David Evans & Jo Nova: Analysing the 11 year lag in climate response to solar input

Posted: June 17, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Cycles, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

An interesting series of posts has appeared at Jo Nova’s site. Jo’s husband, David Evans has done some competent analysis work to unravel the observed ~11 yr ‘delay’ in terrestrial climatic response to solar input. Of interest is the obervation that the solar polar magnetic fields are in the process of weakeneing and changing sign near solar maximum. It is suspected that this is connected with the delay. Head on over to read the posts and comment there as well as here.

Figure 6: The amplitudes of the empirical transfer function when the data is restricted in the ways marked (that is, using a subset of the data used to find Figure 5). The black line and the gray zone are as in Figure 5.

BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming
BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate
BIG NEWS Part III: The notch means a delay
BIG NEWS part IV: A huge leap understanding the mysterious 11 year solar delay

I have made a comment, reproduced below the break.

In my own analysis of solar-terrestrial relations I have found that throughout the C20th, there is an average of 3 ENSO cycles per solar cycle. The largest El Ninos occur at solar minimum (notwithstanding the effect of large volcanic eruptions which reach the stratosphere which tend to cause El Nino and diminish the store of heat in the ocean built up near solar maximum such as El Chichon).

El Nino causes a bounce in the system which means the big ones at minimum tend to be followed by a La Nina around solar maximum (probably exacerbated by the magnetic effect noted by Jo and David). This antiphase relationship between the thermal effects of ENSO and the solar cycle has three principle effects:

1) It flattens the solar signal in smoothed temperature series. (leading cli-scis to dismiss the Sun as an important climate variable).
2) It produces a ‘lead’ of temperature vs the solar cycle in smoothed temperature series – this is the El nino occurring at solar minimum.
3) It produces a ‘delay’ in the broader climatic response to solar activity – Heat is built up in the Pacific warm pool for a number of years until the solar cycle diminishes and the ocean goes into heat release mode. The effect of the resulting El Nino near solar minimum lives on in the atmosphere for a number of years afterwards (notwithstanding the intermediate La Nina ‘bounce’).

When we get a strong solar cycle followed by a weaker one (eg cycle 22 followed by cycle 23) The excess heat in the ocean driven in by the strong cycle continues to escape during the weaker one after the big El Nino at solar min and the resultant La Nina near solar max because the ocean can stay in heat release mode. This is what produces the full 11 year delay.

Conversely, a weaker cycle followed by a strong one will work in the opposite way. The lack of solar energy absorbed by the ocean during the weak cycle and the energy released by the ocean during that weak cycle will mean that when the strong cycle follows, the ocean gobbles the energy to replenish it’s upper ocean heat content. This results in a poor correlation between temperature and the amplitude of the solar cycle.

Comments
  1. vukcevic says:

    I am looking forward to the details of the study, David Evans was a prominent commentator on the WUWT blog, permanently contradicted by Dr. S.
    Aren’t we all?

  2. First base
    Any chance of links to your findings TB?
    quote
    “I have found that throughout the C20th, there is an average of 3 ENSO cycles per solar cycle.
    The largest El Ninos occur at solar minimum ”

    I have never plotted that correlation for either of those conclusions but initial inquiries briefly tonight yielded

    a few of the larger events
    1918 la nina …was in solar cycle 15 ( 5yrs into cycle 15 ) approaching solar max
    1942 el nino ( 9 yrs into cycle 17) approaching solar minimum
    1975 la Nina ( 11yrs into the cycle 20 ) on solar minimum
    1982 El Nino ( 6 yrs into cycle 21) approaching or at solar max
    1997 El Nino ( 1 yr into solar cycle 23 ) close or on solar minimum
    2010 La Nina ( 3 yr in to SC 24 ) close to a minimum
    ( used list of solar cycles wikopedia)

    just grabbed these dates from ‘surly bonds’ accumulative SOI time series

    ————————————————————————

    and hopefully the info above on placing these years on the SC is correct?

    4 major events were close or on solar minimum ( 1942, 1975, 1997, 2010)
    and 2 events were on or close to solar max( 1918, 1982)
    can’t see your conclusions there?

    ????
    3 enso cycles per solar cycle?
    1 SC = ~11 yrs
    11/3 = 3.66 enso events per cycle seems a lot ?

    Link to your research perhaps might clear things up for me.
    thanks.

  3. vukcevic says:

    After browsing through all 4 links, as an electronic engineer I am sufficiently familiar with properties and pitfalls of filtering as well as the Fourier spectral analyses which I do not use for reason that it is a too crude tool.
    I have to say that at this moment I have strong doubts of anything revolutionary emerging, but time will tell.
    Good luck to David, anything that undermines the AGW false concept is more than welcome.

  4. doug Proctor says:

    The interconnection between solar and terrestrial events distresses the terrestrial specialist because it says he studies the effect, not the cause. No alpha male wants to have a career based on a consequence , he wants to be an expert on the force that initiatives action.

    Mann “discovered” something. He didn’t just describe what someone else found. If astrophysicists find solar causes to terrestrial effects, the astrophysicist rises to the top, his, not the climatologist’s opinion counts. God protect the usurper!

    Few if us are aware of our ego controlling our behavior. Less are willing to step aside and let the Young Turk take over. Mann is neither. The referenced climatologist made important by the IPCC won’t either.

    The truth about the Earth’s controlling mechanisms has become a point of professional and personal self worth. Only an individual with a strong sense of self could admit he was wrong here. If Mann were to change his tune, his importance, not just his (financially driven) importance in his field would collapse. He shows the obsessed focus of the egocentrically fragile mind. If this stellar-climate connect is both made and accepted, many high figures are made foolish. Even if unconscious of what the do , they will fight back.

    An odd thing about people is their inability to view themselves as honestly as they view others. The failure, I think, is below consciousness for many. If we could just admit we are not omniscient, we’d be so much better off. We^’d adapt more regularly. But thinking you know everything sets you up to the mistake if thinking you can therefore control everything. There’s the mistake and the tragedy.

  5. konrad. says:

    I take it “Dr. S” is an abbreviation of “Dr. Stamp The Solar Record Flat” 😉

  6. ren says:

    If we combine the data we can expect soon a significant increase in cosmic radiation. We’ll see how the climate will respond after 11 years of high GCR (2006-2017).


  7. A C Osborn says:

    vukcevic says: June 17, 2014 at 10:13 am ” Fourier spectral analyses which I do not use for reason that it is a too crude tool.”

    Did you read that David has developed his own analysis Tools?

  8. I say the 11 year sunspot cycle per say is to short a time period with not enough persistence in sustained solar variability changes to have much of a dramatic impact on the climate. I think the real solar /climate connection manifest itself in the climatic system during hyper active prolonged solar periods and prolonged long solar minimum periods.

    In addition I think mainstream is under estimating the variability of solar activity when the sun reaches these two extreme states of activity which is KEY when trying to determine just how much of an impact (solar variability alone) solar variability might have on the climate let alone the secondary effects associated with this solar variability.

    What if the range is .6 in solar irradiance rather then the conventional acceptance of .1 or .2 ? Big difference and big impacts.

    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.

  9. This should be combined with my previous post to get a complete understanding of where I am coming from. My approach is clear cut ,in my opinion in that it gives specifics as far as solar criteria I think is needed to have a significant impact on the climate let alone other criteria.

    I also think oceanic changes are mostly due to solar changes and atmospheric circulation changes rather then from lunar tidal effects which in my opinion are far to slow and not straight forward enough for my liking as a cause for climate change through that process. I t may have a role but minor in my opinion.

    These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate change is synchronous.

    MY FOUR FACTORS

    1. The initial state of the global climate.

    a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.

    b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.

    .

    2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.

    a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.

    b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.

    c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.

    d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.

    e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.

    f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.

    g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.

    .

    3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.

    a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.

    4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.

    a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.

    I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.

    Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.

    Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.

  10. A portion below from this article which data does not support. The ap index is a measure of the solar magnetic influence here on earth while solar flux is a measure of the strength of solar activity.

    In general data shows a pretty strong correlation between increasing solar flux values and higher ap index values and vice versa. This runs counter to what they are trying to get across.

    From their article

    Think about the timing: At the peak of the sunspot cycle, while the sun is producing its maximum solar irradiation, it turns out that the Sun’s magnetic field is collapsing through its weakest moment.

  11. This article does nothing for me.

  12. The climate puzzle (additive thoughts) commentary appreciated

    Ice climate dynamics tied into the beginning state of the climate needs to be addressed when one is considering abrupt climate change or climate change in general.

    The magnetic field of earth must be included because it will enhance or moderate solar effects, along with the position of the continents versus oceans and how vastly they differ from the N.H. versus the S.H.

    All these factors I take into consideration.

    With prolonged solar activity the atmospheric circulation is likely to become much more meridional , result more extremes in climate or at least persistence. Can have compounding effects if persistent enough.

  13. vukcevic says:

    A C Osborn says:
    June 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm
    ….
    Thanks, not at the time, I skipped lot of the stuff, due to lack of time, only looked on the his results, will go back to it sometime.

