Beryllium 10 and climate

Quick primer:

Beryllium-10 is an isotope that is a proxy for the sun’s activity. Be10 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions with atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.

One way to capture earth’s record of that proxy data is to drill deep ice cores. Greenland, due to having a large and relatively stable deep ice sheet is often the target for drilling ice cores.

Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers.

While it sounds simple to analyze, there are issues of ice compression, flow, and other factors that must be taken into consideration when doing reconstructions from such data. I attended a talk at ICCC 09 that showed one of the ice core operations had procedures that left significant contamination issues for CO2. But since Beryllium is rather rare, it doesn’t seem to have the same contamination issues attached. – Anthony

Be-10 and Climate

Guest post by David Archibald

A couple of years ago on Climate Audit, I undertook to do battle with Dr Svalgaard’s invariate Sun using Dye 3 Be10 data. And so it has come to pass. Plotted up and annotated, the Dye 3 data shows the strong relationship between solar activity and climate. Instead of wading through hundreds of papers for evidence of the Sun’s influence on terrestrial climate, all you have to do is look at this graph.

be10-climate

All the major climate minima are evident in the Be10 record, and the cold period at the end of the 19th century. This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.

The end of the Little Ice Age corresponded with a dramatic decrease in the rate of production of Be10, due to fewer galactic cosmic rays getting into the inner planets of the solar system. Fewer galactic cosmic rays got into the inner planets because the solar wind got stronger. The solar wind got stronger because the Sun’s magnetic field got stronger, as measured by the aa Index from 1868.

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/naonew3.gif

From john-daly.com

Thus the recent fall of aa Index and Ap Index to lows never seen before in living memory is of considerable interest. This reminds me of a line out of Aliens: “Stay frosty people!” Well, we won’t have any choice – it will get frosty.

ap_index_2008-520

The Ap magentic index to the end of 2008

About these ads

327 thoughts on “Beryllium 10 and climate

  1. but what about the sunspots? (or lack thereof)….. lots of great info here, but it sure seems that the solar minimum grows deeper every day.

  2. Did your models correctly predict the increase in global temp. the last two months like UAH did? I’m curious if you saw that coming.

    Plus don’t forget to put SST’s into the equation, unless its the sun’s activity driving see temperatures which later drag temps. up and down.

  3. Sunspots are just one aspect of Solar Activity:

    From the Space Weather Prediction Center
    Updated 2009 Mar 17 2201 UTC

    Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

    SDF Number 076 Issued at 2200Z on 17 Mar 2009

    Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 16/2100Z to 17/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. The disk remains spotless. No flares were observed.

    Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.

    Geophysical Activity Summary 16/2100Z to 17/2100Z: Geomagnetic field activity was at quiet levels. The greater than 2MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit reached high levels again today.

    Geophysical Activity Forecast: Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be quiet for the forecast period (18-20 March).

    Just go to solarcycle24.com and have a look at the Magnetogram over the space of a couple of days. Funny things happening to plages, with the most recent on being the dipoles being blown about like fishing nets in arcs.

  4. David, if you are about:
    Why would Be10 show the solar inactivity and C14 not?
    And what happens when the two are combined (not overlayed, but values added and then halved)?
    Do we end up with a mess or a better SC proxy?

  5. This wraps things up neatly. Leif is correct when he says the varience of solar output is not enough to drive the temperature change. But if the increased cloud cover occurs from more high energy neutrons ionizing the atmosphere, then increased solar output makes us warmer indirectly by reducing cloud cover and albedo. It’s still the sun, but not directly.
    We actually have and are increasing a whole system of directly measuring sunlight at the earth’s surface, ie. PV solar panels. Their efficiency is directly proportional to cloud cover, humidity, smog, etc. Many have the capability of continuous record keeping built-in. It seems like for very little money, $2-3M, several hundred existing systems could be monitored.

  6. I don’t think I want to hang my hat on one correlation (your one downward trend coupled with this century’s one warm period) with saying that there is causation. Especially if the connecting mechanism is still up in the air. Oceanic affects correlate with warm and cold periods over and over again, and are coupled with plausible mechanisms. So tell me your thoughts on whether or not you will be able to find more correlations like this one, and tell me what your hypothesized mechanisms are?

  7. You should be ashamed of yourself !!!

    With the Greenland ice sheet melting away, you just go up there and keep drilling.
    Obviously, you don’t care about the polar bears.

  8. Pamela: This would be one correlation, another piece of the puzzle. Seems to me there are quite a few. Leif is saying that solar activity was normal duing the Maunder Minimum. Maybe C14 shows something we cannot observe, and Be10 shows what we actually see (or is felt on Earth). Mechanisms also could be plentiful.
    When Eddy remarked in his interview that he chose not to pursue climate connection because it was messy, he was telling us something.

  9. Why cannot the theoretical hat of climate be hung (tentatively) on both the twin towers of solar and oceanic forcing (not equal however)?

    I emphasize not equal.

    Most of the earth’s heat budget is stored in the oceans. Yet some studies are linking some large-scale heating events such as the Super El Nino 1998 to beyond Earth…..

    Leads one to believe that there might be two main drivers….or perhaps even THREE:

    The Oceans, the Sun, and GCRs.

  10. If I understand Leif’s argument correctly, TSI varies little over time.
    And this does appear to be true.

    TSI however, assumes that all energies of the EM spectrum interact with matter identically. It does not take into effect ionization of atmospheric gases and aerosols, ozone, etc.

    Heating of the ionosphere and upper atmosphere from a stronger solar wind, cme events, and solar flares are also not considered.

    Wouldn’t the expansion of the upper atmosphere reduce the rate at which heat is lost from the planet?

    If CO2 supposedly adds an extra two watts per meter, perhaps it is the atmosphere that is not allowing that extra two watts to escape into space simply because it is thicker.

  11. First, the Oct. 2005 drop in Ap is again highlighted with no explanation. Come on folks, tell me why?

    I have a problem with the second line graph (from john-daly). It seems to have some artistic issues. Can’t think of a better term. The horizontal (x) axis starts at 1070 –tick- 1090, and then goes to 1910. So are those first two supposed to be 1870 and 1890? Then the chart seems to have three parts with correlation coefficients shown, all about -0.8. Equal signs seem to be missing. Then in the first and third parts the lines seem to track extremely well – intuitively, isn’t this a positive correlation? The middle part (1090 to 1940) or, as I think, 1890 to 1940, is out of phase so isn’t than a negative, shown as -0.83? So if we clean up this graph, what is it showing?

    Other than the above, interesting stuff! I haven’t seen Aliens, but the “Stay frosty” greeting I will send on to the three Catlin Artic folks trekking toward the North Pole. Cheers!

  12. One thing that has always puzzled me about the notion that solar variation isn’t enough to change the global climate is based on how I think of the entire system as a whole. The best analogy I can think of is air going into a balloon that has a hole in it. The air coming in is solar energy. The air leaking out is radiation into space. At any given moment the earth is receiving energy on one side and shedding it on the other. Now on any given day, things like clouds will alter the amount received or allowed to escape but given a steady input, the overall balance shouldn’t change much.

    Now imagine the amount of air being added reduces slightly. This is a slight reduction of energy 24x7x365 being added to the system. If this continues over a long enough period of time, the system would have to experience a net loss of energy. The question is if it would be enough to make a difference. Now people who say that the amount of change in a solar minimum us much less than a diurnal change or a seasonal change are, I believe, incorrect because solar radiation doesn’t change on a diurnal cycle. The earth receives the same amount of energy (more or less) at all times and at all seasons. The only difference is where it is being added and where it is escaping.

    Now seasonal changes will be significant because albedo is great at around the equinoxes but again, this also balances out as the season progresses. But if I reduce the amount of energy being put into the system for a year or two years or ten years, the overall system should leak energy to space because there is nothing on the other side of the planet that would necessarily restrict radiation to the same extend that irradiation has reduced. Clouds are (again) the unknown factor here.

    But I am having a hard time reconciling the notion that you can reduce the energy input to the system over a long time period and not reduce the net energy in the system after that time has elapsed.

    Can someone help me understand this better if I am on the wrong track?

  13. Robert Bateman: half-life
    C14: 5730 years
    B10: 1,5×10^6 years

    The aim of this work was to use an Iterative Regression Analysis Method for the determination of periodicities in geophysical time series. This method gives, for every identified sine function, its three parameters and their standard deviation due to measurement errors and to the presence of adjustment residues. This feature allows to select the most important periodicities with higher amplitude/deviation ratio. The method described was applied to the analysis of the main periodicities in time series of atmospheric cosmonuclides (atmospheric carbon 14 and beryllium 10 of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica), mean surface temperatures and indicators of atmospheric volcanic dust. During the time interval of these series, the periodicities found were compared from the point of view of possible causal associations between such phenomena as solar activity, cosmonuclide concentrations in the terrestrial atmosphere, atmospheric circulation, temperatures of the air and volcanic dust in the atmosphere.

  14. I saw a similar talk on ice cores last year. The contamination problem was an important part of the presentation and cast considerable doubt on CO2 data from Vostok and Law Dome.

    I asked the presenter after the talk whether he thought the presence of hydrocarbons in the drill fluid could affect CO2 and other trace material in the core and his answer was an unequivocal yes.

    I then asked whether this affected his position on AGW and his answer was also unequivocal – NO.

    I suspected then (and still do) that his funding, which includes trips to the Antarctic and Greenland, is somewhat dependent on his keeping on message.

  15. There seems to be 2 main camps on climate.
    One is the AGW only CO2 can influence warming and
    Two is the sun is the main driver through solar activity and spectral changes.

    TSI may not vary that much, but the NUV certainly does, and cosmic rays do have a known effect making low-lying clouds. Couple that with the shrinking of the ionosphere and Oceans flipping to cold and increased albedo due to growing cold (ice, snow) and it really doesn’t matter that TSI remains aloof.
    Dunno why the oceans would flip cold, but they did.

  16. Dunno why a farmer would up and tell me his crops are all funny and then tell me there has to be something wrong with the sun. But he did. Blew me away.
    The guy ought to know, he pays attention to everything and has been at it for 50 years.
    Folks who are close to nature are far more apt to notice the changes around them than folks cooped up in offices. No matter what is going on.

  17. I will put this up a very recent web article on my statistical model using AA solar-magnetic index, AMO & PDO and a small amount of CO2 which also shows with a lag period of meaned AA readings from 0 to 15 years, how solar-magnetic influences also show very good correlations with global temps, much like the David has posted. there is something there more thann the TSI shows imo and that of many others it seems. there are too many “coincidences” in solar-magnetic and ocean cycles to not see that they are the main drivers of global temperature. All the ups and downs and peaks and troughs (apart from the volcanic) can be seen in them. You mau not agree with all I have done here in the model, but it all rings true in the right direction to me.
    FORECAST MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2009 TO 2050

    http://www.holtonweather.com/global.htm

    Cheers

  18. Robert Bateman wrote: “Folks who are close to nature are far more apt to notice the changes around them than folks cooped up in offices. No matter what is going on.”

    Agreed. We don’t give enough credit to plants because they can not talk. But phooey on us for not paying attention to what they are saying. The proof is not in the pudding….it is in the yield.

    Something is up with the sun…..plages that in any other time would be blossoming into good ‘ole 101 dalmation spots. Yet nothing.

    Fascinating times.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  19. crosspatch, you are right.

    What you are talking about is the solar forcing equivalent of Mann’s ‘warming in the pipeline’ from the CO2 forcing. That is the warming (or cooling) from a longer term change inTSI that only occurs after a time lag (which may be years).

    I puzzled over this for a while and then puzzled over why other people, particularly climate scientists weren’t puzzling over it.

    I concluded that there isn’t any science to support one position over another. And the instantaneous effect of forcings is just an assumption. Further, the reason no one wants to talk about it, is because scientists don’t like their assumptions questioned, because it throws doubt on everything they think they know.

    Which takes into the realm of epistemology, Kuhn and paradigms. Rather arcane subjects for a blog like this.

  20. Five days of straight rain here in Virginia. Last time we saw the sun? One week prior to today.

    This is a stunning reversal from the mature-warm stage of the AMO, which brought the SE US record heat and drought. The persistent subtropical anticyclone has finally been beaten down.

    Low clouds for one week….and then a clearing sky tonight….only to be enveloped by zero visibility fog a few hours later.

    The cycles of mother nature. I am not complaining….because to us, “AMO” does not mean “love.”

    Fascinating times. Question for David….what is the next set of stats/data related to the Be10 you are going to produce??

    Thanks for your hard work….will be interested to see….

    CHRIS
    Norfolk, VA

  21. Re: solar variation isn’t enough to change the global climate

    OR IS IT???

    OK Floks, here’s my take on what I think is a recent find that could be the missing feedback required to justify the solar impact on climate:

    Per the link below, we know the atmosphere expands and contracts in 11 year, 27day and 9 day cycles….

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39356/title/Solar_wind_pushes_atmospheric_breathing

    Based on this relation, one has to imagine what this change effects:
    1)The total volume of the atmosphere is in relation to the 3rd power of the change in atmospheric height.
    2)Changing volume will have enormous effecs on atmospheric circulation
    3)Changing atmospheric circulation effects the ability to radiate heat into space.
    4)And what about V1 / T1 = V2 / T2 gas laws

    Can anybody provide a graphic that correlates atmospheric height and surface temperature?

  22. It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data. So it is with this post.

    The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls. The production rate may be set by solar activity [the current paradigm says the Heliomagnetic Field. HMF], but the deposition rate in the ice and wood depends on terrestrial factors, climate, geomagnetic field, and volcanic eruptions [as 10Be attaches to aerosols]. Beer and McCracken have in two recent papers [see references in links below] attempted to reconstruct the ‘equivalent’ Climax Neutron Monitor count from the 10Be data and from that the driving HMF.

    We have looked carefully at their reconstruction and are in the process of submitting a paper addressing serious issues we see with their result. a preliminary report was presented at last year’s SORCE meeting in Santa Fe: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf with some background information in http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf

    The issues are complex and will often be too involved for people to take the time to study and understand them. This fact is vigorously exploited by people with agendas, by serving up simplified [sometimes even wrong or deceptive; allowed according to Gore to get the important point across and save the planet – the end justifying the means] and misleading graphs [hockey sticks and ice cores].

    So, I’ll be equally simplistic [as the details have been discussed in full already on this blog] and just point out a few items of interest:
    1) It has been trumpeted with great fanfare that the solar wind is the weakest ever observed. The fact is that the solar wind [and the HMF] now is what ir was 108 years ago, so shouldn’t the curve on Figure 1 go back up to where it was 108 years ago? This has conveniently been left out.
    2) The major peaks in the 10Be record are mainly due to strong volcanic eruptions. The aerosols produced scour the stratosphere clean of 10Be and increases the deposition rate. Volcanic eruptions also produce cooling, of course, so that will help the correlation.
    3) The Ap-index being the lowest ever is due to erroneous data from the SWPC. This has been pointed out here already, so Figure 2 seems a deliberate distortion. Correct geomagnetic activity is known back to the 1840s [ http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf ].
    4) Correlation coefficients calculated on heavily smoothed data [Figure 3] are severely inflated and do not represent correct statistics.

    In all, I would personally have been embarrassed if this had been my post, but then I’m not an agitator for an agenda [which I understand justifies inaccuracies for the sake of the good].

  23. There is an interesting posting at Jennifer Marohasy’s site concerning energy loss from the earth. 3rd March ‘Radical new hypothesis on the effect of greenhous gases’ by Michael Hammer’. I would be keen to see some discussion here!

  24. It would strengthen the case for this hypothesis if ice cores from Antarctica confirmed the ones in Greenland.

  25. There is a relatively old and simple theory that the primary temperature control mechanism of planet earth is low-level cloud cover and it goes as follows:

    1) More cloud cover; cooler temperatures.
    2) More cosmic rays; more cloud cover.
    3) More sunspot activity; fewer cosmic rays and less cloud cover.
    4) More volcanic eruptions; more cloud cover

    It is clear that both the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minimums coincided with plunging global temperatures. The correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature has at other times been less clear.

    Somewhere out there is a study I read a couple years ago purporting to have reconstituted a record of volcanic activity and to have overlain that volcanic record with the record of sunspot activity. The paper claimed that when volcanic activity was “tuned out” the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature was very tight.

  26. It’s interesting to compare the NAO series in the second graph with this 5 year smoothed graph of the AMO.

    http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/amor5year200811.jpg?w=590&h=358

    Apart from the solar cycles standing out very clearly in most of the graph, it looks to me like the AMO ‘lags’ behind the NAO, and also picks up influence from elsewhere.
    Could it be that when solar activity is high, excess heat is transported away southwards at the same time the mid and south atlantic is gaining heat from increased input from warm surface water released by el nino’s driven by increased trade winds in the equatorial tropics?

    When I asked Leif about the long term increase in the aa index a couple of years ago at climate audit, he said there were instrumental issues and the data needed adjusting. I put some of that down to his need to validate his invariate sun model, but nonetheless, we need to be sure we have reliable data before drawing conclusions.

  27. Steve Keohane “It’s still the sun, but not directly” = 100% correct. Also turn off sun
    earths temps falls to -273K? or maybe kept a bit warm for 100 years ect then down LOL

  28. David, you have this nice way of getting to the point, many scientist could definetly learn from this no matter their dergrees and status. It was your nice wirtings a few years ago that really made me doubt AGW. What a relief.
    My hero :-)

    You know, peobple that really understands a subject, the essentials often has an ability to communicate their findings.

    Im working on a new piece “Holocene, historic and recent temperature proxies” and my god, its a jungle of data. But i think there will be a few nice conclusions that will come out of this anyway, hope to share it with you all in a few weeks from now.

  29. deadwood (21:03:45) , 17/03/2009:

    I saw a similar talk on ice cores last year. The contamination problem was an important part of the presentation and cast considerable doubt on CO2 data from Vostok and Law Dome.

    I asked the presenter after the talk whether he thought the presence of hydrocarbons in the drill fluid could affect CO2 and other trace material in the core and his answer was an unequivocal yes.

    The contamination problem is far less in Antarctic ice cores than in Greenland, where acidic volcanic ashes can set CO2 free from sea salts (carbonates). The coastal ice cores of Antarctica (Law Dome) and the inland ice cores (Vostok) show similar CO2 levels for the same gas age, despite higher salt/dust deposits near the coast.

    Drill fluid can contaminate the ice core through cracks in the ice and where drilling fluid is found, higher CO2 levels are measured. These measurements are rightfully discarded as unreliable, and only ice parts without cracks or drilling fluid are used for measurements.

    BTW, Law Dome has three ice cores investigated: one used drilling fluid, the other two used “dry” methods of drilling. The three cores show similar CO2 levels within 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for the same gas age, and an overlap of about 20 years (1960-1980) with the south pole atmospheric measurements…

  30. David Archibald:

    In the above graph of 10Be over time, has there been a correction applied for differences in snow deposit? In cooler periods, the air is dryer and less snow is falling, artifically increasing the 10Be content of the ice core in such a period. Although the snow deposit and climate are related, the 10Be content isn’t necessary the result of solar changes in this case…

  31. Another analogy I came up with … imagine a globe in a cold vacuum with a heat lamp on it. Put two temperature sensors 180 degrees apart at the equator. Shine a heat lamp on it. Rotate the globe. Sample the temperature sensors when they are just about to transition between illumination and shadow, add them and divide by two to obtain an “average” (or use 4 if you wish, at 90 degree intervals). Rotate until the temperatures stabilize. Make the globe solid, maybe full of water to give it some thermal “inertia”.

    Now turn down the heat lamp very slightly. What does your “average” temperature do?

  32. Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:46:34) :
    In the above graph of 10Be over time, has there been a correction applied for differences in snow deposit? In cooler periods, the air is dryer and less snow is falling, artifically increasing the 10Be content of the ice core in such a period. Although the snow deposit and climate are related, the 10Be content isn’t necessary the result of solar changes in this case…

    As fair a question as asking Michael Mann how much his tree rings are affected by water availability as opposed to temperature it seems to me. Proxy data is fraught with uncertainties. If we look at the later part of the aa graph, the twin peaks in the second half of the C20th are roughly equal in amplitude, whereas the 10Be descent shows the later peak as lower than the 1950’s peak. Could the aa record be useful in ‘calibrating’ the 10be record?

  33. Philip_B (21:46:19) wrote in part: “I puzzled over this for a while and then puzzled over why other people, particularly climate scientists weren’t puzzling over it.”

    I am a compulsive appreciator of nice lines and nice paragraphs, Philip. This is one such and is hereby acknowledged!

  34. “It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data.” Leif

    Well, from where I sit everyone has beliefs and especially notices things that appeal to those beliefs, for sure…maybe even those who believe that the sun has little to do with the any changes in global temperature….But, that is how the human brain works, it is very hard to dis-associate one’s self from what the mind and heart believe is true.
    Most people post what their heart and mind believe after looking at the facts. There are likely to be truth and untruth in all posts, it is a matter of sifting the diamonds from the dust. And David and Leif and many others all have some diamonds in their posts normally….But no one person has all the diamonds. Read and take out of each post and thread the diamonds and leave the rest of the dust in the storage basket, maybe there is some coal even there that will change to diamonds with time.

  35. lgl (23:43:37) :

    Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.

    Well we certainly can’t see them, but they sure do leave thier siganture. And if galactic cosmic rays are way up during Grand Minima, there is good reason to believe the recorders of the Grand Minimum as regards Sunspot Group counting. So exactly why would C14 not show the same as Be10 during Grand Minima? Pardon me for asking, but which part of solar activity does C14 actually represent?

  36. tallbloke (01:14:46) :

    I like the way you think. Looking for answers to vexing questions and delving into the possibilites is good stuff.

  37. I tend to sympathise with the view that in opposing the AGW hysteria, we have to be careful with cherry picking data that suits our case. In this respect, Roy Spencer’s view that all paleo studies are to be treated cautiously deserves respect. That leaves us with the satellite record showing no significant warming since 1979, measured temp histories that can be relied upon such as Armagh where there is no “accelerating” warming, the ARGO buoys and the missing hot spot predicted by models and the illogic of the IPCC temp sensitivity.

    Good work by DA though.

    Paul

  38. Re: lgl (23:43:37) :

    “Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.”

    The theory goes that when the Sun is active – less cosmic rays can reach the Earths Atmosphere due to a strengthened solar magnetic field. Less clouds will form, allowing the Climate to Warm. When the Sun is inactive, the solar magnetic field weakens, allowing more cosmic rays to reach Earth, causing more clouds to form, cooling the Climate.

    So, strictly, Be10 IS a direct proxy for Galactic Cosmic Rays, but will be negatively correlated with the strength of the solar magnetic field.

    —-

    Interesting article, though as always correlation does not prove causality.

    However, to start with something which IS correlated (Be10 and the cosmic ray flux) rather than something which IS NOT correlated (CO2) is a good start…

  39. I am with Lief on this topic. The Tsonis post was a step in the right direction, but there are too many issues with paleo reconstructions to draw firm conclusions.

  40. Stephen Garland (22:16:25) :

    “There is an interesting posting at Jennifer Marohasy’s site concerning energy loss from the earth. 3rd March ‘Radical new hypothesis on the effect of greenhous gases’ by Michael Hammer’. I would be keen to see some discussion here!”

    Stephen,

    I found the article on the Gore Lied site and made at least two WUWT postings
    in order to “throw it for the wolves” without any response.

    It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine:

    See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899
    New Peer Reviewed Study:
    In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

    That sucking sound you hear is all of the air and energy being sucked out of Al Gore’s global warming climate change climate crisis machine.

