I love field work. I think any climate scientist that basically becomes a data jockey should be forced to go out and examine real world measurement systems and weather stations once a year so that they don’t lose touch with the source of the data they study. That’s why I’m pleased to see that scientists at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU ) did some good old fashioned field work to look at geologic residues of past climate.
What they found was intriguing. The arctic may have periodically been nearly ice free in recent geologic history, after the last ice age. It is clear from this that we don’t really know as much as some think they do about climatic and ice cycles of our planet.
Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
BEACH RIDGE: The scientists believe that this beach ridge in North Greenland formed by wave activity about 6000-7000 years ago. This implies that there was more open sea in this region than there is today. (Click the picture for a larger image) Photo: Astrid Lyså, NGU
”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Shore features
ICE COVER: Today, at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
Together with her NGU colleague, Eiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
SETTLEMENT: Astrid Lyså in August 2007 in the ruined settlement left by the Independence I Culture in North Greenland. The first immigrants to these inhospitable regions succumbed to the elements nearly 4000 years ago, when the climate became colder again. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså tells me.
Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
Open sea
”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.
Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says.
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
Inuit immigration
The mapping at 82 degrees North took place in summer 2007 as part of the LongTerm project, a sub-project of the major International Polar Year project, SciencePub. The scientists also studied ruined settlements dating from the first Inuit immigration to these desolate coasts.
The first people from Alaska and Canada, called the Independence I Culture, travelled north-east as far as they could go on land as long ago as 4000-4500 years ago. The scientists have found out that drift ice had formed on the sea again in this period, which was essential for the Inuit in connection with their hunting. No beach ridges have been formed since then.
”Seals and driftwood were absolutely vital if they were to survive. They needed seals for food and clothing, and driftwood for fuel when the temperature crept towards minus 50 degrees. For us, it is inconceivable and extremely impressive,” says Eiliv Larsen, the NGU scientist and geologist.
(hat tip to many commenters and emailers, too numerous to mention, but thanks to all)
Turn over a new Leif,
1) Here Leif I show you, take an average over the double sunspot cycle. Piers Corbyn shows on slide 18 of 30 of his powerpoint lecture how well this correlates http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMG_en-GBGB291&q=hale+cycle+corbyn&btnG=Search&meta= (see second one down in the search list called ALARM)
2) Leif you also said sunspot number varied (during Dalton’s minimum) “1810 where it was zero to 1816 when it was 50” earlier in this thread he said something quite different “First, a Dalton minimum cycle didn’t have but 50 spots, but more like 15,000”, which is it Leif?
3)Leif said “Another is that a Hale cycle extends from polar field reversal [at solar max] through the following polar field reversal and until the one after that [when the polarity change is the same as at the start of the cycle]” Its this one Piers is talking about. You did say this definition would make sense for linkage. So you sort of agree.
4)The reason geomagnetic activity is an accurate gauge is it shows what’s getting through opposed to your satellite references which are outside the earth where the warming/cooling takes place.
a)Your not talking about the same thing. The “relatively” good connectivity (you dropped that word) is there at the moment hence small changes get through well. You would need to study this a lot to get an understanding of what this means folks.
b) Then linkage will change to poor because of the start of the sunspots this makes the linkage less sensitive so it will mean continued cooling as more sunspots will not be getting through. Its like they won’t be resonating so well. Like a musical instrument through a sound booth.
c) No answer to that one Leif. Look out for the chill. Get yourself a new hat.
Overall I give that 5 stars for me and an imaginary reality plane (not markable) for you with no stars obviously. You don’t believe in them. Ed
Leif Svalgaard (13:30:00) :
Edward Morgan (09:50:05) :
Phillip Bratby (11:51:08) :
I went to look at Corbyn’s ppt presentation [once I got a link] and i see that he does count the double cycle from max to second max, introducing his own definition of the Hale Cycle [which usually goes from min to second min – Hale did not know about the polar field reversals when he discovered the Hale Cycle]. This makes the muddle a bit lighter, but does alter the basic conclusion that the 22-year cycle is but a minor tweak. Slide 12 is telling: He notes that when the blue line goes up [locally] the red line goes down. Then by averaging two consecutive point you compensate for that and get the more impressive slide 13. But note that the compensating effect comes from blue and red varying oppositely, while on slide 13 they vary together. BTW, slide 13 could have been had with many variables with a secular variation, e.g. the U.S. population.
He still has the ‘linkage’ wrong. E.g. b When the sun moves into cycle 24 although particles will go up the magnetic connectivity factor will change to ‘poor linkage’ and still cause generally cooling; this trend will generally carry on to 2013
The ‘poor linkage’ will only kick in well past 2013 and not when we move into the next 11-yr cycle. I’ll have to admit that I was immediately put off by slide 2, that cherry picks 1998 [El Nino] as the starting point. On page 3 you find “ice age lengths follow solar magnetic links (26k and 43 k yrs)”. Discounting orbital changes with these periods. All in all, still a “C”. Now, remember you asked for my opinion.
Carbon 14 variation is used as a proxie to obtain information concerning sunspots. As carbon 14 is used to date many objects, then is this not now an in-accurate method for dating obects due to sunspot variation?
Leif:
Says: “My point is that you [or anybody else] would tend to discard data that doesn’t fit. Timing errors, melting ice, what have you. This is just human nature.”
Maybe so, but speak for yourself 🙂
Edward & Leif:
My opinion is, that the solar activity is too good related to world temperatures for it to be coincidence. And some of the discrepancies Edward provides some part of answer to: Geomagnetics etc. Is there a good article that you could recommend?
CO2 versus Sun:
Neither the physics, the history, nothing work for the CO2 hypothesis.
Some peoble will accept huge problems for the CO2 hypothesis and at the same time they are extremely demanding of every detail of the solar theory. Thats not honest science. We can call it pet-science.
No, the CO2 hypothesis i can talk about for HOURS!! Its the most unfounded hypothesis in modern science and will be remebered as the biggest fiasko of science for centuries. The CO2 hypothesis need no other theories to flunk totally.
Thanks Frank,
Whatever Leif says I studied Piers closely and his forecasts work as he says once you factor in his indexes (its not like a normal forecast in that regard (it is an evolving science however). Yes an article on the current situation is to be found here http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1831 Enjoy! Ed.
Thanks Frank,
Whatever Leif says I studied Piers forecasts closely and they are accurate once you factor in his indexes it is a evolving science though. An article on this and the current situation is to be found at http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1831.
Leif. That linkage thing is disturbed by the spots this is why it becomes not so good the more activity. You seem to be talking about some other linkage. This will mean a continued cooling as even though more activity less connectivity. Ed
Frank et al another article http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1771 Ed
Edward Morgan (14:45:25) :
2) Leif you also said sunspot number varied (during Dalton’s minimum) “1810 where it was zero to 1816 when it was 50″ earlier in this thread he said something quite different “First, a Dalton minimum cycle didn’t have but 50 spots, but more like 15,000″, which is it Leif?
The sunspot number is not the same as the number of spots.
The sunspot number is the number of spots [roughly divided by two] you will see on the Sun on a given day. The 50 referred to a day a maximum. The total number of spots for a cycle is quite different. Since a cycle lasts 4000 days @ur momisugly 25 spots a day, then you would have 4000*25 = 100,000 spots if every spots only lived a day, but since a spot on the average lives several days [depending on the size, average about a week] the 100,000 goes down to about 15,000 spots.
Lansner, Frank (14:59:07) :
My opinion is, that the solar activity is too good related to world temperatures for it to be coincidence.
Opinion is king.
CO2 versus Sun
What has CO2 to do with the Sun’s influence? Nothing! And why assume that it is the same people that will accept huge problems for the CO2 hypothesis and at the same time are extremely demanding of every detail of the solar theory?
I have noticed a curious phenomenon: people stick together in the face of adversity. At times I’m confronted with people that are firm and ardent [even vitriolic] believers in cosmic rays being the driver, at other times it is something else, like now the 22-year variation of geomagnetic activity. These causes are often mutually exclusive [Corbyn even says so on page 3: “Cosmic rays NOT the driver”], yet the cosmic-ray-crowd doesn’t get up and protest and vice versa. As long as “it’s the Sun, stupid”, they don’t want to rock the boat.
Edward Morgan (14:45:25) :
a)Your not talking about the same thing. The “relatively” good connectivity (you dropped that word) is there at the moment hence small changes get through well. You would need to study this a lot to get an understanding of what this means folks.
“relatively” is a weasel word, but the linkage is right now not relatively good, it is the worst it can be. It was good in 1954, 1977, 1996, and will be again in 2020. It seems that Corbyn, too, would have to study a lot to get this right.
All this was clear and well-understood from studies by myself and others more than 30 years ago [ http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf page 53ff ]
Leif Svalgaard (14:57:19) :
He still has the ‘linkage’ wrong. E.g. b When the sun moves into cycle 24 although particles will go up the magnetic connectivity factor will change to ‘poor linkage’ and still cause generally cooling; this trend will generally carry on to 2013
The ‘poor linkage’ will only kick in well past 2013 and not when we move into the next 11-yr cycle.
Jeez, I can even be carried along by this. The linkage is right now the worst it can be [as it has been that for several years]. The ‘worseness” will taper off until 2013 and then good linkage will build up.
