Sorry, you are still wrong about this. The 22-year cycle is just two copies of the 11-year cycle. These copies differ only by the vector sign of the B field. Each 11-year period contains a full oscillation of sunspot count, TSI, flaring activity, and magnetic field magnitude. Each 22-year period contains a double oscillation.
It seems both the Russians and Piers Corbyn look at the solar cycle over 22 years (the Hale cycle).
First the Russians: “The duration of 11-year cycles depends on a phase of the two secular cycle and generally grows over the period from the rising phase to the maximum and descending phases of the two secular cycle.” This is under the graph from 1978 to 2005 showing two full 11 year solar cycles.
Second Corbyn: When asked this question – “Usokin, Schussler, Solanki and Mursula -- also found that the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude that, during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend?”
PC gives this reply: “They mix up Electromagnetic radiation with particles. GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY (= particles reaching earth) is what is needed. One must also wonder about temps given Climategate.
The link is MAGNETIC not the 11 yr cycle but 22yr so half the time the 11 yr solar activity cycle and world temps which follow the MAGNETIC cycle will be out of phase”
So the polarity of each 11 year cycle gives different impacts on the Earth in both TSI and magnetic effects, as I understand it! Hence, they should be looked at over two solar cycles, a total 22 years.
The wind and magnetic effects have been measured over and over again, quite accurately, since the 1960s. We need to measure them better to learn the details, but we already know from direct measurement how tiny they are.
See my reply above. Also, the effect of the space weather on our climate may be “magnified” by changes to the magnetosphere allowing more cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere, which in turn, may affect cloud formation.
Understand? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's as much of my time than this Jones talking point is worth.
Yes, understood.
What the heck? IT'S A WHOLE PAPER ABOUT THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF SOLAR VARIATIONS. They conclude that greenhouse gases drive climate, and TSI doesn't, because that's what you get when you add up the numbers.
The Russians don’t agree: “Abstract We propose a new technique for the optimal prediction of the peak of the next 11-year activity cycle prior to the cycle beginning and of the peaks of several succeeding cycles on the basis of long-term variations in the solar radius or solar constant. The method is based on the already established fact that the long-term cyclic variations of the activity, radius, and solar constant are correlated in both phase and amplitude, since they are caused by some common processes in the Sun. The peak of the succeeding cycle 24 is expected to have the height W max = 70 ± 10 (in units of relative sunspot number). The subsequent cycles 25 and 26, which will be formed during the descent of the current secular cycle, will have still lower peaks with the heights W max = 50 ± 15 and W max = 35 ± 20.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6t76758j320636u7/
This paper clearly suggests solar cycles 24, 25 and 26 having descending peaks, hence a cooling of the climate.
So when you find an amateur astrologer who agrees with you, he's "very knowledgable". When Feulner & Rahmsdorf disagree with you, you assume that they did the math wrong and are blinded by a dominant paradigm.
That's confirmation bias, Haig.
I take your point but in my defence I’m just trying to show there is evidence that the Sun
may be the cause of climate change. I’m still unsure who’s right!
That is a paper on variation in the TSI which is not what I asked.
The question was about the GIGO assertion you made abut climate computer modeling:
Yes, GIGO is over the top on my part. Garbage IS a totally unfair word to use on the current climate computer models; I was just trying to make a point, but rather crassly. It’s more realistic to say, others suggest, some other “factors” may not be recognised in the models. Such as: magnetic effects of the Sun’s polarity with each solar cycle on the climate: cosmic rays, influenced by varying solar wind, interacting with cloud formation in the atmosphere etc
The outer planets energetic atmospheres are generally agreed to be driven by internal heat and external heat (the Sun).
The solar wind is negligible. The "magnetic effects" do not exist unless you are going on about FTEs again. But if you have published papers from your "some" to the contrary then I would be interested.
Ten years ago we had no idea of the Sun’s space weathers (including FTE’s) connections with the Earth. So the fact that something is “generally agreed” doesn’t mean that the “space weather isn’t reacting with the outer planets and maybe, it’s just waiting to be discovered.
There is a link in that changes in climate will drive changes in weather (not vice versa).
I’m just saying weather looked at over a time period is regarded as climate. eg “Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.”
The fact is that you, I and the rest of the world have no idea if he makes correct predictions. All we have is his advertising material. Whatever he is doing is not science until he follows the scientific method and allows his work to be peer-reviewed, replicated and read by experts in the field.
We’ll have to disagree on the first part of what you say. He has given explanations of what he is doing and they do appear to me and many others to be scientific and verifiable.
Yes, he has begun to reveal his secrets and declared his intention to use the peer to peer concept of open peer review.
They ignore GHG in that they do not work out how important they are. They assume that they can be ignored and that the climate is driven entirely by the Sun's variations. That is wrong.
They did consider it: “The coming cooling will lead to significant increase of the glacial and snow cover and decrease of the concentration of water vapor
(a main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This will result in decrease of both the absorption ability of the Earth and
the greenhouse effect. In this case strong additional cooling will take place due to these factors indirectly connected with decay of TSI.”
“As a consequence of prolonged increase and unusually high level of TSI in the 20th century (and correspondent global warming of climate on the Earth and Mars), the surfaces of these planets began to absorb more solar energy due to lowering of albedo of their underlying surfaces. Beside this, global warming has
resulted in the rise of natural concentration of the water vapour and carbon dioxide in the Earth atmosphere. All these factors have led to additional increase of temperature on the Earth, comparable to direct influence of two centuries cycle of the TSI rise during in the 20th century. Due to these effects additional temperature rise on the Earth took place in spite of insignificant changes of TSI during this period”
They cannot tell us what caused the MWP and LIA. The possible causes are what are used to create the models. Not matching the MWP and LIA would be an indication of missing causes.
Their use is that they CAN predict the next LIA or MWP. The prediction is that a LIA will not happen:
I understand what you’re saying; it’s just that the Russians, PC and others disagree. I am on the fence.
Read it again and I am afraid that they are as wrong as when I first read it before. The evidence of global warming on Mars is weak. Martian climate is largely driven by dust and albedo.
Others have a different view. As a layman, I think it’s reasonable to wait a short time for more evidence to show who is right.
I have no problem with you being fascinated with space weather. The problem is when you cannot understand that insignificant events like FTE's have no effect on climate.
Once more time -
parts per billion! 
I hear you, but, math only is valid if it confirms what nature is doing and has done! I don’t think the science IS settled.
No he has not. He is being ignored by them until he proves that he has any credulity through other means than advertising his services.
Again we’ll have to disagree on PC. I do think that he is about to do as you suggest and provide that evidence.
?
