Excerpts printed below, see full story here (h/t to David Archibald)
Anne Minard for National Geographic News
May 4, 2009 A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.
The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
…
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
…
Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
…
Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.
For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.
“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens
Leif Svalgaard (19:10:24)
“[…] as you point out, cultural differences may preclude […]”
This is a misrepresentation (&/or misunderstanding) of my words — and you closed the case.
The difference between chaos & randomness is well-worth noting, particularly as there is plenty of evidence that it is off most radars.
kim (09:23:41) wrote:
“It’s going to be interesting to watch the rhetoric from the great scientists among the alarmists as the realization dawns that the jig is up, and the public can see through the hoax.”
Twisting slowly in the wind …. I like it!
It is a good thing those NatGeo folks are so sharp. Otherwise, these facts of my life would not make sense:
I reside at appx. 1600 above sea level in the foothills of Mt. Hood, Oregon.
Until the 2007/08 winter, we averaged 6 distinct snowfalls a year over the previous 12 years (meaning snow would fall and become measurable, melt, and at least a day later more measurable snow would fall – or snow would remain on the ground without melting for more than 24 hours, which would trigger another ‘event’).
These often did not occur until late December or early January, and in every year but one were finished by Mar. 10.
’07-’08 winter featured snowfall events beginning in November. There were at least 30 events, stretching all the way into May of ’08!
This year has been no different. Currently (May 05, 19:46) it is 44 degrees with a low of 32 forecast and possible snow mixed with the incessant rain tonight, and for the remaining of the long week) We have already experienced at least 33 snow events and summer seems like a long ways away.
There is no question whatsoever that the ‘global warming’ proponents are using trick science to attempt to control the masses with carbon taxes. There is no other explanation. The UN has countless documents explaining how a carbon tax is going to save the world, as is cap and trade and carbon credits. All are false. Global warming and the carbon scare is nothing but an attempt to steal money from one person to enrich another (richer) person. Recall – WE are made of carbon. I have no doubt in my mind that soon us carbon based life forms will be told we must pay a tax for breathing. This will just be more money offered up for nothing more than enrich an already massively rich international banker.
Paul Vaughan (19:38:21) :
This is a misrepresentation (&/or misunderstanding) of my words
[to clarify: I disagree with the above statement]
and you closed the case
And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.
The difference between chaos & randomness is well-worth noting, particularly as there is plenty of evidence that it is off most radars.
Perhaps, although you didn’t want to ‘rock-the-boat’, whatever that means in this context [I assume I’ll never know]. Anyway, although I said that the climate system may be chaotic, all climate models assume [or is based on the premise] that it is not. Weather clearly is chaotic, so predicting it 100 years ahead is nonsense, but the premise of climate models is that the ‘noise’ does not increase exponentially with time, but that there is some stabilizing [negative feedbacks?] mechanism(s) preventing chaos, yet preserving the salient features of climate evolution, but even the models exhibit a fair amount of random fluctuations.
Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.
For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.
“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens.
I posted on this topic here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/new-sun-watching-instrument-to-monitor-sunlight-fluctuations/
See Mike Ramsey (02:05:24) :
The earth doesn’t react to short wave (less than 300 nm) solar irradiance the same as the long wave (visible down to radio) portion of the spectrum. 99.95% of the < 300 nm light is absorbed by the earth (atmosphere and surface) while only 70% (on average) of the visible on down part of solar spectrum is absorbed by the earth. The rest is reflected out into space as earthshine. So while the < 300 nm part of the spectrum may only account for 8% of the TSI it is an 8% that hits with its full energy. And that 8% varies a lot.
–Mike Ramsey
crosspatch (16:48:52) :
Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.
What is your source on this “decade or two” period for re-glaciation? Faster than the interglacial warm-up? This seems very unlikely to me. I would like to read the source and see how it jives with the principals of thermodynamics.
-thks
As all of this discussion ultimately focuses on the Administration’s Cap And Trade proposal, I am happy to report that Charles Krauthammer, a very perceptive reporter, says on this evening’s Fox news that there is “No chance !” that it will pass the Senate.
“Yes, as not every complex system is chaotic. The climate may be, but plate tectonics [to mention one example] may not be.”
Plate tectonics may NOT be???
What is not chaotic about an entire 1200 km Andaman thrust fault shifting, displacing an unimaginable column of water on Boxing Day, 2004?
Tell that to the families of the 250,000 victims of the 2004 tsunami, that plate tectonics are not chaotic.
In reference to the many….many….MANY other events set in motion due to plate tectonics….where to begin:
Toba [which almost caused us homo sapiens to cease to exist]
Tambora {the year without a summer 1816…June snowfall in New England?]
Volcanic winter>>>>>ice age, or little ice age.
What is NOT chaotic about that?
Understood that the plates are constantly moving and we can be assured that the Hawaiian Archipelago is moving away from the permanent hot spot at a certain rate.
That is not chaotic.
But the many things that happen as a result of that plate movement….are.
Such as one of the most cataclysmic landslides the world has ever known: The Molokai landslide.
Plate tectonics may be measurable….but the CHAOS they set off, are not at all necessarily, until they happen.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (19:54:47)
“And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.”
