My good friend Jim Goodridge, former state climatologist for California, came to visit yesterday to offer some help on my upcoming trip, as well as to talk shop a bit about the state of affairs on climate change.
He had previously authored a paper that I had hoped to present on his behalf at ICCC, but unfortunately it got excluded from the schedule by an omission. Yesterday he decided to rework that paper to bring out it’s strongest point.
One of the best and simplest ways of seeing the solar connection is to look at accumulated departure. Here is Jim’s essay on the subject:
Solar – Global Warming Connection
Jim Goodridge
State Climatologist (Retired)
jdgoodridge – (at) – sbcglobal dot net
March 22, 2008
Solar irradiance has been monitored from satellites for three sunspot cycles. The sunspot numbers and solar irradiance were shown to be highly correlated. Since sunspot numbers have been increasing since 1935 the irradiance must also be increasing.
The sun was once considered to be constant in its output, hence the term “Solar Constant”. Recent observations suggest that the sun is a variable star. Observations of solar irradiance have been made with great precision from orbiting satellites since about 1978. These observations are from Wikipeda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
They clearly indicate that the solar irradiance varies with the historic sunspot numbers:
Click for a larger graph
Click for a larger graph:
Using this relationship, 307 years of solar irradiance is easily inferred.
Sunspot numbers since 1700 were plotted as accumulated departure from average in order to compare them with weather variables. The sunspot number index indicates a declining trend for the 1700 to 1935 period and an increase from 1935 to 2008. The eleven-year cycle is clearly visible.
An increase in sunspot activity, and by inference, irradiance since 1935 is plainly indicated.
Moderators note: And I want to also call attention to these graphs, which shows the change in solar irradiance since 1611 and Geomagnetic activity over the last 150 years:
Clearly, solar geomagnetic activity has been on the rise. There will be more interesting posts on sunpots coming in the next week or two, stay tuned -Anthony
We all know that a correlation does not prove a cause and effect. However, I think a correlation is one of the things you need to prove a cause and effect. If you have a graph of solar activity and a graph of the earth’s temperature anomoly and the two bear no resemblence to each other then you are going to have a hard time proving that solar activity drives the earth’s temperature changes.
How about overlaying the temperature anomoly on the graph of the solar activity, or sunspot number, or magnetism or whatever variable is perceived to be the temperature driver.
I don’t think there’s a direct correlation between temperature and solar activity. Instead, the solar activity seems to drive ENSO and PDO, which drive temperature in turn. It wouldn’t hurt to look at some of Landscheidt’s work. AFIK, it’s only available on the web here (in no particular order):
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm
There may be more but I’ll stop there.
REPLY: I agree, the oceans are the biggest heatsink we have.
And here I thought native peoples were so “at one” with nature…
Except maybe when my ancestors used to set forest fires in order to stampede entire herds off cliffs.
In a way they were “at one with nature”. I suppose. They recognized it for the deadly enemy it was.
It was a “Tragedy of the Commons” sort of relationship. (I.e., if you don’t own it, you trash it.)
In the middle of cycle 23, it appears there was some sort of destructive interference, perhaps a phase shift / distortion. Interesting how that was about 18 – 24 months prior to the unusual magnetic “shift” event in 2005. There was a lesser version of it in the midst of Cycle 22, and little to none in the midst of Cycle 21. Almost like a beat frequency.
Alan Chappell,
I find your prose somewhat difficult to decipher. So sorry if I misinterpretted what you were trying to say.
Nevertheless I still wonder where you get your information. Who were this race of fair-skinned people that the Maori consumed? This is news to me and I suspect news to everyone else who lives in NZ. There was a long and rich history of warfare and canabilism among the various Maori Iwi (Tribes) over hundreds of years, but as far as I am aware there was never a fair-skinned redhead race in NZ, apart from a subset of the late comming Europeans, one or two of whom could have been eaten.
By the way this upside down thingy is a Northern Hemisphere originated convention. In actual fact we read and write the same way up as everyone else. Further, there is no particular reason to consider North to be at the top and South at the bottom.
Cheers,
Rob R
David S, the problem with correlating such variables is that there isn’t one single “thing” driving temperatures. Solar is in there. GHG’s are in there. ENSO, Volcanoes, land-use, and on and on. No one correlation is impressive.
Now an embarassing question, which will surely expose me as the amateur that I am.