    Source: Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics published in The International Journal of Modern Physics. Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Jennifer Marohasy notes that Michael Hammer previously reached a similar conclusion.

    In short: I too would like to see a firm discussion about this study on WUWT.

  41. “This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.”

    Correlation is not causation. Neither at RealClimate, nor here. Damn!

  42. lgl (23:43:37) :

    Beryllium-10 is not a proxy for the sun’s activity. It’s a GCR proxy.

    —————

    However GCR’s are a proxy for the sun’s activity.

  43. You are right titopli “correlation is not causation”.

    However, good scientists know that some very good correlations can used to guide investigators towards a better understanding of the underlying causations.

    Spectulation and reasoned conjecture are important tools in the search for a “better truth” and a better understanding.

  44. Ron de Haan (03:22:07) wrote regarding the Jennifer Marohasy site article: “It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine…”

    I fear the alarmists have long gone beyond rational doctrine, Ron, and destroying this particular one would be as pointless as all the destruction by true scientists of hockey sticks and hokey sticks and the like has been. Perhaps it never ever was about “science” right from the beginning? It sounds trite to call AGW alarm “religion”, but perhaps it is also correct to call it that… a debased religion, anyway; and the fire is in their eyes.

    Seems to me the global financial collapse is riding with the angels insofar as throwing rocks under the wheels of the AGW juggernaut; but simply “proving them wrong” is not going to quench either their fire or their thirst. They have both a tiger by the tail and a mission, and logic is not going to even impinge on either those with the madness or those with the money.

    However; I do believe it will burn itself out, and on the positive side also believe it has given us a lot of real science we may otherwise have taken years to harvest.

  45. I knew this post would raise the ire of Dr. Svaalgard. What gets me about life (religion, politics, and this is no different) is that many qualified people can look at the exact same data and come to OPPOSITE conclusions. From my Mathematics background, that’s a real problem. (IF A=B and B=C, does A really equal C? Meh, for some, maybe, for others, certainly not!)

    My conclusion from such divergence is that one or all sides disagree on SOMETHING, but that SOMETHING is never really brought out and discussed on ITS OWN MERITS. Dr. Svaalgard gets points here because he does offer an itemized list of potential issues with the OP’s methods and omissions. We’ll see what the OP has to say about them.

    My greater point is: Why are we allowing politicians to make policy based on “scientific conclusions” for which many scientists DISAGREE? And even if 100% of scientists agreed that Model X is “as good as it gets,” they would still have to agree–ideally, scientifically–on its shortcomings! And those shortcomings should PROHIBIT POLICY BEING MADE!

    We have the power (voting), and we use it poorly. Just goes to show how rich we really are…things will have to get much worse before we wake up.

  46. Re: tallbloke (23:45:38) :

    “…it looks to me like the AMO ‘lags’ behind the NAO, and also picks up influence from elsewhere.”

    The mechanism for linkage here as I understand it is due to the influence of the NAO phase on dense cold water downwelling in the North Atlantic just South of Greenland. Downwelling in this area is a core component of the Thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean and the AMO (basically a measure of sea surface temperatures) is a proxy for the phase of the Thermohaline (strong or weak).

    A negative NAO is characterized by a ridge of high pressure (a “block”) over Greenland which is also associated with strong downwelling, whereas a positive NAO is characterized by a trough of low pressure in the same place and relatively weak downwelling. The NAO time series is extremely noisy, but does exhibit a prefferred phase over multi-decades. That oscillation in preffered phase is also an oscillation in the mean pressure regime over and just South of Greenland.

    Because the Ocean is more viscous than air, it has more “memory” and it acts like a low-pass filter to the forcing – the daily and monthly “noise” in the NAO gets damped out, whereas the lower frequency decadal preferred mode becomes coupled (much that like described in the “synchronized chaos” article) with the ocean and causes the lagged oscillation in downwelling and the strength of the Thermohaline, which is then reflected in the AMO. I have a couple of references on this mechanism – will look them up and post when I have them…

  47. Philip_B: “I puzzled over this for a while and then puzzled over why other people, particularly climate scientists weren’t puzzling over it.”

    Maybe there’s no puzzle? Maybe it’s because climate scientists have studied the issue and discounted it as a cause for recent warming? Maybe that’s why the only people who are drawing the conclusion that recent warming is due to solar activity are not climate scientists and are, in fact, not scientists of any kind. This blog being one example.

    Also, I thought the main argument of this blog is that there has been no recent warming and it’s all a ‘mistake’ because of a few poorly sited weather stations in the USA? Now there is warming and it’s because of the sun?

    Go to climate scientists to learn about climate science otherwise it’s very easy to get flawed information: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5477/270

  48. Have you heard about a 2007 paper.

    New Peer Reviewed Study: ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner.

  49. It was interesting to see Svalgaard go for the jugular again, he has not learned anything from previous complaints, although he may have a few points, his style leaves something to be desired.

    I agree with others, DA’s style and communication skills are in a class of their own.

  50. If the cooling that has begun continues during the next 5 to 15 years, and solar activity remains minimal as well, Leif’s position that the Sun does not vary enough to influence climate will be harder to defend.

    A major volcanic eruption bolstering the cold would not cancel the experiment, as these, along with greater GCRs and greater low cloud cover, seem to occur in greater numbers during solar minima as well.

    In other words, we are about 80 percent through a fascinating novel and unable to turn the pages as fast as we would like.

  51. Does the sun’s activity or inactivity have any affect on volcanic activity? Wasn’t there more volcanic activity during the Maunder Minimum?

  52. Mary R (05:08:51) :

    Does the sun’s activity or inactivity have any affect on volcanic activity? Wasn’t there more volcanic activity during the Maunder Minimum?

    Great timing Mary, in Melbourne today we witnessed another 4.6 earthquake. We had something a little stronger 2 weeks ago. Apparently there was another quake in Jan with a 3.3 reading if I remember. These all came from the same epicenter. In 50 years I cannot remember activity like this.

  53. JimK,

    That Science abstract is nothing more than another attempt to prop up always-inaccurate climate models, and to support the falsified notion that CO2 causes global warming. Like similar failed attempts, it runs into the brick wall of reality: as CO2 rises, the planet continues to cool.

    I subscribed to Science for over twenty years, and was a dues-paying member of the AAAS. Around the late ’90’s I noticed a radical change in their articles and policy, similar to what happened when Scientific American was bought out by a German entity.

    Science magazine and the AAAS is rapidly losing credibility. Feel free to take their pronouncements at face value. I do not, having seen the change.

    You are honestly better off reading the Best Science blog and making up your mind, rather than being told what to think by a rapidly fading authority.

  54. Hmm, I’ve been trying to look at the influence of the Earth’s mantle on climate change. Surely the mantle doesn’t have a uniform temperature all the way around it because of its convective material circulation. As hot material rises from the Earth’s core, cooler material sinks back down to the centre.

    So temperature is changing under our feet all the time due to the mantle’s circulation. Not sure if any of it correlates to climate changes on the surface and atmosphere though (volcanic activity excluded).

  55. crosspatch (00:49:53) :

    “Another analogy I came up with … imagine a globe in a cold vacuum with a heat lamp on it. Put two temperature sensors 180 degrees apart at the equator. Shine a heat lamp on it. Rotate the globe. Sample the temperature sensors when they are just about to transition between illumination and shadow, add them and divide by two to obtain an “average” (or use 4 if you wish, at 90 degree intervals). Rotate until the temperatures stabilize. Make the globe solid, maybe full of water to give it some thermal “inertia”.

    Now turn down the heat lamp very slightly. What does your “average” temperature do?”

    Crosspatch,

    It’s obvious that you have performed the experiment.
    Just tell us what happens!

  56. I’m very disappointed with Leif’s comments, especially the “more rabidly Anti-AGW”. It is incontestable that the pro-AGWers are far more rabid, assuming rabid in it’s usual context as a raging fury. Continually making the point that solar activity hasn’t changed much, as he does, also ignores the glaring fact that the temperature hasn’t changed much either. If we were to accept the common climate IPCC median sensitivity then we’d have had 5 degrees C of warming since pre-industrial times. But of course we didn’t.

    Jumping on statistical correlations is really silly. You can see a correlation there with your eyes. When something doesn’t correlate, like CO2 and temperature for example, it’s also obvious without stats. I don’t accept a single graph either but numerous other correlations of climate to solar activity are available. This is just one more to add to the large pile and there are a lot of clever people who have written numerous papers and books about such correlations. Since those tiny, indirect solar effects are thought to have been important enough to trigger the start and end of ice ages then it’s bleeding obvious that whether Tsi varies a lot is irrelevant because the data forces us to conclude that solar amplifiers must be present. Even the CO2-is-everything side have admitted that one, except that they say that 30% of the amplifier is CO2 (which of course is only half an argument because the presence of CO2 can only explain the heating, not the cooling). Leif then lists 5 points, 4 of which are also irrelevant and the other point (volcanic activity) seems to be a complete guess.

    The reason Anti-AGWers are seeking an alternative explanation rather than just stating that it’s all a small, unimportant and entirely natural variation, is because they have been challenged to do so by every scientist who concludes that if they cannot think of anything else to explain a climatic change then it must be CO2. Like it or not this limited anti-AGW research has already yielded important results vis-a-vis climate. And on important points the skeptical side has been proven right many times over.

  57. Philip_B (21:46:19) :
    “…
    I concluded that there isn’t any science to support one position over another. And the instantaneous effect of forcings is just an assumption. Further, the reason no one wants to talk about it, is because scientists don’t like their assumptions questioned, because it throws doubt on everything they think they know.
    Which takes into the realm of epistemology, Kuhn and paradigms. Rather arcane subjects for a blog like this.”

    I am a philosopher by training. I agree, but Kuhn overstated the case. Postmodernism, “Critical Theory”, creationism, and other similar nonsense have rushed in to plunder the credibility of science since Kuhn opened this door. A great part of what I worry about concerning AGW theory is that once this paradigm collapses it will do further significant damage to scientific credibility in general, and maybe hasten the looming New Dark Age.

    Thanks for the post on Beryllium 10. Fascinating.

  58. Leif Svalgaard (22:14:21) :

    If the Ap index graph to the end of 2008 is crooked, why not replace it with a correct one!

    Same goes for other data and graphs that need to be corrected.

    This would spare us a lot of time and the annoyance of having the same discussions every time such a crooked graph is published in a posting.
    Get the data right, throw out the crooked stuff and than start discussions.

  59. Robert,
    I don’t know but I would like to know more about the changes in carbon cycling mentioned on wiki:
    “In addition to variations in solar activity, the long term trends in carbon-14 production are influenced by changes in the Earth’s geomagnetic field and by changes in carbon cycling within the biosphere (particularly those associated with changes in the extent of vegetation since the last ice age)”

  60. Correction:

    I see in one of my earlier posts that it could be construed that i said the AMO had reversed. . It has not, as it its still in its warm phase (unlike its bigger cousin the PDO), and I did not mean that. What i was saying that had appeared to reverse was the persistent ridge off the SE US that has caused prolonged multi-year drought in the same area. These periods of drought can be attributed, at least in part, to the warm phase of the AMO.

  61. The point has been made that correlation is not causation, which is true enough. The interesting aspect of the solar/climate connection is that it is open loop, meaning there are fewer possible explanations for a correlation: causation, coincidence, or the action of some third agent which causes both. The natural reaction is to assume causation because of the apparent high degree of correlation – much too high to suggest coincidence. It seems that the thing to be ironed out is whether the correlation in the proxies is caused by the influence of the climate on the proxies themselves.

  62. Robert Bateman (19:44:34) :

    David, if you are about:
    Why would Be10 show the solar inactivity and C14 not?
    And what happens when the two are combined (not overlayed, but values added and then halved)?
    Do we end up with a mess or a better SC proxy?

    ____________

    I believe Dr Svensmark deals with this issue in his book, ‘The Chilling Stars’. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I’ll check the book and post up this evening (unless I have an attack of ‘sometimers’ and forget.)

  63. I for one appreciate Leif’s input and his style. Regardless of our beliefs,views or biases we must be sceptical in order to pass scrutiny by others and to hopefully discover truth. If we are sloppy or blinded by our beliefs others will expose us and discredit us. We should be our own critics.

    By US and WE I mean the WUWT community be we warmers or sceptics.Let us hold ourselves up to standards which are higher than those of RC, Gore etc.

  64. We are not in grade school anymore where the teacher spoon feeds us when we are wrong so as not to harm our natural curiosities. I prefer to be told, or at least seriously questioned, that my assumptions, conclusions, thoughts on correlations, etc are wrong, why they are wrong, and just how much they are wrong, then to be ignored. I once questioned Leif if he was curious anymore, as in the complete pleasure gained from investigating something you don’t know. I think his curiosity is fully intact, but I probably jump up and down more than he does when I finally understand something. I also think his presentations and articles, though a struggle to read, offer far greater detail (and in a rather dry, colorless, technical language) and explained mechanisms than what we get from ourselves, me included, and media-tweaked AGW articles.

  65. May I, as a humble ignoramus and an avid follower of WUWT, put a question to this world of scientific luminaries? I note that the oceans today are vast heat sinks and tomorrow switch to being vast yielders of stored heat. If the world was reduced to golf-ball size, the white outer shell of an operative golf ball must roughly correlate to the crust of the planet. If everything under that shell was molten rock, white-hot iron and what-have-you, how come this has no effect, bearing or influence on the surface temperature of said golf ball? Is the planetary crust an unsurpassed insulator, capable of keeping its core molten forever?

    Incidentally, where I live on the lower Indian Ocean coast of the African continent, March is usually as sweaty and unpleasant as are our Februaries. Normally it is well into April before we are accorded our first relief. This year we have already enjoyed a week of delightful Autumn weather, brilliant sun and clear blue sky. It has been really pleasant. You could even stand in the sun without frying! That changed yesterday , and we are at present experiencing a bleak cold front. So, right now I peck at this keyboard wrapped in unaccustomed warm stuff.

    Geoff Alder

  66. Roger Carr (04:19:41) :

    Ron de Haan (03:22:07) wrote regarding the Jennifer Marohasy site article: “It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine…”

    “I fear the alarmists have long gone beyond rational doctrine, Ron, and destroying this particular one would be as pointless as all the destruction by true scientists of hockey sticks and hokey sticks and the like has been. Perhaps it never ever was about “science” right from the beginning? It sounds trite to call AGW alarm “religion”, but perhaps it is also correct to call it that… a debased religion, anyway; and the fire is in their eyes.

    Seems to me the global financial collapse is riding with the angels insofar as throwing rocks under the wheels of the AGW juggernaut; but simply “proving them wrong” is not going to quench either their fire or their thirst. They have both a tiger by the tail and a mission, and logic is not going to even impinge on either those with the madness or those with the money.

    However; I do believe it will burn itself out, and on the positive side also believe it has given us a lot of real science we may otherwise have taken years to harvest”.

    Roger,

    I know all about the politicized aspects of teh AGW/Climate Change Doctrine but
    this report is a Peer Reviewed Study that completely destroys the entire basis of the IPCC/Gore doctrine. It kills it.

    If this study is correct we can scrap any discussion of CO2 influencing temperatures permanently. In this regard it’s a key that could simplefy any future discussions and block any Government action on the reduction of CO2

    “Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy”.

    That is why it is important to discuss this study.

    In regard to your remark that the the Climate Issue in time will burn itself out I nust say that I disagree very strongly.

    It is five minutes to twelve before most damaging CO2 mitigation legislation is upon us and we should fight it with all our power. Not tomorrow but today.

  67. “It’s still the sun, but not directly.”

    We are splitting hairs, the relation is direct, mathematically.

    Consistent with Anthony’s CRF post, DA’s Sept. ’07 prediction for June ’09 minimum is coming into play as the smoothed SS min continues forward, off of Oct. ’08.


  68. Mary R (05:08:51) :
    Does the sun’s activity or inactivity have any affect on volcanic activity? Wasn’t there more volcanic activity during the Maunder Minimum?

    Geoff Sharp (05:17:30) :
    Great timing Mary, in Melbourne today we witnessed another 4.6 earthquake. We had something a little stronger 2 weeks ago. ……..

    For those who may be interested in the earthquake daily occurrences here are some useful links.

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/

    Usually weekly score, as calculated for this site is somewhere 170-190.
    For more details:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php

  69. To put things in perspective here http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA18.png is a plot of the 10Be (red) and 14C (blue) proxies and of the HMF (thin pink). 11-year means [actually 10 for 14C] are shown. The 14C record stops in the 1950s because it is contaminated by nuclear weapons testing after that. One should note that the HMF now is down [‘up’ on the graph] to where it was ~1900. The 10Be and HMF scales are inverted and 10Be is expressed in ‘equivalent’ HMF values following McCracken and Beer.

  70. realitycheck:

    “The mechanism for linkage here as I understand it…”

    Thank you for the nutshell explanation.

  71. Bruckner8:

    I’ll have to watch for this call sign in the future. Sane, articulate and well-mannered!

  72. igl is being very misleading.
    Yes Be10 is a proxy for cosmic rays. But there is a very clear 11 year cycle in the Be10 record, which also shows the Maunder minimum.
    So Be10 is a proxy for solar magnetic activity. The mechanism for this is well understood, as briefly explained by David A above – see various papers by Beer or Raisbeck.

  73. Off topic, but the British Arctic team who set off recently to measure ice depth and observe arctic ice melting is fighting for their lives – almost no food, icy storms, -40°C temps and one got frostbite. Air evacuation not possible because of terrible weather.

    REPLY: See the thread a couple of stories down

  74. for Ron, re Crosspatch’s experiment:

    I can think of a much easier analagous experiment to perform and measure, one that almost anyone can do if they wish. (easier because most people without labs don’t have thermometers sensitive enough to measure small changes, also it would be difficult to build a truly closed system – ambient temperature would have a strong, stabilizing effect on that particular experiment)

    Heat is often compared to a reservoir – it can be stored, raised, or lowered. So an easy to measure analogue would be an actual closed fluid reservoir of some type. Give it one input, and one output. Fill the reservoir halfway and then balance the input with the output so that the level remains stable – ie, equilibrium. Now, raise the input slightly – what does the level do? Drop the input slightly, while output remains constant – measure.

    Responding to Aron’s comment, I don’t believe that the mantle (except in rare cases of volcanic and geothermic activity, such as Yellowstone) imparts much heat to the atmosphere. In most of the world, underground near surface temperatures are more influenced by the atmosphere than the deep mantle. For example, Alaska, Canada, and other arctic regions have year round permafrost near the surface, wheras temperate zones will have ground temperatures very close to the average yearly atmospheric temperature for that location.

    Of course, volcanoes are a huge exception to this, but it would be interesting to see whether there is actually enough volcanic activity at any time to make an impact on global temperature. I suspect that this would take volcanic activity at least an order of magnitude (or two!) greater than anything humans have ever seen.

  75. crosspatch (00:49:53) : “Now turn down the heat lamp very slightly. What does your “average” temperature do?”

    Would changing the distance from the lamp to the globe also make a difference? Would making the globe more Earthlike (land in the NH and seas in the SH) then tilting the vertical axis between 22.5 and 24.5 degrees make any difference? What about throwing in some wobble to change the equinoxi? Would a combination of all these things make a difference?

  76. I’m new to discussions on climate change but am trying to find the truth that lies somewhere beween what I have always believed to be irrational falsehoods being used to scare the general population. It has been a real pleasure to read information and discussions from this site and I’m so glad that you do not use the rude tactics generally used by the pro-AGW camp. I am glad though to see people from that camp on here putting their own views across.

    I’m an engineer so I understand the concepts and my view so far is that based on everything that I have seen the deniers are dancing rings around the believers. One thing that there certainly isn’t is theory and observed data that proves we are on the verge of climate catastrophe or on the verge of anything. How can we as normal people stop the juggernaut?

  77. The sunspot cycle has a corresponding TSI amplitude of variation of approximately 1 w/m2 about an ambient level of 1366 w/m2. Some claim that the Sun’s variation is not sufficient to drive climate changes. Wht data is available to show that the ambient level of solar output does not change significantly over longer solar cycles with periods of hundreds of years? The ambient level seems to be changing significantly in the recent cycles as measured by satellite. Could it be that long term solar cycles are accompanied by significant ambient drift that subsequently addects the short term sunspot cycle?

  78. Ron de Haan (05:46:03) :
    If the Ap index graph to the end of 2008 is crooked, why not replace it with a correct one!
    Same goes for other data and graphs that need to be corrected.

    Let me quote Stephen Schneider [as quoted by Roy Spencer]:
    “we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. […] Se we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. […] Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest […]”

    And Al Gore is quoted as saying that it is OK to lie to save the planet.

    Bottom line: If it serves someone’s agenda to show faulty graphs, they will be shown [again and again].
    As informed readers we can all recognize the penguins cosing up to the polar bear for what it is.

  79. I am a mere layman interested in the role the sun plays in the current climate debate, so most of this is Greek to me. I sent an email to a professor of atmospheric science who claimed in a Discovery Channel article that “Cooling events since then (1950’s) had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas . This current cooling doesn’t have one.”  I asked him why he did not consider the current reduction in solar activity. Here is his response. Can you guys decipher it?

    “My policy in general is not to comment at length on my work unless I know the questioner, as such things end up on the internet as quotes taken out of context, etc. That much said, the amplitude of the solar cycle is about 2 W/m^2, which when you take into account the geometry of the Earth (reducing that by a factor of 0.25) as well as albedo effect (a further factor of 0.7), alters the net planetary solar flux by at most 0.35 W/m^2. The effect we are seeing with the recent cooling is similar in magnitude to a major volcanic eruption, which is on the order of 1-2 W/m^2 sustained for 2-3 years.”

  80. I really don’t like this one statement ” This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.” It does not demonstrate any such thing. It suggests that it is possible that this might be the case any more than that is not indicated and is if nothing else a claim that correlation means cause and effect.

  81. Estimated annual production of carbon 14.
    7.5 kg.
    C [14] + O2 >>>>>> C [14] O2
    Incorporated into the biological cycle. (Instant?)
    Incorporated into the core of ice. (instant?)
    Leif: I do not know another word to say “I love you.” Naturally:
    Leif’s wife understands me

  82. What I don’t understand is how you can get ice core data from Greenland when all I read in the media tells me the ice has all melted there. Are you all living in a cave and have not heard of this little thing called Global Warming?

  83. The only local heat source of significance is the sun. The atmosphere and oceans do not provide heat, they can absorb, store and redistribute what they recieve from the sun, but there is no extra heat unless the sun provides more. This, IMO, means like Arctic ice being limited by shore lines, there is an upper limit to the temperature of climate. However, various mitigations can inhibit heat available to earth. Give an obliquity to the ecliptic, and you get ice caps. Increase cloud cover and it cools. If GCRs do increase clouds and albedo, perhaps events beyond our little solar system cause fluctuations in GCR density, providing random events, at least from the perspective of our solar system, coolings that don’t correlate to anything. When cooling ‘forcings’ aren’t going on, the earth heats back up to its natural temperature. Perhaps the whole model for climate has been looked at backwards, the earth is always trying to recover from cooling events, not being ‘forced’ to warmer climate. Just trying to think outside the solar system, er, box.

  84. I know everyone zeros in on the 11 year Schwab Cycle, but has anyone attempted to study long term climate variations to the 205 year DeVries Cycle? Has anyone attempted to coorelate the variations of Be10 to the DeVries, Hales, or Gleissberg Cycles?

  85. A little humility goes a long way. I suspect we know a lot less about everything than we think we do. Climate, like life itself, is extremely complex. A little knowledge is dangerous, as IMHO, it leads us to think we know more than we do. I am back from days in Death Valley, where the days were warm, and the nights cool. To deny the Sun drives our climate seems absurd. I do not need to know exactly how. The older i get, the more i realize how little i know. Theories about everything come and go.

