Guest essay by David Archibald
This post drew attention to the similarity between the recent warm decades and the period leading up to the extremely cold year of 1740. Now let’s investigate how a 1740-type event might play out. This graph shows the average of the monthly temperatures for the years 1736 to 1739 plotted with the monthly temperatures of the year 1740:
With respect to growing conditions, the 1740 season was a month later than the average of the previous five years and the peak months of the season were 2.5°C cooler. To get a perspective on how a repeat of 1740 might affect growing conditions in the Corn Belt, Bill Fordham, advising the grain industry in the Midwest, has kindly provided an update on the current season:
==============================================================
“So far here in the center of the Midwest, the 2013 growing season is almost identical to 2009 in regards to Growing Degree Days (GDD).
In 2009 48% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 62% was planted by May 19.
In 2013 18% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 71% was planted by May 19.
In 2009, we never received a killing frost until November 5 when the low was at 28F. The Midwest had a huge crop that was wet and light test weight, but never got killed by a frost. In 2009, the total GDD accumulation from May 15 thru September 30 was 2,530 GDD.
The bulk of the corn planted in the Midwest ranges from 2,300 to 2,700 GDD (based on Fahrenheit). With the volcanoes that have been erupting in Alaska and Russia, especially with Mt Sheveluch erupting to 7.4 miles on June 26, I will be surprised if we get through the month of September in 2013 without an early killing frost. If the heat dome and high pressure ridge stays centered in the west and over Alaska until Labor Day, the clockwise rotation will pump the cold air south over the Midwest along with the ash. There are millions of acres at risk in IA and MN, that are 2-3 weeks behind normal.
After silking, it takes 24-28 days to reach the Dough Stage when kernel moisture is about 70% and about 50% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
After silking, it takes 35-42 days to reach the Dent Stage when kernel moisture is about 55% and about 70% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
It takes about 55-65 days after silking for a corn plant to mature and for the kernel to reach black layer, normally at 30-35% moisture.
A killing frost, <30F, will do damage whenever it occurs before black layer, the earlier the frost, the more severe the damage. A hard killing frost <28F can reduce the yield up to 25%, or more depending on the variety, even a week before black layer.
In 1974 I experienced severe loss on some late planted corn when I got rained out on May 7 and didn’t get back in to finish planting for 3 weeks. The May 7 corn yielded 190 bushels per acre and the May 28 corn yielded 90 bushels per acre, same variety.”
================================================================
Based on Bill Fordham’s experience of 1974, planting three weeks later reduced the crop yield by 50%. If the peak growth months of June, July and August are 2.5°C (4.5°F) cooler as per the CET record of 1740, that would reduce the GDD by 414.
A repeat of the climate of 1740, with a late planting and reduced heat in the three months prior to harvest can be expected to reduce crop yield by well more than 50%.
Don’t understand the real point of the article. Basically all it says is that cooler years tend to reduce yield (which we already know). Is there any indication of any common condition between 1740 and 2013 aside from spring temperature? Any common atmospheric conditions or other thing that might indicate we are actually looking at a 1740 and not a 2004? Basically the article is speculative, presents nothing to show why 2013 might be like 1740 and presents only that yield drops if crops are planted late. That is already a widely known fact. Every day after May 15 that corn is planted results in lower final yield and that is why farmers will switch to planting soy beans if they can’t get corn in on time.
Other areas of similarity are Solar output and a cold Ocean flow.. We are already within 1-2 deg F of that years low temps along with a very wet spring which place this year very close to that one.. If the solar output trend continues to fall a Maunder or Dalton event could be very likely. Given earths population and the current killing off of our ability to warm and feed them due to the CO2 garbage agenda it would be the deaths of millions.. all for the CAGW Agenda…
Man doesn’t do well in a cooling environment… And the eugenics crowd knows it..
Crosspatch: See June article referenced. 2015 – maybe.
Bill H says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm
If the solar output trend continues to fall a Maunder or Dalton event could be very likely.
Have you considered the possibility that the Sun’s output was higher during the Maunder Minimum than today? Sunspots diminish the output of energy [they are darker and cooler]. With no sunspots there would not be a diminution of solar output…
agree with ya, crosspatch. I find the idea of a repeat of 1740 intriguing; but we’ve got to remember that no matter how well the graphs match, the chances of something like that both repeating and being predictable is a very, very long shot. I recognize the possibility, and if it happens we will gain some very valuable knowledge about the workings of this system – but I can’t, as yet see any reason to believe that the odds of this happening as predicted are very high.
And the problem I have with the speculation about the parade of horribles that are laid out is the same complaint I have with so many pro-global warming pieces I’ve read, Rather than looking at the likelihood and mechanism of the predicted event, the formula followed seems to usually be: 1) just Assume the Bad Thing happens, whatever it is, for whatever reason,
2) Look how Bad this Thing is! It’ll be Really, Really Bad!!!
(well yeah, because the whole case rests on the assumption that it will be)
Makes for a punchy, tabloid style article but not all that much science in it.
(P.S. I’ve always been a big fan of Archibald’s posts – it’s just that for me,this one misses the mark.)
I”ve never seen the crops this far behind. Corn was not knee-high by the fourth of July, but it has always been waist to shoulder high in my lifetime. Those beans that actually got planted on time are about two inches tall. A lot of the corn was sent back and exchanged for shorter-season corn, which will yield less. The upshot is that meat will be more expensive next spring.
I read this as, What if we get a repeat of 1740?
I’d like to see it taken further. Exploring the consequences for global food supplies.
The bad year 1740 was likely the result of volcanic activity [Tarumai, Japan, 1739 and likely more important for England temperatures: Bárdarbunga Iceland, 1739] so is not predictable.
This article is a very good description of a believable scenario and those who understand it can use it to in strategic planning for the next year. That is a hell of a lot better than being caught cold (no pun intended) with the reality of a grain shortfall without a plan. What it is not is an example of the little boy who cried wolf. There is no hyperbole in this post but much that can be used as a hedge against inflation. My first thought on reading it was to go out and buy a side of beef on speculation.
There is more to it than just 1740
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
If we’re predicting a reduced corn crop, the B.O. regime should consider backing off on the ethanol requirement for gasoline, so more corn can go to feeding people.
Mike McMillan says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm
If we’re predicting a reduced corn crop,
Since great volcanic eruptions are not very predictable, we can hardly be predicting a reduced crop…
A point that can be made, considering the focus of WUWT; is it a good. or even prudent, idea to be using corn as a substitute for oil, specifically when a 50% drop in crop yields is ever present?
WHEW
You had me worried there for a moment
“A repeat of the climate of 1740, with a late planting and reduced heat in the three months prior to harvest can be expected to reduce crop yield by well more than 50%.”
It looks like the harvest would still OK to allow for the production of Ethanol
Boy was I worried /SARC
“Don’t understand the real point of the article. Basically all it says is that cooler years tend to reduce yield (which we already know).”
Agree
I love this website, but the quality of the articles is all over the place. I would be surprised if Skepitical Science would pick out a hot year from the last three or four CENTURIES and write what this author wrote.
Blue sky says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:17 pm
I love this website, but the quality of the articles is all over the place.
You can count of Archibald to deliver articles with a consistent [unvarying] quality…
A similar condition occurred in Italy with their delayed-planted tomato crop this year.
Many Italian growing regions were forced to delay tomato planting by two and some by as much as three weeks due to the extremely cold Spring in Europe.
The Italian tomato crop yields will be much lower this year than average, so expect to pay more for your Italian canned tomatoes this year due to the cold Spring and the tanking US$, which makes imports more expensive.
This “Global Warming” is kicking our butts with its cold.
Is it the cold they’re referring to when the Warmunistas say, “it’s worse tha we thought.”?
BTW, the TSI dropped about 1watt/M^2 in June, so in Hansen NEWSPEAK, I guess that’s the equivalent of about 150,000 Hiroshima bombs NOT going off….
It now seems almost certain that SC24 hit its peak sunspot number in December 2012; about a year earlier than projected. Now comes the slow slide to 2020, when the weakest solar cycle since 1715 starts….
When is the world going to come to its senses and pull the plug on this flatlined CAGW blue eggs and scam?
That made me laugh.
I think our skeptic standards should be much higher.
Here is the Farmland Forecast on July 2, 2013, “Although corn crop conditions are better than last year at this time, historically late planting may have an adverse affect on crop yields.”
With no sunspots there would not be a diminution of solar output…
Dramatically reduced UV output which we have already seen to be a driver in the recent contraction of the atmosphere as noted by the change in satellite drag in low Earth orbit.
denniswingo says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Dramatically reduced UV output which we have already seen to be a driver in the recent contraction of the atmosphere as noted by the change in satellite drag in low Earth orbit.
of the thermosphere at 400 km altitude. Reduction of the visible will have a much larger effect in what reaches the ground and heats the troposphere and the oceans. You got to get the perspective right.
SAMURAI says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm
BTW, the TSI dropped about 1watt/M^2 in June,
Compared to what? to May? No, May 1361.36, June 1361.39..
There was a drop of 0.25 W/m2 recently, but that was due to a change of data set version from 13 to 14, causing a recalibration of the whole dataset since 2003 with all value dropped by 0.25W/m2.
JFD says: “Here is the Farmland Forecast on July 2, 2013, “Although corn crop conditions are better than last year at this time, historically late planting may have an adverse affect on crop yields.” And the crop report from Southwestern Minnesota is drought ending Spring rain (Good), but it delayed planting as in the article. I can agree with the article, denting of the kernals is a milestone each year, as well as the hard frost date which aids the corn in drying while stopping its growth. Farmers can be helped by a good hard frost date, as drying corn costs money and adds a step.
ldenniswingo says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Dramatically reduced UV output which we have already seen to be a driver in the recent contraction of the atmosphere as noted by the change in satellite drag in low Earth orbit.
of the thermosphere at 400 km altitude. Enhancement of the visible will have a much larger effect in what reaches the ground and heats the troposphere and the oceans. You got to get the perspective right.
— is perhaps the better way of expressing it.
Time to buy corn futures
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Have you considered the possibility that the Sun’s output was higher during the Maunder Minimum than today? Sunspots diminish the output of energy [they are darker and cooler]. With no sunspots there would not be a diminution of solar output…
===========================
As an interesting note I have. Its is also possible that due to the weakening of solar magnetic fields that the sun spots will fade. The internal motor (so to speak) is not welling them to the surface. Those same magnetic fields affect earths fields allowing in greater amounts of ionizing radiation. This allows an increasing cloud formation and from some of the latest papers in the works, also seems to also have a diminishing effect on earths ocean circulations. Admittedly there is much more work to do on this theroy.
The suns fusion reaction may be “stable” but what appears to be minor fluctuations may have major impacts on the earths climate. The June drop of 1W/M^2 to earths surface has many looking for why (causation/correlation) as a stable reaction should not have such. It may be an indirect cause originating from the sun. What Changed is the question today.
Fun time to be observing the sun and how it affects the earth.
The agility of the modern farming system is amazing. The wholesale switching of seed crops to adjust for weather conditions on a continent wide scale!
Wayne Delbeke: thanks for prodding me to follow the link. I’m not a big fan of wiggle matching things. Nature is particularly bad with exact intervals of things (except when those things are in free-fall like an orbit or something). Even things that are fairly cyclical in nature have broad error ranges. For example, we can see that there are interglacials but we can’t tell exactly when this one will end. We can see Bond events, but don’t know for certain when the next one will start. We can see PDO in the records but don’t know exactly when it will switch phase. Also, 1740 was a one shot deal, a single outlying year. The conditions that are currently setting up might argue more for a more moderate but longer term cooling. How can one predict a single year oddity like that? They can’t, in my opinion.
Bill H says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm
It’s is also possible that due to the weakening of solar magnetic fields that the sun spots will fade. The internal motor (so to speak) is not welling them to the surface. Those same magnetic fields affect earths fields allowing in greater amounts of ionizing radiation.
What seems to be happening is that the magnetic fields do come to the surface [thus increasing TSI], but the [unknown] process that concentrates them into visible spots is operating less efficiently. During the Maunder Minimum [and other Grand Minima] the magnetic field was strong enough to modulate cosmic rays even more vigorously than in recent decades.
The June drop of 1W/M^2 to earths surface
There has been no such drop. Due to solar rotation there is typically a 1W/m2 variation during each 27-day rotation. Perhaps that is what confuses people. No need to concoct exotic explanations for the usual state of affairs.
Here in ND, we thought the winter would NEVER end this spring. It was absurd, even for ND. And it started earlier. We basically had Halloween, and then WINTER! Some farmers did not finish planting until a few days ago, in JULY. Its disgusting! OK, I’m better now. Its just weather, not climate.
John Phillips says:
July 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Be glad you have the Bakken!
wws says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:22 pm
1740 came out of the blue. Temperatures remained lower afterwards suggesting something changed in the Sun. The US grows enough grain to feed 1.2 billion vegetarians, so you are not going to starve, perhaps. The world is cooling towards the conditions of the 19th century. What would be a very good exercise for somebody to do would be to use the available daily temperature records in the northeast US for the period 1800 to 1850 and plug them into a crop growth model for the Corn Belt using modern seed varieties and practices. And see what the year to year variability in production is. And from that determine what stock levels would be prudent. One of the reasons that 1816 was such a bad year was not so much the cold itself but that the frosts came at the wrong time in the corn’s growth cycle.
With respect to science content, sometimes one learns from life experiences. Prior to the 1987 stock market crash, I had warned a client that a crash was coming. After the event he complained that I had not been emphatic enough. While the whole of the scientific establishment is still spewing forth papers on the horrors of warming, nobody is looking in detail at what cooling will do. The last work in that vein was in the early 1980s after the 1970s cooling period.
Another thing. A friend of mine who has read very widely remembers reading in his youth that the early explorers in the Midwest encountered frosts in midsummer. The Corn Belt will get some polar amplification.
wws says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:22 pm
1740 came out of the blue. …suggesting something changed in the Sun. … One of the reasons that 1816 was such a bad year was …
Likely both 1740 and 1816 were the results of volcanic eruptions.
Blue sky says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:17 pm
The warmers can’t pick a warm year out of the past because their belief system is based on CO2. If you plot the 10 years up to 1738 against the 10 years up to 2013, they are very similar with warmer winters than the mid19th century. Conditions at this moment are almost the same as what they were 275 years ago.
“The June drop of 1W/M^2 to earths surface”
Assume the sun’s output went down by a full Watt for a year.
What would happen to the global average temperature?
Estimates anyone?
asuume it went down by a watt for 10 years? 30 years?
The big question for me right now is what is dampening the UV output on the sun. This is the portion of heat that we are not receiving. Is it due to dampening of the suns magnetic fields?
Looking at satellite data, part of that heat never made it to the earth. What would cause a loss in transmission? One thing we see in nuclear melt downs (I know its a fission reaction) as the reaction continues it leaves waste in the flow. This waste slows the reaction and can dampen certain wave lengths being emitted. This is why we place certain kinds of materials to not only stop the reaction but contain it. I would presume that the suns reaction would function much the same. Is it simply a natural cycle on the sun? (The sun fuses and the molecule created becomes a dampening agent. Get enough of it present in the active flow and it affects the reaction as a whole.. As the reaction slows the magnetism draws it center mass and clears the active part of the reaction, which then resumes. IF THE MAGNETISM IS WEAK the reaction does not clear quickly and a period of reduced output would continue or grow more pronounced.) this is just a thought about the suns cyclical process.
We know what band the loss is in. We simply do not know what is causing the diminished output on the sun and why. One thing we do know, a prolonged loss of just 1W/M^2 can cause a drop of 2-4 deg C on earth in short order. Add to that a compressed atmosphere which will allow heat to escape from the polar regions more easily and we have a rapid cooling combination.
So many possibilities, So many questions… But that is science.
Steven Mosher says:
July 5, 2013 at 5:32 pm
“The June drop of 1W/M^2 to earths surface”
Assume the sun’s output went down by a full Watt ‘forever’
What would happen to the global average temperature?
It would go down 0.05C. If not ‘forever’ but for a shorter period then the inertia of the oceans would make the drop somewhat smaller.
lsvalgaard says:
“Likely both 1740 and 1816 were the results of volcanic eruptions.”
Then this Archibald article could be interpreted as a prediction of volcanic eruptions?
I say that either facetiously or I’m asking a serious question.
But suppose a major volcanic eruption were to occur now, during this current temperature lull.
What sort of aftermath would the world see? A catastrophe because of the current population?
Bill H says:
July 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm
The big question for me right now is what is dampening the UV output on the sun. This is the portion of heat that we are not receiving. Is it due to dampening of the suns magnetic fields?
The UV is going down because the number of sunspots is going down. But the total heat we get from the sun is going up because there are fewer dark spots to subtract from the output.
The sun fuses and the molecule created becomes a dampening agent.
The heat is generated in the Sun’s core and it takes about 250,000 years for it to diffuse to the surface so any shorter fluctuations will be attenuated away. The variations we see are caused by variations of the magnetic field near the surface.
One thing we do know, a prolonged loss of just 1W/M^2 can cause a drop of 2-4 deg C on earth in short order.
No, only 0.05 deg C. The percentage change in temperature will be a quarter of the percentage change in radiation.
Steve Oregon says:
July 5, 2013 at 5:53 pm
But suppose a major volcanic eruption were to occur now, during this current temperature lull.
What sort of aftermath would the world see? A catastrophe because of the current population?
Depends on the size of the eruption. If Yellowstone would blow, most of humanity would die, any lesser eruption would result in a smaller effect. During the 1739 eruption on Iceland 20% of the population died.
During the 1739 eruption on Iceland 20% of the population died.
I was curious whether your 20% was just Iceland or world-wide (which obviously would be very hard to believe) and my brief search indicates that the 1739 eruption might have been “Tarumai Japan Aug., 1739 “
Interesting, NLC’s increasing since 2007 now. Little something I put together. 2007 – 2013 all taken on July 3 for ref. https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/353323903956946944
James Smyth says:
July 5, 2013 at 6:38 pm
During the 1739 eruption on Iceland 20% of the population died.
I was curious whether your 20% was just Iceland or world-wide (which obviously would be very hard to believe) and my brief search indicates that the 1739 eruption might have been “Tarumai Japan Aug., 1739 “
Just Iceland, and there was also an eruption in Japan, perhaps adding to the world-wide effect.
Basically what Archibald is saying that due to the late planting and the recent uptick in Northern Hemispheric volcanic eruptions, combined with the potential for a cool summer due to low solar activity and changes in the Pacific surface temperatures, if there is an early frost then the damage to the nation’s crops would be substantial. This all comes down to one thing, an early frost. We will soon know.
“lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:22 pm
…
Have you considered the possibility that the Sun’s output was higher during the Maunder Minimum than today? Sunspots diminish the output of energy [they are darker and cooler]. With no sunspots there would not be a diminution of solar output…”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
Mr Archibald’s article is interesting because it focuses on agriculture which is one of mankind’s endeavours most sensitive to weather/climate variability. It’s often overlooked by city dwellers. The piece is very US centred and perhaps could be made more universal by crop comparisons with other countries. Cheers from sunny, but coolish Sydney.
tchannon says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:25 pm
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
Is based on an obsolete paper by Wang, Lean, and Sheeley from 2005.
Question for Leif: What was the cause of the cooling coincident with the Maunder minimum?
Leif demands very exacting science, which is useless to small farmers like myself. (I have a toy farm, but it still it is a farm.) .What use is it to me to hear a forecast is basically impossible?
Around here there was a wave of immigrants from Finland around 1900, and those folk knew about cold, and the best way to judge the oncoming winter is to scrutinize the old-timer Finn’s woodpiles. When they get very big, watch out!
I have an internet friend who has a toy farm in Pheonix, where the main problem this time of year is keeping things alive in the 115 degree heat. He asks me probing questions about farming in the north, and when attempting to think what the heck my philosophy was, I decided my calculations happened too swiftly for Leif to understand.
I may have an IQ significantly lower than Leif’s, but if you put us both out in left field in a baseball game, and a fly ball was hit our way, I could calculate where the ball was going to land without even thinking about it. Lief would meanwhile be struggling away with some newfangled version of a slide rule, and be so engrossed the ball might bounce off his head.
There are so many things going on at the same time, in the chaotic system we call “weather,” that two volcanic eruptions of the exact same size can have significantly different effects. So can two solar events. It all depends on the timing. If the AMO has the ocean sloshing one way, the effect will be different from what will occur if the AMO has the ocean sloshing the other way.
As I explained to my friend in Pheonix, “I call this my Slosh Theory, and it is based upon a highly scientific experiment I did at age three in the bath tub. Timing was everything. If you got the timing down, you could generate such a tremendous wave that half the water left the bathtub and wound up on the floor.
My mother did not appreciate my research and stunted my scientific growth, which explains why I became a writer.”
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Question for Leif: What was the cause of the cooling coincident with the Maunder minimum?
Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows one reconstruction of global temperatures and a reconstruction of solar activity [although labeled ‘TSI’ it is really constructed from the cosmic ray record]. You can find some wiggles that match and some that don’t, just as you would for random data. The climate has natural variation which sometimes coincides with the natural variations of solar activity. No further causes need to be invoked.
Caleb says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm
What use is it to me to hear a forecast is basically impossible?
Some people subscribe that some prediction [even if wrong] is better than no prediction. They take solace in the fact that perhaps they can ‘do’ something, which in itself has therapeutic value.
I have to give an “attaboy” to Leif – excellent persistence in addressing a wide variety of comments.
I do think that some just accept this post “as is” because it fits their preferred world view (that it is all about the sun) but a true skeptic should question all hypotheses , not just the ones they don’t like. I like Leif’s skepticism.
The volcanic hypothesis presented by Leif is as plausible ( if not more) than solar hypothesis presented by others. To really move this discussion beyond this point though, some serious research would need to be done & presented to support the hypothesis.
Gaia plays games that last millions of years, short-term luck is exactly that.
Leif says:
Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows one reconstruction of global temperatures and a reconstruction of solar activity [although labeled ‘TSI’ it is really constructed from the cosmic ray record].
I agree that TSI variations are unlikely to have directly caused the LIA, but I am reluctant to think that the sun played no role. In more recent times, the warmistas lean heavily on the idea that the global warming of 1976-2000 can only be explained by anthropogenic GHGs. Yet, the earth warmed at the same rate in 1915-1944 when CO2 hardly contributed. That leaves solar activity and oceanic cycles as the possible causes of the warming in this earlier period. If it were a solar effect, it would need to be an order of magnitude larger than any realistic changes of TSI.
I think that even the minor global oceanic temperature changes that correlate with the solar sunspot cycles requires a variation of solar surface heat flux that is an order of magnitude larger than the TSI variations over the solar cycle. The real question is, how does the sun do it?
Should have said “solar driven heat flux at earth surface”
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
I agree that TSI variations are unlikely to have directly caused the LIA,
All solar activity curves follow TSI, so TSI is just a convenient label [although almost all the energy is in TSI] so if the TSI wiggles don’t match neither do any other solar index. Now, obviously the Sun does influence the climate, up to 0.1 degree C, but that is not what I would consider a major driver.
Mike, this isn’t the corn that people eat. This is the corn that is used to make ethanol, plastics, possibly high fructose corn syrup, but mainly it is used to feed hogs, chickens and cattle. I get frustrated having to say that over and over.
And the ethanol the way we use it in America is mostly as a substitute for MBTE, not gasoline. This isn’t Brazil.
Leif,
Have a look here http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/definitive-global-climate-change-aka-global-warming-thread-general-discussion-and-questions/71?page=42#comments
Scroll down the page to #1303. If I am not badly mistaken, the required driving heat flux for 0.1C peak to peak is a lot larger than any TSI variations.
You could find ‘wiggle-matches’ at many points, between CET and global temperature data, but it would be uniwse to expect correlation between the global average and such a localised series to be meaningful.
A more robust analysis would be to comb for the best match of wiggles. Has this been done? How was the period selected and preferred against others that correlate? Are there other matches with better statistical significance?
Even if this was done, it’s a long bow to postulate some kind of correlation absent physical drivers and variation to explain it. But I can’t tell if the author looked for precipitous drops in the CET record until they found a prior period that resembled the last 30 years. Or if the initiating data was the precipitous drop mentioned, then the wiggle-matching is just coincidence, and the correlation (from the previous post) doesn’t look very good.
Climastrology.
======================================================
Good insight. The problem with the CAGW predictions and what they want to “do” is that we can’t afford their “therapy”.
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:30 pm
If I am not badly mistaken, the required driving heat flux for 0.1C peak to peak is a lot larger than any TSI variations.
S [=TSI] = a T^4 [Stefan-Boltzmann law]
dS = a 4 T^3 dT [differentiate]
dS/S = (a 4 T^3 dT)/(a T^4) = 4 dT/T
dT/T = 0.1/289 [Kelvin] [289K is average global temperature]
dS/S = 4*0.1/289 = 0.001384
dS = 0.001384*1361 W/m2 = 1.88 W/m2 which is about what TSI varies during a solar cycle.
barry says:
“You could find ‘wiggle-matches’ at many points…”
Cuts both ways, barry me boy, both warming and cooling. But you’re so desperate to believe in manmade global warming, you just don’t see that.
Confirmation bias.
Looking at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
Quote “the TSI is larger during the portion of the 11 year cycle when there are more sunspots, even though the individual spots themselves cause a decrease in TSI when facing Earth.” There seems to be an energy battle between faculae and sunspots ” On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots”. The monthly average is an energy increase, “solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Sun’s surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases.”
Is the ‘energy’ they discuss, the same energy that influences TSI ?’
Keith Minto says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Is the ‘energy’ they discuss, the same energy that influences TSI ?
TSI is that very energy.
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Yet, the earth warmed at the same rate in 1915-1944 when CO2 hardly contributed. That leaves solar activity and oceanic cycles as the possible causes of the warming in this earlier period.
And aerosols. This a period when electricity and gas replaced fires for cooking in much of the developed world and many cities in the rest of the world.
This post may just be about to get very relevant.
A volcano called Popocatepetl in Mexico has just started erupting in dramatic style, causing flights in and out of Mexico City to be cancelled.
I guess I was trying to tease out the components of the sun’s radiation that activate the sensor.
Looking at the TSI monitor itself, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_07.php it seems to be a heat sensor with receptive cones…”The material in the cone absorbs nearly all the Sun’s energy and heats up. By measuring the voltage needed to bring this heated cone back to the same temperature as one of the other “reference” cones, which are kept at a constant temperature, the instrument can obtain an extremely accurate reading of the TSI in watts.”
Do the components of the sun’s radiation vary enough (say pronounced sunspot activity or no sunspot activity) to influence the monitor, and, importantly, is this heat monitor a true indication of the sun’s output.?
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
I agree that TSI variations are unlikely to have directly caused the LIA, but I am reluctant to think that the sun played no role.
At least someone is on the ball. The TSI argument is used by many to conceal the other important factors that influence our climate. UV is dismissed out of hand by Svalgaard, but is taken seriously by many real climate scientist’s.
One should also not look at solar influence alone when comparing temperature data sets. Ocean oscillations just might also play an important role?
Reading between the line, Steven Mosher’s comment on July 5, 2013 at 5:32 pm made me wonder if he’s beginning to give more thought to the possibility of a colder future.
Keith Minto says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:28 pm
is this heat monitor a true indication of the sun’s output.?
Yes, the sensor is open to space [and the Sun] so whatever energy is coming from the Sun enters the sensor, is absorbed, and heats the sensor. To measure the heat, the sensor is kept at a constant temperature [about 30 deg C] by an electric current in a wire wound around the sensor. The amount of current necessary to keep the sensor at its constant temperature is measured. The sensor is calibrated in the laboratory so that we know what current corresponds to what Wattage. There are four identical sensors. All sensors degrade with time in the harsh space environment. The degradation is carefully monitored [and corrected for] by exposing the sensors [with shutters] to the sun for different lengths of time [longer time = ,more degradation].
Stephen Walters says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:32 pm
The TSI argument is used by many to conceal the other important factors that influence our climate. UV is dismissed out of hand
UV is a [small] part of TSI.
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 3:41 pm
SAMURAI says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm
BTW, the TSI dropped about 1watt/M^2 in June,
Compared to what? to May? No, May 1361.36, June 1361.39..
=============================================================
Towards the end of May, TSI was around 1,362 and around the end of June, it had fallen to about 1,361.
I see TSI has been updated since I last looked at it, and now stands at 1361.2, let’s go ahead and call that about 1watt since TSI hit 1,362 towards the end of June, shall we?
TSI/sunspots look to have peaked and now starts the slow slide to the lowest solar cycle since 1715.
SAMURAI says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:53 pm
Towards the end of May, TSI was around 1,362 and around the end of June, it had fallen to about 1,361.
And in a few weeks will be back up where it was. Due to solar rotation and active regions coming and going TSI varies about one Watt/m2 on a time scale of rotation. You can see that clearly here:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
26 days later than the high value in May, TSI was already back up near 1362.
I see TSI has been updated since I last looked at
All values of TSI has been updated, so the difference stays the same. Lesson: there is nothing strange going on, the sun is just rotating.
TSI/sunspots look to have peaked and now starts the slow slide to the lowest solar cycle since 1715.
Although I predicted ‘the lowest cycle in 100 years’, your 1715 ain’t right either. Can you say 1905?
Solar cycle 24 will be the lowest cycle in 200 years, nothing like being 100 years out.
“lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:07 pm”
That would be the 1783-84 eruption, which effected large areas of Europe and other regions in the Northern Hemisphere too. From memory, people died from sulphur in the ash could condensing in people’s lungs forming sulphuric acid.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:14 am
Solar cycle 24 will be the lowest cycle in 200 years, nothing like being 100 years out.
If you use the official count [of smoothed values which is the standard way of measuring cycle heights] cycle 24 now stands at 66.9 [and may still go higher – we don’t know], 1906 stood at 64.2, so was lower. If you accept my revised numbers [all values before 1947 increased by 20%], you have to go back to 1816 to find a lower maximum. 1715 – as you said – is off by 100 years.
Patrick says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:19 am
That would be the 1783-84 eruption
No, 1739 is not 1783. But there was also a big eruption in 1783.
The CETs daily maximum is catching up with the long term average:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm
currently only -1.1C (May -2.3C) from earlier in the year when it was averaging about -3C on the 20 year (1990-2010) average.
This follows the existing 350 year long behaviour in the CET’s movements:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Ergo: nothing new, all seen before.
(p.s. for understanding CET read TonyB and consult the vukcevic’s graphs)
.
Patrick says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:19 am
That would be the 1783-84 eruption
Although Bárdarbunga [Iceland] also erupted strongly in 1739, perhaps the real damage was due to Hekla in the the same year. [ http://runeberg.org/univers/0476.html ]:
Translating from the Swedish:
“One of the most violent eruptions known on Iceland happened in 1739, when lava flows filled the Skapt-ons and Herrfirflojts valleys to a thicknes of 125-190 meter and flowed on for 84 and 34 km and buried [with their estimated volume of 12-15 cubic km] a 500 square km land area. The eruption lasted four months and due to it and the ensuing famine 9,288 people perished or nearly 1/5 of the total population of Iceland, in addition to 53% of the cows, 82% of the sheep and 77% of the horses
66.9 minus 20% (if we accept your low adjustment) puts solar cycle 24 right near solar cycle 5, more than 200 years away. Solar cylce 14 is not lower.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:03 am
66.9 minus 20% (if we accept your low adjustment) puts solar cycle 24 right near solar cycle 5, more than 200 years away.
As I said July 6, 2013 at 12:26 am
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:12 am
As I said July 6, 2013 at 12:26 am
So maybe you should drop your silly comparison of SC24 & SC14.
“lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:01 am”
This is the 1783-84 event I am talking about;
http://www.gso.uri.edu/lava/Laki%20Eruption/Lakierupt.html
Not knowing Swedish or Icelandic, on the surface at least, it sounds like the events were in the same region but at different times yet sound almost identical in terms of damage, lava flow, extent, climatic change and deaths etc.
This event, and effect on local climate, was actually recorded in parts of England. But 1739 did seem to be quite an active year for volcanos.
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm
The bad year 1740 was likely the result of volcanic activity [Tarumai, Japan, 1739 and likely more important for England temperatures: Bárdarbunga Iceland, 1739] so is not predictable.
———————————————————————————————————
There might be one possible way. The three neutron monitor lows shown here,…http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735, line up with El Chichon, Pinatubo, and the Sumatran quake and tsunami. From a peak in late 2009, the stream has decreased steadily, and now looks like it might be headed for the next big drop in about 9 to 10 months from now. You can see that the graph shows moves up to 15 units downward within a years time. Will there be another significant Earth event at that time? Is Mt Lassen ready after 99 years of silence? The other prediction with the neutron low is that the surface sst seems to fit, high to low, with it, also the 0 to 100m. Doesn’t a higher solar output mean a diminished cosmic ray stream?
On a similar vein, Popocatepetl has been erupting strongly for the last 48 hours, along with the Alaskan, Kamchatkan groups. Central American, Fuego, several Columbian plus other SA volcanoes and as of today Lokon Empung in Indonesia are also in different stages of activity or warnings…http://earthquake-report.com/2013/05/27/wordwide-volcano-activity-copahue-volcano-chile-alert-raised-to-red/
leif
Here is CET shown from 1538 (my reconstruction to 1659) in annual, 10 year and 50 year chunks.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
I am not sure the volcano in 1739 had a lasting effect beyond one or two years.
tonyb
Patrick says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:33 am
Not knowing Swedish or Icelandic, on the surface at least, it sounds like the events were in the same region but at different times yet sound almost identical in terms of damage, lava flow, extent, climatic change and deaths etc.
Close, but not quite. Your link says “produced one of the largest lava flow eruptions in historic times. About 15 cubic kilometers of basaltic magma was erupted from the 27 km long fissures”.
The 1739 eruption of Hekla was a bit different [see my translation]. Similar damage might be expected from eruptions from volcanoes so close.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:29 am
So maybe you should drop your silly comparison of SC24 & SC14
The problem with SC5 is that the data is very uncertain [up to a factor of two] so meaningful comparison with SC5 is problematic. SC14 is well-observed.
A plot of the Heliospheric magnetic field shows how close SC14 and SC24 match up to now:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-SC24-HMF-B.png so the comparison looks rather good. The difference between the curves is within the uncertainty of the data. If the cycles behave similarly, we might expect SC24 to increase a bit further in 2-3 years, but that is speculation.
climatereason says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:44 am
I am not sure the volcano in 1739 had a lasting effect beyond one or two years.
Your plot shows it did. BTW, use centered running means otherwise you shift the curve.
goldminor says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:35 am
The three neutron monitor lows shown here,…http://143.160.38.244/webfm_send/42735, line up with El Chichon, Pinatubo, and the Sumatran quake and tsunami.
Those are just coincidences. Short-term cosmic ray intensity is determined by the Solar Activity. Several investigations have shown that solar activity is not correlated with earthquakes or volcanic activity.
climatereason says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:44 am
I am not sure the volcano in 1739 had a lasting effect beyond one or two years.
Your plot shows it did. Forgot the plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/CET4.png
The little blips are not climate.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:47 am
A plot of the Heliospheric magnetic field shows how close SC14 and SC24 match up to now:
We were talking of sunspots not HMF.
If you want to quibble we can always go with SC6.
Leif
“No, only 0.05 deg C. The percentage change in temperature will be a quarter of the percentage change in radiation.”
Double that and you are getting closer. Those GHGs you know.
Leif said ” you have to go back to 1816 to find a lower maximum.”
Suggesting that Leif wouldn’t be surprised to see a temperature drop to just above those experienced in the Dalton. This would tie in with a projection (model / graph) I have seen elsewhere, predicting cooling to 2030 ending up at a level just above the Dalton.
IIRC Leif ascribes the cause of this possible event to Jupiter and not the sun.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:13 am
We were talking of sunspots not HMF.</i<
The HMF is a good measure of solar activity [for example controls the cosmic ray intensity] and depends simply on the square root of the sunspot number: as HMF goes, so goes the SSN.
If you want to quibble we can always go with SC6.
Which is not much better as far a reliability goes, but the point is that we should not compare with 1715 as claimed. Perhaps you forgot that…
One attempt to put error bars on the count of sunspot groups [the group sunspot number] looks like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Bars-GSN.png
As you can see the cycles at both ends and in the middle are very much alike within the error bars. To discuss decimals of the count doesn’t make much sense. SC24 is on par with SC14 whicg is on par with SC5 and SC6. We cannot with any significance claim they are different.
Bravo for a good post that emphasises the difference between playing statistical games with temperature and putting your money on tens of thousands of dollars of seed and fertilizer.
Tony B & Dr. S
CETt did recover quickly after 1739’s eruptions, but it fell back again in the following two decades due to different reasons. I put it down to the tectonic activity around Iceland, which may or may not follow individual volcanic eruptions. I welcome any alternative hypothesis which is supported by known data.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
lgl says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:27 am
Double that and you are getting closer. Those GHGs you know.
