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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.