This is an interesting paper from our good friend Dr. John Christy of UAH and D. H. Douglas. In it, a bold claim is made about the likelihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998. Here is figure 1 from the paper:
From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.”
Here is how the abstract reads:
“The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
You can read the paper and the link below. which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth.
I’m sure this will raise the ire of a number of people, but at the same time, what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?
h/t Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
“…what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?”
The sun?
The standard explanation given to the missing heat problem is that, it has been stored deep in the oceans, or “The Pipeline” as some prefer to call it. The extra warming is kept in the abyssal layers by thermal inertia, but it will eventually come out and push the atmospheric warming trend back to its previous trajectory.
For any layman, journalist or politician, this is a plausible explanation. The fact that the seas don’t seem to be warming can always be countered with the argument that, the missing heat has sunk deeper than what can be measured. So this debate is a dead end, not?
I wish they had published someplace other than Energy & Environment. It will be refuted on places like RealClimate for that reason alone. As Pielke added later on his website:
[ADDED 10am EDT: I have been informed that the journal Energy and Environment is not scinetifically peer reviewed nor in any citation index. Unfortunately, this significantly diminishes the impact of this very important paper. While the publication process is a difficult road for research that differs from the IPCC type perspective, papers must stll be submitted and published in peer reviewed journals that appear in science citation indexes].
In any case, this is something I have been wondering about for months now after examining the lower troposphere satellite temperature record from 1979 – 2007.
Prior to 1998, there is very little slope to the temperature curve, as AGW advocates would suggest should be the case with increasing levels of CO2. And post 1998, it is the same story. It appears that most of the temp increase over the period happens with a “step” of sorts that occurs in 1998. This step seems way out of sync with what one might expect if CO2 were the culprit; i.e., gradually rising temperatures on the order of 1-4 degrees C / century.
5. Summary
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value.
I note that the solar forcing is but a fraction [and I assume they mean a small fraction] of the trend, consistent with the notion that the Sun is not a major climate driver.
Richard111 (21:26:46) :
“…what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?”
The sun?
To first order one would assume that the ‘normal’ situation is no change and that therefore the flat response does not need to be explained. It is when the trend is NOT flat that explanations are called for, one would think.
Too bad it was published in Energy and Environment. If it is to get the recognition it deserves, the paper needs to be in a real peer reviewed journal.
Left side of the chart shows degrees Kelvin. Didn’t know Kelvin degrees went below zero.
Submitted to Energy & Environment? That’s all the AGW proponents need to know for them to dismiss the paper. I believe I’ve seen that journal dismissed as not being a proper peer-reviewed outlet. How about trying a unique approach and try a critique of the paper rather than dismissing it for appearing in the ‘wrong’ journal?
Now I’ve got more fun reading to do this evening.
[…] the story in Watts Up With That? 17 September, […]
Don’t forget Lockwood and Frohlich’s ‘unknown solar amplifier’ – small solar changes can have a bigger effect than expected. What relationship do yearly averaged sunspots have with solar activity?
It doesn’t look as though climate is anywhere near as sensitive to CO2 as the IPCC claim. There isn’t any factor that has a perfect correlation with temperature – any correlation with a single factor always breaks down due to the fact that there are many factors involved in driving climate. Internal Climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation are important.
Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so, the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data points are not independent. This would [should!] never have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].
If all the “extra” heat not in the atmosphere (but still apparently there due to AGW) is being stored deep in the oceans, shouldn’t that result in a measurable sea-level rise? Or would the amount of heat involved not amount to much in terms of expansion?
@Mike McMillan
The ordinate axis are RELATIVE, and refers to comparisons. They could of course have used Celcius which are identical to Kelvin, exept for the “starting point” of the scale, but there might be a journal requirment to use Kelvin as the unit for temperature.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Gabriel (00:31:02) :
We’ve covered this point in previous posts and there has been a measurable sea-level rise trend as measued by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 over the last 15 years. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html. The dip late last year was due to the La Nina. I should also mention that the trend line is a three month running mean. For balance Anthony supplied this link from the University of Colorado that uses a two month smoothing http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
You should note that the UC graph only goes up to February (still showing the effects of La Nina) of this year whereas the CSIRO graph takes us to May.
The rise is fairly constant at 3.3mm a year, this is a 50% increase in rate compared to the 2oth century.
Surely they weren’t published in one of the major peer-reviewed journals because they failed the ‘dogma test’.
Mary: except the last year or so seems to be breaking from the trend, yes? So where has that heat gone?
Tamino posted in his blog a nice decent explanation on how a CO2 forcing combined with a noise generator formula could give you more than a decade of supposed cooling. It’s just about perception. Ten years is nothing, not because it does not bode well for warmers, but because the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature, while the big picture is clearly headed upwards.
Being a skeptic is fine. Being delusional and blind is another altogether.
ad (02:00:38) :
“Mary: except the last year or so seems to be breaking from the trend, yes? So where has that heat gone?”
If you look at the graph with the latest data you can see the trend is up, look at the graph with the signal still included and you see this years minima is above last years minima. So I ask you “where has the heat come from?”
Why haven’t the oceans warmed? BUT THE OCEANS HAVE WARMED:
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/WO_700m_yearly_HC_meanTemperature.jpg
This graph shows that the top 700 metres of ocean has a strong rising trend over both the last 5 & 15 years. Since the oceans hold far more heat (1000 times?) than the air (by volume), it seems that Global Warming is carrying on just fine. The only question is whether it is Nature or Man that is doing the warming (I favour Nature)…
Mary – “The dip late last year was due to the La Nina.”
I would like clarification on that. During a cold cycle the same TSI is absorbed by the ocean but less heat is lost. Conversly during a warm cycle vast amounts of heat are lost to atmosphere as demonstrated in 98. So how does La Nina result in a drop in sea level?
“the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature,”
OK… that should be enough time to get all the CO2 taxes and cap and trade in place then! 🙂
Luis Dias
Ten years is nothing, but plenty long for Hansen et al (and IPCC) to gather the “proof” they were looking for, that being the “radiative imbalance” resulting in rising OHC.
When Tamino can explain why the oceans stopped gaining heat in 2003, then your assertion will hold water.
@Luis Dias.
Tamino ignores the temperature effects of volcanos. See Lucias blog.
DR, you haven’t answered my rationale, you only posted more questions, or the fallacy of too many questions. The point in the post is concerned about the fact that the warming trend has stopped. Still, as shown by Tamino, it does not prove anything. As to answer your question, go read Chris H 3:44 comment and see his graph. Your assertion is unfounded, and wrong.
@Niels,
Lucia also doesn’t ignore the over-the-top 1998 El Niño, which is what essencially drives the assertion that we are living in a cooling trend. It’s apples to apples.
I don’t understand this picture. I thought Polar bears were skinny, starving and unable to find any ice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00979/winner_979826i.jpg
Mary H says
The rise is fairly constant at 3.3mm a year, this is a 50% increase in rate compared to the 2oth century.
Hansen in his comments to the UK court says
Sea level is now increasing at a rate of about 3cm per decade……This rate of sea level rise is about twice as large as the rate in the twentieth century
Which is right?
Chris H,
Is there any more information to go with that graph? I note that the legend describes the plots as “yearly estimates”
The AMO went stongly positive in the late ’90s affected the LST of surrounding regions, including Europe and the PDO was still positive at that time as well. Overlay AMO, PDO(or ENSO) and the temperature record, one can definitely see cause and effect.
I do not really understand this paper.
The authors use an ansatz for their DELTA T (eq. 2) consisting of a term linear in time with constant k and a term proportionate to el nino (the term k1*elnino3.4) and a third term taking care of AOD, i.e. mainly of recent volcanic eruptions. Then they determine k = 0.06 K/decade, which is close to the ‘bare’ CO2 effect of 0.07 K/decade.
Is the conclusion that any positive feedback to the ‘bare’ CO2 effect is inconsistent with the analysis?
Is a further conclusion that the total temperature increase over the last 50 years of 0.3 Celsius is too small to account fort the IPCC claim?
Finally, ENSO is an ‘oscillation’, which should imply that there is no time trend. However, the ENSO data are related to an averaging from 1950 to 1993, and do show a (positive) time trend. Al least this holds for the multivariate data set taken out of Klaus Wolter’s website. Is this time trend properly considered?
Luis
Be careful about the “Delusional and Blind” comments you might just as easily be looking in the mirror. Ten year trends mean absolutely nothing yet they point to a 20 year trend as if it were proof 1979-1998 is all AGW proponents can really hang their hat on.
It is pretty clear from what Anthony has done here that any trend that uses the USHCN is simply “noise”. Sticking satellite data onto supposed surface data doesn’t make the surface data magically and retroactively any better while each “correction” of the historic record makes it less likely to be accurate.
Now that I’ve been over critical on to the question I meant to ask…
It seems to me a major problem has long been with assuming this coefficient for feedback effect was greater than 1. If it isn’t there is no chance that CO2 can be a significant problem, indeed most of the warming ever possible would have already occured. Am I wrong is there any evidence to suggest that the feedback really is positive? The IPCC explains their large values for this but they seem to be really doubtful if not already clearly disproven.
“a bold claim is made about the liklihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998”
Did you read the same paper I did? I read it, in it’s entirety, and found no such claim.
They merely looked at satellite data and arrived at a value for CO2 climate sensitivity for the period of measurement. They note that the value is close to the theoretical CO2 sensitivity, with no feedback. Thus they conclude that over the period of measurement, the observed temperature rise was consistent with expected CO2 forcing with no feedback. Though they observed that temperature peaked in 1998, nowhere in the paper can I find anything to support the idea that the atmosphere “no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing”.
That being said, this is an excellent “first principles” primer on climate sensitivity. It’s well written and concise. Every step is laid out, thoroughly explained and justified. I guess it takes a physicist to show the climatologists how to do it right.
REPLY: From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.” is what that statement refers to, Anthony
Luis
Why stop at 10 years? Maybe 20 or 30 years isn’t long enough. The sun is on a 22 year cycle, the pdo has a 30 to 50 year cycle. Maybe we just finished the up of a natural cycle and we’re heading back down. Since 1950 (IPCC’s official start of AGW) we’ve had 15 years cooling, 15 years plateau, 20 years warming and 10 years plateau. Start explaining what this “noise” consists of, then tell us how much of it was in that 20 year warming period then you might be able to lay some claim to knowing more than Christy or the rest of us. But for now you’re just hand-waving. The world is full of people who see a rising trend and predict it’ll keep rising. It’s far from clever and it’s why the current housing downturn took so many “experts” by surprise. If any climatologist had predicted this plateau and had given a mechanism for it then we’d definitely listen to them. In fact, most of them said it couldn’t happen, then they denied it was happening, then belatedly they came up with a variety of colorful excuses – noise, aerosols, natural variation and even the sun. That’s not clever either – it’s pure guesswork.
Luis Dias (03:20:12)
“It’s just about perception. Ten years is nothing, not because it does not bode well for warmers, but because the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature, while the big picture is clearly headed upwards.”
Fair enough as a hypothesis, if you will concede that the same holds for warming. After all it is something like one or two decades of warming that set off Hansen on the warming path. Why would not equivalent cooling feedbacks ( high albedo, high evaporation etc) not be accorded the same courtesy of being masked by the noise of the weather? After all we were heading for an ice age in the 1970s according to similar gurus.
Which makes a nonsense of all this bruhaha.
So let’s say the Oceans are storing away some of the global warming increase.
Why would that only be a temporary situation? (Gavin never answered this question when it was put to him recently.)
Surface warms by 0.7C over 130 years, Ocean warms by 0.7C over 130 years. Seems reasonable.
The global warmers “Oceans are causing a lag in temp growth” argument assumes, that in 30 years, the surface will then revert to 1.4C and the Oceans back to 0.0C – that the Oceans will permanently give up their heat at some point in the future – that the Oceans will then permanently cool off and the surface will be permanently warmer.
Obvious logical fallacy.
The Oceans will warm along with the warming at the surface along with the warming of the planet is general. The Oceans may take longer to warm up given there is much more mass to warm up than in the atmosphere but the Oceans do not temporarily store heat away and then suddenly release all of it 30 years from now. The surface and the Oceans are connected to each and there will be an equilibrium of heat transfers between the two.
And 0.7C over 130 years is less than half of what global warming theory predicts. Surface temps should have increased by 1.5C and the Oceans should have warmed by 1.5C if global warming theory was correct.
Christy is right.
I have been aware of the nickname Mary Hinge since schooldays fifty years ago. How can this soubriquet be adopted by somebody who´s wants to be taken seriously?
Patrick Henry,
“I don’t understand this picture. I thought Polar bears were skinny, starving and unable to find any ice.”
The picture has obviously been photoshopped. This actually is a starving polar bear, on land, with no dead seal.
Energy & Environment has a peer reviewed section and a non-peer reviewed section. See a sample copy here: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2006/00000017/00000006;jsessionid=3f536l4rqngsr.alice . Note that there is section called “Refereed papers”.
I have had a few papers published in the former portion, and have had to make changes to respond to comments from reviewers (sometimes to my dismay).
In any case, peer review doesn’t guarantee “truth”. Scientists — as well as others — should be able to read and judge for themselves whether a paper or its arguments have merit, regardless of whether it’s peer reviewed or not. If one is unable to do that, then that person is over his head.
Dismissing a paper’s conclusions — or for that matter accepting conclusions because they were published in a peer reviewed venue — is just as bureaucratic and lazy approach to science as providing food stamps to a person because one filled or did not fill the right form.
So if one wants rational dialogue, one must necessarily abandon formulaic approaches to the “truth”.
Exactly. What prevents it from being peer reviewed after the fact?
With respect to Dr. Svalgaard’s claim that “the Sun is not a major climate driver,” Shaviv, the de la Fuente Marcoses, and Svensmark have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that huge spikes of cosmic rays increased cloud cover on Earth twice, once 2.3 billion years ago and once 700 million years ago, during periods of unusually high star formation in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The stellar baby booms produced frozen seas at the equator and total glaciation of the continents, a condition referred to as Snowball Earth.