There is no real difference between 0.05 and 0.1 C. The point is that the change is tiny.
J Martin says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:34 am
Suggesting that Leif wouldn’t be surprised to see a temperature drop to just above those experienced in the Dalton.
Yes I would as the real dip at that time was caused by volcanic eruptions, especially in 1809 (see
Dai JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), and 1815 (Tambora).
IIRC Leif ascribes the cause of this possible event to Jupiter and not the sun.
Not quite. Jupiter [with a bit help from the other planets] is the cause of the glaciations during ice ages by changing the Earth’s orbit and tilt thus modulating the solar radiation falling on high latitude Northern Hemisphere land areas. But has nothing to with variations on a time scale of centuries.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:35 am
The HMF is a good measure of solar activity [for example controls the cosmic ray intensity] and depends simply on the square root of the sunspot number: as HMF goes, so goes the SSN.
Overall solar output can be quite different from sunspot values, esp if using the pre 1945 data and looking at grand minimum periods. It is very obvious in regards to sunspot values that SC24 is not resembling SC14. At the present rate SC24 will be the smallest cycle in 200 years, and the climate effects are already being seen. Lucky we are coming off a warm base.
The 1715 argument has no value.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:59 am
Tony B & Dr. S
CETt did recover quickly after 1739’s eruptions, but it fell back again in the following two decades due to different reasons. I put it down to the tectonic activity around Iceland
The recovery was ‘weather’ just like the blip during the Maunder Minimum. Tectonic activity is defined as earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountain building in general and is not what you may be thinking of. So on Iceland, volcanoes it is.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:04 am
Overall solar output can be quite different from sunspot values, esp if using the pre 1945 data and looking at grand minimum periods.
The solar output before 1976 is constructed from the sunspot values so cannot be ‘quite different’ before that time.
It is very obvious in regards to sunspot values that SC24 is not resembling SC14.
It is very obvious that SC24 strongly resembles SC14.
At the present rate SC24 will be the smallest cycle in 200 years,
The error bars do not allow this conclusion as SC5, 6, 14, and 24 are not statistically different [this means we cannot say which is smaller or larger than the rest].
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:59 am
Tony B & Dr. S
CETt did recover quickly after 1739’s eruptions, but it fell back again in the following two decades due to different reasons.
Likely helped by the strong eruption of Hekla in 1766. There is no need to invoke different scenarios when volcanism will do.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:13 am
It is very obvious that SC24 strongly resembles SC14.
Show us all how SC24 resembles SC14 in regards to sunspots, and please don’t insult us with yearly smoothed numbers.
“J Martin says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:34 am”
There maybe an influence, but we really don’t know for sure. It’s another theory. We can be confident that our emissions of CO2 cannot be driving change in climate in any significant, or bad, way.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:16 am”
And yet, alarmists state there is no effect.
lsvalgaard says:
There is no need to invoke different scenarios when volcanism will do.
Volcanism is certainly more convenient.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:28 am
Show us all how SC24 resembles SC14 in regards to sunspots, and please don’t insult us with yearly smoothed numbers.
Yearly smoothed sunspot numbers are the yardstick by which solar cycles are measured so you will have to endure the ‘insult’ at some point. But here is a comparison of daily numbers: http://www.leif.org/reseach/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Bruce Cobb says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:54 am
“There is no need to invoke different scenarios when volcanism will do.”
Volcanism is certainly more convenient.
Occam’s razor: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” or in his own words: “pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:57 am
Yearly smoothed sunspot numbers are the yardstick by which solar cycles are measured so you will have to endure the ‘insult’ at some point.
Very predictable….keep trying you will have to do better than this smokescreen.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:08 am
Very predictable….keep trying you will have to do better than this smokescreen.
The ‘smokescreen’ is how it is done. But here is a comparison of daily numbers: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
lsvalgaard says: Occam’s razor
Same argument Warmists use for CO2. It’s so simple: CO2 goes up, and temperatures do likewise. It’s just basic physics and chemistry! Why can’t we skeptics get that?
Bruce Cobb says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:26 am
Why can’t we skeptics get that?
scientific illiteracy, perhaps?
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:16 am
Likely helped by the strong eruption of Hekla in 1766. There is no need to invoke different scenarios when volcanism will do.
Volcanic eruption is a short term (one-two years) direct atmospheric negative forcing.
Tectonics is indirect positive forcing acting via ocean currents
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
Why do I assume that?
Correlation with SST is higher than with the land temperatures
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
since integration (cumulative effect over period of time) and a delay are involved than it has to be a ‘climate’ not a day to day ‘weather’ forcing factor.
Is this found elsewhere ?
Yes, in both the N. Pacific (PDO)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOt.htm
and in the central Pacific (ENSO) areas
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
Is there a solar activity connection?
There is a strong correlation with the SSN count since 1880s, and somewhat sporadic going back to 1600, but only in the N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
Thus I conclude:
There is urgent need to invoke different scenarios, and volcanism alone will not do!
Dr. S, your observation is wrong, dogmatic and contrary to the good science practice.
Leif
Thanks for your earlier comment. This extract comes from personally researched material from the archives of Exeter Cathedral where they noted all annual expenditures for auditing purpose
1740 January ‘£23 to be given to poor in consideration of the severity of the season.’
1783 ‘Extra poor relief in extreme cold’ (due to Iceland volcano?)
I
am not sure there is much evidence of long lived volcanic effects apparent in any archives I have seen.
Do you have a view of the eruption noted by DR Mann in the middle of the 1200’s?
Also in my previous link I had noted annual, decadal and fifty year figures. (Figure 4) The purpose was to examine this data not, on this occasion to plot a 5 year running figure.
Paleo reconstructions tend to be 40 year smoothed figures and appear to completely miss the considerable decadal variability. Using the 40 year figures give the impression of much greater climate stability than actually exists in the real world. I would be pleased to have your comments on this. Thanks.
tonyb
CO2 goes up, and temperatures do likewise. It’s just basic physics and chemistry! Why can’t we skeptics get that?
lsvalgaard says:
scientific illiteracy, perhaps?
gees have you been inhabiting SkS again??? That’s the sort of puerile response one expects from Cook or Lewy !!!
Will be slightly interesting to see how Leif responds if the global atmospheric temperature start dropping and there are no major volcanoes. 😉
This is too funny. David Archibald writes the article, but Dr.Leif Svalgaard takes all the questions.
In June 2013, the SORCE TIM instrument recorded TSI at 1361.42 W/m2.
We are right at the peak of the solar cycle now and it should be recording 1361.75 W/m2 (about 0.5 W/m2 higher than the average, average of 1361.25 W/m2).
So, we are down about 0.3 W/m2 from what would be expected, but it is stil 0.17 W/m2 higher than normal given the solar cycle.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:11 am
The ‘smokescreen’ is how it is done. But here is a comparison of daily numbers: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Very poor graph for a man of your talents, very hard to see any detail. But even so it is clearly evident that SC24 does not have the big swings that SC14 experienced, and as discussed SC14 is higher than SC24.
Why don’t you show us a proper graph with clear detail so we can clearly pull your argument apart?
dbstealy,
Warming or cooling is beside the point. Wiggle-matching is easy, but pretty empty, especially with the poor correlation this post is based on (look at the original post linked to in the article).
Dr Svalgaard, in your graph of GSN with error bars, aside from the earlier cycles the bars seem to be entirely on the more stable periods around the peak. Are you more confident of recorded numbers during the rise/falls? Why?
I’m in central MN, a rather long state, fairly near the northern margin for corn. Virtually none of the corn is “knee high by the 4th”. While we are warming of late, insolation is still well behind my experience for the season. Killing frosts in mid-October are not uncommon here.
The price of corn futures has begun to reflect the risk the crop currently experiences. Soy beans are also behind.
***
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
I agree that TSI variations are unlikely to have directly caused the LIA, but I am reluctant to think that the sun played no role.
***
Why? 20k yrs ago, the earth was in the grips of the last glacial maximum — now practically all those glaciers have vanished. The sun itself had essentially the same output in both cases.
“FerdinandAkin says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:44 am”
Something to prove, disprove maybe?
Back to the crop production comparison of 1740 vs 2013, would the enhanced crop yield effect of atmospheric CO2 of 400ppm now versus about 280ppm in 1740 be factored in?
“lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm
tchannon says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:25 pm
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
Is based on an obsolete paper by Wang, Lean, and Sheeley from 2005.”
Simply look at the plot. It contradicts what you claimed. I already knew that so if you didn’t I am astounded.
Regarding the eruption of Tambora in 1815, much ado is made about the “year without a summer” that followed in 1816, however it should also be noted that there apparently was a lot of arctic ice melt, which doesn’t exactly fit the “volcanoes make it colder” idea.
The quote from John Daly’s site that we all know and love, which begins, ““It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated…” is dated November 20, 1817.
I wonder, was the AMO was warm, and the volcano prompted a surge of that warmth north?
I imagine good meteorologists know a volcano will throw patterns and cycles out of whack, and are very alert for changes in the expected cycles and patterns, after a big eruption. However I feel that, at this point, the exact nature of the changes are only guesswork.
Much of the late planting this year in parts of the midwest in which we have family was due to wet field conditions precluding getting into the field to plant. There are, again, a multitude of variables which can cause a reduction in yields. Early snows are another or late summer rains, can delay harvest, etc. Fall plowing, where practiced, can even be negated if fall and spring are both wet. Don’t really see much value in this article. Again trying to predict the unpredictables of a chaotic system.
tchannon says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:44 am
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm
tchannon says:
July 5, 2013 at 7:25 pm
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
Is based on an obsolete paper by Wang, Lean, and Sheeley from 2005.”
————————————–
The TSI data on that page has been adjusted to conform with the new understanding provided by Kopp and Lean 2011.
So it is the most accepted current version.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535690.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:31 am
Tectonics is indirect positive forcing acting via ocean currents
You have not explained how that works. Or even defined what you call ‘tectonics’. Here is the scientific definition: “Tectonics (from the Vulgar Latin tectonicus, meaning “building”) is concerned with the orogenies and tectonic development of cratons and tectonic terranes as well as the earthquake and volcanic belts”. That is ‘how are structures formed and do they develop’.
Dr. S, your observation is wrong, dogmatic and contrary to the good science practice.
To invoke more and more causes is contrary to science.
climatereason says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:34 am
I am not sure there is much evidence of long lived volcanic effects apparent in any archives I have seen.
Presumably because the immediate effect has the most impact and subsequently people are either dead or have adapted to the changed situation.
Do you have a view of the eruption noted by DR Mann in the middle of the 1200′s?
Some people have assumed that the LIA began with that eruption. Could well be.
Also in my previous link I had noted annual, decadal and fifty year figures. (Figure 4) The purpose was to examine this data not, on this occasion to plot a 5 year running figure.
Even so, running means should be centered.
Using the 40 year figures give the impression of much greater climate stability than actually exists in the real world. I would be pleased to have your comments on this.
Since climate is defined as average weather over 30 years that ought to be the proper smoothing window. 40 years window is a bit too long. I would have been happier with 30. But clearly the variation of the average over 30 [or 40] years has a lot less variation than that from year to year, so climate is more stable than weather.
AndyG55 says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:44 am
“Why can’t we skeptics get that?”
scientific illiteracy, perhaps?
Is with the same ‘tongue-in-cheek’ as the question.
Bill Illis says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:30 am
So, we are down about 0.3 W/m2 from what would be expected, but it is stil 0.17 W/m2 higher than normal given the solar cycle.
We are 0.25 higher than expected http://www.leif.org/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:37 am
Very poor graph for a man of your talents, very hard to see any detail.
Because no cycles are alike on a day-to-day basis, so the details don’t matter much http://www.leif.org/research//SC14-and-24.png.
SC24 does not have the big swings that SC14 had
Did SC5? Perhaps you can show us. The big swings in SC14 began about the point of the cycle where we are at now in SC24, so watch for them from now on.
Now, you evade the direct comparison:
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
tchannon says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:44 am
Simply look at the plot. It contradicts what you claimed.
The plot shows that almost all the increase took place since 1900. This is contradicted by much evidence, e.g. the magnetic field of the Sun. From http://www.leif.org/EOS/Foukal-2012.pdf :
“iv) Arguments for a sharp TSI rise in the first half of the twentieth century require complete disappearance of the photospheric magnetic network going back in time from the 1950s toward 1900. Such a disappearance is contradicted by the presence of a fully developed network in Ca K spectroheliograms obtained at Mt.Wilson and Meudon Observatories since the 1890s.”
And by the heliospheric field [which is the Sun’s field as dragged out by the solar wind]: http://www.leif.org/SC14-SC24-HMF-B.png
Caleb says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:45 am
I wonder, was the AMO was warm, and the volcano prompted a surge of that warmth north?
The Sun was in a funk then [some say] so the temps should have been way low.
Bill Illis says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:09 am
The TSI data on that page has been adjusted to conform with the new understanding provided by Kopp and Lean 2011.
That pertains to the average level only, which was simply adjusted by 4.6 W/m2, not to the variation.
So it is the most accepted current version.
The model is still from 2005 and is not the most accepted current version [there isn’t any at the moment – as Greg Kopp said to me in email from February “I suspect we don’t really know the TSI during MM nearly as well as we’d like…”]. See also reply to tchannon above.
lsvalgaard says:
“..and likely more important for England temperatures: Bárdarbunga Iceland, 1739]”
These were eruptions under the glacier:
“Studies of tephra layers have shown that a number of eruptions have occurred beneath the glacier itself, probably in the northeast of the crater or in Bárðarbunga. These eruptions appear to follow a cycle, several eruptions were in the glacier between 1701–40..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1r%C3%B0arbunga#Eruptions
Can you provide a link showing that 20% of the population of Iceland died then?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:36 am
Can you provide a link showing that 20% of the population of Iceland died then?
As I said earlier:
Although Bárdarbunga [Iceland] also erupted strongly in 1739, perhaps the real damage was due to Hekla in the the same year. [ http://runeberg.org/univers/0476.html ]:
Translating from the Swedish:
“One of the most violent eruptions known on Iceland happened in 1739, when lava flows filled the Skapt-ons and Herrfirflojts valleys to a thicknes of 125-190 meter and flowed on for 84 and 34 km and buried [with their estimated volume of 12-15 cubic km] a 500 square km land area. The eruption lasted four months and due to it and the ensuing famine 9,288 people perished or nearly 1/5 of the total population of Iceland, in addition to 53% of the cows, 82% of the sheep and 77% of the horses”
Ulric: As you may know, the devastating eruptions were in 1783-85. Consequent famine killed an estimate 25% of Iceland’s population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki
Dr. Svalgaard:
I have not found a record of Hekla’s erupting in 1739. The Swedish source may be incorrect:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=372070
Hekla erupted at VEI 1 or less in 1725 & at VEI 4 in 1766 (both in April under the calendars then in use).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekla#1725_and_1766.E2.80.931768
Leif says
S [=TSI] = a T^4 [Stefan-Boltzmann law]
dS = a 4 T^3 dT [differentiate]
dS/S = (a 4 T^3 dT)/(a T^4) = 4 dT/T
dT/T = 0.1/289 [Kelvin] [289K is average global temperature]
dS/S = 4*0.1/289 = 0.001384
dS = 0.001384*1361 W/m2 = 1.88 W/m2 which is about what TSI varies during a solar cycle.
Ah, but the 0.1 C temperature variation is at ocean surface level where the average heat flux variation reaching the surface is only about 70% of 1/2 of 1/2 of the TSI variation at the cloud tops.
There is 30% reflected, one factor of two for day-night averaging and a factor of 1/2 for latitude averaging. So only 17.5% of the TSI variation is effective for raising the ocean surface temperatures. Now what say you?
@lsvalgaard
Lava from Hekla does automatically mean there was significant ash in the air, which would not have reached the UK anyway with strong easterlies blowing through the cold winter period.
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:57 am
I have not found a record of Hekla’s erupting in 1739. The Swedish source may be incorrect
We go to war with the sources we have [to paraphrase Rumsfeld]. This is the reference to the source:
http://runeberg.org/univers/
Now, there were large eruptions elsewhere in 1739, e.g. Tarumae and Shikotsu both in Japan.
The other side of that coin is that there was nothing unusual about the Sun in 1740.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:02 am
Now what say you?
I say that the albedo and round Earth are all automatically accounted for by computing dT/T and dS/S because those effects occur both above and below the division sign and thus cancel out.
There are many variables not possible to predict. The sun has the most obvious effect on daily temps just by day and night variance. So, if the solar wind and other conditions of the sun decline or increase then it is reasonable to expect some changes on earth temperature in line with other planet temperatures. Now, it we had some history of temperatures on Mars that varied similarly to Earth, could we say it was due to solar output and not a local event i.e. eruptions, metero strikes, CO2 levels, and so forth? One could be more concerned about an earth orbit changing event, or strike from the vast number of astorieds and comets. I think we have shown we can survive the solar changes of the last 12,000 years.
By the way, how are the ski areas fairing?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:06 am
Lava from Hekla does automatically mean there was significant ash in the air, which would not have reached the UK anyway with strong easterlies blowing through the cold winter period.
We actually do not know if Hekla blew during Winter 1739. That many people and animals died due to famine hints that the eruptions were later in the year when the animals were out in the fields and the harvest failed. During winter there would have been a much smaller effect because crops were not growing and animals were generally in shelters.
We could look at live stock deaths from cold and other death events that coincide with winters. Like the Amazon event a few years back? And China? Or how about humane death related to cold as apposed to heat. But, then again there are circumnstanse to define.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:15 am
The supposed 1739 eruption in Iceland is what Rummy might have called a known unknown. IMO the Swedish source is wrong, since no record appears to exist upon which it’s based. Its description of catastrophe fits the known known of 1783, et seq, due to the Laki & associated eruptions. If Iceland had been as devastated after a 1739 eruption as following Laki, it would show up in documents. However I found no record of catastrophic famine in Icelandic history of 1739-40, however there was one in Ireland, of unknown cause, associated with the year under discussion here, 1740.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine_%281740%E2%80%931741%29
Steve says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm
I”ve never seen the crops this far behind. Corn was not knee-high by the fourth of July, but it has always been waist to shoulder high in my lifetime…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Corn in my area (Mid North Carolina) was planted very late ~ mid May now we have had two weeks of rain so it is starting to catch up but like you say Steve it is only shoulder high and not silking yet.
What is really weird is my buck goat has gone into rut in the last two weeks. Goats rut at the same time a buck deer does, Mid September.
highflight56433 says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:38 am
We could look at live stock deaths from cold and other death events that coincide with winters.
