Solar

This page is for discussion of solar aspects of climate and global warming.


119 Thoughts on “Solar

  1. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:02 am said:

    Solar Climate Driver: Forcings, Phenomena and Celestial Cycles

    • http://www.springerlink.com/content/g589501544320529/fulltext.pdf

      Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint of solar variability
      Low frequency solar forcing and NAO

      D. Swingedouw, L. Terray, C. Cassou, A. Voldoire, D. Salas-Mélia and J. Servonnat

      An interesting paper trying once again to quantify the solar influence. They specifically include the influence of the Pacific, and make a good case for stronger solar influence, because of a 40-50 year lag effect.

    • For reference, Ammann 2007:

      http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf

      Solar influence on climate during the past
      millennium: Results from transient simulations
      with the NCAR Climate System Model

      Caspar M. Ammann, Fortunat Joos, David S. Schimel, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, and Robert A. Tomas

      This paper models the various forcings, trying to determine the solar forcing amplitude, based on TSI. Interesting to see how the analysis ends in 2000. This allows the models to track well with a steadily-increasing GHG forcing. However, they would fail post-2000, because they have a relatively low solar forcing compared with GHG, and there have been few volcanoes. It’ll be very difficult therefore for them to achieve the flattening since 2001-2.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2010 at 9:51 am said:

      How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature

      November 15th 2010 by Stephen Wilde.

      Introduction:

      The Holy Grail of climatology has always been to ascertain whether, and if so how, the sun might affect the Earth’s energy budget to cause the climate swings observed throughout history despite the apparent inadequacy of the tiny variations in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) that occur from one series of solar cycles to another.

      I think that there is a plausible mechanism whereby those tiny solar changes could be amplified enough by natural features of the Earth’s climate system to achieve the observed outcome.
      This article also shows how the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has failed to account for the various real world observations that have been accumulating since the late 1990s.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 16, 2010 at 10:02 am said:

      Remarkable new paper on the influence of the sun on global warming

      November 15, 2010

      From Greenie Watch: Paper located here
      It is by De Jager and Duhau. Page 99 onwards is probably the most interesting part. I haven’t been able to download any part of it and Google does not know of it but it is a chapter in a book about global warming in the 21st century. The authors are students of what goes on in the sun, with particular reference to solar cycles. They find that solar activity has a large influence on earth’s temperature, with only a third of one degree of global warming over the last 400 years NOT predictable from solar activity. And that component could well be due to errors of measurement on the ground.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 7:04 pm said:

      The Variable Solar Dynamo and the Forecast of Solar Activity; Influence on Surface Temperature

      De Jager and Duhau. 2010?

      http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

      Corroborates:-

      Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JA015431.shtml

      N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira and S. K. Solanki, 2010

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm said:

      See also “Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate”

      Niroma 2009

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/solar/#comment-34929

      Still behind paywall but may provide further corroboration.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 7:06 pm said:

      Nailing the solar activity – global temperature divergence lie

      Posted: July 21, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

      We are frequently told that the Sun can’t be responsible for late C20th warming because temperature has increased while solar activity has dropped from it’s peak in the 1950′s.

      What a load of rubbish.

      Solar cycle amplitudes are only part of the story. The cycles in the late C20th were short, ~10 years, and high compared to the long term average of ~40 SSN. The minima between them were short too. So although they did reduce in absolute amplitude after the ’50s, they made up for it by kicking out more energy more of the time. Last year to get a handle on this, I integrated the total sunspot areas as a running cumulative total departing from the long term average.

      [See plot]

      The Sea Surface Temperature graph from woodfortrees.org with the trend lines added shows how well the sunspot cumulative total works as a proxy for Ocean Heat Content. The SST data is smoothed over 1/3 of the solar cycle length to bring out the solar effect on SST’s. I further developed this idea in my simple solar-planetary energy model. Looking at the flattening of the rise at cycle 19-20 (1954-1976) and from cycle 22-23 and now the low cycle 24, I would say we are just over the top of the warming curve. The slightly falling OHC data from 2003 onwards measured by ARGO would seem to back this up.

      So although we have yet to understand all the mechanisms by which the Sun’s energies get transferred into Earth’s climate system, we can say that the solar data fits the temperature record better than co2 data does, over a longer period too.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 24, 2010 at 10:00 pm said:

      New Paper: Solar UV activity increased almost 50% over past 400 years

      Thursday, December 23, 2010

      A peer-reviewed paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600′s during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries. The TSI is estimated to have increased 1.25 W/m2 since the Maunder minimum as shown in the first graph below. Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is .55C]. A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum (second graph below). This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating. whereas long wave infrared emission from “greenhouse gases” or the sun is only capable of penetrating the ocean surface a few microns with all energy lost to the phase change of evaporation with no net heating of the ocean. Solar UV irradiance also “exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth’s upper atmosphere” such as ozone levels.

      JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010
      doi:10.1029/2010JA015431

      Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

      N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 7:07 pm said:

      Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

      N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira and S. K. Solanki, 2010

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JA015431.shtml

      Corroborates:-

      The Variable Solar Dynamo and the Forecast of Solar Activity; Influence on Surface Temperature

      De Jager and Duhau. 2010?

      http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 2:40 pm said:

      Possible further corroboration here

      “Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate”, Niroma 2009

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/solar/#comment-34929

      Still behind paywall.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 6:44 pm said:

      Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?

      M Lockwood, R G Harrison, T Woollings and S K Solanki

      Published 14 April 2010

      Abstract
      Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm said:

      val majkus says:
      January 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm

      link to a paper by Dr. Timo Niroma, a respected Finnish climatologist who has linked solar activity with temperature in many papers
      PDF av here
      http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d31643021826h6x6/
      abstract
      The quiet Sun of the Maunder Minimum in the latter part of the 1600′s is compared to the hyper-active Sun in the 1900′s. Solar influence upon Earth’s climate in these times of very different sunspot abundance is investigated. A second thread in this study is the possible influence of Jupiter in the observed variability of solar behaviour. Thirdly, is an analysis of the solar condition right now (late 2008) and its possible implications for climate on Earth; including what might be ahead. Last is a critical examination of IPCC’s hypothesis that changing atmospheric CO2 concentration is the dominant contributor to changing climate.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm said:

      This paper might provide further corroboration to N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira and S. K. Solanki, 2010 and De Jager and Duhau. 2011 (See up-thread for both)

      Also some connection to Landscheidt and others going by the keywords.

      Keywords
      SUNSPOTS, MAUNDER MINIMUM, DALTON MINIMUM, JUPITER-EFFECT, ENSO, GLEISSBERG CYCLE

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 5, 2011 at 10:07 am said:

      Niroma 2009 is a good overview and summary but does not quantify solar variation in terms of temperature so there is no corroboration.

      His hypothesis:-

      It seems that 15 years after the beginning of an active Sun, there was a really hot
      period of 10 years, after which the climate cooled in the 1940’s – but not back to the
      original cold. The temperature stabilized (after having a considerable but temporary
      rise) at a level at least 0.3 degrees above the pre-1930’s in US and in Central and
      Northern Europe. If the Sun is the culprit we could speculate that it took 15 years for
      the oceans to warm; but ENSO, like a thermostat, put into motion a cooling in 1940-1942.

      Thus, if solar influence is the key, it looks like the oceans were so cool, that ENSO
      eventually in 1940-1942 balanced the situation between the hot NH and the not so hot
      SH (which is colder because of the refrigerator called Antarctic) by kicking the PDO
      (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) into an ENSO cooling-mode in 1945. This also caused
      150 Energy & Environment · Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 2009 the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) to go further south-east, and AMO (Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillation) into a cooling mode. This is my hypothesis as to why the warming which began after the Maunder Minimum in 1700 was again interrupted (first time was the Dalton Minimum in 1800), only to resume in the late 1970’s. There is no need to imply a blocking element in the atmosphere, the ENSO/PDO/NAO/AMO cycle going in cooling phase surely is enough to explain it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm said:

      The title of the paper is:-

      “Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate”

    • val majkus on January 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm said:

      I’ve just discovered that paper is still behind a paywall
      I do have a PDF which I could e mail (it’s 17 pages) and I think RichardT has a system to get a PDF emailed to him linked
      anyway if you want it let me know who to send it to

    • I could post it here, Val, but are we allowed to? Sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I don’t want to be sued right now for breach of copyright or something.

      If you came by it legitimately, then it might be fine. Have a look and let me know!

