From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
“Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”
The sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why. Solar activity is in gradual decline, a change from the norm which in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age. We are supposed to be at a peak of activity, at solar maximum. The current situation, however, is outside the norm and the number of sunspots seems in steady decline. The sun was undergoing “bizarre behaviour” said Dr Craig DeForest of the society. “It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,” said Dr David Hathaway of Nasa. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
The fall-off in sunspot activity still has the potential to affect our weather for the worse, Dr Elliott said. “It all points to perhaps another little ice age,” he said. “It seems likely we are going to enter a period of very low solar activity and could mean we are in for very cold winters.” And while the researchers in the US said the data showed a decline in activity, they had no way to predict what that might mean for the future. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,” says David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, who analysed the same data and came to the same conclusion. “We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place but understanding it is now a focus.” As for when the next Maunder minimum may happen, DeToma will not even hazard a guess. “We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.” –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment. The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots – a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead, it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so. –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
A number of authors think it is probable that the sun is headed for a grand minimum similar to the Maunder-Minimums of 1649-1715. That may already manifest itself in 2020. There have been studies that attempt to project the impacts on global temperatures. Included here is a study by Meehl et al. 2013. The authors look at an approximately 0.25% reduction in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 2020 and 2070: They fed this into a climate model. Result: global temperatures could drop around 0.2-0.3 degrees Celsius with local peak values of up to 0.8°C, especially in the middle and upper latitudes of the northern hemispheres. –Frank Bosse, NoTricksZone, 14 July 2013
When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather”. Those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 10 July 2013
It’s looking like Landsheidt’s odd ideas, fine tuned by Carl Smith, may have some validity after all.
Now is the time to try to figure out a mechanism for the effect.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
Most likely a Dalton minimum is likely to occur. This guy is on the case
http://t.co/3oLO0Kd0Ku
Looks like some people hadn’t noticed the Gore Minimum yet.
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
I say this one 2014- 2050??
Reply
I do not understand why cycle 25 is projected to be so low. Such a weak cycle seems to be out of line with anything from the historical record, so how has this projection been arrived at?
One wonders how der Fuehrer can keep the AGW faith and still believe in “carbon pollution” in the face of all this evidence that climate is going and will keep going the other way despite continuing increases in CO2.
But the answer is simple. It is central to der Fuehrer’s objectives of destroying the economy, putting an end to constitutional rights, and making sure that Soweto residents never get to drive SUVs.
Just curious… has anyone done any research to try to ascertain what the sun was (or wasn’t) doing during the last full-blown ice-age? I know that was over 11,000 years ago, so obtaining any sort of meaningful data would be quite difficult and would probably have to be done by some sort of isotope proxies or something like that.
It seems like some scientists theorize that when the sun “takes a short nap” we get something like the LIA, but does it require the sun to go into hibernation for a few thousand years to get a full-blown ice age, or is solar activity “normal” during one of those?
The global warming crowd had lists of things to do to combat warming. Lists of things to do to reduce your “harmful” carbon footprint in order to fight the dreaded warming.
Ok, so, if it’s now “global cooling”, what can we do? Do we now do the OPPOSITE proposed by these lists in order to combat global cooling? Do I turn my heat up? Do I buy big-block V-8 engines? Do I eat lots of red meat? Do we build coal-fired electric generating plants?
I mean, like, what DO we do? If it was assumed man could stop global warming by doing “A”, then man must be able to stop global cooling by doing “-A”? Isn’t this logical?
Wait for the German translation into English and get the book.
Two great Solar pages for data,
ONE is listed all the time on the right of the wuwt site… http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Second has some very interesting info on past cycles and upcoming #25 http://www.landscheidt.info/
@PeterB
Dr. Peter Harris may have the answer for you:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Probability_of_Sudden_Global_Cooling.pdf
Ah! What passes for journalism these days.
[For the Record, 10:43 a.m. PDT, July 12: An earlier version of this online post said the American Astrological Society had asked solar scientists to discuss the solar maximum. It was the American Astronomical Society.]
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-solar-cycle-in-100-years-20130711,0,6978639.story
Matthew Ridley, quoted above from the “The Australian”, has put his finger on the reason that the climate alarmists will not go away. The truth is that global warming is now a cult.
More serial stupidity from mainstream science.
Now the sun is acting “bizarre” , that gives them an excuse for the models being wrong. Having spent the last 30 years laughing loudly at anyone ridiculous enough to suggest the warming trend from 1974- 1997 might be linked to solar variations, they now have to pretend this kind of behaviour which was recorded already as little as 100 years ago is somehow “bizarre”.
Of course how could they possibly have anticipated the sun going “bizarre”?
All this is to subtly sidesteps the fact that having said for 30 years it was nothing to do with the sun, suddenly they wish to invoke it to explain the “slow down”.
Barefaced hypocrisy for the most part.
Well that the Naked Socialist defends the dogma contains no new information. (Hmm, shouldn’t that be bad for sales? Maybe they have other sources of funding, maybe a foundation like the WaPo. Didn’t check who owns them. Don’t want to.)
I’d like to suggest another possibility, just for giggles: A real glaciation. (We have never left the Ice Age as there is ice at the poles. But we left the last glaciation.) At a certain point, something must trigger the flip into the glaciated stage. Imagine it happens in the next few years. How fast would it be? Allegedly it’s happening within a few years. And it’s overdue – we have no clue why the current warm time persists for so long.
Cycle 24 is closer to the 1900 cycle which makes the drop more clear and consistent with earlier minimums. It is overstated in that second graph. Cycles 23 an 22 follow the Hathaway amplitudes, but 24 looks like 90 rather than reality of 65-70.
comment,
your byline graphic shows a measured amplitude of 60 (so far) but your second graphic only goes up to about 10. seems like you need a new second long-period graphic to be more correct.
The interesting thing to me here is that since 2003, solar activity has been just about identical as the period between 1893 and 1905.
and yet global land surface temperatures during this period look like this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2001&endtrendyear=2012
as though there is simply no explaination for it. . ..
I see that the experts know what will happen in the future even though they haven’t got a clue what is happening.
They are full of bullshit!
Could someone tell Dreamworks that they named their films wrong? They should have been called “Glaciation”, “Glaciation 2” etc…
I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard will be here shortly to provide his viewpoint.
His belief, as I understand it: . Only TSI (total Solar Irradiance)
matters, and since he has stated that TSI accounts for only about 0.1
degrees C., he is at least in a position to put up a good fight for
his viewpoint.
Given the various and rather long periods of glaciation over the last 2.5 million years, the actual normal state of the earth is to have two, 5-million square mile, 2-mile think ice sheets – one plunked over Canada, and the other plunked in Siberia and northern Europe. Maybe the trigger is that the Sun goes quiet just at the right time when the earth’s eccentricity is just right. I hear tell that rampant glaciation can come within one generation – 20 years. We shall see. Popcorn? Anyone?
If you go way back to the Oort minimum, and look at all the subsequent minima, it looks like we have an alternation between deep and shallow grand minima, with very near 13 solar cycles from a deep to a shallow, and then 20 solar cycles to the next deep. On that basis this one will be a deep, like the Maunder. However the Maunder occured very near the bottom of the 1100 year cycle, while this one will be much closer to the top. It should get cold, but not as cold as the Maunder and probably not as long lasting. However the next 80 or so years are likely to average cooler than the last 30+ years, and then we can probably expect a new warm period warmer than the last 30+ years. Murray
Among other things the length of the previous cycle can be used to make a pretty good prediction for the strength of the next one. If you look at the graph you will see that the cycles always slow before a big dip. The shape of cycle 24 predicted a very low strength for cycle 25.
The post-affluent era will be more obvious at about the same time cooling is. Until then vote buying and demonization still rule.
“It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,”
===
oh good grief….no wonder you think it’s “unusual” when that’s all you have
those peaks and troughs look fairly evenly spaced to me..and the overall trend is down
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
Add to that negative PDO and AMO which are likely to persist during the coming decades. It’s going to be cold.
I see no strong El Niños in the coming years. http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/ENSO-forecast-April-2013.jpg Maybe a weak El Niño starting at the end if this year.
No it is not variations in TSI which drives solar influence on the climate. In my view this is caused by variations in the magnetic field, the solar winds and possible by variations in the UV-TSI value.
The coming decade is going to be interesting.
sorry, meant to post this like as a comparison with the last time the sun was operating at such a low level of incident radiation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1905&endtrendyear=2012
‘ Sun’s Bizarre Activity May Trigger Another Little Ice Age (Or Not)’ that will be a not then!
Sun’s quiet spell not the start of a mini ice age
‘Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment. The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots – a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead, it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so.
Sunspots – dark patches that appear on the sun’s surface due to intense magnetic fields – are the seat of solar activity and can affect Earth’s climate in a number of ways , although the size of the effect is debated. They virtually disappeared between 1645 and 1715, a period now known as the Maunder minimum. Simultaneously, Northern Europe experienced the worst winters of the Little Ice Age, a period of exceptionally cold weather that began in the 16th century, leading some to suggest that a similar, prolonged sunspot minimum could offset global warming.’
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23865-suns-quiet-spell-not-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age.html#.UeLUT21TsRw
GlynnMhor…
I was into Landscheit over a decade ago. His correlations were excellent and he predicted this low solar cycle before his death in 2004 (I think it was). The solar physics community seem not to like him too much because his solar physics wasn’t very good. Of course neither is their solar physics any good so this doubles the dislike he seems to get from those who get it wrong!
To me Landscheidt is the Wegner (of continental drift fame) of real climate change and one day, probably after the solar system barycentric/solar physics theory is sorted out, his contribution to a proper understanding of solar activity and climate modulation will be recognised.
Unfortunately by this time we could well be dead and buried under mile high glaciers courtesy of the global warmists.
Stay cool!
There sure are a lot of predictions here. I don’t know a thing about this subject, but I do know how to read graphs and how to look at trends. So, I’m voting for a grand minimum that is at least as extreme as the Maunder Minimum and may well be the precursor of the next 100,000 years of ice. Brrrr! Glad I’ll be gone before it all gets underway with a vengeance.
What is a reasonable period of time to grasp the nature of sun cycles? The thing is 4.6 billion years old. We aimed a telescope at it in the 1600’s.
We don’t know what we don’t know about the sun but it it certainly much more than we know.
One more piece of an insanely complex puzzle. Thousands of variables, all acting on one another, in ways we have barely begun to understand.
Meanwhile, our politicians move to disassemble the fossil fuel grid based on the assumption that it will get warmer.
But what happens if it gets cooler instead?
blackadderthe4th says:July 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Sun’s quiet spell not the start of a mini ice age.
(Plus quotes from New Scientist.)
___________________________________________
Rule No1:
Never believe anything in New Scientist. They are the science propaganda wing of Greenpeace.
Rule No2:
The truth is the opposite of what the BBC says. They are the media propaganda wing of Greenpeace.
If you abide by those two rules, the reality of all politics and science becomes obvious.
.
Riki says:
July 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm
One more piece of an insanely complex puzzle. Thousands of variables, all acting on one another, in ways we have barely begun to understand.
Meanwhile, our politicians move to disassemble the fossil fuel grid based on the assumption that it will get warmer.
But what happens if it gets cooler instead?
==========
Ummm, higher taxes ? 🙂
From the lead post:
I choose option/article number six by Matt Ridley.
Salvatore Del Prete,
I have been pretty much in agreement with you for many years but I have another crackpot theory behind the cooling mechanism which I drag out from time to time. I am not well enough these days to attempt the necessary quantification but it came about when I discovered that the coronal resistivity, normally a constant called the Spitzer resistivity, is in fact six orders of magnitude higher when associated with lateral flare currents which obviously we get more of during solar maxima and grand maxima periods. That means it is about the same as the resistivity of sea water!
Going back to school and realising that solar flare currents are relatively small structures not so far off the size of oceans we realise that by the maximum power transfer theorem that these currents can be coupled directly through the geo/helio magnetic field coupling transformer and directly heat the oceans via electrolysis. The skin depth is about 300 metres. So a more active sun has this secondary mechanism to heat up the planet.
Further when the suns magnetic field weakens the coupling which is proportional to both geo/helio field stregths the coupled currents weaken and we might get a Maunder or a Dalton. When the geomagnetic field goes on holiday during an excursion or reversal the product of the field strengths and therefore coupling of these ocean currents equals zero and we get an ice age trigger.
Such a simple idea. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG SOMEBODY.
BTW if anybody would like to do the obvious experiment and measure these currents which by Ohms law are proportional to the voltage between a sea surface electrode and one in the depths do not assume this induced current will be low frequency. I would look out to about 1 MHz because the lateral flare currents are based on much smaller structures.
Leif Svalgaard has no clue when it comes to solar /climate relationships, in addition he keeps trying to compare solar cycle 24 with solar cycle 14 and they are not even close.
Solar cycle 24 is as weak if not weaker then solar cycle 5 associated wit the Dalton Minimum .
I expect the maximum of solar cycle 24 to be coming to a close within the next 6 months and then we go down ,down, down.
I expect 20 + years of solar flux readings failing to break 100 and may be below 72 for a good part of the time, once the very weak solar maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by. The climate will follow , not just due to a decrease in solar irradiance(.2%+) but all the secondary effects associated wit a weak sun, from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation, to an increase in cosmic rays,a cold PDO more El Ninos.
ALL OF WHICH WIL CONSPIRE TO BRING GLOBAL TEMP. DOWN.
Reduced energy in the earth climatic system will also lessen the greenhouse gas effect due to less co2 and water vapor being present in the atmosphere due to colder oceanic water temperatures.
At the same time the albedo of the earth will be on the increase due to more clouds, ice and snow coverage. This connected to cosmic rays increasing, linked to a weak solar wind(350 km/sec or less) and a more meridional atmospheric circulation , which is linked to changes in ozone concentrations, which is linked to changes in UV light , which is shown to be off upwards of 50% in extreme solar minimum periods in the extreme short UV light wavelengths .
Volcanic activity will put more SO2 into the atm. which will also contribute to global cooling.
Also the weakening ,unstable earth magnetic field will only compound the quiet magnetic solar effects.
This current cycle is at least as quiet as solar cycle 5 more then 200 years ago.
l don’t know if this is linked to low sun activity.
But what’s been of real interest in terms of weather is the large increase in ‘cut off ‘ lows we have been getting. lt looks like we could have up to 4 forming over the next 7 days.
lf this is a start of a growing trend then the risk of cooling has just gone up. As this is likely to lead to increase in cloud cover and push this cloud cover further to the south then otherwise would of been the case.
The current “consensus” is that the earth is warming because of a “greenhouse gas”, the evil CO2, so we must reduce CO2 emissions; so to save the earth we have to have ever higher taxes on fuel and energy.
When the changes in the sun’s output make the earth cooler the greenhouse gas theory/dogma means that we can counter the cooling by increasing CO2 emissions; so to save the earth we need to abolish taxes on fuel and energy.
I’m tempted to join the consensus, or have I missed something.
According to some, this is the answer.
(sorry couldn’t resist, enjoy)
Good grief, guys, it’s only curve-fitting with no model for the underlying physics. Believe anything you want, but pretending to know is nonsense.
How does the climate change, probably not slow and gradual but in jerks as thresholds are met or at least approached. If the duration and degree of magnitude of the prolonged solar minimum is great enough then all the items I have mentioned along with solar conditions themselves will be able to phase enough(cold mode in this case) to perhaps bring the climate to some sort of thresholds.
We know this has happened many times in the past and the route cause of climatic change is solar/ and geomagnetic field changes. Weak fields equating to a cold climate, while strong fields equate to a warm climate.
THE YOUNGA DRYAS – shows a large spike in both C14 and Beryllium , which are associated in large part to an increase in cosmic rays and thus weak solar/geomagnetic fields.
The only explanation is changes in the sun and secondary effects associated with changes in the sun and to a lesser extent the geomagnetic field of the earth.
Again thresholds are probably brought about both up and down as phasing goes on, sometimes big changes sometimes small changes or some times climate change within the same climatic regime if no real thresholds are crossed.
This period of time (started in year 2005 with the prolonged solar minimum) features a chance to bring the climate to threshold levels and will at the very least show a cooling. I say global temp. by decade end will be off -.7c as a whole with the greatest declines in the Northern Hemisphere High Latitudes, smallest declines in the Southern Hemisphere..
OCEAN HEAT CONTNET – slow to decrease and is one of the reasons why the climate responds to changes in solar conditions with a lag time. The strength of visible light directly related to ocean heat content, which has leveled off and will start a slow gradual decline for a least 30+ years .
I forgot to tick the boxes – useful in the unlikely event that anyone should reply…..
“The sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why.”
The sun is being the SUN and will do what it goddam wants to, the warministas’ pathetic “models” and the “scientists’ ” lack of knowledge be damned.
I do wish they’d GROW UP.
Tom Jones: Curve fitting maybe, but these people are making predictions – speculation and short term predictions based on theories that they feel better explain what drives climate than does the ‘CO2 is evil’ theory. Good for them.
Eco geek and Per Strandberg and most of the people on this board have a better understanding of the climate then the clowns of the IPCC., clueless people with clueless models.
AGW Theory will be OBSOLETE before this decade ends.
About 10 years ago I derived single equation (based on the astronomic orbital parameters of two gas giants Jupiter & Saturn) which appear to correctly identify two apparently independent properties of the sunspot activity
– distribution and sequence of long minima and low cycles
– North/South hemisphere asymmetry
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MM.htm
surprisingly including the distinct appearance of the Maunder Minimum.
I am not in prediction business, but I do give certain credence to short term extrapolations.
Extrapolation of the above equation identifies next solar minimum activity period coinciding with next SC minimum around 2020, but in no way it is indicated as the Maunder type minimum, more like the Dalton.
Further extrapolation suggests a possible MM as 2185-2235.
See also http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
This bloke seems to know what he is talking about. Updated daily. This was uploaded yesterday:
Julian in Wales says:
July 15, 2013 at 12:16 pm
I do not understand why cycle 25 is projected to be so low. Such a weak cycle seems to be out of line with anything from the historical record, so how has this projection been arrived at?
=====================
Good question: I think you can find much of the answer at http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml. ISTR that there are also some solar measurements that may be predictive of cycle 26 and that they are dismal. I don’t know if that’s science, pseudo-science, or an overactive imagination on my part. I’ll leave that for you to research if you care to
NASA AND IPCC both are way off.
The Layman sunspot count is the only one that should be used, since they count the sunspots the same today as in the past.
NASA, for some reason cannot except the ANGULAR MOMENTUM THEORY, which states the angular momentum exerted by the four large gas planets on the sun causes the sun to go into periods of high and low sunspot activity. Past history support this.
The IPCC has no explanation on the other hand that can reconcile the large temperature swings of the past many times greater then the past 100 years with their present ridiculous explanation(AGW THEORY A JOKE) as to why the temperatures of the globe rose .6c over the past 100 years.
It is worth noting that in 2006 Hathaway (NASA) predicted that this sunspot cycle would peak in 2010 at around 150. In light of subsequent events, a new-found humility about predicting these things is understandable.
Julian in Wales says:
July 15, 2013 at 12:16 pm
“I do not understand why cycle 25 is projected to be so low. Such a weak cycle seems to be out of line with anything from the historical record, so how has this projection been arrived at?”
I’ve asked this before. No response from Hathaway or Archibald, both show same.
Seems almost Catastrophic Global Cooling Excitment, something a Hansen-Gore could jump on for social reengineering and/or public speaking purposes.
Doug Proctor says:
July 15, 2013 at 3:37 pm
–Seems almost Catastrophic Global Cooling Excitment, something a Hansen-Gore could jump on for social reengineering and/or public speaking purposes.–
totally agree. worse still, if they want to continue the AGW scam, they will just say the ‘cooling’ is masking the warming or some such equivalent Bulldust!
“No it is not variations in TSI which drives solar influence on the climate. In my view this is caused by variations in the magnetic field, the solar winds and possible by variations in the UV-TSI value.
The coming decade is going to be interesting”
per strandberg post
I agree and have done for years!
http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Solar Activity – Past, Present, Future
exactly although Tsi i think can contribute some if low enough .I think each .1% change in solar irradiance equates to a .2c change in temp.
