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)
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…
RGates: “But that isn’t the issue at hand.”
I was responding to your question: “what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate?”
I answered.
You ran for the hills.
Pathetic.
R. Gates :”more into the studies of the differences between condensing versus non-condensing GH gases,…”
_______
It is the phase change of water that dominates climate and energy transfer and energy circulation, that makes water the over powering influence on climate. Water eats CO2 for breakfast lunch and dinner, as do we all.
R. Gates says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm
…….. 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.
———————————————————
Would you care to provide the quantitation behind those dogmatic statements.
Even at a general level, i.e. are we getting more floods or more drought; more snow or less snow.
You certainly talk as if you’re an authority on these things.
@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.
What about Mars?
It’s a perfect “laboratory” to test the so-called “CO2 warming” hypothesis. Mars’ atmosphere is 95% CO2. Though much thinner, it contains almost 30 times as much CO2 per surface area unit, than Earth. Yet, it has virtually no greenhouse warming effect: the mean surface temperature is very close to the theoretical black body temperature of 210 Kelvins.
Mars Facts http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Visual geometric albedo 0.170 (Earth 0.367)
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 589.2 (Earth 1367.6)
Black-body temperature 210.1 K (Earth 254.3 K)
Average temperature: ~210 K (Earth 287 K)
You (and your fellow warmistas) say all we need is a “trace” of CO2, so why doesn’t 950,000 ppm on Mars seem to have any significant warming effect?
BillyBob says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:13 pm
RGates: “But that isn’t the issue at hand.”
I was responding to your question: “what “driver, other than TSI” could possible be controlling long-term climate?”
I answered.
You ran for the hills.
Pathetic.
____
Milankovitch cycles are pretty much taken as a background “given” in terms of discussing long-term climate forcings. I assumed you knew this. My mistake.
Henry@RGates
Sorry Bob. After completely ignoring me about my comment about your wonderful Nasa studies now you say:
“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”.
Again you are wrong. Look at the end of my studies:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
They did labstudies with animals and they basically found that even if they went up to as high as 65% with the CO2, the animals would still not die, provided they were given enough oxygen. From this they concluded that CO2 is not a poison. People trying to use CO2 (in exhaust gas) to kill themselves all died because of the CO and/or a lack of oxygen (acc. to the death certifcates). Like O2, CO2 is not a poison in any concentration. Its positive properties are being wrongfully ignored.
Co2 is a natural good gas just like oxygen. More of it is better. There are specific reasons for that and some basic research by yourself as suggested by others can verify these facts….
Nobody has proven to me that CO2 is indeed a GHG, i.e. that it causes more warming than what it causes cooling (both in terms of radiative cooling and cooling caused by taking part in photo synthesis)
If you really want to explore this isue in more detail, you can start here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Come back to me if there is anything not clear to you.
Billy Bob, sunshine hours is proportional to albedo, I should think. I see albedo variations to be the most significant cause of “climate change”, although any theory should be tested with a thousand years of observation; so ffar, we have had thirty.
Apart from the Earthglow project, monitoring the Earth’s reflected light off the moon, are there any satellite programs of observation of albedo?
Anything is possible says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:32 pm
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.
The issue is what the difference between the elevated or reduced levels is. clearly if the difference was 0.000,000,000,000,000,001 w/m2 it would not have any effect. If that difference is 0.5 W/m2 [as it seems to be], or 0.04% then we would expect a temperature difference of 0.01% or some 0.03 degrees. Even if you multiply that by 10 [for the unknown ‘feedback’ that people might invoke], you still get only 0.3 degrees. Barely measurable.
Richard G says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm
R. Gates :”more into the studies of the differences between condensing versus non-condensing GH gases,…”
_______
It is the phase change of water that dominates climate and energy transfer and energy circulation, that makes water the over powering influence on climate. Water eats CO2 for breakfast lunch and dinner, as do we all.
____
Tell me how much phase change to water there is going on in the middle of Antarctica? When the earth turns to a Snowball Earth, there’s very little phase change going on, and very little weather going on. Your assertion that water is the overpowering influence on climate (i.e. driver of climate) is not supported by any science. Or perhaps, you’re confusing weather and climate…
Leif Svalgaard, what I don’t understand is that even the 11-year cycle has a TSI variation near 1 W/m2, so how can they be saying that the Maunder Minimum had a smaller effect on TSI than a typical sunspot cycle?
Henry P.,
It seems your desire to suggest that CO2 is good in all ranges and for all purposes has blinded you to reality. To start with, elevated or decreased CO2 in the blood can be a very bad thing, so you may want to start here to re-educate yourself about the true effects of CO2, and how indeed, the dose does make the poison:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/carbon-dioxide-in-blood.html
CO2 (in the proper range) is essential for basic life support in our bodies and in our atmosphere. Our body and our planet have developed natural feedback systems to keep CO2 in those proper ranges. However, sudden shocks to those systems can overwhelm those natural feedback systems.
I have something a little off topic but definitely related to the Global Warming subject.
[snip – always check the main page of WUWT first, story already covered, thanks – Anthony]
Jim D says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Leif Svalgaard, what I don’t understand is that even the 11-year cycle has a TSI variation near 1 W/m2, so how can they be saying that the Maunder Minimum had a smaller effect on TSI than a typical sunspot cycle?
they are not quite saying that. What they are saying is that during the Maunder minimum the TSI [and solar activity in general] was no lower than it was just a couple of years ago. The 1 W/m2 in a typical solar cycle translates into a difference in temperature of 0.05 degrees. If during the Maunder minimum we were always sitting at the minimum value the difference difference would half of the 1 W/m2 corresponding to a temperature difference of 0.03 degrees from the average [over the solar cycle] temperature during modern times. 0.03 is smaller than 0.05.
The real issue is that of the background variation. 20 years ago that was thought to be large: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon.png
With time, that variation has dwindled: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png and now it seems that even mainstream solar physics is embracing the notion that perhaps there is no such background variation. This removes the obvious reason for believing that there would be a causal relationship between lack of solar activity and the Little Ice Age. When Jack eddy originally proposed that there was such a relation, it was though that a 1% variation of TSI was possible. It now seems that direct observations have cut that by a factor of ten, so people took their hope to a large background variation [of unknown origin] happening before the direct measurements began. It now seems that there likely is no such background variation [as some of us have been saying for several years now] so we can hardly ascribe the LIA to the Sun and must look elsewhere for a cause.
Robert of Ottawa says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Billy Bob,
“. . . sunshine hours is proportional to albedo, . . . ”
Sorry, that doesn’t compute. Try again, please.
I do understand Leif’s “Barely measurable.”, though, and I’ll back that horse until proven otherwise.
Smokey says:
March 19, 2011 at 11:46 am
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.
Smokey ,
Your beliefs are nonsense. The science which indicates that CO2 is important is well established and has been understood for 111 years.
It is clear that you don’t understand what John Tyndall discovered in 1859, the role greenhouse gases, and their radiation absorption spectra, have in controlling the earth’s temperature. John Tyndall demonstrated the absorption spectra of GHG’s in 1859, and explained how they reduced the loss of heat, especially in the night time.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201850-1899.htm#1859:%20John%20Tyndall%20conducts%20experiments%20on%20the%20radiative%20properties%20of%20various%20gasses
This is what the scientists have been saying about how GHG’s control the earths climate for over 150 years, when
Combining this with the Clausius Claperon relationship, discovered in 1834, which governs the relationship between temperature and the vapor pressure of water, the incoming radiation of the sun, the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of CO2, which does not condense, the temperature of the water surface and the radiation balance in clear air can be derived assuming constant relative humidity. This is how Arrhenius determined what happened in the ice ages and what the result of doubling CO2 would bring.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201850-1899.htm#1895:%20Arrhenius%20suggests%20that%20CO2%20may%20trigger%20glacial%20advances%20and%20retreats
The temperature of the water surface will control the concentration of water vapor above it. The lower the temperature of the surface, the lower the vapor pressure. The role of CO2 is that slows the radiational cooling of the earth at night, which keeps the water vapor pressure higher than it would otherwise be. The higher vapor pressure of water makes the radiational cooling even slower than the simple presence of the CO2.
Although Arrhenius was forced to make some simplifying assumptions in order to complete his calculation, the magnitude of the effect he predicted is close to what scientists are predicting today with the aid of supercomputers.
In the light of this knowledge and its extensive history, it is you who needs to justify your denial of the basic principles of climate science. Your objections are really unbelievable.
R. Gates said:
“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.”
As it happens I agree with that but it fuels my scepticism about human effects on the climate.
The evidence for it is the obvious fact that more energy in the air increases evaporation by heating the ocean skin and the ocean skin is the engine roon for the hydro cycle.
However a faster hydro cycle must always be a negative feedback because it speeds up the transfer of energy from surface to stratospere and thereby increases the speed of radiative energy loss to space when the water vapour condenses out at a higher level.
So the hydro cycle actually supplements radiative processes, speeding them up to negate the warming effect from more CO2. Indeed the warming effect of any temperature forcing agent in the air is dealt with in the same fashion.
The real world manifestation of a faster hydro cycle is a shift in the air circulation systems but we must put that in context.
From MWP to LIA to date the air circulation systems shifted large distances from natural causes alone. Probably 1000 miles or so latitudinally.
There is no evidence that CO2 has had a measurable effect at all.
Up to about 2000 it was proposed that CO2 had caused the poleward shifts up to that date. However around 2000 the poleward shift stopped and we are now seeing increasing periods of time with the jets more equatorward than they were during the late 20th century warming spell.
So all the climate changes we have seen are most likely natural with CO2 being an unmeasurably small contributor.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“so we can hardly ascribe the LIA to the Sun and must look elsewhere for a cause.”
Agreed in terms of radiative processes alone but I am being forced by real world observations to conclude that the sun’s variability in terms of wavelengths and particle types has a profound effect on atmospheric chemistry.
The chemical processes appear to have a far greater effect on the net energy budget by altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and so the speed of the hydrological cycle. It is only once the speed of the hydrological cycle has been set that the radiative characteristics of the system come into play. Depending on what the hydro cycle does the atmospheric heights change to bring incoming and outgoing radiation back to equilibrium with little or no effect on surface air temperatures.
That is the ‘elsewhere’ that we must look.
RGates said:
To think it does and to be unable to prove it is equally presumptuous, is it not? In either case all that is missing is proof and all that is available is faith.
There is an interesting comparison (for CET region) between sunspot number, monthly sunshine hours (averaged over 11 year period) and CET temperature anomaly.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsst.htm
Could an AGW spoksmen confirm that rise in the CET area sunshine hours is due to rise in the CO2 level ?
OT: Super-moon is having some effect, however no major EQ as yet.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
Stephen Wilde says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:29 pm
So all the climate changes we have seen are most likely natural with CO2 being an unmeasurably small contributor.
Just as unmeasurable as the solar influence.
R. Gates appears to actually believe that simulations take precedence over measured data. How an otherwise (apparently) intelligent can ignore the ice core evidence, from both Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the clear evidence that peanut buttering data over a 1200 km diameter circle flies in the face of any coherent principle of physics is simply mind blowing.
It’s as if Goebbels has been giving classes to the Warmists. A big lie repeated often enough comes to be believed. 75/25 my [snip].
Stephen Wilde says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Agreed in terms of radiative processes alone but I am being forced by real world observations to conclude that the sun’s variability in terms of wavelengths and particle types has a profound effect on atmospheric chemistry.
Not forced, as that would work upon other people too. So, this is just your bias or idea or view. The point is that there is growing acceptance that these variations do not show any long-term changes, e.g. that the situation right now is similar to what it was a century ago and likely back during the Maunder minimum, while the climate certainly is not.
I am sorry, I never seem to be able to find a temp graph similar in time scale to the sunspot charts above. But it seems quite obvious that there are long term cycles that bottomed around 1800 and 1900, peaking much lower around 1850 than the one around 1970. These cycles quite nicely fit the temp curves averaged over similar time periods with a bit of lead time. Obviously, vulcanism, el nino, etc all play their parts, but it really does seem quite obvious. Sorry to not be able to lay the charts out myself.
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm
OT: Super-moon is having some effect, however no major EQ as yet.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
And there won’t, just as solar and geomagnetic storms don’t have any influence either.
I submitted this article to Anthony 4 days ago, and he mulled it over a while, before posting it. We had an email exchange, when I asked why the hesitation. Here is his answer:
“Because the conclusions are at odds with certain skeptical views related to Maunder Minimum and climate then. But the science is the science, and while I’ve always felt that there was a relationship between the MM and climate then, it may prove to be mostly coincidental.”
This shows a man of strong integrity (as we always knew).
Billybob.
Sunshine is an extremely poor metric.
1. the % of sunshine hours is not well sampled over the entire globe.
2. the instruments used in the past are subject to observer errors that are in the
neighborhood of an order of magnitude.
3. sunshine, as measured by a cambell stokes, is a function of humidity as well.
4. Sunshine is an effect. That is, the amount of sunshine is modulated by clouds
and aerosols. Thats why we look at the total spectrum.
Leif says: “…and now it seems that even mainstream solar physics is embracing the notion that perhaps there is no such background variation.”
Maybe we should start a pool to see how long it takes for climatologists to accept it.
@Leif
> It now seems that there likely is no such [TSI] background variation [as some of
> us have been saying for several years now] so we can hardly ascribe the LIA to
> the Sun and must look elsewhere for a cause.
You may be right, Leif. But Man is a rule-making animal, and the coincidence of “it got cold” and “the sunspots dimmed” on a couple of occasions is sufficient evidence for Univeral Truth for some.
It may be the warmists who will protest the most against the falsification of these solar-caused LIA theories, because they provide a convenient “excuse”, if temperatures don’t get as warm as they would like them to be. (The perception being that we’re entering another “grand minimum”, which also has yet to be proven.)
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I submitted this article to Anthony 4 days ago, and he mulled it over a while, before posting it. We had an email exchange, when I asked why the hesitation. Here is his answer:
“Because the conclusions are at odds with certain skeptical views related to Maunder Minimum and climate then. But the science is the science, and while I’ve always felt that there was a relationship between the MM and climate then, it may prove to be mostly coincidental.”
This shows a man of strong integrity (as we always knew).