Thanks for explaining what you meant Leif. 11 out of 12 major flooding events in the UK consecutively predicted might put a different light on it. I for one would get nothing out of this if I wanted to “stick together” I don’t want some fantasy. You both studied the sun for thirty years and completely disagree and you think nothing is wrong and probably wonder why we have doubts. I’ve looked at this for no more than a sporadic year. Results count. They are there you need to reappraise. Its been an interesting discussion. Ed.
Edward Morgan (16:09:21) :
Frank et al another article http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1771
Corbyn has this exactly backwards. He says:
“The changes in magnetic connectivity between the sun and the Earth are very important.[…]
The sun-earth general set up we are now in is Odd to even Cycle (23 to 24) solar minimum transition. In these periods (which go on for a few years every 22 years or so) the Earth is most sensitive to small changes on the sun.”
It is the transition from Even to Odd where the ‘linkage’ is important and creates the extra geomagnetic activity. You [and Corbyn] can learn more here: http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual%20Variation%201954%20and%201996.pdf
or here JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101, NO. A12, PAGES 27,091–27,109, 1996
The 22-year cycle of geomagnetic and solar wind activity
Edward W. Cliver et al.
Abstract
The 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity is characterized by high activity during the second half of even-numbered solar cycles and the first half of odd-numbered cycles.[…]
The transition that is important is from Even to Odd. The reason is that the interplanetary magnetic field as seen by the Earth during such a transition has a small statistical tendency to point southward more often. During an Odd-to-Even transition there is the opposite tendency [i.e. to point northward more often].
When the IMF points south it can connect with the Earth’s magnetic field [which is pointing north where the IMF hits it] and thus transfer energy and particles to the Earth. When the IMF points north it cannot connect [no linkage] and the Earth is effectively closed off from the solar wind and no [or much less] transfer occurs.
Leif, Contact Piers and make a public bet with him and publish it on this site. That would show what you know. Your making it up. Admit it. You’ve strengthened my capacity to convey facts you didn’t move me at all. I’m free. Nasa profits on secrets I see you worked for them. Ed
Edward Morgan (16:27:21) :
Results count.
People can guess right for the wrong reason. I take it that Corbyn is the main forecaster at the Met Office, since his track record is so good.
Leif you have a habit of speaking the opposite. I’m done with my explanation. There is loads of stuff in the public domain that proves you wrong. The only reason your talking to this site is to change minds because its a fountain of truth about the true causes of temperature change. Your under threat. You wouldn’t waste your time on it otherwise. I suggest people do thorough research of their own and definitely don’t accept a statement just because of letters in front of a name. People are far more likely to agree with a Dr. This doesn’t mean there honest or right. You’ve blinded most people with a plethora of “information” that is beyond the cognition of a genius. We have all seen there are many challenges to you but you don’t give any of them any credit a big zero. This is too obvious you want to destroy anything and everything that isn’t AGW you have to and that’s where your stuck, it will be your undoing. Ed
Leif, He beats the met office all the time six to twelve months in advance. They don’t look up. Perhaps you should to Piers. Ed
For me this link between solar acticity and Incoming cosmic rays are convincing:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11651/dn11651-2_738.jpg
For me this link between low cloud cover and cosmic rays/solar activite is convincing:
1) http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/SvensmarkLowCloudComicRaySMALL.jpg
2) http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/SvensmarkCosmicRay1700small.jpg
So in my view we have an obvious connection between solar activity and low cloud cover.
When you say “But the Spoorer minimum…”.. That’s no way enough to make me think that suddently there is not the connection shown in the links above?! Of course not.
And yes, in many debates I have met peoble totally blind to see the extreme problems for the CO2 hypothesis, but at the same time extremely demanding when it comes to the SUN-theory. I often see a missing balance in things. But I do NOT say this about you, Leif, you clearly in no way discuss the CO2 hypothesis.
So does anyone object the low cloud cover means primarly high albedo and thus cooling of the planet?
Here finally il grande argument against the solar activity – world temperature link:
“In the last decades the GISS temperature has risen more than can be explained by solar activity”
Hmmm..
Could this explain something:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/30/ushcn_corrections.gif
aha.. global temperatures has increased 0,30 degrees. Hmm in USA we know that temperatures have been adjusted 0,25 degrees Celsius up, corresponding to over 80% of the mentioned warming.
So it seems that the solar-theory strong as it looks is rejected because it does not match the GISS temperature adjustings?
In my view, the solar-theory is so strong that this mismatch between GISS temperatures and solar energy in the last decades, when giss made the adjustments, only shows that you can through out GISS temperatures.
The GISS adjustments fails to correspond with solar activity and not vice versa.
to the administrator: Its sometimes very hard to make a post, im not sure whats wrong.
Leif you know from John Coleman’s account of other American weather forecasters that you don’t keep your job as a weather forecaster if you start saying anything other than global warming. Check this video its all here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM Own up!. Ed
Edward Morgan (17:07:51) :
He beats the met office all the time six to twelve months in advance.