I have estimates of up to .3% or .4% change in solar irradaince at the height of the Maunder Minimum and I know it was off .15% in the 2009-2010 lull.
Archibald made a prediction for Cycle 25 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/
Leif didn’t buy it, because it presumed a “grand maximum” in the 20th century, which Leif claims is now discredited:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/#comment-875810
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/#comment-875836
Here’s a quote from the latest post on my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
“The point of most interest in Fig 3 is the present temperature peak and the MWP peak at 1000 AD which correlate approximately with a solar millenial cycle .The various minima of the Little Ice age and the Dalton minimumof the early 19th century also show up well.
It is not a great stretch of the imagination to propose that the 20th century warming peaked in about 2003 and that that peak was a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles.On the basis that the sequence from 1000- 2000 may be about to repeat – and also referring to the Oulu cosmic ray related neutron count time series the following climate forecasts may be made .
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder
Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
For a dicussion of the effects of cooling on future weather patterns see the 30 year Climate Forecast 2 Year update at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2012/07/30-year-climate-forecast-2-year-update.html
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgement comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others.A past record of successful forecasting is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that, inevitably ,certainty drops rapidly.”
LEIF SVALGAARD DOES NOT USE THE CORRECT SUNSPOT COUNT WHICH IS THE LAYMAN SUNSPOT COUNT.
LEIF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SOLAR /CLIMATIC RELATIONSHIPS
LEIF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE ROUTE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SOLAR MAGNETIC/GEOMAGETIC FIELD STRENGTH AND ALL THE SECONDARY EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM , AND HOW THEY PHASE OVER TIME CREATING THRESHOLDS,WHICH I HAVE POSTED ON THIS BOARD MANY TIMES TODAY.
LEIF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CLIMATE CHANGES ABRUPTLY AND IN JERKS NOT SLOW AND GRADUAL AND THAT PAST CLIMATIC SWINGS WERE MANY MANY TIMES BIGGER THEN THIS PAST CENTURY .6C RISE.
LEIF DOES NOT BELIEVE IN PAST HISTORY .LOOK AT THE MAUNDER AND DALTON MINIMUM . COMPARE TEMP TO SOLAR ACTIVITY
LEIF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE ICE AGE OR AT LEAST A SUBSTANCIAL COOLING WILL BE COMING STARTING PROBABLY IN 2014 AND GOING TO AT LEAST 2040 ONCE THE VERY WEAK MAXIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24 PASSES BY.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:05 pm
and I know it [TSI] was off .15% in the 2009-2010 lull.
“It is not what you know that gets you in trouble, it is what you that ain’t”.
Recent analysis of degradation of TSI sensors show that the observed decrease is an artifact of a wrong model for the degradation of the sensor, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf slides 31-33: “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008 !”
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:14 pm
LEIF SVALGAARD DOES NOT USE THE CORRECT SUNSPOT COUNT
When your argument is weak, raise your voice [i.e. shout with capital letters…]
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
Leif prove me wrong.
Leif this present prolonged solar minimum will settle all of thse issues. We will see who is correct and who is not.
If we were to enter an ice-age or mini ice-age, I would expect warning years. Warning years being abrupt changes, maybe two or three out of ten to fifty years being excruciatingly cold before the massive change takes control and establish dominance over lesser cycles.
I see this in terms of power, a massive signal over-riding and modulating the lesser cycles.
One of the things about climate that seems abundantly clear is that ice-ages arer brusque while warming is slower by comparison.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Leif prove me wrong.
That is asking a lot from somebody you say doesn’t know anything, but suffice it to say that you are not even wrong [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ]. In any case the Sun and the Earth will provide the answers soon enough, should you care to notice.
DR. NORMAN PAGE- ice to hear from you. We are close , as seems to be the case for most of us on this board.
Solar cycle 24 is as weak if not weaker then solar cycle 5 associated with the Dalton Minimum.
You have to use the Layman sunspot count to get the true picture.
All I can say watch out, everything seems to be coming together, the set-up is in,now we will have to see the climate reaction! Exciting times lie ahead.
I expect a -.7 c drop for global temp. by decade end, if solar conditions are as quiet as I think they will be. Higher in the N.H High Latitudes, less in the S.H
Vuk,
Am I dreaming, or did you just explain your wiggle-grams before presenting them?
I’m tempted to push the “Like” button (for “short term extrapolations”).
:-]
Leif , I should have said someone that disagrees with me.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:38 pm
I should have said someone that disagrees with me.
Are there any who does not?
Doug Proctor says:
July 15, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Try this WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/
Livingstone and Penn, esteemed solar researchers, predict that Solar Cycle 25 will have a peak amplitude of 7. As far as I know, that remains the only estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude in the public domain. My generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the next will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. We are witnesses to the end of the Modern Warm Period. What follows a warm period is a cold period. How cold? Hear what Libby and Pandolfi say,” Easily one or two degrees,” she replied,”and maybe even three or four degrees.”
We can thank the warmers for one thing. Their idiotic claims resulted in people figuring out what is actually going to happen, condensing decades of discovery in climate science down to a few short years. As a civilization, we are still going to blunder into this cold period but at least we will know what is causing it as it happens.
It is now more than two years since Altrock published his green corona emissions diagram. The last time, he and Hill pointed out that the sun is going to sleep. Altrock said that the solar process they track is 40% slower for Solar Cycle 24 than the average of the previous two cycles. Slower means longer. Longer means that Solar Cycle 25 will be colder again. Altrock can’t publish his diagram again because it will be used against the warmers and there is a war on coal underway. Nationl Solar Observatory funding would be at risk. Can anybody get an updated version of Altrock’s diagram from the NSA?
Now is the time to ask Lenin’s question: What is to be done? Well, not even the Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled enough.
[snip – too stupid to publish – try resubmitting with references to your claims – mod]
New mantras for warmists escaping CCAGW to jump onto the “sun is cooling-earth is freezing” wagon for the next round of grants;
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,”
“We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place but understanding it is now a focus.”
“We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.”
“The models do not work.”
“If I do not know what I am talking about I will SHUT UP!”
“Do not tax the sun”
To be repeated every day with morning exercises!!
Dr Norman Page says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Schatten and Tobiska were the first to use the “M” word back in 2003:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
” The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
The reason many solar experts are predicting solar cycle #25 will be the start of another Grand Solar Minimum is that the Sun’s Umbral Magnetic Field (UMF-the force that holds sunspots together) has been crashing by about 50 gauss/yr and currently stand at about 2,000.
Penn and Livingston believe that when the UMF falls below 1,500 gauss, the magnetic field will become too weak for sunspots to form and that they’ll virtually disappear altogether as they did during the Maunder Minimum.
Isn’t it amazing that 20th Century warming took place during the strongest 63-yr string (1933-1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years and that the global warming trend stopped the year after these strong solar cycles ended, despite 1/3rd of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 were emitted since 1996?
It’s almost as if solar cycles rather than CO2 controls the Earth’s climate. Imagine that….
We can’t explain why nature is diverging from our confident model forecasts, don’t fully understand long-term solar behavior, and can’t fully account for natural climate oscillations, but we’re absolutely certain that a little ice age is not imminent.
SAMURAI says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Isn’t it amazing that 20th Century warming took place during the strongest 63-yr string (1933-1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years
Except that this ‘string’ was not the strongest in 11,400 years: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
mesoman30 says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:07 pm
We can’t explain why nature is diverging from our confident model forecasts, don’t fully understand long-term solar behavior, and can’t fully account for natural climate oscillations, but we’re absolutely certain that a little ice age is not imminent.
No, you have that all wrong. Because of all the things you mention that we do not understand, we cannot claim that a little ice age is imminent.
Eco-Geek,
Here is an interesting paper about energy transfer between the Sun and the Earth by magnetic means: http://obsn3.on.br/sergio/artigos%20MT/electrical%20conductivity%20models%20of%20the%20crust%20and%20mantle.
DirkH says:
July 15, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I’d like to suggest another possibility, just for giggles: A real glaciation. (We have never left the Ice Age as there is ice at the poles. But we left the last glaciation.) At a certain point, something must trigger the flip into the glaciated stage. Imagine it happens in the next few years. How fast would it be? Allegedly it’s happening within a few years. And it’s overdue – we have no clue why the current warm time persists for so long.
Albedo rules the climate. Which in practice means clouds + snow/ice. Although the relationship between the two is somewhat complex and poorly understood, and differs substantially between the hemispheres.
Antarctic sea is currently 1.217 million sq km or 9% above the anomaly. That is a big albedo change.
An article on hemisphere climate differences during the Holocene, which indicates southern and northern hemispheres warm and cool in opposite phase. Ignore the AGW hand wringing.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=190231
Antarctic sea ice is currently 1.217 million sq km or 9% above the anomaly.
“And while the researchers in the US said the data showed a decline in activity, they had no way to predict what that might mean for the future. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013”,
This is the result of using statistics [based on the past] to attempt to predict the future! Without a refined PHYSICAL model of the Sun, and of the Sun’s relationship to Earth’s temperature/climate, what else would one suspect?
I gave up Sunspots when I gave up toys. Now I only use 10.7cm Flux.
Remember, measure the area under the Flux curve over the ~11 year cycle to determine energy into the Earth System.
Flux > 130 -> temperature increases.
Flux 100 to 130 -> temperature constant.
Flux 70 to 100 -> temperature declines.
Eco-Geek,
Here is an interesting paper related to energy transfer by magnetic means between the Sun and the Earth: http://obsn3.on.br/sergio/artigos%20MT/electrical%20conductivity%20models%20of%20the%20crust%20and%20mantle.pdf
What IF we enter another Little Ice Age. What will Warmist climate scientists say? What will they blame? Co2? Cow fart methane? Soot? (see Hansen and Chinese coal despite earlier blaming soot for most of the global warming up to 2000). Rest assured they HAVE TO blame man. If they fail on co2 as the main driver of climate, they will slowly shift gear (thinking no one is looking) and try some other con job. Don’t fall for their crap.
@Leif
>Except that this ‘string’ was not the strongest in 11,400 years:
>http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Yes, the SSN count was distorted after 1946. But even correcting for that, Cycle 19 still looks big. Especially in solar flux units, where there are no counting irregularities:
http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/data-donnee/sol_flux/sx-6-mavg-eng.php
How big does a solar maximum have to be before we can call it “Grand”?
Here is Hansen in 2004 blaming soot for most of the global warming. And also in 2000 he blamed non-c02 for most of the warming. It’s worse than I thought.
Yet people have told me that James Hansen is a genius. He is a genius……….of fairy tales and contradictory clap trap rubbish.
isvalgaard
You responded on a previous track to a question by John DAY as follows”
The Maunder- and Dalton solar minima were also associated with some colder climate. Are there any solid reasons to expect any similar cooling with the anticipated Eddy Minimum?
I don’t think so, but such cooling seems to be the prevailing dogma among skeptics.
Leif are you saying that in your opinion, “similar” level of cooling will not happen or that no cooling will happen at all or are you saying we just don’t know. I am one of those who believe cooling will take place but not quite to the level of Maunder Minimum because the earth and the oceans are warmer today than they were then.
Once carbon becomes the new currency to replace the USD for international trade we will be entering the Dark Ages. Cold or warm, we are all going to be a lot poorer.
Our climate history over the past 400K years suggests an ice age is the norm and the warm interglacial wont last long. Average length is 10K and we are at 11K, although the last interglacial lasted 20K. It may very well be carbon emissions will delay the inevitable.
Any study on the economic costs and impact on life from an ice age?
David Hathaway says ” “We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place…”
Stuart Clark says “We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.”
Saying they don’t know! Is this still allowed?
“Now the sun is acting “bizarre” , that gives them an excuse for the models being wrong.”
Bingo. They’re going to claim that their models show the Earth would still be warming due to CO2 if it wasn’t for that pesky sun.
They’re far too heavily invested in Global Warming to be able to drop it when reality changes.
the difference in solar insolation between a normal maximum and minimum in the sunspot cycle is only 0.5%
what we have here is just a low maximum…which is still higher than the normal minimum
by the way the difference in radiation received between aphelion and perihelion…which happens every year…is about 6%…..about 120 times the variation due to the sunspot cycle
I’ve a question to all those who doubt that curve-fitting yields no meaningful results (because it doesn’t take into account the underlying physics):
How is it that “curve fitting” applications such Demand Solutions (a software package that analyses at least 18 months of sales figures for any given product) can produce reasonably accurate forecasts – forecasts that are good enough to “bet your business” – and yet the same form of analysis isn’t good enough for solar predictions?
Yes, this comes across as a passive-agressive question, but I’d actually like to know. Demand Solutions has no understanding of the underlying economics, physics or anything beneath the sales figures; it simply applies over 20 different forecasting algorithms to the given data set, picks the one that predicted the last three months the best and uses that as its forecast.
Unltimately, it is choosing a particular equation with tuned parameters.
If its good enough (and accurate enough) to run a business, why is the same approach not good enough for solar predictions?
The problem here, of course, is that if you were sniffing out some sort of tipping point, you may have found one…….or two……or three etc. etc.
In the 50:50 category we have this:
1. MIS-1, also occurring like MIS-19 and MIS-11 did, will go long like MIS-11 did and MIS-19 didn’t, in post Mid Pleistocene Transition (MPT) time.
In the 12.5:87.5 category we have this:
1. Of the MPT to present allotment of interglacials, 7 of the last 8 have each lasted about half a precession cycle. The precession cycle varies from 19-23kyrs, and we are at the 23,000 year endpoint of that cyclicity now, meaning 11,500 years is half. The Holocene is 11,716 years old now (based on the end of the Younger-Dryas cold interval). About half a precession cycle.
2. Of the end extreme interglacials, MIS-5e clocked-out with the second thermal pulse, right at its very end, with a somewhere between +6M amsl to +52M amsl sea level highstand, or something like 10 to 100 times the 2007 IPCCs AR4 worst prognostication of +0.59M amsl by 2099.
3. If MIS-5e had two thermal excursions right at its very end, MIS-11 had one, and MIS-19 had three, how many will MIS-1 (our Holocene) have?
4. Did we just experience our 1, the grand solar maxima of the late 20th century? Will there be another, and another?
5. Is there any way, any way humanly possible at all, that we could obviate the next glacial, whenever it chooses to arrive?
6. Or would the sun going all quiet on us at the 11,716 year old Holocene, just after a grand solar maxima, make us cogitate whatever in the world might, could, conceivably, possibly, maybe, hopefully prevent onset of the next glacial? One wonders whatever that might be……..
Thinking……. Thinking………
Ding! Got it! We could, you know, strip the late Holocene so-called “climate security blanket” from the said loate Holocene atmosphere 🙂
Uh…. Well…. that would be a bet that MIS-1 would naturally, without our help be the next “extended” (MIS-11 style) interglacial. Which chance is only 50%, at best. What could increase our chances of engineering an extended interglacial?
Well, first, we could have from 1 to 3 thermal pulses in the next few thousand years. Or we might not. Some (Sirocko et al (A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature03905, pp 833-836 ) (http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf) say:
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
To an unkown extent, regardless of whatever funk the sun is in, some say that due to orbital insolation, as calculated at the Arctic circle, all we need to do is somehow “bridge” the next 4 millenia before we might wobble good-to-go again. Is there anything, anything at all, that one might think of that could, theoretically of course, bridge such a millenial gap?
Anything? Anything at all, come to mind??????? (with consideration given to the endpoints of atmospheric decay estimates et al etc.)
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
—
No, you have the scales wrong. In the interstellar medium the coherent structures are huge, much larger than the heliosphere. And it takes thousands of years for the solar system to traverse one of those structures.
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere?
—
Wishful thinking can always posit one, but I don’t think there is any ‘just right size’. The Galaxy is big, the solar system is small.
—
Carla says:
A similar example maybe seen in our own radiation belt. Cosmic rays organized in belts and trapped within ‘a’ magnetic field. Formally from chaos now organized. A distribution of protons and electrons and antiprotons.
Found this today with the help of link left by Clipe. thx.
“””Stranger yet, Voyager 1 detected an increase in galactic cosmic rays — but found that at times they were moving in parallel instead of traveling randomly.”””
Voyager 1’s journey to solar system’s edge upends theories
The mysterious region 11 billion miles away proves to be even stranger than previously thought, according to Voyager’s latest readings.
…
By Monte Morin
June 27, 2013, 6:58 p.m.
“The jumps indicate multiple crossings of a boundary unlike anything observed previously,” a team of Voyager scientists wrote in one of the studies. They labeled the new area the heliosheath depletion region.
Stranger yet, Voyager 1 detected an increase in galactic cosmic rays — but found that at times they were moving in parallel instead of traveling randomly.
“This was conceptually unthinkable for cosmic rays,” said Stamatios Krimigis, a solar physicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md., and leader of another one of the studies. “There is no cosmic ray physicist I know who ever expected that they would not all be coming equally from all directions.”
The confusion hasn’t ended there.
One Voyager project scientist reported in March that the spacecraft had entered interstellar space after more than 35 years of travel. The paper by Bill Webber, a professor emeritus of astronomy at New Mexico State University, triggered a media furor in the process.
Scientists including Krimigis and Edward Stone, a Voyager project scientist at Caltech, contended that the probe had not left the solar system. Voyager 1 remained within the sun’s zone of magnetic influence, and therefore within the heliosphere, they said.
“We’re not free yet,” Krimigis said. “This is a new region that we didn’t know existed. We have no road map, and we’re waiting to see what’s going to happen next.”
Theorists are struggling to explain the data. Some say the unexpected increase in magnetic strength is the result of spiraling magnetic fields being compressed against the interstellar medium. Others say this is impossible since there is no solar wind to push them against that boundary, and that there must be another explanation.
Len Fisk, a professor of space science at the University of Michigan, described the studies’ findings as “a complete surprise.” He said Voyager 1’s travels were proving to be both puzzling and exciting.
“It’s causing a fundamental reconsideration of how the heliosheath interacts with the local interstellar medium,” said Fisk, who was not involved in the new analysis.
One of the possible explanations for Voyager’s peculiar magnetic readings is that the sun’s magnetic fields have combined with the interstellar magnetic field in places — a process called magnetic reconnection.
Such reconnection has been observed between the magnetic fields of the sun and Earth, said Stone, a former director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. “Maybe that’s what’s happening here, but we really don’t know,” he said.
Adding still more mystery is the fact that Voyager 2 has yet to experience anything like its twin. Both spacecraft are headed toward the forward edge of the heliosphere, but are more than 9 billion miles apart.
Although Voyager 1 was launched 16 days after Voyager 2, it followed a more direct route toward the edge of the solar system. Since 1998, when it overtook Pioneer 10, it has been the farthest man-made object from Earth.
Voyager scientists say they’re in no position to predict when the probe may finally exit the solar system. It could be months, or it could be years.
“I wouldn’t dare to make an estimate,” Krimigis said. “Voyager will probably prove us wrong, again.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-voyager-heliosphere-20130628,0,6860711.story
Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times
Maybe the width of an Interstellar Magnetic Field line, with its accompanying galactic cosmic ray distribution collection, with partially sorted proton and electrons, could be an important for determining a 70 – 100 year Gleissburg Cy cle. or not. gn
I was thinking the cosmic ray should be like helically wrapping. But if the curve is long enough, it might appear parallel..
Philip Bradley says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Antarctic sea ice is currently 1.217 million sq km or 9% above the anomaly.
—
You’re making me feel wobbly. Moving my poles and axes. Noted..
“Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:04 pm
I was thinking the cosmic ray should be like helically wrapping. But if the curve is long enough, it might appear parallel..”
The interesting thing, at least to me, is that we have yet to become aware of all the variables that could affect climate. Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?
“Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?”
William, about half way between ignorant and imbacile!!
Col A (Aus) says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:12 pm
“Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?”
William, about half way between ignorant and imbacile!!
