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)
I was wondering if Leif could comment on this piece from: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/scientists-discover-sun-does-affect-earths-climate
While climate scientists claim the 0.1% change in total solar irradiance (TSI) is not enough to reverse global warming on its own, new scientific evidence from NASA points to changes in the type of solar radiation arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere as a possible trigger for other powerful climate regulating mechanisms. Scientists have discovered, that while total solar irradiance changes by only 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts. Research shows such variations in the Sun’s emissions can affect the ozone layer and the way energy moves both vertically and horizontally through the atmosphere
Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
How about “Whats up with Leif”
Posts on the sun usually do become all about him. Whether he is right in everything or not doesn’t matter to some, it seems. He is perceived by them as always being right.
Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :
This is the whole scientific process raw and in the open.
It would be nice if the raw didn’t include rude.
And I am certainly not referring to you in saying that. You are polite and congenial. I appreciate that! 🙂
Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :
The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.
I think that is a nice illustration. But I think some here want it to be just one wheel. And friction come from their insisting that it must be so, IMO.
PMH (11:12:05) :
Henrik Svensmark hypothesis gains evidence all the time. Have you seen this documentary about it?
The Cloud Mystery, at YouTube in 5 parts :
The Fool. On the Hill
(Beatles)
Day after day,
Alone on a hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he’s just a fool,
And he never gives an answer,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hear him,
or the sound he appears to make,
and he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
And nobody seems to like him,
they can tell what he wants to do,
and he never shows his feelings,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
Ooh, ooh,
Round and round and round.
And he never listens to them,
He knows that they’re the fools
They don’t like him,
The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
Ooh,
Round and round and round
Gene Nemetz (11:19:52) :
How about “Whats up with Leif”
Posts on the sun usually do become all about him.
Because of people like you [and the usual other suspects] that bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me. Scroll back through the comments on this topic and remove all the personal attacks and you’ll see that what remains is a substantial amount of actual information and discussion. Too bad you help dilute this resource.
Leif
I was most definitely was not questioning Judith Leans work. As you pointed out, she certainly seems to be a very good scientist and is open new data etc that may mean a revision or even rejection of previous work as opposed to others who need not be named in this company of commenters .
My point was more that, because of your comments here regarding the misuse of Lean 2000, I am immediately suspicious of any work that uses it as I am of works that use Yamal.
Making comments can be such a minefield!!
And thank you for more info on TSI. As mentioned above your comments here are very much appreciated and I second everything pyromancer76 said.
Steve Hempell (12:49:26) :
My point was more that, because of your comments here regarding the misuse of Lean 2000, I am immediately suspicious of any work that uses it as I am of works that use Yamal.
Yes, any TSI reconstruction before about 2007 is suspect and should not be used. Recent Papers that use them anyway should be rejected out of hand.
PMH (11:12:05) :
Until someone demonstrates Leif to be wrong I have to accept his argument, which also leaves me confused about apparent correlation between past solar and global temperature events such as the LIA.
Assuming that the current consensus of sun scientists is correct as Leif expostulates, there are other means of the sun cycle affecting the climate, all of them speculative and being researched at the moment. One of them is the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis of Svensmark, and others depend on the ultraviolet changes, as in the link given by A Wod (11:12:42) : above. Another possibility is the albedo change again triggered by ultraviolet changes due to plankton http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html .
It is quite probable that many mechanisms in conjunction with the chaotic behavior of the ocean and atmosphere currents will be finally involved to solve the jig saw puzzle that is climate.
Reading the article linked to by A Wod: It’s apparent that any solar/climate connection is something outside of the TSI, there’s also been other non-TSI related studies by the likes of people like Earlhapp and Tallbloke on this blog that try to find the solar effect on climate by not looking at TSI at all. There must be some variating going on with at least one wavelength if you look at the history of SOHO EIT images which go from dark colors in large places to large places of white.
anna v (14:04:54) :
It is quite probable that many mechanisms in conjunction with the chaotic behavior of the ocean and atmosphere currents will be finally involved to solve the jig saw puzzle that is climate.
there is no doubt in my mind that the Sun has a role in this. What is also clear is that it is a minor role. A role that we can hardly pin down or demonstrate [otherwise these would be no debate]. People that invoke the Sun to explain everything are exposing their wishful thinking; ‘yeah it would be nice if it were so’.
