Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots

THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTSDEEP 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.

FIGURE 1. Sunspots during the Maunder Minimum (modified from Eddy, 1976).

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.

Figure 2. Correspondence of cold periods and solar minima from 1500 to 2000 AD. Each of the five solar minima was a time of sharply reduced global temperatures (blue areas).

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 3. Correlation of sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (modified from Usoskin et al., 2004).

Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.

Figure 4. Solar irradiance and temperature from 1750 to 1990 AD. During this 250-year period, the two curves follow remarkably similar patterns (modified from Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). Each solar minima corresponds to climatic cooling.

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:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/

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

 

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

475 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
June 21, 2011 3:35 pm

phlogiston says: “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.”
There is no chicken and egg issue. I explained the process through which ENSO creates the PDO pattern earlier on this thread. Refer to:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#comment-683730
Regards

June 21, 2011 3:45 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Chemical processes brought about by radiation. Solar wind particles have usually nothing to do with chemical reactions. Only during rare ‘super storms’ where solar energetic particles can penetrate deep into the atmosphere is the some transitory effect. But that you know already as I have told you that so many times 🙂
And TSI is, at any rate, a proxy for all the other bad stuff that comes our way.

June 21, 2011 3:51 pm

phlogiston said:
“Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales”
Halleluja.
I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not. Pending further consideration that is a nice solution.
and then phlogiston said:
“nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agree it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean.”
Which I thoroughly agree with.
So what we have here is variable solar input to the Earth system acting via atmospheric chemistry (not radiative physics) to alter surface air pressure distribution via changes in cloudiness, albedo and solar shortwave input to the oceans. That affects the equilibrium temperature of the oceans until the level of solar input to the Earth system changes once more and in the meantime the equilibrium temperature of the oceans feeds back to modulate the surface air pressure distribution initiated by the level of solar input.
Thus solar top down effects are constantly modulated by the oceanic bottom up response and on top of that the internal ocean mechanics can either be in or out of phase with the solar top down effects.
That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.
The whole thing boils down to latitudinal positional variations and changes in the size and intensity of the various climate zones which have always been a permanent feature of the planet. Changes in the latitudinal position of the ITCZ, the Hadley and Farrel cells plus the changing characteristics of the polar vortices account for everything we observe.
Climate change is then reduced to a perceived shift of the climate zones over the areas where measurements are taken.
Leif needs to accept that the Earth system response to solar variations is chemically and not radiatively driven.
Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.
Everyone else needs to accept that climate change (short of a change from glaciation to interglacial and vice versa) is just a redistribution of surface air pressure and not necessarily a significant alteration of the global equilibrium temperature which is actually set by the oceanic response to solar shortwave input.
Needless to say the greenhouse gases play an insignificant part in the natural process.
Tyndall, Arrhenius et al got it wrong. The oceans set the global equilibrium temperature and not the greenhouse gases in the air.

