatorial plane] rotate faster than the interior. At any rate, no viable mechanism has been proposed to connect planetary effects to sunspots. For me, it is not enough to say that it is conceivable that X causes Y through unknown mechanism Z.

  498. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    I’ve got no problem saying “algoreaphobia maximum minimum” three times in a row rapidly. It’s those “rubber baby buggy bumpers” that get me every time without need for repetition.

    Thanks for the link – that was a fascinating interview of Eddy.

  499. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    here’s a link to Robock’s papers including many that are available in pdf there which are $$$$ at other sites.

  500. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    502: no link

  501. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    robock would be OT here. i would suggest unthreaded.

  502. maksimovich
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    rE 500 I had not read the applicable post you were commenting on.We are at cross purposes.

    In my context MRI is relative to the HMF and interactions(mechanical conflicts).(eg Sobolev and the rotating body)This is not pertinent to the discussion that you were responding to.

  503. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    505 (max…): OK, The Heliomagnetic field ‘is’ instrumental in slowing solar rotation. Over the life of the Sun the solar rotational speed has slowed by a factor of 10-100, probably by transferring angular momentum from the Sun to the planets that now contain 98% [or some number like that] of the angular momemtum of the solar system. Fascinating, but slightly OT.

  504. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

    #486

    Leif

    Excellent link. I especially liked the part (after the science of course) about the porkbarrel at Michigan. We knew about that at the time and it was Al Gore that pushed the funding there!!

    Also, could you point me to a graphic or your overview paper of your solar cycle prediction? I am doing a task for NASA right now on reboost propellant for the International Space Station over the next decade and your paper will be my lower bound for atmospheric density.

    Thanks

  505. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    Addendum

    NASA is still using Hathaway’s prediction for a strong cycle at NASA JSC for operations planning and as we both know that scenario is now highly doubtful.

  506. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    507 (Dennis): My website http://www.leif.org/research
    has loads of such papers. Starting with the original 1978 paper “Using Dynamo Theory to Predict Solar Cycle 21.pdf (Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard, Wilcox, Solar Phys. 1978)” , up to the 2005 with Cliver and Kamide-san “Cycle 24 Smallest 100 years.pdf (Prediction of Cycle 24 GRL 2005)”. Then “Polar Fields and Cycle 24.pdf (Space Weather Week, 2006)” and “Cycle 24 Predictions SHINE 2006.pdf (Invited talk, SHINE 2006)” and “Polar Fields and Cycle 24 (Observations).pdf (Panel, Boulder 2006)”

  507. Mike Davis
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Leif: It appears that the next 15 to 25 years are going to be very important regarding our understanding of the solar climate connection. Thank you for the history and sharing your theorys.

  508. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    Several readers have thanked me for various things. Your thanks are appreciated and welcome. Helps keep me going.

  509. Mike Davis
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    I just wanted you to know that some are interested in your views and not interested in advancing theirs.

  510. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    512 (Mike): A frank exchange of views is always positive, and as you say that does not have to be confrontational [perhaps rare in the this area]. A fundamental principle must be that of scientific [and just plain human] honesty. In the end, the good stuff prevails.
    Leif

  511. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_imppapers.html

    did that one work?

  512. Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 10:27 PM | Permalink

    514 (cba): worked fine. Now, I’m ignorant here, what is the deal with that fellow? And why should he be OT?
    (short answer, please – in case he is OT)

  513. cba
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    rather curious.

    just looked at the referenced ’78 paper – part of his phd thesis. there’s a long list of subsequent papers. seems to be into models and looking for correlations with various factors like co2 / solar / volcanism …

    at least the titles of the publications don’t look like hansen’s reeking of political agenda more than scientific research.

    however, i am extremely biased against time based models (gcms) as they do not have a mechanism to keep results on track and not diverging due to all the various reasons that an iterative scheme will have.

  514. bender
    Posted Jan 25, 2008 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

    Dr S, it’s your thread, so it’s your call if Robock is OT.

    Robock worked with Lorenz, wrote some modeling papers in the 1970s on “internal climate variability” as a mechanism for explaining low frequency fluctuations in temperature.

    I mentioned his work in a different thread last night. Not sure why cba brought it up here.

  515. David Archibald
    Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 1:35 AM | Permalink

    Re 471, Landscheidt had his minimum starting with Solar Cycle 25, and if it doesn’t start until then, as per Hathaway’s prediction of that cycle, then he is right, but my estimate is that he is one cycle out and thus wrong. Landscheidt wasn’t good at documenting his work and his widow gave the files away to a Phd student from Potsdam University, a place notorious for GCM work.

    Jan Janssens maintains a page of Solar Cycle 24 predictions at: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

  516. cba
    Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

    only reason I mentioned it was because it had been mentioned and I stumbled across the publications page so I just tried to pass on the link – with a bit of difficulty. Whether I even have the time to dedicate on reading the possibly interesting papers I downloaded at present is uncertain – without a compelling reason.