  14. TLMango says:

    The Jupiter/Saturn beat 60.94838271 has troughs at 1902, 1963 and 2024.
    The AMO graph over at notalotapeopleknowthat, bottoms out at ~1914 and 1975.
    This is also a delay of about 11 or 12 years. This is interesting.

  15. Wayne Job says:

    Being from OZ I have followed Jo and Davids blog for a long time, they seek truth and have the scientific method at heart. They are disclosing everything they have found for open discussion, if there is no veracity in their findings it will be destroyed on the web.

    Following their history for a long time I would be surprised if they are not close to the truth, the pattern recognition and the harmony of the spheres as followed on this blog will most likely be an adjunct to what they are saying. The overall picture of Earths fate may turn out to be predictable if those on this site can correlated their findings to the basic picture being drawn by Jo and David.

  16. Ian Wilson says:

    Fellow travelers: there may be a connection to our work in the new Evans-Nova Solar Theory!

    David Evans says about his delay filter:

    As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years. But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.

    And what is driving this 11 year clock? (rhetorical question).

    Aren’t we claiming that it is the planets!

  17. quote from Mango”The Jupiter/Saturn beat 60.94838271 has troughs at 1902, 1963 and 2024.
    The AMO graph over at notalotapeopleknowthat, bottoms out at ~1914 and 1975.
    This is also a delay of about 11 or 12 years. This is interesting.
    ————–
    Yes this a great finding!
    1902 is the start of cycle 14 ( last schwabe in a schwabe triplet). The global temp downward cycle completed at 1909 as a minimum in the global temp’ cycle.
    That is a lag of 7 yrs between Jupiter /Saturn beat trough and global temp in inflection point at 1909

    1963 /64 was also the commencement of the last schwabe in a schwabe triplet , with the mininimum of the AMO ( global temp cycle) in 1975. That is a longer lag of 11yrs

    2024 + 7-11 yr = AMO global temp’minimum
    =
    No global warming upward cycle until at least 2031 +

    2024 + 7-11 yr = AMO minimum/global temp minimum in the ~66yr cycle

    No global warming upward cycle until at least 2031.
    So Global cooling/AMO downward cycle since 2005 = global cooling trend until 2031
    [mod: user edit –Tim]

    Finally some planetary links to the schwabe triplets l am studying. Thanks
    TJ Mango!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This beat is certainly partially linked to the timing of the ~66yr AMO global temp cycle
    I suspect another planetary variable overlay to account for the 7- 11 yr lag.
    That’s my hunch

    Importantly.. Does Jupiter /Saturn beat have peaks as well as troughs ?
    —————
    ( source:Wikipedia list of solar cycles
    and
    schwabe triplet timing..PICTURE
    https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-f59zoJns7FQ/U33oxGZ3DbI/AAAAAAAAFIg/SX_1ym4dXXQ/s512/list%2520of%2520solar%2520cycles%2520vs%2520double%2520and%2520triplet%2520schwabbe.png)
    and
    http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/schwabbe-triplets-and-earths-climate/
    —————-

  18. typo error.
    should read
    2024 + 7-11 yr = AMO minimum/global temp minimum in the ~66yr cycle

    No global warming upward cycle until at least 2031.
    So Global cooling/AMO downward cycle since 2005 = global cooling trend until 2031

    [Done]

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    In a current WUWT thread addressing California drought & water politics, Bill Illis linked to a graph that underscores something anomalous about California’s climate.

    At some point during the past year I realized that 80% of the climate-skeptic tactics & views that I considered the most intolerably unethical & factually misleading were being applied ruthlessly, militantly, & relentlessly by California climate activists. (The number increases to 90% for west coast USA & to 100% for western USA.)

    That’s when I began to wonder:
    What is it that’s different about the climate reality there (both physically & politically)?

    Then during the fairly recent WUWT thread discussing Michael Mann’s recent attempt to redefine AMO, Bill Illis made a comment that caused me to become more acutely conscious of exactly what makes California climatically anomalous.

    I believe the 1990s divergence of IPO from AMO helped naturally ensure that the deepest, most serious, most stubbornly intractable fracture in the climate-skeptic community would become a permanent, fatal divide.

  20. Ian Wilson says
    “But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.

    And what is driving this 11 year clock? (rhetorical question).

    Aren’t we claiming that it is the planets!”

    A google of what planets cause the heart beat of the sun,( the basic solar cycle of the sun) whose mean length is 10.8 yr
    yields the answer

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
    and
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/
    ( haven’t read them yet but will tomorrow)

    quote
    “The 11.8 year period is very close to 11.86 years, the orbital period of Jupiter.

    The 10 year period is very close to 9.93 years, half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.
    (Conjunction and opposition of these two planets are both effective tidally)”
    ——–

    some simple arithmetic

    11.86 ( orbital period of Jupiter) + 9.93 ( half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn) = 21.79 (HALE cycle??)

    and the mean of these 2 planetary contributions to the suns activity

    11.86 + 9.93 = 21.79

    21.79 / 2 = the mean of the above which = 10.895 ( the basic heart beat of the sun , the solar cycle?)

  21. vukcevic says:

    This graph reproducing the AMO
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    has its root in the solar magnetic variability. Since than I’ve been trying to find out if there is any other way of reproducing the AMO, in case the science for some insane reason agrees with the ‘solar output’ variability has no influence.
    Let’s assume that solar sunspot and magnetic activity are entirely random (no sunspot or Hale cycles), but still present say at an averaged level experienced during the 24 known cycles of observations.
    Question to the helio-planetarists (myself included):
    Would the AMO exist, could the sun still be the driver of the multidecadal temperature variability?
    After more than a year of deliberation, I finally concluded yes.
    “It’s the sun, stupid” it will be here to stay.

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    California-based political activism is fatally undermining the international climate skeptic community.

  23. linneamogren says:

    After reading the additional links I have to ponder how much more we are missing in regards to TSI being NASA’s SORCE satellite is not above the Earths atmosphere, rather it’s orbiting about 90,000 kilometres below the top of the atmosphere.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/tim-cullen-the-problem-with-tsi-total-solar-irradiance/

  24. tchannon says:

    TSI has many problems, including basic metrology issues (a word many do not know and misread as meteorology).
    USA http://www.nist.gov/ UK http://www.npl.co.uk/ Sweden http://www.sp.se/sv/Sidor/default.aspx

    TSI ought to mean total but this is a wider spectral range than can readily be done. Worth keeping in mind there is more than thermal radiation, little knowledge exists on magnetic and electrical dissipation in the earth system. (gravitational is probably very minor)

    At the same time bear in mind the tiny temperature variations being worried about, ~0.3% (roughly 1 degree in 300) and the poor state of instrumentation, measurements have to be absolute, not relative, a far tougher regime. Mostly the figures claimed to be a problem are _inside_ the error band of the measurements and especially if mis-sampling is considered. (including one satellite when many are needed)

    There is a long history to determining the solar constant as it used to be called. There are roughly 100 years of measurements, only recently from space. I’ve put a lot of effort into the subject but I’ve published relatively little. (ie. there is much more)

    Ground based measurements are dealt with by this international body
    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/

    My own blog has more than the Talkshop, some cross posted here where discussion takes place.

    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/spectral-irradiance-phasing-tsi-does-not-fit-common-assumptions-earth-is-affected/
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/provisional-look-at-solar-constant-1923-to-1954/

    Particularly this one and follow the links onto the Talkshop where a series of posts exists.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/nist-and-tsi-unknown-systematic-bias/

    Related, the tip of an iceberg.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/anders-angstrom-nocturnal-radiation-at-various-altitudes/

    Can’t leave out Ozone either. Radiation from the high atmospheric ozone does reach the surface.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/stratospheric-ozone-dobson-history-at-oxford/

    A trawl of the Talkshop archives might produce more articles.

    Atmospheric turbidity is involved, leads to eg. optical thickness and lots of other stuff. Time and again I have found that on actually looking claims and actual data or ignored reports do not agree. Such as over volcanic emission.

    As they say, you want to know more, how long have you got?

  25. TLMango says:

    The 60.94838271 year cycle has peaks at 1872, 1933 and 1994.
    Since the cycle was extracted from an equation, I was able to go back
    2.5 million years to estimate the value to 3 decimal places (60.948).
    This was accomplished by super-imposing the 61 year cycle over the eqution
    and adjusting the period.
    Also I was able to narrow the last peak down to 1994.06 using another technique.

  26. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00499/pdf

    This study I have very high regard for. The data shows strong correlations between solar variability and the climate even at times of regular sunspot activity much less a prolonged solar minimum period we are now currently in.

    As I have said many times (which does not register with many ) the initial state of the climate has much to do with how much of an effect GIVEN solar variability will have on the climate. Especially when the ice dynamic is in play as was the case 20000 years ago -10000 years ago.

    Also there are very likely threshold values solar variability has to hit as far as degree of magnitude change and duration of time (which also does not register with many) in order to exert a significant effect upon the climate. Lag times also has to be considered.