Editor
June 21, 2011 3:53 pm

Geoff Sharpe says: “Surprised to see you back Bob…thought you had thrown in the towel.”
There’s no reason for me to throw in the towel. I’m not the one in this discussion making unfounded statements. Disproving your comments just isn’t a high priority for me. I have other things to do. In reality, I do NOT find disproving your statements to be entertaining. It’s actually kind of sad. Your credibility with me is shot, yet you continue to fabricate and spin.
You wrote, “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.”
This is becoming a habit with you. When the data contradicts your unfounded statement, you attempt to downplay the data and redirect the discussion. Are you aware, Geoff, that all of the AGW nonsense is based on a global surface temperature linear trend of only 0.137 deg C per decade (using your selected GISTEMP LOTI) for the past 50 years? That’s the period aand dataset you chose, not me. That global trend is a little more than twice the Antarctic linear trend of 0.066 deg C per decade. But you claimed there was NO Antarctic warming. Recall that you wrote, “Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years…”
You wrote, “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.”
Another fabrication on your part, Geoff? Do you recall the debacle last year about Steig et al (2009) versus O’Donnell et al (2010)? If you’re not aware of it, the debate wasn’t about whether or not the Antarctic surface temperatures had warmed over 50 year; it was about the statistical methods that showed where the warming had occurred.
And a quick visit to the KNMI Climate Explorer disproves your statement that, “There are many stations with very short records in Antarctica.” Using this webpage…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/click_s.cgi?someone@somewhere?monthly?199,199
…I asked for a listing of 10 GHCN stations (all), mean temperature, near to 89S-0E. Here’s the list stations and the number of years with data for those stations:
1. AMUNDSEN-SCOT (ANTARCTICA): Found 55 years with data in 1957-2011
2. BYRD STATION (ANTARCTICA): Found 25 years with data in 1957-1987
3. VOSTOK (ANTARCTICA): Found 53 years with data in 1958-2011
4. BELGRANO (ANTARCTICA): Found 25 years with data in 1955-1979
5. BASE BELGRANO (ANTARCTICA): Found 32 years with data in 1980-2011
6. MCMURDO (ANTARCTICA): Found 37 years with data in 1956-1992
7. SCOTT BASE (ANTARCTICA): Found 31 years with data in 1957-1987
8. HALLEY (ANTARCTICA): Found 56 years with data in 1956-2011
9. NOVOLAZAREVSK (ANTARCTICA): Found 51 years with data in 1961-2011
10. MIZUHO (ANTARCTICA): Found 15 years with data in 1972-1986
The MIZUHO station is the shortest with only 15 years with data. The average term of the “years with data” of the other stations was 40 years. I don’t consider those to be “very short records.”
There’s really no reason for you to reply. As noted earlier, you’ve lost any credibility you may have had with me based on your comments on this thread.
Have a nice day.

June 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Leif needs to accept that the Earth system response to solar variations is chemically and not radiatively driven.
No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that [and by just repeating old, tired arguments, won’t].

Editor
June 21, 2011 4:44 pm

Stephen Wilde says: “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. I have yet to see credible evidence that a “separate (solar) factor” drives ENSO. There are many hypotheses to that effect based in statistical evidence but nothing firm based on processes.
You wrote, “I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not.”
The PDO results from the process of ENSO, not a statistical outcome of ENSO variability. The reason it matters is that there continue to be many people who believe the PDO somehow drives global temperatures, when it does not.

Editor
June 21, 2011 4:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard said a couple of daya ago: “True to form, when Geoff can’t argue the science he goes after the person. I say we simply ignore him from now on.”
I should have taken your advice. My discussions with him since then have not been entertaining or educational for me. Dealing with fabrications, misdirection, and spin is very frustrating.

Carla
June 21, 2011 6:06 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
..The whole thing boils down to latitudinal positional variations and changes in the size and intensity of the various climate zones which have always been a permanent feature of the planet. Changes in the latitudinal position of the ITCZ, the Hadley and Farrel cells plus the changing characteristics of the polar vortices account for everything we observe.
Climate change is then reduced to a perceived shift of the climate zones over the areas where measurements are taken.
~
You make some good points there Stephen..
Rain today, tommorrow and the next day..density fluctuations becoming more and more apparent..now what could be responsible for an overall increase in our atmospheres density levels?
My cranky is creeping out again..

June 21, 2011 7:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard said:
“No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that ”
I’m addressing the general audience who can make their own minds up in the light of ongoing observations and the evidence from a number of other scientists who do accept a top down solar effect on the atmosphere and the surface pressure distribution. That includes Michael Mann et al from a paper in 2001. The recent ‘coincidence’ of a deep solar minimum at about the same time as a record negative AO is helpful too.
Bob Tisdale said:
“The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. I have yet to see credible evidence that a “separate (solar) factor” drives ENSO. There are many hypotheses to that effect based in statistical evidence but nothing firm based on processes. ”
Well it depends what you accept as ‘evidence’.
I have proposed that internal ocean processes set up ENSO and through ENSO the 30 year PDO switching from warm to cool phases and back again but in the longer term the relative strengths of El Ninos and La Ninas across succeeding 60 year cycles are affected by slow changes in solar variability across multiple solar cycles.
The evidence I see is the ‘coincidence’ of solar and air surface pressure distribution changes from MWP to LIA to date.
The process is changing cloudiness and albedo from solar and ocean induced changes to the surface air pressure distribution.
The oceans have to be the link between solar and surface air pressure phenomena because of the fact that solar shortwave by passes the atmosphere to go straight into the oceans and then there is the influence of sea surface temperatures on the air circulation systems above.
Thus do both Leif and Bob in my humble opinion fail to give due weight to what we actually see going on in the atmosphere which serves as a link between their two areas of undoubted expertise.