Plenty of other historic episodes prove just as convincingly that cosmic rays have regulated clouds and climate on Earth more powerfully than any other single driver. To believe Dr. Svalgaard’s claim that the sun does not influence climate, one has to believe that the solar wind does not vary with sun cycle intensity, as it is the solar wind that protects us, or not, from cosmic rays and their cooling influence.
One has to believe, in short, that the Maunder Minimum was not related to the sun, a very strange proposition.
Tide gauges show no change in the rate of sea level rise over the last century.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Interesting. Too bad the paper will likely remain buried in the depths of the Cornell university website. Public perception is going to change only when such papers are published in well-established monthly scientific publications that currently have an unavowed AGW-believer policy.
BTW, I have nor seen/heard a word in mainstream media about the final results of the artic ice-melt season. The general public is still being led to believe that 2008 saw record ice loss.
Old Man Winter (07:46:10) :
With respect to Dr. Svalgaard’s claim that “the Sun is not a major climate driver,” Shaviv, the de la Fuente Marcoses, and Svensmark have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that huge spikes of cosmic rays increased cloud cover on Earth twice, once 2.3 billion years ago and once 700 million years ago, during periods of unusually high star formation in the vicinity of the Milky Way.
First, the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” seems extreme concerning events 2 billion years ago. But, more importantly, if unusually high star formation created huge spikes of cosmic rays [and this is not in doubt], then assuming that cosmic rays influence the climate, the climate changes 2.3 and 0.7 billion years ago were due to the star formation [and resulting supernovae] and not to the Sun.
then one has to believe that the solar wind does not vary with sun cycle intensity, as it is the solar wind that protects us, or not, from cosmic rays and their cooling influence.
The solar wind does vary and does protect us, but the variation is a reduction of only a few percent so the ‘protection’ is just a modulation of the overall cosmic ray intensity.
One has to believe, in short, that the Maunder Minimum was not related to the sun, a very strange proposition.
First, why is that so strange? The coincidence of the cold of the Little Ice Age with the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity must be tempered by the coincidence of the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period with the Oort Minimum of low solar activity.
joshv (06:31:21) :
“a bold claim is made about the liklihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998″
Did you read the same paper I did? I read it, in it’s entirety, and found no such claim.
REPLY: From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.” is what that statement refers to, Anthony
Sorry, Anthony, but I have to agree with joshv’s criticism. While your quote is accurate, the sentence joshv quoted gives the erroneous impression that the paper found that it was the CO2 radiative forcing that peaked in 1998, rather than the temperature anomalies. The paper specifically considered the radiative forcing to be the linear term that was left over from the tropical anomalies after the ENSO and aerosol indices were accounted for in the regression. A linear forcing obviously can’t have peaked.
Mike McMillan (23:22:20) : Left side of the chart shows degrees Kelvin. Didn’t know Kelvin degrees went below zero.
No, but anomalies measured in degrees Kelvin can go negative. An anomaly is defined as the difference between a signal and a reference value of that signal.
Leif Svalgaard (23:00:14) :
5. Summary
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value.
I note that the solar forcing is but a fraction [and I assume they mean a small fraction] of the trend, consistent with the notion that the Sun is not a major climate driver.
As I understand the paper, the only place the TSI comes in is part of the ±0.010ºK uncertainty of the trend. They specifically mention the TSI as being slightly negative over the time period.
bushy (04:32:10) :
“So how does La Nina result in a drop in sea level?”
First you have to remember how vast the Pacific Ocean is. The ‘little Girl’ is caused by increased easterly winds, these winds do two things, one is to bring cooler waters from below to the surface which results in a decrease of approx. 2 degreec C from sea surface temperatures. The other effect is evaporation from the increased winds, over such a large area this has a huge cooling effect on the ocean (think about when a breeze hits sweat on your body) and acts like a huge air conditioner. This is what causes a net reduction in ocean temperature
Leif,
Many simple heaters work but adjusting the duty cycle of a fixed voltage pulse. It is possible to increase the temperature by increasing the width of the pulse and decrease it by reducing the width.
Is there any reason why the variations in solar cycle length and amplitude could not act in a similar way and cause heating or cooling? If this mechanism makes sense it would also explain why a largely symmetric signal such seasonal variations in TSI do not cause large temperature swings when the largely asymmetric solar cycle variations in TSI do cause temperature swings.
Anthony — In light of my previous comment, you ought to amend the comment ADDED at 10 am within the comment by Todd (22:44:20) that E&E is not peer reviewed. Thanks.
Old Man Winter (07:46:10) :
“One has to believe, in short, that the Maunder Minimum was not related to the sun, a very strange proposition.”
I thought the ‘Maunder Minimum’ was so called because of a prolonged period of a low number of sunspots as discovered Edward H. Maunder, hence the term ‘Maunder Minimum’. So surely the ‘Maunder Minimum’ has everything to do with the sun?
“REPLY: From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.” is what that statement refers to, Anthony”
You quote above a factual observation about ΔT, this is not a “bold claim … about the liklihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing”. No such claim is made in the paper. Neither is there any support for the idea that the “atmosphere hit max CO2 forcing in 1998” as you say in the title.
@Wondering Aloud:
“ Ten year trends mean absolutely nothing yet they point to a 20 year trend as if it were proof 1979-1998 is all AGW proponents can really hang their hat on.”
So all the AGW proponents really have in their wallet is a 20 year trend? Really? And you dare call yourself a skeptic? Begin with your own assumptions, please. Look I’m not here to defend any theory, I am not in anyone’s payroll. I simply looked at the post, looked at the paper, and analysed the pressupositions. Tamino may be “Hansen’s Bulldog” and he can even believe that is a “good thing”, but still he is right in his post, a ten year trend does not disprove Global Warming, and only if you cherry pick your starting and ending dates you get that trend.
@JamesG
“Why stop at 10 years? Maybe 20 or 30 years isn’t long enough.”
I understand the falsifiability problem, and the guesswork that you talk about. It sure isn’t pretty. But the assumption that the earth is going through a 10 year cooling, therefore, GW is falsified, is also not pretty. Just because you assert that the other guy’s works are faulty, that’s no excuse for the lack of rigor in yours.
@anna
“Fair enough as a hypothesis, if you will concede that the same holds for warming.”
It was not only one decade that set off Hansen’s alarm, it was a theory of greenhouse gases plus a decade of warming. And he did a faulty prediction, but still we clearly see a warming period since 1976. And while many people here assert with great certainty that the last ten years are going downhill, I am yet to see it. It’s only true because there was a giant El Niño in 98 and a very cool 2008. Talk about Cherry-Picking! Give me ten years without an El Niño at the start and an El Niña at the end, and you may persuade me better.
“Which makes a nonsense of all this bruhaha.”
I don’t consider it a nonsense, nor a triviality. It’s very important for us to know exactly what’s going on. To dismiss GW as a fad and call earth as cooling (GW disprooved!) in these terms is not helpful. At all. You people call GW alarmists as pseudo scientists and priests of doom, okay, but don’t blow your position by taking the other extreme, now will you please?
This paper is important because it actually measures the temperature change which has occurred (in the tropics) as a result of CO2/GHGs.
The 0.07C per decade warming should be compared to the global warming theory of 0.2C per decade (or only 35% of the warming predicted by the theory.)
This period, 1979 to 2007, was also the period of most rapid warming we have seen and yet warming is only 35% of that expected.
So wht is 35% times 3.0C = only 1.0C per doubling of CO2 (an inconsequential amount really)
Providing said scientific publication deigns to publish the item.
Mary Hinge (09:21:46) :
Old Man Winter (07:46:10) :
“One has to believe, in short, that the Maunder Minimum was not related to the sun, a very strange proposition.”
I thought the ‘Maunder Minimum’ was so called because of a prolonged period of a low number of sunspots […] surely the ‘Maunder Minimum’ has everything to do with the sun?
Mary, i interpreted his [admittedly obscure] statement as meaning that the LIA during the Maunder Minimum was not caused by the Sun, but who knows what he really meant [maybe he’ll clarify – although it doesn’t matter much].
My point was that you can’t have it both ways: MM -> cold LIA, and OM -> warm MWP. And that is actually also my response to Raven. Your mechanism would have to work in reverse during the OM [and actually the Spoerer Minimum – SM – too]. Of course, you could just postulate that it did and YAHF.
Mary;
Winds are caused by difference in temperature (or pressure) … p = f (T) … therefore, you are creating a “perpetuum mobile” in violation of the law of conservation of energy.
ANY value for superfical temperature of the sea, means nothing to amount of energy in the oceans.
Dear anna,
There are two models,
one predicts basically continuous increase of temperature, as long as we increase the output of greenhouse gases (and in addition predicts that we reach (or have reached) a tipping point, where an automatic further and very significant increase of temperature is triggered),
the other model predicts the sun’s influence to be dominant, which in the past 50 years has led to warming due to increased solar activity, under present circumstances, however, will lead to a significant cooling, if not something like a little ice age (pending Maunder-type minimum of solar activity).
These are the interesting times we live in, as Anthony is pointing out occasionally.
As a scientist, one would expect a scientific discussion, which, in the experience of my life-long scientific work, should at least be well-mannered.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Good science stands the test of time regardless of whether it is published in peer-reviewed journal. That said, this paper will not be taken seriously by policy makers unless and until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I have some idea of why this might be, but I would like to hear from the authors their explanation of why they are publishing in E&E rather than GRL or some other more mainstream journal.
Mary Hinge: “The ‘little Girl’ is caused by increased easterly winds”
Where does the increase in wind come from?
Dr. Svalgaard: Why do you say the data appears smoothed, in figure A1?
Note that I am a layman, so be gentle….
Raven: “Many simple heaters work but adjusting the duty cycle of a fixed voltage pulse. It is possible to increase the temperature by increasing the width of the pulse and decrease it by reducing the width.”
Adjusting the duty cycle varies the average amount of power over time. Changing the length of the solar cycle simply changes the frequency without changing the duty cycle, so the average power over time remains (almost) constant.
Mike McMillan (23:22:20) :Didn’t know Kelvin degrees went below zero.
They can if they are deltas. That’s what “anomalies” are. I hate that word. It implies that the baseline is normal.
@Leif
I’m sure you are tired of answering this question..and I’m sure you have posted the answer here somewhere…but if I’m interpreting you correctly, you do not seem to beleive that solor cycles drive climate change..or do I misunderstand???
Obviously, climate changes over time…and obviously it was doing so for a long, long time before humans started setting fires…so SOMETHING is causing change…probably a mix of several somethings.
Equally, obviously, you could write a book on the topic…but, in simple words that a poor biologist can understand, what the heck do you think is really going on. I respect your posts and would greatly appreciate the time it will take you to answer.
most respectfully,
cdl
Les Johnson (10:52:49) :
Why do you say the data appears smoothed, in figure A1?
Note that I am a layman, so be gentle….
First the Figure just above it looks too smooth to be raw data, second, on A1, the points fall just next to one another forming long ‘lines’ or ‘rows’ of point, instead of showing the ‘lateral scatter’ that raw [real] data exhibits.
@Mary
Thanks for the sea-level rise graphs.
Gabriel
Leif Svalgaard: “The coincidence of the cold of the Little Ice Age with the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity must be tempered by the coincidence of the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period with the Oort Minimum of low solar activity”
Even Manns hockey stick displays a Little Ice Age so I guess there is more or less consensus about that. It is however my impression that no consensus has been reached as to the timing and possible global character of the Medieval Warm Period. What temperature reconstruction are you referring to and why do you believe it is valid?
Peter (10:57:40) : Adjusting the duty cycle varies the average amount of power over time. Changing the length of the solar cycle simply changes the frequency without changing the duty cycle, so the average power over time remains (almost) constant.
Changing the length of the period changes the duty cycle.
%duty = Pon/(Pon+Poff).
or average/time = P(t)/period
Perhaps you meant something else?
Fernando Mafili (10:26:15) :
“Winds are caused by difference in temperature (or pressure) … p = f (T) … therefore, you are creating a “perpetuum mobile” in violation of the law of conservation of energy.
ANY value for superfical temperature of the sea, means nothing to amount of energy in the oceans.”
I think you are missing one fundamental factor, the difference in temperature/pressure over the Americas, i.e not over the sea, helping to generate the winds. This allows the same cooling effect of blowing on a cup of coffee to cool it down i.e to remove energy from it via evaporation.
Correction:
Changing the length of the period changes the duty cycle.
%duty = Pon*Ton / (Pon * Ton + Poff * Toff) = averaged normalized power over time. (P=power; T=time)
Though “duty cycle” usually is reserved for binary states.
Leif Svalgaard (10:06:22) :
In full agreement with you on this one. I was just saying that the MM itself was a solar phenomenon.
Werner Weber (10:31:58) :
“Dear anna,
There are two models,
one predicts basically continuous increase of temperature, as long as we increase the output of greenhouse gases (and in addition predicts that we reach (or have reached) a tipping point, where an automatic further and very significant increase of temperature is triggered),
the other model predicts the sun’s influence to be dominant, which in the past 50 years has led to warming due to increased solar activity, under present circumstances, however, will lead to a significant cooling, if not something like a little ice age (pending Maunder-type minimum of solar activity).”
Sorry, but there are many models, called GCM models, creating spaghetti graphs of temperatures for the future. If in these models the albedo, for example, is adjusted it will give equally well cooling spaghetti as now it is giving warming ones . If in this models you put strong feedbacks, you get the CO2 scenario, in varying strengths. As Keenlyside et al have shown you can fit the present stasis with these models. Who was it who said give me three parameters and I will fit you an elephant? It is just that the project of the AGW crowd is to fit for rising temperatures, no matter what.
True, there are statistical correlations with the sun and its sunspots and maybe with cosmic rays, they give rise to other models.
Craig D. Lattig (11:49:49) :
I’m sure you are tired of answering this question..and I’m sure you have posted the answer here somewhere…but if I’m interpreting you correctly, you do not seem to believe that solar cycles drive climate change..or do I misunderstand???
