jonboy

The very fact use used the word 'extraordinary' proves my point. I assume the three quote research papers are 'extraordinary' in there findings

If you bothered to read the last sentence of my post I clearly state that in my opinion it is down to how clod the thermosphere is so no contradiction at all. The only closed mind I would suggest is yours

I wouldn't be certain but you would expect at this time of year for it to rise slightly or be stable and not drop as it is at present

Northern Hemisphere

No What are Noctilucent clouds? Noctilucent clouds are extremely rare collections of ice crystals, occasionally appearing in late clear summer evenings after sunset, but before it gets completely dark. They become visible about the same time as the brightest stars appear and often stay visible after dark because they are still reflecting sunlight due to their great height. They are higher up than any other clouds, occupying the layer of atmosphere known as the Mesosphere, and are only seen at latitudes between 45°N and 80°N in the Northern Hemisphere, and equivalent latitudes in the southern hemisphere. They are seen less often in the southern hemisphere as there is very little land and very few people there. Only the southern tip of Argentina and Chile, and the Antarctic are at the correct latitude. How do Noctilucent clouds form? Like many clouds, noctilucent clouds need water vapour, dust, and very low temperatures to form. Low temperatures are easily attainable in the Mesosphere, but water vapour and dust are in short supply. The dust may well come from tiny meteors from space, although dust from volcanoes or man-made pollutants may add to these. Scientists believe that the moisture comes through gaps in the tropopause, or perhaps forms from the chemical reaction of methane and other chemicals. The main reason we are seeing these clouds in this part of the world is the same reason we see more aura in winter. During solar minimum and again especially deep minimum this formations extent further south than in normal cycles. The fact that we can see noctilucent clouds is an indication of how cold the thermosphere is and how low the minimum is

Simples is you made a statement that this cycle is different to 09/10 and making an inference that we won't the winter of 09/10 won't happen again. Please explain what you mean given the context of the question posed. Please don't take this back to your normal dismissive manner. For the record a colder and snowier winter than 09/10 will occur in the next 2 years

The 7.8 earthquake in San Francisco of 1906 occurred during cycle 14 which was a low solar cycle and there are many more examples including the recent examples of Christchurch New Zealand and the swarm of over 10,000 quakes that occurred on the germany/Czech rep border in 2011 close to previously thought extinct volcanoes or you could read the following Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events: John L. Casey, Space and Science Research Center, March 2010 Ivanka Charvatova, Institut of Geophysics of AS CR, Bočni II, 141 31 Praha 4, Czech Republic: Long-term relations between the solar inertial motion (SIM) and solar, geomagnetic, volcanic activities and climate ToshikazuEbiska, Hiroko Miyahara, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber- – Godwana Research, November 2010 In future before you use your usual tactic of belittling posts actually read them properly

This has nothing to do with the question asked but please explain what you think is different?

Hi JeffC I will respond as your original question on Saturday and certainly will not revert, like some have, into turning this into a CO2 debate or debunking others views as 'deniers'. There is a thought that during solar minimum and especially long and deep minimum that there is an increase in both earthquake and volcanic activity. This occurs because the suns heliosphere is reduced during minimum and especially so during deep prolonged minimum. The heliosphere protects earth cosmic rays and Muons and the theory goes that during minimum these particles have a greater chance to penetrate the earths core and thus agitates/heats the core creating more and larger earth quakes/volcanic activity. This doesn't happen overnight hence why the effect is more pronounced during deep minimum. Again in regard to planetary waves again these in a large part are dependant to where we sit at anyone time within the solar system in relation to the other planets and much research is occurring in this field. Many responses to your question say that solar output varies over a cycle by a few percent and that I true for some elements but for things like EUV and FUV output varies by several 100% especially when you compare grand maximum (arguably cycles 21 & 22 fall into that category) to a grand minimum and their impacts are not yet fully understood on our climate patterns. An example of this is the thermosphere which is today standing at 2.82 and is going down when you could reasonably expect at this time of year for it to rise slightly. This is in comparison to a high of 49.4 and we don't fully understand what the impacts of such a change has on our climate systems whether large or small. So to answer your question In my opinion solar minimum and especially deep solar minimum does have an effect on volcanic and earthquake activity

