Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year old, so it is appropriate to see how it is ramping up.
Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century. It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum. The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.
[Note: Solar Cycle 22 and 23 are overlaid on solar cycle 3 and 4 above to show similarity]
Plotting up the last three solar cycles relative to the Dalton Minimum, another solar minimum is not precluded by the data to date.
With Solar Cycle 23 ending up at twelve and a half years long, applying Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover, New Hampshire results in a two degree centigrade decline in the annual average temperature at this location over the expected twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2021. Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.
Leif Svalgaard (12:10:08)
I seem to doubt more than you do.
You are dogmatic about the absence of a significant solar contribution to changes in climate even on millennial time scales.
I prefer to remain open minded.
Which of us is the greater pseud ?
Stephen Wilde (11:49:26) :
Your assertion that there can be no aspect of solar variability that translates into a significant climate response is itself somewhat conjectural.
and that is not my assertion.
My assertion is that solar activity since the 18th century has not varied, getting systematically higher.
Let me quote from the Muscheler paper:
“In any case, and irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are
broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today”
Let me quote from conclusion of the Muscheler paper:
our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.
More and more scientists are coming around to this view [which is not mine alone].
Stephen Wilde (12:22:59) :
You are dogmatic about the absence of a significant solar contribution to changes in climate even on millennial time scales.
No, I’m saying that the sun didn’t vary. Not that the non-variation has no climatic effect.
Stephen Wilde (12:19:48) :
my open mindedness on the issue.
you do not seem open minded on the possible lack of effect having declared several times that you are ‘convinced’ there is an effect.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPAJSD_MODEL_FAILURES,_GREENHOUSE_GASES,_UHI_AND_NATURAL_FORCING.pdf
Stephen Wilde (14:20:30) :
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPAJSD_MODEL_FAILURES,_GR
Any ‘studies’ that are based on Hoyt/Schatten’s obsolete TSI are suspect.
Stephen Wilde (10:40:11): You were right to choose law for a career. Science was not your calling.
Adios!
Bob Tisdale (18:01:02
You were right to engage in science rather than communication.
Adios !
Stephen Wilde: You replied, “You were right to engage in science rather than communication.”
This is a science blog, Stephen. I present data and describe it. You offer conjecture.
If ever there was a need to understand what causes Ice Ages and Interglacials, Science has clearly been handed the ball.
If it’s not the Sun or anything to do with the Sun, the prospect of civilization not knowing what hit it looms large. AGW only works in one direction. That won’t do.
If the answer lies in natural oscillations, then the next Ice Age hangs by the merest of threads. We’re 10,000 yrs overdue. Mere statistics are useless for a road map.
I’m not hearing any good theories or avenues of research beyone Svensmark.
If he goes down we’re totally in the dark.
Are you 100% certain there is nothing left unsearched?
rbateman (16:47:02) :
the next Ice Age hangs by the merest of threads. We’re 10,000 yrs overdue.
It has already begun, but it takes 100,000 years to get all the way to the bottom, so we have lots of time to adapt [or whatever we decide to do].
Leif Svalgaard (17:44:14) :
Leif, what tells you that it has already begun?
Leif Svalgaard
“It has already begun, but it takes 100,000 years to get all the way to the bottom, so we have lots of time to adapt [or whatever we decide to do].”
Kind of depends on the spikes down and back… and the location on the globe. People in certain parts of the planet might not have lots of time, like the poor people in Mongolia this year for an example.
rbateman (16:47:02) :
“If ever there was a need to understand what causes Ice Ages and Interglacials, Science has clearly been handed the ball.”
“I’m not hearing any good theories or avenues of research beyone Svensmark.”
You don’t think the Milankovitch cycles are part of a good theory? It seems pretty successful to me. Not sure how the question ties into the discussion here, though.
rbateman (18:05:25) :
what tells you that it has already begun?
We had the climate optimum several thousand years ago and the insolation [calculated using Milankovic’s theory] has already been duly decreasing. The climate also has its own minor swings [for all kinds of reasons] so there will be bumps [ups and downs] on the way down. The record sort of speaks for itself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
On a time-sale of 100,000 years a few centuries either way don’t make any difference so I don’t think the climate last few centuries have been much driven by the Milankovic cycles.
There are even people that believe that we have managed to ‘stave off’ or delay the onset a bit by land-use and AGW.
rbateman (18:05:25) : Leif Svalgaard (17:44:14) : “Leif, what tells you that it has already begun?”