I never tire [and I have posted it a lot of times, try google]
It is a question of ‘how much’, not of ‘if’. There is surely a solar signal because the Sun is changing what it throws at us, but [and this is the crux of the matter] the solar change is very tiny and the climate signal seems to be very tiny too [otherwise this would not up for discussion, just like nobody discusses anymore if sunspots cause aurorae]. The latest research seems to indicate the the Sun changes a lot less than we thought just a few years ago.
Equally, obviously, you could write a book on the topic
There are already a lot, but I am ‘working’ on a book with a somewhat broader subject: ‘What we know about the Sun’s activity and its effects, and how we know it’ But is is a long-term project that may never be finished.
Chris H,
I believe the graph you displayed is based on errors.
“Discovering these three types of errors in calculating oceanic heat content anomalies allows for some skepticism about how much our oceans are really warming as well as the magnitude of the thermosteric contribution to sea level rise.
Considering the meteorological and societal impacts of accelerated sea level rise, it is very important to not only find and assess all sources of error in measuring oceanic heat content anomalies, but to reduce the amount of error that is present.
Optimal accuracy of calculations of heat content will lead to better diagnosis and modeling of sea level rise. ”
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2WBG28MWBDQJ:www.atmos.umd.edu/theses_archive/2007/asantor/Scholarly_Paper.doc+heat+content+700m+layer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10
@Leif
Thank you for the reply and the “where to look”.
Best of luck with the book!!!
cdl
Dr. Svalgaard:
I thought that was the point, on figure 1A, that the data between RSS and UAH correlated well, if the data was separated into two temporal segments. He also gives references as to why he separates into those particular temporal segments.
To my eye, while the data is close to linear, it still follows a tight cloud along the slope.
To my mind, it should, as two measuring instruments, if both are accurate, should be close, without agreeing exactly.
Leif
“The latest research seems to indicate the the Sun changes a lot less than we thought just a few years ago.”
But we also know that the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth does fluctuate a great deal. And present papers have shown a big increase in sunlight reaching the earth from the early 1990s on.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/aerosol_dimming.html
“The Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has been collecting surface measurements. BSRN was started in the early 1990s and updated the archives in this time. Analysis of recent data reveals that the surface of the planet has brightened by about 4% in the past decade. The brightening trend is corroborated by other data, including satellite analyses.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Recent_reversal_of_the_trend
4% more sunshine per decade is a lot.
Luis Dias wrote
“Tamino posted in his blog a nice decent explanation on how a CO2 forcing combined with a noise generator formula could give you more than a decade of supposed cooling. It’s just about perception. Ten years is nothing, not because it does not bode well for warmers, but because the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature, while the big picture is clearly headed upwards.”
this is interesting:
if weather noise can cancel (or “hide”) the global warming feedback over the next 2 decades, it could have easily (at lower CO2 levels) created two decades of rising temperatures without existence of any feedback or even a small negative feedback.
So Tamino has proven that the warming in 1990-2002 cannot be assumed to be a global warming signal and a 90% confidence level is completely unfounded.
This is further confirmed by the fact, that the temperature rise has also been far below the expectations and ended in 2002.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
Niels A Nielsen (11:56:51) :
It is however my impression that no consensus has been reached as to the timing and possible global character of the Medieval Warm Period. What temperature reconstruction are you referring to and why do you believe it is valid?
Oh no, not here 🙂 But if you must, here is a starting point:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3348 try google too.
But it is perhaps simpler than that. Here is the argument:
1: the Sun had a Maunder Minimum in 1650-1700 [one can quibble about the endpoints]
2: most people [not all] think there was a global Little Ice Age event at that time
3: the Sun had an Oort Minimum [we see that in cosmic rays] in 1010-1050
4: if the Sun is a major driver of climate we would expect [provided that 2 was caused by 1] a similar global ‘little ice age’ then, and yet the Vikings were thriving in Greenland and the Mann reconstruction does not how a dip during the 11th century and many others show warming [the MWP] – e.g. the one I referred you to above.
The simplest explanation is that the various solar minima have but a minor, hard to detect, effect, consistent with the latest findings that the Sun seems to vary a lot less than we thought just a few years back.
Luis,
You cannot have it both ways. You tend to buy into Hansen’s arguements but when things do not go quite to plan, you back off and temper those arguements or points.
What must be done is to sift the Alarmist’s point of view from the scientist’s point of view. Once that is done, about 90% of the AGW arguement is gone. Most of Hansen’s temperature analysis is based on a faulty, imprecise temperature network that cannot be replicated without a ton of adjustments. Even after adjustments are made, his office continues to adjust past temperatures almost monthly. Without his temperature analysis, he has no arguement. The same holds true with paleo-climatology. Once one removes the Mannomatic PCAs, the Hockey Stick is gone.
Which takes us back to the last leg of the Alarmists point of view: the GCMs. Oh, that and the artic icecap.
mr svalgaard,
it seems to me that the maunder minimum is well documented as a cool period…the medieval warm period accepted as a period of high solar activity…the last half of the 20th century temperatures appear to correlate to a “modern maximum” of greater solar activity…the recent cool down in global temperatures appear to correlate to an unusual drop in sunspot activity…taken into context that the recent temperature record is better understood than say the oort or sporer minimums, i do not understand why equal weight is given to these lesser magnitude events (cannot have it both ways) as the highest magnitude max and min of sunspots (MM, MWP)…perhaps the temperature anomilies are not as well understood during the oort or sporer minimums because of decreasing accuracy with history…it seems to me that it is tenous to place lesser magnitude events (oort, sporer) on the same scale as the MM, MWP…perhaps the temperature record is not well understood during the lesser magnitude solar min, max partly due to the lack of thermometer records during these times or recognizable global temperature signatures…secondly, why is the period before the modern maximum where temperatures have been recorded to have been rising since the late 1800’s not called something like the “svalgaard minimum” similar to say the oort minimum…tks in advance, sk
With the increasing knowledge about the poor, warm biased and constantly deteriorating quality of the land based measurement network, I find it disturbing that Hadcrut3 appears to “measure” a 0.05° C/decade higher temperature than the UAH satellite.
This sums up to 0.5°C/century and thus of the size of the total temperature increase during the last century (if pre-satellite data measurements and “corrections” can be trusted).
Leif
“The latest research seems to indicate the the Sun changes a lot less than we thought just a few years ago.”
– Ive seen many graphs of solar activity and temperatures since year 1600.
I personnaly find the match between the sun and falling temperatures (maunder minimum, dalton etc.) to be convincing.
But the suns impact is only small as you indicate, these matches should be coincidence?
K.R. Frank
“It’s just about perception. Ten years is nothing, not because it does not bode well for warmers, but because the noise of weather makes it possible for one or even two decades go slightly down in temperature, while the big picture is clearly headed upwards.”
That’s stretching it a bit, and I failed to read anything from the 2007 IPCC TAR that even remotely included an analysis of “cooling weather”. The IPCC was rather emphatic that all statistical analysis showed an obvious if not drastic upward trend in global temps since the 1970s. Now, that some have said this trend ended in 1998, one is to believe that the folks who wrote the TAR were wrong? Either we were warming or we were not. Either the editors at the IPCC were wrong or they were right. Enough of the navel gazing statistical analysis.
DAV: “Changing the length of the period changes the duty cycle.
%duty = Pon/(Pon+Poff)”
You must have misunderstood me. Poff does increase, but so does Pon, so the ratio Pon/(Pon+Poff) remains constant.
Leif,
OT, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. What is that horizontal line showing in the NH on the MDI Magnetogram?
sammy k (12:48:06) :
lesser magnitude solar min, max
The Spoerer minimum was deeper than and the Oort minimum as deep as the Maunder minimum. We know this from cosmic rays.
secondly, why is the period before the modern maximum where temperatures have been recorded to have been rising since the late 1800’s not called something like the “svalgaard minimum” similar to say the oort minimum
It is actually called the “Gleissberg Minimum”. I have suggested that the next minimum [possibly just around the corner] should be called the ‘Eddy Minimum” to honor Jack Eddy who drew attention to [and named] the Maunder Minimum. Jack confesses that he chose that name because of the nice alliteration with the two Ms.
Chris H (03:44:29) :
**Why haven’t the oceans warmed? BUT THE OCEANS HAVE WARMED:**
The graph in the site you posted is up to 2003. Until I see the 5 years 2003-2008, I will not accept that. My understanding is there has been a change.
– sorry Leif, I can see someone else asked you the exact same question 🙂
DAV: “Though “duty cycle” usually is reserved for binary states.”
I know what you mean. You can use the same terminology though, just as long as you recognize that there are differences – like the power in a square wave is twice that in a sine wave of the same peak amplitude.
Frank Lansner (12:51:16) :
I personnaly find the match between the sun and falling temperatures (maunder minimum, dalton etc.) to be convincing.
If you go back in time before 1600, the match breaks down. During the Oort Minimum 1010-1050 and the Spoerer minimum [there were actually two of these, a smaller one 1510-1535] 1425-1475 temperatures were warm [e.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/tornet78.gif ]
So, coincidence may be a good description, although you can always blame things on poor data and conniving scientists.
Frank Lansner (13:14:25) :
– sorry Leif, I can see someone else asked you the exact same question 🙂
Then exactly the same answer would seem to suffice…
jonk (12:59:59) :
OT, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. What is that horizontal line showing in the NH on the MDI Magnetogram?
Alien spacecraft below warp-speed. Perhaps a stray cosmic ray lighting up the pixels.
I think in general there is a problem for the thought of great feedback;
The feed back is supposed to take place via a warm-iduced rise in other greenhouse gasses, mostly water.
So if there can be any special positive feedback we should see that there is more water in the air.
But we dont.
Except for low altitudes, where water content in the atmosphear has increased slightly the last 30 years, water content has mostly gone down in the atmospheare. At least we can say that there is no more water in the atmosphere.
I believe that would make positive feedback out of the question?
Also, Methane increase in the atmosphere has stopped many years ago.
How could there be a positive feedback when there are no increase in these greenhouse gasses accompanying rise in CO2?
I guess there cannot.
I have an observation and a couple of questions. As far as I can tell, Douglass and Christy don’t account for thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation signals in the North Atlantic (AMO) and North Pacific (NOT the PDO). Their effects would have contributed to the warming trend from 1979.
North Atlantic SSTs
http://i27.tinypic.com/212s789.jpg
AMO
http://i25.tinypic.com/2cffxir.jpg
North Pacific SSTs
http://i25.tinypic.com/2cyg07k.jpg
North Pacific Residual
http://i28.tinypic.com/jrwjk6.jpg
If the impacts of these two signals were considered, wouldn’t that reduce the warming from the CO2 forcing? If so, by how much?
Anthony,
Here something that may be worth a posting:
Ancient ice survived hotter Earth than today
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wpermafrost0918/BNStory/Science/home
This post in the comments section is telling:
“T Sharpe from Toronto, Canada writes: I wish they didn’t even write about this. It’s articles like this that just propagate the idea that the world’s in better shape than the ‘experts’ tell us, and it’s only going to hasten the degredation of our world.:
I mean, I don’t want a kind of 1984 news sensorship situation, but people should be generally wary about publishing material that might give people a wrong impression… a more optimistic impression… than is needed to influence change.”
An bets that thinking like that goes throw a reviewers mind when seeing skeptical papers like the Douglass & Christy one discussed in this thread?
Bruce: “4% more sunshine per decade is a lot.”
Especially when you consider that that would be roughly equivalent to decreasing the incoming albedo by 4%, which would (according to the theory) equate to an equilibrium temperature increase of roughly 4K/decade.
Now where on earth could all that heat be hiding?
Peter (12:59:09) : You must have misunderstood me. Poff does increase, but so does Pon, so the ratio Pon/(Pon+Poff) remains constant
Peter, I tried to fix what I wrote and botched that as well. Not my day 🙁
I shouldn’t have tried to normalize. “Duty cycle” isn’t really the proper term here but I understood what Raven meant.
Average power = Total Energy/ Period Length.
Total Energy is the integral of P(t)dt so the equation is a weighted average with time as the weight.
If you lengthen the solar cycle by extending the “quiet” period, such as in the current cycle, the average over the period has to go down. By power. I don’t necessarily mean visible light. Energy transference by particles should also be counted.
It’s hard to ignore the correlation between solar cycle land climate cycle. Is it simply coincidence that the deepest part of the LIA began at the start of a very quiet sun period and both cycles ended at about the same time? Amazing coincidence in my view. It shouldn’t be summarily dismissed as mere coincidence.
@Gerald Machnee (13:10:22) :
The graph in the site you posted is up to 2003. Until I see the 5 years 2003-2008, I will not accept that. My understanding is there has been a change.
You may be thiking in … The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat.
DAV (13:46:01) :
Is it simply coincidence that the deepest part of the LIA began at the start of a very quiet sun period and both cycles ended at about the same time? Amazing coincidence in my view. It shouldn’t be summarily dismissed as mere coincidence.
It is NOT being summarily dismissed. It is dismissed for several good reasons. I have given those in another thread, and will post them here again [Anthony permitting]. First, I have already mentioned the Oort Minimum during the MWP, but here are my solar reasons:
Leif Svalgaard (16:43:03) :
setting forth several lines of inquiry and evidence:
Line 1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.
Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [from earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ‘modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger!. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising ‘corrugation’ of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.
Line 3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
Line 4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203�L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a ‘floor’, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.0 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of 4×10^14 Weber. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima: we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind: both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum; this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux.
Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the “Magnetic Needle”, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earth’s main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a ‘floor’ in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.
Line 6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].
Line 7:
Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Froehlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the ‘background’ TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of ‘floors’ in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The six other lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a ‘hidden’ source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima. At the recent SORCE meeting in Santa Fe [2008] Judith Lean discussed the various contributions to variations of TSI:
0.003% from 5-minute oscillations, 0.2% from solar rotation, 0.1% from 11-year solar cycle, and ended with: “longer-term variations not yet detectable – do they occur?”
I concluded that “So, if there is ’solar activity’ forcing, the sensitivity of the climate system to this must be much greater than generally assumed and understood. A simpler hypothesis is that there is no clear solar effects on the timescale of decades or centuries.”
Even the paper by Douglas and Christie conclude that solar influence explains but a fraction of the recent trend.
