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.
![21sunspots.1-600[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/21sunspots-1-6001.jpg?resize=450%2C263&quality=83)

Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
“Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Friedhelm Steinhilber and J¨urg Beer for
useful discussions and help with data.”
That hardly qualifies as ‘being a strong backer’ since their reconstruction model disagrees with Steinhilber’s own.
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
The data is what it is. The problem is how to calibrate the 10Be data to TSI, and for that the sunspot number is often used. Together with an estimate of ‘the open flux’ [mostly also derived from the sunspot number. So everything hangs on having the correct sunspot number, and they do not.
It would be good if Anthony ran a separate story on this paper inviting others to comment.
Possibly, although it would just bring to the surface [for the umpteenth time] discussions we have already had, plus entice the various peddlers of pseudo-science to crawl out of the woodwork for yet another round of fruitless grandstanding. But, if Anthony could wait a week or so [until our recent paper is out of ’embargoland’] that would be useful and allow a new analysis to be brought to bear.
Here is a comment on our paper from people at Locarno:
“What you show in your presentation is convincing! For sure the main goal of the former directors of the observatory in Zurich was to maintain the coherence and stability of the Wolf number, and changes in the method were not done just as fun. I can figure out that they gave a lot of importance to verify their method of counting. Nevertheless the decision to maintain “secret” the true way to count is for sure source of problems now!”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
Is typical for your style. This is my field!. Did you read it properly? Do you have any detailed understanding of how the reconstructions are done?
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:23 am
Half of a degree C in 50 plus years in my opinion is close enough to flat. If that floats your boat Bob then I think you are clutching at straws. The failing IPCC models predicting 6 dec C rise is where the warmista’s of the world are projecting their economic response. Time for a reality check?
I would have thought you would have been up to date on the movements of the temperature record over the Holocene and not need to challenge me on the Maunder to now values. A simple check of the AGW biased (so many bad authors) Wiki shows a range of temperatures with a far greater range than the 0.1 deg C value you subscribe to. Very difficult to believe you are serious on this point?
Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up,
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up
Still going after the people instead of the science. Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:14 am
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
———————
Is typical for your style. This is my field!. Did you read it properly? Do you have any detailed understanding of how the reconstructions are done?
No need to get upset. If Steinhilber is mentioned in the acknowledgements he obviously helped substantially with his input. It may be your field but it looks like you missed some of the critical detail.
I can see this paper is challenging your long term held views, why don’t you ask Anthony to post a separate review article so we can all debate it on its merit? We might even get some response from others in the scientific field that appose your ideas…this would be refreshing.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
If Steinhilber is mentioned in the acknowledgements he obviously helped substantially with his input. It may be your field but it looks like you missed some of the critical detail.
It is usual to acknowledge sources of data and explanations about it, but that is not ‘strong backing’. I miss none of the details [critical or in this case, not]. I know everybody involved.
I can see this paper is challenging your long term held views
I don’t have ‘views’. I present data and reason from them. and can change my view instantly if data shows I’m wrong, which they in this do not.
why don’t you ask Anthony to post a separate review article so we can all debate it on its merit? We might even get some response from others in the scientific field that oppose your ideas…this would be refreshing.
See my response upthread. I don’t have ‘ideas’. This is science, not ideology. In science one has an opinion, view, idea [whatever you want to call it] until one adopts another one as the data dictates.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:34 am
Still going after the people instead of the science. Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.
Do as you wish….looking for an escape clause in my book.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:47 am
Do as you wish….looking for an escape clause in my book.
Again people-oriented instead of science-oriented. There is no ‘escape’ in science. It all comes out in the end, and the wrong papers are quietly and blissfully ignored and forgotten.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:46 am
Dont go soft on me Leif…the challenge is in place, contact Anthony and make it happen.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 10:14 am
Dont go soft on me Leif…the challenge is in place, contact Anthony and make it happen.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
You cannot challenge anything as you bring nothing to the table. But it might in a couple of weeks be good to have an article on this. Perhaps, I’ll even write one.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
Where did I dictate what you do, I have offered a debate and asked Leif to do the same on a paper that might have some important merit in the climate debate. My name is Geoff BTW.
REPLY: “Contact Anthony and make it happen” Sure sounds like an order to me. Sorry about the name Geoff, I’m slow with hay fever today. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 10:36 am
I have offered a debate
To have a meaningful debate there are some minimum requirements re knowledge about the subject that you do not possess. A review and tutorial on this issue might be good at some time in the near future.
REPLY: “Contact Anthony and make it happen” Sure sounds like an order to me.
I can understand that. But Leif does seem to have influence from my point of view. This is a science blog that is very well respected, I am suggesting a new paper that might challenge the dogma of the warmista crew that is well worth debating in the hope of attracting some reasoned debate.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
a new paper that might challenge the dogma of the warmista crew that is well worth debating in the hope of attracting some reasoned debate.
A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:14 am
A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.
Good to see you are running this debate?
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:23 am
“A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.”
Good to see you are running this debate?
why the extraneous question mark? If I write the tutorial article, I could be seen as running the debate, at least initially. If you want to run it, you write the tutorial. But, let’s let Anthony and his crew be in charge with thoughtful and strong moderation to keep the name calling and innuendos at a minimum.
Geoff Sharp says: “Half of a degree C in 50 plus years in my opinion is close enough to flat. If that floats your boat Bob then I think you are clutching at straws. The failing IPCC models predicting 6 dec C rise is where the warmista’s of the world are projecting their economic response. Time for a reality check?”