Could someone tell please me how one knows these are Cycle 23 spots?
Thanks!
Rob R.
A very good book written in 2003 by a Prof. of History at ( NZ ) Massey University ,”The Quest for Origins” by Prof. Michael King may give you some enlightenment. A visit to the Auckland Museum and on the second floor in the ancient New Zealand section you may also find some enlightenment,
I would say that the Bluff Oysters ( for those that don’t know 4-5 to a Kg. ) and mussels have to be the best in the world .
Alan
Could someone tell please me how one knows these are Cycle 23 spots?
They are North-South polarity (as opposed to South-North) and are equatorial, not polar.
(Also from a crass amateur, reading off the “Solar Postcard”. )
I’ve been away Evan. Have you done anything with your post cards?
Yes. I’m setting it all up in Word Outline.
The four uber-categories so far are:
Basic Scientific Factors
Climate History
Measurements, Adjustments, Equipment
The History of the Debate
Each category has a number of subcategories, and so on.
BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTOR headings include
Solar
Planetary
Atmosphere
Ocean
Land
Ice
Albedo
Sinks
Cycles (Carbon, Water, etc.)
Warming/Cooling/Homeostasis
Natural/Anthropogenic
With drilldown in each category (and a link library).
Evan Jones (20:36:25) : The leaves blow cross the long black road…
I believe this is the first time I’ve heard the band It’s a Beautiful Day quoted on a climate science site. I suppose it makes sense though.
Be that as it may, I think I need some guidance. I’m wondering how we’re supposed to interpret that “Accumulated Departure from Average” graph. Isn’t it supposed to imply some kind of long-term inertia for solar irradiance? If so, how are we supposed to interpret the “global cooling” meme? Or are we just supposed not to notice the two arguments are inconsistent with each other? Alternatively, are we just supposed to assume that anything goes, and it doesn’t matter if one argument makes sense with another or not?
to Kristen,
I have checked out your web site “ponder the Maunder” – amazing! Are your school and your peers on side?
Keep up the great work,
Ulrich
Andrew writes:
“David S, the problem with correlating such variables is that there isn’t one single “thing” driving temperatures. Solar is in there. GHG’s are in there. ENSO, Volcanoes, land-use, and on and on. No one correlation is impressive.”
Then we have cycles that are variable as well.
Solar cycles,ENSO cycles,GHG cyclic changes,Albedo cycles,Yes even land-use changes are cyclic.
Cycles that overlap makes it harder to sort out.To know how much does what in driving the changes in climate trends.
I believe this to be a simple basic science problem that can be fairly well examined and reasonably explained. Using the kiss principle is our first choice. Given that temperature data maybe suspect, it is what we have at the moment. Multi-variable analysis then determines correlation factors to temperature change, using single variable data as well as combined variable data. This all important first step, at the very least, exposes which variables time well with temperature change and on down the list of variables. Even if the timing is the exact opposite (when one is on the other is off kind of relationship that can occur with cause and effect cycles) a correlation analysis will uncover this. Following that tried and true step, cause and effect comes into play. Some will be easy. Certainly earth’s temperature cannot be causing sun spots to come and go. And if temperature change has occurred on nearby planetary bodies (Mars, Tritan, etc) that is in step with our own temperature change, once again, we cannot say that CO2 levels here on earth cause planet X, with no atmosphere whatsoever, to also experience a similar heat wave.
If in the end, sunspots, or a combination of sun factors, or a combination of any of the variables, pops up as the leading correlation, it is standard science to place that correlation on the leading edge of the theory, at least until some other analysis demonstrates that something else is happening.
Science used to fly by the dials when in a fog. It has taken its eyes off the instruments and is trying to see out the window.
Alan Chappell
Not wishing to distract from the topic but:
‘The Quest For Origins’ (2003) was written by Kerry Howe, Michael King wrote ‘The Penguin History of New Zealand’ (2003).
Both authors are/were (King was killed in a car accident in 2004) reputable historians and are dismissive of the claims you make.
An information theorist, possibly Shannon, once opined that if a chimp were set down at a typewriter and randomly hit keys he would eventually tap out the Complete Works of Shakespeare in roughly 2^26 keystrokes.
The time required, irrelevant to the theorist’s purpose, would be vastly greater than the current age of the universe.