A late 16.8 and 71mm

Where has reasoned argument gone!!!! We talk about banning plastic this and that as if it was plastic that was at fault. It is man and especially the throw away attitude that's at fault and the failure to deal with our own waste. Companies we have paid to deal with our waste have in the name of profit sent this waste to third world countries and these companies operating under poor regulatory regimes dump it at sea or situations where it is poorly managed and polluting. In our drive to improve products we see use of so called wonder products such as micro beads in all sorts of items from face scrubs to toothpaste yet no thought as to how these micro beads react or are broken down once they enter our water courses or seas is given. If people think plastic is bad wait until you see the impact of this micro bead technology on the planets sea life!! And off course we now are seeing more and more use of nano technologies in products you have no idea about. It is clear to me that the next asbestos or nicotine effect will be from nano technology. We have this argument about carbon and how we must at all cost go electric vehicle asap as if this will automatically cut CO2 overnight. Anyone who thinks this correct is living in cuckoo land. The amount of carbon and energy required to produce the batteries alone for electric vehicles together with the infrastructure and additional power generation to run all these additional electric vehicles far out weighs that needed today thus producing more CO2 not less

14.7 and 70mm please

There is also this paper from NOAA Impacts of Small-Scale Urban Encroachment on Air Temperature Observations Ronald D. Leeper1,4,*, John Kochendorfer2, Timothy Henderson3, and Michael A. Palecki41 Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites (CICS) North Carolina State University (NCSU) Asheville, NC 2 NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulent Diffusion Division (ATDD) Oak Ridge, TN 3 North Carolina State Climate Office Raleigh, NC 4 NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Asheville, NC Add to Favorites Track Citation Download Citation Email https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1 Published Online: 2 May 2019 Abstract A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C). This was particularly true for evenings following greater daytime solar insolation (20+ MJDay−1) with surface winds from the direction of the built environment where mean differences exceeded 0.80 °C. The impact of the built environment on air temperature diminished with distance with a warm bias only detectable out to tower-B’ located 50 meters away. The experimental findings were comparable to a known case of urban encroachment at a U. S. Climate Reference Network station in Kingston, RI. The experimental and operational results both lead to reductions in the diurnal temperature range of ~0.39 °C for fan aspirated sensors. Interestingly, the unaspirated sensor had a larger reduction in DTR of 0.48 °C. These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology. * Corresponding Author: Ronald D. Leeper, North Carolina State University (NCSU), Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – NC (CICS-NC) at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC, 28801, USA. Phone: +1 828 257-3185; Fax: +1 828 271-4022; E-mail: ronnieleeper@cicsnc.org.

Neither is yours and to be honest that's all you ever give

Interesting indeed as its been the night time temperatures that have been one of the main drivers for above average temperatures in recent times

really as a Phd student you make these comments please you prove the 97% comment beyond the cook paper which you should know is full of holes

I am dispassionate ive never disputed climate alters/changes what I dispute is the blind adherence to comments regarding such things as 97% of climate scientists say.... for once perhaps you need to prove that point rather than using your usual bluster technique that you believe discredits others points of view

Ah yes the 97% argument. This claim all started from a paper by John Cook in 2013 in which he said that 97% of papers he reviewed scientists agreed that climate was changing and they considered man was the major contributor. This is the problem he did not review every paper so the claim that you use is fundamentally wrong. It is bad lazy science to continually use the 97% of Climate scientists say climate changing is down to mans co2 output. If you want to prove you point on the 97% please go ahead and prove it

in your face media coverage does alter ones perspective and only when you look at the historic record dispassionately do you get the truth

11.6 and 102mm

Explain to me why between 1940 and 1980 temperature was flat if not slightly decreasing during that time yet CO2 levels steadily increased during that 40 year period? The two don't correlate unless you are telling me there is a significant lag effect to CO2 in which case what is it and how does that occur. Science has proved nothing. IPCC projections from artic free ice by 2020 to runaway population growth etc etc have all not materialised. Ozone plays a big part in how climate patterns change over long periods and its not man who is the chief influencer it is the solar cycles and how low or active they are. I could go on but would probably be wasting my breathe. So to answer your question Paul Science has to provide an awful lot more evidence to convince me.

Yes all of it. Doesn't mean that man has no effect. The fact that man pollutes makes worse those cycles but underlying is the natural cycles.

as will man eventually!! Not all extinctions are climate related or is that what you are suggesting?

The planet did not die when CO2 was considerably higher in the past and won't know. All natural cycles I'm afraid

Also it reports that the cycle 25 is likely to be as low as cycle 24