Guest post by David Archibald
We return to Dr Svalgaard’s plot of four solar parameters, updated daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
There are a couple of things to note. Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic. Secondly, the F10.7 ramp up continues to be very flat indeed. The line of best fit of the F10.7 flux, currently at 82, equates to a sunspot number of 24. In terms of sunspot number, the rate of ramp up over the last year is 11 per annum. At two years into the cycle, this will be the maximum rate of increase we will get.
One of the accepted solar cycle prediction methodologies is a curve fitting exercise two years after the month of solar minimum, which was December 2008. Inspired by the fact that NOAA et al called 2010 the hottest year ever when it was only half over, we have decided to go early and curve fit now. The green corona brightness tells us that solar maximum will be in 2015. Combined with that constraint, the graphic below is the result:
F10.7 flux at solar maximum will be 105, equating to a sunspot number of 50. It will be the weakest solar cycle since Solar Cycle 6, the second half of the Dalton Minimum (1810 to 1823). Solar Cycle 5 had a maximum amplitude of 49.2 and Solar Cycle 6 of 48.7.
The evidence for a Dalton Minimum repeat continues to build. As a 210 year de Vries cycle event, it has come along right on schedule.
Nice discussion. Keep in mind how crappy our data is for the early solar cycles, Svaalgard will tell you how great his data is on historical sunspots out of one side of his mouth, and admit that cosmogenic radiation and magnetic data is actually crap out of the other ( the latter is correct), thus we are truly entering a first in the solar cycle – a grand minimum that we can study and will have actual knowledge about. Bring on the Little Ice Age (hope fully, if the minimum is low enough)!
Hi Anthony,
According to a model developed by de Jager, Archibald’s forecast seems to be reasonable:
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
“The magnitude of the sunspot maximum occurring at the end of a chaotic transition depends on the type of episode that develops after (De Jager and Duhau, 2009). After the 2009 transition an M-type instead of an R-type episode is expected to occur. Therefore the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle will be nearly three times the one previously assumed. Therefore we expect that sunspot maximum #24 will even be weaker than the earlier prediction, with Rmax = 55. “
I’m sorry, David. This can’t possibly be right.
I mean, news.com.au is predicting a solar storm “… to hit with the force of 100 million hydrogen bombs”!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sun-storm-to-hit-with-force-of-100-bombs/story-e6frfro0-1225909999465
I’m debating with some warmers here in Manila, on the role of the Sun and its impact on the Earth’s climate, they are totally clueless. I showed Willie Soon’s graphs, David Archibald’s powerpoint in his blog, zero reply from them.
Q? You mention a 210 year de Vries Cycle, Does this connect in some or any way to the 200 year Suess Cycle or am I barking up the wrong tree, or just barking full stop?
Exactly right David…and the De Vries cycle is code for “the force that must not be mentioned”.
So far this cycle is right on track…a weak grand minimum. The change in activity that we have now is interesting, the early part of this year saw many large groups with some wait time in between. Now we have more constant activity but the overall strength of the groups is right down. The magnetic activity has been strong but dominated by single alpha spots like we saw on Big Bear recently.
I doubt whether the published sunspot numbers earlier than the middle of the 19th century are as accurate as you are implying. I think the earlier numbers are unlikely to more accurate than +/- 10 . I would also prefer not to be so dogmatic as to say that that the present rate of increase will be the maximum we will get. I think the best comparisons we can make are with the minima of 1901 and 1913 and suggest a possible doubling of the rate of increase to a maximum of between 60 and 100 (mean annual). I certainly would not attempt to predict more accurately than that.
My question to this information would be, what is the best investment for the cool to come, coal, oil or gas, perhaps uranium? Maybe EM Smith could help put me right.
This’ll put a spanner in the works of the warmenists !
Amazing post, its interesting to see what’s next
Im curious too about comparing different solar cycles you can watch here:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
I would be very interested if this is truly a cycle and not debris hitting the sun causing sunspots by punching through the corona.
Scientists have forgotten that our Solar system travels through space.
The last Dalton Minimum caused a 2 degree drop. The solar activity previous to that was almost as high as it has been over the last few years. So we could expect to see something like the same. Interestingly the long term Swedish temperature trend show temps in the late 18th century just before the Dalton min, similar to today. Looks like temps will be going down to 19th century levels.
Mr. Archibald, I assess the thrust of your post as, “aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est”.
Of course the farther we are along in a cycle the easier it is to pick the rest of it.
My position is, “adversus solem ne loquitor”.
John
“Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic.”
1. Correct, but to see if this is special, indicative of something, you need to compare it with previous MF solar cycle transistions.
2. There appears to be a pattern starting around 2010 April. It has the same period (about a month) as that prior to the minimum.
My own prediction for cycle 24 just over 18 months ago was for an Rmax of 50-55 in late 2015.
greetings from coffs harbour.
Nice work.
could you dig up the Grenwich sunspot records and graph them up.
This was the record that convinced me.
Three solar threads in a week! Must be Christmas. They should have used a flash on that big bear ‘Sauron’ photo. Anyway………
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:52 am
Exactly right David…and the De Vries cycle is code for “the force that must not be mentioned.”
Please put me out of my misery by either sending a case of good french wine or explaining this.
Besides which you are all wrong because there is no coupling with the sun because the TSI variance is only .1 of W/m2.
The CME of 1859 has been described in Stuart Clarke’s book “The Sun Kings”.
It might also be useful to consider that the 1859 CME occurred during a Dalton minimum, so David’s prediction that we are headed for another cooler period is consistent.
Joe Lalonde says:{August 27, 2010 at 4:42 am}
“I would be very interested if this is truly a cycle and not debris hitting the sun causing sunspots by punching through the corona.”
You’re joking just to tick off Dr. S, right?
Nonoy Oplas (3:21): Good luck with trying to debate with Warmists!
Belief in AGW is a branch of religion, not of science. It has taken me a couple of years to realise this; I have debated long and hard with a bunch of hard-line believers at the Deltoid site: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php
Like Jehova’s Witnesses, no amount of evidence will shake their belief.
But we mustn’t despair! The general public are increasingly sceptical, and if we have two NH cold winters in the next three years, Warmism will sink under a tide of laughter. I believe you don’t get winters at Manila, so maybe you should challenge your Warmists to show how the seas are rising.
This research from Boulder folks admits that there is more to the sun than TSI.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117580&org=NSF&from=news
Henry@Louis Hissink
Sorry could not find CME in the glossary.
What does it mean?
It was asked what is the best investment. How about corn or wheat futures?
From what I have seen over the last few years Russia and China have been hedging their bets, acquiring land for food production closer to the equator. Neither have taken to the silly act of distilling food for fuel.
Of course, one the other hand, at least we are not de-commissioning nuclear power plants like Germany is. I would think, if we where to truly be hedging our bets, we would be currently working hard for smaller to medium size newer nuclear power plants, more regional in size. With of course full on re-processing of our “waste heat”. The regional smaller plants would be ideal as the “waste heat” could be used for hydroponics and other industrial uses.
eck, but what do I know, just a silly EE.
Mr. Watts – thank you for your blog!
“Sorry could not find CME in the glossary.”
Coronal Mass Ejection
——————-
Henry Pool,
CME = Coronal Mass Ejections, see http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cme.html
John
The global implications of Dalton Minimum tempertures are very alarming.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:52 am
Which force is that (you didn’t mention it)?
If the unspoken “read between the lines” subscript here is to Earth’s temperature prediction, and the unspoken “read between the lines” prediction, based on the Sun’s current measurement, is for cold, I still don’t see a mechanism. You might as well say that my slightly graying temples, which appeared almost at the same time we began to slip into minimum, predict cold for the next 30 years as long as my temples continue to gray. Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me.
The maximum for solar cycle 23 started in 1999. If my math is correct, this is eleven years later.
Being that the sunspot solar cycle is eleven years, could it be possible that we have started the maximum for solar cycle 24?
I know these 11 year cycles are an average length.
The above prognostication relies on a 16 year gap between cycle 23 max and cycle 24 max.
I think cycle 24 is a dude firecracker. Lots of anticipation, a fizzle, and into the dust bin.
I think we have entered our maximum period now.
Do the prediction methods used here work well for the 3 previous cycles when satellite data was available and modern telescopes allowed accurate measurements also??
Will Antony host a bookies forum where he allows readers to choose a solar maximum sunspot number and month/year to see how well the readership does, just as he did for Arctic Sea Ice Minimum last winter prior to this September’s event??
Might be fun, eh?? Particularly if the cumulative data isn’t made available to avoid the ‘sheep herd’ effect……….allowing him to make an announcement as to what all readers thought……….
Quote>There are a couple of things to note. Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic. F10.7 flux at solar maximum will be 105, equating to a sunspot number of 50. It will be the weakest solar cycle since Solar Cycle 6, the second half of the Dalton Minimum (1810 to 1823). Solar Cycle 5 had a maximum amplitude of 49.2 and Solar Cycle 6 of 48.7.<
Hey, that's my "under the influence" prediction. lol
Joe Lalonde,
Sunspots are actually exit ports for the Sun People’s spaceships 😉
Quote>There are a couple of things to note. Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic.F10.7 flux at solar maximum will be 105, equating to a sunspot number of 50. It will be the weakest solar cycle since Solar Cycle 6, the second half of the Dalton Minimum (1810 to 1823). Solar Cycle 5 had a maximum amplitude of 49.2 and Solar Cycle 6 of 48.7.<
Hey, that's my "under the influence" prediction! lol
I don't know what happened to the last post but should have..
>There are a couple of things to note. Firstly, the solar Mean Field, which is the top line, went into the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition being neat and regular like a heartbeat, and has come out choppy and arrhythmic.<
Didn't Leif tell us that herky jerky starts are not that unusual. Then sited another cycle to demonstrate the poin?
Everything OK Leif.
Had this copy and pasted twice and this is now the third attempt.
>F10.7 flux at solar maximum will be 105, equating to a sunspot number of 50. It will be the weakest solar cycle since Solar Cycle 6, the second half of the Dalton Minimum (1810 to 1823). Solar Cycle 5 had a maximum amplitude of 49.2 and Solar Cycle 6 of 48.7.<
Hey, that's my "under the influence" prediction! lol
I don't know what happened to the last posts but should have..
David’s projection is neither too optomistic nor pessimistic.
There are 3 possibilites:
1.) Solar Activity will turn up late, but still turn up. Max ~ 70.
2.) Solar Activity will follow the 2 year rule. Max ~ 50.
3.) Solar Activity will suffer a ‘double dip’ recession and crash. Max ~ 20-30.
A very strange occurence appears in the literature prior to Solar Activity downturns: People get wary and start hoarding/taking less risk which turns the bow planes of the Markets down. I’ll take the Human animal sense about this, project that Society itself senses the inpending 2nd downturn, to which the Sun will have already been on it’s way to.
As Pamela points out there is no proven mechanism between sunspots and temperature, however from what I understand there are one or two mechanisms, which have been proposed. The most popular one and the most plausible as far as I can see is the cosmic radiation causing cloud cover to change. When the electromagnetic field is low there are more clouds due to increased cosmic radiation, and conversely if the EM field is high. Another mechanism I’ve heard about would be the interaction
of the Electromagnetic field of the Sun on the Earth’s EM field which causes the Oceans to warm or cool slightly, i.e. the globe warms up from inside.
Like other “cosmic” phenomena like black holes, dark matter I think this mechanism will be very difficult to prove and so we can only look at the correlation between sun activity and temperature.
Something Anthony noted was the seeming step function change in the rate of decline as solar flux as it plummeted below 70. Change of state. Ominous words when you are talking about the sun.
Kinda like the Milankovitch cycles. We know we are on the ice cliff staring into an ice age, according to Milutin. We know the sun regularly shuts down for maintenence. And we know we are in for some nasty weather. When the sun don’t shine the weather is cold, rainy, snowy, and ice-agey.
