Solar Science Bipolar Disorder
Guest post by Steven Goddard
About once every 11 years, the sun’s magnetic poles reverse. However some high profile solar scientists reverse their own polarity more frequently.
The BBC reported Wednesday that Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading has established a statistical link between cold weather and low solar activity.
The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.
“By recent standards, we have just had what could be called a very cold winter and I wanted to see if this was just another coincidence or statistically robust,” said lead author Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, UK.
To examine whether there was a link, Professor Lockwood and his co-authors compared past levels of solar activity with the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which is the world’s longest continuous instrumental record of such data.
The researchers used the 351-year CET record because it provided data that went back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged period of very low activity on the Sun that lasted about half a century.
“Frost fayres” were held on the Thames during the Maunder Minimum
|
The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century – a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age. Following this, there was a gradual increase in solar activity that lasted 300 years.
Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to “ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period”.
He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about “half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition”. More at the BBC
=================================
His study was basically a rehash of what many others have done previously over the past few centuries, but he has the BBC’s ear – because in 2007 he prominently claimed just the opposite.
No Sun link’ to climate change
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
“This should settle the debate,” said Mike Lockwood
Similarly, in 2006 David Hathaway at NASA reported that the Sun’s conveyor belt had “slowed to a record low.”
May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”
Then on March 12, 2010 he reported the exact opposite:
March 12, 2010: In today’s issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.
In 1810, the great English astronomer William Herschel established a link between sunspot activity and the price of grain in Europe – a proxy for climate. As far as we know, he never reversed polarity on that belief. Modern solar science is just coming around to what Herschel hypothesized 200 years ago.
==========================
UPDATE: Full Lockwood et al paper at Environmental Research Letters here
Abstract. Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.
Figure 2 from the paper:
- Figure 2. Variations since the mid-17th century of the following. (a) The mean northern hemisphere temperature anomaly, ΔTN: black shows the HadCRUT3v compilation of observations [17, mauve shows the median of an ensemble of 11 reconstructions (individually intercalibrated with the HadCRUT3v NH data over the interval 1850–1950) based on tree ring and other proxy data [18–23]. The decile range is given by the area shaded grey (between upper and lower decile values of ΔTU and ΔTL). (b) Average winter Central England Temperatures (CET) [5, 6] for December, January and February, TDJF. (c) The open solar flux, FS, corrected for longitudinal solar wind structure: dots are annual means of interplanetary satellite data; the black line after 1905 is derived from ground-based geomagnetic data [1]; and the mauve line is a model based on observed sunspot numbers [14]. Both curves show 1 year means. (d) Detrended winter CET, δTDJF, obtained by subtracting the best-fit variation of ΔTN, derived using the regressions shown in figure 3(b): the width of the line shows the difference resulting from the use of ΔTN = ΔTU and ΔTN = ΔTL prior to 1850. In all panels, dots are for years with δTDJF < 1 °C (the dashed horizontal line in (d)), colour-coded by year using the scale in figure 3(a). Data for the winter 2009/10 are provisional.”]
1st. Let’s put aside that I don’t hold great store with the whole Global mean temperature thing.
Having put that aside, it appears that the apparent connection between Solar cycles & mean average temperatures started to diverge mid 20th century.
What else started to diverge from mean average temperatures about then? It’s on the tip of my tongue but I can’t quite place it.
DaveE.
The Maunder Minimum was cold. Is there a correlation? Probably.
Here is the WUWT link for the battle of the graphs
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/the-medieval-warm-period-linked-to-the-success-of-machu-picchu-inca/
Stephen Wilde (15:09:11) : “While the sun was more active and the ocean surfaces warm there were more clouds”
I think you have this the wrong way round.
DirkH (14:35:36) : “Sorry if a commenter has already said this, i didn’t read them all…”
Me too.
I don’t think much of this Lockwood paper. It goes through a whole list of possible mechanisms – clouds, cosmic rays, jet streams, etc – and then singles out one way of looking at it (without any apparent justification) which can be tied into “blocking events” which make the whole thing local to Europe.
But given that the cold hit North America and much of Asia at the same time, I would suggest that they have made the wrong pick.
John Finn (15:39:43) : “The fact that the [solar-climate] link may not exist is as damaging to the AGW case as it is to the sceptics case.”
