Comments on: Sun’s protective ‘bubble’ is shrinking

By: lgl

lgl — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:50:47 +0000

Leif,
Found some other interesting stuff here:
http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%20Chapters/C01/E6-16-04-01.pdf
so I made this:
http://virakkraft.com/PDO-mag-dec.jpg
Must be the moon, last lunar minor standstill was in 1997.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:05:33 +0000

lgl (05:29:52) :
Evidence? http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/christl.pdf
I’ll look at it.

Of, course, for every claim, there is a counterclaim:
[another threas] Pierre Gosselin (06:19:42) :
I just happened to stumble onto this report in the German FAZ newspaper
http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EA76668E9105E490AAEE2DE0CE7CC317C~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
via a sceptic German site.

Summing the main points of the report in English:
1. Two researchers at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich have determined that the Earth’s magnetic field and earth climate are coupled.
2. Whenever the earth’s magnetic field was weak, average global temperatures increased slightly.

Weak field => more GCR => cooling, but they found warming…

By: lgl

lgl — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:29:52 +0000

Leif
Evidence?
http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/christl.pdf

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:30:48 +0000

lgl (15:03:00) :
Do you have more records of the dipole, a few 10000 years back?
I think so. Will take me a little while to find it in my notes. Patience.

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:03:00 +0000

Leif
http://geo.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/publications/clarkp/Clark-AGU-2007.pdf This is showing a 7-kyr cycle. Do you have more records of the dipole, a few 10000 years back?

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:10:47 +0000

lgl (13:13:53) :
Does that mean you agree 0 AD to 1930 is no ‘threat’ to the GCR theory?
GCR is completely dominated by the Earth’s dipole. Solar activity is just small wiggles. Climate is completely dominated by the orbital changes, all the rest are just small wiggles. The orbital effects have been linear the past 10,000 year so should just give a linear trend in T [downwards]. CGRs have been increasing the past 2000 years because the dipole has been decreasing, thus also a linear down trend in T. Added together there should have been a linear trend. There is not, there are warmings, and LIA’s and lots of variation. All of these show that there are internal oscillations in the system not related to the external drivers and that these variations are the dominant ones. On top of that, there is no doubt that all kinds of effects are in play, TSI, volcanoes, land-use, etc. So, to ‘agree’ the GCR effects should have been quantified [also in relation to all of the other effect], so much for insolation, so much for GCRs, so much for volcanoes, so much for clouds, land-use, etc. Only when these thing are accounted for and compared with [almost non-existing good T data] can one even begin to discuss how well things fit. My point all along is that it is not correct to claim that there is strong, exceedingly good, exceptional, etc., evidence for any of these mechanisms [besides insolation and dipole effects].

By: kim

kim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:28:35 +0000

Leif (12:07:05) Why, it’s the sun, but how, even kim doesn’t know.

Not yet, anyway.
=========================================

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:13:53 +0000

Leif

Does that mean you agree 0 AD to 1930 is no ‘threat’ to the GCR theory?
Post-1930 is ok. No warming between 30 and the climate shift in 77, (which there is no reason to believe is man-made). Taking the two large volcanoes into account there was no warming between early 80s and 97, and the warming after 97 has disappeared again. No need for anthropogenic causes.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:07:05 +0000

kim (11:45:49) :
but I believe in Easterbrook’s thesis about the PDO.
I’m kinda a believer myself. Of course, the next question is what causes the PDO…

By: kim

kim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:45:49 +0000

Leif (09:13:34) Got your point about trends, but I believe in Easterbrook’s thesis about the PDO. You can see it cycle throughout the 20th Century, and it peaked about 2003. That’s the main reason I believe we are in a 20-30 year cooling trend. And yeah, I missed the joke; I’ve run across too many snide comments from warmistas who complain that we skeptics cherry-pick 1998 as a starting point for a trend. My starting point for the new cooling trend is early this century.
=================================

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:56:57 +0000

lgl (09:55:53) :
I know the last part is not real but Be-10 is showing the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
The reliable 10Be record stops in 1930 [the ice near the surface is not suitable for the measurements]. So, the 10Be is ’spliced’ onto the Neutron Monitor record [inverted to 10Be concentration]. This is where the problem creeps in. I have referred to this many many many times, but here goes one more time: http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
line 90

