Both observational and proxy records of climate change often show quasi periodic variations similar to solar activity cycles over a wide range of time scales. However, the detailed mechanism and the extent of the influence of solar activity on climate change have not been clearly understood. Although the exact role of each of solar parameters on climate change has not been quantitatively clarified, several possible mechanisms are proposed; such as the forcing through total (e.g. Lean et al., 1995) and spectral irradiance (e.g. Haigh 1996; Kodera and Kuroda, 2005), solar wind (e.g. Tinsley, 1996) and the galactic cosmic rays (Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, 1997; Svensmark, 2007). Among these parameters related to solar activity, galactic cosmic rays possess characteristic variations depending on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic filed as shown in Figure 1.
The polarity of solar dipole magnetic field reverses at every maxima of 11-year sunspot activity cycle, and so the polarity reversals of solar magnetic field possess 22-year cycle. The cosmic rays are modulated by solar wind and the interplanetary magnetic field and hence the flux of cosmic rays at the earth varies with the 11-year solar activity cycle, while, the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field determines the trajectory of cosmic rays in the heliosphere and thus the flux of cosmic rays at the earth varies depending also on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field (Kota and Jokipii 2001). As is shown in
Figure 1, the patterns of cosmic ray flux over solar cycles slightly differ depending on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, resulting in the component of 22-year cycle in cosmic-ray variation. This feature is very helpful in distinguishing the effect of cosmic rays on climate change from the other effects caused by e.g. irradiative outputs of the Sun.
Extension of the record of cosmic rays back in time enable us to examine if the connection between cosmic rays and climate change suggested by Friis-Christensen and Svensmark (1997) and Svensmark (2007) for the recent two decades had also existed in the past. We had investigated the history of Schwabe and Hale solar and cosmic ray cycles based on the carbon-14 content in tree rings with annual time resolution, originally for understanding the mechanism of multi-decadal to multi-centennial variation of solar activity level. Such record is however also applicable to investigating the Sun-climate relationship at decadal time scale. Carbon-14 is produced by cosmic rays, and circulates in the form of carbon dioxide to be absorbed in trees by photo synthesis. Since the age determination of each annual data is assured in the case of using tree rings, it is possible to determine the history of solar cycles with accurate timing. The beryllium-10 in ice cores from polar region can be also used for the reconstruction of solar cycles in the past.
In the case of using ice cores, it is often difficult to obtain the record with absolute age, while, it is possible to derive much clear signal than carbon-14 due to the difference in the circulation process. The combination of these two nuclides provides clear image of cosmic ray variation with reliable age.
…
The mechanism of the influence of cosmic rays on the cloud formation is not fully understood, however, our proxy based analyses of cosmic rays and climate change during the Maunder Minimum exhibit the importance of cosmic rays as a medium of solar forcing of climate change at decadal to multi-decadal time scales. The complex features of solar magnetic and cosmic ray cycles, such as the variable length of the “11-year” cycle, the subsequent lengthening/shortening of the “22-year” Hale cycle, the amplification of the 22-year cycle in cosmic rays at grand solar minima, may be able to explain some of the complex features of climate change at this time scale.
Influence of solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum
Hiroko Miyahara et al., Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets
Abstract. We have examined the variation of carbon-14 content in annual tree rings, and investigated the transitions of the characteristics of the Schwabe/Hale (11-year/22-year) solar and cosmic-ray cycles during the last 1200 years, focusing mainly on the Maunder and Spoerer minima and the early Medieval Maximum Period. It has been revealed that the mean length of the Schwabe/Hale cycles changes associated with the centennial-scale variation of solar activity level. The mean length of Schwabe cycle had been ∼14 years during the Maunder Minimum, while it was ∼9 years during the early Medieval Maximum Period. We have also found that climate proxy record shows cyclic variations similar to stretching/shortening Schwabe/Hale solar cycles in time, suggesting that both Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are playing important role in climate change. In this paper, we review the nature of Schwabe and Hale cycles of solar activity and cosmic-ray flux during the Maunder Minimum and their possible influence on climate change. We suggest that the Hale cycle of cosmic rays are amplified during the grand solar minima and thus the influence of cosmic rays on climate change is prominently recognizable during such periods.
Full paper (PDF)
Note to readers: I was given a tip to this story at the GWPF, which had a recent date on it of 9/24/14, and I originally labelled this as a “new” paper when it actually was from 2009. The title has been changed to reflect this. My apologies – Anthony
My understanding’s just begun,
The radiant essence of the Sun.
======================
It’s the sun! (at last the realization dawns).
Does the sun emit CO2?, who’d have thought!
johnmarshall,
Funny you used the word “dawns.” You will be interested in NASA’s comments about the sun. In late 2012, NASA published an article, Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Quote from Jan. 8, 2013:
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star … There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.
Clive
Well, sure–constant compared to other stars (thank goodness). But variable enough to cause the slight cyclical variations we see in our climate.
Gleaming star near and bright.
Around we go spinning in the dark.
Life light giver, warmth supplier.
Twinkle twinkle little Sol
You don’t change climate at all
AGW’s not down to you
It’s all the fault of CO2
Twinkle twinkle G2 star
Please don’t heat us up too far
Very good………..
Made my day. Thanks.
+1
Let me add my ++
http://youtu.be/ZiOQG3P_J5s
Of course its the Sun, it always was. The warmists admit past climate changes were due to orbital mechanics & the Sun, but the Sun is ruled out now simply because it doesn’t fit with the mantra, if it’s natural, there’s nothing we can do about it, Agenda 21 becomes a worthless piece of 1000 page guff, & they have no reason to create a global guvment!
“… they have no reason to create a global guvment!”
This time.
Oh, they’ve got a reason.
Maybe not one you and I like but, they’ve got a reason.
And, it has nothing to do with saving the planet.
One has to simply love real physics like Svensmark. His work is now moving slowly into the light from behind the “nonsense” of some solar science folks.
LOL +1, … yes, good to hear “new” voices on the subject (publicly). Perhaps we’ll get back to the science of it all soon.
Well… one can dream.
This is not a new, but is from 2009
Don’t give a flying banana or rolling donut whether it was newly written or newly read.
What is important; the summary concludes, “…analyses of cosmic rays and climate change during the Maunder Minimum exhibit the importance of cosmic rays as a medium of solar forcing of climate change at decadal to multi-decadal time scales.”
Assuming the paper was written in good faith, don’t care whether that summary is proven right or wrong, what I do care is that papers likes these fly in the face of of “the science is settled” and related propaganda.
When you can’t refute the paper, just declare that it is old news and should be ignored.
