Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – has a few things to say about solar activity and climate. Thanks to Russ Steele of NCWatch
Key Excerpts:
Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
[…] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.
[…] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
[…] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
Full Study is here. (PDF patience, takes a bit to load)
Adolfo Giurfa (18:35:28) :
“Solar activity leaves an imprint in tree rings…”
These are consequences not causes. There is a missing link out there, of course not of the “piltdown man” kind.
The only things that can be observed are consequences: the causes change the state of something and that consequence is felt.
There are no missing links in the solar activity – tree ring : ice core chain. We understand those processes quite well.
Gene Nemetz (18:27:48) :
I didn’t see in Piers Corbyn’s web site that he was going to reveal those parts of his method on his web site. He said he was doing it today at a conference at Imperial College London.
Nobody said anything about his website. The website reference was about the plug for Corbyn by ‘farmer Jones’.
So I didn’t see it either, although one might think that would be an appropriate place for it, don’t you think? And did he reveal his method? and what is it? One would imagine that his talk would be available as a download as is usual at such conferences. Perhaps he wants money for it?
Here’s some ‘homework’ to do.
First, find the very large number that’s the total radiant output of the Sun in Watts.
Second, find out how much that output has varied up and down over time and find the maximum and minimums *that have actually been observed*.
Third, find the smaller yet still staggeringly huge number that’s the amount of Solar radiation in Watts Earth intercepts.
Forth, calculate the maximum and minimum total Solar energy Earth intercepts, based on the observed variability of the Sun.
Don’t use the % sign anywhere. Stick to the actual numbers. When you see any article that contains only percentages with nary a real number in sight, it’s a sure sign the author is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
All of this reminds me of the comological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
Climate, on the other hand, is fertile grounds for hijack & abuse by agenda.
Climate needs to be defended by Science, not fought over.
If you have not already done so, go back over what this topic heading has to say, and try to find something good in it.
I have already stated 2 things I found to be good.
What do you find?
Gregg E. (20:40:18) :
Here’s some ‘homework’ to do.
When you do that, you’ll discover that from every July to every January, the total solar energy the Earth receives is almost 100 times larger than the difference between solar minimum and solar maximum.
OT but here are some fun webcams in Denver right now. Is it Christmas? No, its not even Halloween.
Lots of nice early season (and late season) snows this year across the globe.
This is another one…
http://www.dickgilbert.com/capitolcam.htm
http://www.dickgilbert.com/CDOTdenvercam2.htm
http://www.dickgilbert.com/civiccenterplazacam.htm
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
… Winter Storm Warning remains in effect until 6 PM MDT
Thursday…
A Winter Storm Warning remains in effect until 6 PM MDT Thursday.
Snow… heavy at times will continue into Thursday. Total snowfall
accumulations of 14 to 28 inches are expected… with up to 36
inches possible near the foothills. North winds of 15 to 30 mph
will produce areas of blowing and drifting snow.
rbateman (20:43:57) :
All of this reminds me of the comological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
On another thread there has been arguments over the Big Bang and evolution and size of the Universe, basically because of the implications for evolution and the existence of life, so hijacking does occur.
Leif Svalgaard and Bob Tisdale –
I will have to concede one thing and that is that Dr Abdussamatov’s graph in figure 3 is the same as Lean 2000. So IF that is wrong then yes it does weaken his case.
But other reconstructions do show variations, though smaller ones and it is possible that small variations in TSI could have a large influence on the climate, specially if their cumulative effect adds up on larger time scales.
At what timescales we could expect effects of TSI on sea and global air temperatures is the question.
Leif Svalgaard (15:31:30) : “Richard (15:11:35) : And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar.”
No, not at all. The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat, …
What I meant was the shape of Wang’s and Lean’s graphs.
Why should the long term trend be determined by the line joining the minima? The Total TSI received in a year would be determined by the areas under the curve. Surely this would be the most important indicator of the radiation received by the sun?
Also is there really any absolutely predictable trend in the sun’s radiance? The solar cycles vary themselves and they sometimes disappear as the Maunder minimum has shown.
Also leaving aside controversial reconstructions, we do have TSI data since 1978. What does that indicate? Does that agree with Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions?
I’ve just added a new section to:
Vaughan, P.L. (2009). 11.1 Year Cycle in Solar System Dynamics.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm
Based on earlier discussions, I suspect some readers here will find the addition noteworthy.
