Archibald on stellar to climate linkage

The Warning in the Stars

By David Archibald

If climate is not a random walk, then we can predict climate if we understand what drives it.  The energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level and type of that energy does change.  So the Sun is a good place to start if we want to be able to predict climate.  To put that into context, let’s look at what the Sun has done recently.  This is a figure from “Century to millenial-scale temperature variations for the last two thousand years indicated from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska” G.C.Wiles, D.J.Barclay, P.E.Calkin and T.V.Lowell 2007:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald1sun.JPG

The red line is the C14 production rate, inverted.  C14 production is inversely related to solar activity, so we see more C14 production during solar minima.  The black line is the percentage of ice-rafted debris in seabed cores of the North Atlantic, also plotted inversely.  The higher the black line, the warmer the North Atlantic was.  The grey vertical stripes are solar minima. 

As the authors say, “Previous analyses of the glacial record showed a 200- year rhythm to glacial activity in Alaska and its possible link to the de Vries 208-year solar (Wiles et al., 2004). Similarly, high-resolution analyses of lake sediments in southwestern Alaska suggests that century-scale shifts in Holocene climate were modulated by solar activity (Hu et al., 2003).  It seems that the only period in the last two thousand years that missed a de Vries cycle cooling was the Medieval Warm Period.”

The same periodicity over the last 1,000 years is also evident in this graphic of the advance/retreat of the Great Aletsch Glacier in Switzerland:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald2sun.JPG

The solar control over climate is also shown in this graphic of Be10 in the Dye 3 ice core from central Greenland:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald3sun.JPG

The modern retreat of the world’s glaciers, which started in 1860, correlates with a decrease in Be10, indicating a more active Sun that is pushing galactic cosmic rays out from the inner planets of the solar system.

The above graphs show a correlation between solar activity and climate in the broad, but we can achieve much finer detail, as shown in this graphic from a 1996 paper by Butler and Johnson (below enlarged here)::

Butler and Johnson applied Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to one temperature record – the three hundred years of data from Armagh in Northern Ireland.  There isn’t much scatter around their line of best fit, so it can be used as a fairly accurate predictive tool.  The Solar Cycle 22/23 transition happened in the year of that paper’s publication, so I have added the lengths of Solar Cycles 22 and 23 to the figure to update it.  The result is a prediction that the average annual temperature at Armagh over Solar Cycle 24 will be 1.4C cooler than over Solar Cycle 23.  This is twice the assumed temperature rise of the 20th Century of 0.7 C, but in the opposite direction.

To sum up, let’s paraphrase Dante: The darkest recesses of Hell are reserved for those who deny the solar control of climate.

This essay is also available in PDF form: TheWarningintheStars

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Hmmmn.
Doesn’t Bond (2001) all by itself break Mann’s hockey stick?

Pamela Gray

What did the temps do between cycle 1 and 2? 2 and 3? 3 and 4? As for the other graphs, what is the significance? How does C14 and other measures relate to temperature? Finally what were the climate mechanisms operative at the time? I mean all the mechanisms, not just solar mechanisms.

bikermailman

In the first graph, it appears that C14 levels peak and trough in both greater levels, and over larger time scales over time. Is data available for further back, and could this indicate solar cycles on a larger scale? Could we perhaps have seen similar data and the end of previous interglacial periods?
Thanks in advance.

Carbon Dioxode

Ten miles from Armagh Observatory and its cold tonight.

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES

Since the earth is in the atmosphere of the sun it seems changes in the sun would make for changes on the earth.
Has everyone yet seen this documentary and the sun and climate on earth? I know there are new readers since ClimateGate.
in 5 parts in youtube

Leif Svalgaard, a noted solar physicist, has written a lot about the Sun. But he does not seem to believe the Sun-climate link theory. Can someone provide a link to Leif’s paper why this is so? Leif also does not seem to believe that SC 24 will behave like SC 5 (start of Dalton Minimum). Thanks.

Physics Major

OT, but has anyone else noticed the irony of the Google ads that appear here?
They all seem to be for hyper-green organizations.
I am all for conservation, but not for those who make wild, unscientific exaggerations to advance an anti-capitalist agenda. I know that I have never been tempted to click on one of these ads so thy are wasting their money.

These guys are nothing but Deniers! Quick, have Mann talk to editors of the journal and make sure they never get published again!

u.k.(us)

“a fairly accurate predictive tool.”
“The result is a prediction that the average annual temperature at Armagh over Solar Cycle 24 will be 1.4C cooler than over Solar Cycle 23. ”
=====
Predictions?, the data is chaotic at best.
There are 3-4 variables that could overwhelm the entire system depending on their intensity.
I.E. volcanic activity, our variable star, galactic interactions and/or a combination of all of these.
Predictions scare me, they got us into the AGW fiasco.