  86. Thanks WWS,

    Regarding volcanic activity, I’m also checking what happened to world temperature and GHG levels when Santorini exploded 3625 years ago and also Krakatoa in the 6th century. Compare them to the temperature reconstruction, historical accounts, ice core data, tree ring data, solar activity, etc

  87. Bruckner8 wrote:
    “I knew this post would raise the ire of Dr. Svaalgard. What gets me about life (religion, politics, and this is no different) is that many qualified people can look at the exact same data and come to OPPOSITE conclusions. From my Mathematics background, that’s a real problem. (IF A=B and B=C, does A really equal C? Meh, for some, maybe, for others, certainly not!)”

    Here’s Robert Anton Wilson’s First Law of Politics:
    “If A>B and B>C, then A>C, except where prohibited by law.”

  88. Philip_B, I believe that the rationale behind ignoring pipeline forcings in the atmosphere at least is that the temperature swing is too high on a daily basis. The atmosphere warms and cools extremely quickly, reaching a new equilibrium within hours. The land surface also warms and cools quickly. While there is a drag in ocean temperatures, the ocean temperature should not significantly affect the equilibrium temperature over land far from the ocean. The oceans also cycle significantly in temperature annuall.

    In short, large sections of the atmosphere reach their equilibrium every day and the ocean reaches equilibrium every year months. A step change in forcing should manifest within 12 hours for inland areas and within 6 months for oceans (the maximum amount of time needed to get to a new max or min).

    Yes there is a pipeline, but the pipeline is extremely short.

  89. Overall, I can see where Lief is coming from, that if there are many things we don’t know about how and why our planet works, and a few things that obviously don’t fit, it is best to say we are unsure.

    Unfortunately, the human world does not work on reason or logic, it works by belief, so we often make a mess of things!

    I long ago got bored with the bizarre elements of the AGW atmospheric Co2 forcing debate, the Alarmists are welcome to it!. I don’t care!

    The Sun is much more fascinating.

  90. Leif Svalgaard (22:14:21) :

    It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data. So it is with this post.
    Speaking of selective vision, don’t forget the rabidly Anti-Solar cause.

  91. Ron de Haan (03:22:07) :

    I found the article on the Gore Lied site and made at least two WUWT postings
    in order to “throw it for the wolves” without any response.

    It is a very interesting study because it completely destroys the AGW/CO2 doctrine:

    See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899

    New Peer Reviewed Study:

    In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

    Here is a link to the 115 page study I posted about on my blog (and Ron de Haan mentioned) for those that are interested. It’s titled, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
    Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    Like Ron, I believe that this study is worthy of discussion. I’d fully expected every AGW skeptic blog in the world to link to this article as I did, and yet there seems to be a collective shrugging of the shoulders. I am as mystified as Ron is.

  92. JimK wrote:

    “Also, I thought the main argument of this blog is that there has been no recent warming and it’s all a ‘mistake’ because of a few poorly sited weather stations in the USA? Now there is warming and it’s because of the sun?”

    You’ve been given too brief a nutshell description of this site. The longer version is that participants here accept that there’s been a warming trend over the period 1970-2000, (and 1900-1940), but (as I posted yesterday on one of these threads) that it’s due mostly to:

    1. A rebound from the Little Ice Age. (See the paper by the University of Alaska professor on this topic, linked to below.)
    2. Oceanic oscillation cycles that were mostly set to Warm for the latter third of the 20th century. (See Roy Spencer’s paper.)
    3. Urban Heat Island effects, which increased the slope of the apparent warming in the 20th century in the industrialized world beyond the reality of what actually occurred.
    4. Bias, largely unconscious, in collecting, adjusting, and correcting temperature data by the data’s guardians. (For instance, mistakes on the warm side might not get “corrected” as readily as mistakes on the cold side, because the former sort of mistakes wouldn’t seem suspicious.)

    Here’s more information on that Univ. of Alaska paper, “The Recovery from the Little Ice Age”:

    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recovery_little_ice_age.pdf

    Here is its Abstract, to tempt others to dip into it:

    “Two natural components of the presently progressing climate change are identified.

    The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100 years), which seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This value of 0.5°C/100 years may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C/100 years. This 100-year long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. Note that both glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age began to recede after 1800 and are still receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.

    The second one is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is superposed on the linear change. One of them is the “multi-decadal oscillation,” which is a natural change. This particular change has a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975, and is thought to be a sure sign of the greenhouse effect by the IPCC. But, this positive trend stopped after 2000 and now has a negative slope. As a result, the global warming trend stopped in about 2000-2001.

    Therefore, it appears that the two natural changes have a greater effect on temperature changes than the greenhouse effects of CO2. These facts are contrary to the IPCC Report (2007, p.10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due “very likely” to be the manmade greenhouse effect. They predict that the warming trend continues after 2000. Contrary to their prediction, the warming halted after 2000.

    There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect. Only then can the contribution of CO2 be studied quantitatively.”

  93. Bruce Cobb (07:33:08) :
    Speaking of selective vision, don’t forget the rabidly Anti-Solar cause.
    I’m not. I wish [really do] that the solar activity – climate connection were true [it is] and strong [it isn’t]. That would do wonders for the relevance of my work [and funding].

  94. Re: Bruckner8 (04:23:23) :

    “My greater point is: Why are we allowing politicians to make policy based on “scientific conclusions” for which many scientists DISAGREE?”

    1) The lobbying power of people like Al Gore, Hansen and Environmental Fundamentalism/Fear Mongering in general

    2) The Media, who can sell more newspapers with “The end is Nigh” than they can with “There is nothing to report”

    3) “The Precautionary Principal” – which states that if an action might avoid severe or irreversible harm to the public in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action”

    However, along the lines of (3), why then aren’t we spending more money on particulate pollution, water quality, 3rd world poverty, near-Earth objects, Super-Volcanoes and Large Earthquakes?

  95. Since this blog has been in existence since only 2007, I don’t know if any other “battle lines” have been drawn before. I regret the concept of battle here; all-out debate, no-intellectual-(honest)-holds barred is what the evolution of science requires. Battles mean lives, and perhaps survival, are in danger — even metaphorically speaking. I think we need to be careful if we are to continue this extraordinary community as Anthony, et al, have developed it.

    I am grateful for David Archibald’s post, and I am grateful for those who expand on his ideas and for those who critique them, especially when the critiques have data and sources attached. I believe that if Leif’s critiques could be answered, we might have a better understanding of what past research and charts we can trust, and which ones we must agree to disagree about. We are all in this together.

  96. Re: Geoff Sharp (04:38:20) :

    “Maybe some are not seeing lgl’s point….the GCR’s could vary themselves, from their original point?”

    Absolutely.

    What we think we know is that 1) GCRs influence climate through cloud formation and that 2) the GCR flux received at Earth is strongly modulated by the Solar Magnetic Field. However, this does not rule out…3) that the GCR flux entering the solar system is itself variable.

    Since GCRs are thought to be generated in Super-Nova, Black-Holes and other high energy processes within the Galaxy that we still do not understand fully, it seems likely that the GCR flux through the Solar system is not constant at Climatic time scales. I guess the question is – what causes the most variance in GCR flux at Earth on Climatic time-scales – the background variance or the Solar modulation?

    Given the proximity of the Sun to us and the fact that the GCR flux appears to be fairly uniform in all directions in the sky (presumably, because it is sampling/averaging from many many locations deep in the Galaxy), I think physics would say that the Solar induced variance could be orders of magnitude stronger than any background variance, but I haven’t seen much research in this area. Anyone else?

  97. Re: Geoff Sharp (04:38:20) :

    “Maybe some are not seeing lgl’s point….the GCR’s could vary themselves, from their original point?”

    As our solar system moves around the galaxy the GCR’s could very well vary as the magnitude of the sources change.

  98. For anyone who has doubts about GCR affecting weather, I wish you had spent July & August 2008 in No. California. The smoke from the fires lay close to the ground for almost the entire time, grounding the aircraft except where a few light winds came up, which wasn’t often enough. When the Fire Information Officer was queried, she responded that they knew about the GCR’s increase and the immediate effects, and that NASA kept them briefed on the subject.
    The smoke lay down so hard and for so long that it was choking people in Sacramento 150 miles away.

  99. Dear David Archibald,

    Your first graph coincides with data based on hematite stained grains, Aragonite and Calcite. A plot of that database through geologic timescale indicates that the current period of climate change corresponds to a natural lowstand point which will shift to a minor colder phase, a bit warmer than the tipping lowest point at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

    Lee R. Kump. Tipping Pointedly Colder. Science. Vol. 323, No. 5918, pp. 1175-1176. 27 February 2009:

    For much of Earth history, the climate has been considerably warmer than it is today.

    Perhaps Earth is trapped again in an icehouse state? Indeed, when one evaluate the plot, one gets persuaded that Earth is cooling, not warming.

  100. Leif Svalgaard (06:09:34) :
    http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA18.png is a plot of the 10Be (red) and 14C (blue) proxies and of the HMF (thin pink). 11-year means [actually 10 for 14C] are shown. The 14C record stops in the 1950s because it is contaminated by nuclear weapons testing after that.
    And there is even some controversy over the details of the 14C curve, like the relative heights of the peaks. Here http://www.leif.org/research/14C-flipped.png is another 14C curve [bottom panel], flipped over and rotated to match. This one is Mueschler’s. The one I compared to 10Be is from Stuiver [his INTCAL98 clalibration – beware that in his work ‘BP’ means ‘Before Present’, but ‘present’ is 1950 – this obviates the need for shifting the curve every time a new year rolls around]. Note the differences after 1900 and just before 1800.

  101. Reality,

    I think it is ‘relatively uniform’ over small time scales. The amount of GCR can vary considerably as the Solar system performs its slow orbit around the Galactic center (or barycenter if you prefer) and during the times when the solar system ‘dolphins’ thru the Galactic plane.

    Svensmark and Nir Shaviv treat this subject extensively

  102. How do know that the atmospheric mixing of 10Be is such that we can say that polar concentrations reflect the concentrations at other latitudes through time?

  103. Geoff Sharp (04:49:35) :
    DA’s style and communication skills are in a class of their own.

    David is not trying to scare anyone, he’s trying to warn them. Not even the management of a major grain supplier knew about the delays in the Solar Cycle, but the USFS, CDF and BLM know about it as they are Federal Agencies.
    When the manager was contacted, he immediately grasped the significance.
    It’s his business to be prepared for all eventualities and phenomenon that might impact his sourcing. How can anyone justify holding back critical information that has potential consequences really frosts me. Just because it is not proven yet does not mean that solar forcing of climate should be hidden.

  104. David,

    Thanks, once again, for a terrific illustration – literally and figuratively – of the evidence for the sun as the major climate driver. I wonder if Lief will weigh in to contest this and, if so, what he would say in response. It is increasingly obvious that TSI, isolated from other measures, is a red herring convenient to produce the required results to maintain the status quo ante in “climate science.” Some science.

  105. “Of course, volcanoes are a huge exception to this, but it would be interesting to see whether there is actually enough volcanic activity at any time to make an impact on global temperature.”

    We are always one volcanic eruption away from pretty much global calamity. A failed grain harvest in the US and the Eastern European steppes would result in a major global famine from both a lack of enough food for the population and the increase in food prices pushing it out of the reach of people who otherwise might have access to it.

    Eruptions on the scale of the Campanian eruption about 40,000 years ago that wiped out human habitation of Eastern Europe for a couple of thousand years and probably caused the demise of the Neanderthal are not fully appreciated. The Krakatoa eruption of 535 resulted in the start of the Dark Ages and collapse of the Roman Empire.

    It seems less likely that the steady background volcanism we see all the time is responsible for major climate changes than are cataclysmic caldera forming super eruptions. And as humans are pretty much tied to “this year’s harvest” globally, anything that disrupts one or two growing seasons is going to end up killing a significant portion of the human population on the planet. Directly through famine and indirectly through upheaval caused by billions of starving people.

    Our existence as we know it is actually quite fragile.

  106. This is an interesting contribution to the debate.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
    (Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

    Abstract:
    The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified.
    By showing that
    (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
    (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
    (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
    (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
    (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
    (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

  107. Leif Svalgaard (06:51:15) :

    Ron de Haan (05:46:03) :
    If the Ap index graph to the end of 2008 is crooked, why not replace it with a correct one!
    Same goes for other data and graphs that need to be corrected.

    Let me quote Stephen Schneider [as quoted by Roy Spencer]:
    “we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. […] Se we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. […] Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest […]”

    And Al Gore is quoted as saying that it is OK to lie to save the planet.

    Bottom line: If it serves someone’s agenda to show faulty graphs, they will be shown [again and again].
    As informed readers we can all recognize the penguins cosing up to the polar bear for what it is.
    18 03 2009

    Leif,

    I’ve made the suggestion for reasons of efficiency and integrity.

    I think I have seen over six postings at WUWT where you made clear that the sudden drop of the magnetic index in October 2005 was not real.

    Therefore I keep up my argument and propose to throw this graph in the garbage can and replace it by a graph that shows factual data.

    That’s all, no agenda’s, no bla bla for the sake of the argument, just proper science..

  108. One of the main differences between 14C and 10Be, although both caused by GCRs, is that 14C is involved in several carbon cycles, especially in the atmosphere – vegetation cycle and to a lesser extent with the upper level oceans. This smoothes the 14C level changes, compared to the 10Be levels, as part of the uptake of 14C by vegetation (and upper oceans) is coming back in the following year(s).

    Further the 14C level is also disturbed by the use of fossil fuels, which is completely 14C depleted (much too old, 14C is decayed to below detection limits after about 60,000 years in the millions of years old fossil fuels). That needed correction tables for radio carbon dating after about 1870, until the atmospheric nuclear tests of the 1950s made radio carbon testing near impossible…

  109. “How do know that the atmospheric mixing of 10Be…”

    Uncertainties regarding mixing is precisely the problem with 14C and CO2 that we avoid with 10Be. The metal rapidly precipitates out of the atmosphere at the poles where formed in oxides of Al, Mg, etc. Inotherwords, mixing as an issue does not pertain.

  110. “A plot of that database through geologic timescale indicates that the current period of climate change corresponds to a natural lowstand point which will shift to a minor colder phase,”

    Nobwainer’s confirmation, in part.

  111. Eruptions on the scale of the Campanian eruption about 40,000 years ago that wiped out human habitation of Eastern Europe for a couple of thousand years and probably caused the demise of the Neanderthal are not fully appreciated.

    Neanderthals were certainly pushed further into western and south western Europe at the time, but then you also had Homo Sapiens moving in at the same time too.

    Personally I go with the theory that the Ice Age reduced the Neanderthals habitat and that pushed them to extinction. They were forest dwellers who ambushed their prey, unlike us who lived on plains and by rivers and could attack prey on open land.

    There is much evidence that Neanderthals were not good at adapting their lifestyles, were not good at planning far ahead, and lived in small patriarchal families with one male domineering over several females. When a family had too many males then either babies were eaten or teenage boys were forced to leave and start their own family elsewhere.

    That meant they were never able to build up larger settlements, only small ones that vanished if all the males left or died. As the Ice Age diminished Europe’s forest cover Neanderthals were left with less places to live and either starved to death or killed each other for space.

    There’s no evidence as yet that modern humans killed them off. There is more evidence of mutual exchange than violent clashes, although it is possible that we gave them fevers and colds that could have been fatal.

  112. Radun:

    And this only a partial listing. The notions of radiative balance, effective temperature, radiation budget, equilibrium temperature, etc., are all inappropriately applied. Also inapt are analogies with black bodies, non-physical implementations of Kirchoff’s and Beer’s Laws, on and on.

    Following G&T it is difficult to find an heuristic Atmospheric Science gets right with their AGW mythology.

  113. gary gulrud (11:19:40) :

    “A plot of that database through geologic timescale indicates that the current period of climate change corresponds to a natural lowstand point which will shift to a minor colder phase,”

    Nobwainer’s confirmation, in part.

    Dear Gary… How is it? I don’t know Nobwainer’s hypothesis.

  114. gary gulrud (11:15:13) :

    “How do know that the atmospheric mixing of 10Be…”

    Uncertainties regarding mixing is precisely the problem with 14C and CO2 that we avoid with 10Be. The metal rapidly precipitates out of the atmosphere at the poles where formed in oxides of Al, Mg, etc. Inotherwords, mixing as an issue does not pertain.

    Do we know what effect the geomagnetic field has on the deposition of 10Be?

  115. Robert Bateman (08:46:03) :
    How can anyone justify holding back critical information that has potential consequences really frosts me

    Like the critical information that the SWPC Ap values are wrong and that it is not true that Ap has dropped to values not seen in ‘living memory’ unless, of course, that memory does not extend further back than December, 1997

    Ron de Haan (11:05:49) :
    I think I have seen over six postings at WUWT where you made clear that the sudden drop of the magnetic index in October 2005 was not real.
    What I this time complained about is using the SWPC data that are simply plain wrong lately. The drop in October 2005 is a somewhat different matter. My issue with that is that its significance is overrated, because of
    1) It was mostly due to a very large sporadic storm in September, made larger by being on the peak of the semiannual variation [makes a 25% difference]
    2) Such decreases are common, there was another one in January 2007 [a bit smaller because of the semiannual variation, but about the smae if corrected for that]

    Anyway, it seems to be accepted practice now to use faulty graphs to drive a point home, in this case the WARNING we must all heed.

  116. “I don’t know Nobwainer’s hypothesis.”

    Nasif, I don’t know that Geoff Sharp’s work will be of interest to you, only that your reference should interest him. His stuff is at some site of his and at auditblogs. Google his name and you should find links.

    “Do we know what effect the geomagnetic field has on the deposition of 10Be?”

    That is the subject of the associated post. 10Be is a cosmogenic isotope created by GCRs. SCRs have insufficient energy to cause this effect but can nucleate cloud formation in the Stratosphere.

  117. edcon (11:57:23) :
    Do we know what effect the geomagnetic field has on the deposition of 10Be?

    Not on the deposition, but on the production as a weaker geomagnetic field allows more cosmic rays in. The field has decreased 10% over the past 150 years. Here is a plot of this effect [not for 10Be but for 14C, however the effect should be similar]: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg . This is a large effect, not a minor wrinkle. Most of the variation with time of the CRs is due to changes in the Earth’s field, with the solar changes being an order of magnitude smaller. Finally, the climate itself has an influence, and this time on the deposition [how much 10Be reaches the poles].

  118. TL (12:13:41) :
    “Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.”
    It is not. It is the climate change causing the Be-10 consentration to fluctuate

    It is both.

  119. I have to admit that much of the technical material of this debate is above my understanding, although I get the general arguments from each side. I would say a few things just from looking:

    1. This world is complex; therefore, unlike the AGWers, we cannot afford to be in a rush to prove this or that point as “the” cause, only to have it weakened or disproven by subsequent analysis (from friend or foe). If we are to wage an equal war against the Warmist propaganda, the one point that we must always emphasize is that the debate is far, far from over (even amongst ourselves on many points) and that there is much more research to be done. If that message is not gotten out to the public, and not kept consistently on this blog too, then we might as well just sign up as ‘good transnationalists/socialists’ and resign research not in support of the AGW hypothesis to oblivion. So far our strongest and most consistent arguments are: 1) there is no consesus; and the debate is not over, 2) CO2 is not enough to explain the climate variations over the past 10, 100, and 10,000 years. Those are probably the only two points that I have seen (though others might exist) that we can all state with a high degree of certainty.

    2. Because the world is complex a single explanation or proxy will not do. Like any machine, there are a number of moving parts which interact with each other, and are affected by principles (such as Newtons Laws of Thermodynamics, for instance) belonging to their physical make-up.

    3. Consensus, like debate, is not necessarily a bad thing because it usually means the data has stood up to scrutiny. I mean real consesus, not the manufactured consesus of the IPCC, whose only goal there is to advance political agenda. But we must be patient as well as dogged at developing one, and it may take far longer than any of us have on this Earth to develop because of the technical complexity of the processes in question and our (still) limited understanding of the way things work.

    4. Ultimately it does not matter who wins the battle between AGW and the opponents. There are plenty of consequences for living in contradiction to scientific truths (like jumping off a cliff while ignoring gravity), but it is not as if the truth needs us to proclaim it. It will be self-evident to those who wish to see it. And to those who do not no amount of anything will change their minds. So let us be strategic and tactical in this regard.

  120. “but then you also had Homo Sapiens moving in at the same time too.”

    There is some evidence that Homo Sapiens were wiped out for a couple of millennia. Habitation is seen, then disappears for a couple thousand years and begins to return. The eruption is also the boundary between the middle and upper Paleolithic cultural change. When settlement returned, the culture was a lot different. The eruption would have absolutely hammered the migration path of Homo Sapien into Europe. Most of them probably died or were cut off. The Neanderthal would have experienced a “double wammy” being pushed South during the period of just about maximum glacial advance just when that volcano erupted which would have forced them into the area where the last evidence of their survival has been found. Homo Sapiens in Europe would have also been forced into the same region and both populations would have been having an extremely difficult time surviving.

    Homo Sapiens might have done better with innovation and finding ways to survive. But in any case, the habitations that are found after the event show completely different culture than before the event.

  121. Only in WUWT:
    Gavin A. Schmidt article supports David Archibald’s post:
    ……..”solar activity modulation parameter ( ),”…….??????????????
    hockey stick is broken…
    “”Over the Holocene our results suggest that the 10Be response to climate change should not be neglected when inferring production changes.””

    Beer

  122. hi, the data seems good ,a good article

    this is one on recent antarctic data. where there seem to be potentially less discrepencies and which also has a less volatile stratosphere?
    secondly snow fall in the are tends to be a yearly constant or more constant than in some places ( eg potentially some of the greenland sites) allows dating more accurately.

    Ice core record of 10Be over the past millennium from Dome Fuji, Antarctica: A new proxy record of past solar activity and a powerful tool for stratigraphic dating

  123. TL (12:13:41) The abstract you link to says: “In the climate experiments the 10Be deposition changes simulated over ice sheets in both hemispheres are comparable to those seen in the production experiments.” Are these climate ‘experiments’ computer models by chance? If they are, that makes it harder to believe. There would be no way to seperate the alleged climatic fluctuations from fluctuations in incoming GCRs.

  124. Doesn’t the use of GCRs as a solar activity proxy assume that the number of GCRs outside the heliopause are constant? Do we really know that to be the case? One might expect cosmic radiation to be greater, for example, when we cross the Galactic Plane. And even when we are not in the plane, how do we know that the number of rays is constant over periods of thousands of years and not itself widely variable?

  125. I for one would like to thank Leif for his ongoing contributions to the discussions on this site. Some of the commenter’s on this and other posts have taken issue with his commentary style (yes, a bit abrasive, perhaps) or the fact that he often provides informed, dissenting criticism of the various posts, or that he dismisses any influence of the sun on climate cycles here on earth.

    The first two might be true, but so what? If you don’t like his commentary style, ignore it and concentrate on the content of the posted comment. Not everyone with something worthwhile to say will say it in a manner that pleases you. That’s particularly true in the fields of science and engineering.

    If you dislike the fact that he often either disagrees with the post’s contents (facts or opinions) or the post’s conclusions, remember that on this site we’re supposed to be seeking the real basis of climate change and the real drivers of climate, that we might come closer to the real science. That end is not served well by silencing opinions you disagree with. If you think Leif is wrong, say so, then trot out your references and other data supporting your position.

