While giggling about the botched “Death blow” dealt by Anthony Watts and other members of team wassup to our solar-planetary theory yesterday, it occurred to me that the rather thin rolled-up paper they tried to bludgeon Nicola Scafetta with only considered the all too brief thermometer record. No wonder Sverre Holm found his windows too narrow to see the big picture through, as Nicola Scafetta pointed out in a comment deleted by Anthony Watts. When considering climate swings on the timescale of interest, in this case, around 60 years, we need to look at longer records.
A paper we discussed a few days ago used a paleoproxy to compare millennial scale changes in terrestrial climatic indicators with Steinhilber et al’s 2009 10Be proxy reconstruction of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). Their work is sufficiently detailed to be able to discern sub-centennial swings in these climatic and solar indicators. Here’s panel ‘d’ of their figure 2, which I’ve annotated with vertical lines marking peaks in the curves.
I disregarded an anomalous peak around 1140 AD in the black terrestrial proxy to highlight the general quasi-regular periodicity of around 53 years. The TSI proxy shows a similar periodicity between peaks of around 54.4 years. The error in the match is within uncertainty of dating, as explained in the supplementary information.
Sharp eyed talkshoppers will probably notice that this period is close to five solar cycles, Roy Martin’s planetary motion 55.15 year cycle and the lunar ‘triple saros’ cycle too. Not that this invalidates Scafetta’s Jupiter-Saturn based observations, there are many cycles around this length in various solar system dynamics, and their interplay is what makes a tightly coherent signal hard to pin down.
There’s much more evidence to look at, but I’m short of time at the moment, and maybe it’s best to take evidence for these sub-centennial cycles one chunk at a time.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Over on the ‘Death Blow’ (lol) thread, Dr Michele Casati has provided us with a whole bunch of around 60 year toys to play with:
Michele Casati says:
Submitted on 2014/03/13 at 9:05 am
Sverre Holm say on his blog :
http://blogg.uio.no/mn/ifi/innovasjonsteknologi/content/hvor-ble-det-av-sammenhengen-mellom-sola-og-klima
“….Jeg er jo ingen klimaforsker, men jeg har jobbet mye med sammenhenger mellom signaler.”
Ok…. I have a new play (data) for you !
y=∑A*cos(2*∏*(x-x0)/T-p)
and
Add… 60 years is not statistically significant ! 🙂
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html
Here, we show that distinct, ~55- to 70-year oscillations characterized the North Atlantic ocean-atmosphere variability over the past 8,000 years.
Click to access y2787e01.pdf
The same 60-70 year periodicity has also been characteristic for the long-term dynamics of some climatic
and biological indices for the last 150 years (Klyashtorin 1998).
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17451000802512283
Long-term changes of Atlantic spring-spawning herring and Northeast Arctic cod commercial stocks also show 50–70-year fluctuations that are synchronous with the fluctuations of climatic indices.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005474
The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of SA/GCR effects.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052885/abstract
The phase of the 60-year oscillation found in the tide gauge records is such that sea level in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and western South Pacific has been increasing since 1985–1990.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900461/abstract
The first mode is oscillatory, with t in the narrow range 60–80 years. The spatial pattern of this multidecadal mode implies coherent oscillations over Europe and over northeastern North America, with maximum amplitudes in Europe; over northwestern North America this mode is absent.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367723a0.html
Singular spectrum analysis of the surface temperature records for 11 geographical regions shows that the 65–70-year oscillation is the statistical result of 50–88-year oscillations for the North Atlantic Ocean and its bounding Northern Hemisphere continents.
Click to access 58010035.pdf
While 20th Century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities—one from 15-to-25 years, and the other
from 50-to-70 years—the mechanisms causing PDO variability remain unclear.
There’s also a 15:16 ratio between the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction period (19.859y) and the lunar node cycle (18.6y), about 99.9% accurate. That can be shown as:
5 x (3 J-S) = 4 x (4 LNC) — 3 J-S being the ’60 year period’.
