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
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
You have snipped what I said in order to twist the meaning of my words. It is unacceptable behaviour.
It is unacceptable to accuse anybody of trying to twist the meaning.There was no coherent meaning I could see, perhaps that is part of the explanation.
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.
Again, you are not cognizant of the data. The PMOD data has sever problems. The instrument is rapidly degrading more than is corrected for by Claus, as I show in http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf In addition there are other systematic errors, such as the pikes at times when SOHO is in a keyhole. The principal investigator on SORCE/TIM Greg Kopp agrees with me [quote on slide 5] that “Sadly, this probably does mean we don’t have good knowledge of how this current minimum relates to the prior one” [Greg Kopp]. Here is another view of the degradation of the PMOD series: http://www.leif.org/research/Degradation-of-PMOD.png . The PMOD curve has been shifted down 4.51 W/m2 to match SORCE in 2004. Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
TSI is lower now while there are less spots than it was when there were more spots in cycle 23.
Of course, because TSI is larger when there are more spots and associated faculae.
I’ll stick with real observations
SORCE makes real observations. The other TSI instrument on SOHO, DIARAD also does not show that the recent minimum was lower than the previous one: http://remotesensing.oma.be/en/2619553-TSI.html This is real data.
and you can keep your ever changing F10.7-sunspot ratio
That is an observational fact as well, so can’t do much about that.
and your idle speculation about TSI levels in the Maunder Minimum where they belong.
This is, indeed, speculation [and was clearly labeled as such] and [just] might come to pass. Such speculation is often useful in suggesting new pathways. Idle? [you have slipped into insult mode again].
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I’ll stick with real observations
The real observations from RMIB as they incorporate them into their composite look like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/DIARAD-RMIB-TSI-Composite.png
They even suggest a small increase from minimum to minimum [perhaps in line with my ‘idle’ speculation], but I think it just shows that there is not good evidence for TSI being any lower this minimum.
“Give us a list of non-terrestrial temperature stations.”
Assuming you mean sea surface readings, and not Martian readings.
The SST record has even more quality control issues than do land based readings.
Things like shipping lanes shifting over time, different methods for gathering data.
HenryP says:
June 20, 2011 at 7:56 am
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
Hi Henry, the GISS surface station page will give you want you need. Just click on the map and a list of Antarctic stations are made available. You will notice most of the stations showing a flat or declining trend over the long term.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:11 am
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.
Ok so you meant inclusive rather than exclusive….thanks for clearing that up. So now its 85% of 88%.
Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend” I have no need to argue against it.
Yes you have, but perhaps a little imagination on your part is required. Study the PDO graph supplied earlier and then add solar variability using SSN. The PDO providing the major influence but augmented by solar. When the PDO is neg and solar low, pressure pattern changes at the poles being a solid influence.
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?
Let me respond by asking a simpler question. Does the ENSO pattern follow the standard PDO pattern? Your statement is a bit confusing when reading the PDO guidelines.
PDO INDEX
Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the
leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean,
poleward of 20N.
I think we need to see that photo.
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Dear MR, clearly you are sitting with a problem that is bothering you. Why don’t you tell me what you would like to know? My initial investigation was to establish whether your carbon foot print is good or bad for you.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
First of all, why don’t you read all of that until you come to understand how I reached the point in my searches where I started my pool table.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I am not saying that the table is finished, I will still add more stations, and, as I only recently established, my table needs to be balanced NH and SH, perhaps even a balancing by latitude as well. Just like a real pool table. It seems I also have to try and avoid those people and institutes that want to hide the truth because the truth does not suit them. (as if I would not find out eventually what the truth is)
So far, on my table, it looks that it was maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temp on earth and not the minima. That means that the global warming and resulting climate change observed over the past 3 or 4 decades was natural. Nobody could have done anything about it. You can cry over spilt ice, but unfortunately I am afraid that less CO2 will not bring it back. Unfortunately, pumping in more CO2 in the atmosphere once a cooler period sets in, will also not do the trick of keeping earth warm. Further, it appears from my table that precipitation remained largely unchanged but RH went down a bit. (Less humidity tries to ring a bell with me, but I cannot remember what it was)
if, after doubling the size of my table, I still find that the trends on my pool table is the same, then I imagine that one day I will be challenged to determine what caused the (natural) global warming and resulting climate change.