    As for the third charge, that Leif dismisses any influence of the sun on climate cycles here on earth, I don’t believe that’s true. I believe his true position is roughly “The data does not seem to support that conclusion at this time.” (At least, that’s my interpretation of his position.) Simply based upon what the AGW crowd has done to science, we should all be more skeptical of any claims being made on either side of the climate debate. Let’s acknowledge that the fact that the AGW crowd is wrong doesn’t make us right, but does make it incumbent upon us to be more careful in any counter claims we make.

    It seems to me that Leif has been playing the role of the “honest skeptic”, which I regard as one of the hallmarks of a real scientist. IMO, a real scientist is always questioning so called “facts”, always checking assumptions and always seeking to peer behind the curtain of the “science”, to get to the truth (small “t” truth). I will continue to place great weight on his posts and comments, and I sincerely thank him for his contributions to this site.

    And my thanks to David Archibald as well. Very interesting post.

  126. There is some evidence that Homo Sapiens were wiped out for a couple of millennia.

    Homo Sapiens covered a very wide area (from Europe all the way to Australia, and just starting to migrate towards the Americas) by then so I doubt there was anything close to being wiped out. We were very adaptable with a very varied diet compared to our Neanderthal cousin.

  127. On monday here in South Africa we had 33 degree celcius temperatures, tuesday the first true cold front appeared signalling what forecasters said was the official (early) start of winter and temps plumetted to 13 degrees. today it is the same. Winter was rough up north and it looks like it will be the same for us!!
    Btw I read that there was snow in Victoria Australia barely two weeks after the fires… very interesting times!
    The sun is still blank yes but these plagues are appearing more and more often so maybe it is picking up.

  128. TL (12:13:41) :
    “Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.”
    It is not. It is the climate change causing the Be-10 consentration to fluctuate

    Climate fluctuation is small

    eg Modeling cosmogenic radionuclides 10Be and 7Be during the Maunder Minimum using the ECHAM5-HAM General Circulation Model
    U. Heikkil¨a, J. Beer, and J. Feichter

    Abstract. All existing 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica show increasing concentrations during the Maunder Minimum period (MM), 1645–1715, when solar activity was very low and the climate was colder (little ice age). In detail, however, the 10Be records deviate from each other.We investigate to what extent climatic changes influence the 10Be measured in ice by modeling this period using the ECHAM5-HAM general circulation model. Production calculations show that during the MM the mean global 10Be production was higher by 32% than at present due to lower solar activity. Our modeling shows that the zonally averaged modeled 10Be deposition flux deviates by only 8% from the average increase of 32%, indicating that climatic effects are much smaller than the production change. Due to increased stratospheric production, the 10Be content in the downward fluxes is larger during MM, leading to larger 10Be deposition fluxes in the subtropics, where stratosphere-troposphere exchange (STE) is strongest. In polar regions the effect is small. In Greenland the deposition change depends on latitude and altitude. In Antarctica the change is larger in the east than in the west. We use the 10Be/7Be ratio to study changes in STE.We find larger change between 20 N–40 N during spring, pointing to a stronger STE in the Northern Hemisphere duringMM. In the Southern Hemisphere the change is small.

    These findings indicate that climate changes do influence the 10Be deposition fluxes, but not enough to significantly disturb the production signal. Climate-induced changes remainsmall, especially in polar regions.

    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2797–2809, 2008

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/2797/2008/

  129. To Ron de Haan (03:22:07) and Klockarman (07:36:27) regarding the article by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”:

    One of the reasons you’re not hearing much about this article is that the original 2007 version was vetted by both sides of the AGW debate in early 2008. The kind folks at RealClimate responded in their usual way, but I can’t find any reference to the article on RC’s web site today. I did find Eli Rabett’s blog post about the article at: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html
    Rabett’s post includes a link to a technical paper by Arthur Smith purporting to refute Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s work. Maybe Smith did refute it. I don’t know, it was way over my head. Dr. Gerlich’s rebuttal is preserved at:
    //www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/DEFINITIVE_DEATHKNELL_to_CLIMATE_ALARMISM.pdf

    What is new is that the latest version of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (The original 2007 version was not peer reviewed and was viciously maligned because of that.) Maybe that will reignite the controversy??

    I apologize for this post being slightly off topic, but I think us skeptics should be very cautious about trumpeting Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper until the purported refutation of their work is addressed.

  130. Steve Keohane (13:11:05)

    Are these climate ‘experiments’ computer models by chance?

    Some might think more of chance and necessity eg Jaques Monod

    “Chance and Necessity begins with a philosophical consideration of topics such as the natural/artificial distinction, reproduction, teleonomy and invariance. Here Monod highlights the apparent epistemological contradiction between the teleonomy of living organisms and the principle of objectivity. This is followed by a scathing analysis of various kinds of vitalist obscurantism (including modern “scientific” vitalisms which go by other names) and of animist approaches to evolution (from dialectical materialism to Teilhard de Chardin). Monod concludes:

    We would like to think ourselves necessary, inevitable, ordained from all eternity. All religions, nearly all philosophies, and even a part of science testify to the unwearying, heroic effort of mankind desperately denying its own contingency. ”

    http://dannyreviews.com/h/Chance_and_Necessity.html

  131. “Homo Sapiens covered a very wide area (from Europe all the way to Australia, and just starting to migrate towards the Americas) by then so I doubt there was anything close to being wiped out. We were very adaptable with a very varied diet compared to our Neanderthal cousin.”

    Well, pretty much everything was wiped out from about Naples Italy to the Don river in Russia as a result of that eruption which is directly across the migration path of Homo Sapien.

    Homo Sapien migration into Europe would have been starting in earnest at about the time of the eruption. There is evidence of Homo Sapien settlement in what is now Hungary, for example, then a layer of ash from the eruption, then 2000 years of nothing, and then evidence of human activity again.

    A rather huge area was laid waste by that eruption. Homo Sapien that had already migrated to a point West of the worst of the destruction would have missed being buried under several feet of ash, but would not have escaped the climactic consequences. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Homo Sapiens living in Europe died in that eruption and it was a barrier for further migration until plant species recovered enough to support hunting/gathering again. A migrant attempting the trek immediately after the event would have had to cross several hundred miles of desolation which was probably impossible.

    Look at any map of Homo Sapien migration and the “trunk” of the European migration path lies directly across the area practically sterilized by that eruption at about the same time the migration was happening. It would have sucked to be them.

  132. Leif Svalgaard (06:09:34) :

    The HMF and the Be10 record correlate so well, showing the 1970s cooling period. The absolute low in Be10 corresponds to the peak of Solar Cycle 21, which is also the point at which Schatten’s SODA index starts declining.

    This graphic reminds me of a graphic I will be using in a public lecture next Monday. At a graph showing the difference between solar minima in the second half of the 19th century and the second half of the 20th century, I will say” Are there any Generation Y people in the room? Anybody? This graph is for you. We baby boomers have had fun with the planet you will be inheriting. We have burnt most of the oil, there are now shortages of basic commodities like coking coal, we had the best music, and we had the best weather too – caused by a run of short solar cycles. My generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but yours will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.”

    Geoff Alder (06:03:45)

    If you look at the NOAA sst anomalies, there is a big, persistent patch of cold water to the south of you.

    Leif Svalgaard (22:14:21) :

    In case anybody is in any doubt, the volcanoes that Dr Svalgaard has invoked to explain away the Be10 record are just a figment of his imagination. Sad, really.

    John Egan (20:03:14) :

    Drill, baby, drill. I just wanted to say that. The good thing about the Be10 record is that it can’t be fiddled with using calibration issues as an excuse, unlike the aa Index and the sunspot record.

    Robert Bateman (08:46:03) :

    There are reports that Spring in some parts of the US is two weeks later than normal. Two weeks at both ends of the growing season and you have a significant effect. My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.

    The Be10 – climate correlation is proof of Svensmark’s theory, but the theory that has real life consequences (and commercial application) is that of Friis-Christenson and Lassen. The warning is not in the stars plural, it is in our star. Each day’s delay in the onset of Solar Cycle 24 means that it will be 0.002 degrees colder. The days are adding up. We are talking about real suffering coming.

  133. So here is an odd question, since the heliosphere is huge (the voyagers only went past a couple years ago) and is effectively like a baloon that is being pressurized from the center and blown on one side by the galactic wind (for lack of a better term). Now since it is so huge, one could likely assume that it takes some time before solar wind changes would truly make a difference to the heliopause (the actual boundry). The question is, would the heliopause boundry likely rapidly change position if the pressure (when it finally got there) decreased, or would it be more of an ebb/flow reaction in your opinion.
    I ask because if the heliopause were to suddenly colapse in, say to 75% of where it is now, there would likely be a dramatic swing in GCR’s which would have the effect of a rapid effect on the climate. It would likely take quite a while to rebuild the pressure inside the heliosphere.
    Offering this up as an altenate theory for rapid climate change.

  134. Realitycheck, thanks for the links, I’ll read up and think.

    Robert Bateman, same yourself, we need to provide fresh ideas for thought and analysis. David Archibald is forging ahead with ideas, others need to mop up some details and go lateral with some of this stuff.

  135. There is much evidence that Neanderthals were not good at adapting their lifestyles, were not good at planning far ahead, and lived in small patriarchal families with one male domineering over several females. When a family had too many males then either babies were eaten or teenage boys were forced to leave and start their own family elsewhere.

    And you can divine all this from looking at bones?

    Wow!

  136. Re giant volcanic eruptions of the past, only a couple of months ago there was a bit of press alarmism over the possibility of the Yellowstone ‘super volcano’ exploding, which (it was said) could lay waste an area a thousand kilometers wide and destroy the agriculture and economy of the United States, perhaps even the entire world with a volcanic ‘winter’. See here:

    http://www.unmuseum.org/supervol.htm

    It would probably blow out a lot of CO2, too. Maybe we could set the professional AGW alarmists to work figuring out how to stop this one, instead of worrying about a few coal plants.

    /Mr Lynn

  137. David Archibald (14:47:43) :
    The HMF and the Be10 record correlate so well, showing the 1970s cooling period.
    First, neither the HMF nor 10Be show any ‘cooling’ period. To connect them with cooling is your imaginative idea.
    Second, you state without any justification that the correlate well. Show it. McCracken and Beer have calculated HMF from Beer’s 10Be record and the results is very different from the HMF actually was. So, show where McC and Beer went wrong.

  138. David Archibald:
    My perception
    Crowley, T. J.
    Abstract:
    “A moderately healthy debate continues as to the relative importance of volcanism and solar variability for climate change over the last millennium. A new reconstruction of volcanism has now enabled that debate to be extended to the last two millennia. Preliminary results – which will be finalized by the time of AGU – indicate that there is a first-order shift in the intensity and frequency of global volcanism that began in the mid-13th century, almost at the same time as cooling events found in annual-scale reconstructions of temperature. The most puzzling aspect of a comparison of the bimillennial volcano and solar time series involves an almost eerie similarity in the timing of pulses of volcanism and C-14 and Be-10 inferred changes in ‘solar’ variability (note that C. Amman has independently discovered this phenomenon). Since there is little physical reason to expect co- variation of these two physical processes, it seems most likely that there is an unexpected contamination of one of these processes on the proxy representative of the other process. For example, pulses of volcanism could: (1) cause more changes in ocean and atmospheric C-14 variability than previously assumed; (2) change ice core Be-10 accumulation rates through effects on climate (e.g.,NAO); and/or (3) potentially change Be-10 deposition rates by increasing the number of stratospheric aerosols that are nucleation sites for cosmogenic Be-10. These results raise some questions about the reliability of ‘solar’ proxies as evidence of solar variability”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMPP21D..02C

    Dave: You always bring a pleasant reading.

  139. David Archibald (14:47:43) :
    Each day’s delay in the onset of Solar Cycle 24 means that it will be 0.002 degrees colder. The days are adding up. We are talking about real suffering coming.
    Worse than Hansen or Gore [just with the sign reversed – polar ice gone in five years vs. Hell freezes over]. This is pure nonsense. If SC24 doesn’t show up for the next 50 years [another Maunder minimum] we’ll be 37C colder; suffering indeed. F&L is just bad science, there is no correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature: http://www.leif.org/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png

  140. David, please don’t use cute sayings in a lecture on scientific subjects as serious as this one is. It will NOT help! Based on your reference to warm weather and an active Sun, you will be using the goddess in the cave analogy and appealing to the baser levels of human understanding of complex phenomena. The correlation is striking, but dead wrong.

  141. Leif Svalgaard (12:24:46)

    edcon (11:57:23) :
    Do we know what effect the geomagnetic field has on the deposition of 10Be?

    Not on the deposition, but on the production as a weaker geomagnetic field allows more cosmic rays in. The field has decreased 10% over the …

    Thank you!

  142. Ditto Leif

    “The HMF and the Be10 record correlate so well, showing the 1970s cooling period.”

    Like Lief, I grow rather weary of David’s claims. Post the data, post your code or go get behind Dr Mann in line for your junk science award.

  143. Leif.
    I have been wondering about the energetic aspects of greater solar activies influence on the upper atmosphere and polar weather.

    Is it possible that the expansion of the upper atmosphere/ionosphere that is associated with an energetic sun could result in a 1-2 or 3 watt/meter reduction in heat loss? This would be consistent with the forcing that is being attributed to the CO2 hypothesis.

    So even though TSI varies little, CME’s, proton storms, X-ray flares, and the EM flux at higher photon energies would have a greater impact than would be attributed due to thermal absorption.

    Even if these don’t negate the CO2 forcing completely, they could conceivably reduce the amount of CO2 forcing and thereby relegating the AGW component to something that is inconsequential.

  144. As a volcanologist, we use Be 10 in modern eruptions as a proxy for sediment incorporation into the magmas produced during subduction.

    One thing I can tell you with great certainty is the science is NOT settled on Be 10. As with most proxies, there are many, many uncertainties.

    Ben

    P.S. To those wondering about the heat-flow from the mantle and its effect on the temperature of the surface of the earth, rock is a very, very, very, good insulator and the convective rates of the solid mantle are very, very, very, slow.

  145. Leif,

    David Archibald claims in his posting (at 14:47:43) that the volcanic eruptions you claim “scrubbed” Be10 out of the atmosphere, thus contributing to its deposition in ice cores, is completely imaginative. Being that you hold such a high standard for his claim of Be10 as a fairly accurate solar proxy, from what do you derive your conclusion that volcanic eruptions are responsible for Be10 deposition? Not that your claim seems unreasonable, but fair is fair after all.

    Maybe Anthony can let you do a competing guest posting on this if you have the time?

  146. Jim G (17:37:55) :
    Is it possible that the …
    These things can be calculated and I sure some people have [and we have heard about if it is in fact possible]. If one counters that these calculations are wrong or the models don’t work, etc, then the question cannot be answered.

    So even though TSI varies little, CME’s, proton storms, X-ray flares, and the EM flux at higher photon energies would have a greater impact than would be attributed due to thermal absorption.
    People [e.g. Lean and Rind, but many others – on both sides of the debate, Scaffetta etc] have tried to disentangle the contributions using multivariate correlation analysis and cannot agree as to what does what, so again, I’ll say we don’t know. My personal opinion is that the claims for a good correlation are too flimsy to take seriously, and I don’t adhere to the precautionary principle that just because something can be hypothesized one should guard against it at all costs.

  147. David Archibald (14:47:43) :
    There are reports that Spring in some parts of the US is two weeks later than normal. Two weeks at both ends of the growing season and you have a significant effect.

    We are already seeing that in our locale. The spring was late, the greening was slow and pale, and the fall found plants stopping ripening even when the weather was still quite warm.
    A wine grape harvest failed, many gardens had soured vegetables and fruit trees failed to ripen.
    Nightime temps did not reach the 40’s until June. I did not know about the decreased upper atmosphere, but I did know about what happens to crops when the solar cycle fails to ramp. We got more in than most people because we planted cooler weather varieties and root crops.
    Those whom I was able to warn did ok.
    I cannot warn a state, much less a whole nation, out of my reach.

  148. Eli Rabett (17:04:45) :
    Why does the 10Be have so much less structure than the 14C?
    Some of the smoothness is a data processing artifacts. The 14C data are 10-year values [e.g. one point every 10 years]. 10Be on my plot is an 11-year running mean of single year values. I don’t like to do correlations on running means, but chose to do it this way to match Archibald’s curve, which is a running mean apparently because it matches mine. The rest of the smoothness is related to the fact that the Carbon cycle is longer than the Beryllium cycle and the storage time is longer; this tends to smooth out rapid variations.

    Pamela Gray (17:15:51) :
    reference to warm weather and an active Sun, you will be using the goddess in the cave analogy and appealing to the baser levels of human understanding of complex phenomena. The correlation is striking, but dead wrong.

    If there is any correlation at all, it goes the other way:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

    Longer cycles are warmer, but with very low statistical significance.

  149. I like the saying, treat the first encountered pathology. Do simple science first. What is it around us that is big enough to cause weather pattern variations within climate zones? There are several really big things that vary a LOT. If you have lived near an ocean, that would be a clue. The oceans of the Earth have fairly large swings in temperatures. The NH jet stream is another one. Large swings. Sometimes it is tight around the Arctic. Sometimes it loops southward. Trade winds. You can see them in action over the equator when viewing swirling westward infrared cloud patterns that then turn north or south and come swirling back in an eastward direction – very cool. These are HUGE sources of weather pattern variations within climate zones. Yet we just can’t seem to take them as seriously as the tiny minute metals and gasses we find in ice cores.

    It goes back to the proctology exam of a gnat’s ass. Some of our posters here are looking for minute changes in the colon track of a gnat’s ass in order to explain the variation in elephant poop. The heat from the Sun, in whatever way it heats, does not vary enough to explain the weather pattern swings we experience. Is that explicit? I don’t know how more explicit I can be. The galactic or Sun’s “stuff” that reach us have mathematical equations (not models, equations) to explain the heat we get (in whatever way we get it) from them. It amounts to very littlechange, even when the cyclic changes in this stuff go up or down. To change this outcome, WE HAVE TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE SUN! Or the Sun has to move closer to us. Lots closer. Or, for those of you who think the Sun is cooling us, we would have to move VERY FAR AWAY!

    Here is my advice before posting on the contents of a gnat’s lower digestive system. If you folks are anything like me, you are slogging through books on the Sun, Leif’s calculations, and discovering lots of things about a very groovy, and dependable, Sun. Tiny bit by tiny bit. Not easily disgested but with time it becomes clearer. Sorry Leif but some of your stuff is far more difficult to decipher than my college level masters course in statistics. I can do an ANOVA, even an analysis of covariance, by hand. But your calculations are another thing altogether. But I am getting there.

  150. OT: Doesn’t look like the Glossary page is open for comments any more, but it could use ‘HMF’ =?= ‘heliospheric magnetic field’ (I had to search for it).

    /Mr Lynn

    Reply: Done ~ ctm

  151. Leif Svalgaard (22:14:21) :

    It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data. So it is with this post.

    [Anti-AGW or more rabidly AGW]

    Leif how do you like it?

  152. Bobby Lane (18:03:48) :
    from what do you derive your conclusion that volcanic eruptions are responsible for Be10 deposition? Not that your claim seems unreasonable, but fair is fair after all.

    Scientists know that when we said that something is, that there is a long list of caveats that we simply do not bother to recite every time, like “in my opinion”, “within the error bar [which may be large]”, “as far as the data goes to such and such level of significance”, etc. Same thing with the volcanic eruption hypothesis. What is clear is that the large peak in 10Be in the 1880-90s is not due to a very low HMF calculated by McCracken and Beer or other solar wind parameters, because in recent years we have discovered reliable ways of inferring the HMF back to 1836. The coincidence [and that is all it may be at this point] with the Krakatoa event [which was a sulfur rich explosion] is a point of departure for checking for other such events. There were, it turns out, very significant events at the previous 10Be peak near 1815 [Tambora, Mayon, and others], and also significant events near the 1700 peak. So, the hypothesis does have some legs. A problem is that the residence time of 10Be in the atmosphere is thought to be short [~2 years], but it is not clear how firm that is, or if the climate response to the explosion may have lasted longer, and several other uncertainties. What is much more certain is that the calculated very low HMF for the peak does not match the reliable values we have for the 1870-1900 period. Geomagnetic activity [which scales linearly with the HMF] during that time was not markedly lower than today, so we can be confident in asserting that the HMF wasn’t either.

  153. Tim L (18:52:16) :
    [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] vs.
    [Anti-AGW or more rabidly AGW]

    I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.

  154. David Archibald (14:47:43) : Robert Bateman (08:46:03) :

    There are reports that Spring in some parts of the US is two weeks later than normal. Two weeks at both ends of the growing season and you have a significant effect. My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.

    The Be10 – climate correlation is proof of Svensmark’s theory, but the theory that has real life consequences (and commercial application) is that of Friis-Christenson and Lassen. The warning is not in the stars plural, it is in our star. Each day’s delay in the onset of Solar Cycle 24 means that it will be 0.002 degrees colder. The days are adding up. We are talking about real suffering coming.

    the winter here was 4 weeks early….. spring is two weeks late.
    Leif is like most that are not connected to the reality of what is going on at natures level…. cognitive disconnect.

    we need to get more “proof” and in a hurry.
    1) earths magnetic field 2) geo-thermal heating 3) RH ( clouds)
    God help us all.

  155. Leif, from my college days, I would suggest there is another explanation for laid back behavior on the part of the “save-the-planet-from-natural-fertilizer” folks. However, I am told that most did not inhale.

  156. Ron de Haan (06:04:24) wrote in part: “In this regard it’s a key that could simplefy any future discussions and block any Government action on the reduction of CO2…

    I applaud that belief, Ron, and support it. Perhaps I have grown tired; but not too tired to be uninspired by your vision. Ride on, sir!

  157. Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) :

    Tim L (18:52:16) :
    [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] vs.
    [Anti-AGW or more rabidly AGW]

    I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.

    Soooo, then this is why one of the nice, kind, hard working engineers that I have met
    ( Jeff ID ) is summarily deleted at RC and Taminos?
    ” more combative, more hostile ” ??? If this has happened here it is only be cause YOU are a CO2 warmer, and we are on to you. Got it?

  158. Tim L (19:15:56) :
    Soooo, then this is why one of the nice, kind, hard working engineers that I have met ( Jeff ID ) is summarily deleted at RC and Taminos? ”more combative, more hostile ” ??? If this has happened here it is only because YOU are a CO2 warmer, and we are on to you. Got it?
    I have been banned [not just having posts deleted] at Tamino’s too…

  159. maksimovich (13:48:27) As regards ‘Chance and Necessity’, it seems from my personal observations both are true. This is not place for this discussion.

  160. Steve Keohane (19:52:08) : This wraps things up neatly. Leif is correct when he says the varience of solar output is not enough to drive the temperature change. But if the increased cloud cover occurs from more high energy neutrons ionizing the atmosphere, then increased solar output makes us warmer indirectly by reducing cloud cover and albedo. It’s still the sun, but not directly.

    And don’t forget the cosmic ray mediated ozone destruction opening the 9-10 range of the IR spectrum to let IR out! That part where ozone is the major (almost the only) thing blocking the spectrum!

  161. Geoff Sharp (05:17:30) :
    Mary R (05:08:51) :”Does the sun’s activity or inactivity have any affect on volcanic activity? Wasn’t there more volcanic activity during the Maunder Minimum?”

    This chart shows the present global quakes greater than 4.5 in the last week:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/

    Great timing Mary, in Melbourne today we witnessed another 4.6 earthquake.

    That would be this one:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009eiay.php

    which is the report you get if you click on the quake square over Melbourne on the first map.

    (Gosh I love the USGS. I just wish we could hand the climate stuff over to them, they’d sort it out right quick!)

