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)
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.