June 21, 2011 10:13 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
The oceans have to be the link between solar and surface air pressure phenomena because of the fact that solar shortwave bypasses the atmosphere to go straight into the oceans and then there is the influence of sea surface temperatures on the air circulation systems above.
I thought you were peddling the idea that it is not radiative processes that are at work [whatever that means – even my spell-checker flags ‘radiative’]. But I don’t need another incomprehensible diatribe right now.

June 21, 2011 10:15 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm
There’s no reason for me to throw in the towel.
Lets get a couple of points straight Bob. I am not looking for your acceptance of my credibility nor do I need to be told whether to comment or not. You have made a big statement against Dr. Easterbrook that is unfounded. Sure he could of used different data sets but the thrust of his message is right. The PDO or ENSO cycle very closely matches the temperature trend and the associated drop off in solar activity is very likely to affect world temperatures in a downward direction. This is already seen in the past 3 NH winters. I went out on a limb using my knowledge last July and predicted the NH would experience winter conditions like the LIA. I was right and receive much feedback and interest from the general public and media. Its happening out there but you can choose to close your eyes. Your challenge is to envisage two datasets together that normally cant be plotted and have the intelligence to accept there is a solid case. World temps follow the PDO/ENSO cycle plus associated solar outputs.
Whatever drives the PDO or ENSO is interesting but not important to the discussion but can I suggest you do some research into Scafetta and Wilson who are linking the Sun as a very likely candidate. I agree the science is not rock solid yet, but its a beginning of a good line of research and there is not much else on the table.
I dont know why you are bothering to argue with me re the Antarctica GISS record. Is it some kind of point scoring exercise? If you look at the long term records from the 50’s to now there is no apparent shift in temperature. Your mistake is to include records that finish around the 80’s or 90’s.
Looking at the long term records of several stations the true picture is observed.
Vostok, Admundsen-Scot, Scott Base, Casey, Mirnyj, Davis.
I am not sure if the individual GISS station records have been tampered with but even so the entire SH is not showing a lot of temperature rise. I recently did a Melbourne UHI analysis that may be of interest to some showing how little the temperature has changed over the last 50 years or so.
Your grandstanding/handwaving and so called rebuttal to Dr. Easterbrook is uncalled for. Take the message instead of nitpicking the detail.

June 21, 2011 10:43 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that ”
I’m addressing the general audience who can make their own minds

Then you should have said: “The general audience needs to accept that the Earth system response…”

June 21, 2011 11:27 pm

Hi Geoff
i checked your Melbourne analysis compared to inland.
I liked it, it just a pity that you only focused on the average (means) and that you did not include an analysis of maxima and minima.
If we are looking at man made global warming, we should be looking specifically at the ratio of the rate of increase of the 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).
Minima (that happen during the night) rising faster than means and maxima would prove that the global warming, if any, is man made. Maxima (that happen during the day) rising faster than means and minima means that the warming, if any, occurred natural.
Did you get that??

phlogiston
June 22, 2011 1:10 am

Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
phlogiston said:
“Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales”
Halleluja.
I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not. Pending further consideration that is a nice solution.
and then phlogiston said:
“nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agree it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean.”
Which I thoroughly agree with.
So what we have here is variable solar input to the Earth system acting via atmospheric chemistry (not radiative physics) to alter surface air pressure distribution via changes in cloudiness, albedo and solar shortwave input to the oceans. That affects the equilibrium temperature of the oceans until the level of solar input to the Earth system changes once more and in the meantime the equilibrium temperature of the oceans feeds back to modulate the surface air pressure distribution initiated by the level of solar input.
Thus solar top down effects are constantly modulated by the oceanic bottom up response and on top of that the internal ocean mechanics can either be in or out of phase with the solar top down effects.
That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.

I agree in that by “solar effects” I refer in general to a number of possible phenomena including gravitational and center of mass oscillations. Also the chain of atmospheric phenomena linked to solar output. Thus focusing the solar debate on TSI only is something of a straw man.

June 22, 2011 2:52 am

HenryP says:
June 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Your analysis is useful and another method of comparison when looking at temperature trends. But generally speaking the extra level of detail is not always forthcoming. Perhaps you could contact the GISS organisation re your requirements for the Antarctic continent.

