Our sometimes contributor Michele has posted an article on his Italian language blog.
Watching solar: The long descent of solar cycle SC24 has started!
(hopefully Google Translate will kick in automatically (see top of page), or use Bing translation)
Do I (Tim) agree with Michele, yes, will be about now.
We have the most uncertain solar situation in living memory.
Afraid I’ve been preoccupied with other things not watching what the sun is doing, don’t see a lot of it here. House heating is on, I’m wearing a jacket, bedspread layer has gone back on, where was summer? Nights are drawing in, weekly supermarket shop, dark when we returned.
Earlier I pressed the button on computing new results from the Met Office areal data which appeared on their servers this afternoon. as expected nothing unusual. 7th wettest August in this area since 1910, so?
Mean temperatures in all regions are close t0 z-score of zero, so? This actually is a so? I do not compensate to a mean climatology which means this is the mean for all of 1910 to date. Many people are complaining of chilly, at the large supermarket I happened to bump into a stranger older than I where we are on pass time of day terms. She remarked she has already put on extra clothes.
This fits with the descent from a temperature hump I’ve shown many times, we drop back to older temperatures. On this blog we tend to hold the opinion the sun is driving this not that we know, is an opinion if probably better informed that ‘im on the omnibus in Clapham.
I wish this was not so, it would be wonderful if England was not so darn chilly.
What is happening with the harvest this year? Have a look.
Post by Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
TIM! you DO live in the far north near the Arctic circle. 😉 treasure your days of warmth…pg
3000 m.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-28.77,56.80,690
“the opinion the sun is driving this not that we know, is an opinion”
Sun driving climate is proven fact.
Lots of militant thought-policing trying to beat this fact …only succeeding on weak, submissive minds.
Paul Vaughan says: September 4, 2015 at 7:36 am
“the opinion the sun is driving this not that we know, is an opinion”
“Sun driving climate is proven fact. Lots of militant thought-policing trying to beat this fact …only succeeding on weak, submissive minds.”
Sun and other planetary causes, influence Earth weather greatly. Earth’s atmospheric action properly moderates that down to ‘barely acceptable’ for politicians. Earth’s atmosphere wants no more very interesting and clever earthling nuclear events. That was a real bitch! Don beat me no mor massa, I be good! Climate is a term used only by Realtors and other swindlers!
… on the length of the solar cycle SC24,
I remember the paper of Dr. R. C. Altrock :
“..We also observe that solar minimum for the last four minima has occurred when emissions are exhausted at 10°.”
Click to access 1209.2963.pdf
Figure 3 …..This initial fit (long-dashed line) would not reach 20° until 2019.8….
20° or 10° ?!?!?
It’s a very long solar minimum ! but, track data stops to 2012.
We need new data
Ah yes, links back to a Christmas 2011 article linking to a similar discussion about the start of cycle 24
Altrock is long retired assuming he is still with us.
http://www4.nso.edu/staff/altrock/
Links a 2004 paper of interest now
Click to access paper.pdf
Also links to the NSO current results.
http://nsosp.nso.edu/corona
I wonder if anyone updated the work of Altrock?
If one goes back to the Holocene Optimum the question is how fast is the earth cooling?
Since the Holocene Optimum 8000 years ago the earth has been in a gradual overall cooling trend which has continued up to today punctuated by spikes of warmth such as the Roman ,Medieval and Modern warm periods.
The main drives of this are Milankovitch Cycles which were more favorable for warmer conditions 8000 years ago in contrast to today , with prolonged periods of active and minimum solar activity superimposed upon this slow gradual cooling trend giving the spikes of warmth I referred to in the above and also periods of cold such as the Little Ice Age.
Further refinement to the climate coming from ENSO, volcanic activity , the phase of the PDO/AMO but these are temporary earth intrinsic climatic factors superimposed upon the general broader climatic trend.
All the warming the article refers to which has happened since the end of the Little Ice Age, is just a spike of relative warmth within the still overall cooling trend due to the big pick up in solar activity from the period 1840-2005 versus the period 1275-1840.
Post 2005 solar activity has returned to minimum conditions and I suspect the overall cooling global temperature trend which as been in progress for the past 8000 years ago will exert itself once again.