Everyone of us has a work of genius within, but our life may well run to its end without.
hmmmm. Might it also be that the sunspots counted during that “flat to slightly decreasing span” had greater magnitude “flares” thus increasing total sun output anyway? Maybe the number of sunspots has a correlation to the magnitude of flares but a better measure would be the number of sunspots with greater magnitude flares coming from them.
Anthony:
A couple of questions.
Just out of curiosity, do you still believe that “One of the best and simplest ways of seeing the solar connection is to look at accumulated departure”?
I would take that to mean that you think there’s some meaningful connection between climate change and solar variability … and that Goodridge’s plot of “accumulated departure” shows this causal relationship.
The problem is that the 20th century rise in Goodridge’s plot seems to lag the early 20th C rise in temperature by a couple of decades. So if one insisted on claiming causation, rather than just correlation, you seem to be suggesting that global warming causes sunspots.
J.
REPLY: John, I haven’t looked at it beyond what was originally posted and reading a couple of comments critical of it. So I have not formed any new opinions of the use of the technique. It may turn out to be flawed, it may be useful.
As to “…you think there’s some meaningful connection between climate change and solar variability…” I general terms, yes I do. See part2 of the essay Basil and I are posting in the next day or so.
Anthony and J:
IMHO, sunspots are not a strong proxy for solar activity. The most optimistic R^2 value I seem to recall is 0.74 which in physics is not good (in biology it would be phenomenal).
For that matter our highly idealized measures of TSI are little better.
Note that warming took off in the late 20’s ahead of large SSN maxima reaching levels not yet approached, in 1936 for NH, 1941 for SH.
The UV and charged particle fluences preceded sunspots in spiking in my non-expert estimation, just as UV and radio crashed beginning in 2005 while sunspots were still peaking.
Go to the swpc ftp directory and compare May thru Sept. 1996 with 2007.
As weak as causation might appear for solar it blows CO2 away.
For the picky, PDO and AMO went positive in synchrony late 1920’s and would gain primacy for the ’30’s warming, statistically for what they’re worth.
At this point graphs of ‘solar activity’ are useful for pattern recognition and little more.
hmmmm. What if PDO and AMO share some connectivity to solar action? The gravity of the moon certainly affects tides. The rotation of the earth certainly has oceanic affects. The tilt of the earth has seasonal effects on the oceans. Why wouldn’t the (gravitational pull of the?) sun have some kind of effect on that deep ocean current? What if, like asteroid and planet orbits, all these things cycle into proximity to one another every once in a long while? What if the loooonnnngggg term CO2 levels (they have a short natural cycle and possibly a longer natural cycle tied to PDO/AMO, and maybe even a VERY long cycle between major time spans) simply reveal this once in a blue moon synchrony of lunar, oceanic and solar cycles?
We know that CO2 levels have been much higher. What happened to the much greater CO2 levels in the far distant past? Did the solar minimums coincide with these other cycles back then to cool the planet and rid it of CO2? Will it happen again?
Patterns are used by every scientist I have ever met in looking for cause and effect, including the global warmers. Often times, these patterns lead to even more patterns. What if a better pattern has been found between temperature and something other than CO2? Wouldn’t science dictate serious consideration of this new information?
I think this issue is ripe for the 3 year old asking, “Why?” over and over again till the thing is fully explained.
An information theorist, possibly Shannon, once opined that if a chimp were set down at a typewriter and randomly hit keys he would eventually tap out the Complete Works of Shakespeare in roughly 2^26 keystrokes.
As some wit recently put it:
The internet: I billion typewriters, 1 billion monkeys, still no Shakespeare.
PG: I found your conjecture that CO2 partial pressure should begin to drop, flatten or curtail its rate of growth during the decades of cooling ahead.
This dovetails with your hint that it is a very poor proxy, as Spencer noted, natural fluence is 24000 times the anthropogenic contribution. The earth’s termites produce upto 20 times man’s input.
10Be is a far better proxy for solar activity as it immediately forms comparatively inert oxides with Mg, Al, Si, etc. and precipitates out of the atmosphere.
AGW even gets ocean chemistry wrong. CO2 is the buffering system! Woods Hole has shown that CO2 approached 3000ppm during the fecund Cenozoic and corals survived moving seamlessly from amorphous to crystalline carbonates.
Science is an iterative process which AGW hoped to freeze in place.