In Iceland the weakest animals [and the bulls – they ate too much] were slaughtered just before the winter [such as not needing to be fed]. The rest wintered over indoors in shelters eating hay stored up for that purpose.. So live stock did not die from cold, but rather from the butcher’s knife.
Here’s a description of Laki’s big blow 230 years ago (the link title has the wrong year):
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/local-and-global-impacts-1793-laki-eruption-iceland/
It probably would have taken a similar eruption to produce a catastrophic famine in 1739, of which there is no record then in Iceland, other than the Swedish source cited by Dr. Svalsgaard.
Leif, did I mention Iceland? Why redirect the statement to Iceland when the point is global?
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:42 am
The supposed 1739 eruption in Iceland is what Rummy might have called a known unknown. IMO the Swedish source is wrong, since no record appears to exist upon which it’s based.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. There is also no evidence that the Sun was acting up [the previous statement not withstanding]: SSN-1730-1750.png
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-1730-1750.png
The red curve is based on too few records.
highflight56433 says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:58 am
Leif, did I mention Iceland? Why redirect the statement to Iceland when the point is global?
Didn’t I mention Japan too? In any event the Central England Temperature is not global and is likely to be influenced by volcanism in Iceland as we saw in 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_eruption
so why whine?
Leif, the point is you intentionally deminished my coment to Iceland.
highflight56433 says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:07 am
Leif, the point is you intentionally diminished my comment to Iceland.
Every thing I say is intentional. And I cannot alter your comment, but am I not allowed to disagree?
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:00 am
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:42 am
The supposed 1739 eruption in Iceland is what Rummy might have called a known unknown. IMO the Swedish source is wrong, since no record appears to exist upon which it’s based.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. There is also no evidence that the Sun was acting up [the previous statement not withstanding]: SSN-1730-1750.png
—————————-
But there is evidence that the Swedish source confused 1783 with 1739, since its details correspond to the Laki eruption-induced famine. Also, there must be some original source for the Swedish statement, but its absence from the Net suggests it doesn’t exist, other than for 1783. If the 1740 Irish famine had been caused by an Icelandic eruption, the “fog” of 1783 would have been noted in the British isles. Also, had Hekla or another Icelandic volcano erupted in 1739, there would be a record of it, especially if of 1783 Laki magnitude. In an instance that extreme, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The minor eruption of 1725 was noted.
You do have the Japanese eruptions, so IMO the jury is still out on volcanic cause for the cold of 1740.
lsvalgaard says:
“During winter there would have been a much smaller effect because crops were not growing and animals were generally in shelters.”
125-190 meters of lava in the valleys would bury them nicely. So what happened to European winter warming following eruptions? http://bit.ly/13si2Ae
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:15 am
But there is evidence that the Swedish source confused 1783 with 1739, since its details correspond to the Laki eruption-induced famine.
As I mentioned earlier this is not the case. 1739 had 20% perished, Laki had 25%. The area covered and length of lava streams are alos different.
You do have the Japanese eruptions, so IMO the jury is still out on volcanic cause for the cold of 1740
The jury is always out on something like this. The jury has not even been selected in the case for the Sun being the cause as solar activity was nothing special at that time http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-1730-1750.png
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
So what happened to European winter warming following eruptions? http://bit.ly/13si2Ae
Weather is not climate.
Leif, … you made my point. Thanks! 🙂
Laki caused 20-25%, with one fifth being the most commonly cited figure, possibly up to a quarter. It’s clearly the same incident, down to the share of animals killed. Also, there was no mist or fog in 1739, noted around the North Atlantic in 1783.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mist_Hardships
An eruption capable of such death & destruction would not have gone unnoticed in the historical record. The history of Iceland features the 1783 event, but no mention of such a thing in 1739. IMO the conclusion is inescapable that the Swedish source is wrong, lacking confirmation elsewhere.
You’re right that 1740 jury may well remain out, unless the prediction for 2015 come to pass, & maybe even then.
highflight56433 says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:27 am
Leif, … you made my point. Thanks! 🙂
As you do not mention what comment you referred to, I have no idea what you point was. /try again.
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:15 am
IMO the Swedish source is wrong, since no record appears to exist upon which it’s based.
It happens that major [even more recent] eruptions have no historical records, e.g.
“Ice core evidence for an explosive tropical volcanic eruption 6 years preceding Tambora
Dai, Jihong et al. Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), vol. 96, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 17,361-17,366
Abstract
High-resolution analyses of ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland reveal an explosive volcanic eruption in the tropics in A.D. 1809 which is not reflected in the historical record. A comparison in the same ice cores of the sulfate flux from the A.D. 1809 eruption to that from the Tambora eruption (A.D. 1815) indicates a near-equatorial location and a magnitude roughly half that of Tambora. Thus this event should be considered comparable to other eruptions producing large volumes of sulfur-rich gases such as Coseguina, Krakatau, Agung, and El Chichon. The increase in the atmospheric concentration of sulfuric acid may have contributed to the Northern Hemisphere cooling observed in the early nineteenth century and may account partially for the decline in surface temperatures which preceded the eruption of Tambora in A.D. 1815.”
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:30 am
IMO the conclusion is inescapable that the Swedish source is wrong, lacking confirmation elsewhere.
One might say that the cold of 1740 is such [weak] confirmation…
lsvalgaard says:
“Weather is not climate.”
The theory is that big eruptions will give warmer winters for Europe: http://bit.ly/13si2Ae
not that winter 1740 was confined just to Europe. There was however a sharp decline in sighted Aurora in 1740.
leif says:
I say that the albedo and round Earth are all automatically accounted for by computing dT/T and dS/S because those effects occur both above and below the division sign and thus cancel out.
But you are making the assumption that all of that TSI variability that reaches the surface raises the temperature without other effect. That is not true if some of it is absorbed. If you use the cyclical variation of sea level change over a solar cycle as an indicator of the amount of heat absorbed, it adds about another 0.5 w/m^2 to the required surface heat variability. That’s already about as large as the 0.55 w/m^2 the additional surface radiation that necessarily accompanies a 0.1C temperature change. Seems to me that the sun is producing more of an effect over a solar cycle than can be explained by the actual variations of TSI, which are more like 1 w/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere before considering abedo and latitude averaging.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:42 am
But you are making the assumption that all of that TSI variability that reaches the surface raises the temperature without other effect. That is not true if some of it is absorbed.
TSI reaching the surface is absorbed and that is what raises the temperature. I allow for some extra effect by going with 0.1C. The simple calculation only gives half of that for a 1W/m2 variation. I don’t see your point. There is no mystery here.
Dr. Svalsgaard:
An eruption that caused massive loss of life (to include 9288 people) in Iceland would not have passed unnoticed. As I pointed out, even the minor eruption of Hekla in 1725 was noted. To have wreaked such havoc, a mist or fog should have been noticed, as in 1783. Besides Bardabunga, no other document yet found but the Swedish source notes an Icelandic eruption in 1739, let alone a catastrophe caused by Hekla. But of course you’re free to credit that source if you feel it supports your case. If I were making your case, however, I’d go with the Japanese eruptions, one of which was pretty big.
Steve says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm
I’ve never seen the crops this far behind. Corn was not knee-high by the fourth of July, but it has always been waist to shoulder high in my lifetime.
Steve, perhaps we should use the logic of the warmistas and assume you’re still growing and getting taller.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:42 am
There was however a sharp decline in sighted Aurora in 1740.
Not anything special: http://www.leif.org/research/Krivsky-Pejml-Aurorae.png and we were approaching solar minimum…
lsvalgaard says: @ July 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
…..Since great volcanic eruptions are not very predictable, we can hardly be predicting a reduced crop…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is not just volcanic eruptions.
All it will take is major crop failures in the USA and a few other regions to repeat the 2008 Food Crisis or worse because that is what the recent changes in the Global Food system are designed to do.
What David has outlined is not the only possibility. As I said we have had two weeks of rain. It is very very soggy. This means FUNGI
Nov 2012: U.K. Winter Wheat Shows Worst Fungus Symptoms Ever Recorded
EXAMPLES FOR US CORN:
On top of that GMO corns have the same genetics so a disease will wipe out 100% of the crop if it gets infected.
Last The USA ceased keeping a strategic grain supply.
This explains what happened to the US grain reserve.
USA Hunger & Poverty Statistics
U.S. Food Inflation Spiraling Out of Control
This is WHO benefits from high food prices and no grain reserve.
(Don’t these people have any morals?)
Grain companies’ profits soar as global food crisis mounts
8/23/2012 Investing in Farmland: 4 Ways to Play the Agricultural Boom
How to manufacture a global food crisis : lessons from the World Bank, IMF, and WTO This Article explains the politics behind the food crisis.
The USA with the Food Safety Modernization Act coming into effect will join other countries who lost 50% or more of their farmers. Farmers,… suddenly find themselves heavily controlled by…. national officialdom brandishing that most vicious of anti-entrepreneurial weapons: ‘sanitary and hygiene regulations’ – as enforced by national governments… These are the hidden weapons of mass destruction of farmers and the main tool for achieving the… aim of ridding the countryside of small- and medium-sized family farms and replacing them with monocultural money-making agribusiness.
Crops produced in the USA
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:53 am
If I were making your case, however, I’d go with the Japanese eruptions, one of which was pretty big.
My first post on this did just that:
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm
The bad year 1740 was likely the result of volcanic activity [Tarumai, Japan, 1739]…
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm
The bad year 1740 was likely the result of volcanic activity [Tarumai, Japan, 1739]…
This source attributes [Table 3] a spike in nitrates in Greenland Ice in 1739 to Tarumae:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/icecore/Student_Ice_Core_Records_Investigation.pdf
The Table on page 7 notes that there were no solar proton events at that time.
@lsvalgaard
Figure 8: http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Figure 8: http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
Shows that the variation was similar to several other changes and thus within the normal natural variation [hint: compare with Figures 6, 7, and 9]. Nothing unusual here.
Caleb says: @ July 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm
….IIt all depends on the timing. If the AMO has the ocean sloshing one way, the effect will be different from what will occur if the AMO has the ocean sloshing the other way….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking of oceans ‘sloshing’ EM Smith had an intriguing post about the possible lunar effect on the oceans. Not just tides but the ~1500 year travel away from and towards the equator. link and another link on the same subject from Aalesund University, Norway
Gail Combs says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm
The problem is not just volcanic eruptions.
Of course not. Nuclear war would do nicely, too, not to speak about impacts, solar flares, etc, etc, etc.
The problem is the alarmism Archibald is peddling. There is no valid basis for ‘predicting’ a repeat of 1740 in 2015.
Leif says:
TSI reaching the surface is absorbed and that is what raises the temperature. I allow for some extra effect by going with 0.1C. The simple calculation only gives half of that for a 1W/m2 variation. I don’t see your point. There is no mystery here.
I think that there is a big mystery here. In your calculation, the radiation rate would be the same if the part of TSI variation that reaches the earth surface had been absorbed in a thin layer of black paint and then reradiated as IR. The amount radiated for 0.1C would have varied by about 0.55 watt/m^2. But if some of the heat flux is absorbed in deeper layers, it would require more heat to produce that 0.1C change. Considering just the variation of heat flux required to produce the cyclic ocean thermal expansion, I come up with a need for about 1 watt/m^2 variation of earth surface heat flux over a solar cycle.
The TSI variation over a solar cycle at the top of the atmosphere is approximately 1 watt/m^2. Accounting for albedo and latitude effects, we get about 0.18 watt/m^2 variability at the earth surface. This is too small by about a factor of 5 to account for the observed oceanic thermal expansion cycle, but since the ocean expansion is so nicely correlated with the solar cycle, I would bet that the sun is responsible. The big mystery is how does it do it?
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm
The amount radiated for 0.1C would have varied by about 0.55 watt/m^2.
No, by 1.88 W/m2
since the ocean expansion is so nicely correlated with the solar cycle
Where do you get idea from?
Beng says:
bones says:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm
I agree that TSI variations are unlikely to have directly caused the LIA, but I am reluctant to think that the sun played no role.
***
Why? 20k yrs ago, the earth was in the grips of the last glacial maximum — now practically all those glaciers have vanished. The sun itself had essentially the same output in both cases.
————————————————————————————
It is well known that the solar flux at high latitudes varies strongly with changes of earth orbital eccentricity and axis inclination on about a 110,000 year period known as a Milankovitch cycle. The sun might remain relatively constant, but its effect on earth is not.
What about the other memorable cold years during the LIA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
Although worse on the continent than in Britain, this is supposed to have been the coldest winter in the past 500, at least in Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709
I’ve seen meteorological explanations for it, but apparently climate models don’t generate the event. Among its important historical consequences was contributing to the failure of Swedish king Charles XII’s invasion of Peter the Great’s growing Russian empire.
lsvalgaard says:
“Shows that the variation was similar to several other changes..”
Yes several other cold episodes. I have no doubt that the cause of 1740 was solar, cold shots are common close to solar cycle maxima because of the typical Ap drop there, and I can map astronomically exactly where the stronger cold shots in Jan-Feb, May-June and Oct-Nov of 1740 were.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:53 pm
I have no doubt that the cause of 1740 was solar, cold shots are common close to solar cycle maxima because of the typical Ap drop there, and I can map astronomically exactly where the stronger cold shots in Jan-Feb, May-June and Oct-Nov of 1740 were.
I say beware of people who have no doubt and can map things exactly. I find your claims unconvincing in the extreme. But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:36 am
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:31 am
Tectonics is indirect positive forcing acting via ocean currents
“You have not explained how that works”
Hold on doc.
I can’t remember if Isaac Newton did explain why gravity works..
Here is the initial outlay of the ‘ tectonics – SST relationship’ hypothesis.
We have discussed Denmark straits on number of occasions; here is what the WHOI says:
“Crucial to this WARM-TO COLD oceanographic choreography is the Denmark Strait Overflow Water (DSOW), the largest of the deep, overflow plumes that feed the lower limb of the conveyor belt and return the dense water south through gaps in the Greenland-Scotland Ridge. The Icelandic Jet is not only a major contributor to the conveyor belt, but the major source of the ocean’s densest, coldest water.”
Denmark Strait is only 600m deep and about 200km of its ‘distance across’ is covered with sediment 500m deep. Minor part of the sediment is from the Greenland icebergs, majority is from oozing magmatic tephra carried southwards from Kolbeinsey Ridge where crust is split by tectonic plates movement.
When there is large movement, more sediment is built up blocking the cold Icelandic Jet Current, and the Subpolar gyre (further south) and the SST (AMO) get warmer. When tectonic action slows down erosion takes place, the IJC gets stronger, Subpolar gyre and the SST cool down as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
including positive forcing formula.
From my point of view, most interesting (and from yours most distressing) fact is that the tectonic movement since 1880s (as depicted in the above graph) strongly correlates with solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
Geomagnetic cycle and Loehle’s temperature reconstruction you often quote, corroborates the above.
But as it happens you know all of the above anyway, as Pope Clement VIII knew that the Earth revolves around the sun, and despite it set fire to Giordano Bruno.
That is why I say you are not following ‘good science practice’ of looking at all possible variables, not because any lack of knowledge, but because of dogmatic stance on ‘solar influence’ at various geo-processes.
leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm
The amount radiated for 0.1C would have varied by about 0.55 watt/m^2.
1) No, by 1.88 W/m2
since the ocean expansion is so nicely correlated with the solar cycle
2) Where do you get idea from?
————————————————————
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
2) try here:
http://www.jcronline.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/pinnacle/journals/content/coas/2011/15515036-27.3/jcoastres-d-10-00157.1/production/images/medium/i1551-5036-27-3-409-f06.gif
or here: http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
I should have said that variations in ocean expansion are nicely correlated with the solar cycle. I should also mention that this whole discussion should be concerned with amplitudes of approximately sinusoidal (to first order) oscillations of temperature and variations in the rates of sea level rise with various phase lags over a solar cycle. The arguments can be tightened, but without changing much.
lsvalgaard says:
“I find your claims unconvincing in the extreme. But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
Having convinced the most sceptical person I have ever known, maybe even yourself would be intrigued.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/17/dennis-lyons-obituary
The charges against Bruno included blasphemy, immoral conduct & heresy. Of eight known enumerated charges, only one had to do with his belief in infinite & eternal worlds, which idea he may have picked up in England, via a telescope predecessor, the Digges’ “perspective glass”.
I don’t know if Clement VIII were a secret Copernican, but haven’t seen any evidence to this effect, which I would welcome. He may have allowed De Revolutionibus to be read, but only as an hypothesis for use in calculations, not as advocating the physical reality of heliocentrism, which was in fact Copernicus’ belief.
Oops! Sorry, above reply is to vukcevic @ July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm.
For a very large part of Africa maize (corn) is the staple diet, particularly in rural areas. Except for people growing the crop in locations that are marginal due to altitude, temperature is of little consequence. It is the adequacy, and timing, of rains that are the main governing factor of the yield. Since the demise of Rhodesia virtually none of the crop is exported off continent, but the yield governs the welfare of many millions of people. My point is that temperature per se is not the be all and end all of climate/weather.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I can’t remember if Isaac Newton did explain why gravity works..
Comparing yourself to Newton [or with Einstein, if memory serves] is bad form. The [BIG] difference is that Newton could calculate the effects of gravity and you cannot [or have not] calculate anything.
From my point of view, most interesting the fact [sic] is that the tectonic movement since 1880s (as depicted in the above graph) strongly correlates with solar activity.
The tectonic movements since 1880 amount to about 10 meter. Not changing the ocean currents very much I would think and is not even shown on your graph, and there is no evidence that those 10 meter show any solar cycle variation along a transect.
because of dogmatic stance on ‘solar influence’ at various geo-processes.
Because of deep knowledge [call it dogma if you must] about how these things work. And in particular what does not work.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
To compare with TSI you must multiply by 4, thus 4*0.55 = 2.2 W/m2, close to my value of 1.9 W/m2.
2) try here: http://www.jcronline.org/na101…
Seems to have broken down [at both ends]. this happens often with spurious correlations, they work for a while then break down: http://www.leif.org/research/SLC-SSN.png
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Having convinced the most skeptical person I have ever known
Do you have a link evidencing that he was truly convinced by your argument? or was just being nice to you…
Anyway, meet someone even more skeptical: me.
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm
The charges against Bruno included blasphemy, immoral conduct & heresy. Of eight known enumerated charges, only one had to do with his belief in infinite & eternal worlds,
In the age of communism (east Europe) same type of ‘trumped-up’ charges were employed in prosecutions, often the main reason was never mentioned.