    TSI being just one of many solar variables that influence the climate, much less all the potential secondary effects which will result if solar variability changes enough.

    Now with the maximum of solar cycle 24 ending and with 10 years of sub-solar activity under our belts we will likely be able to see just how much of an influence solar variability has on the climate going forward , if the present prolonged solar minimum lives up to it’s expectations, which I think it will.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Mosher just tried one of his one liner drive-by shootings. But since he won’t debate our crit of his position, I binned it as it added nothing to the sum of knowledge.

  28. tallbloke says:

    TLM: Thanks, I’ll have a ponder on that. There was a major kink in Solar angular momentum in 1993.

  29. tallbloke says:

    Linnea: Good reminder

  30. Leif is also spreading more of his garbage today on WUWT .

  31. steverichards1984 says:

    I see tchannon is mentions in David Evans new paper: The Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT), Dr David Evans, 16 June 2014.

    Evans new OFT method is significant in the field of DSP.

  32. Roger Andrews says:

    Hi TB:

    A few comments on your lead-off comments on El Niños, La Niñas and the solar cycle:

    The first graph on the attached plot shows 11 El Niños (Niño3.4 Index greater than 0.5) since 1966. They’re spaced between 3 and 7 years apart, have an average period of 4.4 years and show no obvious correlation with solar cycles, or at least none that I can see.

    The second graph shows eight La Niñas (Niño3.4 Index less than -0.5) since 1966, one of them double-pronged. They occur in four groups of two, with the two Niñas that make up the group spaced 3-4 years apart and the groups spaced 11 to 14 years apart. The three groups since 1982 show a consistent match with the sunspot cycle, with the first Niña peaking shortly before solar minimum and the second shortly before solar maximum. The 1969-73 group marches to the beat of a different drummer, but I suspect the 1976 PDO phase change may have something to do with that.

  33. Gail Combs says:

    SWA comment:

    I just read part 1 and have not had time to read the rest.

    I noticed one thing:

    1. The statement: “Both the CO2 model and the new solar model are viable explanations of the global warming of the last century.” ERRRrrrr the CO2 model has been getting further and further away from reality. As far as I can see the only reason the CO2 model ‘matches’ is because the temperature records for the 20th century have been mangled to death. Steve Goddard has been continually pointing out the mangling of the US records.

    This post on the frequency of 100°F and 90°F temperature readings in the USA indicates the temperature may actually been declining not increasing: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/frequency-of-hot-days-in-the-us-have-declined-sharply-over-the-last-century/

  34. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Thanks. I shall marshall the evidence for my ow narrative ad present it in a post this weekend. Volcanos perturb the solar-ENSO rhythm, but once you understand the underlying pattern it’s quite easy to disentangle the confounding variables. I posted a plot the 3 ENSO cycles per solar cycle thing not long back, can’t remember which post:

    There are a couple of earlier discussions from a few years ago too:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-timing-of-el-nino-in-relation-to-the-solar-cycle/

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    I have new solar-terrestrial-climate insights.
    I aim to share them in condensed format in 1-4 days from now.

  36. tallbloke says:

    A prediction from Per Strandberg in response to my comment at JoNova’s site:

    Per Strandberg
    June 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm · Reply
    I haven’t myself looked closely at the relationship between El Niño frequency and strength and global temperature. Because of the high heat capacity of the oceans and because the electromagnetic influence of ENSO is modulated by tidal forcing, both SST and the global temperature must be smoothed out and delayed over time.
    Because if ENSO’s influence can be coupled to the global temperature anomaly then the claim of 95% certainty by the IPCC that humans influence has dominated the warming since 1950 becomes even more absurd than what this claim already is today.
    I like others to look into that.
    Here my ENSO forecast for the coming years. Despite all the talks of a super El Niño this year, nothing of the sort is going to happen. Instead at the end of this year I expect a short La Niña or possible neutral condition to exist.
    At the end of next year I expect a weak or medium sized El Niño.
    At the end of 2017 I expect a medium or strong El Niño to form which is going to continue during 2018. ENSO is then going to rebound into a La Niña during 2019.
    So the big El Nino year in the near future I expect to be in 2018.

  37. tallbloke says:

    My reply to Per:

    Rog Tallbloke
    June 19, 2014 at 6:55 pm · Reply
    Thanks Per. Again I agree with you. I also predicted that this year’s El-Nino would peter-out, with a mild positive event over winter 2014-15, and a stronger event in late 2017-18. I will be very interested to learn more about your methods. Mine is not based on a mathematical model at this stage. I’m going on my hypothesis concerning the relationship between ENSO and the solar cycle. I think both our predictions could be changed by the occurrence of a big volcanic eruption during the solar maximum.

    This is because the dust veil in the stratosphere from a big volcano increases albedo and gives the ocean an opportunity to go into ‘heat release mode’ – El Nino. This is what happened in 1982 with the El Chichon eruption. That precipititated an El Nino and removed sufficient energy from the Pacific Warm Pool such that the 1988 El Nino at solar minimum was a reduced event, partly due also to the low previous solar cycle in the 1970′s.

    The reason the 97-98 solar minimum El Nino was strong despite the Pinotubo eruption of 1991 was that the eruption did not precipitate a big El Nino and the ocean had a longer time after the eruption to build up a lot of excess energy under the high amplitude solar cycles 21-22.

    After the eruption of El Chichon (Yucatan, Mexico) on 28 March 1982, the planetary albedo showed an increase of the order of 10% (Halpert et al., 1993).

  38. Looking forward to your new ENSO post TB. So l won’t comment yet re: ‘strandberg’ and others
    —————————————————————————————————-

    Keeping in the ‘spirit’ of this thread. Re: LAG

    I have applied TL Mangos most excellent information about Jupiter /Saturn beat ( 60.9 yr)
    and plotted the peaks and troughs per his posts ( found above ) ,onto the Schwabe triplets series l have been studying.
    I am thrilled with the results .
    The notion of the lag suggested by NOVA and DAVID appears to exist here.
    Anyway, here is my findings
    ——————————————-
    The Jupiter /Saturn 60.9 beat ( re: TLMango) is positioned regularly on the minimum of the commencement 3rd schwabe in each of the schwabe triplets.
    There is a delay of a few years before global temp inflection point for max or min is reached.( in the quasi ~66yr global temp cycle)
    ——————————
    When J/S beat is max(peak) , so is the global temp cycle approaching max( + 5-12 yrs later )

    When the J/S beat is (trough), the global temperature cycle approaches minimum ( + 5-12 yrs later )

    I have no doubt this J/S beat is a major component in the timing of the Schwabe triplet and quasi 66 yr global temperature cycle
    ——————————
    FINDINGS
    It may be useful to print off this tabulated data photo , to follow my points below

    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6026582322047792642
    —————————————

    Schwabe triplets cross correlated with Jupiter/Saturn beat of 60.9 yr and global temp cycle of the order quasi 66yr
    In summary
    ————–
    Solar cycle number.. 9, 10 ,11 (triplet)
    year 1872 AD… J/S beat max PEAK occurred in the 3rd triplet ( 5yrs into). Global temp’ inflection point at 1879 = 5 yr + lag
    ————————————————
    SC 12,13,14 (triplet)
    1902 AD.. J/S beat TROUGH occurred right on commencement of third schwabe in the triplet. Global temp’ inflection point a minimum at 1909 .
    LAG = +7yrs
    ——————————————–
    SC 15,16,17 ( triplet)
    J/S beat MAX PEAK occurred 1933 right on the commencement of the third schwabe . Global temp inflection point at 1943.
    LAG= +10 yrs
    ————————————————-
    SC 18,19,20 ( triplet)
    J/S beat MIN TROUGH occurred 1963 one year before the commencement of the third schwabe. Global inflection point occurred as a minimum in 1975.
    LAG= +12 yr
    ——————————————
    SC 21, 22,23 ( triplet )
    J/S beat max peak occurs 1994. 2 years before the start of the 3rd schwabe. Global temp inflection point was 2005.
    LAG = + 11 years
    —————————————-
    SC 24, 25, 26( triplet)
    J/S beat Minimum peak occurs … near the start of the 3rd schwabe and global temp inflection point at minimum is some 5-12 yrs later
    ———————–
    etc
    ————————

    NOTICE..
    When J/S beat is max(peak) , so is the global temp cycle approaching max( + 5-12 yrs later )

    When the J/S beat is trough, the global temperature cycle approaches minimum ( + 5-12 yrs later )

    I have no doubt this J/S beat is a major component in the timing of the Schwabe triplet and quasi 66 yr global temperature cycle
    —————————————————————-
    The positive lag of 5-12 yr from J/S to global temp inflection point could be the signal Jo Nova and Dr Davis are seeing in their signal processing analysis?

    although they are suggesting 11-20 yr lag signal ?

    I found there ‘paper’ far too long and wordy. They need to do a ‘twitter edit’

    I did however find this statement interesting
    HAVE TAKEN THIS COMMENT
    quote
    “To sum up, in the system whose input is TSI and whose output is temperature we have detected a notch filter whose transfer-function amplitude indicates that it cannot exist unless it is accompanied by a delay of several years.”