    In 50 years I cannot remember activity like this.

    I made a posting about this with pretty pictures:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/

    on the 9th when my windows gave the old double rattle that says a small quake went off a ways away. The P wave and S wave have different propagation velocities. (Compression and transverse waves). The difference between their arrival times gives a rough idea how far away the quake was (I’m not calibrated ;-) and give a characteristic RATTLE pause RATTLLLE noise to loose things like sliding windows in California …

    There is a theory that the solar system players (Sun, Planets, Us) have spin orbit coupling due to the conservation of angular momentum and that as certain configurations of the solar system happen, we get more crustal flexing while the sun goes sleepy; thus the observed correlation of many volcanoes and quakes during the solar grand minima.

    I can’t say if it’s real or a statistical anomaly. I can say that the correlation seems to be still holding. I can also say that angular momentum math makes my head hurt… The quake map of California looks far more active than I remember in most of my (sporadic) years of looking at it. Granted, most of them are 1s and 2s … but we’ve had some 4s and 5s mixed in. We tend to not get excited or even put them in the news if they are less than a 5+ … unless it’s a slow news day… I like the 6 range best, but a 7 is fun (though a few houses get broken that kind of puts a damper on the sprit of the thing. Yes, I’m a native Californian! 8-}

    FWIW, the Loma Prieta quake (also called the SuperBowl quake) also happened at a time when the barycenter was inside the sun perimeter. If the angular momentum / spin orbit coupling thesis has merit, we ought to see increasing quakes from 2010 into about 2015 or so. Spooky about that 2012 thing…

    So the short form answer to Mary’s question is a resounding: Maybe, we don’t know for sure, but there are some strong suspicions.

  162. EMSmith: That’s about how this cooling works: The GCR’s open up a leak plus induce low-lying clouds. With the current quiet conditons plus the prospect of low to bum cycles, we are going to be witnessing a lot of leaking.
    Got ozone generator?
    Some solar wind sure would come in handy, but that’s not on the menu lately.

  163. And I was banned from RC before I had a chance of posting a single reply to some “less combative” AGW attacks against one of my articles… ;)

  164. Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) :

    I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.

    Anecdotally, I would not put Hansen in the laid back category.

    Objectively, the AGW crowd is at the trough. Have you noticed cattle feeding? they jostle a bit, but are careful that they do not move much so that they do not give an opportunity for a new comer to push them off.

    Ethically, a lot of anti A in GW people are getting more and more horrified that the leaders of countries will be following the leaders of AGW falling off the cliff like lemmings. And this means that millions of children will die. Does pump up the adrenalin. Catastrophe is when little children die, not when your feet might get wet by a slowly rising sea.

  165. Pamela Gray wrote: “These are HUGE sources of weather pattern variations within climate zones. Yet we just can’t seem to take them as seriously as the tiny minute metals and gasses we find in ice cores.”

    Good point! Water, thicker than water, stores most of the Earth’s heat budget. Generally, the oceans drive the atmosphere and not vice versa.

    I agree with her….the best indicators (not necessarily answers) are staring us right in the face.

    Yet, having said that, the sun should not be discounted either. A sunspot (what are those….we haven’t seen one in so long) is the size of Planet Earth.

    And neither should the invariabilities of the solar system’s coursing through various types of “space” at 500,000 MPH, be discounted either.

    Our climate and our weather is most likely…a blend of the above (along with other factors such as volcanic activity)…but all things NOT being equal.

    Emphasize all of the above…none of them being equal….

    In this light….one can understand ANY skepticism as to one particular cause.

    But the anecdotal evidence of those who are really dependent on the sun…the growers…should be enough of a warning signal to give us all pause.

    Regardless….Earth has been around a lot longer than our species.

    We will only be as lucky to survive IF we are to figure out how to coexist with the cycles that occur over the eons.

    In that sense….may God help us. Fire or freeze….we can only rely on the truth…our greatest ally.

    The world may not be ending for us (LOL)….but are we REALLY paying attention and trying to prepare for her signals??

    Or are we just reacting??

    Quote of the day: “The sun is blank–no sunspots.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  166. Geoff Alder (06:03:45) : May I, as a humble ignoramus and an avid follower of WUWT, put a question to this world of scientific luminaries?

    Well, I’m no luminary, but I’ve seen this come around a couple of times and not much answer, so I toss in what I know.

    It’s all about size. The crust is very thick on an absolute scale, and it’s the absolutes that matter, not the scaled down model.

    Is the planetary crust an unsurpassed insulator, capable of keeping its core molten forever?

    Not unsurpassed, more like mediocre, but it’s thick; and it won’t keep the core molten forever, but for a very long time.

    According to these folks:

    http://www.greenbuilder.com/sourcebook/EarthGuidelines.html

    a 10 inch (about 25 cm) earth wall has an R value of about 4.9 (call it 5).

    So it doesn’t take too many 10 inch spaces to be at an R value of about 100 (IIRC, you just add them, so 20 chunks of 10 inches ought to be 20 times the R value or R100.) I make that about 200 inches (500 cm or 5 meters).

    There is a whole lot more than 5 meters worth of dirt and rock below any given place on the surface… So that total R value is something to be admired!

    Add to that the decay of radioactive stuff in the core and you get a lot of generated heat that can’t get out very quick.

    Thus the observation that a couple of meters down the earth is the average of your annual temperature (more or less) and then starts rising at a more or less constant rate as you go more and more kilometers down.

    The other problem with size in the popular conception is that the mantel gets really liquid like water just a little ways down there. It isn’t. It’s more like pudding or even like warm (not molten) wax. There is plastic flow for most of it, but that is not like water, it’s more like squeezing toothpaste or mashing ice cream. Yeah, it flows, but not very fast! Highly liquid lava / magma is fairly rare. (Water content makes some magma more liquid, so lava from near subduction zones is more liquid, thus part of the reason for volcanoes near subduction zones.) There are liquid layers, but not nearly as many or as much as commonly believed (until you get to the very deep layers). So, much of the mass transfer driven heat transfer is slower than folks expect as well.

    When physical transport moves hot stuff to the surface, you get a lot of local heat in a hurry. This tends to be volcanos and hot springs / geologic “features”. This is the exception.

    There are plumes of very hot liquid magma that rise from the deep liquid layer at selected spots around the world. These “hotspots” are places like Hawaii and Yellowstone. The extra heat gives very liquid magma even though the water content is low. These are far less common in the world (dozens scale).

    So the bottom line is that most of the world has a very thick insulator over the hot stuff and the hot stuff doesn’t move all that much (at least until you get very very deep…) This ends up with the near surface temperature being pretty darned constant over most of the world with the exception of a few fairly small hot spots that poke through; and not all that much heat making it to the very top of the surface to heat snow, rain, etc. This lets the very top surface temperature wander over some large extremes.

  167. klockarman (07:36:27) :
    Ron de Haan (03:22:07) : See: http://algorelied.com/?p=899
    It’s titled, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    Like Ron, I believe that this study is worthy of discussion. I’d fully expected every AGW skeptic blog in the world to link to this article as I did, and yet there seems to be a collective shrugging of the shoulders. I am as mystified as Ron is.

    Maybe I can help. I read them both. They looked to be reasonably well done to me. What was there for me to say? “Oh look, yet another proof that will be ignored by the AGW folks and power elite?” or maybe “Gee, a well done study that will be picked to death because the author uses split infinitives?”

    Basically, it will have to go through the mill and be pounded on for a while and maybe if it survives it will slowly, over the course of a decade or so, shift the scientific debate; but we’ve left that regime in the USA as we have politically driven policy happening Right Now and no amount of science nor proof will change that.

    Yes, I’m somewhat fatalistic about things, now. It will pass, but it will take a couple of years. My real hope rests with a moribund sun, GCRs raising clouds, ozone heading down, and abnormally cold weather slapping politicians up side the head. Any enhanced scientific paper is helpful sometime in the next decade, maybe, but that’s kind of like saying that you got a say of execution just 5 minutes after the switch was pulled and “Old Sparky” has done his thing. Nice for your heirs, but not so much for you…

    I’d like to be excited about it. I’d like to have a raging debate about the merits of their discovery. But on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I’m working with a threat to “safety” (one off the bottom) and you want me to look at a really neat “self actualization” (at the very top level) and I’m thinking “Can I get back to you on that one, mate? I’ve got a bit of a question of where my next meal is coming from and what will be left in my accounts after the socialists get done spending my money…”

    I’d generally avoided mentioning this, since I didn’t want to spoil anyone else’s fun; but you asked, a couple of times, so here we are.

    FWIW, I’ve moved as much money as possible to places where it can not be grabbed nor squandered in the lunacy that is to come (happening now?). Maybe as soon as I see that it is working, I’ll move back up Maslow’s toward self actualization and sophistic debate will be more attractive again…

  168. “There are plumes of very hot liquid magma that rise from the deep liquid layer at selected spots around the world. These “hotspots” are places like Hawaii and Yellowstone.”

    There is another that is apparently forming and hasn’t had a super eruption yet though one might be brewing. Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of Congo appears that it might be sitting on top of a mantle plume.

    Oh, and Toba is erupting again.

  169. Robert Bateman (18:06:19) :
    Nightime temps did not reach the 40’s until June. I did not know about the decreased upper atmosphere, but I did know about what happens to crops when the solar cycle fails to ramp. We got more in than most people because we planted cooler weather varieties and root crops.
    Those whom I was able to warn did ok.

    Same in the UK last growing season. My polytunnel tomatoes didn’t ripen until late October! This year the main uncovered bed is full of potatoes and onions, with some room left for leeks and beetroot when they are ready to transplant. Courgettes also suffered last year, even in the polytunnel they didn’t crop heavily. Extra doses of seaweed fertiliser this year as I got given five hundredweight by an organic outfit where it has just been outlawed as ‘unecological’.

  170. crosspatch (10:56:09) : And as humans are pretty much tied to “this year’s harvest” globally, anything that disrupts one or two growing seasons is going to end up killing a significant portion of the human population on the planet.
    […]Our existence as we know it is actually quite fragile.

    You are correct, but the degree is worse than that…

    We ship grain globally. We no longer store one years harvest and use it over the year. Grain is harvested and used in near real time. We have a few weeks of grain at any one time. We are pretty much tied to “The next seasonal harvest wherever it is”. The loss of Australian & Argentine wheat would have immediate consequences. Ditto the loss of Canadian / US wheat.

    But wait, theirs more:

    We don’t need a global crop failure to create a crisis. One large rock fall from space would make a tidal wave that would swamp / sink the major shipping needed to move that grain to where it is needed. It would take many years to rebuild those ships. The five major grain exporting regions would be fine (modulo the economic collapse – at least they would have lots of food) but the rest of the world would starve to some degree; or to a large degree if a big enough rock. This will happen. It’s just a matter of time. We, as a globe, are betting it will take a few hundred years. It could happen tomorrow (in fact, ought to happen soon; given the sizes that fall vs how often vs how long ago…)

    FWIW, this is IMHO the most likely catastrophe we, as a planet, face. We really ought to be building granaries and storing a year or two of grain distributed evenly about the planet…

  171. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 21, NO. 18, PAGES 2067-2070, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994

    Does anyone know the whereabouts and name of this database of sunspot groups?

  172. Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.

    “(Water content makes some magma more liquid, so lava from near subduction zones is more liquid, thus part of the reason for volcanoes near subduction zones.)”

    While water certainly plays an important role in magmas, the greatest control on a magma’s viscosity is the silica content (SiO2). The more SiO2, the more viscosity. Magma’s in subduction zones require water for their generation, but typically these mamga’s have higher silica contents and are more viscous. Magma’s from subduction zones are typically andesitic (53-56% SiO2). The runny “water-like” magma’s come from the dry melts of the mantle in places like hawaii. These melts are basaltic (48-52% SiO2).

    Temperature also has a major control on a magma’s viscosity. Magma from subduction zones are generated when water brought down on the subucting oceanic crust lowers the melting temperature of the surrounding mantle and magma’s form. These “wet melts” occur at lower temperatures then magma’s from rifts or hot spots.

    In rifts and hot spots, as hot mantle ascends from deep within the mantle, during the ascent pressure changes more quickly than temperature, so when the pressure is low enough, magmas form. This is called decompression melting. These “dry melts” occur at much higher temperatures than the previously mentioned wet melts.

    So colder, more silica-rich, and thus more viscous lavas in subduction zones (Cascades), hot, less silica-rich and runnier melts in hot spots (Hawaii) and rifts (Mid ocean ridges).

    Another note about mantle convection is the science is not settled there. There are some folks who will make the case for whole-mantle convection and others that will argue there is a layered convection. As a geochemist, I ‘know’ the mantle is not well mixed, and therefore only a layered convective model can explain the observed geochemistry from the rocks we collect. Geophysics will argue that their tomography shows evidence for whole-mantle convection. The point is, it would be important understand how the heat/mass transfer works within the earth, before we try and apply it to surface temperatures.

  173. Roger Carr (19:12:01) :

    Ron de Haan (06:04:24) wrote in part: “In this regard it’s a key that could simplify any future discussions and block any Government action on the reduction of CO2…

    I applaud that belief, Ron, and support it. Perhaps I have grown tired; but not too tired to be uninspired by your vision. Ride on, sir!

    Roger,
    This subject has nothing to do with belief.

    It’s about our future.
    This is the wrong moment in time to get tired and give up.

    We are now in the phase where political decisions about legislation are made based on BS (Bad Science) and a very unhealthy political ideology. And it’s happening world wide.

    We have the science on our side, mother nature playing her cards in our favor and we have all the social, political and legal arguments on our side to counter this eco fascist coup that will rob our future.
    We have the advantage of the current crises that has put the break on budgets world wide and a fast growing opposition.

    What to think about this recent posting I found at http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13087:

    We Won’t Pay
    Wednesday, 18 Mar 09, politics

    “According to an article in the Washington Times ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/ ), the cost of Obama’s cap-and-trade plan could exceed $2 trillion. How can anyone even calculate such a thing? The collateral damage to the economy is beyond conception, until it happens.
    What if millions of taxpayers materialized outside post offices on April 15 and burned their returns? Such a protest would exceed the reach of law enforcement. The IRS would be overwhelmed. If it does not happen this year, it will surely happen next year. But by then the damage would be done. There is still time to stop the juggernaut, if the public gets angry enough. soon enough.

    For starters, get off withholding, if you can. Don’t let the government take your earnings before you receive them. This makes it too easy for you to ignore the confiscation”.

    If you read the comments posted at the Washington post article you can see for yourself that opposition is building.

    We have to make an inventory of the best science available, formulate our arguments, short and powerful, group and organize creating an international platform, get the necessary financing and simply stop this madness.

    That’s what we have to do.
    The Heartland Institute already has moved to a political level supporting an Australian Political Party and hosting the ICCC meeting which was opened by EU President Vaclav Klaus.

    I think we have a hell of a ship in terms of the science and the arguments and it’s of coast. We only have to get our bearings and sail it into the harbor.

  174. David Archibald (14:47:43) : We have burnt most of the oil, there are now shortages of basic commodities like coking coal,

    Um, these are not true. We have maybe burnt about 1/2 of the oil, or maybe not. It is not clear that we have passed Hubberts peak. And even at that, it’s a broad peak. We’ve had a 100 year lead in (and will have a 100 year exit). So for at least the next 10 to 20 years of their lives there will be no significant reduction in total oil pumped each year even if we are at Hubberts peak (it really starts falling off in about year 120 to 140.)

    There is no shortage of coking coal reserves. We have a limited capacity to produce above the typical rate per year and when China was rebuilding whole regions for modernity and for the Olympics at the same time we reached that production limit but that is not a shortage of resource. We run out of coking coal in about 200 to 400 years. Then we will need to resort to biomass or other manufactured carbon lumps… at almost the same cost.

    For almost all commodities, any “shortages” are not resource shortages, they are production rate limits. It just makes no economic sense to size your operation for the 5% or less of the business cycle where demand is excessive and about to drop off anyway.

    My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.

    That, too, is excessive. Most of our food production goes directly into livestock feed grains, not human food. We can easily export a lot more human food if it were desired. And yes, that would mean less beef but not necessarily less meat! Chicken and pork are about a 3:1 feed conversion ratio. Beef is 10:1 more or less. So with a 70% reduction in feed grains for beef production, we could eat the same volume of meat… It would just be chickens and pigs instead of beef… Catfish farming has about a 1:1 feed conversion ratio, as does trout farming. So the worst case is we would have to “scrape by” with trout almondine and fried catfish. Hardly draconian.

    So I’d suggest recasting your “pitch” from “we used the good stuff, you get the icky dregs” into more of a “You get as good as we got, but you need to use your imagination to give your children even more, with less, as we have done.”

    Frankly, the whole “running out” pitch is just broken. It fails to realize that we create resources by applying technology to whatever is laying around. There are unlimited resources as long as we have a planet to live on. We just have not needed to figure out how to use most of them before.

    For example: Almost all the copper mined today would not have been thought of as copper ore when I was a child. It was assumed impossible to use. Another? We can extract Uranium from sea water at economical prices. We can never “run out” of Uranium (and thus, of energy); we can only choose not to use it. The same technology can extract other metals. Yet another? There are something like 500 Gigatons of Manganese nodules on the ocean floor. These hold copper and other metals too. We don’t harvest them (even though we know how) because other sources are still cheaper. They are not a ‘resource’ even though we can use them any time we wish. (What each person on the planet would do with their ~100 ton share I leave for the student to decide 8-) Trees? We can grow wood fiber in timber lots at between 10 and 50 Tons / acre /year (depending on species and conditions). We don’t need that much… The list goes on and on, but I don’t…

    So I’d suggest an upbeat message about the nifty fields of engineering, mining, polymer Uranium ion adsorption surface chemistry, advance agronomy, etc. laying in front of them to choose from, to “save the planet” from minor discomfort…

    Oh what the heck, one more: There are several companies that have developed engineered building materials made from straw composites. They have names like “strawboard” and “goldenboard”. We burn, plough under, or just leave in the field to rot thousands and thousands of tons of this stuff every year. If we made it all into building materials, the whole country would be built over in just a few years (think single digit to low double digit.) We will never run out of construction panels, plyboard, or ‘timbers’. The biggest issue these products face is that their raw material is harvested in only part of the year, where trees are harvested year round. So the companies are not very profitable (yet) and have trouble competing with cheap plentiful wood.

    That, btw, is an example of the usual kinds of trap the Malthusian approach falls into. It assumes that a lack of economically available substitute product today means no substitute exists (shortage! running out!) when it usually just means the original is still so dirt cheap that the alternatives can’t price compete effectively. The Malthusians also assume that a ‘tight market’ somehow means “shortage” when it usually is no such thing; it’s just a production rate limit at peak demand.

    See:

    http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/weblog/2008/06/strawboard-panels.htm

    http://www.environbiocomposites.com/products.php

    and even cabinetry & nick-nacks made from straw composites:

    http://www.greenhomeguide.com/index.php/product/C126

    http://www.golden-board.com/

    for examples. Or do a google search on “Earthship” for the ultimate in low brow resource. Very interesting homes built from rammed earth, trash tires, and used drink bottles… I don’t think we are in danger of running out of dirt and trash…

  175. Benjamin P. (01:08:58) : Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.

    Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics ;-)

  176. Robert Bateman (18:06:19) :

    “David Archibald (14:47:43) :
    There are reports that Spring in some parts of the US is two weeks later than normal. Two weeks at both ends of the growing season and you have a significant effect.
    We are already seeing that in our locale. The spring was late, the greening was slow and pale, and the fall found plants stopping ripening even when the weather was still quite warm.
    A wine grape harvest failed, many gardens had soured vegetables and fruit trees failed to ripen.
    Nightime temps did not reach the 40’s until June. I did not know about the decreased upper atmosphere, but I did know about what happens to crops when the solar cycle fails to ramp. We got more in than most people because we planted cooler weather varieties and root crops.
    Those whom I was able to warn did ok.
    I cannot warn a state, much less a whole nation, out of my reach”.

    Robert,

    May I ask the question why we have a Ministry/Department of Agriculture.
    They should inform the farmers about the type of crops they have to plant.

    Maybe they too are obsessed with the AGW hoax causing them to fail their primary responsibilities?

  177. Leif Svalgaard (19:02:22) said

    I have noticed [empirical, anecdotal evidence only, so beware] that the AGW majority crowd is generally more laid-back, more secure [the science is settled after all so why get hot under the collar], and less combative than the Anti-AGW crowd, who is more desperate [being a minority], more combative, more hostile, and more prone to flights of fancy [not having a settled science to lean on], hence my wording.

    More constrained by the necessity of making everything fit together. [snip] It is the nature of the beast.

    Reply: Behave Eli ~ charles the moderator going to bed waaaayy too late

  178. E.M.Smith (02:47:24) wrote in part: So I’d suggest recasting your “pitch” from “we used the good stuff, you get the icky dregs” into more of a “You get as good as we got, but you need to use your imagination to give your children even more, with less, as we have done.”

    A fine and inspirational posting, E, M.. Thank you.

  179. @crosspatch

    The Krakatoa eruption of 535 resulted in the start of the Dark Ages and collapse of the Roman Empire.

    In the year 535 the last Western Roman emperor was already more then 75 years dead. The Eastern Roman empire actually lasted untill the late middle ages and was called Byzantium. The 530’s and later did see the infamous Gothic wars, which saw temporary restauration of Emperial Roman rule. In fact parts of Italy remained under Byzantine rule known as exarchate and formed the basis of the Papal states.

    The Dark Ages is another name for the migratory period, which started well before the 530’s. Attila’s invasion of Gaul and Italy was in 450 and 452.

  180. E.M.Smith (03:20:30) :

    Benjamin P. (01:08:58) : Nice summary E.M. Smith, but just a couple of corrections/clarifications.

    Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics ;-)

    I am a great fan of Terry Pratchett’s diskworld novels. He also has three books discussing the physics/science of diskworld. Somewhere there, he discusses ” lies we tell to children”.

    That depending on the cognitive level we are addressing “truths” are lies from the higher level. Example: the atom as a miniature solar system, is a useful lie for one level of understanding.

  181. “I grow rather weary of David’s claims. Post the data, post your code or go get behind Dr Mann in line for your junk science award.”

    I am weary of vague, specious insinuations, devoid of reasoning or specifics, cast about by dilettantes(often degreed) with no clear application to the issue at hand.

    The half-life of 7Be is 55 days, yet 70% is found on the ground. 10Be is created from nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen, not friggen aerosols.

    This link calls into question dating of solar activity: velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0022/article1.asp

    Note to readers: This is absolute dating, of specific cycles, not the relative dating employed in the article above.

    Cosmogenic 14C has a residence time of 60 years and yet many here unthinkingly accept absolute dates using its methods.

    Self-described discriminating thinkers here wax on about “correlation does not imply causation”. How about “having an opinion does not necessitate having a point”?

  182. E.M. Smith wrote: “I’d suggest an upbeat message about the nifty fields of engineering, mining, polymer Uranium ion adsorption surface chemistry, advance agronomy, etc. laying in front of them to choose from, to “save the planet” from minor discomfort…”

    Would certainly second that as there is a lot of opportunity out there for our species to reinvent itself.

    The negative tone to all of this on here is just a symptom of the fact that there are a tremendous collection of bright minds [and some extremely bright….I am learning alot on here and not having to pay any tuition and I can audit some of Dr. Svalgaard’s classes so as to avoid a D minus average]…but bright individuals here who understand the times and know what to do.

    Yet they are crowded out by the herds of cattle at the troughs, to borrow from the imagery from Anna.

    That is what causes the angst.

    But agreed…how do some of these “solutions” proffered on here….turn into actions and policy??