____________________
Bravo, Sir.
Up to about 2000 it was proposed that CO2 had caused the poleward shifts up to that date. However around 2000 the poleward shift stopped and we are now seeing increasing periods of time with the jets more equatorward than they were during the late 20th century warming spell.
The argument is that Ozone depletion with a cocomitent increase in GHG is the prime driver for SH circulation changes in the late 20th century. eg WMO expert assesment 2010 (chapter 2).
Observations and model simulations show that the Antarctic ozone hole caused much of the observed southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere middle latitude jet in the troposphere during summer since 1980. The horizontal structure, seasonality, and amplitude of the observed trends in the Southern Hemisphere tropospheric jet are only reproducible in climate models forced with Antarctic ozone depletion. The southward shift in the tropospheric jet extends to the surface of the Earth and is linked dynamically to the ozone hole induced strengthening of the Southern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex.
The southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere tropospheric jet due to the ozone hole has been linked to a range of observed climate trends over Southern Hemisphere mid and high latitudes during summer.
Because of this shift, the ozone hole has contributed to robust summertime trends in surface winds, warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, and cooling over the high plateau. Other impacts of the ozone hole on surface climate have been investigated but have yet to be fully quantified. These include observed increases in sea ice area averaged around Antarctica; a southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere storm track and associated precipitation; warming of the subsurface Southern Ocean at depths up to several hundred meters; and decreases of carbon uptake over the Southern Ocean
The are two schools of thought here, a )O3 depletion is the main mechanism, or b) GHG is the main mechanism ie Shindell and Schmidt 2004 argued that O3 depletion added to the circulation changes from GHG therefore any recovery of O3 will subtract from them eg Polvani et al 2011. suggesting that the negation will cancel the effects of GHG circulation changes in the SH.
The Maunder Minimum lasted for 60-70? years.
Something caused it.
The fact that the sun was relatively inactive over that period looks relevant, but no-one can find the precise mechanism.
The sun has been relatively inactive now for 5? years.
Already the NH has had a series of cold winters. The SST has dropped globally.
It might or might not be the sun.
We need to find that mechanism.
Bob Tisdale says:
March 19, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Leif says: “…and now it seems that even mainstream solar physics is embracing the notion that perhaps there is no such background variation.”
Maybe we should start a pool to see how long it takes for climatologists to accept it.
They are still using the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI in their models.
According to this:
Climate Realists Article
http://climaterealists.com/7360
AUDIO BOOK JOSEPH A OLSON
Joseph Olson, live on the DMZ…the Dennis Miller radio program
Thursday, March 10th 2011, 5:22 PM EST
This is what was said re CO2:
CO2 toxicity.
NASA, when they were getting ready to put a fire-suppression system in the space shuttle and in the space stations…tested carbon dioxide…they saw no measurable side-effects in concentrations less than eighty-thousand parts-per-million. The air has three-hundred-and-ninety parts-per-million. We inhale that three-hundred-and-ninety…we exhale forty-thousand parts-per-million.
HenryP says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Henry, I agree with most of what you say, but this statement is dangerously wrong, so I have to point it out. High concentrations of oxygen will cause severe problems – the body starts ‘burning’ (that is what we do with the stuff, but slowly). The first organ to go is the most sensitive, the eyes. After that, I am not sure, but it is NOT good.
If breathing is a problem, the concentrations can be upped to 90% or more, but you must have constant monitoring on the levels on the blood.
The papers of interest are here
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3772.1?journalCode=clim
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046712.shtml
John Day says:
March 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm
You may be right, Leif. But Man is a rule-making animal, and the coincidence of “it got cold” and “the sunspots dimmed” …
It is rather that Man is by evolution conditioned to believe in false positives: “is that a tiger in the shadows?”, RUN. Even it it is not 99% of the time, the 1% it is and running [believing the false positive] saves his life thus improves his chances of reproducing, etc.
R.Gates = Troll.
“Tell me how much phase change to water there is going on in the middle of Antarctica? When the earth turns to a Snowball Earth, there’s very little phase change going on, and very little weather going on. Your assertion that water is the overpowering influence on climate (i.e. driver of climate) is not supported by any science. Or perhaps, you’re confusing weather and climate…”
___________
1)Antarctic phase change: surface, solid to vapor, vapor to solid. Under ice, liquid to solid, solid to liquid. (I understand it gets cold enough for even CO2 to precipitate.)
2)I thought the scare du jour was “warming”. (From CO2 that is.)
3)”Coldening” is so retro 1970’s, man. (change subject)
4)”…and very little weather going on.” There is ALWAYS weather going on weather you like the weather or not. (sheesh. Idiocy.)
5)Climate regimes are described in terms of biomes to which the major contributing factor is annual total rain fall/precipitation. There is no “global” climate. It is local.
6)Weather is not climate. Temperature is not climate either.
R. Gates says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm
You should talk to real people who work in elevated CO2 atmospheres. You can work (and I have done so alongside many other miners) in atmospheres of 2% CO2 with no more ill effects than a good nights rest will cure. That’s with the current OSHA limit of 19% O2. Even 17% O2 is workable, and I did it for many months in a shaft doing repair work. The displacing gas was CO2 at 4%. You are getting all worked up over .03% (300 ppm).
Take note: Underground mining is incredibly hard work… and dangerous.
I double dare anyone to go check it out at a real underground mine.
I had my 19 years of it, thank you, but if you need directions to find one….
RGates: “Milankovitch cycles are pretty much taken as a background…”
Sunshine hours has nothing to do with TSI or Milankovich. It is a measurement of how much bright sunshine is actually striking the earth. There have been large decadal changes in those values. The amount of energy differential between bright sunshine and clouds can be 200,300,400 W/sqm depending on time of year and where you are.
Just for the heck of it I looked at Heathrow’s Sunshine Hours which they started collecting in 1957:
Decade – Sunshine Hours Total
1960s – 14555.7
1970s – 15118.6
1980s – 15264.4
1990s – 16801.9
2000s – 16776.8
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt
Not a small change. 2200 hours or so per decade change from the 1960s to the 1990s/2000s. 220 hours per year more.
Thats a lot of energy.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I like that, Leif. Prepare your stores for the coming crop failures, even if they don’t hit.
Why risk it?
R. Gates says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Tell me how much phase change to water there is going on in the middle of Antarctica? When the earth turns to a Snowball Earth, there’s very little phase change going on, and very little weather going on. Your assertion that water is the overpowering influence on climate (i.e. driver of climate) is not supported by any science. Or perhaps, you’re confusing weather and climate…
See the following from which the quote is taken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica
“All of these studies have found slight warming in the earliest portion of the record (circa 1957–1965). Since the mid-1960s, all major studies have reported cooling over most of Antarctica.”
We are being told that CO2 would exert its greatest influence in the polar regions since there is so little water vapor to compete with the absorption bands of CO2. From the above quote, it appears as if all the extra CO2 is affecting neither the weather nor the climate in Antarctica since it is more than 30 years since the mid-1960s.
Earlier you 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.” Well CO2 has not done much to keep water vapor in the air above Antarctica. It seems to me that whether or not water vapor condenses out has much more to do with the temperature of the air rather than the CO2 concentration.
Note for Anthony, and Dr. Svalgaard:
Sudden cooling during the Maunder minimum can be best verified against the CET records, the only reasonably reliable temperature record/reconstruction for the period.
Drastic drop in the temperatures only happened in the second half of the MM, and lasted only short period of about 15 yeas. Subsequent rapid rise in temperatures was unprecedented and has not been matched since.
This temperature fall-rise sequence may be partly due to do with the solar activity, however there is strong possibility, that it was mainly due to a perfectly natural process controlling the North Atlantic Ocean currents.
Results of my research are shown in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
More detailed explanation with relevant data is in the review process for publishing.
Mosher:
“1. the % of sunshine hours is not well sampled over the entire globe.
2. the instruments used in the past are subject to observer errors that are in the
neighborhood of an order of magnitude.
3. sunshine, as measured by a cambell stokes, is a function of humidity as well.
4. Sunshine is an effect. That is, the amount of sunshine is modulated by clouds
and aerosols. Thats why we look at the total spectrum.”
1) There are hundreds of weather stations that do measure sunshine hours. Just because it isn’t standard at all sites does not mean it shouldn’t be. It is the main energy added to our climate. It can be measured. if it isn’t it is a fatal flaw in climate measuring.
2) Not an order of magnitude. Thats a gross exageration. The evidence I have is that modern pyranometer can be out (by WMO standard) 20 minutes a day and the Campbell Stokes can be out by 55 minutes a day.
3) If you say so, but isn’t humidity (a GHG) measured? If it isn’t, it is just another fatal flaw. I mean, if you don’t measure the core items that change climate, don’t then claim “It isn’t x,y or z that causes temperature, it must be CO2 because we don’t measure x,y and z.” Dumb argument.
4) Clouds can be high, low and of different thickness. The papers I read clearly state Clouds are not the inverse of sunshine and vice versa. Fromt he Ebro paper:
“It is surprising that a statistically significant increase
in cloudiness is not accompanied by a simultaneous
decrease in sunshine at Ebro Observatory over the past
century. The explanation may lie in a change in the
proportions of the cloud types. We have shown how high
clouds, less dense and optically more transparent than
low clouds, have increased during the last part of the
century, with perhaps little effect on the sunshine records.”
http://www.iac.es/folleto/research/preprints/files/PP08038.pdf
http://i53.tinypic.com/30l32o5.jpg
vukcevic, thanks for the CET Sunshine/Temp graph.
Someone else did one from 1929 on (graph #3 at bottom)
http://www.halesowenweather.co.uk/cet_sunshine.htm
Some Alpine sunshine hourswhere sunshine hours were hitting 160% of normal around 1990.
http://i54.tinypic.com/30auot1.jpg
From this paper (with Briff and Jones as co-authors): http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Auer.histalp.2007.pdf
I think Briffa and Jones missed the huge jump in sunshine hours. Or left out the graph comparing sunshine hours to temperature.
wsbriggs (March 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm ), in response to R. Gates, exclaims:
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of AGW, I believe this type of comment, which seems to crop up quite regularly at various sites, brings the discussion to the nadir.
eadler says:
Smokey ,
Your beliefs are nonsense. The science which indicates that CO2 is important is well established and has been understood for 111 years. It is clear that you don’t understand what John Tyndall discovered in 1859, the role greenhouse gases, and their radiation absorption spectra, have in controlling the earth’s temperature. John Tyndall demonstrated the absorption spectra of GHG’s in 1859, and explained how they reduced the loss of heat, especially in the night time.
OK, let’s teach eadler some facts about Tyndall: first, he did not prove anything about CO2 absorption. His equipment was far too primitive to distinguish between absorption, reflection, refraction, diffusion, scattering or anything else. He wrongly concluded that all energy missing between the source and the pile in his incompetent experiments had been absorbed by CO2.
Most importantly, Tyndall ignored Kirchhoff’s Law. The conservation of energy falsifies the “greenhouse effect” because Kirchhoff’s Law states: that which absorbs, equally emits. Tyndall either did not know about Kirchoff’s Law, or he ignored it.
Anyone who quotes John Tyndall as the man who proved the “physics” of the “greenhouse effect” displays ignorance. It is the fallacy of appealing to an ignorant authority.
Arrhenius, OTOH, did have some valid points, and when he saw that his 1896 paper [the one every alarmist quotes] was invalid, he wrote a new paper in 1906 drastically lowering climate sensitivity to CO2 to only ≈1.5°C — far lower than the UN/IPCC’s claims of up to 6°C, or even more [which was Arrhenius’ 1896 estimate]. eadler says:
…Arrhenius was forced to make some simplifying assumptions in order to complete his calculation, the magnitude of the effect he predicted is close to what scientists are predicting today with the aid of supercomputers.
So why do we need supercomputers? IIRC, Willis has a very simple model that accurately predicts about 98% of the warming. eadler continues:
In the light of this knowledge and its extensive history, it is you who needs to justify your denial of the basic principles of climate science. Your objections are really unbelievable.
eadler can believe or not believe. But his appeal to the authority of Arrhenius leads here. To get eadler up to speed on Arrhenius, this would be a good place for him to begin.
Billybob.
google sunshine duration. start reading the documents, I’ll suggest the WMO document to start
Ian: ” It’s as if Goebbels has been giving classes to the Warmists. A big lie repeated often enough comes to be believed. 75/25 my [snip].
“Regardless of where one stands on the issue of AGW, I believe this type of comment, which seems to crop up quite regularly at various sites, brings the discussion to the nadir.”
Afraid I have to agree. But maybe we could reference Joe Isuzu…?
I find this exchange worth noting:
Leif Svalgaard responds (March 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm) to Stephen Wilde: (March 19, 2011 at 2:29 pm)
Stephen: “So all the climate changes we have seen are most likely natural with CO2 being an unmeasurably small contributor.”
Leif: “Just as unmeasurable as the solar influence.”
dp says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm
RGates said:
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.
“To think it does and to be unable to prove it is equally presumptuous, is it not?”
Yes, it is the classic fallacy of “arguing in a circle.” RGates assumes in his premise what he sets out to prove.
Mosher: “google sunshine duration. start reading the documents, I’ll suggest the WMO document to start”
I did. Maybe you could compare the WMO’s discussion of the Campbell-Stokes with discussons about sailors dipping mercury thermometers in wooden or metal or plastic buckets in relation to historical SST measurments.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/CIMO%20Guide%207th%20Edition,%202008/Part%20I/Chapter%208.pdf
I mean, I laugh out loud when I read an article describing SST data collection (http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/gosta/intro.html) and compare that to your whining about perceived imperfections in Campbell-Stokes recorders.
“Around 1942, SST worldwide became suddenly higher relative to marine air temperature ”
Yet, the graph from the same article shows that the number of measurments in 1942 went almost to ZERO.
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/gosta/figures/fig1.gif
People were fighting a war, not writing down temperatures from thermometers in a bucket!!!
The historical SST record is a total and utter joke. Compared to SST data, Campbell-Stokes data is perfection.
I don’t understand why someone interested in science would want to throw away or ignore data about the primary driver of climate – sunshine.