The 4 lunar node cycle (74.4 years) is discussed by Yndestad here:
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/3/401.full
(NB he doesn’t himself make any reference to planets, only the Moon)
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.0), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
© 2014 Southwest Weather,
For a forecast of the timing and amount of the coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar “activity” see
several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Forecasts which don’t take into account where we are relative to the 1000 year periodicity are
entirely irrelevant.( This includes the entire set of IPCC model forecasts.)
And at 17 LNC we get the King-Hele cycle:
317.749 years (7 Uranus-Saturn laps/ 16 Saturn-Jupiter laps/ 17 lunar declination cycles)
On another note the web-site run by Anthony Watts is so unfair and treats people like Leif as if they can do no wrong, while someone like Nicola Scafetta, gets the shaft. I decided not to post on that site since it is so unfair.
He has an astronomer Leif , pretending he is a climate expert when the reality is he is clueless when it comes to the climate.
Anthony must be obligated to him in some way ,that is the only explanation. I more then held my own with Leif , on that website when I was posting until Anthony came to his aid and starting not allowing all my replies to go through. At that time I decided to stop posting.
I see of late he has really treated Doug Cotton quite bad. I for one don’t agree with him but to treat him the way he has just is not fair.
In addition Anthony thinks he and he alone can decide on which theory has merit or does not have merit. Nicola’s theory has merit in my opinion.
I could think less of what Anthony , has to say about a given theory and I can’t understand why Nicola would care, he is just one little person in this debate.
Again ANTHONY can have his site with the likes of Leif ,Willis and other posters.
What only matters in the end is what the climate will do going forward and why. I gave my thoughts in my previous post. Time will tell..
Readers interested in patterns and periodicities should get a hold of the book “Climate -History Periodicity and Predictability”
Rampino et al Eds Van Nostrand 1987
See esp Chapter 26 by Rhodes Fairbridge and Sanders ” The Suns Orbit AD 750-2050: Basis for New Perspectives on Planetary Dynamics and Earth Moon Linkage.” for an excellent review of the whole Barycentrism (. See esp pp 452 and 453) question
The book also contains a Bibliograhy of about 2000 peer reviewed papers on Sun – Earth relationships and Cycles having Periods of less than 10,000 years.
Also just google Rhodes Fairbridge for access to many excellent papers on the same subject.
We really don’t have to reinvent the wheel on this subject it has been lying around in the literature and entirely ignored by a science establishment whose funding depended on propagandizing a politically correct position.
WHAT I AM DRIVING AT IF YOU READ ALL OF THIS
Ice core data has proven that when the climate changes it changes very rapidly. It does NOT change GRADUALLY.
Take the Younger Dryas episodes, of which there were three with the most famous being the Younger Dryas, which came on and left in decades not to mention changes within that period which lasted about 1300 years.
Another example would be the 8200 year ago cold period or more recently the Little Ice Age.
Have yet to see any adequate explanations.
My explanation lies with solar changes that reach a certain degree of magnitude change, with a sufficient length of time that bring about climatic thresholds to be reached in the climatic system of the earth which then can cause the climate to change in a rapid fashion.
That aside I see no other explanations that can account for the many abrupt chaotic climatic changes back and forth with no rhyme or reason, with al variable lengths of time from extreme cold to extreme warmth or from moderate cold to moderate warmth or just plain old so called average climate conditions.
Taking this further what it boils down to is this.
How variable is the sun?
How sensitive is the climate to solar changes?
I thing everyone agrees solar changes will bring about a climate change if significant enough. That is obvious.
The questions are what degree of solar change is needed and does that degree of solar change occur?
If this prolonged solar minimum turns out to be very quiet answers may be coming.