    Join forces. No new orthodoxy though like solar this or oceanic that. Too many poles already. Everyone continue in their field of research as we work to effect some changes and for starters get a REAL science advisor to the president, and not the one there now.

    What America needs is a new political party: the SCIENCE party….people whose creed is the Scientific Method, their modus operandi is the relentless pursuit of the truth, freedom of speech and academic research, and shaping policy based upon good science (and not allowing sham science to drive politics as it is now).

    The Science Party would be beholden to no one…just THE INDUCTIVE DEDICATION TO GOOD SCIENCE, THE TRUTH, AND SOUND SOLUTIONS FOR OUR SPECIES AND OUR PLANET….

    Can’t speak for other countries represented on here…but since the IPCC leans heavily on NASA….and since NASA is controlled by the likes of James Hansen (fire him!), it would make sense, if we got rid of the “pollution” coming from these organizations….we might be able to reverse some of the damage that “pollution” has caused.

    Join forces.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  183. If anybody at NASA is listening, we could get plenty of information on the whole history of the Sun by extracting relatively short samples of lunar regolith, and having them sent back to Earth for in-depth analysis. I am not sure such a mission would be incredibly expensive, and could be complete in 18 months or less.

  184. E.M.Smith (23:27:10) :
    FWIW, I’ve moved as much money as possible to places where it can not be grabbed nor squandered in the lunacy that is to come (happening now?).

    By places do you mean “locations” or “commodities”? I seem to be unable, personally, to find a desirable “location”. Links please :~P

    E.M.Smith (02:47:24) :
    David Archibald (14:47:43) : My calculations are that a full blown Dalton Minimum rerun will reduce US agricultural production by 20%, taking the US out of the export food market. In turn, for some people on the planet, this will mean that eating animal protein will be a fond memory.

    E.M. replied in part:

    That, too, is excessive.

    Oh what the heck, one more: There are several companies that have developed engineered building materials made from straw composites. They have names like “strawboard” and “goldenboard”. We burn, plough under, or just leave in the field to rot thousands and thousands of tons of this stuff every year. If we made it all into building materials, the whole country would be built over in just a few years (think single digit to low double digit.

    Love your posts, but that too, is unrealistic.
    There are about 32 million acres of CRP (aka-land bank) not being harvested (about 3 ton dry matter/acre at best), but on cropland capable of direct human consumable food production (non-grazing land), removing the organic matter would immensely reduce productivity (water retention and infiltration, CEC, nutrient availability, etc.) the effect would be cumulative, and also cause severe productivity reducing erosion. And you must consider that the world’s most productive soils and region is highly susceptible to any cooling (U.S. upper midwest). I have to concur with D.A on that one, but not the implied Dalton minimum part. As for animal protein, think soylent green.

  185. E.M.Smith (00:25:26) :

    We don’t need a global crop failure to create a crisis. One large rock fall from space would make a tidal wave that would swamp / sink the major shipping needed to move that grain to where it is needed. It would take many years to rebuild those ships. The five major grain exporting regions would be fine (modulo the economic collapse – at least they would have lots of food) but the rest of the world would starve to some degree; or to a large degree if a big enough rock. This will happen. It’s just a matter of time. We, as a globe, are betting it will take a few hundred years. It could happen tomorrow (in fact, ought to happen soon; given the sizes that fall vs how often vs how long ago…)

    FWIW, this is IMHO the most likely catastrophe we, as a planet, face. We really ought to be building granaries and storing a year or two of grain distributed evenly about the planet…

    We also ought to be taking all those billions that are subsidizing AGW research (or pet projects under that rubric) and devote them to developing the technology to divert dangerous objects from colliding with the Earth.

    “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program.” —Larry Niven

    /Mr Lynn

  186. @E.M. Smith

    “Thanks. I was trying to gloss over the exact “why” a magma was more ‘runny’ by conflating the chemistry / temperature / water process into a single “is runny” metric. When I’m in a “Layman explainer” mode, I’ve found that it’s often needed to hide the actual chemistry (as much as I love it) or math (if beyond algebra) while keeping the sense of it correct. My other mode is more of a “Mr. Science” mode with painful detail and prolix style. It usually is reserved for when the topic demands it (based on the questioners style / level) or if someone shows the slightest interest in Economics ;-)”

    That’s fine, and layman explainer mode is a nifty thing and typically more appropriate, but you were wrong in your original post on the subject. I was just clarifying!

    And the whole discussion is woefully off topic anyway :P

  187. Laid-back my arse! Smug and self-righteous more like. Roger Pielke Jnr, Andy Revkin and Alexander Cockburn can attest to exactly how laid-back these single issue fanatics can be. But yes they do have the upper hand now because the message has longer legs than the facts. This doesn’t seem to make them happy though since they continue to lambast all bastions of skepticism despite having got their men in power and got their massive and undeserved funding. I strongly get the impression most of them are just looking for a fight.

  188. JamesG (09:22:03) :
    Laid-back my arse! Smug and self-righteous more like.
    Every viewpoint in this debate has very, VERY vocal advocates. I was referring to the public at large. At least among the ‘ordinary’ people I know [and I did say ‘anecdotal’] the warmers are rather quiet about it [“this is settled so what is the big deal?”], but the skeptics are up in arms.

  189. Eli Rabett (09:28:02) :
    As Eli was saying before being truncated ~snip~ Kindly take you ad hominems elsewhere. dbstealey, mod.
    Perhaps Eli would be so kind to post them on his own site [for the amusement value]?

  190. The Sun was larger during the Maunder minimum, according to Science Frontiers. Could anybody explain why, apart from the explanation given at that web site? Is the Sun getting larger again now? Could it affect volcanic activity?

  191. A Wod (12:04:48) :
    The Sun was larger during the Maunder minimum, according to Science Frontiers.
    This been claimed from time to time.
    The SOHO spacecraft has now measured more than a solar cycle’s worth of solar seismic data, that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. The solution to this ‘paradox’ is that the Sun is bigger at solar max. The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. 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 scale of centuries, than it is now at activity minimum.
    This has nothing to do with volcanoes.

  192. Leif Svalgaard (14:00:46)
    the Sun is bigger at solar max

    So the article by Ribes et al is totally wrong. They concluded that the Sun was definitely larger during the Maunder minimum.

    Does a corrugation mean a ridge?

  193. A Wod (14:45:56) :
    “the Sun is bigger at solar max”
    So the article by Ribes et al is totally wrong. They concluded that the Sun was definitely larger during the Maunder minimum.

    These measurements are very difficult to make. The solar disk gets darker as you near the limb and the exact position of the limb is hard to pin down. Observations from space give a different result. The matter is so important that a special satellite will be launced to investigate this, see: http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/cosmo/sloar_diam_caonst.pdf
    more here: http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/PICARD-CANADA/
    The matter is still a bit open, but the modern measurements indicate changes much smaller than what was claimed for the 17th century data. The general consensus is that the early data is unreliable.

    Does a corrugation mean a ridge?
    Yes, or a longish hill. It seems that the bright features on the sun are raised over the background, while dark features [like sunspots] are depressions. To get a good answer we have to await the result of PICARD.

    And it is possible that the ‘seismic’ radius may not be the ‘real’ visible radius. It is amazing that such a simple thing as the size of the Sun is still uncertain. What id certain is that modern measurements show much smaller changes than the 17th century claims. Enthusiasts may counter by claiming that conditions were so different during the Maunder Minimum that modern data are not comparable. There is not much one can do to counter such an attitude, but perhaps if solar activity sinks low enough one can put these matters to rest.

  194. We will never know if the Sun was larger due to different conditions during the Maunder Minimum. You cannot counter an attitude which is a suspicion when the measurement were not able to be done in the precise manner as the upcoming Satellite will provide.
    The Maunder Minimum is gone forever.
    We have what observers reported, and if we cannot believe that, we have even less that we thought we did.
    I say this for the pioneers of direct observation:
    They did not know what to expect, and therefore they are the ones who had no bias, no proxies to change other’s observations, and all the diligence a scientist could ever desire.

    If this keeps up, we will be left with only satellite data.
    How long has that been?

  195. You are correct, Tim Clark, removing all of the remaining vegetation after harvest plus failure to rotate crops and rest a percentage of the land will lead to exhaustion of the soil.
    Hello 1930’s.

  196. Well if the global warming folks are right, or say we get hit with another ice age what’s the worst that will happen, mother nature will have a correction much like our economy is having. What will be, will be. Good luck kiddies.

  197. Robert Bateman (19:58:00) :
    We have what observers reported, and if we cannot believe that, we have even less that we thought we did.

    With that attitude you’ll have to accept Abbot’s measurements of the ‘solar constant’ circa 1910-1950, which indicate that the solar cycle variation was at least ten times larger than what we have seen in the satellite era. And Secchi’s measurement of the Sun’s temperature of 10,000,000 degrees, Ericsson’s of 2,200,000 degrees, Zoelner, Spoerer, and Lane’s ranging from 28,000 to 56,000 degrees, and Pouillet, Vicaire, and Deville’s ranging from 1700 to 5500 degrees, or Rosetti’s of 10,000 degrees, or LeChatelier’s of 7,600 degrees, or Wilson and Gray’s of 8,000 degrees [all of these pioneers in the 19th century].

  198. Regarding the alleged volcano that brought down Rome, here are a few links:

    “SUPER VOLCANO! History’s Greatest Secret–Global Cataclysm in 535 AD! by Michael Relfe”

    http://www.metatech.org/A06/world_catastrophe_super_volcano.html

    “Catastrophe (1999): An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization”

    Here’s a review from Publisher’s Weekly:
    “In Keys’s startling thesis, a global climatic catastrophe in A.D. 535-536–a massive volcanic eruption sundering Java from Sumatra–was the decisive factor that transformed the ancient world into the medieval, or as Keys prefers to call it, the “proto-modern” era. Ancient chroniclers record a disaster in that year that blotted out the sun for months, causing famine, droughts, floods, storms and bubonic plague. Keys, archeology correspondent for the London Independent, uses tree-ring samples, analysis of lake deposits and ice cores, as well as contemporaneous documents to bolster his highly speculative thesis. In his scenario, the ensuing disasters precipitated the disintegration of the Roman Empire, beset by Slav, Mongol and Persian invaders propelled from their disrupted homelands. The sixth-century collapse of Arabian civilization under pressure from floods and crop failure created an apocalyptic atmosphere that set the stage for Islam’s emergence. In Mexico, Keys claims, the cataclysm triggered the collapse of a Mesoamerican empire; in Anatolia, it helped the Turks establish what eventually became the Ottoman Empire; while in China, the ensuing half-century of political and social chaos led to a reunified nation. Huge claims call for big proof, yet Keys reassembles history to fit his thesis, relentlessly overworking its explanatory power in a manner reminiscent of Velikovsky’s theory that a comet collided with the earth in 1500 B.C. Readers anxious about future cataclysms will take note of Keys’s roundup of trouble spots that could conceivably wreak planetary havoc.”

    Here is a quote from one of the “most helpful” reviews (by Jaundiced Eye”) that clarifies what the actual impact was on the Roman Empire:

    ” the eruption triggered waves of nomadic migrations which helped to bring about the decline of the recently revived Byzantine empire (which was well on its way to reconquering much of the old Roman Empire), destroyed flourishing urban cultures in the Americas, ruined the powerful Southern Arabian kingdoms which had existed for centuries (thus creating the power vacuum later filled by Mohammad’s follwers), and also wrought devastation remembered in Arthurian romances.

    “One of the crucial contributions which Keys has made is an explanation of the otherwise unexplainable irruption of the bubonic plague out of Africa and into the Byzantine and Indian worlds. The plague — which spread as far as Britain and permanently ended any chance that an independent Celtic Church would be established, separate from Rome — killed millions of then and former Romaions (inhabitants of the original Roman Empire) and blasted any hopes of re-establishing the Empire, relegating it instead into an ever-dwindling Greek-centered Eastern Empire, subject to nomadic incursions from Arabia and central Asia.”

  199. Thanks Roger Knights for the refs to that volcanic eruption. I had memories of seeing some such story that was clearly so important it wiped out the ability of diarists to keep records – too absorbed in survival – like we fear for the idiotic Arctic three.

    Now here’s another “lost” reference relevant to this thread. A study that says there is evidence that the solar magnetic flux shows a 100,000 year cycle: this corresponds, guess what, to the last Ice Ages. Does not even touch Milankovitch. Science Daily June 2002

    This surely is worth revisiting – David Archibald, anyone?

  200. Leif Svalgaard (20:50:02) :

    I was speaking of sunspot group observations that were done from Galileo’s time to the present.
    Those observers. Something done every day.
    And comparing apples to apples to apples.

  201. But thank you for the list. I will spend some time in the near future, and make graphs in honor of all of the observers.

  202. Lucy Skywalker (01:03:01) :

    Thanks for the link, the article looks a little sparse on detail but I would like to see Sharma’s graphs. The article doesn’t seem to differentiate too much between solar output and solar distance.

  203. “With that attitude you’ll have to accept Abbot’s measurements of the ’solar constant’ circa 1910-1950″

    Or accept Arrhenius’ 1896 model and calculation attributing 33 degrees of warmening to GHGs.

    I find it interesting that one having studied 10Be and DiffEq would believe the 10Be residence time greater than 6 mo. Doubtless wishful thinking as it militates against your third-hand reconstructions.

    Keeling, Hansen and Mann would approve, why not advertise it as ‘normal science’.

  204. gary gulrud (07:00:35) :
    “With that attitude you’ll have to accept Abbot’s measurements of the ’solar constant’ circa 1910-1950″
    Or accept Arrhenius’ 1896 model and calculation attributing 33 degrees of warmening to GHGs.

    I don’y think you understand the issue. Robert was talking about observations not theories.

    would believe the 10Be residence time greater than 6 mo.
    As you can see for yourself [should you care to even look], the bottom panel of the Figure on page 2 of

    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf

    shows that 10Be lags the HMF [or the solar cycle] by 2-5 years before 1970 [after that, the graphs shows HMF derived from actual neutron monitor counts, not 10Be].

    why not advertise it as ‘normal science’.
    as opposed to your peddling of ‘abnormal science’?

  205. “[should you care to even look]”

    Just give me the the short course: How were the two series synchronized via absolute dating?

    Again you avoid the question, why would you find, given its half-life that 70% of 7Be lies on the ground, for a residence time of 2+ years? Not mathematics, certainly.

    How did your 10Be come into existence? Soot capture of SCRs? Episodes of volcanism succeeding the solar cycle by 2-5 years?

  206. Robert Bateman (04:07:06) :
    And comparing apples to apples to apples.
    I was: comparing Abbot’s solar constant [TSI] to modern TSI, and 19th century temperature measurements to modern temperature measurements…
    So apples to apples, and apples to apples.

  207. gary gulrud (08:38:38) :
    “[should you care to even look]”
    Just give me the the short course: How were the two series synchronized via absolute dating?

    Again you avoid the question, why would you find, given its half-life that 70% of 7Be lies on the ground, for a residence time of 2+ years? Not mathematics, certainly.
    I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER avoid a question. We are taking about 10Be, not 7Be.

    How did your 10Be come into existence?
    By CR spallation mainly from Nitrogen.

  208. Leif Svalgaard (10:00:29) :
    gary gulrud (08:38:38) :
    “[should you care to even look]”
    Just give me the short course: How were the two series synchronized via absolute dating?

    One [solar activity] by looking at the clock [now, it is March 20th, 2009, 11 am (my time)], the other by counting annual rings in the ice. The latter is can be verified by also looking at nitrate concentrations correlated with known solar super-flares.

  209. Dr David Archibald………a quick question – do you still stand by your prediction of a rapid cooling (by comparison with global average) by the middle of 2009?

    The more time that goes by, the more rapid it will have to be because currently, there’s not much sign. Indeed, the beginning of 2009 seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to 2006, albeit very slightly cooler. Much warmer than average to date however!

  210. “We are taking about 10Be, not 7Be.”

    I say 10Be must be shorter, the difference likely not significant statistically. Anna V. care to comment?

    So then, spikes from ultraplinian eruptions over subducting faults should be easy to identify in the raw data.

  211. pattio (06:54:31) :…
    Here is his response. Can you guys decipher it?

    My policy in general is not to comment at length on my work unless I know the questioner, as such things end up on the internet as quotes taken out of context, etc. That much said, the amplitude of the solar cycle is about 2 W/m^2, which when you take into account the geometry of the Earth (reducing that by a factor of 0.25) as well as albedo effect (a further factor of 0.7), alters the net planetary solar flux by at most 0.35 W/m^2. The effect we are seeing with the recent cooling is similar in magnitude to a major volcanic eruption, which is on the order of 1-2 W/m^2 sustained for 2-3 years.”

    Translated:
    If the Earth were flat and the air clear, there’d be 2 watts variation per square meter due to solar variation. The globe shape and cloud etc. reduce this to about 1/3 of a watt, or 1/6 of the max total.
    However, we’re seeing variation of 1-2 watts per square meter, about as much as a big volcano could cause, continued for 2-3 years. So something besides pure variation of incoming sunshine is causing it.

  212. As to Be10, it is radioactive (like C14) but it has a lifetime (beta decay) of 2.7 million years. It emits an ordinary electron along with 0.56 MeV of energy./

    C14 on the other hand, which is also a beta decay, only has a half life of 5770 yrs and an energy of 0.156 MeV.

    In addition, Be10 has a reasonable capture rate for thermal neutrons; with a crossection of 0.5 barns.
    C14 on the other hand has a thermal neotron crossection of <10^-6 barns.

    So Be10 is a much longer lived radionucleotide than C14. In terms of ice cores it is essentially unchanged over the life of the ice.

    According to CRC C&P 100% of natural Beryllium is Be9, so any Be10 at all is synthesized somwwhere. Same goes for C14.

    C14 variation in atmospheric CO2, could be a signature of fossil fuels; well coal anyway; but it can also be just a proxy form Cosmic Ray variations.

    George

  213. Hasn’t the bunny noticed that things are no longer fitting together well? The CO2=AGW paradigm has widening cracks.

    Thanks to all for a wonderful discussion, and special thanks to Leif for solid objectivity, unusual in this debate.
    =================================================

  214. Leif: I resign from ever considering TSI to be a factor, unless the Sun were to suddenly dim.
    The spectral changes as far as NUV rising is interesting, but the sum of energy striking the Earth vis a vis TSI being a smoking gun looks doomed.
    You will get more out of TSI in a day than I ever could in a lifetime.
    You are a solar physicist.
    I am an observer and astroimager who never thought sunspots were exciting until 2 years ago. They were always so easy to spot at one time.

  215. Solar activity affects the earth’s atmosphere four ways.
    1 When there is less solar activity there is less irradiation.
    2 When there is less solar activity the sun has a weaker magnetic field. This allows more cosmic rays to reach earth causing more clouds to form increasing the earth’s albedo.
    3 When there is less solar activity the sun’s magnetic poles flip less often. Each time the sun’s poles flip its magnetic field collapses and regenerates. The field may not be very strong but it is huge. This means a lot of magnetic lines of force go through the earth’s atmosphere causing eddy currents which heat the earth’s atmosphere like an electric blanket. Electromagnetic induction heating.
    4 When there is less solar activity the sun has a weaker magnetic field which means less magnetic lines of force are passed through due to the earths motion. Therefore less electromagnetic heating.
    Note: if you don’t believe the earth’s atmosphere is a conductor you haven’t seen lighting

    When there is less solar activity all four of these effects cause the earth’s atmosphere to cool.

    Solar activity can and does have a significant impact on the atmosphere’s temperature.

  216. David J Ameling (18:55:23) :
    3 When there is less solar activity the sun’s magnetic poles flip less often. Each time the sun’s poles flip its magnetic field collapses and regenerates. The field may not be very strong but it is huge. This means a lot of magnetic lines of force go through the earth’s atmosphere causing eddy currents which heat the earth’s atmosphere like an electric blanket. Electromagnetic induction heating.
    4 When there is less solar activity the sun has a weaker magnetic field which means less magnetic lines of force are passed through due to the earths motion. Therefore less electromagnetic heating.

    Number 1 and 2 may have legs. your number 3 and 4 are very, very wrong. This is not the way solar magnetism works and not the way it interacts with the Earth. Here you can find how it actually works:

    http://www.phy6.org/Education/wimfproj.html

  217. Leif Svalgaard (20:37:38) :

    “Number 1 and 2 may have legs” .

    Leif and Steven Goddard both seem to be stressing the point that the really unknown entity it is that of cloud formation and to what extent solar activity may impact on this process. It appears that this natural forcing may eventually prove to be the crux of the debate. I wonder if either of you (or any other esteemed contributor) could point me in the right direction as regards peer reviewed, published research on this topic? To date, the research I have found, appears to point to a lot of conflicting evidence ….. + feedback Vs – feedback

    Ben

  218. “In terms of ice cores it is essentially unchanged over the life of the ice.”

    Thanks, topical analysis. Yet the lifetime is brief with respect to volcanic processes. Mt. Saint Helens’ source is a subducting fault but too remote in time from the surface, no 10Be. Chaiten is polar but its fault a rifting one, too deep. Tambora might suffice because of sheer size but its location would seem to imply a dilute source. Only the polar Redoubts or Karymskys are of real interest in recycling 10Be from the silcates it formed.

  219. gary gulrud (11:57:00) :

    “We are taking about 10Be, not 7Be.”

    I say 10Be must be shorter, the difference likely not significant statistically. Anna V. care to comment?

    I have to look up a particles table, on the internet for such numbers I would trust wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium#Isotopes

    7Be has a very small lifetime, 53.12 days, so will not be useful for any geo;ogical tracing

    10Be has a long lifetime 1.5*10^6 years so is the one that is useful

  220. Ben Kellett (01:56:05) :
    “Number 1 and 2 may have legs” .
    Leif and Steven Goddard both seem to be stressing the point that the really unknown entity it is that of cloud formation and to what extent solar activity may impact on this process.

    Cloud formation is kind of a chicken-and-egg business. Change the clouds you change the climate, but change the climate you also change the clouds. This is so obvious and well-established that it hardly needs further references. Whether solar activity has any influence directly or indirectly [e.g. via cosmic rays] on the formation of clouds is a different matter. The cosmic ray connection has become dogma on par with AGW and may be beyond rational discourse by now, but here is one analysis: http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/kkk_asr_2004.pdf

  221. Leif Svalgaard (20:37:23)

    Thanks for the reference on the solar magnetic field. I am still digesting it. This refernce does not take the legs away for number 4. If a magnetic field is weaker less eddy currents will be created in a conductor that passes through it. Or is the solar magnetic field’s lines of force different from all others? The effect on number 3’s legs is still being considered.

    Could you give me a reference as to how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. Wikipedia doesn’t do it. All others I have found are to dummed down to make any since.

  222. David J Ameling (08:16:49) :
    If a magnetic field is weaker less eddy currents will be created in a conductor that passes through it. Or is the solar magnetic field’s lines of force different from all others? The effect on number 3’s legs is still being considered.

    The space between the Sun and the Earth is not a vacuum [if it were 3 and 4 might work, except there would be almost no solar magnetic field to do the work as the magnetic field falls of with the cube of the distance. Space is filled with a conductor [of almost infinite conductivity], the solar wind, that drags the Sun’s magnetic field out with it [so it falls of only with the square of distance and hence is measurable]. When this conductor ‘hits’ the Earth [comes into the neighborhood of the Earth] there are a sort of eddy currents generated, but up in space about 40,000 miles out.

    Could you give me a reference as to how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. Wikipedia doesn’t do it. All others I have found are to dummed down to make any sense.
    ‘Supposed to work’ may not be the same as actually working that way, although you can find hotheads that will defend this and the opposite view with equal fervor and equally less regard for science.

