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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.