The weather today is ice-agey with a chance of warming by 2050. Isn’t that what the experts are telling us? The southern half of our planet is in the ice-box. It snowed in Austrailia years in a row…..in summer.
Our future is staring us in the face. And know one seriously studying climate change can scientifically deny that all the indicators are there, we see them, and we know what they indicate.
You want a prediction about the weather, you’re asking the wrong Phil.
I’ll give you a winter prediction.
It’s gonna be cold…
it’s gonna be gray…
and it’s gonna last you
for the rest of your life.
Phil Connor, Meteorologist WPBH-TV9
Pamela, CERN is researching a possible mechanism, the Svensmark hypothesis. Seventeen collaborating research organizations from 9 nations. None of them do cavemen drawings.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf
I am contemptuous of anyone having even a tiny sense of alarmism resulting from Mr. Archibald hypothesizing a near term (now) Dalton Minimum.
Adapting is why our species is in the successful position we are now. Our civilizations actually accelerated through the early 1800s (Dalton Minimum) and we arrived at today with no lingering effects from it, quite the contrary. Indeed adapting in the modern world means development of new technologies that have benefit beyond the temporary climate change that motivated creating them in the first place.
Even a Maunder Minimum would just be merely be a temporary adapting, as we have done since the very first human appeared.
The difficulty lies in our governments impeding adaptation . . . . there is no problem with a free society easily adapting rapidly.
John
Sunspot-
Agree, the implications of a global decrease in temperatures are much more alarming. Nothing like a crop failure on the order of 1816 to get the whole global warming mess put to bed, for good. A volcanic eruption, added to a nice minimum, WOW!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
johnnythelowery says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:22 am
Besides which you are all wrong because there is no coupling with the sun because the TSI variance is only .1 of W/m2.
Lots of people mention this, but why do we dismiss this? Sounds like the case of ‘the debate is over’. Perhaps, and I am no expert here, but maybe there is some affect that we just don’t know about, so ‘perhaps’ it does not have a direct affect, but I would not dismiss even this small amount of change.
Of most interest in the solar activity sphere is the temperature profile in the years to come. The prognosis has been for a 2C* global temperature drop, enough to demolish the CAGW concept. I have hand-plotted such a profile, but it would better if those familiar with the ups and downs of the expected drop to plot such an expectation with time and the solar activity.
We lambast the IPCC for foolish or misguided projections (not “predictions”, right?). If this is to be the demise of CAGW, it would be wonderful to have something to paste on the cubicle wall and watch its progression (or not). Anyone help here? I’m old-school and have no 12-year-old to help me.
But we are all gonna die in 2012 from a massive solar storm!!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sun-storm-to-hit-with-force-of-100-bombs/story-e6frfro0-1225909999465
“johnnythelowery says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:22 am
Besides which you are all wrong because there is no coupling with the sun because the TSI variance is only .1 of W/m2.”
In my judgement based on observations a lengthy downturn in solar activity causes a warming stratosphere, an enhanced polar oscillation and the jets to sink equatorward cooling the mid latitudes and by sending the cloud banks nearer the equator increases albedo and reduces energy entering the oceans.
The issue to resolve is how exactly does a quiet sun warm the stratosphere when all current theories expect a cooling stratosphere when the sun is less active.
I’m safe following Bateman and Archibald in saying Rmax <50 in mid-2015- although Badalyan predicted this half a decade ago(coronal green line).
1) The solar mean field has a steady, strong rhythm now. Here are the last ten rotations superposed: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-MF-Superposed.png You can see the sharp polarity change at day 18.
2) The green corona points to a maximum in 2013-2014, not 2015, according to Dick Altrock who is the person measuring the green corona at NSO.
3) The solar flux wil max at 125 sfu. If Livingston and Penn are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a meaningful measure of solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
Henry@John&Mark
Thanks for the explanation.
Henry Pool says: “Sorry could not find CME in the glossary. What does it mean?”
Google [CME + solar] and you rapidly get a link to Wankapedia showing that CME = Coronal mass ejection. This is a general method and can be used to decipher other abbreviations without adding fluff to the thread.
johnnythelowery says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:19 am
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:30 am
He was referring to Barycenter Theory. As for corresponding temperature drops, particularly with the Dalton, we should also consider extreme volcanic events as the mechanism for those drops.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:30 am
…those sinful words like barycenter, EM fields, etc.. Anyway, the Dalton Minimum was an historical epoch in Sun’s life but in the humans life too. Coincidence?
Carla says:
I sincerely hope we have passed the maxima of “Carla says” multiple postings! Has she begun FAC-ing early? ;~P
What’s the deal with this projection for massive solar storm in 2012? 100 million H-bombs worth? Do I need to unplug my PC?
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20100826/981/tsc-massive-solar-storm-to-hit-earth-in_1.html
“Melbourne, Aug 26 (ANI): Astronomers are predicting that a massive solar storm, much bigger in potential than the one that caused spectacular light shows on Earth earlier this month, is to strike our planet in 2012 with a force of 100 million hydrogen bombs.
Several US media outlets have reported that NASA was warning the massive flare this month was just a precursor to a massive solar storm building that had the potential to wipe out the entire planet’s power grid. “
wayne Job says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:02 am
Try lead. The EPA wants to ban ammunition.
rbateman…lets take a blog pole.
I chose your number “3.”
So far it is unamimous: Solar Activity will suffer a ‘double dip’ recession and crash. Max ~ 20-30
🙂
rbateman says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:18 am
Echoes of Alexander Tchijevsky in that last part Robert. Which part of the literature are you referring to, not this I presume?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14149619/A-Chizhevsky-Physical-Factors-of-the-Historical-Process
Seems to chart the course of the Climate Change debacle pretty well if nothing else :-). I’ve always wondered where he got his sunspot record from. The Chinese I guess.
Pamela Gray says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
If the unspoken “read between the lines” subscript here is to Earth’s temperature prediction, and the unspoken “read between the lines” prediction, based on the Sun’s current measurement, is for cold, I still don’t see a mechanism. You might as well say that my slightly graying temples, which appeared almost at the same time we began to slip into minimum, predict cold for the next 30 years as long as my temples continue to gray. Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me.
Pamela, I would like to propose the term ” Mini Svensmark ” for the cooling event.
I am not going to speculate on the unspeakable, ” Get yourself banned stuff”. 🙂
It’s the forecast for the massive solar storm in late 2012 that worries me. Is there any really hard data on this? Maybe I should relocate to a warmer climate with a wood burning stove for Winter? We will lose the internet of course. Are you ready for this Anthony?
“I am contemptuous of anyone having even a tiny sense of alarmism resulting from Mr. Archibald hypothesizing a near term (now) Dalton Minimum.”
Whatever. Humankind’s adaptability notwithstanding the short term pain to tens of millions in emerging economies is real and worrying. With green command economy avarice and lunacy, the fact that established northern margin agriculture is off the table, and aquifers are strained in the high plains, Amerikkka will not be adapting with its customary agility. Sucks to be a poor manufacturer.
Pamela Gray says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
“Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me”.
Mechanism takes a bit of thinking but it doesn’t negate a phenomenon until we find a mechanism (Wegener’s “Continental Drift” based on the fit of the eastern coast of the Americas against western coast of Euro-Africa) – he died in infamy before the mechanism was discovered. Perhaps extreme ridicule by the geological “consensus” who also decried lack of mechanism sped along his death. Nor does having a mechanism say we have the right mechanism (the looping planets were created to hang onto the mechanism of the geocentric theory), although the sun continued to revolve around the earth, that is true!
If over the next 500 years, everytime we have low sunspot numbers it gets cold and miserable, we should be able to draw some conclusions about a connection. “Oh dear, were headed for another 30 year cold spell- I wish I knew what was causing it.”
I see these scientific catechisms a lot here. My favorite is “correlation is not causation”. These pithy little dithyrambs are intended to make you cautious and questioning when you appear to have patterns in data, but they are not intended to carry them to the brutish Neandertal point of ignoring them until you have a definitive explanation. And you say your temples are graying a bit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:17 am
1) The solar mean field has a steady, strong rhythm now. Here are the last ten rotations superposed: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-MF-Superposed.png You can see the sharp polarity change at day 18.
Wow! Which rotation is which here Leif? Looks vaguely like two somethings are syncing to me. You’ve just inspired me to go play with this data big time, thanks for the link to it earlier on another thread. Can I ask whether there are any caveats I need to know about (e.g. degradations, recalibrations) and where your F10.7 data comes from?
“particularly with the Dalton, we should also consider extreme volcanic events as the mechanism for those drops.”
And these are unrelated?
NoMoreGore says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:13 am
wayne Job says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:02 am
Try lead. The EPA wants to ban ammunition.
Not entirely correct. The EPA is in receipt of a petition from a couple of environmentalist organizations which want to eliminate lead because they claim that suitable alternatives are commercially available. The matter is open for public comment on the site listed below.
From: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetai…
Click on the PDF icon for the last item in list of supporting documents for the entire letter. Only a page and a half long.
* Partial excerpt:
The petitioners understand that EPA is specifically prohibited from regulating ammunition or firearms under TSCA, but that toxic components of ammunition can be regulated if non-toxic alternatives are commercially available. The petitioners have waited until non-toxic alternatives have become available to submit this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or firearms.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry, PhD
American Bird Conservancy
Washington DC.
AJB says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
Wow! Which rotation is which here Leif? Looks vaguely like two somethings are syncing to me.
I show the last ten ‘rotations’ [actually just consecutive intervals of 28 days]. For the pattern exactly which are not important.
You’ve just inspired me to go play with this data big time, thanks for the link to it earlier on another thread. Can I ask whether there are any caveats I need to know about (e.g. degradations, recalibrations) and where your F10.7 data comes from?
The mean field data is from here: http://wso.stanford.edu/#MeanField and the F10.7 from here: ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/current.txt
The solar mean field is solid and has no known issues. The F10.7 flux at noon [2000 UT] is good.
Gary Pearse said at 10:16 am [ … ]
Thanks for giving me a new word: dithyramb. Although it was not really used in its proper context, it’s a keeper!☺
Also, the last sentence of your first paragraph under Pamela’s quote says it all. Only the advocates of junk science — and I include NASA here — hang their collective hats on the bizarre notion that CO2 is the primary driver of the planet’s climate and temperature. The CO2+CAGW
hypothesisconjecture is the modern equivalent of geocentrism.“Louis Hissink says:
It might also be useful to consider that the 1859 CME occurred during a Dalton minimum, so David’s prediction that we are headed for another cooler period is consistent.”
Except that the Dalton minimum ended in 1830, [b]almost 30 years later.[/b]
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:34 am
Looks like I’ve just got myself a new hobby for the winter. Many thanks Leif!
Tom Rowan says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:55 am
> The maximum for solar cycle 23 started in 1999. If my math is correct, this is eleven years later.
The solar cycle length has a bi-modal distribution. While 11 years is the average, 11 years is infrequent. A year or so shorter and a year or so longer are much more common. Long periods are associated with weak activity, so I wouldn’t the max for another year or so.
Bob from the UK says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:02 am
The last Dalton Minimum caused a 2 degree drop. The solar activity previous to that was almost as high as it has been over the last few years. So we could expect to see something like the same. Interestingly the long term Swedish temperature trend show temps in the late 18th century just before the Dalton min, similar to today. Looks like temps will be going down to 19th century levels.
Any chance we could see some evidence of this “2 degree drop” that was caused by the Dalton Minimum. The CET record shows very little change over the DM period. It’s a similar story for other long term records.
Gary Pearse says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:16 am
He didn’t die in infamy – he died in Greenland during an expedition to study its ice cap and climate. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener_7.php
this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or firearms.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry, PhD
unfortunately, the petitioners intentions and those of the EPA are not the same thing. if they act you can bet whatever they come up with will regulate ammunition and do nothing for the birds.
and overall very cool blogpost and thread!