You are making this up, right?
John Coleman on why there aren’t many weather forecasters saying anything other than AGW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM the BBC don’t say much else. Are you surprised? Ed
Leif its true. He’s expecting a storm to hit the UK on or around the end of October. He’s not always right though. You can get global forecasts here http://www.lowefo.com/ Ed
Meanwhile back at the farm, I wanted to reiterate my question concerning the AIMS data. Are they measuring overall CO2 or just CO2 12 and 13. If they are measuring overall CO2 they must consider that CO214 will increase during minimum. Leif, chime in if you see something I don’t have right. Anthony, you have emailed AIMS. Maybe you could ask? My hunch is that during the next maximum (assuming that the magnetic field strengthens), this AIMS map will show once again shades of green and tan instead of blooms of red.
Edward Morgan (18:05:49) :
He’s expecting a storm to hit the UK on or around the end of October. He’s not always right though.
That is the point, isn’t it. If I predict a storm every day, I’ll never miss one. What is important to count are not the successes, but the failures.
Frank. Lansner (17:09:48) :
So does anyone object the low cloud cover means primarly high albedo and thus cooling of the planet?
Piers Corbyn [who is right 11 times out of 12] says clearly on page 3 of his ppt that Cosmic Rays are not a primary driver. I happen to agree with him [by accident], but there is one. Now, what does Ed think?
I had to skip down through the last couple dozen posts so I may have missed a mention of this already, but…this may connect with what is being discussed here.
Being a student of Appalachian climate history, upon reading the questions over the 6000-7000 year ago dating, the possibilities of solar influence, etc., I remembered I had read a story earlier this year about a 7000-year-old cave stalagmite in West Virginia that geologists were using to interpret the climate situation in the region (and North America in general) during the time period being discussed here and subsequent periods.
I just did a Google search and found an article at the Ohio University site: http://news.research.ohiou.edu/news/index.php?item=503 titled “New climate record shows century-long droughts in eastern North America–Weak sun created cool oceans, lowered rainfall seven times in 7,000 years” August 19, 2008.
These geologists appear to be on board with the AGW group. While it starts out with the following…
“A stalagmite in a West Virginia cave has yielded the most detailed geological record to date on climate cycles in eastern North America over the past 7,000 years. The new study confirms that during periods when Earth received less solar radiation, the Atlantic Ocean cooled, icebergs increased and precipitation fell, creating a series of century-long droughts.
“A research team led by Ohio University geologist Gregory Springer examined the trace metal strontium and carbon and oxygen isotopes in the stalagmite, which preserved climate conditions averaged over periods as brief as a few years. The scientists found evidence of at least seven major drought periods during the Holocene era, according to an article published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”
…the article ends with “The climate record suggests that North America could face a major drought event again in 500 to 1,000 years, though Springer said that manmade global warming could offset the cycle.
“Global warming will leave things like this in the dust. The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,” he said.
“Though some climate and drought records exist for the Western and Midwest areas of North America, the eastern Appalachian region hasn’t been studied much to date, Rowe said. The research team plans to examine additional stalagmite records from West Virginia and Tennessee to paint a better picture of North American climate cycles.”
If this may be of use here, one way or the other, you might want to check it out. Neat picture of the stalagmite too. I find it interesting that the information on the Sahara wet period, this Greenland period, and the Appalachian period all seem to be focusing around this same overall period in human history (including early cultures, etc.).
Doing a little more looking at that 6,000-7000 years-ago period, climate change, cultures, and sea levels–I found this journal article on underwater archaeology findings along the Black Sea coast that might tie in as well.
http://www.athenapub.com/12blksea.htm
Here’s a bit of it…
“Archaeological evidence allowing the reconstruction of settlements along the shores of the western Black Sea (and supporting the above premises) can be divided into three groups: submerged settlements; submerged harbor sites and systems, including anchors and anchor material; and remains of cargo and ships, the former including metal objects and amphorae, the latter including only a few smaller vessels in the Bronze Age.
“Submerged Settlements: Surveys along the western Black Sea shoreline have led to the discovery of 10 submerged Eneolithic settlements, and at least 29 sites dating from the Bronze Age (fig.2). Most settlements that began their existence in the Late Eneolithic continued into the Bronze Age.
“The submergence of the settlements probably resulted from variations in sea level caused by the weight of glacier movements deforming the earth’s crust. These variations, in turn, were caused by climatic instability, including warm/cold spells that led to glacial melting and sea level rise, or to ice accumulation and sea level fall.
“During the Early and Middle Holocene, warmer periods led to the gradual submergence of the western Black Sea coast. At the end of the 5th millennium BC, the so-called New Black Sea Transgression caused the water to overflow parts of the mainland. During its second stage (mid-4th millennium BC) a 2-meter drop in sea level occurred.”
Hmmmm…