David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:06) :
tallbloke (06:33:25) :
I think this accounts for the extra energy which went into the oceans to cause ocean heat content to rise from the ’40’s onwards to the ’90’s. Shorter minima, higher amplitudes.
Except does not account for the increase from 1900 to 1950 which was equally strong, or the cold 18th century when solar activity was as great as it has been recently.
Hi Leif. I don’t think there is any data for OHC for the earlier part of the century is there?. Although your rejigged amplitudes for the C19th are higher then the group sunspot numbers said, they are not that much higher than Wolff, and the minima were longer, and we are still waiting (impatiently :-)) for you to push the magnetic data back further. What my sunspot count model is showing is that there is a background rise in OHC (with a lift and dip in the later 1800’s) since the Maunder minimum, with the ~60 year ocean cycles riding on top. Thus we get the strong rise from 1910-1943 followed by the weak fall from 1943-1975, followed by the strong rise from 1975 to 2003.
There is often more than one thing going on at once in climate. It’s complcated like that.
Zeke the Sneak (11:59:45) : Still in the realm of Vodoo science. That lensing effect could be the humble diffraction, as also in the so called Einstein’s theory proof in a sun eclipse: space it is not vacuum and difracts light too.
One such person, who believed in the wave theory was Augustin Fresnel, who in 1819, handed a paper to the French Academy of Sciences, about the phenomenon of diffraction. However, the Academy mainly consisting of Newton’s supporters, tried to challenge Fresnel’s point of view by saying that if light was indeed a wave, these waves, which were diffracted from the edges of a sphere, would cause a bright area to occur within the shadow of the sphere. This was indeed oberved later, and the area is today known as the Fresnel Bright Spot
NASA Deep Impact probe couldn’t break Tempel 1 Icecream comet:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/index.html
“Leif Svalgaard (13:18:12) :
AGW is enough voodoo. We don’t need more pseudo-science.”
I think you are being a bit harsh on the electric universe theorists. They are devising tests, testing their hypothesis and not hiding any data (unless you know something we don’t? care to share?). Just by that standard alone they don’t deserve the association with AGW any more than the AGW-skeptics deserve being associated with holocaust deniers.
“Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum..”
“McCracken gave a paper.. that comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely.”
________________
It appears that we need to be looking for changes in the Thermohaline Circulation (aka The Great Ocean Conveyor).
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:24) :
The primary point I was trying to make is that “during a typical solar cycle, cosmic ray counts increase by ~25% at solar magnetic minimums, cosmic ray counts are ~linearly related to cloud cover, and global cloud cover is inversely ~linearly related to global temperature. Thus, although TSI only changes 0.1% during a solar cycle, solar magnetic activity changes produce an amplified effect on cosmic ray counts.” That cosmic ray counts change by ~25% during a typical solar magnetic cycle is shown in all of the links you provided.
Robert (12:04:05) : Thanks for the New Scientist reference, which essentially cites “satellite scientist” Gavin Schmidt on Realclimate.org blog (need I say more) and a single peer reviewed paper:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
as evidence of your statement “most scientists don’t think so.” I will spend some time looking over the Laut paper though before commenting. On the other hand, here are graphs showing the relationship from four different papers (and there are others as well):
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/207_17.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/Sz_eNInqneI/AAAAAAAAAiE/OvB7dZocTFA/s1600-h/cloud.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/Sz5LXmkEznI/AAAAAAAAAfc/iic5jWKYNkQ/s1600-h/neutronsunspot.jpg
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg
Wow!, all this made me remember “The Twilight Zone” TV Show of the 1950’s.
Why do these science guys insist in telling us scary tales of multiple dimensions, dark matter, entangled strings, sucking black holes (which surprisingly, some times, tired from sucking begin blowing out!!), dark energy…Oh! how fearsome!, we are surrounded by ghosts!.
But the scare tactits doesn’t stop there: We are doomed to die in an armageddon of gigantic proportions…kind of a big and dark mattered Katrina.
However we do not believe in ghosts and, since we were born we knew we were going to die some day, knowing that life it’s just nature’s trick for overcoming entropy.
Andrew Parker (21:24:41) :
D. Patterson (18:08:03) : Ed Murphy (17:14:40) :
“How about the land getting very deeply saturated and heavy with precipitation. The added weight pushing down on the plates causing pressures to go up leading to more quakes/volcanoes?”
On the coast of Ecuador they have relatively mild earthquakes associated with the transition from dry to wet to dry seasons. The locals feel it is simple cause and effect, but I haven’t found “expert” confirmation.