    • val majkus on January 4, 2011 at 9:36 pm said:

      RichardT and RichardC I’ve sent the paper to you
      Someone sent to me who received it from someone else
      Looks legit to me

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 4, 2011 at 10:10 pm said:

      Gottit Val, thnx.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 3, 2011 at 3:21 pm said:

      Please send me a copy Val. Email rscumming@gmail.com

      I do respect copyright as much as possible and this one’s not really in the public domain yet, although that may be because it’s slipped under everyone’s radar.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm said:

      Dynamical Response of the Tropical Pacific Ocean to Solar Forcing During the Early Holocene

      Marchitto1, Muscheler, Ortiz, Carriquiry and van Geen, 2010

      Abstract
      We present a high-resolution magnesium/calcium proxy record of Holocene sea surface temperature (SST) from off the west coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico, a region where interannual SST variability is dominated today by the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Temperatures were lowest during the early to middle Holocene, consistent with documented eastern equatorial Pacific cooling and numerical model simulations of orbital forcing into a La Niña–like state at that time. The early Holocene SSTs were also characterized by millennial-scale fluctuations that correlate with cosmogenic nuclide proxies of solar variability, with inferred solar minima corresponding to El Niño–like (warm) conditions, in apparent agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to exogenous radiative forcing.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1378.abstract

    • Richard C (NZ) on May 10, 2011 at 10:05 pm said:

      New paper: Increased solar activity caused far more global warming than assumed by the IPCC

      May 9, 2011

      A recent peer-reviewed paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics finds that solar activity has increased since the Little Ice Age by far more than previously assumed by the IPCC. The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC. Thus, much of the global warming observed since 1850 may instead be attributable to the Sun (called “solar forcing”), rather than man-made CO2 as assumed by the IPCC.

      Astronomy & Astrophysics 529, A67 (2011)

      A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing

      A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz1, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter1, A. V. Shapiro and S. Nyeki

      1 Physikalisch-Meteorologishes Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
      2 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate science ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
      3 Institute for Astronomy ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

      Received: 19 November 2010 Accepted: 22 February 2011

      Abstract
      Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past 10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years – all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity – there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing. Aims. We present a reconstruction of the total and spectral solar irradiance covering 130 nm–10 μm from 1610 to the present with an annual resolution and for the Holocene with a 22-year resolution. Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the long-term trend in the solar variability, which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code. Results. We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than the one observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects the climate, is also found to exceed previous estimates. We discuss in detail the assumptions that lead us to this conclusion.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-paper-increased-solar-activity.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on May 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm said:

      Chinese Scientists Discover What IPCC Has Purposefully Avoided: Identify Solar As Primary Cause of Global Warming

      Recently, Chinese scientists reconstructed past temperatures and determined that swings in temperature averages are a result of multiple, natural oscillations that are driven by solar radiation variability. Their research does not implicate CO2 as a major contributing factor.

      “In an attempt to gain that understanding, Qian and Lu began with the reconstructed global-mean temperature anomaly history of Mann et al. (2008), combined with HadCRUT3 data for 1000-2008, relative to 1961-1990…they used a wavelet transform procedure to identify four oscillations in the millennial temperature time series…Next, they similarly examined a reconstructed 400-year solar radiation series based on 10Be data…determined that “the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability,” and they report that the “relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations,” noting that “between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years,”…As for the future, they predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.“” [WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu 2010: Chinese Science Bulletin]

      http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/05/chinese-scientists-discover-what-ipcc-has-purposefully-avoided-identify-solar-as-primary-cause-of-gl.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2011 at 11:12 pm said:

      An alternative theory of global temperature dynamics

      Accumulation Theory of Solar Influence

      The physical structure of the oceans and atmosphere entails very long equilibrium dynamics due the slow accumulation of heat in the land and ocean. An ARMA analysis evaluates the potential of accumulation of solar anomaly to explain the global temperature changes over glacial/interglacial and recent time-frames.

      [See image]

      Click image above for animation of the accumulation model for the 1950-2011 period. [Wow!]

      http://landshape.org/enm/accumulation-theory-of-solar-influence/
      —————————————————————————————————————————
      On the Dynamics of Global Temperature

      Authors: David R.B. Stockwell

      In this alternative theory of global temperature dynamics over the annual to the glacial time scales, the accumulation of variations in solar irradiance dominates the dynamics of global temperature change. A straightforward recurrence matrix representation of the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system, models temperature changes by (1) the size of a forcing, (2) its duration (due to accumulation of heat), and (3) the depth of forcing in the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system (due to increasing mixing losses and increasing intrinsic gain with depth). The model can explain most of the rise in temperature since 1950, and more than 70\% of the variance with correct phase shift of the 11-year solar cycle. Global temperature displays the characteristics of an accumulative system over 6 temporal orders of magnitude, as shown by a linear $f^{-1}$ log-log relationship of frequency to the temperature range, and other statistical relationships such as near random-walk and distribution asymmetry. Over the last century, annual global surface temperature rises or falls $0.063\pm 0.028C/W/m^2$ per year when solar irradiance is greater or less than an equilibrium value of $1366W/m^2$ at top-of-atmosphere. Due to an extremely slow characteristic time scale the notion of ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is largely superfluous. The theory does not require a range of distinctive feedback and lag parameters. Mixing losses attenuate the effectiveness of greenhouse gasses, and the amplification of solar variations by slow accumulation of heat dominates the dynamics of global temperature at all time-scales.

      http://www.vixra.org/abs/1108.0004

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2011 at 12:20 pm said:

      New paper shows yet another way the Sun controls climate – via ocean oscillations

      A paper recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds a strong positive relationship between solar activity and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the past 30 years of the 20th century. The study finds a lagged relationship with changes in solar activity followed by changes in the trend of the NAO a few years later. The NAO in turn has profound effects upon the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, including Arctic sea ice. The IPCC dismisses the role of the Sun on climate by only looking at a single variable – the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), while ignoring large changes in solar UV and secondary effects such as on cloud formation and ocean oscillations.

      Nonlinear and nonstationary influences of geomagnetic activity on the winter North Atlantic Oscillation

      Yun Li
      CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO Mathematics, Informatics and Statistics, Wembley, Western Australia, Australia
      Hua Lu
      British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
      Martin J. Jarvis
      British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
      Mark A. Clilverd
      British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
      Bryson Bates
      CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Wembley, Western Australia, Australia

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-paper-shows-yet-another-way-sun.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2011 at 8:37 am said:

      Solar dimming can trigger freezing winters: study

      (Reuters) – A cyclical drop in the sun’s radiation can trigger unusually cold winters in parts of North America and Europe, scientists say, a finding that could improve long-range forecasts and help countries prepare for blizzards.

      [...]

      The researchers found that a reduction in ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can affect high-altitude wind patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, triggering cold winters.

      [...]

      Ineson and colleagues from the Imperial College London and the University of Oxford used satellite data that more accurately measures UV radiation from the sun and found a much greater variability than previously thought.

      They found that in years of low activity, unusually cold air forms high in the atmosphere over the tropics. This causes a redistribution of heat in the atmosphere, triggering easterly winds that bring freezing weather and snow storms to northern Europe and the United States and milder weather to Canada and the Mediterranean.

      When solar UV radiation is stronger, the opposite occurs.

      Ineson’s team used the data in a complex computer model that simulates long-term weather patterns. The model successfully reproduced what scientists have observed happening in the upper atmosphere during changes in solar radiation.

      >>>>>>>>>

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/us-climate-sun-idUSTRE7981MK20111009

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2011 at 9:39 am said:

      Cold U.K. winters from low solar activity

      Various media such as BBC, Reuters, Australia’s ABC, The Daily Mail, The Independent, and others admit that the solar activity has an impact on the weather. [See links]

      In particular, cold British winters in recent years mostly boil down to the lower solar activity we have experienced. More precisely, the fluctuations of the ultraviolet radiation are stronger than people used to think and a lower amount of the UV radiation influences the weather.

      Those layperson’s articles boil down to the following paper in Nature Geoscience:

      Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere (abstract linked)

      written by Sarah Ineson and six co-authors. The paper admits that weaker westerly winds occurred on years with a weaker solar activity, something that can’t be reproduced by the carbon-dioxide-led climate models. When the influence of the ultraviolet rays on the stratosphere is taken into account and the impact on the winds in the troposphere is calculated from it, we learn that the reduced solar activity does lead to this chilly result.

      Richard Black of BBC writes that the authors “emphasize” that this finding can have no consequences for “global warming”, something that appears at the end of the Nature abstract as well. Wow. It’s pretty impressive what preposterous propositions zealous and biased people are ready to write down in their effort to defend the indefensible (including their indefensible grants).

      There exists absolutely no reason why such effects – which can lead to freezing winters at various places including the U.K. – would exactly average out once we calculate their impact on the global mean temperature and its changes within decades etc. One may hypothetically see a cancellation at one time scale but it won’t extend to other timescales.

      [Snip the rest but well worth reading, see teasers]

      “Even if the heat is “just” being redistributed from one place to another, it’s extremely important where the heat actually is if you want to know something about the Earth’s future ability to accumulate heat”

      “….the actual weather in Great Britain is more important than some abstract and partly ill-defined global mean temperature”

      >>>>>>>>.

      http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/cold-uk-winters-from-low-solar-activity.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2011 at 10:15 am said:

      The Sun And The Winter Of 2011

      10 October 2011 Dr. David Whitehouse

      I’ve said it before. If you are not confused about the Sun’s role in global and regional climate variations, you haven’t been paying attention.

      The latest manifestation of the Sun-climate debate takes place in the pages of Nature Geoscience (paywall), here and here. The UK Met Office also issued a press release on the subject a few days ago.

      The conclusion is that the Sun’s low activity, in particular its low ultraviolet (UV) output, is influencing the stratosphere in such a way as to produce unusually cold winters in parts of Europe, including the UK.