Heliocentric system was well known before Copernicus:
“It has been argued that in developing the mathematics of heliocentrism Copernicus drew on not just the Greek, but also the work of Muslim astronomers, especially the works of Nasir al-Din Tusi (Tusi-couple), Mo’ayyeduddin Urdi (Urdi lemma) and Ibn al-Shatir. In his major work, Copernicus also discussed the theories of Ibn Battuta and Averroes.”-Wikipedia.
I don’t know if Clement VIII were a secret Copernican
The Vatican was always interested in the matters celestial, they claim it was for a practical reason, i.e. inaccuracies in the Julian Calendar (drift in the dates for Xmas and Easter). The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world, or so they claim on their website.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:04 pm
——————-
Indeed the Vatican was interested in astronomy, but heliocentrism initially offered little or no improvement in predictive power over geocentrism, with all its adjustments & epicycles.
At least on ancient Greek astronomer advocated heliocentrism, but was dismissed as impious. Copernicus started the Scientific Revolution by using observations & math to support a sun-centered over a geocentric system. As I said, I’ve seen no evidence that Clement VIII believed in heliocentrism, contrary to the Bible & Church doctrine, whether via Copernicus (who dedicated his book to Pope Clement VII), or from ancient or Muslim sources.
But, yes, the Church did in some ways resemble Communist regimes. However, the charges against Bruno were not trumped up. He was a heretic. I don’t advocate burning heretics, but he was in fact guilty of what was then a capital crime. His belief in an infinite universe (which ours isn’t), was not the main reason he was burned to death.
leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
To compare with TSI you must multiply by 4, thus 4*0.55 = 2.2 W/m2, close to my value of 1.9 W/m2.
————————————————-
Why would I want to compare with TSI without also adding in the heat flux changes necessary to account for heat exchanges with the upper layers of the oceans? That gets us up to about 1 W/m^2 required to produced the observed 0.1C variation of surface temperatures.
TSI variations of ~ 1 W/m^2, reduced by albedo and latitude effects yields 0.18 W/M^2. That is the appropriate comparison at the earth surface. Even without considering any deeper layers of ocean to participate in heat exchanges correlated with the solar cycle, 0.18 W/m^2 is too small by a factor of 3 to account for surface temperature changes. To me, this seems to be clear evidence that the sun is contributing to surface temperature variations via some mechanism other than TSI variability.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Why would I want to compare with TSI
Because it is better to compare apples with apples. The TSI outside of the atmosphere is a well understood quantity. That should be compared to whatever terrestrial measure one uses. Your way introduces intermediaries that are fuzzy and not well determined.[e.g. sea level change]. So, I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what your problem [or mystery] is.
@vukcevic
“According to Copernicus Thabit determined the length of the sidereal year as 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 12 seconds (an error of 2 seconds). Copernicus based his claim on the Latin text attributed to Thabit.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra#Astronomy
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm
…………….
Sediments build up and subsequent erosion, doc!
Just to remind you of a simple fact you may well know, Although the Iceland’s active volcanoes number just over 1% of the world’s total, it is estimated that they produced more then 30% of the total lava since 1500 A.D. What is valid for 15 active volcanoes is valid for hundreds of miles of permanent submarine magma flow from the Gakkel ridge.
All your comments in the reply to my post are based on misinterpretation, from Newton to tectonic movement. Knowing your well recognised scientific competence, I would assume it was deliberate not accidental, but if indeed accidental do Read Again! if deliberate than any further discussion with you is pointless, since your dogmatic approach is strongly biased in the favour of ‘science is settled’ and heresy must be suppressed by all means.
Why else scientist of your ability would waste his talents and very valuable time, in as you put it “educating scientific illiterates”. Life is short, use rest of your time to expand the age of scientific enlightenment not turning it into a moribund pool of stagnation.
Have a nice weekend.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:40 pm
But Thabit was a geocentrist, as was usual before Copernicus.
milodonharlani says:
“But Thabit was a geocentrist”
If he had measured the sidereal year to within 2 seconds, surely he must have noticed the difference from the tropical year?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Apparently not, or if he did, he kept quiet about it, or his heliocentric work didn’t come down to us & wasn’t commented on at the time. Or I could be wrong.
link should be: Kolbeinsey Ridge
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Sediments build up and subsequent erosion
So you claim you have a record of the variation of the submarine build-up of sediments and its variation with time including the times when the build-up was negative according to you [where did the sediments go?]
if deliberate than any further discussion with you is pointless
All I say is deliberate, obviously.
since your dogmatic approach is strongly biased in the favour of ‘science is settled’ and heresy must be suppressed by all means.
Yours is not heresy, just ordinary nonsense. Such need not be ‘suppressed’, just generally to be ignored, except for the possibility of teaching you something.
as you put it “educating scientific illiterates”.
That is, indeed, as goal of mine, although you are a good example [there are more] of how difficult it is to overcome inherent learning disability [deliberate or not].
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm
[where did the sediments go?]
Hmm. .. Educating scientific illiterates, and failed to learn about your motherland’s colonial geography.
Down the world’s highest waterfall
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/1DSsfp.gif
all 2000 m of it.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Down the world’s highest waterfall
Not really the issue which is your claim to have an accurate record of the sedimentation over hundreds of years and can calculate how much that changes the ocean currents and hence the temperature in Europe. It all comes down to the usual issue: you have not defined what your variables are and how they are calculated and how much the current is changed, etc. Until you do, you have nothing.
Leif says:
Your way introduces intermediaries that are fuzzy and not well determined.[e.g. sea level change]. So, I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what your problem [or mystery] is.
So how about that factor of three inadequacy of TSI without considering any sea level changes? Or are duty cycle, latitude and albedo effects too fuzzy to suit you? Either way you do the comparison you will have to consider these. I chose to do the comparison at the earth surface. What do you think is wrong with that?
An ‘enlightenment age’ scientist might say:
“At Stanford we have world renown geologists, I can ensure they treat your data with confidentiality; they can validate data and consider elaborating the forcing formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm ”
but a dogma pursuant obscurantist might say:
“…you have nothing” and get lost vukcevic!
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm
What do you think is wrong with that?
Hard to say as it is not clear what you say. To make it clear, I’ll go back to your earlier comments and ask for clarification [going in small steps]:
So here it the 1st point:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm; “variation of solar surface heat flux that is an order of magnitude larger than the TSI variations over the solar cycle”
‘solar surface’ means at the Earth’s surface? not the ‘Sun’s surface’.
‘heat flux’ goes which way: is that the flux (W/m2) that we receive from the Sun measured at the Earth’s surface? or the flux that the Earth returns to space?
‘TSI variation over the solar cycle’ is what? if it is the flux (W/m2) that we receive from the Sun measured at the Earth’s surface? If so, how is that different from the ‘heat flux’?
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:50 pm
An ‘enlightenment age’ scientist might say:
“At Stanford we have world renown geologists, I can ensure they treat your data with confidentiality
That is not how science should be conducted. c.f. Phil Jones’s refusal to hand over his data. You are just in that same boat. I repeat: no data, no science. A main reason for not opening up data is that they are suspect.
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Bill H says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm
It’s is also possible that due to the weakening of solar magnetic fields that the sun spots will fade. The internal motor (so to speak) is not welling them to the surface. Those same magnetic fields affect earths fields allowing in greater amounts of ionizing radiation.
What seems to be happening is that the magnetic fields do come to the surface [thus increasing TSI], but the [unknown] process that concentrates them into visible spots is operating less efficiently. During the Maunder Minimum [and other Grand Minima] the magnetic field was strong enough to modulate cosmic rays even more vigorously than in recent decades.
—
Speaking of adding to the radiation budget ..
Now Dr. S. don’t let the title mess with your head, they are begging the question ..
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct
connection?
A. DeSantis a,b,n, E.Qamili a,c, G.Spada d, P.Gasperini e
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/terrasol/space/DeSantis_et_al_JASTP_2012.pdf
On pg. 2, figure 1;
Fig. 1. Global geomagnetic models from1600 to 2005.
Geomagnetic field from GUFM1 (validity1590–1990),
IGRF (validity 1900–2010) and
CHAOS(validity1999–2005)
models from 1600 to 2000 at steps of 100 years, together with 2005.The surface area of the SAA is evidenced by the white area with field values less than 32,000 nT.
Take a good look at the SAA and decreasing field and increase in the size over the period. Take a good look at the overall progression of the decrease in Earths magnetic field and the possibility of an incremental increase in the amount of radiation penetration.
Well the corn here in the back yard? Is my knee high for the 4th of July. Deer corn, planted late. Deer wont need it till winter anyway.. But by comparison of other years in driving around the state seems short in height. Used to also scoff at the knee high thing, as was seeing waist and shoulder heights.
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct connection?
This crops up now and then. As we expect the South Atlantic Anomaly [SAA] to continue to grow for some centuries, a connection would predict steadily rising temperatures, thus no future cooling as everybody so fervently wants [and even claim to predict]. Hey, here is a way out for these people: if the temps don’t go down as they forecast, it is just a sign of the SAA getting bigger and swamping their [obviously correct] theory.
Just a thought question.. why is the majority of the SAA below Earths magnetic equator?
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Just a thought question.. why is the majority of the SAA below Earths magnetic equator?
If it were aboe [North] of the magnetic equator you would probably ask why is the majority of the SAA above Earth’s magnetic equator. The SAA is generated deep in the core where the field is hardly dipolar at all, so its location on the surface is just an accident of nature, like why does the moon and the sun have the same size in the sky?
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Well not exactly the case.. been playing around with another conumdrum of the same sort, relating to another magnetic equator. Which is now asking my brain if there might even be a relationship betwixt the two of them.
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
P. Desiati
Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center (WIPAC)
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
A. Lazarian
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Draft version October 30, 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075v2.pdf
Page 4 Figs 1-2
Figure 2 showing the magnetic equator through the heliosphere. Also shows the excess region, deficit region for GCR propagation in the heliosphere with a relationship similar to that of Earth magnetic equatorial relationship radiation..
Page 5 of the article
.. Fig. 2 schematically shows the component of
LIMF in the plane of the figure with its draping around
the heliosphere. The full-sky global anisotropy of the 1-
10 TeV cosmic rays can be described as composed of a
broad relative excess region across the hemisphere south
of the magnetic equator (the red shaded sector in the
figure, which contains the heliotail and the downstream
direction of the LIMF), and a relative deficit region (the
blue shaded sector) north of the magnetic equator. The
cosmic ray intensity modulation in these regions cannot
be described with a dipole, since the transition between
the two regions lays approximately along the magnetic
equator (the non-colored sectors in the figure) but with
the steepest variations in directions with smaller angular
distance from the heliotail. At energies in excess of
about 100 TeV the heliospheric influence must be subdominant,
if not inexistent. Whatever the origin of the
anisotropy above 100 TeV is,…
Leif says:
Hard to say as it is not clear what you say. To make it clear, I’ll go back to your earlier comments and ask for clarification [going in small steps]:
So here it the 1st point:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm; “variation of solar surface heat flux that is an order of magnitude larger than the TSI variations over the solar cycle”
‘solar surface’ means at the Earth’s surface? not the ‘Sun’s surface’.
That was corrected at 9:12 p.m.
Let me state this in a way that should be understandable. If the earth mean surface temperature varies by 0.1C, its outgoing surface radiation ought to vary by 0.55 W/m^2. Some additional energy flux may have penetrated to greater depths, but at least this much is required to account for just the surface radiation changes. TSI variations of about 1 W/m^2 over a solar cycle at the top of the atmosphere could be expected to produce about 0.18 W/m^2 variation at the earth surface after considering the effects of duty cycle, albedo and latitude. This is a factor of 3 too small to have caused the surface radiation variation accompanying a 0.1C temperature variation.
lsvalgaard says:
“But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Which is now asking my brain if there might even be a relationship betwixt the two of them.
No there is not. The sun and every magnetic planet have a magnetic equator and they are all different. The planetary magnetic equators depends on the field in the cores deep inside the planet.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Let me state this in a way that should be understandable.
Ok, with the error out of the way, we can continue. The earth emits its thermal radiation from about 5 km altitude in the atmosphere. To maintain balance, the temperature up there must be -18C [the same temperature the surface would have if there were no atmosphere]. Because the temperature decreases with altitude by 6.6C per km, the surface must have a temperature of 15C to make the temperature at 5 km equal to the -18C. So, looking at the Earth from space, the Earth would seem to have a temperature of -18C, called the ‘radiating temperature’. The surface is warmer, like 15C. The difference is the Greenhouse effect. If we add more greenhouse gases [e.g. Water, so not to upset some people’s sensibilities, although any molecule with more than two atoms would do] the Earth would heat up, but the radiating temperature would stay the same [the same amount of heat is coming in from the Sun and must be emitted]. What happens instead is that the radiating altitude goes up [in order to reach a higher altitude where the temperature is the -18C]. Before continuing, do you understand and agree to the above?
Jim G says:
“But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?
Jim G says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:40 pm
lsvalgaard says: “But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
———————————————————————————————————————
My bet is that Dr S is referring to the EU believers.
And Dr. S. the article above related to cosmic ray anisotropies also theorizes as to what might cause this. One of the theories relates to our slow approach to the next interstellar cloud.
How many AU has the solar system travelled since the 1600’s? What if any the relationship to the slow growth of the SAA and the slow approach to the neighboring interstellar cloud. Even though the solar magnetic cycle has be operating within its ceiling/floor range ( with some consecutive med high cycles) over the period 1600 till now, Earths magnetic field is declining.
The theory.. pgs. 1 2
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075v2.pdf
“”…However, the solar system
is surrounded by a highly heterogeneous Local Interstellar
Medium (LISM) (Frisch et al. 2011), that can affect
the arrival direction distribution of the cosmic rays.
The common velocity of the nearby interstellar clouds could indicate that they are part of an evolved sub-shell
of the superbubble associated to the Loop I, expanding
from the Scorpion-Centaurus Association. Various indirect
determinations of the Local Interstellar Magnetic
Field (LIMF) suggest that its direction is coherent over
scales of about 100 pc and roughly parallel to the local
surface of Loop I shell (Frisch 2010, 2011; Frisch et al.
2012a,b). The observations, therefore, could be associated
to cosmic ray diffusive streaming between colliding
nearby interstellar clouds of the expanding Loop I
shell (Schwadron et al. 2012). Since the solar system is
located almost at the edge of the so-called Local Interstellar
Cloud (LIC), a partially ionized cloudlet within
the Local Bubble, it was proposed by Amenomori et al.
(2007, 2011b) that a non-dipolar anisotropy could be generated
by the diffusion of cosmic rays through the LIMF
connecting the solar system to the interstellar medium
outside the LIC. On the other hand, the observation of
a topological change of the anisotropy pattern at an energy
in excess of about 100 TeV, where a relative deficit
is observed in the region of the sky dominated by a broad
excess at lower energies, is an indication of a phenomenological
transition in the cause of high energy cosmic rays
anisotropy. A proton in a 3 μG magnetic field has a maximum
gyro-radius Rg 80 ·ETeV AU1. Even though the
mean free path of cosmic rays in magnetized plasma can
be significantly larger (Yan & Lazarian 2008), it is reasonable
to believe that cosmic rays with energy below
about 100 TeV must be affected by the heliosphere, considering
its extension from hundreds to several thousands
AU (Pogorelov et al. 2009a,b; Izmodenov & Alexashov
2003; Izmodenov & Kallenbach 2006)…”””
Leif says:
What happens instead is that the radiating altitude goes up [in order to reach a higher altitude where the temperature is the -18C]. Before continuing, do you understand and agree to the above?
I will take your word for it on the average temperature lapse rate. I assume that you mean that adding more greenhouse gases would have the effect of raising the radiating altitude. So far, so good.
lsvalgaard says:
“Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?”
No, but being a skeptic puts me in no “group”. My point was that name calling ie “the gullible”, diminishes your stature and is not necessary if you have reliable observational data. In my previous comment I already noted my skepticism regarding the value of the subject of this entire article and I believe it is a waste of time to swat at mosquitoes with a sledge hammer..
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Bones, don’t take his word for anything. (Leif is rapidly pushing into the elitist AGW camp. Perhaps he will get invited to a White House dinner???)
They try to push that more CO2 will raise the “Effective Radiating Layer”. The ERL is a new con of the warmers. It does not work. They cannot prove where the ERL is today, or yesterday.
(Hint to sceptics: CO2 has increased last 15 years, but temps have remained flat.)
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:22 pm
How many AU has the solar system travelled since the 1600′s?
2265 AU
What if any the relationship to the slow growth of the SAA and the slow approach to the neighboring interstellar cloud.
None
Earths magnetic field is declining.
Has nothing to do with the Sun or the Interstellar medium
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm
So far, so good.
So, the Earth does not radiate as a body with temperature 289K [or 288], but always at 255K, no matter how much GHG, So based on that in S=aT^4 we get 0.38 W/m2, right?.
Jim G says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:36 pm
diminishes your stature
So be it, as that statement is strongly felt.
and is not necessary if you have reliable observational data
The issue is not about my reliable data, but about the ludicrous claim that he can calculate exactly what the temperature is at any time [past, present, and future] [and anywhere] from planetary positions. If you believe that you are very gullible in my book, and I’m not afraid of saying so in the strongest possible way, regardless of what you think thereof.
Caleb says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:45 am
Regarding the eruption of Tambora in 1815, much ado is made about the “year without a summer” that followed in 1816, however it should also be noted that there apparently was a lot of arctic ice melt, which doesn’t exactly fit the “volcanoes make it colder” idea.
Surface deposition of volcanic dust reducing the ice albedo and increasing melt. A similar process involving black carbon has caused the Arctic sea ice melt over the last decade or so.
While there are endless claims that atmospheric warming has caused the Arctic sea ice to melt, there is precious little evidence to back up these claims.
I’d add that you’d expect most sea ice melt 2 years after the volcanic eruption, when almost all of the volcanic dust has cleared from the atmosphere, and that British report was from 1817.
Leif says:
So, the Earth does not radiate as a body with temperature 289K [or 288], but always at 255K, no matter how much GHG, So based on that in S=aT^4 we get 0.38 W/m2, right?.
I thought S=5.67×10^(-8)x255^4=239.7 W/m^2. How are you getting 0.38 W/m^2?
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Leif says:
I thought S=5.67×10^(-8)x255^4=239.7 W/m^2. How are you getting 0.38 W/m^2?
As the difference between T of 255 and T of 255.1
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
>>>>>
Waiter, more wine please.