Struth mate!
otsar says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Here is an interesting paper related to energy transfer by magnetic means between the Sun and the Earth
No, not at all. The energy transfer is by ultraviolet light which creates the ionosphere [a conductig layer above 60 miles altitude]. Dynamo action then creates an electric current whose magnetic effect induces currents in the Earth. The magnetic effects of those currents can be used say something about the electrical conductivity of the crust and hence a bit about physical conditions down there.
John Day says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:56 pm
How big does a solar maximum have to be before we can call it “Grand”?
If the magnetic flux had been as large as on slide 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf I would call it grand. Or as in Slide 6. If the SSN just was like the red curve on Slide 7, I would not call it Grand.
herkimer says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Leif are you saying that in your opinion, “similar” level of cooling will not happen or that no cooling will happen at all or are you saying we just don’t know.
We do not know if it will cool or how much. We do know something about what cooling to expect from a Maunder Minimum and that it rather small, see Slide 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
some people expect a lot more, but cannot really justify their belief in this without invoking mysterious ‘feedback’ or unknown mechanisms.
gopal panicker says:
July 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
the difference in solar insolation between a normal maximum and minimum in the sunspot cycle is only 0.5%
Only about 0.1% [five times smaller]. But you are correct about the much larger effect due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. However, that effect is strictly cyclic and averages out to the same every year.
Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Maybe the width of an Interstellar Magnetic Field line, with its accompanying galactic cosmic ray distribution collection, with partially sorted proton and electrons, could be an important for determining a 70 – 100 year Gleissburg Cy cle. or not. gn
No, as what happens out there cannot travel upstream in the supersonic solar wind.
Thanks, Dr. Peiser. Good article.
Ok, absolute zero is −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale, so the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere is around 500 degrees F. above absolute zero, primarily because of the sun. If TSI drops 0.25% doesn’t that equate to more than 0.2 – 0.3 Degrees C. “as stated in this article”, or am I missing something. It seems a drop of 0.25% of TSI would be more like 1.25F.
William McClenney says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?
—
huh precisely? huh
General global population was awakened by a globe hopping Gore gasathon..
Made general population teed off and they went globally looking for their own answers.
I mean now that they are awake they have a bit of weeding to do..and the internet to do it with..
Solar connection is innate in the human consciousness, along with other anjamils.
LT;
It seems a drop of 0.25% of TSI would be more like 1.25F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The relationship isn’t linear. P in watts/m2 = 5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees Kelvin (Stefan-Boltzmann Law) Plus you need to divide the change in TSI by 4 to account for curvature of earth and the fact that the darn thing spins too. So:
TSI = 1368 w/m2
x .0025 = 3.42
/4 = 0.855
Stuff it into SB Law with 288K as the average, comes out to about 0.16 degrees K, or less than 0.3 F.
Of course there’s no such thing as a meaningful average on an oblate sphere spinning in space, but that’s quite beside the point in the climate debate. The cold regions would actually warm more than that and the warm regions less.
Thanks, davidmhoffer
Nature is incredibly complex..
RoHa says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:49 pm
“Saying they don’t know! Is this still allowed?”
They don’t care. It’s still our fault and they still want us to pay.
Leif-san says the 1933-1996 solar cycles weren’t the strongest 63-year string in 11,400 years.
Solanki says otherwise:
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
I understand that correlation doesn’t mean causation, but given the Little Ice Age took place during the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Grand Solar Minima and ended soon after the Dalton Minimum ended and the 20th century warming trend ended when the strongest string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended…
There’s been a slight cooling trend since 2001 despite record manmade CO2 emissions. If the Earth continues its cooling trend as the current solar cycles weakens AND the cooling trend increases through the next solar cycle, which is projected to be the weakest since the 1715 Maunder Minimum, how much more evidence is required to show solar cycles have a greater influence on climate than CO2 levels?
We’ll find out very soon which phenomena has more climatic influence.
Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:13 pm
“huh precisely? huh”
I offer the most cogent possibility so far available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3931.pdf
This is as far as we have come. Just sayin.
And sunspots are dark and reduce TSI. QEDumbonstrated.
SAMURAI says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Leif-san says the 1933-1996 solar cycles weren’t the strongest 63-year string in 11,400 years.
Solanki says otherwise
Well, that paper is dated. There has been progress since. See Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Compare the top curve [with the red ‘top’ of the recent solar activity] with the second curve that shows a modern reconstruction using 10Be. Or check out: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years” or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf : “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun” or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf “the cosmogenic radionuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”.
Brian H says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:58 pm
And sunspots are dark and reduce TSI. QEDumbonstrated.
So, during the Maunder Minimum when there were no visible sunspots, TSI was not reduced?
I agree that a slow general cooling is in prospect if the sun stays quiet.
Note the modulating effect of the ocean cycles and the PMO (Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation) in particular.
That will result in a downward stepping of temperatures from one negative phase to the next whereas the past warming was an upward stepping from one positive phase to the next.
There will also be much variability within each positive or negative phase of the PMO but that will be due to the various cycles in the other oceans all being out of phase with the PMO and each other.
So the sun gives the general trend on a millennial time scale but the ocean cycles interacting with each other give variability on the decadal scale.
The year to year variations are then mostly due to ENSO altering the global air circulation.
Variations of less than a year are then from inherent chaotic variability within the atmosphere.
GlynnMhor says:
July 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
“It’s looking like Landsheidt’s odd ideas, fine tuned by Carl Smith, may have some validity after all.
Now is the time to try to figure out a mechanism for the effect.”
Already done and often set out here and elsewhere.
I just have to wait and see whether it turns out to be right or not.
Some contributors are confusing full scale ice ages, caused by the processes described by Milankovitch with the shorter term climate cycling that occurs as a result of millennial time scale solar variations. The cause of the solar effect on the Earth’s pattern of permanent climate zones is a shift in the mix of particles and wavelengths affecting the ozone chemistry response above the tropopause.
That shift alters global air circulation, total cloudiness, global albedo and the amount of energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate engine.
The recent warmth is part of the millennial variations as will be the anticipated cooling.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now….the mechanism proposed by Dr. Henrik Svensmark is correct. Sorry, Leif!
CRS, DrPH says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:11 am
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now….the mechanism proposed by Dr. Henrik Svensmark is correct.
Sounds like dogma to me. There is no good evidence for your assertion. But for dogma, no evidence is needed.
Leif, (even though I see Sheldon every time you answer someone) I do like the fact that you answer, even if with rather glib disdain. So Leif, who won the FA Cup in the 1943/44 season? Yes, it’s a trick question.
Thanks, Leif, I knew I could count on you! My thinking derives from having built a functioning cloud chamber at age 10, watching the vapor trails condense and form from radiation from a chunk of uranium ore. It is a very complex process, and I don’t think the cosmic ray cloud formation in the troposphere is significant….rather, very high and thin clouds, nearly impossible to measure by current technologies, increase the albedo.
I know that the CLOUD experiment at CERN was inconclusive, but that was like trying to build a functioning model of a volcano….we cannot easily replicate the atmosphere in any lab.
Cheers!
Many people think the mini ice ages that occur about every 178 years (Jose solar cycle) are caused by the following:
Planetary alignment of the massive 4 outer (Jovian) planets has been shown to periodically perturb the sun’s plasma due to transfer of angular momentum, as the sun is dragged out of the solar system’s barycenter. This affects the sunspot count, which first are much more than average and then drop to much lower for decades. There is much historical evidence that the sun’s lower sunspot count and weakened electromagnetic field correlates to a cooler climate here on earth. What causes the cooling is still in dispute, but research by Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and corroborated by additional research at CERN points to shadowing of the earth by low altitude clouds. These highly reflective clouds are created by increased cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. As the sun becomes less active (and coincidentally the earth’s geomagnetic field has also weakened), more and more cosmic rays will seed the types of low altitude clouds that enable cooling (some types of high altitude clouds can trap heat…see AGW theory). Of course, I’m sure it’s much more complicated than what I just described, but it does appear the earth’s periodic heating and cooling is caused by natural cyclic events.
With CO2 continuing to rise above 400ppm, a substantially cooling earth will strengthen the aforementioned view of global climate and likely cause many climatologists to question anthropomorphic global warming theory, which, last time I looked is still a theory. Time will tell and may the best theory be proven incontrovertibly.
John Day says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Vuk,
Am I dreaming, or did you just explain your wiggle-grams before presenting them?
It was accidental John.
All my ‘wiggle-graphs’ are based on widely available data as is this one.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MM.htm
CRS, DrPH says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:18 am
very high and thin clouds, nearly impossible to measure by current technologies, increase the albedo.
Svensmark disagrees with you [and you think his mechanism is correct…]: low clouds.
For those of us who don’t usually take much notice of what the Sun is doing (but are interested in where the truth may be) where is there a graph or data regarding sunspots counted by eye/rudimentary telescope only – as was done in days of old? Can someone provide a link – thanks. I assume the count is much more precise now, so are we comparing apples and oranges?
10Be data from Greenland ice cores is highly suspect proxy for solar activity:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DM.htm
Tom Jones says:
Good grief, guys, it’s only curve-fitting with no model for the underlying physics. Believe anything you want, but pretending to know is nonsense.
Rhoda R. says:
Tom Jones: Curve fitting maybe, but these people are making predictions – speculation and short term predictions based on theories that they feel better explain what drives climate than does the ‘CO2 is evil’ theory. Good for them.
neilo says:
I’ve a question to all those who doubt that curve-fitting yields no meaningful results (because it doesn’t take into account the underlying physics):
How is it that “curve fitting” applications such Demand Solutions (a software package that analyses at least 18 months of sales figures for any given product) can produce reasonably accurate forecasts – forecasts that are good enough to “bet your business” – and yet the same form of analysis isn’t good enough for solar predictions?
……………………………………………………………………………
Tom Jones has made a dead accurate — and useful — observation (although I didn’t really like “Green, green grass of home”). If there is no understanding of the underlying physics then, for all anyone knows, the observed cyclic phenomenon may simply be a small part of a much larger cycle with variations we have never experienced and cannot predict. Indeed, it may be a linear process with localised cyclic patterns. If we don’t understand the process then we can have no certainty that the observed pattern will be maintained.
Maybe ‘Demand Solutions’ does a good job over two to five years, but do you imagine that its creators would dare to vouch for its accuracy over a century? Yet some of our climatologists fearlessly presume to extrapolate identified short-term trends in phenomena that they clearly do not understand. They create models using large computers and secret algorithims based on pattern analysis, then make long-term, continually modified, predictions that need to be close enough to be lucrative … sorry, alarming … yet far enough in the future to enable them to safely retire before they can be held to account . The consistent failure of these models is ongoing proof of the GIGO theory.
Sir Isaac Newton had no idea how gravity worked, although he did sterling work in describing its behaviour. Newton frankly confessed his ignorance. The modern tendancy to profess great knowledge about poorly understood phenomena smells more strongly of shamanism than science.
LS —
This chart, offered by Svensmark, shows a good correlation between cosmic ray count and low cloud cover:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg
It’s all detailed in his research and summarized in his and Nigel Calder’s book: “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change”.
Nir Shaviv has a chart going back 500 million years that shows a good inverse correlation between cosmic ray flux and temperature. Low cloud production is the suspected source of this correlation:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/ice-ages/fig5.jpg
From Nir Shaviv’s site:
“The cosmic ray link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate. The changing solar activity is responsible for a varying solar wind strength. A stronger wind will reduce the flux of cosmic ray reaching Earth, since a larger amount of energy is lost as they propagate up the solar wind. The cosmic rays themselves come from outside the solar system. Since cosmic rays dominate the troposphere ionization, an increased solar activity will translate into a reduced ionization, and empirically, also to a reduced low altitude cloud cover. Since low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect (their “whiteness” is more important than their “blanket” effect), increased solar activity implies a warmer climate. Intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations will have a similar effect, one however, which is unrelated to solar activity variations.”
GreGG says:
July 16, 2013 at 1:17 am
This chart, offered by Svensmark, shows a good correlation between cosmic ray count and low cloud cover
Is contradicted by the actual data: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
e.g. Figure 5. “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
Vuk
“but in no way it is indicated as the Maunder type minimum”
Why would it when you have included only two frequencies? There are more.
http://virakkraft.com/SunspotFFT.jpg
The new Maunder is starting now.
If the climate does start cooling there will probably be some Greens working on a theory to explain how human activity influences the sun!
lgl says:
July 16, 2013 at 1:31 am
——————–
Vuk
“but in no way it is indicated as the Maunder type minimum”
——————–
“http://virakkraft.com/SunspotFFT.jpg
The new Maunder is starting now.”
——————–
That well may be, but it is also worth remembering Von Neumann’s with four parameters I can fit an elephant…
The Sun is not acting “bizarre”ly. The Sun’s just doing what the Sun does best. That we are clueless about its behaviour is a completely different matter.
Vuk
You are probably right with adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (and some framework) you could create an elephant, but you would need an awful lot of different combinations of the four.
In the case of solar frequencies only one combination of frequencies and phases will reproduce the past so why would it change right now?
Heh, I love the ‘so perhaps there is hope’ at the end of Leif’s abstract.
==============
Jimbo says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:52 pm
“What IF we enter another Little Ice Age. What will Warmist climate scientists say? What will they blame? Co2? Cow fart methane? Soot? (see Hansen and Chinese coal despite earlier blaming soot for most of the global warming up to 2000). Rest assured they HAVE TO blame man. If they fail on co2 as the main driver of climate, they will slowly shift gear (thinking no one is looking) and try some other con job. Don’t fall for their crap.”
Statist scientists will always promote a bigger government to fix any problem, and produce theories that, if they were correct, show that bigger government is needed. Then they will start falsifying data to delay the moment that the theory is reconized as false, like the warmist scientists do with past temperature records, or social engineers with their survey data. Or that Parmesan woman with her butterfly population data. It’s a pattern. The primary medium for the promotion of this pretend science is Nature.
So if you want to know what the statists want to achieve next, read Nature.
Good grief, guys, it’s only curve-fitting with no model for the underlying physics. Believe anything you want, but pretending to know is nonsense.
Well said, sir. Took the words right out of my mouth. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation is not causality. Numerology is not science.
The human brain, however, struggles with strongly nonlinear chaotic systems. It insists on oracles, on prophets, on a linearized mythology that provides for it the illusion of knowledge and control. The hardest words (apparently) for any person engaged in this entire debate, on either side, to utter appear to be:
I don’t know!
Models ain’t got no skill, disagree with themselves, disagree with each other, and disagree with the actual climate in details great and small. The problem is the most difficult one ever tackled by humanity, with critical physics input from the magnetohydrodynamics of the barely understood Sun, the fairly well known orbital parameters of the Earth, two intimately coupled hydrodynamic systems hovering around temperatures where latent heat of evaporation and fusion (of water) dominate over mere heat capacity, with a fundamental heating and cooling mechanism that involves full-spectrum radiative coupling to pretty much everything from the penetration depth of the surface (including the oceans) to the top of the atmosphere as well as macroscopic phenomena associated with clouds, ice, desert sands, and vegetation, all set on a spinning, tilted ball with a bizarre pattern of continents and mountains shaping both atmospheric and oceanic flow that is changing sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, pelted with meteors great and small, and punctuated by outflows of molten rock, gas, and ash that periodically belch enormous quantities of “stuff” into the atmosphere at arbitrary locations on its surface.
Here, look, I’ll help everybody out. I’ll be the Oracle that we all so desperately need. Oh Great Oracle, will the future climate get warmer or cooler over the next 87 years?
(The Oracle pauses, takes a deep swig from his large, foamy, drinking horn, takes a deep hit from the mysterious smoke swirling up out of curious devices laid out at his feet, belches a mix of carbon dioxide and smoke and replies)
Yes!
[This is the one certainty of climate science. The climate over the entire range of our ability to infer it via proxies great and small is never precisely stationary, fluctuating over a range of at least degrees K on a century plus timescale. So I am dead serious. It is very unlikely that the global average temperature in 2100 — whatever that particular measure “means” — will be exactly what it is today. It could be a degree warmer. It could be a degree cooler. It could be a degree warmer or cooler entirely independent of what CO_2 does in the meantime, especially if one confines one’s attention to just, say, the northern hemisphere.
Now ask me if I want to bet on which one. ]
rgb
SVAALGUARD
You say that the sunspot number may drop to levels not seen since the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) when we had extended periods of zero sunspots. You also say that “We do know something about what cooling to expect from a Maunder Minimum and that it rather small,”. The average CET winter temperature during part of the Maunder Minimum that we have temperature records for ,namely 1659-1715, was 3.2C. The average CET winter temperature today is about 4.2 C. It was 3.1 C in 2011. However during the Maunder Minimum , about 40% of the time they had much colder winters with an average winter temperature of 1.7 C. This is colder than 2010 which had 2.4 C and more like 1979 which had 1.7C This is in the range of the 70 th coldest winters in terms of ranking A similar period of very low or zero sunspots was around 1810. The winter of 1814 was the second coldest winter since 1659. UK has recently broken 4 major cold records, one of which goes back to that period, like December 2010 which was the 2nd coldest winter since record keeping started in 1659. Personally I don’t think the past coolings during zero sunspots were ‘rather small’ I think we do know that it will cool but I agree with you that we do not know how much it will cool because of different conditions to day . See the CET record below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
gopal panicker says:
July 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
the difference in solar insolation between a normal maximum and minimum in the sunspot cycle is only 0.5%
Only about 0.1% [five times smaller]. But you are correct about the much larger effect due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. However, that effect is strictly cyclic and averages out to the same every year.
Its future expectation averages out to be the same, or nearly so (it too is modulated by very slow orbital change mechanisms) but at the same time one is effectively driving a chaotic system with a periodic/annual hammer compared to the decadal feather of solar cycle variation. It is therefore a capital (but common) mistake to assume that one can linearize it out and ignore it merely because — on a featureless, spinning, grey ball — it would be “the same every year”.
All it would take is a small systematic lag or lead of e.g. cloud albedo heterodyning with the 90 W/m^2 orbital insolation variation due to eccentricity to produce a mechanism for long term, systematic gain or loss. And since we do not understand and cannot predict factors/features in the decadal oscillations, in particular ENSO, that very likely set up the scale for lagged or leading systematic co-variation (and even if we could, there are likely other neglected nonlinear couplings we cannot predict or anticipate of equal magnitude and long term effect) we most definitely cannot dismiss orbital eccentricity as a major driver of the meso-scale climate by mentally “averaging” it on an annual basis and asserting that it is therefore a null contributor.
I actually think that orbital eccentricity is very likely the ignored elephant in the room. As you note, TSI variation from solar variation itself is quite small (although the same issues of lead/lag and coupling with albedo or circulation phases applies). The variation in CO_2 forcing is modest — if the theories predicting the variation are correct in the first place (they involve moderately controversial questions as to just what happens at the wings of the absorptive bands and whether or not it is net warming or cooling and if so (either way) by how much, dogma being net warming but there is damn-all observational evidence in the climate system itself for this AFAIK. In fact, all other sources of TSI variation put together are modest compared to the annual variation in TSI from orbital eccentricity — two orders of magnitude modest.
The nonlinearity of the effect of this variation on the climate (in interaction with the spinning, ocean laden, cloud covered ball etc) is illustrated by the fact that if anything global temperatures countervary with this 45 W/m^2 annual “anomaly” around the mean. I suspect that truly understanding this — which is really a rather remarkable thing, if you think about it — is the key to beginning to understand the climate for real. And I don’t mean an heuristic explanation — I mean a quantitative explanation. I try to think of driven anharmonic oscillator models that countervary with their second most important driver (primary is diurnal, and obviously temperatures DO vary on a lagged diurnal scale so there is no phase inversion there) and come up blank, although I’m sure that with the right nonlinearity and driving it is possible. But it is certainly a puzzle that I never hear discussed or acknowledged.
rgb
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
And wouldn’t it be very nice
If it’s always been about the ice?
=====================
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 5:33 am
“We do know something about what cooling to expect from a Maunder Minimum and that it rather small”…The average CET winter temperature during part of the Maunder Minimum that we have temperature records for, namely 1659-1715, was 3.2C. The average CET winter temperature today is about 4.2 C.
