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 and tallbloke: Just a confirmation. Most OHC datasets start in 1955. With the sparseness of the data, even that’s pushing it.
Regards
Robert (17:11:18) :
I see you left off the last part of the abstract you cited which states: “From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
“less than 23%” is not equivalent to “none”
please backup your claim “A research has been caught fudging the data” with respect to deliberate deception/”fudging” rather than a difference of interpretation or “adjustments to data” which have been done on essentially every record still in existence by climatologists.
and from the Wikipedia article on Svensmark:
Galactic Cosmic Rays vs Cloud Cover
In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled “Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover”,[17] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years. Svensmark responded by saying “Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”.[18] Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important “as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data”. Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[19] He states: “Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out”. Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p 3 months)and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[20]
Appears the jury is still out
Mark Sawusch (19:26:38) :
Appears the jury is still out
The jury will have to labor hard:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf
“[1] Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth’s atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude.”
More for the jury to consider:
Svensmark’s reply to Laut’s Critique:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/Comments%20on%20Peter%20Lauts%20paper.pdf
Svensmark’s paper re the loss of correlation after 1994 is due to long term calibration drift with the ISCCP satellites:
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/GCR_ENSO_v4_preprint.pdf
Robert,
Most of those w/m^2 are from a presumed positve feedback. Most of that presumption comes from the team at the center of the climate-gate scandal and temperature series with gross under-estimation of urban heat island effect combined with what appears to be a deliberate elimination of stations that don’t have warm bias. After finding as much warm bias as they can to pad the numbers, they still have to continually ratchet down past recorded temperatures to maintain their needed w/m^2.
Leif Svalgaard (19:42:37) : paper you cite looks only at “Forbush decreases” in cosmic rays, which “lasts only about a week.”
Jury needs to consider Brown’s & Harrison’s longer term perspectives as well, which do find significance.
“Zeke the Sneak (18:44:50)” wrote in response to “John Whitman (18:14:19) ”
””””’I will not discuss this with you further. It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread.””””
Zeke,
Yes the nightshift mods here (thanks mods) have been extremely tolerant of the electric diversion from all of Leif’s comments on great solar dialog here.
A parting electric shot. Look at the output of a commercial electrical generating nuclear power plant. Sure it is electric coming out. But it is a thermonuclear device deep down inside that primary containment structure.
Enjoy the life.
John
During the Maunder Minimum I note that a number of distinct sunspot cycles have been inferred from sparse data taken during this period. I was wondering if anyone knows if all these cycles exhibited the usual alternating magnetic polarity or not?
I know that I’m late to this party but everyone should watch the AGU minutes, http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html , its amazing what can be inferred from all the papers. We are in for a fun couple of decades considering the house of cards that is AGW will not come down cleanly considering the vaste personal investment many have in it.
Well thank you John, I will “enjoy the life.”
You’re welcome for explaining the electrical model of stars.
I will now return you to your reading of Dr. S’s comments. He is rather an institution around here, but so are many others.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (16:08:08) : “I’m sorry, what planet are you from?”
Climate change is a contentious issue and raises strong emotions on both sides, Marcia. I can understand why people feel strongly, and sometimes overheat, but in my view allowing emotion to cloud judgement is unwise as well as unproductive.
And that’s a shame, especially when the internet holds such promise for constructive dialogue.
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
Re Dark Matter
.
No , the Dark Matter has never been observed per se . The particles that constitute it are unknown and not (yet) observed .
What has been observed is the gravitational effect of what is supposed to be the Dark Matter .
That means that f.ex the galaxies rotation velocity curve can’t be explained by the visible (ordinary baryonic) matter only .
So there are only 2 alternatives :
.
1) You postulate the existence of unknown particles that have mass and interact with ordinary matter almost exclusively via gravitation so that you can’t “see” them . This missing mass explains then the anomaly and you say that you have an indirect “proof” of Dark Matter’s existence .
.
