THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.
The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.
The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.
Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.
What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes.
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].
People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.
Large changes in UV and EUV seem to have large effects on upper atmosphere inorganic chemistry and sea surface organic chemistry. However, these effects are at a poor level of scientific understanding, and the question of how much they matter to the way climate changes is therefore highly uncertain.
“steven mosher [June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm] says:
“R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.”
Perfectly possible and no cause for alarm.
I’d expect the increase in meridionality to speed up Arctic ice melt at the fringes due to more incoming warm air flows.
In the background the temperature of the water flowing under the Arctic ice will slowly decline as the oceans cool.
At the moment we still have incoming warm ocean water plus incoming warm air supplementing one another.
The turn in the ice trends will come when the cooling of the ocean waters starts to more than offset the effect of inflowing warm air.
Incoming warm ocean waters affect most the thickness in the centre. Incoming warm air affects most the extent at the fringes.
Didn’t I see some data that suggested increase in thickness in the centre ?
Bob Tisdale said:
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?
Response:
The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation.
Both the PDO and the ENSO are signatures of the response of the Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere system to long term variations in the Lunar/Solar Tides. The reason that they appear to be related is the fact that they both have the same underlying cause. The PDO is a long term response while the ENSO is a short term response.
I have to assume that you are completely unaware of the work of Claire Perigaud in the United States
on the ENSO, otherwise you would not be making such seriously flawed claims. I am more than willing to send you her work if you are interested, note, however, that her point presentation is very large.
John B says:
[Oreskes] “makes what looks to me like a solid argument that the climate sceptic movement can be traced back directly to anti-regulation and anti-communist groups like the George C Marshall Institute, via names like Singer and Seitz, and other conservative think tanks like Cato. ”
John B insists on making scientific skepticism political. It is not. Skepticism is required by the scientific method, which is universally ignored by the purveyors of the runaway global warming scare. There are plenty of Leftists who comment here, and who are disgusted with the perversion of science by the corrupt “Team”.
Next, here is a chart by NikFromNYC that shows an interesting correlation with the AMO. [Note that the slowly rising temperature trend line from the LIA is not accelerating, which would be the case if CO2 caused global warming. In fact, the trend has been moderating over the past decade.]
And exactly as predicted, John B refused to accept the obvious fact that the charts posted in my comment [at 6:16 pm above] demonstrate the outright dishonesty of those promoting climate alarmism. AGW may exist [or not], but there is no testable, real world evidence supporting it. Even if it does have a minor effect, that effect is so negligible that it is unmeasurable, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The human addition of one molecule of CO2 for every 62,500 molecules of the atmosphere over a century and a half is presumed by true believers in the alarmist cult to have magical qualities. But as the more rational readers here know, that CO2 juju has not been sufficient to provide any warming trend over the past decade+.
The AGW hypothesis is based entirely on computer models, not on any real world evidence. Those models are programmed to acheive a specific result, but they can only come close after endless tweaking. Not one of them can make accurate predictions; they can’t even hindcast accurately. In any other branch of the hard sciences the universal failure of computer climate models would be the source of much amusement and endless ridicule. But in the realpolitik world of government grants, the always-wrong models still serve their intended purpose: the generation of public funds to feed the “carbon” scam, and thus provide employment and job security for self-serving scoundrels and charlatans, and a religious experience for folks like John B.
To add to last post.
Thought I had read something like this before, it seems to be just a recycled report from 2009.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/04-3
Therefore it has not resolved the issues that I had mentioned.
@Smokey
I don’t think you would recognize true scientific skepticism if it bit you on the butt.
Another cherry, anyone?
But it doesn’t matter any more, since you are all clamouring that the Sun is going to bring about a new ice age. Mainstream science says it will not. We will know soon enough. What do you say, Smokey?
John B’s impotent blustering is a lame response to the exposé of the mendacious manipulation of alarmist climate charts. Skepticism is a basic requirement of the scientific method — a logical method that a true believer like JB avoids like Dracula avoids the dawn.
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are simply bogus climate propaganda intended to deceive the public. And John B’s psychological projection, calling the posting of more than a half dozen charts from different sources “cherry picking” is a failed tactic that can be applied to any chart. That is why I post so many different charts; so people can make up their minds based on plenty of evidence. John B has zero testable, measureable evidence to support his belief system, so we get rhetoric instead.