    I am yet to understand the concept of a ‘notch filter’ and why a delay / lag is necessary
    Something to do with ‘steps’ ? I do understand that. The global inflection point is a step/ switch. with a precise inflection point in time ( depending on how you sample the data of course)
    —————————————————————————
    I have to ask TL Mango.. What exactly is a J/S beat dynamically speaking ? What does the beat refer to?
    any links to where l could understand this beat concept at the beginning level please
    and thanks for your planetary link help!

    What other planet/s could cause the 5-12 yr lag before the switch flip,flop changes the global temp’direction? regards

  39. VUKCEVIC
    I have taken your graph of AMO and overlayed the Jupiter/Saturn beat .
    You can see the 7-12 yr lag more clearly

    However l think JO and David are referring to the basic schwabe 11 yr unit?

    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6026604530074403618
    ——————————————-
    I notice the solar cycle= geocycle ( one schwabe/geo cycle )seems to be in phase generally with smaller inflection points in the AMO and NH temp’ !!

    I haven’t seen this before.. , ..this finer resolution.

    The same sharp inflection points with a jagged see-saw flipflop pattern.is evident in the 11 yr schwabe and the global quasi 66yr cycle

    I can’t see any LAG of any great extent on that graph as Jo Nova and David suggest??

    Can you explain? What are your views on what they are proposing?

  40. OK
    from Geoff sharpes place ( found this a while ago and commented on his blog)
    and posted

    It would seem all planetary configs’ are involved
    ————————–
    CYCLE TRIPLETS
    12 , 13, 14 (Even odd even) = cool AMO ( Even dominant..JEV align)
    15, 16,17 ( odd, even , odd) = warm AMO ( odd dominant.. J + V with E opposing)

    18,19,20 ( even, odd, even) = cool AMO ( even dominant)
    21,22, 23 ( odd,even,odd) = warm AMO ( odd dominant)

    24,25,26 ( even,odd, even) = cold AMO ( global temp cooling trend)

    Something about the alignments you have specified that correlates with the Quasi AMO 60 yr earth climate cycle

    The shifts occur as a see saw between these 2 configurations .
    instantaneous effect on global temperature with NO LAG

    Link here

    http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/are-neptune-and-uranus-the-major-players-in-solar-grand-minima/

    source from Geoff Sharpe
    Solar cycle
    The table is a plot of J+E+V alignments with each date corresponding with the green peaks on Desmoulins graph above. The odd cycle numbers are J+V with E opposing and even is J+E+V aligned. The G/O rule keeping mainly true. These alignments naturally include the Sun.

    1790
    JEV alignment corresponds to a cool phase of AMO and a phase of global cooling in the earths temperature
    planet alignments map

    source link thanks to Geoff Sharpe

    Visualize Solar System at a given Epoch

    http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

    —————

    BTW Roger Andrews. That is an excellent graph on ENSO vs SC!
    Hope you post it again when TB starts his new ENSO thread

  41. tallbloke says:

    WC: Note the ~decade lag between peaks and troughs of the J-S beat cycle and Vuk’s time series.
    Regarding the
    18,19,20 ( even, odd, even) = cool AMO ( even dominant)
    21,22, 23 ( odd,even,odd) = warm AMO ( odd dominant)
    In your comment:

    I have been saying this for several years, that the cool and warm halves of the AMO/PDO may be influenced by the two (magnetic) north one south run of three solar cycles, followed by the opposite.

  42. Roger Andrews says:

    TB: In response to your comment of 1.24 am yesterday, you’re right. This is deja vu all over again. 😉

    Anyway, here are the graphs of Niños and Niñas vs. SSN I posted earlier extended back to 1856. Make of them what you will.

    More to come.

  43. vukcevic says:

    weathercycles says: June 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm
    VUKCEVIC
    ……I can’t see any LAG of any great extent on that graph as Jo Nova and David suggest?? Can you explain? What are your views on what they are proposing?
    ….
    Hi
    I had no time to study in more details JN & DE essay, I am sure many people will be dissecting it with great deal of interest.

  44. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    I don’t know whether any of this will help you in your deliberations but here it is for what it’s worth.

    The commonly-used Niño indices give the impression that the central Pacific sloshes back and forth between warm and cold states. This is incorrect. Temperatures in the central Pacific “cold tongue” are almost always lower than temperatures in the “warm tongues” to the north and south, meaning that what we think of as the El Niño zone is in a near-permanent La Niña condition. What we call an El Niño is actually just a weaker-than-average La Niña and what we call a La Niña is actually just a stronger-than-average La Niña.

    The graph below plots what I call the Pacific Cold Tongue (PACT) Index, which I constructed some time ago and which I think is more definitive than the conventional ENSO indices. It’s calculated as the difference between mean SST in the “El Niño” zone (170W to 110W, 3N to 3S) and mean SST in the adjacent warm tongue zones to the north and south (170W to 110W, 3N to 10N and 3S to 10S). It turns briefly positive only twice – in 1982/83 and 1997/98. Otherwise the only significant change it shows is an abrupt decrease of about 0.3C in the average temperature difference and an accompanying increase in the amplitude of the fluctuations after 1982/83.

    PACT also shows a strong seasonal component, with the temperature differential almost a degree higher in November than in April. This may help explain why what we call La Niñas tend to bottom out in November, December and January but not why what we call El Niños tend to peak in those months too.

  45. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Roger A.
    We need to remember El Nino is defined as an average T above a threshold for a certain period. It’s arbitrary, but useful as it reflects a difference which is noticed in our experience of regional climate swings.

  46. TLMango says:

    weatercycles

    I can’t speak about the significance of other J/S beats.
    But… I believe the 60.9 beat is a full fledged solar cycle.
    The Sun orbits the center of mass ~1.67 times in a 19.86 year synodic period.
    So… the Sun averages a very irregular orbit of 11.862242 years.
    The Sun does this dance with Jupiter, where it lags for 9.93 years and then it leads for 9.93 years.
    The Sun accelerates and decelerates with alternating periods of 9.93 years.
    11.86 x 9.93 (11.86 – 9.93) = 60.94838271
    So… these are physical mechanisms within the Sun.

    I have always suspected that this lag and lead that the Sun does with Jupiter is somehow
    related to solar cycle length.

  47. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    I may be back with this later. 😉

  48. Konrad says:

    “As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years.”

    And that right there sadly is where David falls down. I suggested over at Jo’s blog that what was needed was a plausible physical mechanism, and that modelling, no matter how good the hind casting appeared to be, would not be sufficient.

    Later posts at Jo Nova’s blog did try to address physical mechanisms, but it was immediately apparent that there were just too many red flags. Any modelling that applies standard S-B equations to a moving gas atmosphere ocean a transparent ocean must be in error. Any modelling that treats the oceans as a “near blackbody” must be flawed.

    Ocean temperature cycles are a clear empirical demonstration of energy accumulation and discharge. The oceans clearly do have “Memory”. If this empirical evidence has been ignored in David’s modelling then there is something very, very wrong with his physical mechanism.

    Below the diurnal over turning layer, the oceans can easily accumulate or discharge energy in a pattern divorced from diurnal or seasonal cycles, due to variation in energy absorbed below the thermocline. There are a number of mechanisms that can achieve this. Mineral turbidity would be one. Biological turbidity another. And given that spectral solar variance will have most effect on energy absorption below the thermocline as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles, this is a very strong plausible mechanism.

    David’s mathematical modelling may hold up, but more work is clearly needed into plausible physical mechanisms.

  49. tallbloke says:

    TLM: “The Sun accelerates and decelerates with alternating periods of 9.93 years.
    11.86 x 9.93 (11.86 – 9.93) = 60.94838271”

    A fundamental observation. It’s no coincidence that 9.93yrs is also close to the half period of the Lunar nodal cycle. Jupiter influences the Earth-Moon system as well as the Sun.
    Also worth noting is that the ~61 year period is situated halfway between 5 and 6 times the average solar cycle length (55.35+66.42)/2 = 60.885yrs.
    Roy Martin has identified and elucidated the 55 year planetary-solar cycle
    The AMO has averaged around 66 years over the last 130yrs

    Another notable cycle noted since antiquity is that 3J-S~=5J~=59.5yrs

    So how might ENSO fit into this nest of resonances?
    With 3 ENSO cycles per solar cycle as noted in my graphic above:
    9+9 ENSO cycles during 3+3 solar cycles during 1 ~60yr oceanic cycle

    The actual solar cycle length is rarely 11.1yrs and more often occurs at either ~10.4 or ~11.9yrs.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: Ocean temperature cycles are a clear empirical demonstration of energy accumulation and discharge. The oceans clearly do have “Memory”. If this empirical evidence has been ignored in David’s modelling then there is something very, very wrong with his physical mechanism.