Zero=zero. The solar-climate link plays no significant role at all in the AGW case, so its absence would make no difference. At one level, a solar-climate link would also make no difference to the sceptics case, which is that AGW is grotesquely exaggerated through bad science, cherry-picking, etc. However, a proven solar-climate link at a meaningful level would explicitly disprove AGW because it would show much of the IPCC Report and the climate models to be incorrect – not that any further disproof is really needed.
Again, to remind us all. The causalities are all subject to varied interpretations, but the main issue to focus on is that the AGW hypothesis is bankrupt, and the consensus has shifted to the skeptical side, where science should always dwell, anyway.
Three legs of the AGW stool:
1) The earth is abnormally warm and getting warmer – this has not been proven. Most new data show that we are within statistical probability of the “norm” whatever that is. Theorists have not proved their case, and the burden of proof is on them.
2) CO2 is a driver of climate change (previously called global warming) – this has been tested and proven wanting. CO2 has been higher when the earth was colder, and CO2 has lagged temperature. Theorists have not proved their case, and the burden of proof is on them.
3) Man’s CO2 generation is the cause – this is the most absurd, since human generation is miniscule, and CO2 is anyway not a strong greenhouse gas compared to most others. Theorists have not proved their case, and the burden of proof is on them.
Any one of these, proven false, has falsified the entire house-of-cards hypothesis that mankind is causing the earth to warm. Each step has been falsified. Unfortunately for the alarmist, all legs of the stool are off, and his bum is on the turf.
[quote Stephen Wilde (15:09:11) :]
magicjava (13:24:15)
I’m not qualified to assess the quality of your data but it is very convenient for me.
[/quote]
The data is correct. Or, at the very least, I’m representing it correctly.
The water vapor vapor and cloud data is from the ISCCP website.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/
I’ve processed their equal area grid products into UAH-like regions.
The Southern Extra Tropics cosmic ray data is for Hermanus, South Africa and is provided by North-West University, South Africa.
http://www.puk.ac.za/physics/data/
The Northern Extra Tropics cosmic ray data is for Climax, CO and is provided by The University of New Hampshire.
ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt
All other cosmic ray data is provided by The Bartol Research Institute at The University of Delaware.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/
All of it will be released in spreadsheet format in my Climate Scientist Starter Kit, Version 2.0, which I hope to have ready around the end of the month.
[/quote]
While the sun was more active and the ocean surfaces warm there were more clouds and more water vapour (faster hydrological cycle)
With the sun starting to get less active and the ocean surfaces cooling we see less clouds and less water vapour (slower hydrological cycle).
[/quote]
It’s an interesting idea and I hope to learn more about it.
[quote]
The consequent disjunction with cosmic rays seems to falsify the Svensmark proposal and of course there is also now a growing disjunction between temperatures and CO2 quantities. During the warming spell the correlation between cosmic rays and the rising temperatures appears to have been coincidental and easily reversed subsequently.
[/quote]
I don’t know if it falsifies it, but it may have to be modified to take the amount of locally available water vapor into account. Which only makes sense. You can’t make clouds without water vapor, no matter how many seed particles you have.
M White (12:33:12) :
Are Livingstone and Penns sunspots still on course to “disappear” in the next decade
I think so. Here is my plot of their data updated until a few days ago:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
magicjava (13:24:59) :
I though it might be interesting to compare local changes in cosmic rays to local changes in clouds (as cosmic rays are said to directly affect clouds, not temperature).
The long-term trends of CRs at different locations can be different, but since CRs come from the Galaxy, the shorter-term wiggles from station to station are pretty much the same. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux3.png
John Finn (15:39:43) :
The fact that the link may not exist is as damaging to the AGW case as it is to the skeptics case.
Which is why they can join in claiming it must be the Sun [sometimes, except when it is not]. Explains some of the hostility and ad-homs lopped at suggestions that perhaps the climate can have internal natural variations.
Mike Jonas (19:12:21) :
However, a proven solar-climate link at a meaningful level would explicitly disprove AGW
So it is easy to have confirmation bias: you like an idea just because it supports your idea, no matter what its inherent merits are.
Multivariate coupling involving ENSO (El Nino / Southern Oscillation), as represented by SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) [detrended & repeat-1-year-smoothed] in the following:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_SOI.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_aa_SOI.png
More details here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Mike Jonas (19:12:21)
“Stephen Wilde (15:09:11) : “While the sun was more active and the ocean surfaces warm there were more clouds”
I think you have this the wrong way round.”