What a novel concept? Check and see what the furnace is up to instead of just yelling at the kids for jumping on the sofa!

Marc77

I hope more research will be done about the sun, because the climate is clearly correlated with possibly a lot of complexity. The sun shines at different frequencies and different feedbacks could be discovered.
Here is an hypothesis which is probably wrong but might be worth testing:
1. A hot sun generates a lot of water vapor.
2. Dust particles and aerosols accelerates the rate of water vapor condensing to clouds.
3. When the sun is more powerful, the dust particles and aerosols get much warmer and cloud formation is lowered because the condensation on theses particles is lowered.
4. When the sun is hot, you have:
a. More water vapor in the air.(positive feedback)
b. Reduced cloud cover during the day.(positive feedback)
c. Cloud formation during the night because the dust particles and aerosols are colder and can condensate the high amount of humidity.(positive feedback)
If anybody knows the results of a study of this hypothesis, feel free to share.

This a pure Archibald, and also pure nonsense and cherry picking. You do not need to go any further than the very first Figure. The red curve is supposed to be solar activity [inverse 14C] and the gray bands solar minima. It is clear they don’t line up. Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000. The rest is as bad. I would be ashamed to post junk like this, but that is, of course, only my humble opinion and David has his loyal flock, so stay tuned to hear the hymn from them.

TKL

The black line in Fig. 1 disagrees with the first figure in David Lappi’s article at
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/.
The black line suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler in the North Atlantic than the climate around 1900, and David Lappi’s first figure suggests the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than it was around 1900.

It’s a pretty interesting article.
It does seem like it’s hard to be conclusive about the solar insolation any time before 1978. Each approach gives a quite different result. Once you go back before observation of the sun with telescopes in the 1600s it’s even less certain. There are a few reconstructions with explanations in:
Here Comes the Sun.
In fact even picking up what might be significant changes after 1978 aren’t so clear as the changes are similar in magnitude to the errors in the on-board instruments!
But before 1978 the solar reconstruction really depends on the theory that’s applied. Like sunspots for example. So we have very detailed daily observations of sunspots and faculae (“bright spots”) back to 1870. People like Solanski & Fligge have worked out correlations between satellite measurements and observations – then applied these backwards. But as they note, the reconstruction is dependent on the assumption that the measured relationships have been the same for more than a century. Is that assumption correct?
Other measurements like Be10 seem to offer more – and have the advantage that we can measure back more than a millenium – but still there is more uncertainty than certainty.

John F. Hultquist

Nonoy Oplas (16:42:38) : “believe”
“Believe” is the key to answer your own question. The sorts of things presented are intriguing but there are several suggested explanations as to why they are so. When you get down to one explanation that is supported by good science – check back.

JonesII

Discontinuity vs. continuity, agnosticism vs.gnosticism, it seems a Dan Brown´s novel.

Pamela Gray

I agree with Leif. The presentation makes no sense. No lit review, or purpose of the study, no method or analysis, no discussion, no proposed mechanism, no suggestions for further research. Nothing. You said there is a correlation. Okay, if you did the calculations, what is it? And I don’t even want to discuss the cherry picked cycle and temperature plot. You have published? In peer reviewed journals? Are we that down low on your audience list that we rate this terrible piece of work?

Adam from Kansas

How many comments will be posted before we see Archibald and those who believe him get into a boxing match with Leif?
Anyway regarding current happenings about the weather here and whether it’s been getting colder, we’ve had a generally below average January and February in Wichita at least, though it seems that lows above freezing and Spring arriving is just around the corner (the songbirds are returning and the daffodils are growing)

kim

Leif @ 17:42:44
Steggles puts a beetle down Harold’s back.
=======================

blcjr

I’m not as harsh, perhaps, as Leif, but I think, for the prediction of a 1.4C decline in temperature, it is reasonable to ask what the prediction interval is.
Here is something written by Harrison Schmitt (link to follow) which I think states a basic reality:
“Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena. They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-what-we-should-be-doing-about-natural-climate-change/
DId you catch that? Basically, all natural climate variation can be reduced to an interaction between (a) terrestrial atmospheric and oceanic processes and (b) and the sun (“solar heating imbalances”). I mean, how could it be otherwise? The great gulf between Archibald and Svalgaard only demonstrates how little we actually understand about the nature of this interaction.