And the paper wasn’t mentioned in AR5. What a sirprise they missed it.
Correction “surprise”.
If cosmic rays are so dang important “as a medium of solar forcing of climate change at decadal to multi-decadal time scales”, why can we find no evidence of this when looking at actual observations? Why can we only find it in 400-year-old proxies, but not in satellite observations or thermometer measurements or barometric records? Sorry, not impressed.
w.
Ah heck, thanks Leif, I got a PR from the GWPF with this.
http://www.thegwpf.org/influence-of-solar-cycles-on-climate-change-during-the-maunder-minimum/
Note the date on the article.
Anthony, I love this site. You do great, great work. I learn a lot here. But I see a non-trivial amount of old material not labeled as such. I don’t mind old material, but the date of publication helps put it in context. I wish you’d pay a little more attention to it. Don’t exclude older stuff, just be a little more diligent about telling us when something was published. Thanks.
As mentioned to Leif above, I got this via the GWPF, which had a current date on it. See:
http://www.thegwpf.org/influence-of-solar-cycles-on-climate-change-during-the-maunder-minimum/
I thought my suggestion was implied clearly enough before, but I can see I was in error. Please double check, is what I was trying to say. This happens here more often than you might realize. And please take my comments on this in the entirely constructive way they’re intended. Thanks.
AW, how does the “Forbush Decrease and the Forbush Rebound” fit in here?, That has been noted for years although it is a reaction to CME’s (So it is a short term scenario only), it seems to me it mirrors this paper somewhat .
Nice to know we can disregard all climate papers written before 2010.
…especially those linking climate to CO2.
I didn’t realize that solar science had good and bad vintage years.
Oh, yes! Try Argentinian 2012 Merlot! Hic….
[The mods are not sure why this passed … Their 2010 Chablis was much bitter (er, better.) .mod]
New? says published in 2009 and I think I already read that one.
thus “new”. (Note the quotation marks) Kinda makes my point doesn’t it ? Perhaps you should read (and write) more carefully. Couldn’t hurt, and you might even learn something.
Or should we leave that up to the “new” folks ?
Perhaps they are busy doing science while you are roaming blogs to defend your importance.
Peter,
If Mike Mann can give a presentation with all his data cut off at 2005, then of course 2009 is new. The bar has been set by the high priest of climate.
Of course, it is the first time it has been reported here, so it is new here.
Jeez, the “transdental rant” folks were so far ahead of you. WUWT playing second fiddle to Talkshop? Now that’s gotta burn….
But remember, the longer you leave it, the worse the 255K assumption is going to hurt.
Band-aid off fast or slow and painful?
Has WUWT chosen slow and painful? I’m all into pain…for others 😉
(ie: what are you squealing about bitch, I can’t feel a thing….)
Some folks are not up to speed on radiative physics. They think there is little distinction between sceptic and lukewarmmer. Wrong. There is little distinction between lukewarmer and alarmist. Both were so inane as to believe adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability.
Did you buy the “lukwarmer”line? What was it quisling? Warming but less than we thought? Well then, I get to call you a snivelling idiot , now and forever. And I never, ever have to apologise. No, not now, not ever. Because I said radiative gases cause surface cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm and you, whoever you are, did not.
Sorry, age of the Internet. You don’t get to switch sides.
(well ok, ok, you can switch. Even at this late date. However there may be some slapping….well I mean “all the slapping forever”. And if you truly cared about science, you’d laugh at that, however bruised)
Come on all you good people. As you were. Don’t get excited. Any moment now Leif will inform us decisively and definitively that they were using wrong solar data (i.e. not his version) and that the paper is therefore rubbish. You know, garbage in, garbage out…. (countdown….)
Hey Konrad… I DO feel YOUR pain, but all that aggro when some sarc will do just nicely? Yet, take away the aggro and I have to thank you for speaking (much of) my mind.
“… Jeez, the “transdental rant” folks were so far ahead of you. WUWT playing second fiddle to Talkshop? Now that’s gotta burn….”
I was pondering the post on “Dr.” Mann’s talk and the lack of skeptical questions afterwards when I saw this post and your comment. We were told that a polite and respectful attitude would serve our side much better than accusation and recrimination in the post on Dr. Mann’s talk. (paraphrasing here of course)
I think the same attitude should be used between those like myself who think that CO2’s warming effect is, on net, zero or so close to zero that we can not measure it and those skeptics who think that a doubling in CO2 will yield a degree or more in warming. I don’t see any reason to hammer each other on the fact that some of us believe the Sagan/Hansen theory is dead wrong. I don’t see any reason to call the best blog of Europe (and backed by WUWT in the run-up to the voting) a place of “Transcendental Rant and way out there theories” … well unless you would have said that about a certain physicist working in the patient office back around 1905.
I think we can see that the sun drives climate here on earth and that we really don’t fully understand it all right now. The physics professor from Duke that comments here has said that on many occasions — that we don’t have a good understanding yet.
We are just beginning to understand the climate system on this planet. The science is not settled.
Warming, but less than they (not “we”) thought.
And there are too many unknowns for the certainty you are showing.
Do the selective surface experiments to see if the 255K for the oceans without radiative atmosphere claims hold up. The 255K claim is the very foundation of the hoax. Empirically check this one claim and you will find that all other complexities and uncertainties are irrelevant. For 71% of the planet’s surface that figure is in error by ~90K.
That’s game over for both AGW and the net radiative GHE.
Take a breath Konrad
“Put the cork back in that bottle of reasonably priced Australian red” may have been more sage advice 😉
Konrad,
“adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability” is not what either skeptics or lukewarmers claim. What is claimed by most in both groups is that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would result in warming of the surface if all else stays the same. The extreme skeptics claim no measurable effect has developed, and lukewarmers claim the effect is much smaller than the alarmist fear, and likely not a problem.
The mechanism that results in heating (if present) is not based on reducing the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability, but results in raising the average altitude of outgoing radiation from the atmosphere to space, and the lapse rate does the rest. Negative feedback or dominating natural variation (solar, clouds, long period ocean currents,etc.) may make the radiative gas addition not significant, but that is not the same as no possible effect.
Well said, Dr. Weinstein.
Leonard,
“In vino veritas” 😉
However, there is no net radiative GHE on this planet. AGW due to CO2 is therefore a physical impossibility. The progress of WUWT toward this answer is positively “glacial” (although this does not excuse my lack of a /rant tag).
I am well aware of the “ERL game”. Establish the mathematical fiction of an ERL at ~5km emitting 240w/m2 and assume an average lapse rate and count back to the surface.