We will be finding this out in the near future due to the prolonged minimum solar activity that is now in progress post 2005
@Salvarore: Don’t forget long tern lunar orbital shifts changing the degree of ocean tidal mixing. Lunar orbit has a 1800 or so year cycle to it. Tidal mixing has as much influence on ocean surface temperatures as the wind, so it matters a lot.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
E.M.Smith,
Thanks for these great links. I would like to see the Keeling and Whorf paper revisited on this site.
Also the Bond ( DO) 1470 year cycle. In light of the recent video by David Dilley (globalweatheroscilations.com ) , all the hard work of Ian Wilson , and the major discovery by
Jim Steel , it is becoming more and more clear that the moon is a major driver. I think the
number of those getting on board is rapidly growing.
I take exception to the 1470 climate cycle. Article to follow which lends support to this view.
I subscribe to this theory as far as abrupt short term climate cycles go, (d/o events )which show much variation.
As the article so correctly points out D/O events went from being 8 thousand years apart to 1.4 thousand years apart.
TLM: major discovery by Jim Steel
I missed this. Linky?
In addition one has to remember that D/O events occur within an Ice Age or Inter-glacial period of time. They are regional abrupt climate changes in the N.H. high latitudes but do not bring the overall big climate picture in and out of a glacial versus non glacial regime.
The Arctic Iris Effect explains the D/O events the best by far, and explains why the magnitude and timing of these events can vary. It is the theory I have been looking for to explain D/O events and one I embrace.
As far as the big climate picture I am still of the opinion that Milankovitch Cycles, Land /Ocean Arrangements, Initial State Of The Climate-Ice Dynamic, Geo Magnetic Field Strength with Solar Variability super imposed upon these items, and modified by these items is the main climate driver in my opinion, in the big climate picture.
Of course the random extra terrestrial impact/super volcanic eruption have the ability to turn the climate world upside down at times and it no doubt has occurred at times in the past.
Lunar effects maybe to a degree but not the main driver in my opinion..
For refinement of the climate look to ENSO, SMALL VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS,PDO,AMO, but these are transient climate factors and are not going to push the climate from one climate regime to another one.
Hi Rog,
Salvatore has the correct link on the ‘Arctic Iris Effect’ .
I apologize for being internet ignorant. I’m old timey and eccentric.
I agree with Salvatore that the ‘Iris Effect’ best explains the DO events.
But best of all, I’m looking forward to see how critics of planetary influence will delve deeper into
the area of tidal influence. The AGW crowd tried to sell us global warming … without the Sun.
Now, certain folks are discovering tidal influence … without the moon.
This could get interesting in the near future.
I am so impressed with David Dilley (Is Climate Change Dangerous)
He comes across in a simple way, like your favorite high school science teacher.
But there is real depth in his presentation. His 230 year cycle is the 114/115 year cycle found
by Ogurtsov and used by Scafetta. If you watch the video, he points to his 72 year cycle and refers
to it as a 2 year cycle because he knows that the root frequency of of the 72/144 year planetary cycle(Jup/Sat) is 2 years. Ian Wilson found a ~143.8 year cycle involving Earth and Venus. And
Ray Tomes has the universal set of frequencies {2,3,4,6,8,9,12,16,18,24,36,48,72,144}.
David Dilley shows that the 9 year lunar cycle (pulses) occur in 72 year cycles.
Dilley says that “Arctic ice melts from the bottom up, not the top down.”
Jim Steel’s ‘Arctic Iris Effect’ is an incredible find. Because of the imagination of two brilliant scientists, it has been a great week for planetary influence.
influence.
Steel appears to be paying attention, catching some of the points, and engineering a narrative to at least help with the needed corrections we outlined here:
…but I see no evidence that he understands the most important component of the geometry outlined by Rial:
Reminder: The lunar component is easily modeled to near-perfect accuracy using nothing more than simple Fourier methods …so that’s not the problem.
Focusing with a due sense of expedience:
The problem is that people don’t know how to independently measure nonstationary cyclic volatility competently and therefore cannot recognize geometric proofs of zonal wind redistribution. That’s the root of enduring impasse.
Is the activity falls now, as in 2005?