WHAT I AM TRYING TO DRIVE AT/ I THINK IT HAS MERIT
On the remarks I made above I say during the recent lull of solar activity 2008- end of 2010, the solar parameters for that time pretty much met my criteria. However UNLIKE the Maunder Minimum that lull in solar activity although severe still featured more sunspots then the Maunder Minimum and the duration of quite time was just 3 years or so in contrast to 60 some odd years with the Maunder Minimum.
This leads me to the following conclusions, which are as quiet as solar activity was during 2008-2010(solar irradiance off by .015% ap index less then 5.0 solar flux 65 or so) it probably was even LESS active during the Maunder Minimum which would mean the sun is more variable then what they are saying, and can last in a quiet state for very long duration of time . Further when the sun reaches such a state for an extended period of time there is indeed a climate connection as evidenced by the much cooler climate during the Maunder Minimum. Data and past history do not lie, but are being ignored by mainstream in my opinion.
Thus if solar conditions even go toward those readings of the Maunder Minimum again for a protracted period of time (also earth’s magnetic field weaker now then during the Maunder Minimum should compound given solar effects) I conclude based on the DATA from past history that climatic impacts of at least a -.5c global cooling are going to take place.
Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
Richard B. Alley*
Environment Institute and Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University, Deike Building, University Park, PA 16802
Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low
latitudes, with less variability over historical times. These ice-core records come from high mountain glaciers and the polar regions,
including small ice caps and the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
As the world slid into and out of the last
ice age, the general cooling and
warming trends were punctuated by
abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half
as large as the entire difference between
ice age and modern conditions occurred
over hemispheric or broader regions in
mere years to decades. Such abrupt
changes have been absent during the few
key millennia when agriculture and industry
have arisen. The speed, size, and extent
of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal
of climate stability. Records of
these changes are especially clear in highresolution
ice cores. Ice cores can preserve
histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature),
regional (wind-blown dust, sea
salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the
air) conditions, on a common time scale,
demonstrating synchrony of climate
changes over broad regions.
Ice-Core Interpretation
Dating and Accumulation. On some glaciers
and ice sheets, sufficient snow falls each
year to form recognizable annual layers,
marked by seasonal variations in physical,
chemical, electrical, and isotopic properties.
These can be counted to determine
ages (e.g., refs. 1 and 2). Accuracy can be
assessed by comparison to the chemically
identified fallout of historically dated volcanoes
and in other ways (3); errors can be
less than 1% of estimated ages. Ice flow
may disrupt layers quite close to the bed
(4, 5), and ice flow progressively thins
layers with increasing burial so that diffusion
or sampling limitations eventually
obscure annual layers.
Just a small piece of the evidence how abruptly the climate has changed in the past which AGW theory/climate science do not address, and will not address.
Until addressed any climate forecast made are with out any merit.
This is why in my view the climate world of science is off topic and focused and going in the wrong direction.
4.
take care
•1.
Reply
Jimbob says:
Why has Tallbloke’s Talkshop been removed from the list of websites on WUWT?
Because Anthony is subjective not objective. Science does not work that way, and that is why his site is WORTHLESS..
One last note on this. I don’t want to waste much more of my time on this guy, but the web-site he has, has gone to his head. Anthony, thinks he is above everyone, and picks and chooses those he supports and those he opposes.
And to keep the likes of that arrogant Leif, an astronomer who knows NOTHING about climate is a great example. Clueless and arrogant at the same time. I am done with this bunch of fools led by Anthony.
The 180yr Jose cycle is in a 1:2 with the 90yr Gleissberg cycle
And a 1:3 with the 60yr oceanic cyle
And a 1:4 with the 45yr Hudson Bay beach ridge cycle.
Also worth noting that the 317yr King-Hele cycle is in a 2:3 with the 210yr De Vries cycle.
TB: the 317 yr cycle is 16 J-S and de Vries is (probably) 10.5 J-S.
King-Hele is 177.9y according to Fairbridge.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 13, 2014 at 4:10 pm
————————————
I would propose a MECHANISM 5
A short while back I wrote a comment at WUWT that ruffled some feathers –
“If the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology do not understand even the basic physics of how the sun heats our oceans, how reliable is their gospel that solar variation has little influence on climate?”