Leif says:
As the difference between T of 255 and T of 255.1
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth. The ~ 1 W/m^2 variation in TSI over a solar cycle comes in as a variation of UV/VIS energy and is absorbed by the earth (oceans and land). After correcting for duty cycle (1/2), latitude effect (1/2) and albedo (0.7), the TSI variation that is absorbed would be 0.18 W/m^2. If the earth surface temperature varies by 0.1C over the solar cycle, its outgoing surface radiation rate will vary by 0.55 W/m^2. The absorbed TSI variation fails by a factor of three to be large enough to be the driver of this surface radiation change. So something correlated with the solar cycle is causing temperature changes larger than those that would be caused by TSI variation alone. And that is without any consideration of any other energy flux variations that might have been absorbed/discharged in the process of causing that 0.1C variation of surface temperature.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“Has nothing to do with the Sun or the Interstellar medium”
=================
If we were to pass through a dense cloud of dark matter, would it matter ?
u.k.(us) says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm
If we were to pass through a dense cloud of dark matter, would it matter ?
Since magnetism is an electromagnetic phenomenon one might think that dark matter which does not interact with electromagnetism [that is why we can’t see it] would not matter. If the cloud is dense enough [but I don’t think there are any] it might disturb the planetary orbits, or if falling into the Sun, the energy output of the Sun [as the pressure in the core depends on the weight of all material outside of it].
At this point the discussion has drifted too far from the topic at hand that there is little justification for pursuing that particular line of inquiry.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth.
How and by whom?
I like the line–“Since magnetism is an electromagnetic phenomenon one might think that dark matter which does not interact with electromagnetism [that is why we can’t see it] would not matter.
Amazing how something we cannot see (dark matter) is so easily “proven”….
We can’t see it, therefore it is there–LMAO!
Leif says,
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth.
How and by whom?
Can’t find the original article by Roy Spencer on WUWT, but I copied the figure herehttp://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2_zpsb24da898.jpg
Note that the TSI variations at the surface are 0.17 W/m^2 p-p, and the temperature varies about 0.08 C p-p.
Leif, Here’s the link to Spencer’s WUWT article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/05/spencer-on-climate-sensitivity-and-solar-irradiance/
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Amazing how something we cannot see (dark matter) is so easily “proven”….
Nobody had ever seen Neptune before 1846 and recognized it as a planet. In 1821 tables of positions of Uranus were published. But observations showed that with time Uranus deviated more and more from its calculated position as if another [unseen] planet was tugging on it. From the deviations, the position of the unseen planet was computed and Neptune duly found at that place in 1846.
So we can infer the existence of matter [Neptune] from its gravitational influence on other matter [that we can see, Uranus], in this way dark matter is observed [by its effect] even if it has not been seen. Nothing amazing about that.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Note that … the temperature varies about 0.08 C
The variation of TSI at the TOA is typically 1.2 W/m2. From dS/S=4 dT/T we find for T=289K that dT =0.08K. What is your mystery?
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:03 pm
So we can infer the existence of matter [Neptune] from its gravitational influence on other matter [that we can see, Uranus], in this way dark matter is observed [by its effect] even if it has not been seen. Nothing amazing about that.
>>>>>>>
Nothing amazing to you maybe, but your scientific method fails miserably. You get to “infer” whatever you want or need (for funding}, yet you deny others the same capability. You slap down Vuk, for example, for being an “out-of-the-box” thinker, as if you have total authority over all scientific endeavors. You do not seek to actually teach so much as pontificate. You need evidence–study this thread.
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:30 pm
You slap down Vuk
As I slap down you. Dark Matter [DM] was proposed 80 years ago as out-of-the-box. It has taken 80 years of painstaking observations to convince astronomers of the reality of DM. That you do not rejoice in this masterpiece of scientific endeavor is your loss, but a sad commentary on science literacy in today’s America. Vuk is not an out-of-the-box ‘thinker’, he is simply and glaringly wrong and self-aggrandizing.
he is simply and glaringly wrong and self-aggrandizing.
>>>>>>
You would know a lot about that….
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:45 pm
“he is simply and glaringly wrong and self-aggrandizing”
You would know a lot about that….
Having seen him in ‘action’ makes that an easy diagnosis…
You, on the other hand, do not reach halfway up his leg.
Your childish insults reveal more than I need to say….
An academic child, fully funded by his parents, never out in the real world…oh, the genre is sooooo well known.
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Your childish insults reveal more than I need to say….
Yet, you cannot help yourself:
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:53 pm
An academic child, fully funded by his parents, never out in the real world…oh, the genre is sooooo well known.
I look forward to the next entertaining installment.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:36 am
Because no cycles are alike on a day-to-day basis, so the details don’t matter much http://www.leif.org/research//SC14-and-24.png.
Details don’t matter? How very unscientific of you, the detail is everything. The daily/monthly data shows the two cycles are in no way related.
The big swings in SC14 began about the point of the cycle where we are at now in SC24, so watch for them from now on.
You are living a fantasy, the swings should have started 18 months ago.
As do I.
Gentlemen,
Please act like adults, sadly if I found my children acting like you are, I would revoke their IP lease at the router until they started to act mature again. Ponder the fact that your digital words will exist long after you leave this mortal coil. In no way, is science being advanced by either side.
Jack H Barnes
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Note … the temperature varies about 0.08 C
A simplified version of the formula is dT [C] = 0.053 dTSI [TOA W/m2].
so dT varies with the solar cycle. Here is a table
dTSI 0.5 W/m2, dT = 0.025C [small solar cycle]
dTSI 1.0 W/m2, dT = 0.053C [smallish cycle]
dTSI 1.5 W/m2, dT = 0.079C [medium cycle]
dTSI 2.0 W/m2, dT = 1.062C [large cycle]
By pairing a number in one column with a number in a random place of the other column, you can produce ratios up to factors of 4. But you shouldn’t do that, you should pair values in the same row, then there is no mystery.
FerdinandAkin says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:44 am
This is too funny. David Archibald writes the article, but Dr.Leif Svalgaard takes all the questions.
Ferdinand, your mystery is explained thusly. Driven by my natural curiosity and sense of public duty, I do original research and publish the results here on WUWT, expanding human knowledge, pushing back against the darkness and generally advancing human civilsation. The good doctor is best known for some papers he co-authored back in the 60s. Was it the 60s? Nevermind, as the White House says about Benghazi, it was a long time ago. Now he realises that his greatest relevance to 21st century science is to provide comment on my posts on WUWT, helping the less knowledgeable amongst us gain a better understanding of our natural world. Though I must say his weltanschauung seems to be a bit blinkered on the role of the Sun in determining climate. I guess it is a journey in progress and perhaps we shouldn’t be too critical of someone who might be struggling in understanding. So his comments, helpful as they are, should be considered in the context of his limited understanding of the Sun’s role in climate. One of the co-authors of Dr Svalgaard’s better known papers, Ken Schatten, wrote, together with Douglas Hoyt, a book entitled “The role of the Sun in Climate Change”. Though that book is also last century (1999),it is a good place to start for someone who has a long way to go and I commend it to the good doctor, my bearded and blinkered helpmate.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:59 pm
The daily/monthly data shows the two cycles are in no way related.
Of course they are not related, as SC5 and SC24 also are not related. Solar cycles are not related, each cycle is independent of the other cycles, being born, growing, and dying on its own merit. Now, you are still evading:
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:03 pm
In no way, is science being advanced by either side.
science was left behind long ago as soon as the attacks started. For those kind of people science does not seem to be a priority. Sadly enough.
If you could predict a 1740-like year in advance, what’s the soil profile further south for corn growing?
David Archibald says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Driven by my natural curiosity and sense of public duty, I do original research and publish the results here on WUWT, expanding human knowledge, pushing back against the darkness and generally advancing human civilsation.
You are almost up to Vul’s standard of self-aggrandization, not quite, but close.
The good doctor is best known for some papers he co-authored back in the 60s.
Wrong, one of my best known papers is a prediction of the sunspot number written in 2004: http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ&pagesize=100&view_op=list_works
I have written several papers on Sun-Weather-Climate with the founder of NCAR and we were widely credited [e.g. http:///www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf ] with reviving that field in the 1970s when the field had died due to failure of earlier correlations to work with new data: e.g. http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=qFdb2fIAAAAJ:zYLM7Y9cAGgC which is still cited today.
You ignorance of the literature shines through.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:19 pm
Now, you are still evading:
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
Using a group sunspot number is evading the detail again, it seems you will use all forms of smoke and mirrors to push your agenda.
Your 2004 paper is of little importance and will have no place in solar science history. The solar polar fields do not drive the next cycle, and DA should use the term honorary doctor.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Using a group sunspot number is evading the detail again, it seems you will use all forms of smoke and mirrors to push your agenda.
So show us the detailed daily numbers for SC5 compared with SC24. And you still evade:
A recent reconstruction of the number of sunspot groups is not sensitive to the Waldmeier sunspot weighting and thus has no issue with ‘corrected’ data. It also has error bars that reflect the 1-sigma confidence. We can compare SC5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Groups-Small.png and you can judge for yourself how SC24 compares and report here what you found.
The solar polar fields do not drive the next cycle
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuru-forecast.pdf shows otherwise.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:58 pm
So show us the detailed daily numbers for SC5 compared with SC24. And you still evade:
Monthly numbers are sufficient for showing the detail during the Dalton Minimum (and all that is available as you know), the monthly numbers do not hide the swings as the yearly numbers do. The SC5/SC6 numbers are backed up by other data with only you disputing the existence of the Dalton Minimum. SC24 is showing us a first grand minimum cycle does not have big swings and is more like the SC5 record. (even allowing some missing data) If SC5 had the huge swings like the unrelated SC14 it would have been picked up even with the lesser counting days.
Not using highly smoothed data or group data when detail data is available is not evading, but proper science, perhaps you could learn something from this?
Choudhuru in falling into the same trap does not make it so.
Stephen Walters says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Monthly numbers are sufficient for showing the detail during the Dalton Minimum (and all that is available as you know)
But as you apparently do not know. Here are the daily numbers http://www.leif.org/research/dailyrg.txt
No cycle is like any other cycle in daily or monthly numbers; what matters is the overall run of the data. The climate does not react to daily or monthly numbers. SC5 did not have big swings http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl5.html
Choudhuru in falling into the same trap does not make it so.
When prominent solar physicists agree that makes it so http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/ : “One method that has yielded predictions consistently in the right range during the past few solar cycles is that of K. Schatten, P.H. Scherrer, L. Svalgaard, and J.M.Wilcox., whose approach is mainly based on the polar field precursor” and “In the version of the code adapted for cycle prediction (Choudhuri et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2007), the “surface” poloidal field (i.e., the poloidal field throughout the outer half of the convection zone) is rescaled at each minimum by a factor reflecting the observed amplitude of the Sun’s dipole field. The model shows reasonable predictive skill for the last three cycles for which data are available, and can even tackle hemispheric asymmetry (Goel and Choudhuri, 2009). For cycle 24, the predicted amplitude is 30 – 35% lower than cycle 23.”
That you don’t know it, does not un-make it so.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 11:59 pm
But as you apparently do not know. Here are the daily numbers http://www.leif.org/research/dailyrg.txt
I am aware of the daily group numbers and your attempt to change the data, I was referring to sunspot numbers.
No cycle is like any other cycle in daily or monthly numbers; what matters is the overall run of the data. The climate does not react to daily or monthly numbers. SC5 did not have big swings http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl5.html
The daily or monthly data shows the state of the dynamo (or whatever you want to call it). The high and low peaks of SC14 are significant and show a solar state of unusual proportions. It is quite different now with basically just low activity, this can only be seen with detailed data.
When prominent solar physicists agree that makes it so
Only those in the Babcock camp would consider Choudhuru prominent. No doubt he is a solid scientist, but unfortunately he is on the wrong train. Times are a changing.
Stanford’s Supreme Solar Sage Svalgaard Suffocates Spurious Science Single Handed
SSSSSSSSSH !
RE: lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Gail Combs says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:03 pm.
“…..The problem is the alarmism Archibald is peddling. There is no valid basis for ‘predicting’ a repeat of 1740 in 2015.”
I’m not so sure about that. I found Gail’s mention of her male goat coming into rut in July pretty alarming.
RE Gail Comb: Interesting observation about the goat. The reek of the musk must be a bit intense, in July heat. My sympathies to those downwind.
And by the way, my doe goats were doing a a bit more tail-wagging last week than is usual in late June. I thought it was odd, but brushed it off by assuming they had found some forage they particularly liked.
The following is a link to a paper that was published in October, 2011 which notes the current solar grand maximum was uniquely long lived, was uniquely long lived, was uniquely lived, was unique long lived. Please note I am repeating the phrase ‘uniquely long lived’ as the fact that the Svensmark grand solar maximum was ‘uniquely long lived’ is from a physical standpoint key to explaining what is happening to the sun now and is key to explaining the warming of the 70 years and the expected imminent significant cooling.
The principal issue theoretically and practically to resolve is how much of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and how much was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. This question will soon be resolved by observation, as the Svensmark grand solar maximum is over. Based on observational evidence it appears the sun will be entering a Maunder like minimum which will bring this solar grand maximum to an end.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
As many are aware there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record, the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The following is a proxy record that shows how the temperature on surface of the Greenland ice sheet has changed over the last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC
Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.
William: As many are aware curiously and anomalously the Greenland Ice has experienced the greatest amount of warming during the last 70 years.
The warming in the last 70 years has not been global and has been confined to specific latitudes matching the warming pattern of the past Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The D-O cycles’ warming period has been found to occur when there is a concurrent solar grand maximum. The cooling phase of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle occurs when there is a concurrent solar Maunder like minimum. The latitudinal pattern of the warming in the last 70 years does not match the pattern predicted by the general circulation models and cannot be explained by the CO2 forcing mechanism.
As CO2 is eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential forcing due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 should be roughly the same for regions of the entire planet. The actual CO2 forcing is also proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question. As the there is more long wave radiation emitted in the tropics of the planet the most amount of warming due to the increase in CO2 should be observed in the tropics. The warming in the last 70 years has not been global. The higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere have warmed twice as much as the planet as a whole and four times more than the tropics. There is currently no explanation as to why that is true.
It should be noted that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 70 years matches the pattern of past D-O cycles. The past D-O cycles were not caused by atmospheric CO2 changes.
Solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the D-O cycles as has been noted in paper after paper. That is a fact. Svensmark, Tinsley, Yu, and others researchers has been working to find out how the solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and to cool cyclically. The mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to cyclically warm and cool, is due to multiple mechanisms that modulate the amount of low level and high level clouds. As low planetary clouds reflect sunlight into space, more low level clouds causes the planet to cool and less low level clouds causes the planet to warm.
Due to the strength and orientation of the geomagnetic field, solar magnetic cycles changes have a greater modulation effect on planetary clouds in higher latitudes. The regions of the planet that have warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that are most greatly affected by the solar magnetic cycle cloud modulation mechanisms. There is now observational evidence that the slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle has started to affect planetary climate causing the planet to cool and causing there to be an increase in precipitation.
http://www.cato.org/blog/long-awaited-snowfall-increase-antarctica-now-underway
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/23935/1/2011%20Owens%20et%20al.,%20GRL,%202011GL049328.pdf
Solar cycle 24: Implications for energetic particles and long‐term space climate change
The recent solar minimum was the longest and deepest of the space age, with the lowest average sunspot numbers for nearly a century. The Sun appears to be exiting a grand solar maximum (GSM) of activity which has persisted throughout the space age, and is headed into a significantly quieter period. … ….[3] Average solar activity, as quantified by a variety of parameters, has been declining since about 1985 [Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007] and the recent exceptionally low minimum is part of this decline [Lockwood, 2010]. From a study of the durations of Grand Solar Maxima (GSMs) during the past 9300 years, as detected in cosmogenic isotope data, Abreu et al. [2008] deduced that the current GSM was uniquely long‐lived and due to end soon. This was supported by extrapolations of recent trends in heliospheric parameters [e.g., Lockwood et al., 2009b]. This decline has potential implications for predictions of winter climate in Europe [Lockwood et al., 2011] and of hazardous particles in Earth environments [McCracken, 2007; Barnard et al., 2011], specifically galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs).
William: If you are interested in more information concerning the D-O cycles and how solar magnetic cycle changes and long term changes in galactic cosmic ray modulate planet cloud cover and planetary temperature I would highly recommend reading the following two books.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1840468661
RE: Philip Bradley says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Interesting idea about the ash from Tamboro getting to the pole and decreasing the albedo and melting the ice. I hadn’t thought of that.
Do you know if the ice cores show that much ash made it north from the equator? I can see a little ash making it out of the Hadley Cell, through the Ferrel Cell, and into the Polar Cell, but not that much. It would have to be a fairly steady rain of ash, as snowfalls cover it up.
I just threw the comment about the AMO out there to generate thought. It just struck me as odd that there should be so much melt associated with a time so frigid.
Further research has taught me that the Tambora volcano ejected ash through the tropopause and over ten miles further into the Stratasphere, beyond the reach of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar Cells.
Caleb
I wrote about the great melting of the arctic around 1818 in this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
The Detailed scientific accounts of William Scoresby would be worth obtaining to investigate the soot/particulates question but in the article I noted this.
“Even more remarkable in this relatively recent document (drawing on historic sources) are the annual indices of summer sea ice from 1750 to 1870 (on page 122) and further references to the records of the Hudson bay co, which again illustrate the fluctuating ice levels noted elsewhere. (This account should be read in conjunction with the link immediately above it.)
Clearly the eruption of Tambora (or other factors) had a profound effect on the climate of the Arctic over a very short period, as previous mentions of especially harsh winters in Newfoundland in previous decades are hard to find. Whether soot particulates from the eruption could have fallen on the arctic to cause the melting is doubtful, as no discolouration of the ice/snow can be found in any record, so the net effect of the eruption is probably to have caused the severe ice mentioned in the ‘year without a summer’, which then quickly disappeared in the Enso year. This chart;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_sulfate.png
demonstrates the 1816-17 spike in sulphate particles, produced by Tambora, in the Greenland ice. This from;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1991/91JD01634.shtml
from Dai et al, 1991 also shows a spike of similar amplitude in 1810, from an unknown eruption, thought to be one of the Andean volcanos.
There are many more accounts similar to those above recording great variations in arctic ice and weather over these decades. We are able to pin point another reference to 1810 conditions, as according to the book ‘Ice Hunters’ by Shannon Ryan, in that year the comment ‘the ice conditions prevented the ships reaching the seal herds’ is described in detail (an event briefly mentioned in the Board of Trade Journals).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dWY-gZTGLgC&pg=RA1-PA284&lpg=RA1-PA284&dq=ice+islands+1810+newfoundland+seal+fisheries&source=bl&ots=0CxEu02Mpq&sig=67q3SluOy-OIv4-3cO5vpgTmHag&hl=en&ei=R-UuSvrqLszLjAff4cmVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PRA1-PA291,M1
tonyb
Rhys Jaggar says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Soil conditions aren’t as good south of the I80.