      [...]

      The problem with this “confirmation” was demonstrated rather dramatically the very next year.

      In October 2009 the Met Office predicted a mild winter because of El Nino. Temperatures in December would be above average, they said. In reality December temperatures were a whopping 1.1 degrees below the recent average.

      The Sun’s Influence This Coming Winter

      There are other problems with the Met Office’s latest research.

      Firstly, it refers to 2008-2010 when the Sun’s activity was low, and the UK experienced three severe winters in succession. The problem is that the activity of the Sun as we enter the UK 2011 winter is not the same as it was in the past few years.

      [See plot]

      Solar activity is back to what it was in 2004-5, and we didn’t experience severe winters in those years, see here, and here, and here.

      So, if anything, the logic behind this particular piece of research points towards the Winter of 2011 being a mild one!

      I don’t believe that this latest research increases the probability of a severe UK winter this year. It will be interesting to see what happens.

      UV Or Not UV

      The other problem concerns recent, highly publicised, research by Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, a co-author on the current Nature Geoscience paper.

      Her work rests on the fairly recent observations that show that solar UV and optical radiation vary in anti-phase – although the figures are not totally rock solid, it seems that when solar optical radiation is low the UV is high and that UV varies to a greater degree than previously suspected. This led to headlines all over the world that when the sun goes through a decrease of activity, such as the slide towards solar minimum, it might actually be warming the earth.

      So, on the one hand we have research that suggests that during the last solar minimum, 2008 – 10, low solar UV resulted in cold European winters. On the other hand we have research that suggests that during the same solar minimum enhanced UV may have actually provided a warming effect!

      But what does this tell us about the forthcoming winter? Will it be mild or severe?

      Place You Bets

      We in the UK have had three very severe winters, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The big question is, is it a coincidence?

      The Met Office is in a quandary. It has to advise the UK government on winter preparations. Politically it can’t afford to get it wrong again this year. Despite what it said in retrospect last year’s predictions were a disaster.

      [...]

      >>>>>>>>>>

      http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4063-the-sun-and-the-winter-of-2011.html

    • Good grief, the UK Met Office were recently telling us that cold winters in the UK had around a 1/10000 probability (off the top of my head) and that they was no pattern.

      Do these guys have any credibility left whatsoever?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2011 at 11:32 am said:

      Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climate

      Paul Hudson | 15:09 UK time, Wednesday, 12 October 2011

      For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.

      [...]

      Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.

      [...]

      This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml

      Hear, hear!

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 18, 2011 at 7:04 am said:

      Revealed at last: the true cause of global warming

      Horst-Joachim Lüdecke: The Sun, not Man, warms the Earth

      A German climate researcher has discovered that the surge in solar radiation that began in 1700, peaked in 1960 and is still at historically high levels was far stronger and more significant than had previously been realized.

      According to Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who spent months comparing the varying widths of annual tree-rings and stalagmite deposits with recent temperature and sunspot records, this remarkable increase in solar activity was the real reason why the weather got warmer from 1950-2000. There has been no warming since 2000.

      [...]

      Dr. Lüdecke said: “The Sun is still recovering from the Maunder Minimum, the 70-year period from 1645-1715 when there were hardly any sunspots. It was less active then than during any similar period over the past 11,400 years.

      [...]

      Table 1. A “hockey-stick” graph (above) of annual mean sunspot numbers (SSN) from 0-2000 AD, revealing clearly for the first time the startling growth in solar activity from 1700 until the peak of solar activity in the last 1000 years, which occurred in 1960 (Lüdecke, 2011).

      For comparison, the notorious “hockey-stick” graph of reconstructed and instrumental northern-hemisphere surface temperatures

      >>>>>>>>>>>>

      http://climaterealists.com/?id=8495

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm said:

      New Paper “A Shared Frequency Set Between The Historical Mid-Latitude Aurora Records And The Global Surface Temperature” By N. Scafetta 2011

      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/new-paper-a-shared-frequency-set-between-the-historical-mid-latitude-aurora-records-and-the-global-surface-temperature-by-n-scafetta-2011/

      From abstract:-

      The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm said:

      Recent solar activity descent is the largest since the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age

      According to a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters, the recent decline in solar activity is the largest observed since the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715 during the Little Ice Age.

      GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2011GL049811

      The Persistence of Solar Activity Indicators and the Descent of the Sun into Maunder Minimum Conditions

      Key Points

      * Can we predict the onset of the next grand solar minimum?
      * Grand minima can be predicted using some solar indices
      * The design and operation of systems influenced by space climate can be optimised

      Authors:
      Michael Lockwood
      Mathew J Owens
      Luke Barnard
      Christopher John Davis
      Friedhelm Steinhilber

      The recent low and prolonged minimum of the solar cycle, along with the slow growth in activity of the new cycle, has led to suggestions that the Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSMi), potentially as deep as the Maunder Minimum. This raises questions about the persistence and predictability of solar activity. We study the autocorrelation functions and predictability RL2(t) of solar indices, particularly group sunspot number RG and heliospheric modulation potential Φ for which we have data during the descent into the MM. For RG and Φ, RL(t)>0.5 for times into the future of t≈4 and ≈3 solar cycles, respectively: sufficient to allow prediction of a GSMi onset. The lower predictability of sunspot number RZ is discussed. The current declines in peak and mean RG are the largest since the onset of the MM and exceed those around 1800 which failed to initiate a GSMi.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/11/recent-solar-activity-descent-is.html

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm said:

      A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing

      A. I. Shapiro1, W. Schmutz1, E. Rozanov1,2, M. Schoell1,3, M. Haberreiter1, A. V. Shapiro1,2, and S. Nyeki1

      1 Physikalisch-Meteorologishes Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
      e-mail: alexander.shapiro@pmodwrc.ch
      2 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate science ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
      3 Institute for Astronomy ETH, Zurich, Switzerland

      Received 19 November 2010; accepted 22 February 2011

      ABSTRACT
      Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with solar activity. During the past 10000 years, the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years—all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity—there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing. Aims. We present a reconstruction of the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance covering 130 nm–10 μm from 1610 to the present with annual resolution and for the Holocene with 22-year resolution. Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the longterm trend in the solar variability which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.

      Results. We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects climate is also found to exceed previous estimates. We discuss in details the assumptions which leaded us to this conclusion.

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf

  2. THREAD on October 17, 2010 at 7:04 am said:

    Solar – Cosmic Ray Flux Relationship

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm said:

      Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage–a missing link in solar-climate relationships.

      Svensmark – Fris-Christensen, 1996

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 25, 2010 at 9:06 pm said:

      Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

      B. A. Laken1,2, D. R. Kniveton1, and M. R. Frogley1

      Received: 7 June 2010 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 2 August 2010
      Revised: 16 November 2010 – Accepted: 18 November 2010 – Published: 24 November 2010

      Conclusions
      This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions. This effect is present in both ISCCP satellite data and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for at least the last 20 years suggesting that small fluctuations in solar activity may be linked to changes in the Earth’s atmosphere via a relationship between the GCR flux and cloud cover; such a connection may amplify small changes in solar activity. In addition, a GCR – cloud relationship may also act in conjunction with other likely solar – terrestrial relationships concerning variations in solar UV (Haigh, 1996) and total solar irradiance (Meehl et al., 2009). The climatic forcings resulting from such solar – terrestrial links may have had a significant impact on climate prior to the onset of anthropogenic warming, accounting for the presence of solar cycle relationships detectable in palaeoclimatic records (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001; Mauas et al., 2008).

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 7:02 pm said:

      Svensmark’s new paper

      Posted on 07/02/2009 by jblethen| 3 Comments

      “The Abstract states:

      Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth’s surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases (FDs), and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum around 7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.

      The paper concludes:

      Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.” “New Paper: Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds
      ——————————————————————————————————————–
      Svensmark’s new paper published — confirms Svensmark effect

      Posted on 10/13/2009 by jblethen| Leave a comment

      Svensmark’s new paper (prior posts here and here) has been published (full text here). From Science Daily:

      “Averaging satellite data on the liquid-water content of clouds over the oceans, for the five strongest Forbush decreases from 2001 to 2005, the DTU team found a 7 per cent decrease, as mentioned earlier. That translates into 3 billion tonnes of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains there in vapour form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not get in the way of sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, satellites measuring the extent of liquid-water clouds revealed an average reduction of 4 per cent. Other satellites showed a similar 5 per cent reduction in clouds below 3200 metres over the ocean.”The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth’s cloudiness is huge,” Henrik Svensmark comments. “A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square metre, and that’s equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century.”
      ——————————————————————————————————————–
      Svensmark effect verified — again

      Posted on 12/07/2010 by jblethen| Leave a comment

      Recall last summer Svensmark published his paper verifying the Svensmark effect (correlation of cloud cover with galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity, modulated by the solar magnetic field) by observing the effect of Forbush decreases in GCR intensity on clouds over the oceans. Now other researchers have independently verified the effect by observing periods of significant cloud changes, GCR flux changes, and surface air temperature changes over mid-latitude regions. They say their results “provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship”.

      More extensive coverage is provided by the Hockey Schtick and Watts Up With That.