There are too many papers that discuss global brightening/dimming/brigthening cycles in the 20th century to ignore sunshine data.
I do understand why some people who are wedded to the CO2 theory would want to throw away data that would demolish their pet theory.
Mosher, maybe you can call up the Danish Met after reading this and tell them the Campbell-Stokes data should thrown away.
“Observed Hours of Bright Sunshine in Denmark
– with Climatological Standard Normals, 1961-90” – 1998
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr98-4.pdf
The graphs are fascinating.
Even though the data in this paper goes up to 1997 only, the decadal changes are fascinating. The gradulat brightening in the 1800s, the
Copenhagen 1876-1997. Seasonal sums . The big brightening in the 1931-60 period (10% increase) , the dimming until 1990 (a 10% drop) , and then brightening again.
Copenhagen 1876-1997. Seasonal sums .
Hours of bright sunshine. CASELLA level.
Period / Year
1876-1900 / 1718
1901-1930 / 1777
1931-1960 / 1923
1961-1990 / 1753
1991-1997 / 1852
How could a scientist ignore such data?
Juanslayton
As an Australian, I initially had no friggin’ idea what you were alluding to with the ‘Joe Isuzu’ comment…ah the marvels of Google…um, ah, Bing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/friday-funny-google-to-take-on-climate-skeptics/#comments
cheers, ian
There is a lot of overconfidence on display in this discussion.
For example:
• Confidence in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years
• Confidence that knowledge of certain laws of physics is sufficient to
understand the atmosphere and how heat is transferred from space,
through it, to earth and back again
• Confidence, on both sides of the argument, that sufficient is known
about the influence on the climate, of the magnet and electrical connection
between sun and earth
Now these issues are most interesting and entertaining from a scientific perspective.
The problem is that huge amounts of government money has been spent on rather sloppy research and that, increasingly, governments are distorting and restricting economic activity and taxing as the result of this research.
Moreover, in recent years more and more money has been poured into commercial ventures and superannuation funds, pursuing profits from untested technologies spun off from this same sloppy research.
All this money makes it very difficult for the normal to and flow of research ideas to receive a proper hearing.
Overconfidence always comes to grief in the end.
So, how does Henrik Svensmark’s theory fit into all this. From what I understand, it’s about cloud creation related to the Sun not blocking cosmic particles. Mostly, so what if TSI, effectively, is a constant? If Earth’s albedo increases 50% what effect would that have?
cedarhill says:
March 19, 2011 at 8:11 pm
what I understand, it’s about cloud creation related to the Sun not blocking cosmic particles. Mostly, so what if TSI, effectively, is a constant?
If you read the paper carefully, you’ll see that it is not really about TSI, but about the magnetic field of the Sun, that which is controlling the cosmic rays AND TSI.
[Snip. You labeled Willis as being a fraud. You are persona non grata. ~dbs, mod.]
I happen to have some notes here on CO2 toxicity. I’ll try to sum them up briefly.
CO2 is definitely toxic in high concentrations. It is thought to have caused hundreds of deaths in two separate incidents at Lakes Nyos and Monoun in Africa in the 1980s. The LC50- the concentration that will cause death for 50% of the population is thought to be in the 60000-100000ppm range.
Atmospheric CO2 causes difficulty in several ways. First, it prevents the lungs from expelling CO2 generated by the body. (More Oxygen won’t help,the variable for this problem is the partial pressure of CO2 in the lungs). The increased CO2 in the blood causes the blood to become more acidic which is not good. (But I haven’t gotten around to quantifying how much acidity and how bad it is). CO2 also binds to hemoglobin. Unlike CO, it doesn’t prevent O2 binding, but it does mechanically hinder O2 binding. And yes, increasing O2 pressure should improve that.
Anyway, susceptible individuals will react quickly to concentrations as low as 10000ppm becoming drowsy and having difficulty performing tasks. But it takes five to ten times that to produce nausea, vomiting,suffocation, and death. The Threshold Limit Value/Permissible Exposure Limit is set at 5000ppm. I would expect that the level at which CO2 will affect the most susceptible members of society when breathed 24/7 would be less than 5000ppm, but that’s just a guess.
This may be double posted. My first attempt at posting somehow ended up with the post replacing my email address in the displayed submission form.
Interesting, but I am still left with just one thought … models, yeah, what ever….
henry@eadler&RGates&…
If warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, minimum temperatures should rise as heat would be trapped due to the green house effect. You would then expect the minimum temperatures to rise at a rate as fast as – or even faster than – the mean- and maximum temperatures. What I found is exactly the opposite: minimum temperatures in Pretoria have actually declined by as much as 0.03 or 0.04 degrees C per annum whereas the means have stayed the same and the maxima have increased…
I doublechecked this result with stations in Spain, Northern Ireland and La Paz, Bolivia and found eseentially the same: nowhere can I find the so called trapping of heat due caused by an increase in minima . The whole theory of warming caused by an increase in green house gases is therefore proved invalid. It must be something else that caused the warming (of the past 150 years), not an increase in GHG’s
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
There are two more big Solar Minimums besides the MM to draw coincidence from.
The first one out of the MWP was the worst, even though nowhere near as cold as the MM, but it caught a population by surprise. And, it brought disease along with crop failures.
Before the MWP was the Dark Ages and the Fall or Rome to dig into.
So, even though there are no two big Grand Minimums alike, they all share bad news.
With the exception of the milder Dalton, where Europe was saved from starvation by trade from neighboring regions, it still hangs a sign out that says be prepared.
At this point, it doesn’t look like Science is in any position to offer much help beyond technical support and a big hearty ‘thanks’ for the raw data.
Cheers.
maksimovich says:
March 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for those links and the earlier comments.
Chemistry trumps radiative physics.
henry@Don K & others (about the toxicity of Co2)
Don K says: CO2 is definitely toxic in high concentrations
and then he quotes incidents where dangerous levels of Co2 came out of the ground (earth) causing death…
Don, there is another physical thing happening here: CO2 is heavier than air. Chemists use this property of CO2 to carry out titrations where oxygen has to be excluded, e.g just add a spoonful of bi-carbonate to some acidic mixture and carry on titrating (usually iodometric).
It takes some time for CO2 to distribute equally in the air, so approaching a single source of CO2 can be dangerous, as you can end up without having enough oxygen to breath. The problem is: you don’t notice it. Take a bird or burning candle with you. rbateman knows….
According to my book the safe working limit is 9000 mg/m3 which translates into
0.75% of the air concentration. At this stage we must realize that the SWL only refers to some intoxication effect, which is considered undesirable in a working enviromnent.
Like I said, in labtests with animals they went up to as high as 65% with the CO2 and if they kept oxygen up, the animals would not die.
(Source: Chemie lexicon: Kohlen dioksied :: SWL= 0.75% animal tests up to 65% CO2 showed death as a result of lack of oxygen)
So yes, we must keep to the SWL. But even so, I am still saying that more carbon dioxide is better and I have made that decision after a number of careful observations.
Note that CO2 only went up by 0.01% during the past 50 years from 0.03 to 0.04% and this was the biggest increase of CO2 in recorded history. It does not cause warming. (see my previous post, a little bit earlier).
If you are interested how I came to that conclusion read here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Once again we are being led by the TSI gravy train. Low solar activity influences our climate through atmospheric changes brought about by the much larger variations in EUV during periods of quiet solar activity.
The Maunder was one of the largest solar slowdowns of the Holocene, the Dalton was a solar minimum on a smaller scale. Indications suggest the current predicted grand minimum will be of shorter duration than the Dalton, so don’t expect too much on the climate scene. Having said that the past NH winter and the two before it certainly set some records.
The CET record is one of the longest, but still may not accurately show us the extent of past grand minima. The UK was battered last December which took them back to LIA conditions, but there was a recovery in Jan and Feb as the shape of the jet stream changed which protected the UK and western Europe from the Arctic flow down that the rest of the NH continued to experience. This may also of occurred in past grand minima.
HenryP – Australian temperatures are more of a mixed bag than your SA, NI, Bolivia temperatures:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/an-analysis-of-australian-rural-vs-non-rural-stations-temperature-trends/
Looking at “Trends to 2000” and “Trends to 2010”, the minimum temperatures have generally trended higher than maximums at the non-rural stations. At rural stations, the same applies until about 1970, and then the maximums clearly have the higher trends (minimums’ trends even go negative while maximums go on up).
I will try to do some graphs to make it easier to see, and post them here, but can’t guarantee to get them done. Trying to work on trend figures like these can give you brain damage.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 12:47 am
Once again we are being led by the TSI gravy train. Low solar activity influences our climate through atmospheric changes brought about by the much larger variations in EUV during periods of quiet solar activity.
False, as EUV subsides when the Sun is inactive.
Curious.
Leif posted in this blog that the differences between high and low are barely measurable. I.E., there is little fluctuation in solar output. Also, in other posts on this blog, it has been noted the “solar wind” has been measured to have slowed during cycle 24, the heliosphere has been measured to have contracted and the cosmic ray incident has been measured to have increased. I don’t recall the percentages regarding the solar wind or heliosphere or cosmic ray (high to low). Really same question regarding Svensmark’s cloud experiment and formation theory as to helping, hurting or indifferent to the cloud formation theory and, by extension, Earth’s albedo.
Leif,
“It now seems that there likely is no such background variation [as some of us have been saying for several years now] so we can hardly ascribe the LIA to the Sun and must look elsewhere for a cause.”
This is really confusing. Does this now mean that any calculations around recent (past few century) climate change that ascribe part of that climate change to solar are wrong (assuming this work is correct). Isn’t that just about everything shaping the IPCC science about recent climate change?
Please give me a hint, what is going to be the alternative cause to be found elsewhere? Aside from volcanic, I don’t see what else the concensus view has in its sights.
Anything is possible says:
March 19, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“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.”
I agree, seems sensible but Leif doesn`t seem to understand that long periods of high activity from that red blob in the sky might produce a warming and long periods of low activity might produce a cooling.
R. Gates;
You’re too little CO2 is bad and too much is bad but there’s a happy spot in the middle is excellent. Now do you have any clue bow big that happy spot is?
Because 280ppm => 560ppm = 3.7 watts
And then 560ppm => 1120ppm = 3.7 watts
In the last century, if we attribute ALL of the rise in CO2 to the evil vermin of earth called people, starting with the beginning of the industrial age in 1920, that’s about an extra 100ppm so far. So even with very large increases of fossil fuel consumption it will take about another century to get to CO2 doubling for just 1 degree of superoverestimated warming. And how much to get to 2 degress? Why only another 560! At triple current rates that’s still centuries more.
At 170ppm on the other hand, plant life dies. The more cusion between plant life dying and CO2 levels the better. And that snowball earth thing? Yeah, the more cushion with that the better too. Hope we don’t find ourselves in need of still one more degree after thay cause number 3 requires 1120ppm MORE than 2. Let’s see, last century we did 100….Oh we’re talking a LOT of years and a LOT of oil. And still no where even close to harmfull to the evil inhabitants of earth called humans.
Stephen: “So all the climate changes we have seen are most likely natural with CO2 being an unmeasurably small contributor.”
Leif: “Just as unmeasurable as the solar influence.”>>>
Either unmeasurably small, or the variance in their effects triggers one or more negative feedbacks that approximately reduce the variance effects to unmeasurably small. You’d think by now the focus of research would be on understanding those negative feedbacks because I keep hearing the that positive ones have been measured one way or the other, yet no effect, or at least no where near expected from actual temps.
Conclusion? Pointing energy sources at the planet causes other process to in large part cancel the extra energy being put into the system. Gee, you’d think a scientist would want to go find out what those are, but no, its easier to keep rounding off the data until it says what it is supposed to. If the experimental data doesn’t fit the theory, obviously the data is wrong.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 3:53 am
False, as EUV subsides when the Sun is inactive.
Splitting hairs again, over the solar cycle EUV varies substantially more than TSI. Also not interested in the EUV component of TSI, we all know how the ionosphere is affected by low EUV. Have you read the Baldwin paper on the EUV influence on the Arctic polar vortex that has been substantiated this past NH winter?
cedarhill says:
March 20, 2011 at 3:54 am
“solar wind” has been measured to have slowed during cycle 24, the heliosphere has been measured to have contracted and the cosmic ray incident has been measured to have increased.
That is the whole point. During recent times the solar wind seems to be at Maunder Minimum levels.
HR says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:12 am
This is really confusing. Does this now mean that any calculations around recent (past few century) climate change that ascribe part of that climate change to solar are wrong (assuming this work is correct).
The calculations that assumed a large change in the background are then wrong as you note.
Please give me a hint, what is going to be the alternative cause to be found elsewhere? Aside from volcanic, I don’t see what else the concensus view has in its sights.
Any complex system has internal random fluctuations
Robuk says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:15 am
I agree, seems sensible but Leif doesn`t seem to understand that long periods of high activity from that red blob in the sky might produce a warming and long periods of low activity might produce a cooling.
Only if the difference between high activity and low activity is large enough will such effects be measurable. The point of the article is that the difference is slight, hence warming/cooling will be minimal.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:32 am
Also not interested in the EUV component of TSI, we all know how the ionosphere is affected by low EUV. Have you read the Baldwin paper on the EUV influence on the Arctic polar vortex that has been substantiated this past NH winter?
All this is irrelevant. The point of the article was that the recent low solar activity was on level with the Maunder Minimum, and that therefore the climate should be as well, which it isn’t.
@Rgates – from two posts
“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. “
Tell me how much phase change to water there is going on in the middle of Antarctica? When the earth turns to a Snowball Earth, there’s very little phase change going on, and very little weather going on. Your assertion that water is the overpowering influence on climate (i.e. driver of climate) is not supported by any science. Or perhaps, you’re confusing weather and climate…
It would appear that your education is somewhat lacking and you have been carried away by ‘non condensing’ which you repeatedly state. You should note that gases that condense also evaporate or even sublimate. Read:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure
Water changes state from ice to water vapor. You have watched this if you have ever seen non-persistent contrails – ice crystals sublimating into invisible vapor right before your eyes. There will ALWAYS be water vapor in the atmosphere even in snowball earth. Water vapor in a volume of air lowers the weight of that volume of air (due to its molecular weight vs that of N2 and O2, and Avogadro’s law) so even at the same temperature it will start convection. Drier air replaces that rising volume and more sublimation occurs and so on. This over the entire surface of the ‘snowball’ Earth. As water vapor is many times more effective as a ‘green house gas’ (sic) than carbon dioxide – it is possible that recovery from snowball earth could occur without the need to posit rock weathering or mega-volcanism producing your universal causal agent CO2.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“That is the whole point. During recent times the solar wind seems to be at Maunder Minimum levels.”