Leif: “4: if the Sun is a major driver of climate we would expect [provided that 2 was caused by 1] a similar global ‘little ice age’ then, and yet the Vikings were thriving in Greenland and the Mann reconstruction does not how a dip during the 11th century and many others show warming [the MWP] – e.g. the one I referred you to above.”
Could it be that the temperatures during the MWP were so high that if there was a dip caused by the OM, the temperature would still have been relatively high?
Leif Svalgaard (00:23:05) :
Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so, the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data points are not independent. This would [should!] never have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].
Leif,
Go back to the original data from
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/
and look at
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/2007jd008864-f01_enh.eps
One more point about the maunder minimum and the sun.
The only part of the solar spectrum to have significant variation
in intensity is the UV, X-Ray range (i.e., wavelength= 300nm
is reflected right back into space. The detailed shape of the plot is
vaguely parabolic with the wavelength and amplitude of the peak
varying depending on the surface (e.g. cloud, ice, ocean, desert, forest).
But a 30% figure is widely accepted as an average.
This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the total
insolation with wavelength >= 300nm that is actually absorbed and
contributes to global heating.
That 8-9% represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts
for ~12% of the insolation heating the earth.
The remaining 91-92% varies by only 0.1%. Lean (2000) gives a
slightly higher historical variation of about 0.3% but let us stick
with the conservative 0.1% number.
Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength =300 nm, 0.1%
Shorter wavelengths are absorbed in the earth’s upper atmosphere and
see even larger variations:
120 nm, 50%
140-200 nm, 10-15%
So I conclude that ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.
8% * 12% = 0.96% which is still larger than the 0.1% variation that
gets kicked around.
Mike Ramsey
Dav: “If you lengthen the solar cycle by extending the “quiet” period, such as in the current cycle, the average over the period has to go down”
Unless the subsequent “active” period is also extended – well, that remains to be seen.
jonk (12:59:59) :
Leif,
OT, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. What is that horizontal line showing in the NH on the MDI Magnetogram?
I’m not Leif, but I would guess that is a cosmic ray interacting with the pixels of the camera. Actually a common thing in astronomical imaging.
mr svalgaard,
can you reference me some study/graph that shows oort/sporer magnitude (i assume isotope measurements) compared to maunder…all the charts i have seen show spot count was less during maunder…tks again in advance and for the reply…sk
Has anyone considered the volcanoes as the possible cause of the warming, both steps came after the volcanic eruptions.
The addition of cloud forming nuclei should cause a boom and bust scenario in cloud formation.
A reduction in stratospheric humidity could lead to more efficient convective cooling due to the decrease in statospheric greenhouse forcing above the latent heat emission layer.
More efficient convection could lead to a increase in short lived tropical thunderstorms and a decrease in long lived high latitude clouds, resulting in a reduction in cloud albedo and increase in shortwave heating.
a bit out there but who knows!
Peter (14:12:36) :
Leif: “4: if the Sun is a major driver of climate we would expect …”
Could it be that the temperatures during the MWP were so high that if there was a dip caused by the OM, the temperature would still have been relatively high?
This is, of course, possible, and in such a case the Sun ceases to be the 800 pound gorilla that controls everything and solar causes take their place among the various other forcings working on the climate system. It is all a question of degree, and I’m very comfortable with a small solar contribution among all the other ones.
Mike Ramsey (14:13:02) :
Go back to the original data from
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/2007jd008864-f01_enh.eps
Don’t have access to that one, so can’t look. What’s the deal?
One more point about the maunder minimum and the sun.
So I conclude that ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.
I cannot follow your calculation [probably because some characters are missing e.g. “” here and there.
The TSI includes the UV and Xray flux as well. It is the TOTAL solar irradiance over all wavelengths. All the shortwave stuff (UV etc) is absorbed high in the atmosphere, in the thermosphere and middle to upper stratosphere and does not heat the Earth and in any case would result in a solar cycle signature which people sometimes claim to see of the oder of 0.15 degree; with no sunspots to enhance the UV one would expect the temperature during Grand minima to be about that amount lower, which is fine with me as it means the Sun is not the main cause of temperature drops of 1 degree or more.
if you want to be sure that ‘greater than’ and ‘less than’ signs display [they did not in my post to prove the point] you might try > and < which I made with ‘ampersand gt semicolon’ and ‘ampersand lt semicolon’
Leif, I still can’t get > and < to work – what am I doing wrong? 😉
To moderator: I didn’t include proper HTML tags on my original post. Could you please correct my post Mike Ramsey (14:13:02) with the following?
Leif Svalgaard (00:23:05) :
Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so,
the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data
points are not independent. This would [should!] never
have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].
Leif,
Go back to the original data from
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/
and look at
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0805/2007JD008864/2007jd008864-f01_enh.eps
One more point about the maunder minimum and the sun.
The only part of the solar spectrum to have significant variation
in intensity is the UV, X-Ray range (i.e., wavelength <= 300nm
is reflected right back into space. The detailed shape of the plot is
vaguely parabolic with the wavelength and amplitude of the peak
varying depending on the surface (e.g. cloud, ice, ocean, desert, forest).
But a 30% figure is widely accepted as an average.
This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the total
insolation with wavelength >= 300nm that is actually absorbed and
contributes to global heating.
That 8-9% represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts
for ~12% of the insolation heating the earth.
The remaining 91-92% varies by only 0.1%. Lean (2000) gives a
slightly higher historical variation of about 0.3% but let us stick
with the conservative 0.1% number.
Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength <= 300 nm)
Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) radiation varies
across a solar cycle (in lock step) by about 8%. Below is a sample:
200 nm, 8%
220-260 nm, 5%
>=300 nm, 0.1%
Shorter wavelengths are absorbed in the earth’s upper atmosphere and
see even larger variations:
120 nm, 50%
140-200 nm, 10-15%
So I conclude that ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.
8% * 12% = 0.96% which is still larger than the 0.1% variation that
gets kicked around.
Mike Ramsey
I even tried < and > and it only works ½ the time
sammy k (14:43:47) :
can you reference me some study/graph that shows oort/sporer magnitude (i assume isotope measurements) compared to maunder
For the Oort minimum you can consult this one:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2005_the_long
The Spoerer minimum is somewhat contaminated by a possible supernova explosion, but McCracken has used the 10Be data to calculate the magnetic field in the solar system. When this field is low, cosmic ray flux is high. You can see this reconstruction here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
compare 1420-1476 with 1645-1690. Around 1700 severe volcanic activity disturb the record, as well as in 1526, 1815, and 1883 [Krakatoa].
The latest fad phrase “CO2 forcing.” The equivalent to the “AGW forcing” pursued by Algore and the UN, however, the AGW forcing is very real. From John Coleman: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/12981092.html
Lest we forget: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/guest-weblog-co2-variation-by-jim-goodridge-former-california-state-climatologist/.
When an increase in CO2 is reported, the brain-washed immediately assume an anthropogenic origin. Is that a true assumption? I say no: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/.
The real kernel of the global warming/climate change “consensus” is that it is the result of the activities, and breathing, of human-kind and other warm-blooded residents of planet Earth causing an increase in CO2 and CH4 (by bovines in particular).
This leads to the following questions: (1) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that the miniscule ACO2 contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes global warming/climate change? (2) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that shows that CO2 causes global warming/climate change? (3) Where is the non-anecdotal, non-computer model data that shows that GHGs are causing global warming/climate change? (4) What scientist has the audacity, the arrogance, the narcissism to believe that a computer program model can replicate the changes Nature will effect upon planet Earth in the next hundred years – the next year, for that matter?
That global warming/climate change is, or is not, occurring is not the point. Anthropogenic causes for global warming/climate change is the fallacy to be confronted.
Algore and the UN are suffering from an illusion of control over Nature. That is a diversion. They cannot truly believe that. However, if the public can be sold on the AGW deception, Algore and the UN will have no illusions about the control they will have over We the People.
Dr. Svalgaard writes: “The coincidence of the cold of the Little Ice Age with the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity must be tempered by the coincidence of the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period with the Oort Minimum of low solar activity.”
The Oort Minimum was less deep, in terms of decreased solar activity, than the Maunder Minimum and others within the LIA (Maunder, Sporer and Wolf). And looking at a graph comparing cosmic rays and temperature reconstructions even the Oort Minimum does indeed get reflected as a shallow dip in temps.
Once again, the way the sun dominates climate, outside of galactic-level star-spawning events, is by acting as a gatekeeper allowing more or less cosmic rays to produce clouds. TSI is a CANARD.
AGWers nearly always fail to account for the effect of clouds. Their models do not handle clouds in any substantive fashion. The Little Ice Age was cold because of Svensmark clouds. Period.
This is yet another straw man argument attempting to diminish solar influence on climate.
[…] Originally posted here: Comment on New paper from Christy suggests atmosphere hit max CO2 … […]
@Gerald Machnee (13:10:22) who said “The graph in the site you posted is up to 2003. Until I see the 5 years 2003-2008, I will not accept that. My understanding is there has been a change.”
I too would like a more up-to-date one, but finding *any* graphs of Ocean Heat Content is almost impossible. The best we can say is that the oceans continued warming up to 2003, while the atmosphere stopped warming around 1998-or-so. That combined with the rising sea levels suggests that they really are still heating:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
However, the fact that sea levels have risen since at least 1880 also suggests that this warming is quite Natural, and nothing to do with CO2. (Although it is also possible that CO2 warming took-over just at the point Natural warming stopped, but then we would be truely unlucky…)
@Bruce (12:23:41) who said “I believe the graph you displayed is based on errors.”
Possibly, but the most up-to-date analysis (2008) shows the same trend:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc_domingues.jpg
(Taken from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/ )
Now yes, I’m sorry it was shown on Real Climate, but I refuse to reject evidence on the basis of party politics, because I believe most scientists (Mann excepted) are honest. If there are flaws with the science, then let them be revealed.
The “Ooort minimum” has less direct evidence than the Maunder Minimum. And even that may not be considered a “minimum” with modern observational techniques.
Although I am pretty sure that that great hot ball of fire in the sky might have just, perhaps, a little something to do with earth’s temperature, past records and historical correlations are poor evidence. And remember, we are still talking of measurements fluctuating within error bars. I often fluctuate in bars, too, so one must keep a sense of tentativity about all this nonsense.
We have now global temperature monitoring and solar monitoring. But only for 30 years. I think the next 10 years will be a great experiment.
IT’S THE SUN STUPID!
Ed SCott,
as a matter of rhetorical strategy, we should always refer to “global warming” as the AGWers are trying to slip the ring by talking of “climate change”.
We must nail them to their initial hysteria, which was “global warming”. The obvious lack of global warming is beginning to impinge upon the conciousness of the populace, so don’t let them slip out from under the on-coming train.
Anthony Watts says:
Well, the response in global temperature that you calculate over time periods less than about 12 to 15 years depends strongly on your beginning and end points and on which particular data set you look at.
But my guess is that it is likely to be the same sort of internal variability that causes some significant fraction of the climate models driven with CO2 to also show nearly flat responses over periods of similar length, as discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/in
Leif,
Mike Ramsey has voiced a concern I have. Do you have an exposition on this?
Leif:
Is there a downloadable database for the revised SSNs you mention at 14:11:34 Line 6 so the SSn can be charted? Tx
Leif Svalgaard (14:11:34) : It is NOT being summarily dismissed. … but here are my solar reasons
Thanks, Lief, I appreciate your patience. It’ll take me some time to go through that.
Chris H
The graph of ocean heat content shows more ocean warming from 1968 to 1980 as from 1980 to say 1992.
Yet we know the temperature was cold in the 1970s.
What gives?
And that graph only goes to 2003.
Robert Wood
I totally agree that we deniers are dealing with a slippery, double-dealing group of AGW mongers, but global warming is a climate change. My aim is to separate AGW from climate warming/climate change because these are natural cycles that we have lived with all our lives, whether we were aware of it or not. My position is that we humans are not influencing natural changes. People are programmed to react to climate warming/climate change with the automatic AGW response. That is a mind-set problem.
Maybe no one can find any “missing heat” deep in the ocean, Matti Virtanen, because there’s no heat there to be found.
Let me then concentrate on the Oort Minimum
Old Man Winter (15:36:54) :
The Oort Minimum was less deep, in terms of decreased solar activity, than the Maunder Minimum and others within the LIA (Maunder, Sporer and Wolf).
Robert Wood (16:46:07) :
The “Ooort minimum” has less direct evidence than the Maunder Minimum. And even that may not be considered a “minimum” with modern observational techniques.
Both: The cosmic ray 10Be concentration is considered to be a pretty good proxy for solar activity [especially appealing to those on the cosmic ray wagon]. I have already given references to papers that showed that the Oort was as deep [or deeper] than the Maunder Minimum. Another good reference can be found in my little note [produced for a different purpose] at http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf it shows a Figure from Caballero et al. [so you don’t have to pay]. On this plot the cosmic ray intensity has been converted to equivalent magnetic field strength.
Steve Hempell (17:02:45) :
Is there a downloadable database for the revised SSNs you mention at 14:11:34 Line 6 so the SSn can be charted?
Yes, two versions (pure text or Excel)
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.txt
http://www.leif.org/research/Corrected%20SSN%20and%20TSI.xls
This is unpublished, preliminary data [that can change at any time] so handle with care.
The TSI values have an arbitrary zero point making them approximately to the level of ACRIM, PMOD. This is just for convenience. Personally I think these values are about 4.3 W.m2 too high, but for variations that doesn’t matter.
Robert Wood (17:00:49) :
Mike Ramsey has voiced a concern I have. Do you have an exposition on this?
I have not been to decipher Mike’s comment so can’t comment. Maybe you can explain to me what his concern is.
Robert Wood (16:46:07) :
Although I am pretty sure that that great hot ball of fire in the sky might have just, perhaps, a little something to do with earth’s temperature, past records and historical correlations are poor evidence.
As long as you keep it small enough, I’m comfortable with that. It’s the ‘major player’ thing that I argue against on both observational grounds and theoretical grounds.