    100% agree with you on this. Why do so many climate researchers (from both sides of the aisle) have this fixation with the atmosphere? The top 2m of the ocean has more heat capacity than the entire atmosphere and the ocean is 3000m deep! I think it’s because in the face of the unknown deeps, and in ignorance of the effect of the Moon on internal tidal movement, and a desire to believe their simplistic slab models reflect reality, these researchers come to be convinced that the ocean has no ‘memory’ longer than the annual cycle.

    Another simple 3:5 ratio gives us another fundamental relationship: 3 Lunar nodal cycles ~= 5 solar cycles ~=55.8yrs

  51. vukcevic says:

    Rog, I too agree with the most of Konrad’s reasoning, multidecadal mechanism could be as :
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSOetc.htm
    high tectonic threshold = cooler water forced to the surface = cooling
    low tectonic threshold = more ‘peaceful’ Pacific = tranquil solar warming

  52. Gail Combs says:

    I finally figured out what was bothering me in Dr Evans essays. In Big News Part I he says:

    Both the CO2 model and the new solar model are viable explanations of the global warming of the last century. Any linear mix (e.g. 60% CO2, 40% solar) also fits the observed temperatures. On the performance of the models over the last century, we cannot tell which is correct….

    The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor….

    He then introduces the three pipes, CO2, H2O and surface as the methods the earth uses to dump energy back to space.

    I can understand why Dr. Evans is using the words “CO2 model”, (although I would call it the IPCC model) however I think the more correct terms for what he is looking at are:
    1. “natural mechanisms on Earth” (Luboš Motl)
    2. “force X, which like TSI originates in the Sun” (Dr.Evans)

    #1 can then be broken down into CO2 and H2O or man made vs natural. Although when you think about it, “natural” changes in CO2 and H2O are ‘feedbacks’ of changes in the sun and not ‘independent’ forcings.

    The “80-20 sort of thing” would be recognized by Quality Engineers as the Pareto Analysis that seems to apply to all sorts of things.

  53. oldbrew says:

    @ TL Mango (June 19, 2014 at 10:06 pm)

    Ian Wilson describes a mechanism in his PRP paper.
    http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/147/2013/prp-1-147-2013.pdf

    See e.g. Figure 4.

  54. Bob Weber says:

    As someone who daily monitors solar activity and weather data, I see it differently than the scientist looking at long-term trends & averages, ie, statisticly. Based on these observations, tropical temps follow solar activity quickly. Solar goes up, then temps go up, and vice versa. There are time lags on the order of days that make it less obvious as to what is causing what. The moon also plays a role in moving the atmosphere and mixing tropical warm air and northern cold air. Putting this together so anyone can see and understand it is the challenge however. This analysis comes straight out of my ongoing WeatherAction forecast review process that I started last November, and soon you’ll be able to see it yourself.

    NH Summer is finally here! I notice so many of you have gone lukewarm on WUWT (absent).

  55. TB says

    Regarding the
    18,19,20 ( even, odd, even) = cool AMO ( even dominant)
    21,22, 23 ( odd,even,odd) = warm AMO ( odd dominant)

    ” have been saying this for several years, that the cool and warm halves of the AMO/PDO may be influenced by the two (magnetic) north one south run of three solar cycles, followed by the opposite.”

    Thanks for your comments TB. I am glad you can see where l am going with my studies and that there is some merit here.

    I have overlayed the Hale cycle on the schwabe triplets you have highlighted above
    and you can see that

    zoom in feature or click on the image
    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/SCHWABETRIPLETS#6027001315701547106

    -There are one and a half Hale cycles in one schwabe triplet

    -the upward phase of the Hale cycle ( pos+) is associated consistently with Jupiter Earth and Venus aligned

    -the downward phase of the Hale cycle ( -neg) is associated with Jupiter Venus and earth opposing

    -The Jupiter beat trough (60.9 yr) always occurs on the upward /pos+ phase of the Hale magnetic cycle

    – The Jupiter beat peak ( 60.9 yr) always occurs on the downward /neg- phase of the Hale magnetic cycle

    and as already mentioned

    Pos+ Neg – Pos+ Hale sequence is the downward phase of the AMO /global temp ( ~66yr cycle)

    Neg- Pos+ Neg- Hale sequence is the Upward warm phase of the AMO/global temp cycle

    Noting that the alignments/configurations are a few years into a schwabe.
    For example
    cycle 19 J + V with E opposing occurs 2yrs before the schwabe terminates
    cycle 20 J E V aligned occurs 4 yrs before the schwabe terminates

    The order in these findings is astonishing. ORDER….. NOT….. CHAOS

  56. Thanks for your explanation TL Mango.
    Very in formative

    I was interested in your comment
    “The Sun does this dance with Jupiter, where it lags for 9.93 years and then it leads for 9.93 years.”

    Is this the Hale cycle? Oscillating between pos and neg

    As the sun accelerates the magnetic sign is ? + or _?
    and as the sun decelerates the magnetic sign is ? which phase of the hale?

    I have noted switches /steps / flip flops/ inflection points in the much of the data l have studied

    This solar lead and lag is also a flip flop phenomena

    —————————–

    Enjoying your ENSO graphs Roger A. !!

    There is much to talk about there!! I have bookmarked them all.

  57. Gail Combs says:

    Bob Weber says: June 20, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    I notice so many of you have gone lukewarm on WUWT (absent).
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    The vicious attacks on Tallbloke et al were to my mind uncalled for and a total surprise. So I decided to branch out and spend time elsewhere.

    Jo Nova’s comment about Lubos is very appropriate.

    In typical style skeptics love to criticize, it is our strength. Sadly, diplomacy, manners, courtesy — burned at the door on a moment’s notice. Sigh. After five years in this debate you’d think I’d know not to expect respect or goodwill from every fellow skeptic. Call me naive, I don’t expect them to agree with me, just to be polite….
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/

    I will admit there are times when I become exasperated by Warmists who are more bullhead than my ram especially when they have a vested interest in continuing the scam. Unfortunately when my patience wears thin, as of late, I will get rather scathing. The continued deaths from Fuel Poverty and the loss of jobs to China has left my temper a bit short.

  58. Gail Combs says:

    Bob Weber says:

    “As someone who daily monitors solar activity and weather data… Based on these observations, tropical temps follow solar activity quickly….”
    >>>>>>>>>
    GRAPH: Air and sand temperature response to Solar Eclipse
    H/T to Sleepalot

  59. Bob Weber says:

    Gail – understood. I read many of those attacks and decided not to inflame open wounds.

    This morning I read the JoNova article you linked to, and it is clear there is mounting frustration on all sides. While it is so very easy to pick apart warmists’ arguments, our fellow skeptics are another thing altogether, as many don’t want to believe anyone anywhere about anything.

    The abuse factor comes from human nature: malignant narcissitic abuse coupled with know-it-all-ism mixed with a dash of cognitive dissonance on top of perspective and knowledge deficits, added to the ‘will-to-power’ need of some to do and say anything to maintain their cherished “upperhand”.

    Getting a pure statement out that won’t be widely contested is going to be very difficult. What I am working towards, as are the Talkshopper “crew”, is an explanation for what actually does control weather and climate based on observations that scientists and non-scientists alike can understand.

    As for the thermochron graph, that is so cool! – no pun intended. You linked that for me many months ago, and I used it in a presentation where I explained how the Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events. I appreciate your deep pool of knowledge and research links.

    By the way, did I mention that “the Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events.”

    Can’t be said enough.

    One more time: The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events!

    Indeed Gail, the suffering the warmists’ dish out now will pale in comparision to their future abuses unless they are stopped with an overwhelming weight of evidence and logic.

  60. Bob Weber says:

    June 20, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    As someone who daily monitors solar activity and weather data, I see it differently than the scientist looking at long-term trends & averages, ie, statisticly. Based on these observations, tropical temps follow solar activity quickly. Solar goes up, then temps go up, and vice versa. There are time lags on the order of days that make it less obvious as to what is causing what. The moon also plays a role in moving the atmosphere and mixing tropical warm air and northern cold air. Putting this together so anyone can see and understand it is the challenge however. This analysis comes straight out of my ongoing WeatherAction forecast review process that I started last November, and soon you’ll be able to see it yourself.

    NH Summer is finally here! I notice so many of you

    My reply: I am in complete agreement. What do you think will happen now that the activity of the sun has entered a prolonged minimum state that started in earnest in late 2005 which could last until 2040 or so? If were talking about solar impacts due to a regular 11 year sunspot cycle which when all is said and done really cancels itself out over the cycle ,what is going to happen with a pronounced long lasting solar change such as we have now? The maximum of solar cycle 24 (although very weak ) put on hold the effects this prolonged solar minimum will eventually bring to the climatic system of earth. Not enough sub-solar years of activity had taken place prior to the unset of solar cycle 24 maximum in my opinion but now going forward this has changed.

    I recall during the 2009 rather short very quiet lull in solar activity solar irradiance was off .15%! I further suspect solar irradiance was off at least .3 % during the Maunder Minimum.