I’ve had another look in light of your comment Mike. There is clearly a downward step change in both water vapour (especially) and clouds around 2000 which is when I first noticed the jets starting to move back equatorward. I’ve set out that date of 2000 in several places in my writings over the past two years.
It is true that even during the warmer period back to 1983 if one applies smoothing there was a slow decline in both water vapour and clouds from 1983 to 2000 but that just suggests that the warming spell peaked early on, possibly shortly before 1983.
Ideally I’d like to see the same data presented back through the earlier cooling spell to see if the pattern holds up. Perhaps magicjava could consider that ?
Further to (01:07:18)
By “the warming spell peaked early on” I mean that the maximum power of the factors giving rise to the warming trend peaked early on. The actual peak of warming did not arrive until around 1998 with the El Nino of that year.
It’s so easy to misspeak in a forum environment 🙂
If Lockwood can’t make up his own mind, how can he ever hope to make up my mind?…
jeff brown (07:11:08) :
“The planet and our weather is very sensitive to small variations in solar input and where this input is received, otherwise we wouldn’t have gone from glacial to interglacial periods. What this study is saying (that many seem to be missing in their understanding) is that the solar activity during the last solar minimum was anomalously low (below normal). This lower than normal solar input is received by the entire planet, which will affect the transport of that incoming heat within the atmosphere…”
Good to see some common sense, Jeff, although trying to understand the way small changes to the full spectrum of solar energy output affect Earth’s energy transport systems is difficult, due to the non-linearity of the system. Global mean temperature is a very poor proxy for the complexity of our climate system.
Mike Jonas (19:12:21) :
John Finn (15:39:43) : “The fact that the [solar-climate] link may not exist is as damaging to the AGW case as it is to the sceptics case.”
Zero=zero. The solar-climate link plays no significant role at all in the AGW case, so its absence would make no difference.
So what are the “detection and attribution” studies about? The IPCC can confidently explain past climate changes by solar forcing and increased volcanic activity. They then state, quite correctly, that there has been little change in solar activity over the past ~50 years and that it is only by including ghgs that they can explain recent warming. The ‘traditional view’ of past solar activity is totally consistent with ghg-induced wartming in the late 20th century.
Ironically, a lack of solar variability (as suggested by Leif Svalgaard for example) might cause a re-think on the cause of past climate change which would significantly reduce the confidence in those attribution studies. They would have to admit they don’t know what caused past changes which might naturally lead us to the question of how do they know what caused recent changes.
John Finn (03:44:08) :
They then state, quite correctly, that there has been little change in solar activity over the past ~50 years and that it is only by including ghgs that they can explain recent warming.
My point is that solar activity now is where it was 110 years ago and the temps are not. This is usually countered by invoking ‘lags’ to explain away the non-similarity. With enough lags at suitable times, one can claim support for anything. I do not find such explanations convincing.
Leif Svalgaard (06:26:33) :
My point is that solar activity now is where it was 110 years ago and the temps are not. This is usually countered by invoking ‘lags’ to explain away the non-similarity. With enough lags at suitable times, one can claim support for anything. I do not find such explanations convincing.
Just another example of the old guard not understanding what’s really going on in the real world. Poor old Leif still thinks the recent activity is similar to 1900, which will end his career. We are in a very different place.
I too must comment on the use of the temp series in the above. I love a delicious stew (preferably made with a good beer), but it does not work as a way to combine different types of temperature measures and call it one entity (though I appreciate the effort to color code the connections in the average).
There are numerous different types of proxies for reconstructed temperature. Picking the set that best fits together at the connections seems to me designed to make a pretty graph that fits a theory. In essence, a bias.
In my statistics class, bias was the first, middle, and last lecture. In other words, we didn’t discuss any kind of statistical or descriptive calculation without discussing potential bias (heck, it’s so prevalent it is even figured in mathematically). In the writing above, there are so many areas of bias, my mind’s eye can’t pick anything significant out at all without wanting to clean the bias off my glasses.
Clive E Burkland (07:41:57) :
Poor old Leif still thinks the recent activity is similar to 1900, which will end his career. We are in a very different place.
Take a look at the third panel [Fs] of Figure 2 shown in the posting at the top of the page, and tell us how different the black curve [from 1900 to now] is in 1900 compared to now.