What the models really say…
We have found that if we run enough different models, enough different ways, we can show cooling in a small percentage of the runs. Now if this is not sufficient, we can run these models as many times as it takes to get any length of cooling trend you require.
You can not win. We made the models.
Thank you, now run along children,
Really not real climate, just models…
Leif you are correct, however when the sun blinks out, we’ll see whether it was a major or a minor player. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (18:49:45) :
Robert Wood (17:00:49) :
Mike Ramsey has voiced a concern I have. Do you have an exposition on this?
I have not been able to decipher Mike’s comment so can’t comment. Maybe you can explain to me what his concern is.
If I make a guess as to what he means, it seems to be something with UV and it heating the Earth.
UV is absorbed in the high atmosphere and does not heat the troposphere where we live. The troposphere is not heated from above, but from below.
Leif:
I believe you know a lot about our sun but maybe there is still a lot to learn.
It has been observed that other planets (melting south pole of mars) have also warmed during the same time as our’s planet has warmed. If our sun did not contribute to our warming then the sun did not contribute to the other planets’ warming, then what caused the other planets to warm?
Leif Svalgaard
Are there any particular parameters of the sun now being investigated that might indicate the sun may be entering a phase that we may never have witnessed before or that the science was not sophisticated enough to discover previously?
old construction worker (19:25:47) :
It has been observed that other planets (melting south pole of mars) have also warmed during the same time as our’s planet has warmed.
It has been observed to melt three summers in a row, but it melts back every summer, then freezes again, just like our polar ice.
Apparently, there are people that predict global warming disasters on Mars too:
http://www.colonyworlds.com/2007/03/melting-martian-ice-caps-could-flood.html
‘Save the planet’ gets a whole new meaning here.
Pluto is melting too [as it comes closer to the Sun in its orbit].
You can learn more about Mars’ climate and what drives it here http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Leif,
I was more interested in whether the asymmetric pulse mechanism makes any physical sense (e.g. you have explained repeatedly why the barycentric motion concept is nonsense – does the pulse mechanism I proposed fall into the same category?).
As for the Oort minimum and the MWP – I don’t think we have any data that can precisely time the MWP but if you look Loehle 2008 you will see that the Oort minimum corresponds with a drop in temperatures:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
I noted the same pattern when you commented about the Tornetrask series at climate audit (i.e. the temperature dropped during the minimum even if it started at a high point). See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3348
edcon (19:36:07) :
Are there any particular parameters of the sun now being investigated that might indicate the sun may be entering a phase that we may never have witnessed before or that the science was not sophisticated enough to discover previously?
It would be very nice if there were such things, but alas, the Sun right now is just where it was 107 years ago. Solar cycle 23 has behaved just as solar cycle 13. Now, if by ‘we’ you mean you and I, then, of course, we have never seen the Sun like that before. There are also many things that we can now observe that they couldn’t observe 100 years ago with their technology, but that does not mean that those things have just popped into existence, so as far as we know, the answer is ‘no’.
Leif,
Thanks for the data. Yes, I will handle with care!!
Raven (19:51:43) :
I was more interested in whether the asymmetric pulse mechanism makes any physical sense (e.g. you have explained repeatedly why the barycentric motion concept is nonsense – does the pulse mechanism I proposed fall into the same category?).
Maybe you are right about where it falls :-), but it hardly matters as the solar effect is so small. And small cycle are not so asymmetric. Here is a very small cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl5.html
As for the Oort minimum and the MWP
The cosmic ray record http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf shows that the Oort minimum is really the broad swath from 900 to 1100 [with a extra deep through 1010-1050] covering the MWP. I can live with the deep dip as a second order effect. Even at its deepest Loehle’s temperature plots still show a temperature one degree higher than the Maunder Minimum on par with the temperature now [according to the plot]. My main point is the broad picture is not determined by the Sun as it should have been had the Sun been the dominant player. The simple argument goes like this: if low solar activity caused a dip during the MWP, then what caused the MWP itself so there was something to dip from?
My real argument is not derived from reconstructions and wiggle matching but from the physics we know about the Sun, especially the evidence from helioseismology that I referred to earlier. Right now the Sun is as dim [and UV is as low] as it has ever been as and it is at every solar minimum, Grand or not.
But, please, folks, has this not gone on for long enough? Just about every thread on this blog that has anything to do with climate change and the Sun [must be approaching a dozen] ends with this very same discussion, not to talk about the 4000 posts at ClimateAudit. Go look at some of the [rather sad] other threads for more of the same.
I’ll continue to answer questions about the Sun, should there be some.
So are there then functional stop limits in the system that lend to a thermal constant? But what other factors are at play here and could noise up Christy’s analysis? Soot, GCR flux, sulfates? This is where I find everybody’s analysis to be embarrassingly audacious, the science is far from settled. Climatology is no more developed toward it’s hopeful goal of real climate prediction as cognitive psychology is in predicting human behavior (and cog psy has come a long way in the past 30 years…). And yet 30 years ago as a psych student I heard all manner of proud statements about the efficacy of behavioral and cognitive methodologies in the field. The insurance co’s bought that nonsense for a while….
Read this on CA sea ice stretch run:
” I see the question of “will increasing GHGs warm the earth” as being akin to asking “will a car slow down when it goes uphill”? Well, it depends on whether it is running under “Cruise Control” or not, doesn’t it …
The missing link in most analyses, in my opinion, is that the earth’s climate is not a passive system. It is not like a pool ball on a level table, where a shove will deterministically move it a distance proportional to the applied forcing, and in the direction of the forcing.
Instead, it is like a madly spinning pool ball on a complex surface with hills and hollows. When you push it, it pushes back. It sometimes moves less than the forcing applied, and sometimes more. At certain points, an immeasurably small difference in the direction of the shove will take it along a totally different trajectory. It does not move in straight lines.
All of which makes talk of “deterministic trends”, in my opinion, absurdly simplistic. Very little in Nature is linear, very little is “deterministic”. Climate exhibits self-organized criticality at a host of levels from ice melting to thunderstorms forming, and if there is anything which is definitely “non-deterministic”, it would be self-organized criticality.”- Willis Eschenbach
Tony wrote:
The temperature trend has generally followed the baseline logarithmic function for CO2 fairly well since the mid-19th C.
Cases in point:
The mounting improbability of dangerous feedbacks:
http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg
The gradual relaxing of the CO2-driven trend:
http://i32.tinypic.com/28h3dqh.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (18:49:45) :
Robert Wood (17:00:49) :
Mike Ramsey has voiced a concern I have. Do you have an exposition on this?
I have not been to decipher Mike’s comment so can’t comment. Maybe you can explain to me what his concern is.
Leif,
Sorry for being so obtuse. I was having trouble getting the HTML right. Not all of the normal HTML escape
characters were working.
About my point, let me try again.
1. The ultraviolet and x-ray part of the solar spectrum has a wavelength < 300 nanometers and
accounts for about 8% of total solar insolation. Can we agree on this?
2. The portion of solar insolation with wavelength >= 300 nm contributes the bulk of the TSI (about 92%)
and varies by about 0.1%
3. The irradiance of the UV, x-ray portion of the spectrum varies by 8% or more and rises and falls
in lock step with the solar sunspot cycle.
4. Almost all (99.95%) of the UV, x-ray portion of the incoming solar insolation (wavelength < 300 nm)
is absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere.
5. On average, only about 70% of the remaining solar insolation (wavelength >= 300 nm) is absorbed by
the earth. The remaining 30% is reflected out into space and does not contribute to heating the earth.
6. This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the original total insolation with wavelength >= 300nm
that is actually absorbed and contributes to global heating.
7. That 8-9% of the original total solar insolation represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts for ~12%
of the remaining insolation that actually heats the earth.
8. 8% variation * 12% of the solar energy heating the earth = 0.96% which is a larger variation than the
0.1% variation that gets kicked around in the press.
I hope that this makes more sense.
Mike Ramsey
“The simple argument goes like this: if low solar activity caused a dip during the MWP, then what caused the MWP itself so there was something to dip from?”
Umm, the Medieval Maximum.
Mike Ramsey (21:05:57) :
7. That 8-9% of the original total solar insolation represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts for ~12%
of the remaining insolation that actually heats the earth.
Whatever the percentage is, it does not heat the Earth. It heats the upper stratosphere, but not the troposphere where we live.
The troposphere is heated from below by the visual and and infrared that shines through the transparent air. Again: the troposphere is heated from below, not from above, and it doesn’t matter how much the UV varies.
Glenn (21:08:49) :
Umm, the Medieval Maximum.
Umm, the cosmic ray record shows there was a Medieval minimum in solar activity, in contrast to a Medieval maximum in temperature.
The troposphere is heated from below by the visual and and infrared that shines through the transparent air.
I said that poorly. The meaning was supposed to be:
The air is transparent to visual and infrared radiation so that shines through to be finally absorbed by ground and sea [what is not reflected back out]. The heated ground heats the air just next to it by conduction, casing the heated air to rise by convection heating the troposphere from below. It doesn’t matter how much the thermosphere and stratosphere is heated by UV as there is no way of getting that heat to the ground [hot air does not sink. but rises]. Also the heat content is very small as the density of the air decreases by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km step in altitude.
[…] puede seguir el resto de la conversación, con otros intervinientes, en este enlace. […]
Clouds.
Old Man Winter (15:36:54) :
I really think you should re-read what you have written, then you might realise how preposterous it is. You’re saying the MWP happened because the Oort minimum was not as deep as the Maunder Minimum, so if your belief is true surely ANY minimum would produce cold periods.
Kudos to Leif for being so patient and hopefully the readers will finally realise that the sun is NOT a major factor in climate change during recorded history.
@Mary:
My understanding of Leif’s position is that he is saying that he does not see any acceptable mechanism to demonstrate that the sun had a major role in historic climate change.
That does not mean that such a mechanism does not exist waiting to be discovered. As a good skeptic, I think this next solar cycle is going to upset a lot of pet theories, one way or another.
Hi Mary. If you want to quote me, then please do so fairly. I countered Dr. Svalgaard’s claim that the Oort Minimum produced no drop in temperatures, as well as his claim that it was an equally significant minimum as the Maunder Minimum. According to Svensmark, among others, the Maunder Minimum was a factor of 1.5-2 times deeper. The relatively shallow Oort Minimum did nonetheless produce a shallow dip in temps and thus disproves nothing.
The Little Ice Age was not produced by internal variations, as Dr. Svalgaard has suggested at various times. It was produced by Svensmark clouds during a series of significant solar minima, most notably Maunder.
Dr. Svalgaard,
thank you for the explanation of solar physics, this is much appreciated.
However, I don’t quite understand your statements about the terrestrial atmosphere:
If the stratosphere is heated by UV (or whatever), why can’t the “heat” get to the ground? Radiation? Interface of the stratosphere with the troposphere via the tropopause?
If “solar energy” of x[W] is introduced into the stratosphere, of what relevance to its energy balance are the other parameters (like density)?
Duscany (18:30:51) :
“Maybe no one can find any “missing heat” deep in the ocean, Matti Virtanen, because there’s no heat there to be found.”
Don’t forget that only 10% of the oceans waters are in surface currents, that leaves 90% that have little measurements (virtually none below 2km, the average sea depth is 3.5km) We know that the sea levels have risen, this can only either be from melting of land ice or from thermal expansion. These are the facts, you decide.
Dee Norris (03:04:45) :
“My understanding of Leif’s position is that he is saying that he does not see any acceptable mechanism to demonstrate that the sun had a major role in historic climate change.”
You also missed out Leif’s position that there is no evidence either. Read his points on the Maunder and Oort Minimums.
@Mary:
Please don’t tell me what I missed or didn’t miss.
No evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. Leif chooses his words very carefully.
I ask people on this blog to be very wary of Leif Svalgaard’s arguments.
He is very knowledgeable about the Sun and solar activity. He is a highly respected researcher in this field and, unlike many in his field, he goes out
of his way to try and explain quiet technical and difficult material in a manner
that is (mostly) understandable to the lay person.
However, the fact that he is so knowlegeable about the Sun and influneces upon the Earth does not mean that he is font of all wisdom on this topic.
There are plausibe alternative ideas on this topic to those held by Dr. Svalgaard.
While his expertise on solar phenomenon cannot be faulted, and few would argue that many of his arguments are not based on firm scientfic principles,
he is not an expert in all of fields of science.
There are many respected scientists who would argue that he has not taken into account all the factors that are involved in solar activity and climate.
Mary Hinge,
Before you accept Leif’s world view as gospel, you might want to look at
one alternative ideas at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Old Man Winter (07:46:10) :
“With respect to Dr. Svalgaard’s claim that “the Sun is not a major climate driver,” Shaviv, the de la Fuente Marcoses, and Svensmark have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that huge spikes of cosmic rays increased cloud cover on Earth twice, once 2.3 billion years ago and once 700 million years ago, during periods of unusually high star formation in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The stellar baby booms produced frozen seas at the equator and total glaciation of the continents, a condition referred to as Snowball Earth.”
A more plausible theory for the ‘Snowball Earth’ (though ‘Slushball Earth may be more accurate) for 2.3 billion years ago is the increase of oxygen and the subsequent rapid decrease of methane in the atmosphere of the time.
The event 700 mya again involves changes in greenhouse gasses, this time CO2. The equatorially placed continents of the time would have facilitated the rapid weathering of calcium and magnesium silicate rocks. This forms carbonates and removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
Unlike the cosmic ray theory which is, at best still a weak theory, the changes in geology are solid evidence that make the atmospheric change theory a much stronger and testable one.
Interesting discussion about how atmosphere is heated up by different wavelengths.
There are a few things said that I do not understand fully.
About the calculation that 99.95% of UV/X-ray are absorbed in atmossphere.
Even though it gets absorbed very high up in the atmosphere it is still heating it up. Almost all the energy from those dangerous wavelengths are absorbed in the atmosphere.
Leif said:
“It doesn’t matter how much the thermosphere and stratosphere is heated by UV as there is no way of getting that heat to the ground [hot air does not sink. but rises]. Also the heat content is very small as the density of the air decreases by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km step in altitude.”