    The way it is supposed to work is this: The atmosphere is basically transparent to light [except a small amount of very short wave length light, UV and X-rays] so is not heated by exposure to sunlight [stand on a mountain in the snow with your face against the Sun all feel the heat that reaches you but is not warming the atmosphere – it is cold up there]. The light hitting the surface [or your face] which is not transparent and hence absorbs the heat and warms up. The air just about the heated surface will warm up because of conduction [put your hand on a hot stove to feel conduction in action]. Hot air rises so the heat will be transported up by convection, but in doing so expands and hence cools [which is why the temperature decreases with altitude]. Both the surface and the heated air radiates their heat away [put your hand a few inches from the asphalt of a hot street and feel the heat radiated from the surface – try it just after sunset for maximum effect]. This radiation you cannot see, it is infrared. The major constituents of the air [Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon] are almost transparent to infrared light, because their molecules have only two atoms, but tri-atomic molecules like H20, CO2, O3, and molecules with even more atoms, like CH4, have more degrees of freedom; they can bend, and vibrate more, so can absorb the photons of lower energy [corresponding to the lower temperature of the Earth than that of the Sun] coming up from below. Absorption of those photons do not heat those tri-atomic molecules as they very shortly thereafter re-emits the radiation they have just absorbed. Even if they happen to hit a Nitrogen molecule while being excited, there are so few of the tri-atomic molecules that the heating effect of that collision is minuscule. Since the molecules dance around wildly, the direction in which the radiation is re-emitted will be random, half up into space and the other half downwards towards the Earth, where it helps heat up the Earth a bit more. This is the greenhouse effect, which has nothing to do with a greenhouse, which is kept hot by the warm air not being permitted to escape.

  223. David J Ameling (08:16:49) :
    Could you give me a reference as to how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.

    The physics of the interaction of radiation with gases and surfaces is completely known and all facets can be and has been explored in the laboratory. There is no ‘new’ physics or unknown phenomena going on. But, the issues are VERY complicated so ANY attempt of explaining them in a single paragraph [and the ordinary folks cannot be expected to read much more than that before their eyes glazes over] is doomed to failure. So you will often see condensed or cherry-picked versions that emphasize details of the complicated, correct picture that happen to support someone’s pet ideas or political agenda while suppressing details that do not, all at the same time accusing the other party of ‘distorting’ the physics, being absurd, stupid, etc. At this point, the science battle is basically lost and turns to politics, how to allocate society’s resources and controlling and taxing the masses.

  224. Leif,

    Absorption of those photons do not heat those tri-atomic molecules as they very shortly thereafter re-emits the radiation they have just absorbed

    Still wrong, like you have been told several times. The absorbed energy, which is not minuscule, is transfered by collision to other molecules.

  225. lgl (11:08:10) :
    Still wrong, like you have been told several times. The absorbed energy, which is not minuscule, is transfered by collision to other molecules.

    This is an example of the selective arguments I was referring to. The greenhouse gases are trace gases and for each molecule of a greenhouse gas there are hundreds or thousands of ordinary two-atomic ‘air’ molecules. The argument that they heat up is like saying that if one man in town strikes it rich, that if he divides his winnings with everybody else in town that also will become rich.

    In any case, the question was: “how is the greenhouse effect supposed to work? Perhaps lgl can explain then how it is ‘supposed to work’ in his opinion?

  226. lgl (11:08:10) :
    Still wrong, like you have been told several times. The absorbed energy, which is not minuscule, is transfered by collision to other molecules.
    And if they heat up, then they will radiate, half up and half down, and the argument stays the same. Is that how it is ‘supposed to work’?

  227. Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)
    Since the molecules dance around wildly, the direction in which the radiation is re-emitted will be random …

    Is anyone aware of any studies which investigate this assumption in relation to other factors? I am always skeptical of claims of randomness.

  228. Paul Vaughan (12:38:01) :
    Since the molecules dance around wildly, the direction in which the radiation is re-emitted will be random …
    Is anyone aware of any studies which investigate this assumption in relation to other factors? I am always skeptical of claims of randomness.

    Observations show that: you shine light in one direction, the re-emitted light is in every direction. Put a small object in front of a roaring fire, once hot it will radiate in all directions.

  229. Leif Svalgaard (12:57:48)
    Observations show that: you shine light in one direction, the re-emitted light is in every direction. Put a small object in front of a roaring fire, once hot it will radiate in all directions.

    My doubts are about field uniformity under all physical conditions, but this is a little OT.

  230. Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)

    Your explanation of the greenhouse effect is the same one I have heard many times. It does not make sense. I was hoping you could give me a reference that is more detailed that does make sense.

    The atmosphere is bounded by space and earth. Photons coming from space that are absorbed by CO2 are emitted in all possible directions. There is a 50% chance that the photon will be radiated towards space where it will be lost forever. Those that are not lost into space may again be aborbed by CO2 and again there is a 50% chance the photon will be radiated towards space. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just lessens the chance the photons that CO2 absorbs ever reach earth. This boundary effect prevents those photons that are absorbable by CO2 from reaching earth when the concentration of CO2 is increased.

    In like manner those photons radiated from earth that are absorbed by CO2 have a 50% chance of being emitted towards earth where they will be absorbed and cause more radiation. The additional radiation will most likely be photons that are not absorbable by CO2. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just increases the probability that photons radiated from earth that are absorbable by CO2 will be converted into photons that are not absorbable by CO2. There is no greenhouse effect. What am I missing? How is the greenhouse effect supposed to work.

  231. Leif Svalgood (01:56:05)

    The reference you gave does not go into detail has to how the solar magnetic field changes when the suns magnetic poles flip. So I can’t come to the conclusion that method 3 has no legs.

  232. David J Ameling (13:46:37) :
    Your explanation of the greenhouse effect is the same one I have heard many times. It does not make sense.

    You did not ask for how it works, but for how it is supposed to work. That may or may not make sense depending on what side of the fence you are. If you are AGWr it makes perfect sense, if not, it is pure nonsense. In my experience no arguments WHATSOEVER can move people from one side of the fence to the other. It is like debating if the Earth is 6000 years old or 4,556,000,000 years old.

    Now your argument:
    The atmosphere is bounded by space and earth. Photons coming from space that are absorbed by CO2 are emitted in all possible directions. There is a 50% chance that the photon will be radiated towards space where it will be lost forever. Those that are not lost into space may again be aborbed by CO2 and again there is a 50% chance the photon will be radiated towards space. Increasing the concentration of CO2 just lessens the chance the photons that CO2 absorbs ever reach earth.

    fails because the photons that come from space [the Sun with a temperature of 6000K] are mostly NOT of the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 and even it they were there is only a very small amount of CO2. Most photons zip right through and heat the surface. The surface now emits photons of the much longer wavelength [corresponding to 300K] that is absorbed by CO2., hence by your argument that radiation can never [well at least have a harder time] get back out into space [if the wavelength that can be absorbed by CO2 can’t get in then it can’t get out either, hence the greenhouse effect].

  233. Paul Vaughan (13:45:01) :
    My doubts are about field uniformity under all physical conditions, but this is a little OT.
    Under all conditions is not relevant, it suffices that it is uniform under the conditions actually found in the atmosphere and at the wavelengths in question. Apart from the fact that this is an observational fact, you might also do a little thought experiment: there are mainly three cases,
    1) the radiation is re-emitted back where it came from; this would double the greenhouse effect
    2) the radiation is re-emitted in all directions; this is the ‘standard’ greenhouse effect
    3) the radiation is re-emitted in the same direction from whence it came; this is no greenhouse effect.

    In case 3, you would have the situation that a small object in front of a roaring fire would be cold on the side facing the fire and radiate from the side away from the fire.
    Which of these three do you like the best? [This is not physics any more, just preference or belief]

  234. Leif,
    And if they heat up, then they will radiate, half up and half down, and the argument stays the same. Is that how it is ’supposed to work’?

    Yes, my understanding is the main thing is there will be gh-effect even if there were no absorption because the emission is a result of collision with other molecules (mainly O2 and N2 of course). And the ‘problem’ is the extra heating of the surface by this back-radiation and not the direct heating of the atmosphere by absorption. Trace gases yes, but the important thing is how much LW radiation they are emitting. This also means that any heating of the surface, by any source, will be amplified through positive feedback by the gh-effect.

  235. David,
    Increasing the concentration of CO2 just increases the probability that photons radiated from earth that are absorbable by CO2 will be converted into photons that are not absorbable by CO2.

    No they will not. O2 and N2 don’t radiate (almost), so the absorbed energy must (mainly) be re-radiated by GHGs.

  236. In response to Leif Svalgaard (14:08:27)

    I don’t see the “choices” as being so distinct as the ones you put forth. When I see statistical assumptions of uniformity, laminar flow, etc. being made with respect to a heterogeneous medium with turbulence, I am inclined to suspect simplification to ease mathematical modeling & communication.

    Thank you for the effort you have invested in commenting.

    To All: If anyone knows of any literature that addresses possible anisotropic effects (no matter how subtle), I would be interested in links/references – thank you.

  237. Leif Svalgood (14:00:37)

    You missed the whole point of my argument. I was only disscusing those photons that are absorbale by CO2. Not the whole spectrum. Granted a greater part of the spectrum radiated by earth is absorbable by CO2, But a significant part of the spectrum radiated by the sun is also absorbable by CO2. The point I am making is increasing the concentration of CO2 prevents the absorbable photons from the sun from reaching earth and increases the probability that the absorbable photons from earth will be converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect?

  238. Jgl (14:32:04)

    The photons that are absorbable by CO2 are converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2 due to the photons being emitted towards earth (after being absorbed by CO2) where they warm the earth and cause more photons to be radiated that are more likely not to be photons that are absorbable by CO2.

  239. lgl (14:13:35) :
    Yes, my understanding is the main thing is there will be gh-effect even if there were no absorption because the emission is a result of collision with other molecules

    So colliding molecules radiate? No, the photon will first have to be absorbed by the GHC. And N2 and O2 do not radiate in the infrared. Molecules radiate in the wavelengths they can absorb [Kirchhoff’s law].

  240. Leif Svalgaard (10:25:17)

    A vacuum is a conductor. I still remember vacuum tubes. They are not used to clean carpets. When you say space is filled with conductors what are you refering to? Ions? electrons? What causes the eddy currents 40,000 miles up? If it is magnetic lines of force, I thought they were continous. They would also cause eddy currents in the atmosphere. If there are solar magnetic lines of force present they should cause eddy currents.

  241. David J Ameling (14:49:58) :
    The point I am making is increasing the concentration of CO2 prevents the absorbable photons from the sun from reaching earth and increases the probability that the absorbable photons from earth will be converted to photons that are not absobable by CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect?

    Look at one photon in the visible. It comes in, zips past the CO2, hits the surface, gets converted into an infrared photon that is now trying to make its way back out. But it can’t easily because it is absorbed by CO2, there is the greenhouse effect. This has nothing to do with the infrared photons coming in.

    REPLY: That is the best simple one paragraph explanation I’ve read. – Anthony

  242. David,
    It doesn’t matter which wavelengths warmed the Earth, it will radiate the close to black body spectrum.

  243. David J Ameling (15:21:15) :
    A vacuum is a conductor
    No

    When you say space is filled with conductors what are you refering to? Ions? electrons?
    Both, space is filled with protons and electrons, about 5 of each per cubic centimeter.

    What causes the eddy currents 40,000 miles up? If it is magnetic lines of force, I thought they were continous.
    The ‘eddy currents’ [they are not real eddy currents but close enough] are caused by and found in the conductor [the solar wind, space] moving into the Earth’s magnetic field at 250 miles per second. At a height of 40,000 miles, the Earth’s magnetic field is just strong enough that its magnetic pressure equals that of the streaming solar wind, thus stopping the solar wind from getting to the Earth [some exceptions to that near the poles].

    They would also cause eddy currents in the atmosphere. If there are solar magnetic lines of force present they should cause eddy currents.
    There are no [well, almost none] solar magnetic lines of force in the atmosphere, and thus no eddy current and no heating of the air from such.

    The ‘almost none’ qualification has to do with the fact that 40,000-50,000 miles out, some solar field lines connect with the Earth’s magnetic field lines and drag them past the Earth into a long ‘tail’ like a comet stretching out to ten times the distance to the Moon. Instabilities in this stretched out tail cause it [or a piece of it] to collapse now and then and ‘snap’ back towards the Earth. This accelerates particles into the upper atmosphere causing aurora and currents that flow about 60 miles or more up. These currents can in turn induce currents in transformers, power lines, and, in an earlier age, telegraph wires with all kinds of bad effects. The total power input of this can in extreme cases [once every ten years] be up to 1,000,000,000,000 W which is about 20,000 times less than that of the input from the Sun’s light and heat.

  244. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:16)
    At the bottom, Nature is random:

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-08/903836982.Ph.r.html

    This is not what I had in mind, but thanks for the effort.

    Since discussion so far OT is being politely tolerated, I’ll take this opportunity to ask Lief (or anyone else who can answer) if there is a mass-imbalance between the poles of the sun – and if so, how it varies over time.

  245. Leif,
    No, the photon will first have to be absorbed by the GHC.

    Not from what I have red. The GHG molecule just needs to receive the ‘right’ amount of energy to emit a photon. The absorbed energy is almost immediately lost through collision and the easiest way to get it back so that it can emit is from collision.

  246. David J Ameling (15:21:15) :
    I should have added that 60 miles up, the air is so thin [a million times thinner than at the surface] that there iswarming by the solar wind. This makes the upper atmosphere expand [there are also other effects due to the Sun that does that], and thus reach up to where many satellites are moving, causing them to slow down by friction, and eventually to fall out of the sky. The Skylab spacecraft did this, many years ago. but the main point is that all this takes place in the rarefied upper regions of the atmosphere with very little or almost no effect at the surface. Its like a very thin tail trying to wag a humongous dog.

  247. Paul Vaughan (15:53:38) :
    “At the bottom, Nature is random”
    This is not what I had in mind, but thanks for the effort.

    This may not be what you have in mind, but is, in fact, the real reason the emission is randomly oriented, because the lifetime of the excited state is random, in the sense that the time at which the electron falls back to its ground state is indeterminate, can happen at any time [within a short window around a mean duration] at which the molecule has rotated and the electron has moved a random distance, so this is VERY pertinent. [May still not be what you have in mind, but such is Mother Nature – she doesn’t really care what is on your mind :-) ]

    if there is a mass-imbalance between the poles of the sun – and if so, how it varies over time.
    I presume you mean in the outflow of the solar wind.
    The outflow [the mass flux] varies very much [by a factor of a hundred] from place to place on the Sun’s surface, but the polar regions are much more stable and although some small variation [because the Sun is a messy place] is expected and observed, there is likely no systematic or long-lasting difference between the poles. [many reasons for this]

  248. lgl (15:58:05) :
    Not from what I have read. The GHG molecule just needs to receive the ‘right’ amount of energy to emit a photon. The absorbed energy is almost immediately lost through collision and the easiest way to get it back so that it can emit is from collision
    But there must to be a photon in the beginning that started the process, being absorbed etc. How many times the photon is lost and recaptured by collision doesn’t seem to be relevant: there is a photon to start with and after some time it is eventually emitted. What happens in the mean time does not seem so important for the end result.

  249. Leif Svalgaard (15:28:21)

    Your are still missing my point. I only discuss incoming absorbable photons to illustrate that increasing CO2 levels reduces the penetration of the CO2 absorbable photons into the atmosphere. I hope we all agree on that.

    Do we all agree that increasing the concentration of CO2 reduces the penatration of CO2 absobable photons radiated from earth into the atmosphere? Increasing the concentration of CO2 just quickens the emitting of photons absorbed by CO2 back to earth which warms. This warming causes more photons to be radiated by earth, most of these reradiated photons will not be absorbable by CO2. This in affect is a conversion of CO2 absorbable photons into non-absorbable photons. Increasing the concentration of CO2 only quickens the conversion of absorbable photons to non-absorbable photons. There is no greenhouse effect.

    Note: only a small part of the infrared spectrum radiated by earth are absorbable by CO2.

    Note; Even though CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere there is enough CO2 molecules to absorb nearly all the photons that CO2 absorbs. Use Avogadro’s number and you will see that every cubic inch of our atmosphere contains the equivalant of 3000 layers of CO2 molecules. That because they are so small

  250. David J Ameling (16:26:55) :
    Increasing the concentration of CO2 just quickens the emitting of photons absorbed by CO2 back to earth which warms.

    You have just explained the greenhouse effect.

    This warming causes more photons to be radiated by earth, most of these reradiated photons will not be absorbable by CO2.
    But they will. Many are of in the right wavelength band to be absorbed by H2O, CO2 and O3, and not be able to get out to space again. [half of them].

  251. David J Ameling (16:26:55) :
    There is no greenhouse effect.
    If this is the staring point, then no amount of discussion can have any effect, so is not useful. There is a greenhouse effect. The important issue is how much of that is due to H20 and to CO2, how much is caused by man, and what the feedback mechanism my be that regulate all of this. As Roy Spencer points out, water vapor may be such a strong regulator [through precipitation] that the Earth effectively may have a thermostat that vis feedbacks keep the temperature close to what it is, combined with the heat storage in the oceans, that the current [short-lived] anthropogenic CO2 enhancement may have very little effect. To blindly state that there is ‘no greenhouse effect’ is not the way to deal with the important debate going on.

  252. In response to Leif Svalgaard (16:09:15)

    With regard to our possible misunderstanding regarding my intentions in raising the issue of assumptions of randomness, I’m going to opt to let that line of discussion expire. Thank you for the comments you have shared.

    Regarding my question about mass-imbalances between the poles of the sun, I can try to restate my question:
    a) Is there more mass in the solar northern hemisphere than in the solar southern hemisphere? (inside the sun – i.e. I’m not inquiring about the heliosphere more generally)
    b) Does this vary over time? If so, how? on what timescales? – in response to what? – etc.

    My aim is to learn whether people are being reasonable if they assume symmetry & constancy of the relative distribution of mass (between the poles – inside the sun). I should also clarify that I am not restricting use of the term “pole” to magnetic considerations. My primary curiosity actually relates more to rotation, but I welcome opportunities to learn about dynamic asymmetry with respect to both types of poles.

  253. Leif Svalgaard (16:55:12)

    Your saying that half the spectrum radiated by earth is absorbed by GHGs.

    Even so every time these absorbable photons are returned to earth there number is halved. It doesn’t take very many halvings to make a negligible.

    Increasing the concentration of GHGs just quickens the halvings.

    PS
    I still think a vauum is a conductor. Ortherwise vacuum tubes never would have worked.

  254. Paul Vaughan (17:10:43) :
    a) Is there more mass in the solar northern hemisphere than in the solar southern hemisphere? (inside the sun – i.e. I’m not inquiring about the heliosphere more generally)

    If there were more mass in one hemisphere than in the other then the density would be higher and the sound speed therefore higher. Using helioseismology we can measure the speed of sound inside the Sun with extraordinary precision, and we find no signs of any asymmetry.

    b) Does this vary over time? If so, how? on what timescales? – in response to what? – etc.
    therefore no variation has been detected. The notion of symmetry is not dictated by ‘convenience’ but by no evidence to the contrary. This does not mean that we not in a hundred years time will find very small deviations from symmetry.

    Asymmetries like you are hoping for would show themselves as what is called multipoles of the sun’s gravitational field which would have consequences for planetary orbits, and none are found in spite of the extraordinary precision modern astronomy works at, of the order of meters [~40 inches].

    My aim is to learn whether people are being reasonable if they assume symmetry & constancy of the relative distribution of mass (between the poles – inside the sun).

    Scientists [especially solar physicists :-) are among the most reasonable people there is. At least, all their work is based on reasoning, so that is what they are trained for and good at.

  255. Leif Svalgaard (17:43:09)
    “Asymmetries like you are hoping for …”

    I’m not “hoping” for asymmetries, but I am keen about assessing the merits of assumptions. Thank you for your comments.

    One last question: Have any interesting variations in the sun’s polar-moments-of-inertia been noted?

  256. Paul Vaughan (18:26:57) :
    I’m not “hoping” for asymmetries, but I am keen about assessing the merits of assumptions.

    In science we hardly ever make assumptions. What we think we know is forced upon us by the hard and unforgiving data, often much against our will: we want the heavens to be perfect, yet we find the Sun has blemishes, we want the motions to be perfect circles, but we find that they are ellipses, we want space and time to be absolute, but we find they are not, we want life to have meaning, but we find it has not, and so on.

    In trying to model what we observe we do make assumptions, but they are carefully chosen to be compatible with the data. Simplifying assumptions are necessary because our computational capabilities are limited, or because we want to express the essence of a cause-and-effect chain without too much distracting detail. For example, if an apple falls from a tree, we can assume that the acceleration of gravity that it feels is constant [although we know quite well that it isn’t] because it does not make a significant difference.

    One last question: Have any interesting variations in the sun’s polar-moments-of-inertia been noted?
    Not quite sure what you mean, but to change the moment of inertia means a lot of mass will have to be moved, which takes a lot of force. We know of no force strong enough to make a dent. Planetary effects are too small by many orders of magnitude, and as I have already remarked, any changes in the distribution of the mass within the Sun will result in changes in the orbits of the planets. We can observe such orbits with accuracy of 1/10,000,000,000 or better and find no observable changes that are not compatible with our theory of gravitation. In the far reaches of the solar system some people claim that a mysterious anomaly exists [the pioneer anomaly], but changes of the moment of inertia would affect most the planets in the inner solar system, e.g. from the Earth and in.

  257. Paul Vaughan (18:26:57) :
    I’m not “hoping” for asymmetries, but I am keen about assessing the merits of assumptions.

    In science we hardly ever make assumptions. What we think we know is forced upon us by the hard and unforgiving data, often much against our will: we want the heavens to be perfect, yet we find the Sun has blemishes, we want the motions to be perfect circles, but we find that they are ellipses, we want space and time to be absolute, but we find they are not, we want life to have meaning, but we find it has not, and so on.

    In trying to model what we observe we do make assumptions, but they are carefully chosen to be compatible with the data. Simplifying assumptions are necessary because our computational capabilities are limited, or because we want to express the essence of a cause-and-effect chain without too much distracting detail. For example, if an apple falls from a tree, we can assume that the acceleration of gravity that it feels is constant [although we know quite well that it isn’t] because it does not make a significant difference.

    One last question: Have any interesting variations in the sun’s polar-moments-of-inertia been noted?
    Not quite sure what you mean, but to change the moment of inertia means a lot of mass will have to be moved, which takes a lot of force. We know of no forces strong enough to make a dent. Planetary effects are too small by many orders of magnitude, and as I have already remarked, any changes in the distribution of the mass within the Sun will result in changes in the orbits of the planets. We can observe such orbits with accuracy of 1/10,000,000,000 or better and find no observable changes that are not compatible with our theory of gravitation. In the far reaches of the solar system some people claim that a mysterious anomaly exists [the pioneer anomaly], but changes of the moment of inertia would affect most the planets in the inner solar system, e.g. from the Earth and in.

  258. On the greenhouse effect:

    In my opinion here is a confusion of two systems of physics calculations. The classical thermodynamics one, and the quantum statistical. Gerlcih andTscheuschner have attacked it from the thermodynamics part and show that a perpetuum mobile machine is suggested by the usual explanations, (violation of the second law of thermodynamics), without suggesting a classical picture for the observed “green house” effect of the atmosphere. ( as I said, I cannot disagree with their conclusions).