    Solar /climate connections

    Solar EUV light changes lead to ozone changes in stratosphere in amounts and distribution which lead to atmospheric circulation changes which lead to snow cover, cloud cover ,ice cover/sea ice cover, precipitation/thermohaline circulation changes, and other oceanic circulation changes thus albedo changes /temperature changes.

    Solar magnetic changes(ap index) lead to volcanic activity changes which in turn effect the climate, and atmospheric circulation through warming the stratosphere and cooling the troposphere. Increase geological activity in general can lead to earth rotational changes which in turn can effect oceanic circulation patterns.

    Solar Magnetic changes(solar wind and heliospheric current sheet ) lead to galactic cosmic ray flux changes which lead to cloud changes which lead to climate changes, which also can effect geological activity due to concentration changes in muons a by product of galactic cosmic. .

    Solar Irradiance changes lead to penetration of solar visible light in oceans to change which will effect surface ocean temp. and ocean heat content and hence the climate.

    I will list my solar criteria which I believe can have a significant impact on the climate in the next post.

    .

  61. 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

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    David Evans & Joanne Nova mentioned a 2 page summary & a 170 page document. A 170 page article isn’t and will never be needed. I request that they release the 2 page summary without further delay.

    There are 2 components of the narrative being put forward by David Evans & Joanne Nova that (so far) don’t make sense, but before commenting on them, I want to see the 2 page summary. I’ve been reserving substantive commentary until I’ve seen the concise whole-picture view.

    I agree strenuously with Joanne Nova’s points about courtesy & manners. Judy Curry is also increasingly leaning in the direction of civility. Tallbloke has already been there for a long time. (It’s in his nature.)

    When I make a list of climate commentators who are stirring up the incivility problem, there are only a handful of names on it. 4 of them are based in California and heavily involved with WUWT. The remainder are either on the US west coast or in western USA.

    I suggest that sensible members of the international climate skeptic community resolve themselves firmly to never again allow a concentration of regional special interests to hijack the climate discussion in an ill-spirited bid for cultural imperialism.

    I choose the Talkshop because it’s a harassment-free venue. When I stroll into a venue and sit down for some friendly conversation, I want to be absolutely confident that anyone aiming to relentlessly harass me will be promptly bounced out the door and never readmitted if they are a repeat offender.

    I have new solar-terrestrial-climate insights that I aim to share here sometime during the next 1-3 days.

  63. Paul, I am looking forward to this. Also can you give your opinions on the role you think the earth’s magnetic field strength plays in all of this, along with the ice dynamic and initial state of the climate.

    How far from glacial if in inter-glacial or vice versa.

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob Weber (June 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm) wrote:

    “By the way, did I mention that “the Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events.”

    Can’t be said enough.

    One more time: The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather events!”

    We’ve reached a stage of sufficiently serious divisions that I would recommend to all sensible blog hosts that anyone who harasses Bob or anyone else for stating this should be banned from the climate discussion without further trial and without further delay.


    Bob Weber (June 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm) wrote:

    “Indeed Gail, the suffering the warmists’ dish out now will pale in comparision to their future abuses unless they are stopped with an overwhelming weight of evidence and logic.”

    You don’t even need “evidence and logic” Bob. You just need ethics. Indeed there exists “overwhelming weight of evidence and logic”, but it may never be recognized. (This has dead serious implications that everyone should think through carefully.)

    What I suggest we focus on is the right to freedom from persistent harassment. Maintenance of civility does not demand that we agree, but it may demand that we stop arguing where agreement will — with absolute certainty — never be possible.

    Regards

  65. Bob Weber says:

    Salvatore: SC24 is going to rip the heart out of AGW. SC25 will bury it forever. I do like how you are quantifying the various solar and geophysical parameters into a workable testable thesis. The point about the initial state of the climate matters considerably. NOAA/NASA claimed in April and affirmed in June that SC24 has peaked or is peaking. That puts your cooling estimate into late fall/early winter in the NH. How did you arrive at six months for the temp falloff?

    I am also looking forward to Paul’s new insights. His SST/SSN integral graph was also part of the presentation I mentioned to Gail. It seems not enough people understand what it means.

  66. Bob Weber says:

    Paul – agreed. I believe the ethics part is slowly working as SC24 eviscerates the warmists’ position.

  67. Bob, I don’t really have any hard basis for the six months lag just an estimate on my part. I just hope this all turns out they way we are all thinking. I guess we will know sooner rather then later.

  68. Paul is making so much sense. I can’t wait to hear more.

  69. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Vaughan says: @ June 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    “…What I suggest we focus on is the right to freedom from persistent harassment. Maintenance of civility does not demand that we agree, but it may demand that we stop arguing where agreement will — with absolute certainty — never be possible….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    I emphatically agree.

    One of the hallmarks of Political Correctness is the verbal abuse that is used instead of logic and facts. The reliance on authority and consensus is the other hallmark.

    This comes from two different but related issues.

    Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals we see a lot of these rules used in the ‘Climate wars’

    …Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

    RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people….

    RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone….

    RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

    RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)…..

    RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

    RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist….

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) [This is what we saw happen to Tallbloke et. al the ‘Skeptic Camp’ was thrown into disarray by the vicious attacks.]

    This is the origin of the reliance on authority and consensus and its continued emphasis. The Warmists, thanks to Progressive Education, actually do live in an alternate universe at least when it comes to their method of reasoning. The crippling of the ability to reason and acknowledge reality is probably the biggest weapon of the Elite.
    The Philosophy Of Karl Marx
    The philosophical bases of Marx’s thought were laid early and remained unchanged throughout his life…. Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made.

    In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite…. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis—all in the realm of ideas, since objective reality could exist only in that sphere. Since this process was universal and never ending, it offered a complete explanation of the causal processes creating all phenomena within the universe….
    (wwwDOT)economictheories.org/2008/12/philosophy-of-karl-marx.html

    This is why there is so much emphasis placed on ‘Consensus’ – In other words if I wish real hard and click my heels three time it is TRUE! (And since I control the scientific data bases I can change the data to meet my fantasy.)

    Of course this philosophy is only for the rank and file. The elite ‘Socialists’, the bankers, the corporate CEOs and politicians, use the philosophy to control the minds of the rank and file just as the old feudal kings/priests used the church to control the serfs.

    Since the American revolutionists up-set that applecart and forbid a state religion ‘Socialism/Communism’ was resurrected.

    See The Great Thanksgiving Hoax for the death of the idea of socialism as a legitimate method of governance and economics. It flunked the reality test big time back in the 1620s. The only reason it gets resurrected is because the Elite want to re-install feudalism without the fear of a return of Madame Guillotine. The Middle Class has always been a threat to their power so they want to kill off the Bourgeoisie (capitalistic middle class) and the right to own property. Notice the Elite are conspicuously absent from the attacks. SEE: mises(DOT)org/daily/336

    Socialist Maurice Strong, chair of the UN First Earth Summit (1972) and Kyoto, said in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit…: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” (Notice there is no mention of the jet set elite.)

    Maurice Strong, while special ambassador to the UN, publicly stated his belief that China is the economic and ecological future of the world, a sentiment echoed only last week by Canadian Prime Minister Martin. ( December 15, 2004 Judi McLeod, Canadafreepress(DOT)com )

    This is not surprising given Strong’s cousin was Anna Louise Strong – American correspondent and a Marxist and friend of Comrade Mao Tse-tung SEE: (wwwDOT)marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_13.htm

    Anna Strong’s funeral in 1970 was organized personally by Chou En-lai, China’s prime minister.

    Premier Chou En-lai was visiting his old friend, Anna Louise, [in the hospital] with whom he had conferred and worked for many years. He did his best to encourage her to cooperate with the doctors because, he said, “You have important things to do for us and the rest of the world.” She replied that she would try. However, a few days later, on Easter Sunday, 1970, Anna Louise Strong died.

    There was a time of mourning and memorial throughout China. She was buried with full honors in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery in Peking….
    (wwwDOT)knoxhistory.org/authors/strong.htm

  70. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says @ June 20, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Bob, I don’t really have any hard basis for the six months lag just an estimate on my part….
    >>>>>>>>>>

    I think the lag depends on what part of the system you are talking about.

    That Solar Eclipse graph [(wwwDOT)shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif ] shows the air temperature responding to the lack of full sun within 2-3 minutes. It also shows the air is directly heated by the sun and not via outgoing IR. The surface sand temperature responds in ~10 minutes. However the frozen water pipes in Winnipeg, Manitoba into the first part of June shows the lag at depth can be months for the soil.

    As a side note that puts CAGW in perspective: Montcalm Purchases Water Line Thawer, Pipes Still Frozen “… the new equipment, which is in high demand, will be in operation next year. “It was quite a backlog on purchasing those, they were hard to find,” said Houle….

    The real questions are what is the lag for the parts of the oceans that effect our climate? What type of ‘system’ is in play when the sun is ‘Quiet’ vs ‘Active’

    Trying to use “global temperature” as a measure of changes in climate is a rotten idea. I was taking a quick look at the temps at Fayetteville NC and realized that as soon as it gets hot ~95 °F (35 °C), Willis’s Thermostat kicks in and we get a thunderstorm. We just dropped from 94°F to 77 °F for example.

