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
ziusudrablog, I added sea surface temp anomalies to your woodfortrees entry and got this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997
Just for S&G’s add CO2 to your graph and whether or not you get such a fantastic agreement.
I also placed it to begin in 1997 to catch that really big increase in heat in 98.
Hi Leif
Yes, Janssens has a link to one with more detail:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotlessallcycles.png
I guess the distinction is he separates & trends (arbitrarily?) SC 10 – 15 from SC 16 – 23.
Your last figure really speaks to the variability you mention, but even still…
And considering the constantly moving science it’s little wonder. My point is that NASA/GISS & NASA/Marshall probably understand the implications of the current solar trend and yet the media have barely caught on. The LIA isn’t now, I don’t anticipate another LIA for a number of reasons, not least of which the LIA required two solar grand minima to really settle in.
Shindell used a GCM circa 2001 so its sophistication wasn’t par with what they’re developing now – the seas were modeled as relatively flat blocks, the atmosphere as more homogeneous, etc. If his model required greater UV variability (decrease) to get an effect (and yet discounted cosmic ray cloud seeding) it still illustrated a point about their awareness that net terrestrial effects could be felt profoundly on the ground. Even with Bruce West’s point that perhaps the exact causes don’t matter as much as the observed net effect, it makes a case for new research & reporting.
Back to Hathaway’s statement (sorry, can’t find a cite for it…) about a net -0.3 degrC longer-term effect from a long-term minimum: If -TSI/+CR influence is offsetting AGW to the tune of -0.1 to -0.15 degr/decade, do we have a serious AGW problem? Likewise if +TSI/-CR during the 1960’s – 1990’s was intensifying AGW by some margin, what margin could it have been? How would Mann’s hockey stick look with those variables subtracted?
The sum of it is that if there’s already broad discussion about the implications of the sun’s changes & this ongoing temperature plateau then why is the reporting so lacking?
We really need better science reporting delivered to the public. In its heyday NOVA would deliver splendid summaries to the public on par with these discussions, but those days are long passed.
leebert (07:53:09) :
Back to Hathaway’s statement (sorry, can’t find a cite for it…) about a net -0.3 degrC longer-term effect from a long-term minimum
I don’t know where he gets that number from. I would think less than 0.1 C, but no matter what number one comes up with there will be people calling it nonsense, so this is a rather fruitless exercise .
Look out Redoubt’s gonna blow!!!
leebert (07:53:09) :
The sum of it is that if there’s already broad discussion about the implications of the sun’s changes & this ongoing temperature plateau then why is the reporting so lacking?
But there is really not much reporting to be done as evidence for solar activity conditions influence on temperatures is even flimsier than for AGW. I don’t think it is reasonable to replace bad science with equally bad [or worse] science. Now, funding for solar research would benefit from such reporting, so no wonder lip service is being paid.
“The proven fact of global warming will not change due to such blogs.”
Enkidu is a better nom d’ guerre for you, forest child.
” E.M.Smith (01:32:58) :
Try:
http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption
for a rough cut on energy consumption (but it includes pointers to where it got the data so you can probably get more precision and greater duration…)”
That’s a warmist site and they seem to cherry pick their data.
ziusudrablog (06:32:06) :
The proven fact of global warming will not change due to such blogs
How could any blog alter a fact? Whether GW is proven is another matter – many educated people here seem to think otherwise…
I’m sure it looks like I go on about UV & the LIA like its a foregone conclusion, but it seems to have some basis. Not to be rhetorical, but again I ponder: How agnostic should I be? Shall I take this to mean that when it comes to science that apparent correlations should be generally off the menu? How much of science relies on a groovy R value to reinforce a hypothesis?
Well I suppose plenty of laymen (me inclusive) would be guilty of either getting pulled into the fray, following the pack in seeing trend & correlation in noise and generally adopting a hobby horse. Why take sides if its all fluff, then? But then we take our example from scientists who are just as guilty, if not more so. No better than the barycentric hoi poloi?
So while we’re at it, we might get Tony to stop talking about a new LIA? (no offense Tony, just teasing …. 😉 )
I mean, well, heck! If we’re going to raise the bar then by all means let’s just get the media to be quiet about flimsy stories in general, never mind science.
Robinson (04:20:03) :
” 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.
The concept of “normal” with respect to CO2 has been visualising the graph of CO2 over geological time, so in that context the above quote is a load of utter tosh (but of course, this goes without saying)”.