Roger Carr

Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) : This a pure Archibald, and also pure nonsense and…
Which releives me of the need to follow this thread further.
Thanks for freeing up my time, Leif.

Stephen Wilde

The disjunction between the views of David Archibald and Leif Svalgaard has been exercising me for some time.
Leif’s points about the smallness in the absolute level of variations in solar output are persuasive but I find it difficult to accept his complete dismissal of any correlation between cool spells and periods of reduced solar activity and also his complete dismissal of the possibility that other aspects of solar variability apart from raw power output could have a disproportionate effect on climate.
David’s work takes due note of the apparent correlations and interprets them persuasively but fails to propose mechanisms to explain weaknesses in the correlation or exactly how such proportionately small solar changes could have what seem to be large climate responses.
I have tried to square the circle by proposing that oceanic variations in the rate of energy release are the most direct climate driver with solar changes providing the longer term background trend with both oceanic and solar influences varying independently and capable of moving in and out of phase over millennia.
That provides a mechanism to explain the failures of correlation from time to time and also accounts for the size of climate shifts in the face of small solar variability. Additionally it can explain why the size and speed of climate shifts seems to vary greatly between periods of glaciation and interglacials.
As regards the scale of solar effects I have proposed that counterintuitively a more active sun increases the rate of energy loss to space more than the additional power output provided by the extra activity adds energy to the Earth system. When the active sun causes an expansion of the upper atmosphere we see an increased surface area of atmosphere exposed to space with a faster transfer of energy outward. An active sun also creates a more turbulent upper atmosphere which also increases total surface area at the interfaces between each layer of the upper atmosphere for a similar effect.
That proposition helps to explain why climate shifts are smaller during interglacials than they are during glacial epochs because during interglacials the solar effects offset oceanic influences reducing climate variability but during glaciations the solar effects compound oceanic influences giving much larger climate variability.
I am open to sensible arguement rebutting such propositions convincingly but I have yet to hear it.

Jason

I read a non-scientific paper that argued that we crossed the galactic plane in 1998. Readers here would also note that that is an anonymously warm year. I figure that as we entered the plane, the galactic rays would increase. But the chart claims they decreasing. Is there a way I can resolve the chart with my hypothesis? Of course it could be that the1998 transit date is just wrong… But I was looking for a way that might explain why it was as warm as it was.

George Turner

The sun/climate issue is fraught with baggage.
On the one hand, the sun obviously determines Earth’s climate. Why else would the Aztes have been carving out people’s beating hearts as to it offerings during droughts?
On the other hand, the sun can’t possibly influence Earth’s climate because it’s too far away.
In between those two views are other views.
Be10 is useful because it stands out, but it is only a proxy for other atomic nuclei that we can’t measure because they’re ubiquitous, so it’s an imperfect measure of the state of the cosmic ray flux in a given era.
What is very useful is that the sun has finally changed modes in an era when we have the instrumentation to actually measure what’s going on. I think the next decade will be pivotal in examine the link between the sun and climate.

George Turner

Hrm… I should’ve previewed but I was in the middle of a cat/wild bird war. A wild bird has taken up residence above my head due to the unusually cold weather, and I don’t have the heart to toss him out in the snow. The new kitty (rescued from the freezing woods of Eastern Kentucky) finds him fascinating and wants to play with him, but the bird is having none of it. Today I realized that the bird is ignoring all the bird feed and has been eating the cat’s food, which might explain the cat’s emotionally charged attitude regarding the bird. The bird seems to know that he’s overstepping his bounds regarding the cat because he has no qualms about landing on my bunnies.
Anyway, the wild bird pooped on my keyboard, which somehow damaged not only the keyboard (which I’ve swapped out twice to no avail) but the motherboard’s keyboard interface. This has almost randomized my cursor and delete keys. Meanwhile the rescue kitty sits on my chest insisting that I don’t preview my comments, and the rabbits think its fun to hop across me and the damaged keyboard, rendering my attention to comment review wholly inadequate.
It’s a cruel joke that mother nature has played on me, filling my house with refugees from the coming ice age even as I try to comment on global warming. The only thing that would make my life worse is a wooly mammoth in my living room.