I understand that the “heated” air high up in the stratosphere cant reach us via convection or conduction but still the energy that that layer of atmosphere absorb must go somewhere or the air will be turned into glowing plasma in time.
AS I understand it the only way earth can loose energy is via IR radiation.
If so all that energy that get absorbed high up in the atmosphere must escape earth via radiation.
Now to my questions:
– What is the wavelength of the IR radiation from the air in stratosphere?
– Does the air in the stratosphere reemit the absorbed UV and X-ray energy at wavelengths that can reach troposphere/surface?
– Which direcation does it radiate its absorbed energy? Doesn’t it radiate it in any random direction and thus something like 40-45% of the energy absorbed high up in the stratosphere would be raidated in a direction that will bring the energy to or closer to the surface and the rest, 55-60% would be radiated directly back out into space?
– If this is how it works, wouldn’t Mike Ramsey’s 0.96% contribution to heating rather be like 0.4%(still 400% larger contribution than the 0.1% number) incase the absorbed UV/x-ray can be remited at wavelenghts that can reach troposphere or surface?
Mary Hinge, sea level is dropping and this can only be from thermal contraction or ice accumulation. In this case, I think it is both, since the globe, oceans and atmospheres, is cooling.
==================================
Old Man Winter (03:19:41) :
“The Little Ice Age was not produced by internal variations, as Dr. Svalgaard has suggested at various times. It was produced by Svensmark clouds during a series of significant solar minima, most notably Maunder.”
Then why isn’t the LIA more than a local phenomenon, if it was caused by SC then surely it would be global. This suggests that the LIA and MWP were more to do with the Atlantic currents (we know these are variable) than climate change due to SC which is a pretty weak theory
Dee Norris (03:35:16) :
“No evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. Leif chooses his words very carefully.”
I shall re-phrase “Available evidence shows that there is no correlation between sunspot activity and the LIA and MWP”
Leif Svalgaard (21:49:25) :
[snip]
The air is transparent to visual and infrared radiation so that shines through to be finally absorbed by ground and sea [what is not reflected back out]. The heated ground heats the air just next to it by conduction, casing the heated air to rise by convection heating the troposphere from below.
I agree with the comment about visual. The air is not transparent to infrared. Isn’t that the crux of the global warming concern?
It doesn’t matter how much the thermosphere and stratosphere is heated by UV as there is no way of getting that heat to the ground [hot air does not sink. but rises].
After that UV and X-Ray radiation is absorbed, the energy is reemitted as long wave infrared (IR). Some of that infrared radiates back out into space as a component of the Outgoing long wave radiation (OLR). The rest, called the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation, heats the earth’s surface.
Also the heat content is very small as the density of the air decreases by a factor of a thousand for each 50 km step in altitude.
All (99.95%) of the incoming radiation with wavelength shorter than 300 nm is absorbed by that atmosphere. That energy has to go somewhere.
Mike Ramsey
kim (04:12:34) :
“Mary Hinge, sea level is dropping and this can only be from thermal contraction or ice accumulation. In this case, I think it is both, since the globe, oceans and atmospheres, is cooling.”
Plese look at this graph and you will see that sea-level is rising and has been rising 50% faster than the average of the 20th century, at a rate 0f 3.3mm a year. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Therefore, as sea level measured to be rising, logically you must think this is from thermal expansion or land ice melt, yes?
Mary, I wonder if you could point to your evidence that the LIA was local? If it is Antarctic temps, don’t bother. The cloud-seeding provided by cosmic rays during solar minima actually warms Antarctica. In every case, when Greenland ice cores show substantial cooling Antarctica warms, and vice-versa. This has to do with the albedo of snow and ice, which is even higher than that of clouds. Antarctica is separated, temperature-wise, from the rest of the world by powerful currents encircling it and a vortex in the atmosphere above that. During periods of relatively high numbers of clouds, e.g. the Little Ice Age, Antarctica trends warm.
The same phenomenon exists over Greenland, but is generally overwhelmed by Atlantic weather systems and ocean temps.
So, rather than disproving that the Little Ice Age was global, Antarctic warmth actually corroborates it, if you know what governs Antarctica’s temperatures.
Mary Hinge: “Available evidence shows that there is no correlation between sunspot activity and the LIA and MWP”
Yeah sure Mary, I’ll go along with that if you go along with: “There is no evidence that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of temperature rise in the last century.”
And the temperature rise has stopped in the last ten years, the CO2 models say it should continue to go up. But hey the science is settled, no need to reexamine anything, lest people like Mary come “[snip]”. Onward CO2 soldiers!
Warning: Them thar be fightin’ words that were [snipped]. Lets avoid the Ad Hominems. – Anne
Speaking of sea level…
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
No new measurements til the end of 2008…
Would like to know what the problem is, precisely.
Mary Hinge (04:30:10) :
That graph covers part of the last PDO warm phase and the barest beginning of the current PDO cool phase. There are hints in that graph that ocean levels have stopped rising. The Argos system is reporting that the ocean has cooled slightly in the last year or so, and CO2 levels at Mauna Loa have been making some atypical jogs, though some of those have been identified as measurement processing shortcomings.
The last two years of that graph say “Chill out, there’s no crisis at the moment, watch, earn, and understand.” Then few decades will be fascinating, sit back and take some time to appreciate this golden era of climatology.
OK, The temperatures are adjusted and homogenized. The Mauna Loa CO2 station is manned by someone who is preparing for cap and trade. The AIRS team have been working for over five years to get a “CO2 product” out. (two more weeks?) The sea level numbers are unavailable until the end of the year.
With the billions and billions we taxpayers have kicked in to this climate investigation, don’t we deserve better?
Good old Ric and his tiny trends! The graph only covers the last 15 years as that is how long the measuring system has been in place.
Ric Werme
“There are hints in that graph that ocean levels have stopped rising”
Nice word ‘Hints’! More to do with VERY short term deviations, ‘noise’ some may call it. Look at the unadjusted graph and check out the annual maxima and minima abd you will see that the meaningful trend is definately up.
Old Man Winter (04:46:06) :
“Mary, I wonder if you could point to your evidence that the LIA was local?”
Proxy temperatures do not show the events on a global scale….and there have been a lot of them!
“So, rather than disproving that the Little Ice Age was global, Antarctic warmth actually corroborates it, if you know what governs Antarctica’s temperatures”
So global cooling causes warming is what you are saying. So why is it when evidence comes to light that global warming can cause cooling there is such a cause of commotion on this blog!
Ninderthana (03:46:19) :
An interesting document, a skillfull mix of the science we know and wild speculation. If true maybe there is more to Astrology than we realise! Nice moon picture though.
Ric, just for you, the trend over the last few hundred years http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
@Mary:
The reason there is no available evidence of a correlation between sunspot activity and LIA or MWP is because no one was counting sunspots at the time. However, there is a correlation to solar activity using 10-Be isotope concentrations in ice cores as a proxy.
Also, the Dalton Minimum does show a correlation between temperature and solar activity using both 10-Be and Sunspot concentrations.
Mike Bryant (05:24:49) :
“No new measurements til the end of 2008…
Would like to know what the problem is, precisely.”
Seems to be a local issue at Colorado, could explain why they haven’t updated their graph since February whereas the CSIRO graph goes to May.
Dee Norris (06:02:00) :
I’m not going to discussa point that Leif has covered so well earlier in the post, if you want answers then I suggest you refer to his previous points on this very matter
But correlation does not imply causation. I’ve already read your stated point previously in this thread that you believe the absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence, but you are making a broad leap when you suggest that, in the lack of evidence of a mechanism to with which to construct a cause-and-effect relationship, such a relationship exists. As a matter of fact, it is inconsistent to be a skeptic and hold this viewpoint – a skeptic should be rational, and it isn’t rational to violate Occam’s Razor and suggest that although there isn’t evidence for it, such a connection between the sun and the climate does indeed exist.
Skeptics – particularly the ones who consider themselves scientists – do not get a free pass on the principle of parsimony. It is incompatible with the foundation of their perspective.
Reply – My viewpoint is that there is a correlation. If my viewpoint was that there was evidence supporting causation, I would have stated it. – Dee Norris
Jerker Andersson,
Does the air in the stratosphere reemit the absorbed UV and X-ray energy at wavelengths that can reach troposphere/surface?
Take a look at Figure 2. here
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
I must warn you that Ferenc was writing for folks like Leif rather than John Q Public. The physics can be daunting to the uninitiated.
Mike Ramsey
Bruce (17:12:40) : who said “The graph of ocean heat content shows more ocean warming from 1968 to 1980 as from 1980 to say 1992.
Yet we know the temperature was cold in the 1970s.”
Try looking at the latest (2008) corrected OHC analysis, which I mentioned in a later post:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc_domingues.jpg
Which happens to match the HADCRUT global temperatures quite well:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1947/mean:72
OTOH, sea level rises (= average ocean temperature) since 1880…
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
…seem to lack of lot of the bumps seen by HADCRUT since 1880:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/mean:132/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/mean:12
But that can perhaps be attributed to the atmosphere holding *much* less heat than the oceans, and so that the atmosphere is presumably prone to much greater variations in temperature. Which is why I suggest looking at ocean temperature/level is in the first place.
counters (06:39:32) :
Yeah, but there’s this annoying 200 years of correlation taunting to explain it. We’re entering a period where we may finally figure out what’s going on. Or not. It’ll be a fun ride, no point in jumping to conclusions yet. Nor is there any point in saying that “CO2 is going up, it works (details omitted), therefore the temperature is going up.” Besides, there’s a better correlation between PDO and temperature, and a direct link to boot.
Science didn’t figure out how aspirin worked until the 1980s. Didn’t stop doctors from using it.
@Mary:
I wasn’t looking for answers, but thank you for your concern.
well i for one appreciate mr. svalgaard’s position in regards to 10-be…i also appreciate the position of svensmark, sunspot theory, oceanic circulation, plate tectonics, orbital influences, ice core co2 lag data, milankovitch cycles, ect… the people promoting “consensus” should get their mouth washed out for using such vulgarity…it wreaks of an “agenda”…it seems to me the correlation of solar activity is strong but ignoring mr svalgaard’s points is not how the scientific method is suppose to work…when evaluating the predictions of solar activity as well as climate models, how could anyone in there right mind ponitificate they know it all and that we should act now…observation should confirm theory, and it appears we are in a fascinating time in which to observe…tks to all for the discussion
Mike Ramsey (04:29:38) :
I agree with the comment about visual. The air is not transparent to infrared.
The rest, called the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation, heats the earth’s surface.
And if the air is not transparent to infrared, how is that then supposed to reach the Earth’s surface?
Infrared covers a wide range of wavelengths and at some wavelengths transmits and at others absorb. The radiation budget of the atmosphere is a well-studied and understood phenomenon and we hardly need to belabor that here. You can find more here: http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html. In layman’s terms it may be easier just to state that heat does not flow from colder to warmer areas [stratosphere to surface], but the other way.
Arguing about minima and temperatures billions, thousands, hundreds of years ago is apparently not to useful as people have a hard time agreeing on the timing, the size, the globality, etc. Perhaps this is easier:
The global temperature now is about 0.75 K higher than a century ago, yet the current solar cycle 23 is in all respects identical to cycle 13, ten cycles ago.
I have found a curious phenomenon: there are are several schools of solar ‘connectionists’: some say it is clouds via cosmic rays, some say UV is higher at max and warms us more, some say it’s heating effect of geomagnetic activity, etc. They will all gang up and jump on me, but leave each other in peace 🙂 although they should be fighting each other: “no, it is not all cosmic rays, but UV”, or the reverse. The bottom line to me seems to be that the Sun simply does not vary enough to make but an insignificant contribution. The silly counterargument is: “turn the sun off, and then see what happens”. I think it was even used in this thread.
[…] Source: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Dee Norris (07:33:43) :
“I wasn’t looking for answers, but thank you for your concern.”
You’re welcome!
This is the part I question. We don’t have a measurement system in place that can measure to this kind of accuracy, nor did we 100 years ago. So I don’t think that statement can be made with any certainty.
[…] Source: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Be Cap’n Christy be up to summat t’ be ignorin’ the motion o’ th’ ocean? As me pappy before me used ta say, she all be in th’ current events. When I were captain, we’d a had none o’ that infarnal gas, ye blasted lubbers.
Arrr. (Not to be confused with “argh”.)
Leif:
“The simple argument goes like this: if low solar activity caused a dip during the MWP, then what caused the MWP itself so there was something to dip from?”
Umm, the Medieval Maximum.
“Umm, the cosmic ray record shows there was a Medieval minimum in solar activity, in contrast to a Medieval maximum in temperature.”
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif. There have been many “records”, most of which point to period(s) of high solar activity during the Medieval Maximum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
“We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period such as the cooling periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825). The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 (Scafetta and West, 2006). We briefly discuss the global cooling that occurred from the medieval maximum (≈1000–1100 AD) to the 17th century minimum.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
“The global temperature now is about 0.75 K higher than a century ago, yet the current solar cycle 23 is in all respects identical to cycle 13, ten cycles ago.”
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Media/graphics/SolarCycle.gif
You’re forgetting a biggie. Tectonic movement. Ocean levels have risen in some places, fallen in others. There is no “global sea level”. Some plates move at cm per year, more than the purported rise.
Luis Dias (09:27:19) :
“Give me ten years without an El Niño at the start and an El Niña at the end, and you may persuade me better.”
Okay, I am curious: The UAH anomaly for August 2008 is lower than the months from January 1987 through November 1988 — with the slight exceptions of March and May of ’87 being barely above. That is a period of 20 years, although I understand the argument that 2008 saw a La Niña.
So let us try nearly thirty years ago. From September 1979 to October 1981, again August 2008 is lower except for two miniscule exceptions.
I do not believe that we are talking about massive El Niños 20 and 30 years ago. So do I understand correctly that the warming trend is so weak that a La Niña 30 years later can offset it?
As a physicist following this thread and the AGW arguments, I am bewildered by the bad use of terminology and physics.
I have said this before, but particularly this business of forcings is really so misleading to the underlying physics of the planet.