  517. a scientist
    Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    404 (Leif)
    Thanks for the clarification. It’s as I thought: using “phase shift” in this context just confuses me. I’m slightly bothered by what seems to be limited and old-fashioned thinking on the part of Bracewell and Dicke, who understandably chose coupled oscillators as their root metaphor: understandable because at the time chaos in autonomous systems was not on offer.

    But I’m less bothered than intrigued by your remark that there is still no understanding of the “phase locking [if any exists].” (370) Before I say more, could you point me to a current study of 11 year periodic behavior in a state-of-the-art dynamo model? Anything that better defines what you think is missing, and/or that addresses period variability, and/or includes a current dynamical systems theory perspective would be so much the better.

    As always, thanks for your shining presence.

  518. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    Predicting cycle 24:

    The solar polar field goes to zero and reverses sign at every solar maximum. This happened in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. As a measure of the polar fields we take the absolute value of the difference between the magnetic field measured near the North pole and near the South pole. We assume that the polar field is a proxy for the size [in sunspot number = Rmax] of the following cycle [there are theoretical reasons for this]. If we then divide the observed polar fields [in microTesla] by Rmax, we should get a curve that is the “same” for every cycle [apart from solar noise, terrestrial weather {bad weather=poor data}, and equipment problems]. The graph shows this procedure carried out for the four cycles we have data for [dark blue curve]. The average curve is the light blue. For cycle 24 we don’t know what Rmax is going to be, but we can assume some values and plot what we get. With Rmax = 50 we get the green curve, with Rmax = 165 {Dikpati] we get the red curve. With Rmax = 75 we get the dark blue. It seems that 75 makes the best fit to the other cycles, and that is therefore the predicted value.

  519. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    and here is the Figure:

    —-

  520. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

    520 (a scientist):

    old-fashioned thinking on the part of Bracewell and Dicke

    This was 50+ years ago…
    Here is a link to modern thinking [I'm not sure it is any clearer] LeThellier paper

  521. a scientist
    Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Very interesting paper you linked, but I was wondering more about dynamo model simulations: who lets them run many cycles and/or looks (numerically) for inertial manifolds?

  522. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    524 (a Scientist): you are asking a lot, and there are many such papers out there. Study of these will take you months. Here is one:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612693 click on ‘PDF’
    Then there are the Dikpati papers:
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/9/8/297/ click on ‘Full text’
    and Choudhuri’s:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2258 click on ‘PDF’

    study them carefully and report back what you think.

  523. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Svalgaard,

    This link was posted by Anthony Watts in another thread. While I agree the basic premise of the article, the choice of TSI reconstruction I feel will open the article to criticism. Your thoughts?

  524. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    526 (cap…): The early Hoyt TSI-reconstruction is not considered to be valid anymore. There are a couple of problems with it:
    1) the secular variation is much too large
    2) the whole curve is shifted about one cycle before ~1950

    That we have better reconstructions now does not detract from the courage and effort that Hoyt and Schatten put into their work. Remember, this was one of the first such.

    Since the reconstruction is not what we think happened, the conclusions drawn in the paper should likewise not be relied on.

  525. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    527 (me): before the comedians jump all over me let me hasten to say that the conclusions [if any] I was talking about are only the ones related to TSI. I have a problem with the paper in another way: suppose you have a quantity X and you correlate with A and don’t find something good (small R^2). Now you try B, and C, and D, etc, until at some point you find a very good correlation (say the R^2=0.832 mentioned). At that point the rules have changed. Say that you have only a 5% chance of getting that result, but if you try ~20 times you would by chance get it.

  526. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Not to beat this too much, but do you consider Damon and Laut’s specific criticisms of Friis-Chiristen’s work to be valid? I understand that there are a lot of issues going on here that are beyond the scope of the Damon and Laut letter. As a layman, I’m just trying to figure who got the better of that exchange.

    Thanks!

  527. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    528, That was my thoughts. I do think there is value in the premise, but the selection of data sources will kill the article. Solar does have a large influence driving the climate, but the subtleties are lost trying to make huge points.

  528. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    529 (cce): I consider Damon and Laut’s criticisms to be valid. At the very least, the outright errors do mar the Friis-Christensen & Lassen works and the smoothing does not make sense. My biggest issue is why use a proxy (the length) for the size (of the cycle) when the size is known. We have had already too much discussion of that issue.

  529. Posted Jan 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM | Permalink

    In their September, 2006 paper, “Temporal changes in sunspot umbral magnetic fields and temperatures”, M J Penn and W Livingston of the National Solar Observatory, Arizona, report a finding relevant to predicting SCs 24 & 25.

    P&L report that by directly measuring the darkest position in over 900 sunspots from 1998 to 2005 they found that, each year, the average magnetic field strength decreased by 52G, and the temperature increased by about 73K.

    P&L report that these changes would apply to individual sunspots as a whole, not just to their darkest areas only.