Here are the most recent 10.7cm measurements:
DATE 10.7cm
2010 08 15 86
2010 08 16 85
2010 08 17 81
2010 08 18 81
2010 08 19 78
2010 08 20 77
2010 08 21 76
2010 08 22 75
2010 08 23 75
2010 08 24 74
2010 08 25 74
2010 08 26 73
Source:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
Dr. Archibald is right but for wrong reason. We are heading for a cool spell, but the current sunspot or magnetic output has nothing to do with it.
Dr. Svalgaard is right on this one.
R.S.Brown says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Here are the most recent 10.7cm measurements:
DATE 10.7cm
2010 08 15 86
2010 08 16 85
Be careful. These numbers are indeed measurements and that is the problem. The measured numbers depends on the distance to the sun. The correct numbers to use are the flux values corrected for distance. And they were:
87.8, 86.9, 83.1, 82.5, 79.8, 78.9, 77.3, 76.1, 76.5, 75.2, 75.1, 75
peterhodges says:
August 27, 2010 at 11:58 am
this petition in an effort to clearly indicate that this petition is not an attempt to regulate ammunition or firearms.
Sincerely,
Michael Fry, PhD
unfortunately, the petitioners intentions and those of the EPA are not the same thing. if they act you can bet whatever they come up with will regulate ammunition and do nothing for the birds.
and overall very cool blogpost and thread!
This is getting a bit ot, but the petition itself does mention some of the alternatives to lead; notably the solid copper “Barnes” bullet, which is a good round but approx. 3x the cost of traditional bullets, copper jacketed steel core bullets, which are illegal for hunting since they are classed as armor piercing by the govt, and various alloy mixes (bismuth, tin, etc. ) which are all in the experimental phase and have a number of reliability issues. That said, I’ve been hunting and fishing with lead for 60 years, and eating game shot with lead for the same period, with zero ill effects.
The (not so ) hidden agenda of the CBD is obvious of course – eliminate hunting and fishing to “save the critters”, for the good of humanity of course. Same goes for the CO2/AGW, etc. will kill us crowd.
I get very weary of these types who preach endlessly about their high mindedness, and their evangelical zeal to “save humanity from itself”, ad nauseum.
I wrote about the climate during the Dalton minimum through the prism of the life of Charles Dickens who, fortunately, was conveniently born in 1812.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
Buy coats. Thick ones
Tonyb
Hi Tony
Great article and a good source of info.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
Went back to check on the ‘CET driver’, and indeed 1805-20 it is there on a par with 1690-1700 and 1740-50.
Yeah, I guessed so. But that is not a force. I don’t mind bying such ideas if a mechanism can be shown to exist. But noone has done that yet. Quite the opposite.
Pamela Gray says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:36 am
If the unspoken “read between the lines” subscript here is to Earth’s temperature prediction, and the unspoken “read between the lines” prediction, based on the Sun’s current measurement, is for cold, I still don’t see a mechanism. You might as well say that my slightly graying temples, which appeared almost at the same time we began to slip into minimum, predict cold for the next 30 years as long as my temples continue to gray.
This may well be true if the grayness is due to snow…
Without mechanism, comments related to temperature or “warmists” sound silly and early caveman era to me.
I shall defer to another’s words:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:17 am
3) The solar flux wil max at 125 sfu. If Livingston and Penn are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a meaningful measure of solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
Livingstone and Penn have offered no mechanism to their extrapolation/prediction. Does this mean we should disregard it as caveman era? It is after all, (to use the words of another contributer) pure numerology.
Correlation is not causation. But sometimes correlation *is* prediction – and that can be enough to be getting on with.
Curiousgeorge says:
August 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The (not so ) hidden agenda of the CBD is obvious of course – eliminate hunting and fishing to “save the critters”, for the good of humanity of course. Same goes for the CO2/AGW, etc. will kill us crowd.
I get very weary of these types who preach endlessly about their high mindedness, and their evangelical zeal to “save humanity from itself”, ad nauseum.
During winter time, the carrying capacity of a given area is reduced. Any population over this carrying capacity will starve to death. They may as well spend the winter in your freezer, than starving to death outdoors.
Don B says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:41 am
“Pamela, CERN is researching a possible mechanism, the Svensmark hypothesis. Seventeen collaborating research organizations from 9 nations. None of them do cavemen drawings.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf”
I find it hard to believe that some like Pamela with an interest in this subject would have been unaware of this. Makes me ponder your motives Pamela, as a logical follow on during your post would have been to mention the currently research going on this field.
Unless of course you were trying to create the impression that there is no research into a causal link between solar activity and global temps. This is something I might expect from someone with a warmist view.
Sorry if I’m being cynical but this is the impression your post conveyed (Pamela).
“possible mechanism”: If the TSI is fairly constant, and the UV content goes up and down, some other part of the spectrum must go the opposite direction. This could certainly have an effect on our little biosphere, magnitude unknown.
Everything is connected to everything else, at some level. I doubt the butterflies in China do much for hurricanes in the Atlantic, but a large change in UV? That might be interesting.
Alan the Brit says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:43 am
The Seuss cycle and the de Vries cycle are the same thing, with a period of 210 years.
meemoe_uk says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:10 am
Yes, someone will get the WSO data and plot up those previous cycles.
Tom Rowan says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:55 am
If solar maximum is in 2013 or 2014, then it will be lower than a sunspot number of 50. Short solar cycles are strong and long cycles are weak. As we are having a weak cycle, it will be long. My estimate is 12 years. Long cycles tend to have equal periods of rise and decline. 2015 is in the middle, with that estimate backed up by the green corona brightness.
TonyB says:
August 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I wrote about the climate during the Dalton minimum through the prism of the life of Charles Dickens who, fortunately, was conveniently born in 1812.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
Buy coats. Thick ones
Tonyb
I’m not sure how you reached your conclusions. From your linked article it says
Decadal CET average 1810-1819 8.798C. The coldest decade since 1690-1699.
which sounds significant until you realise the Decadal CET average for 1780-1789 was 8.86 deg, i.e. just 0.06 deg difference between the depths of the Dalton Minimum and the 1780s when solar activity was relatively high.
There are loads of other ‘facts’ in your article which appear to support an anomalously cold Dalton Minimum but on close analysis show very little.
John Finn,
No fair, TonyB was just giving contemporary accounts of an unusually cold period. And it was world-wide, just like the MWP.
Pick your proxy. I pick this.
Z says:
August 27, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Livingstone and Penn have offered no mechanism to their extrapolation/prediction.
It has been known for ~150 years that sunspots form by the coalescence of small pores and ‘specks’. Ken Schatten has a mechanism for this: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf The efficiency of that process could be variable with time [granted that we don’t know why, but it would be strange if that were absolutely constant all the time as any complex system has internal fluctuations] so the L&P effect could have a physical basis.
David Archibald says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:54 pm
If solar maximum is in 2013 or 2014, then it will be lower than a sunspot number of 50. Short solar cycles are strong and long cycles are weak.
If the maximum is is 2013-2014 the cycle will be stronger than if the maximum were to come in 2015.
My estimate is 12 years.
Based on what?
2015 is in the middle, with that estimate backed up by the green corona brightness
One more time: according to green corona man, Dick Altrock, maximum will be 2013-2014, not 2015.
From SOHO-23, ASP conf. Series, vol 428, p 147 (2010): “The properties of the current “rush to the poles” yields an estimate of 2013 or 2014 for solar maximum”.
Dear oh dear, Dr Svalgaard. You have selectively quoted Altrock. What he said was: “Thus, the two methods using the coronal “rush to the poles” result in
predictions for solar maximum at 2013.3 ± 0.5 and 2014.8 ± 0.5, or 2013-2014.” Rounding up 2014.8 makes it 2015.
He also said, and I quote: “Altrock concluded that
(i) the maximum of solar activity, as defined by the smoothed sunspot number,
occurred 1.5 ± 0.2 yr before the extrapolated linear fit to the RttP reached the
poles, and (ii) the RttP could be used to predict the date of solar-cycle maximum up to three years prior to its occurrence.”
Thus, if his own methodology is correct and solar maximum is in 2015, he is calling it two years too early to be accurate.
Speaking of going early, the whole basis of curve fitting at two years post the month of minimum is that the shape of the curve is constrained. Therefore, if the maximum is in 2013, the sunspot number will be lower than if it is in 2015. We can’t wish a higher rate of ramp up into existance.
David Archibald says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Dear oh dear, Dr Svalgaard. You have selectively quoted Altrock.
No, I have quoted his own assessment from the conclusion of his talk. And I know Dick and what he conservatively thinks about this.
Thus, if his own methodology is correct and solar maximum is in 2015, he is calling it two years too early to be accurate.
If he is calling it to be accurate, then 2015 would be inaccurate.
Therefore, if the maximum is in 2013, the sunspot number will be lower than if it is in 2015.
No, as the rise time would be shorter and the maximum thus higher.
And don’t ‘dear oh dear’ me again.
well is the max on 2001? or 2003?
2003
+ 13
______
2016
will be a long time out
there is a date coming 2017 for tagging everyone with a readable chip.
6-7 years? very interesting !
gary gulrud says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:14 am
Under present management, the last thing I would expect to see is America preparing as a nation.
At this point, it’s up to individuals and small communities to prepare….if they are so inclined, and to the extent that they are able.
One common thread in agriculture: In a Grand Minimum, the wheat always gets it first.
It matters not how this is accomplished (mechanism), it does matter whether this is occuring once again.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:11 pm
that process could be variable with time [granted that we don’t know why, but it would be strange if that were absolutely constant all the time as any complex system has internal fluctuations] so the L&P effect could have a physical basis.
Weasel words everywhere….time to give L&P away Leif, its not happening. The gauss and contrast readings continue to get higher towards cycle max, spots won’t disappear near 2015 (it will be near cycle max) but if you hang around to the next minimum eventually it will happen.
Current spot 1101 (which will get darker) is measuring 82%, even with the reduced frequency the regions are increasing in magnetic strength.
Not sure how relevant this is to the Svensmark hypothesis and his cloud experiment, but the standard operating procedure for detecting cosmic rays at home appears to require the construction of a cloud chamber:
=====
After about 15 minutes, you should start to notice the tracks of particles passing through. The tracks look a little like spider’s threads going along the chamber floor. It may help to turn off any room lights. As the electrically charged cosmic rays come along, they ionize the vapor (i.e., tear away the electrons in some of the gas atoms along its path). This leaves these atoms positively charged, which attracts nearby atoms. This is enough to start the condensation process and so you see the little droplets forming along the path the particle took through the chamber.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/einsteinguide/activities/cloud.html
======
Is that not a mechanism, Pamela Gray?
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2010 at 9:49 pm
spots won’t disappear near 2015 (it will be near cycle max)
Cheap shot. Nobody is saying that now. It is clear that the L&P will be drawn out further.
Weasel words are appropriate when uncertainties are involved. We can’t all be ‘in the know’ as you.
“wayne Job says:
My question to this information would be, what is the best investment for the cool to come, coal, oil or gas, perhaps uranium? Maybe EM Smith could help put me right.”
Fine Scotch and deep red Bordeaux Wines…
Shortage of Barley and lack of a ‘good vintage’ in coming years would make them stellar and made of unobtanium…. That is, should we actually cool.
And if we don’t, you can still drink them and they will still increase in value.
Pamela Gray,
“The extreme ultraviolet photons that are most intense during the peak of the solar cycle aren’t the same as the UV rays that give you sunburns,” notes Dr. Judith Lean, a physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory. “Sunburns come from the UV-A and UV-B bands around 300 nanometers. Extreme ultraviolet photons from the Sun are at least 10 times more energetic than UV-A and UV-B and they vary 100 times more [between solar minimum and solar maximum]. It’s a good thing they’re all absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen at high altitudes — otherwise a day at the beach would be no fun.”