Even more dubious is the Piers Corbyn-type of pseudo-science [that he even failed to elucidate], where you use a combination of the 22-year cycle and the moon to forecast the weather next week. But, hey, if he can make a quid on it, there are worse scams out there.
Adam from Kansas (14:38:46) :
try to find the solar effect on climate by not looking at TSI at all.
The 0.1% variation of the energy we get with TSI is about a thousand times larger than that in the solar wind. The UV varies more, but is only a very small part of the energy we get. And some UV bands vary in opposite phase to the sunspots [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png ]. The NEAR UV [242-310 nm] where there still some energy [18 W/m2] varies in anti-phase with the cycle, while the Far UV [180-241 nm] where there is very little energy [1.5 W/m2] shows larger variation. You can, of course, get around that by assuming the less UV is what [through unknown mechanism] warms the climate.
It is possible that we tomorrow will discover how all these things hang together, but until so, we are hard pressed to argue that there is strong evidence of a solar connection.
Gene Nemetz (12:06:05) : Alexander Feht (07:57:35) : Meanwhile, it’s snowing hard in New Mexico.
Ahh, that usually happens in October. Global cooling is a straw man. 😉
Impressive winter storm… but isn’t it still Autumn?
http://www.accuweather.com/m/blog-story.aspx?bn=weathermatrix
Jesse Ferrell: Community Director
Rockies Get Over 40 Inches of Snow!
Excerpts…
Here are the highest snowfall amounts by state as of 9 AM Mountain Time (amounts in parentheses are deprecated due to higher amounts):
Pinecliffe, CO: 43.8″
Sand Lake, WY: 41.0″(Jefferson, CO: 38.6″
Meagher County, MT: 16.0″
Deadwood, SD: 15.1″
Rushville, NE: 12.0″
Alta, UT: 10.0″
As of this writing, CoTrip showed that most of the roads in the state of Colorado werelisted as “snow packed & icy” (colored light blue below) and several highways were closed, including I-25 between Wellington and the Wyoming border.WYDOT’s page said “most offices are closed due to the severe winter storm” and their road information website showed I-25 closed north of Cheyenne, along with many other roads(red=closed on the map below).
How unusual is this much snow for this early in the season? Cheyenne, Wyoming set a new October total snowfall record Wednesday evening with 24 inches, and it is still snowing!
I-80 west of Cheyenne has been closed at various times.
Oct 28
‘Major’ winter storm strikes Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming
Five times the normal amount of snow in Cheyenne already … and here we go again Blizzard conditions and up to 18 inches of snow were forecast for a wide swath of the Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado plains, says this article on MSNBC. The storm also brought snow to northern Utah’s Wasatch Front.
“It’s a major early season storm,” said Mike Weiland, National Weather Service meteorologist in Cheyenne. “The results are going to be quite a bit of snow and a fairly long duration snow event.”
With 14 inches so far, Cheyenne had already received almost 5 times its normal October snowfall. The average for the month is 3 inches. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33504548/ns/weather/
anna v, Leif Svalgaard
What about resonance and harmonics?
The sun’s regular but rather weak oscillations will from time to time coincide with other periodic forcings such as the oceanic decadal / multidecadal oscillations, and harmonics of longer term orbital and precessional oscillations? For instance we are told that the ocean heat content balance has shifted in the last 10 years to negative – losing heat. On top of downturns in PDO and other ocean oscillations. The current solar downturn is coinciding with these changes.
Could this explain why sometimes a feature of the solar cycle correlates with a climatic feature (e.g. LIA) and sometimes not. A solar change needs to coincide with (resonate with) one or two other forcings to have an effect?
Lief Svalgaard’s focus on the small magnitude of TSI fluctuations is something of a straw man and I’m sure he knows this. The most plausible mechanism of solar effect is an indirect one like that proposed by fellow norseman Svensmark – interaction of solar wind and cosmic rays and cloud.
By the way Lief do you believe in the solar DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg cycles (210- and 87-year periodicities, respectively) or are these also now unfashionable in being cycles at all?
Phlogiston (17:29:46) :
Could this explain why sometimes a feature of the solar cycle correlates with a climatic feature (e.g. LIA) and sometimes not. A solar change needs to coincide with (resonate with) one or two other forcings to have an effect?