Get your IR thermometer and go outside. Measure the sky. Clear dry sky -40C. Clear humid sky -20C. Low cloud +15C. Higher cloud +1C. IR emission from the atmosphere is constantly changing. The strongest emissions are from clouds. Given that most clouds are low and radiation is proportional to the ^4 of temp, the ~5km claim fails empirical verification.
What about the good old radiative “two shell” game? Near blackbody surface receiving 240wm/2 having its temperature raised from 255K by 33K by DWLWIR from the atmospheric “shell”? This too fails empirical verification on three counts.
First, empirical experiments show incident LWIR cannot slow the cooling rate, nor raise the temperature of water that is free to evaporatively cool. So something else must be heating the oceans above 255K.
The problem here is the “near blackbody” assumption for our ocean planet. Liquid water is a selective surface not a near blackbody. This simple experiment dramatically demonstrates the issue –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
– Here two acrylic blocks receive equal solar exposure. They have equal ability to absorb SW and emit IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. After 3 hours of solar exposure the near equilibrium temperatures of both block show a dramatic 20C differential. Base temperature differential can be as high as 40C. Block A runs far hotter, but the standard SB equations of the climastrologists treat our oceans closer to block B.
It gets worse.
The standard SB equations of the Church of Radiative Climastrology treat emissivity and absorptivity of the oceans as near unity. A figure of 0.95 for emissivity is often claimed. The use of this figure in SB equations is wrong. It is a measure of apparent emissivity, not effective emissivity. 0.95 is what you use for calibrating IR measurements for a surface with a 100 micron deep cavity effect while within the Hohlraum of the atmosphere. Try measuring the emissivity of water under a cryo cooled sky –
http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg
– for -50C background, apparent emissivity of 40C water drops below 0.8. (some old texts show 0.67, they may have used liquid N2 cooling.)
The oceans being a selective surface with asymmetric absorptivity and emissivity, rather than a near black body means that 255K assumption is in error by around ~90K for 71% of the planet’s surface. The net effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans is therefore cooling. And the atmosphere only has one effective cooling mechanism. Radiative gases.
Leonard, ultimately the lukewarmer “negative feedbacks mean less warming than claimed” position is a dead end. It leaves sceptics only slightly less scientifically incorrect than the Warmulonians. And no, “Realpolitik” can’t excuse the lukewarmer position. This is not politics, this is science (however politicised it may currently be).
Konrad has a good point. Under standard “climate science” explanation of the radiative GHE, block A and B should both run about the same temperature. If they don’t, this indicates the GHE explanation is in error. Doesn’t the halt in surface temperatures combined with record levels of human CO2 emissions tell us the same thing?
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
And the atmosphere only has one effective cooling mechanism. Radiative gases.
===========
another good point. Radiative gas cools the atmosphere. Otherwise it would be isothermal and there would be no lapse rate. Gravity limits the lapse rate, because cold air can only fall so fast. Water vapor reduces this further, due to the phase change. Thus water feedback cannot be positive.
without water, there would be 9.8C/km between the ~5km effective radiation height and the surface, yielding 49C in warming. Due to the moderating effect of water limiting the lapse rate to 6.4C/km, we only get 32C of warming.
Thus, the only thing that can be said of water vapor, is that it reduces the average surface temperature of the earth by some 17C over what it would be otherwise.
It is hard to see how adding even more water vapor could warm the surface, given that is it currently cooling the surface. How could it be that the amount of water is exactly at the point where it will switch from cooling to warming. quite a coincidence.
which explains why there is no tropospheric hot spot as predicted by the climate models.
Ferdberple,
there are perhaps two further simple empirical experiments you should take note of.
The first –
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
http://tinypic.com/r/zmghtu/6
– demonstrates why cooling at altitude (radiative gases in the real atmosphere) allows a gas column in a gravity field to run cooler that if only conductively heated and cooled at disparate locations at the base of the gas column.
The second –
http://i57.tinypic.com/24qsrrn.jpg
– demonstrates why the surface is so ineffective at conductively cooling the atmosphere.
(Dr. Brown of duke infamously accused me of invoking “Maxwell’s daemon” here. But it was just the AGW gravity gremlin. Night inversion layer in a box. His shame will burn forever. 😉
Together these simple experiments demonstrate why much of our atmosphere would super heat and boil into space were it not for radiative gases.
Lukewarmers are just as wrong as Warmuloinians. There is no easy “out”. Sorry? No, I won’t lie. I’m not sorry.
“– demonstrates why the surface is so ineffective at conductively cooling the atmosphere.”
Only if there is no horizontal wind flow. Add that and a cold surface radiating freely to space will cool the atmosphere as necessary to maintain system thermal equilibrium regardless of the presence of GHGs.
Read the summary paragraph on page 433:
Basically some “hand waving” conjectures here. Nothing (related to CAGW) to get excited about.
“We suggest that the Hale cycle of cosmic rays are amplified during the grand solar minima..”
I haven’t time to read through the paper, but I have a lot of time for scientists who talk like this, ‘suggest’ rather than the usual modelers with their ‘proves’ or ‘shows’, followed by ‘worse than we thought’.
Mann’s “hockey stick” has gotten a lot mileage as ‘proof of CAGW’.
The press releases usually contain the outrageous claims. (In fact the existence of a press release is often a give-away.)
I guess that they don’t really claim a model as proof; they just say things like this:
“Cochran agreed: The papers’ message is “that … over the next couple hundred years, there’s going to be a significant rise in sea level, and at this point we can’t stop it.” But, he added, “it doesn’t say give up on trying to cut emissions. … [Just] don’t buy land in Florida.””
Or they let other people like SKS or you cite what has been written based on a model as proof. Why else would someone write “What do you think will be the first to collapse Joel, AGW science or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet?”
Funny read through posts here where scientists are taken
To task for saying “could” or “may”
Yes, scientists who treat “could” and “may” as proof receive the same warranted derision as those that use models as proof.
This is particularly the case when the lamely inconclusive “coulds” and “mays” are buried deep in the text, beneath layers of titles, abstracts, press releases, headlines and policy demands that are increasingly breathless in their increasing conclusiveness at every step.
JJ:
I think you’re confusing “theory” in empirical sciences (e.g. physics and climatology), with “theorem” in mathematics.
In mathematics a theorem can be proved absolutely, given a set of formal definitions, axioms and rules for interpreting the definitions and axioms. Thus, Euclid’s Fifth Proposition was proven in 300 BC. It is absolutely true, given the axioms of Geometry, in the sense that you cannot submit a “new” theorem (using the same axioms) or any empirical observation, which proves Euclid was “wrong” (unless he made an error in interpreting the axioms).
But a theory in the empirical sciences can never be “proved” in that absolute sense, only “supported” when observations and experiments agree with theory. Theories can, however, be “falsified” in a absolute sense if the observations or experiments do not coincide with the theories.
Thus, we cannot absolutely prove that the Sun will rise again tomorrow. So it is correct to say it “should” or “may” rise tomorrow (barring some hitherto unforeseen cosmic disaster) based on our past observations and knowledge of orbital mechanics.
However, any previous theories which stated that the Sun would _not_ rise today are hereby absolutely falsified now(because I observed the Sun rising).
Johanus –
I think that you are confusing the things I actually said with some fantastical concept of what someone against which you might win an epistemological argument might say.
No. “Support” is not achieved merely by lamely nondeterminative assertions of consistency with whatever observations and experiments happen to be handy. Support requires far more rigor than that.
No. “May” is the stuff of which false support via an “is consistent with” version of “proof” is created. As is “could”, which does not have the falsifyably predictive connotation carried by “should”.
Note which of those I took to task, and which you snuck in to create your fallacy of equivocation.
The problem with many of the allegedly empirical sciences today, and especially of politicized climatology, is the failure to make the necessary strong “should” assertions, and to admit failure when that which should be is not. Instead, what we see are hypotheses and speculations masquerading as proof, and ad hoc resuscitations of those lame assertions when they are found crushed beneath the weight of evidence…
When they rely on “could” or “may” I simply ask that they get some data to tighten up those imponderables to “would” or “will”.
Why deal in subjective hypotheticals when some scientific work will clear up the confusion?
Then you must be in a constant state of astonishment, given the allegation that 97% of scientists hold to the “the debate is over” model-driven consensus on global warming …
The commonly accepted status of models as “proof” is absolutely suborned by the overwhelming majority of “scientific” evironmental modelers, who routinely publish papers claiming that their model results are “evidence” of this or that, or “demonstrating” some other thing. And given that the standard of “proof” for these same folks is typically stated as some variation of “accumulated evidence” or “those facts we can demonstrate”, that the concept of models as “proof” is common is undeniable. Except by the willfully obtuse.
Well, you need to talk to your fellows about that because innumerable times I have seen “the models show…”.
Edit note: first paragraph should read “solar dipole magnetic field” not “… filed”.
Perhaps they “filed” it under “field”?
They are guessing that cosmic rays are the cause but cosmic rays could equally well be a proxy for another element of solar variability which is the real cause.
I prefer changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction in the stratosphere affecting the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows changes in global cloudiness and thus changes in the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans.
Or something very close to that! It also amazes me the little amount of information about heat flow to space at the poles.
Perhaps cosmic rays are easier to measure and they imply a correlation.
‘changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction in the stratosphere affecting the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows changes in global cloudiness and thus changes in the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans’
may not be easy to measure
Proxy records suggest this? Wake me up when actual records clearly demonstrate this.
w.
Proxy- a measured variable used to infer the value of a variable of interest
Proxy = ersatz data.
The most reliable proxy seems to be dO18. This reliability is confirmed by the fact that global warmers never referto ice core data. (!)
What kind of actual record do you have in mind from the Maunder?
I’ll fire up my Wayback Machine and get back to you.
Note: I am referring to Peabody’s version of the Wayback.
I know you meant the cartoon original. The closest we have is the CET reconstruction.
Milodon, my point exactly. We have only the weakest of proxy data for the Maunder. My question is, why are we forced to mess about with such jive “evidence”? Why can we not find “influence of solar cycles on climate change” for the period when we have actual observations? I mean, if such actual evidence existed, people wouldn’t be screwing around with proxy data from the Maunder … which should be an indication of the strength of this study.
w.
There is actually pretty good instrumental and documentary evidence for Maunder Minimum temperatures, as for example the CET reconstruction.
There is also ample, indeed abundant, evidence for solar cycle influences on climate from every interval for which good data are available. Not that there is anything wrong with proxy data properly handled.
The Maunder is important because it shows so well one of the solar influences on climate.
It’s actual “cosmic ray flux” data observed from the Climax neutron monitor in the graph above, are the “proxy records” of C14 and 10be concentration unreliable?
Might be a good idea to put a slug at the top of the post, “From [name of paper], by [names of authors].” As it is, looks like AW wrote it.
/Mr Lynn
Reading the article might help with that. Knowledge/ information is only earned by investing time
One of the disadvantages of nested comments: they encourage smart@ss remarks like Alex’s. /Mr L
How exactly can a nuclear reactor create a magnetic field which changes polarity every 22-year ?.
We would all like to know that and I demand an answer right now.
Every 11 years, plus or minus. See NASA & Stanford’s site for an explanation of solar pole reversal.
You’re too easy and polite. Google is just a click away. A genuine interest involves some effort.
exactly , it is a 22 year cycle . my mistake thanks.
The thing that people should realize is that the Little Ice Age pre-dated the Maunder Minimum by 300 years and the Sporer Minimum by 140 years. The Northern Hemisphere was already cooling before these minima occurred. Yes, the LIA hit its coldest period globally during these 2 solar events; however, I don’t think they in themselves were the cause.
Should read every maximum, not maxima, which is plural.
Brave attempt to resuscitate the near death ‘It’s GCRs wot dun it’ patient. The ‘mechanism’ remains in the realms of speculation.
(And why hasn’t the planet cooled while the sun’s activity has been tailing off for the last 50yrs? – see figure above)
Maybe because the cooling effect of CO2 is just as ridiculous as the heating effect.
1) The big tailing didn’t start until the recent solar cycle.
2) It has been cooling for a decade.
Ever hear of “hysterisis”
Village Idiot,
Why doesn’t each day start cooling as soon as noon passes (1:00 during DST)?
Why doesn’t summer start cooling (lower daily highs) as soon as the summer solstice passes?
Cooling doesn’t start as soon as heat (energy) input starts to drop. Cooling starts when heat input falls below heat loss.
SR
It is “tailing off” from the first grand maximum since ~500BC. It is a lagging indicator (by how much, we don’t know).
We simply do not know enough about solar, as of yet.
I’m glad that Miyahara, Yokoyama and Yamaguchi brought this up in 2009.
“In 1997 The Manic Sun by Nigel Calder was the first book to describe a new wonder of Nature – namely Henrik Svensmark’s discovery that the effect of cosmic rays on clouds amplifies the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate. Ten years of progress with the physics led to a second book The Chilling Stars in 2007, co-authored with Svensmark.”
From http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3-climate-change/
2009: many solar experts had predicted a moderate to strong Cycle 24, which was just starting.
2014: now we are past the pole reversal and 24’s (double) peak. We have heard accounts how 24 is the weakest in century and the Gleissburg 97 yr cycle is likely behind it.
– where does 24’s predicted cycle length now stand?
– does this suggest anything about a Maunder-like min starting in the 2020’s?
When the whole climate furore (and perhaps the climate itself) has cooled down, it will appropriate to award a Nobel Prize to Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv et al to celebrate that the scientific method prevailed even in the darkest hour.
The Little Ice Age was no picnic:
No sunspots, no food, no fun;
And the sun’s present spotless condition
Suggests a new cold spell has begun.
So the IPCC have a problem if –
Despite the hot air they exhale –
Their cheeks and the climate start turning
A whiter shade of pale…
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Next Grand Minimum readers will find this an interesting paper on the Maunder Minimum and the impact of cosmic rays.
Well.. it is not the sun.
I have researched the reason for global warming and is all the fault of Pluto. Yes Pluto.
From the “Astrology is Settled” website:
http://www.modernvedicastrology.com/AstrologyOfClimateChange
“As above, so below”, goes the astrologer’s maxim. While it is most unlikely that planetary motion causes anything to happen on Earth, astrology contends that there is a correspondence between the movement of the planets and life on Earth. This applies to both human and natural events. I believe it is possible to make sense of climate fluctuations by using planetary cycles. Just as astrometeorologists can predict weather patterns using annual ingress charts of the Sun, I believe the ingress of the outer slower-moving planets can give clues about longer-term trends such as climate change. For climatological periods that span hundreds of years, I hypothesize that the motion of the outer planets, especially PLUTO, may offer an insight into climatological developments on Earth. Aside from its appropriately long 240-year periodicity, Pluto is the planet most associated with slow and deliberate change and transformation, characteristics that well demonstrate the shifting aspects of the weather. Another fitting parallel is that humans are subjected to the weather. We cannot change it; we must adapt to it. This is in keeping with the significations of Pluto as the planet that compels and forces changes upon us whether we want to to or not. Additionally, I will make the case for using Saturn Aries ingresses for assessing shorter climate cycles. Saturn is the slowest of the traditional seven planets and had many of the associations now conferred to Pluto: change that cannot be resisted, death, and the ultimate arbiter of Time. It may be true that all planetary ingresses have something to say about climate change. However, for purposes of brevity and efficacy, I have chosen to focus on Pluto and Saturn.
Simply stated, I assert that the ingresses of Saturn and Pluto into Aries reveals climatologically-relevant information. By reading the ingress chart and the influences on the ingressing planets and the Sun and Moon, we can establish if the coming period governed by the ingress will be predominantly warm, cold or neutral. With many influences and different ways of reading the chart, we need to be careful about the relative weight of the various factors. Although I am primarily a neo-Vedic astrologer, I will use only the tropical zodiac here. Although I believe the sidereal zodiac gives better results over time, I do not believe that the tropical zodiac is therefore “wrong”. And as Vedic astrologer Ernst Wilhelm has noted from a study of early Hindu texts such as the Panchasiddhantika and Brihat Jataka, there is strong evidence to suggest that some Indian astrologers including the great Vaharamihira may have used the tropical zodiac.
In terms of aspecting, I will generally follow standard Western aspecting with a special emphasis on hard aspects of the 8th harmonic — the conjunction, the semisquare, the square, the sesquisquare, and the opposition. Hard aspects convey planetary energy more directly to the recipient planet with less possibility of adaptation. So a square from Mars to the Sun will have a warmer effect than a trine from Mars to the Sun.
/Sarc
Hilarious… I see you’re showing off your in-depth knowledge of astronomy again. /src
So you are saying that this whole global warming thing is just Pluto getting revenge for being downgraded?
Alberta Slim September 29, 2014 at 8:29 am
By Jove! I think you’ve solved it. Grant applications, etc to follow?
All I can say is there is much evidence out there to suggest solar/climate connections are real and I think much more will be known before this decade ends as the current prolonged solar minimum continues and probably strengthens going forward.
A mechanism I would like clarified is why only the Japanese can write about this subject. (Russians and East Europeans, too, sometimes). We (US) seem to suffer from a Marxist doublethink phenomena. Are we that far gone?
Answer (as best as I can figure): The sun can’t be mitigated, capped, traded, sequestered, or taxed.
That won’t stop them from trying.
It’s fairly simple logic. If there is correlation between Solar activity and climate change then the Sun is the primary driver.
Normally correlation does not equal causation but as the earth’s climate cannot affect the sun then it is logically driven (primarily) by the sun.
As the sun’s influence can be amplified by the Earth’s climate system (cloud cover etc) one doesn’t need a massive change in TSI to explain the connection.
“It’s fairly simple logic. If there is correlation between Solar activity and climate change then the Sun is the primary driver.”
huh? there is always a correlation between two variables. between -1 and 1. The existence of a correlation doesnt tell you anything about primary or secondary. The sun explains a pitifully small amount of the variation in temperature. GCR even less.
Sometimes it can be a negative correlation, at which point it’s best not to draw the types of conclusions you think they have, Steven.
And I’ve never heard the sun explain anything–never mind how pitifully small.
That would require we fall back on the “science is settled” and “we know everything” memes, which is hardly the case.
The sun can’t explain anything. But people can, and there are numerous explanations. You may not agree with them, but they are still explanations.
The same logic applies to CO2 and temperature and in recent times there not even a correlation. All those exogenous variables being blamed for this recent lack of correlation are, and have always been, available to play their part in climate formulation.
There is still the possibility that some unseen third thing is influencing both the Earth’s Temperature and the Sun’s output. That is the problem with showing causation on systems that you don’t control all the variables for. Just because we can’t think of what that must be doesn’t mean it must be the thing we are looking at.
That said, it would make sense that the thermonuclear reactor in the sky might have something to do with Earth Temperature.
sabretruthtiger said:
“…one doesn’t need a massive change in TSI to explain the connection.”
Well, the currently accepted, normalized value of TSI at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is 1362 watts per m^2. So, would a change of 1 or 2 watts (i.e. about 0.1%) be large enough to “explain the connection”?
That’s how much normalized change is actually observed over an 11-year solar cycle. Which is much smaller (factor of 70), BTW, than the un-normalized variance caused by the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
If Leif were here, he would probably point you to page 4 of his excellent 2010 presentation “Does the Sun vary enough?”. http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
0.1% of 300 K is 0.3 K. Bugger all but so is 0.6K. I know that its not as simple as that and a 70 times change would be about 20K, but an approximate linear response is good enough for a back of envelope when the change is very small.