2) You postulate that general relativity is only an approximation for great distances . Indeed as the “anomaly” is in fact a discrepancy between observation and the general relativity prediction , you can always say that the theory is incorrect in this particular case . Of course in this case you don’t need any Dark Matter and it doesn’t exist .
.
Most scientists trust the general relativity so choose the altenative 1 and for them the Dark Matter exists . A small number chooses the alternative 2 and tries to adapt/modify the general relativity . Sofar with no big success .
TomVonk (02:27:05) :
No , the Dark Matter has never been observed per se
I think that is a misunderstanding of what ‘observed’ means. We ‘observe’ things by their interactions with our measuring devices. Here is the topography of the ocean floor observed by measuring its gravitational effects: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/global_topo_large.gif
The same way we observe dark matter and can map it by its gravitational effect: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/166622main_p0701ay.jpg
Pascvaks (05:28:52) :
Ref – E.M.Smith (19:23:14) : Curious – Did/Has anyone made a pile of moola off AGW and, since Coppenhagen, its demise?
I’m sure someone has made money off of it, just not a lot. There is someone trading just about ever possible vehicle and direction at all times, so someone wins and someone looses.
Heck, I’ve sporadically made a bit off of various trades in solar panel companies and alternative energy companies (“alternative energy” is something of a passion for me, but the truth is that I’ve never made much money on it. Oil and coal are better trades and I’ve made much more from them. Oil is an easier short, too.)
The problem with “AGW” as a trade is that it is news and media driven. There are no ‘fundamentals’ for many or most companies in the area. A very hard trade. Oil and gas are more seasonal / cyclical and with a weekly inventory report for a fairly reliable trade schedule (you just have to get the direction right 😉
Pascvaks (09:01:25) : Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period? Or is there still time (say another millenium) for humanity to get in a little more fun and games in the far north and far south of the planet before we head back to the caves around the Equator?
We are already in the entry to the next ice epoch. There is a spike of max temperature as an interglacial forms, then it’s all downhill from there. In this interglacial, we’ve had an ‘odd stability shelf’ on the side of that temperature mountain (just a little below the peak) and folks interpret that 10,000 years as being the nature of the interglacial, but it isn’t. So we had a peak, and are already dropping (but with a pause / ripple for a few thousand years).
The good news is that while it can get cold rapidly, the ice buildup is mass rate limited. So take the distance from Greenland (the residual ice sheet) to where it ended during the last glacial epoch (about New York City) and divide the miles by 100,000 years to form… You can outrun the advancing ice sheet if you can walk about 800 FEET a year. So 300 meters / year of “migration” would be overkill…
You may now commence ‘fun and games’ for generations to come…
For graphs of ice and cold onset, see here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
where you can also see that our ‘shelf’ has a slight downward drift in the very long term views. So “welcome to the ice age”!
Just remember that there are 60, 178 – 200, 400, 1500, and perhaps 2600 and 5200 year cyclical events that add ‘wiggle’ all the time, so any given person may live in a warming or cooling time. But overall we’re headed down. Just very very slowly…
In fact, we have time to evolve into a different variety of people by the time we’re at the bottom of the cold glacial… you can get significant responses to ‘selection pressure’ in a species in 30 generations. For people, that works out to about 900 years. By 20,000 years you can turn white skin into black and black into white just from the skin cancer in the sun and rickets in the cold-cloudy pressures, respectively.
So by the time we’re strongly into the glacial phase, we could easily have changed what we look like and what variety of hominid we are.
Ice ages… these things take time…
Here’s a climate reconstruction of the last 1,000,000 years:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/holmes-1myears.png?w=504&h=237
From “Holmes’ Principles of Physical Geology” 4th Ed. 1993 And a focus on the last 150,000 years from the same work:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/holmes-eemian.png
Here’s a comment from this reference work (Holmes) in respect of these reconstructions:
The recent past has known dramatic and fundamental changes of climate and environment which have affected the whole Earth, from the top of the highest mountains to the bottom of the deepest oceans. Morever, many of these changes have occurred at surprising speeds.
