Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
Reposted here: October 30th, 2008
by Warwick Hughes
The real world sunspot data remaining quiet month after month are mocking the curved red predictions of NOAA and about to slide underneath. Time for a rethink I reckon NOAA !!
Here is my clearer chart showing the misfit between NOAA / NASA prediction and real-world data.
Regular readers might remember that we started posting articles drawing attention to contrasting predictions for Solar Cycle 24, way back on 16 December 2006. Scroll to the start of my solar threads.
Then in March 2007 I posted David Archibald’s pdf article, “The Past and Future of Climate”. Well worth another read now, I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007 from NOAA / NASA
NOTE from Anthony: We now appear to have a new cycle 24 spot, which you can see here:
See the most current MDI and magnetogram here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
nobwainer (00:14:46) :
One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
My graph has its highest point in 1887. You graph shows a peak in 1787 too. There is no 1788 peak.
My graph has its highest point in 1787. You graph shows a peak in 1787 too. There is no 1788 peak.
Leif Svalgaard (00:30:49) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
Mount Pinatuba is the 2nd largest eruption in the 20th century spewing 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. Cant see it in your 10Be chart and the temperature seems to not be affected, altho wiki suggests a drop of .5C worldwide.
Are there any papers that quantify the effect on 10Be by volcanoes?
Leif Svalgaard (00:02:01) :
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ellis.png
Cant quite see your point Leif, this is also a different period to 1790 etc.
I cant see anything that refutes Usoskins’s paper
nobwainer (01:04:33) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
Mount Pinatuba is the 2nd largest eruption in the 20th century spewing 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. Cant see it in your 10Be chart
As I have said already [and it is the paper too], the 10Be data only goes up to 1930, after that the data is ’10Be’ equivalent constructed from Muon and Neutron Monitor measurements that are not affected by the 10Be deposition problem, therefore no Pinatuba effect. How is it possible that you can think that I would overlook Pinatuba [if it had been real 10Be]? shame on you. You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
and the temperature seems to not be affected, altho wiki suggests a drop of .5C worldwide.
somewhat inconsistent, no? Of course the temp was affected.
Are there any papers that quantify the effect on 10Be by volcanoes?
No, because you are seeing science in the making!
Here are some thoughts and data on volcanoes and temps [it is marred by excessive AGW nonsense too, so beware]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/S4_03_Crowley.pdf
nobwainer (01:13:13) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
Cant quite see your point Leif, this is also a different period to 1790 etc.
The point is that the size of the annual swing goes in step with the overall level and both faithfully mirror the sunspot number. In a sense, what you see is the solar cycle [modulated by the length of the day = amount of sunshine on the ionosphere]. This you should be able to see working during a period where the sunspot record is reasonable good and therefore gain confidence in the method.
I cant see anything that refutes Usoskins’s paper
Then with your newfound knowledge you should be able to see from Gilpin’s data that there was a solar minimum in 1795. Usoskin claims 1795 was the maximum of the lost cycle, hence his claim is refuted. As simple as that.
nobwainer (23:55:46) :
You know only too well that the aa and 10Be records quite often don’t line up well with sunspot records.
Ah, that is the reason for your confusion.
In the geomagnetic record there are two causes:
1) the solar wind [aa and 10Be go with this]
2) the FUV and Xray flux which cause the ionosphere
The latter goes strictly with the sunspot number. The daily range of the declination that Gilpin and Ellis observed is due to the second cause and therefore go strictly with the sunspot number. Naive me thought that you would at least look at the papers I referred to [how dumb of me], here is one again that explains in simple terms how this works: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
The bottom line is that the range of the declination is a very direct measure of the sunspot number. Already Wolf knew this in the 1850s.
So, since Gilpin’s range data show no maximum in 1795, there was no sunspot maximum either. As simple as that.
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21)
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
OK …so you have Pinatubo covered and Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway. Do you have emitted SO2 levels for eruptions that occurred during the Dalton and Maunder as only that is of real relevance?
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21) :
somewhat inconsistent, no? Of course the temp was affected.
I mentioned that Wiki reported a .5C decrease….I wouldn’t stand behind them, if you look at the satellite records no apparent .5C decrease is visible.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
nobwainer (02:59:59) :
OK …so you have Pinatubo covered and Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway.
Does it have to line up with a solar minimum to be counted? What is important is that it lines up with a 10Be maximum.
Do you have emitted SO2 levels for eruptions that occurred during the Dalton and Maunder as only that is of real relevance?
Nobody has that. But what is your problem? 10Be has a max. The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, etc.
I mentioned that Wiki reported a .5C decrease….I wouldn’t stand behind them, if you look at the satellite records no apparent .5C decrease is visible.
As I said, people see what they wanna see. I see no 0.5C decrease, but rather a 0.7C decrease. T is clearly somewhat depressed for the next couple of years. But we are getting away from the 10Be peaks which are the ones that have my attention.