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1439003423000
@ Tim
Quote :
“I wonder if anyone updated the work of Altrock?”
I send a mail to Dr.Altrock for major info.
TLM, no problem, but the name is Jim Steele, with an extra ‘e’ on the end.
The disagreement I have is the Arctic Iris Effect does not support planetary influences. In addition the historical climatic record at best shows a very loose cyclic climatic pattern, especially during the Holocene. My opinion.
Dark ages cold period /little ice age less then 1000 years apart.
If the predicted cold period now comes about through 2040 or so that would only be some 200 years after the end of the Little Ice Age not 1470 years!
Salvatore,
Thanks for raising some really important questions.
So that you know where I stand: I’m a hard-core barycentrist.
I believe in ‘indirect planetary influence’. The Sun is more than 850 times more massive
than all the other objects in our solar system. So it took millennia to establish the equilibrium
that exists between the Sun and it’s satellites. The Sun is the perfect recording device. It
records every movement and every vibration of every object caught up in it’s gravity. These
objects dictate the exact path the Sun will take as it moves around the C/M. All of it’s
satellites follow it as it accelerates and decelerates around the solar systems C/M. In return,
the Sun dictates the orbital parameters of all it’s satellites. In a moment in time, there is a fixed
set of frequencies and harmonics that the Sun passes on to the planets. In affect, the Sun is feeding the planets a copy of the solar system’s DNA, so to speak. It is more likely that, Neptune receives more Jupiter influence from the Sun than it does from Jupiter itself.
The accepted view regarding the moon’s orbital cycles is that they are regulated solely by
the Sun and Earth. This is true. But according to ‘indirect planetary influence’ theory, the
Sun acts like a proxy, representing the sum total of all the objects in the solar system.
After excluding the Sun, we find that Jupiter and Saturn constitute about 93% of the remaining mass of our solar system. If 93% of the recorded frequencies of the Sun, originated with Jupiter and Saturn, the influence of the Jupiter/Saturn pair is amplified by a thousand. This is because
the Sun is about 1000 times more massive than Jupiter and Saturn. The orbital parameters
of the Moon have a very large Jup/Sat footprint, and this is due to ‘indirect influence’.
In my 12am post, I failed to make my intended point that: the ‘Arctic Iris Effect’, which assumes oceanic heat transfer, was presented without making a connection to the moon’s influence.
I subscribe to the idea that there can be no transfer, to begin with, without the influence of
lunar tidal pulses. I sometimes have a tendency to rant because the bias against anything
involving the planets really angers me. Nothing like a rant to kill your point.
The cycles as far as the climate is concerned are meant to be broken and they are countless times.
That is not to say a semi cyclic beat is not out there but it is loose .
The cycles are never ‘broken’. They submerge and re-emerge as they interact resonantly to build bigger waves or diminished ones. They key to understanding them is to find the key nodes of frequency in the solar system which form ‘standing waves’. These may wander about in frequency and amplitude to an extent as different sub-components become involved or depart, but stand out as key periodicities. The ~60yr ‘standing wave’ is one of these which particularly resonates with Earth. The Sun and Moon are major contributors to it, and these are the bodies the Earth responds most directly to.
The cycles are loose at best if one looks at the historical climatic record. I am not going to be convinced of climate cycles per say because the data does not support them.
If the cooling trend comes about over the next 30 years that will only be 200 years since the end of the Little Ice Age no where the 1470 year so called climate cycle.
no where near the 1470 year cycle
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/16nov2011a2.html
Then again everyone has to go with what they believe. I am of the opinion of very loose climate cycles others have a different take.
Nice to see a good harvest in England, up a few percent despite a few hiccups in weather, it should be noted that the extra ppm co2 is to blame. The somnolent sun over the next decade or many could be a problem, ice fairs on the thames comes to mind. I am in OZ so no probs but Europe North America and England just about fell apart the last time a LIA happened. Increased CO2 production with increased crop yields is about the only thing that can help. My guess is that a lot of new immigrants might head my way in the next decade or so.
I am curious Paul Vaughn, what is the basis for your assertion that you “see no evidence that he understands the most important component of the geometry outlined by Rial”
In your own words please as your link is not clear.