Mike Clark

Leif,
The “Flock” as you say would like for you to produce a graph of your heating bill, or the BTU’s needed to heat your home, or some “real” world representation of your home needs to heat in the winter. Better yet over the last 25 years.
If you can’t produce this then maybe you can produce a graph of the worlds “grain” production over the last 40 years.
Maybe you can show us in some way how all this climate is a random walk?
Maybe you can tell us why the “Russians” and the “Chineese” are taking stronger global positions in energy production?
How about giving the “Flock” some guidance on the elevated level of earthquake activity in the last 2 years.
Hey Leif!, it took a “flock” to get to the moon.
Who would best fit the “Flock” mentality? “Chaimberlain” or “Churchill”?
When the gas runs low or the grain runs low it won’t be theory that saves your ass it’ll be the “Flock” that’s got sense enough to save the masses. Will the “Flock” be standing flat footed when the world is faced with trouble?
It won’t be the Chaimberlains, it’ll be the Churchills.
I bet that in the event someone has to dig you out of a snowbound disaster, it’ll be a “Flocker” 10-1 odds.

I’m a bit confused.
I’m wondering why c14 was used. Since the amount of c14 is based on the amount of cosmic rays, why not just use cosmic rays?
But then cosmic rays are thrown in for a different comparison. And then sunspots.
Like I said, I’m confused. I’m not seeing something that could be used to build a climate model. I’m seeing a collection of various correlations.

len

Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44)
“Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000.”

I’ll draw on someone many don’t seem to like here, including David and yourself. Landscheidt said this was due to a phase change in the alignment of the planets where the barycentric tides cancel. He also predicted we would get another one in ~500 years (3*172) in one of his papers. Personally, I like the corrected (172y) Jose Cycle better … 2x the Gleissberg cycle. After that I’d bet we go into another glaciation during a Sporer Type Minimum … wager?

len

I like the Gleissberg cycle and Jose cycle better than the deVries cycle. Matches events better and is linked to another effect that is apparently barred from discussion here. I know where to classify Lief’s criticism and sentiments but I am having trouble finding a high profile proponent of Pam’s sentiments.

len

Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44)
“Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000.”

OK, since I think I know what booted my original comment. A certain person thought the phenomena noted above was due to a phase change in the proposed driver of the cycles previously mentioned. The phase change will happen again in 3*Jose cycle.
Did I miss something or not read WUWT when certain topics were flagged?

len

Sorry for the string of comments, must be the old browser, updates etc. … and working nights makes me paranoid. 😀

Pamela Gray

len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.

[quote]I hope more research will be done about the sun, because the climate is clearly correlated with possibly a lot of complexity. The sun shines at different frequencies and different feedbacks could be discovered.
Here is an hypothesis which is probably wrong but might be worth testing:
1. A hot sun generates a lot of water vapor.
2. Dust particles and aerosols accelerates the rate of water vapor condensing to clouds.
3. When the sun is more powerful, the dust particles and aerosols get much warmer and cloud formation is lowered because the condensation on theses particles is lowered.
4. When the sun is hot, you have:
a. More water vapor in the air.(positive feedback)
b. Reduced cloud cover during the day.(positive feedback)
c. Cloud formation during the night because the dust particles and aerosols are colder and can condensate the high amount of humidity.(positive feedback)
If anybody knows the results of a study of this hypothesis, feel free to share.[/quote]

Not to be mean, but it’s probably wrong, for several reasons.
1) There’s been no trend in water vapor for 20 years. http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
2) This one is correct.
3) Its the temperature of the water vapor that matters for cloud formation, not the temperature of the particles. The temperature of water vapor is lowered by having the water vapor rise into the air. The air pressure is lower up there, the water vapor expands, which causes it to cool.
4) If by “sun” you mean total solar irradiance (TSI), there’s not much of a correlation between TSI and clouds.

John F. Hultquist

Jason (19:03:02) :
Go read for a couple of hours on Bob Tisdale’s pages:
Perhaps start here and follow the links and/or ask Bob for an ordered list:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html

P.S. In a nutshell, you’re not going to get very far with the idea of “hotter/colder sun = hotter/colder earth”.
My personal preference is to start with the clouds. Follow that trend and compare it to temperatures.
If you’re happy with that correlation (I am), from there you can ask what causes the amount of clouds to change. Cosmic rays, extreme ultraviolet energy, and bacteria are all candidates. There may be others.

John F. Hultquist

Some of you, I think, mistake watchful waiting for mean-spiritedness. Mother said if the shoes don’t fit it’s best to do without. Good advice then. Good advice now.

Hello David
I am trying to understand all of the potential drivers of Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
and determine which ones are primarily responsible for recent and forthcoming changes in Earth’s climate system.
There seems to be reasonable evidence of a significant ocean component based on the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation;
http://icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm
And there also seems to be reasonable evidence for a significant volcanic component based historical observation:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991vci..nasa…..R
How significant a factor do you consider solar variability as a driver of recent and forthcoming changes in Earth’s climate system as compared to the impact of ocean cycles, volcanic activity, natural variability and other factors?