    The usual explanation of handwaving photons going up and down is not rigorous in a quantum statistical mechanics presentation to make real sense to a physicist. I suspect double countings but cannot put my finger on it.

    I tend to go to the comfortable classical thermodynamic picture that the greenhouse gases must somehow increase the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and thus more heat is retained; not a hot water bottle, but good enough for what we observe.

  259. David J Ameling (17:31:56) :
    Even so every time these absorbable photons are returned to earth their number is halved. It doesn’t take very many halvings to make a negligible.
    This would be true if the atmosphere was completely opaque, but it is not. If you look at http://www.leif.org/research/Erl71.png you can see that there are ‘windows’ of transmissions. As you go up in altitude the temperature decreases so the downward flux is shifted a bit in wavelength [into one of the windows] and hence can get through.

    I still think a vauum is a conductor. Ortherwise vacuum tubes never would have worked.
    Take a galls tube, install two plates – one at each end – pump the air out, connect each plate to external electric current, the plates will be charged and a strong electric field will build up, but no current will flow through the tube because the vacuum is the best insulator there is. Now having also placed a thin wire inside the tube near one of the plates, put a strong current through the wire. This causes the wire to heat up [look at a light bulb to see how hot the wire gets – it glows]. As is glows electrons are thrown out of the wire by the thermal vibration of atoms in the wire. These electrons feel the electric field and move towards the other plate and that is what make the vacuum tube work. There is more to it, like a grid of opposite charge, etc, but those are just details. The tube works, not because the vacuum is a conductor, but because we shoot a stream of electrons along the tube.

  260. In response to Leif Svalgaard’s (21:24:01) comments in italics above:

    Leif, in my many interdisciplinary years around universities, including 7.5 years in & around math/stats departments, I’ve seen a lot of terribly – & sometimes absolutely – ridiculous assumptions that were accepted mainly because of who was presenting them (or who couldn’t be bothered to challenge them), but I agree that people are generally trying to do the best they can with what is available. Clearly we need to invest more money and have more people involved in the process – that is my conclusion after seeing the monstrosity of the challenges and the extreme inadequacy of the “supporting” administrative systems. Perhaps more importantly, we also need to do more to get young people understanding nonlinear dynamics – and I don’t mean by sinking them in derivations & proofs – I’m talking about helping them develop intuition that goes beyond our society’s deeply-rooted linear culture. Communication about models is becoming a crippling problem, as evidenced by the recent economic fall.

    I’m not sure if you saw where I was going with the moment-of-inertia question, based on how you responded – but I don’t want to leave the impression that I am trying to use you as a ‘personal solar physics tutor’, so I’m going to take a break from this discussion.

    Thank you for your comments.

    BTW – for all:
    Here is an article I read today that I found interesting:

    http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf

    Regards,
    Paul.

  261. anna v (21:37:52) :
    I tend to go to the comfortable classical thermodynamic picture that the greenhouse gases must somehow increase the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and thus more heat is retained;

    The question was how the effect is supposed to work. A completely satisfactory explanation will take hundreds of pages [Gerlich andTscheuschner’s paper is already 115 pages and is still not the final word – some say it is absurd and stupid – the usual stuff]. In science we often use a slightly wrong picture to convey the essence, like the Bohr model of the atom [little electrons like planets around their Sun – the nucleus] and the like. The greenhouse effect can also be stated [as you did] simply as saying that GHGs makes it more difficult for the infrared radiation to get out. The error is to postulate that because it is complex it doesn’t exist.

  262. Paul Vaughan (22:04:38) :
    I’m not sure if you saw where I was going with the moment-of-inertia question, based on how you responded
    It is good style [and basic politeness too] to advertise beforehand where one is going with a line of questions.

  263. Leif Svalgaard (23:04:04) :
    It is good style [and basic politeness too] to advertise beforehand where one is going with a line of questions.

    Thank you for this suggestion Leif.

    Paul.

  264. Leif,
    But there must to be a photon in the beginning that started the process

    Why? Isn’t it just a packet of energy, which can be received by collision.
    From wiki: “Infrared radiation is absorbed from all directions and is passed as heat to all gases in the atmosphere. The atmosphere also radiates in the infrared range (because of its temperature, in the same way the Earth’s surface does) and does so in all directions.”
    Are you saying a body of warm CO2 gas will not radiate unless it first receives photons from outside?

  265. anna v.:

    “I have to look up a particles table…”

    Sorry, I should have been explicit. The average residence time in the atmosphere for 10Be is being inferred from McCracken’s work by Dr. S at approximately 2 years having synchronized the solar cycle series with a series of 10Be via dendrochronology.

    Alternatively, those using 7Be to look at cosmogenic distribution patterns(Googled abstracts) say 70% lies on the ground. I would think a physicist would look at this and find for a shorter residece for 10Be time virtually identical to 7Be on the order of 6 mo.

    I used 60 years for 14C by the same method as Dr. S. but find the latter method for the shorter 10Be residence time eminently superior when available.

  266. lgl (01:05:17) :
    Are you saying a body of warm CO2 gas will not radiate unless it first receives photons from outside?
    I’ll ask how you get it to be warm in the first place.

    gary gulrud (06:06:26) :
    The average residence time in the atmosphere for 10Be is being inferred from McCracken’s work by Dr. S at approximately 2 years having synchronized the solar cycle series with a series of 10Be via dendrochronology.
    No, the timing is done by counting annual rings in the ice, not in trees. The annual count can be checked using layers of nitrate that are deposited after super-flares. E.g. the 1859 flare has a distinct signature in the ice.

    Alternatively, those using 7Be to look at cosmogenic distribution patterns(Googled abstracts) say 70% lies on the ground. I would think a physicist would look at this and find for a shorter residece for 10Be time virtually identical to 7Be on the order of 6 mo.
    Why would physicist do that when the methods of production and deposition are different. The 2 years time for 10Be is an observational fact.

  267. Leif Svalgaard (21:48:05)

    Using your analogy with a tube, if you ask a plumber if the tube will conduct water he will say yes. You will say no because there is no water in the tube. I think the plumber is right even if he doesn’t have a degree. A vacuum offers no resistance to the flow of electrons. It is a super conducter. It all depends on how you look at it.

  268. Leif,
    I’ll ask how you get it to be warm in the first place.

    By conduction, or even indirectly from H2O absorbing sunlight and then colliding with CO2.
    It’s not an argument that most energy once came from the Sun as radiation. There is no ‘knowledge’ of that in the system. The CO2 molecule doesn’t think, oops, that H2O colliding with me once absorbed a photon so now I have to emit one, and the next time, this H2O came out of a volcano so this time I don’t have to radiate.

  269. David J Ameling (09:34:45) :
    A vacuum offers no resistance to the flow of electrons. It is a super conducter. It all depends on how you look at it.
    No, conductance is a well-established physical quantity and does not depend on how ‘you look at it”. Once you put electrons into the vacuum to get a current, it is no longer a vacuum.

  270. lgl (09:36:02) :
    The CO2 molecule doesn’t think, oops, that H2O colliding with me once absorbed a photon so now I have to emit one, and the next time, this H2O came out of a volcano so this time I don’t have to radiate.
    Why concentrate on CO2? H2O is the primary GHG. There are many more H2O molecules that absorb a photon, than coming out of a volcano. So, again, the chain starts with a photon from the Sun.

  271. Leif Svalgaard (10:05:49)

    You got me, a vacuum is not vacuum if there is something in it like electrons, therefore a vacuum cannot be a conducter. This gets pretty philosophical. Can a vacuum be a vacuum if there is a force field present, etc

    Going back to previous discusions can you give me a reference as to what happens to the sun’s magnetic field when the sun’s poles flip?

  272. David J Ameling (10:39:05) :
    Can a vacuum be a vacuum if there is a force field present, etc
    Of course, otherwise you could not see the Sun or the stars. furthermore, the vacuum is a seething see of particles that flick in and out of existence.

    Going back to previous discusions can you give me a reference as to what happens to the sun’s magnetic field when the sun’s poles flip?
    The Sun’s magnetic field has many parts. One part is that bottled up in sunspots, another part is that forming the polar fields [the two parts are not independent]. The polar fields are eaten away by the sunspot fields and disappear and then then replenished by more sunspot magnetic field until being eaten away during the next cycle, etc, cycling for eons.

    Jan Stenflo’s historical account of his involvement with solar magnetic field research may be of interest: http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/stenflo/pdf//PRL07.pdf
    Another good source is http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/liu_svecse.pdf
    I am at the moment involved in the HMI instrument described there and to be launched on SDO later this year.

  273. David J Ameling (09:34:45) to Leif Svalgaard:
    Using your analogy with a tube, if you ask a plumber if the tube will conduct water he will say yes. You will say no because there is no water in the tube. I think the plumber is right even if he doesn’t have a degree. A vacuum offers no resistance to the flow of electrons. It is a super conducter. It all depends on how you look at it.

    It is not that effective narrative like David’s trumps (debatable) “observational facts”, but rather that such narrative gets through to the masses with ease. Activity in discussion forums like this one may be proof that interdisciplinary-communication divides are among the biggest climate challenges we face. I am reminded of a piece I once read on the psychology of persuasion – in which the author was hammering the point that the most important thing to keep in mind in catering your message is who your audience is.

  274. “Why would physicist do that when the methods of production and deposition are different.”

    The methods of deposition are chemical and identical. The methods of production are similar if not identical, CR genesis. A ‘physicist’ determines fact by as many means as are available. That two independent tests disagree requires explanation, in due course.

    ‘Rings’ in ice cores is not a term I recognized. If common in the parlance, I’m informed. That the technique has issues is openly admitted by its practitioners.

    That we may disagree about the ‘facts’ is hardly news.

  275. Leif,
    That was just an example. I could have used N2 colliding with H2O, that doesn’t change anything. There is no chain. The atmosphere is heated in various ways, the absorption of upwelling LW is just one, and this absorption is just one small part of the story. That alone would not change the surface temperature much. All downwelling radiation is re-radiated. About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface so we have a positive feedback loop with around 2.5 total gain [Tot=A/(1-AB) A=1=gain without feedback, B=0.6] This is what makes the GH-effect powerful.

  276. Why do all the charts on the sun go only to 2000?
    It looks like data is being cherrypicked to show a correlation.

  277. lgl (11:39:37)
    “About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface so we have a positive feedback loop with around 2.5 total gain [Tot=A/(1-AB) A=1=gain without feedback, B=0.6] …”

    Effective messaging – but are you adjusting for the proportion which is not intercepted? (For others following along: Think of a cold clear fall night vs. a warmer one with a thick cloud-blanket – I’m just pointing out that B is concentration-dependent and that it depends on something as dynamic as the hydrologic cycle.)

    This is a very clever, digestible calculation to drag out lgl – thank you for sharing it. (clarification: the question was rhetorical.)

  278. Leif: Vacuum is a super-conductor?

    This is not true.
    Although a vacuum does not interfere with the motion of electrons, it is not a conductor. It is an insulator, with a dielectric constant of 1, similar to free air.

    A conductor must have charge carriers (holes or free electrons) that allow current to flow when a charge (voltage) is applied. Conductors have a very low resistance to current flow, super conductors have virtually no resistance.

    Vacuum tubes work by heating a metallic cathode to the point that it emits electrons. By applying a voltage (positive with respect to the cathode) electron current will flow to the plate. A “grid” is placed between the cathode and plate. By making the grid negative with respect to the plate, it impedes the flow of electron current. By varying the grid voltage with a signal, you have an amplifier.

  279. Pamela commented on “sun posters/watchers as examining the digestive tract of gnats.” Since TSI varies so little.

    It would seem that this comment should apply to the CO2 camp since they are attributing climate change to a trace gas that comprises .038 of 1% of the atmosphere, while ignoring water vapor is measured in whole percentages.

    Even though TSI varies little, that doesn’t mean that the short wavelength energies and solar particles are neglible. Otherwise, our atmosphere would not have contracted 100+ km during the current solar min. Don’t underestimate the effects of ionizing radiation. Though we may not understand all of the processes, it doesn’t mean that they are without effect.

  280. Jim G (13:51:50)
    “Though we may not understand all of the processes, it doesn’t mean that they are without effect.”

    Well-said Jim. I get tired of this attitude that we should not be studying the morphology of nature if we do not yet understand it.

    I’ve found a lot of errors in Landscheidt’s work, but here are some examples of the more balanced side of his judgement that I cobbled together one day:

    “There are many problems that can only be solved by a joint interdisciplinary effort of open-minded scientists.” (2001) “Admittedly, the mechanisms that create such strong solar forcing remain poorly understood in detail. Yet this situation is not new in the history of science.” (2001) “… it is to be expected that sceptics will point at the lack of detailed cause and effect arguments and properly quantified physical mechanisms.” (1999) “The lack of elaborate theory does not impair the heuristic importance of the results.” (1999) “Epistemologically, the stage of gathering data, establishing morphological relations, and setting up working hypotheses necessarily precedes the stage of elaborated theories.” (1999&2001) “In this early stage of development of a completely new interdisciplinary approach it cannot be expected that there is a detailed physical explanation of the results, especially as the fields of solar activity and climate change have not yet reached the stage of full-fledged theories…” (2001)

    The optics of double-standards can be politically problematic.

  281. Paul Vaughan (11:05:53) :
    It is not that effective narrative like David’s trumps (debatable) “observational facts”, but rather that such narrative gets through to the masses with ease.
    If they are plainly wrong, we don’t want them to get through to the masses with ease.

    gary gulrud (11:35:34) :
    ‘Rings’ in ice cores is not a term I recognized.
    An ice core is a cylinder. The show that falls each year is melted a bit at the surface during the summer, with the result that you can visually distinguish annual layers analogous to tree rings albeit in the other dimension, hence my use of that word as you seem to be somewhat versed in dendro-technique, or at least know that it is a dating tool. These layers are easily counted, being several centimeters thick. As you state, that you don’t have your facts together is hardly news.

    lgl (11:39:37) :
    atmosphere is heated in various ways, the absorption of upwelling LW is just one, and this absorption is just one small part of the story. That alone would not change the surface temperature much. All downwelling radiation is re-radiated. About 0.6 of the upwelling is sent back to surface
    The atmosphere is not heated much by radiation as I have stressed so many times. Absorption by trace gases or heating of such gases by what ever means does not heat the surface nor increase the temperature in the Stevenson Screen where it is measured. The radiation reaching the surface either directly from the Sun or by re-radiation downwards does, and that heats the atmosphere by conduction and convection. It doesn’t matter what the tri-atomic gas is, H2O, O3, or even CO2, as long as you have downward radiation you have a greenhouse effect. How many times are you going to deny that?

  282. Leif sayeth:

    The atmosphere is not heated much by radiation as I have stressed so many times. Absorption by trace gases or heating of such gases by what ever means does not heat the surface nor increase the temperature in the Stevenson Screen where it is measured. The radiation reaching the surface either directly from the Sun or by re-radiation downwards does, and that heats the atmosphere by conduction and convection. It doesn’t matter what the tri-atomic gas is, H2O, O3, or even CO2, as long as you have downward radiation you have a greenhouse effect. How many times are you going to deny that?

    If I have understood Phil.’s claims with respect to CO2 lasers, he would have us believe that the mean-free-path in the atmosphere is shorter than the mean time to transmit for CO2 or H2O molecules that have absorbed outgoing LWR, and that these can consequently pump N2 to a higher state (kind of the reverse of what N2 does in a CO2 laser). However, since Phil. has been coy about the mechanism he thinks is in play, I am guessing that this is what he means.

    So, do I have these mechanisms wrong, and is it only conduction and convection as I thought earlier?

  283. Richard Sharpe (18:32:23) :
    However, since Phil. has been coy about the mechanism he thinks is in play, I am guessing that this is what he means.
    I don’t know what he means or why it is relevant.

  284. Leif Svalgaard (18:54:12) said::

    Richard Sharpe (18:32:23) :

    However, since Phil. has been coy about the mechanism he thinks is in play, I am guessing that this is what he means.

    I don’t know what he means or why it is relevant.

    As I say, I am speculating, but I think he and other AGWers see it as a mechanism where outgoing LWR can pump atmospheric temperature up through increases in CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.

  285. Leif Svalgaard (17:53:53)
    “If they are plainly wrong, we don’t want them to get through to the masses with ease.”

    I think most are aware of the important role you play – beyond providing free solar-physics tutoring.

  286. “the residence time of 10Be in the atmosphere is thought to be short [~2 years], but it is not clear how firm that is”

    It seems the facts have hardened during the period of this thread.

    “10Be lags the HMF [or the solar cycle] by 2-5 years”

    A range in the variable greater than its ascertained value, a signal indication of a dodgy result.

    Snow blows and snow sublimes, the maximum effect varying with the season. Is this chalked up to climate?

    Dare we ask for the residence time of nitrate aloft?

  287. gary gulrud (04:20:02) :
    A range in the variable greater than its ascertained value, a signal indication of a dodgy result.
    It is beneath a gentleman to use terms as ‘dodgy’ in a serious discussion of other people’s work, but clearly not beneath you. Anyway, the providers of the data [and others] claim a residence time of the order of two years. At some point we trust what people you know do, but a little due diligence never hurts, so we use a standard technique to determine the lag between time series: you compute the cross-correlation coefficient between the two series, then move one series over one time step and calculate again, etc. A plot of the resulting coefficients as a function of lag will show you at what lag the coefficient is largest. The insert in the upper left-hand corner of the Figure on page 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf shows you the result, confirming a lag of two years as they claimed. It is also clear simply by inspection of their data that the lag is somewhat variable, for example, their peak in 1899 follows the sunspot maximum in 1893, so some additional variability exceeding the nominal two years is present.

  288. “Why don’t you do some constructive research”

    Touche.

    BTW, do you maintain a CV at your site?

  289. Leif,
    as long as you have downward radiation you have a greenhouse effect. How many times are you going to deny that?
    Don’t know who you mean, can’t be me.
    All I have said is basically that the downwelling LW is there because the atmosphere is warm, not because GHG first absorbed LW, even though some of the heat comes from that absorption of course.
    And that any heating of the surface is ampified around 2.5 by the GHGs.

  290. lgl (08:49:01) :
    All I have said is basically that the downwelling LW is there because the atmosphere is warm, not because GHG first absorbed LW, even though some of the heat comes from that absorption of course. And that any heating of the surface is ampified around 2.5 by the GHGs.
    Then I don’t know why you have been dragging this on for so long. The original poster asked what the explanation of the GH effect was supposed to be [this being the usual rhetorical question because he just wanted to proclaim that there is no GH effect]. My answer was that the surface is warmed by direct sunlight [short wave, SW] and radiates in LW which the GHGs return a part of to further warm the surface. Nobody was talking about the GHGs being warmed by photons. All we need the GHGs to do is to return half of the LW photons to the surface. What’s your problem with that?

  291. Leif Svalgaard (09:42:01) :
    All we need the GHGs to do is to return half of the LW photons to the surface. What’s your problem with that?
    I finally see what your problem is and in my zeal to supply the ‘supposed to work’ party line [and I started with noting that that may not be how it actually works] I overlooked that any process [even collisions] that warms the GHGs will result in downwelling LW. So, perhaps no difference here. In any case, the original poster probably couldn’t care less, because he just wanted an excuse for ‘proving’ that there is no GH effect. He is probably equally disgusted with both our answers.

  292. Leif,
    My ‘problem’ was Absorption of those photons do not heat those tri-atomic molecules as they very shortly thereafter re-emits the radiation they have just absorbed, which is not my understanding of ‘how it is supposed to work’, but we don’t have to start all over again.

  293. Leif Svalgaard (?????)

    We were discussing how the Greenhouse Effect is supposed to work.

    We agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere towards earth of the those photons absorbable by CO2 coming from space (sun).

    I believe we agreed that increasing the concentration of CO2 would reduce the penetration into the atmosphere of photons absorbable by CO2 radiated from earth. This process was not as efficient as the reduction of absorbable photons coming from space. This is due to the fact once a CO2 absorbed photon is reradiated into space it is lost forever. While the CO2 absorbed photons that are reradiated to earth have there energy absorbed by earth. When this energy is again radiated from earth there is only a 50% reduction in the photons that are absorbable by a GHG.

    The greenhouse effect is supposed to warm the atmosphere. Nothing we have discussed shows this happening.

    Is this supposed to be happening while the CO2 photons are being converted to photons that are not absorbable by GHGs by repeated absorbtion and reradiation by earth? Is this supposed to be happening due to a slight increase in the earth’s temperature caused by the retention of heat energy during the additional time required to convert GHG absorbable photons to non-absorbable photons? Is this increase in temperature causing more heat energy to be transfered to the atmosphere by conduction and convection? Is this how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work?

    A more efficient method would be for the energy gained by a CO2 molecule due to an absorbed photon be transvered to other atmospheric molecules due to collisions. This would cause a greater warming of the atmosphere. But I believe you don’t think this happens.

  294. David J Ameling (16:03:24) :
    The greenhouse effect is supposed to warm the atmosphere. Nothing we have discussed shows this happening.
    The greenhouse effect warms the surface by returning some of the surface heat back to the surface warming it even more. A warmer surface in turns warms the atmosphere.

  295. Leif Svalgaard (16:30:48)

    I tend to agree with you. As I originally said the Wikipedia explanation doesn’t do it for me. It says things like the following; “If the atmosphere is more opaque, the typical photon escaping into space will be emitted from higher in the atmosphere, because one then has to go to higher altitudes to see out to space in the infrared. Since the emission of infrared radiation is a function of temperature, it is the temperature of the atmosphere at this emission level that is effectively determined by the requirement that the emitted flux balance the absorbed solar flux.” This makes little sense to me.

    I wish Watt would post a posting that deals with quantifying the affect of the “greenhouse effect” Then there would be a proper venue for discussing how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.

    I think if the affect of the greenhouse effect could be quantified it would be far less than the effect due to solar activity.

  296. In about half an hour I have to go with my students to a lab, where we have cloud chambers and we are going to see dirrectly GCR leave little “steam” tracks in methanol. The same thing happens in atmosphere in those layers where the water vapor due to adiabatic cooling reached saturation, but needs something to nucleate the condensation. This is a reversible process and at the same time chaotic. This means that more GCR bring have an enhanced effect. How can this affect the weather? I am going to present here a mechanism. I don’t know the quantitative effect, we might never know it given the high complexity of the situation, but we can’t ignore it.

    As we have more GCRs in the atmosphere, we form clouds and precipitation at a lower humidity threshold. What does this mean? It means that clouds are more likely to form where the water evaporates, that is at tropical regions and that humidity has less chances of reaching higher latitudes. This has the effect of increasing the albedo at tropical regions, where the solar irradiation is the most important and of decreasing the humidity at higher latitudes where this enhances the thermal radiation (we all know that water is an important green house gas and more abundant than CO2). Obviously, there are places where increased GCR produce an opposite effect due to geographical particularities, but the general trend is clear.
    Again, it is obvious that TSI varies insignificantly with the solar cycle and that the GCR level is modulated by the solar activity. We don’t know though the intrinsic variability in GCR, I am an astrophysicist and we believe that they come from many sources to keep them more or less constant, but isolated events can cause major spikes.
    In my oppinion, I think that the GCR level is an important weather regulator, more important than the man made CO2 emissions.

  297. You might be interested in this paper.

    Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection

    http://www.akk.me.uk

    Abstract:
    Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth’s magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas. Changes in distribution of ultraviolet rays resulting from the movement of the magnetic field, may result in increases in the death rates of carbon sinking oceanic plant life such as phytoplankton.

    Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
    Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
    Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
    Keywords: MAGNETIC POLES; DRIFT; CLIMATE; COSMIC RAYS

    Document Type: Research article

    DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689286

Comments are closed.