Reply: Hi Andrew, I’d go so far as to say the earthquake in Haiti was caused by this relationship. From before about 2008 the N. American continent was suffering from lack of clouds and a large amount of drought and the drying up of aquifers. Now its been extra cloudy for a few years and the bulk of the continent is fully saturated, refilling the aquifers, overly so in many areas except parts of the west. That’s a big weight transfer on the N. American plate which from what I understand has a boundary to Haiti.
I don’t know if Svensmark’s cosmic ray flux link to cloud formation will hold, but from observation, either that theory or a combination of that and the slight cooling from less solar and the pronounced cooling and particulate from the May’08 eruption in Chile, Redoubt and Sarychev really kicked the addition of moisture weight into high gear. Cloud formation and precipitation intensified adding to the cloudiness that was already on the upswing.
Volcanoes emit a large volume of steam, moisture gets to the outer mantle/crust boundary from being dragged in at subduction zones. The large amounts of moisture that saturated the land and refilled the aquifers adding all this weight and downward pressure to the land would eventually seep down to the outer mantle boundary and create even more pressure with time. No need to wait for significant glacier buildup of weight pressure, there is plenty already. Poof, then you have the pressure buildup needed for a series of eruptions like happened around the time of Tambora and the ‘year without a summer’. Then when does increased solar eventually come to the rescue, that is the big question.
Before I get flamed, sorry the neutronspot.jpg graph link above was not related to cloud cover
I have been lurking on this site for a few years and thank you for a lot of information. I have always been interested by what Dr Svalgaard has to say. I know this is going OT but would like to ask Dr Svalgaard if “dark matter ” is now observable. What is the latest thinking of what it might be?
Winters of the Dalton minimum period were not colder than those of the 1940-1970 period, while summers were cooler than in any period since 1700.
This graph shows both summer and winter CET anomalies for 1700-2010 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm
This is in a way consistent with large amount of micro-particles in the atmosphere from volcanic activity increasing cloud formation, condensation and rainfall giving cool summer and not so cold winters.
Brendan H (10:20:31) :
I’m sorry, what planet are you from? The media keeps itself honest?
Pulease!!!
The internet is the only thing that keeps the media honest. The media does not check itself. The internet is what busted Dan Rather. And the internet is what’s busting global warming.
The misinformation on the internet is coming from people like you Brenden. You folks already have a grip on most of mainstream media. Now you are trying to do the same with the internet.
Take your song and dance to the clones and trolls. The internet is the only free press around. Your schtick don’t stick in it!!
vukcevic (14:07:55) :Don´t tell me that there will be enough room for the Global warming church to keep preaching 🙂
davidmhoffer (06:59:08) :
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude.
No – they are not the same order of magnitude. The extra 1 w/m2 from TSI is only operating ~25% of the time (due to day, night, dawn & dusk etc). Also a proportion of TSI (~30%) is reflected by snow ice and clouds. A 0.1% increase in TSI is 1.3 w/m2 but this corresponds to an average of only about 0.24 w/m2 over the earth’s surface.
“Thanks for the New Scientist reference, which essentially cites “satellite scientist” Gavin Schmidt on Realclimate.org blog (need I say more)”
This is part of the weird reality distortion field in the anti-AGW discussion. You clearly are a group of passionate activists for your point of view, most of the papers presented on this site are the product of people and organizations with a long history of (and in many cases a financial interest in) arguing against AGW. Yet anyone on the OTHER side with the slightest hint of a point of view is assumed to be automatically discredited, even if their only sin is responding to the distortions of the anti-AGW noise machine.
If you applied the same standards for scientific objectivity to supporters of your own cause, how many allies do you think you’d be left with?
“I don’t know if Svensmark’s cosmic ray flux link to cloud formation will hold,”
It hasn’t. It’s been completely discredited:
But after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark’s graph depends on a “correction” of satellite data, and the satellite scientists say this is not justified. “It’s dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis,” says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK.
This is an opportunity for the real skeptics to demonstrate their integrity. A research has been caught fudging the data. How do we feel about that?
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover
T Sloan1 and A W Wolfendale2
Received 31 January 2008
Accepted 14 March 2008
Published 3 April 2008
“Abstract. A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. ”
A rather thorough debunking can be found here:
Peter Laut, “Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801– 812
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (04:11:42) :
MikeC (22:54:19) :
I looked at the solar activity for this period of time and it appears that you exagerrated your point because only one or two of the cycles may have reached that strength for 70 year period you suggested
’solar activity’: there are several sunspot numbers floating around. Figure 11 in http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows several reconstructions of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field since 1700. We take that as a better representation of solar activity than the raw sunspot numbers [which were under-counted early on]. The purple dashed curve shows Steinhilber et al.’s values. Compare 1725-1800 with 1950-2000.