Clearly Archibald was arguing that the ‘three 10Be peaks’ were of climate importance. I don’t disagree that there were coolings at those times. My beef is that those peaks may not be solar related or GCR related at all, but were caused by volcanoes.
Lief,
I think that Tambora (VEI=7) made a cold time worse. Mt St. Helens (VEi=5) in 1980, and Mt Pinatubo (VEI=6) in 1991 (while both were smaller eruptions) didn’t seem to have a significant effect on the climate like Tambora. IF I read VEI scale correctly, a 7 is 10 times worse than a 6. It seems to me that volcanic eruptions affected the climate of the LIA, but were not the sole cause.
nobwainer (02:59:59) :
Krakatoa is big but i cant find an estimated SO2 figure and it doesn’t line up with a solar minima anyway.
Krakatoa is the most important one as we have good data on that. The 10Be peak in 1883 translates [as per Beer and McCracken – and I don’t disagree] to a heliomagnetic field, B, of only 1 nT while it most likely was about 7 nT. No need for fancy modeling. During the spacecract age, we have to fair approx. that aa = 3 B. With B = 1 nT, aa would have had to be down to 3, which it never was. At that time [corrected] aa was around 21, so B = 7.
So, the point is: there are large peaks in 10Be that are not related to the solar wind or GCRs. These peaks happen at times of large volcanic eruptions, so those become a target for investigation, instead.
Steve M. (08:30:14) :
It seems to me that volcanic eruptions affected the climate of the LIA, but were not the sole cause.
At this point I’m don’t care about the climate. The issue is: were the ‘three peaks in 10Be’ caused by the Sun, and I think not. I think the culprit were volcanoes. So, bringing up the 10Be record as evidence for various Dalton, Maunder minima, GCRs, etc is not warranted as the ‘peaks’ were likely not related to anything solar.
Leif (11:37:30) : said,
10Be and 14C. By looking in ice cores and tree rings we can infer this magnetic cycle back in time and [here comes the problem:] that magnetic cycle was operating as usual during the Maunder and Spoerer minima. The magnetic cycle was not appreciably suppressed during those times.
10be filtered data from 1453 to date presents additional puzzles, very few sunspots were observed between 1650 and 1700 and the telescopic observations of that time provide little room for ambiguity, yet the 10be data shows a well defined and strong 11 year cycle for this same period. Perhaps both data sets are correct but are measuring different things. Even without sunspots the 11 year cycle may occur in other phenomena, coronal extent, general magnetic field strength.
The role of the sun and climate change.
Douglas V Hoyt.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EBTZ4LdSfhwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=10be+was+high+in+maunder+minimum&source=web&ots=g2pWB16Cjw&sig=4YcNl1M-08Hg35E3h9a4uwfAjr8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA176,M1
To my mind this does not take away the clear correlation between the lack of sunspots and lower temperatures seen in the Maunder min and other minimums. Perhaps the sun only produced TINY TIMS throughout the majority of that time which could not be seen with the equipment available, perhaps tiny tims are irrelevant within the sun spot count and they should be ignored.
On Climate Audit commenters noted that the criteria for naming hurricanes had become so weakened that practically any frontal wave in the Eastern Atlantic that persisted for more than a few hours got a name (the so-called “Tiny Tims” of the hurricane season). Prior to satellites they would have remained invisible.
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), the global temperature on earth increased by about 0.6C. perhaps the energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences have a larger effect than total irradiance, If not then TSI has to be the cause of the LIA, if neither of these is the culprit what did cause the cooling and what eventually caused the warmings?
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Rob (09:37:47) :
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999),
No, it has not:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Increase%20VxB%20Since%201926.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling.pdf
and most clearly here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (02:01:21) :
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see.
And….Krakatoa seems to make a big dent in your 10Be graph but has no effect on world temps in 1883 or after….not even the ever reliable GISS record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Plenty of holes in this one Leif…cant have your cake and eat it too.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29)
Does it have to line up with a solar minimum to be counted? What is important is that it lines up with a 10Be maximum.
Your flogging a dead horse on this one, You are making a statement that large releases of SO2 affect the pre 1930 10Be records AND also drive down world temps. I cant see any dramatic affect from Pinatubo, other than normal fluctuations. Suggesting that Pinatubo is the cause of the normal fluctuation that would disappear with any smoothing is a weak argument. It could also be argued that it was caused by a weakening sunspot cycle.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
But lets move onto Krakatoa as we would expect something from the mother of volcanoes.
Krakatoa coincides with the largest dip in your supplied 10Be records but there is no change to world temps in 1883, even in the ever reliable GIFF records.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
You cannot provide volcanic SO2 records for eruptions that occurred in past grand Minima so its impossible to suggest they were the cause of the cooling. And as Krakatoa shows, large volcanic eruptions can have nil effect on temp.