Was the 28 years GCRs modulation pattern during Maunder minimum caused by solar or the earth’s magnetic field ?
Number of factors ranging from global atmospheric and oceans circulation to the plate tectonic movements affects the length of day (LOD) on different time scales.
Inner (solid) and outer (liquid) core follow these changes with certain lag resulting in the internal differential rotation. The conducting inner core is strongly coupled by Lorentz forces to the circulating liquid of the outer core, the area where the earth’s magnetic field is generated, result is secular change in the earth’s field, which also modulates the GCRs.
This illustration shows:
Top graph:
blue –rate of change in the Earth’s rotation based on the astronomical observations ( msec, left hand scale)
green – high pas filter out (msec, right hand scale)
magenta – 22 year cosine
1910 -1930 anomaly possibly due to the major geo – magnetic disturbance , cause not known
Lower graph: spectral composition
18.5 years – lunisolar tides
22 years – solar Hale cycle
29 years – main feature of the ‘current’ decadal variability in the Earth’s rotation, cause not known.
p.s:
By combining measurements of Earth’s magnetic field from stations on land and ships at sea with satellite data, scientists were able to isolate six regularly occurring waves of motion taking place deep within Earth’s liquid core, with varying timescales. ….
Their analyses isolated six slow-moving oscillations, or waves of motion, occurring within the liquid core. The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2420
The authors omit to mention that solar cosmic rays (as opposed to galactic, much lower energy but much higher particle counts) vary in phase with solar activity instead of inversely, hence may be the real effector. Solar cosmic rays can penetrate the terrestrial magnetic field more effectively during odd numbered cycles with solar magnetic field polarity anti-parallel to earth’s (Even-numbered cycles have a parallel polarity). That’s why even-numbered cycles obscure the warming effect of the odd-numbered cycles and it is the Hale cycle that correlates and not the Schwabe cycle. Solar cosmic rays energize the D layer (ionosphere), causing aurorae, radio transmission effects and may possibly cause ohmic heating at the poles which would alter the vertical circulation profile of the atmosphere and potentially contribute to the observed temperature effects on the lower troposphere. It has also been reported that precipitation patterns over certain river basins change with the polarity of the solar cycle. This may be due to the effects of electron precipitation from the D layer into the upper troposphere (Tinsley, 2004) with important effects on nucleation of raindrops from clouds.
The sun really matters.
What do you mean by “odd-numbered cycles” and “solar magnetic field polarity anti-parallel to earth’s (Even-numbered cycles..)”?.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/video-sun-has-flipped-upside-down-as-new-magnetic-cycle-begins-9029378.html
from the article:
“At the beginning, in 1997 the video shows the sun in Solar Cycle 23 with its positive polarity on the top (the green lines), and the negative polarity on the bottom (the purple lines).
Each set of lines gradually move toward the opposite pole, showing a complete flip around 2002, completing the sun’s previous cycle.”
Since the “north” pole of the earth is actually the negative magnetic pole, during the upswing of cycle 23 the solar north magnetic pole pointed up with respect to the stars, while the earth’s north magnetic pole pointed down. That’s what I meant by antiparallel. The situation reversed in the middle of cycle 23.
Is what you mean by “odd-numbered cycles”, in relation to the 22 year magnetic polar field reversal of the sun, where the suns positive and negative magnetic polarities reverse 360 degrees through the ecliptic latitude for one cycle?
(for example) starting off with the suns negative magnetic polarity at the ecliptic north pole and the positive magnetic polarity at the ecliptic south pole during solar minimum,
then after approximately 11 years during the following solar minimum (which is 180 degrees of the 22 year solar cycle) the suns negative magnetic polarity will be at the ecliptic south pole and the positive magnetic polarity at the ecliptic north pole.
And to complete the full solar reversal the suns negative magnetic polarity returns to the ecliptic north pole and the positive magnetic polarity returns to the ecliptic south pole.
During this Cycle the Earths negative magnetic pole remains at the ecliptic north pole.
Therefor at earths ecliptic north pole we will have a sequence from the suns ecliptic north pole of
negative -> negative
positive -> negative
negative -> negative
Is this “positive -> negative” part of the alternating cycle that you mean by odd “odd-numbered cycle”?
By “antiparallel” I meant the orientation with respect to the earth’s field that the solar field had during the upswing of cycle 23.
Consider Co-causation with positive feedback? Larger scale force(s) that impacts solar cycles also impacts earth cycles, with a sun>earth amplification
See also Dalton Minimum. What if Tambora 1815-1816 was “perturbed” by larger scale forces, impacting sun and earth. Another amplification created by the broader forces.
One would think NASA “climate” scientists would not simply dismiss and would examine. But the Golden Rule of Science = those who supply the gold set the research agenda.
& interesting about the idea that during the Maunder Minimum the Hale cycle phase could have been 180 degree phase reversed.
– – – – – – –
& where was the IAU journal’s thought police enforcing the climate change cause in 2009/2010? I could not find any inference or claim in the paper that the authors do not dispute consensus/settled science showing CAGW from fossil fuels. Did anyone see one? For skeptics this is a miracle to behold.
John
This paper supports my use of the neutron count and 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar “activity”
For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the natural 1000 year and 60 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature record and the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here is the summary of the latest updated forecasts and observations as of end July 2014.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 – with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-.
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees.
4) The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 2016 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
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
5 Temperature 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 another 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.”
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
3.2.2. Observations.
a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
During the last year, Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then. This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months, and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase. The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non-appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
“There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA. At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United States. Indeed, as I write this in Houston on July 29, 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, the snow cover finally never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop, as suggested by Steve Goddard:
Saying “CO is doing it” is wrong and becoming very obvious of been silly to persist stubbornly with that line, and already gone out of any scientific rationale.
But saying the Sun is doing it and persisting stubbornly with that is no any better.
As energy source the Sun is considered as a constant, as far as climate concearned,….and rightly so.
From all data thus far on climate and climate change no any conections shown between a changing climate and the Sun.
The most you can get is that all external variations together [Sun icluded] that you can think of + any other possible anomaly from long term internal variations response time in the system……these all together don’t make it even as the half of the effect the CO2 has in the climate…….at the very best, while considered as all these aligned on adding and not on the canceling eachother out.
So, for example if CO2 effect is like 0.5C to 0.7C [seen as a constant CS] for 200ppm variation, the Sun and any other external effect you can think of will be part of a 0.2C effect for the same period…. at the very best max possibility…..or in a case of roughly average estimation will be just a part of a 0.1C, only a part not the whole of it.