“”” John Trigge (00:49:25) :
It’s nice to know that we have a different sun in Australia and that our CO2 will cause our temps will remain on the increase.
“We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect.” “””
Well John, don’t forget that you are on the other side of the pizza, so your CO2 is upside down. So the heating would be on the other side of the cO2 as well.
Leif Svalgaard (09:59:42)
The point Clive is making is that the simple observation that solar output may be much the same now as in 1900 is climatically irrelevant.
There are many other variables including oceanic effects that are very different now from what they were in 1900.
Even if one concedes that every feature of solar effects on Earth is identical to the way things were in 1900 the climate outcome would be very different.
And I still doubt that that black curve tells us the entire solar story.
Stephen Wilde (10:53:03) :
There are many other variables including oceanic effects that are very different now from what they were in 1900.
Even if one concedes that every feature of solar effects on Earth is identical to the way things were in 1900 the climate outcome would be very different.
I don’t see any quantitative ‘features’ or models or even handwaving ‘explanations’ that list or take into effect any ‘different’ conditions. Show me some.
Leif Svalgaard (12:53:49) :
Stephen Wilde (10:53:03) :
There are many other variables including oceanic effects that are very different now from what they were in 1900.
Even if one concedes that every feature of solar effects on Earth is identical to the way things were in 1900 the climate outcome would be very different.
I don’t see any quantitative ‘features’ or models or even handwaving ‘explanations’ that list or take into effect any ‘different’ conditions. Show me some.
———
REPLY: Hi, Leif! As I recall, didn’t the CRU models include adjustments for increased anthropogenic air pollutants since around 1900?
Carbon dioxide of course, they hang on that feature, but I believe they also tried to model increased particulates and sulfur dioxide aerosols in some kind of mish-mash procedure. It was nothing terribly convincing, but man’s influence on the atmosphere since 1900 has been well-established.
As McIntyre points out, Briffa’s team really downplayed the effects of pollution upon tree growth, which throws a monkey-wrench into the dendroclimatology models.
Of course, a few more Icelandic volcanoes and it won’t matter! Hope the family is doing well, Chuck
Leif Svalgaard (12:53:49)
Ocean surface temperatures are generally higher than they were then.
The current state of each of the individual ocean oscillations is different from 1900.
Air circulation systems are not in the same latitudinal positions nor of the same intensities.
The biosphere is running the carbon cycle faster.
Albedo is not the same.
The relative temperatures of stratosphere, troposphere and all the other layers of ocean and air are not the same as they were then.
The long spell of more active cycles in the 20th century leading up to now is very different to the activity level of solar cycles pre 1900 which means that the state of the energy budget is very different with a lot more ocean heat content.
Sun and oceans are both at different stages of their various multiple overlapping cycles.
On present observations the sun may soon be dropping below the 1900 level of activity to go nearer Maunder Minimum levels.
Lots more but no point boring readers.
Stephen Wilde (14:08:21) :
Lots more but no point boring readers.
Lots of loose statements. No numbers. E.g. you say “albedo is not the same”. Why says? What is is now? what was it then? Give the numbers. Otherwise one cannot compare. The ONE thing we KNOW is different is that CO2 is a higher now. Perhaps we should take that into account… Except we don’t really know what CO2 was in 1900, or do we? shoe me how, where.
Now, I agree that the climate was different back then [that was my whole point], but all our indications are that the Sun was not. So, we have two ways we can go:
1) the Sun has nothing to do with anything, and we don’t have a problem, or
2) something else is changing the climate, so that the impact of the same Sun might be different. I’m willing to buy that, but that also removes the Sun as the major driver.
I’ll not comment on the unsavory tone of ‘Clive E Burkland (07:41:57)’
Leif Svalgaard (14:52:27) “[…] something else is changing the climate, so that the impact of the same Sun might be different. I’m willing to buy that, but that also removes the Sun as the major driver.”
Putting it that way clarifies.
Leif Svalgaard (09:59:42) :
Take a look at the third panel [Fs] of Figure 2 shown in the posting at the top of the page, and tell us how different the black curve [from 1900 to now] is in 1900 compared to now.
The current value looks lower than 1900 and closer to 1800. This where you are going wrong, just looking at history it is far more likely this cycle and the next will be more like SC5 & SC6. If so you have been flogging the wrong horse, but time will tell.