    P&L conclude their discussion as follows:

    “A continuation of these trends would produce important changes for the next few solar cycles. The observed distribution of umbral magnetic fields runs from about 1500 through 3500 G, with a median value near 2400 G. If 1500 G represents a true minimum for spot magnetic fields and the field strengths continue to decrease at the rate of 52 G per year, then the number of sunspots in the next solar cycle (cycle 24) would be reduced by roughly half, and there would be very few sunspots visible on the disk during cycle 25. It is with this in mind that we eagerly anticipate measurements of sunspot spectra in the next solar cycle.”

    If SC24 is to half of SC23, it would be about 60 sunspots, even less than Leif’s 75.

    This finding seems to provide independent evidence, this time by direct measurement, for your prediction (and the others in the low amplitude group) of the continuing decline in solar activity resulting a low amplitude for SC24 and maybe SC25 also.

    A couple of queries for you, Leif, if you have the time:

    Do you accept the Penn & Livingston findings?

    Has the trend they found for 1998 to 2005 been found to continue through 2006 and 2007?

    What would the high amplitude group say about P&L’s findings and predictions?

    What do you think is happening in the Sun to give rise to this phenomenon?

    Reference:
    M. J. Penn and W. Livingston, “Temporal changes in sunspot umbral magnetic fields and temperatures” The Astrophysical Journal, 649: L45–L48, 2006 September 20 2006.

  530. Posted Jan 27, 2008 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    532 (Richard): Work by Bill Livingston should always be taken seriously. Since 1998-2006 does not cover a full solar cycle, it is hard to say if the decrease is part of a cycle or part of a longer trend. If part of a cycle, there may be no import for subsequent cycles.
    P&L say “A continuation of these trends would produce important changes for the next few solar cycles”. This does not mean that the trend does continue. Recent work by Penn and McDonald [The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 662, Issue 2, pp. L123-L126] suggests that the effect is cyclic. It will be interesting to se what cycle 24 holds.
    What causes this? Penn speculates that a twist of the umbral magnetic fields might be important. We shall see.

  531. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    Re comments about the naming of the coming Grand Minimum – if of course that turns out to be true.

    Personally I am against Svalgaard Minimum, Archibald Minimum, and even Eddy Minimum.

    I would need to check again exactly what Landscheidt did, but if his theories did lead us to predict weak solar cycles 24 and 25, and they come to pass, then Landscheidt Minimum is a very strong contender.

    But here are 2 more possibilities: Millennium Minimum (good alliteration like Maunder), and Iconoclastic Minimum, because if a solar downturn succeeds in breaking the global AGW hysteria then that would be truly iconoclastic.

    Rich.

  532. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

    (534)

    Naa, just to really be snarky, call it the Gore minimum.
    :)

  533. Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    536 (Dennis): Googling “Landscheidt minimum” {with the quotes} brings up an amazing 86 hits, so it seems that the minimum is already named :-) . I’ll still propose “Eddy Minimum”, as I don’t think that “Landscheidt minimum” will have ANY traction with mainstream solar researchers who eventually will do the naming. But maybe we should get back to science…

  534. Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    When trying to go to http://www.realclimate.org/ one gets instead this interesting result:

    Warning: Unknown: failed to open stream: Permission denied in Unknown on line 0

    Fatal error: Unknown: Failed opening required ‘/usr/www/users/realc/index.php’ (include_path=’.:/usr/local/lib/php’) in Unknown on line 0

  535. Pat Keating
    Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    534 Rich

    if a solar downturn succeeds in breaking the global AGW hysteria then that would be truly iconoclastic.

    Not in the grand scheme of things. There have been several of these warming/cooling/warming/… scares over the last couple of centuries, and few remember them.

  536. Mike Davis
    Posted Jan 28, 2008 at 10:27 PM | Permalink

    Pat K: That is because people can only think of the current scare and they will lose intrest if it is proven false. Then wait for another scare.

  537. Posted Jan 29, 2008 at 3:23 AM | Permalink

    540 (Carl): …

    And may I make a personal plea not to be exposed to more astrological ‘cyclomania’.

  538. Pete
    Posted Jan 29, 2008 at 3:29 AM | Permalink

    Forgive my indulgence, but I can see this thread of conversation reaching a natural conclusion anyway about now.

    But how about in the spirit of all good sequels:

    “Dalton II – Return of the Maunder” :)

  539. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jan 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    Leif, mention of astrology on this site is banned. Rather than you bothering to respond to these things, I’ll delete some of the offending posts where I notice them.

  540. Posted Jan 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    541 (Steve M): Good ! Just wondering how you would have known that the Landscheidt stuff would be in the banned category :-) Actually, now you know…

  541. Pete
    Posted Jan 30, 2008 at 6:48 AM | Permalink

    Leif,

    Noticed after a couple of weeks of a blank Sun, another small SC23 Spot has rolled into view today. Any general thoughts on the past month? The Flux has been hovering in the Low 70’s recently, would you expect this to drop off further at Solar Min? Does this lag TSI somewhat?

  542. Posted Jan 30, 2008 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    543 (Pete): F10.7 should drop to about 67 and TSI should remain low, but both are very sensitive to the remaining activity and we can’t really say much more. Minimum could arrive mid-2008, but again this is a hard call.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,255 other followers

%d bloggers like this: