From the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
Sun’s impact on climate change quantified for first time
For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.
There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth’s temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches us. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth’s climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future.
Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth’s temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.
According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. “We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change.” But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.
Strong fluctuations could explain past climate
At the end of March, the researchers working on the project will meet in Davos for a conference to discuss the final results. The project brought together various research institutions’ capabilities in terms of climate effect modelling. PMOD calculated what is known as “radiative forcing” taking account of particle as well as electromagnetic radiation, ETH Zurich worked out its further effects in the Earth’s atmosphere and the University of Bern investigated the interactions between the atmosphere and oceans.
The Swiss researchers assumed a greater fluctuation in the radiation striking the Earth than previous models had done. Schmutz is convinced that “this is the only way that we can understand the natural fluctuations in our climate over the last few millennia.” He says that other hypotheses, such as the effect of major volcanic eruptions, are less conclusive.
Exactly how the sun will behave over the next few years remains a matter of speculation, however, since appropriate data series have only been available for a few decades and they reveal no evidence of fluctuations during this time. “To that extent, our latest results are still a hypothesis,” says Schmutz, “and it remains difficult for solar physicists to predict the next cycle.” But since we have been observing a consistently strong phase since 1950, it is highly likely that we will experience another low point in 50 to 100 years’ time. It could be every bit as intense as the Maunder Minimum, which brought particularly cold weather during the 17th century.
Important historical data
The research project also placed great importance on the historical perspective. The Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern compared data series on past solar activity with other specific climatic conditions. People have been recording the number of sunspots, which correlates well with solar activity levels, for some three centuries now. However, it is much more difficult to quantify exactly how cold it was on Earth back then. “We know that the winters during the last minimum were very cold, at least in northern Europe,” says Schmutz. The researchers still have a fair amount of work to do before they have a detailed understanding of the relationship between solar activity and the global climate both in the past and in the future.
h/t to The GWPF
It never ceases to amaze me that we need a model to prove the Sun affects our climate. That the Sun warms us and lack of it cools us should be intuitive. We wouldn’t even exist without the Sun.
It should be intuitive, but the way our education system appears to work today, and the gullibility of CAGW worshipers, this model may be the only way to reach them.
Half a degree?
If they were smart they would have declared that the ongoing solar lull had already decreased planetary temperatures by a full degree Celcius. That way they could once again make the required upward adjustments to current temperatures, kill ‘the pause’, and claim that… wait for it… “that the CO2 warming is even worse than we thought!”
Blown opportunity if you ask me.
Everyone understands that the Sun warms the planet. What is not “intuitive” is whether small fluctuations in solar activity make a noticeable impact on climate.
Oh dear, two alert words in one sentence: model and “robust”.
We can’t model the climate even at the decadal scale, we can’t model solar activity at all, how the hell are they pretending to “robustly” model the effects of one on the other for the next century.
I call BS on this and refuse to waste any more of my life looking at their claims.
Sorry… meant to write ‘masked’ not ‘decreased’
It will be even worse, as the postulated CO2 climate warming does not exist.
Geo: We don’t need a model to show that TSI (total solar irradiance in W/m2) is nearly constant and therefore doesn’t change our temperature appreciably. A model is needed to explain historical cold periods associated with reduced “solar activity” (sunspots or high energy particles or magnetic field). A model is needed to project that hypothesized future reductions in “solar activity” will cause significant cooling in future decades. If you don’t like solar models, don’t expect weaker solar activity in the future provide significant cooling.
Frank, The data from just over a decade of SORCE readings shows that TSI varies by at least 1.3 w/m2, which would certainly affect the climate, as the IPCC’s best guess for the radiative forcing effect of cumulative human CO2 emissions is 2.0 w/m2. In addition, observations show that the solar spectrum itself is inconsistent, with radiation at some wavelengths being 10 times what was expected. What we need is more data to show just how large the variations can be.
The high-energy end of the solar EM spectrum, ie UV, varies by about 100%. Spectral composition also differs from top of the atmosphere and the planetary surface.
Yes, but that variation has not shown any long-term trend so does not explain recent Global Warming:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Reconstruction-Long-Term.png
Absorption of UV radiation in the gaseous atmosphere is primarily due to molecular
oxygen O2 and ozone O3.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
Ted: I went to the SORCE website and couldn’t find any observational evidence that TSI has varied by 1.3 W/m2. I did find a historical RECONSTRUCTION of TSI – ie a MODEL – from sunspot data that varied by 1.3 W/m2. Converting sunspot number (or Be-11 or C-14 solar proxies) into a change in TSI is a challenging proposition.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
ClimateDialogue convened experts on both sides of the solar debate. Several of the experts say no one knows which reconstructions, if any, are right. You decide for yourself.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/what-will-happen-during-a-new-maunder-minimum/
Warning: When comparing changes in TSI to other climate forcings (such as 3.7 W/m2 for 2XCO2), you need to remember that GHG forcing occurs over a global surface area of 4*Pi*R^2 while TSI is delivered to a disk of Pi*R^2 and that 30% is reflected rather than absorbed. That means a 5.7 W/m2 change in TSI (about 1361 W/m2) translates into a solar forcing of only 1 W/m2.
Frank, you should also be aware that you are not looking at true earth TSI. Which varies from 1315 to 1406. A differences of 91 w/m^2 over a year. The orbit of the earth is not completely circular. It is 158 million km at aphellion and 153 million km at perihelion. The true earth data is also from SORCE. The nearly constant number is from the Lagrange point. My first calculation using the power formula had a 78 w/m^2 difference. SORCE has another column which gives you the true earth TSI which I was informed of. You can’t use a simple formula as an average. When calculating the retained heat, it’s no good. It’s also no good in calculating the black body radiation. The reason is you have a band of numbers that are changing. The position of the earth between the NH and SH are constantly changing in relation to distance. A complete cycle takes about 390 years.
Just the instrumentation error alone on many papers that were written uses 1370 as the TSI as a constant. Still they are trying to get the figure closer to 1370 than 1361/1362. Why is that important ? It wipes out a third of the calculated temperature increase due to co2.
We really are in uncharted territory. If the orbit varies a little as much as a million km +/-, most astronomers wouldn’t be too upset about it. It’s a fairly good circle except that it has implications for climate.
There has to be a certain amount of thermal inertia that is built up in the oceans. If the calculation that every 10 w/m^2 results in a 0.5 C, then from aphellion to perihelion it about 4.5 C.
The only thing I’m fairly certain of is that co2 is not controlling temperature. Maybe we should be glad that there is warming, co2 or otherwise. Is a LIA the norm and not the exception?
Frank, in the first link you posted, directly above the paragraph on historical reconstruction, is a plot of the data from SORCE showing TSI changes by at least 1.3 w/m2.
Remember: When comparing changes in TSI to the forcing from additional CO2, that the changes in w/m2 from the sun is based on observation, not reconstruction, while the amount of forcing for changes in CO2 are hypothesized based on the assumptions that solar changes were negligible, magnetic changes were negligible, and a positive feedback cycle; all of which run counter to observations made since the proposal that CO2 was the largest factor in warming.
lsvalgaard March 31, 2017 at 4:39 pm
IMO, EUV looks to correspond well with warmer and cooler cycles since the 18th century. Probably would too if extended farther back into the LIA.
As I said, your mileage varies with your beliefs and bias. You just proved that point.
The EUV in the 1870s and 1780s was on par with what we have measured the past 30 years.
You think the temperatures [or the climate] during those three periods were the same. Let that stand as your belief. It is not mine.
Frank said, March 31, 2017 at 12:56 pm:
True. The solar parameter that matters to the climate system is the ASR (“Absorbed Solar Radiation”), not TSI. People seem not to be aware of this simple fact.
TSI itself basically does nothing. Because it’s nearly constant over time. However, the actual solar input to the earth system, the “solar HEAT” [Q_sw], the ASR, is largely determined rather by earth’s global albedo. Earth’s heat flux from the sun, after all, is not TSI. It is the “net SW”, TSI minus reflected SW (albedo):
IOW, ASR is the solar parameter that we need to look at, not TSI. TSI is just one component of the net. And a pretty constant one at that. It is not what’s actually absorbed by the earth system. The ASR is.
The ASR is (globally) ~240 W/m^2 at the ToA, ~165 W/m^2 at the surface. At the ToA it is (more or less) balanced in full by the OLR (“Outgoing Long-wave Radiation”): Q_in = Q_out. At the surface it is balanced by the radiative heat loss (“net LW”, Q_rad) + the conductive heat loss (Q_cond) + the evaporative heat loss (Q_evap):
Q_in = Q_out (Q_rad (53W/m^2) + Q_cond (24W/m^2) + Q_evap (88W/m^2))
Ted said, March 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm:
Well, I’d say the range from peak to trough is about 1-1.3 W/m^2:
But you’d have to divide that number by 4 to get the global annual average. The earth is a spinning ball, after all.
So, in terms of earth’s energy budget, the TSI at the ToA isn’t 1361 W/m^2. It’s 1361/4 = 340.25 W/m^2. And the range from cycle top to cycle bottom becomes 0.25-0.33 W/m^2 rather than 1-1.3 W/m^2. That range hardly matters at all when compared to the reflected SW (albedo) variability, mostly caused by clouds:
Rishrac and Kristian: Thanks for the repies. I agree that the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit (3.5%) causes a 7% annual variation incoming TSI. However, neither that annual variation nor the 11-year cycle cause apparent cyclical changes in GMST.* On the climate time scale, these rapid (annual and decadal) fluctuations average out. To compete with CO2 as an influence on climate, solar changes need to produce a continuous FORCING change comparable to CO2 – more than 1 W/m2 and they need to be applied for decades, not just a few years. As I noted above, a 1 W/m2 forcing is equivalent to a change in TSI of 5.7 W/m2.
Rishrac commented: “The only thing I’m fairly certain of is that co2 is not controlling temperature. Maybe we should be glad that there is warming, co2 or otherwise. Is a LIA the norm and not the exception?”
I think a smart guy like you would say that CO2 is not the ONLY thing controlling temperature. Ice cores show us how much temperature change was caused by other factors during the Holocene before GHGs became involved. (Divide by 2 to correct for Arctic amplification.) The unfortunate answer currently appears to be that other factors caused less change than CO2 will do in the future – if climate sensitivity is high (3 K/doubling). So CO2 is not the only thing, but it currently appears to be a good candidate for most important thing.
There were wild changes in temperature (glacial/interglacial) before the Holocene. Milankovitch cycles apparently involve trivial changes in global TSI. CO2 change lagged behind temperature change and was a feedback. Given our limited understanding of what causes glacials and interglacials, I choose to draw my inferences about what is controlling temperature today from what is known about Holocene temperature variation (but other positions are tenable).
* Which brings me back to the subject of why global temperature doesn’t change with the 11 year solar cycle or the annual 7% cycle due to eccentricity. I believe the correct answer is heat capacity. W/m2 is a power flux. It needs to be integrated over time to become an energy flux and then combined with heat capacity per unit area to become a temperature change. (Many people mistakenly convert W/m2 to degC using ECS, without recognizing that this factor applies only at equilibrium, many decades in the future.) If you assume a 50 m mixed layer over 70% of the Earth (plus trivial contributions from atmosphere and land), a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance is capable of producing an INITIAL rate of warming of 0.2 degC/yr. However, even on the time-scale of Pinatubo, the idea that temperature change is confined to the top 50 m of the ocean isn’t viable, a significant amount of heat begins to reach below the mixed layer in less than a year This can also be seen in ARGO data. Furthermore, any temperature change also modifies radiative cooling to space – though the size of that correction depends on ECS. Thus the peak -3 W/m2 forcing from Pinatubo created roughly a cooling of only -0.6 K 1.5 years later (and WIllis can’t “spot the volcano” in temperature records). So an 11 year solar cycle with an amplitude of 1 W/m2, becomes a solar forcing change of about 0.17 W/m2 and an initial rate of change of 0.035 degC/year if confined to the mixed layer (and less when some of the heat escapes). So the 11-year solar cycle is (just barely) buried by unforced and other forced variability in temperature.
The much larger 7% annual cycle disappears when we calculate temperature anomalies. When we don’t use anomalies, we see a 3.5 degK change in GMST that is 180 degrees out-of-phase with TSI. It is out of phase because the heat capacity of the NH is half that of the SH. During the Holocene Climate Optimum these factors were in phase and maximum TSI arrived during summer in the NH. In either case, changes in TSI last only several months.
Kristian,
SORCE data only exists from 2003, so we don’t really know how much TSI has varied over time. (It also shows an average of about 1631 W/m2, a definite difference from the graph you posted, further highlighting the uncertainty). As you mentioned, what really counts is how much energy is not reflected. The solar portion of that is not TSI, but radiation at and near visible wavelengths, and the limited data we have shows those wavelengths changing ten times as much as TSI, and are not in sync with TSI. So the 0.3 W/m2 from TSI could easily be 3.0 W/m2 of forcing.
To compete with CO2 as an influence on climate, solar and cloud changes need to produce a continuous forcing that exists as a HYPOTHESIS. And since the IPCC declined to include changes in clouds or solar radiation as factors, that means every bit of change from either one reduces the estimate of how much forcing has occurred from CO2 down below the current guess of 2.0 W/m2.
Can you prove it then?
Gosh. They’ve demonstrated this hypothesis by “elaborate model calculations” …. be still my beating heart.
At some point, people will realize that “elaborate model calculations” are among the weakest kind of evidence about anything.
Clearly, however, that point is not today.
w.
I don’t know…
If you have a very robust observation that you can replicate with “elaborate model calculations” and your model can predict future observations… You are way ahead of having a very robust observation that you can replicate with “elaborate model calculations” and your model has a 30+ year track record of failing to predict future observations 95% of the time.
IF
SteveT
Models are essential to science. Some are better than others. Applying GCMs to climate has produced execrable results. But the history of science shows many examples of successful models, with great explanatory power, capable of improvement to the point that we now know them to be objectively valid, ie found to be scientific facts when direct observation of the modeled phenomena became possible.
Modern science begins with Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the “universe”, as opposed the to Ptolemy’s geocentric model. It was improved by Kepler’s discovery of elliptical orbits, Galileo’s observations of the “fixed” stars, Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, and subsequent astronomical developments.
“Modern science begins with” the heliocentric model, which was first put forward by Aristarchos of Samos (circa 310 BC to circa 230 BC) and resurrected by Copernicus (1473 AD to 1543 AD).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
During the intervening centuries between the lives of Aristarchos and Copernicus, the 97% consensus rigourously suppressed the heliocentiric model in favour of the geocentric model.
Nick,
After Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310 to 230 BC), attempts were made to resurrect the heliocentric hypothesis, but all were decried as impious even by pagans.
Plutarch even goes so far as to assert that Seleucus of Seleucia (c. 150 BC) maintained heliocentrism as a fact, not just an hypothesis, as did Copernicus. Others toyed with the idea.
Copernicus read Greek, and was influenced by classical pagan scientists. But his supporting work was all his own. Little survived of the relevant writings of Aristarchus, Seleucus, et al.
Modern physical science started with Copernicus reviving an hypothesis reviled even in antiquity, and modern life science with Vesalius daring to break away from the authority of Galen, based upon his own observations, both in books published in the same year, 1543. Copernicus had held his belief for at least 36 years at that time, however, but dared not publish widely for fear of his church’s reaction.
Made the same comment elsewhere earlier today. Read the paper out of curiosity. “elaborate model calculations” is unfortunately an understatement.
Rud,
Where did you find the paper?
Thanks!
G, NoTricksZone posted on this yesterday. Pierre gave a link to SNF.ch. Follow it and go to the bottom where it says link to related papers. Click. The paper is the first listed. Click thatnlink. Caveat: I read what is,posted there in German. It is actually a final project summary document for a conference in Davos this week that wraps up SNSF funded project 147659, funding end 3/31/17. No indication if this will then be turned into a formal journal paper. I would think so, but that is yet to come. You could query lead investigator Werner Schmidt of PMOD; his contact info is available by following the links above. He may have an English version available for you.
The hierarchy of lies:
Lies
Damned Lies,
Statistics.
Computer Model Output.
G, typo. PMOD head is Schmutz, not Schmidt. His contact info available in the link chain cited.
Thanks.
My impression was that there would not be a formal paper until after the conference.
I read German, so no worries.
Appreciate your sleuthing.
Is this the paper?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Werner_Schmutz/publication/311496618_Modeling_of_the_middle_atmosphere_response_to_27-day_solar_irradiance_variability/links/584fd12b08aeb989252e675a.pdf
But Willis, they said their model is “robust.” So, it is to be trusted.
My slide rule never crashed. My computer, on the other hand, crashes all the time. By that definition the slide rule is more robust. Maybe robust is a synonym for annoying and relatively useless.
On the other hand, their chief researcher is named Schmutz, which I believe is German for “mess.” GIGO, perhaps?
@commieBob
My slide rule never crashed.
However, I could not say the same for myself.
Willis:
,” the end of March, the researchers working on the project will meet in Davos for a conference to discuss the final results”
Wow my favorite time of the skiing year !
“Spring skiing” you know the time you ski in T-shirts and shorts! ( or less). These guys sure know how to pick the time and the locations!
(And frankly I stopped reading after the first comma ( the next word was models))
My opinion is this is a preemptive shot to make sure no matter what naturally occurs, our friend global warming is still there in the background. Kind of like herpes.
I feel the same way.
Certainly. The Swiss governement needs Global … to justify the increasing costs and penalizing taxes, the threats (don’t heat your home, or the earth will die) and to push further the innovative and alternative “greening” efforts. It’s a huge part of the market foundation for the next bunch of years.
It really gets me how everthing is always turned into AGW. Or climate change.
I can imagine the Swiss government, that is net importer of oil and gas, to tax energy to make their people to be frugal consuming energy. It makes sense.
“It really gets me how everything is always turned into AGW. Or climate change”
With some folks, everything is due to blind fate. Others will say that deity dictates our human existence. The tenet that science can offer a choice to control the future is very alluring to the human desire to control all aspects of our paradigm.
Testable predictions are always welcome.
Probably not going to be right but no risk no gain.
AGW “combat” gives ruinous losses and costs, meantime. At a 7-10% discount rate, you get both mega resource-waste risk and no gain.
They are moving towards this hypothesis:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
which refers to both particle and electromagnetic (wavelength) variations, as they do.
Such variations alter global cloudiness which changes the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans.
If that is so, Mr. Wilde, then, good for them.
However — it is NOT necessary to burst out with the tic of
to quietly put forth the intriguing and plausible atmospheric chemistry arguments. The stench of that rotten egg statement permeates the entire article. Further, for a not-tech degree person trying hard to learn, it so taints their mixture that I just simply do not trust what they say.
IOW: their credibility lies in smithereens on the floor.
Sad. But. True.
According to project head Werner Schmutz this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced…temperature adjustments
Yes, late to the party bearing gifts already received.
So they expect the Earth to cool during the sun’s down cycle by roughly the same amount that it rose during its up cycle. Is that the takeaway here? If so, what happened to AGW? Will we also see new papers describing the struggle our ecosystem will undergo as it attempts to cope with global cooling in the same manner to which it purportedly struggles to cope with global warming?
According to Rep Beyer during the House hearing, a half degree is nothing.
Of course, using his logic, we’ve wasted a lot of money over nothing.
exactly….take away the 1/2 degree and the adjustments….and we’re in major negative terrority
LOL nice one
Is this how a bona fide scientist talks??
By asserting blatant conjecture as fact? Without any qualification or modifier (e.g., “we believe” or “to some degree”) whatsoever?
The science giants of WUWT use far more precise, careful, language; thus, I know the answer to my question.
However much one might want to take the rest of the lecture seriously, after that big piece of junk lands with a thud on the lecture room floor, one simply cannot.
Janice, smartrock in another post where the same type of language was used. They may have had to put that in there to get published. That doesn’t diminish what you are saying though.
The whole quote is:
“There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations.”
It’s called being neutral, Janice. This is Switzerland we’re talking about.
Thank you, Mr. Parsons, for pointing that out to me. Yes, yes, good ol’ Switzerland….
They need to study the meaning of their words, nevertheless. Asserting that there is any significant, controlling, human influence is to also assert that any measured changes we have seen so far are NOT well within natural variation. This is not a neutral statement. It is taking a position.
Lol, poor old Dr. Strangelove and his not-neutral right arm… 🙂
Humans cause climate change! Aaaaaaa! Gkfffbbffpphhhsshmpkkkffff!
(youtube)
There is human-induced climate change…” is an assertion, vigorously debated.
“There are natural climate fluctuations….” is an undeniable fact.
Joining these two statements with ‘and’ is a deliberate attempt to make a hotly debated assertion appear to be equivalent to a fact. It is not ‘being neutral’ – it is being disingenuous.
” It is not ‘being neutral’ – it is being disingenuous.”
It’s stating a fact not in evidence. These people are assuming *way* too much.
Janice,
There is human-induced climate change. When we transform a prairie into farmland, build dams, impound reservoirs, cover large swaths of ground with asphalt and concrete, we are inducing climate change. Our GHG, aerosol and other emissions induce a small degree of climate change (maybe +0.2C).
Mr. Middleton: Thank you for taking the time to educate me.
Your conjecture, however, has no evidence proving causation of a shift in climate for any significant portion of the globe. It is plausible that human activity causes enduring weather pattern shifts, but not “climate change” to any meaningful degree. If you cut up the landscape of earth into small enough chunks, even a bumble bee can “change the climate.”
All the chunks add up.
Could we be inducing a global effect? Sure, it’s possible. Humans are responsible for about half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm. All other things held equal, this will result in a slightly higher average temperature. However, all other things are never held equal and we don’t understand most of the other things very well at all.
Is there anyway to quantitatively differentiate our influences from all of the “natural” drivers? No.
Since the Earth’s climate isn’t changing any differently now, than it had been changing before we invented SUV’s, it’s a pretty safe bet that our influence is minimal… But we still do have an influence and the planet will just have to get used to our influence.
When we transform a prairie into farmland, build dams, impound reservoirs, cover large swaths of ground with asphalt and concrete, we are inducing climate change.
I’d say when we do these things we are inducing local environmental changes – and that these are the changes that should concern local inhabitants. The top soil abuse resulting in the dust bowl had national consequences, but are you prepared to say the world temperature highs reached in the 30’s were likely due to other factors – factors which we can’t as yet define but which this lead article are trending towards.
The local changes add up.
The Dust Bowl clearly was due to a combination of factors… Our lack of soil conservation measures and the onset of abnormally warm and dry climatic conditions. The climatic conditions were almost certainly natural; but our contribution to the Dust Bowl made it even worse.
+1, Bill Parsons — sounds much more accurate to me.
“…are you prepared to say the world temperature highs reached in the 30’s were likely due to other factors …” skipping the rhetorical question, this might read more clearly this way:
… it’s unlikely that the temperature highs reached in the 30’s were due to man-made causes.
Still, anyone who lived through the dust bowl and can remember it, like for instance my mother, seems to have a hard time dis-associating man-made events from those that have a natural cause.
Since UHIs and other local effects aren’t properly accounted for by the book-cooking GASTA guardians, man-made changes probably do figure into the global average. Environmental alterations clearly affect temperature and rainfall locally at locations around the world.
But I agree these man-made changes have a negligible effect on real worldwide climate change, apart from the Mann-made temperature “record”.
Now… Mann-made climate change is a whole different thing and it is an existential threat to liberty and prosperity.
Last I heard the planet had “greened” up ~15%…and somewhere around 11% is used for crops
And vegetation is part of “climate.”
“bout like farmland
No David, what you cite are ecological changes. NOT CLIMATE CHANGES.
See Pielke, 2005
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5754/1625
And Pielke et al., 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.144/abstract
And Pielke et al., 2015
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/08/in-physics-today-land-use-change-drives-climate-change/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
When you convert prairie to irrigated farmland, cover land with concrete & asphalt, turn river vallies into lakes and clear forest areas, you alter evapotranspiration patterns.
Daryl,
Environmental changes have definitely changed the climate of Clark County, NV, for instance. Enough such local changes could add up to a global effect, however negligible, IMO.
“Is there anyway to quantitatively differentiate our influences from all of the “natural” drivers? No.”
There you go, Janice, he agrees with you (and me:).
Any AGW/CAGW advocates want to take issue with David’s statement?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
When you convert prairie to irrigated farmland, cover land with concrete & asphalt, turn river vallies into lakes and clear forest areas, you alter evapotranspiration patterns.
David, I agree up to a point ( because our family has on a small scale by planting trees and growing a farm where there once was not one changed a small piece of the environment). But as far as those few acres is concerned the effect is minuscule, do they add up as far as the whole local area? ( which was a semi arid desert a 100 years ago) yes they do because our neighbors are doing the same thing but as far as I am concerned in this debate ? I am not sure, as far as the population of the planet it is all concentrated in small ares like Singapore, Mexico City, Tokyo, NY etc, on that local scale I can see huge variations from a few decades ago but on a planet wide basis it has to be minimal, if not even measurable
The majority of the world’s population lives in highly dense areas but as far as population density on a global scale ? Some body pointed out somewhere if you’d put all of humanity a foot apart you would not be able to cover Texas ( they can have them) The planet is empty in my view and needs all the help (CO2) it can get!
Millions, then billions of humans transforming a few acres here and a few acres there over hundreds to thousands of years adds up.
See Pielke’s papers.
It would be more accurate to describe the changes you mention as microclimate changes, since they only affect small areas.
Small areas are cumulative… they add up. HadCRUT and GISTEMP aren’t globally measured temperatures. They are spatially weighted averages of thousands of local temperatures, albeit heavily “adjusted.”
Ah, but Janice–humans have been having a bit of an effect on the climate for a long time now–deforestation goes back millennium, large water impoundments raise humidity, and of course the ever increasing urban heat islands. Just don’t suspect that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have very much to do with it though, and it does seem that the good from that outweighs any possible negative by a large margin.
late to the dance as usual.
But, always welcome when-EVER you arrive. 🙂
Draining swamps lowers humidity.
If you go to Tony Heller’s website where he posts the temperature history of Rural sites you will note that in most cases the temperatures have actually DECREASED in the last 100 years. So what have the human changes in agriculture done?
I was under the impression that I alone had an irrational belief that the sun had an impact of earth’s temperature. When the sun is up where I live, it is on average 10C warmer than when the sun goes down, and that happens in 12 hours. So ….maybe…
Thankfully, an immense amount of water vapor plus a few trace radiative gases keep that from being a 100C variation as the planet rotates daily. Beyond that, solar irradiance variations due to activity remain to be seen. My gut says there is a connection, but my mind remains unconvinced.
I wonder if their model calculations take into account the expected increase in global temperature due to GHGs, making this cooling of 0.5C a net figure?
The book cookers at HadCRU, NOAA and NASA won’t let average global temperature drop by 0.5 degrees C, no matter what actually happens in the real world. Once they shut down UAH’ satellite program, they’ll have the “record” to themselves, now that RSS has joined the Borg and is going to adjust its “data” to conform to the “consensus”.
Expecting Leif to blow a gasket in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Dr Svalgaard does not quite blow a gasket, but he does do righteous indignation quite well 🙂
Snarky he can be, but he presents data with his comments in a matter-of-fact fashion and responds to questions, maddening as his answers sometimes are for us who think it’s all about the sun.
“According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. “We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change.” But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.”
Hmm. Cycle 24 is predicted to end about the middle of 2020. That means cycle 25 should be expected to peak somewhere around 2025-26. And this guy implies that when it does we’re going to have to “deal with the consequences of climate change”?
Can we ever just get the facts without the BS predictions of “consequences” etc? It really does get tiresome and at least for me brings into question the veracity of the claims made in a paper.
They are preparing their excuses for when the pause resumes.
I’ll check the real thing by going outside. I’ll take the elaborate set of stairs to perform this. That’s after wading through all manner of catastrophes caused by humans to then look up at the sun and behold the politically-unassisted fusion reactor of nature. I’ll go back inside after Leif comments.
The sun’s output currently keeps the Earth at a temperature of about 300K above the background level of the universe. If the sun’s output varies by 0.1% over the course of a normal solar cycle, one would expect the Earth’s temperature to also vary by about 0.1%, or 0.3K.
It’s not quite that linear.
I know, 4th power and all that. I was assuming that over an interval as small as 0.1%, the difference from purely linear would be small enough to ignore.
It is very nearly linear, but the slope of the line is only a quarter of slope from 0K to 288K.
I’m not understanding why the slopes would not be the same. Do you have a reference that I could review?
T^4 ~ S
4*T^3*dT ~ dS
4*dT/T = dS/S
That, of course, is assuming no other significant contributor, e.g.,
T^4 ~ e*S
4*T^3*dT ~ e*dS + de*S
4*dT/T = dS/S + de/e
MarkW, you’re on the right track. The 1/4 proportionality is, indeed, due to the “4th power and all.”
The relation between temperature and radiation intensity (power) is nicely linear for small perturbations (as are most things in nature). But it’s governed by the Stefan-Blottzman law:
R = σT⁴
where T = absolute temperature (Kelvin), R = emitted radiation power, and σ = a constant
Since, at equilibrium, incoming and outgoing radiation are of equal intensity (though different frequency spectrums), that same equation gives us the expected relation of temperature to incoming radiation (TSI) at equilibrium.
So, how do changes in radiation intensity (power) relate to changes in temperature?
We need the derivative of R with respect to T.
So, for clarity, let’s rename things.
Let x = temperature = T
R is a function of T, so let R = f(x), the radiation intensity as a function of temperature
R = σT⁴
That’s the same thing as:
f(x) = σx⁴
Taking the derivative w/r/t temperature x:
f'(x) = 4σx³
I.e., the derivative of radiation w/r/t temperature is 4 times the 3rd power of temperature times (the constant which relates radiation to the 4th power of temperature).
The “4” is because the derivative of “something to a constant exponent c” is c times “something to c-1”.
In this case c is 4, so the change in radiation is proportional to 4 times the change in cubed temperature.
But, for our purposes, we can ignore the word “cubed.”
“Eh,” you say? How can you ignore the fact that temperature is cubed?
Yes, we really can ignore the fact that temperature is cubed, because we’re talking about perturbations in temperature, i.e., small percentage changes. For small perturbations, the percentage change in cubed temperature is almost identical to the percentage change in “not-cubed temperature.”
e.g., (289³/288³) ≈ (289/288)
i.e., (289³/288³) / (289/288) = 1.0070 which is almost exactly 1.
So we can say that, for small perturbations, the change in radiation is proportional to 4 times the change in temperature.
That means the change in temperature is proportional to 1/4 the change in radiation intensity (which is what Leif said).
That’s where the “1/4” comes from.
Note: usually when I do something like this, I botch a couple of things. I’ll be grateful to whoever finds them for me, this time!
Oh, boy. I really botched it.
The ratio of the percentage change in cubed temperature to the percentage change in “not-cubed temperature” for a one degree increase is not:
(289³/288³) / (289/288)
It is:
((289³/288³)-1) / ((289/288)-1)
And that is not approximately one. It is approximately three.
So I think I’m pretty hopelessly confused. Again.
I’m also tired. It’s 1:50 a.m. here. In the immortal words of Scarlett O’Hara, “I can’t think about this now… I’ll think about it tomorrow.”
Dave burton,
Very nice. I love this stuff. Sites like WUWT are a graduate school in virtually the entire range of knowledge – climate, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, history, economics,…..
Thank you, Gary, you are very kind, but I completely botched it. If any university were to teach such tripe, you should demand a refund. If rgb stumbles across this I’ll never be able to take a course from him because he’d have to peremptorily flunk me, as a matter of principle.
Plug in real numbers to see just how horribly I botched it.
This part is right:
R = σT⁴
where σ is a constant (the Stefan-Boltzmann constant multiplied by an adjustment for the fact that the Earth is not a black body)
The constant σ is approximately 5E-8, but its precise value doesn’t matter for our purposes.
So, for example, if T=288 K, then R = 288**4 * 5E-8 = 344 W/m² (close enough for gov’t work)
Equivalently, T = k(R^(1/4)) = k*sqrt(sqrt(R)), i.e., a constant, k, times the 4th root of R.
The constant k turns out to be approximately 67, but its precise value doesn’t matter for our purposes. I’m going to use 67 for the rest of this.
So, for example, R=342 W/m² -> T = 67 * sqrt(sqrt(342)) = 288.125256404 K (close enough for gov’t work)
So, using T = 67 * sqrt(sqrt(R)) and plugging in a few values:
R T 100.0 211.872603231 100.1 211.925551531 342.0 288.125256404 342.1 288.146315883 342.3 288.188420993 500.0 316.823439016 500.1 316.839279000For radiation around 100 W/m² the ratio of change in temperature to change in radiation (the slope) is:
(211.925551531 – 211.872603231) / (100.1 – 100.0) = 0.529
At around 342 W/m² the ratio of change in temperature to change in radiation is:
(288.146315883 – 288.125256404) / (342.1 – 342.0) = 0.211
(Which Lief rounded to “1/4”.)
At around 500 W/m² the ratio of change in temperature to change in radiation is:
(316.839279000 – 316.823439016) / (500.1 – 500.0) = 0.158
So, as you can see, most of what I wrote above is nonsense. Mea culpa.
At around 342 W/m² the ratio of change in temperature to change in radiation is:
(288.146315883 – 288.125256404) / (342.1 – 342.0) = 0.211
(Which Leif rounded to “1/4”.)
No, I didn’t round. The value is exactly 4. You see it this way:
S=aT^4 S-B law
dS=a (4T^3) dT differentiate
dS/S= (a 4T^3)/(aT^4) dT divide both sides by S = a T^4
dS/S= (4/T) dT = 4 dT/T re-arrange
http://i0.wp.com/tyronetribulations.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wpid-wp-1439377778857.jpeg
Note to self: In future, to avoid looking like idiot, always plug in some real values and make sure they produce reasonable results.
DB, I have also eaten late night crow here and at CE. True peer review can be swift and brutal. Stuff happens. Soldier on.
Hmmm… that all looks correct, Leif.
So what did I do wrong…. Oh… I see it. Gadzooks, what’s wrong with my head this week?
((211.925551531 – 211.872603231) / 211.872603231) / ((100.1 – 100.0) / 100)) = 0.25
((288.146315883- 288.125256404) / 288.125256404) / ((342.1 – 342.0) / 342)) = 0.25
etc.
Sigh. I used to be able to do simple math like this. My brain is rusting, from disuse, perhaps.
No, that is incorrect. The percentage variation of the temperature is a quarter of the percentage variation of solar output, so 0.075 K.
Leif: No. That is not correct. You are assuming the earth’s surface temperature is in equilibrium with a square meter of the solar constant at TOA, which is around 1366 Wm-2. That IS ridiculous. But the earth radiates IR in all directions as a sphere and only half the solar disk is lit continuously and over that half, the solar insolation must be latitude adjusted. When it is (by the redone KT energy balance here in BAMS 2009):
https://www.scribd.com/document/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi
you add 161 Wm-2 ( surface) plus 78 Wm-2 atmosphere to get OLR of 239 Wm-2. That is the skin radiation absorbed at the surface and what is emitted to space at TOA after GHG amplification of the surface temperature.
Not counting GHG amplification, your equation above after rearranging is dT/dS = T/4S.
From KT balance then dT/dS = 255K/956 Wm-2 = .27K/Wm-2, not .075KWm-2.
You can work it the same way just differentiating the non GHG surface temperature from Stefan Boltzman:
S= aT^4
dS/dT = 4aT^3, so dS/dT = 3.76Wm-2K-1 or the same as above, dT/dS = 1/4aT^3 = .27K/Wm-2.
The change in earth temperature would be much greater than you state with an incorrect comparison of TOA insolation to surface temperature. Add in the GHG surface temperature and it reduces to .18K/Wm-2, but that assumes a decrease will not unspool any tropospheric water vapor, an unlikely assumption.
Leif: No. That is not correct. You are assuming the earth’s surface temperature is in equilibrium with a square meter of the solar constant at TOA, which is around 1366 Wm-2.
Not at all. The correct formula is dT/T=(1/4) dS/S. dS/S is the same for a disk and a sphere. Using T = 288K in dT/T takes into account all matter of emissivity, albedo, etc. So dS/S = 0.1% means dT/T = 0.1/4 % or 288/4*0.1/100 = 0.072 K.
Forgive me for disagreeing, but CO2 has its own radiative channel to space entirely separate from the effective Planck temperature of the atmosphere as a whole. This channel radiates at the tropopause and above where the lapse rate reverses and becomes negative. Rather than radiating at a lower temperature, with increasing concentration and higher radiative altitude, CO2 radiates to space to the fourth power of a higher temperature with increasing concentration.
“At around 342 W/m² the ratio of change in temperature to change in radiation is:
(288.146315883 – 288.125256404) / (342.1 – 342.0) = 0.211
(Which Leif rounded to “1/4”.)
No, I didn’t round. The value is exactly 4. You see it this way:
S=aT^4 S-B law
dS=a (4T^3) dT differentiate
dS/S= (a 4T^3)/(aT^4) dT divide both sides by S = a T^4
dS/S= (4/T) dT = 4 dT/T re-arrange”
All of this Sanskrit treats the atmosphere as a brick. It is not a brick, it is a solution of gasses. Below the optical depth of about a kilometer, the atmosphere actually radiates according to your formula. Our satellites tell us that above a kilometer first CO2, and then at about five kilometers water; become free agents with their own separate channels to space.
So?
The effective delta to space from incremental addition of CO2 is a balance between additional absorption in the poorly populated “wings” in the troposphere and additional radiation in the stratosphere and above in the highly populated fundamental bend.
So?
“Using T = 288K in dT/T takes into account all matter of emissivity, albedo, etc.”
So, I am doubting that using 288K really does account for the material properties of CO2. I do not doubt the 1/4 relationship per se. The 9K increment above 279K Planck temp largely accounts for water in the air.
As you say, using 288K largely accounts for water in the air. What is not to like?
What is not to like, and the reason the surface measured 288K does not account for all manner of emissivity, is that the energy CO2 radiates to space from the lower stratosphere is not surface energy. Surface energy in the fundamental bend and rotational sidekicks is extinguished in some few meters. It can be easily shown in MODTRAN that no surface radiation in the fundamental bend etc. makes it to the tropopause at 280ppm. Yet the satellites see radiation in these bands from space.
“Your quote abounds with the usual weasel words”
That’s your way of handwaiving out the evidence and hypotheses you disagree with. They don’t use the right words. It is becoming quite pathetic.
Words matter. We don’t ‘suggest’ that solar storms ‘may’ cause aurorae and geomagnetic disturbances, because we know that they do. That is the difference between science and suppositions.
How do they dare to provide evidence that solar variability affects climate so much as to move glaciers on a global scale?
And they don’t show that. They show that there was a LIA which is not in doubt in the first place.
“If the sun’s output varies by 0.1% over the course of a normal solar cycle, one would expect the Earth’s temperature to also vary by about 0.1%, or 0.3K.
Pretty simple thinking. Now what about this: During the Last Glacial Maximum, the amount of solar radiation that the planet received was essentially the same as during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or as now. And if you try to invoke Milankovitch, 21,000 years ago the Earth had essentially the same axial tilt, and the same position in the precession cycle (northern summer insolation and all that), as of now. Yet 21,000 years ago, the places where a lot of people are reading this were covered in many hundreds of meters of ice.
It is clear that what is important is the response of the Earth’s climatic system, not the magnitude of solar radiation changes. Something so simple, and even climate scientists fail to realize.
1. As Leif Svalgaard pointed out (in the thread just above), the effect on temperature of a small change in solar output is actually even less than that. A change in TSI of 0.1% gets you only about 0.025% change in temperature, i.e., less than 0.07°C.
2. We don’t actually know that at Last Glacial Maximum the amount of solar energy the planet received was essentially the same as during the HCO or now. We have some evidence to support that conjecture, but IMO it is overstating the strength of that evidence to say that we know it.
Dave,
1. “A change in TSI of 0.1% gets you only about 0.025% change in temperature, i.e., less than 0.07°C”
Well that is the change in temperature caused by a short drop in TSI during the low of a Schwabe cycle. We don’t actually know how the climate system responds to a decades long drop in TSI, but some evidence seems to support that the change in temperatures is much larger. IMO it is overstating the strength of that evidence to say that we know it.