Robinson,
Besides that, Lockwood is simply wrong about his increased CO2 estimates.
The true increase of CO2 has been no more but 25%.
Icecap.us has published the same story to end with their own conclusions:
“With 108 spotless days this year already as of May 6 following 266 in 2008, and 619 this cycle (more than double that of last half dozen cycles) and a cycle length now over 12 and one half years (longest in at least 150 years), satellite era minima of solar wind and geomagnetic activity, we have seen a regime change on the sun. See how these factors may affect global climate, go to icecap to download the pdf files (sorry Leif but Svensmark, Nir Sharviv and Landscheidt are in it again)”.
Ron
Ozzie John (01:36:50) :
Why are we only seeing new SC24 sunspots on the suns northern hemisphere ?
I would expect a more even distribution across both hemispheres.
Butterfly diagram for 1670 – 1715 shows no activity in the North hemisphere.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/MMB.gif
The two hemispheres seem to have their own behavior patterns. Indeed if you look at the cycle 23 curve, there are two peaks in the maximum, I’ll bet if you went back and sorted out which hemisphere each spot was involved in, you’d see one of those peaks is for one hemisphere, and the other is for the other hemisphere. This lack of being in sync between the hemispheres may contribute to why the sun can’t get organized enough to get cycle 24 going to any significance. Can anybody else comment on this?
Gee, do you mean to tell me that my daily regime of viewing weather related stats is just pissin’ in the wind? I should be staring at the Sun instead? Wow, and wow backwards. I know the natural mechanisms for temperature changes and trends based on the information I have been following for years, (which does not include CO2 as I saw early on that there was no predictive value in that at all). What would be the mechanism for the Sun on temperature changes and trends? And if modeled, would this mechanism be so powerful as to overcome the other mechanisms known and modeled here on Earth?
As with CO2, the Sun does not have the same predictive value as Earth bound mechanisms do. And bonus, I don’t have to wait out the Sun cycle or reduce my carbon footprint. The PDO will be neutral with an overall trend of dipping more often into La Nina than El Nino. The Atlantic will be neutral with an overall prediction of going negative while the PDO is still neutral or negative. Trade winds will continue to be neutral to strong, and the Jet stream will remain volatile and in its more northern location. This means that we will be cold and stormy, with ice and snow buildup in the northern regions, and cold and dry in southern regions with fewer hurricanes. Growing seasons will be short and water shortages in the South could get severe. Fish stocks will also recover in oceans and rivers. It also means the Arctic Ice will recover. And I didn’t have to refer to CO2 or the Sun at all for my predictions. Both can do just whatever they want to do. It will not change my predictions.
Squidly (22:28:48) :
Anthony- At this current rate of AGW progression, I am predicting that sometime in the very near future you are going to have to reclassify this blog as comedy. But hey, you can then win Best Blog for both Science and Comedy! … a 2fer…
“Pre-emptive denial…” Sorta like “Premature youth.” It means simply deny you’re wrong before being proven wrong.
Re: Mike Lorrey (13:20:04)
The absolute amount of asymmetry is related to the amount of activity. If you want some literature references, feel welcome to let me know.
Re: gary gulrud (04:01:20)
I also found it interesting to see that posted here.
I’m watching with interest to see if some of Mike Lorrey’s comments go unchallenged.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (08:14:16)
I consider this to be a misleading statement.
Leif Svalgaard (21:13:37)
“[…] 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’m watching with interest for comments (from anyone) on anna v (23:00:12).
Leif: “Because I’m not a decent scientist as per your characterization […]”
The preceding is misrepresentation.
Leif: “[…] I’m willing to let you respectfully agree to disagree with me about my representation of this.”
Leif Svalgaard (08:14:16) : said
But there is really not much reporting to be done as evidence for solar activity conditions influence on temperatures is even flimsier than for AGW. I don’t think it is reasonable to replace bad science with equally bad [or worse] science.