So you have discovered global warming…
The temperature difference between solar max and solar min is about 0.1C. So if we were constantly at a solar minimum [during a Maunder Minimum] the global temperature is thus expected to be 0.1C lower [this is a rather small effect, I would say]. If the temperature difference is larger, then that only shows that other factors than the Sun is at play.
RGB and Leif
You don’t have to ” understand” the system to make perfectly good and useful forecasts. (See my earlier comment above) The modellers and those with a physics or maths background are approaching the problem backwards.
You don’t need to know what the drivers are initially. Start with the low frequency Milankovitch events .Then look for progressively shorter frequency quasi – periodicities in the temperature data itself a la Scaffetta. This will carry you a good way and point to the principal components in the driving mechanisms. for further investigation. For a more detailed discussion check my blogpost at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-state-of-climate-wars-june-2013.html
Maybe magnetic field line re-connection is part of the answer. The frequency of the these re-connections is associated with heat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130715164909.htm
Roy Jones says:
July 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm
“When the changes in the sun’s output make the earth cooler the greenhouse gas theory/dogma means that we can counter the cooling by increasing CO2 emissions; so to save the earth we need to abolish taxes on fuel and energy.
I’m tempted to join the consensus, or have I missed something.”
You obviously aren’t a politician, nor have you learned to think like one. They will be more likely to spend billions of tax dollars (and force electric utilities to spend billions more) sequestering CO2 deep in the earth, and then will raise taxes even more so that they can build additional infrastructure that feeds the sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.
It will never occur to them to just let the utilities inject the CO2 directly, and it will certainly never occur to them that they should abolish a tax of any kind, much less a tax on energy.
In fact, if global cooling becomes apparent, the same sort of hype will occur, resulting in government-mandated global cooling policies that are as costly as the government-mandated global warming policies. Furthermore, both policies will then be implemented simultaneously, a politician’s dream. Then they can feed additional dollars to whichever side is squealing the loudest at any particular moment in time. The last option they would ever consider is cutting dollars from either side, for that is where the campaign contributions lie. This “ideal” situation would actually double the number of contributions they can generate.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:00 am
point to the principal components in the driving mechanisms for further investigation.
‘Further investigation’ is always nice, but curve fitting to not-understood cycles has no real predictive power.
Leif
I’m confident that it has more predictive power than the IPCC and Met office models on which the whole AGW scare and Western government policies are based.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:31 am
I’m confident
“The easiest one to fool is yourself”
With the coming cooling will be the Carbon Cultists’ last gasp, called Manmade Global Weather Change. And the changes will, no doubt be rather severe. The problem for them will be explaining just how “carbon” morphs from warming the climate to causing longer, colder and snowier Winters, cooler, wetter Springs, and shorter Summers. Oh wait, they won’t. They’ll just concentrate on the “weird” weather.
hahahaha! ok then. . .
I will be more clear so that you can understand it.
the little ice age ended abruptly just during the minimum of solar cycle 13 according to this handy WUWT graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/image62.png
If, as you all seem to think, the extreme several hundred year little ice age was caused by solar activity, why did the little ice age end several decades before the sung reverted to its more recent values?
and what has happened since then that makes you think we will be going back into little ice age territory, given that this is our current state (please compare with WUWT graphic above)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1905&endtrendyear=2012
and really, what is the difference when we are talking about an average incidenct incoming solar radiation level that is varying by less than half a watt (on average) between the lower activity levels and todays values. Note: this is on AVERAGE over a period of 30 years, not comparing minimums to maximums or some other such b.s.
Here is what the recent values look like (maximum)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m.jpg
as you can see the average (1990s) TSI value is approximately 1366.45 W/m^2
(ACRIM Composite)
and the most recent cycle which has an average trough to peak value of 1365.8 W/m^2
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/comp06_d41_62_1302.png
which gives you a TOTAL variation of .0475% or .000475
and THAT is going to make us go from today to another little ice age???
Forget the fact that scientific studies have already proven that the incoming Infra Red (yes, the stuff that provides about 50% of the sun’s total warming energy) does not have a measurable derease in incoming intensity (rather it is simply a magnetic field effect)
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/27/aa12318-09/aa12318-09.html
“This correlation allows an unambiguous reconstruction of TSI back in time, provided the open solar magnetic field can be determined from e.g. geomagnetic indices or cosmogenic radionucleides. Since the solar UV irradiance has no long-term trend, the mechanism for the secular change of TSI must differ from the effect of surface magnetism, as manifested by sunspots, faculae, and network which indeed explain well the intra-cycle variability of both total and spectral irradiance.”
I see a ~100 year cycle. I understand I’m looking at only 200+ years of record displayed. So, do the min/max cycles prior to 1749 indicate any periods of repetition?
For the record, I identify as a rank amateur and avid reader.
Sval gaard
You said
” then that only shows that other factors than the Sun is at play.”
I agree that other factors can cause climate change like changing ocean cycles and volcanic eruptions just to name two. But I find it quite strange that these other factors for some 400 years now cause the global climate to cool every time there is a sustained period of low or zero sunspot activity . Personally I think there is only one elephant in the room and it is not these other factors primarily. I don,t think we know everything that there is to know about the sun yet and what energy particles that it puts out . The climate scientists claimed that the global warming science was settled and solid and look at the unexpected climate that emerged instead… More surprises are likely. We will all have a better opportunity to observe this over the next decade as the solar activity in terms of sunspots drops. I hope that you have your snow tires in good shape just in case, Leif.
Leif – I’m confident that looking at repetitive patterns is better than modelling. As to the actual forecasts I made Here is the end of the original comment
“How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgement comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others.A past record of successful forecasting is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that, inevitably ,certainty drops rapidly.”
It appears Leif has staked out his turf, and is defending it to the hilt. Science doesn’t really enter into it.
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:52 am
cause the global climate to cool every time there is a sustained period of low or zero sunspot activity
Not so, check out Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:58 am
However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour for the uninitiated
I take a dim view of people who claim ‘they are in the know’ compared to the rest of us unwashed masses who are ‘uninitiated’.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 16, 2013 at 8:01 am
Science doesn’t really enter into it.
I was waiting for your first snotty comment. And you delivered.
Dr Norman Page says:
“You don’t need to know what the drivers are initially. Start with the low frequency Milankovitch events .Then look for progressively shorter frequency quasi – periodicities in the temperature data itself a la Scaffetta. This will carry you a good way and point to the principal components in the driving mechanisms. for further investigation.”
I thoroughly disagree, only by knowing the drivers can there be any certainty. Scaffetta’s forecast warms up to 2024, which is the opposite to your “Built in cooling trend until at least 2024”:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2013 at 6:28 am: If the temperature difference is larger, then that only shows that other factors than the Sun is at play.
The sun is a factor with the other factors in combination. Is there a history of a continuous (as in multiple cycles being void of peeks) Maunder type solar minimum or less? The begging question is putting all the scenarios together that starts a glaciation. Is the key obvious and being overlooked? Are we in a schedule of ever colder earth? Or will an aging sun reheat the planet faster than our gradual expanding orbit. Is there any mechanism more powerful than the solar effects that are internal to our solar system? Is it some galactic event not known till it arrives? Why can’t we get similar climate change evidence from Mars or other planets further out to get a better picture of solar influence?
Invest in cave homes. Apparently the cave man did better than the surface dweller. 🙂
Back in the day, when everyone was predicting the next ice age (whatever the revisionists may now claim) the theory was the the climate wouldn’t just get cooler by degrees (as it were) but that one year spring would just not occur and from then on it’s downhill all the way!
steveta_uk says:
July 16, 2013 at 8:23 am: Back in the day, when everyone was predicting the next ice age (whatever the revisionists may now claim) the theory was the the climate wouldn’t just get cooler by degrees (as it were) but that one year spring would just not occur and from then on it’s downhill all the way!
A good indication is Antarctica which nobody seems able to explain the increase in ice. (more cold than warm?) Maybe if the current cold spell at the North Pole continues in a way that influences a growing amount of annual snow/ice coverage, then we should get concerned. Reflectivity from the south pole could spill over into the northern hemisphere and in combination the total increasing reflectivity is effectively enough to find a tropics condo.
Leif
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:52 am
cause the global climate to cool every time there is a sustained period of low or zero sunspot activity
Not so, check out Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Your slide is about global temperatures and TSI. I am talking about sunspot numbers . and global temperatures The web page of CLIMATE4YOU has some excellent graphs that illustrate what I am referring to. If you plot decadal sunspot numbers and decadal global temperatures you will see what I mean . You need to go decadal because when it comes to sun/ocean/ atmosphere connection , there are multi year lag factors that come to play
Ulrich
Scafetta’s earlier papers deal only with decadal cycles .My forecast is made by including a possible millenial cycle which Scafetta recognises in a later paper.. He says
” The second result was obtained by using solar, volcano, greenhouse gases and aerosol constructors to fit modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions (e.g.: Moberg et al., 2005; Mann et al., 2008; Christiansen and Ljungqvist, 2012) since the Medieval Warm Period, which show a large millennial cycle that is well correlated to the millennial solar cycle (e.g.: Kirkby, 2007; Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2012c). These findings stress the importance of natural oscillations and of the sun to properly interpret climatic changes.”
See ” Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming”
at http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.html
I think the Christiansen paper is very useful.btw
Leif I’m suggeting that the general public is impressed by IPCC saying that they are 95% confident of this or that based on the misuse of statistics.
CAGWECCECDEESE (Catastrophicus Anthropogenctium Globaleus Warmingneis et Climaticus Changea et Climaticus Disruptioni et Extremea Weatheranus Eventimea
…some humor. Maybe too much coffee.
I’m aware of that, and I don’t concur with 100% of his conclusions….however, I find it very likely that, during periods of solar minimum, increased cosmic radiation is having an effect on the atmosphere that helps to reduce absorbance of energy from the sun.
Dr. Joel Norris of the Scripps Institution gave quite a fascinating colloquium speech on the “climate-cloud dilemma” which can be viewed at this website:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100512Norris/f.htm
I’m not saying we can do much about it….if anything, higher GHG levels in the atmosphere may be holding back a much more impressive temperature decline, holding off a Maunder Minimum-type “little ice age.” I have no empirical proof, but I appreciate your discussion on the subject as always.
The earth is chilling, pump methane.
Dr. Page, Dr. Svalgaard, Dr. Brown
I have read all your comments above, and I agree with all you said, it is a pity you could not agree among yourselves.
Now, my friend Barry is a real cyclomaniac crank and he strongly disagrees; recently he produced this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/BC.htm
and now is convinced that the latest rise in the CET could well be anthropogenic, nevertheless puto ridiculum est.
“(2) the solar activity increase during the 20th century contributed at least about 50% of the 0.8 °C global warming observed during the 20th century instead of only 7–10% (e.g.: IPCC, 2007; Benestad and Schmidt, 2009; Lean and Rind, 2009; Rohde et al., 2013). ” http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.html
Half of 0.8C is 0.4C which is more than the 0.1C that Leif claims is the only difference the sun attributes to global temperature change. If the sun can warm the planet over a period of solar cycles, then the extended period of diminished solar activity will cause cooling.
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 8:36 am
Your slide is about global temperatures and TSI. I am talking about sunspot numbers . and global temperatures
My slide was expressed as TSI, but was actually derived from cosmic ray flux. TSI, cosmic ray flux and Sunspot number are usually so strongly correlated that it doesn’t matter which one you use. During a Maunder Minimum [past and the one to come?] the SSN is probably not a good measure of solar activity. If you subscribe to the cosmic ray mechanism the proper variable to use is the cosmic ray flux which is really what my slide shows.
Another contributor is the increasing CO2’s effect on increasing green vegetation that cool the surface.
Vuk
Leif hasn’t actually made any comments on the specific forecasts I made.Neither has Brown. This is because using their approaches they can only say they don’t know the future and basically Leif refuses to guess – which is certainly his prerogative.To Brown the system appears chaotic or at least indecipherably complex- this isn’t the case for practical purposes because global temperatures have stayed within livable limits for complex life forms for the last 600 million years or so and certain quasi -periodicities are very obvious and are likely to prove useful for prediction.
It is very important to gather the most accurate instrumental and proxy data as far back as possible.to establish an accurate temperature and possible driver record.. Leif has contributed and continues to contribute enormously to this absolutely essential effort – thanks.
Leif says:
Re: herkimer says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:11 pm
“some people expect a lot more, but cannot really justify their belief in this without invoking mysterious ‘feedback’ or unknown mechanisms”
Sounds just like the AGW argument ! While the doubling of CO2 to 800ppm would only increase global temperatures by .75 – 1.5K, the numerous scientists predict runaway global warming based on a positive atmospheric water vapor feedback mechanism, which observational and empirical evidence shows does not exist ! Or at least nowhere near the sensitivity they claim exists – which they need to justify their excessive predictions.
Is this an accurate statement you can agree with Leif ? If not please explain why.
Leif says:
Re: CRS, DrPH says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:11 am
“Sounds like dogma to me. There is no good evidence for your assertion. But for dogma, no evidence is needed.”
Given the complete failure of climate models to accurately predict global temperatures and the lack of any “statistically significant warming” in the past 17 years, can we say that the theory of AGW has degenerated to nothing more than dogma ?
If you do not agree, can you please explain why ?
Thank you Leif,
GW
GW says:
July 16, 2013 at 10:14 am
Sounds just like the AGW argument !
can we say that the theory of AGW has degenerated to nothing more than dogma ?
If you do not agree, can you please explain why ?
Every belief system has its own set of dogmas, that are non-negotiable.
I comment on things I believe that I know something about [and that is always negotiable as Mother Nature always shows us the way in the end].
The global temperature periods are mostly controlled by the Sun’s heat *) , which is controlled by the tide forces from the planets.
The stable Sun oscillator is biased in its frequency shown by the Sun spot frequency shifts from the tide forces.
The frequency is shifted the lower frequencies if the tide forces are high and vice versa the frequency is shifted to higher frequencies if the tide forces are lower.
There is a weak positive correlation between the frequency shift and the Sun spot number.
The present cycle maximum is shifted in its frequency to a lower frequency and this means that the global temperature will decrease in the next years.
These relations can be seen in this graph:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sunspot_tides.gif
*) The shorter time periods are mixed with the chandler wobble spectrum of the earth axis, which effects the ocean movement indicated as ENSO or MEI + temporary volcanic drops in temperature.
BTW. This is well known here since more than two years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/frequencies_of_climate.doc
V.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 10:00 am
certain quasi -periodicities are very obvious and are likely to prove useful for prediction.
Slide 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf shows predictions of solar cycle 24. The blue bars are predictions based on ‘cycles’ [called spectral methods there]. Most of those are very sophisticated [that is their main problem, btw], yet as you can see their predictions were all over the map, so not useful at all. The same can be said for all the others, except the two that are based on a solid physical model [Rmax ~72].
Leif – As you said, most of the predictions you refer to are based on complex models of the solar dynamo etc. This is not the way to go. Several years ago on the solar ham site I was predicting 24 at a peak of 50 -65 based on a simple correlation of cycles 20 – 24 with cycles 1-5. It is looking pretty good so far.- its results that count – a Dalton type minimum is now looking quite likely.
The main periodicities are the milankovitch cycles – possibly with the addition of the precession of the perihelion http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf
These are modulated by cycles of solar activity – notably the 60 year and millenial cycles.
I agree that the mechanisms and teleconnections of these variables with climate remain obscure.The UV – climate connection looks like being more influential than previously supposed.
Leif Svalgaard, you have no clue about climate/solar interactions. I can see your knowledge in the area of climate is next to zero.
You are in denial, and like the global warming crowd nothing will change your mind.
I can see you sticking with your old fashion obsolete thoughts even as the temperatures decline due to the prolonged solar minimum we have entered,( after going through one of the most intense solar periods last century), starts to take hold.
Leif, the prolonged solar minimium started in earnest in year 2005 and cycle 24 Leif is tracking solar cycle 5 ,and is not even close to solar cycle 14 in activity. Then again you cannot and will not be swayed because you think you are always correct ,when infact you are clueless.
Leif, I challanged you to prove me wrong, you have done nothing so far but talk the same BS with nothing to back up what you say ,other then the fact; this is how it should be according to Leif.
Explain the many abrupt climate changes the earth has had in the past. Explain the recent cool periods of the Maunder Miniumum and the Dalton Minimum. Explain the Younga Dryas, explain the rapid mlet off of the ice sheet just prior to the Younga Dryas?
I have an explanation(thresholds being reached caused by magnetic field strength variations and the associated secondary effects) you don’t , and past history supports what I am saying.
I will be telling you soon, I TOLD YOU SO.
Many on this board agree with me by the way.
highflight56433 said:
“Half of 0.8C is 0.4C which is more than the 0.1C that Leif claims is the only difference the sun attributes to global temperature change”
I think Leif said the TSI varies by 0.1% which is not 0.1C
I have no reason to disagree with that but the TSI change is not the relevant factor.
The mix of particles and wavelengths changes and that has a more substantial effect on ozone amounts above the tropopause and I suggest that that is what changes the climate zone distribution and jet stream tracks for a net warming or cooling effect greater than 0.1%.
Little Ice Age? Maybe if we are Lucky. Our Modern Warm Period is so far cooler then the Medieval Warm Period which was cooler than the Roman Warm Period which was cooler than the Minoan Warm Period. How much longer can the current interglacial last? Maybe if we are Lucky there will be some more cooling and warming cycles before the next full ice age is underway. That would give us a few thousand years more of such relatively blissful climate. I wish that we could use CO2 to control climate but I do not think that such is possible since there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.
rgb,
What should be very telling is often overlooked. That 90 W/m^2 difference between aphelion and perihelion is almost sync’ed up at present with NH/SH winter and summer. SH get’s the max during summer while NH gets the minimum TSI during its summer. Most land mass is in the NH and relatively little is in the SH.
Surface albedo for water is very low, much lower than for land, coming in typically at under 0.04. Earth’s nominal 0.3 albedo is mostly cloud/atmosphere with the surface contributing closer to 0.08 on average.
It should be evident from this that clouds must play a serious roll in what is going on and the fact there is very little temperature differences between NH and SH despite the significant different in TSI each receives. It would also appear that there is likely far less difference between hemispheres in the TSI received because of a cloud feedback mechanism. Otherwise, there would be a tremendous heat flow engine from SH to NH at work to bring about the uniformity of temperature.
best regards,
cba
Dr Norman Page said:
“The main periodicities are the milankovitch cycles – possibly with the addition of the precession of the perihelion http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf
These are modulated by cycles of solar activity – notably the 60 year and millenial cycles.
I agree that the mechanisms and teleconnections of these variables with climate remain obscure.The UV – climate connection looks like being more influential than previously supposed.”
Agreed, but I think we need not limit it to UV. To be on the safe side I suggest we involve the entire mix of particles and wavelengths which changes significantly with the level of solar activity. Far more than 0.1%. An effect on ozone amounts has a profound effect on the height and equator to pole gradient of the tropopause.
I have proposed that the changes in solar activity alter global cloudiness with an effect on the balance between El Ninos and La Ninas within the ENSO cycle. A 60 yearsolar cycle fits that nicely, 30 years of El Nino dominance and 30 years of La Nina dominance, approximately.
A millennial solar cycle then deals with the MWP/LIA/Current Warm Period.
THE PROBLEM -is mainstream thinks the sun’s variations are much smaller then what they are. Mainstream for some reason cannot connect the dots when it comes to solar variations and the secondary effects which result from these solar variations.
I say fine, because this decade and beyond is going to provide a first hand opportunity to see how variations on the sun result in secondary effects; both of which have a profound effect upon the climate.
If it is not magnetic field strength changes in both the sun/earth, what is it that caused all the many abrupt climatic changes ? I wait for alternative answers.
I will leave with this. The sun is the main driver of the climate therefore it stands to reason any changes on the sun should have an effect on the climate.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:03 pm
As you said, most of the predictions you refer to are based on complex models of the solar dynamo etc.
No, I specifically drew attention to the blue bars on the plot. They are all over, so show no predictive power, but they are also the ones that just used the cycles in the data for prediction [no complex models of dynamo]. The intent was to show that prediction based on cycles without physics does not work.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm
I challanged [sic] you to prove me wrong
It is worse than we thought: you are not even wrong.