This is misrepresentation — and you are the one who brought up the closed case.
I noticed that you failed to mention chaos, which is fundamentally different from randomness. I politely drew attention to that (via a polite question).
Mike Ramsey (20:17:21) :
So while the < 300 nm part of the spectrum may only account for 8% of the TSI it is an 8% that hits with its full energy.
But is absorbed high in the atmosphere with negligible heating effect of the surface and lower atmosphere and is only 20 W/m2 to begin with, which is not 8%.
And that 8% varies a lot.
No, it does not. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl71.png [from SORCE] shows that the integrated UV flux. It is typically of the order of 20 W/m2, which is only 1.5% and it varies only about 1 W/m2 over the cycle, so a variation of 0.1%. The large solar cycle variation happens for the extreme UV and X-ray, but their fluxes are so small in W/m2.
The real problem with this is that solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not significantly lower than in the 20th, yet surface temperatures were, so the connection is very tenuous, if there at all.
savethesharks (20:31:51) :
Plate tectonics may be measurable….but the CHAOS they set off, are not at all necessarily, until they happen.
Don’t confuse the cause with its effect.
‘Chaotic’ has a very precise mathematical definition [that deviations from past states increase exponentially with time] and PT does not satisfy that, even though the result can feel like all hell broke loose [which may actually not satisfy the condition either.
Paul Vaughan (20:45:39) :
“And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.”
This is misrepresentation — and you are the one who brought up the closed case.
Because I’m not a decent scientist as per your characterization, but I’m willing to let you respectfully agree to disagree with me about my representation of this.
I noticed that you failed to mention chaos, which is fundamentally different from randomness. I politely drew attention to that (via a polite question).
‘failed’? As I explained, climate may not be chaotic as per the modelers. Perhaps it was on purpose that I didn’t claim it was chaotic…[I don’t think it is]
I would have considered it a constructive comment if you had explained [or agreed] why the climate has random fluctuations in spite of it not being chaotic, something that may not be clear to most people, as you point out.
Wow! Getting way to deep for this non-mathematician. But the bit about the sun’s dropping a fraction of a percent compared to some hypothetical rise in CO2, now that bit of mathematical not-so-sleight-of-hand was funny even to me. Duh! Is this supposed to be a serious comparison? Is that the best these guys can come up with? I could lie better than that, and I wouldn’t even know what I was talking about.
From the bits and pieces I’ve read about global cooling, it scares me a lot more than the supposed global warming. It’s cold here already–colder than last year, and that was a good deal colder than the year before. (And yes, I do remember.) How are we going to feed everyone? There are a lot more hungry mouths now than in the dark ages. How are we going to keep everyone warm? I really hope Algore is right–or at least a little bit right–because we are in for a no good, horrible, very bad day if he isn’t. I think it’s time to start piping more CO2 into the atmosphere–hey, if it’ll keep us warm . . . . (unfortunately, I kind of think it won’t)
“Chaotic has a very precise mathematical definition [that deviations from past states increase exponentially with time] and PT does not satisfy that, even though the result can feel like all hell broke loose [which may actually not satisfy the condition either.”
Perhaps it is time to re-examine that definition as PT contribute regularly to the “chaos” on the earth.
Namely….the 2004 event. The build-up on the Sunda [Andaman] thrust fault….until it finally broke in a titanic release.
I understand the legalistic definition here….but
Tell me how this event is non-chaotic?
savethesharks (21:16:49) :
I understand the legalistic definition here….but
Tell me how this event is non-chaotic?
One can understand the emotional problem. On a personal level, I was touched by this. The number three daughter lived in Thailand at the time and they had a condo on the beach in Phuket. They were visiting for Xmas and was scheduled to fly back and go to their condo the day before the tsunami struck. Number one daughter pleaded with her to stay with us [in Calif.] another day, so she did, which is likely why we still have her and her two children among the living.
But Nature doesn’t really much, does she?
No nature does not do much in those situations.
And I really appreciate and respect the personal note here.
All I am saying is that Plate Tectonics are not as non-chaotic as they may seem.
PT movements release enormous cascades of events [some of which could be called chaotic butterfly effects].
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.
As it has been said on here many times: [and as I know you will agree] climate change is the norm [not the “stability”.]
Clarification: Climate change is the norm….as opposed to “stability.”
Jim Papsdorf (20:28:36) :
As all of this discussion ultimately focuses on the Administration’s Cap And Trade proposal, I am happy to report that Charles Krauthammer, a very perceptive reporter, says on this evening’s Fox news that there is “No chance !” that it will pass the Senate.
He’s usually right, seldom far from the mark. Meaning that’s he’s a good study, is well aware of what’s really going on in both politics & science.
savethesharks (21:58:31) :
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.
Perhaps with a broad enough definition of ‘chaos’…
This brings us back to the Sun and on topic:
Solar activity could be called ‘solar climate’. Is that chaotic? and why/or why not?
Leif svalgaard,
You may well be correct in your assertions, time will tell the tale I suppose, either way we live in intereting times.
If you go to National Geographic News, guess what is the “MOST VIEWED NEWS”?