And these EUV rays warm the Stratosphere on absorption, which coupled with the alteration in the polar jet streams as described by Stephen Wilde would provide a reasonable mechanism, no?
Follow your posts with interest, keep them up!
It certainly does look like L&P is happening
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Reflecting on my last post, is there any need to find greater variations in Solar TSI output to account for cool climate periods? If a decrease of Extreme UV can force polar jet streams equatorwards the considerable cold sinks of Greenland and Antarctica would be able to sustain temperature dips for many years in temperate regions, mainly in the winters.
This may explain why the average temperature records do not show much of a dip for these periods, insolation is only a little below average, but a locked polar jetstream can be a disaster for crops and animals.
i> Smokey says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm
John Finn,
No fair, TonyB was just giving contemporary accounts of an unusually cold period. And it was world-wide, just like the MWP.
TonyB has written a post which constantly refers to the CET record. I have used the same temperature record show that his cherry-picked statistics are misleading. There were decades throughout the 18th and 19th centuries which were just as cold as the 1810-1819 decade. I showed an example of one (1780-1789) in a previous post, another example is the 1880-1889 decade which had mean temperature of 8.87 deg – again within a few hundredths of the 1810-1819 mean temperature. In fact, the mean temperatures for most decades in the 19th century were within 0.2-0.3 deg of the 1810-1819 mean temperature.
So, according to TonyB’s sources (and several others), it was not an “unusually cold period”.
Pick your proxy. I pick this.
A Painting?? You’ve provided a link to a painting as support for your assertion that the LIA was both unusually cold and widespread. This should be easy. I’ll start by picking a proxy from our very own TonyB who posted his little gem just over 12 months ago
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
In his post, TonyB cites the address given by the President of the Royal Society in November 1817 . Tony B writes:
So, in 1817, slap bang in the middle of TonyB’s coldest decade of the “unusually cold” Dalton Minimum the Royal Navy are investigating warming in the arctic. This, incidentally, was prompted by reports from seasoned arctic explorers such as William Scoresby.
I personally think that Dr.S. graphs are not presenting true pictures.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Up to 2005 there is a downward trend, but for the period 2005-2010 there is no statistically significant trend either in the contrast or magnetic field. It may be an interesting exercise, but for time being it does not appear to solve anything, let alone the great puzzle of the Maunder minimum.
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 3:10 am
A zero-sum game involving transposing the cold of the Arctic/Antarctic to the Temperate Zones is a bad deal for civilization in general, most notably in the N. Hemisphere. The Arctic has 6 months in which to re-stock the freezer. The Temperate Zones must support life 365 days out of the year, water and feed them.
Any cooling over a longer time period (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc.) would be salt rubbed in the wounds should the cycles coincide with the jet stream migration. Toss in the potential for increased cosmic ray induced albedo change plus small TSI effect and you now have enough variables to break a sweat. Last, but not least, there is Murphy, who, as of late, has been demoted to insignificant outlier status, for there is high confidence that all is known about the climate doings that matters.
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 5:37 am
I personally think that Dr.S. graphs are not presenting true pictures.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Up to 2005 there is a downward trend, but for the period 2005-2010 there is no statistically significant trend either in the contrast or magnetic field. It may be an interesting exercise, but for time being it does not appear to solve anything, let alone the great puzzle of the Maunder minimum.
The whole exercise is dodgy Vuk.
Read my rebuttal here.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/65
John Finn says: August 28, 2010 at 3:10 am
…………..
The UK temperatures on a year to year basis show very wide oscillations, this is usually due to either very cold winter or cool summer and vice versa, but often they move in the opposite direction.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
Of course, all the available energy comes from the sun. For the CETs, it is a matter of how much of that energy is absorbed in the Equatorial regions and to which extent it is transferred to the Arctic. Important factor too is how much of the available storage capacity (in a way of the cold currents) is returned back from the Arctic to the Equator.
The auxiliary events, clouds, wind, precipitation, jet stream etc, have in short term important ‘excursion from the mean’ effect, but in the longer term (decadal bases) they are all, one way or the other, related to the Atlantic Ocean circulation and it is it (Atlantic Ocean circulation) the controlling factor.
Volcanoes have some effect, but they are short term factors, lasting one or two years, then the ‘circulation factor’ re-establishes its predominance.
Here, I show a CET’s precursor which needs a further study, and I hope may point to a fundamental reason for the North Atlantic’s area temperature oscillations.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Pre-empting on the solar curve fit?
A season by season profile is useful for precipitation but not too clever for temperatures.
Interesting forecast from the Propagation Service Centre, of a maximum in Apr/May 2011, with a SSN of c40.
Link here:-
http://psc.suijs.info/sc24predict1.htm
Thinking:
1) Ice Ages are linked to changes in the parameters of earth’s orbit and axis of rotation. Milankovitch Theory.
2) Delta TSI during solar cycles has been shown to be ~0.1% of TSI. It appears to be too small an amount of energy account for Maunder Min, Dalton Min, LIA and MWP, Roman warm period and CWP (current warm period).
3) Changes in UV, visible light and NIR content of TSI/SSI measured during about second half of SC 23 have some interesting potential aspects wrt climate. SSI change during ~ second half of SC 23 is shown on Page 4 of the presentation of the paper by Harder et al http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.02_Harder_SSI.pdf . This, to me, warrants more study to see if there is plausible way it can account for some historic temp patterns on the scale of the Dalton min, Maunder min, MWP, CWP, etc.
3) Interaction of the earth’s varying magnetic field and the sun’s varying magnetic field causes some effects on the ionosphere. Appears to me to be small in magnitude, however, the mass of the ionosphere is relatively small so relatively little energy input can possibly have a relatively significant effect. I don’t have knowledge of a mechanism.
4) Interaction of the earth’s varying magnetic field and the solar wind causes some effects on the ionosphere. Appears to me to be small in magnitude, however, the mass of the ionosphere is very small so relatively little energy input can possibly have a relatively significant effect. I don’t have knowledge of a mechanism.
5) Current CERN experiment on possible galactic cosmic ray effect on cloud cover may show variation impact on climate via the solar wind/cycle.
That leaves me with knowledge. That is knowledge of the uncertainty about the sun being the cause of CWP, MWP, RWP, LIA, etc. I think it is not looking good so far for solar being the cause, but my mind open to more evidence/mechanisms.
John
John Whitman says: August 28, 2010 at 7:52 am
Thinking:………….
Absolutely agree with all five points you make. For short periods of time (in respect of M. Milankovic’s cycle) measured in hundreds of years; one could assume a constant solar input. There is no need to look for any extra’s input from any other source . The Earth’s hydrosphere (~1.4 × 10^18 tonnes) is a huge storage tank of the sun’s energy, but the energy is not distributed evenly; here the oceans’ currents come into play.
For the rest of my ‘thinking’ see my post above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/27/pre-empting-on-the-solar-curve-fit/#comment-468709
Geoff Sharp says: August 28, 2010 at 6:06 am
I don’t think anything ‘dodgy’ with L&P’s experiment as per say. I think they are doing good and, from science point of view, useful work. What I think is ‘dodgy’ is on one hand is ‘sensational’ interpretations attached to these very short preliminary results, and on the other Dr. S. is sensing that his hypothesis Rmax =0.6 PMFmax is in danger, hence an exit is being prepared.
rbateman says:
August 28, 2010 at 5:59 am
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 3:10 am
A zero-sum game involving transposing the cold of the Arctic/Antarctic to the……
If it’s a zero-sum game then there was no Dalton Minimum cooling – not globally at any rate.
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
Rmax =0.6 PMFmax is in danger, hence an exit is being prepared.
You are misinterpreting the nature of the prediction. What we predict is the toroidal field. If the sunspot number is no longer a good measure of that, but e.g. F10.7 is, then the prediction should be framed in terms of F10.7, which is what my colleague Ken Schatten is doing. You would benefit from careful reading of: http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
I don’t think anything ‘dodgy’ with L&P’s experiment as per say. I think they are doing good and, from science point of view, useful work. What I think is ‘dodgy’ is on one hand is ‘sensational’ interpretations attached to these very short preliminary results, and on the other Dr. S. is sensing that his hypothesis Rmax =0.6 PMFmax is in danger, hence an exit is being prepared.
Yes the exit strategy is again displayed in Leif’s last response to you. But the ad hoc nature of data collection, plus Leif’s use of poor records based on a different collection methods before SC23 cycle max is not good science.
The L&P data is non existent for the last few months, just as the darkness ratio is improving, do we have some recent data we can plot Leif?
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2010 at 10:46 am
Yes the exit strategy is again displayed in Leif’s last response to you. But the ad hoc nature of data collection, plus Leif’s use of poor records based on a different collection methods before SC23 cycle max is not good science.
The L&P data is non existent for the last few months, just as the darkness ratio is improving, do we have some recent data we can plot Leif?
As Vuk you [deliberately?] misunderstand the issue. The data collection is not ad-hoc [look up what ad hoc means] but is statistically unbiased. If you don’t like the few data points before SC23, just ignore them, they make no difference.
My plot is up-to-date through August 1st, 2010. For the past three months the histogram [bin width 200 G] of measured magnetic fields is
bin count
1600 G 1
1800 G 9
2000 G 19
2200 G 15
2400 G 8
2600 G 3
2800 G 4
3000 G 5
For 1998-2002 it was [bin limits rounded]:
1800 G 5
2000 G 26
2200 G 46
2500 G 57
2700 G 39
2900 G 30
3100 G 11
3300 G 11
If L&P are correct we should lose all the little spots and the only ones still visible will be the really dark large spots [just like during the Maunder Minimum]. Keep looking for them for a nice confirmation of L&P.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2010 at 10:46 am
The L&P data is non existent for the last few months
Matt Penn has been looking at this using the ordinary synoptic data. At a recent [last Tuesday] IAU symposium #273 he reported:
Matthew Penn, William Livingston
National Solar Observatory, Tucson, AZ, United States
“Independent of the normal solar cycle, a linear decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed in synoptic infrared observations taken by Livingston at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath Pierce telescope. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar cycle 24, and extrapolating this pattern would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and to virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
We examined synoptic observations from the NSO Kitt Peak Vacuum Telescope and found a change in sunspot intensity and magnetic flux which roughly agreed with the infrared observations. A more detailed examination of both data sets reveals that the relationship of the sunspot magnetic fields with intensities, or with sunspot size, remain constant during the period of observation. While the observations show a lot of scatter, at a barely significant level we see that smaller, brighter and magnetically weaker spots have appeared more frequently as time passes.”
Leif Svalgaard says: August 28, 2010 at 10:06 am
… the prediction should be framed in terms of F10.7, which is what my colleague Ken Schatten is doing. You would benefit from careful reading of: http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
I agree with lots of your work, but not always, I have no quarrel with your way of thinking (which is not case the other way), and especially not with Dr. Schatten’s, but it was said :
Schatten’s work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted .
Everyone unto his hypothesis. Mine is simple and straightforward, likely to be wrong, as many others, but for time being is as good as any:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
I didn’t know I’d been demoted to insignificant outlier… I’m just busy! Don’t have time to read up a lot here now, bits and spurts, rarely an entire thread & comments. I actually have a productive job to do in this society.
If the stratosphere reaching eruptions come, we cool, if not we roast. Simple as that. Its looking like some large ones will eventually plume at this time but thats subject to change. C-ya Master Bateman. Its cool at night in Maine, but ol sol still puts on a powerful influence during the day.
John Finn said:
“If it’s a zero-sum game then there was no Dalton Minimum cooling – not globally at any rate.”
Depends on your definition of ‘zero sum’.
For the oceans it means ocean heat content.