Motivation for undertaking this work:
1) Illustrate the J-(N-U) 11.1-year-cycle (which I have not seen advertised anywhere [so far], despite looking [with a considerable amount of effort] for such communications).
2) Verify calculations of others (for example Desmoulins), taking the opportunity to also:
(a) develop alternate metrics (to those presented by Desmoulins & Hung), seizing the opportunity to also highlight nonstationarity (which is missed by basic FFT).
[ See particularly:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JEV_Period(8,17a)Morlet2pi.PNG ]
(b) showcase the utility of wavelet methods. [Note: I have it in mind to use this as a teaching example. The controversy surrounding this will help keep students interested; even students who don’t care about planets & solar cycles can easily be inspired to learn about how manipulators fool (even themselves) with stats.]
3) Organize 11.1-year-timescale solar system vs. solar cycle phase-comparisons into an overview that can easily be considered in 10 minutes.
I make no physics-based claims regarding the loose synchrony of these “clocks”.
In sharing the preceding, I ask that readers not misrepresent my work (for example by falsely claiming that I am claiming that planets cause solar cycles).
If anyone (qualified) is willing to proofread a translation into Norwegian, please let me know – thank you.
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
PS If The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat, … -the line joining the minima from 1978 is not flat. It is going down.
If temperatures also go down then how could you say this is not related and it is just a coincidence?
Also if the measured minima are not flat then maybe they were not flat in the past either?
Leif Svalgaard is a sobering kind of bloke. In the days of the long cattle drives of the large herds in Australia and the USA he would have been the one chosen to ride round the resting beasts at night, singing to keep them calm so they were not stampeded by sudden sight or sound…
Cattle Call – Eddy Arnold
Richard (21:24:03) :
But other reconstructions do show variations, though smaller ones
The reconstructions have converged to the point where there really isn’t any variation left. Lean is correct in saying that long-term variations have not been observed. And that is not the point, which is that Abdussamatov misrepresents the situation by dishonestly [unless you suggest ignorance] selecting an outdated reconstruction without mentioning that it is outdated and superseded and then even [incorrectly] claims that it incorporates the Wang 2005 reconstruction. His paper is a ‘position paper’, not a scientific evaluation of the data or the facts.
Why should the long term trend be determined by the line joining the minima?
The minima last a year or more.
The Total TSI received in a year would be determined by the areas under the curve.
see above.
The solar cycles vary themselves and they sometimes disappear as the Maunder minimum has shown.
There are variations in the maxima. and from minimum to maximum there is a 1 W/m2 variation. The cycle averages thus varies less than half of that, of the order of 1/3 W/m2.
we do have TSI data since 1978. What does that indicate? Does that agree with Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions?
As you can see from his graph, there has been almost no variation in TSI during 1978-2008, so no conclusions can be drawn.
As I said, it is hard to take the paper seriously, if one knows even just a little bit about this, unless one [as you] accepts it because it supports one’s own agenda.
Leif Svalgaard (13:27:26) :
He is not quite ready to throw in the towel. He is in the process of recalibrating his composite.:
I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand,
His minima comparison is here showing a negative trend.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/Froelich2009.jpg
Richard (21:46:23) :
Also if the measured minima are not flat then maybe they were not flat in the past either?
I overused the word ‘absolutely’ flat. What I meant was that in the absence of solar activity TSI would be flat. This is based on the observations by Bill Livingston that the temperature of the Sun away from magnetic regions [solar activity] has been constant within observational error over the past 35+ years and does not vary with the solar cycle. Solar activity adds a little bit [0.1% at maximum] to the base TSI. Since the sunspot number at previous minima has not been zero, there were small residual activity contributions at those. Here are the sunspot numbers for the past several minima:
1976 12.6
1986 13.4
1996 8.6
2009 2.5
You can see a downwards trend. That translates into a very small downward trend in TSI, less than a tenth of the 3 W/m2 Abdussamatov claims.
Roger Carr (21:49:04) :
Leif Svalgaard is a sobering kind of bloke. In the days of the long cattle drives of the large herds in Australia and the USA he would have been the one chosen to ride round the resting beasts at night, singing to keep them calm so they were not stampeded by sudden sight or sound…
Aye….that he definitely is….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (22:13:18) : ” ..it is hard to take the paper seriously, if one knows even just a little bit about this, unless one [as you] accepts it because it supports one’s own agenda.”
I do not have an agenda just a deep seated hunch that the Sun influences our climate in more ways than are apparent. Also that small changes in TSI can eventually have significant impacts on the weather if the cumulative effect is large enough.