Hi Lief, In order for you to come to that conclusion you would have to make a lot of assumptions, butit really does not matter. We are pretty certain through emprical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle. The question still remains as Foukal stated in 2006 that thermal inertia of the oceans is still an possible way in which the sun drives climate. The question I asked you remains unanswered, has anyone calculated the point of equalibrium where solar activity either warms the ocean or a lack of it cools the oceans. Do we really have a clue as to how long that would take… what the feedbacks would be… enhancements (simillar to the enhancement claimed by AGW advocates)… do you even consult an oceanographer?
Robert (17:11:18),
By quoting Steven Schneider, you are quoting someone who admits that lying to push the AGW agenda is perfectly acceptable, and he encourages other AGW believers to decide for themselves how much to lie in order to push the AGW agenda:
Looks like “both” means being somewhat to completely dishonest. It certainly can’t be read as being completely honest, or ethical.
That’s some hero you link to. Where do you draw your personal dishonesty line? 40%? 50%? 60%?
Steven Schneider says that’s A-OK.
Irony.
So, thinking about the irony of the “Great Early 21st Century” renaming. Please advise if I understand the gist of this electric argument.
My gasoline powered SUV has some negatively charged particles involved in moving me around the roads. It also has other components. Therefore it is electric.
The Sun has some negatively charged particles flowing around. It also has a very lot of other stuff doing various things. Therefore it is electric.
The Universe has a very lot of stars and some negatively charged stuff floating between. Therefore it is electric.
Soooooo. Because there are electrons, electric.
My alternate suggestion: I suggest because there are subatomic particles involved in a whole lot of stuff then we should call everything Subatomic. It is more inclusive that electrons.
Even better yet, just keep the old terminology before the electric. All that Pre-electric terminology.
The end of irony.
John
E.M.Smith (01:10:58) :
(whoops…) Not all my words in your response… my part (the 2nd part) was not italicised in the original comment that I put up at “Graeme From Melbourne (21:06:10) :”
The “Hunky Dory” part is attributed to “wws (14:24:29) : ”
Clarification only. No drama.
G.
Iain.H (13:30:41) :
if “dark matter ” is now observable. What is the latest thinking of what it might be?
Dark matter has been observed by its gravitational effects since the 1920s. There are basically four lines of evidence:
1) existence of galaxy clusters with the observed dispersion of velocities
2) the flat rotation curve of all spiral galaxies
3) gravitational lensing
4) temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background
All four methods yield the same result: visible matter is only about a fifth of the total matter content, which in turn is only about a quarter of the total energy content. ‘Dark’ matter means that the material is not electrically charged [does not react to electromagnetism] and therefore is not a plasma.
MikeC (17:29:12) :
We are pretty certain through empirical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle.
I know of no such convincing observations.
Do we really have a clue..
In order to make statements about how important the solar influence is we must actually have a clue, or even more than that.
Now, it is certain [in my mind at least] that the Sun has an influence on climate and on ocean heat content and on SST and on air temperature and on crop yields and all the rest. The only issue is “how much?”. And we are discussing this because it doesn’t seem to be much [otherwise we would not be debating it], so I can live with any small, undetectable amount you would like to postulate.
tallbloke (12:19:41) :
Hi Leif. I don’t think there is any data for OHC for the earlier part of the century is there?. […] there is a background rise in OHC (with a lift and dip in the later 1800’s) since the Maunder minimum
no OHC from the Maunder either, so your claim is without foundation.
It is not a “renaming.” The Electric Universe simply says that the sun is not a thermonuclear reactor, but is externally powered by electrical current. “It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.” C E R Bruce
I will not discuss this with you further. It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread.
MIkeC: You wrote, “We are pretty certain through emprical observatilons that ocean heat content is affected by the sunspot cycle.”
I beg to differ. Here’s a graph of tropical Pacific OHC vs scaled sunspot number vs scaled Sato Index vs scaled NINO 3.4 SST anomalies
http://i50.tinypic.com/2vl41fa.png
I like that graph because it contradicts claims that OHC is impacted by the solar cycle and contradicts claims that ENSO is driven by solar cycles.
If you didn’t like my choice of the tropical Pacific OHC dataset for comparison, please feel free to pick one out of this batch…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html
…but I really shouldn’t need to create a comparison. There’s no correlation.
OHC is driven by ENSO for most ocean basins…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
…and by the AMO, NAO and ENSO for the North Atlantic…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
and the NPI for the North Pacific:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html