    • Richard C (NZ) on May 18, 2011 at 9:03 pm said:

      Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

      16.05.11

      New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.

      [Snip]

      Background

      Based on the correlation between the level of activity of the Sun and the global temperature of the Earth, the Danish climate researcher Henrik Svensmark proposed a controversial theory in the late 1990s: that there could be a correlation between the intensity of the cosmic radiation that hits the Earth – and which is affected by the activity of the Sun – and the number of clouds formed.With the experiment in Aarhus, the research group has now taken one step closer to being able to demonstrate this relationship. There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration. In doing so, the new results provide hope for better climate models that can describe the Earth’s temperature and climate more accurately.

      Competitors hot on their heels

      A major international research group at the European Particle Research Centre (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, has worked for several years on demonstrating the correlation [CLOUD experiment] that the Danish researchers have found, and the group has announced that its members are also on the way with their first extensive results. Compared with the CERN project, the Danish scientists have an extremely modest budget, but when it comes to producing particles resembling cosmic ones, the facilities at Aarhus University are equal to the most advanced facilities in the world.

      http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm said:

      CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action

      The global warmists’ dam breaks

      A graph they’d prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

      How the warmists built their dam

      >>>>>>>

      http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

    • Richard C (NZ) on May 21, 2011 at 12:00 am said:

      Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate

      May 19th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.

      I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.

      If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

      Continues……….

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

    • Richard C (NZ) on March 3, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

      “Yet another trick of cosmic rays”

      Posted on March 1, 2012 by Anthony Watts
      Reblogged from Calder’s Updates

      Henrik Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, “Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation”, submitted for publication 2012. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1

      In the climax to the Danes’ experiments, cloud seeds flout the theories

      Near to the end of the story that starts with stars exploding in the Galaxy and ends with extra clouds gathering, a small but important paragraph was missing till now. From experiments in Copenhagen reported in 2006 and reconfirmed in 2011 in Aarhus and Geneva (CERN, CLOUD), cosmic rays coming from old supernovas can indeed make molecular clusters a few millionths of a millimetre wide, floating in the air. But can these aerosols really grow nearly a million times in mass to be large enough to become “cloud condensation nuclei” on which water droplets can form – as required by Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic theory of climate change?

      Opponents pointed out that theoretical models said No, the growth of additional aerosols would be blocked by a resulting shortage of condensable gases like sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.

      Now for the first time, an unexpected trick that Mother Nature had up her sleeve is revealed by experiment. The discovery is elegantly explained by a new way in which sulphuric acid forms in the atmosphere, as announced in a paper by Svensmark and two of his colleagues in Denmark’s National Space Institute in Copenhagen, Martin Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen. They have submitted it to Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available on arXiv here http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1

      >>>>>>>>>

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/nigel-calder-reports-on-yet-another-trick-of-cosmic-rays/

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2010 at 4:44 pm said:

      Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

      Nir J. Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
      91904, Israel

      Ján Veizer, Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, 44780
      Bochum, Germany, and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa,
      Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada

      2003

      ABSTRACT
      Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate. Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. Both drivers are presently discussed in the context of daily to millennial variations, although they should also operate over geological time scales. Here we analyze the reconstructed seawater paleotemperature record for the Phanerozoic (past 545 m.y.), and compare it with the variable CRF reaching Earth and with the reconstructed partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 (pCO2). We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

      Uploaded on 24 Jul 2011

      Henrik Svensmark’s documentary on climate change and cosmic rays. An excellent, non-hyped, factual documentary made over eight years of the formulation of the theory.

    • Richard C (NZ) on November 23, 2010 at 9:49 pm said:

      WHAT IS THE MAIN FACTOR CONTROLLING THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN SYSTEM RAINFALL (SOUTH QLD-NEW SOUTH WALES-VICTORIA & SOUTH AUSTRALIA AREAS)?

      Rainfall in the vast Murray Darling Basin Area of South QLD/ New South Wales/ Victoria and South Australia, and (1) Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (CO2), (2) Sunspot Numbers, and, (3) The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model

      Ian Holton, Holton Weather Forecasting Pty Ltd: Friday 5th March 2010

      The results show that the Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Cycles have controlled the general Murray Darling Basin (South QLD-NSW-VIC-SA) Rainfall Trends from 1900 to 2006….During the critical Autumn to Spring & River- Dam inflow- Irrigation and Dry-land farming period….And the most helpful information about this close connection, is that we are able, from the Copeland and Watts Sinusoidal Model, to forecast with a high degree of confidence the next 30 years or so Murray Darling Basin General Rainfall & Dam Inflow Trends…As the future plotted Sinusoidal Model Trace is based on regular and recurring cycles that have not altered significantly in the past, and should not alter significantly in the future…..Therefore, any general Murray Darling Basin Southern Wet Season General Rainfall Trends that we can forecast from the Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model are highly likely to be accurate general trend rainfall & dam inflow forecasts.

      Hence on looking at the forecast of the Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model +below, we can confidently predict that the current dry-drought long period in the large Murray Darling Basin Area of South QLD-NSW-VIC and SA is about to be replaced by a wetter approximately 7 year period ahead (As has been forecast by Holton Weather in various web *articles on this site for several years now)

      [Snip]

      These Sinusoidal Solar-Ocean cycles could also be influencing the rainfall patterns in the Murray Darling Basin via Cosmic Ray variations, which are thought to have a strong influence on the production of clouds in the earth’s atmosphere, via condensation nuclei (See Svensmark Theory on Cosmic rays ).

      [Snip]

      It is also a very significant finding, from these graphs in this article & the correlations found, that CO2 levels are having LITTLE or NO effect on the Rainfall Patterns of the Murray Darling Basin…….And, that any dire predictions of drought conditions & low river and dam levels continuing and worsening in the future are entirely unfounded…….And, in fact, the future of the Rainfall and Dam levels in the Murray Darling Basin is quite promising…….With Rainfall and Dam levels, in general, expected to return to normal or better for at least the next seven year period ahead.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm said:

      The causes of global warming and climate change!

      There are two competing theories for the recent global warming trend.

      * The first is based on a theory which followed the warming trend that occurred between 1975 and 1998.

      * The second theory is based on highly correlated data going back thousands of years.

      Most agree that the temperature has increased about 0.6 – 0.7 Centigrade over the last century and that the level of CO2 or Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas has been increased in the atmosphere by 25-30% from pre industrial values.

      * The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel and from land use is responsible for the resent temperature increase.

      * The second theory is that the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind modulate the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

      Continues……
      ——————————————————————————————————————–
      Cosmic Rays and Climate

      By: Nir J. Shaviv

      In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization Clouds.

      Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980′s. By the mid 1990′s, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.

      The solar-activity cosmic-ray-flux cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.

      Continues………

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 19, 2010 at 10:26 am said:

      On the recovery from the Little Ice Age

      Natural Science Vol.2 No.11, 2010

      Syun-Ichi Akasofu

      ABSTRACT
      A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them

  3. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm said:

    Lecture on Cosmic rays and climate by Physicist Jasper Kirkby of CERN

    Magnetic Fields of the Sun & Earth, Cosmic Rays and how they affect Cloud Formation, and thus Climate


    The Geomagnetic Model of Climate Change

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/#comment-26061

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 26, 2011 at 10:27 am said:

      Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study

      NEW DELHI, January 20, 2011

      A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.

      Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

      In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

      [Snip]

      According to the latest report by the IPCC, all human activity, including carbon dioxide emissions, contribute 1.6 watts/sq.m to global warming, while other factors such as solar irradiance contribute just 0.12 watts/sq.m.

      However, Dr. Rao’s paper calculates that the effect of cosmic rays contributes 1.1 watts/sq.m, taking the total contribution of non-human activity factors to 1.22 watts/sq.m.

    • Richard C (NZ) on February 1, 2011 at 10:05 am said:

      COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE

      Jasper Kirkby, 2008

      Abstract
      Among the most puzzling questions in climate change is that of solar-climate variability, which has attracted the attention of scientists for more than two centuries. Until recently, even the existence of solar-climate variability has been controversial—perhaps because
      the observations had largely involved correlations between climate and the sunspot cycle that had persisted for only a few decades. Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray
      variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Although this remains a mystery, observations suggest that cloud cover may be influenced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind and, on longer time scales, by the geomagnetic field and by the galactic environment of
      Earth. Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical
      circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes. Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate. However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.

  4. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 8:38 pm said:

    THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4254

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 7:55 pm said:

      Why Earth may be entering a new Ice Age

      Sciences: Earth Science by Terrence Aym

      All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

      The first inkling that something had changed with the sun was the recognition of an abnormal sunspot cycle. Then, astronomers noted that all the planets were heating up-even little Pluto on the outskirts of our solar system.

      While climatologists on Earth massaged the data to make it seem like man-made global warming was real, major climate changes were occurring on Mars.

      During the peak of the global warming debate, the prestigious National Geographic Magazine published a ground-breaking article by Habibullo Abdussamatov in 2007, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.”

      Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, stated that solar activity caused the climate change on Earth and that observations of Mars revealed the shrinking of the carbon dioxide ice caps at the Martian South Polar region.

      In that article, Abdussamatov explained: “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars.” The scientist, accurate in past predictions, has recently pronounced his belief that Earth will enter a “little Ice Age: as early as 2014 and lasting as long as two centuries. The last one occurred between 1650 and 1850 and accounted for many crop failures, outbreaks of famines and mass migrations.

      Abdussamatov contends, “Long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods.”
      Contimues……….

    • Richard C (NZ) on February 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm said:

      Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age

      Habibullo I. Abdussamatov

      Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS
      Pulkovskoye shosse 65, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia

      Received: September 22, 2011 Accepted: October 9, 2011 Published: February 1, 2012

      Abstract
      Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

      http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140

  5. THREAD on October 18, 2010 at 8:43 pm said:

    SOLAR ACTIVITY:

    A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

    by

    Dr Theodor Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 6:02 pm said:

      New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

      by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt

      Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
      Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany

      Abstract:
      Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.
      http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 1, 2011 at 10:30 am said:

      Barycentrism – see also Scafetta.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm said:

      Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña

      by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

      These theoretical arguments were only presented to show that it is not out of the question that there are physical links between energetic solar eruptions and El Niños. Whether these lines of reasoning turn out correct or spurious is of no import regarding the practical results of this investigation. They leave little doubt that solar activity and ENSO events are closely connected to such a degree that long-range forecasts beyond the 12-month lead time are now possible. The consequences of these results for the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change are far-reaching. As stated in the beginning, ENSO events are the strongest source of variability in the global climate system and explain most of the global temperature anomalies. Our result that solar activity regulates these powerful climate phenomena shows clearly that the impact of the sun’s variability has been underestimated in a way that reverses the proportions. Recent research published by H. Svensmark [52] and N. Calder [7] corroborate this statement. Actually, solar activity turns out to be the dominant factor in climate change. IPCC scientists can no longer uphold their contention that “solar variability over the next 50 years will not induce a prolonged forcing significant in comparison with the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.”
      http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 31, 2010 at 6:12 pm said:

      Connection between ENSO phenomena and solar and geomagnetic activity

      M. A. Nuzhdina

      Astronomical Observatory of Kiev National T. Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine

      Received: 5 February 2001 – Revised: 6 June 2001 – Accepted: 8 June 2001

      Abstract. Connections between El Ni˜no – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomena and indices of solar activity and geomagnetic disturbance were investigated. Spectral analysis of the ENSO-data was carried out. Oscillations with periods of about 11–12, 5–6, 2–3 years were found. Correlative and cross-spectral analysis was carried out to estimate connections between ENSO data, and solar and geomagnetic
      indices. Functions of coherency and phase were calculated.
      http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/15/64/PDF/nhess-2-83-2002.pdf

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2010 at 8:02 am said:

      SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

      David C. Archibald

      ABSTRACT
      Archibald (2006) predicted that climate during the forthcoming Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would be significantly cold. As at late 2008, the progression of the current 23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24. The result will be an equator-ward shift in continental climatic conditions in the mid-latitudes of the order of 300 km, with consequent severe effects on world agricultural productivity.

  6. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g589501544320529/fulltext.pdf

    Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint of solar variability
    Low frequency solar forcing and NAO

    D. Swingedouw, L. Terray, C. Cassou, A. Voldoire, D. Salas-Mélia and J. Servonnat

    An interesting paper trying once again to quantify the solar influence. They specifically include the influence of the Pacific, and make a good case for stronger solar influence, because of a 40-50 year lag effect.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2010 at 4:16 pm said:

      This paper now under “Solar Climate Driver: Forcings, Phenomena and Celestial Cycles”

  7. For reference, Ammann 2007:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf

    Solar influence on climate during the past
    millennium: Results from transient simulations
    with the NCAR Climate System Model

    Caspar M. Ammann, Fortunat Joos, David S. Schimel, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, and Robert A. Tomas

    This paper models the various forcings, trying to determine the solar forcing amplitude, based on TSI. Interesting to see how the analysis ends in 2000. This allows the models to track well with a steadily-increasing GHG forcing. However, they would fail post-2000, because they have a relatively low solar forcing compared with GHG, and there have been few volcanoes. It’ll be very difficult therefore for them to achieve the flattening since 2001-2.

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2010 at 4:19 pm said:

      See “Solar Climate Driver: Forcings, Phenomena and Celestial Cycles” – new filing for this paper

  8. Sorry, RT, these last two can be deleted, they were put in unthreaded by mistake.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm said:

    Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

    George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

    Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

    If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

    See “Controversy and scandal”

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 1, 2011 at 10:28 am said:

      EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR A CELESTIAL ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

      Nicola Scafetta,

      Submitted on 25 May 2010

      Abstract: We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 $^oC$ and 0.25 $^oC$, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21$^{st}$ century. It is found that at least 60\% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.

      http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
      ———————————————————————————————————————–
      New Scafetta paper – his celestial model outperforms GISS

      Posted on June 4, 2010 by Anthony Watts

      Basil Copeland and I made some similar observations in the past, but we did not examine other planetary orbital periods. Basil also did a follow up guest post on the random walk nature of global temperature.

      This paper opens up a lot of issues, like Barycentrism [See Landscheidt], which I have tried to avoid because they are so contentious.

      Dr. Nicola Scafetta writes:

      Anthony, I believe that you may be interested in my last published work.

      This paper suggests that climate is characterized by oscillations that are predictable. These oscillations appear to be linked to planetary motion. A climate model capable of reproducing these oscillation would outperform traditional climate models to reconstruct climate oscillations. For example, a statistical comparison is made with the GISS model.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/new-scafetta-paper-his-celestial-model-outperforms-giss/

  10. THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm said:

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010

    Physicist: Global Warming 1980-2008 caused by Sun, not Man

    Dr. Horst Borchert, the Director of the Department of Physics of the Johannes-Gutenberg Institute, Mainz, Germany, presented a paper, Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather at the Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado earlier this year. Dr. Borchert finds from satellite measurements that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was “not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface.” He relates changes of the solar magnetic field to cosmic rays and cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and to effects on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which affects weather phenomena around the globe.

    • THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm said:

      Wrong link – should be:

      http://sc25.com/index.php?id=255

    • THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 3:18 pm said:

      Thursday, October 7, 2010

      Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought

      Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”

    • THREAD on October 26, 2010 at 3:43 pm said:

      Paging IPCC: Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun

      By Lewis Page • The Register Posted in Environment, 7th October 2010

      New data indicates that changes in the Sun’s output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions.

      As the Sun has shown decreased levels of activity during the past decade, it had been generally thought that it was warming the Earth less, not more. Thus, scientists considered that temperature rises seen in global databases must mean that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – in particular of CO2 – must be exerting a powerful warming effect.

      Now, however, boffins working at Imperial College in London (and one in Boulder, Colorado) have analysed detailed sunlight readings taken from 2004 to 2007 by NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that although the Sun was putting out less energy overall than usual, in line with observations showing decreased sunspot activity, it actually emitted more in the key visible-light and near-infrared wavelengths.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2010 at 11:05 am said:

    See – “Climate Model Papers”

    Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations

    Arking 2005

    Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 9:48 am said:

    See – Climate Models

    NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY

    Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.’s (AER)
    Radiative Transfer Working Group

    The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.

  13. ARM

    The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program

  14. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm said:

    The Greenhouse Gas Theory Under a Cloud

    Climate Change, the Sun and the Albedo Effect

    Mar 29, 2010 John O’Sullivan

  15. Richard C (NZ) on November 6, 2010 at 1:24 pm said:

    Special Collections in AGU Journals

    Global Dimming and Brightening

    INDEX

  16. Richard C (NZ) on November 19, 2010 at 8:23 am said:

    German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated

    By P Gosselin on 16. November 2010

    The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

    “It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.

    “Temperature increases also in the southern hemisphere from 1980 until 2009 are not caused by man, but by unusual solar activity. A control of the warmth development in the South Pacific region by increasing CO2 concentrations during this warming period is not discernible from the measured data.

    Hooray for physicists.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm said:

    University of Colorado and NASA Research Center to Study Suns Effects on Earths Climate

    30 November 2010

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/8197-university-of-colorado-and-nasa-research-center-to-study-suns-effects-on-earths-climate

    The University of Colorado at Boulders Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., today announced the formation of a new collaborative research center dedicated to the study of the suns effect on Earths climate.

    The center, called the Sun-Climate Research Center, or SCRC, will be co-directed by LASP Research Scientist Peter Pilewskie as well as Robert Cahalan, who heads Goddards Climate and Radiation Branch, and Douglas Rabin, head of Goddards Solar Physics Laboratory.

    The exciting thing about this collaboration is that we believe it will promote studies to help answer key questions about the climate system, including how Earths atmosphere responds to the suns variability and how that affects climate, said Pilewskie, a faculty member in CU-Boulders atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earths climate.

    Continues…….