David,
Would you kindly give us an update on these predictions from your paper:
SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS (Mar 2009)
David C. Archibald
“The strength of the solar-cycle-length – annual-average-temperature correlation
enables solar cycle length to be used as a climate predictor tool. If the month of
minimum for the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition is July 2009, this would make Solar
Cycle 23 over thirteen years long. This in turn would mean that it would be 3.2 years
longer than Solar Cycle 22, and imply that the annual average temperature of Hanover,
New Hampshire will be 2.2° C cooler during Solar Cycle 24 than it had been on
average over Solar Cycle 23.”
“The 1970s cooling period is associated with elevated counts over the second
half of Solar Cycle 20, relative to other solar cycles. Peak neutron count is
approximately one year after solar minimum, due to the one year delay in the solar
wind reaching the heliopause. The monthly neutron count is now higher than it has
been at any time for the last fifty years. If the month of solar minimum proves to be
July 2009, peak neutron count may not be until mid-2010. On this basis, and according
to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s hypothesis, peak cloudiness, and therefore peak
rate of cooling, will be reached in mid-2010.”
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:30 pm
You slap down Vuk
“As I slap down you. Dark Matter [DM] was proposed 80 years ago as out-of-the-box. It has taken 80 years of painstaking observations to convince astronomers of the reality of DM. That you do not rejoice in this masterpiece of scientific endeavor is your loss, but a sad commentary on science literacy in today’s America. Vuk is not an out-of-the-box ‘thinker’, he is simply and glaringly wrong and self-aggrandizing.”
Dark matter will continue to be a fudge factor to make the numbers work until someone actually comes up with a physical sample of same. Until then, it is merely more consensus science.
***
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm
It is well known that the solar flux at high latitudes varies strongly with changes of earth orbital eccentricity and axis inclination on about a 110,000 year period known as a Milankovitch cycle. The sun might remain relatively constant, but its effect on earth is not.
***
Read what I said — the sun’s output itself didn’t change. Shouldn’t have been that difficult.
Ya think Milankovitch orbital cycling changed significantly since the LIA, a mere few hundred yrs? Um, no….
While TSI doesn’t change much, its spectral composition does, with the UV component fluctuating by up to a factor of two, as discussed on this blog.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html
It is curious that there has been no public discussion concerning the exponential increase in the area of the South Atlantic anomaly and the rapid decrease in the geomagnetic field intensity.
As many are aware both glacial and interglacial termination events correlate with geomagnetic field excursions. There is interesting no explanation as to what periodically causes geomagnetic excursions.
As the paper linked to below notes the planet cools cyclically simultaneously which cannot be explained by insolation changes as the orbital changes to insulation are 180 degrees out of phase for the two hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere experiences warm summers when the North Hemispheres experience cold summers due to insolation changes.
A geomagnetic excursion forcing for the glacial/interglacial cycle explains why both hemispheres simultaneously cool.
There is currently no explanation for what causes the geomagnetic excursions and the archeomagnetic jerks. Both the geomagnetic excursions and the archeomagnetic jerks correlate with grand solar magnetic minimums. As others have noted there is a delayed significant increase in volcanic eruptions following the start of deep solar magnetic minimum.
South Atlantic Geomagnetic Anomaly
…More than 90% of the field strength at the Earth’s surface can be attributed to an axial dipole currently tilted by approximately 10.2° with respect to the rotation axis. However, the field is anomalously weak in a region centered in the South Atlantic and covering parts of southern Africa and South America. This area, where the field reaches less than 60% of the field strength at comparable latitudes, is known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, fig. 1a). It is caused by an increasing patch of opposite magnetic flux compared to the dipole direction at the core-mantle boundary (Bloxham and Gubbins, 1985) and its centre has moved from southern Africa to South America over the last 300 years (Mandea et al., 2007). …
William: The South Atlantic Geomagnetic anomaly now covers roughly 75 million square kilometers. The geomagnetic field intensity reaches less than 60% of the main field.
The paper linked to below notes there is a linear relationship between the increase in the earth’s ocean levels and extent of the South Atlantic Geomagnetic anomaly.
The physical reason why there is a relationship between ocean level and geomagnetic field changes is not primarily due to temperatures changes caused by the geomagnetic field changes (changes in the geomagnetic field intensity cause a change in low level clouds which explains why extreme climate change events correlate with geomagnetic excursions.)
There are cycles of increases followed by decreases of ocean level that correlate with the Heinrich events. There are geomagnetic excursions or partial excursions that also correlate with the Heinrich events. The same physical reason for the cause of the geomagnetic excursions is the same physical reason why the ocean level changes.
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct connection?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate In Synch Worldwide
An answer to the long-standing riddle of whether the Earth’s ice ages occurred simultaneously in both the Southern and Northern hemispheres is emerging from the glacial deposits found in the high desert east of the Andes.
“The results are significant because they indicate that the whole Earth experiences major ice age cold periods at the same time, and thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth’s climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods,” says Michael R. Kaplan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh who conducted the work in a postdoctoral position at UW-Madison
“During the last two times in Earth’s history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods,” says Kaplan.
“Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation,” says Singer. “Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth.”
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/1/gubbinsd4.pdf
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought. We have investigated a possible mechanism for the instability of the geodynamo by calculating the critical Rayleigh number (Rc) for the onset of convection in a rotating spherical shell permeated by an imposed magnetic field with both toroidal and poloidal components.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998). One of us (Gubbins 1999) has suggested that this is evidence of a rapid natural timescale (500 yr) in the outer core, and that the magnetic field is usually prevented from reversing completely by the longer diffusion time of the inner core (2 to 5 kyr). This raises a number of important but difficult questions for geodynamo theory. How can the geomagnetic ¢eld change so rapidly and dramatically? Can slight variations of the geomagnetic field affect the dynamics of core convection significantly? If so, is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
Why is Svalgaard slapping Vuk?
Why is Vuk still having a great time and a good laugh?
Well,
Vuk has not one but a basket-full of aces up his sleeve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Vuk-Aces.htm
Svalgaard knows it, and further more it knows it can’t take a single one down, but throw mud at grinning Vuk.
Leif says:
“Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?”
I was talking about when the cold shots were, not exactly how cold it was.
RE: tonyb says:
July 7, 2013 at 5:18 am
That article you wrote is a great reference. I can remember being engrossed by it back in 2009. Thanks for reminding me and linking to it. And thanks for the huge amount of work you obviously put into it.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:59 am
IIRC Leif ascribes the cause of this possible event to Jupiter and not the sun.
Not quite. Jupiter [with a bit help from the other planets] is the cause of the glaciations during ice ages by changing the Earth’s orbit and tilt thus modulating the solar radiation falling on high latitude Northern Hemisphere land areas. But has nothing to with variations on a time
—
I had some thoughts about that Dr. S. similar to what you state above. My theory deals with the ‘degrees’ of a solar system de-screening, which occurs when the interstellar density increases. This increase may happen very slowing and over long time period. The outer planets being affected first, followed by the Jovian giants duet system going into longer elliptical orbits. I could see the Earths tilt in this scenario being affected by Jovian Giants, but didn’t think that the Earth was being dragged along for the ride.. I blame the interstellar background for those glaciations and changes to the solar system and Jupiter.
Also, thanks for the volcanic reminder early on in this thread..
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:59 am
—
Thanks for the links and comments William.
When thinking about the SAA, I also try to incorporate the Van Allen Belt, whose inner belt at around 100km above the surface, tends to fluctuate as well. I have read that as the inner belt grow closer to the earth the SAA anomaly gets larger. The overall field continues to weaken. Which means ACR, GCR and whatever CR have an access point in equatorial regions. I would think, this would allow more solar and cosmic radiation in at this latitude. Which would affect the global electric circuit.
There has been work done on what they refer to as the Horns of the Van Allen radiation belts. Something I recall about the latitude where they are closest to in higher latitudes varies.
vukcevic says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:59 am
Well,
Vuk has not one but a basket-full of aces up his sleeve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Vuk-Aces.htm
Jupiter and Saturn angles and their magnetospheric angles.. interesting Vuks..
When I saw aces in the link I had to take a looky see. I did giggle abit..
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm
—
Maybe Archibald should have a looky see what Dr. Svaalgaard did with the Nobeyama data in this pictorial presentation. Dr. S. is still having some fun, with many fine accomplishments along is journey.
Solar Predictions Using Nobeyama Data
L. Svalgaard (Stanford University)
Y. Kamide (Nagoya University)
SPRO2012, Nagoya University, 22 November 2012
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Predictions%20Using%20Nobeyama%20Data.pdf
Pg.34
Plotting the reconstructed Sunspot
Number (pink) from the composite 2800 MHz flux using the 1947-1990
relation shows the increasing discrepancy with the SIDC ‘official’
sunspot number (blue) the past ~15 years:
When I saw that article Dr. S. Oh boy F 10.7 wasn’t good enough here he goes again.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:57 am
I am aware of the daily group numbers and your attempt to change the data, I was referring to sunspot numbers.
The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number. The data I referred you is the original Hoyt&Schatten data with the Group Sunspot Number.
The daily or monthly data shows the state of the dynamo (or whatever you want to call it). The high and low peaks of SC14 are significant and show a solar state of unusual proportions. It is quite different now with basically just low activity, this can only be seen with detailed data.
Since we only see half of the Sun, the wild swings occur when the spots are on the backside, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Start-of-SC14-and-SC24.png In addition the cycle proceeds in a number of ‘episodes’ adding further variability
Only those in the Babcock camp would consider Choudhuru prominent.
Every reputable solar scientist is in the Babcock camp. That is how the sun works.
Times are a changing.
As far as the dynamo is concerned: not at all.
Jim G says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:46 am
Dark matter will continue to be a fudge factor to make the numbers work until someone actually comes up with a physical sample of same. Until then, it is merely more consensus science.
Consensus science is the science that works. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hard-won facts, regardless of our lack of understanding of their nature [just like gravity is a fact regardless of Newton’s lack of understanding of its cause], see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm
…………….
.””Although the Iceland’s active volcanoes number just over 1% of the world’s total, it is estimated that they produced more then 30% of the total lava since 1500 A.D””..
What is valid for 15 active volcanoes is valid for hundreds of miles of permanent submarine magma flow from the Gakkel ridge.
—
You might want to add that at that latitude the Earth due to rotation is compressional. That area would always show tectonic and volcanic activity. Including volcanos on Gakkel ridge recently discovered, being compared to Mt Vesuvius?
LOD might have some role in it too..
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:46 am
the current solar grand maximum was uniquely long lived
There has been no current solar Grand Maximum.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
As low planetary clouds reflect sunlight into space, more low level clouds
There is no good evidence that changes in cloud cover are caused by solar activity:
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120049.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
David Archibald claims in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1355817
In what parallel world does Mr. Archibald live? Apparently, he doesn’t live in my world, since the globally averaged surface temperature in the one in which I live is about 0.8 Kelvin higher than in the 19th century. And my world has not been cooling at all in recent decades. On the contrary. The recent multi-decadal warming trend since the mid 1970ies, for which the increase in the anthropogenic greenhouse gases was the major cause, is statistically significant with more than eight standard deviations.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The extremely minor fluctuation in global temperatures over the past century and a half has nothing to do with human activity. Any such implication is a baseless assertion.
Global temps have fluctuated by tens of degrees in the past, on short, decadal time scales. That could happen again. But for the past 150 years or so, we have been fortunate to have lived in a “Goldilocks” climate — a completely benign climate with no measurable human influence. Any opinion that asserts a human influence on temperature fails the Scientific Method of testability, and thus is a baseless conjecture.
Finally, there is ample evidence that GISS has falsified the temperature record. Anything that GISS asserts is highly questionable, and should be rejected on the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. GISS has no honesty in its recordkeeping, as proven in the link above. Perhaps things will change now that Hansen is gone. In the interrest of honest science, one can hope.
Lord have mercy, must we argue so….I know that this far down the thread very few will read but Hell this is un-comfortable at best. Lief with so many comments starts disagreeing with him self, Can we not all get along, for the most part we are on the same side…..A post that says, “HHMM this is interesting 1740 maybe 2015…here is a corralation not a causeation just an interesting idea leads to all of the above….just sad.
PS I read every comment looking for inteligant reparate’ found very little
“Consensus science is the science that works. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hard-won facts, regardless of our lack of understanding of their nature [just like gravity is a fact regardless of Newton’s lack of understanding of its cause], see e.g. ”
That is what they said about Newtonian physics when they did not accept relativity. The flat earth people would have welcomed you as well.
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:57 pm
The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number. The data I referred you is the original Hoyt&Schatten data with the Group Sunspot Number.
This statement sums up your scientific skill. You actually believe you can accurately apply a group to spot ratio of 12.08 that applies to all cycles whether they occur during normal or grand minimum times?
Using this type of tool or yearly smoothed averages in far from solid science.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:10 pm
“The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number”
This statement sums up your scientific skill. You actually believe you can accurately apply a group to spot ratio of 12.08 that applies to all cycles whether they occur during normal or grand minimum times?
[start educational section]
The 12.08 is a calibration factor to bring the Group Number onto the same scale as the Zurich Number [average over all cycles]. A different issue is whether the Zurich Number has a constant ratio to the number of groups. Historically the ratio has been around 10 [origin of the standard formula SSN = 10*groups+spots]. In the past decade it has fallen to between 6 and 7 due to the Livingston and Penn effect, but all that is not relevant for the run of the sunspot numbers over the cycle or for the rapid month-to-month variations.
[end educational section].
You could benefit mightily from studying my paper published today: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Jim G says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:56 pm
That is what they said about Newtonian physics when they did not accept relativity.
But now relativity is ‘consensus science’ and thus suspect in your opinion, right?
I take it that you did not read the link I gave you http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf and missed the great opportunity for some free education in modern cosmology. Your loss.
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
You could benefit mightily from studying my paper published today:
You have to be kidding, it is the same old stuff rehashed, viewed from your own universe.
Sorry to have had to to leave this nice discussion for some external reality, but let me continue with one last comment.
Leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Note that … the temperature varies about 0.08 C
The variation of TSI at the TOA is typically 1.2 W/m2. From dS/S=4 dT/T we find for T=289K that dT =0.08K. What is your mystery?
——————————————————
There is a major problem with your logic here. S=sigma T^4 gives the radiation rate from a blackbody surface at temperature T, measured just above the surface. For T and dT measured at the earth surface, the corresponding S and dS should also be measured there. You are assuming that dS at the surface is proportional to the dS at the top of the atmosphere, which is probably OK, but it is not true that S at the surface is proportional to S at the top of the atmosphere. If it were, then the proportionality constants would cancel and your method would be OK, but it doesn’t work that way.
To see what the problem really is, for T=289K, S=395.5 W/m^2, and for dT=0.08C, you get
dS=Sx4 dT/T=395.5x4x0.08/289=0.44 W/m^2.
Now you have the problem that you have been trying to avoid, namely, how to compare that with the solar flux variations that occur at the top of the atmosphere. If variations of solar flux there are about 1.2 W/m^2 coming in in UV/VIS, then one would expect the fraction of this reaching the surface to be about the same as the fraction of TSI that reaches the surface. That is about 166×1.2/1361 = 0.146 W/m^2. But that is only a third as large as what is departing earth surface as long wavelength radiation. The sun is doing more to produce that 0.08C temperature variation than just varying its TSI. BTW, you need to read Nir Shaviv’s work on ocean calorimetry.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm
“You could benefit mightily from studying my paper published today”
You have to be kidding, it is the same old stuff rehashed, viewed from your own universe.
That, my friend, is the state of the art. Study it carefully and learn, lest you fall behind the curve.
bones says:
July 7, 2013 at 10:23 pm
But that is only a third as large as what is departing earth surface as long wavelength radiation. The sun is doing more to produce that 0.08C temperature variation than just varying its TSI.
What is departing the surface is not what is radiated to space. The effective temperature of the Earth is 255K radiating from an altitude of 5 km. The difference is called the greenhouse effect.
Carla says: July 7, 2013 at 3:03 pm
……………
Hi
New discoveries in the Arctic Ocean including rise of the Lomonosov microcontinent will eventually show to have an effect on the Arctic Ocean currents particular at the Beaufort Gyre system, that plays a flywheel role in stabilizing the climate of the entire Arctic region.
However all these changes are mostly within boundary set by the narrow Fram Strait which represents the unique deep water connection between the Arctic Ocean and the rest of the world oceans. Its bathymetry controls the exchange of water masses between the Arctic basin and the North Atlantic. The significant heat flux through water mass exchange and sea ice transport, i.e. transport of fresh water and sea ice southwards and transport of warm saline waters northwards, influences the thermohaline circulation at a global scale.
Silting and erosion of the Fram Strait could as important as that in the Denmark Strait, but for time being there is no data. Main difference is that the Fram Strait has a dip narrow channel, while the Denmark Strait is wide and shallow (see here )
Major mystery is why the geo-tectonics of the region correlates to the solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
correction:
the Fram Strait has a deep narrow channel, while the Denmark Strait is wide and shallow
dbstealey says in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1357531
Also certainly minor compared to what temperatures at Earth’s surface were at a time when Earth was a molten rock, or even more minor compared to the temperature in the center of the sun. By deliberately choosing the y-scale disproportionally large or putting the variations into a misleading context one can make it appear as if it was nothing. The same would be true then for Archibald’s 1740 temperatures, though. These kind of dirty tricks just don’t prove anything.
Here we have Mr. Stealey’s opinion and assertion on one hand. On the other hand, we have a whole body of research in the field of climate science, with thousands of published, scientific publications, which have puzzled together and collected the empirical evidence for our current understanding of the Earth system, like it is compiled and synthesized in the last IPCC report, and will be in the new one that is going to be published this year. This is the basis for what I say. It’s Mr. Stealey’s assertions, which are baseless.
What are the scientific references, on which this claim is based, according to which the global temperatures changed by tens of degrees on decadal time scales?
Just to put it in perspective what Mr. Stealey is claiming. The difference in the globally averaged temperature between the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and today is 4 to 7 Kelvin.[1] The transition between glacials and interglacials is major climate change. In comparison, Mr. Stealey claims tens of degrees of changes in the past. To get such a change like the one between the glacials and interglacials, it already requires large changes in the external forcings, like the one from the variations in the Earth orbital parameters, driving such major climate changes. So, when did this happen that the globally averaged temperature at Earth’s surface changed by a multiple of the change between LGM and today within a few decades? Such large climate changes don’t just happen out of the blue.