June 22, 2011 5:12 am

An interesting paper published May this year showing TSI measurements and UV measurements varying a high degree (26.6%) from Maunder minimum to modern solar minimumns (excluding SC24).
Some caveats but the outcome putting pressure on those prescribing a flat solar floor thru the Holocene.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf

Editor
June 22, 2011 5:12 am

Geoff Sharpe says: “Lets get a couple of points straight Bob. I am not looking for your acceptance of my credibility nor do I need to be told whether to comment or not. You have made a big statement against Dr. Easterbrook that is unfounded.”
If you feel it’s unfounded, you did not understand it or you failed to accept it for other reasons.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Sure he could of used different data sets but the thrust of his message is right.”
If the wrong dataset is used, the message is wrong.
Geoff Sharpe says: “The PDO or ENSO cycle very closely matches the temperature trend and the associated drop off in solar activity is very likely to affect world temperatures in a downward direction.”
The mechanism and processes exist for this to be true of ENSO. They do not exist for the PDO. And I have never said that solar activity does not impact global temperatures. The global temperature response to the variation in the typical solar cycle should be in the neighborhood of 0.07 to 0.1 deg C as the sun varies from solar max to solar min. I have also not said that ENSO does not impact global temperatures. In fact, I have illustrated the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO in numerous posts at my blog and here at WUWT.
Geoff Sharpe says: “This is already seen in the past 3 NH winters. I went out on a limb using my knowledge last July and predicted the NH would experience winter conditions like the LIA. I was right and receive much feedback and interest from the general public and media.”
You have? I would think if this was the case you would have linked all of the media stories about your prediction and the feedback. Please do so. WUWT is the most visited climate blog in the world, but I do not recall seeing any posts about your predictions.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Your challenge is to envisage two datasets together that normally cant be plotted and have the intelligence to accept there is a solid case. World temps follow the PDO/ENSO cycle plus associated solar outputs.”
Why can’t the PDO and Sunspots be plotted together? I’ve done it. All one needs to do is scale the sunspot data. If your proof is in the data, please provide evidence of it.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Whatever drives the PDO or ENSO is interesting but not important to the discussion…”
The facts that there is no mechanism for the PDO to drive global temperatures and that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO are important to this Easterbrook post.
Geoff Sharpe says: “I dont know why you are bothering to argue with me re the Antarctica GISS record.”
Why would I continue to argue with you? That’s rather obvious. You’re wrong. You stated that Antarctic Surface Temperatures have not risen in 50 years and I showed you that they had, using GISS land surface temperature data. I provided a second (GHCN/CAMS) dataset to confirm it.
Why would I continue to argue with you? You proved yourself that you’re wrong. You linked your evidence, but your evidence contradicts your statement. Apparently, you’re not aware of that. Five of the six Antarctic surface station temperature records you linked show significant linear trends. They actually exceed the linear trend for Antarctica that I illustrated earlier. Before documenting that, let me address something else.
Geoff Sharpe says: “I am not sure if the individual GISS station records have been tampered with…”
It is well known that GISS adjusts the land surface temperature data. In fact, GISS provides visitors with the opportunity to determine those adjustments. If you’re not aware of it, on the Surface Station webpage that you linked earlier for HenryP…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
..there is a drop-down menu identified as “Select a specific data set from the pull-down menu below”. It allows visitors to plot and download the raw GHCN data and two GISS-adjusted datasets for the stations. So anyone can document the GISS adjustments to the GHCN data for the Antarctic.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Looking at the long term records of several stations the true picture is observed.” Okay, the true picture. True is the operative word in your sentence. And you provided links to the Vostok, Admundsen-Scot, Scott Base, Casey, Mirnyj, and Davis surface station data at the GISS website.
Apparently, you didn’t bother to plot the data and let your spreadsheet software analyze the surface station data you linked. If you had, you would not have proclaimed they confirmed your “true picture” of no temperature rise in the Antarctic. The Admundsen-Scot data has a negative linear trend of -0.031 deg C per decade:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2gwamo7.jpg
You might accept that as proof that your statement is correct. I don’t.
-BECAUSE-
That negative trend is dwarfed by the positive linear trends of the five other surface stations that YOU stated provided the “true picture”. The Vostok data has a positive linear trend of +0.126 deg C per decade:
http://i54.tinypic.com/4l6ip2.jpg
The Scott Base data has a positive linear trend of +0.152 deg C per decade:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2jakzdf.jpg
The Casey data has a positive linear trend of +0.098 deg C per decade:
http://i53.tinypic.com/21475n9.jpg
The Mirnyj data has a positive linear trend of +0.072 deg C per decade:
http://i53.tinypic.com/1z6w5fs.jpg
And the Davis data has a positive linear trend of +0.094 deg C per decade:
http://i56.tinypic.com/122yakp.jpg
Keep in mind, Geoff, that YOU, not me, elected to continue this discussion and that YOU elected to make statements that were contradicted by the data YOU chose to use as reference.