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:55:53 +0000

Leif
Indeed, if GCRs were the primary driver, the hockey stick would rule and the recent increase in temps would have to be AGW

What strange argument. The GCR graph is also a hockey stick, rapid decrease after 1700.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
I know the last part is not real but Be-10 is showing the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:18:34 +0000

kim (00:30:16) :
Hardly, Leif, you can eyeball better than that. The peak of the natural cycle was early this century sometime in the 2002-2004 area, and clearly trending down in the last couple of years.
Is was also cold for a couple of years after 1998. An a couple of years do not a trend make. anyway, it was meant as a joke, to show how silly it is to say that a couple of years variation makes a climate trend. But, hey, in this game, anything goes, it seems.

lgl (01:30:50) :
What? GCR decreased over 1700 of those 2000 years, there probably was a significant cooling over 1700 years, minimum around 1700 when it was much colder than today, GCR looks very similar to the famous hockey stick.

GCR increased over the 2000 years because the Dipole decreased 25%. On top of this general and significant increase there has been smaller scale variations [the wiggles on http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg ] that don’t matter much in the grand scheme.

GCR looks very similar to the famous hockey stick
Indeed, if GCRs were the primary driver, the hockey stick would rule and the recent increase in temps would have to be AGW. Many people think so, BTW.

By: lgl

lgl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:30:50 +0000

Leif
those two effects would combine to a very significant steady cooling over the past 2000 years if GCRs were the primary driver, which is not observed

What? GCR decreased over 1700 of those 2000 years, there probably was a significant cooling over 1700 years, minimum around 1700 when it was much colder than today, GCR looks very similar to the famous hockey stick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

By: kim

kim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:30:16 +0000

Leif (21:06:19) On 10/29 Trending down after the 1998 peak? Hardly, Leif, you can eyeball better than that. The peak of the natural cycle was early this century sometime in the 2002-2004 area, and clearly trending down in the last couple of years.
================================================

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:50:43 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (17:33:04) :
that there is no single primary driver
I forgot to qualify this: ‘except the orbital changes’. And the [very] slow secular change of solar luminosity over billions of years. It is too tedious to say this all the time, so that is, clearly, understood.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:30:06 +0000

lgl (16:11:00) :
Remember the summer insolation on greenland was much higher 6000 years ago, several 10ths W/m2 I think.
True enough, the insolation decreased by 5 W/m2 per 1000 years the last 10,000 years, including the last 1000 years. So, for the past 2000 years, by 10 W/m2. With the increase of GCRs because of the 25% decrease of the dipole moment, those two effects would combine to a very significant steady cooling over the past 2000 years if GCRs were the primary driver, which is not observed.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:04 +0000

lgl (16:11:00) :
What if there are several major drivers, and they are interdependent.
They can’t all be ‘major’. And there certainly are many drivers, including simple oscillations of a complex system, that does not need any driver at all. My criticism of all the wide-eyed enthusiasts that peddle their thing exclusively is precisely that there is no single primary driver and that the various correlations that claim to be obvious are worthless because one can never know what fraction of what is caused by what, until we learn what they all are in great quantitative detail.
As I have said many times, geomagnetic activity is a very nice analogy. In the 1850s this was a great mystery and little progress was made in the next 100 years; even up to 1970 we were mostly ignorant of the basic mechanisms [(s) because there are several]. Today, [almost] everything is crystal clear and we can account for geomagnetic activity in exquisite quantitative detail given only data on the solar wind. And even turn the table and use geomagnetic data from centuries ago to tell us about the solar wind.

By: lgl

lgl — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:25:49 +0000

It should say ’several 10s of W/m2′ I guess

By: lgl

lgl — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:11:00 +0000

Leif
In another thread there was a long discussion about it being warm [in Greenland at least] 6000-7000 years ago

Remember the summer insolation on greenland was much higher 6000 years ago, several 10ths W/m2 I think.
Also the ‘averaged-data trap’ is always there. The tropics and the arctic are different planets, even the arctic winter and the arctic summer are different planets and so on, so global averages are dangerous.

A direct and major climate driver should operate all the time and should be clear and obvious.
What if there are several major drivers, and they are interdependent. Then they will not be clear and obvious. For instance, maybe you need both some volcano material (say SO2) and cosmic rays to really boost cloud formation, and maybe that will have less effect if a third factor is changed, hopeless…