This is a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters by C. J. Schrijver, W. C. Livingston, T. N. Woods, and R. A. Mewaldt. WUWT readers may recognize Livingston as the creator of one of the datasets we regularly follow graphically on our Solar Data and Images reference page.
They reconstruct total solar flux all the way back to 1650, as seen below:
The implication is that in August-September 2009, when we saw such a dearth of solar activity, the sun dipped to a level similar to periods of the Maunder Minimum. Now that the sun is starting to rev up a bit, the question is: will it last? And, if it doesn’t will we see a cooler period on Earth as some suggest, or as the authors suggest, “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change” dominate? Nature (not the journal) will eventually provide the final answer, all we can do is watch and wait.
The abstract:
Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth’s climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be
provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.
I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about this paper, in particular this paragraph:
“Therefore, we argue that the best estimate of the magnetic flux threading the solar surface during the deepest Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. If surface magnetic variability is the principal driver of TSI changes, then that same period yields a direct estimate of the TSI in that era, yielding values 140 to 360 ppmlower than in 1996 [Fröhlich, 2009; Gray et al., 2010].”
His response was:
Magnetic variability drives the variations of TSI on top of what the nuclear furnace in the core puts out. They are basically saying that there is no long-term background variations. There is a slight problem with the ~200 ppm lower TSI in 2008-2009 compared to 1996. I have shown that the lower estimates of TSI by Fröhlich in 2008 are likely due to uncorrected degradation of the instrument on which PMOD is based.
See:
that shows the difference between PMOD and the best calibrated instrument we have [TIM of SORCE]. All indications are that TSI at the past minimum was not significantly lower than in 1996 and that that level probably also was typical of the Maunder Minimum, in other words this
is as low as the Sun can go.
See also http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
You can read the full Schrijver et al paper here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I once was taught that a good experiment raises more questions than it answers. Climate science, released from the constraints of AGW, is a LOT more interesting.
I think a better direction than TSI is sunshine hours.
The amount of sunshine actually hitting the earths surface is up in many locations. In the UK it is about 4% from 1929 – with some locations like Heathrow 14% higher.
Thats a lot of energy.
Global brightening in the 1920-40 time, dimming in 1960-1980 and then brightening again from 1990 onwards.
See Martin Wilds papers.
There is more than enough energy change to account for all warming/cooling cycles.
And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? Hmm…can’t imagine. Oh, yeah, there is that little trace GH gas, as evidenced by these articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016090525.htm
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.
Rhoda R says:
March 19, 2011 at 11:23 am
“I once was taught that a good experiment raises more questions than it answers. Climate science, released from the constraints of AGW, is a LOT more interesting.”
Hats off to you, Rhoda. I do hope that government and private funding agencies will turn to projects that involve experimentation. All the paleo stuff that came from the Climategaters involved no experimentation whatsoever, unless you consider walking around looking for trees to be an experiment. Let’s get some sensors “up there” so that we can develop some physical hypotheses about changes in cloud cover as CO2 concentrations increase.
Gates says:
“Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.”
Let’s try a gedanken experiment: Put CO2-free water in a sealed container, along with air that contains zero CO2. According to Gates, the air would have no humidity and the water would freeze. But add a little CO2, and suddenly there’s humidity and the water warms up.
I don’t have to do an actual experiment like that, because the premise is ridiculous. So is the absurd belief that CO2 is the dominant controller of the climate. That’s religion, not science.
Henry@RGates
Sorry Bob, those Nasa “studies” do not actually contain real physical measurements of actual testing (showing some relevant SI units).
They are just computer “models”. Garbage in is garbage out.
Do some real research and then you get back to me.
Start here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
R Gates wrote:
“Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.”
Huh??? Is there some new physics/chemisty behind this statement? Please enlighten me about what exactly the mechanism is that allows CO2 to keep water vapor suspended in the atmosphere.
@Rgates
Read Henry’s Law – you will see the error of your statements.
As R. Gates raises the issue, I’ll ask a question. It seems that pressure, or, more specifically, partial pressures, control the comings and goings of gases in the atmosphere. If CO2 decreases would not something else take its place. Would that not likely be other trace gases and/or water vapor?
The papers cited by R. Gates seem like propaganda to me and fit the
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.
R Gates wrote: Sarcasm??
Perhaps this needs to be taken to the level of Quantum Physics.