Stephen is on the correct path, cloudiness and ozone changes are some of the secondary effects associated with weak magnetic fields. This in turn can be shown to be connected to ENSO.
Ozone changes will cause the atmopheric circulation to become more meridional during weak solar conditions which will result in a cooler N.H.
Latest research papers show a tie in with low solar activity/increase in volcanic activity and low solar activity an increase in cosmic rays, the latter equating to more clouds.
The make up of the earth’s magnetic field also comes into play, which will compound solar effects, when weak.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 10:00 am
………….
Hi
There are too many unknowns that prediction based on the current ‘knowns’ is often no more certain than a dice throw, that is why steer clear from predictions.
As you are aware I do lot of graphs based on some sort of data which often offer extrapolation possibility for the immediate future.
Although Maunder type events are very rare particularly if the solar activity and global temperatures go down concurrently, than humanity may suffer but science would benefit greatly, not only from studying the event but also from the human inventiveness to overcome major crisis, and I mean very major crisis.
p.s. My previous post was in a light-hearted manner (notice authors name on the graph), since it is not often that 3 PhDs offer in a quick succession, their distinct views on the subject at hand.
Leif , has no reply because he does not have any conviction in what he says. He offers no explanations, while saying the explanatins given have no merit.
LEIF, tell us why the climate changes abruptly, and so often. Give us YOUR explanation.
Right or wrong I have one and have enough conviction to stand by it and put it out.
Time will prove me right or wrong not.
Maybe Leif does not believe in abrupt past climate changes. That must be it.
As it happens it at this moment Mike Lockwood is pontificating on the Maunder minimum (BBC4)
Svalgaard
If you go to Vukcevic .talk.talk web page and lookup graph CET.D which shows CET SEASONAL TEMPERATURES and if you compare that with the graph in the SUN SECTION of CLIMTE4YOU and look at graph SOLAR IRRADIANCE SINCE 1610, ANNUAL VALUES and RUNNING 11 YEAR AVERAGES, you will note that CET annual temperatures follows the pattern of THE 11 YEAR RUNNING AVERAGE of SOLAR IRRADIANCE during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.. The temperature drop is not 0.1 C as you suggested but .more like 2 degrees C when the sunspots were zero during the Maunder Minimum.. Yes you will say it was all caused by other factors . I am not that affirmative and think that there is a sun connection somewhere . The next decade or two will show where the truth lies. Like I say I hope you have good snow tires for the decade ahead in case things are different than you say . I close my comments for this track.
I concur with herkimer.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“If it is not magnetic field strength changes in both the sun/earth, what is it that caused all the many abrupt climatic changes ? ”
Isn’t that the exact type of reasoning that the believers say about CO2 and AGW?
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:46 pm
graph in the SUN SECTION of CLIMTE4YOU and look at graph SOLAR IRRADIANCE SINCE 1610, ANNUAL VALUES and RUNNING 11 YEAR AVERAGES
That graph is based on obsolete data, and is constructed simply as the Group SSN riding on top of the 11-yr average Group SSN [under the dubious assumption that there is such a background – there isn’t]. As you can see on Slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf the last decade’s data falsifies the assumption of the background. In addition, we know now [check the other slides], that the Group SSN is wrong and should not be used anymore [or should at least be fixed]. So whatever correlation you find with the old, obsolete reconstructions will not carry much weight.
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum I recommend
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
One of the et als is Mann- remember few people are wrong 100% of the time.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum I recommend
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
That old paper used Lean’s 1995 and Hoyt&Schatten’s 1995 solar forcing based on their reconstructed TSI. Those reconstructions are way out of data and no longer useful.
Leif – Again you are focussed on the wrong thing – I’m not so interested in their solar forcing models which may or may not be valid but on the empirical or semi empirical data against which they checked them.They say
“This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern
Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1¡ to 2¡C), in agreement with
historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.”
It is the historical records and proxy data I’m referring to to estimate Maunder Cooling not the model outputs.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Again you are focused on the wrong thing
What is that ‘Again’ doing here?
But I think not, because of what you said:
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum
So you assume that there is a causal connection [this is where the model comes in] rather than just a coincidental empirical correlation between proxies.
Leif OK drop the again.
If there is a good empirical correlation between proxies its a better place to start looking for causal connections than where there isnt..As I said earlier – if you can identify quasi periodical repetitive patterns in the temperature data while it would be helpful to know the mechanics – it is not necessary in order to make rational and possibly successful forecasts.
Perhaps I should have said more precisely – those interested in the cooling during the time commonly referred to as the MM.(if you find any inference of causality disturbing).Im quite happyy to admit that at this time the sun climate connections are obscure but at some point I have no doubt that someone like yourself ( perhaps even you ) will sort it out.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
if you can identify quasi periodical repetitive patterns in the temperature data while it would be helpful to know the mechanics – it is not necessary in order to make rational and possibly successful forecasts.
The people making solar cycle predictions used that same argument and my slide shows that it doesn’t work. I’ll contend that the same is true for temperature and any other variable as well.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:22 pm
“If the SSN just was like the red curve on Slide 7, I would not call it Grand.
For the corrected Wolf Sunspot Number red curve come out this parameters from my spreadsheet:
SSN average for 18th century: ~55
SSN average for 19th century: ~51
SSN average for 20th century: ~64.5 (- 17% higher than 18th century and 26% higher than 19th century)
Call it Grand or not, the corrected Wolf sunspot count average for the 20th century is quite higher than for 18th and 19th century and the relatively high solar cycles 17-22 cause it.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Call it Grand or not, the corrected Wolf sunspot count average for the 20th century is quite higher than for 18th and 19th century and the relatively high solar cycles 17-22 cause it.
A difference of 10 in SSN corresponds to 0.1 W/m2 of TSI corresponding to 0.005 degrees C so not Grand.
Kudos to you Leif for struggling through the comments, reasonable or not.
There should be more scientists like you out here.
Leif Svalgaard
Your comments indicate that you are a proponent of the theory that a weakened heliosphere and solar wind affects both cosmic ray flux bombardment of the atmosphere and global temperature. Yet, you seem not to adhere to the theory that low altitude clouds cause enough shadowing to do the job. I tried to look at the page you directed me to*, but it is coming up as “not available” on my computer.
This chart, offered by Svensmark, shows a good correlation between cosmic ray count and low cloud cover
Is contradicted by the actual data:
* http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
e.g. Figure 5. “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
So, I need to ask the question: Do you have a theory that explains the strong correlation between solar wind strength and global temperature or do you just suspect what doesn’t work (ie. reflective clouds)?
Excuse me, anyone else getting a 404 Error message when clicking on this link?
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Carla,
I imagine that everyone is getting the 404 message. That’s why I asked Leif to respond again. If not muon induced clouds, then WHAT is causing the solar wind/F10.7 to have such an effect on the earth’s temperature? You can’t keep repeating what doesn’t work without providing an alternative theory… or just stating calmly that scientists currently have no idea what the linkage is. I can accept that.
GreGG says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm
…correlation between solar wind strength and global temperature or do you just suspect what doesn’t work …
—
I think.. related to ionization rates. More ionization more inflation, less ionization less inflation. Energy in..
Someone recently said, might have been Seth Redfield, don’t think dampening, think ionization..
Leif has been mentioning ionosphere and ionospheric coupling..
Found this on his site.
The Solar Wind – Magnetosphere Coupling Function and Nowcasting of Geomagnetic Activity
http://www.leif.org/research/Coupling-Function-AMS93.pdf
Leif You seem very pessimistic with regard to the possibility of any climate prediction at all.
I am convinced that the IPCC modelling approach is inherently useless and that another approach would be more useful.Here it is , We will see how it turns out – so far so good.!! -early days but I’m encouraged.
I put out on my blog at
http:climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
on 6/18/ 2010 a fairly generalised “”Thirty Year Climate Forecaste ” with a 2year update
on 7/19/2012
Following a series of supporting posts I put out the more detailed forecast quoted in the original comment on his thread ( 7/15/ 4.13 ) see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
This post opens
“My approach to climate science is based on Baconian empirical principles as presented in a series of earlier posts on this site (http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com) notably:
6/18/10 Thirty Year Climate Forecast
7/19/12 30 Year Climate Forecast -2 year Update
10/30/12. Hurricane Sandy-Extreme Events and Global Cooling
11/18/12 Global Cooling Climate and Weather Forecasting
1/22/13 Global Cooling Timing and Amount
2/18/13 Its the Sun Stupid – the Minor Significance of CO2
From the data and papers linked to on these earlier posts I have drawn on a few basic premises on which the new forecasts rely.
I think these present a coherent method and a set of forecasts testable over the next 5 years.
One thing for sure, if another LIA is upon us, this planet will have trouble sustaining 6 billion people, that is what policy makers should be considering.
‘Further investigation’ is always nice, but curve fitting to not-understood cycles has no real predictive power.
… as many an investor in the stock market and gambler with a “system” has discovered the hard way.
Needless to say, I categorically disagree with Norman Page. Also, he asserts that I think that the climate is too complex to predict and then “refutes” this assertion by noting that empirically it has had some bounded behavior and therefore we can confidently predict that it will continue to have that behavior. This is a straw man argument, making a claim to know my thoughts and then refuting what it is asserted that they are with a non-sequitor.
FWIW, I think that the climate is too complex to predict accurately now, for the simple reason that nobody has managed to do so yet. I don’t think that it is intrinsically impossible to ever predict. I agree that it is probable but not certain that its future state will remain within bounds compatible with “life”, but that isn’t saying much even over the last 5 million years, let alone what we can plausibly infer from the last 500 million. During the last glaciation, atmospheric CO_2 dropped dangerously close to a partial pressure that would have started to kill at least some plants. There have been ecological/climatological catastrophes in the past that may not have caused universal extinction, but were hardly pleasant to live through for the species that did.
As I said, nobody seems to be able to accept that we just don’t know what the climate will do over the next 80 to 90 years (or the next 8 or 9, or 800 to 900). We have no bets that “should” be substantially different from a metaphorical coin flip. One person invokes pure numerology to justify their “certainty” that some particular thing will happen. Another invokes models that fail elementary hypothesis testing when they are compared internally, when they are compared to other (also failing) models, and when their predictions are compared to nature to justify their “certainty” that a different particular thing will happen.
Leif has the right of it. Mother Nature will have the last word. Perhaps that word will — eventually — validate one theory or computation or another. Or perhaps it will be something almost completely unexpected.
rgb
GreGG says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
RGB I didnt say that I thought the climate was too complex to predict I said that you thought the climate was too complex to predict. You more or less agree with what I said about your views when you say “FWIW, I think that the climate is too complex to predict accurately now”
Do you have any interesting discussions with your colleague Scafetta.? I would assume that your views clash on this matter of predictability.
GreGG says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:03 pm
Yet, you seem not to adhere to the theory that low altitude clouds cause enough shadowing to do the job.
The paper explains the Svensmark correlation as a fluke. The fact is that newer data does not support the theory. This is a good sign that the correlation is spurious to begin with.
GreGG says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:19 pm
WHAT is causing the solar wind/F10.7 to have such an effect on the earth’s temperature?
Except there is no such effect above the expected level of 0.1 deg C.
stating calmly that scientists currently have no idea what the linkage is. I can accept that.
I’ll state calmly that most scientists are not convinced that there is a link to begin with, as the data does not support such a link.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:46 pm
Leif You seem very pessimistic with regard to the possibility of any climate prediction at all.
No, I think we’ll crack that nut eventually, but not by naively extrapolating not-understood quasi-cycles beyond the domain on which they are derived.
I think these present a coherent method and a set of forecasts testable over the next 5 years.
considering that climate is defined over a 30-yr span, the next 5 years will not tell us anything. Perhaps 1/2 of the 30 years – i.e. 15 years – might provide a hint of where the climate is going. But not 5 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2013 at 5:28 pm
“A difference of 10 in SSN corresponds to 0.1 W/m2 of TSI corresponding to 0.005 degrees C”
1. While even the SSN data show trend 38.97 per century for the 20th century the Solanki TSI reconstruction data show 0.694 W/m^2/century trend for the 20th century.
So it looks your 10 SSN/0.1 W/m^2 ratio is somewhat inflated.
2. Now, how much 0.694 W/m^2/century trend warms open ocean surface layer (the strip at latitudes ~0-65°, 200m deep)?
Waveless ocean average reflectivity from Fresnel equations at 0-65° is 0.03 (and wavy ocean reflectivity is even up to half lower at high angles than what comes out from Fresnel equations…)
(0.694/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 3.1536×10^9 [number of seconds in 100 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 5.27×10^8 J/m^2 surplus heat which would warm the 200m of water below:
5.27×10^8 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 0.63 K – which means slightly less than ~0.1 degree SST change per 0.1 W TSI change.
But the figure would be somewhat smaller because of clouds – we really don’t know exactly how much (something like 10-25%).
The observed global sea surface temperature anomaly rise in 20th century according to HadSST2 dataset was 0.629 K (HadSST3 11 year running average to filter out solar signal)
Which means the theoreticaly predicted figure (without accounting for uncertain cloud albedo) using Solanki TSI reconstruction 20th century trend differs 0.001 K from the figure measured as it comes out from the HadSST3 dataset.
But good to mention the error range for the HadSST3 figure is quite high for low and uneven ocean coverage and the figure differs considerably even from the previous version of the SST anomaly dataset HadSST2, where the temperature anomaly rise in 20th century comes out 0.658 K. And given the presumed confirmation bias at Hadley Centre the figure can be even considerably lower than what comes out from HadSST3 dataset due to systematic bias.
Nevertheless – although my result can differ from reality up to ~25% because of cloud albedo (assuming here the HadSST3 gives real figure) I’m anyway afraid your 0.005 C (per 0.1 W/m^2) figure would even so be at least order of magnitude lower than what was observed and can be theoretically predicted.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Sorry, the link for the SSN chart somehow didn’t go through: Here it is
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Sorry, the link for the SSN chart somehow didn’t go through: Here it is
The SSN between 1720-1755 is critical for the SSN in the 18th century. Wolf gave fairly low values. Cosmic ray data suggests that the values should be much higher, on par with the late 20th century, see Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf [the HMF B depends on the SSN]. This issue is now under study, so the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. We hope to have the issue resolved by our final meeting in Locarno, Switzerland in May 2014 [ http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home ]
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm
1. While even the SSN data show trend 38.97 per century for the 20th century the Solanki TSI reconstruction data show 0.694 W/m^2/century trend for the 20th century.
So it looks your 10 SSN/0.1 W/m^2 ratio is somewhat inflated.
The trend over a century is meaningless as it depends on where you choose the end points. What is the trend from 1957 to 2013, for example? or from 1870 to 1970?
Now, the Solanki reconstruction is probably not correct. All evidence we have shows that all observed solar indices in 1901 were very similar to those of 2008, so one would expect TSI to also obey that. The 0.1 W/m2 per 10 sunspot numbers is an observational fact for the time of spacecraft data [1978-2013].
Which means the theoreticaly predicted figure (without accounting for uncertain cloud albedo) using Solanki TSI reconstruction 20th century trend differs 0.001 K from the figure measured as it comes out from the HadSST3 dataset.
Since Solanki is not correct, your calculation is moot.
rgbatduke said:
“Leif has the right of it. Mother Nature will have the last word. Perhaps that word will — eventually — validate one theory or computation or another”
For those prepared to listen Nature is already screaming the answer at us.
When the sun became less active in the mid 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the equator.
When the sun became less active in the late 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the poles.
Since 2000 it has shifted back towards the equator again.
In the MWP the circulation was at least as poleward as it was in the late 20th century and in the LIA it was at least as equatorward as it has been recently.
The shifts are accompanied by changes in the balance between jet stream zonality and meridionality such that greater extremes as a result of atmospheric blocking events occur during more meridional periods.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Let me go with your calculation, but assume a much gentler trend:
Assume the trend was 38.97 over 100,000 years. Solanki TSI reconstruction data would then show 0.694 W/m^2 for the 100,000 years as the assumption is that it is the 38.97 which is responsible for the 0.694.
2. Now, how much 0.694 W/m^2/100,000 years trend warms open ocean surface layer (the strip at latitudes ~0-65°, 200m deep)?
Waveless ocean average reflectivity from Fresnel equations at 0-65° is 0.03 (and wavy ocean reflectivity is even up to half lower at high angles than what comes out from Fresnel equations…)
(0.694/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 3.1536×10^12 [number of seconds in 100,000 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 5.27×10^12 J/m^2 surplus heat which would warm the 200m of water below:
5.27×10^12 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 630 K … that is real global warming…
Stephen Wilde says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:21 pm
When the sun became less [perhaps you mean more – to make sense] active in the mid 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the equator. When the sun became less active in the late 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the poles. Since 2000 it has shifted back towards the equator again.
So, when the Sun became even less active than in the late 20th century the circulation should have shifted even more towards the poles, but you say it has shifted towards the equator again. Nature may be screaming something at you, but you seem to muddle her message a bit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2013 at 10:23 pm
“The SSN between 1720-1755 is critical for the SSN in the 18th century. ”
Could be.
But I somehow don’t see point what it has with the SSN in the 20th century (to show it I linked the chart in the first place) where even with the pre-1947 +20% correction comes out almost SSN 40 per century upward trend.
Nor I see what it has to do with the Solanki TSI trend in the 20th century (which I compared with the SSN trend to show your SSN/TSI ratio is somewhat inflated – if we compare the 20th century SSN trend with the 20th century Solanki TSI trend then by factor ~1.78).
Nor I see what it has to do with resulting SST change and its ratio to the TSI change my post was in the first place about – to show using the MJ/m^2/century calculation that your TSI/temperature change ratio estimate is at least order of magnitude too low.
All together would give SSN +10 corresponding to TSI ~+0.178 W/m^2 corresponding to ~+0.12 °C SST (in fact whole epipelagic zone!) temperature change – if we account for the bit overkill 0.25 cloud albedo value – (not SSN +10 corresponding to TSI +0.1 corresponding to +0.005 °C – such ratio I would also not call Grand – but as you can see it is quite an unrealistic one).
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Nor I see what it has to do with the Solanki TSI trend in the 20th century (which I compared with the SSN trend to show your SSN/TSI ratio is somewhat inflated – if we compare the 20th century SSN trend with the 20th century Solanki TSI trend then by factor ~1.78).
You do not see that when you compare SSN with Solanki TSI, that that has anything to do with Solanki?
It was very clever to invert my ratio: I said that +10 SSN increases TSI by 0.1 W/m2, you want it to be by 0.178 W/m2 and then you call my estimate ‘inflated’…
In my previous comment I show that your calculation has no merit.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:47 pm
(which I compared with the SSN trend to show your SSN/TSI ratio is somewhat inflated
The TSI/SSN ratio [0.1 W/m2 per +10 sunspots] is an observed fact during the space age [no funky reconstruction needed]. When the sunspot number increases by 150 from min to max, TSI increases 1.5 W/m2: 1.5/150*10 = 0.1 W/m2 as order of magnitude; a regression analysis give 0.073. Cannot be inflated or fiddled with. This is a directly observed fact.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:47 pm
All together would give SSN +10 corresponding to TSI ~+0.178 W/m^2 corresponding to ~+0.12 °C SST (in fact whole epipelagic zone!) temperature change
The trend from 1957 to 2013 was -54 sunspots, which with your numbers gives a SST change of -0.64 °C. So has SST cooled by more than 0.6 °C since the mid-20th century? I don’t think so.
Leif,
You appear to be muddled.
The sun became slightly less active in cycle 20 and we saw a small equatorward shift.
It became more active in cycles 21 to 23 when there was a noted poleward shift.
Cycle 24 is less active and we see an equatorward shift.
Note that the timings are not exactly coincident with solar variations due to oceanic lag times.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:32 pm
“5.27×10^12 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 630 K … that is real global warming…
Nice try, but not quite real – it would definitely not work like that:
1. SSN 38.97 per 100000 years trend means SSN 0.03897 per century trend which with my SSN/TSI/temperature ratio corresponds to 0.000684 W/m^2 per century and the warming result for the 100000 years would be basically identical.