Hell_is_like_newark (05:01:34) : said,
I also finished a book recently on how Europe weathered the Little Ice Age which focuses on the effects of the ice age. Europe went from pretty stable climate to devastating swings in temperature and rainfall. One year would be so wet that crops rotted in flooded fields. The next year was so cold rivers such as the Thames froze solid. A few years later, it was back to rain and mud. The effects were devastating: Starvation, revolution, disease. The climate did not stabilize until after the Dalton minimum had finished.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241611267&sr=1-1
Dalton minimum ended, climate stablised, fact or fiction, is the link flimsy, i think not, especially when looking at other minimums. it
Mike Lorrey (13:20:04) :
The two hemispheres seem to have their own behavior patterns. Indeed if you look at the cycle 23 curve, there are two peaks in the maximum, I’ll bet if you went back and sorted out which hemisphere each spot was involved in, you’d see one of those peaks is for one hemisphere, and the other is for the other hemisphere. This lack of being in sync between the hemispheres may contribute to why the sun can’t get organized enough to get cycle 24 going to any significance. Can anybody else comment on this?
Sunspot Areas SC24
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC23.gif
Largest N/S excess recorded SC19-20.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC19-20.gif
Leif Svalgaard (08:14:16) : said
But there is really not much reporting to be done as evidence for solar activity conditions influence on temperatures is even flimsier than for AGW. I don’t think it is reasonable to replace bad science with equally bad [or worse] science.
Hell_is_like_newark (05:01:34) : said,
I also finished a book recently on how Europe weathered the Little Ice Age which focuses on the effects of the ice age. Europe went from pretty stable climate to devastating swings in temperature and rainfall. One year would be so wet that crops rotted in flooded fields. The next year was so cold rivers such as the Thames froze solid. A few years later, it was back to rain and mud. The effects were devastating: Starvation, revolution, disease. The climate did not stabilize until after the Dalton minimum had finished.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241611267&sr=1-1
Dalton minimum ended, climate stablised, fact or fiction, is the link flimsy, i think not, especially when looking at other minimums.
leebert (12:18:59) :
Shall I take this to mean that when it comes to science that apparent correlations should be generally off the menu?
Not if they are good. It is just that they are not good, meaning their ‘R’ is low [or rather their Rsquared values].
I mean, well, heck! If we’re going to raise the bar then by all means let’s just get the media to be quiet about flimsy stories in general, never mind science.
Well, you can’t keep the media from reporting flimsy stories, but you can try to educate the public [and our politicians – if possible]. But all too often, people, including many on this blog, will revel in a flimsy story if it happens to reinforce their views. That is the problem, but since it is human nature, perhaps it is hard to avoid, hence the need for continual elucidation.
Paul Vaughan (13:44:49) :
Leif: “Because I’m not a decent scientist as per your characterization […]“
The preceding is misrepresentation.
Then, what is the correct characterization? and why did you lament that there are no decent scientists participating?
I’m watching with interest to see if some of Mike Lorrey’s comments go unchallenged.
There is such a thing as ‘not even wrong’ which cannot meaningfully be challenged, and is therefore not worth a challenge. Mike’s comments fall in that category.
Ron de Haan (12:23:08) :
See how these factors may affect global climate, go to icecap to download the pdf files (sorry Leif but Svensmark, Nir Sharviv and Landscheidt are in it again)”.
Unfortunately these files have been pulled, it seems. Searching the page does not reveal any matches…
Leif Svalgaard (08:14:16) :
“But there is really not much reporting to be done as evidence for solar activity conditions influence on temperatures is even flimsier than for AGW. I don’t think it is reasonable to replace bad science with equally bad [or worse] science. Now, funding for solar research would benefit from such reporting, so no wonder lip service is being paid.”
So….. the furnace that warms our planet does not influence how warm our planet is? Hmmmmm
bsneath (14:26:33) :
So….. the furnace that warms our planet does not influence how warm our planet is? Hmmmmm
Oh, yes it does. Warmed our planet 0.07 degrees since the LIA.
The jet stream predictions indicate that Arctic ice will not be flushed into more southern and warmer waters for melting within the next few days. It will stay in place and melt as a result of exposure to sunlight, which won’t be much to look at because clouds are obscuring much of it. Arctic Oceanic temps remain neutral or cooler than normal as a result of some AMO cooling in the northern segment of the Atlantic (but not enough to call it a flip of the whole thing). The fact that the Sun is blank of spots means nothing. The sunshine that melts ice does not change just because it is blank or filled with spots. That is until you measure it from underneath the Earth’s weather-filled atmosphere that obscures it or lets it shine through. The Arctic ice will then continue to be just below the mean while being tantalizingly close to crossing it. The minimum ice extent will be interesting come September.