And for a while at least the atmospheric circulation went back to Maunder Minimum type patterns with a much expanded set of polar high pressure cells pushing polar air equatorward.
So Leif”s statement is substantiated by real world observations and as Leif said before we must look elsewhere than at TSI.
Leif therefore does appear to see some significance in solar wind variations but not in TSI variations.
However Leif previously told me that the density of the solar wind is too slight to have (in itself) any effect on the Earth’s climate system and I would not dispute that.
However big changes do happen high up in the atmosphere when there are sizeable percentage changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths received from the sun and we have seen corresponding changes in the vertical temperature profile of the atmospheric column which are both unexpected and not properly explained.
Over recent months I have become aware of lots of chemical reactions high up operating at different levels and on different scales and with different signs (warming or cooling) yet there is no current formula for the net effect of all those reactions combined under different mixtures of solar wavelengths and particles.
Climate zones shift because the surface air pressure distribution changes. That changes because the vertical temperature profile changes. There is a good historical correlation with solar variability that Leif puts down to mere coincidence but given recent events mere coincidence is looking very unlikely.
Leif suggests that all climate variability arises randomly from internal system variability and I agree that a lot does because the oceans have their own internal variability that can dominate the system over shorter timescales of up to a century or so.
However in the end solar energy input is what drives that ocean variability so on longer timescales any solar variability will be the ultimate driver.
But, crucially, it is not TSI that matters but rather how much of that TSI gets into the oceans so if the Earth system responds to solar variations in the mix of wavelengths and particles which cause a changing balance of chemical reactions altering the vertical temperature profile and surface air pressure distribution and if that then alters energy input to the oceans via albedo changes (and I am sure it does) then that is a likely explanation.
It is still possible to regard such Earth system responses as ‘internal’ to the Earth system thereby seeming to resolve Leif’s only remaining objection.
High sensitivity to minor variations from an external force is still an internal characteristic.
BillyBob says:
I don’t understand why someone interested in science would want to throw away or ignore data about the primary driver of climate – sunshine.
http://virakkraft.com/Sunhours-Temp.png
The sun has experienced a reduced number of sunspots in the last number of years. And during the MM we saw a similar reduction in sunspots. During the MM it got cold. Currently we have experienced a number of cold winters and even have seen that “global warming” has slowed to a crawl. We can argue all day about TSI and sunspots, that TSI has not decreased now or during the MM. Fine. Something, some mechanism, caused the MM (and the Roman Optimum), some mechanism caused the low number of sunspots and it is not man made CO2. Either the sunspots have nothing to do with the MM or the mechanism that caused the MM also caused the low number of sunspots. Either or both can be the result of “what”? Maybe both are the symptoms of solar system or galactic forces. From my point of view the climate scientists are thinking too small.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:05 am
…..the recent low solar activity was on level with the Maunder Minimum …..
Absolute tosh !
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:32 am
…………..
Stratospheric vortex splitting, is one of the critical factors in the N. hemisphere’s winter temperatures trends; see ‘Stratosphere Influences Winter Weather’ heading in this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm web-page.
[Vuc, I know you and Leif may enjoy a ‘bit of banter’, but today’s comments are very close to crossing the line of unacceptability. Remember it is not just how you and Leif perceive them, but what is allowed though moderation sets an example and tone for the whole site. I have left four of your comments in moderation while dealing with other straighforward stuff. I will now deal with yours. I may not post them ~jove, mod]
Simple observation — global temps fell from ~1940 thru the late 1970’s, and during that time there was a solar “max” centered in the late ’50s, right in the coolest period. Solar max causes cooling?
I don’t accept there’s any residual “heat in the pipeline” effects. Earth reacts in a matter of just a few years (and much of that reaction is instantaneous) to significant direct forcings.
“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. ”
It would seen to me that this is a straw man, as I do not see anyone seriously arguing that any TSI variation is the driver of climate variation(at least not directly). However Leif Svalgaard’s point that the magnetic activity was not any lower is more to the point and more damaging to the solar variation climate driver hypothesis.
Question for Dr. Svalgaard, “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years” have you read or have you any comments? I am just starting to read. To add my voice to the chorus, your learned comments are appreciated.
@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.
As I understand it this is based an the same models that show a 2-5C temperature increase for a co2 doubling. Peer reviewed or not, this type gross extrapolation would never have been acceptable by any of the professors I had in college.
Leif: It is rather that Man is by evolution conditioned to believe in false positives….
Hmm. A bit of a stretch, perhaps. I mean, if we are programmed to avoid risk, how do we explain teen agers? : >)
al in kansas says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:33 am
Question for Dr. Svalgaard, “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years” have you read or have you any comments? I am just starting to read. To add my voice to the chorus, your learned comments are appreciated.
Yes, I have read the book. It is generally good, but is a bit too much an advocacy piece. The evidence for a 1500-yr cycle being of solar origin is weak and seems to be of the nature: “what else can it be?”
juanslayton says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:45 am
Hmm. A bit of a stretch, perhaps. I mean, if we are programmed to avoid risk, how do we explain teen agers? : >)
It feels too good to make them…
eadler says:
March 19, 2011 at 9:03 pm
[Snip. You labeled Willis as being a fraud. You are persona non grata. ~dbs, mod.]
Hooray! Excellent judgement.
*****
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
This shows a man of strong integrity (as we always knew).
*****
Yes, thank you, Anthony. For those seeking reality, they sometimes have to throw away cherished beliefs when evidence increasingly falsifies it (but even Einstein couldn’t do it completely).
“beng says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:19 am
Simple observation — global temps fell from ~1940 thru the late 1970′s, and during that time there was a solar “max” centered in the late ’50s, right in the coolest period. Solar max causes cooling?”
Most likely the slightly less active cycle 20 combined with a cool PDO resulted in a mild net cooling during a longer term strong warming trend.
The oceans introduce variability on a 60 year cycle (and possibly other time scales).
I think the PDO matches up nicely with the global brightening/dimming/brightening cycles of the 20th century.
Roy Spencer talks about cloudiness vs the PDO.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
I think Sunshine Hours matches up nicely with the PDO. But you have to take into account the various clean air initiatives in the UK, USA and other countries too.
The UK is up 4% on bright sunshine hours from 1929. Not a trivial energy input. More than enough to explain any warming.
Mike Jonas says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-minimal-solar-activity-in-2008%e2%80%932009-and-its-implications-for-long%e2%80%90term-climate-modeling/#comment-624898
Mike, thanks!
But be careful. First evaluate my report here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
especially the footnote:
“I believe these results are reproducible in other parts of the world as long as we are looking at days or times when it was not cloudy or raining. You should be looking purely at the heat of the sun produced during the day versus the cooling by earth during the night. Unfortunately I do not have the time to try and dis-entangle the days where it was cloudy and wet – but doing just that would give even better and more accurate results – as long as you are comparing the same (dry) days, past and future.
(What I did in Pretoria and La Paz is look only at the dry months. I don’t know if you can do this in Australia. )
Ian W says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:30 am
@Rgates – from two posts
“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. “
…it is possible that recovery from snowball earth could occur without the need to posit rock weathering or mega-volcanism producing your universal causal agent CO2.
______
My comments about CO2 are in response to skeptics who continually call this a “minor trace gas” as though it were unimportant in the atmosphere or even totally unnecessary as a GH agent. Related to the Snowball Earth period, and CO2 being a non-condensing GH gas, the point here is that while CO2 is less potent a GH gas in that it traps a much more narrow bandwidth of LW radiation, it also can exist as a gas over a greater range of temperatures and pressures and therefore act over a much greater range of temperatures and pressures found in the atmosphere, and this greater range must be considered when looking at the overall GH properties of CO2.
henry@Rgates 10h40
I am sure we have been here before.
How much warming (LW radiation) and how much cooling (SW radiation ) is caused by the increase in CO2, exactly?
RGates: “the point here is that while CO2 is less potent a GH gas in that it traps a much more narrow bandwidth of LW radiation …”
H2O is undoubtedly the most potent GHG.
1) Is H2O measured at weather stations? Humidity? Pan evaporation?
2) Is it the same over the 20th century (when you claim CO2 caused warming)?
If the answer to #2 above is “I don’t know”, then how can you blame CO2?
The same is true for sunshine hours. Is it the same over the 20th Century? If the answer is no, or I don’t know, then how can you blame CO2?
If you cannot prove the #1 energy input to the climate system has not gone up, and you cannot prove the #1 GHG has not gone up, blaming CO2 is bizarre.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm
“…so we can hardly ascribe the LIA to the Sun and must look elsewhere for a cause.”
As mentioned so many times before, you are not looking at the relevant metric. We have large seasonal variations and anomalies that correlate to changes in the solar wind velocity. Let alone the means, the all important heliocentric configurations that are causing the variations, map out perfectly EVERY monthly anomaly through Maunder and Dalton.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:05 am
All this is irrelevant. The point of the article was that the recent low solar activity was on level with the Maunder Minimum, and that therefore the climate should be as well, which it isn’t.
Interesting that something you call irrelevant completely blows your TSI argument out of the water. The TSI strawman is used by the AGW crowd to distance the solar influence in climate change. TSI is not important and attempting to compare current levels with the MM is just more strawman activity. Be a scientist and look at the other options when looking at solar influence.
beng says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:19 am
Simple observation — global temps fell from ~1940 thru the late 1970′s, and during that time there was a solar “max” centered in the late ’50s, right in the coolest period. Solar max causes cooling?
Your observation is only looking at one climate driver. Climate is mainly driven by ocean cycles and solar activity, do not make the mistake of isolating one aspect. The PDO flipped during the 1940’s.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Interesting that something you call irrelevant completely blows your TSI argument out of the water. The TSI strawman
The article is not about TSI, but about solar magnetism.. TSI is just one of the many consequences of solar activity. What the article says is that all the other indicators also were the same during the MM as now, [in particular TSI which is the only variable that energetically has any chance of influencing the climate].
Ulric Lyons says:
March 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Let alone the means, the all important heliocentric configurations that are causing the variations, map out perfectly EVERY monthly anomaly through Maunder and Dalton.
This is complete nonsense for the simple reason that those anomaly are so poorly known that it is meaningless to claim PERFECT agreement.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The article is not about TSI, but about solar magnetism.. TSI is just one of the many consequences of solar activity.
But you have continually invoked the TSI component in your comments throughout this thread, while ignoring other solar influences. One would wonder why, other than coming to the conclusion that you are firmly entrenched in the AGW crowd?
Can I suggest you read the Baldwin paper closely.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:10 pm
But you have continually invoked the TSI component in your comments throughout this thread, while ignoring other solar influences. One would wonder why, other than coming to the conclusion that you are firmly entrenched in the AGW crowd?
TSI is sort of a proxy for all the rest, and is the only one with enough energy to have any influence. What has AGW to do with the Sun? Even if I were, then what? Most AGW people need the solar influence to account for the natural variation that occurred before ~1940. In fact, a solar connection is vital and necessary for them.
Can I suggest you read the Baldwin paper closely.
Baldwin peripherally suggests the possibility that there perhaps might be a solar influence, but does not mention that at all in his conclusion section, nor supply any specific evidence. May I suggest that you are raising a strawman here. The issue at hand is whether there is any long-term variation of the background level of solar magnetism. Many climate models assume so [especially from the AGW crowd], but there is mounting evidence that there is not [as I have been saying for years now: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png ]. Stick to the topic.
It is not about TSI. Sunspots are a proxy for the power of the solar wind and its associated magnetic field. The earth appears to alternate betwwen cooling and warming phases lasted approximately thirty years and is correlated with the polarity of the NAO and SOI. Studies of the Nile water level and observations of auroral activity over the last 1500 years show a clear correlation with NAO phases. When the NAO is negative jet streams from the Arctic undulate south collidng with wet warm air masses and result in heat releasing. Arctic sea ice volume increases while extent may remain low resulting in more heat loss. At the same time ENSO enters a mode of LA Nina domination and positive SOI. La Ninas and negative NAO promote upwelling of deep cooler water through vigorus trade winds and Hadley cell activity. The Bermuda Labordor transport (gulf stream) declines This is what is happening right now with a 30% decrease in the solar wind since the positive NAO days of the 1980’s. I suspect this is what happened during the Maunder minimum. It is strictly a top down solar forcing. The cooling of the thermosphere and the stratosphere is now being followed by the cooling of the troposhere. The ocean is slowly cooling. Warmistas who think c02 will turn around this thermal inertia should be calculating how much blowing on a moving train will slow it down.
richcar1225 says:
March 20, 2011 at 9:40 pm
This is what is happening right now with a 30% decrease in the solar wind since the positive NAO days of the 1980′s.
That was two years ago. The solar wind speed in 1980 [solar max] was 389 km/s and in 2011 so far has been 421 km/s.
BillyBob says:
March 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm
RGates: “the point here is that while CO2 is less potent a GH gas in that it traps a much more narrow bandwidth of LW radiation …”
H2O is undoubtedly the most potent GHG.
1) Is H2O measured at weather stations? Humidity? Pan evaporation?
2) Is it the same over the 20th century (when you claim CO2 caused warming)?
If the answer to #2 above is “I don’t know”, then how can you blame CO2?
The same is true for sunshine hours. Is it the same over the 20th Century? If the answer is no, or I don’t know, then how can you blame CO2?
If you cannot prove the #1 energy input to the climate system has not gone up, and you cannot prove the #1 GHG has not gone up, blaming CO2 is bizarre.