Care to comment on this one? I don’t have much confidence with anyones ability to predict how fast or slow ice age returneth.
rbateman (01:41:04) :
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
~~~
lol lol lol
Got to admit was getting bored with the GCR discussion and that was just the little laugh I needed.
RE: Oceans Warming?
In the past few years we have discovered 1000’s of black smokers or thermal vents on the oceans floors. In late 99 early 2000? there was a volcanic eruption compared to Vesuvius at the North Pole (Gakkel Ridge) discovered thermal vents which lead to the discovery of the eruption. What role does this play in ocean warming? Is it negligible.
When things are heating you get a nice smooth flow of particles and fluids. When things cool they cool unevenly and contractions occur. Could get bumpy if it keeps chillin’.
Zeke the Sneak (18:44:50) :
It is too remote from the Dalton Min., the subject of this thread
Not at all, cyclic behaviour of the sun it is because, if you are right, to changes in the main galaxy currents.
The interesting times we are living in, which among other things are “illuminating” things, throwing light on dark/hidden issues as “Climate Gate”, it is doing precisely that “illuminating”(“apocalypsis” in greek). This applies also for the next “Gates” coming…
Buy more popcorn! WUWT is ON!
BTW, a good link to clarify some issues:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com
Carla @ur momisugly 5:11:42 I swear I can see the effect of the Gakkel Ridge eruptions on Arctic Ice in time lapse reconstructions of ice distribution in the Arctic. Apparently, photos exist of the area at the time, but they show clouds obscuring the surface. Well, I’d like a meteorologist to look at those clouds and tell me if they are ordinary Arctic clouds, or the cloud which would form over open water or warmed ice at that time of year, when everything surrounding it were colder.
============================
rbateman (01:41:04) :
What a weird cycle this is. North fades out and South fades in.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the Sun just passed through a lamination of Solar Activity dampening properties.
But the north continues to show a distinct bias. The south will need to catch up if this cycle is going to get going.
kim (05:25:31) :
Carla @ur momisugly 5:11:42 I swear I can see the effect of the Gakkel Ridge eruptions on Arctic Ice in time lapse reconstructions of ice distribution in the Arctic.
~~~
Thanks Kim that’s something I didn’t know about this.
So does the planet heat from the outside in or the inside out or both? So when it contracts does it contract from the outside in or the inside out or both? Is the Earth’s magnetic field an indicator of inside expansion and or contractions?
There we go off topic.
The two hour video was informative on the current solar status. They quite extensively covered GCR as well as ACR for this cycle and recent cycles. oohh space age high for GCR with an accompanying low solar cycle and squashed IMF all mag values low. Now let’s fit it into the Dalton, it’ll look good there?
The same way we observe dark matter and can map it by its gravitational effect: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/166622main_p0701ay.jpg
No Leif you misunderstood my post .
The map you linked is only valid if you consider that the general relativity is right at these scales .
After all that is how it was drawn .
There are scientists who are trying to correct/adapt the GR at large scales because they consider that it doesn’t apply in its usual form there .
I think that they will fail but that’s irrelevant .
In any case if the GR had to be corrected at large scales then it would appear that this “observation” was only an artefact due to a wrong use of the gravitation law .
If they succeeded , it would mean that after all Dark Matter does NOT exist and that the “anomalies” disappear when one uses the correct law .
And are you really so sure that the classical GR applies exactly at MLY and GLY scales ?
It’s almost like the AGW 🙂
Are the people really so sure that they can use equilibrium physics on a chaotic system ?
.
That’s why it is ALWAYS necessary to remind that the very existence of this kind of “observation” completely depends on the validity of some theory in the considered circumstances .
It is different from , f.ex an “observation” of a proton where you can measure its energy , spin , charge , momentum etc in a lab .
By the way, I am so enjoying the sunspot “belt” evolution this go around. Everything is happening in slow motion, thus I am learning a GREAT deal about where the data comes from to create the “butterfly” graph often used to show sunspot evolution. The southern hemisphere plage area with odd polarity is still visible on the magnetogram in the same belt as the new Cycle 24 area is located, now showing its spots. Very cool.