For the troposphere it means as measured by thermometers or satellites.
For the stratosphere upwards it means as measured by satellites.
Or permutate any combination.
I can envisage a long slow decline or increase in ocean heat content warming or cooling the troposphere correspondingly on a global basis.
I can envisage a long slow decline or increase in the temperature of the stratosphere cooling or warming the troposphere correspondingly on a global basis.
Most likely an interplay between variations in both ocean heat content and stratospheric temperatures being brought back towards equilibrium by constant air circulation adjustments in the troposphere.
And whatever happens it has to be global because the means of adjustment is the latitudinal positioning of the air circulation systems.
John Finn says: August 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
If it’s a zero-sum game then there was no Dalton Minimum cooling – not globally at any rate.
In UK Dalton minimum cooling lasted only 10 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
1800-1810 the winters were cooler than average, but the summers were warmer than average: zero sum.
1810-1820 both the summers and winters were lower than average, even so the summer of 1817 was one of the hottest on the record, also high were 1811 and 1821. It was two winters which were exceptionally cold 1795 and 1814.
For the record the coldest winters trio: 1684, 1740 and 1963, none in the Dalton period.
I think the Dalton solar minimum was two cycles 1800-1830.
David Archibald says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:01 pm
“Thus, the two methods using the coronal “rush to the poles” result in
predictions for solar maximum at 2013.3 ± 0.5 and 2014.8 ± 0.5, or 2013-2014.”
I rather doubt the author would want the former prediction reported at this late date, it is no longer a possibility.
Nothing like being out there observing Maine. The water is quite warm too, just like it was in 2000, I’ve been swimming in it. Déjà vu
Smokey says:
August 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm (Edit)
John Finn,
No fair, TonyB was just giving contemporary accounts of an unusually cold period. And it was world-wide, just like the MWP.
Pick your proxy. I pick this.
******************************
Interesting proxy.A painting that is wrong in many details,
http://www.ushistory.org/washingtoncrossing/history/whatswrong.htm
Rain, sleet on a christmas night in NJ. go figure. People re enact the crossing now adays, unless the weather is too severe on the river. So, what was Tmax and Tmin on that day? and how accurately do we know it? I find it interesting that people who do not trust 1000’s of thermometers around the world would trust the tales of tall tale telling americans. wanna discuss the cherry tree?
How cold was it that dec .. hmm I dunno. this is pretty close..
http://books.google.com/books?id=STcoJP7esp4C&pg=PA399&lpg=PA399&dq=weather+records+1776&source=bl&ots=T4DGW3gzi0&sig=ixgu8YFqMXqUfysWXhmHZTp9tmo&hl=en&ei=zWR5TJunLoqstAO3ttjBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=weather%20records%201776&f=false
Around the same conditions as in 1960
http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/NJ/Trenton/1960-12-25
Started out raining turned to sleet and then snowed, nothing out of the ordinary. Why do people who dont trust the instruments of today, trust the diaries and scriblings of a few random dudes. and then call themselves skeptics
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 11:43 am
Schatten’s work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted.
As usual you attack strawmen and spread doubt wherever possible. First: who said that? and second, the percolation theory has nothing to do with the Schatten prediction which is based on the B-L model.
i>Mine is simple and straightforward, likely to be wrong
Indeed, and is not as good as any, because it is not based on anything viable, and is already wrong back in time.
Ed Murphy says:
August 28, 2010 at 11:44 am
I didn’t know I’d been demoted to insignificant outlier…
No, not you, the other Murphy.
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
The whole point was that even a zero-sum redistribution of climate from poles to Termperate zones is a raw deal.
That the Grand Minimums were nothing more than zero-sum games is your conclusion.
I say Dalton departed the least, the Maunder and Sporer the most, towards the colder side of zero-sum.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 28, 2010 at 1:00 pm
……………..
Author of those words is well known in the field of the solar science, one of only 22 recipients of the Hale Prize of the American Astronomical Society, along with such names as Eugene N. Parker and Horace W. Babcock.
You can’t win ’em all, good night.
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 3:10 am [ … ]
John, I was just trying to make it easy for you, nice guy that I am. I could have posted a painting of folks ice skating on the Thames. I posted the American scene to show that the cold wasn’t local, but affected another continent.
Do you think folks back then were fabricating everything? Maybe everyone back then was making up stories about ice festivals on the frozen Thames. Maybe tree lines around the world descended for no good reason as the planet warmed following the LIA. Is that what you think?
You’re flogging a dead horse trying to convince people here that the MWP and the LIA never happened. Michael Mann claimed the same thing — and he was thoroughly debunked by people outside his field. No scientist wants the public humiliation of being debunked, especially by amateurs. But in Mann’s case that’s the lesser of two evils; the greater evil for Mann is opening the books to skeptical scientists.
Why don’t you ask Michael Mann to produce all of his data, metadata and methodologies, so they can be tested according to the scientific method? Last I heard, Dr Mann is still hiding his methods after twelve years of stonewalling. That’s what a scientific charlatan would do, no?
Smokey says:
August 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 3:10 am [ … ]
John, I was just trying to make it easy for you, nice guy that I am. I could have posted a painting of folks ice skating on the Thames. I posted the American scene to show that the cold wasn’t local, but affected another continent.
But skating on the Thames was not confined to the Dalton Minimum. The Thames froze over many times in the past 1000 years. It even froze during the MWP. Your link to the painting is meaningless. Steven Mosher (August 28, 2010 at 12:56 pm) makes this point perfectly well.
Do you think folks back then were fabricating everything? Maybe everyone back then was making up stories about ice festivals on the frozen Thames
No – they weren’t making things up but there was nothing special about the Dalton Minimium period in this respect. You seem to have trouble grasping this point. There are also good reasons why the Thames tended to freeze motre before the mid 19th century which are related to faster river flow and more shelter.
You’re flogging a dead horse trying to convince people here that the MWP and the LIA never happened.
I’m not trying to convince anyone that the LIA never happened. However, the LIA was not confined to the the Dalton Minimum period – or was it? What period does the LIA cover? When did this “global” event start/finish? I keep reading that it lasted for several hundred years. The Dalton Minimum only ran for ~30 years . What caused the cool climate the rest of the time?
Eye witness account of crossing the river that night.
“[Our] army passed through Bethleham and Moravian town and so on to the Delaware which we crossed 9 miles north of Trenton and encamped on the Pennsylvania side and there remained to the 24th December. [O]ur whole army was then set on motion and toward evening began to re-cross the Delaware but by obstructions of ice in the river did not all get across till quite late in the evening, and all the time a constant fall of snow with some rain, and finally our march began with the torches of our field pieces stuck in the, exhalters. [They] sparkled and blazed in the storm all night and about day light a halt was made at which time his Excellency and aids came near to the front on the side of the path where soldiers stood.
When crossing the Delaware with the prisoners in flat bottom boats the ice continually stuck to the boats, driving them down stream; the boatmen endeavoring to clear off the ice pounded the boat, and stamping with their feet, beckoned to the prisoners to do the same, and they all set to jumping at once with their cues flying up and down, soon shook off the ice from the boats, and the next day recrossed the Delaware again and returned back to Trenton.
Brave men.
John Finn,
You asked some questions, and I’m here to assist. You’re never too old to learn!
These charts should help regarding the various time lines:
click1
click2
click3 [interactive chart]
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
You also asked what caused the cool climate the rest of the time. There are plenty of hypotheses, but no clear answers to that question. What we do know is that empirical observations show that nothing unusual is happening, no matter how fervently some folks wish it would be so.
The climate is well within its past parameters, a Goldilocks climate at present — and no one has falsified the null hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. That is the simplest, most elegant answer; no need to throw in an extraneous variable like CO2. Look at the charts, CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
What we are observing are natural, regional climate fluctuations. Only those who listen to Michael Mann believe that the climate never fluctuated before the SUV was invented. Skeptics, being realists, know better. The climate has always fluctuated, often much more severely than now, as is shown in the links above.
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 2:00 pm
….
Perhaps you should quote him correctly: “Schatten’s work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not in my view worth following up”
In any event, this has no bearing on the prediction, neither Schatten’s nor mine.
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Author of those words is well known in the field of the solar science
Perhaps you should ask him for his assessment of your ideas and report back with his response.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2010 at 11:14 am
If you don’t like the few data points before SC23, just ignore them, they make no difference.
My plot is up-to-date through August 1st, 2010.
Yes the pre SC23 max records should be dropped, it is bad science to include them. But that will cause a problem with their paper which states the magnetic record does not follow the sunspot cycle.
Rather than supplying a graph can we see the original data as you used to post?
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm
A single river does not prove the Dalton as a zero-sum game, nor does it magically divorce it from the LIA. And so what if it has frozen in every century.
How many times it froze in any given century is more worthy of note.
Try the Nile freezing over if you really want to talk about rare events disassociated from recorded history.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Yes the pre SC23 max records should be dropped, it is bad science to include them. But that will cause a problem with their paper which states the magnetic record does not follow the sunspot cycle.
Their paper only discusses data from 1998 and later. It is not bad science to include them as they show the upper envelope of the data points. Since they are so few they have no influence on the trend lines. So stop whining.
Rather than supplying a graph can we see the original data as you used to post?
The data has always been at http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
Matt Penn has been looking at this using the ordinary synoptic data going way back before SC23 . At a recent [last Tuesday] IAU symposium #273 he reported:
Matthew Penn, William Livingston
National Solar Observatory, Tucson, AZ, United States
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a linear decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed in synoptic infrared observations taken by Livingston at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath Pierce telescope. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar cycle 24, and extrapolating this pattern would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and to virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
We examined synoptic observations from the NSO Kitt Peak Vacuum Telescope and found a change in sunspot intensity and magnetic flux which roughly agreed with the infrared observations. A more detailed examination of both data sets reveals that the relationship of the sunspot magnetic fields with intensities, or with sunspot size, remain constant during the period of observation. While the observations show a lot of scatter, at a barely significant level we see that smaller, brighter and magnetically weaker spots have appeared more frequently as time passes.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 28, 2010 at 7:57 pm
As an independent minded intellectual, when the philosophy of science is concerned, I take my views as the reference point to be judged against, not the other way around. The fact that you or Hathaway find it infuriating to be unable to overturn the correlation of my equations, it only strengthens the independence of my thought process.
“ Cogito ergo sum “
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Their paper only discusses data from 1998 and later. It is not bad science to include them as they show the upper envelope of the data points. Since they are so few they have no influence on the trend lines. So stop whining.
Rather than supplying a graph can we see the original data as you used to post?
The data has always been at http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
No, both their graphs and yours show the data starting from 1990. Pre 1998 only the large spots were measured as per Solanki (as they should), the measurements are also VERY sparse. No real data is recorded during the SC22/23 minimum. Pointing out a deficit in the data is not whining.
Their graph here.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/l&p_graph.png
L&P and yourself are making the same mistake as the official sunspot records, all are showing an increase in the speck ratio which is skewing the records as I have said many times. The 24th of July is a good example, L&P measuring 16 spots where around 10 of these are pores. This artificially drags the record down.
But even with the pores counted it can be seen that SC24 is growing in magnetic strength. Discard the pore records and the clear trend is on the up, sunspots will not disappear around 2015 due to reducing magnetic field strength. All L&P are showing us is the increase in specks during SC24.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/livingston.png
The recent gauss readings aligning very nicely with my darkness ratio measurement. Glad to see the online data back ( L&P not measuring for more than 2 months after April explaining the non update)
rbateman says:
August 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm
John Finn says:
August 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm
A single river does not prove the Dalton as a zero-sum game, nor does it magically divorce it from the LIA. And so what if it has frozen in every century.
