|
Post by meemoeuk on Dec 7, 2010 10:22:50 GMT
The idea is the solar cycle is causal to the UAH data. Roughly a few months after solar minimum, between 2 non-equal solar cycles, a transition bump appears on the UAH graph. Each solar cycle causes a different average temp on the UAH graph for the solar cycle lifetime ( i.e around 9 to 11 years ) In this theory, the 1998 bump that is usually attributed to super el-nino, is instead attributed to SC22-23 transition. The current bump is attributed to SC23-24 transition. There was no significant bump for SC21-22 because those SCs were effectively equal in length and amplitude. Predictions : - Since SC25 is expected to be simular to SC24 - no transition bump. - Likely a new UAH average temperature over the next 10-16 years attributed to SC24 and SC25. short term prediction - The UAH temp will continue it's recent fall, and form a dip like the 2008 dip, so the 2008-2012 period will have a complete single 360 wave pattern. Simular to the 1998 high, which also has such dips either side of the high. Notice the current UAH high bump is more drawn out than the 1998 one. This corrisponds to the longer solar cycle 23-24 transistion, so compounds this theory. The SC23 UAH average was higher than SC21 and SC22, even though SC23 was a weaker cycle. Weaker cycle -> higher UAH temp? To explain this via cosmic ray water cloud seeding theory, I've supported the idea that faster water cycles shifts the Earth's surface heat to the oceans, while the land cools. Since oceans cover most of the surface, the UAH graph goes up, while it gets distinctly cold on land.
|
|
|
Post by meemoeuk on Feb 3, 2011 15:00:35 GMT
Here's an update on my theory. With an awesome 2 year prediction!
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 4, 2011 5:11:49 GMT
I've noticed a 12-year cycle in ENSO, i.e. the Nino34 data. I've downloaded and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards.There seems to be a 12 year pattern. Let's start from late 1994 to get past the effects of the Pinatubo explosion...
peak late 1994 peak late 2006 - check
minimum late 1995 / early 1996 minimum late 2007 / early 2008 - check
minor peak mid 1996 minor peak mid 2008 - check
minor minimum late 1996 / early 1997 minor minimum late 2008 / early 2009 - check
peak late 1997 peak late 2009 - check
minimum late 1998 / early 1999 minimum late 2010 / early 2011 - check
So much for "predicting the past"; predicting the future provides more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4 shouldn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2011 5:20:13 GMT
Personally, I think it will be closer to the 4th quarter of 2013, or 1st of 2014.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 4, 2011 16:00:55 GMT
I've noticed a 12-year cycle in ENSO, i.e. the Nino34 data. I've downloaded and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards.There seems to be a 12 year pattern. Let's start from late 1994 to get past the effects of the Pinatubo explosion... peak late 1994 peak late 2006 - check minimum late 1995 / early 1996 minimum late 2007 / early 2008 - check minor peak mid 1996 minor peak mid 2008 - check minor minimum late 1996 / early 1997 minor minimum late 2008 / early 2009 - check peak late 1997 peak late 2009 - check minimum late 1998 / early 1999 minimum late 2010 / early 2011 - check So much for "predicting the past"; predicting the future provides more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4 shouldn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013. It'll be interesting to see what happens. As you probably know, a lot of the ENSO "experts" are expecting La Nina to pretty much peter out by the end of this year - iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/SST_table.html#table .
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 27, 2011 19:46:43 GMT
I've noticed a 12-year cycle in ENSO, i.e. the Nino34 data. I've downloaded and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards.There seems to be a 12 year pattern. Let's start from late 1994 to get past the effects of the Pinatubo explosion... peak late 1994 peak late 2006 - check minimum late 1995 / early 1996 minimum late 2007 / early 2008 - check minor peak mid 1996 minor peak mid 2008 - check minor minimum late 1996 / early 1997 minor minimum late 2008 / early 2009 - check peak late 1997 peak late 2009 - check minimum late 1998 / early 1999 minimum late 2010 / early 2011 - check So much for "predicting the past"; predicting the future provides more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4 shouldn't go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013. walterdnes, you're prediction for Feb - Oct here has been much more accurate than the "experts" listed in ENSO Weekly. Any idea why a 12 year cycle would have merit?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 27, 2011 20:11:05 GMT
5 x 12 = 60 (aprox longer solar cycle)
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Oct 27, 2011 22:15:36 GMT
walterdnes, you're prediction for Feb - Oct here has been much more accurate than the "experts" listed in ENSO Weekly. Any idea why a 12 year cycle would have merit? I've uploaded a spreadsheet in post solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1829&post=76043of the "AMSR-E out of Commission!" thread. The 3rd tab has a graph showing ENSO34 anomalies versus those 12 years earlier. One thing to note is that there appears to be some relation between global temperature anomalies and the LENGTH of the solar cycle; i.e. the longer the cycle, the cooler the temperature. See figure 7 in www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlIn my spreadsheet, the 12-year synchronization starts mid-2005 versus mid-1993. As for the cause of the 12-year cycle, my first guess is the sun. I've been following the 10.7 cm flux from Penticton, rather than sunspots. It provides a more objective number than sunspot-count, and isn't subject to the Livingston-Penn effect. Using smoothed flux values, I notice minima at... - beginning of 1975 to end of 1976
- beginning of 1985 to end of 1986
- mid-1995 to mid-1997
- mid-2007 to mid-2009
I eye-balled the approximate dates. The field is really noisey. The cycle from mid-1995/1997 to mid-2007/2009 was 12 years long. That's approximately the time that ENSO34 starts its 12-year echo. If the solar cycle stays at 12 years, or grows even longer, things could get chilly.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 28, 2011 13:48:07 GMT
5 x 12 = 60 (aprox longer solar cycle) trbixler, what are the key markers of the longer solar cycle?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 28, 2011 13:55:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 30, 2011 16:16:57 GMT
trbixler, thanks. I'm convinced there is a 60-year climate cycle and it's related to the Ocean Current cycles. The question is, what causes the Ocean Current cycle? The sun seems like a likely candidate, but the evidence is slim. It's hard to imagine that the planetary pull is enough to cause the change but the 60-year barycenter cycle is there. I'm still looking for something more convincing and am interested in any new information in this area.
|
|