2. even if your calculation crib would be right (which isn’t), then in 100 thousand years you would even just with usual water thermal conductivity warm whole the ocean top to botom (several times) – which means ~19 times more water to heat. Which means – assuming no thermal dissipation change! – the temperature of the ocean would rise not 630 K but only ~33 K and we don’t know how the thermocline would change, so we can’t say how much would the surface temperature change. We can only assume the sea surface temperature would be something between ~50 and 100 C
3. But don’t forget that the radiation flux rises with fourth power of temperature
(Stefan-Boltzman law I = sigma T^4)
-so for example for the >33 K surface warming from the ~290K the direct mid-IR radiance of the ocean (- while for the ~290K is 401.057 W/m^2) would be >617.196 W/m^2 >1.55 times higher, while for the ~290.63 K it is 404.553 W/m^2 = just ~0.0087 times higher (for most of the real calculations we can omit it) – so for the >33K surface temperature change the ocean radiation change would be 1.55/0.0087 ~>178 times higher than for the 0.63 K surface temperature change while the irradiation would change only like 3.9 x 0.178 = ~0.7 W/m^2 which means 0.7/1361 = ~0.0005 times. Such delta I/delta TSI we surely can’t omit and in fact it would just for the 33.6 K higher surface temperature mean I= 617.196-401.057 = 216 W/m^2 ocean radiation rise, so you would need for every square meter subtract ~216 Joules per second which in your 100000 thousand years (of supersteady superflat SSN upward trend 38.97 per 100000 years – SSN 0.03897 per century) means at least half of 6.8×10^14 = 3.4×10^14 J which anyway is clearly 65 times higher number than your 5.27×10^12 J figure.
…which all together makes absolutely clear your plagiariristic calculation try is a complete mess.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2013 at 12:13 am
“The trend from 1957 to 2013 was -54 sunspots, which with your numbers gives a SST change of -0.64 °C. So has SST cooled by more than 0.6 °C since the mid-20th century?”
Let’s look at the issue a bit differently for a period we can compare with another period:
The 30 year SSN trend from 1964 – 1994 (and since then we almost don’t have really significant SST warming and the period since then is anyway still too short for robust conclusions, because transient lags – especially in such period of abrupt solar activity decline as the 1994-2013 period surely is – can intervene) was SSN +24
The Solanki TSI reconstruction gives TSI trend for the same period 0.438 W/m^2, from my ratio comes out 0.18 x 2.4 = 0.432 W/m^2 – 0.006 W/m^2 difference between the two.
(0.432/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 9.467×10^8 [number of seconds in 30 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 9.835×10^7 J/m^2 surplus heat which, would warm the 200m of water below: 9.835×10^7 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 0.118 K
The HadSST3 shows for the period 1964-1994 0.188 K warming – some 0.07 K higher temperature anomaly rise in that 30 years than my theoretical result, which would look another minor factor(s) could intervene (such as GHG – and I don’t deny such possibility). But this difference well could be also at least partially a result of observational errors and/or systematic bias.
For check we can also compare to a comparable 30 years period 1902 – 1932 (both periods are 30 years and both begin in the year of solar minimum), where we could assume not much GHG emissions in comparison with the 1964-1994 period could intervene.
The 30 year SSN trend 1902-1932 was +19, the Solanki TSI trend for the same period was 0.282 W/m^2 and from my ratio comes out 0.18 x 1.9 = 0.342 W/m^2 – 0.06 W/m^2 difference between the two.
(0.342/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 9.467×10^8 [number of seconds in 30 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 7.787×10^7 J/m^2 surplus heat which, would warm the 200m of water below: 7.787×10^7 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 0.093 K
The HadSST3 shows for the period 1902-1932 0.169 K warming – some 0.076 K higher temperature anomaly rise during the 30 years than my theoretical result. In this case we wouldn’t expect significant GHG contribution, but the difference between the theoretical result and the HadSST3 is anyway very simmilar for both the compared 30 years periods.
So either there’s indeed observational error and/or systematic bias in the HadSST3 (and one could expect that with the poor coverage and confirmation bias the ~0.02 K/decade difference could easily be there), or my ratio still underestimates the temperature/TSI change ratio or doesn’t work well for short periods (or all together).
Also, good to note we have a relatively huge anomaly in 20th century which can’t be attributed nor to the GHG, nor sun – the after mid 1940s cooling, which could be well the reason of underestimation of my temperature/TSI change ratio, because I in fact derive it empiricaly from the 20th century observations (I unfortunately don’t have anything better).
Unfortunately there aren’t SST data back to 1800, so we can’t compare the 1800-1900 with 1900-2000 period to see if the ratio would work for another 100 years period.
For those prepared to listen Nature is already screaming the answer at us.
When the sun became less active in the mid 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the equator.
When the sun became less active in the late 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the poles.
Since 2000 it has shifted back towards the equator again.
In the MWP the circulation was at least as poleward as it was in the late 20th century and in the LIA it was at least as equatorward as it has been recently.
Ah, I see. And these shifts in global air circulation have nothing to do with the (mostly) periodic decadal oscillations, with fluctuations in oceanic heat flow, with atmospheric composition changes natural or anthropogenic (and you are, of course, certain of all of this). And you can, naturally show me physically why all of this is true and you have sound evidence of what global air circulation was in the LIA and MWP to back up your assertion of knowledge of this era in the remote past. Because I’m pretty skeptical of your having any actual evidence at all for the LIA, where it is at least not completely impossible to make inferences from ship records on global voyages in the latter part of the 17th century (although I seriously doubt anyone has done so and suspect enormous error bars if they have). I’m really skeptical that anybody has the foggiest idea what “global air circulation” was doing in the MWP. (And to Norman Page — except, of course, that it probably was circulating enough to maintain life etc. I mean, we can be pretty sure that half the earth wasn’t in a vacuum and the other at a 2x overpressure…:-)
But aside from your assertion of knowledge (as always, without any acknowledgment of possible error, it is always certain that the circulation in the remote past was “like” it is today in some way, not “from records maintained by the Greek Orthodox Church in Siberia, it is plausible that circulation there was like, although of course nobody has any idea what was happening in Antarctica because no humans lived there…”) that you almost certainly don’t have, you make one more really basic error in your eagerness to find springy little lambs in the clouds and dragons outlined in the patterns of the stars.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a named fallacy for a reason. Yesterday I found a four leafed clover in the grass and last night I slept like a baby. The day before that a black cat (that lives next door) crossed my path at least once, and my back kept me awake all night tossing and turning. Ergo, black cats cause back pain, but fortunately four leafed clovers are a cure!
The problem is that our brains are greedy pattern-matching engines, to a fault. In many cases this is a good thing, because on a quotidian basis lots of stuff is linearizable. Very small children learn that hot stoves burn the shit out of your fingers very quickly because inference is literally built into our brains in a generally good way. The side effect, however, of this tendency is the creation of elaborate mythologies based on the most tenuous of associations, unwarranted extrapolations, the misapplication of Platonic idealism, and a certain amount of personal hubris and interpolated human greed and cunning (stable mythologies are usually socially and economically beneficial to some group or another of priests even as they are supported by true believers on the basis of anecdotal evidence or none at all).
The only cure for this tendency that we as a species have discovered is the rigorous application of a skeptical mind and an absolutely rabid insistence on a mix of extended empirical association and a consistent causal reasoning chain to the entire, painfully developed, empirically supported consistent causal mechanism that in total we call “science”, a knowing that is not, ultimately pulled out of our asses on the basis of anecdotes and pretty patterns seen in chaotic noise.
I generally respect your contributions to this list, BTW — I am only stating this as emphatically as I am for your own benefit. Leif has the right of it, and I think he and are in pretty good agreement here. The climate system isn’t unsolvable, but I see little to convince me that it has been solved yet, or that we even fully understand all of the inputs and connections needed to begin to construct a working (at some level of consistent accuracy) approximation. Perhaps in a few decades, especially if we continue to improve our empirical knowledge so it is no longer derived from ancient sunspot records of dubious and difficult to correct accuracy, ships’ logs kept for some other purpose entirely by persons of indifferent skill and motivation obtained with poor instrumentation, court or church records ditto, or inferred on the basis of highly multivariate and possibly confounded proxies that sample a wholly inadequate fraction of a rather large globe (which at least have the advantage of having some possible statements of error made that nobody ever makes when presenting the results to make inferences about modern climate).
Uh oh, there’s that damn cat outside. You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got to go find a four leafed clover…
rgb
Resourceguy says:
July 16, 2013 at 7:14 am
Maybe magnetic field line re-connection is part of the answer. The frequency of the these re-connections is associated with heat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130715164909.htm
Very interesting. As some of you may remember I have been pushing a possible connection between CMEs and blips in the daily global temperature. Almost every time we see a surge upward it is timed with a CME. These blips often last for a week or two. My thought is that enough of these small blips over any time period will lead to a warmer average temperature than the same period without these blips.
I mentioned a couple of other times that CMEs had been hypothesized to be due to Solar Magnetic Reconnections (SMRs). As the article indicates, these SMRs can be very energetic. One can see how the SMR could itself also influence the Earth’s magnetic field when the magnetic lines involved directly connect to the Earth’s magnetic field. We could end up with what we actually see. Not all CMEs cause a rise in Earth’s temperature but rises always correspond to a CME.
I doubt we have the data to understand this relationship enough to verify my thoughts. But, if it turns out a more active sun does lead to more SMRs-CMEs then we could have a mechanism for an active sun warming the Earth.
Finally, if you think about the sun being a little more active in the 18th-20th centuries that is all one needs to climb out of the LIA. A very small but consistent warming would slowly raise the average global temperature. The 60 year and 100 year cycles probably have little effect over 3 centuries but they do nicely cloud the picture.
rgb
i) I have stated that the solar induced circulation shifts are indeed modulated by ocean cycles (substantially) and atmospheric composition (slightly). They could also be affected by GHGs but to only a miniscule degree.
ii) Tonyb has lots of historical evidence to show that past cool periods had more equatorward climate zones and past warm periods had more poleward climate zones. One can even see population movements poleward during warm periods and equatorward during colder periods. I don’t think that climate history is your strong point.
iii) I have accepted the possibility of error and have set out a list of observations (for Leif) that could prove such error but none have happened thus far.
iv) Changes in the balance of ozone creation/destruction above the tropopause are critical to stratosphere temperatures which are in turn critical to the height of the tropopause and the height gradient between equator and pole. That gradient then determines the latitudinal positioning of the permanent climate zones. Those permanent climate zones are influenced by the land mass distribution but the basic structure has been there for as long as the Earth has had oceans.
v) Do you think that the global air circulation is NOT affected by changes in the energy budget? Do you think that such changes are NOT a negative system response?
I think your emotional rant is misplaced.
Dust in the wind..
All the talk about “cloud” relationship to climate..
Yet, no one mentions the role of dust..
I’ll get it in..
Pricilla Frisch said at the news conference:
“gas and DUST are blowing into the heliosphere at 50,000mph.”
She has been involved with the studies of dust in and around the heliosphere.
Richard M says:
July 17, 2013 at 5:34 am: “Not all CMEs cause a rise in Earth’s temperature but rises always correspond to a CME.”
A good obvious observation! It would be interesting to see if CMEs increase in number and intesnity relative to planetary movement and position.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 17, 2013 at 1:23 am
It became more active in cycles 21 to 23 when there was a noted poleward shift.
Now you say that the Sun became more active and there was a poleward shift,
but here:
Stephen Wilde says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:21 pm
When the sun became less active in the late 20th century the global air circulation shifted towards the poles.
you said that the Sun became less active and there was a poleward shift.
Which is it? And who is muddled?
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 2:24 am
Nice try, but not quite real – it would definitely not work like that:
1. SSN 38.97 per 100000 years trend means SSN 0.03897 per century trend which with my SSN/TSI/temperature ratio corresponds to 0.000684 W/m^2 per century and the warming result for the 100000 years would be basically identical.
However your calculation predicts 630K:
2. Now, how much 0.694 W/m^2/100,000 years trend warms open ocean surface layer (the strip at latitudes ~0-65°, 200m deep)?
Waveless ocean average reflectivity from Fresnel equations at 0-65° is 0.03 (and wavy ocean reflectivity is even up to half lower at high angles than what comes out from Fresnel equations…)
(0.694/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 3.1536×10^12 [number of seconds in 100,000 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 5.27×10^12 J/m^2 surplus heat which would warm the 200m of water below: 5.27×10^12 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 630 K … that is real global warming…
The only thing that changed is duration which became 1000 times longer and your calculation then gives a warming 1000 times larger. Deal with that error first.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 4:32 am
“The trend from 1957 to 2013 was -54 sunspots, which with your numbers gives a SST change of -0.64 °C. So has SST cooled by more than 0.6 °C since the mid-20th century?”
Let’s look at the issue a bit differently for a period we can compare with another period
You were not responsive to my question, so I will repeat it.
So we have achieved such total mastery of the inner workings of our sun that we can confidently predict future cycles? I have my doubts. From our POV future activity on the sun is capricious, following dynamics we can only faintly glimpse. We can’t even predict next year’s economy– a subject about which the state of our knowledge is vastly more detailed.
So it’s anyone’s guess. But we do know what’s happening right now. And I would venture to say we can see the effects of this minimal extent of solar activity in our own weather. I.e. one might expect to see increasingly hotter summer melts at both poles, and that’s not been the case this year… at least so far.
How to balance the effects of a weaker sun against the effects of other climate drivers? I would begin with an index compiled by Scafetta and West (2006) on the amount of total warming attributable to solar activity. The box can be found on page 181 of Donald Rapp’s Assessing Climate Change.
They give total observed warming for the period 1950-2000 as being 0.45 degrees C, and the amount attributable to increases in solar activity (TSI) as being 0.14 degrees.
That is, the sun was found to be responsible for 31% of total heat increase.
Extrapolating that out, if we’re now in the midst of a temporary downturn in TSI, one would expect to see the theoretical increase due to atmospheric climate drivers (CO2, CH4, etc) to be attenuated– cooler than expected by something like one-third.
And that’s very much like what we’re seeing at the poles this year. Tally-ho.
Leif.
There was a typo in my initial post but it wasn’t the one you thought it was.
The correct version is:
“The sun became slightly less active in cycle 20 and we saw a small equatorward shift.
It became more active in cycles 21 to 23 when there was a noted poleward shift.
Cycle 24 is less active and we see an equatorward shift.
Note that the timings are not exactly coincident with solar variations due to oceanic lag times.”
Stephen Wilde says:
July 17, 2013 at 7:05 am
There was a typo in my initial post but it wasn’t the one you thought it was.
Since the post was muddled and didn’t make any sense it is hard to figure out what you meant.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 4:32 am
in reply to Leif July 17, 2013 at 12:13 am
“…anomaly in 20th century which can’t be attributed nor to the GHG, nor sun – the after mid 1940s cooling”
Well, here I must correct myself.
In fact I’m able to explain by sun even the after mid 1940s cooling, but usually nobody wants to listen…
The point is that although SC19 looks optically way higher than SC18, in fact the trend slope from SC18 beginning to the SC19 end is nevertheless clearly a downward slope (and it would be even steeper if the pre1947 +20% correction applied) – so is the corresponding SST trend slope. The SSN trend SC18-20[end] is even much more steeply downward, yet the SC20-22 trends are again steeply upward – so is the corresponding SST trend.)
(see here – note especially the 1944-1964 and 1944-1976 solar minima SSN and corresponding SST trends and also note that the directions of all the SSN trends matches all the corresponding SST trends – although the SSN trends beginning before 1947 would have slightly different slopes if the data would be corrected with your 20% correction)
This agreeing trend directions we can see for most of the SSN/SST correspondence – see for example the second charthere. This solar minima-to-maxima and maxima-to-minima SST trends at least strongly suggest the the SST is almost always chiefly driven by the sun. But mind also the last SST trend (the SC24) which is the only one in the chart which direction doesn’t correspond to the SSN rise – which is could be co-caused by two factors – the 2010 El Nino and too low SC24 when compared to previous solar cycles – in fact the solar activity measured by SSN rose since the 1964 minima well to the mid 2000s and then declined sharply – ass you can see on my “wiggle graph”).
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 7:19 am
Well, here I must correct myself.
2. Now, how much 0.694 W/m^2/100,000 years trend warms open ocean surface layer (the strip at latitudes ~0-65°, 200m deep)?
Waveless ocean average reflectivity from Fresnel equations at 0-65° is 0.03 (and wavy ocean reflectivity is even up to half lower at high angles than what comes out from Fresnel equations…)
(0.694/3.63 [0-65° Earth strip/6371km radius circle surface ratio]) x (1-0.03[open ocean 0-65° average reflectivity]) x 3.1536×10^12 [number of seconds in 100,000 years] x 0.9 [0-65° strip surface/whole Earth surface] = 5.27×10^12 J/m^2 surplus heat which would warm the 200m of water below: 5.27×10^12 / 4.1813[heat capacity of 1cm3 water] / 2×10^8[number of cm3 in 200 m thick 1m^2 surface column of water] = 630 K … that is real global warming…
There is cosiderable discussion here of the SSN/SST relationships.I think the best proxy for solar effects on climate is the neutron count because this reflects both SST and possible cosmic ray /cloud connections. Here is a quote from the post linked in an earlier comment.referring to the Oulu data from 1954 -present.
“These forecasts and trends are generally consistent with the broad trends in the Oulu neutron count since 1964 Fig4 which I suggest may well be considerd as a key Solar Activity Proxy — SAP. It seems that there is a +/- 12 year lag between the SAP and the temperature. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
The decline in the count minima from solar cycles 20-22 ie from 1969 – 1991 corresponds roughly to the temperature rise from the early 1980s to the 2003-5 temperature peak . It also matches well with the increase in the count of hours of sunshine during the same period dicussed by Wang et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
which may well represent an open phase of the iris effect.
The relatively higher counts at the cycle 23 and especially the cycle 24 neutron minima troughs (solar cycle SSN peaks) suggest a continuing downtrend in temperatures to at least 2024.
There was a secular change in the related Ap index in 2004-5 which could presage a sharp temperature drop in about 2016-17 and the Oulu data show an increase in the neutron count also in 2004- 5 which might indicate the same thing and which is already built in to the system”
Leif,
How do think it is plausible that predictive modeling can be done when the temperature driver is atmospheric (clouds + atmosphere) and everything affects cloud cover? A 1% change in atmospherc albedo is going to be about 0.75 W/m^2 change in overall absorbed TSI. Anything that increases this albedo will reduce the absorbed power. It’s not only the fraction of cloud cover but also the reflectivity or scattering of the light from the clouds and that is affected by the cloud nucleation particle sizes. Any event, Earth based, Sun based, cosmic ray source based, …, which affects the cloud cover or cloud reflectivity will impact the system and that includes a bunch of truly random factors (or random noise) in the system.
Typo in above post in third line should be SSN not SST
Also should be Oulu data from 1964 not 54. Sorry
Try this WUWT-article from 2008 for an explanation: Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2013 at 6:38 am
However your calculation predicts 630K…
No it doesn’t.
My calculation is quite simplified and deals with 100 years, not 100 thousand years.
The calculation more or less works for 100 years and the TSI rise -> temperature rise correspondence in arbitrary, usually ~same temperature ocean layer using actual physical dependencies which is documented in it quite well and hardly can be much objected by anything else than the cloud albedo, which anyway wouldn’t change the result more than 25%. ( on the other hand the 200m depth is quite arbitrary “official” upper margin of the epipelagic zone depth and the solar radiation extinction anyway considerably diminishes with rising depth – as you can see for example on this chart -In fact most of it for solar spectrum happens up to 10m depth, not 200m depth – there the heat resulting from extinction is already almost only conducted, because not even the subsurface turbulences working significantly up to ~100m depth much vertically mix it there.)