Moderate Republican and others
None other than Kevin Trenberth has noted that El Ninos bring warmth to the arctic trough the Bering Strait. Also from NSIDC acknowledged in the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007 the importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
Also see http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/arctic_temperatures_and_ice_natural_variability/
Jim Cripwell says:
TonyG. I did a quick search and found
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/new-theories-link-black-death-to-ebola-like-virus.html
Jim, thanks for the effort, but at this point, I’m finding it very hard to buy that story. Especially in light of the previously posted link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949072, which is from a more reliable source and post-dates the NYT article by 9 years. Additional confirmation comes from here: http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001134
Wikipedia mentions the idea that an ebola-like virus caused the Black Death was floated in 2001, but indicates that subsequent DNA testing has shown that it was, indeed, Y. Pestis. Most recent info I can find appears to be around the end of 2010.
Happy to entertain the idea again should you have something more recent to share.
Old Engineer says:
Well after going through all 213 responses up to this time, I can only remember 2 that said “correlation does not prove causation”. Yes, it was cold when there were no sun spots.
I generally agree with the “Wait and see” – we don’t know that the low solar activity WILL cause lower temperatures. However, that particular causality is much more likely than low temperatures on earth causing lower solar activity 🙂
(seriously – there may be a hidden causation for both that we don’t know, but it’s hard to imagine what it might be)
Ninderthana says: “The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation. “
The PDO only represents the pattern (the appearance) of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. Nothing more, nothing less. A positive PDO pattern is characterized by higher SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific and lower anomalies in the central and western North Pacific. Here’s a nice simple explanation of the process that causes the PDO pattern. A positive PDO pattern is created by the response of the North Pacific to an El Niño event. During an El Niño event, coastally trapped Rossby waves along the west coast of North America and changes in atmospheric pressure resulting from the El Niño cause an increase in the SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific. Since the El Niño causes a reversal of trade winds in the western tropical Pacific, less warm water than normal is spun up into the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE), and SST anomalies of the western and central North Pacific drop. The reverse holds true during a La Niña in the Eastern North Pacific. For the western and central North Pacific during a La Niña, the leftover warm water from the El Niño also gets spun up into the KOE, adding the warm waters being brought there by the increased strength of the trade winds. There are differences between the PDO and an ENSO proxy such as NINO3.4 SST anomalies from time to time, and the difference results from how changes in North Pacific Sea Level Pressure impact the way the North Pacific responds to ENSO events. Again, the PDO pattern is an aftereffect of ENSO.
Regardless of the findings of Claire Perigaud, that’s how that process works. Feel free to provide a link to her papers if you’d like me to read them.
Smokey says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:10 am
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious alarmist charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are bogus climate propaganda.
While this may be true, I don’t think people should be discouraged from posting on-topic. 😉
kuhnkat says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm
that is probably my own ignorance.
Know thyself
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
This statement is simply incorrect.
I don’t make statements that are ‘simply incorrect’. I didn’t say that the fluctuations have the same amplitude, but that if in one cycle TSI varies by x percent, the UV varies by a percentage proportional to x, following TSI.
Furthermore modern EUV records display a reluctance to follow a baseline
The uncertainty in the calibration is large enough to explain the difference.
We are also seeing the lowest thermosphere height in the satellite era which is a direct result of lower EUV and solar wind.
Because the solar magnetic field in 2008-2009 was as low as it was a century ago. We are just returning to those same conditions. Solar images taken in nearly UV light [Ca II K-line] over the past century show that there has been no change over the past 100 years in the ‘baseline’ value at solar minimum.
It’s time to come clean on this topic and stop ignoring the facts.
I suggest you learn more about what the facts are, before shooting your mouth off
I always wonder why the TSI proxy records never show a common baseline?
Because the older TSI records are wrong. Here is a better one [also showing many wrong ones]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
tallbloke says:
June 18, 2011 at 3:54 am
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.
That they have larger amplitude is not important as to ‘the following TSI’ bit. The energy in those ‘much bigger amplitudes’ is minute to those in TSI.
The Far Ultraviolet [between EUV and UV] creates and maintains the ionosphere and solar tides move the ions during the day and night cycle giving rise to an varying electric current whose effect we can easily measure on the ground [it was discovered in 1722]. This effect is a very good measure of the FUV flux and follows the solar cycle very closely, e.g. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf , and shows no long-term drift of change.
Smokey, I don’t think your assertion that warming should be accelerating is correct. CO2 concentration growth has been steady/declining for awhile. Warming should be decelerating.
aaron,
It doesn’t appear that CO2 growth is declining: click
Harmless, beneficial CO2 is still rising, while global temperature is declining @ur momisugly 9.3°F per century: click
Could anyone point me in the right direction where I could find the atmospheric pressure data files for each of two NAO stations Ponta Delgada in Azores and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik in Iceland.
Thank you.
@R.Gates
Can I take your “no answer” that you now agree that the ice melt in the arctic was not man made?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#comment-683524
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
Stephen you helped me in the past and perhaps you also have an answer to my latest question.
I have looked at a number of terrestial weather stations (quite randomly, but I started in the SH because I live in the SH) where there are reliable daily records. In each case I determined the exact degrees C increase or decrease per annum noted over time. No projections or hypothesis. This is pure measurement of what exactly happened over the past 4 decades with the temperatures at those 12-odd weather stations.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
What I am finding now that if you look at the part of my table where I report the means (average temps), all the stations in the SH (the first five stations) show virtually no warming. The actual “global” warming appears to be mainly happening in the NH.
Do you perhaps have an expanation for that? Any idea?
HenryP – it appears your “pool table” only looks at “terrestial” weather stations. Do you believe that only “terrestial” weather stations should be used for drawing conclusions?
henry@fabron
For the icelandic station, try this
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Stykkisholmur/40130.htm
Under what country falls ponta delgado?
Moderate Republican,
Give us a list of non-terrestrial temperature stations.
Fair point Smokey – that was really poorly phrased on my part. Duh! Time for a lunch break.
How about this?
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather stations should be used for drawing conclusions?
What do you think Smokey?
Hi, Henry.
The southern oceans have a much greater moderating effect than the northern oceans due to the concentration of land masses north of the equator.
That is why it has been harder to distinguish climate signals of the MWP and LIA in the southern hemisphere.
Nonetheless I am quite sure that the surface pressure distribution responds similarly in both hemispheres under oceanic and/or solar forcing.
That raises the interesting possiblity that so called global warming and cooling is primarily an artifact derived from surface temperature measuring site distribution which is heavily biased towards the very regions that see the largest climate changes namely the northern mid latitudes.
If my contentions are correct then the regional system responses to solar and oceanic variability mostly prevent significant system temperature changes at the global level.
Instead we see surface pressure redistribution giving noticeable regional effects and those regional effects at the surface are a manifestation of the negative system responses maintaining system temperature equilibrium despite the forcing pressures thrown at the system.
Instead of the system equilibrium temperature changing we see instead a change in the speed of transmission of energy through the system.
Try this article for more detail:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
Henry@moderaterepublican
In this game, who will always win in the end?
The truth or the lies?
You have not got a clue as to how many thousands of figures went in front of me for those 12 stations
but even if I did 10 times what I did now
(and maybe I will)
you will still not believe the end result.
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:51 am
The Far Ultraviolet [between EUV and UV] creates and maintains the ionosphere and solar tides move the ions during the day and night cycle giving rise to an varying electric current whose effect we can easily measure on the ground [it was discovered in 1722]. This effect is a very good measure of the FUV flux and follows the solar cycle very closely, e.g. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf , and shows no long-term drift of change.
Claus Froehlich notes: “The Ca II K index from Mt. Wilson observatory shows no secular trend of the minima since the start of these observations (Foukal et al., 2009; Bertello et al., 2010). This confirms also the result of a recent study of the long-term behaviour of solar like stars by Judge & Saar (2007), which shows that non-cycling stars have a HK index similar to the one observed on the sun during recent minima.” So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.
Moderate Republican,
There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations. The ones being phased out tend to be the rural stations, which show little to no warming, leaving mostly stations in urban environments. By doing this, artificial warming will be shown: click