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)
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.