This comment was based on the results of empirical experiment. The gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology is that the sun alone is not enough to keep our oceans from freezing and downwelling LWIR from the atmosphere must be invoked. I have found this to be incorrect. Solar SW alone is sufficient to warm our oceans.
The gospel treats the oceans as an opaque “surface” heated by a constant ¼ power sun. Our oceans are in reality transparent and heated at depth by intermittent diurnal pulses of over 1000 w/m2. This makes all the difference. A simple empirical experiment with identically sized acrylic blocks with differing depths of SW absorption shows a 17C average temperature differential for equal SW exposure when equilibrium temperature is reached. The slow speed of non-radiative return to the cooling surface allows energy to accumulate.
Let us crudely estimate that this mechanism could take a decade to warm our oceans from frozen to the current temperature profile in the top 200m. This would mean that slight TSI variation could be accumulating in our oceans on a decadal time scale. While TSI variation is considered low (and stamped flatter by some solar scientists) it is the shorter wavelengths, UV and SW, that are penetrating and accumulating in our oceans that vary most over solar cycles.
The late Jack Eddy said that there would be “many plugs” connecting the sun to our climate. This could be one, there will be others.
I thnk you may find that Nicola’s comment has been posted at WUWT. Given that I still think that WUWT is being as dogmatic in their own way as the alarmists are .
George Boryczka lead long-term studies of isotopes of ice, is very an experienced researcher. I have not found a full translation into English.
Research Polish climatologist confirms the theory barycentric.
Click to access Boryczka.pdf
@oldbrew: at 74.42 years (Yndestad + 0.5 syzygy = 920.5 syzygy) begins eclipse season (line-of-nodes + line-of-apse + syzygy are back in phase lockstep again).
This lasts until 921.5 syzygy where the line-of-nodes completes the 1000th revolution in the 74.5th year (= now things are additionally in phase lockstep with earth orbit and axial tilt). How come the universe knows about decimal digits 😉
Current temperature in Greenland -53 degrees C.
OB: Quite right, bad memory cell. I meant 317yr related to de Vries in an approximate 2:3. As Ian Wilson showed, the lunar component may well be dominant.
Truthseeker: I double checked. Christopher Monckton posted Nicola’s summary in his own comment later, but it was not addressed.
ren: thanks for the link I’ll have a look.
General comment. The oceanic paleoproxies will likely exhibit a cleaner tidal signal with a strong lunar component.
ren: there are dating problems with fig9. How does Boryczka know tree ring widths until the year 2100? Why does his first ‘cooling period’ run from 1609 to 1919 (should be 1719?)
Tallbloke – fair enough. I knew I had seen the comment but must have missed the source.
Salvatore – Not only does Anthony Watts ridicule Doug Cotton who has done nothing but advance some theories about atmospheric physics, but he has prevented him from posting on the very thread where he was being attacked. Way to go only presenting one side of the debate …
While I think that Doug does not join enough dots to make his arguments, the following comment is one there bears a wider audience …
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/weekend-unthreaded-30/#comment-1401260
Truthseeker: I let Doug have his own thread here a while back to draw him off from pestering other blogs, I won’t be repeating the exercise. Nor does he get to comment here, for several reasons, including but not limited to these:
He does not give straight answers to straight questions.
He does not acknowledge the prior contributions of others.
He claims speculative physics concepts to be proven fact.
He changes his ideas and will not acknowledge that he had it wrong earlier.
He operates a gish-gallop which derails rational debate.
Tallbloke Boryczka uses formulas that received during the research and the position of the mass concentration of the planets relative to the plane of the ecliptic, as noted convergence.
ren: yes, I see that. But look at fig9. His pine tree ring series extends to the year 2100. How did he do that?