I accept evidence where I see it without prejudice. I do think now that the paper maybe mistaken but will file my hunch away till I can see evidence either way.
maksimovich (22:40:55) :
I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand
From an email exchange earlier this year. I had pointed out that PMOD was drifting lower compared to SORCE:
From: Claus Fröhlich
Date: 2009/4/14
Subject: Re: PMOD
To: leif@leif.org
Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF [San Francisco AGU meeting where we were discussing this]. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the reanalysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B the less exposed backup was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A too much changing – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relative to SORCE TIM, which was a kind of initiator of this whole action. But still it is completely internal to VIRGO and makes with all I know about VIRGO radiometry good sense.
Cheers, Claus
P.S. i have just submitted a paper about the long-term tren of TSI to A&A Letters – as soon as know more I send you a preprint.
From me:
Claus, a detailed comparison of SORCE and PMOD composite, shows good agreement until 2008.6, but then PMOD becomes much more erratic, not in keeping with the dead quiet the Sun has been the past nine months.
Claus Fröhlich
date Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM
From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I use a simple correction, which may not be correct.
—–
As far as I know, the problem has not been resolved yet. And PMOD is still drifting lower: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png
See also my reply to Richard at Leif Svalgaard (23:01:53).
Because the sunspot number at this minimum is very low and at the previous several minima were significantly higher, we would expect a small decrease of TSI, about 0.1 W/m2. That it is larger is probably due to the calibration problems.
You would not find any comments on this in his A&A paper which had already been submitted and one usually does not comment on the very latest data still being calibrated. Hopefully, the PMOD problems will be resolved soon.
Leif Svalgaard (21:18:26) :
The stakes for cosmology are arguably low.
The price of getting climate wrong in the face of what is planned is playing with matches in a powder magazine.
You know as well as anybody that they aren’t even trying to get it right.
Those agendists haven’t a clue as to what they are fooling around with.
Adam from Kansas (12:42:47) :
“It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?”
Answer: Only if they agree with his opinion…
maksimovich (22:40:55) :
I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand
I just got a newly updated PMOD from Claus. It seems that he still has the problem and has decided not to rock the boat just yet:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png
maksimovich (22:40:55) :
I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand
I just got a newly updated PMOD from Claus. It seems that he still has the problem and has decided not to rock the boat just yet. Here is the complete record since SORCE was launched in 2003:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202003.png
Note how the yellow PMOD falls below SORCE+4.44 during the minimum by about 0.1 W/m2. We clearly do not have TSI well-determined to that accuracy and perhaps should not make too much out of such small differences.
James F. Evans (23:36:11) :
“It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?”
Answer: Only if they agree with his opinion…
See my reply upthread. And hold your nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (23:25:33)
: From an email exchange earlier this year.
Yes,thanks we already discussed this i could not recall if the exchange was prior or post.
This aspect needs to be resolved,as if the assumed trend was real and persistent due to peculiarities of nonlinear mathematics(saddle-node bifurcation) ie a slight decrease in the net radiation balance would lead to catastrophic consequences.
An important paper discussing this is in press.
Paul Vaughan (21:24:39) : Paul, thank you very much for quietly slipping in this reference to your work on correlations, I emphasise with you correlations, not causations, between planetary combinations and the sunspot cycle.
I’m aware that many are straining at the leash here to show a link between the Sun and climate, and will often entertain dubious science that seems to show this, for which Leif provides a very steady counterbeat. Thanks Leif.
This is the whole scientific process raw and in the open. That is good. I too suspect the Sun is behind climate changes, and I too often want to support science that seems to support this, and sometimes this wish makes me slide over the quality of the science. But I think Leif has shown that there is at the very least considerable doubt that TSI changes alone can provide a causative mechanism.
What still stands with Paul Vaughan’s work is the remarkable evidence of a double correlation, not one but two correlations, that have held steady for over two hundred years, with slight fluctuations to both sides that then return to exact correlation. The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.
Now one correlation might seem scientifically reasonable, two seems like OTT. But for further evidence of the extraordinary attunement of the Solar System orbits to harmonic resonances, I invite readers here to get themselves a copy of “A Little Book of Coincidence” by John Martineau, published Wooden Books. This author takes geometrical and mathematical finesse and precision to a level of paradigm-shift I’ve not seen since Newton and Kepler. And he does it with grace and beauty.