  18. Richard C (NZ) on December 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm said:

    The Longest & Quietest Solar Magnetic Minimum in Recorded History

    Saturday, December 11, 2010

    Although solar cycle 24 began almost 3 years ago (officially on January 4, 2008), the sun continues to be unusually quiet at this point in the solar cycle with predictions of maximal sunspot activity repeatedly adjusted downward. A key indicator of solar magnetic activity, the Ap Index (average planetary magnetic index) has reached the lowest absolute values, lowest 5 year moving average values, and by far the highest number of continuous months ≤ 10 since record keeping by NOAA began in 1932:

    See plots

    In prior solar cycles, the Ap Index has been noted to lag the beginning of the sunspot cycle by up to one year. Solar cycle 24 continues to exhibit unique behavior compared to the 7 previous solar cycles recorded by modern instrumentation and offers more evidence the sun is undergoing a significant state change. Global temperature changes typically lag reduced solar activity due to moderating effects of heat storage in the oceans. Solar state changes in the past such as the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. The HADCRU global thermometer record coincidentally began in 1850 and shows a mere 0.7C recovery from the frigid temperatures at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

  19. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Call a monkey

  20. Richard C (NZ) on December 30, 2010 at 9:05 am said:

    Forecasters keep eye on looming ‘Solar Max’

    Dec 28 10:21 PM US/Eastern – Breitbart

    [Snip]

    “The latest prediction looks at around midway 2013 as being the maximum phase of the solar cycle,” said Joe Kunches of NASA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.

    [Snip]

    In the front line are telecommunications satellites in geostationary orbit, at an altitude of 36,000 kilometres (22,500 miles) and Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, on which modern airliners and ships depend for navigation, which orbit at 20,000 kms (12,000 miles).

    In January 1994, discharges of static electricity inflicted a five-month, 50-million-dollar outage of a Canadian telecoms satellite, Anik-E2.

    In April 2010, Intelsat lost Galaxy 15, providing communications over North America, after the link to ground control was knocked out apparently by solar activity.

    “These are the two outright breakdowns that we all think about,” said Philippe Calvel, an engineer with the French firm Thales. “Both were caused by CMEs.”

    In 2005, X-rays from a solar storm disrupted satellite-to-ground communications and GPS signals for about 10 minutes.

    [Snip]

    In 1989, a far smaller flare knocked out power from Canada’s Hydro Quebec generator, inflicting a nine-hour blackout for six million people.

    A workshop in 2008 by US space weather experts, hosted by the National Academy of Sciences, heard that a major geomagnetic storm would dwarf the 2005 Hurricane Katrina for costs.

    Recurrence of a 1921 event today would fry 350 major transformers, leaving more than 130 million people without power, it heard. A bigger storm could cost between a trillion and two trillion dollars in the first year, and full recovery could take between four and 10 years.

    [Snip]

  21. Richard C (NZ) on January 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm said:

    The Primary and Secondary Climate Drivers.

    A compilation of papers and articles evidencing solar, lunar, cosmic ray and celestial influence on climate change.

    Primary:-

    The Variable Solar Dynamo and the Forecast of Solar Activity; Influence on Surface Temperature

    De Jager and Duhau. 2011

    Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

    N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira and S. K. Solanki, 2010

    Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?

    M Lockwood, R G Harrison, T Woollings and S K Solanki 2010

    Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage–a missing link in solar-climate relationships.

    Svensmark – Fris-Christensen, 1996

    Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

    B. A. Laken, D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley 2010

    Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

    H Svensmark, Bondo, and J Svensmark 2100

    Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

    Shaviv and Veizer, 2003

    Cosmic Rays and Climate

    Shaviv

    The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model

    WHAT IS THE MAIN FACTOR CONTROLLING THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN SYSTEM RAINFALL (SOUTH QLD-NEW SOUTH WALES-VICTORIA & SOUTH AUSTRALIA AREAS)?

    Holton, 2010

    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age

    Akasofu 2010

    THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE

    Abdussamatov (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

    SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

    Landscheidt

    New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

    Gleissberg cycles, Barycentrism

    Landscheidt

    SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

    Archibald 2009

    EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR A CELESTIAL ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

    Scafetta, Submitted May 2010

    The role of the sun in climate forcing

    Beer, Mende, Stellmacher 2000

    Secondary:-

    Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña

    Landscheidt

    Connection between ENSO phenomena and solar and geomagnetic activity

    Nuzhdina 2001

    Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint of solar variability Low frequency solar forcing and NAO

    Swingedouw, Terray, Cassou, Voldoire, Salas-Mélia and Servonnat 2010

    Südpazifische Oszillation und Kosmische Strahlung

    Borchert, 2010

    Abstract
    It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by Sun activity similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of Sunwind – Index “aa “ was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the Oscillation of Cosmic Radiation, which is controlled by the Forbush – Reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the Sunwind and the delayed SO.

    Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

    McLean, de Freitas, and Carter 2009.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    This list complete with links was submitted to Solar

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/solar/

    Because of the number of links, the post went to either spam queue or moderation. The list on Wordpad with links is available on request to rscumming@gmail.com

    If the list with links does appear in “Solar” the Akasofu link is an error. the correct link is http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract

  22. Richard C (NZ) on February 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm said:

    Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms

    February 6th 2011 – Climate Realists

    (CHICAGO) – NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

    Now “it” is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world’s weather.

    Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field.

    When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.

    Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth’s history. It’s happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.

    Continues………..

  23. Andy on April 3, 2011 at 9:40 am said:

    Matt Ridley on the Sun.

    Keeping an open mind about the sun

    Correlation ain’t causation.

    But for some time I have been noticing that the correlations between certain aspects of solar activity and certain aspects of climate are getting really rather impressive — far more so than anything relating to carbon dioxide.

    Carbon dioxide certainly can affect climate, but so for sure can other things, and in explaining the ups and downs of past climate, before industrialisation, variations in the sun are looking better and better as an explanation. That does not mean the sun causes current climate change, but it certainly suggests that it is at least possible that forcings more powerful than carbon dioxide could be at work.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/keeping-open-mind-about-sun

    • Australis on April 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm said:

      I like Ridley’s point that the whole IPCC rejection of late-20th-century warming being caused by solar activity is based on an assumption that any solar forcing would be spent within 10 years.

      But when the warmists come to explain why CO2 forcing hasn’t ballooned 21st century temps, they say that the deep ocean keeps these things hidden for very long periods.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on September 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm said:

    “The Sun-Weather Relationship Is Becoming Increasingly Important”

    Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:47 Dr. David Whitehouse

    Scientists are gathering this week in Arizona for the 2011 SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) Science Meeting at which there is much discussion of the link between the Sun and climate change given the many new findings in the subject.

    Dr Hari Om Vats of the Physical Research Laboratory in India said at the conference, “The Sun-weather relationship is becoming increasingly important. It is true that our understanding of the Sun and solar processes has increased dramatically during recent years, however, it is realised that the Sun affects the Earth’s environment is a much more complicated manner than we had imagined.”

    In the wake of news about the CERN cloud chamber experiment that demonstrated a link between cosmic rays and the first stage of the cloud formation process Hiroko Miyahara of the University of Tokyo suggests that cosmic rays modulated by the Sun’s magnetic field played an important role in the so-called Little Ice Age – a period of cooling in the 17th century.

    Robert Cahalan of the NASA Goddard Climate and Radiation Laboratory says that the Earth’s surface has been warming in recent decades, while the stratosphere has been cooling, especially the upper stratosphere. This is usually interpreted as evidence that the climate forcing is primarily due to the greenhouse effect, and not the Sun.

    However, in his presentation Dr Cahalan says, evaluating the Sun’s impact on climate requires knowledge of variations not only in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, formerly “solar constant”) but also variations in the Spectral Solar Irradiance (SSI). Initial findings indicate that multiyear changes in visible and near-infrared parts of the spectrum may be out of phase with those of TSI, while near ultraviolet changes are in phase, but larger than expected. To consider the climate impact of such changes, we compute climate responses to two classes of SSI variations, both having the same variations in TSI. We find that out-of-phase forcing leads to much larger temperature variations in the upper stratosphere, but smaller variations in the troposphere and upper ocean.

    >>>>>>>>>>

    http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3868-the-sun-weather-relationship-is-becoming-increasingly-important.html

  25. Richard C (NZ) on September 23, 2011 at 9:26 pm said:

    New paper finds solar energy at Earth’s surface greatly increased between 1973 and 1998

    A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research notes observations of the solar energy at the European earth surface significantly increased ~ 3.4 W/m2 per decade during the period 1973-1998. That would be a total of 8.5 W/m2 over the 25 year period. By way of contrast, the IPCC claims a doubling of CO2 levels results in 3.7 W/m2 additional forcing. CO2 increased from 330 to 366 ppm (11%) during that period, and 11% of 3.7 is 0.41 W/m2 in claimed CO2 forcing. Thus, the change in solar radiation impacting the Earth surface during that 25 year period of global warming is about 21 times greater than the alleged effect of CO2. Alarmists who constantly say they can’t find any other possible explanation for global warming between the 1970′s and 1998 besides the trace evil gas CO2 please take note. It’s the Sun, stupid.

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D18205, 13 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2010JD015396

    Simulation of dimming and brightening in Europe from 1958 to 2001 using a regional climate model

    E. M. Zubler et al

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-paper-finds-solar-energy-at-earths.html

    • Richard C,

      Please explain the significance of a regional climate model simulating “dimming and brightening in Europe from 1958 to 2001″ finding “distinct patterns of dimming and brightening in the aerosol optical depth and thus clear-sky downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) in all analyzed subregions. The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m−2 per decade, in line with observations).”