I don’t know what he’s going to say… but my entire right leg tells me it has begun. It was broken near the hip and my heel is basically gone, and I have other foot, ankle and knee damage. I fell trying to cut a tree off my cabin in north central Arkansas after the once in a lifetime January 2009 ice storm. Arkansas is pretty far south, really.
Over at Dalton minimum repeat goes mainstream:
Leif Svalgaard (09:15:07) :
Pascvaks (09:01:25) : Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period?
“Yes we are, but it will take 100,000 years to hit the bottom, so lots of time for fun and games.”
Well that’s nice to have all this time to participate in fun and games if you haven’t been permanently crippled or even killed by a once in a lifetime ice storm during a downward spike.
Ed Murphy (18:58:04) :
I don’t know what he’s going to say… but my entire right leg tells me it has begun. It was broken near the hip and my heel is basically gone, and I have other foot, ankle and knee damage.
Sorry to hear that, Ed. Be careful with all that outdoor stuff.
O/T [but some other post had a reference]: we have no shortage of fog here in the SF Bay Area. A small plane in morning fog collided with a power pole [‘tower’] and left a considerable area without power all day. Fog is still here. Gimme some global warming.
People suggest that CO2 has no effect but TSI changes may be the cause of warming
To get things in perspective here is a plot of TSI and CO2 with 0 in both scales included.
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/844/tsico2nooffset.png
If CO2 is a green-house gas, and if GHG presence cause the earth to be warmer than without GHGs then looking at the plot CO2 may possibly have caused warming. Conversely The plot also showsTSI changes to beinsignificant (a couple of pixels on this plot).
dick chambers (19:36:18) :
Conversely The plot also showsTSI changes to beinsignificant (a couple of pixels on this plot).
Try to place the temperature in Kelvin on the plot too.
Leif Svalgaard (19:12:36) :
The Alps I pointed out to you when you were here look like somebody went overboard with a can of Miracle Whip. Full-grown trees buried 1/4 to 1/3 of thier height. The fog has been horrible here, too.
What bugs me about the way down on the Ice Age scale is sudden ups & downs. It was nice when things were very stable the last 30 yrs.
Stephen Wilde (12:16:18) :
… all greenhouse gases always remain the same and any necessary adjustment is achieved by a change in the quantity of water vapor.
That’s what I gathered from the paper. Co2 and ch4 cannot flex their concentration or state. Their concentrations are basically a constant. Water vapor on the other hand is everywhere and has three possible states and is at ~30 times the concentration in the atmosphere. So which would have the primary hand in balancing the energy coming in and going out while meeting TD laws? If water vapor, the troposphere would be the primary driver therefore basically constant as a whole.
Seems perfectly logical but still trying to get to the bottom as to how exactly this physically occurs. My educated guess is: through all processes and at all times simultaneously via proper physics at their own limited local rates. To a programmer, a plex structure of effects interacting with all other physical effects, each obeying the pertinent local laws (i.e. a mathematical graph). The one with the greatest rate would of course dominate in the flux.
If Anthony or Dr. Spencer will ever answer back, I have written an article I wish to post that plays right into the Miskolczi paper’s conjecture. It is about a small factor, about one-half to one percent that is very real and which all papers seem to be overlooking in the atmosphere and GHG radiation interactions. Your calculations could be affected also. Without this factor you would always come up with a slightly warmer Earth than with this factor applied. That is from an area I am versed.
I’m a little out of my area concerning a few branches of climate science. My life of learning has been in physical sciences, and though interrelated, when it gets into some specific branches, it is out of my league for the moment.
I’ll be happy to review your paper (assuming at climaterealists.com) when I get a moment if you will accept possible points or criticisms. And your right, it is hard to handle all of this information while it is flowing by so fast!
rbateman (21:02:26) :
What bugs me about the way down on the Ice Age scale is sudden ups & downs. It was nice when things were very stable the last 30 yrs.
There are also 19,000 and 23,000 and 40,000 year cycles together with the 100,000 year cycle, so combined it can be quite complex, plus the variations not driven by the M cycles [if any]. Climate change is a fact of life. Stable climate is unusual and will not last.
Leif as suggested CET in K plotted
Temp rise is about 10 pixels+
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2339/tsico2cetnooffset.png
dick chambers (21:22:49) :
Temp rise is about 10 pixels+
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2339/tsico2cetnooffset.p
You can only compare if the values are plotted to the same scale. The easiest way to do this is the divide each series with the mean of that series, so that will be the next request.