Are you not following the dicussion. I didn’t bring up the issue of the Thames river – Smokey did. It was one of his attempts to show that the Dalton Minimum was an “unusually cold” period. I agree it’s a pretty pathetic attempt. He also supported Yonb’s use of the CET record. I used the CET record to show that TonyB’s assertions were not valid.
In a nutshell: I’ve been using the very same evidence used by Smokey and TonyB to show that their conclusions about the Dalton Minimum are questionable. Smokey, in typical fashion, has now moved the discussion on to the LIA which has nothing to do with the supposed relationship between low solar activity and an “unusually cold” climate during the Dalton Minimum.
Moderator: Any chance you could post this rather than the first effort, i.e. John Finn says:
(August 29, 2010 at 4:04 am)
thanks and sorry
Smokey says:
August 28, 2010 at 6:43 pm
John Finn,
You asked some questions, and I’m here to assist. You’re never too old to learn!
I’d drop the patronising tone if I were you. You are some way below the mark required to get away with it. My questions that you refer to were rhetorical. I am very familiar with the various temperature records you linked to – particularly the CET record. However, I’m also aware that the LIA, like the MWP, has a tendency to move around to suit the argument of whoever is using it. None of your links is of any use in providing a precise definition for the LIA period. The Wiki article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age ) on the LIA states
Which is more or less what I’ve found. In other words, you can pretty much take your pick.
This, though, has nothing to do with the original argument which you now seem keen to avoid, i.e. that the Dalton Minimum was an “unusually cold” period. The implication here being:
Dalton minimum -> low solar activity -> cooler climate
“cooler” than what, though? I’ve shown that the Dalton Minimum wasn’t appreciably cooler than the periods immediately preceding and following the Dalton Minimum. The coldest decade of the Dalton Minimum (which included the massive Tambora eruption in 1815, btw) was only a few hundredths of a degree cooler than 1780-89 and 1880-89. In fact, there were only two decades in the 19th century which might be considered “significantly” warmer than 1810-19 and one of those is 1820-29 which, according vukcevic (August 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm), was part of the Dalton Minimum period anyway.
Also, in 1817 (during the coldest decade of the Dalton Minimum), William Scoresby (jnr) “noted a remarkable diminution of the polar ice” (See http://www.whitby-yorkshire.co.uk/scoresby/scoresby.htm ). This is one of the reasons for the investigation by the Royal Navy into arctic warming.
The “unusual cold” in the Dalton Minimum is a myth. Of course, it was cold at times but no more so than many other priods in the 18th and 19th centuries.
John Finn,
You’re arguing with just about everyone here. And using Wikipedia as your source… *Tsk, tsk*. On climate matters, Wikipedia, as they say, lies even when it says “a” and “the.” Even when they’re right, it’s on the broken clock principle. Please use a credible reference in future, thanx in advance.
Since you’ve posted wikipedia to back up your opinion, let me refer you again to Vukcevic’s chart showing a clearly defined cold period during the time in question: click. See? it really was cold around the Dalton [≈1790 – 1830]. Where’s your chart?☺
While disparaging all the work Tony Brown has put into digging up the historical record, you picked a John Daly excerpt. You should really read that entire article, it will help your understanding. Pay particular attention to the Conclusion.
To claim, against all evidence, that the Dalton was a “myth” paints you into a corner. My advice: stop trying to fool yourself into carrying Michael Mann’s torch, by claiming there was no significant climate change before the advent of the motor home. Arguing against the historical record is fighting a losing battle. Most of the alarmist crowd now grudgingly accepts that the climate has changed far more in the past than recently. But I guess there will always be holdouts.
Well said Smokey, John has been harping the same old line here for years.
The CET as most long term temperature series when taken in isolation, appears reasonably flat. The world temperature data very rarely follow the individual stations.
Vuk’s trend line shows that the Dalton Minimum certainly did not set any high temp world records…get over it John.
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2010 at 12:18 am
to be unable to overturn the correlation of my equations
Correlations are just that, do not imply causation. Read Yule’s classic paper: “Why do we Sometimes get Nonsense-Correlations between Time-Series?–A Study
in Sampling and the Nature of Time-Series” it also applies to you.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yule.pdf
To prove that you [at least] have looked at it tell us what the last word on page 5 is.
Don’t forget to report back with your famous solar physicist’s assessment of your correlation.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2010 at 12:48 am
both their graphs and yours show the data starting from 1990.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/20946-web.pdf
Pre 1998 only the large spots were measured as per Solanki
Not quite correct. Per Livingston no attempt was made to measure all spots, but there was no special selection of only large spots. Anyway, since there are so few they do not change the trend lines, so it is whining as it is irrelevant for the trend.
L&P and yourself are making the same mistake as the official sunspot records, all are showing an increase in the speck ratio […] All L&P are showing us is the increase in specks during SC24.
The L&P effect is an increase of specks as spots turn into specks, then specks becoming invisible.
We’ll know soon enough, by 2016, whether the Maunder was real. Either temps turn down or they don’t.
gary gulrud says:
August 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm
We’ll know soon enough, by 2016, whether the Maunder was real. Either temps turn down or they don’t.
Gary, what have temps to do with the Maunder Minimum? Are you not being presumptive here, Gary? We’ll know from the lack of sunspots whether the Maunder was real, Gary.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:52 am
Well said Smokey, John has been harping the same old line here for years.
The CET as most long term temperature series when taken in isolation, appears reasonably flat. The world temperature data very rarely follow the individual stations.
Another one who hasn’t followed the discussion. This all statrted when TonyB used the CET to show that the Daltomn Minimum was unusually cold. I used the CET to show him it was no colder than several other periods in the 18th and 19th centuries. Secondly , what do you mean by “world temperature data”? The world temperature data in the early 19th centurt consisted og the CET, Uppsala and about 6 other records. The CET WAS the world temperature data during the DM.
Vuk’s trend line shows that the Dalton Minimum certainly did not set any high temp world records…get over it John.
Brilliant. The evidence for the cold Dalton Minimum is that it didn’t set any high temperature records. Well – that’s me convinced.
Smokey says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:11 am
John Finn,
You’re arguing with just about everyone here.
No I’m not I’m arguing with you – and Geoff Sharp.
And using Wikipedia as your source… *Tsk, tsk*. On climate matters, Wikipedia, as they say, lies even when it says “a” and “the.” Even when they’re right, it’s on the broken clock principle. Please use a credible reference in future, thanx in advance.
The wikipedia reference summed up the situation perfectly. The LIA period is not clearly defined. The start ranges from the 14th century to the 16th century. The end can be any time during the 19th century. Why don’t you tell me what period the LIA covers and let’s see if I can find a “credible reference” which contradicts you. Not that this as anything to do with the Dalton Minimum, of course.
Since you’ve posted wikipedia to back up your opinion, let me refer you again to Vukcevic’s chart showing a clearly defined cold period during the time in question: click. See? it really was cold around the Dalton [≈1790 – 1830]. Where’s your chart?
You have posted a chart for December. It just gets worse. Did the low solar activity only affect December? Even using your cherry-picked month, it’s not appreciably colder. I also note that the temperature decline occurred in around 1770 (red line) which if I’m not mistaken was at least 25 years before the onset of the Dalton Minimum cycles. How did this happen? Did the Central England climate somehow anticipate the weak solar cycles that were due?
Perhaps Geoff Sharp can help us. Any ideas, Geoff.? Vukcevic doesn’t offer an explanation. In this post
vukcevic says:
August 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm
he says
He doesn’t actually tell us that it warmed for 10 years before that nor does he tell us if there was anywhere where it cooled over a longer period. That might be because he can’t find anywhere. He does go on to say
Analysing the temperature response to solar activity is clearly a complicated business. Sometimes summers were warm – sometimes cold – sometimes they were hot. However it does seem as though most of the winters were generally below average though not as cold as 1963, 1740 or 1695. Make of that what you will.
While disparaging all the work Tony Brown has put into digging up the historical record, you picked a John Daly excerpt. You should really read that entire article, it will help your understanding. Pay particular attention to the Conclusion.
Tony Brown (TonyB) cherry-picked his data. I used the same source that he used to show this. As for John Daly’s site – I’ve read pretty much everything on it. I’m particularly interested in anything written by Jack Barrett or Doug Hoyt.
To claim, against all evidence, that the Dalton was a “myth” paints you into a corner.
There isn’t any evidence. The “myth” relates to the fact that the Dalton was unusually cold. It clearly wasn’t.since you are reduced to referring to paintings and the temperature record from a single month to provide the “evidence”.
My advice: stop trying to fool yourself into carrying Michael Mann’s torch, by claiming there was no significant climate change before the advent of the motor home. Arguing against the historical record is fighting a losing battle. Most of the alarmist crowd now grudgingly accepts that the climate has changed far more in the past than recently. But I guess there will always be holdouts.
This is the second time you’ve mentioned Michael Mann and I’m puzzeld to know why. Why do you think I support the views of Michael Mann? Is it because you have no idea about the separate issues of climate change and think that just because someone argues against some crackpot nonsense which just happens to oppose AGW doctrine they are automatically in the AGW camp?
Would you like me to provide of evidence where I’ve argued against Michael Mann?
John Finn,
I haven’t read your entire post above, but as I scrolled thru I noticed your complaint about comparing you & Michael Mann. So state your position: Do you support Mann’s version of reality, or not? It seems you must, since both you & Mann argue against climate fluctuations such as the Dalton and the MWP. In which case, you’re both wrong.
I’ve provided numerous charts and graphs here showing that the climate fluctuates constantly, and has fluctuated much more in the past than currently. I have more if you need them.
But of course, if you — or Mann — admitted that the MWP, the LIA, the Dalton Minimum, the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, etc. occurred, then all your wild-eyed alarmism gets flushed, because if the climate naturally warmed and cooled so much prior to the industrial revolution, then it’s pretty much impossible to hang your hat on CO2 as the driver of the climate. And CO2 is the reason for all the shouting. So you have to pretend that the planet’s temperature has always been just like it is now: the straight handle of the Hokey Stick.
Sorry, John, that’s just wrong. But I’m willing to be corrected — if Dr Mann opens the books on his methodology, data and metadata. Fat chance, huh? Charlatans never expose their secrets, even after they’ve been debunked.
John Finn says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:48 pm
I thought we were the ones with the “Denialist” tag.
Perhaps Geoff Sharp can help us. Any ideas, Geoff.? Vukcevic doesn’t offer an explanation. In this post
You need to keep up John. The TSI argument is dead, low solar activity during grand minima correlates with cold winters as we are seeing now. This years winter and the last 2 before have been colder than usual in many parts of the world, the record snowfalls speak for themselves . We are in new territory and are seeing the changing weather patterns for the first time, but current opinion is leading towards pressure differentials and jet stream changes that occur at the winter pole. Some are suggesting this is because of the down stream effects of a shrinking thermosphere. This shrinking thermosphere is a result of greatly reduced EUV which varies substantially more than TSI over the solar cycle.
So taking the December values for CET makes absolute sense.
Brent Hargreaves now:
Brent Hargreaves then:
Beliefs, eh?
John Finn:
The 2 degree drop is described in the Wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
Bob from the UK says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:59 pm
John Finn:
The 2 degree drop is described in the Wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
Bob from the UK
The Wiki entry (which, according to Smokey, we shouldn’t use, by the way) describes a 2 deg decline at one station, i.e. Oberlach in Germany. The source for this information appears to rely on David Archibald (I see what smokety means) who has never cited the source for his data. Does anyone have a link to the Oberlach record? I also seem to recall that the temperature decline at Oberlach began before the weak Dalton cycles started. Another location, it seems, which is able to anticipate the sun’s activity.
In any case, stations in the UK , Sweden and Holland show nothing remarkable about the Dalton Minimum. Yes it was on the cold side but no more so than other periods in the records.
Here is MET office CET data for the 1750-1850 .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm
You need to keep up John.