The resultant interference cycles of the pine ring width (9, 22, 35, 59,
71, 99, 133, 189, 257 years) is significantly correlated with fluctuations in the oxygen isotope
δ18O. The largest width of standardized grain pine (ymax = 2.56) occurred
during the medieval climate optimum in Europe (Tmax = 1138 AD).
Synchronicity changes in solar radiation on the parallel
φ = 65o N and oxygen isotope content in ice core δ18O (Devon Island)
can be established mainly in the interval -125 BP 000 <t <0
ren: OK, he says in the text that the pine ring width to 2100 is an extrapolation or projection.
Forecast America over the weekend.
The temperature in Canada.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=51.53250122,-71.11083221&sp=CWDE
Tallbloke, your summary of Doug’s behaviour seems to be consistent with the wider experience of other blogs although Dr Roy Spencer seems to tolerate him (or maybe just does not moderate to the same philosophy as yourself and others). Maybe what I saw as not joining the dots was actually what you are saying about inconsistent arguments and taking the speculative as fact.
Still the comment I linked to is the one of the most coherent about energy transfer in an atmosphere that I have seen for some time. I can understand if you do not want to have to deal with the tailings just for the possibility of the occasional diamond. After all you gave him a chance with an actual post which is more than Anthony has.
Polar vortex is clearly visible at a height of about 20 km.
Snowy winter returns to Eastern Europe.
Ha Ha, sometimes when I just flip though the comments on this thread I think it is written in a foreign language.
74.42 years (Yndestad + 0.5 syzygy = 920.5 syzygy)
TB: the 317 yr cycle is 16 J-S and de Vries is (probably) 10.5 J-S.
King-Hele is 177.9y according to Fairbridge.
Or possibly a secret code LOL.
But fascinating stuff.
I am going to toss in a couple of replies to things Salvatore Del Prete said.
I am really really not happy to hear about that.
From Ice Age Now:Land rising in Yellowstone National Park
The science behind the information:
The other interesting comment by Salvatore Del Prete is:
RACookPE1978 has made several comments @ WUWT about the ice in the Antarctic and especially the build up in ice near Drake Passage. Perhaps this is the critical point.
“..Essentally Antarctic sea ice has been increasing steadily for 2-1/2 years, through all phases of sea ice: summertime melt, late summer minimum point, winter freezeup, and early spring maximum’s…. At today’s rate year-by-year of continuous increase, Antarctic sea ice will force closure of the Cape Horn sea route in 8-12 years …” (Said with tongue in cheek)
If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water called the Humboldt Current, that starts from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage and heads up the coast of South America to Galapagos. This is the start place of El Nino/La Nina. (ENSO)
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is a wind driven current. So what happens if Drake Passage becomes clogged with sea ice reducing the effect of the wind? AND that is leaving out the effect on Albedo.
Trying to find information on the subject is quite frustrating . You get things like:
Decadal Changes of Wind Stress over the Southern Ocean Associated with Antarctic Ozone Depletion.
Gotta blame mankind one way or the other it would seem or you can’t get a paper published.
A physics paper: Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays
physics(DOT)aps.org/story/v8/st8/
Th Antarctic effects both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
It should be interesting to watch and see what happens as Solar Cycle 24 winds down to another minimum.
Gail: Yes, natural climate change is in rapid steps. Accompanied of course by some wild weather as everything adjusts to the new regime. Which will of course be blamed on us by the co2 fetishists.
Konrad says: @ March 14, 2014 at 1:43 am
The graphs that supports what you are saying: http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Note that it is the visible and shorter wavelengths that penetrate the ocean and those are the ones that vary the most.
ren says: @ March 14, 2014 at 11:53 am
Forecast America over the weekend…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pleas do not remind me. That weather is costing me $$$$
Gail Combs says:
March 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm
———————————–
Gail,
thank you for those links, the second showing the incoming solar at 10m below the surface illustrates the issue well.
In determining the accumulation of solar radiation in the oceans looking at percentage variation in TSI would not be the right approach, rather percentage variation in only those frequencies penetrating to depth should be considered.