The levels of NUV output by the Sun dropped and were replaced by longer wavelengths. What does that do to the absorbtion/higher orbital levels – emission/lower orbital levels as concerns the TSI’s ability to warm the Earth, and what changes does that make from the top of the atmosphere to the lowest levels of the oceans penetrated by the same?
R. Gates:
“Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.”
Well you said on a couple of occasions you were 75% sure about AGW CO2 and 25% sceptical about it. I’m not sure what hat you are wearing here. You make CO2 seem like a good thing to have around to prevent us from freezing up with the planet. Or is this a measure of how huge CO2 sensitivity is – knock out 150ppm and we freeze to death, add a 150 ppm and we fry. Incidentally were you 75/25 before climategate, too?
Mike Monce says:
March 19, 2011 at 11:54 am
R Gates wrote:
“Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.”
Huh??? Is there some new physics/chemisty behind this statement? Please enlighten me about what exactly the mechanism is that allows CO2 to keep water vapor suspended in the atmosphere.
____
Mike, you miss the point. CO2 does not keep water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, but rather, can stay in the atmosphere in concentrations that are not completely dependent on natural temperature fluctuations, and if fact, CO2 can act as a negative feedback to keep temperatures within a range through the carbon-rock and hydrological cycle. Furthermore, during times when the earth might be going into a long cold period such as Snowball Earth period, it would be the presence of CO2 that would keep some GH activity going and it probably was sudden spike in CO2 caused by massive volcanism that help to kick the earth out of this snowball period. The current modern spike burst in CO2 since the 1700’s can be likened to a human-derived volcano, that continues to erupt. To think that this rise in CO2, to levels not seen in over 800,000 years, will not affect the climate at all, seems a bit…presumptuous.
Henry@AC Osborn
You meant to say: ironic//
meaning he (RGates)was saying the opposite of what he really believes to be true.
R. Gates says:
March 19, 2011 at 11:26 am
And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? Hmm…can’t imagine. Oh, yeah, there is that little trace GH gas…
The bold text illustrates the point of my reply.
R. Gates says:
March 19, 2011 at 11:26 am
================================
Well, you learn something new every day…………………./sarc
RGates: “And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? ”
Sunshine Hours. TSI may not fluctuate much, but the number of sunshine hours that reaches the earth does.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011470.shtml
RGates: “Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2…”
Without the sun earth would be a frozen ice ball pretty quick.
“that little condascending trace gas CO2”
“All indications are that TSI at the past minimum was not significantly lower than in 1996 and that that level probably also was typical of the Maunder Minimum, in other words this is as low as the Sun can go.”
_____________________________________________________________
With respect to Leif, it’s not just about how high or low can the Sun go, it’s also about how long Solar activity can persist at elevated or reduced levels. For the purposes of this theory it is also legitimate, in my opinion, to effectively ignore the standard 11-year Solar cycles. There is no evidence to suggest that these have not been occurring since the Sun formed over 4.5 billion years ago, in which case one would expect the Earth’s climate system to have “harmonised” with them, which is why no significant changes are seen to occur between Solar maxima and Solar minima.
Even if the absolute changes in TSI between maxima and minima are very small, my take is that they will still affect the Earth’s climate in a significant way IF they persist for a long enough period of time.
What (little) evidence we have, would appear to support this. The Earth appeared to cool during the Maunder Minimum because low levels of TSI persisted for 60-70 years. Similarly, high levels of TSI persisted (solar cycles not withstanding) from 1950 to 2000 (the “Modern Maximum”) and there is little doubt in my mind that this has contributed, at least in part, to the observed warming during that period.
Going forward, I would speculate that if solar activity returns to “normal” levels after SC24 or SC25, then the current minimum will have little effect on the Earth’s climate. If, on the other hand, it persists beyond about 2030 then watch out………
I would like R. Gates and other true believers to take the time to get out in the field more, away from their conditioned spaces and conditioned responses. Travel to the desert and sleep out under the stars when the relative humidity is in the low teens. Compare it to the south east where high humidity prevails. In the desert you will experience wider temperature swings through the 24 hr cycle, higher highs and lower lows. The controlling independent variable is water vapor. You will not need any instrumentation to be able to detect the stark difference. You can feel the humidity and you can feel the temperature, and it ain’t no tenths of a degree difference over decades. In the desert there are 30 to 40 degree swings in 24 hrs. under clear skies, much less under cloud cover. It is stupidly obvious to people who observe the real world. At night the CO2 lets the heat right out. The water vapor does not.