      I’m not a bit surprised the model should report what it’s programmed to simulate. Observations are paramount. What they found is in line with observations. Why did they resort to running a model?

      Cheers.

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm said:

      Good question. The paper’s still behind a paywall so we can only go by the abstract at the moment.

      Models are used primarily for “what if” scenarios and comparisons of one set of parameters vs other sets, an Excel spreadsheet being a good example. To be useful, as in climate models of any sort, they must be verified and validated (V&V), this is the first test that Zubler et al have applied (although not in the sequence I describe) and find “[Regional Climate Model]-simulated clear-sky dimming/brightening in line with observations”. They then have confidence in their modeling to isolate contributing factors.

      A similar test is done with a Radiative Transfer Module that does that function within a GCM before it is adopted, by testing it against a cross-section sample of observations across say the Pacific Equator. The veracity of GCMs in full configuration does not seem to be tested as stringently i.e. it is hard to get hold of V&V studies of GCM’s (I’m going by others that have looked, not by my own experience here).

      Then Zubler et al do a comparison. “Two simulations are performed, one with transient emissions and another with climatological mean emissions over the same period’. Transient being the short-term un-smoothed fluctuations and climatological being smoothed means of longer term climate. They find ‘Temperature trends could not be improved with transient aerosol emissions” so the smoothed climatological mean emissions would appear to be a reliable parameterization.

      Now the subtlety.”The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m−2 per decade)” is a result obtained by simulation (as I understand the abstract), I’m guessing that what prompted the paper was a similar observation at a nearby location (and probably different observations at other locations) and they then set about trying to replicate the observations and then to isolate the forcings but all cobbled together on a regional scale using a RCM. The result they achieved by their replication is “in line with” observations so their modeling method seems to be valid.

      So yes I suppose they could just announce the observation values and leave it at that but no-one will really learn much from that. It is however the simulated +3.4 W m−2 per decade trend that the HockeySchtick blog is highlighting.

      They do come up with cloud forcing findings that I can’t really understand without seeing the paper in it’s entirety and don’t want to go into because of that, it’s the comparison between solar forcing and CO2 forcing that’s important.

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm said:

      In addition , if you look below the abstract there’s a set of sample plots from the paper that shows that they now have a Europe-wide model whereas the observations would only be in isolated locations.

      An analogy would be the NZT7 location observations vs the digital climate “terrain” model that NIWA offers. This is similar to the ERA-40 re-analysis that is the basis of the RCM used in the paper.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on January 30, 2012 at 8:05 am said:

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    * Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    By David Rose, 29th January 2012 – MailOnline

    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    [...]

    ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, [UK Met Office], said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

    These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

    ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

    [...]

    Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

    ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

    He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

    ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

    She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

    ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

    Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

    The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

    ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kslR3BuB

  27. Richard C (NZ) on November 24, 2012 at 9:00 am said:

    Must read:-

    Tim Cullen: The Problem with TSI – Total Solar Irradiance

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

    Unfortunately, a funny thing happened to the TSI on its way to the SORCE satellite.

    Between the Sun’s Photosphere and the SORCE satellite:

    TSI lost a lot of high energy ultraviolet.

    TSI gained a lot of visible light.

    TSI gained a lot of low energy infrared.

    Simply put:

    Something absorbed ultraviolet and then emitted visible and infrared.

    This means:

    SORCE is not precisely measuring TSI.

    SORCE is precisely measuring Transformed TSI.

    + + +

    Lurking beneath this whole TSI fiasco is a dirty little secret.

    It’s a dirty little secret that climatologists definitely don’t want you to know.

    Simply put [without wanting to write a physics textbook]:

    The atmosphere transforms energy.

    + + +

    Sir David Brewster (1836) found that certain lines had strengths that varied with the sun’s elevation and with the seasons. He correctly ascribed these ‘atmospheric lines’ as originating in the terrestrial atmosphere.

    + + +

    What does this mean?

    Climatology’s “Energy Budget” science is wrong.

    Climatology’s “Greenhouse Effect” science is wrong.

    Climatology’s “Global Warming” science is wrong.

    Science needs to rediscover the work of Sir David Brewster.

    Tim Cullen
    Malaga
    November 2012

    A full pdf copy of this article.

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-problem-with-tsi_v1.pdf

    Please disseminate it widely – Tallbloke.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on November 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm said:

    New paper shows a large increase of solar radiation in Spain since 1985, dwarfs alleged effect of CO2

    A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds solar radiation at the Earth surface in Spain “shows a significant increase over the 1985-2010 period” of “+3.9 Wm-2 per decade.” By way of comparison, the alleged forcing from increased CO2 during the same period was only 0.11 Wm-2 at the Earth surface per decade. The authors attribute the large increase in solar radiation to a “decrease in clouds and/or aerosols.” Several other papers have shown a decrease in cloudiness since the 1980′s could alone account for all global warming observed since the ice age scare of the 1970′s.

    Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends

    from Global and Planetary Change

    A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild (2012)

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/new-paper-shows-large-increase-of-solar.html

    “These results are in line with the widespread increase of G, also known as brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites.”

    “All these results point towards a diminution of clouds and/or aerosols over the area.”

  29. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2013 at 10:12 am said:

    Boris Johnson:-

    “When the solar acne diminishes, it seems that the Earth gets colder. No one contests that when the planet palpably cooled from 1645 to 1715 — the Maunder minimum, which saw the freezing of the Thames — there was a diminution of solar activity. The same point is made about the so-called Dalton minimum, from 1790 to 1830. And it is the view of Piers Corbyn that we are now seeing exactly the same phenomenon today.

    Lower solar activity means – broadly speaking – that there is less agitation of the warm currents of air from the tropical to the temperate zones, so that a place like Britain can expect to be colder and damper in summer, and colder and snowier in winter. “There is every indication that we are at the beginning of a mini ice age,” he says. “The general decline in solar activity is lower than Nasa’s lowest prediction of five years ago. That could be very bad news for our climate. We are in for a prolonged cold period. Indeed, we could have 30 years of general cooling.”

    Now I am not for a second saying that I am convinced Piers is right; and to all those scientists and environmentalists who will go wild with indignation on the publication of this article, I say, relax.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age.html

    The expected “indignation on the publication of this article” here:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/21/boris-johnson-snow-climate-change

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm said:

      For the record, the SkS response including the continued (and highly uncertain) use of PMOD, complete ignorance of accumulation theory (think Rawls, Stockwell), and solar-ocean-atmosphere thermal lag:-

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-mayor-boris-johnson.html

      Note the opposing posited reasons for NH (and UK in Particular) winter cold:-

      Corbyn (via Boris),

      “Lower solar activity means – broadly speaking – that there is less agitation of the warm currents of air from the tropical to the temperate zones, so that a place like Britain can expect to be colder and damper in summer, and colder and snowier in winter”

      NOAA/Francis and Vavrus (2012) (via SkS),

      “…some research has suggested that changing atmospheric patterns due to the human-caused decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible”

      Take your pick.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on March 10, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

    Bob Carter: William M. Briggs: Willie Soon: ‘Changing Sun, changing climate’

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11282

    “The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection.

    The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and similar changes in temperature that we have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic region. This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale.

    Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration. In particular, there is no coincidence between the measured steady rise in global atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic multi-decadal (and shorter) ups and downs of surface temperature that occur all around the world.”

  31. Richard C (NZ) on March 13, 2013 at 9:08 am said:

    Solar Wind, Earth’s Rotation and Changes in Terrestrial Climate

    Nils-Axel Morner, 2013

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/morner-2013a.pdf

  32. Richard C (NZ) on March 15, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

    Scafetta in JC’s ‘New perspectives on climate sensitivity’ thread:-

    Nicola Scafetta | March 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Just a short comment on Tung and Zhou’s paper where they say:

    “For the first half of the 20th century, the solar contribution to the linear trend was less than 10%. It does not support the much larger role (>50%) for the Sun in the observed warming, obtained by Scafetta and West by attributing early 20th-century warming to solar forcing.”

    This is non-sense.

    They arrive to such a conclusion by using the AMO signal as a regression constructor of the temperature. This is physically inappropriate because the AMO signal is part of the climate system and, even worst, of the temperature network itself, not an independent forcing of the climate system. It is like as if somebody uses as regression constructor, instead of the AMO index, the temperature of China and then concludes that the sun does not matter because most of the variability of the global temperature would be reproduced by the Chinese temperature record!

    In my recent publication that Tung and Zhou does not cite, I provide evidences that the natural oscillations of the climate system such as the quasi 60-year oscillation of the AMO index is a typical astronomical/solar oscillation. Thus, the origin itself of the AMO oscillation (as well as many other climatic oscillations) is very likely due to solar activity.

    References>>>>>>>

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/#comment-302614

  33. Richard C (NZ) on March 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm said:

    Impressive negative NAO and AO producing hemispheric cold…links to solar

    By Joseph D’Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM

    The AO and NAO has been predominantly negative this winter continuing a trend sine the 1990s. It has produced a brutal winter in Russia, especially Siberia into northern and sometimes central China with cold spells and snow in Europe and the United States.