Konrad says:….
YES!
The sun has different effects on different parts of the earth. From the collapse of the atmosphere during the last minimum that surprised NASA to changes in clouds, ozone and the shift in wind patterns to the amount of energy entering the oceans at depth.
Two papers about rainfall also with the ‘Sun Connection’ and again with actual field studies.
There are plenty of other studies linking the sun with different climate factors.
Further to Gail’s links this paper (biology related) –
Click to access 1663844x.pdf
– has some empirical measurements of UV penetration into the oceans.
Of interest was figure 3.(d), this shows (if I read it correctly) UV-A still having a power of ~10 w/m2 at 50m, which is well below the thermocline.
So the next question is – how much do the UV frequencies vary between solar cycles?
What is the area of operation of the polar vortex? A height of 30 km, the forecast for March 19.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/19/0600Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=26.60,72.22,635
Konrad says: @ March 15, 2014 at 12:41 am
….So the next question is – how much do the UV frequencies vary between solar cycles?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
NASA has been looking at that.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
However if A History of Solar Activity over Millennia by Ilya G. Usoskin of the Sodankyl ̈Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit) is correct we are in a solar Grand Maxima and possibly headed into a solar Grand Minima therefore the sun maybe changing more than the observed change during the 11/22 year Schwabe cycle.
There is also Gerald Roe’s observation on the Milankovitch Cycles in his paper In defense of Milankovitch.
Transferring this thinking to the oceans you would increase or decrease the rate at which the oceans are warmed by the sun. If the rate was not sufficient for the temperature to be maintained the oceans would cool.If the rate was more than sufficient the oceans would warm. A whole bunch of climate phenomenon cascades from this like ENSO and the different atmospheric circulation cells that can shift as the monsoon – sun papers show. (there are tons of papers on the subject)
Nir Shaviv wrote a paper that links to this idea. The oceans as a calorimeter
(wwwDOT)sciencebits.com/calorimeter
If you read dutch or like to look at graphs: (wwwDOT)klimaatfraude.info/flitspost/de-invloed-van-zonne-intensiteit-op-de-oceaan_169719.html
Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory: (wwwDOT)sgo.fi/Overview/overview.php
TB said
“No wonder Sverre Holm found his windows too narrow to see the big picture through, as Nicola Scafetta pointed out in a comment deleted by Anthony Watts”..
Don’t know why you give this WUWT blog the time of day TB?
If AW is going to ‘doctor’ discussion with cuts and manipulation to ‘win’ so to speak or try and control the beliefs of his readers.. .
Sounds like an sKs organisation.. lost all idea of the scientific process
Give WUWT the flick. They do NO JUSTICE to the cause of climate and the solar system.
He has an agenda. that is his own beliefs whether true or false..
I refuse to read the blog because of his negative stance on the solar system and climate
because l know emphatically the knowledge presented will always miss an important and intrinsic component. The solar system, our galaxy and the implications for climate..
Battle on their if you must. But deleting discussion is blatant manipulation of the scientific process.
How petty and bitter to remove comments when his argument is being slaughtered
Shows you what he is made of..
Don’t know why you guys’hold AW and that blog in such high esteem. Maybe you’ve got whats coming to you by playing on there
Thanks for interesting and refreshing discussions about the sun-climate connection. I like this blog 🙂
Weathercycles: For years we’ve tried to keep things on an even keel with team wassup.
No more.
But reblogging their more blatant efforts at propagandising their readers here is worthwhile, because we get to comment on their antics without Watts or Willis being able to wield the delete key.
Agust: Glad you’re enjoying our discussions. 😉
Amen. Leif, Willis and Anthony can have one another. I will never post on that shame of a site again.
Salvatore Del Prete says:….
I post there because A.W. has a wide audience. Also why should A.W. get to control the message by driving everyone else away?However I read a lot of other sites too.
I understand what you are saying Gail.