2. “We don’t actually know that at Last Glacial Maximum the amount of solar energy the planet received was essentially the same as during the HCO or now.”
Well, this is the first time I see somebody propose that the glacial cycle could be due to changes in solar output. Curious considering that you just defended that changes in TSI are just too small to support significant changes in temperatures. Are you just arguing for the shake of it?
Javier wrote, “…this is the first time I see somebody propose that the glacial cycle could be due to changes in solar output.”
Where on earth did you “see” someone propose that? I think you need new glasses. Before you order them be sure to measure your PD (or get it from your optometrist, along with the prescriptions, when you get your eye exam).
“Where on earth did you “see” someone propose that?”
Well, arguing without any evidence that solar output could have been different during the Last Glacial Maximum goes a long way.
Evidence, theories, and understanding of our Sun support that its activity has increased over hundreds of million of years in a change too small to be noticed in a scale of tens of thousands of years. Dr. Svalgaard could lecture you on this subject, so you don’t embarrass yourself with wacko conjectures with zero support from evidence or theories.
I find it almost unfathomable the Sun has little to no effect upon our Terrestrial Weather. Maximum and Minimum Solar cycles are showing various changes in the Solar Wind. Current flow thru the Polar regions I would also believe heats the Earth’s Mantle, which records are beginning to show increase in Tectonic plate movements……. The heat generated by the Ionization of our upper atmosphere by basic laws of Physics induces higher temperature of our atmosphere. I am not going to sit here and say Man has nothing to do with Global warming, yes we contribute to it. We (Mankind) are not the Root cause. NASA recently stated there had been a 1% increase of heat output from the Sun…..Just may have heated us up a bit. For Centuries….. Scientists had plenty WRONG ( usually because of the CHURCH)….. I will say I AGREE our Sun affects our Weather.
NASA recently stated there had been a 1% increase of heat output from the Sun
No, they have not done so.
The changes in the output are of the order of 0.1% [ten times less]. And that surely will have an effect, namely about 0.07 degrees, so you are correct: “I will say I AGREE our Sun affects our Weather”. The question is HOW MUCH? and the answer is “not so much”.
And some think the Earth is FLAT….
do you also AGREE with that?
Your .1% stated is Luminosity stated
Jan, 8th 2013 by NASA…..I will locate the article about 1% Temperature increase. During Solar Minima the Gamma Ray output goes up…….Also recently stated by NASA. Sunspots may be non-existent but Energy output can climb.
Solar output grows by about one percent per 110 million years, so Javier is correct that on the time scale of tens of millennia, this gain is not noticeable. This very long-term secular trend can be swamped by the natural cyclical variability of solar activity on the scale of years, decades, centuries and millennia.
During the whole of the Quaternary ice age, ie the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs of the past 2.6 million years, solar power grew only about 0.024%. That’s obviously not enough to account for the glacial/interglacial cycles, even assuming some variation from natural cycles. But solar activity at the LGM wasn’t much lower than now, if at all.
But solar activity at the LGM wasn’t much lower than now, if at all.
Neither was it during the LIA, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm [0.04%] relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”
“I find it almost unfathomable the Sun has little to no effect upon our Terrestrial Weather.”
That solar variability has an important effect on climate change is completely non-controversial in paleoclimatology, with paper after paper stating so. And they are the ones looking at the evidence on a daily basis. Here at WUWT is a different matter.
That solar variability has an important effect on climate change is completely non-controversial in paleoclimatology, with paper after paper stating so
‘Consensus science’ at its worst.
Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five,” his audience would invariably answer. “No,” he would politely respond,” the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”
Tobacco companies said Smoking does not cause Cancer…..Many also believed the Earth was flat…… A full Forest has been found under a Glacier…… We do not fully understand our solar environment yet…. I just read an article stating Ultraviolet radiation does not penetrate the Stratosphere…….. Hmmmmm.
I just read an article stating Ultraviolet radiation does not penetrate the Stratosphere
Some does and some does not, depending on wavelength. The shortest and most energetic does not.
“Consensus science’ at its worst.”
Your opinion only. As I said they are the ones looking at the evidence. I trust they know better than you what they talk about. You are just an outsider to paleoclimatology giving your opinion about something you know little about.
You are just an outsider to paleoclimatology giving your opinion about something you know little about.
However, I do know a lot about Solar Activity, Cosmic Rays, and Solar-Terrestrial Relations, probably the World’s authority on these subjects. I doubt there is any paleoclimatologists who can even approach that, so my opinion carries a large weight, like it or not.
.1% is 10,000 degrees…….Roughly if 1,000,000 degrees is a base.
You are just an expert on the wrong solar system body for this matter, Leif. As I said there is no known difference in the Sun and its irradiation of the Earth between the Last Glacial Maximum and today, yet the climate is completely different. It is the Earth climatic system that matters, and that is precisely the part you know little about. Playing to calculate the temperature effect of solar variability, when with the same irradiation and solar energy distribution you can get a 5°C difference shows how misguided you are. The Earth’s past is telling us about solar variability and climate change, not the Sun’s present.
As I said there is no known difference in the Sun and its irradiation of the Earth between the Last Glacial Maximum and today, yet the climate is completely different.
This has nothing to do with solar activity but rather with orbital orientation of the Earth. Shows how little you know about this.
“This has nothing to do with solar activity but rather with orbital orientation of the Earth. Shows how little you know about this.”
The orbital orientation of the earth 19,000 years ago was very similar to today’s. Almost same obliquity, almost same precession factor. Shows how little you know about this.
Obliquity
Today 23.44
-19 kyr 23.30
Insolation 65°N 21st June
Today 480.37
-19 kyr 483.80
Where is the difference? Well the climate could not be more different.
The glaciation itself was due to different orbital situations. Coming out of the glaciation resulted in a very unstable climate with numerous excursions back and forth, hence it is no wonder than it took a long time for the climate to stabilize. That you don’t know this shows how little grip you have on elementary climate science. Those wild swings were not related to or caused by solar variations. What is disconcerting is that, apparently, are trying to mislead the readership on this. No cookies for you as Willis would say.
“Coming out of the glaciation resulted in a very unstable climate with numerous excursions back and forth, hence it is no wonder than it took a long time for the climate to stabilize. That you don’t know this shows how little grip you have on elementary climate science.”
19,000 years ago the planet was not coming out of the glaciation. It was in a deep glacial state. It was actually colder than it had been for most of the Weichselian or Würm glaciation.
You fail to realize that with the same amount of solar radiation and with nearly the same latitudinal distribution of that radiation, the climate of the Earth was radically different. Of course it is important what the Sun sends and the orbital disposition of the Earth, but even more important is what the Earth climate system does with that energy. Different orbital distributions of the solar energy can have similar climate states, and similar orbital distributions of the solar energy can have very different climate states. If you don’t realize this is because you have little grip on elementary climate science.
On all this you know nearly nothing. You talk with certainty about what a 0.1% change in solar radiation can do and can’t do but you are completely ignorant on what the climate system of the Earth can do with that difference, because you ignore nearly all about energy transfer between the different parts of the climate system. It is known that the stratosphere responds differently to that 0.1% change than the surface, and we don’t know enough to rule out a climate effect whose impact could accumulate over time to produce one of those excursions that out of ignorance you assign to climate instability. You might be the one misleading the readership.
You fail to realize that with the same amount of solar radiation and with nearly the same latitudinal distribution of that radiation, the climate of the Earth was radically different.
So, solar variation is not the cause of dramatic change. You don’t seem to realize that the climate back then was wildly unstable and did not vary due to solar activity.
“You don’t seem to realize that the climate back then was wildly unstable and did not vary due to solar activity.”
I don’t understand why you say it was unstable. It took many thousands of years of increasing polar summer energy and changing the equator-polar thermal gradient to finally come out of the glacial state, So it looks pretty stable to me. In fact the climate of the planet is 80-90% of the time in a glacial state, so I would say that we are now in the unstable climate situation.
And the record shows that climate variability during the Holocene is subdued compared to climate variability during the last glacial period.
And yes, several of those Holocene climate changes could very well be due to solar activity variability. That the Sun only changes by 0.1% is no obstacle. The climate system of the Earth has demonstrated in the past what it can do with less, given enough time. The evidence shows that five decades of low solar activity (Maunder minimum) have many times the effect of five years (2009 minimum).
I don’t understand why you say it was unstable.
Just proves my point: you do not understand much about the climate. People who know what they are talking about consider many reasons for instability, e.g. changes in ocean circulation due to changes in salinity brought about by melting of glacial ice, or by opening/closing of the Bering Straight due to changes in sea level connected with pulses of melt water, etc.
Please also bear in mind that a 0.1% change in TSI masks a 100% swing in the high energy end of solar output, ie X-rays, UVC, UVB and UVA, not to mention gamma rays from solar flares, which also undergo cyclic fluctuations.
UV affects ozone levels, which clearly have a climatic effect.
Please also bear in mind that a 0.1% change in TSI masks a 100% swing in the high energy end of solar output
Changes in TSI are measured in Watts while changes in the high-energy output are measured in milliWatts, it is like you are arguing that you can gauge Bill Gates’s wealth by the amount of loose change in his pockets.
Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m^2 is composed (by total energy) on average of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light. At ground level, this decreases to about 1120-1000 watts/m^2, and consists of 44% visible light, 3% ultraviolet (with the Sun at the zenith, ie directly overhead, but less at other angles), and the remainder infrared, ie normally still a majority.
However, that ten percent average UV varies from around seven to 14%, obviously with correspondingly lower shares of visible and IR light. Also, when UV flux is higher, a larger share manages to get through the atmosphere and reach the water and land surface.
Thus, much of the energy from the Sun arrives on Earth in the form of infrared radiation. With the sun at its zenith, the composition of sunlight at ground level per square meter is on average about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. The balance between absorbed and emitted infrared radiation has a critical effect on the Earth’s climate. Water vapor, by far the most important GHG, and droplets of liquid water, ie clouds, in the air have a profound effect.
“People who know what they are talking about consider many reasons for instability”
No. What you call instability was a multi-millennial process of change from a climate state (glacial) to another state (interglacial). Periods of climate change are by definition periods of climate instability, as the climate changes. But saying that climate change is climate instability adds nothing. According to that the modern global warming is a period of climate instability, the descent into the LIA was a period of climate instability, the warming to the MWP was a period of climate instability, and the cooling after the Roman WP was also a period of climate instability. So it is 2000 years of climate change or climate instability. Is the climate ever stable or we don’t just have enough information about the climatic changes that were taking place at that time? Some millennia appear more stable than others, but I guess people that know what they are talking about don’t talk about climate instability. Climate change is the rule, not the exception.
Periods of climate change are by definition periods of climate instability, as the climate changes. But saying that climate change is climate instability adds nothing.
Your comment was a good example of verbal diarrhea. The wild swings recorded in Greenland are not seen in Vostok:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vostok-GISP-Temperatures.png
strongly suggesting that they are caused by local conditions [e.g. ocean current changes] rather than [non-existing] solar variations. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
“The wild swings recorded in Greenland are not seen in Vostok strongly suggesting that they are caused by local conditions [e.g. ocean current changes] rather than [non-existing] solar variations. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
You keep changing subjects trying to confuse the readership. Now about Dansgaard-Oeschger events. I have never said that D-O events are due to solar variability. And in fact I wrote an entire blog article on the D-O cycle where I reviewed a good part of the relevant bibliography on them, so I have a good idea of what I talk about.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/
This is probably another climatic cycle that you don’t accept since there is no evidence that it is orbital driven, or do you accept that there is a ~ 1500 year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle? Plenty of scientists accept the existence of this periodic climatic oscillation even though its causes and mechanisms are still unclear.
I have never said that D-O events are due to solar variability.
Yes you did. “And yes, several of those Holocene climate changes could very well be due to solar activity variability”
«Yes you did. “And yes, several of those Holocene climate changes could very well be due to solar activity variability”»
No, I didn’t. D-O events do not take place during the Holocene. Shows how little you know about this. You need to do more reading about D-O events. Start with my article.
That is splitting hairs. Bond evenst during the Holocene are often considered to be continuation of the D-O events.
The point is that they are all internal to the climate system and not related to solar activity.
“That is splitting hairs. Bond evenst during the Holocene are often considered to be continuation of the D-O events.”
By people like you that don’t know what a D-O event is. A D-O event is highly asymmetric with rapid warming of about 8-10°C in Greenland in just a few decades followed by slow cooling over at least 200 years and afterwards by rapid cooling for at least 200 more years for a minimum duration of 400 years. It is matched by a similar peak of methane levels of similar amplitude and duration. And it is preceded by prior Antarctic warming that peaks about 220 years after the Greenland warming peak. There is nothing remotely similar during the Holocene. To complicate matters D-O events only happen when sea levels are between 40 and 90 m. below current sea levels. The people that think Bond events are D-O events during the Holocene show how little they know about this.
“The point is that they are all internal to the climate system and not related to solar activity.”
You have no evidence to support that all Holocene climatic variability is due to internal forcing. Curious words for a scientist, because in absence of evidence you are clearly following a belief. The problem is that you come to WUWT and expose your beliefs as if they were based on scientific evidence and you mislead people that don’t know you are just talking about your beliefs and that you aren’t even knowledgeable on the subject.
The people that think Bond events are D-O events during the Holocene show how little they know about this
Lots of people associate Bond events with D-O events [e.g. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf%5D but, of course, they also don’t know what they are talking about. Even the late G. Bond thought so when I discussed this with him back in 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf . They was doubt that Bond events could trigger a full-fledged [and much larger] D-O event, but not that there was a connection or even a common origin.
You have no evidence to support that all Holocene climatic variability is due to internal forcing
Very disingenuous. Obviously, there is always a 0.1K solar cycle variation, Holocene or not.
There is no evidence of any larger solar-activity-related forcing. Lots of claims and speculations [including yours], but no convincing evidence.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf
Rahmstorf agrees with me that there are no Holocene D-O events. From your citation:
«There is some evidence that this cycle may also be present in the Holocene but does not trigger DO events then»
So no, Bond events are not D-O events. Not for me, not for Rahmstorf. Perhaps for you.
“There is no evidence of any larger solar-activity-related forcing. Lots of claims and speculations [including yours], but no convincing evidence.”
Now you are trying to turn this around to get away. You said “The point is that they are all internal to the climate system and not related to solar activity.” Where is the evidence for that? You have none. There is no evidence that some of the abrupt, profound climatic changes that have taken place during the Holocene could not be due to solar variability.
You said something for what you have no evidence. You are just telling people your beliefs and misleading them into thinking that they are based on empirical evidence and knowledge. They are not.
«There is some evidence that this cycle may also be present in the Holocene but does not trigger DO events then»
Because they simply were not large enough. Rahmsdorf thought D-O events have a cycle time of 1470 years. The same cycle time is often reported for Bond-events, so on that basis there appeared to be a connection. It would quite a coincidence that two unrelated phenomena should have the same cycle period.
There is no evidence that some of the abrupt, profound climatic changes that have taken place during the Holocene could not be due to solar variability.
Is a typical fallacy. There is also no evidence that they could not be due to unicorns, aliens, and infinitely many other causes.
There is, however, evidence that the Sun has not varied much the past 400+ years and that it cannot get any weaker than during the Maunder minimum and that we have just observed that low point during the past solar minimum.
Leif,
Many climatic phenomena are correlated with solar minima. Moreover, good candidate mechanisms exist to make this connection causal.
You make a general, hand waving statement. Unless you back that up with specific studies and mechanisms your statement carries no weight.
You may be interested in:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/dec03_Sci_Program/Goode.pdf
“Sun is hotter and smoother at activity minimum.
Picture that emerges is Picture that emerges is Spruit’s Spruit’s corregated surface at high activity, so it is difficult to imagine a sun that was significantly dimmer during the holocene holocene than at present activity
minima”
Leif,
It’s not hand-waving. Others and I have repeatedly cited such studies. Just today I posted a link to a 2006 study of Andean tropical glaciers, which advanced during solar minima during the LIA from their receded positions in the Medieval WP, when solar activity was higher.
As for mechanisms, in recent days I’ve noted for instance the effect of UV variability on ozone production. IIRC, you replied to that comment, so it’s not as if you’re unaware of the plethora of papers finding such connections and mechanisms.
today I posted a link to a 2006 study of Andean tropical glaciers, which advanced during solar minima during the LIA from their receded positions in the Medieval WP, when solar activity was higher.
One swallow does not make a summer.
It is about time to repeat Willis’ suggestion:
Pick the one paper that illustrates your point the best and we can discuss that.
I’ve noted for instance the effect of UV variability on ozone production
We find that UV has had no long-term trend since at least the 1740s. So if UV is a major driver, climate should also not have shown any such trend. Do you agree with that?
“The point is that they are all internal to the climate system and not related to solar activity.”
The point is that you not only do not have any evidence that they are not related to solar variability. You also do not have any evidence that they are due to internal variability. You may as well claim that they are due to unicorns or aliens because you lack the evidence to show what causes them.
So there are several hypotheses of what causes abrupt Holocene climate change, and while aliens and unicorns have little support in the scientific literature, solar variability has more support than internal variability. Since you lack evidence and knowledge, you can go around telling your opinion, but when you say that it is not due to solar variability you are just expressing your belief, as I say. And beliefs are not the basis for science. Empirical evidence is the basis of science.
Empirical evidence is the basis of science.
You have no empirical evidence, just refer to ‘consensus science’: “in the scientific literature, solar variability has more support than internal variability”. According to that yardstick AWG must be king of the heap.
The point is that you not only do not have any evidence that they are not related to solar variability.
We have good evidence that the Sun has not varied much, so assuming that such lack of variation nevertheless results in a dominant solar control of climate variations requires either a great leap of faith [some people have that] or a compelling reason or mechanism for how this could happen [and nobody has that].
Gloateus,
He’ll reject any evidence that you present. I have already been there.
The point is that he doesn’t have ANY evidence for what he says. This is not a question of our evidence being better than his, it is a question of him not having any evidence to back up his claims.
lsvalgaard April 3, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Why pick just one, when there are hundreds, at least, of papers finding connections with solar activity in climatic phenomena such as ice, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, winds, oceanic circulation, temperature, you name it.
Whether there is a long-term trend in UV since 1740 doesn’t really matter. That was at the end of the longest, strongest sustained warming cycle since the onset of the LIA, to include the alleged late 20th century warming. If you could show that UV was as low as now during the Maunder Minimum, you might have a case for that particular parameter of solar activity, but not the others.
What does matter is the fact that when a greater share of TSI is in the high energy band, the climate warms up and does other observable things. There have been a lot of solar cycles and cycles of cycles since 1740, and higher UV correlates well with the climatic phenomena I’ve mentioned.
Javier,
You may prove correct. We;ll see how Dr. S. responds.
What does matter is the fact that when a greater share of TSI is in the high energy band,
No, that is not the case. The following is taken from a talk by Jack Eddy [where he said that he no longer thought the sun was a major driver]:
http://www.leif.org/research/energy-sources.png
only 1/10,000 of TSI is in the ‘high energy-band’.
“You have no empirical evidence, just refer to ‘consensus science’”
You are the one that has no empirical evidence and no published science to back up your claims that it is due to internal variability.
Let’s review one by one all the abrupt climate change events in the Holocene and let’s see what the people that studied them said about their possible causes. Against that you only have your opinion and your beliefs.
You are the one that has no empirical evidence and no published science to back up your claims that it is due to internal variability.
Lots of empirical evidence and published science that the Sun has varied very little over time and that variation energetically is insufficient to explain global warming [both short-term and long-term]
Let’s review one by one all the abrupt climate change events
Useless exercise. Let us take the ONE event that is the best example and look at that.
While not a single event, the influence of solar activity on ENSO and patterns like that oscillation is well supported.
This is a summary of a paper in a book-length workshop report by NASA, NOAA and other scientists on “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Meehl, et al, connect the sunspot dots with SST in the tropical Pacific, with trade winds and rainfall:
http://www.space.com/7195-sun-cycle-alters-earth-climate.html
As the link says:
“The solar cycle does not have as great an effect on Earth’s climate as the El Nino cycle”
So it is wrong of you to assert:
“influence of solar activity on ENSO and patterns like that oscillation is well supported.”
Meehl, et al, connect the sunspot dots with SST in the tropical Pacific, with trade winds and rainfall
Here is Meehl’s view of climate change and it sources:
http://www.leif.org/research/Meehl-2004.png
Check out the top two panels.
Leif,
As you know better than most, it depends upon how you define high-energy. I thought you might go with just XUV. But if you consider UVA, UVB and UVC, ie everything higher in energy than visible light, without even throwing in gamma rays from solar flares, then it averages 10% of TSI at the TOA, and three percent at the surface.
However that share can fluctuate by 100%, and other factors affect where on earth more of the average three percent hits, such as clouds. It’s a complex system, the climate, and can boost small, multiple inputs into large effects.
But if you consider UVA, UVB and UVC, ie everything higher in energy than visible light, without even throwing in gamma rays from solar flares, then it averages 10% of TSI at the TOA, and three percent at the surface. However that share can fluctuate by 100%
No, by 1%
http://www.leif.org/research/energy-sources.png
Have you lost your ability to read?
“We have good evidence that the Sun has not varied much, so assuming that such lack of variation nevertheless results in a dominant solar control of climate variations requires either a great leap of faith [some people have that] or a compelling reason or mechanism for how this could happen [and nobody has that].”
The smallness of the changes in TSI is not a show stopper. Only if you assume that it is the total amount of TSI that has to be involved in the climatic changes, and there is no reason to assume that. The mechanism is unnecessary for the hypothesis to be correct. Darwin did not have a mechanism for the generation (mutation) and segregation (genetics) of varieties, and yet his hypothesis was correct. Wegener did not have a mechanism for the continental drift, and yet his hypothesis was correct. Both stuck to the evidence in the face of general derision and attacks and were proven correct. Solar variability hypothesis for climate change does not need a mechanism to be correct. Our ignorance is still too great to get to the actual mechanism, but the research of Drew Shindell, Joanna Haigh, Lesley Gray, Karin Labitzke, Harry van Loon, and many others appears well oriented and making nice progress towards an understanding on how the solar signal in the stratosphere is transmitted down to the surface.
assume that it is the total amount of TSI that has to be involved in the climatic changes, and there is no reason to assume that.
Lots of reasons. That is where the energy is.
The mechanism is unnecessary for the hypothesis to be correct.
But goes a very long way to establish that the hypothesis is correct. Without a plausible mechanism [it does not have to be correct, but possibly correct] the hypothesis is not evidence.
No, back to Willis’ lament” what is the ONE best piece of what you consider ‘evidence’.
The rest of your comment is just boilerplate gabble.
“The solar cycle does not have as great an effect on Earth’s climate as the El Nino cycle”
This is likely because during half of the solar cycle the climate is moving in one direction, and during the other half in the opposite direction, and as these are likely to be slow changes the climate ends not changing much. But when you get to a grand solar minimum, then the climate is moving only in one direction during 50-100 years and that gets the climate to a very different state.
But when you get to a grand solar minimum, then the climate is moving only in one direction during 50-100 years
You have no evidence for that. Only supposition. And solar output even during a grand minimum is only a tiny bit different than now. Now, sunspots diminish solar output. What do you think would happen if there were no sunspots to diminish the solar output?
lsvalgaard April 3, 2017 at 4:08 pm
I could ask you the same question. Did Lamb’s talk include SORCE data?
I posted the share of near UV, as reported in this 2003 paper:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf
It shows a much higher portion of UV in TSI than your table.
“The solar constant is the amount of solar radiation received outside the Earth’s atmosphere on a surface normal to the incident radiation per unit time and per unit area at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun.
“The solar constant is an important value for the studies of global energy balance and climate. Reliable measurements of solar constant can be made only from space and a more than 20-year record has been obtained based on overlapping satellite observations. The analysis of satellite
data suggests a solar constant of 1366W m^2 with a measurement uncertainty of 73Wm^2.
“Of the radiant energy emitted from the Sun, approximately 50% lies in the infrared region (40.7 mm), about 40% in the visible region (0.4–0.7 mm), and about 10% in the UV region (o0.4 mm).
The solar constant is not in fact perfectly constant, but varies in relation to the solar activities.
“Beyond the very slow evolution of the Sun, a well-known solar activity is the sunspots, which are relatively dark regions on the surface of the Sun. The periodic change in the number of sunspots is referred to as the sunspot cycle, and takes about 11 years, the so-called 11-year cycle. The cycle of sunspot maxima having the same magnetic polarity is referred to as the 22-year cycle.
“The Sun also rotates on its axis once in about 27 days. Satellite observations suggest that the solar cycle variation of the solar constant is on the order of about 0.1%, which might be too small to directly cause more than barely detectable changes in the tropospheric climate. However, some indirect evidence indicates that the changes in solar constant related to sunspot
activity may have been significantly larger over the last several centuries. Furthermore, solar variability is much larger (in relative terms)in the UV region, and induces considerable changes in the chemical composition, temperature, and circulation of the stratosphere, as well as in the higher reaches of the upper atmosphere.”
If TOA UV averages ten percent of TSI, then that implies that it might fluctuate between around seven and ~14 percent. I don’t have the exact data.
Did Lamb’s talk include SORCE data?
Not Lamb, but Jack Eddy [look him up if you don’t know about him].
Eddy’s table is correct:
http://www.leif.org/research/energy-sources.png
Javier @ 4:05
Speaking of transmission mechanisms from stratosphere to surface:
Leif,
Those aren’t actual “observations”. Those are cooked books. Please compare with actual observations, ie by satellites and balloons, not the imaginary “data” of the GASTA gatekeepers.
Meehl necessarily pays obeisance via burnt offerings to the false gods of NCAR, but that doesn’t invalidate his work on transmission mechanisms for solar effects on terrestrial climate.
Reminds me of Uri Geller. When he was caught in cheating his believers claimed that in all the other cases where he was not caught he really had psychic powers to bend spoons.
“That is where the energy is.”
You are again assuming that it is a matter of total energy. It is not necessarily so. With the climate system a small change at a special place can have a lever effect over the whole system. We know that a hurricane can start as some very small change at a certain place that cannot be predicted to have such huge effect. That’s why weather prediction becomes unreliable, because some changes get amplified and the system evolves in unpredictable directions. The upper atmosphere is a place where very little energy has a disproportionate effect as there are much less molecules there.
“what is the ONE best piece of what you consider ‘evidence’.”
I always give Willis the same answer. It is not one special work, it is the accumulated evidence and work from hundreds of articles what results so convincing. From paleoclimatology to reanalysis one can construct the picture piece by piece, and it is very consistent.
We know that a hurricane can start as some very small change at a certain place that cannot be predicted to have such huge effect.
If the energy is not there to begin with [very warm surface water] no hurricane will result from even the most energetic flapping of butterfly wings.
As your basic statement may not even be true. Find me an example of an observed very small change in a certain place caused a specific hurricane. If you cannot, then your statement is just popular-belief pseudo-scientific gabble-gabble.
It is not one special work, it is the accumulated evidence and work from hundreds of articles what results so convincing. From paleoclimatology to reanalysis one can construct the picture piece by piece, and it is very consistent.
Same argument can be made of AGW.
In normal scientific work we can usually find the crucial single, seminal paper, discovery, or observation that turned the tide and made a [previous extraordinary and derided] claim into an accepted paradigm. Which one would you consider to be the one that clinched your case?
lsvalgaard April 3, 2017 at 4:31 pm
Sorry. I meant Eddy. Yes, I know who he was.
“You have no evidence for that. Only supposition.”
There is some evidence in the expansion of the Hadley cells that has been taking place for decades indicating that there has been a very slow atmospheric reorganization towards a warmer state for which the greenhouse gas hypothesis has no explanation. Some authors believe that the Hadley cells were smaller during the Little Ice Age due to persistent NAO– conditions.
None of this has anything to do with the Sun being the driver of this. Just that the LIA was real which is very likely.
Leif,
Funny you should mention hurricanes (OK, I know that Javier brought them up), but did you know that years with extraordinary numbers of cyclones forming outside the tropics happen to occur in the lows of solar cycles? It’s true.
Big extratropical cyclone formation years were 1975, 1988 and 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclogenesis#Middle_latitudes
Here are the sunspot cycles for those decades. I don’t know if your revamping has changed this pattern or not:
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/solar-cycle-19-23.gif
Coincidence? I think not.
Perhaps you should count on this chart:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg
Leif,
Maybe you missed that I was referring to temperate zone-formed cyclones in all oceans, not all cyclones in the Atlantic.
I would think that if solar activity had anything to do with anything the null-hypothesis would be that the effect should also show up in the Atlantic [where we happen to have good data].
But here are some data for the Australian Sector:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/images/tc-graph-1969-2012.png
Doesn’t seem to fit your scheme either.
Leif,
It does apply to the Atlantic. The key distinction is outside the tropics, not in which ocean the cyclones originate.
I would have thought that fact pretty obvious.
It applies to the Lant, Pac and IO. There are probably statistically significantly more extratropical cyclones in all basins during low solar activity years. The statistical issue would be whether the record affords a high enough N for significance to be tested fairly.
But at the very least, there are no counterexamples. Every high extratropical cyclone year is at or very near the bottom of the solar cycle.
But at the very least, there are no counterexamples. Every high extratropical cyclone year is at or very near the bottom of the solar cycle.
You only provide three examples. in a 100+ years? And cleverly omit the URL where you got the data.
Three examples carry no weight at all.
“If the energy is not there to begin with [very warm surface water] no hurricane will result from even the most energetic flapping of butterfly wings.
As your basic statement may not even be true. Find me an example of an observed very small change in a certain place caused a specific hurricane. If you cannot, then your statement is just popular-belief pseudo-scientific gabble-gabble.”
There’s plenty of energy in the climate system for the types of changes we are talking about. The climate system is throwing away energy to space in great amounts all the time.
Everything that you don’t know or understand appears to be pseudoscientific for you. A problem considering there is so much that you don’t know.
«The butterfly effect concept has also guided meteorologists to zero in on regions known as chaos hot spots to make weather predictions more accurate. James Yorke, a math professor and chaos guru at the University of Maryland, recently led a team to identify these hot spots and showed these areas, which make up about 20 percent of the global map at one time, are more sensitive to small changes like the flapping of a butterfly wing. By locating the perpetually shifting hot spots and taking good observations from them, meteorologists can get a step up on chaos and make better predictions. Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., points out the finding sheds light on one caveat in Lorenz’s butterfly theory. “There are times and places where butterflies will make no difference,” Emanuel said. “But in the right place and time, even a butterfly can alter the whole pattern of weather if you wait long enough.”»
Still no specific example. Only gabble.
“None of this has anything to do with the Sun being the driver of this. Just that the LIA was real which is very likely.”
It does have to do.
“The existence of signals of the 11-year solar cycle in meteorological fields of the lower atmosphere has been confirmed in analyses of observational data (see e.g. van Loon and Shea, 2000; Haigh, 2003, Gleisner and Thejll, 2003, Crooks and Gray 2005). The responses found are latitudinally non-uniform and locally larger than would be predicted from radiative forcing considerations alone (Haigh, 2001). Atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) are beginning to be able to reproduce some of these effects when forced by changes in solar ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere (Haigh 1996, 1999; Shindell et al 1999; Matthes et al 2004) suggesting that changes in the stratosphere may exert some dynamical control on the troposphere.
We use a simplified atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) to investigate the response of the lower atmosphere to thermal perturbations in the lower stratosphere. The results show that generic heating of the lower stratosphere tends to weaken the sub-tropical jets and the tropospheric mean meridional circulations. The positions of the jets, and the extent of the Hadley cells, respond to the distribution of the stratospheric heating, with low latitude heating displacing them poleward, and uniform heating displacing them equatorward.”
Haigh, J. D., and M. Blackburn. “Solar influences on dynamical coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere.” Space Science Reviews 125.1-4 (2006): 331-344.
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/190/1/ISSI2005_final.pdf
As they confess”Clearly the responses seen in the simple model experiments U5 and E5 are much larger than those found to be due to solar influences in the data analysis.”
As they confess “Clearly the responses seen in the simple model experiments U5 and E5 are much larger than those found to be due to solar influences in the data analysis.”
In a mature field [solar influence claims go back almost 400 years] scientists build on each other’s work. The paradigm en vogue consists of a huge tower of interconnected and supporting work. The solar deals are disconnected and fragmented. If authors build on something it is usual their own work of yesteryear.
“Still no specific example. Only gabble.”
here is the article
Patil, D. J., et al. “Local low dimensionality of atmospheric dynamics.” Physical Review Letters 86.26 (2001): 5878.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea9e/f4d1139e22e07198a997a4f9a7b4f25852b4.pdf
It shows that despite the high dimensionality of the Earth’s atmosphere, there are regions that exhibit low dimensionality. It has been measured. It is a specific example. Regions where small changes in initial conditions produce very large changes in outcome.
Of course there are such regions where conditions are favourable, but they have not shown specifically which little detail [which butterfly] caused the hurricane and what direct measurements they had of that specific trigger [when, where, energy, etc]. Still just hand waving.
Besides extratropical cyclones, let’s consider another common climatic phenomenon, monsoons.
One of the earliest connections between the solar cycle and weather or climatic phenomena was the Indian monsoon, about a century ago. This has since been extended to other monsoonal flows, such as in China.
Here’s a recent reaffirmation of the correlation of the Indian monsoon and the solar cycle:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001370
As they say in the highlight section:
“No consistent relation between the ISM rainfall and solar cycle is observed.”
“As they confess”Clearly the responses seen in the simple model experiments U5 and E5 are much larger than those found to be due to solar influences in the data analysis.”
It is not a confession, it is the design of the experiments. They explain it very clearly:
“The U and E experiments were each carried out with the two different amplitudes, of 1K and 5K, in order to assess whether the patterns of response were independent of the magnitude of the forcing and to what extent the response scaled with the forcing.”
With realistic 1°K warming in the stratosphere in the U1 experiment they find the same pattern, because they are independent of the magnitude.
Regardless, it is not evidence. And there is no clear solar cycle effect in stratospheric temperatures. What is observed is a steady decline interrupted by upwards spikes at times of great volcanic eruption. People found that the radiative effects of human emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases have driven marked atmospheric cooling at stratospheric altitudes, not solar activity. [My daughter-in-law is our resident stratosphere-ozone expert, having even made the front page of Nature magazine, so has educated me on this]. There is a mystery here: after each volcanic eruption the stratosphere has cooled down to a new plateau where it stays until the next eruption, after which it drops again to a lower plateau, etc. Not all all regulated or influenced by solar activity.
“but they have not shown specifically which little detail [which butterfly] caused the hurricane and what direct measurements they had of that specific trigger [when, where, energy, etc]. Still just hand waving.”
It is in the computers that successfully predict the weather on which we rely every day. At each initialization every few hours a slightly different set of initial conditions produces very different outcomes a few days later.
I don’t know in how many more fields of science you are going to show your ignorance today.
Nonsense. There are no input of directly measured tiny triggers to the computer models.
At each initialization every few hours a slightly different set of initial conditions produces very different outcomes a few days later.
That is most likely due to the imperfections of the models. Errors tend to grow with time. In an earlier life, I was a weather modeler and even though models have become much better, the problem of computational error propagation is stil with us.
“And there is no clear solar cycle effect in stratospheric temperatures.”
This is not correct. Karin Labitzke has shown a correlation between the solar cycle and stratospheric geopotential heights and temperatures. She has extended her database to 65 years including six solar cycles.
This is from her 2001 work:
Labitzke, K. (2001). The global signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the stratosphere: Differences between solar maxima and minima. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 10(2), 83-90.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/solar_signal/MetZ_Labitzke_2001.pdf
“The temperature differences at the 30-hPa level (Fig. 8, upper panel) are very similar to the differences at the 70-hPa level. That means that throughout the year between about 40N and 40S and from about 100 hPa up to 20 hPa the whole lower stratosphere is warmer (between 1 and 2 K) during maxima than minima of the SSC. Such a value of temperature change (1 to 2 K) has been required by SALBY and CALLAGHAN (2000) to explain their results. The strong signal in the temperatures at the 30-hPa level implies a continuation of the solar signal in the heights further up in the middle stratosphere, above the 10-hPa level which is the highest level available from the NCEP/NCAR re-analyses.
The structure of the differences of the zonal mean 30- hPa heights between solar maxima and minima, Fig. 8 (lower panel) is also very clear: except for the polar regions where the correlations (not shown) are weak, the heights are always higher during maxima of the solar cycle. Between 60N and 40S the zonal mean 30-hPa heights are practically 75 to 100 geopot. meters higher during the maxima, except for the late northern winter when the dynamics of the arctic polar vortex are disturbing the solar signal from the northern subtropics to the Antarctic (LABITZKE and VAN LOON, 2000), Section 5.
The temperature (Fig. 7) and height differences (Fig. 8) over the subtropics agree with our earlier work using radiosonde stations (LABITZKE and VAN LOON, 1995). We showed that an increase in the temperatures from minimum to maximum in the 11-year solar cycle is found already in the upper troposphere and that the height increases observed in the stratosphere must follow from the hydrostatic relationship. We suggested that the positive temperature differences could be explained to some extend by an intensified Hadley circulation, i.e. intensified downward motion in the upper troposphere during solar maxima in the ring of largest positive correlations.
The concurrent correlations and height differences over the Southern Hemisphere agree with this idea, as there are always two cells (downward branches) of the Hadley circulation, moving meridionally as the sun with the seasons.”
This figure from the article shows the difference in geopotential heigth in kilometers for the 30-hPa at a point near Hawaii compared to the solar cycle.
http://i.imgur.com/uVotN0L.png
Labitzke has been showing these differences for 30 years now and she has been generally ignored. This is very common in science. When a researcher shows evidence that contradicts the consensus paradigm he or she is usually ignored if not ridiculed, like Jacques Cinq-Mars and his discovery that humans were in North America 11,000 years before generally accepted by the Clovis-first dominant paradigm.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/#QIbV2UD2zTqKeHB0.99
By adhering to the “It can’t be the Sun” paradigm and ignoring the evidence that contradicts it you are setting yourself for the same destiny as the “Clovis-first” archeologists whose paradigm finally collapsed after decades of abusing, criticizing, and ostracizing researchers that disagreed.
If solar variability can move the Hadley cells it can change the climate, and it doesn’t need much energy for that. The climate system contributes the energy by shifting the equator-polar energy gradient.
Labitzke has been showing these differences for 30 years now and she has been generally ignored.
Because her analysis has not held up over time. Satellite measurements of the temperature give conflicting results. One would expect an effect because UV does vary with the cycle, but the effects on the stratosphere is not large nor systematic, with no effect in the middle stratosphere.
“That is most likely due to the imperfections of the models. Errors tend to grow with time.”
Ed Lorenz begs to differ about the cause of the observed effect. I’ll go with him.
Ed Lorenz begs to differ about the cause of the observed effect. I’ll go with him.
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Effects_of_analysis_85q.pdf
ftp://wxmaps.org/pub/straus/ICTP/Weather_Predict_2A.pdf
The error doubling time is about 2 days
“Because her analysis has not held up over time. Satellite measurements of the temperature give conflicting results. One would expect an effect because UV does vary with the cycle, but the effects on the stratosphere is not large nor systematic, with no effect in the middle stratosphere.”
She has shown that the data has to be compensated for the QBO phase. But I am not surprised that you reject any evidence that supports hypotheses that you don’t subscribe. That is the classical way of not having to deal with such evidence. Same happened to Alfred Wegener, and same happened to Jacques Cinc-Mars, and to countless others that confronted the dogma. “Your evidence is not good,” then a few decades later it turns that it was good.
The main obstacle to scientific progress is not the society, it is the famous scientists, like yourself, that oppose new hypotheses and ideas that might even slightly challenge their views. The famous Planck’s principle has been shown:
“In this paper, we use a difference-in-differences setup to test “Planck’s Principle” by examining how the premature death of 452 eminent academic life scientists alter the vitality (measured by publication rates and funding flows) of treated subfields in which these scientists actively published in the years immediately preceding their passing, compared to matched control subfields in which no eminent scientist dies. In contrast with prior work that focused on collaborators (Azoulay et al. 2010; Oettl 2012; Jaravel et al. 2015), our work leverages new tools to define scientific subfields in order to provide the first evidence on the response by non-collaborators. To our surprise, it is not competitors from within the field that assume the mantle, but rather outsiders that step in to fill the void created by a star’s absence. Importantly, this surge in contributions from outsiders draws upon a different scientific corpus and is disproportionately likely to be highly cited. Thus, consistent with the contention by Planck, the loss of a luminary provides an opportunity for fields to evolve in new directions that advance the frontier of knowledge within them.”