    A dry interior desert would be the best to look at. Something like Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
    …….
    I just glanced at this site: binderyaspaze(dot)wordpress.com/
    Which is about Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia and noticed this paragraph:

    Moreover, since the distance between the sun and earth and the changing tilt of the earth, the temperature in the future would be very different. It’s no longer caller “Global warming”, it’s called “Global Climate Change”, because some parts of the world would be very hot and some very cold and it would be caused by the seasonality too. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia would still have the continental climate….

    So it looks like the Warmists have all the bases covered now. (The rest of the site is an interesting read.)
    …..

    Another piece of interest when talking of climate lag is that Dr. Richard B. Alley found the switch from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the current Holocene occurred within three years. William McClenney quoted a source saying the switch came in one year.

    For the change from interglacial to glacial it is a bit slower:

    “….The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again…..”
    (wwwDOT)particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

    The threshold is not that sharply defined either. A fall 2012 paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? “ gave several different 21 June @ 65◦ N solar insolation values for different interglacials:
    The paper, gives the current values for insolation = 479 W m−2
    For the following interglacials, glacial inception was at:
    MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
    MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
    MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
    MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
    MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,

    To give you a feel for how close to glaciation we are, you can look at the calculations from NOAA:
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

    depth of the last ice age – around 463 W m−2
    NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2

    Lets put this another way. For glacial inception, the summer solstice insulation minimum during MIS-11 at 65N was 489 Watt/m2 and in 2005 it was 474 W m−2 according to Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005.

    This means the earth needs an ADDITIONAL 15 W m−2 to get BACK to the threshold insolation minimum in MIS-11, the closest analog to the Holocene. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the change in Anthropogenic CO2 forcing between 1850 (start of the industrial age] and 1990 was only 1.5 W/m 2 [Reid, 1997]. That is a tenth of what is needed.

    I really do not think we need to be worrying about Global Warming. Glacial inception is another story.

    To give you the warm fuzzies, onset of the Little Ice Age was right about when the Holocene reached a half precession cycle old when earth should have dropped into the glacial state. The Modern Grand Solar Maximum, now ending, seems to have temporarily pulled the earth out of cooling. [Usoskin, 2013] Other interglacials had warm pulses just before the drop into glaciation so the Modern Warm Period does not mean what the Warmists are trying to spin. Actually the Modern Warm Period corresponds to the last thermal pulse in MIS11 before “The Drop”

  71. Slightly off topic but Paul Vaughan mentioned ethics. Prof Claes Johnson (who has been vilified as a climate sceptic and had problems with his ideas of computational maths and aerodynamics) is to be awarded the Ludwig Prandtl medal for his breakthrough work of fluid dynamics (see http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ludwig-prandtl-medal.html and my comment)
    Maybe, more people will see that he can contribute to developing models that not only make physical sense but actually work.

  72. Gail Combs says:

    Darn it I messed up the blockquotes. Another try so it reads correctly. (If it messed up again it was Word Unimpressed. and yes it does mess up my blockquotes E.M. Smith caught it doing so.)
    …………
    Another addendum:

    Dr.Evans is continuing his essays saying:

    Note the parallel paths:

    The immediate path is for TSI, and has no effect on albedo. This is the direct warming effect of extra TSI.
    The delayed path is for force X, which is the same as TSI but delayed and notched. Force X affects the albedo.

    The graph for albedo produced by The Moonshine Project before it went through pee-on review*** shows the inflection point at 1997/1998 the time of the Super El Nino.

    Cycle 22 was the last of the “super sunspot” cycles. GRAPH

    Cycle 23 started in May 1996 and lasted 12 years and 6 months.
    Cycle 21 started in June 1976 and lasted 10 years and 3 months.
    Cycle 22 started in September 1986 and lasted 9 years and 8 months.
    (wwwDOT)thegwpf.org/graphical-comparison-solar-cycles-21-22-23-24/

    If the change in the sun (factor X) occurred during the solar maximum of cycle 22 then you are looking at 5 years before the Albedo change. This would be Dr Evans low pass filter.

    If the change in the sun occurred during the solar minimum of cycle 22 then the lag is one to two years.

    If the change occurred during the minimum before cycle 22 then you are looking at around 10 years. This is the time period when factor X occurred (the notch) according to Dr. Evans.

    Dr. Evans says

    The most important parameter is the delay parameter, which was found to most likely be 11 years but definitely between 10 and 20 years.

    The break period of the low pass filter was found to most likely be 5 years, though the possible range is from 4 to 25 years because it might be hiding over to the low frequency side of the notch. (It is very unlikely to be more than about the five years that other researchers have found, but the fitting process held open the possibility.)

    ……

    *** My old notes on this graph (links may be stale.) To get around the WordPress auto-mod I removed h t t p : // and wrote out DOT for (.))

    A newer paper
    bbso(DOT)njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf

    This is a modification of the original graph:
    1(DOT)bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/S9NdJYv-UjI/AAAAAAAABLI/jkMTUSYQ6pc/s1600/weatherAlbedo2007.jpg

    graph showing an increase in albedo from 2000 to 2008
    www(DOT)bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/index_ES_Project_files/image006.jpg

    Inter-annual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007.
    bbso(DOT)njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf

    Page 10 of this PDF of a presentation gives a graph of Earth’s albedo 1983-2003
    That graph shows the albedo decreased until ~ 1997/8 and then started increasing.
    lasp(DOT)colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_1_2_3/presentations/session3/3_06_Palle.pdf

    The same info as a published report: “Changes in the Earth’s reflectance over the past two decades” E. Palle Big Bear Observatory, NJIT
    (wwwDOT)iac.es/proyecto/earthshine/media/publications/Palle_etal_Science_2004.pdf

    A listing of links of other papers: (wwwDOT)iac.es/proyecto/earthshine/pages/publications-on-climate-change.php

    Research Article: Automated Observations of the Earthshine
    (wwwDOT)hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/963650.html

  73. tallbloke says:

    Gail: David’s Earthshine data needs updating with Palle et al’s later paper results:

    Note: Y-axis in the inset is correct albedo percentage anomaly. Y-axis label on Left is incorrect (SKS disinfo)

  74. Gail Combs says:

    Tallbloke, Thanks for reproducing the Albedo graph and deleting my mangled post. {:>)

  75. Lets put this another way. For glacial inception, the summer solstice insulation minimum during MIS-11 at 65N was 489 Watt/m2 and in 2005 it was 474 W m−2 according to Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005.

    This means the earth needs an ADDITIONAL 15 W m−2 to get BACK to the threshold insolation minimum in MIS-11, the closest analog to the Holocene

    GAIL should it be MIS 11 WAS 474 AND 2005 WAS 489 ? THANKS

  76. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore,
    I will double check the original paper: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf

    …The phasing of precession and obliquity (precession minimum/insolation maximum at 11 kyr BP; obliquity maximum at 10 kyr BP) would point to a short duration, although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012)….

    MIS 11c: interglacial values persisted over two insolation peaks. Glacial inception occurred at the time of the summer insolation minimum ∼ 398 kyr BP, according to the speleothem GLT − syn timescale. This is ∼ 5 kyr earlier than in the EDC3 timescale, but in agreement with the Dome Fuji ice core chronology, based on astronomical tuning of the O2 /N2 ratio of trapped air to local insolation (Kawamura et al., 2007, 2008), implying that the EDC3 ages over this interval may be too young. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations at inception remained high (259–265 ppmv), but summer insolation had decreased to 466 W m−2 and obliquity was reaching its minimum value at 394 kyr BP.

    the 21 June at 65◦ N insolation…
    So MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2 according to that paper
    MIS 19c – insolation = 474 W m−2
    and current – insolation = 479 W m−2.

    From the other paper we get:

    ….the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

    web(DOT)pdx.edu/~chulbe/COURSES/QCLIM/reprints/LisieckiRaymo_preprint.pdf (NOTE: pdf has been removed from internet.) I went looking and found this with links to several papers plus discussion: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/989

    the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N
    MIS 11 – insolation = 489 W m−2 according to that paper
    and current – insolation = 474 W m−2.

    Looks like it depends on who is doing the calculations, however both papers think glaciation is possible without Mankind’s intervention.

  77. Gail Combs says:

    The proboard’s site had a pointer to this

    Climate Crash:: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means for Our Future
    By John D. Cox

    The Dansgaard team noted that an event they estimated to have taken place 89,500 years in the past had plunged the climate “from warmer than today into full glacial severity” within just a century or even less. In fact, the drop in the oxygen isotope ratio, and thus in temperatures, might have occurred “almost instantaneously.” The curve in the climate profile, they wrote, “suggests that it took 1000 [years] to recover from this catastrophic event.”

  78. Looks like it depends on who is doing the calculations, however both papers think glaciation is possible without Mankind’s intervention.

    IT IS AMAZING HOW THEY CAN’T BREAK AWAY COMPLETLY FROM THE HOAX.