_____
You’d have to understand the relationship between CO2 and water vapor and hence to the hydrological cycle. The rock-carbon cycle is intimately connected to the hydrological cycle, and over the longer-term when CO2 increases so does water vapor levels as the hydrological cycle begins to accelerate– which is exactly what we’ve seen over the past several decades. This increase in the hydrological cycle increases rock weathering, which then removes CO2 from the atmosphere, thus acting as a natural negative feedback loop to both keep the earth’s temperature and CO2 within a range. The point is: it is CO2 that acts as the thermostat in this process and is integral to the control of water vapor and rock weathering, and it’s own limiting process to make sure this thermostat is always set to the range we’ve seen (and enjoyed as species) over the past 800,000 years. The interesting event has arisen in that suddenly the CO2 thermostat has been set 40% higher than it’s been during these past 800,000 years, and now we need to discover how sensitive the climate is to this sudden turning up of the CO2 thermostat…somewhere between 1.5 to 5 degrees C of warming for a doubling of CO2 seems to be the best current estimate.
Henry@R.Gates
It is alleged that due to increased green house gases heat is trapped that cannot escape from earth. So if green house gasses were to blame for the warming, it should have been minimum temperatures that must show the increase (of modern warming). But as shown in Pretoria, there has not been any warming in the past few decades when CO2 increased the most and minima declined by as much as 0.04 degrees C. It was the same in Spain and Northern Ireland (one line covering half the earth), I also found comparable results to that of Pretoria during the dry months in La Paz, Bolivia, minima declining by 0.05 degrees C per annum…. The conclusion is simply that it cannot be greenhouse gases that caused modern warming of the past 150 years.
It must be something else that caused it …..obviously.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
RGates: “The rock-carbon cycle is intimately connected to the hydrological cycle, and over the longer-term when CO2 increases so does water vapor levels …”
But that isn’t happening. Pan Evaporation, which should climb if AGW is true, is actually dropping all over ther world.
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-pan-evaporation-indicate-cooling.html
The measurments are against your pet theory. Its a failure.
Sunshine Hours, on the other hand, are up. Up enough to account for the tiny bit of claimed warming. And it tracks the up/down/up cycle of warming in the 20th century.
Look up Global Brightening and Global Dimming and Pan Evaporation.
Quit focussing on that failed CO2 theory. Its a loser.
Lief,
It looks to me like you cherry picked the solar wind to make the claim that the solar wind today is higher than 1980.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/solar_wind_pressure_1963.gif
It seems to me that since 1992 the solar wind has dropped dramantically.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“TSI is just one of the many consequences of solar activity. What the article says is that all the other indicators also were the same during the MM as now, [in particular TSI which is the only variable that energetically has any chance of influencing the climate].”
i) One does not necessarily need to influence the climate ‘energetically’ (by which I assume you mean via radiative processes. It is enough to affect the atmosphere chemically. That has an effect on the radiative processes but only in so far as the radiative balance needs to adjust to accommodate the chemical effects and restore radiative equilibrium. So ‘energetic’ processes will change in response to chemical influences as a negative feedback rather than a climate driver.
ii) For a brief while recently the climate did return to something closer to Maunder conditions than we have seen for over a century with a remarkable intensification and equatorward shift of the polar high pressure cells and consequent flooding of the mid latitudes with cold polar air. The only difference with the Maunder period being that it has not yet had time to build up a thermal effect on the oceans from increased global albedo. If it goes on for as long as did the Maunder Minimum then the climate consequences will be just the same.
richcar 1225 said:
” The cooling of the thermosphere and the stratosphere is now being followed by the cooling of the troposhere”
The rest of your post is right in my opinion but not the above portion.
When the sun was active the thermosphere and troposphere warmed whilst the mesosphere and stratosphere cooled.
With the sun now quieter the thermosphere has cooled a lot, the troposphere has stopped warming and may start cooling whilsat the mesosphere and stratosphere have stopped cooling and have warmed a little.
Thus I have had to propose opposite responses to solar variability in the thermosphere/troposphere on the one hand and mesosphere/stratosphere on the other hand.
The prime candidate for such a phenomenon is ozone based chemical changes having different thermal effects at different heights. Lots of other chemical reactions at different levels also seem to be involved but we have yet to sort out the detail.
Leif,
I’d be interested to know a brief history of our understanding of TSI variation on the centennial/millenial scale. My understanding is that late 1990’s we had estimates of 6W/M2 (Crowley) and 3W/M2 (Lean) for the variation from MM to present. Recent studies had it at 1-2W/M2 (Steinhilber, Krivova and others). Now this paper has it about 1/3 of those estimates (~0.33-0.66W/M2). Does this sound correct?
The period pre-MM interests me. Would it be safe to assume that the multi-cennential variations in TSI are much lower outside the period this paper has studied as well? If so changes from MWP to MM seem problematic given there is no anthropogenic forcing then.
Leif says
“Any complex system has internal random fluctuations”
For decades or centuries? This sounds like something the AGWers reject, a nice measurable forcing seems like something they demand.
BillyBob’s link referred to this as regards the apparent decline in pan evaporation rates since 1945:
“So, what other alternatives (to explain the decline) exist? Humidity is one. If the air is more humid it will slow evaporation. The problem is that this is ruled out for the following reason:
“However, this explanation for decreasing pan
evaporation is unsatisfactory for two reasons.
First, it only predicts changes in pan evaporation
in water-limited environments. The
problem is that some areas are not waterlimited,
and in wet environments the evaporation
from pans and the surrounding environment
have both declined.”
I wouldn’t rule out increased near surface humidity on that basis. When the troposphere was warming there was more evaporation from the oceans and a faster water cycle so air over the land became generally a little more humid and pan evaporation would have declined. I suspect that the rates of pan evaporation have stabilised since around 2003 and may soon start to increase.
I don’t think that the reference to ‘wet’ environments is sound because 100% humidity is rare and localised over land and even when humidity is 100% evaporation continues in order to maintain that 100& humidity. Ground surfaces still dry out quickly even in shade in the equatorial regions.
R Gates said:
“it is CO2 that acts as the thermostat in this process and is integral to the control of water vapor”
The baseline amount of evaporation from the oceans is set initially by atmospheric pressure. The value of the enthalpy of vapourisation which is itself pressure dependent dictates the baseline rate of energy flow from ocean to air as a result of that rate of evaporation.
Other factors such as windiness, humidity, solar input to the oceans, internal ocean cycles and downwelling infra red from GHGs are capable of causing variation from the baseline amounts of evaporation and energy transfer.
However any changes other than a change in atmospheric pressure will only result in a change in the speed of the water cycle and NOT a change in the baseline rate of evaporation.
CO2 cannot alter that baseline rate and therefore cannot be said to be in control of water vapour. It can only be one of several variables that can alter the speed of the water cycle.
The speed of the water cycle is ALWAYS a negative feedback which works to prevent those other variables (including CO2) from causing a deviation from the baseline rate of evaporation.
The only effect of more CO2 in the air is to change the speed of the water cycle to a miniscule degree that is unmeasurable compared to natural changes in the speed of the water cycle.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 7:54 pm
CET since 1659 is not nonsense.
I think this is the key, solar varaiation. It’s unlikely that a trace gas CO2 can have such an appreciable affect on global temperature. I recommend anyone to check out the evidence, Professor Don Easterbrook presents, which shows a strong correlation between solar variation and global temperature.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/glocool.htm
ichcar1225 says:
March 20, 2011 at 11:52 pm
It seems to me that since 1992 the solar wind has dropped dramatically.
No, it hasn’t:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Flow-Pressure.png
HR says:
March 21, 2011 at 12:32 am
Now this paper has it about 1/3 of those estimates (~0.33-0.66W/M2). Does this sound correct?
It does to me.
Would it be safe to assume that the multi-cennential variations in TSI are much lower outside the period this paper has studied as well?
The cosmic ray record does not suggest that the recent period is abnormal.
“Any complex system has internal random fluctuations”
For decades or centuries?
Some people reject this for the Earth, but are perfectly happy with accepting this for the Sun…
HR wrote: “changes from MWP to MM”
Possibly due to Volcanoes. Zhong et al. (2010) have a nice model-based paper in Climate Dynamics http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0967-z (Centennial-scale climate change from decadally-paced explosive volcanism: a coupled sea ice-ocean mechanism). Considering all model-caveats, the physics of that paper and discussions by Gleckler in Nature in 2006 and Ottera in Nature Geo last year and … a lot of other papers, give quite a consistent picture.
Sure, but that’s just a mis-application of the rule “See tiger, run”. A lot of human-made rules don’t have a very solid basis in reality, but I agree, they’re useful for preserving the species.
R. Gates, your constant drum of 40% higher needs a clearer statement. And in context. Please produce one. I am curious as to how you would word that, graph that, and maybe even picture it in terms of its relationship to the context it lives in: The atmosphere.
*****
Geoff Sharp says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Your observation is only looking at one climate driver. Climate is mainly driven by ocean cycles and solar activity, do not make the mistake of isolating one aspect. The PDO flipped during the 1940′s.
——–
Stephen Wilde says:
March 20, 2011 at 9:12 am
Most likely the slightly less active cycle 20 combined with a cool PDO resulted in a mild net cooling during a longer term strong warming trend.
The oceans introduce variability on a 60 year cycle (and possibly other time scales).
*****
Thanks for replying.
Yes, I’m aware of the ocean cycles. In fact, this strengthens my argument. The 20 & 60 yr ocean cycles are much longer than Earth’s temperature-response time-constant for a direct forcing change. So those ocean cycles are very difficult or impossible to link to solar magnetic/TSI changes IMO, even if those solar changes actually had a significant effect (which they apparently don’t when comparing global temps vs solar output) .
I agree the ocean-cycles changes are important — they are paramount to short & long-term climate changes. But those changes are internally generated, IMO. Why? Because there isn’t any credible evidence of what “outside” influence could be causing them as yet (Leif shows pretty convincingly that solar output changes have been trivially small over at least the last ~400 yrs). And the best evidence I’ve seen for long-term climate change is the correlation between ice-volume changes with solar insolation at ~50 to 65 deg north. Since this depends on the orbital configuration/eccentricity characteristics (not the sun’s output itself), it is “internally” generated.
Whoops, I need to correct this:
“The baseline amount of evaporation from the oceans is set initially by atmospheric pressure. The value of the enthalpy of vapourisation which is itself pressure dependent dictates the baseline rate of energy flow from ocean to air as a result of that rate of evaporation.”
It is actually the RATIO between the energy value of the enthalpy of vapourisation and the amount of energy required to provoke evaporation that is pressure dependent.
That is how atmospheric pressure ‘controls’ water vapour.
Lief,
Is not the decline in Solar wind flow pressure and magnetic field intensity directly associated with the decline in the magnetic intensity of the umbral magnetic field aka ‘Livingston and Penn’ effect?
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
I do not see a significant recovery here.
richcar1225 says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:11 am
Is not the decline in Solar wind flow pressure and magnetic field intensity directly associated with the decline in the magnetic intensity of the umbral magnetic field aka ‘Livingston and Penn’ effect?
First, there is no decline, the solar wind has recovered nicely. Second, the L&P effect is not really about the lack of magnetic flux on the Sun, but about the less efficient process of concentration of that flux into spots. The solar wind controls the modulation of cosmic rays and the 10Be data suggests that the modulation was vigorous during the Maunder Minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png and http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-Sun-Berggren.png
Beng: “Because there isn’t any credible evidence of what “outside” influence could be causing them as yet (Leif shows pretty convincingly that solar output changes have been trivially small over at least the last ~400 yrs). ”
Solar output that reaches the earth HAS changed over the 20th century, and it matches up with the PDO quite well.
” There is increasing evidence that the amount of solar radiation incident at the Earth’s surface is not stable over the years but undergoes significant decadal variations. Here I review the evidence for these changes, their magnitude, their possible causes, their representation in climate models, and their potential implications for climate change. The various studies analyzing long-term records of surface radiation measurements suggest a widespread decrease in surface solar radiation between the 1950s and 1980s (‘‘global dimming’’), with a partial recovery more recently at many locations (‘‘brightening’’).
There are also some indications for an ‘‘early brightening’’ in the first part of the 20th
century.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf
Pamela Gray
R. Gates,
Trollus robusticus,
fervently believes
that the flea (CO2)
on the elephant’s tail
drives the elephant (H2O)
forward,
ignoring the sun
that sits
astride the elephant
wielding the goad.
He reminds me of the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy: shoot at barn, hit barn (some times), paint target on barn, crow “what a good shot I am”.
BillyBob says:
March 21, 2011 at 11:45 am
Solar output that reaches the earth HAS changed over the 20th century, and it matches up with the PDO quite well.
” There is increasing evidence that the amount of solar radiation incident at the Earth’s surface is not stable over the years but undergoes significant decadal variations.”
Changes in climate or other environmental factors can change the incident radiation [called the insolation] without the sun’s output [its irradiance] changing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm
. .The issue at hand is whether there is any long-term variation of the background level of solar magnetism. Many climate models assume so [especially from the AGW crowd], but there is mounting evidence that there is not [as I have been saying for years now: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png ]. Stick to the topic.
~
What about the solar Corona and extended coronal region. The toroidal and polodial forces magnetic and centrifuge must be an awful mess in that region of the solar atmosphere.
How far out is the Corona, must depend on solar activity cycle. Neat photos at different activity levels here:
THE SOLAR CORONA AT TOTALITY
Pg 3
Coronal morphology (depicted here out to 3 solar radii) is most
likely shaped by the sun’s magnetic field, which changes over an
11- year cycle of activity.
During a period of quiescence, coronal structure suggests that open lines of
the sun’s magnetic dipole field spread out from almost all solar regions except
those near the equator, where the corona is brightest and fairly uniform. These
regions of open field lines tend to be less
bright and may qualify as coronal holes, features characterized by drastically
reduced x-ray emission, low particle density, and possibly low temperature.
It is known that, during periods of solar inactivity, coronal holes extend
from the poles toward the equator and cover much of the sun’s surface.
Presumably solar wind flows strongly from coronal holes, thus depleting
particle and energy densities.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416689.pdf
Some solar accretion models depict an X line over the solar corona as an active solar interstellar reconnection region complete with its own solar magneto pause around 16 solar radii. Sorta strongly resembles the “Helium Focusing Cone.” Could this be the elsewhere we should be looking? That X line piston moving in and out, up and down, not static.. all the way out from interstellar space.. oh my..