No, Geoff, you need to think your argument through properly. If, as you seem to be implying, solar activity influences weather patterns then we will, as vukcevic says, have a “zero sum” game. Some places will have colder winters – some will have warmer winters. But the overall energy in the system will be unchanged. If some other factor exists which means that there is an energy imbalance (e.g. incoming > outgoing) then that may/will still continue.
The fact that northern europe and the US has a few years of colder winters is largely irrelevant. Despite the cold winter (in *some* part of the world) last winter, UAH still recorded some of the highest Jan-Mar temperatures on record.
The TSI argument is dead, low solar activity
Of course it is. It was never really alive. Your argument rests with a possible solar influence on weather patterns – but no significant change in the amount of energy entering the system. You might – just might – be able to explain why UK winters may become colder but you cannot, for example, explain the global trend over the past 30+ years. You need to appreciate the difference.
Smokey says:
August 29, 2010 at 6:26 pm
John Finn,
I haven’t read your entire post above, but as I scrolled thru I noticed your complaint about comparing you & Michael Mann. So state your position: Do you support Mann’s version of reality, or not? It seems you must, since both you & Mann argue against climate fluctuations such as the Dalton and the MWP. In which case, you’re both wrong.
No I’m not wrong. You now don’t appear to understand the argument. I asked you, or anyone else, for that matter to provide evidence that the Dalton Minimum was significantly colder that other similar periods in the CET (or any other) record.
Note: I did not ask for evidence that the climate fluctuates.
I am not questioning the fact that climate, on a local level at least, fluctuates. I am questioniong the assumption that the Dalton Minimum ‘fluctuated’ more than it did over other similar 30 year periods. I have seen lots of evidence which suggests that the Dalton Minimum was not a particularly warm period (in europe) but nothing which suggests that it was “unusually cold”. You provided a link which showed that CET December temperatures were a bit below par. This leaves us with the possibility that solar activity, while having very little influence on direct heating, may cause shifts in weather patterns. This might mean that some northern latitude regions may get colder – in winter.
However it also means other regions may get warmer
This actually supports the Michael Mann viewpoint that there are regional fluctuations but the “global temperature” is relatively stable.
But of course, if you — or Mann — admitted that the MWP, the LIA, the Dalton Minimum, the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, etc. occurred, then all your wild-eyed alarmism gets flushed,
Of course, the Dalton Minimum occurred because it refers to a period of low solar activity – not the climate. The other periods are plagued by a lack of definiton with respect to the timeframes and are not relevant to my original point anyway.
because if the climate naturally warmed and cooled so much prior to the industrial revolution, then it’s pretty much impossible to hang your hat on CO2 as the driver of the climate. And CO2 is the reason for all the shouting.
CO2 could be, and probably is, a driver of climate regardless of climate fluctuation in the pre-industrial period.
So you have to pretend that the planet’s temperature has always been just like it is now: the straight handle of the Hokey Stick
I haven’t pretended anything. But since you insist on continually referring to Mann and/or his hockey stick reconstruction perhaps you should take a look at this WUWT post from last year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Scroll down to where it says “Back in December 2004” and note who is challenging Mike Mann about the Hockey stick reconstruction. There is a full version of the exchange at the Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” link.
You need to understand that there are many separate issues in the climate change debate. Disagreement with a “sceptic” viewpoint doesn’t necessarily imply full ageement with the AGW viewpoint. Could you, therefore, stop this childish “us and them” line of argument
John Finn says:
August 30, 2010 at 2:45 am
Its early days John, but I have provided one train of thought. We will learn much during the next few years. But there are other factors to consider, the same UV induced weather pattern changes may also be found to influence albedo and ocean heat uptake. Also there looks to be a trend where the PDO and other influences might be aligned with the rhythm of solar slowdowns.
I dont think the changes overall will be big, if this possible grand minimum follows prediction it will be a minor turndown like the Dalton, but the temperature trend should be in a downward direction. But expect some surprises.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm
“Gary, what have temps to do with the Maunder Minimum?”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2010 at 8:17 am
“If Livingston and Penn are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a meaningful measure of solar activity”
Consequence.
gary gulrud says:
August 30, 2010 at 6:26 am
“If Livingston and Penn are correct, the sunspot number is no longer a meaningful measure of solar activity”
Consequence.
You are saying that the lower temps cause sunspot numbers to be no longer a good measure? That is a new one.
John Finn:
Bob from the UK
The Wiki entry (which, according to Smokey, we shouldn’t use, by the way) describes a 2 deg decline at one station, i.e. Oberlach in Germany. The source for this information appears to rely on David Archibald (I see what smokety means) who has never cited the source for his data. Does anyone have a link to the Oberlach record? I also seem to recall that the temperature decline at Oberlach began before the weak Dalton cycles started. Another location, it seems, which is able to anticipate the sun’s activity.
In any case, stations in the UK , Sweden and Holland show nothing remarkable about the Dalton Minimum. Yes it was on the cold side but no more so than other periods in the records.
Check out Professor Easterbrook’s web page.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glopubs.htm
His latest paper is extremely informative, and documents the evidence that links historic measurements to solar variations.
There is a significant drop during the various solar minimums as he outlines.
John Finn:
In any case, stations in the UK , Sweden and Holland show nothing remarkable about the Dalton Minimum
You can see here in the following analysis how the temperature in Sweden drops rapidly during the Dalton minimum. 0.34 per decade.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
In the link above Professor Easterbrook presents additional evidence from other places including glacial variations during that time such as Mt Baker in the US, demonstrating a global phenomenon.
Professor Easterbrook predicts a 1.5 degree cooling in the event of a minimum comparable to the Dalton minimum.
Bob from the UK says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
You can see here in the following analysis how the temperature in Sweden drops rapidly during the Dalton minimum. 0.34 per decade.
It was even colder during the high solar cycle before the Dalton Minimum. The text does not say ‘during’, but ‘into’. Overall during the ‘standard’ Dalton Minimum 1790-1830, temps were not much different from before and after that period. This looks like a severe case of cherry picking.
Here is seasonal CET anomaly update (for each individual year) for 1659-2010, with some of the major volcano eruptions noted.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
“You are saying that the lower temps cause sunspot numbers to be no longer a good measure?”
Not quite. If solar activity, whose received input is integrated by the oceans, has entered a prolonged minimum and the putative direct relation between integrated solar input and global averaged temperatures is spurious, then global temperatures will fail to trend downward-as measured by satellite after a suitable period.
Inotherwords, the proposition A implies B is invalidated if not B obtains.
If, on the otherhand, not A obtains, and we emerge from the current local minimum-or the depression in solar activity proves illusory, we do not have an exhaustive test of the predicate, nonetheless the hypothesis fails. The coincidence of recurrent solar minima and global cooling are not, in fact, related as a result of evidence gleaned from this trial.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:33 am
Here is seasonal CET anomaly update (for each individual year) for 1659-2010, with some of the major volcano eruptions noted.
There was a significant eruption in ~1809, depressing temps further:
Title: Ice core evidence for an explosive tropical volcanic eruption 6
years preceding Tambora
Authors: Dai, Jihong; Mosley-Thompson, Ellen; Thompson, Lonnie G.
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research (ISSN 0148-0227), vol.
96, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 17,361-17,366. (JGR Homepage)
Abstract
High-resolution analyses of ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland
reveal an explosive volcanic eruption in the tropics in A.D. 1809
which is not reflected in the historical record. A comparison in the
same ice cores of the sulfate flux from the A.D. 1809 eruption to that
from the Tambora eruption (A.D. 1815) indicates a near-equatorial
location and a magnitude roughly half that of Tambora. Thus this event
should be considered comparable to other eruptions producing large
volumes of sulfur-rich gases such as Coseguina, Krakatau, Agung, and
El Chichon. The increase in the atmospheric concentration of sulfuric
acid may have contributed to the Northern Hemisphere cooling observed
in the early nineteenth century and may account partially for the
decline in surface temperatures which preceded the eruption of Tambora
in A.D. 1815.
Title: Two major volcanic cooling episodes derived from global marine
air temperature, AD 1807-1827
Authors: Chenoweth, Michael
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Issue 15, p.
2963-2966 (GeoRL Homepage), 2001
DOI: 10.1029/2000GL012648
Abstract
A new data set of global marine air temperature data for the years
1807-1827 is used to show the impact of volcanic eruptions in ~1809
(unlocated) and 1815 (Tambora, Indonesia). Both eruptions produced
cooling exceeding that after Krakatoa, Indonesia (1883) and Pinatubo,
Philippines (1991). The ~1809 eruption is dated to March-June 1808
based on a sudden cooling in Malaysian temperature data and maximum
cooling of marine air temperature in 1809. Two large-scale calibrated
proxy temperature records, one from tree-ring-density data, the other
using multi-proxy sources are compared to the marine air temperature
data. Correlation is highest with maximum latewood density data and
lowest with the multi-proxy data.
——-
It would seem that the [actually not so] cold Dalton Minimum temp was mostly due to volcanism and not low solar activity.
gary gulrud says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:40 am
If solar activity, whose received input is integrated by the oceans, has entered a prolonged minimum and the putative direct relation between integrated solar input and global averaged temperatures is spurious, then global temperatures will fail to trend downward-as measured by satellite after a suitable period.
Agree, but we don’t know how long a ‘suitable period’ is, specifically, it is not clear that 2016 is a good point. No matter what happens, enthusiasts [on either side of the fence] will ignore it, claiming all kinds of spurious circumstances, ‘delays’, AGW, volcanoes, bad temperature measurements, UHI, ‘phase catastrophes’, etc.
gary gulrud says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:40 am
In other words, the proposition A implies B is invalidated if not B obtains.
Remember that A=;gt;B is only false [invalidated?] if A is true and B is false. B false says nothing about A.
Remember that A=>B is only false [invalidated?] if A is true and B is false. B false says nothing about A.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 30, 2010 at 10:50 am
It would seem that the [actually not so] cold Dalton Minimum temp was mostly due to volcanism and not low solar activity.
Not entirely according to my early calculations of a ‘N. Atlantic precursor’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
p.s. significant cooling on the way, prepare to move ‘down Mexico way’.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2010 at 11:41 am
Not entirely according to my early calculations of a ‘N. Atlantic precursor’.
You fail to make a distinction between a WAG [which has already failed after 1975] and a [at least, somewhat] reliable historical record.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 30, 2010 at 11:51 am
…..has already failed after 1975
You couldn’t be more wrong ! !; you don’t know (but I do) the nature of precursor. Delay after 1975 is gradual and it is well within parameters of the precursor.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
” we don’t know how long a ‘suitable period’ is, specifically, it is not clear that 2016 is a good point.”
Obviously whether we’ve a recurrent solar minimum will not be established in that time, however waiting much longer on the oceans to evolve at a reduced rate will incorporate the secular solar max. Preciosity must give way to practicability. Solar activity fell off the table October 2005(Anthonys’ ap) and a decade is within the range of most estimates for the bulk solar input to bulk ocean output lag.
My resort to truth tables acknowledged the impediment to understanding of my ellipitic manner of expression; was not an attempt at pedantry. If that impulse was unhelpful, I regret the effort.
gary gulrud says:
August 30, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Solar activity fell off the table October 2005(Anthonys’ ap)
No, nothing special happened then. The seemingly sharp change was just the coincidence of the usual decent from the equinoctial high and a the effect of a single geomagnetic storm on Sept. 11, 2005: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005,09,11
my ellipitic manner of expression
straight talk is always better.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm
you don’t know (but I do)
doesn’t carry much weight with me…
“No, nothing special happened then.”
Then you have no pertinent objection to our looking for a departure from the unprecedented warming at the close of the millenium in the satellite record a half-decade hence.
gary gulrud says:
August 30, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Then you have no pertinent objection to our looking for a departure from the unprecedented warming
No, everyone is welcome to go looking. Just be a bit less dogmatic about it.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 30, 2010 at 2:25 pm
doesn’t carry much weight with me
I don’t solicit anyone’s approval.