  79. FROM LAYMAN SUNSPOT SITE the article below.

    This is what I have been saying which is the sun has more solar variability then what mainstream leads you to believe in.

    opening Figure on this article shows a graph from Lockwood showing solar output over the last 400 years. The blue line is his new suggested solar output that takes into consideration the “Waldemeir Discontinuity” along with the “Wolfer Discontinuity” and the “Wolf Discontinuity”, he also suggests the red line (based on the GSN) is just as likely to be correct. The Lean (2000) TSI reconstruction is very close to the Lockwood solar reconstruction (Rc) and the GSN record (Rg) which will have huge ramifications if correct, it will reveal that the Sun has had a bigger variance in TSI over the sunspot record that is far greater than the 0.1% that Svalgaard and the IPCC subscribe to.

  80. J Martin says:

    Gail,

    “….demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2.

    The paper, gives the current values for insolation = 479 W m−2

    NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2

    Seems to be some disparity as to what today’s insolation value is.

    Given the different values for onset of glaciation, perhaps we are looking at the wrong metric. ap perhaps.

  81. tallbloke says:

    JM: Is your 476W/m^2 at 65N like Gail’s?

  82. J Martin says:

    Came from within Gail’s comment, 4th line down after list of different MIS insolations.

  83. J Martin says:

    Some of Vuk’s graphs are impressive, especially the relatonship between geomagnetic field and temperature, both Arctic and global. Just a pity he doesn’t (so far) include a line for co2 so I can show people how badly co2 compares to temperatures and how well other things compare.

    Finding ways to un-brainwash people is difficult. One of Vuk’s graphs with co2 added might help convince some of the co2 Borg that co2 isn’t the problem they had been led to believe.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

  84. Gail Combs says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:

    “IT IS AMAZING HOW THEY CAN’T BREAK AWAY COMPLETELY FROM THE HOAX.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    I think it is the only way they can get funding and get their papers published.

    I recently read a Joan Feynman paper with the required kowtow to CAGW and you could tell she was really having to bite her tongue and hold her nose to write the words.

    If I recall correctly the short paragraph could be taken in two entirely different ways and the second way was “not nice”

  85. Gail Combs says:

    J Martin says: @ June 21, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    “…Given the different values for onset of glaciation, perhaps we are looking at the wrong metric. ap perhaps.”

    Or it could be it take two or more components moving in the correct direction to kick the switch. That is why I think Salvatore is headed in the correct general direction.

    I think it was Joe Bastardi that wrote a few years ago about The Triple Crown of (Climate) Cooling: <i"…the sun, the oceans and stochastic events, such as volcanoes…"
    I would add as Salvadore does, the starting conditions and also the north/south vector of lunar travel in relationship to the earth.

    “It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice-versa).” (link) GEE sounds like D-O/bond events…

    CO2? – Don’t make me laugh.

  86. Gail Combs says:

    J Martin says:
    “…Finding ways to un-brainwash people is difficult. One of Vuk’s graphs with co2 added might help convince some of the co2 Borg that co2 isn’t the problem they had been led to believe.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Just use a second graph. RSS and CO2 for the last twenty yewars. I think Woodfortrees will do it.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Gail:Just use a second graph. RSS and CO2 for the last twenty yewars. I think Woodfortrees will do it.

    Like this ? 🙂
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/mean:13/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-398/from:1980

  88. Gail Combs says:

    Yes, snicker

  89. Richard111 says:

    I read these discussions in total bemusement. Okay, I am a layman, but I have read up on the IR fingerprint of CO2 and about blackbody performance in the laboratory. CO2 is certainly NOT a blackbody but each IR band MUST remain within the temperature restrictions as demonstrated by blackbody science. In other words if it is hot enough it can emit but NOT absorb over any specific band. Wien’s Law will give you the temperatures of each band. I am well aware that there are some 3,800 lines centred around the 15 micron band for CO2 spreading the band to cover 13 to 17 microns. This makes no difference. I am also aware of the statistical analysis that claims the possibility of a photon being absorbed in a band currently emitting. Another equal photon is almost instantly emitted for no change in the energy level of that molecule.
    This same argument applies to H2O molecules. Sunlight can certainly warm CO2 and H2O molecules which in turn warms the air by conduction but that energy never reached the surface. After sunset CO2 and H2O are limited to radiation below the 10 micron band. If you know how to define which photons originate from CO2 or H2O I would like to read up on it. If you know how any element already emitting any specific band of IR can absorb an identical band photon and then WARM UP I would like to read about that too.
    There is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’ in the atmosphere, but by jingo!, there are indeed masses of heat trapping gasses! They are TRANSPARENT to radiation, they can warm by conduction from the surface but have difficulty cooling from the surface as heat in a GAS travels UPWARDS so those heat trapping gasses have now way of cooling unless you add some gases capable of radiating energy away.

  90. J Martin says:

    Gail and Rog. Thanks, but I have found that sort of thing to not have any effect when it comes to trying to reverse the views of brainwashed people. That’s why I think Vuk’s graphs are worth a try as they show a remarkable relationship between temperature and somethng most people would never have considered as having anything to do with temperature, in this case magnetism.

    I suspect, or rather, I hope that seeing a graph of those 3 things, temperature, co2 and magnetism might open their minds to the fact that perhaps co2 isn’t the whole story after all.

    I find that putting graphs in front of people of the disconnect between temperature and co2 has no effect, they simpy dismiss it in their own minds, I don’t know why, disbelief, perhaps they think it is manufactured by sceptics, non scientists, fraud, not real science, I don’t know why they don’t suddenly exclaim ‘Oh my god’ these so called sccientists have been fooling me all these years, the sceptics are right, co2 really doesn’t control temperature.

    It doesn’t work, something more is needed to open a chink of light into their locked down brain cells. Perhaps that surprising and remarkable correlation and a far better correlattion between magnetic fields and temperature may open their minds just a little.

    We need to find some other way to open peoples minds.

    Vuk really should add a line for co2 to those remarkable graphs.

  91. J Martin says:

    Of course the thing that is known to have the most influence on people, namely the weather will ultimately change the mass perception, sustained cooling. But that will happen over the coming years, but slowly over the course of a generation. Perhaps too slowly to stop the politicians from destroying our economies and lifestyles and health.

    We need something else, a better climate model will help, but it is useless if it cannot produce a prediction / projection that can be falsified. We need a climate model that can produce a firm cooling projection that gets lots of publicity in the MSM and that all or most of the big publically known climate scientists then come out onto the MSM and publically rubbish it.

    If as time goes by the projection comes to pass then climate alarmism will die a very public death and the climate alarmist scientists and politicians will be out of their jobs.

    David Evans work produces a projection. Brave but esssential. Lets hope it is also reasonably accurate.

  92. tallbloke says:

    JM: The problem is, VUK doesn’t explain his graphs. The raw magnetic data doesn’t look the same, and his ‘indices’ are built fro a mix of variables he doesn’t define using a method he doesn’t explain. Maybe one day he’ll tell us.

  93. J Martin says:

    Not forgotten, though I of course prefer the extended version of the cycles analysis graph (regardless of elephant trunk considerations) that you guys kindly presented to me as my prize in the ugly mug contest.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    J Martin, I’ve easily been able to reproduce all of vukcevic’s graphs with a few exceptions: I haven’t made time to figure out where he gets his “geological records”. I hasten to clarify that I don’t suspect the driving going how vukcevic suggests. In most cases the data suggest the opposite to me, but for balance I can add that NASA JPL’s Jean Dickey doesn’t rule out the possibility of coupling. I should add a cautionary interpretive note: Some of the correlations vukcevic illustrates are no coincidence as some of the geomagnetic field (GMF) hindcasts use solar data as input. I’ve sought info from GMF hindcast providers about this, but so far they’ve refused to provide it. To me there’s no mystery at all in vukcevic’s methods. I admire the way he has efficiently helped keep minds open to inquiry. He has been one of the most effective in this regard. In this regard others have wasted a lot of effort to accomplish very little. In the current political context the demands of formality suck inordinate amounts of time & energy and the payback is biased rejection, harassment, & hatred, so it’s a fool’s errand IMO. The people begging for code remind me of fellow fluid mechanics, calculus, & operations analysis students who begged for answers daily when they couldn’t do their homework even with generous hints provided by the teacher. Worse: They all have nefarious intentions. Giving them what they want is just stupidly asking for vicious, hateful, harassment, as that’s their core specialty. If vukcevic volunteers links to his “geological records” that will save me some leftover detective work, but my taxes aren’t funneled to vukcevic and he’s not my employee, so he doesn’t owe me anything and I can harmoniously accept and respect him sharing what he volunteers however he wants. I’m certainly not going to harass him. That would be unethical. Regards.

  95. Richard111 says:

    TB, thanks for that link above (@10:53 am). Missed that post. Very interesting, and the comments! Don’t feel quite so Isolated now. 🙂

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gail Combs:

    I’ve quoted you at JoNova’s to underscore a key distinction between civil & uncivil conduct.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comment-1496862