There is no science on how volcanic SO2 causes a change to 10Be records.
You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
Thats a big statement Leif.
Nobody has that. But what is your problem? 10Be has a max. The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, etc.
I think i made my point….and that is another statement of yours without fact.
Leif Svalgaard (02:11:37) :
Then with your newfound knowledge you should be able to see from Gilpin’s data that there was a solar minimum in 1795. Usoskin claims 1795 was the maximum of the lost cycle, hence his claim is refuted. As simple as that.
The problem Leif is that you have not provided me with any newfound knowledge from the very weak graph you provided.
http://www.leif.org/research/Gilpin.png
It would need to go back further to show the decline to minimum around 1785 which doesnt seem to be apparent in 1786 to show some sort of accuracy and as i mentioned previously the lost cycle would not show a normal peak due to the very low activity as you can also see in the very weak peak of around 1805. To hold up that graph as irrefutable evidence that the lost cycle didnt happen is certainly drawing a long bow and i would suggest its a fairly weak proxy record.
But rather than writing war and peace on the topic lets watch SC24 and see if it ends up looking like the “lost” SC4.
The accumulation of solar energy over time in the Earth’s oceans. TSI has recently stayed at a much higher level for a much longer period of time than before, thus I believe gradually nudging the Earth toward higher surface temperatures by warming the oceans.
There are two graphs showing duration of TSI in this AGW site below.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/here-comes-the-sun/
How the Oceans Get Warm
Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.
Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.
The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 meters.
The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.
The concept proposed in some predictive models is that any anomalous heat in the mixed layer of the ocean (the upper 100 meters) might be lost to the deep ocean. There have been a number of studies in which this process has been addressed (Nakamura 1997; Tanimoto 1993; Trenberth 1994; Watanabi 1994; and White 1998). It is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 to 160 meters, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density discontinuity) in the global ocean. Below these depths, temperature fluctuations become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.
Consequently, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
nobwainer (14:20:13) :
And….Krakatoa seems to make a big dent in your 10Be graph but has no effect on world temps in 1883 or after…
The cooling is not important for my argument [that was a side issue which I didn’t need to quibble about], but since it seems to be important to you, I can offer this:
“Krakatoa eruption cooled the world
09 February 2006
WHEN the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa erupted in 1883, sending 25 cubic kilometres of rock and ash into the air, it did more than generate the loudest sound ever recorded. It also cooled the world’s oceans and suppressed rises in sea level for decades afterwards.
Peter Gleckler of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared climate models that included volcanoes with those that did not. To their surprise they found that volcanoes seem to have a cooling effect on the oceans that lasts for up to a century after an eruption. The cooling effect of Krakatoa lasted well into the 20th century, says Gleckler.
Big volcanoes inject ash high into the atmosphere and block out sunlight for months or even years, which cools ocean surface waters (Nature, vol 439, p 675).”
There is no science on how volcanic SO2 causes a change to 10Be records.
I think you misunderstood me here [or I expressed myself poorly]. There are no papers yet that connects 10Be maxima to volcanoes, but there is lots of science on the two sides of the connection:
1) Some volcanoes produce lots of sulfate aerosols, e.g. http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3?xref=sulfate%20aerosol
2) “Once produced, 10Be attaches primarily to sulfate aerosols, which are deposited at the Earth’s surface by both wind- and precipitation-related processes.[..] A complicating factor is the possibility that climatic effects may confound solar signals in the 10Be record. [ e.g. Veeder: http://eesc.columbia.edu/research/grad/veeder/index.html and many others – this is a well-known fact]
You can safely assume that everything [that you possibly can think of] has already been considered.
Thats a big statement Leif.
But well founded because I can bring four decades of research on this to bear [and amply illustrated by the case of Pinatubo].
“The year without a summer [1816] was no doubt due to Tambora, ”
[…] and that is another statement of yours without fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer should be good enough.
nobwainer (16:15:23) :
The problem Leif is that you have not provided me with any newfound knowledge from the very weak graph you provided.
It would need to go back further to show the decline to minimum around 1785 which doesnt seem to be apparent in 1786 to show some sort of accuracy
First you have to absorb the knowledge, then apply it. The knowledge is that there is a very STRONG [one-to-one] correspondence between the sunspot number [or even stronger with a real index of solar activity – the f10.7 flux] and the amplitude of the daily variation of the Declination. If you know of these two, you can with precision calculate the other [and vice versa]. The ‘Ellis’ graph was intended to drive that home [as well as Figures 4 and 5 in http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf – this has been known now for 150 years, and must be considered as established]. Therefore we do not need to know how the curves behaved before 1786 [although we do know what it looked like from Cassini’s observations since 1781 in Paris]: the relationship holds for any year [e.g. 1795] without reference to earlier or later times.
and as i mentioned previously the lost cycle would not show a normal peak due to the very low activity as you can also see in the very weak peak of around 1805.