Leif, pretend you are on another star and you are looking back into the solar system. YOU can see “RINGS” of influence as your eyes move across the vast system. Those rings appear to brighten substantianally at 1 Au and brighten even more as your eyes moved near the corona..
Carla says:
March 21, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Some solar accretion models depict an X line over the solar corona as an active solar interstellar reconnection region complete with its own solar magneto pause around 16 solar radii.
There are no such models. The sentence is full of meaningless words that don’t belong together. The corona does have a ‘neutral line’ separating regions of different magnetic polarity [regions originating in the photosphere – we can calculate the shape and position of the neutral line from the magnetic field observed in the photosphere]. That warped neutral line is carrying out by the solar wind to form the sector boundary in space. It looks like this: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/helio.gif
Carla says:
March 21, 2011 at 1:01 pm
That X line piston moving in and out, up and down, not static.. all the way out from interstellar space
The neutral line [the sector boundary I showed you a picture of] is carried away from the Sun by the expanding solar wind. A vertical cut through the system looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie.gif The wobbling up and down is due to solar rotation.
beng says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:23 am
Yes, I’m aware of the ocean cycles. In fact, this strengthens my argument. The 20 & 60 yr ocean cycles are much longer than Earth’s temperature-response time-constant for a direct forcing change. So those ocean cycles are very difficult or impossible to link to solar magnetic/TSI changes IMO, even if those solar changes actually had a significant effect (which they apparently don’t when comparing global temps vs solar output) .
Your argument was about solar changes not impacting climate in the 50’s, so I am unsure how your acceptance of the importance of ocean cycles strengthens your case? It is not impossible to link solar influence to the PDO pattern as Scafetta has outlined, although without a mechanism. Solar output is not just about TSI or magnetism. Look beyond Leif’s statements that are not all encompassing and have a AGW bent. There is compelling evidence showing low solar EUV output and changes to the atmospheric oscillations can have a profound impact on climate, as seen during the past few winters. Changes in EUV especially during grand minima are many orders higher than TSI.
The PDO in neg phase along with the AO/NAO in negative phase are powerful players in the world climate game, there is reason to suggest they come together during times of grand minima.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Solar output is not just about TSI or magnetism.
It is the magnetic field that drives EUV.
Changes in EUV especially during grand minima are many orders higher than TSI.
There is no evidence for that. Since the EUV is instrumental in creating the ionosphere and thus controls the Sq-current system and the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the compass needle, we know what EUV has been back to 1722 [albeit with some gaps before 1781]. Now, granted that the only real Grand Minimum in the historical record is the Maunder Minimum, we have simply no data at all about this, except what the article posted suggests that EUV back then was no different from what it was in 2008.
Leif, we know that cloudiness has fluctuated during the 20th century from all the papers that talk about global brightening/dimming/brightening.
If there have been periods with significantly less clouds or even less particles/aerosols, then surely UV reaching the earths surface should have fluctuated with the change in cloud cover.
Are you claiming UV coming from the Sun is unchanged, or are you saying UV reaching the earths surface is unchanged?
If you are saying the latter …. are you sure? Because UV should go up and down with changes in cloud cover.
Plus, the ozone layer blocks a lot of UV. Are we sure the ozone layer is unchanged over hundreds of years?
Leif,
It does make sense that if it takes – say a ballpark of a million years – for energy transport from core to the photosphere – that there would be a tremendously slow low pass filter that filters out any variations that might possibly exist in the energy production and that one could not see any short term variations or oscillations at all other than what is going on nearby to or at the photosphere.
The difference in short term power then would have to be what is being released or accumulated in the magnetic field (and/or any other energy storage mechanisms that might exist) since the power generation will be heavily filtered and quite uniform by the time it leaves the core.
That leaves us with just the prospect that very minute variations have extraordinary abilities to do forcing, extremely high sensitivity or that the Sun really has very little effect on the Earth. Hopefully, the first is not the case when it comes to raw power/area. Rather that it might be a secondary effect, like changes in spectral content that modulate a variable or variables which are most likely subject to other factors – like cloud fraction and reflectivity. Roughing out a hypothesis has led to the following.
While I haven’t found a copy of the original paper by J. London, the numbers I found (or calculated from values referenced to the paper) indicate the Earth around 1957 may have only had 40% cloud cover with 60% cloud albedo – assuming other values London determined are accurate. London also estimated 0.35 albedo. More modern values being estimated, such as by Trenberth et al in his two energy balance papers show an albedo of 0.305 and 0.295 (or something very close to these values) for his two papers done a decade apart, indicating a dwindling albedo. I think he still assumes a 62% cloud cover fraction in both but a cloud reflectivity of only around 45%, which is at the bottom end of reflectivity for the least type of cloud and below the range of reflectivity for the other two major types, a rather unlikely scenario to me. Taking these at face value as being roughly correct suggests longer term changes of dwindling albedo and variations both in reflectivity and in cloud cover fraction, but not necessarily both moving in the same direction for total albed.
Palle’ & Goode’s papers on ashen light albedo measurements and the observed variations over their time frame suggests there is longer term albedo variation. Whether this can be correlated to solar activity, completely or even partially is another matter.
Just assuming variable cloud cover, one can determine that the temperature required for energy balance could vary by roughly +/- 5 deg C going from totally clear skies to totally cloudy skies with a low sensitivity of around 0.22 deg C per W/m^2. That’s about 0.8 deg C direct effect for a doubling of CO2 sensitivity estimate, just below the IPCC range. Cloud cover also affects the below the surface ocean heating directly as it modulates the total light reaching the surface. Cloud reflectivity has more of an effect on just how much power is absorbed by the Earth surface and atmosphere and these two effects are going to be slightly different in how much reaches the surface versus is absorbed in the atmosphere even if the same amount is reflected. A highly reflective cloud cover of 40% coverage should have more power entering the ocean than a not so reflective 62% coverage cloud cover assuming the same total albedo effect.
The cloud variability, fraction and reflectivity, would seem to offer something capable of a significant effect and capable of being affected by many things, potentially including the Sun in a very sensitive level, much more so than raw TSI variation. It also is subject to all sorts of internal factors, like pollution and volcanic activity and just flat out internal oscillations and variations. It would also seem to provide a feedback control mechanism capable of adjusting absorbed incoming TSI while maintaining a fairly limited temperature variation. And finally, it would be short circuited by the presence of significant amounts of glacier at lower latitudes which would replace the cloud albedo by highly reflective snow albedo – until the lack of precipitation and presence of dust, etc. eventually reduce the snow albedo to the point where glacier albedo reduces down to interglacial levels and the process can begin again.
Leif, what I’m getting at …
“Under partly cloudy conditions a phenomenon sometimes called the “broken-cloud effect” can come into play, resulting in higher UV levels than a clear sky would produce, and so a greater risk of sunburn – or worse. A survey conducted at six U.S. sites in 1994 found that cumulus clouds could raise surface UV-B measurements by 25 percent, and in 2004 Australian researchers reported that the specific UV-B frequencies associated with DNA damage were up to 40 percent stronger under somewhat cloudy skies.
Why does this happen? Scientists aren’t positive, but there seem to be two key mechanisms here: (1) UV rays bouncing off the sides of dense clouds, and (2) rays getting redirected as they pass through wispier clouds. Conceivably (as an American Scientist article suggested last year), a combination of thin refracting clouds up high and puffy reflecting clouds down low could result in a major UV boost at ground level. ”
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2732/are-uv-rays-really-more-powerful-on-cloudy-days
Could the PDO, or whatever causes the PDO, be changing the cloud type enough so UV goes up or down?
BillyBob says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Are you claiming UV coming from the Sun is unchanged, or are you saying UV reaching the earths surface is unchanged?
We know what the UV coming from the Sun has been over the past 170 years, see pages 9-10 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf so you can see for yourself.
cba says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm
That leaves us with just the prospect that very minute variations have extraordinary abilities to do forcing, extremely high sensitivity or that the Sun really has very little effect on the Earth.
I don’t think we have a hypersensitive system as it would be very prone to run-away over billions of yours.
The cloud variability, fraction and reflectivity, would seem to offer something capable of a significant effect
I think this is important, but that internal processes [i.e. the climate itself] is responsible for the albedo changes.
BillyBob says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Could the PDO, or whatever causes the PDO, be changing the cloud type enough so UV goes up or down?
I think the climate itself is responsible for these changes regardless of what the Sun is doing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Solar output is not just about TSI or magnetism.
It is the magnetic field that drives EUV.
Changes in EUV especially during grand minima are many orders higher than TSI.
————————————
There is no evidence for that.
We have evidence right now using the latest equipment that shows distinct detail.
EUV varies over the 11 year cycle by 16%.
The EUV baseline measurement for the SC23/24 min is 15% lower than the previous min. The min before that is again higher. EUV does not have a base floor like TSI.
The Ionosphere is the lowest and least dense measured in the satellite era. Not only is the overall height substantially reduced, but the base above sealevel is 260km compared with a normal 400 km.
With solar activity during the SC24 min matching the Dalton Minimum, there is no reason to suggest the EUV levels and Ionosphere levels would not have been the same as during the Dalton.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm
The Ionosphere is the lowest and least dense measured in the satellite era. Not only is the overall height substantially reduced, but the base above sealevel is 260km compared with a normal 400 km.
Correction. The height of the Ionosphere is 260 miles as compared to 400 miles according to:
Presentation to
“UNCOPUOS Meeting, Vienna, Austria
February 10, 2011”
By
Madhulika (Lika) Guhathakurta, PhD
Lead Program Scientist, Living With a Star Program
Heliophysics Division (HPD)
Science Mission Directorate
NASA Headquarters
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Changes in EUV especially during grand minima are many orders higher than TSI.
An order of magnitude is a factor of ten. ‘Many’ is more than ‘several’. ‘Several’ is something like 3 or 4, so ‘many’ is more than that, say 6 or 7, corresponding to 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 times as much…
EUV varies over the 11 year cycle by 16%.
The EUV baseline measurement for the SC23/24 min is 15% lower than the previous min.
The numbers don’t add up. If the variation is 16% over the cycle, the minima cannot be 15% different. The measurements have large errors. The calibration is uncertain by some 10%.
With solar activity during the SC24 min matching the Dalton Minimum, there is no reason to suggest the EUV levels and Ionosphere levels would not have been the same as during the Dalton.
I think this is what I’ve been saying, so the climate should also be the same, no?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 21, 2011 at 9:51 pm
An order of magnitude is a factor of ten. ‘Many’ is more than ‘several’. ‘Several’ is something like 3 or 4, so ‘many’ is more than that, say 6 or 7, corresponding to 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 times as much…
Your are splitting hairs again.
The numbers don’t add up. If the variation is 16% over the cycle, the minima cannot be 15% different. The measurements have large errors. The calibration is uncertain by some 10%.
They add up, when put together you get an even greater variation, the base line varies as is seen now. I have also taken the smaller deviation between the two minima, some reports suggest 28% difference in baseline alone.
With solar activity during the SC24 min matching the Dalton Minimum, there is no reason to suggest the EUV levels and Ionosphere levels would not have been the same as during the Dalton.
—————————
I think this is what I’ve been saying, so the climate should also be the same, no?
So you haven’t been watching the NH winter?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“corresponding to 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 times as much…”
Your are splitting hairs again.
Accuracy is a virtue. Numerical sloppiness doesn’t have any place.
They add up
Nonsense. Not even worth refuting.
With solar activity during the SC24 min matching the Dalton Minimum, there is no reason to suggest the EUV levels and Ionosphere levels would not have been the same as during the Dalton.
“I think this is what I’ve been saying, so the climate should also be the same, no?”
So you haven’t been watching the NH winter?
Weather is not climate. You are claiming that we climate-wise right now have the same conditions as during the Dalton [and also Maunder, as per the article] minimum. Get real.
BillyBob says:
March 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Leif, we know that cloudiness has fluctuated during the 20th century from all the papers that talk about global brightening/dimming/brightening.
If there have been periods with significantly less clouds or even less particles/aerosols, then surely UV reaching the earths surface should have fluctuated with the change in cloud cover.
Are you claiming UV coming from the Sun is unchanged, or are you saying UV reaching the earths surface is unchanged?
If you are saying the latter …. are you sure? Because UV should go up and down with changes in cloud cover.
Plus, the ozone layer blocks a lot of UV. Are we sure the ozone layer is unchanged over hundreds of years?
~
Thanks for that comment there BillyBob.
My little cranky theory, requires an increase in cloud cover at the 1AU level of solar influence.
Earth’s orbit is very near a location within the solar system known as the parabolic exclusion boundary (it orbits it). This exclusion boundary is where interstellar neutrals and other particles are unable to penetrate due to solar strengths at this level location. The tip of the helium (and other neutrals) gravitational cone, is at the parabolic exclusion boundary. With the wider other end, out at the interstellar boundary. So we have this huge gravitational focusing cone on the upwind side of the heliospheric bubble, extending all the way out to, and connected with interstellar space. If the density, temp, magnetic pressure changes along that focusing cone, the amount interstellar neutrals penetrating the system will also change. It will also change the composition of the particles Earth orbits.
On the downwind side is where all these interstellar neutrals pile up and earth orbits through the pile up zone when our orbit takes us around the downwind side of the heliosphere. So in winter not only are we closest to the sun, with our nothern hemi tipped away, but also orbiting in the gas pile up, which includes interstellar and solar gases. The amount of gas and neutrals and particles varies.
Now inbetween the two tips of the two cones at the exclusion boudary will be an interaction region of the solar and interstellar particles. That parabolic exclusion boundary, kinda looks like a second interstellar reconnection region nearer the solar disk.
One reconnection region at the wide end of the cone at the interstellar boundary and the other reconnection region at the tip of the cone, at the parbolic exclusion boundary, near 1AU.
If there is particle waves and interactions there must be reconnection.
They have been using many of the solar satellites as well as other satellites to locate and measure these interstellar neutrals and particles within the system for years. Then we say that when solar activity is low, more interstellar neutrals are penetrating the system to that parabolic exlcusion boundary location we orbit. (increases in cosmic rays come to mind here) More cloud cover, less EUV and less ground currents heating ocean and surface.