Editor
June 22, 2011 5:29 am

Stephen Wilde says: “Well it depends what you accept as ‘evidence’.”
You then went on to describe your proposal, but you have not supported your proposal with data or calculations, so I would not accept it as ‘evidence’.

June 22, 2011 5:51 am

Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
Thanks bob for doing the analysis, but by your own figures the Antarctic trend is so close to flat it is not worthy of discussion.
BTW… the least you could do is spell my name right.

June 22, 2011 6:17 am

Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
An interesting paper published May this year showing TSI measurements and UV measurements varying a high degree (26.6%) from Maunder minimum to modern solar minimumns (excluding SC24).
Some caveats but the outcome putting pressure on those prescribing a flat solar floor thru the Holocene.

The paper relies on the Group Sunspot Number which even one of the inventors, Ken Schatten, now agrees is wrong [much too small early on], so suffers from the same malady as all papers doing that. Plus uses PMOD, in spite of PMOD having severe degradation. So, there is no pressure at all. Just shows how important it is that we get those datasets cleaned up.

June 22, 2011 6:30 am

Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
The mechanism and processes exist for this to be true of ENSO. They do not exist for the PDO. And I have never said that solar activity does not impact global temperatures. The global temperature response to the variation in the typical solar cycle should be in the neighborhood of 0.07 to 0.1 deg C as the sun varies from solar max to solar min
Your assesment of the temperature variation from cycle max to min follows the AGW limits subscribed to by your luke warmer friend. Hardly an endorsement of the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.

June 22, 2011 6:37 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:17 am
Not a strong rebuttal Leif, I see that your mate Steinhilber is a very strong backer of this paper.

June 22, 2011 7:18 am

Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:37 am
Not a strong rebuttal Leif, I see that your mate Steinhilber is a very strong backer of this paper.
Wonder where you see that. There is no mention in the paper of that. And the reconstruction disagrees with Steinhilber’s own. Again you go after persons instead of the science.

Editor
June 22, 2011 7:23 am

Geoff Sharp says: “BTW… the least you could do is spell my name right.”
My apologies.
Geoff Sharp says: “Thanks bob for doing the analysis, but by your own figures the Antarctic trend is so close to flat it is not worthy of discussion.”
You’ve attempted that spin before on this thread, Geoff. It doesn’t work. Refer again to my June 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm comment in which I advised you of your error. There I wrote, in part: Are you aware, Geoff, that all of the AGW nonsense is based on a global surface temperature linear trend of only 0.137 deg C per decade (using your selected GISTEMP LOTI) for the past 50 years?
To illustrate that, here’s a graph of GISTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data from 1960 to present. Note that the linear trend of +0.137 deg C per decade for the global data is less than some of the linear trends of the Antarctic surface station datasets that I illustrated for you in my last reply to you. Yet you, Geoff, somehow continue to believe the Antarctic surface stations show no warming.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2eyw9w0.jpg
Geoff, those who are monitoring our discussion will now attempt to predict how you will attempt to spin this. Please do so, so they can see if they’ve guessed correctly.
In your next reply, Geoff, you wrote, “Your assesment of the temperature variation from cycle max to min follows the AGW limits subscribed to by your luke warmer friend.”
And who might my lukewarmer friend be, Geoff?
Geoff Sharp continued, “Hardly an endorsement of the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”
Please provide a link to the Global Surface Temperature data that you believe illustrates “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”

June 22, 2011 7:40 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:18 am
Wonder where you see that. There is no mention in the paper of that.
“Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Friedhelm Steinhilber and J¨urg Beer for
useful discussions and help with data.”
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
It would be good if Anthony ran a separate story on this paper inviting others to comment.