If you know of a weather station on the moon or on mars that was left there 3 or 4 decades ago we could find this out together. Obviously I need the data for maxima, means and minima. The question seems simple enough for me to find out: either it was the sun that was shining a bit hotter or it was that there were less clouds, allowing more sunshine in. I am not sure if there can be any other causes for natural global warming?
So, having outlined in detail what I am doing, let me ask you: how can you help me?
Henry@Geoff
You are funny. The link you gave me is taking me to my own pool table.
Geoff Sharp says: I stated, “Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the ‘PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend’ I have no need to argue against it.”
You replied, “Yes you have, but perhaps a little imagination on your part is required…”
That indicates to me that you have no argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend”, which means you’ve wasted my time.
I asked you, “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?”
Your failure to answer that simple question indicates that you know of no process through which the PDO could cause global temperatures to rise and fall, which also means you’ve wasted my time. You’ve also included a copy of the PDO description from the JISAO website, so you understand that the PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, which means, in turn, that you’ve wasted my time once again.
Bye, Geoff. Thanks for wasting my time.
HenryP says:
June 20, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Henry@Geoff
Not sure what happened….trying again here.
Henry@Geoff
Whatever I do, I don’t get to see the original data sets comprising the (daily) maxima, means and minima from any weather station on that site GISS (NASA). I do get to see the monthly means, which sometimes look funny . (Temps. of 999.9? like the from first Amundsen Scott weather station). Can you help me? That must be a Hansen trick again, to hide the maxima and minima from us.
Geoff Sharp: I just noticed the typo in the opening of my June 21, 2011 at 12:17 am reply to you. It reads, “Geoff Sharp says: I stated, ‘Since…”
It should read, “Geoff Sharp: I stated, ‘Since…”
Now, in your June 20, 2011 at 6:14 am reply to me, you said, “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 later replied to HenryP, “Hi Henry, the GISS surface station page will give you want you need. Just click on the map and a list of Antarctic stations are made available. You will notice most of the stations showing a flat or declining trend over the long term.” So your statement that the “Antarctica that has shown no warming” is based on GISS land surface temperature data.
I knew your comment was wrong when you posted it yesterday, but I didn’t have the time to clean up and post the following graphs to show you that you’re wrong. The GISS land surface temperature data with 250km smoothing for the Antarctic (90S-60S) shows a significant positive trend of 0.066 deg C per decade since 1960 (the last 50 years):
http://i55.tinypic.com/2445pbn.jpg
And to confirm there’s a significant trend in Antarctic land surface temperatures for the past 60 years, I also checked the GHCN/CAMS land surface data. It shows a positive trend of 0.058 deg C per decade:
http://i55.tinypic.com/4retfc.jpg
HenryP: The GHCN/CAMS land surface temperature dataset that’s available through the KNMI Climate Explorer is available in absolute temperatures. Not sure if that would be what you’re looking for since the data is available on gridded basis. But if you were looking for absolute land surface temperatures for Antarctica for example, you can create that data there:
http://i54.tinypic.com/29d7434.jpg
Link to KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Bob Tisdale says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:23 am
Surprised to see you back Bob…thought you had thrown in the towel. Your analysis is amazing, 0.066 deg C per decade. At that rate we will be toast in 10,000 years. The ice extent tells us a different story.
There are many stations with very short records in Antarctica. The trick is to only select those with long term records or otherwise risk a faulty dataset as you have just shown.
Henry@Geoff
No comment on the absence of max & minima on GISS?
Henry@Bob
Absolute is not the problem.
(seeing that degrees K is the same distance in temp. as degrees C)
I just need the monthly average of the daily data as reported on my pooltable
(maxima, means, minima, humidity & precipiation)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
for one station in the antarctic (anyone), going back 35 – 40 years.
I think it does not exist going back that far?
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Why is it that hard to answer what is a simply question?
How about this question as well;
Do you believe that your data points are statistically valid selections to draw your global conclusions?
MR
I will see your question and raise your mine!