What is a ‘normal’ peak? No peak at all? Usoskin suggests a minimum in 1793 and a maximum in 1795. If so, the range in the Declination [and the level] should be lower in 1793 than in 1795, and just the opposite is observed. You can always say that the data is no good, but that is just denialist.
To hold up that graph as irrefutable evidence
Nothing is irrefutable; I once heard someone say: “if that is fact, then I refute fact”.
I would suggest its a fairly weak proxy record.
The sunspot number itself is a rather arbitrary proxy for solar activity. The D-range is the direct result of X-ray and FUV activity and is in many ways not a proxy, but a simple and direct measurement of solar activity.
But rather than writing war and peace on the topic lets watch SC24 and see if it ends up looking like the “lost” SC4.
Well, if we couldn’t even see the lost cycle, then SC24 cannot be lost the same way because it is here. But, you may have a point that further elucidation seems futile.
Rob (17:30:17) :
TSI has recently stayed at a much higher level for a much longer period of time than before […]
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/here-comes-the-sun/
Tamino shows an out-of-date reconstruction of TSI [Lean 2000]. Not even Judith Lean believes that one anymore. At a recent meeting [SORCE 2008 – google it] she said “long-term variations not yet detectable – do they occur?”. Tamino was cherry-picking Lean 2000 because it matches the temperature record before 1980, but not thereafter, thus proving AGW.
The cooling is not important for my argument [that was a side issue which I didn’t need to quibble about], but since it seems to be important to you, I can offer this:
On the contrary…its much more than a side issue and you have stated:
Volcanoes pump sulphor into the atmosphere [aerosols] and help wash 10Be out, so the deposition of 10Be is larger several years after a large volcanic [and not just any type – must be special sulphor-rich] eruption. Note the 1883+ peak caused by Krakatoa, the 1814+ peak caused by Mayon and Tambora, the ~1700 peak caused by Hekla [and assorted other Icelandic eruptions – close to Greenland, BTW, so large effect].
Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. 🙂
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
To me you are inferring that during the Maunder and Dalton the lower global temps were caused primarily by volcanic eruptions (with hi SO2 values) that coincided in that time frame and had nothing to do with the sun. I have shown you that 2 big(SO2) recent eruptions have had little or no effect on the world temperature even though you come back with a very weak Wiki type statement with no facts….the temperature records speak for themselves. (it surprises me you would resort to wiki statements)
We also don’t know the SO2 values of eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder so cannot use them as proof especially since Krakatoa as shown blows that theory out the door. You certainly cant assume the lower 10Be records were due to volcanic eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder… You will have to concede on this point.
nobwainer (15:41:09) :
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29)
Check out Henry and Elizabeth Stommel’s Volcano Weather. Henry Stommel was one of the pioneers in understanding ocean currents. Heck, check out my http://wermenh.com/1816.html which concentrates on the Summer of 1816 in New Hampshire. From my readings it’s clear that New England and similar latitudes elsewhere suffered with a southward shift of the storm track. The area did have several warm days, e.g. apple blossoms didn’t freeze, but there were several cold fronts and thunderstorms that ushered in cold Canadian air.
Tambora was a much larger explosion, about 5X, than Kratatoa, the latter gets more attention because the telegraph system let news about the explosion spread.
There is a huge amount of supporting evidence linking Tambora to 1816 and it brought much greater impacts than the rest of the Maunder Minimum. Why are you so quick to dismiss it?
Ric Werme (21:34:56) :
Why are you so quick to dismiss it?
I thought i made it quite clear…there is no way of knowing the SO2 level (other than rough ice cores) from Tambora and even if we assume it was high that still doesnt mean it had a drastic effect on the temp as Krakatoa shows. Tambora is listed as a scale 7, Krakatoa a scale 6 so i am not sure where the 5X comes from. Huaynaputina in 1600 is also a scale 6. Its a big assumption to think those volcanoes controlled the temps over a 30 and 90 yr period
nobwainer (20:57:59) :
On the contrary…its much more than a side issue and you have stated:
“Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. :-)”
With a smiley. And who knows best what I consider a side issue?
The cooling was not primarily due to volcanic eruptions. Those just help along, but the cold was much more extensive in time to be caused by the shorter lived eruptions.
(it surprises me you would resort to wiki statements)
When the wiki speaketh the truth it saves me typing stuff.
You certainly cant assume the lower 10Be records were due to volcanic eruptions during the Dalton and Maunder… You will have to concede on this point.
I agree; it’s the higher 10Be records that were due to volcanic eruptions that put more sulfuric aerosols into the stratosphere and thus enhance the deposition efficiency of 10Be.
Now, this is science, so everything is conjecture and subject to falsification.