Drive: personal curiosity.
Reward: keeping the neuron structure active.
Basically, I am self-financing non-profitable benevolent entity working for the benefit of mankind !
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Basically, I am self-financing non-profitable benevolent entity working for the benefit of mankind !
self-promoting pseudo-science does not benefit anybody.
Leif Svalgaard:
The cooling during the Dalton Minimum lasted 20-30 years. I can’t imagine that a volcano would have such an effect. Erruptions typically cause a sudden cooling not a decadal trend. In 1816 there was an erruption which caused the year without a summer. The other fact is that the Greenland and Antarctic temps (as well as other regions) were down not only during the Dalton minimum but during the other minimums as well. I suggest you check out Prof. Easterbrook’s paper. He presents the evidence that links solar activity to temps.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glopubs.htm
Bob from the UK says:
August 30, 2010 at 10:04 am
John Finn:
You can see here in the following analysis how the temperature in Sweden drops rapidly during the Dalton minimum. 0.34 per decade.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
Bob from the UK
As leif (above) implies I think you may have been ‘conned’ by the careful selection of the 5 periods used to illustrate the Dalton cooling.
Firstly, note in the graph for the first period (1739-1801) cooling starts in the late 1770s when solar activity was high.This is almost 2 decades before the onset of the weak Dalton cycles. How did this happen, Bob? Solar theorists have enough trouble trying to explain the mechanism when cause and effect are the right was round, this ought to have them scratching their heads a bit.
Secondly, note the scales on the vertical (temperature) axes. On the 1739-1801 plot , the vertical axis starts at 2.5 deg and uses 0.5 deg increments. On the 1801-1816 the vertical axis starts at 3.6 deg and uses 0.2 deg increments. I’ll leave you to decide whether this was deliberate or not. But, if we note the temperature readings at the lowest points in the 1739-1801 plot it shows a mean temp of ~3.0 deg in 1784 and 3 other years in the 1780s when the mean temp is just above 3.5 deg. In the 1801-1816 plot the low points (1805 and 1812) are both ~3.7 deg, i.e. higher than the 1780s values.
Finally, check out the the third plot (1816-1867). This is particularly interesting since it completley reinfoces my point about the not-so unusually cold Dalton Minimum. The temperature trend continues downwards from the cherry-picked 1816 start point. The 1860s are around half a degree colder than the second (or third depending on it’s definition) decade of the Dalton minimum. There are 3 years in this period when the mean temperature dipped to 3 deg or below. These dips do not look too dramatic because the vertical axis in the case starts at 2.0 deg and uses 1 deg intervals .
This is an “incredible” piece of analysis – and I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way. However, on close inspection, it does show my statement about there being nothing remarkable about the Dalton minimum was correct. So thanks for that.
John Finn:
I think that one temperature from a single location is a not a particularly good representation of global temps. I think we can agree on that.
Prof. Easterbrook has an extremely good paper where he outlines the evidence for the effect of solar variations on climate, from evidence such as receeding and advancing glaciers, and analysis of the ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. In this paper Prof. Easterbrook presents compelling evidence for the period of the Dalton minimum being cooler.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glopubs.htm
Bob from the UK says:
August 31, 2010 at 3:15 am
In this paper Prof. Easterbrook presents compelling evidence for the period of the Dalton minimum being cooler.
Check Figure 33 in your link. Note the warm spike in the middle of the Dalton. Check Loehle’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temp.png and note the warm spike during the Dalton.
Gentlemen here are some numbers that might help.
These are averages for two selected periods:
year ——–winter—–spring——summer—-autumn
1750-1850–3.407—-8.165——15.319—9.458—-9.087
1800-1830–3.324—-8.261——15.170—9.596—-9.089
as you can see winters and summers were fractionaly cooler, springs and autumns fractionaly warmer, yearly averages are virtualy same.
Or if you are so inclined you can count dots on:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
(second graph for 1750-1850)
Leif:
There are still warm and cold PDO modes during the solar maximum and solar minimums. If you notice during the maunder minimum and dalton minimum the cold periods are longer and deeper. On average the temp is cooler during the Dalton minimum than the periods before and after.
Bob from the UK says:
August 31, 2010 at 9:39 am
On average the temp is cooler during the Dalton minimum than the periods before and after.
Define your periods: e.g. DM 1800-1830, Before 1770-1800, After 1830-1860
Or tell us which periods you would prefer, then we do the math.
This unresolved debate is exactly why I found it necessary to propose independently varying solar and oceanic influences sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another.
Depending on the interplay the air circulation systems move latitudinally to create the observed climate responses.
Bob from the UK,
Thank you for posting the Easterbrook link. Our friend John Finn is still arguing with everyone because he can not admit that the planet’s temperature fluctuated significantly over the Holocene, causing plant- animal- and human-friendly warm optimums, alternating with cold cycles marked by mass starvation and misery. If CO2 has anything at all to do with temperature, its effect is so insignificant that it can be completely disregarded, as Prof Easterbrook conclusively shows.
As I stated to Mr Finn up-thread: …if you — or Mann — admitted that the MWP, the LIA, the Dalton Minimum, the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, etc. occurred, then all your wild-eyed alarmism gets flushed, because if the climate naturally warmed and cooled so much prior to the industrial revolution, then it’s pretty much impossible to hang your hat on CO2 as the driver of the climate… So you have to pretend that the planet’s temperature has always been just like it is now: the straight handle of the Hokey Stick.
Dr Easterbrook provides volumes of evidence to support the fact that the temperature naturally fluctuates by many degrees, and that CO2 is a non-player in planetary climate dynamics. Others also show the Dalton Minimum centered around 1800. With the planet emerging from the LIA, it is to be expected that temperatures will be higher than for the past several hundred years. CO2 has nothing measurable to do with it, as Easterbrook shows.
The politically inspired runaway global warming scare is actually the reverse of what we should be concerned about. Global freezing is much more likely — and truly scary.
Bob from the UK says:
August 31, 2010 at 3:15 am
John Finn:
I think that one temperature from a single location is a not a particularly good representation of global temps. I think we can agree on that.
Well -yes – but it was you who linked to the source and, as I pointed out, it’s not just that station that shows the Dalton was not unusually cold.
Prof. Easterbrook has an extremely good paper where he outlines the evidence for the effect of solar variations on climate, from evidence such as receeding and advancing glaciers, and analysis of the ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. In this paper Prof. Easterbrook presents compelling evidence for the period of the Dalton minimum being cooler.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glopubs.htm
A few years ago I might have found the Easterbrook paper(s) highly persuasive but I suspect not now. I’m already put off by a statement in one which states that the world has cooled since 1998. This is not correct – regardless of which temeprature record is used. This leads me to think Easterbrook will include anything that supports his ideas and ignore everything that contradicts them.
Smokey says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:04 am
Others also show the Dalton Minimum centered around 1800.
Not quite, the cycle that ended in 1798 was one of the highest recorded, so it is stretching it to claim that the DM is centered on 1800. If you count the two or three low cycles that followed as the DM, then the center would be something like 1815 commensurate with the ‘official’ duration 1800-1830. See, e.g. http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
Smokey says: August 31, 2010 at 11:04 am
Others also show the Dalton Minimum centered around 1800.
Above is a misleading use of my graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dec.gif
You will see in my previous posts I have used for Dalton 1800-1830.
However, I would like to state following: I think CO2 and TSI have a little (if anything) to do with large temperature oscillations.
There is only one indicator which in main correctly signals in advance those oscillations (N. Atlantic precursor)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
More importunately it suggests significant cooling in decade to come. Variable delay is well within parameters of the precursor.
Any serious researcher should scrutinise it in detail. 10 year period 1695-1705 is odd one out, but this may possibly be something to do with data reliability from the period, 1895-1900 there is break in the data compatibility.
For those ignoring its significance today, may render their views worthless tomorrow.
There is something wrong with solar cycle 24
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/196
R. de Haan says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:09 pm
There is something wrong with solar cycle 24
Not that, see the discussion at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/31/cooler-times-ahead-indicators-show-deepening-la-nina/#comment-471395
John Finn
A few years ago I might have found the Easterbrook paper(s) highly persuasive but I suspect not now. I’m already put off by a statement in one which states that the world has cooled since 1998. This is not correct – regardless of which temeprature record is used. This leads me to think Easterbrook will include anything that supports his ideas and ignore everything that contradicts them.
With regard to cooling I recall what Phil Jones said with respect to 2002 – 2009, “The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant”. Now 1998 was warmer than 2002. Phil Jones and Don Easterbrook don’t really contradict one another, Phil Jones simply qualifies the trend from 2002-2009 as not statistically significant. I wonder if the trend from 1998 – 2009 was.
use different
Smokey says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:04 am
Bob from the UK,
Thank you for posting the Easterbrook link. Our friend John Finn is still arguing with everyone because he can not admit that the planet’s temperature fluctuated significantly over the Holocene
Why do you keep repeating something that’s clearly not true. Do you not understand the issue or are you just deliberately avoiding it .
I’m not arguing about climate fluctuation “over the Holocene” I’m arguing against the assertion that the Dalton Minimum was “unusually cold”. All the evidence presented in this thread indicates that I’m correct. The Uppsala temperature record actually shows the 1860s were more than half a degree cooler than the Daltomn minimum period. It is you who appears to have a problem with the facts.
Bob from the UK (August 30, 2010 at 10:04 am) cited the Uppsala record as evidence that the Dalton Minimum was an unusually cold period but when it was pointed out to him that the data had been very deliberately presented to mislead the casual reader he complained that using ” a single location is a not a particularly good representation of global temps”. Clearly it depends if it supports your personal viewpoint or not. I haven’t see too many people criticise David Archibald’s analyses, for example.
Bob from the UK says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:47 pm
With regard to cooling I recall what Phil Jones said with respect to 2002 – 2009, “The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant”. Now 1998 was warmer than 2002. Phil Jones and Don Easterbrook don’t really contradict one another, Phil Jones simply qualifies the trend from 2002-2009 as not statistically significant. I wonder if the trend from 1998 – 2009 was.
use different
The trends since 1998 to date – significant or not – are positive. Easterbrook is wrong. The world has not cooled soince 1998 and he shouldn’t have said that it had even if, at the time of writing, the trend was negative. The time scale was too short and he should know that there are often short term falls due, for example, to ENSO fluctuations.
Leif Svalgaard (August 31, 2010 at 11:17 am) says: “If you count the two or three low cycles that followed as the DM, then the center would be something like 1815 commensurate with the ‘official’ duration 1800-1830.”
vukcevic (August 31, 2010 at 12:36 pm) says: “You will see in my previous posts I have used for Dalton 1800-1830″.
The period 1800-1830 would seem to be right – as far as solar cycles are concerned. But any cooling began before then so, in what appears to be an attempt to tie the cooling in with the Dalton minimum, periods such as 1790-1820 are often specified.
Smokey says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:04 am
Bob from the UK,
…… Our friend John Finn is still arguing with everyone…..
Smokey
I’ve just checked back over the last fwe posts and it appears more people are arguing with you than they are with me. Even vukcevic (August 31, 2010 at 12:36 pm) criticises you about “misleading use of my graph”
I’d give up if I were you. Even your natural allies are debunking your arguments
Smokey, Bob from the UK
I’ve just started reading this Easterbrook paper
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/easterbrook_climate-cycle-evidence.pdf
I’m a bit puzzled by his first graph (Figure 1), i .e. NASA GISS global temperatures 1895-2007 – or so it says. The problem is the graph seems to show several years in the 1920s/1930s when temperatures were higher than in the 1990s/2000s. I have looked at GISS global data and cannot find a single year before 1990 which is warmer than any year after 2000.
Can either of you tell me what I could be doing wrong?