Azoulay, P., Fons-Rosen, C., & Zivin, J. S. G. (2015). Does science advance one funeral at a time? (No. w21788). National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.unamur.be/en/eco/eeco/w21788.pdf
So there is nothing to worry. You just fit the pattern. Nothing that the time can’t cure.
She has shown that the data has to be compensated for the QBO phase.
Nonsense, this is just epicycle upon epicycle to satisfy the believer.
“quantification and attribution of the solar signal in stratospheric ozone remains an open scientific question. Currently, this is even more critical as the present solar cycle (known as Solar Cycle 24) is one of the weakest in the last 100 years. Also, recent solar flux measurements from various instruments on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellites show significantly different variations in the solar fluxes than previous solar cycles. Using SORCE measured solar fluxes, Haigh et al. (Nature, 2010) and Merkel et al., (GRL, 2011) argued that the upper stratospheric ozone solar signal during solar cycle-23 is out of phase with the TSI changes. We performed SLIMCAT simulations with different solar flux sets for 2001-2010 and compared them with two satellite ozone data sets: SABER (2002-2010) and MLS (2004-2010). Overall we find that that model does not show an out-of-phase ozone solar signal in the upper stratospheric with the new solar fluxes. Furthermore, due to the large uncertainties in MLS and SABER ozone observations in the upper stratosphere, and the limited length of the data record, we cannot establish the exact nature of the upper stratospheric ozone solar signal during solar cycle
It is a mess.
The main obstacle to scientific progress is not the society, it is the famous scientists, like yourself, that oppose new hypotheses and ideas that might even slightly challenge their views
Your venomous arguments are much like what Velikovsky would have said, but for every new idea that turns out to be right there are legion that are dead wrong. In addition, there is nothing new in anything you say. It is simply the same, same old. Each new generation harbors people like you who become enamored by the follies of the past. But, to use your deplorable allusion, funerals take care of them too.
You also seem to have an authority-fetish, so here is an authority for you: Back in the 1970s I was one of the leading scientists researching solar influence on weather and climate. What has happened since then? We had hoped that new data and fresher minds would lead us to along to progress. Unfortunately, that did not happen, probably because our cause was only a doomed dream with no connection with reality. But at least back then, we were civil and tolerant of different views, in sad contrast to people of now, like you. I guess what has happened is that what used to be science has turned into intolerant religion
“It is a mess.”
You conveniently forget about the Berlin geopotential height data that confirms the results. As we say “there is no worse blind that the person that doesn’t want to see.”
There is no confirmation when everybody disagrees with everybody. Confirmation bias is sometimes the bearer of results.
“Confirmation bias is sometimes the bearer of results.”
Cute remark as usual to try to invalidate the data that shows that geopotential heights vary with the solar cycle and that the stratosphere is significantly affected by the solar cycle both in ozone and temperatures.
This is our current understanding of the issue. Obviously you disagree:
“Measurements from satellite instruments have established that the radiation emitted by the Sun varies in time alongside other indicators of solar activity, such as the number of sunspots. Total (spectrally integrated) irradiance varies by only a small fraction, around 0.08% of the total, over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but this conceals a very different behavior across the spectrum. Models of solar activity suggest that the variations are of much greater amplitude at shorter wavelengths (e.g., a few percent around 200 nm), and available satellite data confirm this, although the observational data show a wide range of values for the actual magnitude.
Solar UV radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere, where it influences temperatures and ozone concentrations. The response in the tropical upper stratosphere over the 11-year cycle is of the order 1 K in temperature and 2%–3% in ozone, which can largely be explained by direct absorption of solar UV radiation and associated photochemical effects. In the lower stratosphere, the temperature signal, of the order 0.5– 1 K cannot be explained by direct radiative heating, indicating some dynamical response to the Sun, and similarly, the 2%–3% variation in lower stratospheric in ozone is also most likely produced by transport processes. Coupled chemistry-climate models are able to reproduce these signals, within the wide bounds of uncertainty, although interpretation of the processes involved is not complete. At winter higher latitudes, the solar signal is modulated by the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation; this may be associated with a modulation of the transmission of planetary waves through the middle atmosphere in a mean state altered by the changes in solar irradiance.
A growing body of evidence that the state of the stratosphere influences the troposphere by dynamical coupling suggests that any solar influence in the middle atmosphere may produce an impact on tropospheric climate manifest in changes in phase of polar modes of variability and also the mean circulation in the tropics.”
The Stratosphere: Dynamics, Transport, and Chemistry (Geophysical Monograph Series)
2013
https://www.amazon.com/Stratosphere-Transport-Chemistry-Geophysical-Monograph-ebook/dp/B00CM7AUY0
Your opposition to the current understanding is noted.
It is not that simple. Your quote abounds with the usual weasel words [may, suggests, etc]. The truth is more murky. See e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Dhomse-Ozone-Solar-Cycle.pdf
“influence of solar flux variability on the climate system remains an open scientific question”
“But at least back then, we were civil and tolerant of different views, in sad contrast to people of now, like you. “
Don’t play victim to me. You have attacked and abused me personally ever since I started writing about evidence and hypothesis that you don’t like. Every usual reader here at WUWT knows how you behave against people that defend the solar-climate connection. You just happen to not like when you are at the receiving end.
Back in the 70’s the problem might have been insolvable as it might required a more advanced and detailed knowledge of the climate system that was available then or even might be available now. Tough luck.
Don’t play victim to me. You have attacked and abused me personally
Nonsense. I ‘attack’ your faulty views not your person. That is the difference.
“I ‘attack’ your faulty views not your person.”
Not true. You have accused me [falsely] of misrepresenting an article, cherry-picking evidence, purposely deceive others, being biased, being a cyclomaniac, lack of rigor, and many other nice opinions about me, not my views.
You have erected yourself as the guardian of the solar orthodoxy here at WUWT, God knows why. And everybody is aware on how you react against people that dare to manifest opposing views. They even joke about it. Perhaps you don’t even realize how abusive you result, even if you get into food fights with lots of people. I was driven out of contributing to WUWT for one of my fights with you, as you are Anthony’s sacred cow. There is no difference between this and the gatekeeping that was exposed by climategate, only this is just a blog. You have decided to drive any scientific discussion on solar variability influence on climate out of these pages with the help of your pal Willis. You have no problem in using the authority fallacy referred to yourself even about fields of science you aren’t knowledgeable about, while attacking the authority of others.
In the end I think you are a liability to your cause, as quite a lot of people react to your methods. This is after all a place frequented by a lot of people that don’t buy the authority argument that you represent.
Not true. You have accused me [falsely] of misrepresenting an article, cherry-picking evidence, purposely deceive others, being biased, being a cyclomaniac, lack of rigor, and many other nice opinions about me, not my views.
All of those are valid characterizations of how you expose your views. Anything goes when it supports your ’cause’. This shows how dedicated you are to your cult, just like when Stephen Schneider said that sometimes one has to lie a bit to get the message across [the end justifies the means].
But that does not mean that Schneider and you are necessarily bad people, just people overly dedicated to their cause.
Perhaps you would care to list all the nice things you have expressed about my opinions.
It is telling that every time I point out that one of your cherished opinions is less established than you think it is, your invariably are back with ‘pathetic’ and worse. Now, I have a thick skin so don’t take those things as ‘attacks’, only as ravings.
I have often said that science is a ‘blood sport’ and so it is, but it has to be science in order to be seriously discussed. Some of the things that seem to be original with you [e.g. your cyclomaniac cycles] do not qualify as science and do not deserve extended educative discourse.
“This shows how dedicated you are to your cult, just like when Stephen Schneider said that sometimes one has to lie a bit to get the message across [the end justifies the means].
But that does not mean that Schneider and you are necessarily bad people”
You see, now you accuse me of lying using a guilty by association fallacy. Well what was then when you said you had shaded a figure to indicate contamination, when the authors that actually did the shading were indicating the Hallstatt cycle?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/#comment-2353546
Was that a bit of a lie to get the message across?
“Perhaps you would care to list all the nice things you have expressed about my opinions.”
I am guilty of treating people the way I am treated. But I also have a thick skin, so I don’t complain.
“Some of the things that seem to be original with you [e.g. your cyclomaniac cycles] do not qualify as science”
You don’t decide what is science and what it isn’t. What I talk about is all published in scientific journals, which is the usual criterion to define science. Like it or not.
What I talk about is all published in scientific journals
No, not true. How about your cycles? just to mention one example.
And you carefully select what you like and disregard what you don’t.
“No, not true. How about your cycles? just to mention one example.”
They are not my cycles. Each and every one of the cycles I talk about has been published to extenuation. If you doubt it I can provide references. You just have to be more specific. My only role here is to put together the information available on this issue in the scientific literature, so conclusions can be drawn, or at least the status of available knowledge evaluated.
Now you disavow your own ‘work’. Your combined ‘cycle’ plot is nowhere discussed in the literature, and is one of the strongest examples of cyclomania I have come across in quite a while.
I suspect that we’ll have much greater understanding once the cycling of the great oceanic oscillations is explained. Could that be solar? Why sure it could. More than that I cannot say.
================
“Now you disavow your own ‘work’. Your combined ‘cycle’ plot is nowhere discussed in the literature”
No I don’t disavow anything. As I said I just put together the information.
– The millennial (Eddy) cycle is discussed in the literature to extenuation.
– The ~2400 year (Hallstatt) cycle is discussed in the literature to extenuation.
– The ~1500 year (oceanic) cycle is discussed in the literature to extenuation.
– The 208 year (de Vries) cycle is discussed in the literature to extenuation.
– The centennial solar cycle is also discussed widely in the literature.
– And obviously the 11 year solar cycle.
Their position is identified in the literature. I just put together that information in graph format for easy viewing. If you think something is wrong with my identification you are welcome to tell me. If I think you’re right I’ll correct it. I think some people get a better understanding of solar variability cycles by looking at my graphs as they would not bother to read the papers.
Their position is identified in the literature. I just put together that information in graph format for easy viewing.
No, you assume that they all are real and solar and well-determined, then combine them to a supercyclomaniac graph and use that to ‘predict’ future activity and climate. This is not science. You could help by showing that graph again [I don’t have the inclination to hunt down where it is].
More than anything else that graph alone put you in the pseudo-scientific box.
“you assume that they all are real and solar and well-determined”
It is not only me assuming it. The literature is full choke of articles assuming that they are real and solar. I trust those authors more than I trust you because they show their evidence and publish it. The determination is according to the best information available, but obviously subject to mistakes and corrections if better information is available.
“and use that to ‘predict’ future activity and climate. This is not science.”
Again your opinion. The literature also has predictions based on activity cycles. see for example
Tan, Baolin. “Multi-timescale solar cycles and the possible implications.” Astrophysics and Space Science 332.1 (2011): 65-72.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1613
I guess that Astrophysics and Space Science considers that it only publishes science. Don’t you publish in that journal also?
“Figure 2 plotted the extrapolation of the forthcoming solar Schwabe cycles by the similarity of the trend-line induced from Fig. 1. It shows that the position of solar Schwabe cycle 24 is very close to the valley between the secular cycle G3 and G4, which is very similar to the solar Schwabe cycle 5 in the valley between G1 and G2, and the solar Schwabe cycle 14 in the valley between G2 and G3. So it is very reasonable to extrapolate that the solar Schwabe cycle 24 will be similar to that of the solar Schwabe cycle 5 and cycle 14. This similarity implies that the Schwabe cycle 24 will be a relatively weak activities.
Based on these similarities and Equation (3), we may plot the extrapolated ASN of the subsequent solar Schwabe cycles and the secular cycle G4 in Fig. 2. From these extrapolations, we may find that solar Schwabe cycle 24 will reach to the apex in the year of about 2012–2014”
Baolin Tan not only extrapolates from the centennial solar cycle, he also gets it right! so, I don’t see why you consider it to be so anti scientific.
“More than anything else that graph alone put you in the pseudo-scientific box.”
Yeah right. That graph is pretty recent. It doesn’t have a year. Your accusations can be traced back to my first posts defending solar variability role in climate change here at WUWT. I guess you knew all along that I would be making that graph.
Here is the graph if you want to see it again. I am quite proud of it.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png
The literature is full choke of articles assuming that they are real and solar.
There are thousands of such articles going back to Riccioli in 1651. There are also thousands of articles agreeing to or at least paying lip-service to AGW.
it is very reasonable to extrapolate that the solar Schwabe cycle 24 will be similar to that of the solar Schwabe cycle 5 and cycle 14.
No, it is not reasonable to extrapolate [in your case back 3000 years]. That assumes stationary of the processes involved. Such an assumption is highly suspect.
Now, I would actually be very happy if there is a strong sun-weather-climate connection as that would immensely improve the funding situation of our field and vindicate a lot of my early work. Scientific honesty prohibits me from peddling something that I cannot [at this time] stand up for. Other people, apparently, have fewer scruples and a lower bar for integrity.
I am quite proud of it.
You should rather be ashamed.
Leif wrote, “We find that UV has had no long-term trend since at least the 1740s. So if UV is a major driver, climate should also not have shown any such trend. Do you agree with that?”
A nit: that does not follow.
If UV were the only major driver, then it would follow that when UV has no trend climate should also have no trend.
But if UV were a major drive (i.e., one of two or more), then it does not follow that when UV has no trend climate should necessarily also have no trend.
Gloateus wrote, “…as reported in this 2003 paper… ‘…The analysis of satellite data suggests a solar constant of 1366W m^2 with a measurement uncertainty of 73Wm^2.'”
There’s a significant typographical error (probably a copy/paste glitch) in that. Somehow the “+/-” symbol turned into a “7.”
The original text (with some typography adjustments) says “The analysis of satellite data suggests a solar constant of 1366 W/m² with a measurement uncertainty of ±3 W/m².”.
As it happens that “±3 W/m²” seems to have been overly optimistic, because the latest numbers I’ve seen are closer to 1360, which is well outside that range… unless TSI really has declined that much, which I’m sure Leif would dispute!
The quote” human induced global warming”. What human induced global warming please?
So after all of these years they finally deiced to look at the Sun and the oceans. What a bunch of schumtzs.
They are going to de-ice the sun? Has it gotten that cold already?
My morning coffee is just kicking in. At least I formed a word out of that mish mash.
“But since we have been observing a consistently strong phase since 1950”
However all of the warming was due to CO2. But if the sun comes down from this “consistently strong phase” then the cooling will be caused by the cooling sun.
+1
You weren’t supposed to notice that. And, it doesn’t mean what you think it means because… Oh, look! A squirrel!
Bartemis, boy your’e lucky, a squirrel? I saw a raccoon . Really. really scary kinda like “Climate Change”. But on a larger scale than a wee squirrel..
The effect Trump is having on climate science is extraordinary. So many new papers are coming out decoupling CO2 from temperatures that the gatekeepers of preclimategate times would have winnowed out.
Trump has been in office only 2 months. It’s safe to assume that this paper was started long before that.
But, had it survive a peer review without Trump? So many Papers were rejected in the past.
Links to any of these as they appear would be appreciated.
No it could not. They will adjust it out of the raw data.
I had an old German physics professor. He was famous for walking around the lab an chatting up the students. When you weren’t looking he would change the signal generator or some other piece of equipment. If you didn’t notice you would get results that did not compute, and a D for your efforts. He taught us to always measure the input to the system, and keep watching it when your are looking at the outputs.
That reminds me of the Italian chef Salvatore, who worked for my family for many decades. He would teach you the basics of using seasonings for particular recipes, but when you weren’t looking he would quickly add some finishing touches. He never showed you everything unless you looked out of the corner of your eye to keep an eye on him.
must say:
they are oblivious
declining solar polar magnetic activity => more ozone, N-Ox and peroxides TOA, => less UV in the oceans => it cools down
which it what is happening right now….
we are cooling.
“According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change.”
Just another pack of hubris not worth the paper its printed on.
Fortunately Mr. Schutz has a nice hobby.
https://play.spotify.com/track/2ADaplZf1tYbAg6bU22jiK?play=true&utm_source=open.spotify.com&utm_medium=open
The Swiss researchers assumed a greater fluctuation in the radiation striking the Earth than previous models had done. Schmutz is convinced that “this is the only way that we can understand the natural fluctuations in our climate over the last few millennia.”
This is a circular argument. If they believe that the Sun is doing it, then they have to assume that the sun varies more than assumed before to make the models predict what they believe.
It’s also an “argument from ignorance.”
Isvalgard, isn’t the sun a “variable star” ? And if so, have we been around long enough to actually know the “variations” our star goes through? Talk about a circular argument.
Perihelion (1,415 W/m^2) to aphelion (1,323 W/m^2)the solar non-constant swings 92 W/m^2 without catastrophic climatic consequences.
Because of the spherical shape and oblique incidence of sunlight the horizontal ISR at ToA at 40 N swings over 600 W/m^2 and all we get is winter and summer.
Much ado about highly speculative trivia.
Funny! However, climate is more than winter and summer, but the average of winter, spring, summer and autumn. At least 400 years and then again the average. So we see, climate is not even so far certain because 400 years ago there were still no surface-covering thermometers and no satellite measures. It is only a very short period we can overlook with certainty. But otherwise you are right, of course. Humans, animals and plants are pushing far greater fluctuations within a year in most parts of the world than ever predicted in the most dreadful scenarios for a hundred and more years.
Ocean inertia.
One interesting point to note about this current solar cycle is that the Oulu Monitor is now at its highest point of the last 53 years with the exception of the high during the last solar minimum. My guess would be that this will lead to a higher peak than during the last minimum…http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
What will this portend? Perhaps a cloudier set of years at the minimum which will lead to a cooler than normal period?
Different monitors report different results. It is VERY difficult to maintain a homogeneous record over many decades. Here are the records from some stations in the Southern Hemisphere:
http://www.leif.org/research/SH-Neutron-Monitors.png
It is not useful to extrapolate based on a single station.
Thanks, is there another neutron monitor based in the NH other than Oulu? Are SH readings always somewhat different from NH readings?
There are lots in the NH too. Oulu is sort of an outlier. See the map on slide 3 of http://physik.uibk.ac.at/hephy/Hess/Yuri_Neutron_Monitor_Hafelekar.pdf
Here is Thule:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/Welcome.html
Isvalgard, Re the plot you showed at 11:42, is there info about where these stations are located in relationship to each other or is it one station and if it one station are there others that correlate the same findings? Sorry I don’t know a lot ( yet) but I am trying to understand. I am trying to see if there is a relation here about their locations to see if that could have an effect on readings
Argh I just read your last sentence ( me bad)
You don’t get very far in science by making things up. We are still going up in the millennial Eddy solar cycle, that bottomed during the LIA, around the time of the Maunder minimum.
Grand solar minima are pretty rare events, around 35 in 10,000 years, and considering that they usually come in clusters like Wolf/Spörer/Maunder, it might very well be another 500 years before we see one again.
They display such ignorance of past grand solar minima, that it is difficult that their work is any good. The idea that because we got no low solar activity in the past 70 years means we should get it in the next few decades is silly. We are talking about pretty long cycles. The Romans had a millennium of above average solar activity between the Greek minimum of 350 BC and the Roman minimum of 650 AD.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png
The idea that because we got no low solar activity in the past 70 years means we should get it in the next few decades is silly
It is also silly to be gripped by cyclomania and make up cycles where there may not be any.
“You don’t get very far in science by making things up.”
You’re kidding, right?
“make up cycles where there may not be any.”
There’s plenty of evidence for a climatic cycle of ~ 2500 years, that happens to match the 2500 year cycle in cosmogenic isotopes.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/
And we know climate is built up on periodicities, from the seasons all the way up to the 150 million year Ice Age cycle. Our interglacial is the product of a cycle.
http://i.imgur.com/C7cCDoy.png
The geologic record preserves cycles and quasi-periodicities of various durations. Milankovitch cycles show up in Miocene Antarctic ice, for instance, and a variety of other pre-Quaternary phenomena:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.U11A..12S
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-4411-3_195
To include the Permian Period:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230890686_The_Varve_microcosm_Propagator_of_cyclic_bedding
Some are real [the ones tied to orbital mechanics], some are made up [basically the rest with the exception of the 11-year sunspot cycle].
“Some are real [the ones tied to orbital mechanics], some are made up [basically the rest with the exception of the 11-year sunspot cycle].”
You are not the arbiter of that. That is your opinion, and you are seriously biased against anything non orbital. You are also not that knowledgeable on the paleoclimatic evidence as to be able to dismiss what other more expert scientists are showing.
I’m not given to your confirmation bias and “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” as physicist Richard Feynman said in a 1966 talk to high-school science teachers…
The evidence is published for anybody to examine it, as Gloateus has done. Following you will only get people lost as i got lost for believing you when it is clear that you don’t know what you talk about paleoclimate. You won’t get to learn about millennial solar cycles by looking into the Sun. You have to look at the evidence in the Earth, and you aren’t doing that. Your dismissal of millennial cycles carries no weight.
Javier,
I agree that it’s too soon for Maunder-style cold spell.
The millennial-scale solar cycle does seem to be reflected in climate. The peaks of the Holocene warm periods are all about 1000 years apart, and likewise the troughs of the cold periods.
Peaks:
Holocene Optimum: ~5 Ka
Egyptian WP: ~4 Ka
Minoan WP: ~3 Ka
Roman WP: ~2 Ka
Medieval WP: ~1 Ka
Modern WP: peak might be now but more likely in another century, two or three
Depths:
Bronze Age Collapse: ~3.3 Ka
Greek Dark Ages: ~2.3 Ka
Dark Ages CP: ~1.3 Ka
LIA CP: ~300 years ago
Yes, the cyclicity of Holocene climate is undeniable. It is heavily contested because it means we should be warming regardless of CO2, and because it also means solar variability in the millennial time-scale is both cyclic and has a strong effect on climate. Astrophysicists hate that idea because they cannot explain it, but paleoclimatologists are very comfortable with it, because they see the evidence in multiple proxies all over the world.
Javier,
All the while that evidence has been mounting, year after year, for the global extent of centennial- and millenial-scale cycles, consensus “climate science” keeps trying to d@ny the existence of these observations, ie scientific facts. These inconvenient truths were already well established before the CACA c@onspiracy replaced Communism as the main challenge to peace, freedom and prosperity.
“Grand solar minima are pretty rare events, around 35 in 10,000 years, and considering that they usually come in clusters like Wolf/Spörer/Maunder, it might very well be another 500 years before we see one again.”
That implies a long term average of about 285 years. The Steinhilber, et al graph you show suggests that the Wolf-Sporer-Maunder “cluster” might actually be a Wolf-Sporer-Maunder-Dalton cluster. Or possibly even a Wolf-Sorer-Maunder-Dalton-“Abdussamatov?” series?
From the end of the Younger-Dryas to today the current interglacial seems to be a series of declining peaks. The peak of the Minoan was a bit higher than the Roman, which was a bit higher than the Middle Age which was slightly higher than the current – if it did in fact peak about 1997-2000 as data not based on “adjusted” past temperature records seems to suggest. All of these are slightly lower than the unnamed peaks that preceded the Minoan.
If we consider the possibility that 1997 might be an echo of the beginning of the Dalton then Dr. Abdussamatov’s projected “low point” around 2065 fits very nicely with your 285 year rare event timing.
I realize that, having no scientific degree, I am commenting way above my pay grade. WUWT contributors seem to make more common sense than those who Mann the trenches of the AGW PC literature and are much appreciated.
One must admit it’s nice to know we’ll have a few extra years warmth from buying all that time for climate change until the next glaciation buries our tomatoes under a mile of ice.
in Holland they are adding about 1000 ppm CO2 to the greenhouses to get bigger tomatoes…
Henryp, Not only in Holland. Growing under glass is world wide and is fantastic.http://www.btlliners.com/geothermal-heated-greenhouses/?gclid=CKW8_MrtgtMCFRBxfgodXRwHPw
And that is one example.
But they are not all a good thing either.:http://www.freshplaza.com/article/153891/Norwegian-greenhouse-tomatoes-in-winter-not-environmentally-friendly
“Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades.”
President Trump said: “Global warming is not man made”
President Putin said today: “Global warming is not man made”
Chinese president Xi Jinping is expected to come to similar conclusion in a very near future.
“A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.”
It depends what they mean by weaker sun. Most of commentators ude the sunspot count to measure the solar impact on climate. As we have heard many times the TSI variability is to small to account.
I personally have been suggesting for some years now that it is the Sun-Earth magnetic connection, as measured by number of the geomagnetic storms, is the operating factor.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg
145 years of sunspot and geomagnetic storm recording. Sunspot numbers per year (red) are shown on the right hand axis and storm numbers (blue) on the left hand axis. Individual sunspot cycles are numbered. Figure courtesy BGS.
You might conclude that geomagnetic storms data do not have nice clear cut 11 year cycle (unlike sunspot data) and you would be correct.
However there is a 22 year Sun-Earth magnetic cycle as Dr. Svalgaard has clearly demonstrated
http://www.leif.org/research/Storms-Even-Odd-No-Difference.png
Although the average intensity of geomagnetic storms is the same in both even and odd cycles, there are 374 storms in the odd and 445 storms (or nearly 20% more) in the even cycles since 1905.
Why the asymmetry between odd and even cycles (the foundation of a 22 year cycle?
NASA observation may provide an insight into this even-odd cycles anomaly in this statement:
“We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway.”
Here is the Link to the article, well worth reading, since it implies that the science is far from settled:
“This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
Question is how geomagnetic storms percolate into global climate?
This comment is long enough as it is, but might say a bit more later on a possible linkage.
However there is a 22 year Sun-Earth magnetic cycle as Dr. Svalgaard has clearly demonstrated
Again, Vuk. This is nonsense. The reason for more events during even cycles is that the data start and end in an even cycle, so there are more days in even cycles than in odd cycles.
You did not learn anything last time, and you probably won’t learn anything this time around either, but, please don’t pollute WUWT with your nonsense.
Odd cycles since 1905: 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 that makes it 5 cycles or 74.8 storms/odd cycle
Even cycles since 1905: 2/3 of cycle 14 (started in 1901), 16, 18, 20, 22 and 2/3 of cycle 24 (started in 2010), that makes it 5 and 1/3 cycles or 83.4 storms/even cycle
Still difference of 11.5% in favour of the even cycles.
However, as the BGS graph shows, with the SC24 solar activity is at the start of the next (100+ years) Gleissberg cycle, so for a fair comparison it is needed the number of storms for the previous Gleissberg cycle from 1901 to 2010, containing equal number of the odd and even cycles,
If you got the numbers we can look at it again.
Still difference of 11.5% in favour of the even cycles.
There were 6 even and 5 odd cycles contributing to my graph. More importantly: the storms in either group were equally strong contradicting your ‘northward’ fields and ‘breach’ ideas. One more time: there is no difference in storm intensity between even and odd cycles.
If anything, there is a 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity [known since 1966] but the cycles run from maximum to maximum, thus have nothing to do with even/odd which runs from minimum to minimum.
I must admire your capacity of self-deception. It is unusual to find one that strong.
“There were 6 even and 5 odd cycles contributing to my graph”
No there were not,
1905 to 2016 inclusive there were 5 odd and 5.2 even cycles.
1901(start of SC14) to 2010 (end of SC23), 10 cycles in total (5 odd & 5 even), include minus 4 years (1905-1901) and plus 6 years (2016-20100) = 2 years, which makes it 1/5 of a cycle, making difference a bit higher at 14.5%.
If you get data for 1901-2010 (5 odd & 5 even cycles) then we can look at it again.
Well, I looked again. First I show the data separately for Odd and Even cycles using your [BGS] chart of storms:
http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Cycle-Storms.png
(I used cycle 14 as a proxy for cycle 24).
Looking at this it seemed that there should have been more storms during odd cycles [because the sunspot cycles were generally larger]. This prompted me to re-examine the program for the superposed epoch Dst plots and noted that there was a clerical error: Even and Odd were inadvertently switched around. The correct plot should be this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-Even-Odd-and-A-Parity.png
This, of course, nullifies the discussion about how many cycles or fractions thereof were used, showing the danger of small-number statistics.
The lower panel shows Dst for A>0 [that is when the North Pole has positive [away] polarity] and for A<0 [when the North Pole has negative [toward] polarity]. such periods change at sunspot maximum, not at minimum and thus have nothing to do with Even/Odd cycles.
I was using your numbers, so thanks for doing that too. If so there is still imbalance between odd and cycles creating 22 year (but not 11) cycle which can be found both land and land&ocean global temperature data spectral distribution . Another test would be to compare sums of all SSN in odd even cycles.
You referred to the false ‘northward’ field cause as an explanation. There is absolutely no difference between geomagnetic activity between Even and Odd cycles.
Update. [I forgot cycle 18]
http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Cycle-Nbr-Storms.png
Any imbalance is purely accidental, and the so-called Odd-Even rule [The sum of sunspots number over an odd numbered 11 yr sunspot cycle exceeds that of its preceding even numbered cycle] has failed several times, so is not really a ‘law of solar activity’.
22 year component is present in the global temperature data
22 year component is part of the geomagnetic field’s secular variability (data A. Jackson)
22 year asymmetry is present in odd/even cycle neutron count.
As usual, more research is required, but I give up for now.
22 year component is present in the global temperature data
No, there isn’t:
http://www.leif.org/research/No-22-yr-Temp-Variation.png
It was present in the GISS land and land&ocean data spectra some 4 years ago, when I looked at it last time. However data may have suffered number of transmutations since.
More research is required, but I give up for now.
Did I hear someone say ‘Clouds, what about clouds?’
Hi Tom
You are getting warmer, ‘clouds in the in the long Arctic winters’.
That pic almost makes it look like the sun will split in half!
And the range of prophesies widens even further ! 🙂
It is ironic that for a long time, the story was “it’s not the Sun”, and now we have some folks saying “it’s the Sun”. But why? To explain the pause. This allows them to posit that some terrifying evil is waiting to be revealed once the Sun exits the slump. There night or might not be any such motivation amongst the authors of this paper, but there are pleny of folks who will be more than happy to jump on that bandwagon.
And of course this is based mostly on unproven models of unproven theories about the Sun/climate connection which for so long they have ignored.
Pushing ‘it’s the Sun’ is good for funding of some people…
And pushing “it’s not the Sun” is quite good for funding for lots of other people.
Just saying
Just like pushing it’s co2 has been good for funding some people.
@jim G1 , isn’t the next best thing methane? I’d be buying stocks into that if I knew how ( The Japanese seem to be big on that one to alleviate their energy short comings, they have just launched a program to assess that)
I just don’t get all of this fuss. Personally, I think that if it were 2C warmer, Canada and Siberia would become the breadbaskets of the world and food production would go way up. Fewer people would die of cold snaps and more of the world would be like the tropics. We would have to deal with desert zone moving slightly farther north (or south in the southern hemisphere ) due to the expansion of the Hadley cells, but it wouldn’t be wider, just the band of dry we get now, slightly farther from the equator. A decrease in temperature differential between the poles and equator would lead to a decrease in severe storms. It all looks like a big win for the natural world to me.
Cold, however, KILLS!
An earlier post is pertinent to this thread also.
Here is what’s really going on. We are just past a millennial and 60 year natural ( solar activity driven ) temperature peak.
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 (above) was truncated at 2015.3 , because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
Here is the 100 year forecast
Fig. 12 (above) compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2004 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2004.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2004 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curves in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed
The temperature inflexion point at 2004 corresponds with a 12 year +/- lag to the Solar activity high ( Neutron low) at 1991. 9Below)
The same inflexion point is also seen in the global temperature and tropical cloud cover data.
For the Published paper on this see http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
for the Blog version see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
The sun is a serial climate changer. The question is not if but how solar cycle changes cause cyclic climate change, sometimes abrupt climate change such as the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change.
The answer to the puzzle, how the sun causes cyclic climate change, can be found by looking at all of the anomalies and paradoxes.
The Younger Dryas (YD) abrupt cooling period occurred 12,900 years ago at a time when solar insolation at 65N was maximum. The planet when from interglacial warm to glacier cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and with the cold period lasting 1200 years.
In the last decade, the geomagnetic specialists have found that the geomagnetic field intensity and inclination is changing cyclically correlating with solar cycle changes and climate changes.
The changes in geomagnetic field are too rapid and too large to be caused by internal changes in the flow of magma in the earth.
There is no internal earth mechanism that can suddenly cause massive and cyclic changes in magma movement in the core of the earth and even if there was, it is fact that a back of the envelop calculations indicates that a back EMF is generated in the mantel that resists rapid changes to the geomagnetic field.
As there must be a physical explanation for everything that has and will happen.
If and when there is in your face cooling I can and will explain what is happening. If I understand what happened in the past and what is currently happening to the sun, this is the most important scientific event in the last millennium.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…than-expected/
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.483.2889&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
The likelihood is that the Younger Dryas was a one – off caused by a dusty comet strike in the vicinity of Hudsons Bay
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.abstract
An astronomical object impact will not cause the planet to abruptly cool for 1200 years (the effect is similar to a large volcanic eruption) and will not burn the surface of the planet at multiple locations, at different latitudes, leaving no craters.
The burn marks were caused by the sun when the solar cycle restarts and is the reason why there are geomagnetic excursions at abrupt climate change events.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full
“Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions
and the Younger Dryas cooling”
The following is further evidence that there is a massive geomagnetic field change coinciding in time with Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X
The burn marks were caused by the sun when the solar cycle restarts
More nonsensical than most of your usual stuff.
Hi William,
A magnetic excursion is an interesting addition to the YD period of interest.
The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion
Nils-Axel Mörner
May 1977
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X
Multiple exploding impactors (ET) events also posit interesting scenarios.
As discussed in:
Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling
Burn marks caused by the sun, might be kinda tough to prove. An already weakened magnetic field in areas of interest, followed by multiple carrington type events? Even then, might be tough to attribute those “black mats,” to solar events. Weak field may be a starting point, though.
I think the next two articles show relationship.
Earth’s Mantle Is Hotter Than Scientists Thought
The finding will help scientists more accurately model the planet’s geodynamic processes
By Laura Geggel, LiveScience on March 4, 2017
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-mantle-is-hotter-than-scientists-thought/
How hot are Earth’s scorching insides? A sweltering 2,570 degrees Fahrenheit (1,410 degrees Celsius), a new study finds.
The discovery reveals that the mantle under Earth’s oceans — the area just below the crust that extends down to the planet’s inner liquid core — is almost 110 degrees F (60 degrees C) hotter than scientists previously thought, the researchers said. The finding will help scientists more accurately model Earth’s many geodynamic processes, including plate tectonics, they said.
…Their results suggested that the mantle melts when it is relatively close to the Earth’s surface. That runs counter to another recent finding, which showed that the mantle actually melts deep beneath the Earth’s surface….
Take note Dr. S.!
…The discovery is “an appreciable correction” for the temperature of the mantle under the ocean, Paul Asimow, a professor of geology and geochemistry at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved with the study, wrote in an accompanying commentary in the journal Science.
The finding “will change interpretations of geophysical observations of the asthenosphere worldwide,” Asimow wrote….
Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere
By Kelly Dickerson, LiveScience on July 9, 2014
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-magnetic-field-flip-could-happen-sooner-than-expected/
…data from Swarm have shown the field is starting to weaken faster than in the past. Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner….
…The movement of the molten metal is why some areas of the magnetic field strengthen while others weaken, Florberghagen said. When the boiling in one area of the outer core slows down, fewer currents of charged particles are released, and the magnetic field over the surface weakens.
“The flow of the liquid outer core almost pulls the magnetic field around with it,” Floberghagen said. “So, a field weakening over the American continent would mean that the flow in the outer core below America is slowing down.”…
Rotation speeding up has its hemispheric asymmetry in outer core hotspot releases regions, as does its slowing down in the building up of heat in different locations.
Speeding up, core cooling and slowing down, core heats.
no no no yes yes yes
The discovery reveals that the mantle under Earth’s oceans — the area just below the crust that extends down to the planet’s inner liquid core — is almost 110 degrees F (60 degrees C) hotter than scientists previously thought
Another one of those breathless hypes. The crust under the oceans is 7-10 km thick and the temperature down there is in the excess of 1000 C. That it now is found to be tiny bit hotter [60C] has no impact on our climate. Nothing to take note of.
There is almost zero likelihood of that.
The YD was not caused by an impact. There is no evidence whatsoever in favor of that baseless conjecture.
It was just one of many such cold snaps during the last termination, and one of many more during all prior deglaciations.
And, I should add, all the real evidence in the world against it.
Dr. Page,
Are you really not aware, sir, of the withering debunking, ie total destruction of this baseless 2007 WAG by real scientists over the past decade?
There is nothing different in the YD than in the Middle Dryas, the Older Dryas and all the other cold snaps in interglacials and even glacials, ie Heinrich Events, before it and after it, such as the 8.2 Ka event and Bond Cycles.
Hence, no need to invoke magical impacts for which there is less than no evidence.
According to the UK’s MetOffice definition
“Climate change is a large-scale, long-term shift in the planet’s weather patterns or average temperatures.”
the last climate change occurred at transition from the last ice age to the present interglacial, with possibility of Younger Dryas (as long as it was global event) also being one.
The most conservative estimate of the ‘large-scale’ shift certainly has to be at least + or – 1% of the long term average.
0.17% change in the global temperature over period of the last 30 years does not qualify as ”a large-scale, long-term shift” .
If anyone likes to disagree, please state your case.
Hang on….
What the sun will do in the next few years is open to speculation but what the entire global climate response to human activity emitting CO2 100 or 200 years from now is known with certainty? Is that the gist?
Compelling evidence from recent to at least as far back as 500 million years ago all agree that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Six examples of that evidence are listed in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com along with explanation of why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. There is no reason to believe that will change in the next 100 or 200 years . . . or ever.
I am pretty sure all the evidence suggests that sometime in the next 10,000 years or so we will be in another glaciation period.
If it got to the point that they are already conceding that (shock! awe!) there may be a half-degree cooling and that the global warming trend may be “temporarily offset” my feeling is that the actual drop will be much higher and we’ll enter another Little Ice Age.
Ever enhanced climate business models reaching for gold.
So, to help establish any credibility to the studies of the Swiss National Science Foundation, we need funds going to half a dozen solar scientists to attempt to reproduce their results.
Go for it, the Trump Administration and congress are in a receptive mood funding other climate science topics since CO2 research funds will be severely cut.
John
Most of what we are told about the Earth is Social Science rather than Science. A drop in Solar radiation could have explained the events that happened during the period which was called the little ice age it explains that well. There is nothing that I have to accept about the Earth other than what we find by examining data so all this the oceans are more important than the atmosphere and we are biased against the Southern hemisphere or the Sun cannot effect climate are all social science concepts not scientific facts. we should make more effort to measure the ocean surface temperature accurately if you believe it is more important than anything else in understanding the earths climate. Solar radiation heats up the surface of the but an inspection of world temperatures reveals that solar radiation has a hard time heating up the Continent of north America each year in fact all high altitude areas have pools of cold near surface temperatures well into spring in addition to high latitude cold or the fact that it is a large land mass. I don’t share the opinions expressed that the greenhouse effect has a large influence on Earths climate if we have a warm period in the geological past the question seems to be how much increased co2 we must have had in the atmosphere to account for that warmth when there could have been other explanations, increased solar radiation for instance.
Yes! We’re doomed!
It is remarkable that the ever glowing CBC global warming little soldier Bob McDonald, whose posts are virtually never open for comments, would come up with yet another peddling of The David Keith mad geo-engineering projects.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bob-macdonald-blocking-sun-global-warming-1.4050149
“Blocking out the sun to fight global warming: Bob McDonald
Solar geoengineering is controversial but proponents say we have no choice”
David Keith always knows how to get funding… LOL But the CBC’s Bob McDonald always knows how to reach new lows of agitprop:
250 years???? Yeah so many SUVs in 1767… That is during Louis XV reign…
Well the CBC little soldier continues his deception with article like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/deleting-science-heat-and-violence-neurolaw-and-more-1.4045849/arctic-researcher-says-white-house-is-deleting-her-citations-1.4049900
This week the news outlet, The Guardian, published an opinion piece from the managing director of The Arctic Institute. It’s titled, “I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations.” In it, Victoria Herrmann says since the inauguration, links to important Arctic policies, reports, and data have been disappearing.
Poor CBC relying on The Grauniad for its propaganda…
CBC has also deleted your link to the article…
@lsvalgaard LOL still works.
The strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996 (Solanki et al 2001).
If weak solar cycles can decrease global temperatures by 0.5C, it’s only logical to assume a 63-year string of strong solar cycles can increase global temperatures by at least the same amount.
CAGW alarmists can’t have their cake and heat it, too…
The strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996 (Solanki et al 2001).
No, that has been thoroughly debunked. e.g. Raymond Muscheler [2005, 2016]
“solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”
Only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be caused by variations in total solar energy output. However, there are many suggested amplification mechanisms under consideration.
None of which are effective.
Leif,
IMO UV flux-modulated ozone variation can’t help but affect climate. Same goes for solar magnetism-modulated GCR flux and CCN formation. Ditto effect of solar radiation heating of oceans.
Unfortunately, the evidence for that is weak, or rather: the influence is there but is so small that it is in the noise.
The best way of seeing this is to compare the (E)UV and magnetic records with the temperature.
We can reconstruct those records WAY back in time with confidence, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
The money graph are those:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Reconstruction-Long-Term.png
and slide 45.
They show that the variation is not at all like the climate record.
The magnetic field in the solar wind creates geomagnetic activity which we measure appropriately with the aa-index. Some people think they can see some correlation, perhaps before 1980 – although it is not statistically significant, buy certainly that breaks down after 1980 [when we have Global Warming], so it is hard to blame the GW on geomagnetic activity.
http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-Index-and-Temperatures.png
All this is IMHO. Your mileage may vary according to your beliefs and bias.
March sunspot number update
SSN for March is down at ~10.6 (Feb. @ 15.7) in the classic Wolf numbers, while the new Svalgaard number is 17.7 (Feb @ 26.1)
Composite graph can be found here
From this point on all my post will be like this one. I am not conversing with anyone.
It is a weak solar/albedo/lower sea surface temperature play that will put an end to the global warming theory . El NINO if it should come this summer may delay the drop but once the drop occurs which will likely be after this next El Nino ends and it will be fast.
Albedo should increase, even a 1/2% increase is significant , and sea surface temp. should cool all in response to very weak solar.
Increase in clouds, volcanic activity ,snow cover should result in a higher albedo, response to very low solar activity . Less UV light will promote lower sea surface temperatures.
Not much more say but wait and see how this unfolds as solar activity should remain very weak going forward.
I think you are wrong on the conversing part. Talking with people who cut and paste, and no matter how much you explain your point of view, they will never say ” you have a point “. I still engage with those people from time to time. It is a wealth of information to use against them at a later time. And if they are sincere in their arguments, then I see no reason not to. It is impossible to research and know the vast amount of information out there. Asking questions, along with the insight of someone who has thought about it can be a great help. It can lead you insights you may not have thought about.
Arguing with a true believer in the Holy church of AGW is almost always a waste of time. The exchanges are endless and one of their strategies for them is to get you into name calling.
I like talking to Isvalgaard, although I’m not sure exactly what he thinks about AGW. I do know that he doesn’t think changes in the sun are responsible for temperature changes. He has some well thought out ideas and research to support him. I generally read everything he says. Additionally, I read the exchanges between him and Carla. Carla has some good points.
I think changes in climate are very complex. I certainly think the sun has something to do with it. There are a lot of good well thought out theories that time will tell if they have merit. I can certainly entertain them. The one thing that all of this has led me to is that co2 follows temperature. I am fairly certain. Unless there is new and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it will be extremely difficult for me to think otherwise.
Do you really think the earth receives a constant 1367 w/m^2 throughout the year ? The answer is, it doesn’t. It’s not even an average. But they talk about it as if it is. The swing is about 90 w/m^2.
Are we Serious???? Scientists are FINALLY realizing Solar activity has an affect on our Weather? WOW…… I have ALWAYS believed it to be so. Heating of the Earth’s Mantel thru the poles during Solar storms introduces stress upon our tectonic plates and can contribute to earthquakes……. Yes, Man is contributing to Global warming……. Man, is NOT the root cause. Far too many OTHER factors come into play to single out ONE cause.
Computer models are only as good as the people that program them. And as we all know humans make mistakes. in my state (Colorado) the meteorologists can’t even predict the weather correctly 50 percent of the time and I’m supposed to believe they can predict global warming 30 years from now. Ridiculous.
The cult of CAGW have hidden the fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record from the general public.
It is a fact, not a theory, that the planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past with all of the changes in planetary temperature correlating with solar cycle changes.
The past is a guide to the future. There was and is a physical reason why the planet warmed and cooled cyclically in the past.
The problem is not if the sun causes cyclic abrupt climate change but rather how the sun causes what is observed.
There are more than a dozen independent observations and analysis results that support the assertion that the warming in the late 20th century and the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Antarctic ice sheet temperatures last 500,000 years. The interglacial periods are short roughly 10,000 years. The interglacial periods all end abruptly and are followed by roughly a 100,000 year glacial period.
Note the Antarctic continent ice sheet proxy analysis does not capture the cyclic abrupt climate change, as the Antarctic continent temperature is isolated from the Southern Sea temperature by an extraordinary strong Southern Polar vortex.
The Antarctic peninsula extends out past the extent of the Southern Polar vortex. Temperature analysis of the Antarctic peninsula ice core shows the same 1500 year cyclic warming and cooling that is observed in the Northern hemisphere.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger cyclic warming periods in all case followed by cooling periods have the same weird regular period of 1470 years in both the glacial period and the Holocene interglacial period.
Earth climate drivers/changes would be expected to be drastically different in the interglacial period as compared to the glacial period.
The observational fact, that the period between warming and cooling events stays at 1470 years in both interglacial and glacial periods is one of the dozen observations/analysis results that supports the assertion that solar cycle changes caused the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet rather than earth based changes which are expected to be chaotic not cyclical.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
As there are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with all of the Dansgaard/Oescheger events (also referred to a Bond events named after the late Gerald Bond who tracked 23 of the cycles) and the Heinrich events it is obvious a specific solar cycle change is causing what is observed.
It is obvious if one looks at the past Greenland Ice Sheet temperature data and the cycles of warming and cooling that the planet is about to abruptly cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures during the last 11,000 years (Holocene Interglacial Period)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
It is a fact, not a theory, that the planet has cyclically warmed and cooled in the past with all of the changes in planetary temperature correlating with solar cycle changes.
No, that is not a fact, and not even a theory.
BTW, any news on the Polar Field observations error you mentioned recently?
I have’t seen any recent data corrections.
We are still investigating. This may take some time. In the meantime use the HMI polar fields:
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
which are updated every Monday.
The NSO [SOLIS] also compute the polar fields [updated every clear day:
http://solis.nso.edu/0/vsm/vsm_plrfield.html
It sounds to me like adding a tiny amount of man made global warming from GHG’s and human land change use to get us through a cooling trend is a bit of an insurance policy on successfully transitioning a natural cooling trend. Can you imagine the chaos the planet would be in now if we were in a full blown Maunder type minimum. With 7.4 billion people now, there would probably be mass starvation from such a cooling and especially chaotic if you throw in a few large vulcanism events at the peak of a cooler, stormier planet.
We have probably done as well as we have as a dominant species because of a natural warming cycle added to by a small amount of human forcing of maybe a 1/3 degree C. To make such a fuss over some warming that is probably much better for us than a cooler world is perhaps the height of folly. Having said that, this has been a very good reason to study the weather/climate systems and all things terrestrial and extraterrestrial that influence long term cyclical earthly climate. Our grandchildren will thank us for trying to understand this most complex dynamic process.
“Can you imagine the chaos the planet would be in now if we were in a full blown Maunder type minimum. With 7.4 billion people now, there would probably be mass starvation from such a cooling and especially chaotic if you throw in a few large vulcanism events at the peak of a cooler, stormier planet. ”
Perhaps just nature’s way of causing natural selection. Those that cannot adapt perish. And it doesn’t matter if the adaptation is natural or technical, adapt or be gone.
Maunder Minimum cold may have been exaggerated by some of the solar enthusiasts. CET (at latitude 51.5 to 53.5N) the only realistic temperature record available from the MM period, shows that it was cold but not exceptionally
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-latest.gif
Down there you’ll be OK, plenty of protein in the Florida swamps, btw. with a bit of cooling it would be easier to catch.
@ Vuckevic…the CET is moderated by the influences of the Atlantic just as the West Coast of the US has a Pacific Ocean moderation. It is points inland that will suffer the most from deeper cooling trends.
It is disturbing that so many supposedly skilled people appear to be oblivious to the error of not taking the time-integral of a forcing anomaly (with appropriate scale factor) for comparing to temperature change.
The integral introduces two free parameters: the width of the interval and the constant to subtract from the values. By selecting those carefully, you can fit almost anything, so the ‘time-integral’ enthusiast becomes just another curve-fitter. No physics.
LS – You should know better. Did you forget that the time integral of power is energy?
Sure, the time-integral of solar irradiance [power] over one day is the energy received for that day, of which on average all is lost again by radiation.
And Dan, you once said:
“The discoveries that the time-integral of sunspot counts correlates with the energy increase of the planet”.
The ‘energy increase’ is a change over time, thus a power. Have you forgotten that?
lsvalgaard
“on average all is lost again by radiation.”
Almost all.
ALL. Otherwise the Earth would heat up indefinitely…
True if you take it over a long enough time period. I was thinking over shorter periods – decades.
The ‘time-integral-enthusiasts’ integrate over much longer periods…
LS – Don’t confuse energy increase, measured in Jules, with energy increase rate in Jules/sec, i.e. Watts, i.e. power. Energy increase is irrespective of how long it took. Power magnitude can vary, integrate it over time and you get watt seconds i.e.Joules.
Are you aware that the ‘top down’ analysis with Equation (1) in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com calibrated to measurements through 1990 (that makes it about 26 years ago) matches the current average global temperature within less than 1 s.d.? Climate Scientists with their “epic fail” ‘bottom up’ analysis would be ecstatic with that kind of accuracy.
Temperatures calculated using Equation (1) match measured average global temperatures 98% 1895-2015.
The projections from now through 2037 assume the ongoing water vapor uptrend to continue. The numbers through February 2017 are on track.
Temperatures calculated using Equation (1) match measured average global temperatures 98% 1895-2015.
Considering that we don’t know the temperature with that accuracy any attempt claiming that we can fit our model to such an accuracy is suspect, and is only an exercise in curve fitting. Given enough free parameters one can fit anything. von Neumann: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”. Sorry, I ain’t buying, because you are not convincing.
Did you ‘buy’ von Neumann?
Apparently a 98% match for at least 120 years and predicting 26 years within one s.d. doesn’t do it for you. Kind of makes me wonder what would.
Instead of 98% curve fitting, but with no physical understanding, I would accept 80% if based on a physical mechanism without ad-hoc assumptions.
Don’t confuse energy increase, measured in Jules, with energy increase rate in Jules/sec
Which is precisely what you are doing as an increase is over a certain time step, i.e. a number of Joule/sec=power.
I am not confused.
Sufferers of the D-K syndrome never are.
People with Dunning Kruger sometimes project it upon others.
Do you have a reference to the scientific literature to that? or are you just projecting?
I indicated no one in particular so could not have been projecting but it is said that if one throws a stone at a pack of wolves the one that howls is the one that’s hit.
Who is howling now?
Do you have any actual evidence for your specific claim about the D-K projections.
References
Projection is applicable to any human fault:
^ Sigmund Freud, Case Histories II (PFL 9) p. 132^ Wade, Tavris “Psychology” Sixth Edition Prentice Hall 2000 ISBN 0-321-04931-4^ Harvey, Van A. (1997). Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion. Cambridge University Press. p. 4.ISBN 0521470498.^ Cotrupi, Caterina Nella (2000). Northrop Frye and the poetics of process. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division. p. 21. ISBN 080208141X.^ Harvey, Van A. (1997). Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion. University of cambridge. p. 4. ISBN 0521586305.^ Mackey, James patrick (2000). The Critique of Theological Reason. Cambridge University press. pp. 41–42.ISBN 0521169232.^ Nelson, John K. (1990). “A Field Statement on the Anthropology of Religion”. ejournalofpoliticalscience.^ Babylonian Talmud. pp. Baba Metsiya 59b; Kiddushin 70a. And he who [continually] declares [others] unfit is [himself] unfit and never speaks in praise [of people]. And Samuel said: All who defame others, with their own blemish they stigmatize [these others].^ Jean-Michel Quinodoz, Reading Freud (London 2005) p. 24^ Case Studies II p. 210^ Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (London 1946) p. 146^ Sigmund Freud, On Psychopathology (PFL 10) p. 200–1^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (1997) p. 177^ Otto F. Kernberg, Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism (London 1990) p. 56^ Hanna Segal, Klein (1979) p. 118^ R. Wollheim, On the Emotions (1999) p. 217–8^ Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society (1973) p. 241^ Peter Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time, page 281n^ Glen O. Gabbard, Long-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (London 2010) p. 33^ a b c Carl G. Jung ed., Man and his Symbols (London 1978) p. 181–2^ Franz, Marie-Louise von (September 1972). Patterns of Creativity Mirrored in Creation Myths (Seminar series). Spring Publications. ISBN 978-0-88214-106-0. found in: Gray, Richard M. (1996). Archetypal explorations: an integrative approach to human behavior. Routledge. p. 201. ISBN 978-0-415-12117-0.^ Demos, John (1970). “Underlying Themes in the Witchcraft of Seventeenth-Century New England”. American Historical Review. 75 (5): 1311–1326 [p. 1322]. JSTOR 1844480.^ The Pursuit of Health, June Bingham & Norman Tamarkin, M.D., Walker Press^ Sigmund Freud, On Psychopathology (Middlesex 1987) p. 198^ Paul Gilbert, Overcoming Depression (1999) p. 185–6^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (1990) p. 142^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (1990) p. 122^ General Aspects of Dream Psychology, CW 8, par. 519^ Ann Casement, Carl Gustav Jung (2001) p. 87^ F. S. Anderson ed., Bodies in Treatment (2007) p. 160^ Semeonoff, B. (1987). “Projective Techniques”. In Gregory, Richard. The Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 646. ISBN 0-19-866124-X.^ Trauma and Projection (subscription required)^ R. Appignanesi ed., Introducing Melanie Klein (Cambridge 2006) p. 115 and p. 126^ Mario Jacoby, The Analytic Encounter (1984) p. 10 and p. 108^ Baumeister, Roy F.; Dale, Karen; Sommer, Kristin L. (1998). “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial”.Journal of Personality. 66 (6): 1090–1092. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00043.^ Newman, Leonard S.; Duff, Kimberley J.; Baumeister, Roy F. (1997). “A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72 (5): 980–1001.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.980.
You certainly display such a trait, but your claim was specifically about D-K sufferers. So show the specific evidence for that.
Who’s howling now and who’s projecting?
Your initial unfounded comment answers that succinctly.
You don’t buy my evidence on DK but buy the consensus view on dark matter with no real physical evidence. Send me a thimble full of dark matter and you will show that you are at least consistent.
You don’t buy my evidence on DK
You have shown no specific evidence on DK, only your projection.
but buy the consensus view on dark matter with no real physical evidence. Send me a thimble full of dark matter and you will show that you are at least consistent.
Do you need a thimble full of the planet Neptune to buy the consensus view that it exists?
I like Charts….. Brightness is dropping and Temp is Rising. We have no idea of what we are all discussing……Wink. someday, we MAY understand, IF an Asteroid does not take us all out beforehand. Interesting how more and MORE meteors are grazing between Earth and Moon and entering our Atmosphere……
Convincing evidence that the the Sun is not the cause? don’t you think.
What we are learning is….. Lower Sunspot Activity shows an increase in other Forms of radiant Energy….. Visible light is only one Energy indicator….. Gamma and X-ray carry far more energy than Visible….. Although…..A huge Photon burst which history has shown can also happen can remove all other bets from the Table….. Our Glacial and polar ice records have recorded very large Photon bursts.
Lower Sunspot Activity shows an increase in other Forms of radiant Energy
No, not at all. The rest of your comment is a mixture of wishful thinking and plain nonsense.
REALLY? A huge Photon bursts can Penetrate our Magnetic field and Atmosphere ending life on our Planet…..Glacial and Polar ice records show it has happened before You say Nonsense? Visible light is fairly weak compared to Gamma and Xray radiation. Recent observation by NASA has shown this Minimum sunspot episode is showing a larger than normal Gamma Ray level….. Again Nonsense?…… Visable light is a small fraction if the Sun’s radiation output…..Again More Nonsense????
REALLY?
Yes, REALLY.
And you show no specific evidence of dark matter only unexplained gravitational behavior for which there are several THEORIES of which dark matter is the one which is most popularly accepted at this time. Send me some to prove your commitment to observation based science.
You display severe ignorance about the matter [dark or otherwise].
Perhaps this can through some light on the matter:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
“This is a marvelous moment in the investigation of the cosmos. An impressively diverse set of observations has led to a standard cosmological model that is robust in its crosschecks, deeply puzzling in its ingredients, and far-reaching in its implications for fundamental physics. The sound waves that rang through the early cosmos are a prominent aspect of that model. They were predicted 40 years ago, and now they provide one of our best cosmological tools. The simplicity of sound waves is a hallmark of freshman physics. That same physics, applied on the largest scales, is bringing our universe into ever-closer reach.”
Leif,
I need to break off now as I am committed to a higher intellectual pursuit for I have promsied to take three of my grandchildren to see a presentation of “Frog and Toad” and need to both physically and mentally prepare myself for this endeavor.
Warmest Regards,
Jim G1
PS
Some contradictions arise from acoustics. http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6651/20140109/universe-measured-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm. An infinite, eternal and flat universe kind of obviates a 13.7 billion year old bigbang. BTW, Name calling is very immature.
It would help if you took the trouble to actually read the link you come up with. E.g. this statement
“They’re basically caused by pressure ripples from when the universe was formed about 13.4 billion years ago, which cooled and froze.”
But, indeed, the generally accepted notion is that the Universe is flat and will endure into infinity. No dissent.
On name calling: I call’em as I see them.
If you read the link I gave you, eternal also rules out 13.4 billion years.
If you read the link I gave you, eternal also rules out 13.4 billion years.
No it doesn’t. Nowhere does it say that. I sometimes get [rightfully] annoyed with people who say things so blatantly false with a straight face. What they said was ” it’s likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time.” Go on forward in time since time itself came into being 13.8 billion years ago. Not that it has existed forever back in time, because our universe hasn’t.
Something happened 13.7 byears ago but quite possibly not the beginning of the universe as per the big bang theory, possibly a “local event”.
@ Leif,
Just before the “big bang”, were we the center of the cosmos or just another bubble to be.
Serious question.
As the universe is and has always been infinite in extent there was and is no center for us to be at.
Can’t help myself Leif, could you please define “infinite”.
the sequence of natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … is infinitely long in the sense that no matter how far out you go there is always a number larger than the one you stopped on. Same with space: no matter how far you have traveled there is always more space ahead of you where you have not yet been.
We do not know if the universe is infinite. It is just that all the data we have so far indicate that it is. that there is no ‘largest number’.
A recent discussion about ‘eternal’
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf
“Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past”
Leif,
Back from the Frog and the Toad. Significant indications in quantum physics that there was no beginning. Infinite and eternal front and back. https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html. And if open everything will happen while if closed everything will happen again and again. You need to read more. Open your mind.
Open your mind.
Don’t open it so much that your brain falls out.
As Guth points out:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf
“Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past”
From time to time people try to prove Einstein wrong. So far, nobody has succeeded.
You shouldn’t uncritically jump on any hyped up internet story you come across.
Everybody take a deep breath.
We’re just watching.
Waiting for the mistake.
You don’t have to wait long. These threads are full of fervently believed mistakes by the usual suspects and even the occasional drive-by shooter.
Einstein also said that God did not play dice but quantum physics has proven, in the laboratory, that He does.