No, it just need to coincide with to give the impression that there is a sometime connection.
Lief Svalgaard’s focus on the small magnitude of TSI fluctuations is something of a straw man and I’m sure he knows this.
It is offensive to suggest that.
The most plausible mechanism of solar effect is an indirect one like that proposed by fellow norseman Svensmark – interaction of solar wind and cosmic rays and cloud.
Except that the evidence is against it. There has been quite a change in climate since 1952 when the first reliable cosmic ray observations began. The variation of cosmic rays since then does in no way resemble that of the temperature. The mechanism is supposed to work through clouds and albedo, but the observed variation of albedo does not match that of the cosmic rays.
By the way Lief do you believe in the solar DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg cycles (210- and 87-year periodicities, respectively) or are these also now unfashionable in being cycles at all?
Neither of them were ever thought of as strict cycles the same way that the sunspot cycle is not a true cycle either. The periods vary widely and the maxima and minima seems to occur almost at random within the typical time scales of each. The Gleissberg cycle has been ~100 years the past three centuries and there has been little signs of a 210-year sunspot cycle in the historical record [mostly because of record is not long enough]. Cosmic ray proxies show hints of ‘periods’ of 88, 150, and 220 years that come and go in a non-stationary way and are thus real ‘cycles’. You can find more about that here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
Phlogiston (17:29:46) :
Cosmic ray proxies show hints of ‘periods’ of 88, 150, and 220 years that come and go in a non-stationary way and are thus not real ‘cycles’.
I hope everyone doesn’t forget modern Milankovitch research/theories and the variety of Earth orbits around Ol’ Sol: orbital eccentricity (shape of the orbit from elliptical to more circular, cycle ~100,000 years); inclination or axial tilt varying from 21.5-24.5, cycle ~41,000 years); precession (the wobbly spin of Earth’s axis with north moving from Polaris to Vega (cycle ~23,000 years). And when they all happen to coincide…! At one point I tried to find out where we are today. Can’t find the research, but I thought I tentatively found that while we are not in “danger” we are slowly moving away from “warmth” (maybe).
Combine these mind-bending realities with the movement of tectonic plates and resulting serious volcanic activity, our vast oceans, and our chaotic climate conditions — oh, don’t forget galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover and albedo — and there are all kinds of possibilities for the realtively steady state of energy output of our Sun. Yes, without it we would be cold. And Leif is insistent, thank goodness, on keeping us focused on the science of the Sun’s activities.
Being privileged to consider all of this in its beauty, rawness, mathematical perfection, and even its violence is awesome and humbling. WattsUpWithThat does a remarkable job of tantalizing us with a variety of bits and pieces of these amazing realities.
Huh! So NASA uses the same chart on the 27th of October. Wonder why:?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/27oct_eve.htm
Gene Nemetz (11:19:52) : “… He (Leif) is perceived by them as always being right.”
Or; Leif, is perceived by many as a benchmark, thus preventing waste of time on wild goose chases, but allowing even flights of fancy when the basic rules are understood and acknowledged.
Flights of fancy are of two kinds: 1. To escape reality (which we all needs do from time to time); and 2. to break new ground in the never ending quest to take mankind onward.
Leif Svalgaard (11:42:52) :
bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me.
Yes Leif, It’s all about you.
Leif Svalgaard (11:42:52) :
bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me.
Is using the word ‘attack’ an exaggeration? I do think it is projection though.
You could lighten up Leif. I rarely say anything about you. It is not ‘usual’.
Roger Carr (20:55:31) :
Leif doesn’t like the work of Henrik Svensmark. Is Svensmark’s work a waste of time?
Roger Carr (20:55:31) :
I may have misunderstood what you are saying.
Gene Nemetz (23:24:34) : (in regard to my comment 20:55:31) I may have misunderstood what you are saying.
Perhaps I was not clear. My point is that Leif sets a benchmark against which we on this forum can judge our own ideas and concepts, pet theories and personal revelations. If they fail that benchmark then we can see our time would be wasted in pursuing them.
It also allows us to conserve our time by not needing to read and consider this thread (for example) when Leif writes: The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.
I do not consider the “benchmark” I note as in any way limiting consideration of any theory or idea which has the basic foundation… or perhaps I should just say I use Leif as my litmus test, and value the opportunity of doing so.