I agree with the quotes of
“Mike Bryant (20:36:11) :
The missing link in most analyses, in my opinion, is that the earth’s climate is not a passive system. It is not like a pool ball on a level table, where a shove will deterministically move it a distance proportional to the applied forcing, and in the direction of the forcing.
Instead, it is like a madly spinning pool ball on a complex surface with hills and hollows. When you push it, it pushes back. It sometimes moves less than the forcing applied, and sometimes more. At certain points, an immeasurably small difference in the direction of the shove will take it along a totally different trajectory. It does not move in straight lines.
All of which makes talk of “deterministic trends”, in my opinion, absurdly simplistic. Very little in Nature is linear, very little is “deterministic”. Climate exhibits self-organized criticality at a host of levels from ice melting to thunderstorms forming, and if there is anything which is definitely “non-deterministic”, it would be self-organized criticality.”- Willis Eschenbach ”
Forcings ignore the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. energy conservation. Watts per meter square refer to radiation, and radiation is part of energy : radiation is not conserved. Energy is what is conserved and this means the work done in the system and by the system speaking thermodynamically. Forcings are a distorted way of looking at the forces and energies in the system and do not lead to clarity of thought and exposition.
I truly do not understand why standard thermodynamics is not being used, with heat capacitances and all the known and standard ways of studying heat engines instead of funny mixing ups of quantum mechanical ideas ( back radiation etc) with bad energy conservation ideas( forcings). It is clear that the planet is a big heat engine powered by the sun but controlled by many parameters. Of course the sun supplies the heat.
Poor laymen are lost with statements ” the sun has very little to do with the warming”, but if one talked in terms of every day known thermodynamics, like the ones of an air conditioner, it is evident that the thermostat has much more control on what is happening than the standard supply of AC which might vary by 5% without the system noticing it. One cannot have an air conditioner without the AC supply, and on cannot have a viable planet without the sun, but the actual temperatures are not controlled by the power supply.
Glenn (08:55:43) :
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html
And you show the Hockey Stick, Glenn, and the link starts out, Glenn, by stating, Glenn, that “The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in Europe”, thus not global, Glenn.
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif
The work by Beer and colleagues, Glenn, is a serious attempt, Glenn, to deduce solar activity in the past from the 10Be data, Glenn. I have referred to it before, Glenn, but shall again: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf Solar activity was low, Glenn, during 950-1120 and high, Glenn, during 1140-1250. The latter, Glenn, is the Medieval maximum, Glenn, as clearly labeled, Glenn, on your Wiki reference, Glenn, around 1200, Glenn. If you slop a century or two, Glenn, you can match up anything, Glenn.
Glenn (09:02:01) :
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
You conveniently leaves out most of the low cycle 23, Glenn. And also, Glenn, assume that the sunspot record is correct, Glenn, where there are good indications that it is not, Glenn. Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%, Glenn, as we have discussed so often, Glenn. You may not agree, Glenn, that the calibration of the SSN based on geomagnetic records is valid, but you ignore, Glenn, that Rudolf Wolf himself calibrated the SSN [that we use today] this way. The error in the SSN crept in after Wolf’s death, Glenn. You [and other doubting Thomases, as Wolf puts it] might find it illuminating to read Wolf’s own words on this, Glenn. I have translated his paper from 1875 on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%38translation.pdf
moderator, please fix “on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%38translation.pdf“.
it should read: on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%translation.pdf
thanks.
grrr: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038translation.pdf
grrr, grrr
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%20translation.pdf
REPLY: Please don’t be angry here for URL’s with filenames that have spaces. That’s why _ exists. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (09:42:29) :
grrr, grrr
REPLY: Please don’t be angry here for URL’s with filenames that have spaces. That’s why _ exists. – Anthony
Angry at myself.
A test:
“http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf 38 translation.pdf”
grrr, grrr
Arrr.
Leif,
I’ll repost what one source actually said about solar activity during the Medieval Maximum, which is what is apparently being contested by you:
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
Some researchers seem to include a period of time before the Oort Minimum as the start of the Medieval Maximum, others place it in a range only after the Oort. There is no problem with either way. It was warmer before the Oort with higher solar activity, then the short Oort Minimum occured which dropped in temp a little, then solar activity increased again as did temperatures during the remainder of the Medieval Maximum.
NASA TO DISCUSS CONDITIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE SUN
WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
They say ’50-year’ because that is how far back space measurements go. In the 50 years before that, solar activity increased from the state 100 years ago which we are just now again coming back to.
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
“You conveniently leaves out most of the low cycle 23, Glenn. And also, Glenn, assume that the sunspot record is correct, Glenn, where there are good indications that it is not, Glenn. Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%, Glenn…”
The NOAA graph may “conveniently” leave out cycle 23, but that doesn’t discount the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, nor would your convenient “adjustment” pre-1965, nor discount the increase post 1965 corresponding to the recent temperature increase up to the recent past.
This “we’ve discussed this before” of yours should not be used to intimate that your opinions should be regarded as having been supported. I find your claim of sunspot counts being 20% low pre 1965 to be quite exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
Glenn (10:20:55) :
“Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%”
nor would your convenient “adjustment” pre-1965, nor discount the increase post 1965 corresponding to the recent temperature increase up to the recent past.
First, ‘convenient’ is an insult, as is “adjustment”. Second, a prerequisite for serious discussion is that you read the comments and/or not distort what they say. I’m not saying 1965, but ~1946.
I find your claim of sunspot counts being 20% low pre 1965 to be quite exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
Again, not pre 1965. And there is nothing exceptional about my result, it simply corrects human error introduced by Waldmeier. The more objective sunspot areas measured on photographs of the Sun made at Greenwich 1874-1975 do not suffer from that problem, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly in http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf If you wish to debate this, read the note and debate specific points in it.
Glenn (10:03:42) :
then the short Oort Minimum occured
A persistent problem with your arguments is that you do not respond to my specific comments, but just piles on something else. I’ll repost:
The work by Beer and colleagues is a serious attempt to deduce solar activity in the past from the 10Be data. I have referred to it before, but shall again: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf
Solar activity was low during 950-1120 and high during 1140-1250. The latter is the Medieval maximum as clearly labeled on your Wiki reference around 1200.
The Oort minimum was not a ‘short’ minimum, it was longer than the Maunder minimum.
Dr. Svalgaard writes: “I have found a curious phenomenon: there are are several schools of solar ‘connectionists’: some say it is clouds via cosmic rays, some say UV is higher at max and warms us more, some say it’s heating effect of geomagnetic activity, etc. They will all gang up and jump on me, but leave each other in peace 🙂 although they should be fighting each other: “no, it is not all cosmic rays, but UV”, or the reverse.”
Having been a frequent visitor to the sight and solarcycle24.com for the past several months, I have never seen two proponents of solar forcing argue. There is no need for us to argue, because the way the sun influences weather and climate is complex. The fact that TSI alone cannot account for decades-long and centuries-long temperature swings does not mean that TSI is insignificant. The point I wished to make is that Dr. Svalgaard’s attempt to disprove the relevance of the sun to climate by focusing solely on TSI is not scientifically valid — as though its influence was not sometimes magnified by a strong solar wind and diminished cloud cover during periods of solar maximum. The inverse is also true, low TSI is typically coupled with a weak solar wind and increased Svensmark clouds.
Again, no argument here, just a full, multi-faceted examination of the sun. Forest, trees. Forest, trees. Forest.
Glenn (10:03:42) :
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
Loehle’s paper [also in Energy & Environment, so may that is junk too :-)] was quoted earlier. His corrected plot is here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120, average dT +0.3, higher than today
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200, where dT dips to -0.2
Old Man Winter (11:07:45) :
The fact that TSI alone cannot account for decades-long and centuries-long temperature swings does not mean that TSI is insignificant. The point I wished to make is that Dr. Svalgaard’s attempt to disprove the relevance of the sun to climate by focusing solely on TSI is not scientifically valid
TSI is just in this regard a proxy for solar activity in general, all the solar indices vary together. I could have used cosmic ray intensity instead. The cosmic ray intensity right now is what it was 100 years ago and during the Maunder and other minima. The Sun’s magnetic field is back to where it was 100 years ago. I’m not focusing on TSI, all the solar ‘indicators’ do not vary as much as we thought they do.
That solar proponents don’t argue is the scientifically invalid point. The cosmic ray people, to take one camp, claim that ALL the variation is due to cosmic rays. I don’t see Svensmark say: “See, I show you this beautiful correlation between cosmic rays and low clouds, but beware there are many trees in the forest and the cosmic rays are just a small part, the correlation I show is also due to TSI, geomagnetic activity, UV, what have you, and it is really impossible to tell how much is due to cosmic rays”.
“First, ‘convenient’ is an insult, as is “adjustment”. Second, a prerequisite for serious discussion is that you read the comments and/or not distort what they say. I’m not saying 1965, but ~1946.”
Simple typos are not distortions nor a sign of something other than a serious discussion. You used the word convenient first, Leif, and I agree that is insulting. Adjustment is not, however. What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post, and I find it very curious that you think you can behave in that manner with impunity.
Look, I’m not the one bucking the prevailing thought. You are. And your “I have repeatedly pointed this out” is not in the slightest way convincing to me, you’ve demonstrated an abysmal record for practicing poor logic, and I can’t even open
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
Perhaps you should learn how to reference URL’s. By the look of it, you’ve “argghed” many times in the past over your own inadequacies. Don’t get on me for typing 1965 instead of 1946. These are plainly tactics that should not go unnoticed, and they are totally unneccesary.
As to how I respond to your arguments, that is up to me. If all you can get out of what I write as “piling on something else” I suggest you not respond.
There be plenty o’ swag fer us all. No sense in gettin’ all stove in over a wee . . . misunderstandin’.
Arrr.
Glenn (11:53:17) :
Simple typos are not distortions nor a sign of something other than a serious discussion.
same typo, twice?
What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post
I was riled a bit by your habit of doing so:
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity
You used the word convenient first, Leif,
But now that we agree that is not so nice, we can just stop that.
I can’t even open
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
Just click on it. Maybe you need the PDF reader.
Don’t get on me for typing 1965 instead of 1946 [twice]. These are plainly tactics that should not go unnoticed, and they are totally unneccesary.
They are not tactics, and accuracy is important and necessary.
Leif Svalgaard (08:04:28) :
Mike Ramsey (04:29:38) :
I agree with the comment about visual. The air is not transparent to infrared.
The rest, called the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation, heats
the earth’s surface.
And if the air is not transparent to infrared, how is that then supposed to reach
the Earth’s surface?
Leif,
Because the earth’s atmosphere is semi-transparent as you well know. Not all of the
incoming UV, X-Ray gets reemitted out into space. Some gets sent downwards. The
key is that when the variation in UV, X-Ray over a solar cycle is factored in with the
near total absorption of this radiation vs the 30% reflection of the visible light, the
effective solar variability is closer to one percent then to a tenth of a percent.
That tenth of a percent number has always bothered me.
In layman’s terms it may be easier just to state that heat does not flow from colder
to warmer areas [stratosphere to surface], but the other way.
“The thermosphere[] begins about 90 km above the earth.[1] At these high altitudes,
the residual atmospheric gases sort into strata according to molecular mass (see
turbosphere). Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption
of highly energetic solar radiation by the small amount of residual oxygen still
present. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to
15,000°C. Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically
charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond
the horizon. At the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 2,000 km above the earth’s surface,
the atmosphere mixes into space.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
The global temperature now is about 0.75 K higher than a century ago, yet the current
solar cycle 23 is in all respects identical to cycle 13, ten cycles ago.
The 20th century saw seven straight big solar maxes from 1938 to 2002.
All seven had peaks greater than 80
Four had peaks greater than 120
And one had a peak greater than 180
Compare this to the 19th century
Only four had peaks greater than 80
Four had peaks less than 80
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
BTW, it’s cooling a bit now. 🙂
Mike Ramsey
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
“Loehle’s paper [also in Energy & Environment, so may that is junk too :-)] was quoted earlier. His corrected plot is here:”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
I didn’t say anything was “junk”. A reader could quite understandably believe that I had, from your wording above. But if you can’t see the warming in that graph during the Medieval Warming Period, I don’t know what else to say. Again, there were highs and lows, but mostly all above the baseline. No real *cold* periods. This was a period of mostly high solar activity, and warm temperatures.
“So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120, average dT +0.3, higher than today
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200, where dT dips to -0.2”
Don’t know what you’re getting at with this “higher than today”. The Medieval period was a time of high solar activity and warm temperatures. Your reference above shows that there was a time when temps were higher than in the recent past, but that wasn’t under consideration.
Jeff Alberts (09:02:49) :
“You’re forgetting a biggie. Tectonic movement.”
Not forgetting, just disregarding. The changes in sea level this may cause are very insignificant. To give an example the huge 9.0+ earthquake off Indonesia in 2004 caused a rise in sea level of 0.1mm. To produce the sea level rise recorded would reuire 33 such events each year!
“The changes in sea level this may cause are very insignificant. To give an example the huge 9.0+ earthquake off Indonesia in 2004 caused a rise in sea level of 0.1mm. To produce the sea level rise recorded would reuire 33 such events each year!”
How about other events? Is all tectonic activity relatable to the Indonesia event?
Are you saying that the Indonesia event caused a global sea level increase?
Have you considered the variability of gravity due to the effects of tectonic movement?
Mary Hinge,
Way way back I asked about the rise in sea level which you said, presumably based on CSIRO, was proceeding at 50% above the rate in the 20th C but Hansen had said in his testimony to the UK Court was double the rate of the 20thC.
You can’t both be right so please tell me which is it?
Thanks
evanjones (09:59:20) :
grrr, grrr
Arrr.
I see sombody remembered that it’s National Talk Like a Pirate Day.
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html
[REPLY – So there, jeez, ye scurvy swab. I’ll not be owin ‘ye them five doubloons, then! Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!]
Glenn (13:18:47) :
About the ‘junk’. I didn’t say you did say that, it was a reference to the same journal that carried the article this thread is all about.
if you can’t see the warming in that graph during the Medieval Warming Period […] This was a period of […] warm temperatures.
The Medieval period was a time of warm temperatures.
So, we agree it was warm.