In the end of the day is ok for someone or anyone to try to calculate and estimate the effect of the Sun, but that will be much much more difficult than the calculation and the estimate for CO2, especially while the latest one still not estimated and calculated correctly.
I would say, ….. before jumping on commiting to the same mistake as with CO2, simply based in the rationale “it is because it appears to be”, probably it will be better to consider all data related to the issue first.
Sun does not even make it as an amplyfier of the warming thus far……..
cheers
Whiten you say
“As energy source the Sun is considered as a constant, as far as climate concearned,….and rightly so.
From all data thus far on climate and climate change no any conections shown between a changing climate and the Sun.”
This assumption is nonsense and is the fundamental error made by the IPCC modelers which makes their models structurally useless for climate forecasting.
Until you know where we are with regard to the natural cycles and natural variability you can’t even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2. For a complete review see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Even Mike Mann agrees with the paper leading this thread that the Maunder Minimum is due to solar variability
“A minimum in solar irradiance, the Maunder Minimum, is thought to have occurred from
the mid-1600s to the early 1700s (1–3). Concurrently,surface temperatures appear to
have been at or near their lowest values of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere
(NH) (4–7), and European winter temperatures were reduced by 1° to 1.5°C (8).
We used a version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation
model (GCM), which includes a detailed representation of the stratosphere, to
simulate the difference between that period and a century later, when solar output remained
relatively high over several decades.The model contains a mixed-layer ocean, allowing
sea surface temperatures (SSTs) to respond to radiative forcing, and has been
shown to capture observed wintertime solar cycle–induced variations reasonably well ”
see Shindell et al
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
@ Dr Norman Page
As far as I am concerned, apart from the Graph above, 1950 to 2000, there is no any other data concerning climate, especially the long term one, showing any connection or a assumed effect of the Sun.
As per the Maunder Minimum you mentioned, actually not only Mann but also Nuccitelly [at least, could be others too] toed the same line.
Makes one wonder why!
The Solar minima in regard of these lower temperatures you mean, did start well after, while actually the temp was going up, and the data shows no any observable or otherwise effect or impact of that Sun minima in the LIA temp.
That solar minima happend clearly after the LIA started to break out of the chilling point. Was already a colder LIA [previously] before any sign of that sun minima starting, look closely at that data, is very clear about tha point.
The LIA does not seem to have started, getting to the depth it got… and did not end because of the Sun variation.
As I told Dana once: “The data are stubborn on that regard”…:)
As for the rest I can put it as a tip…….Once you get rid of Holocene, you can claim anything in regard to climate and climate change, to your heart content, and almost you will be right with any possible kind of claim….
From that point will be possibly equally true, no way of any better assesment possible.
Anyway, thanks for your reply…. no hard feelings and no offence meant..:)
cheers
Whiten Just check Figs 5,6,7 ,10,11,and 12 at last post at
http://climatesense-norpag-blogspot.com
to see solar influence on climate. Note especially the cosmic ray temperature correlation seen in Figs 10 and 11.
a weak correlation exists between reconstructed solar sunspot cycles and delta-O18 levels only between 1640 and 1720 (see their figure 5.) That’s it. It’s something, but I don’t see how that contributes to our understanding of global mean temperature trends.
Even that proxy correlation (the length of the Hale cycle detected in the reconstructed temperature is also stretched to be ∼28 years. )
is more likely to be modulated (in the absence of the solar cycles) by the earth’s magnetic field (see my comment further above ).
Leif Svalgaard: This is not a new, but is from 2009
With respect to the comments by alx and me (maybe others), does this paper show anything important at all concerning possible CO2 induced warming?
Johanes: Basically some “hand waving” conjectures here. Nothing (related to CAGW) to get excited about.:
that was “basically” my response as well.
Solar activity has not declined since the last peak as is evidenced this month. This is good in the long run because it lends support that this cycle in addition to being very weak is going to be very long. I bet at least 14 years.
This has some interesting connotations to it.
The first is the fact this low output will remain low for a long duration. This will result in sustained and more rapid cooling on earth.
Second is the fact that solar magnetic waves will remain reduced causing lower solar wind. this allows the earths own magnetic field to expand. This expansion (generally near the poles) will allow further and more rapid cooling of those regions.
Third is the lack of background indicators for the coming cycle. This appears to indicate that the next cycle will be much lower than the current cycle and will most likely be just as long.
I think we are about to find out just what a Dalton or Maunder type event will do to food production and how well man is prepared for a much cooler world in general. There has already been an uptick in virus mutations globally as the solar radiance fails to kill many strains in the air allowing full life cycles of the viruses..
There are many reasons we humans do better in a warming world..
My take on why/how the climate changes and may change.
As far as solar activity it is different now then it was before 2005 and just how much different will remain to be seen. Post 2005 being much quieter in contrast to years before 2005.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .
With all the nonlinear feedbacks, nonlinear control theory and the math that comes from it tells us that multidimensional Lorentz attractors exist,but two of which dominate, as seen by cold glacial, and warm interglacial. Earths climate is currently circling about the warm attractor with higher dimensinal excursion states in LIA, MWP, RWP, etc. until until it kicks suddenly and unpredictably to the the cold attractor.
Could changes of solar system’s barycenter be the responsible of large fluctuations of the sun?
Maybe, this is one of the facts that could explain large periods of low solar activity, and thus, the influx of more cosmic rays.
And as Svensmark says more cosmic rays reaching Earth, more cloud formation, and why not, more earth quakes, and lazy jet stream due to stratosferic sudden changes.
If this scenario is true, could we know the future solar activity knowing de relative position of all planets?
I think this is something interesting to see…
Thanks
Has anyone considered how cloud formation at high altitudes can increase loss of LWIR from the Earth through condensation rather than the GHE? The stratosphere is dry but there is enough water for cloud formation above the polar regions. Formation of liquid water in fine droplets that don’t increase albedo but increases cooling of the stratosphere would be more sensitive to the activity of the Sun than change in albedo at lower latitudes.
I saw what happened to the temperature during the eclipse in about 1990 I was about one degree from the centre under the sun the temperature fell a degree in seconds we had a little more than 6minutes without the sun we lost about 15/20degree.The sun has a great deal to do with the earths temperature..
I continue to be amazed at the ability of the IPCC – CAGW crowd to ignore the blindingly obvious.
This is not only scientific incompetence but simple stupidity
When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations presented themselves.
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more wildly in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor.
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g)I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that the sun was the main climate driver . More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine, the amount of cloud cover, the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday. It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.
