This is a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters by C. J. Schrijver, W. C. Livingston, T. N. Woods, and R. A. Mewaldt. WUWT readers may recognize Livingston as the creator of one of the datasets we regularly follow graphically on our Solar Data and Images reference page.
They reconstruct total solar flux all the way back to 1650, as seen below:
The implication is that in August-September 2009, when we saw such a dearth of solar activity, the sun dipped to a level similar to periods of the Maunder Minimum. Now that the sun is starting to rev up a bit, the question is: will it last? And, if it doesn’t will we see a cooler period on Earth as some suggest, or as the authors suggest, “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change” dominate? Nature (not the journal) will eventually provide the final answer, all we can do is watch and wait.
The abstract:
Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth’s climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be
provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.
I asked Dr. Leif Svalgaard about this paper, in particular this paragraph:
“Therefore, we argue that the best estimate of the magnetic flux threading the solar surface during the deepest Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. If surface magnetic variability is the principal driver of TSI changes, then that same period yields a direct estimate of the TSI in that era, yielding values 140 to 360 ppmlower than in 1996 [Fröhlich, 2009; Gray et al., 2010].”
His response was:
Magnetic variability drives the variations of TSI on top of what the nuclear furnace in the core puts out. They are basically saying that there is no long-term background variations. There is a slight problem with the ~200 ppm lower TSI in 2008-2009 compared to 1996. I have shown that the lower estimates of TSI by Fröhlich in 2008 are likely due to uncorrected degradation of the instrument on which PMOD is based.
See:
that shows the difference between PMOD and the best calibrated instrument we have [TIM of SORCE]. All indications are that TSI at the past minimum was not significantly lower than in 1996 and that that level probably also was typical of the Maunder Minimum, in other words this
is as low as the Sun can go.
See also http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
You can read the full Schrijver et al paper here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.