No notable difference in the intensity of the sun. No notable difference in CO2.
Gary Pearse says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm
R. Gates:
“Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2, all the water vapor in the atmosphere would condense out and we’d return to the snowball earth of 700 million years ago.”
Well you said on a couple of occasions you were 75% sure about AGW CO2 and 25% sceptical about it. I’m not sure what hat you are wearing here. You make CO2 seem like a good thing to have around to prevent us from freezing up with the planet. Or is this a measure of how huge CO2 sensitivity is – knock out 150ppm and we freeze to death, add a 150 ppm and we fry. Incidentally were you 75/25 before climategate, too?
_____
There’s a quote I’d like to start with:
“All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison….” Paracelsus (1493-1541)
The notion is the dose makes the poison. CO2 in your body, within a range is good, beyond that range, high or low, is bad for the health of the body. CO2, in the atmosphere, within a range is good, but go higher or lower, and it gets to be a bad thing. Over the time of humans (as homo sapiens, and even earlier), or the past 800,000 years we’ve seen the “dosage” of CO2 in our atmosphere exist within a range of about 180 to 300 ppm. This has been the range through all phases of the Milankovitch cycles, glacials, and interglacials. Now, since about the 1700’s, we started breaking out of the range with the large influx of anthropogenic CO2. We are now outside the range that has proven beneficial to the development of our civilization. We have, in short, exceeded the experienced “dosage” of our species. Will this be “bad” or “good”, only time will tell, but one of the effects that we can be sure of, and are already seeing, is the acceleration of the hydrological cycle. This, without fail, is the earth’s natural response to higher CO2 levels.
And BTW, I was a 75/25 warmist vs. skeptic long before climategate,
@R. Gates
“And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? Hmm…can’t imagine. Oh, yeah, there is that little trace GH gas, as evidenced by these articles:”
I think milankovich cycles play a bigger part than the sun when it comes to the real long term and those cycles are now suggesting we are at the end of this current interglacial period.
Richard G says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I would like R. Gates and other true believers to take the time to get out in the field more, away from their conditioned spaces and conditioned responses. Travel to the desert and sleep out under the stars when the relative humidity is in the low teens. Compare it to the south east where high humidity prevails. In the desert you will experience wider temperature swings through the 24 hr cycle, higher highs and lower lows. The controlling independent variable is water vapor. You will not need any instrumentation to be able to detect the stark difference. You can feel the humidity and you can feel the temperature, and it ain’t no tenths of a degree difference over decades. In the desert there are 30 to 40 degree swings in 24 hrs. under clear skies, much less under cloud cover. It is stupidly obvious to people who observe the real world. At night the CO2 lets the heat right out. The water vapor does not.
No notable difference in the intensity of the sun. No notable difference in CO2.
____
Richard, I’ve spent lots of time in the desert and of course know quite well the effects of dry vs. moist, and water vapor’s stronger greenhouse properties versus CO2. But these are short-term weather related effects, and are not the longer term climate effects that we’re referring to when talking about CO2 as the “thermostat” of the climate. I would suggest “get in” more…more into the studies of the differences between condensing versus non-condensing GH gases, and the links I gave in my first post above are good places to start. You also may want to read up a bit on the hydrological cycle and the negative feedback process that CO2 is involved with in that cycle to help regulate the earth’s temperatures.
BillyBob says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:29 pm
RGates: “And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? ”
Sunshine Hours. TSI may not fluctuate much, but the number of sunshine hours that reaches the earth does.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011470.shtml
RGates: “Without that little non-condensing trace gas CO2…”
Without the sun earth would be a frozen ice ball pretty quick.
_____
Yep, the sun is the source of most energy on earth, and certainly the source of the majority of energy that drives our weather. And yep, without the sun, we’d be a frozen little ball in space pretty darn quick. But that isn’t the issue at hand.
tommy says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@R. Gates
“And what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate? Hmm…can’t imagine. Oh, yeah, there is that little trace GH gas, as evidenced by these articles:”
I think milankovich cycles play a bigger part than the sun when it comes to the real long term and those cycles are now suggesting we are at the end of this current interglacial period.
_____
Milankovitch cycles seem to provide a little nudge to the climate, one that can be then amplified through feedback processes involving CO2 and water vapor. Throughout this, the sun seems to stay relatively constant, and therefore has less of an effect than Milankovitch or CO2 levels. 800,000 years of ice core data paint this picture rather nicely…