These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s time are much nearer the truth and certainly much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models
Based on a, b, c and e it seems to me that insolation is the main climate driver.
The principal component of climate change is different at different time scales. Check Fig 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
This shows clearly where we are relative to the Milankovitch cycles – i e we are on the way down to the next ice age.
The Milankovitch cycles are then modulated by solar activity cycles of varying lengths – Most important for climate forecasting are the 60 year and especially the 1000 year cycle. For the latter see Figs 5 and 9 at the link.
Another schoolboy error of the modelers was to try to forecast future trends based on 70 years or so of data when the pertinent time scale was millennial. This is exactly like taking a temperature trend from say Feb – June and then projecting it ahead in a straight line for 10 years or so – basically bonkers!!
I certainly agree about the Milankovitch cycles. Precession and obliquity changes are heading us out of the interglacial, however as Dr Svalgaard reminds us, eccentricity may be too low for quite some time and will slow the fall back into glaciation. Although when looking at the big picture, we should remind ourselves that we will all be long dead before any of this happens.
I believe we underestimate the effects of the Earth’s internal heat source, particularly the effects upon the oceans caused by geothermal heating, for which we have little data. These effects along with the significant impact that we know the oceans have upon climate play a larger roll than normally discussed. Note that ice ages of any type did not even begin to occur until about 2.5 billion years after the Earth had formed, probably due, at least in part, to the time required for the Earth to cool from that formation event.
Let graphs speak for themselves over the years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Another effect is ozone (!!!!) Yup. Take for instance this image.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/global_total_ozone_change.gif
Then invert and fit to the above graph date for date.
What you see if stretched and located vertically is two ozone peaks that fit over alternate solar peaks. Solar magnetic polarity at play? It almost follows the climate but drops off early.
You might wonder what made me think of this… Here you are.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
CO2 & O3 are radiators in the stratosphere.
Don’t let the liberals realize CO2 can cause cooling. Cuz’ as most honest folks here recognize, cooling climate will be far far more catastrophic than a warming one.
@Joel O’Bryan
…….cooling climate will be far far more catastrophic than a warming one.
————–
Especially if the CO2 emissions so high and probably in a point of making the CO2 or the greenhouse effect seem like becoming a “cooling amplyfier” and causing a doubling of the cooling, causing a 50% increase of cooling.
I know this to be beyond even belief to almost all concerned, but as far as I can tell is probable and the way the other explanations and projections stand, this one still has an equal oportunity.
Is not very difficult to see it that way, ……does not mean necesary this is the truth, but the explanation could be far more simple in this case than in any other case of whatever extreme acrobatics with the climate data…..
cheers
Oh, Can I submit wtf as an image? Cheeky attempt 🙂
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Just a note, this is a conference publication and is not peer-reviewed,
http://www.iau.org/static/scientific_meetings/authors/IAU_combinst_20121209.pdf
“The IAU does not require that manuscripts of individual papers for the Proceedings have
to be refereed.”
Wake me when statistical analysis and mechanism allows accurate back- and fore-cast without the need for tuning. It seems solar proponents are always saying, “just wait and see, it will come to pass”. Then when it doesn’t a new tweek is added to the theory with another round of, “just wait and see, it will come to pass”. Kinda reminds me of the CO2 camp come to think about it.
No experimental evidence so far of link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate.
“using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols.”
“The CLOUD result adds another significant measurement in understanding the climate. But it does not rule out a role for cosmic radiation, nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change
My absolute top favorite climate related subject.
So useless models which ignore little items like say solar radiation, and which cannot model the 1 million or so variables in a complex convection system, must be used to set policies to rid the world of ‘carbon’ the demonic toxin which is the basis of modern civilization. Now that is science ! [or maybe fraud, stupidity, corruption….]
“And the atmosphere only has one effective cooling mechanism. Radiative gases.”
A radiating surface open to a clear sky cools the air above it very effectively.
Add wind and the energy lost from the surface by radiation to space is replenished by the flow of warmer air.
You really do not need radiative gases to cool the atmosphere, just a radiating surface plus air movement.
GHGs just re allocate energy radiated to space from the surface with energy radiated to space from within the atmosphere.
There are only two sources of heat on this planet, the sun and geothermal. Since 70% of the planet is covered with water, we know little about the latter and all the other variables, like that 70% called oceans, either carry this heat, reflect it, re-radiate it or impede it in one way or another. Our knowledge of this very complex system is limited and we tend to focus upon one or two variables while the multitude of others that are also in play are ignored. Should we begin to ignore the “proxy” variables, as suggested by some, then we would have much too little data to say much at all about true climate issues, which are by definition longer term. As far as the “weasel words” in this study as Leif occasionally likes to call them (not so far on this post), I appreciate it when scientists refer to data implications as such rather than as fact.
You missed one. Oceans. They have tremendous heat storage capacity, thus become THE source for heat in some parts of the globe. Ask those along the Gulf Stream. It ain’t ol’Sol that keeps winters mild along the Gulf Stream. The ocean does that.
Yes Pam! The Ocean both giveth and taketh away!
The water temperature is in fact what brings Northern (most of) CA its climate. In the summer, the relatively cool 50 degree F ocean dries the air – (precipitates it into fog on the coast) so that we have wonderfully dry sunny summers. Then in the winter, the relatively warm 50 degree ocean keeps most of CA from freezing – at least areas within coastal influence.
I did not miss one. I said, “There are only two sources of heat on this planet, the sun and geothermal. Since 70% of the planet is covered with water, we know little about the latter and all the other variables, like that 70% called oceans, either carry this heat, reflect it, re-radiate it or impede it in one way or another.” That is my story and I’m sticking to it. Oceans are not, in themselves, a source of heat. Any heat they carry is from the Sun or Geothermal. And they are no doubt, indeed, a significant influence upon climate.
And how do we decode the ‘near future’ temper of the Gulf stream and its warming and cooling effect on the good old N. Atlantic?
Well, one idea is to look at what the sub-Artic atmospheric pressure is doing.
Or just keep an eye on the developing already being squeezed N. Hemisphere Polar Vortex. It is already licking the top of Lake Superior and influencing weather in these parts. The weather persons are using the S word already in their forecast. eeek
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-172.38,81.90,551
Did anyone mention Upwind Crescent or downwind focusing cone in any of the above posts?
When discussing solar cycles? NOT
[Hush. The mods are in north Michigan and DO NOT want the Lake Superior weather gods to notice winter is approaching. .mod]
Hope I live long enough to see if Salvatore Del Prete and Dr Norman Page or their critics are right.