(I am assuming you read everything)
We are looking at the ratio maxima, means and minima
which would prove either way if the warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (in the atmosphere)
So if you have any data that disproves that it is according to the ratio
as predicted by me, i.e. 4 : 2 : 1
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
which proves that the global warming and resulting climate change was natural,
Why don’t you bring it here?
Sorry, that last post should read:
MR
I will see your question and raise you mine!
(I am assuming you read everything)
We are looking specifically at the ratio of the rate of increase in maxima, means and minima (over the past 3- 4 decades) which would prove either way if the warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (in the atmosphere)
So if you have any data that disproves that it is as predicted by me, i.e. 4 : 2 : 1
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
which proves that the global warming and resulting climate change was natural,
Why don’t you bring it here?
HenryP – why do you refuse to answer simple questions that speak to your claims that you have personally proven that warming is natural? If your analysis is accurate this is important work and one would imagine you would be keen to share and discuss your work. No?
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Do you believe that your data points are statistically valid selections to draw your global conclusions?
Yes or no?
HenryP says: “I do get to see the monthly means, which sometimes look funny . (Temps. of 999.9? like the from first Amundsen Scott weather station). Can you help me? That must be a Hansen trick again, to hide the maxima and minima from us.”
Values totally outside of the range of normal variability like 999.9 are commonly used to illustrate no data or incomplete data, etc. There’s no trick.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:17 am
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
… Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
phlogiston says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum”
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
Because we compare it with SORCE/TIM and DIARAD that do not show sharp degradation, therefore we can say the PMOD is the one degrading, and can actually correct for that if we want to.
phlogiston says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:17 am
… Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
Frohlich is fond of adjustments, as we know from the ACRIM debacle. If the sensor was degrading at a known rate, he would have adjusted for it. Something else is going on. Maybe Frohlich has jumped the reservation fence.
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Frohlich is fond of adjustments, as we know from the ACRIM debacle. If the sensor was degrading at a known rate, he would have adjusted for it. Something else is going on. Maybe Frohlich has jumped the reservation fence.
He knows about it. I have told him many times, and he acknowledges that he has degradation, but still doesn’t do anything about it. I’ve been gentle with him. I told him about the degradation years ago. Here is an old plot of that: http://www.leif.org/research/DiffTSI(PMOD-SORCE).png
Bottom line: there is no evidence that TSI was any lower in 2008-2009 than at any other minimum in the past.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
…
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.
If you see the ENSO as a nonlinear oscillator – an argument that I presented in a post some months ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/25/is-the-enso-a-nonlinear-oscillator-of-the-belousov-zhabotinsky-reaction-type/
Then the ENSO and PDO emerge as different time-scales of the same fractal-type oscillation with long term pattern. Basically in the ENSO oscillation the el Nino is the “above the line” wave and the La Nina the “below the line” waveform. However rather than a monotonous sine wave you have a complex oscillation with oscillating phases. In some phases there are more up than down waves, i.e. el Nino predominates statistically. In the opposite phases the opposite happens, La Nina below-the-line waves predominate. Bob Tisdale has described the PDO as precisely this – alternating periods of el Nino and La Nina dominance.
However which causes which? In Bob’s PDO /AMO primer part 3
he makes an interesting comment:
There are posts and comments around the blogosphere that state something to the effect of “when the PDO is positive, El Niño events are more frequent, and the PDO is negative, there are more La Niña events.” The authors of those comments have cause and effect reversed.
However if you see the system as a nonlinear oscillator under the control of an attractor (e.g. Lorenz, Roessler as discussed in the above link) then the “chicken and egg” issue of which comes first (or is causative) the ENSO or the PDO, goes away. Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales. That means it is fractal, a further signature and clue (if such were needed) of the nonlinear / nonequilibrium dynamics behind the whole system.
So what about poor old sol – does he get left out? Well no – nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agreee it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean. However this forcing is probably weak, thus the relation between solar forcing timescales and the forced climate oscillations is complex and statistically elusive. That just makes it more fun to argue about endlessly.
Leif said:
“He knows about it. I have told him many times, and he acknowledges that he has degradation, but still doesn’t do anything about it. I’ve been gentle with him. I told him about the degradation years ago.”
LOL.
Hey, Leif, nice to see that you are as robust with your colleagues as you are with the rest of us 🙂
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.