The climate zone has not changed here in Wallowa County. To be sure, the weather has been getting colder, but internal oscillations in atmospheric and oceanic conditions well explain the colder weather. There is no need to add solar input to the mix, though it is there. Its influence would be well below natural variations from day to day, month to month, season to season, and year to year these past 4 colder years. I would say the same for anthropogenic additional CO2 and other such anthropogenically added greenhouse gases. Do they have enough influence to move a theoretical temperature gauge up or down? Yes. But very difficult to measure that finely in such a natural intrinsically noisy system. In my view, even the temperature trends are too naturally noisy to measure these much smaller but influential components.
On the other hand, my oven affected my outdoor temperature gauge by 6 degree! The temperature sensor sits on top of the insulated box surrounding the jutting backside of the oven on my backporch wall. The proverbial BBQ if you will.
Leif,
I seem to recall something of a simple model, Lean ??? or Curry???, that tied temperature to ENSO and/or cloud cover and/or a correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle, plus some fudge factor straight line attributed to anthropogenic contributions. Seems like it was maybe four items and offered a rather reasonable correlation r^2.
Do you recall seeing that or where I might find it? I’m afraid I’ve misplaced all references to it.
cba says:
March 22, 2011 at 6:27 am
I seem to recall something of a simple model, Lean ??? or Curry???, that tied temperature to ENSO and/or cloud cover and/or a correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle […] Do you recall seeing that or where I might find it?
Perhaps this one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038932.pdf
****
Geoff Sharp says:
March 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Your argument was about solar changes not impacting climate in the 50′s, so I am unsure how your acceptance of the importance of ocean cycles strengthens your case? It is not impossible to link solar influence to the PDO pattern as Scafetta has outlined, although without a mechanism. Solar output is not just about TSI or magnetism. Look beyond Leif’s statements that are not all encompassing and have a AGW bent.
*****
Bottom line to me is if TSI varies by a mere 0.1 W/m2 (IIRC) from the depths of the MM to highest activity (late 1950’s), this cannot cause a significant effect. Even simplistic GHC theory shows ~1 W/m2 from CO2 doubling, and I don’t think that is significant. And I can’t see how magnetic phenomena or UV changes (which influence only the upper stratosphere) influence the earth’s mechanical, water/water vapor-based heat-engine.
Leif has an AWG slant? I don’t see it, and I have a pretty good nose for it. He’s often brusque, but from the definition of “skeptic”, he’s one of the most active skeptics on this weblog.
Leif, I have a number of issues with Lean’s paper. The PDO was often in its warm phase, as was the AO (but trending down) during the period of observations used to form the future forecasts. An assumption was made that for some reason, these oscillations would continue in that present mode (not an assumption unheard of in warmist circles). We know that has not been the case. Both have natural warm and cool oscillations and probable teleconnections with other oscillations. The paper you link to seems only to assume possible “super ENSO events” (that are typical of warm oscillations) to have the potential to change their prediction, and consider possible volcanic eruptions the only main cooling event. Do they not consider cool atmospheric/oceanic oscillations to have influence?
Pamela Gray says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:38 am
Leif, I have a number of issues with Lean’s paper.
Much as I like Judith, did I say that I agree with or endorse her paper? 🙂
Back atya Leif ;>)
Leif,
My guess is that the paper you referenced is associated with the model I was thinking about. I thought what I had been reading was one with a black and white chart showing the various pieces being combined into the complete model and compared to the T record and maybe showing an r^2 value in excess of 0.9 for correlation.
cba says:
March 22, 2011 at 11:13 am
My guess is that the paper you referenced is associated with the model I was thinking about. I thought what I had been reading was one with a black and white chart …
GIYF
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2011 at 4:14 am
Nonsense. Not even worth refuting.
Get over it, there are two large variances. One over the cycle and another between cycles.
Here is a NASA report showing a 28% density variance of the Thermosphere between the last minimum, there are other papers stating similar results.
Weather is not climate. You are claiming that we climate-wise right now have the same conditions as during the Dalton [and also Maunder, as per the article] minimum. Get real.
I only stated the LIA, so pick a date if that makes you happy. Maunder conditions would be very unlikely to be attained in the foreseeable future.
In case your memory does not recall the NH winter, here are a few links to help you get real.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339149/Big-freeze-Temperatures-plummet-10C-bringing-travel-chaos-Britain.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/18/new-temperature-proxy-in-uk-grit/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/17/coldest-december-ever-in-britain-as-snow-piles-up-europe-freezes/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/record-cold-hits-china/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/kallaste-december-pa-135-ar.html
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/nao-is-the-winter-of-our-discontent/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/greenland-blows-hot-and-cold-while-europe-freezes/#comment-553672
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/summer-snow-falls-at-perisher-20101220-192bg.html
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid601325122001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_Vh4qBcIZDrvZlvNCU8nxccG&bctid=717168456001
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339937/UK-snow-weather-update-Temperatures-set-hit-low-26C.html#ixzz18ZVNcMXX
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341484/Christmas-Day-set-coldest-temperature-hits-12-snow-coming.html#ixzz199Wr6td2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341610/Coldest-Christmas-Temperatures-hit-minus-18C.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341618/Why-cold-Simple–North-Atlantic-Oscillation–got-bit-stuck.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-weather-snow-icy-785039.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12078425
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101225/record-snow-at-vancouver-island-hill-101225/
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts-20101221-1945a.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KBLRDG0&show_article=1
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/12/blizzard-of-lies-in-new-york-times.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/851254-britains-big-freeze-death-toll-hits-300-every-day
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/High-pressure-in-Arctic-behind-this-years-freeze/articleshow/5434545.cms
http://climatesignals.org/2010/12/arctic-warming-pushing-cold-wave-south-over-eastern-u-s/
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/507697main_GOES-SNOW-LARGE.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/fall-of-moscow.html
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1342515/UK-snow-big-freeze-weather-means-winter-set-coldest-300-YEARS.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8230318/Britain-could-be-heading-for-coldest-winter-in-300-years.html
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/169577/Winter-may-be-coldest-in-1000-years/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/official-december-coldest-for-120-years-2173012.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/the-northeast-snowstorm-of-2010-by-satellite-view/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12106386
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/04/record-cold-december-in-cuba-india-shivers/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DECEMBER_2010_-_Europe_and_Asia.pdf
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2010.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-headline-the-likes-of-which-i-dont-ever-recall-seeing/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/05/snowzilla-post-mortem-the-2011-groundhog-day-blizzard-in-perspective/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Most_of_Northern_Hemisphere_covered_by_snow_and_ice.htm
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2011/02/12/21/0200000000AEN20110212001700315F.HTML
http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/21/moscow-shivering-in-coldest-winter-in-100-years/
beng says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:29 am
Bottom line to me is if TSI varies by a mere 0.1 W/m2 (IIRC) from the depths of the MM to highest activity (late 1950′s), this cannot cause a significant effect. Even simplistic GHC theory shows ~1 W/m2 from CO2 doubling, and I don’t think that is significant. And I can’t see how magnetic phenomena or UV changes (which influence only the upper stratosphere) influence the earth’s mechanical, water/water vapor-based heat-engine.
Bottom line is that you refuse to take on scientific evidence that refutes your point. This is a science blog that is not interested in opinion or rhetoric. There are many scientists that have found a link with climate effects from a changing stratosphere as a result of EUV changes, here a few:
M. Lockwood, J. Haigh, Schmidt, Mann, M. P. Baldwin, L. J. Gray, T. J. Dunkerton, K. Hamilton, P. H. Haynes, W. J. Randel, J. R. Holton, M. J. Alexander, I.Hirota, T.orinouchi, D. B. A. Jones, J. S. Kinnersley, C. Marquardt, K. Sato, and M. Takahash.
Can I suggest you do some research on how a changing stratosphere affects jet streams.
beng says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:29 am
Leif has an AWG slant? I don’t see it, and I have a pretty good nose for it. He’s often brusque, but from the definition of “skeptic”, he’s one of the most active skeptics on this weblog.
Birds of a feather flock together?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Get over it, there are two large variances. One over the cycle and another between cycles.
You claimed that they were of equal magnitude (16% and 15%), and they are not.
Here is a NASA report showing a 28% density variance of the Thermosphere between the last minimum, there are other papers stating similar results.
and how large is the density variation between solar max and solar min? also 28%. I think not.
I only stated the LIA, so pick a date if that makes you happy. Maunder conditions would be very unlikely to be attained in the foreseeable future.
The point of the article is that Maunder conditions as far as the Sun is concerned was reached in 2008.
And last: weather is not climate.
Leif,
I want to understand this paper but have no formal training in the subject. Could you correct me when I go wrong?
This paper is basically questioning the relationship between sunspots (lower energy output regions) and faculae (higher energy output regions) on an extreme quiet sun. The competing effect of these phenomenon are what give us TSI variation. Sunspots have been observed historically but faculae are less visible so modern scientists have to extrapolate faculae back by modelling the relationship between SSN and faculae in the modern satellite era (solanki and others). Upto 2008 a certain relationship was observed between SSN and faculae which when extrapolated back gave a lower faculae count and therefore lower TSI. The extreme conditions of 2008/2009 show this relationship to have broken down. Assuming the extreme conditions of 2008/2009 are similar to the MM the authors have used this new information to estimate higher faculae levels during MM, higher TSI and so less centennial scale TSI variation. Is this about right?
HR says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:39 pm
The extreme conditions of 2008/2009 show this relationship to have broken down. Assuming the extreme conditions of 2008/2009 are similar to the MM the authors have used this new information to estimate higher faculae levels during MM, higher TSI and so less centennial scale TSI variation. Is this about right?
In broad strokes, yes, but there are several other problems, the most severe being that we are not even sure that the SSN is correct. There are two incompatible series [Group and Zurich] that differ a lot in the past. The basic issue is whether there is a ‘background’ activity that also changes over time. I discuss that here: http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf which might be of some help.
****
Geoff Sharp says:
March 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm
beng says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:29 am
Bottom line to me is if TSI varies by a mere 0.1 W/m2 (IIRC) from the depths of the MM to highest activity (late 1950′s), this cannot cause a significant effect. Even simplistic GHC theory shows ~1 W/m2 from CO2 doubling, and I don’t think that is significant. And I can’t see how magnetic phenomena or UV changes (which influence only the upper stratosphere) influence the earth’s mechanical, water/water vapor-based heat-engine.
Bottom line is that you refuse to take on scientific evidence that refutes your point. This is a science blog that is not interested in opinion or rhetoric. There are many scientists that have found a link with climate effects from a changing stratosphere as a result of EUV changes, here a few:
****
Do you contest the numbers I gave above?
And:
Can I suggest you do some research on how a changing stratosphere affects jet streams.
I’ve done alot of research. Jet streams are produced & affected by the sensible and latent heat generated at the surface, not from a layer of stratified & rarefied air above. You & others have it backwards.
And:
Birds of a feather flock together?
Nope. I’m a hawk, not a flocking bird.
Yes! beng nails it. Geoff fails to take into consideration that the Stratosphere has two sides and that the bottom side can be influenced by what lies beneath it as well as the top side by what lies above it.
Geoff, this topic has been discussed before. There are many papers centered on this subject, some from the old school and very well done, some from the newer crop of scientists. All use good research technique to show that Stratospheric influences on our temperature trends start from underneath that layer, not on top of it. Yet, you stay stuck on this top down only idea.
Pamela Gray says:
March 23, 2011 at 6:57 am
Yes! beng nails it. Geoff fails to take into consideration that the Stratosphere has two sides and that the bottom side can be influenced by what lies beneath it as well as the top side by what lies above it.
Geoff, this topic has been discussed before. There are many papers centered on this subject, some from the old school and very well done, some from the newer crop of scientists. All use good research technique to show that Stratospheric influences on our temperature trends start from underneath that layer, not on top of it. Yet, you stay stuck on this top down only idea.
Far from it Pamela, and you are showing your lack of knowledge on the topic.
There is a group concentrating on stratospheric warming which is generated from below via planetary waves (via QBO) that propagate through the stratosphere towards the north pole and disrupt the polar vortex. Baldwin et al suggest planetary waves can be modulated by EUV which may have its origin in the upper layers but produce effects much lower. The first half of the NH hemisphere winter showed exactly this process as seen on the NOAA stratosphere page. Another graph of interest to you is the divergence of the AO/AAO during low EUV.
beng and others prefer to concentrate on one area of solar output as it suits their agenda. Climate science without bias looks at all possibilities.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 23, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Baldwin et al suggest planetary waves can be modulated by EUV which may have its origin in the upper layers but produce effects much lower.
No, he does not. Read the paper and show us where they ‘suggest planetary waves can be modulated’. Note the weasel words you use: suggest, can be, may have.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
March 23, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Baldwin et al suggest planetary waves can be modulated by EUV which may have its origin in the upper layers but produce effects much lower.
————————-
No, he does not. Read the paper and show us where they ‘suggest planetary waves can be modulated’.
Over the 11-
year solar cycle, the solar “constant” (i.e., the radiative
energy input into the Earth’s atmosphere summed over
the entire spectrum) varies by less than 0.1% [Willson et
al., 1986]. Variability in the UV responsible for most of
ozone heating is less than 1% [Rottman, 1999]. The
variability rises to 8% only at wavelengths shorter than
200 nm, but these wavelengths may affect indirectly the
ozone chemistry through enhanced production of odd
oxygen, which in turn could affect middle atmospheric
heating rates and dynamics.
Following earlier solar cycle modeling [Haigh, 1994,
1996, 1999] and solar cycle–QBO modeling [Rind and
Balachandran, 1995; Balachandran and Rind, 1995],
Shindell et al. [1999] used a troposphere-stratosphere-
mesosphere GCM with interactive ozone and realistic
values of UV forcing to show that ozone changes amplify
irradiance changes to affect climate. Circulation changes
introduced in the stratosphere penetrated downward,
even reaching the troposphere. The modeling studies
found a more intense Hadley circulation during solar
maximum conditions. They concluded that the observed
record of geopotential height variations in the NH are,
in part, driven by solar variability.