Also, the fact that Earth’s climate has changed in its geological past by a magnitude equal or larger than the climate change caused by human activities so far, does not refute logically or empirically that human’s activities have become a factor as well, which can change Earth’s climate of equal or even potentially larger magnitude now as the forces of Nature. It’s not in contradiction to any physics.
This is Mr. Stealey’s assertion. On the other hand, there is, for instance, a whole chapter on attribution of climate change in the IPCC report 2007:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
As starting point for the ones who are really interested, in contrast to Mr. Stealey.
There is no “ample evidence”. There is no evidence at all for this accusation. A link to a “skeptic” opinion website with some colored figures and assertions is not evidence. Evidence would be something else. And no, links to 100 or more similar opinion websites wouldn’t still make it evidence.
It’s just the typical libelous smear against scientists, which usually comes from “skeptics” who don’t like the results of published scientific research, because it contradicts their fixed belief system, but who can’t refute those results on scientific grounds. Why does it not surprise me that the first comment in a reply to my first comment that I wrote here, after Mr. Watts retracted the announcement previously made on his blog that I was a “persona non grata” here, contains such defaming statements?
Mr. Stealey accuses scientists of ethical misconduct. But it’s actually his accusations that are unethical.
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-2.html
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Jim G says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:56 pm
That is what they said about Newtonian physics when they did not accept relativity.
“But now relativity is ‘consensus science’ and thus suspect in your opinion, right?
I take it that you did not read the link I gave you http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf and missed the great opportunity for some free education in modern cosmology. Your loss.”
I am a certified firearms trainer and though I am good with a bow, do not attempt to teach its use to others. I suggest you do likewise and stay within your area of expertise. By the way, do you still suspect the local missing dark matter may be hiding inside the sun?
Jim G says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
stay within your area of expertise.
Physics is my expertise. You might still benefit from studying the link I gave you http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf as it is very accessible.
By the way, do you still suspect the local missing dark matter may be hiding inside the sun?
DM may not be missing in the solar system, but present everywhere. Possibly billions of DM particles will have passed through you when you are finished reading this comment.
The average dark matter density in the universe is about the mass of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The solar wind contains 5 million atoms per cubic meter so on the scale of the Solar System the effect of the dark matter is entirely negligible. It’s only when you get to interstellar distances that it starts becoming significant.
Perlwitz says:
“By deliberately choosing the y-scale disproportionally large or putting the variations into a misleading context one can make it appear as if it was nothing. The same would be true then for Archibald’s 1740 temperatures, though. These kind of dirty tricks just don’t prove anything.”
===============================
The honest y-axis I posted [from two different sources] is not “disproportionately large”, it is in degrees [AKA: the “Normal Form”] — not in tenths, or hundredths of a degree — which are not even outside the error bands of the thermometers used. Thus, the “dirty tricks” are those Perlwitz employs when using minuscule fractions of a degree to hand-wave about. The links I provided above show the temperature as it really is, not supposed temperatures under a bogus magnifying glass.
The difference between Perlwitz’ baseless assertions and everything I wrote in my July 7, 2013, 5:06 pm comment is that my comments were completely factual, supported by corroborating links. Those links render Perlwitz’ self-serving IPCC opinions irrelevant.
The fact remains that the planet has stopped warming for at least sixteen years now, even as CO2 continues to rise. The NY Times, the Economist, and many other publications now admit that global warming has stopped. Even über-alarmist Phil Jones admits it. CO2 simply does not have the effect claimed by the alarmist crowd, and those still demonizing “carbon” know it. The fact that they continue their charade demonstrates their lack of basic integrity.
You fail to address the point that a drop in temperature equivalent to a single increment of the Y-axis of your linked graph would plunge the world into a catastrophic ice age. The claim about “minor fluctuations” should be considered in this context – just as Jan Perlwitz suggests (or implies).
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
—
Thanks for the link Dr. S., and congratulations. I know you’ve been working on the Sun Spot numbers series for sometime now. Why hadn’t any one seen the discrepancies between the different counting methods before?
Pretty cool checking out the telescopes and Wolf’s pocket scope.
Nice to see a collaborative effort from a somewhat international community. (did I see some Chinese letters)
Walters, I used to use the Grand Maximum mantra, I now use ‘consecutive med-high solar cycles’ to describe this period.. Dr. S. had em by the ah numbers. What a mess to have to try and straighten out at this particular epoch in the history of mankind. Like in the face of all this global warming ah stuff.
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:24 am
—
Thank you for the update and links Mr. Vuks. That is some interesting development, microcontinent.
Not what one would expect, yet not totally suprising. Now how does one go about separating Earths regular daily tectonic action, from a Solar induced reaction?
Carla says:
July 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Why hadn’t any one seen the discrepancies between the different counting methods before?
Good question. When Hoyt & Schatten came out with their Group Sunspot Number most people believed that this was the definitive series and began to use that [it also had a very convenient secular change leading up to a Grand Maximum which fitted many pet theories, e.g. about Global Warming]. Because H&S never updated their series after 1994, people eventually began to switch back to the old Wolf Series [or worse: mixed the two series]. There has been large resistance to our effort of correcting the deficiencies that everybody [in the business of making sunspot numbers] now finally agree are there. The obvious reason is that our effort invalidates [or at least makes suspect] much correlative work using the SSN as input. Final acceptance may be another solar cycle away. One reason for not ‘discovering’ the problem may be that Waldmeier claimed that he used the same counting method as the Zurich observers had used back to 1882. This claim we now know [as one could have known all along by digging into the literature] was false. Whether it was fraudulent is an open question and we may not want to go there [as it doesn’t really matter – we can just fix the numbers]. We anticipate to publish our analysis and the final [definitive, official?] series after our meeting in Locarno [Switzerland] next year.
John Finn says:
“…a single increment of the Y-axis of your linked graph would plunge the world into a catastrophic ice age.”
What “single increment” would that be? One degree? That is the single, smallest increment in the graphs I posted. And, one degree up? Or down? You don’t say.
Whether you are referring to a 1ºC, or to a 1ºF increment [I linked to charts showing both], your statement is still incorrect. A one-degree fluctuation is normal, natural, and to be expected. It has happened before and it will happen again.
The planet has warmed more than 1ºF since the beginning of the industrial revolution, causing no global harm whatsoever. It could easily retrace that rise, and we would be no worse off than we were during the American Revolutionary War. Note that we were not “plunged into a catastropic ice age” then, despite the planet being 1º colder than now. And the 1º warming has not caused runaway globhal warming, as was incessantly and universally predicted by the climate alarmist crowd.
The fact is that the planet’s temperature fluctuates constantly — and naturally. If you go back beyond the Holocene, you will see much greater fluctuations, during times when CO2 remained very low, and constant.
The entire CO2-based conjecture that claims “carbon” causes global harm has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is a false alarm. The planet itself proves that beyond any doubt.
And with that deconstruction, the entire climate alarmist argument is falsified. The “carbon” conjecture has been proven to be wrong. That is all there is to it. The debate is settled in favor of skeptical scientists, and the only people who still carry on about it are arguing based on their ego, not on scientific evidence. They have been proven wrong, but they will never admit it, because it would be too damaging to their fragile egos, and to their grant income.
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:46 am
The D-O cycles’ warming period has been found to occur when there is a concurrent solar grand maximum. The cooling phase of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle occurs when there is a concurrent solar Maunder like minimum.
During recent years an explanation of D-O events have been emerging, culminating in a the publication of a plausible mechanism for D-O events [we already knew were not cyclic]: “an ice shelf acts in concert with sea ice to set the slow and fast timescales of the DO cycle, respectively. The abrupt warming at the onset of a cycle is caused by the rapid retreat of sea ice after the collapse of an ice shelf. The gradual cooling during the subsequent interstadial phase is determined by the timescale of ice-shelf regrowth. Once the ice shelf reaches a critical size, sea ice expands, driving the climate rapidly back into stadial conditions. The stadial phase ends when warm subsurface waters penetrate beneath the ice shelf and cause it to collapse. This hypothesis explains the full shape of the DO cycle, the duration of the different phases, and the transitions between them and is supported by proxy records in the North Atlantic and Nordic Seas.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
No need to invoke mysterious solar cycle connections [that don’t match anyway].
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Fraudulent? There’s no fraud in science. Ever! Scientists aren’t mere humans, motivated by base desires. Get a grip. Impossible that any “scientist”, with a PhD from a reputable institution ever could, ever would engage in fraud. Perish the thought! Especially “climate scientists”, purest of the pure, purer than driven, “black carbon”-free snow.
Need I go sarc?
dbstealey says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:17 pm
…
————–
Nice rebuttal Stealey, well said.
Vuks or Dr. S.
Got those cosmic rays on the brain asking questions.
Anyone know what the solar wind speed is at that creates a Forbush decrease. Are most of those cosmic rays flushed out the system due to re-acceleration processes? During slow solar winds are cosmic rays just pushed in and decay or burn out in the atmosphere?
milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Fraudulent? There’s no fraud in science. Ever! […] Need I go sarc?
No, because we are not going there as it does not help. Suffice it to say that Waldmeier had a very strong ego and did not tolerate dissent when it came to the sunspot number. But all that is water under the bridge and not helpful today, as the data themselves when compared to other people’s counts carry an imprint of the manipulations. Of course, there are people today also with strong egos that oppose any correction of the ‘precious historical record’. Such ‘rearguard’ reactionism is to be expected, but will eventually die away [if not sooner then literally as time goes by].
Mark Bofill opined in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1358756
What do you mean with “nice rebuttal”? Do you mean the blunt lies by Stealey like the one that it had been “incessantly and universally predicted” a 1 degree temperature increase would cause a runaway global warming, or that Phil Jones “admitted” that global warming had “stopped”?
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:24 am
—
.. Now how does one go about separating Earths regular daily tectonic action, from a Solar induced reaction?
—
Have you seen this article yet Vuks? Looks like a keeper..
Common dependence on earthquake magnitudes for the trapped
particles bursts approaching the earthquake
Ping Wang, Huanyu Wang, Yuqian Ma, Hong Lu, Xiangcheng Meng,
Jilong Zhang, Hui Wang, Feng Shi, Yanbing Xu, Xinqiao Li, Xiaoxia
Yu, Xiaoyun Zhao, Feng Wu, Zhenghua An, Wenqi Jiang, Hanyi Liu
Institute of High Energy Physics,Chinese Academy of Science, 100049 Beijing, China
17 November 2012
pg2
…A variety of premonitory phenomena associated with earthquakes exhibit anomalous ef-
fects which believed to be correlated with seismic activity, such as mechanical deformation,
geochemical and hydrological precursors, and electromagnetic precursors. Recently, radi-
ation belt energetic particle fluxes showed promising sign of precursor of strong seismic
activity from past several space experiments[1–5]. These particle fluxes are characterized by
an anomalous short-term and sharp increase of high-energy particle counting rates which
are referred as particle bursts (PBs).
PBs arises when subjected to electromagnetic disturbances in space environment. For
inner radiation belt, pitch angle diffusion plays dominant role compared with other
processes[6], where trapped particles are scattered into loss cone and result in PBs events
and particle precipitation. Practically, the occurrences of PBs events are frequently in-
fluenced by many natural phenomena, such as thunderstorm or geomagnetic storm[7–10],
which could result in that earthquake origin of PBs events are difficult to distinguish from
those of non-seismic sources. Furthermore, many earthquakes indeed do not accompanied
by PBs events within time intervals between them, namely time windows, from several hours
to several days. So the validity of earthquake origin of PBs remains largely unsolved.
In this research, we investigated the frequency of PBs occurrence centered around earth-
quakes within different time windows for various magnitudes, and found essentially nearly
the same systematic dependence of PBs frequency on earthquake magnitude and its char-
acteristic time evolution behavior. These findings indicated that PBs events approaching
earthquakes are positively correlated with earthquake magnitude and its average number
is uniformly decreased with time from the beginning of earthquake events. Our results
more directly related the PBs events with earthquake and should strengthen the validity of
earthquake origin of PBs events..
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1796.pdf
Hope I have some time later today to finish reading this one. Notice the radiation belts mention above among the many other things. Still playing in the radiation belts. Gotta get back to IBEX..
I think the interesting lesson is not just 1740 – but how the 1740s and subsequent decades differed from the 1730s. Temperatures in 1740 may have been affected by volcanic dust, but the Central England Temperature (CET) record shows a very significant ‘shift’ in climate that occurred abruptly at the end of the 1730s. The decade to 1739 (1730-39) had a mean CET of 9.86C (49.7F). This is only 0.34c (0.7F) lower than the most recent ten years (2003-12). That gives you some perspective how warm the 1730s were. In sharp contrast the ten years ending 1748 had cooled by one whole degree C to 8.83C. There was some recovery afterwards but renewed cold continued into the early 19th Century with peak cooling in the ten years ended 1772 (8.74c) and 8.67C in the ten years ended 1817.
To me that is the lesson of 1740 and onwards – how quickly climate can change. The journals of Thomas Barker of Lyndon Hall, Rutland, England (in the Midlands of England) made detailed climate observations during this whole period and spoke of the significant ‘change in the weather’ during these years.
Chris Martin says:
July 9, 2013 at 5:42 am
Exactly. There was a regime change. Any volcanic activity was a coincidence. One whole degree would shift growing conditions 150 km-odd south. Scotland would cop it.
With respect to the radiation belts, SAA and tectonics..
The Beatles “Fixing a Hole”
hi ho hi ho
Jan P Perlwitz says:
July 8, 2013 at 8:40 pm
…
————————-
Oh, hi there Jan. 🙂 I’ve missed you around here.
What do you make of this statement, anyway?
Do you suggest or imply this?
Mark Bofill says:
Nice rebuttal Stealey, well said.
Thank you, Mark.
Also, Perlwitz calls my comment a lie, which only reflects badly on the proven liar Jan Perlwitz. I do not lie. But Perlwitz suffers from psychological projection: as Anthony has pointed out, he lied when he denied his connection to GISS:
“…you have previously refused to acknowledge you work for [GISS], even though you are listed in the GISS directory, have a GISS phone number, and have a NASA GISS email address.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html
Your denial is epic.” – Anthony
And of course, contrary to what Perlwitz falsely claims, Phil Jones admitted that global warming stopped at least fifteen years ago: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.” ~Phil Jones, admitting that global warming has stopped.
With mendacious incompetents staffing GISS, it is no wonder they are forced to resort to lying about the temperature record through their devious “adjustments” in order to keep the fake climate scare alive. It is truly scandalous that our tax money is used to keep such prevaricators emitting their false climate propaganda.
Now Perlwitz is on another personal campaign — once again apparently using taxpayer-paid time — to denigrate and attack Dr. Salby throughout the work day on another thread. Is that what Perlwitz is paid to do? I personally doubt it. But the time stamps speak for themselves.
Your “minor fluctuation” comment linked to this graph
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Each increment on the Y-axis appears to be 10deg F.
John Finn says:
“Each increment on the Y-axis appears to be 10deg F.”
No. Each 10 degrees is labeled. But you can discern 1º increments between the 10) labels. Further, you ignore the second chart I posted.
This comment relates to the misleading graph posted by dbsealey, i.e.
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Note the vertical (Y) axis is incremented by 10 units. The graph indicates a global temperature of just under 60 degrees – implying that each increment represents 10 degrees F.
The last glacial maximum saw mean global temperatures fall by about 5 degrees C (9 degrees F). In other words one increment on dbsealey’s graph represents the difference between modern day temperatures and those during the last ice age. Not content with one totally misleading and inappropriate graph, dbsealey then links to another (see Goldilocks comment) which this time uses increments of 5 degree C, so again a fall in temperature equivalent to one increment would be enough to plunge us into a catastrophic ice age – which is exactly what I said in my earlier post.
1. In the first graph the sub-increments are 2 degrees F. But, in any case, the choice of scale is totally inappropriate. The earth’s mean temperature has remained within a range of no greater than 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) over the past several million years yet your graph uses a scale between 0 and 120 degrees F. Why not use the Kelvin scale then you go from 0 to over 300 K? Your graph is meaningless junk.
2. The second graph uses increment of 5 degrees C so same criticism applies.
In both graphs the ‘labelled’ increments represent huge differences in earth’s climate.
John Finn says:
“This comment relates to the misleading graph posted by dbsealey”
John Finn, I suggest you quit digging your hole. If what you meant was that a 10-degree decline in global temperatures would cause a new stadial, then say what you mean. Otherwise, you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole with your own misleading nitpicking over ‘increments’.
I am fully capable of continuing to bruise your ego over this issue, just keep on with your comments about my so-called ‘misleading graph’ and we will see where this goes [and as noted above, I posted two graphs that show the same thing]. But if what you meant to say was that a global change of ten degrees would have a catastrophic effect, then just say so, and we will be on the same page.
Finally, thank you for pointing out that the current global temperature id decidedly on the cool side:
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/globaltemp.jpg
that’s pretty much what I did say … and I also said that the graphs you linked to used increments on the vertical axis of 10 degrees F and 5 degrees C respectively. I also claimed (correctly) that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. Finally I’d like to add that nonsense like this does nothing to add to the debate and is generally damaging to the sceptic case.
John Finn,
You are wrong [and your comment of “pretty much” what you meant doesn’t cut it. Your comment was sloppy].
You originally wrote:
“…a single increment of the Y-axis…”
As everyone can see, the y-axis is divided into discrete 2º increments, with each ten degrees labeled for easy reference. And as we can see, 1º out of each 2º increment can be plainly seen. Further, my handy on-line dictionary defines ‘increment’ as: An increase or addition, esp. one on a fixed scale. A discrete increase. That exactly defines each ‘discrete increment’. Sorry about that, if you don’t like the definition, go argue with the dictionary. If there were no discrete divisions between each ten degree marker, you might have a leg to stand on. In this case, you do not.
The fact is that you screwed up with your sloppy original comment, which I read literally. But now you are trying to back and fill by trying to contradict the dictionary definition. Next time, maybe you will be more careful with the language you use when commenting on the charts that I posted. And I note that you have posted none of your own. Post your own charts, and you can define them. I will define per the dictionary the charts that I post. Within reason, of course. I am nothing if not reasonable.
Finally, I refer you to the essence of my argument, as stated above:
“The entire CO2-based conjecture that claims “carbon” causes global harm has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is a false alarm. The planet itself proves that beyond any doubt.”
You can go on nitpicking about what you mistakenly believe ‘discrete increment’ means; no one else but you cares. The important point is that the false alarm regarding the putative effect of “carbon” has been decisively deconstructed: CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming at current concentrations. None at all. And with that verifiable scientific fact, your entire belief system has been falsified.