Wondering Aloud

This looks mighty weak to me. Better explanation than CO2 driving climate perhaps; but better than totally baloney isn’t the same thing as good.

John Whitman

I compare the clarity and logical progression of the above article by David Archibald to that of the Roy W. Spencer post on WUWT today “Spurious warming demonstrated in CRU surface data”.
Given that there is a significantly increasing interest in all things solar as CO2 interest fades, I wish David Archibald’s piece was laid out in clear terms and with a logically progressing layout towards a summary. By the lack of a more clear scientific communication, I think Archibald misses a great opportunity here to shed some light of clarity for those riding the increasing wave of solar interest.
ANECDOTAL NOTE: My training for technical sales presentations to customers was: Tell them what you are going to say, then say it, then tell them what you said, then verify by dinner discussion that they understood. I learned through experience (38 yrs) also, that you need to make sure that (well in advance of the presentation) they know clearly what you are going to say, to the extent that they don’t really need you to come and tell them. Then they could decide if they were really interested in hearing you say it. No sense in wasting your time telling them if they do not want to here it.
My point, Mr. Archibald, is a lot of people here really do want to hear what you are saying about things solar, but please make it clear even if it makes you look very uncertain . . . .it all adds to knowledge and we will appreciate it.
John

Mike Clark (19:24:50) :
I bet that in the event someone has to dig you out of a snowbound disaster, it’ll be a “Flocker” 10-1 odds.
Archibald is an alarmist [we are all gonna freeze, we are all gonna starve, etc] but for the wrong reason.
len (19:49:01) :
Landscheidt said this was due to a phase change in the alignment of the planets where the barycentric tides cancel.
With phase changes at suitable places you can explain anything and everything.
He also predicted we would get another one in ~500 years […] wager?
OK, I’ll collect in 500 years. You can put the money in escrow right now.

P.P.S.
Here’s a link to a video on clouds that I put together. It may be useful.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBs9RucRg_Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES

Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) :
David has his loyal flock, so stay tuned to hear the hymn from them.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
One can always be certain of kindness from you, can’t they Leif.
And, are you certain that it is David Archibald that has a loyal flock? That is not what I have observed.

David L. Hagen

Prof. Emeritus Wil Alexander shows a 95% correlation between rainfall and a 21 year solar cycle in So. Africa See: A critical assessment of current climate change science
See especially page 22

Table 3. Comparison of sudden changes in the annual flows in the Vaal River with corresponding sudden changes in sunspot numbers

and page 25

Figure 2. Characteristics of the periodic sequences of river flow at representative dam sites. The double sunspot cycle is diagrammatically superimposed.

Presumably there will be a corresponding correlation with clouds.
Alexander has successfully predicted major droughts based on this 21 year periodicity.

David L. Hagen

Correction – that should be 95% significance. See

In the Vaal River, the periodicity approached the 95% level of statistical significance required in many engineering applications

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES

Pamela Gray (20:07:25) :
len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
To be fair, Roy Spencer also has a post here on the front page. His methods and opinions did not go through this process before he was posted here either.

John Whitman

”””’Pamela Gray (20:07:25) : len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.”””’
Pamela Gray,
I did my “John Whitman (20:30:13)” comment before seeing yours.
Your point is similar to what I was trying to say. Why isn’t Archibald more clear?
John

George Turner

John Whitman,
I’m just a climate hobbyist and I’m innundated with animal refugees from the current cold spell. I can’t imagine what the more active researchers are having to deal with at home. Probably shivering hippopotamuses and frostbitten giraffes.
I’ll bet they want to punch out whoever wrote “I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas“.

David L. Hagen (20:47:35) :
Alexander has successfully predicted major droughts based on this 21 year periodicity.
How many did he predict? If he discovered the correlation, say, 30 years ago, he could have predicted at most 2. If less than 21 years ago, at most 1. Not an impressive track record.

Just The Facts (20:27:38) :
Just The Facts (18:47:57) :
“Retracted, posted on wrong thread, D’oh!”
And retract my retraction on this thread, and I apologize for my sloppiness. I’ve got about 20 windows open, am working on two different laptops, doing about 10 different things and apparently doing this one quite poorly.

savethesharks

Pamela Gray (18:13:31) :
Spare me the appeal to authority fallacy.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA