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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
geo says:
June 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm (Edit)
Don Easterbrook–
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?
Have you noticed how many more big eruptions there have been since the sun went quiet?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:48 am
“So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.”
It means that there is no significant difference, and we therefore can’t even say if it is lower or higher. It could even be a tad higher during the MM [e.g. with no sunspots to take a bite out of TSI].
I thought you said that the bright faculae around sunspots more than made up for the ‘bite that sunspots take out of TSI’
Therefore, no sunspots>no bright faculae> less TSI. QED
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Therefore, no sunspots>no bright faculae> less TSI. QED
Geez, how simplistic can one get?
Faculae develop long before a sunspot becomes visible and stay around long after. There doesn’t even ever need to be any sunspot in a facula area
Geoff Sharp says: “Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.”
We both lived in Houston. So maybe there’s a photo of us together somewhere. Not likely, though, since a gazillion people live in Houston and, if memory serves me well, Houston covers an area as large as the State of Rhode Island.
You continued, “Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)”
I thought I did a reasonable job with the post that Anthony linked.
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
Incorrect. I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.
http://i56.tinypic.com/wnxa9.jpg
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/can-most-of-the-rise-in-the-satellite-era-surface-temperatures-be-explained-without-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gases/
There’s even a comparison of the residual and Sunspot Numbers in that post.
You continued, “Both elusive when cornered with hard evidence.”
There hasn’t been any hard evidence presented on this thread that contradicts what I’ve written here or in the post that Anthony linked.
You continued, “Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.”
Nope. Just skeptical if those ideas contradict, or are not supported by, data.
You ended with, “Both members of the Warmista group.”
Actually, I’m a lukewarmer. I understand global surface temperatures have risen, and I understand how AGW is supposed to impact land surface temperatures. But a warmista wouldn’t publish a post showing how natural ocean oscillations are responsible for 85% of the global warming. (And it was always my understanding that Leif was also a lukewarmer. )
geo says:
June 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?
There is some evidence that the cosmic ray record we have may be contaminated by volcanic eruptions.http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf and
Paragraph 28 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
The climate record surely is.
Stephen Wilde says: “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
It was the AMO:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/comments-on-tamino%e2%80%99s-amo-post/
You wrote, “Bob cannot accept that there is an external solar induced forcing component affecting ENSO (and thereby PDO)over multidecadal and centennial timescales so as to allow tropospheric temperature changes such as those from MWP to LIA to date.”
Show me the multidecadal and centennial timescale data that supports your hypothesis if you’d like me to accept it.
You concluded, “Personally I think they are both wrong and as soon as one does accept a dominant role for atmospheric chemistry together with a subsequent cloudiness/albedo effect on the energy input to the oceans altering ENSO and PDO characteristics then the whole thing falls into place as per my proposed new climate model.”
A new model? You haven’t documented or provided the equations and data that support your old one. (Same old argument from Bob.)
Regards
Stephen Wilde: Oops. I now see it was phlogiston who said, “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
No probs, Bob, we can agree to disagree.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Faculae develop long before a sunspot becomes visible and stay around long after. There doesn’t even ever need to be any sunspot in a facula area:
You have told us in the past that the dark sunspots don’t ‘take a bite out of TSI’ because of the bright faculae around them compensating. Now you are saying that there could be as many faculae even with no sunspots.
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
So which is it?
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Stephen Wilde [phlogiston] says: “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
It was the AMO:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/comments-on-tamino%e2%80%99s-amo-post/
So I cant even get a one-liner factually correct!
John B says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“In 2009 sea ice conditions were such that at least nine small vessels and two cruise ships completed the transit of the Northwest Passage.
Cruise ships for Pete’s sake!”
And a whale! Don’t forget the whale. He did it without GPS.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Geoff Sharp says: “Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.”
True to form, when Geoff can’t argue the science he goes after the person. I say we simply ignore him from now on.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time: TSI = Base TSI [due to non-magnetic sun] + dTSI [faculae] – dTSI (spots). In general dTSI[Faculae] > dTSI[spots]. If dTSI [spots] is zero, but dTSI[faculae] is not, TSI goes up…
Now we don’t know how many faculae there were during the Maunder Minimum, but we know that there must a magnetic field still, as the cosmic ray modulation was significant, and also because the spicules were observed at eclipses [albeit at the tail end of the MM]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
—————————————-
Incorrect. I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.
That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.
Your statements earlier on the PDO are more my point :
Geoff Sharp says: “I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term.”
—————————–
It can’t be challenged? Why’s that? 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?
I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd). If you add a smaller solar influence to the PDO almost all temperature fluctuations can be accounted for. What we havent seen yet is a stronger influence from a Sun during a grand minimum (which is showing lower levels than normal cycle minima, if we look beyond TSI). We are certainly recording some strange events, these events might pan out to be larger than expected in the coming decades. But you question the mechanism required for a PDO/climate link?
I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO, so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections. You may be right but suspect you might be waiting for a mechanism longer than I, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter what drives what, the ENSO pattern and the multiple solar climate effects rule our world.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
~
Slightly off topic question for you Geoff, if you can.
How would historical ‘small scale’ changes in planetary eccentricities change the integrity of the ephemeris in time?
Something about solar rotation and a follow the leader thing has been bothering me lately.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time: TSI = Base TSI [due to non-magnetic sun] + dTSI [faculae] – dTSI (spots). In general dTSI[Faculae] > dTSI[spots], so you get a solar cycle variation in TSI. You can see the combined effect on slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Carla says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
~
Slightly off topic question for you Geoff, if you can.
How would historical ‘small scale’ changes in planetary eccentricities change the integrity of the ephemeris in time?
To my knowledge planetary perturbations are allowed for via a separate perturbation module that is part of the modern JPL ephemeris. I am very confident in the accuracy of the JPL data with perhaps a small doubt in the absolute accuracy of Neptune. Some of this was covered in detail in my debunking of Fred Bailey’s “solar chord theory”
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2011 at 9:13 pm
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time:..
You have snipped what I said in order to twist the meaning of my words. It is unacceptable behaviour.
The recent solar minimum ‘baseline’ TSI fell well below the last few cycles at minimum. But of course when the data doesn’t fit your pet unvarying sun hypothesis, the data are wrong and Claus has outlived his usefulness to you.
TSI is lower now while there are less spots than it was when there were more spots in cycle 23. Not many bright faculae around. I’ll stick with real observations and you can keep your ever changing F10.7-sunspot ratio and your idle speculation about TSI levels in the Maunder Minimum where they belong.
Moderate Republican says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:56 am
Smokey says @ur momisugly June 18, 2011 at 9:11 am “There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations”
“Wow – that sounds like really unscientific plan. I’d like to read more about that.”
Well then, I invite you to read Part 2 of our presentation at endtimeclimate which is devoted to that very subject, complete with refs, citations, & links. Enjoy.
Global_Warming_and_Corruption_of_Science_part2.html
Geoff Sharp says: “That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.”
I do not understand how you can provide that reply to my statement, “I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.”
You continued, “I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd).”
The link you provided…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
…is a time-series of the PDO. It does not describe or illustrate the “PDO pattern”. Refer to description of the PDO pattern at the top of the JISAO webpage:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
They’re using “pattern” in the same sense as plaid and argyle are fabric patterns.
Your parenthetical statement “(unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd)” is odd since the PDO data you illustrated is statistically derived from two obsolete and one current sea surface temperature datasets “produced by the AGW crowd”.
You wrote, “I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO…”
It’s not my theory. I just try to describe the findings of Newman et al (2004)…
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/newman2003.pdf
…and Evans et al (2001)…
http://iceman2.umd.edu/www/preprints/pdv.pdf
and Shakun and Shaman (2009)…
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0919/2009GL040313/2009GL040313.xml
…into easier-to-understand terms.
And you continued, “so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections.”
I believe once you accept that “pattern” is not being used to describe periodicity the rest of what I’ve written will fall into place.
Stephen Wilde says:
All that is neceesary is to shift the net balance of ozone creation/destruction above 45 Km so as to raise or lower the atmospheric heights. Such a raising or lowering alters the surface pressure distribution, cloudiness and albedo.
I see no assessments as to what would be ‘significant’ in such a scenario.
But wouldn’t very small changes caused by changes in UV from the sun be dwarfed by the massive alteration of stratospheric ozone and temperature that the large volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and PInatubo caused? (See my previous post).
Bob Tisdale says:
June 20, 2011 at 3:01 am
Geoff Sharp says: “That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.”
——————————————
I do not understand how you can provide that reply to my statement, “I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.”
I was referring to a similar statement made in the past by your luke warmer friend. Basically it’s a cop out statement, 85% of warming on 40 % of the planet? Not exactly decisive.
Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years and above average ice extent for most of that period.
You continued, “I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd).”
The link you provided…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
…is a time-series of the PDO. It does not describe or illustrate the “PDO pattern”. Refer to description of the PDO pattern at the top of the JISAO webpage:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
They’re using “pattern” in the same sense as plaid and argyle are fabric patterns.
Your parenthetical statement “(unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd)” is odd since the PDO data you illustrated is statistically derived from two obsolete and one current sea surface temperature datasets “produced by the AGW crowd”.
“Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)”
You wrote, “I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO…”
It’s not my theory. I just try to describe the findings of Newman et al (2004)…
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/newman2003.pdf
…and Evans et al (2001)…
http://iceman2.umd.edu/www/preprints/pdv.pdf
and Shakun and Shaman (2009)…
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0919/2009GL040313/2009GL040313.xml
…into easier-to-understand terms.
Nitpicking and hair splitting like someone else I know. Your theory or what you subscribe to, is of little difference in this argument.
And you continued, “so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections.”
I believe once you accept that “pattern” is not being used to describe periodicity the rest of what I’ve written will fall into place.
There is an ENSO cycle in place, the PDO record over long periods shows a regular pattern. Or do you think it is more like a random number generator like some from other areas of science?
Interesting that you have no solid argument against the PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend.
Volcanic eruptions cause large short term changes. After about 4 years the effect dissipates.
Solar changes appear to be spread over a 500 year period such as MWP to LIA to date and accumulate their energy budget effects until the process goes into reverse once more.
Geoff Sharp says:
Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years and above average ice extent for most of that period.
Henry@Geoff
Do you perhaps have original data on temps. (maxima, means & minima) in the antarctic for the past 4 or 5 decades or do you know know where I can get it? Like from a weather station? All historical data I could find seems rather incomplete.
It is for my pool table:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Stephen Wilde says:
Volcanic eruptions cause large short term changes. After about 4 years the effect dissipates.
The El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions caused a short-term stratospheric warming, but after that each eruption caused a long-term stratospheric cooling. The cooling step change from each eruption is so glaringly obvious in the satellite stratospheric temperature records that IMHO it’s really amazing that the AGW crowd dares to talk about a “downward trend” and take the stratospheric cooling as a proof of AGW theory.
See e.g. the TLS graph on the RSS page: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Geoff Sharp says: “I was referring to a similar statement made in the past by your luke warmer friend. Basically it’s a cop out statement, 85% of warming on 40 % of the planet? Not exactly decisive.”
Your argument has no basis in reality. The latitudes of 60S-60N represent about 88% of the surface area of the globe, not 40%. And there are two reasons I excluded the poles in my post. First, there’s little to no surface temperature sampling in the Arctic. Second, I was using GISS data as my referenced surface temperature dataset and GISS deletes SST data in areas with sea ice and extends land surface temperature data out over the oceans.
Geoff Sharp says: “Nitpicking and hair splitting like someone else I know. Your theory or what you subscribe to, is of little difference in this argument.”
I provided you with references that support my descriptions. Your reply is nonsensical.
Geoff Sharp says: “Interesting that you have no solid argument against the PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend.”
Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend” I have no need to argue against it.
Let me ask you this very simple, basic question: Since the PDO does NOT represent the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, through what process does the PDO cause global temperatures to rise and fall?