Figure 15 showed that the observed QBO modulation
of zonal wind in the NH middle stratosphere is essen-
tially over by February, and the observations show dec-
adal variability coherent with the solar cycle during
January and February. The possibility exists for the
QBO to dominate early winter, while solar influence (or
interaction between the QBO and the solar cycle) is
manifest during late winter [Dunkerton and Baldwin,
1992]. Because of the strong absorption of ozone in the
UV occurring in the upper stratosphere and meso-
sphere, a solar influence on the thermal structure in
these regions of the atmosphere is plausible. This, in
turn, might affect the strength of the planetary wave
driven “extratropical pump” [Holton et al., 1995]. A
mechanism involving downward propagation of strato-
spheric anomalies, through modification of planetary
wave propagation from below, is discussed in section 6.2.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 23, 2011 at 9:21 pm
This, in turn, might affect the strength of the planetary wave
They just review some of the literature. In fact they don’t even mention solar influence in the Conclusion section. You carefully did not include this:
“Baldwin and Dunkerton [1998a] suggested that a modulation of the tropical QBO by a biennial extratropical signal (which exists but has not yet been explained) would result in a period of 11 years. These would provide an explanation of the 11-year variability <b<without reference to the solar cycle…”
Their point is that there is some debate on this, but in their conclusion section they decide not to mention this further, as the effect is not established.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 23, 2011 at 9:46 pm
The report has 14 authors and around 49 pages, it is mainly concerned with the QBO, so planetary waves that outweigh the QBO no matter what its phase would not be a topic for the conclusion. The paper was published in 2001 and shows great foresight considering they had not experienced low EUV conditions. The last few winters have supported their case showing the polar vortex being broken up causing stratospheric warming and a negative AO that contributed strongly to the changing jet streams over the NH. We all know what effect this had on the NH winter. The AO has seen the most negative phase in its history of recording during low EUV which positively shows how solar influences outside of TSI can have a major impact on world climate.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 23, 2011 at 11:52 pm
considering they had not experienced low EUV conditions.
EUV is low every solar minimum. One would expect high EUV to have effect, if any. You are advocating an effect stemming from an absence of EUV. So, if we completely remove all EUV that would have “major impact on world climate”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2011 at 6:12 am
Geoff Sharp says:
March 23, 2011 at 11:52 pm
considering they had not experienced low EUV conditions.
————————————————————–
EUV is low every solar minimum. One would expect high EUV to have effect, if any. You are advocating an effect stemming from an absence of EUV. So, if we completely remove all EUV that would have “major impact on world climate”.
EUV does not return to the same base level every solar minimum, it is different to TSI and F10.7 flux. The Sc23/24 minimum is upto 28% lower than the previous minimum which is again lower than the prior minimum. I haven’t checked the EUV levels this month but they were around the same level of the SC22/23 minimum showing how low the SC23/24 minimum was.
The Maunder Minimum would have had up to 50 years of very low EUV with it’s obvious results, but the current episode should be not be anywhere near as deep. You cannot simply compare TSI values for both periods and say the climate should be the same, as EUV is now slowly in some sort of recovery phase and will not be as prolonged as the MM. The two periods are quite different.
I am not advocating an absence of EUV (we would all be dead from no ozone layer) but rather a lower level of EUV that can also be sustained. From 1980 to about 2008 the AO and NAO were generally in the positive phase under conditions of sufficient EUV. The PDO was also in positive mode which is perhaps a bigger player. When both the oceans and atmospheric oscillations are in negative phase cooling results.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm
EUV does not return to the same base level every solar minimum, it is different to TSI and F10.7 flux. The Sc23/24 minimum is upto 28% lower than the previous minimum which is again lower than the prior minimum.
In a previous post you claim 15% lower. There is about 10% uncertainty and there is doubt about the calibration [Tom Woods asked: “15% Less EUV in 2008 than in 1996
Is this long-term trend solar or instrument trend?”], but all that does not matter, see below.
I am not advocating an absence of EUV
You are advocating that the absence of most of the EUV has climatic effect. It is rather the other way, higher levels of EUV may have effect. At solar max the EUV [26-34 nm] is typically 0.0025 W/m2 [or 0.000,002 of TSI], while at solar min EUV is typically 0.6 W/m2 [or 0.000,000,4 of TSI]. 15% less of 0.6 W/m2 is 0.5 W/m2, i.e a decrease [from the max at 2.5] of 1.9W/m2 to 2.0 W/m2. You think that is important? Get real.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:03 pm
You think that is important? Get real.
Laughable…the overall reduction in the Ionosphere along with the reduced EUV and changes to the polar vortex with the associated climate changes is a real world observation. That you choose to ignore these events and blindly carry on with your AGW argument about TSI shows your true colors. Are you interested in science or pushing your own agenda?
Geoff Sharp says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:51 pm
the overall reduction in the Ionosphere along with the reduced EUV
EUV is reduced from a solar max value of 2.5 W/m2 to either 0.6 W/m2 or 0.5 W/m2 depending of which minimum and on the uncertainty in the calibration. Indeed, laughable to think that is important.
and changes to the polar vortex with the associated climate changes is a real world observation.
The polar vortex breaks up regularly [when the sun rises] and have nothing to do with the minuscule changes in EUV [0.000,000,07 of TSI]
Are you interested in science or pushing your own agenda?
The science is clear, get over it if you can.
Leif Svalgaard says:
EUV is reduced from a solar max value of 2.5 mW/m2 to either 0.6 mW/m2 or 0.5 mW/m2, of course.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:51 pm
AGW argument about TSI
Perhaps you should learn what AGW entails. The AGW people need a large variation of TSI to explain the observed variation in temperature before the industrial age. Go read up on it and you’ll see.
Perhaps you should learn what AGW entails. The AGW people need a large variation of TSI to explain the observed variation in temperature before the industrial age. Go read up on it and you’ll see.
Indeed eg skeptical science
As you can see, in the early 20th Century, from about 1900 to 1940 there was an increase in TSI from about 1365.5 to 1366 Wm-2, which we can plug into the formula above. However, previous studies have estimated a TSI change as large as 2 Wm-2, so we’ll estimate the change at 1 Wm-2. We then only need the solar climate sensitivity parameter
Hence one should be very skeptical .
The general characteristics of the polar vortex over decades do seem to vary with the level of solar activity. The fact that there are also diurnal variations or seasonal variations is irrelevant. The features that change seem to be intensity and surface spread. When the sun is more active for decades at a time then the vortex on average gets more intense but less spread out across the surface drawing the jets toward the pole. When the sun is less active the vortex on average becomes less intense and spreads more widely across the surface pushing the jets away from the pole.
The fact that variations in EUV are a miniscule proportion of TSI is irrelevant because TSI in itself appears to have little or no effect on atmospheric chemistry whereas the precise mix of wavelengths and particles (especially EUV) does appear to have a profound effect on atmospheric chemistry with a consequent effect on the vertical temperature profile.
The fact that EUV varies anyway from solar cycle to solar cycle is irrelevant since what we are concerned with here is a cumulative chemical response which can ebb and flow over decades and centuries. With a chemically based atmospheric influence on climate we can more readily accept long term cumulative effects whereas it was more difficult to propose that with fast acting radiative processes.
The suggestion that the size of the changes in EUV etc. is too small doesn’t wash much either because all one needs is a tiny shift between the balance of ozone creation and destruction at different heights to lead to century scale cumulative effects on the vertical temperature profile with consequent effects on the surface pressure distribution.
I note that Joanna Haigh has seen ozone increasing above 45km despite a quiet sun. That suggests to me that less EUV (amongst other possibilities) has resulted in less solar induced ozone destruction above 45km allowing ozone quantities to slowly and erratically recover.
That will warm the regions above 45km at a time of quiet sun (unexpectedly) and affect the whole vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
So, we have some evidence that the temperature trend in the thermosphere and troposphere to solar changes is opposite to that in the stratosphere and mesosphere. That would fit very nicely with the observations of a cooling stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun was active and a cessation of such cooling now that the sun is less active.
I don’t think it is an accident that the sign of the ozone effect appears to reverse around 45km. That is near enough to the stratopause which is usually set at around 50km. I suspect that the precise height of the point of reversal varies over time depending on the level of solar activity. The true height of the stratopause would therefore be defined as the point at which the sign of the ozone response to solar input reverses.
That point would effectively become a fulcrum upon which the entire entire budget of the Earth is balanced.
Such changes above 45km are inconsistent with increasing CO2 and also cast doubt on CFC theories because the such solar induced ozone changes would also affect the ebb and flow of the ozone ‘hole’.
So, for the above reasons I am not convinced by Leif’s various objections to Geoff’s comments.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 25, 2011 at 3:40 am
The fact that EUV varies anyway from solar cycle to solar cycle is irrelevant […]
So, for the above reasons I am not convinced by Leif’s various objections to Geoff’s comments.
My main objection is that the tiny variation from from minimum to the next is not important. You seem to agree with that. You can’t have it both ways.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 25, 2011 at 3:40 am
The suggestion that the size of the changes in EUV etc. is too small doesn’t wash much either
You both seem to adhere to the homeopathic principle: the less there is, the greater the effect.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“You both seem to adhere to the homeopathic principle: the less there is, the greater the effect.”
No, we both adhere to the principle that a small change can build up to a significant effect over a long enough period of time.
Note that I pointed out that it is easier to envisage a chemical process having a cumulative effect over time rather than a radiative effect. I have accepted all your advice about trying to explain observations on the basis of radiative physics. The only available conclusion in the light of observations is that chemical processes are in control and the radiative balance follows the energy budget effect of the chemical changes in the atmosphere.
Also I pointed out that the issue is the net balance of (say) ozone creation and destruction. Solar induced shifts around the point of balance creating a net average sign of positive or negative for 500 years at a time are (in my opinion) well capable of producing what we observe and furthermore the degree of system sensitivity to the varying mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun is an internal system feature. You have previously accepted that observed climate change could be solely a feature of internal system characteristics so I have not ignored your advice in that respect.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“My main objection is that the tiny variation from from minimum to the next is not important. You seem to agree with that. You can’t have it both ways.”
I’m not having it both ways. I am suggesting that the changes from one minimum to the next are not sufficiently prolonged to have a significant effect. However consistent net average (positive or negative) changes across multiple cycles for 500 years would have a significant effect.
Note that I have taken careful account of your previous advice to me in arriving at this formulation. For that I thank you.
Leif,
Please also remember that I have previously asserted that the top down solar/chemical effect is only half of the equation.
Additionally the internal oceanic variations can offset or supplement the solar effect at different times with the two sets of influences shifting in and out of phase over time.
Quite enough overall to account for all that we observe without invoking CO2 as a significant driver.
However I do accept that more CO2 does have an effect but it is insignificant in the face of solar and oceanic influences.
In the end it all boils down to the surface pressure distribution. That is what shrinks or expands or intensifies or weakens the Earth’s climate zones thatr have existed since the oceans were first formed.
That is all that climate change is. A shifting of the zones. The absolute temperature of the entire climate system is largely an irrelevance even if we could ascertain it.
In light of the differences between day and night, winter and summer and from one climate zone to the next the effect of the entire globe warming by even several full degrees C would be barely noticeable on a day to day basis.
Even extremes would not change noticeably because they are a result of differentials and not absolute temperature.
Stephen Wilde says:
“However I do accept that more CO2 does have an effect but it is insignificant in the face of solar and oceanic influences”
Stephen, I don’t think CO2 has any effect at all. You can find that out for yourself in the place where you live, provided you follow the same procedure that I did here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
the conclusion of the report here is: there is no warming caused by the increase in GHG’s of the past 4 decades.
I double checked these results with those of stations in Spain, N-Ireland and in the dry months in La Paz, Bolivia. I found always the same results: minima have declined or remained unchanged whereas maxima climbed and means have essentially remained unchanged.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
BTW
If it is not too much off topic, could I ask any of the experts on weather here if the fact that the moon was now more or less nearest to the earth (in 20 years) has any effect on the energy budget, and hence the weather. If yes, what effect does it have?
Thanks!
Hi Henry.
I didn’t say that more CO2 or GHGs have a warming effect. The effect that I envisage them having is a trivial shift in the air circulation systems for little or no surface warming other than in the ocean skin where there is a little warming before the extra energy goes straight to a faster water cycle with no effect on the background energy flow from the ocean bulk.
I hope that doesn’t open a big can of worms in this thread.
Henry@Stephen
there are of course weather stations on small islands in the oceans
like Marion Island far south of South Africa.
but I doubt if we can learn anything here about any significant shift in temps there over the past 50 years?
I think such locations if sited near a climate zone boundary could give indications of poleward and equatorward climate zone shifting.
Stephen, I will look at all the data from Marion Island.
It goes back 35 years.
I will look at max- & min- & mean temps. as well as barometric pressures and rainfall
patterns, grouped per calendar month and see if there is are any significant changing patterns in any of the 12 months over the past 35 years…
This will take some time as studying “climate change” is just a hobby of mine.
Stephen, I hope you are still here. I have collected all data available from Marion Island!
So far I looked only at all the temperature data. I found the following results:
I collected all average mean-, maximum-and minimum- temperatures for all months of the year and plotted these against time. A linear regression was then performed. The slope of these formulae i.e. the figure before the “x” in each of the reported formulae, is also the rate of incline or decline (if negative) by which the temperature has increased or decreased over the last 35 years in degrees C/year.
Taking the average over each of the 12 slopes for each of the months of the year, I find that from 1976 to 2010
1) the rate of change of the mean temperature was 0.00 degrees C per annum: in other words: flat
2) the maximum temperature has increased at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per annum
3) the minimum temperature has decreased at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per annum
Again these results indicate that heat content has stayed the same even though max. temps. have been rising.
If warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, it is the minimum temperatures that should rise as heat would be trapped due to the green house effect. You would then expect the minimum temperatures to rise at a rate as fast as – or even faster than – the mean- and maximum temperatures. What I find is exactly the opposite: minimum temperatures in Marion Island have actually declined by 0.02 degrees C per annum whereas the means have stayed the same and the maximum temperatures have increased. The theory of warming caused by an increase in green house gases is therefore again proved invalid by the evidence presented from the measured results here, at Marion Island.
I am still going to look at the other data from Marion, like humidity, barometric pressure, precipitation etc.
Is there anything that you would like to know from these data?