    After a rebound last year, we seem to be still on a trend down since 1990. Climate models had indicated an upward trend.

    Note how the AO which reached record low levels in 2009/10 winter rebounded late in the 2010/11 winter and stayed higher in 2011/12 before falling again this year.

    That matches the solar cycle which bottomed out from 2007/08 through 2009/10 before spiking late in 2010/11 and peaking at the start of the 201/12 winter. it has fallen since and February came in with a SSN of just 38, well below the forecast (red).

    Continues>>>>>>>>[Lots of graphs]

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/impressive_negative_nao_and_ao_producing_hemispheric_coldlinks_to_solar/

  34. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2013 at 3:40 pm said:

    Andrew McKillop: Solar Cycle Warnings

    For reasons including “pure politically correct”, NASA has fought a losing battle – against reality – on the subject of Global Warming, which it feels obliged to believe in as a “scientifically correct” theory. Linked to this, quite directly, NASA has also battled against reality on the subject of sunspot frequency, size, location on the Sun’s surface and other variables linked to sunspot cycles in this present Cycle 24 of approximately 11-year-long cycles. These have been accurately recorded since Cycle 1 set by convention between astronomers as starting in Feb 1755.

    NASA wanted to believe Cycle 24 would be about the same, perhaps bigger in sunspot numbers and intensity, than Cycle 23. This has not happened. Cycle 24 started weak and got much weaker: February 1906 and Fenruary 2013 had one thing in common, they both had extreme low numbers of observable sunspots on “our” local Star.

    >>>>>>

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?page=2

  35. Richard C (NZ) on May 19, 2013 at 10:55 pm said:

    HS – ‘Review paper finds European climate change due to the Sun, not CO2′

    A new SPPI & CO2 Science review paper entitled Solar Influence on European Temperatures finds extensive evidence that solar activity has dominated European climate change of the past 2 millennia which “suggests that there is little reason to attribute 20th-century global warming to the concomitant increase in the air’s CO2 content. Natural variability appears quite capable of explaining it all. In conclusion, paleoclimatic studies from Europe provide more evidence for the global reality of solar-induced temperature oscillations pervading both glacial and interglacial periods, which oscillations are looking more and more likely as the primary forcing agent responsible for driving temperature change during the Current Warm Period. The concurrent historical increase in the air’s CO2 content, on the other hand, is likely little more than a bit player.”

    Excerpt:
    “In yet another refutation of the theory of CO2-induced global warming, Mangini et al. found “a high correlation between δ18O and δ14C, that reflects the amount of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere,” and they note that this correlation “suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.” In this regard, they report that “the maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300),” and that “the coldest period between 1688 and 1698 coincided with the Maunder Minimum.” Also, in a linear-model analysis of the percent of variance of their full temperature reconstruction that is individually explained by solar and CO2 forcing, they found that the impact of the Sun was fully 279 times greater than that of the air’s CO2 concentration, noting that “the flat evolution of CO2 during the first 19 centuries yields almost vanishing correlation coefficients with the temperature reconstructions.”

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/review-paper-finds-european-climate.html

    ‘SOLAR INFLUENCE ON EUROPEAN TEMPERATURES’

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/european_temps.pdf

  36. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2013 at 8:26 pm said:

    ‘Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming’

    Duncan Steel

    The changing insolation theory (CIT) mooted herein is capable of explaining various
    observed phenomena which the AGW hypothesis has not yet been able to accommodate.
    Specifically, what has been observed and is pertinent here are the following:

    1. A gradual rise in mean global temperature over the past two centuries;
    2. Accelerating spring and summer melting of Arctic sea ice reaching an extent not
    previously witnessed;
    3. No substantial loss of Antarctic sea ice, and actually a small growth in its extent
    (Shepherd et al. 2010; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012);
    4. The greatest rises in regional temperatures (and temperature variability) being at
    high northern latitudes (Liu et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011). [...]

    http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf

    Note: this is a perihelion precession theory – NOT a TSI theory, TSI is kept constant in this paper.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm said:

    ‘New paper finds a significant increase of solar energy at Earth’s surface from 1979-2011′

    A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds a significant increase of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface over the period from 1979-2011. According to the authors, the observed global brightening “corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface, which is partially offset by increased longwave cooling [from 'greenhouse' gases] to space.” By way of comparison, the alleged increase of radiative forcing from CO2 during the same time period is 0.8* W m-2, 70% less than the effect of global brightening. As noted by Dr. Roy Spencer, a 1-2% change in solar energy received at Earth’s surface can alone account for global warming – or global cooling.

    *5.35*ln(391.63/336.78)

    ‘A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)’

    J. Herman1,2, M. T. DeLand2,3, L.-K. Huang2,3, G. Labow2,3, D. Larko2,3, S. A. Lloyd2,5, J. Mao2,4, W. Qin2,3, and C. Weaver2,4

    1Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (JCET) Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD 21228, USA
    2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
    3Science Systems and Applications (SSAI), Inc., Lanham, MD 20706, USA
    4Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC), University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA
    5Wyle Science, Technology and Engineering, Houston, TX 77058, USA

    Abstract >>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/new-paper-finds-significant-increase-of_28.html

  38. Richard C (NZ) on September 28, 2013 at 8:25 pm said:

    “The Neglected Sun”

    Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt (Author), Dr. Sebastian Lüning

    # Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 825 in Books

    * #1 in Books > Science & Nature > Astronomy & Cosmology > Astronomy
    * #1 in Books > Science & Nature > Earth Sciences & Geography > Meteorology > Global Warming
    * #1 in Books > Scientific, Technical & Medical > Astronomy & Cosmology > Solar System

    Book Description
    Release Date: 12 Sep 2013

    · A devastating scientific exposition of mainstream global warming arguments; · Written by a distinguished German scientist and former Environmental Senator; · Highlights the sun’s often overlooked affects on climate change. The affect of the suns activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, distinguished German scientist and former Environmental Senator, demonstrates that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the suns activity. Vahrenholt reveals that four concurrent solar cycles master the earths temperature a climatic reality upon which man s carbon emissions bear little significance. The suns present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter- Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the green agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Neglected-Prof-Fritz-Vahrenholt/dp/1909022241

    • Richard C (NZ) on September 28, 2013 at 8:29 pm said:

      “The Neglected Sun” Most Helpful Customer Reviews

      Makes the IPCC AR5 look outdated, one-sided 25 Sep 2013

      By Pierre Gosselin

      Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s book looks at hundreds of peer-reviewed climate studies that contradict the claims of a catastrophic man-made global warming. Moreover, they it shows how climate science has been to a considerable degree corrupted by politicians and activist scientists. The Foreword alone cites almost 100 sources and captures the reader. From that point on, the book is impossible to put down. The book presents a solid case that shows man is not guilty of climate change after all and convinces the reader that the impact of CO2 on temperature is exaggerated and that the sun’s impact has been woefully neglected by climate models. It explains how the IPCC willfully ignored important, well-known climate factors and manipulated climate models in order to make CO2 appear as the climate changing culprit. After reading this book, readers will surely conclude that climate is far more complex than a single trace gas, that the IPCC played it loose with the science, and that there is an activist agenda driving current climate policy. Moreover, readers will come away assured that the climate catastrophe is the nothing but the latest in the string of scare stories we’ve seen from charlatans throughout human history.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2013 at 8:44 am said:

    ‘Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist’

    Paul Hudson, BBC

    It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

    The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

    Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

    I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

    According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

    Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

    By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

    Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

    He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

    Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

    And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

    He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

    It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

    Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

    He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

    Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.

    More>>>>>>

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

    # # #

    This is a hugely significant turn-of-events given Mike Lockwood is CO2-centric IPCC contributing author of AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution and co-author of Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) cited in Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing that uses CO2-forced modeling, least-case solar scenarios. and downplays the effect of a solar recession on projected continued warming.

    The post was apparently modified with disclaimers after posting (see comments) – this is a BBC website after all.

    [Via Climate Depot headline]

  40. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2014 at 11:33 am said:

    ‘Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity’

    I.G. Usoskin1, G. Hulot2, Y. Gallet2, R. Roth3, A. Licht2, F. Joos3, G. A. Kovaltsov4, E. Thébault2, and A. Khokhlov2, 5

    1 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit) and Physics Dept., ReSoLVE Center of Excellence, University of Oulu, Finland
    2 Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Diderot, UMR 7154 CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France
    3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern,
    Switzerland
    4 Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, 194021 St. Petersburg, Russia
    5 IEPT Russian Academy of Sciences, 117997 Moscow, Russia

    Letter to the Editor, February 20, 2014

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4720.pdf

    ‘New paper finds recent Grand Maximum of solar activity was ‘rare or even unique event’ in 3,000 years’

    Figure 1. Reconstructed decadal average of sunspot numbers for the period 1150 BC-1950 AD (black line). The 95% confidence interval is shown by the gray shading and directly measured sunspot numbers are shown in red. The horizontal dashed lines demark the bounds of the three suggested modes (Grand Minimum, Regular, and Grand Maximum) as defined by Usoskin et al.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/new-paper-finds-recent-grand-maximum-of.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>