“So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200″
During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm. They were also warm during the following Medieval solar maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200.
What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post
“I was riled a bit by your habit of doing so:”
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so. I referred to you in “Glenn (08:55:43)”
twice, and also identified a prior quotes by you at the start of that post.
That has only happened once to my knowledge.
If you want accuracy, then don’t make claims such as my having a “habit” of repeating your name a dozen times a post. If you want honesty, don’t include examples from separate posts as you just did, creating the false appearance that I did indeed use your name more than I really have in one post. Another suggestion is not to allow your emotions to guide actions, as mistakes will invariably occur.
And yes, “typos” can and often are repeated.
Warning: Lets all play nice, please – Anne
Glenn (14:42:14) :
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so.
You just did it again.
and
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
was not called for.
Anyway, if you can off the ‘insulting’ pedestal, did you open the paper? Did you read it? Do you have specific comments? I have referred you to it many times. It sounds very much like you never even looked at it. I take great pains to carefully look at everything you cite or quote. That is just simple decency in any serious discussion.
An obvious problem with this paper is the statement on page 4 “Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small.” I would be shocked if John Christy doesn’t know that this isn’t true. Or maybe he just forgot about the ozone hole. And the smaller amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at high latitudes.
Leif, thanks for the reference to Loehle’s corrected plot. I was unaware of the follow up to the original paper.
Ric Werme
Satellites have been measuring sea level (mean or docile) since 1992. It is an amazing application of applied science.
“Any instantaneous measurement of sea level in a series may be considered the sum of three component parts: observed level mean sea level + tide + meteorological residuals.”
“Each of these component parts is controlled by separate physical processes and the variations of each part are essentially independent of the variations in the other parts.”
“A complication in measuring sea level, is that the sea-level does not rise by the same amount all over the globe due to the effects of the earth’s rotation, local coastline variations, changes in major ocean currents, vertical movements of the earth’s crust (up and down), and differences in tidal patterns and sea-water density.”
“Satellite altimetry measures the distance between an Earth-orbiting satellite and the surface of the ocean. Knowing accurately the position of the satellite we can know the height of the ocean relative to the centre of the Earth.”
“Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm.”
“The Jason 2 satellite … orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission.”
Ric why would you doubt a sea-level rise of 3.3mm per year, when the measuring satellite position is +/- ?: the distance to the center of the Earth is +/- ?; the accuracy of the satellite measurement is 3.3mm; and the sea-level measurement drift is less than 1mm per year.
I hope this has helped, if you are considering beach-front property in the Caribbean or the South Pacific.
Keep the faith.
Gary Hladik (15:11:08) :
thanks for the reference to Loehle’s corrected plot. I was unaware of the follow up to the original paper.
The very fact that he corrected the paper shows the power of blogs [“Thanks in particular to Eric Swanson, Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre and the visitors to Climate Audit (climateaudit.org) who helped uncover errors in data handling”] when the discussion can be carried in a serious and and collaborative manner. This may be a sign of things to come where review can be done transparently and with much larger input than the traditional peer-review.
“Glenn (14:42:14) :
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so.
You just did it again.”
It is a method of identifying who I am responding to. Perhaps you don’t like that “habit”. Then again, *you* just “did so”, so be “riled” at yourself as well.
How about *you* calling off the “insulting pedestal”?? I take stuff from you quite often in your replies, and rarely say anything. Perhaps you are special.
“I have referred you to it many times. It sounds very much like you never even looked at it.”
Refer me to one time you have. It did open for me after I said it would not open. Don’t know why it wouldn’t load the first time. And I do not recall ever
seeing it before. Here’s your chance to support some of the stuff you lay claim to, as the above “sounds very much like you never even looked at it” as if I ignored it. I may have, and not opened it. If I take the time to open something, I will read and study it at least superficially. This adjusting of the sunspot count seems to be an area that would require some research besides taking your word for it, and as it has not been done, I see no reason to think that it may be anything other than your personal idea and not shared by others. In the meantime, I’d rather take official information at face value.
Yet this doesn’t even matter. A previous poster provided you with a cycle graph showing the last century more intense than the previous. That fits the definition of rising solar activity for the purpose intended. It correlates with the rise in temperature over the last century.
“During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm.
Support that. My understanding is that the Oort was a short minimum.
And temperatures were cooler than the surrounding periods, still warm but not quite as warm. Do you expect that were solar activity to be associated with temperatures that it would be close to absolute zero during the Oort?
I note Mary Hinge’s favourite source of statistics appears to be Australia’s CSIRO. They, along with our Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), are strong proponents of ‘climate change’ and I would think there are many Australians, and others who would be more than a little skeptical in respect of their impartiality in these matters. Mary, are you Australian?
Glenn (15:40:56) :
“During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm.”
Support that. My understanding is that the Oort was a short minimum.
I referred you to http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf
Did you open that?
It has a reference to the original paper:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, A12102,
doi:10.1029/2004JA010633, 2004
The heliospheric magnetic field from 850 to 2000 AD inferred from 10Be records
R. A. Caballero-Lopez, H. Moraal, K. G. McCracken and F. B. McDonald
Glenn (15:35:11) :
I’d rather take official information at face value.
Like the IPCC AR4?
That fits the definition of rising solar activity for the purpose intended. It correlates with the rise in temperature over the last century.
Except that even NASA is beginning to back-pedal a bit on that, c.f. the NEWS: NASA thread. Solar activity is back to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are not.
Doesn’t this paper assume feedbacks are distributed evenly worldwide? If positive feedbacks are stronger in higher latitudes than at the tropics then a doubling of co2 would not result in the same warming trend in both.
Am I to assume the 3.3cm and 2.5cm references are supposed to be 3.3mm and 2.5mm? If not, then the equipment isn’t even capable of measuring below those thresholds.
Mary: “Ric, just for you, the trend over the last few hundred years http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
Mary, thanks for this and your previous links to CSIRO. This site has much to commend it, combining an authoritative but reader-friendly account of sea-level changes with some very pleasing graphics. The movies are a bonus. My favourite colours are blue and green, so I was already perceptually prepared to accept the information presented on the site.
I was especially taken with the photograph of Dr Roland Gerhels at work in the field. This simple composition speaks volumes about not only the dedication of climate scientists, but also the goodwill flowing from cordial international relations. Science can indeed build bridges between the peace-loving peoples of the world.
I was particularly struck by the checked blue shirt and beard of the pictured scientist (Dr Roland Gerhels?). To me this said: true physical scientist, man of the earth, a beard to trust. I shall sleep easier knowing that such men exist.
Ed Scott (15:15:18) :
Yeah, yeah, I understand the rocket science behind the mapping and have long been duly impressed. Even handheld GPS receivers impress me – they receive signal that is buried in noise, sync up with atomic clocks whizzing by at thousands of miles per hour but can figure out the distance to each within a few feet. Fancy systems can figure it out to a fraction of a wavelength.
What I don’t understand are organizations like CSIRO. See http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1244258.htm
Take a look at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html and look at the curve for the last two years. In mid 2006 the sea level was about 22 mm above whatever it is they’re using for zero. At the end of the trace it’s about 23 mm. Of course, the last two years are inadequate for serious study, but it you want to see the impact near a PDO flip, that’s where you look. Will the cooling trend continue? probably. Will that translate into slow post-little-ice-age sea level rise? Probably. Maybe even a little lowering.
Will I buy ocean front property in the Caribbean? Heck no. I won’t even buy ocean front property in New Hampshire. I have full faith we will have a repeat of the Hurricane of ’38 one of these years. In fact, I was at a “Public Listening Session” last night held by the Governor’s Climate Change Task Force and criticized their action item on preparing for extreme weather events. The only reference to hurricane was in a sentence suggesting requiring that seacoast buildings have hurricane shutters.
I have no faith in them to keep!
Leif Svalgaard (16:02:59) :
Glenn (15:35:11) :
I’d rather take official information at face value.
Like the IPCC AR4?
I like to take that official information at farce value. 🙂
Neil Crafter (15:45:07) :
“I note Mary Hinge’s favourite source of statistics appears to be Australia’s CSIRO. ”
Strewth mate, you ol’ cobber! No, I use CSIRO because they use up to date data, see posts above about University of Colorado, they seem to have a problem and are only using data to February.
P.S. I can’t be Oz, my favourite sports hero is Ian Botham…C’mon Beefy!
http://www.physorg.com/news140873176.html
Article about a new study that says aerosols (smog) is making the earth cooler. But when China and others clean up their act… look out!
Mike Bryant (02:19:20) :
“http://www.physorg.com/news140873176.html
Article about a new study that says aerosols (smog) is making the earth cooler. But when China and others clean up their act… look out!”
The ‘Global Dimming’ is very interesting. I remember that measurements were taken when the air traffic over the USA was stopped in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and I think I remembered they showed a noticeable warming as the con trails were no longer a factor. I haven’t got anything firmer than that so any links would be welcome
Maybe OT alittle, but I think Spencer’s paper below is very important concerning climate sensitivity empirically determined compared to what the GCMs currently use:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-ppt.pdf
He uses relatively simple methods on satellite temp data.
plaxio (05:13:12) :
“Mary Hinge: “Available evidence shows that there is no correlation between sunspot activity and the LIA and MWP”
Yeah sure Mary, I’ll go along with that…..”
Good for you, progress at last!
Glenn (14:23:33) :
“How about other events? Is all tectonic activity relatable to the Indonesia event?”
Off course not, the example illustrates that even with an extremely large one on 20 year event the effect on sea level is miniscule.
“Are you saying that the Indonesia event caused a global sea level increase?”
yes, it has been recorded at 0.1mm….please read post again if not sure
“Have you considered the variability of gravity due to the effects of tectonic movement?”
Bearing in mind how thin the crust is on the earth (put the earth the same size as a billiard ball and the crust wouldn’t even be the thickness of a coat of varnish). Any changes in gravity would be extremely small and any possible effects on seal level would be minnutissimal. I think the words ‘of’ ‘Barrel’, ‘the’, ‘Scraping’ ‘the’ and ‘bottom’ apply to your argument now, rearrange the words how you see fit.
Mary,
“put the earth the same size as a billiard ball and the crust wouldn’t even be the thickness of a coat of varnish” also the seas and all water on earth like mere moisture on the same billiard ball. And the people on this tiny bit of crust and moisture will control this wildly spinning earth by passing laws and removing our freedom.
What a frightening thought!
Mike
Mary
the lack of contrails around 9/11showed a larger fluctuation ie cooler at night and warmer by day but no change in the average. The range increased by 1.1 degrees Celcius so yes it is interesting how much contrails affect us. Just google “911 contrails”.
Mike Bryant (07:32:47) :
” And the people on this tiny bit of crust and moisture will control this wildly spinning earth by passing laws and removing our freedom.
What a frightening thought!”
I think you may have stumbled on the perfect definition of politics!
With the sort of grit, stamina and determination that you would expect of an old paratrooper (actually, very old!) I have struggled through this long thread understanding about as much detail as you would expect for a man who failed his Maths, Physics and Chemistry exams at the age of 16. I have enjoyed ‘The Glenn & Lief Show’ (or ‘The Lief & Glenn Show’ – I really don’t want a lecture from the “gloomy Dane”, or whatever, for not giving him top billing) and I detect a situation perfectly explained and encapsulated by the brilliant and incomparable ‘anna v (09:08:58)’ who explains in pellucid English the intractable complexity of it all and the foolishness of anyone believing for a second that they have the one and only final answer. I award her the ‘Duff & Nonsense Prize’ for English and Physics – and commonsense! (If only she had been around to teach me physics all those years ago.)
David Duff (14:39:15) :
…. I have enjoyed ‘The Glenn & Lief Show’ (or ‘The Lief & Glenn Show’ – I really don’t want a lecture from the “gloomy Dane”, or whatever, for not giving him top billing) …
You’re more likely to get a lecture for misspelling Leif. 🙂
Ric Werme (17:10:35) :
You’re more likely to get a lecture for misspelling Leif. 🙂
I have kind of given up on that … Even people in New England misspell it, although my name ‘rimes’ with their ‘either’
[…] I am still reading the new Douglas and Christy paper, so I won’t comment on it yet, but you can see Anthony Watts thoughts here. […]
“Solar activity is back to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are not.”
http://yesserver.space.swri.edu/yes2003/solaractcyc.html
Not really back yet to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are approaching those of 100 years ago, within perhaps .2C, and July dropped to roughly the same as was in 1880.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/uah_august2008.png
Glenn (21:54:48) :
temps are approaching those of 100 years ago, within perhaps .2C, and July dropped to roughly the same as was in 1880.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/uah_august2008.png
You must be joking. The average temp for 2008 is about what 2000 was according to the second graph. Now look at the temps for 2000 in the first graph.
Here are the numbers:
2008 +0.295 July +0.397
2000 +0.277
1880 -0.250 July -0.257
but the cheery-picked high point in 1880 is not a hundred years ago, that was 1908:
1908 -0.554 July -0.529
I shall be even stronger. This is not a joke. This is scientific dishonesty.
Coolers – can you take the Year After 1998 Challenge?
If it’s been cooling since 1998, what’s it been doing since 1999? Do you think you know? Are you sure cooling is really clear and strong? Proven? Since 1998, right? But has it cooled since 1999?!
This shouldn’t be hard, since 1999 was quite hot – sixth hottest on record at the time but it’s down to thirteenth. Sixth in 1999. Thirteenth now. Go figure. It’s still in the top 20 so it’s not a deliberately low bar to get this clear cooling trend in under. Being less well known 1999 should be able to avoid most of the controversy and bickering we get with 1998 and be more able to demonstrate recent trends.
A clear cooling trend doesn’t need, shouldn’t need, a single unusually hot year and controversial yearto prove it’s a trend – a real trend will show itself clearly and reveal the truth about warming without it. So check it out. Let me know how much cooler it’s been since 1999.
Check out 1999, the year coolers don’t want to talk about.
For global temps see this graph at GISS (note that you are automatically counted as conspiracy theory nutter if you say that’s an unreliable source). Email complaints to them at GISS if you truly believe they are wrong and you aren’t worried that they’ll laugh.
Ken Fabos.