So?
Current Precision Cosmology shows how it is possible for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to work together showing us a way to new physics:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Dark-Universe-2017.pdf
PPS
You shouldn’t uncritically accept the most popular consensus theories as facts.
My acceptance is based on my ability as a physicists to evaluate the strong observational evidence.
What is your non-acceptance based on?
Your dark universe pdf download failed from the link you provided.
I accept much of the same information that you do as best theories but not as facts to the exclusion of other theories until they are falsified. The scientific method, you know?
The word ‘fact’ is slippery. We do not need to falsify all other theories to go with the one that has the most explanatory power at the moment. THAT is the ‘scientific method’.
An example: A theory posits that the world was created last Tuesday with all there is in it, including things that make it look old. This cannot be falsified. You would claim that the ‘scientific method’ says that we should not exclude that theory. I say we should. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
Deplorable.
Don’t judge all those misguided souls too harshly. John 8:7
As long as the one you “go with” does not become so dogmatic as to exclude other new information and ideas. All of the advances in science have come from outside the box from people who were originally scorned for even considering their, at the time, outrageous ideas. Einstein is a good example.
Modern Cosmology is very much ‘out of the box’. It took almost a century of fighting dogma to get here.
We exclude ideas that don’t work.
The link now works. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Dark-Universe-2017.pdf
Theories that are not falsifiable are not science, kind of like co2 being the thermostat for our planet. Too many exogenous variables to determine its validity, at least at this time. Though that does not make them untrue. One should be very careful, however, about basing actions upon such theories. Which is the problem with the climate change dogma.
Theories that are not falsifiable are not science
That does not mean that theories that have not yet been falsified automatically qualify as science on par with theories for which there is solid an abundant evidence.
Abundant paleo evidence exists indicating no relationship, let alone cause and effect relationship between co2 and temperature.
Why switching to the straw man of CO2?
Why switching to a straw man argument of a straw man argument? This is a site where the key subject is climate so there is no straw man involved. You said go with the theory with most abundant evidence when I brought up climate and co2 dogma. Most abundant evidence on that subject is millions of years of paleo data, no relationship temp vs co2.
millions of years of paleo data, no relationship temp vs co2.
Contradicted by the evidence
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
Stooping to cherry picking, Leif? http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html. Paleo data is millions of years of evidence of no relationship between temp and co2.
Over geologic time many other factors [e.g. shape and position of continents] influence climate so direct comparisons are impossible. I showed measurements from the last million years where the geology has not changed. And they show a clear relationship between CO2 and temperatures. I’ll show you again:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
Moderator,
My screen still shows my last comment in moderation. Been there a long time. Don’t wait too long as I believe Leif and I might be close to the same age in which case time is of the essence. At least I know it is for me!
Regards on the great job you do.
Actually you showed 450, 000 years, not 1, 000, 000 years. And you make my point, cherry picking your data. And my other point, too many exogenous variables to pin the thermostat on co2 as well. My guess, yes guess as that’s the best one can do given the situation, is the oceans are the most important part of our thermostat. They do cover 70% of the planet to average depth of 12, 100 ft and store and regurgitate energy in an unknown manner. Of course there is also albedo, wind, clouds and the small variation in solar energy along with tectonic plate movement, changes in ocean currents, etc, etc. But I would not make big decisions based upon this guess, like redistribution on wealth and resources. Nor should the co2 cultists make such decisions based upon unproven theories and models.
Actually you showed 450, 000 years, not 1, 000, 000 years. And you make my point, cherry picking your data.
I showed half of the data that are actually available [which was enough to show the very strong correlation between CO2 and temperatures]. And it was indeed picked for the time where we actually have good data, in contrast yo your graph which is conjectural at best.
Forgot orbital changes, eccentricity and precession, big ones in the mix.
You show a blink in earth’s history that fits your conjecture and ignore much longer term data that does not. As I said, cherry picking. And you ignore all of the exogenous variables I noted that make the co2 thermostat claim unlikely while, evidently, in support of that claim and decisions based upon it.
You show a blink in earth’s history that fits your conjecture and ignore much longer term data that does not. As I said, cherry picking.
I show the several hundred thousand years where we have actual measurements. Those are, indeed, cherry picked for the quality of their data. So, the data is not conjecture, but perhaps inconvenient truth for you.
And you buy the co2 thermostat theory?
No, but that does not remove the strong correlation between CO2 and Temperature which we have directly measured the last million year. To maintain that there is no correlation is folly, silly, dishonest, biased, and worse.
Never said there was no correlation over that short period of time said there was no correlation, and there is not, over the much longer period of time I showed you. To ignore that is silly, biased and all the other pejoratives of which you accuse me. Cherry picking data to support ones position. I am however encouraged that you do not support the co2 mantra.
Never said there was no correlation over that short period of time said there was no correlation,
So, now you agree that there is a VERY strong correlation and that it has been there for a million years.
This is what is important to the current debate.
all the other pejoratives of which you accuse me
With me, you have to earn pejoratives, which you have managed to do in full measure.
So, we can conclude that you agree and accept and acknowledge and consent and concur and concede that for the last million years where we have good data, CO2 and Temperature have been highly correlated. And that this is what is important for the current climate debate.
One can pick many time periods of varying length where there are both positive and negative correlations between the variables. I chose the most all encompasing, which you do not agree with. So, “Peace be with you!” John 20:21
The only one of interest for us and the current climate debate is the current record [extending almost a million years in the past].
I take it that you now agree that there has been a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and Temperatures for the last million years.
Of course there are also significant periods within the 450, 000 years where temperature leads co2, BTW. Also, remember that correlation does not mean causation, in any event. Plus there are those who like you who question my use of longer term geological data, question the validity of ice core data based upon age and pressure issues. I will continue to go with no correlation over the long term, as I showed you. You can pick whatever shorter term period that makes you comfortable and fits your view.
I will continue to go with no correlation over the long term
This is called denial of the modern record.
And even the long-term record over the last 500 million years shows the correlation:
http://s4.postimg.org/5nwu2ppdp/Temp_CO2_750_Mya.png
It is called denial when one will not look at all the data but picks that which fits his opinion or that of the consensus.
As I showed there is correlation the last 400-500 million years and also the last 65 million years:
Before 500 million years ago CO2 concentration was generally high as were temperatures.
So now, who is in denial now that there over ‘the long-term’ has been a correlation beween CO2 and T?
But, again, all that is irrelevant for the current climate debate as only recent data is needed for that.
Strangely, it is warmer here in the daytime than at night.
And that has nothing to do with solar fluctuation. It does point to the possibility of intrinsic factors being far more potent in how much radiation gets to Earth’s surface and more importantly, the poorly observed ability of the oceans to absorb and store it after it gets through a wickedly complex and in its own right highly variable atmosphere.
I just read an article stating Ultraviolet radiation does not pass the Stratosphere……???? How do Sunburns happen if that is the case??? Moon used to be made of Cheese….. Hmmmmm.
Mensoguk, I assume you meant that comment for someone else? I was commenting on the Earth’s rotation about its axis which does not speak to solar fluctuations.
I may be mistaken here but it looks like they used a page out of the AGW Model playbook, I believe from page 10: How to use input dials.
“The Swiss researchers assumed a greater fluctuation in the radiation striking the Earth than previous models had done.”
I want to know how much fluctuation was dialed in and does it match the current reconstruction. One of the weaknesses in previous radiation data was that the sunspot record was based on a hodgepodge of different ways to count sunspots. That data set has been corrected but none of the AGW models, to my knowledge, have been corrected for this issue. And get this: the old hodgepodge mix DID show greater fluctuation. So these researchers dialed in even more?
Hmmmmm. Here’s the thing about models. They provide a way to dial in a biased assumption that in today’s post normal Science, is considered to be fine and dandy. In other words, bias is good, observations are bad, and the way to legitimize that is to create climate models that come equipped with bias dials. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but not adequate for the purpose of accepting or rejecting major hypotheses about how climate parameters work, when inputs are set at artificial levels and many parameters are not fully or accurately observed or even known for the purposes of modeling.
LS – You say “Convincing evidence that the the Sun is not the cause? don’t you think.”
I see your comment as refusing to acknowledge the relation between power and energy
Rather simply take it as indicating that you do not have any convincing evidence of your ideas. I may not be alone in that if comments from others on your and other blogs are any guide.
LS – There is always the NIH bias. Perhaps there is some consolation in that you are not the only person who has trouble with the relation of power and energy. It might be more obvious among people like myself who went beyond basic physics to the application of it in Mechanical Engineering.
person who has trouble with the relation of power and energy.
It has nothing to do with your confusion about this.What you do is not physics, not engineering, but crude curve-fitting. You introduce several free parameters: width of integral window, amount to subtract, phase and amplitude of a stationary ‘ocean oscillation’. With those you can fit anything with no basis in actual reality and no predictive power. I don’t have the inclination to wade through your stuff again, so be so kind to remind me:
1) what is the width of the integral window? and why is that a good choice?
2) when do you start the integrate?
3) what is the value you subtract from each value? and what is the physics or engineering basis for that value?
4) how do you construct the ocean ‘saw tooth’ curve? and why that particular one?
LS – Those 4 and other things are all identified and discussed in the blog which you can access by clicking my name.
1) I am unfamiliar with “integration window”. The step interval is 1 year because that is the available data. The integration interval is either 1895-2015 (= the range of acceptably accurate temperature data) or 1610-2015 (= available SSN) depending on objective.
2) See 1)
3) Savg is subtracted from each sunspot number. The value which works with this emergent analysis and your V2 SSN is 60.
4) The 64 year period saw-tooth was first arrived at from looking at the up-trends and downtrends in the reported average global temperature traces (like Fig 9) and the PDO integral trace (Fig 5). Later corroborated by AMO trace (Fig 6). The saw-tooth is unbiased and computationally simple.
The factors are combined in a rational logical equation (Eqn 1) with influence coefficients determined which give the best match to measurements. This is how emergent systems analysis is done. It is a top down analysis. It is a look at the over-all action of the system. It identifies the significant drivers of climate and I expect it to be reasonably close to measurements for at least a decade or two. The prediction from 1990 to now did well.
To be valid beyond that requires a means to predict the ocean cycles. People who have studied them in the past as far back as 1000 years (Mantua, et al, Minobe, MacDonald & Case) have reported variation in magnitude and period. I don’t know of any prediction at all, let alone the hundreds of years you are interested in.
Sunspot prediction. I have read of some who claim correlation with planetary synodic periods but that is your bailiwick.
As to water vapor, I suspect the ongoing increase might be connected to the increasing irrigation; the increase is about 3 times what is expected from temperature increase alone. IMO there is some planet climate interaction which is making the effective feedback more than indicated by the vapor pressure curve. I suspect the effective gain is closer to one than the vapor pressure/temperature curve indicates and might help explain what causes el Ninos.
1) I am unfamiliar with “integration window”. The step interval is 1 year because that is the available data. The integration interval is either 1895-2015 (= the range of acceptably accurate temperature data) or 1610-2015 (= available SSN) depending on objective.
2) See 1)
An [definite] integral is taken between two limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral the two limits defining a ‘window’ of a certain width W.
In your case W should be determined by the time of the memory the system ha: how long ago is there still a lingering effect. Imagine we had a million years of sunspot observations. It would hardly make sense to make W a million years long, so we have to choose a window that reflects how long the heat ‘stays’ in the system. Just starting at an arbitrary year, e.g. 1895 or 1610 does not make sense as the atmosphere does not know what our ‘objective’ is. So, to make sense, W should have a [fixed] value given by the properties of the climate system. What is that value?
3) Savg is subtracted from each sunspot number. The value which works with this emergent analysis and your V2 SSN is 60.
This value should be determined by the physics of the process, not by what ‘fits best’ which is just curve fitting.
rational logical equation
is wiffle-waffle.
1) It isn’t solar radiance that is important, it is the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth that is important.
2) Where did that temperature graph come from? The “adjusted” data from NASA/NOAA? IN reality there has been no warming according to thermometer data.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Moment of Truth
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-moment-of-truth/
Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/
IN reality there has been no warming according to thermometer data
The non-NASA satellite data shows warming since they began:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
That is the “adjusted” data, take a look at the link. It has all the long term thermometer data sets. They don’t show warming.
Look at the Oulu data and RSS temperature data at comment https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/31/current-weak-solar-cycle-could-reduce-global-temperatures-by-half-a-degree/#comment-2465106
above. There is a 12 year delay between the solar millennial activity peak in 1991 and the corresponding RSS millennial temperature peak at 2003/4.This important climate trend inversion point also shows up nicely on the global temperature /tropical cloud cover plot.The cooling trend is temporarily obscured by the recent major El Nino but it should be restored by end 2019.
There is a 12 year delay between the solar millennial activity peak in 1991 and the corresponding RSS millennial temperature peak at 2003/4.
Come on.You are off the rails.
For a full discussion of the data and the working hypothesis
and the Published paper on this see
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
for the more accessible Blog version see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
This is another example of your blind spot on the relation between power and energy. Solar activity is a power thing and temperature is an energy thing. For a meaningful comparison, you have to take the time integral of the power thing and be smart about how you handle the anomaly reference base and the scale factor to get a valid energy thing. Do it correctly and the delay in the peak of the time-integral is comparable to the peak in the temperature.
You simply evaded my straightforward and sincere request. Thus no cookie for you.
If you want some credibility, please help me by replying in earnest. If not, poof goes my interest…
For the delay see eg Fig 3 at
SOLAR ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST 1150 YEARS: DOES IT CORRELATE WITH CLIMATE?
I. G. Usoskin1, M. Sch¨ussler2, S. K. Solanki2 and K. Mursula3
They say:
“Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
The ‘lag’ they are talking about is based on their correlation MJ03 with correlation coefficient 0.33 with a confidence interval of -0.19 to +0.16, thus hardly worth writing home about. As they say: “only marginally significant”.
The correlation between NH temp and the lag shown in their Fig 3 is about + 0.56.
My main basis for the correlation and the lag is simple common sense. The academic establishment has an enormous capacity for ignoring the blindingly obvious. The temperature data show clearly that we are just approaching ,right at or just past a millennial peak . Solar activity has been declining since 1991. Most people recognize the “pause” and the change in trend in the first decade of the 21st century but then embark on head scratching , ad hoc hypothesizing or Orwellian data reanalysis of the past to account for it without any or very little solar connection because this would go against the herd mentality of the dangerous warming meme.The IPCC and the governments asked the scientific community to investigate the effect of CO2 on climate. The right answer should at best have been “we don’t know”. In fact the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures but the SPM converts that AR5 statement into a 95% certainty of dangerous warming for policy makers which leads to the entire UNFCCC boondoggle.
The correlation between NH temp and the lag shown in their Fig 3 is about + 0.56.
My main basis for the correlation and the lag is simple common sense
Does common sense also tell you that there is no [or even the reverse] correlation in the SH?
http://www.leif.org/research/lag-corr.png
When thinking about temperature, solar activity and climate it is important to realize that we should look for the general patterns in time and space over wide areas and millennial and multi-decadal time scales. If forecasts are to be usefully accurate they will necessarily lack precision over short times and small areas. When considering the differences between hemispheres for example because of the distribution of the land and the thermal inertia of the oceans the NH will provide more insight as to what the general trends may be. see :
“Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum.
Shindell DT1, Schmidt GA, Mann ME, Rind D, Waple A.
Author information
1NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
Abstract
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3 degrees to 0.4 degrees C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1 degrees to 2 degrees C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.”
Mann seems to have forgotten he ever wrote this paper
The establishment scientists in general approach the problem without the necessary time and space perspective. Their way is like looking at a large pointillist landscape from 6 inches away. ( probably less in some cases)
more insight as to what the general trends may be
Trends have no predictive power. Only mechanisms have.
lsvalgaard April 3, 2017 at 1:26 pm
I have to agree with that. Waiting and watching for trend reversals is how you make money in markets.
Only trends or quasi repetitive pattern’s have any predictive power at all. The Mechanistic modelling approach is of limited value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of sampling or specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision. In addition, Essex 2013 proved that models with the number of variables in the GCMs are simply incomputable. Essex. Believing six impossible things before breakfast, climate models, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4 (2013
By chance selection of a particular solar cycle and a bit of luck you might forecast 1 solar cycle ahead but even then unless you know where you are with regard to the general trends you forecasts may not be particularly accurate.
Harrison and Stainforth 2009 say
Harrison S and Stainforth D. Predicting climate change, p. 111, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO130004/pdf
“Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies. The search for objective constraints with which to reduce the uncertainty in regional predictions has proven elusive. The problem of equifinality ……. that different model structures and different parameter sets of a model can produce similar observed behavior of the system under study – has rarely been addressed.”
A new forecasting paradigm is required.
Only trends or quasi repetitive pattern’s have any predictive power at all
As wrong as can be. Unless the pattern is supported by a plausible mechanism, any prediction is illusory. Typical example is the trend of sunspot numbers:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Faux-Trend.png
Use the trend and predict the next cycle…
No one who knew what they were doing would think that any useful prediction could be made from that time series alone. Until you have some idea of where the present time sits with relation to the current millennial and the last several 60 year cycles one doesn’t know how to even begin. For how to do it see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
I expect that at the end of the penultimate cycle shown solar geophysicists might have tried to make a forecast for the final cycle in the series – how did they do?
Further Note
The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, GCRs, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved. Having said that, however, it seems likely that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth), the changing EUV radiation producing top down effects via the Ozone layer, and the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales. The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time convolved with the phases of the millennial, centennial and decadal solar activity cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different climate metrics. There is a 13+/- year delay between the solar activity “Golden Spike” 1991 peak and the millennial cyclic “Golden Spike” temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003.6 in Fig. 4. It has been independently estimated that there is about a 12-year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data – Fig. 3 in Usoskin (28).
Useful forecasts of eclipses were made by the Babylonians and of the seasons by the Stonehenge astronomers without any knowledge of the mechanisms . If you can figure those out you might improve the precision of your forecasts a little bit but a reasonable ballpark accuracy is all that nature allows us because that’s the nature of the beast- see the Harrison and Stainforth quote above.
The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, GCRs, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
All of those follow the same basic solar cycle.
10Be is particularly bad as the deposition is influenced by climate itself, so you will to some extent be correlating climate with climate.
Useful forecasts of eclipses were made by the Babylonians and of the seasons by the Stonehenge astronomers without any knowledge of the mechanisms .
Nonsense. They had a pretty good mechanism: the Sun-god traveled at night behind the northern mountains to emerge the next morning in the East. Never failed.
That works for me !!!
But probably not for the scientific community at large or for people [like me] charged with understanding and predicting these things.
We have different goals. I’m interested in forecasting global temperature with useful ball- park accuracy several hundred years ahead. As I understand it you are working on forecasting sunspot numbers about 1 cycle ahead but have at this time no ability to turn that into a global temperature prediction. I agree that that sunspot number would be useful as far as knowing future space weather is concerned and that you might produce usefully accurate forecasts. As far as future temperatures and climate are concerned it doesn’t advance things much.
We have different goals. I’m interested in forecasting global temperature with useful ball- park accuracy several hundred years ahead
Since you can’t forecast even one cycle ahead, how much faith can one put in your 500-yr forecast?
Your predicted cooling has not materialized:
http://www.leif.org/research/Page-Fail-2.png
The warming trend peaked in 2003/4
“The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 ( Above) and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.” From http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
I am enjoying this lively thread, but can’t yet decide who’s the most plausible :-((( Have visited your paper, Dan, and liked it. Made me wonder about multiple regression, but I hesitate to attempt to collate and edit all the necessary data.
Does anyone think as I do regarding the sunspot record, in that an enduring change began in 1933? Have seen one mention of it somewhere in this thread, but can’t retrieve it at the moment.
NP – I used an emergent behavior approach to assess global climate and got a 98% match with temperatures 1895-2005 as shown at my blog. (LS calls it “crude curve-fitting”) The thing which brought the last decade or so into line is incorporating the warming effect of increasing water vapor. Water vapor is about 8% higher now than it was in 1960 and is now increasing at about 1.5% per decade.
You still evade replying to my earnest request.
I just did but I am now through for the night.
The Armagh temperature record shows that warmth correlates with solar cycle length.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021916995001484
This should come as a surprise to no one.