The calculation is very simplified and for reasons stated quite clearly in the 2. and especially 3. – again reasons of purely physical nature – couldn’t work for 100 thousand years (even if the “number of seconds” problem wouldn’t be there) and temperature changes for which the heat direct radiation dissipation rate change [by radiation and conduction – which works differently for the liquid water in the downward direction, because the warmer water has lower density than the cold water for most of the ocean surface and mostly to depths over 1000m, so it is constantly driven by gravity in opposite direction than the thermal gradient and thus also the radiation flux density determines, which is further complicated with the water dilatometric anomaly, viscosity, different salinity…so the thermal conductivity in ocean really is not a trivial problem we can solve with usual formulas for thermal conductivity devleoped for small amounts of material] can’t be omitted (which still more or less can be for the 100 years calculation and couple of tenths of K temperature change – if we go at the epipelagic zone very bottom, compensating so for the heat dissipation) and that’s the reason why the calculation doesn’t work for your 100 thousand years – because for you to calculate the problem correctly for the 100 thousand years you clearly would need to introduce the radiation change and the thermal conductivity into the problem.
I’m in fact well aware the simplified calculation gives different results for different period lengths (first I used a different variant – which doesn’t use fixed layer depth – for the different periods with same 30 years lengths relative comparison, which works well) and I’m trying to find out way how to solve the length of the period problem, but as I try it, it more and more looks to me it is really not a trivial problem to solve it with elegance enough for the results be easily understandable also to somebody else than me sitting on this problem already several months.
But it anyway doesn’t mean the 100 years result for the arbitrary 200m ocean layer (~ten times thicker than the layer where 90% of all solar spectra extinction is going on) is completely incorrect at this level of simplification when used for well defined period, layer thickness and purpose. -for example here for purpose to show your 0.005 C/0.1 W/m^2 TSI ratio too low. From what I found so far it so far looks to me like the heat which comes to existence immediately after the solar photon extinction mostly somewhere between surface and 10m depth then travels from the surface to the 200m depth and deeper ~several years to several decades as quite slow S-waves. I still don’t know exactly how fast they’re in average, because it depends on the suface-200m depth temperature gradient – in average quite very small (and for example for surface-100m depth often even slightly negative due to wind&turbulences&surface evaporation, further complicating the thermal conduction problem) – but which could be quite different in different parts of world, moreover changes much faster both due to diurnal&seasonal&cloudiness inducted insolation changes as well as due to surface currents and it is quite difficult to model it to get some average value I could use for global simplified model.
Leif can’t underatand what Stephen Wilde has so sclearly stated.
Stephen is saying when the sun is quiet the ozone concentrations change that cause the polar vortex to weaken and expand shifting all the climatic zones southward toward the equator while when solar activity is high the polar vortex shrinks and becomes more intense causing all the climatic zones to shift polewad.
As always LAG times are involved.
The evidience for this is very strong and it is happening again with this latest prolonged solar minimum which got going in year 2005 in earnest.
I am going to try to post a great article on the latest solar research that will refute everything that Leif is trying to convey.
Leif is obsolete in his thinking and has no clue about climate/solar relationships.
NOTE- OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IS CORRELATED TO THE STRENGH OF SOLAR VISIBLE LIGHT(.5 MICRONS) WHICH PENETRATES THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 100 METERS NOT CO2 AND THE INFRARED LIGHT IT ABSORBS WHICH PENETRATE THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 1 MILLERMETER!
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2013 at 7:57 am
I think the repeating of your 100 thousand years calculation after I clearly stated the most cogent reasons why it is impossible to use the simplified calculation (omiting the heat dissipation rates changes) for 100 thousand years and continue to imply even something to the meaning I’m imlying 630 K SST change, while I already explained, why it hardly could be much more than 33K, starts to look like a strawman argument…
Again, my formula is not useful neither for 100 thousand years during which you would heat whole the ocean top to bottom several times and so the defined 200m layer figure would anyway become completely superfluous, nor Big (even just couple of C global temperature anomaly change are Big) temperature changes (-even quite slight radiation intensity change given by the sea surface temperature change – and that’s what counts if we speak about measurable surface temperature anomalies – would be during such a long time enough to dissipate all the heat back to atmosphere and space, because the radiation flux rises with fourth power of temperature.
Just btw: consider that the Stefan-Boltzman law now implies the ocean in average radiates sigma T^4 = 401 W/m^2 -if the figure 290K average SST is true. And if the average TSI is indeed the 1361.25 W/m^2 (SORCE-TIM average for last decade) then even if I use the 3.63 coeficient instead of 4 the ocean still radiates 401 – 1361.25 / 3.63 = 26! W per square meter more than the 0-65° strip in average received from the sun at TOA last decade – and the average ocean surface temperature in fact would need to be in average almost 5 K! lower than is the official 290K figure for the ocean to radiate same radiation flux per square meter as the Earth now at TOA in average receives at the 0-65° latitudes where the ocean mostly is. Or you have a different opinion?
[PDF]
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Feb 29, 2012 – The US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been providing data
That research paper I just sent is the latest solar/climate relationship study , and it refutes everything Leif is trying to convey. Enough said.
LEIF give us your solar flux predictions for the rest of this year and year 2014 and 2015. Let us see how correct or not you are.This is your field.
My prediction is it will not exceed 150 for the rest of this year(average 115) and likely will average around 100 for year 2014 andsub 100 the year after that.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 11:26 am
NOTE- OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IS CORRELATED TO THE STRENGH OF SOLAR VISIBLE LIGHT(.5 MICRONS) WHICH PENETRATES THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 100 METERS NOT CO2 AND THE INFRARED LIGHT IT ABSORBS WHICH PENETRATE THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 1 MILLERMETER!
Yes! And moreover the mid-IR there in the ocean surface skin contributes mainly not to heating the ocean epipelagic surface layer (because it cannot penetrate it significantly), but to surface evaporation – which in fact transports then latent heat way up to the atmosphere (the water vapor is lighter than air) where it condenses, releasing the latent heat, transporting so something in order of 2 GigaJoules per square meter per year (which is a figure at the same order of magnitude like the average ocean solar irradiance per square meter per year) not the ~50 times lower number which is allegedly the CO2 forcing.
Nice! A compendium of quotes by ‘experts’ that can be summed up as:
We……Just………Don’t………Know……..What…….Will……….Happen.
A Grand Experiment is in progress, involving mysterious changes to primary performance variables for Old Sol. We have no sure knowledge of what the root cause(s) of those changes are…. or what the extended effects will be on our resident planet and solar system. Soooooooo, get comfortable. Lay in a 60 year supply of popcorn (w/extra butter) and appropriate beverages, enjoy the currently unsupported conjectures, and watch the unpredictable events as they unfold. It’s a life time spanning mystery, a real ‘whodunnit’, because……
We……Just………Don’t………Know…….
MtK
I think climate changes do NOT take place gradual unless the climate is in the same climatic regime. However once thresholds are met , I think the climate shifts to a different climate regime which is very abrupt .
The question is what does it take to get climate thresholds to be met?
For example is it a sun with a solar flux reading of sub 90 for many years, or does it have to be sub 75.
Probably the geomagnetic field of the earth has to be taken into account.Then seondary effects have to kick in.
Also I imagine the beginning state of the climate when all of this starts to take place, has much to do with the end resulting climate.. What state is the climate in to begin with.
I bet that one can have the same solar conditions but get a different climate result if the beginning state of the climate is different when the solar conditions kick in.
Again the article I sent earlier today is a must read to get the latest solar /climate relationship theories.
Leif Svalgaard: considering that climate is defined over a 30-yr span, the next 5 years will not tell us anything. Perhaps 1/2 of the 30 years – i.e. 15 years – might provide a hint of where the climate is going. But not 5 years.
You wrote a lot of good posts today, and linked to pdfs of yours that I had not previously downloaded. Many thanks. fwiw, I endorse the lines I quoted above. The interchanges with your interlocutors have been informative. Except for their CAPS! and ad homs, I thank them as well. For someone who follows many (if not all) links to papers and data, this has been a good read.
Leif does not have a clue, when it comes to solar/climate relationships. If you believe in him, it is the blind leading the blind.
Same goes to those who believe in the AGW theory.
Matthew you like so many don’t understand thresholds and that the climate wil change abruptly when they are met,otherwise it changes slowly when in the same climatic regime.
Therefore you can’t put time limits ,it depends on when/if thresholds will be reached.
Leif should stick strictly to astronomy,he is clueless when it comes to climate.
aGAIN THE BEGINNING STATE OF THE CLIMATE HAS MUCH TO DO WITH YOUR END RESULT ,EVEN IF THE SAME FORCINGS ARE APPLIED.
This is like talking to the wall for the most part . Time will tell.
Excuse me, excuse me..
Dr. S. wondering if you have seen this..
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance[*]
C. Fröhlich
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 13 April 2009 / Accepted 16 June 2009
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/27/aa12318-09/aa12318-09.html
…3 Correlation with the open solar magnetic field
…The only parameter that does exhibit inter-cycle changes similar to TSI is the open magnetic field, B r, as observed on Earth by satellites since 1963 (Fig. 4b). We determine B r by taking the absolute value of the daily mean of B x from the OMNI2 dataset. The intra-cycle variation in B r is not similar to TSI, the main reason being that B r changes sign around the maximum of the cycle (during periods of the shaded areas in Fig. 4b), and since the northern and southern hemisphere may change at different times, it is a prolonged period during which the behaviour of the B r variability is dominated by the reversal.
Figure 4: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/27/aa12318-09/img18.png
Comparison of TSI and the open solar magnetic field. a) daily values of TSI (as Fig. 1); and b) those of the open magnetic field B r at 1 AU. The correlation between the minimum values of TSI and those of B r (blue points and the blue line) is shown on c). The green point is the extrapolated value not used in the regression…
Matt Marler/Leif.If Leif or you had read the post linked to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
you would see that the cooling trend started in 2003 so that 2018 would be 15 years.Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesnt appear I would have to reconsider..
cba says:
July 17, 2013 at 8:13 am
How do think it is plausible that predictive modeling can be done when the temperature driver is atmospheric (clouds + atmosphere) and everything affects cloud cover?
I don’t think we can do this at the present time [of course there are the people who claim that simple extrapolation of not-understood quasi-cycles has predictive power – go figure]. On the other hand, 150 years ago geomagnetic variations were a complete mystery too, but today we understand the physics well enough that we from measurements of the solar wind can calculate accurately what its magnetic effect on the Earth will be, so progress happens and in another 150 years I have some confidence that we will have the climate problem licked.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:55 am
My calculation is quite simplified and deals with 100 years
As my example with 100,000 years shows, your calculation is too simple and ad-hoc. Why would it work over just 100 years? Why just the 200 m upper layer? Your TSI per SSN is about twice as high as reality. etc.
The correct way to approach this problem is via energy balance: what goes in must come out, lest we get a run-away situation. So since (dS/S)/4 = dT/T, a dS = 0.1 W/m2 change on S = 1361, means a change of temperature dT of (0.1/1361)/4 = 0.00001837*T, which with T = 288K yields dT = 0.00528 deg K [or C] for a change of 10 in SSN, or 0.021 deg K for your ~40 change in SSN. Completely drowning in the noise.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 11:48 am
LEIF give us your solar flux predictions for the rest of this year and year 2014 and 2015. Let us see how correct or not you are.This is your field.
Four years ago [before the cycle even started] see Slide 42 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf I predicted a [yearly] SC24 flux maximum of 120 sfu. The average flux the past year [July 2012 – Part of July 2013] has been 120.2 sfu, so my prediction is not too far off. My prediction of the number of active regions per day was 6. We have observed 5.63 over the past year. Also not too shappy.
Carla says:
July 17, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Dr. S. wondering if you have seen this..
Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance
In this rapidly changing field Fröhlich’s paper is already obsolete, His colleagues reported [in 2011] that the calibration of the PMOD [Fröhlich] data is wrong and that there is no evidence for any long-term changes.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesn’t appear I would have to reconsider..
You have not quantified how much or how sharp so you can probably torture the result to fit as needed, but if you decide to ‘reconsider’, the honest thing is simply to concede that you were wrong and your method does not work. This is how the scientific method works.
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,”
While no fan, Dr. Hathaway has found firm ground here. ‘Solar Science’ is obviously in need of a new paradigm. It is little remarkable that wizened, dyspeptic practitioners of the bygone alchemy have only disdain for those searching out a new guide to prediction, one that will produce results needing no vital surgery.
In the meantime we are stuck with loopy statisticians attempting to supplant former era’s data with their own reconstructions, hoping to breathe life into their ‘Science’, much as astrologers added epicycles to Ptolemy.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 11:48 am
LEIF give us your solar flux predictions for the rest of this year and year 2014 and 2015. Let us see how correct or not you are.This is your field.
My prediction is it will not exceed 150 for the rest of this year(average 115) and likely will average around 100 for year 2014 andsub 100 the year after that.
Svalgaard has a problem here. He keeps telling us SC24 will be like SC14, shonky graphs and no real clue on whats really happening continue to haunt him.
The F10.7 flux values will need to rise over 200 many times in the next 2 years to follow SC14, did you notice he is shying away from predicting this?
Thanks Dr. S.
Thought for today..
If a galactic field line could be rather large..you said could take years for the heliosphere to cross..could it be like 10,000 years or more give or take..
Like around the length of an interglacial period length?
Just a stamp collector ..
Leif Using my approach I’m willing to forecast that a regression curve of the Had SST3 data from 2003 – 2018 will show cooling with a net cooling of about 0.2 degrees.
Using your approach. Is your temperature forecast a) dont like to speculate.b) flat c)cooling -how much d) warming – how much.
I’m not interested in a competition here I respect and am genuinely interested in your opinion.
Salvatore del Prete: Leif does not have a clue, when it comes to solar/climate relationships. If you believe in him, it is the blind leading the blind.
Leif makes a good case and puts up comprehensive reviews of data. It doesn’t seem to me that you do either. All I believe is that I’ll have a much firmer opinion of what might be true 20 years from now.
Dr. Norman Page: If Leif or you had read the post linked to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/04/global-cooling-methods-and-testable.html
you would see that the cooling trend started in 2003 so that 2018 would be 15 years.Also I’m predicting a sharp cooling in 2016/17 . If it doesnt appear I would have to reconsider..
I am awaiting the future, rather than betting on it. Would you like to clarify what you mean by “sharp”, and how you will decide whether it has or hasn’t appeared?
Dr Norman Page: I’m not interested in a competition here I respect and am genuinely interested in your opinion.
Think of it as a competition between ideas rather than a competition between persons. Naturally, people are in love with their ideas, but most of us can hold multiple conflicting ideas for long periods of time without cognitive strain if we put our minds to the task.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
Using your approach. Is your temperature forecast a) dont like to speculate.b) flat c)cooling -how much d) warming – how much.
I predict sunspots, not climate.
Carla says:
July 18, 2013 at 6:24 am
Like around the length of an interglacial period length?
Glaciations and interglacials are not caused by the galactic magnetic field or cosmic rays, but by variations in the Earth’s orbit and axis tilt.
Leif Fair enough . Do you think we are entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum?
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:53 am
Leif Fair enough . Do you think we are entering a Dalton or Maunder type minimum?
I’m guessing a Maunder type minimum. http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Leif Thanks for very useful link.I am heavily influenced in my approach by the 10Be data – Fig 26
The NGRIP Be peak at 1675 -1710 represents the coldest temps for several thousand years.The NGRIP 20th century Be data matches the 20th century temp trends very well.
My temperature forecasts are partially based on a possible 12 year lag between the Oulu neutron count and global temps.
At this time I think a Dalton minimum is more likely based on correlating cycles 20 – 24 with 1-5
but I did say in my original post:
“9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”
This decade( if solar conditions cooperate) will go a very long way in clearing up all the arguments and predictions all of us are making. I want to know one way or the other. I think with this prolonged solar minimum in progress that many questions are going to be answered.
I am most certain the AGW theory will be obsolete before the decade ends.
Dr. Page ,you are on the correct path.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 11:21 am
The NGRIP 20th century Be data matches the 20th century temp trends very well.
You must be confusing it with the Dye-3 data [he lower of the two which has problems and is probably contaminated with climate dependent factors.
There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent
Not at all. L&P pertains to the Sun, not to global temperatures. You are just blatantly assuming that the two are related.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm
I am most certain the AGW theory will be obsolete before the decade ends.
The solar connection is already obsolete.
Carla that is not so. Past history shows clearly that the earth’s orbit and tilt had zero to do with the large temperature swings both up and down over the past 20,000 years.
Maybe they have something to do with major glaciations over a period of time of 40,000 to 100,000 years but they can’t explain all the rapid short term up and down temp. changes.
Changes in temperatures during this period(last 20,000 years ) of time taking place in a decade or less, no way was it the earth’s orbit /tillt.
Much more likely it was changes in the solar magnetic /geo magnetic field strengths and all the secondary effects associated with them ,such as cosmic ray intensity changes, to name one of many which I listed in previous post.
Just look at the temperature changes over the past 20,000 years and show us how the tilt /and earth’s orbit changes can account for those temperature changes. They can’t.
Leif tell me what is the connection?
Leif No – The NGRIP data show the 1910 – 40 warming and then the 40 -70 coolinmore clearly..
Tell me Leif what has caused the many drastic temperature changes that have ocurred over the past 20,000 years.
I say it is solar, and I say this will be PROVEN before this decade ends.
I just sent a research article that shows all the solar /climate connections in an earlier post that came out LESS then a year ago.
Leif you are entitled to your opinion but it is wrong.
Leif ignores past history which shows very clearly that prolonged solar minimums are associated with temperature declines and active solar periods are associated with temperature rises.
This time will be NO different.
Again we can argue all we want, the proof will be on what the climate does in response to the prolonged solar minimum.
If we have a prolonged solar minimum and temperatures don’t go down Leif will be correct. On the other hand if temperatures do go down then I and others that agree,it is due to solar conditions will be correct.
It is that simple.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Leif No – The NGRIP data show the 1910 – 40 warming and then the 40 -70 cooling more clearly..
This is becoming tedious. Here is Figure 3 from Berggren et al. [http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf ] http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png no resemblance between temperature and 10Be Flux [The AGW people have a ready explanation: the temperature raise in just AGW 🙂 ]
WordPress louses up URLs:
[ http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf ]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
If we have a prolonged solar minimum and temperatures don’t go down Leif will be correct. On the other hand if temperatures do go down then I and others that agree,it is due to solar conditions will be correct. It is that simple.
No, it is not that simple. The first part is probably OK, but the second part is not as it does not follow that temperatures go down for your stated reason. There could be many other reasons.
Here is a paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s compatriots
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
which may not go down well with the Stanford’s Solar Supremo
(see Figure 1.7: Variation of Ice export through the Fram Strait and smoothed
values of solar cycle length (SCL121) (heavy curve).
via hockeyshctick
Leif I’m looking at the NGRIP in your original link. The 1675 -1710 BE high, The Be high at the Dalton minimum and the Be trend from 1910 to 40 to 75 inversely track temperatures .
I’m a geologist – correlating .well logs and data acrosss or between sedimentary basins is more like cobbling together a 4 dimensional jig saw puzzle with many bits missing than some neat mathematical exercise with a correlation co-effecient.
These bits of the puzzle look significant to me.I realise they may not to you or others.We’ll see.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Leif I’m looking at the NGRIP in your original link. The 1675 -1710 BE high, The Be high at the Dalton minimum and the Be trend from 1910 to 40 to 75 inversely track temperatures .
The plot where I compare 10Be and Temps show a high-definition version of the original plot [they are from the same paper]. The earlier data are difficult to deal with as we don’t have a good global temperature record. The trend from 1910 to 1040 is probably an artifact [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf ]. At our ISSI meetings we discussed this problem and came to the conclusion that the data for that period was not very good [had the largest errors – possibly climate related or contaminated by volcanic eruptions ]. An analysis by Webber and Higsbie http://www.leif.org/EOS/1004-2675.pdf concludes “more than50% of the 10Be flux increase around 1700, 1810, and 1895 is due to non-production related increases” [e.g. variation in climate or aerosols].
Since 1930 we are on much surer ground and as you can see there is no correlation http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
It is disconcerting that you refuse to discuss the real elephant in the room: the trend from 1930 to 2000.
vukcevic says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Here is a paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s compatriots
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
The ice data is probably good. The Solar Cycle Length analysis is nonsense.