Sun Oddly Quiet — Hints at Next “Little Ice Age”?
Is it because of the WUWT link? I wonder if National Geographic is beginning to wonder about all the interest.
” Leif Svalgaard (17:23:55) :
No matter what variations in the orbits, the planets raises only a very small tide [a fraction of a millimeter (1/25 inch = 1 mm)]”
WRT Earth’s ocean tides, yes, I agree, but according to astronomers and planetologists far more talented than me, this is enough for these planets to cause Earth’s eccentricity to change in cycles, AND the Sun’s cycle.
“These changes would happen even if the Sun’s output was absolutely constant.”
You didnt understand what I said. The Sun’s output changes both in the short term and the long term based on the tidal influences of the planets, because just as the Moon’s tidal influence is the major driver of the Earth’s electromagnetic dynamo, the planets (Jupiter and Saturn primarily) tidal influence on the Sun helps wobble the Sun enough to generate these cycles in its output.
“You are confusing changes to the Sun with changes in how the solar input to the Earth is distributed over the surface of the Earth and the seasons.”
No I’m not. I am saying both happen. Earth’s orbital variations in the Milankovitch Cycles vary how the solar input is distributed over the surface of the earth, affecting both the seasons and climate. The orbital eccentricity cycle for Earth is due to Jupiter and Saturns tidal influence on Earth, mostly. Those two planets also happen to be responsible for the solar cycle and its variations over Ice Age periods, which happens to change the average intensity of solar cycles (i.e. when Jupiter and Saturn are both closer to the sun AND on the same side of the sun, they exert more tidal influence than when they are further away, high eccentricity causes a much closer perigee for both planets than in eras of low eccentricity. When they are further away at the same time, they exert less. This high variation in tidal influence causes the sun to change from high Maximums to low maximums and even grand minimums frequently.
When eccentricity is low, their tidal influence doesn’t vary very much over the 11 year period so the Sun’s cycles should be very flat, i.e. long term minimums, i.e. long ice ages.
Leif Svalgaard (21:13:37) :
As I explained, climate may not be chaotic as per the modelers.
Just a note:
It took me over a year of perusing climate model outputs to realize that even though the construction of GCMs has determinism in from the relevant equations and boundary conditions, the modelers believe that the climate is chaotic. They simulate chaos by the spaghetti lines around their optimum fit. As simple as that.
What people think are error bands around the optimum fit of a GCM, are not. They are perturbed initial conditions of the input variables according to the intuitions of the modelers in order to simulate chaos which they believe controls climate.
savethesharks (21:58:31) :
All I am saying is that Plate Tectonics are not as non-chaotic as they may seem.
PT movements release enormous cascades of events [some of which could be called chaotic butterfly effects].
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.
You are confusing the vernacular meaning of chaotic, which really includes randomness (2a, 3 below), with the mathematical.
webster:1obsolete : chasm, abyss
2 aoften capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme ; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a: a state of utter confusion b: a confused mass or mixture
mathematical:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos
Mathematically, chaos means deterministic behaviour which is very sensitive to its initial conditions.[5] In other words, infinitesimal perturbations of initial conditions for a chaotic dynamic system lead to large variations in behaviour.
Chaotic systems consequently look random. However, they are actually deterministic systems governed by physical or mathematical laws (predictable in principle, if you have exact information) that are impossible to predict in practice beyond a certain point.[6] A commonly used example is weather forecasting, which is only possible up to about a week ahead.[7]
It is hard to see what deterministic equations plate tectonics would obey. Breaking points may be considered random.
” crosspatch (16:48:52) :
Mike Lorrey said: “Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle”
Then please “perfectly” explain a couple of things, if you have the time …
Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.
Also, the periods of glaciation in this ice age have generally been getting longer and colder. Interglacials have also been getting cooler. This interglacial is cooler than then last one was, for example, though it has been a little longer.”
Excellent questions. Rapid changes in climate are due to quite a number of things, which generally have to do with events on Earth. For instance, the draining of Lake Agazziz shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor in ~8200 BC and caused the Younger Dryas. Big changes in vulcanism, meteor impacts, etc are events that seemingly shouldnt cause huge changes globally but they wind up messing up other complex chaotic systems, like climate.
The sun and its planetary influencers setup long term trends and pressure to enable changes in equilibrium, but individual events on earth can trigger rapid changes in equilibrium that the climate system is already biased toward shifting to by these planetary influences, and these generally tend to be events that trigger the end of an Ice Age. Most ice ages dont happen suddenly, we enter into them gradually over thousands of years. We can have geologically short term changes in climate (like the Younger Dryas and the LIA) due to things other than these long term cycles.
Now, Jupiter and Saturn orbit in a 5:2 resonance, meaning Jupiter makes 5 orbits for every 2 orbits of Saturn. This means that they are both in conjunction about every 59 years. They were last in conjunction in 2000, and before that, 1941. Note the years and their correlation to shifts from warming periods to cooling periods. The position in the sky that each conjunction occurs shifts each time over a 960 year period. The last time a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction occurred in this particular location (RE the 2000 conjunction) was therefore in 1040 AD, which was the beginning of the Oort Minimum.