[Trend to 1940, not 1040? or are you thinking of the new taxes you will owe under CAGW reg’s? Mod]
Trend to 1940, not 1040?
Obviously!
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
If the conversion of hydrogen into helium is driven by the gravity of the Sun then it seems credible that the movement of the planets could perturb this process. Why is the theory so discarded?
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
The change over billions of years is measurably small with our current technology
If the conversion of hydrogen into helium is driven by the gravity of the Sun then it seems credible that the movement of the planets could perturb this process. Why is the theory so discarded?
Because the gravity that the planets exert on the Sun is extremely minute compared to the Sun’s own gravity. Furthermore, it takes about 200,000 years for the energy to slowly diffuse out from the core so any variation on a time scale much less than that is completely washed out [even if there were a perturbation]
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
The change over billions of years is much too small to be measurable with our current technology
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
….”completely washed out [even if there were a perturbation].”
===================
Have we just invoked the possibility of “perturbation change” into the lexicon,
cus I need to keep up 🙂
Leif I think that the Webber and Higbie approach could be improved.
Modest suggestions. 1. Dont average the two data sets- it degrades both.2 They are getting confused by high frequecy noise ( Local weather and environment) 3 I’m reasonably sure that a thirty year moving average of the annual Be data from both cores separately from 1600- present would produce more meaningful results ( note – not 22 year forget SSN for the time being). 4. I agree the 1930 – 2000 data looks problematic – for the present I would follow Manns noble example and simply use the Oulu neutron data post 1964 until I can figure out what is going on..
Incidentally I’m interested in a millenial cycle .Has anyone made a 500 year moving average of the Be data for the entire Holocene? Then adjusted it for changes in the earths magnetic field and compared to temperatures?
Leif pointed us to this chart:
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
but the annual average purports to show a warm spell from the 1950s to the 1970s which is clearly the opposite of the truth.
An explanation would be appreciated.
Lief: (and all others commenting herein and hearout ..)
Lots of comments, and much feedback. Thank you for your investment.
But …. Are we not collectively, forgetting (or failing to anticipate) the “time” between an event within the sun that “might” affect the earth’s climate, the potential display of such an event on a particular sunspot cycle (max nbr of sunspots, minimum nbr of sunspots, length of cycle, minimum energy of sunspots in that cycle, or whatever the symptom somebody wishes to discuss), the length of time that such an event takes place between “start” and stop” of the event, the “acceleration of either the start of stop of an event, and then the time for that event to “show up” as a recognizable change in the earth’s temperature?
Thus: Suppose a change in the internal currents of the sun happens: goes up, goes down, stops all together, reverses, whatever. Specifically, suppose a change in the solar reactions takes place that will eventually cause a change in the Be10 ratios on earth. How long will it take that change in the sun to be seen as a change in the nbr of sunspots? Will that change ever change the number of sunspots? What is the change in solar activity that causes the change in Be10 ratios? How long after the change in that activity can we first begin to “count” the Be10 change? When the activity returns to “normal” how long will it be until the Be10 ratios return to normal?
If a photon takes takes hundreds of thousands of years to move from the center of the sun to the photosphere before it can be transmitted towards earth, are the solar changes that might be affecting today’s climate be coming – not from changes we see in today’s sun – but the interior of the sun’s changes 100,000 years ago?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm
but the annual average purports to show a warm spell from the 1950s to the 1970s which is clearly the opposite of the truth. An explanation would be appreciated.
As always you have to be specific. Which curve are you talking about? The temperature curves are just the ‘standard’ global warming curve, e.g. from here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The temperature is lower from 1950-1970 than the surrounding years so I don’t know which ‘warm spell’ you are talking about.
The insert at the lower right is the 10Be flux [‘cosmic rays’], as you can see there is no correlation.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
are the solar changes that might be affecting today’s climate be coming – not from changes we see in today’s sun – but the interior of the sun’s changes 100,000 years ago?
The question had to do with whether the position of the planets today could ‘perturb’ the fusion in the core [today, obviously]. If what we observe today is the result of changes that happened 100,000 years ago, it is hard to believe that they would match the position of the planets today [as the planet nuts believe]. In any case, because the diffusion of the energy [really absorption and new emission of photons- it is not the ‘same’ photon taking 200,000 years to get out] is a random process, any variation on time scales much less than 100,000 years would be washed out.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
What is the change in solar activity that causes the change in Be10 ratios? How long after the change in that activity can we first begin to “count” the Be10 change? When the activity returns to “normal” how long will it be until the Be10 ratios return to normal?
The Sun’s magnetic field at the surface is dragged out into the heliosphere by the solar wind, the tangled magnetic field is an obstacle to the free flow of cosmic rays so the 10Be is a proxy for the solar surface magnetic field. It takes about a year for the solar wind to get to the ‘edge’ of the heliosphere, so there is a lag of several months before a solar change shows up in 10Be. Now, the 10Be lingers a bit in the atmosphere before falling to the ground [they are just single atoms]. The atoms attach to aerosols and rain or show out. This process is usually said to take 1 to 2 years [although I think it is a bit longer – perhaps 10 years]. So 10Be reacts relatively quickly to solar changes [a few years].
Leif says:
“The insert at the lower right is the 10Be flux [‘cosmic rays’], as you can see there is no correlation.”
Lets look again:
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
I clearly misread the chart because the 10Be flux is also in blue.
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower and on either side of that period the flux was lower when temperatures were higher.
So there is a correlation even on Leif’s own data.
“””””……Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant,…..”””””
“irradiance” is incoming, not outgoing.
You mean the sun’s radiance; Watts per square meter per steradian.
Irradiance is just Watts per square meter; it is what falls on a surface.; such as the irradiance on the earth by the sun.
@ Salvatore Del Prete
“””””…..Leif is obsolete in his thinking and has no clue about climate/solar relationships.
NOTE- OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IS CORRELATED TO THE STRENGH OF SOLAR VISIBLE LIGHT(.5 MICRONS) WHICH PENETRATES THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 100 METERS NOT CO2 AND THE INFRARED LIGHT IT ABSORBS WHICH PENETRATE THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 1 MILLERMETER!……”””””
Well ALL light is visible ( to the human eye) By Definition. Light is the psycho-physical response of the human eye to electromagnetic radiation in the narrow range from about 400 nm to 800 nm.
So there is no solar visible light; just visible radiation which the human eye responds to.
Yes the radiation enters the ocean to a 1/e depth of about 100 metres; light doesn’t.
And infrared radiation, by definition is not visible to the human eye so it is not light, and does not evoke the light response in the human eye.
Light is measured in Lumens, and Candela, and other named units, not in Watts etc which are used for measuring EM radiation.
Most of the infrared solar spectrum, in water, has a 1/e absorption depth of about 10 microns. At 3.0 microns wavelength where water is most opaque, the 1/e absorption depth is less than 1.25 microns.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower and on either side of that period the flux was lower when temperatures were higher.
I put a green box around the elephant to assist the visually impaired.
Leif said:
“I put a green box around the elephant to assist the visually impaired.”
Within that green box lower 10 Be flux correlates with higher temperature but the temperature rise is exaggerated for reasons commonly discussed on this site.
“but that is but a gnat on the elephant’s rump.”
Only if one limits one’s attention to TSI. If one broadens one’s vision to changes in the overall mix of wavelengths and particles and proposes an effect on ozone concentrations in the stratosphere then one has the necessary amplification factor.
Then project such variations across a millennial solar cycle rather than just looking at a few decades and all becomes much clearer.
Both TSI and the 10 Be flux are merely proxies for the relevant variable which is the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths.
Thanks Lief.
I can’t help being disappointed that measures of other stars helped deduced the history/future of Sol but it cannot be measured by the fancy shmancy satellites in orbit. The change in a couple of hundred years would be minute compared to a billion.
After considering the scales involved it does seem far fetched that the planets would effect influence on the fusion in the interior of the Sun.
Are sun spots a surface phenomena or are they related to the fusion process(es)?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower …
Since the 10Be flux correlates [inversely] with the Sunspot Number and thus TSI, one would expect a solar cycle variation of the order of 0.1C and there may indeed be such a variation [as expected], but that is but a gnat on the elephant’s rump.
In fact, Leif if the temperature track in the green box were to be corrected i.e. to somewhere near the 1930s peak then the inverse correlation between temperature and 10 Be would be very clear.
Your so called ‘elephant’ is simply an artefact of inappropriate or inadequate temperature ‘adjustments’. We all know that UHI has not been correctly dealt with in recent decades and that earlier temperatures have been adjusted downwards.
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm
Are sun spots a surface phenomena or are they related to the fusion process(es)?
As far as we know sunspots are generated somewhere in or near the convection zone [which is the outer 70% of the Sun – in radius] while the core is the inner 20%. Of course, the energy involved comes ultimately from the core, but any time variation of that is washed out by the long diffusion time out of the core. Some people speculate that perhaps some kind of wave or oscillation can propagate from the core to the convection zone in much shorter time [years? days?]. This smacks of special pleading and there is no evidence of such waves, unless you assume they are there otherwise your mechanism wouldn’t work. I would not put much credence in such tortured speculation.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:36 am
Within that green box lower 10 Be flux correlates with higher temperature
Everywhere that should be the case for the reason I discussed in July 18, 2013 at 11:50 pm
but the temperature rise is exaggerated for reasons commonly discussed on this site
No reasonable person believes that the adjustments are the cause for ALL of the rise.
Both TSI and the 10 Be flux are merely proxies for the relevant variable which is the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths.
This is your usual nonsense. ‘Mix’? what mix?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 12:46 am
Your so called ‘elephant’ is simply an artefact of inappropriate or inadequate temperature ‘adjustments’.
Nobody in his right mind would believe such nonsense. There are ‘some’ adjustments, but not nearly enough to explain away Global Warming. You are grasping for straws, but those straws give you no purchase.
” ‘Mix’? what mix?”
We know that particles of various types and wavelengths vary with the level of solar activity. Many vary by much more than 0.1% although that is all the variation we see in TSI from one solar cycle to another where each is much the same.
At a high level of solar activity the net effect on the ozone creation / destruction balance appears to be to reduce ozone overall. The opposite when solar activity is low.
“There are ‘some’ adjustments, but not nearly enough to explain away Global Warming”
There are enough defects in the temperature record to project the most recent section of your temperature chart way above that which is realistic. Such warming as there has been is adequately accounted for by the process that I propose. It is merely a continuation of the recovery since the Maunder Minimum.
Leif,
What is the velocity of sound through the Sun?
What happens when a pressure wave originates in the core and propagates outward?
Would not the surface expand and increase the surface area, increasing the luminosity?
I recall that the 200,000 yrs is photon travel time but is that the only way we get variances of energy production escaping?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 2:55 am
Such warming as there has been is adequately accounted for by the process that I propose.
First you say there has been no warming, now you say there has been some…
To claim it has been accounted for you must quantify things. How much warming should be produced? And how does that compare to what is observed, if any?
cba says:
July 19, 2013 at 5:37 am
What is the velocity of sound through the Sun?
Sound can traverse the sun in hours, which is much too short.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:36 pm
If what we observe today is the result of changes that happened 100,000 years ago, it is hard to believe that they would match the position of the planets today [as the planet nuts believe].
The “planet nuts” are now coming from your own side. Abreu, Steinhilber, Mc Craken, Beer etc, to name a few. There are more papers coming out this year to further build the momentum, you will soon be in the minority and judged as you should be.
Planetary influence acts on the Tachocline, which is clearly evident as a 2 year leadtime, it is a pity you follow your own agenda, or grand plans for your own ego rather than looking at the real science.
Leif said:
“First you say there has been no warming, now you say there has been some…”
You know perfectly well that I accept warming and cooling on a millennial time scale as a result of solar induced variations in the amount of energy entering the oceans.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 8:08 am
You know perfectly well that I accept warming and cooling on a millennial time scale as a result of solar induced variations in the amount of energy entering the oceans.
that does nothing for the elephant.
“that does nothing for the elephant”
Sure it does.
When the elephant is cut down to size it more closely follows the longer term inverse correlation with 10Be (as a proxy for other solar variables) rather than heading off into infinity as your chart tries to suggest.
I think you may at heart be an AGW proponent who believes in the hockey stick but rather than openly saying so your strategy is to pretend to be sceptical of AGW whilst trying to strike down all possibilities that go against AGW theory.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 8:35 am
When the elephant is cut down to size
You can’t cut it down. Sea surface temperatures don’t have UHI effects and show the elephant clearly: http://www.leif.org/research/Sea-Temperature.png and you want to argue that the plots in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/june-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/#more-90169 are all nonsense.
I think you may at heart be an AGW proponent
This is nonsense. I go where the data goes. I’m not so naive that I discount the data just because they don’t do what I want. BTW, the AGW crowd needs the solar connection very much [to explain variations before SUVs]. So you agree with them, giving them the ammunition they need to make their case.
Clive E. BIrkland says:
July 19, 2013 at 7:18 am
There are more papers coming out this year to further build the momentum
Momentum has been building ever since Rudolf Wolf floated the idea in 1852. But the notion hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
Leif.
No elephant there.
Just a small continuing recovery from the LIA.
Both rising in parallel with increasing solar activity since the Maunder with ups and down correlating to spells of increasing or reduced activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:37 am
Both rising in parallel with increasing solar activity since the Maunder
Solar activity in the 18th Century was on par with that in the 20th, so no ‘increasing solar activity’.
And the elephant is alive and kicking. That you ignore it is your problem [the head in the sand syndrome]
Leif have you ever plotted the solar aa or ap index versus the temperatures changes over the past 300 years or so. I find a strong correlation.
If you don’t agree post a chart that shows otherwise.
Leif if solar condtions are quiet and the temperatures go down I think you will be forced to visit solar climate relationships.
Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead
By Robert On July 19, 2013 · Leave a Comment
Leif contary to your statement the soalr /climate connection is alive and well. Many people believe the solar/climate relationships are real and exist.
You may not but many still do. Time will tell.
Leif says he goes where the data goes. Why then were temperatures lower during the solar Maunder Minimum and solar Dalton Minimum?
Again why don’t you produce a chart that will show NO connection between solar aa or ap index versus temp. to support your claims, of little to no solar climate connection.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:56 am
Leif have you ever plotted the solar aa or ap index versus the temperatures changes over the past 300 years or so. I find a strong correlation.
Stephen Wilde claims that there has been no warming [the ‘observed’ temperatures are not real].
It is hard to find a strong correlation over the past 300 years when aa only goes back to 1868 and ap back to 1932, wouldn’t you agree? Now, one can construct an ap index from the geomagnetic record. Here is ap since 1844: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png I suggest you overplot the temperature to convince yourself [and us] that there is no correlation.
Leif said:
“Stephen Wilde claims that there has been no warming the ‘observed’ temperatures are not real.”
False. I accept slight warming as a recovery from the Maunder Minimum. The most recent ‘observations’ have been contaminated by UHI and downward adjustment to older data.
“Solar activity in the 18th Century was on par with that in the 20th, so no ‘increasing solar activity’.
And the elephant is alive and kicking.”
It was nearly as warm then too. The sun then became less active and it cooled down again until the late 19th century. No one suggests that the recovery from the Maunder has been a straight line.
Those points have been made to you several times before but you keep coming up with the same old straw men in the hope of misleading readers who have no knowledge of our previous exchanges.
Your ‘elephant’ is akin to the Monty Python parrot. It’s dead.
Why is it so hard for us to see that the two main drivers one solar and one manmade account for the steeper than what is ahh ?normal? temperature rise for this planet.
One driver magnifies, amplifies the natural one being received.
Maybe could be so .. why does the temperature graphs look so absurd.
I start getting uptight when I think about the global electric circuit and our pothole contribution..
Leif the period 1980-2000 shows a higher ap index then other periods. This period of time did feature an increase in global temp..
The period around 1900 shows a lower ap index which was a period of time of cooler global temperatures, in contrast to the 1980-2000 period. Still a little fuzzy I admit to some degree.
This decade however, the ap index compared to the 1980-2000 period is going to be significantly lower, and I will be most interested to see how the temperatures will respond to this expected very low ap index for the rest of this decade.
LAG TIMES – should not be a confusion point since the ap index should remain very low for years. lag times were coming into play last century, because the sun never had a prolonged quiet period.
Let us see the response, then make a final judgement. I say wait and see..
In addition I had mentioned if you read some of my earlier post that an AP value of 5.0 or less 98+% of the time is one of the solar parameters needed to bring about a decline in temperatures. This has not happened over a sustained period of time probably since the Dalton Minimum.
In fact I would argue all of the solar parameters since the Dalton Minimum have been in a phase which would suggest higher temperatures. Solar conditions did not really start to change until late 2005, and then got side tracked by this weak ,but still the maximum of solar cycle 24.
I do however think once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by the solar parameters I have mentioned to bring about a decline in temperatures will be met and sustained for a long enough period of time following a period of time of sub- solar activity(8 years counting) prior to a time of very active solar activity, to start a temp. decline.
Greenhouse gas effects should subside as the oceans cool, due to lesser amounts of solar visible light ,which is the only light that penetrates the oceans to a depth deep enough to effect ocean heat content.
Still once must remember oceans are slow to change and lag times have to be appreciated.
SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED(sustained)
SOLAR FLUX SUB 72 BUT PROBABLY SUB 90 WILL BE LOW ENOUGH
SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC
AP INDEX 5.0 OR LESS 98+% OF THE TIME
SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF .2% OR MORE
UV LIGHT IN EXTREME SHORT WAVELENGTHS OFF UPWARDS OF 50%
These solar parameters have yet to happen in a sustained fashion since the end of the Dalton Minimum , therefore to suggest solar effects are not going to have an effect on temperatures is really premature since the conditions have yet to be met over a sustained period of time.
However this current solar prolonged minimum should result over these solar parameters over a long enough period of time following enough sub- solar years earlier, that should provide an answer one way or the other.
How does sun play a role? I believe the sun drives the oceanic cycles which drive the weather. See the details of how here. Volcanism is the wildcard amplifier. See how the TSI as compiled by Hoyt/Schatten/Willson matches
If one goes to icecap.com the sun/climate connection article (above post) (latest thoughts ) are discussed. Came out July 19th.
[www.icecap.com ? Should that not be: http://www.icecap.us Mod]
Is the reference to this paper by Joe d’Aleo?
http://www.icecap.us
Jul 18, 2013
The real climate drivers – ocean and solar cycles amplified by levels of volcanism
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics
Reprise: Global Cooling Prediction from 2002
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1079770
A full Ice Age is not required to hurt the developed world. More moderate global cooling could suffice.
Modern Western society is complex, so moderate global cooling, together with a crippling of our food and energy systems through green-energy nonsense, could have devastating effects. (Add a collapse of major global currencies due to excessive money-printing by central banks in the UK, Europe, the USA and Japan.)
We predicted global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article written in 2002. I think there is a reasonable probability that this cooling will be severe enough to affect the grain harvest. Urgent study of this question is appropriate, but the climate science community is so contaminated by warmist hysteria that it is apparently incapable of objective analysis.
Is this just more alarmist nonsense? Perhaps, but we have a strong predictive track record, unlike the warmists who have none.
__________________
Here are some background notes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/ar5-climate-forecasts-what-to-believe/#comment-1064602
[excerpts]
Prediction Number 9
In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result.
This possibility (probability) concerns me.
8 Successful Predictions from 2002 (these all happened in those European countries that fully embraced global warming mania – Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol but then ignored it):
See article at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
[end of excerpts]
______
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1090817
Allan MacRae says: September 26, 2012 at 3:32 am
So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?
Leif Svalgaard says: September 26, 2012 at 5:09 am
Essentially, yes. As the Sun does not vary enough.
Dr Norman Page says: September 26, 2012 at 7:32 am
The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.
Allan says:
OK…… Glad we cleared that up.
Could possibly resolve this question through a scintillating game of rock, paper, scissors?
🙂
So the Sun might cause cooling in the C21st, but it can’t have caused the warming in the C20th?