For those following this thread who expected Geoff to downplay the actual rise in temperature and attempt to misdirect with an exaggerating comparison to IPCC projections, you’ve guessed correctly. Simply put, it was smoke and mirrors act gone bad.
And to answer your closing question on that part of your reply, yes, Geoff, you are due for a reality check. Your number games don’t work. You multiplied a decadal trend of 0.136 deg C by five and somehow came up with a 0.5 deg C rise in global temperatures in 50 years. Then you compared your bogus 0.5 deg C rise for 50 years to a high-end IPCC estimate of 6 deg C for 100 years. A grade school student could see through that poorly executed tactic, Geoff.
Let me put things in perspective for you, Geoff, but before I do, be advised that I am not promoting the accuracy of the IPCC models. I have written posts illustrating and describing the failings of the IPCC hindcasts and projections. I am presenting the following simply to illustrate the magnitude of the inaccuracies you have attempted to present to the readers here at WUWT.
Do you know what the global linear trend is for the IPCC Model Mean Hindcast/Projection for the last 50 years, Geoff? That’s the period you elected to discuss. It’s +0.169 deg C per decade for the period of January 1960 to May 2011, for their 20C3M hindcasts/SRES A1B projections. That’s not too far above the GISS LOTI linear trend for the same period of 0.136 deg C per decade, but it’s well below the 0.6 deg C per decade you attempted to use as a comparison number. What about the trend for IPCC’s Model Mean Hindcast/Projection for the Antarctic and Southern Ocean south of 60S, same period, Geoff? Do you have any idea what it is? It’s +0.155 deg C per decade. What a coincidence! That’s the almost exactly the same trend as the Scott Base Surface Station (+0.152 deg C per decade) that I illustrated for you above. But you continue to attempt to claim that the Antarctic has not warmed.
Geoff Sharp says: “I would have thought you would have been up to date on the movements of the temperature record over the Holocene and not need to challenge me on the Maunder to now values. A simple check of the AGW biased (so many bad authors) Wiki shows a range of temperatures with a far greater range than the 0.1 deg C value you subscribe to. Very difficult to believe you are serious on this point?”
This attempt to misdirect also failed. I did not ask you your opinion about my knowledge of temperatures during the Holocene, Geoff. I made a very simple request. It was: 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.”
Everyone reading this thread now and in the future can add this to the long list of questions I have asked you, and requests for information that I have posed to you, for which you have failed to provide answers. Failing to answer questions and failing to furnish information when requested are blazingly strong indications of the weaknesses in your arguments, Geoff. In some instances on this thread, you’ve made claims and when asked to provide documentation to support them, you fail to answer. This is a strong indication that your claims are fabrications. You’re self destructing your own credibility on climate change, Geoff, and everyone reading this thread can see it. Except you. But you do what you have to do.
Geoff Sharp says, “Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up,
Oh, I’ve been keeping up. I just wanted you to identify the person you’re discussing.
Geoff, your debate tactics broadcast the weaknesses in your arguments. They’re like yelling into a bullhorn and telling everyone how little you understand about the subjects at hand. It’s climate skeptics like you who give climate skeptics like me and others who frequent WUWT a bad name.
Leif Svalgaard says: “Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.”
I believe that’s a first, Leif. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll on a climate skeptic blog before.
REPLY: Actually, I have that honor, with Wil from spinonthat who kepts pushing his soda bottle -CO2 -heat lamp experiment as if it was actually science. – Anthony
I have come across an interesting phenomenon doing the rounds that somehow solar flares are related to increased tectonic activity. The suggestion appears to be that (perhaps) reduced solar spot activity, coupled with occasional flares has an impact on the earths magnetic field, which is linked physically to the molten parts of the Mantle and Core. Anyway, all just theory at the moment. However, I wonder if such increased tectonic activity might also lead to increased volcanism and by extension increased particulate matter in the atmosphere leading to cooling. Now I know that much has been made of recent volcanic activity impacting air flights, so it is a little difficult to distinguish if there is a real increase. However, if this were correct it might mean that the apparent lack of a link between solar output and global temperature during reduced sunspot activity might be that we are looking at this in a over-simplistic way.
Anthony Watts says: “Actually, I have that honor, with Wil from spinonthat who kepts pushing his soda bottle -CO2 -heat lamp experiment as if it was actually science.”
Then I must change my statement. How about…I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll by a distinguished solar physicist on a climate skeptic blog before?
Or is that too specific? Suggestions?
goldie says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm
I have come across an interesting phenomenon doing the rounds that somehow solar flares are related to increased tectonic activity.
This can be put to an experimental test. There is a scientific test called the ‘superposed epoch’ method that looks at activity [or a signal of any kind] around a large number of ‘key times’. Imagine you have a long list when of solar storms has been hitting the Earth over the last century. Then you can treat each day on the list as a key time and simply count how many earthquakes happened on all those days, and then how many happened on the day before and the day after, then two days before and two days after, etc. You can then make a graph of how many quakes happen as a function of the ‘lag’ from the triggering storm. Here is such a plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
It shows at the bottom how magnetic activity [with associated aurorae] behaves around such times. There is clearly a big spike at the key time, as we would expect because the presence of a storm was precisely why that day was picked as a key time.. There are about 3000 key times in an interval where we have good data [1868-2000]. The middle panel shows the number of strong earthquakes around those same key times for 1900-1993 [using two different earthquake data sets]. There is clearly no corresponding earthquake spike at the time of the magnetic storm, so we conclude that there is no good evidence for increased tectonic activity related to solar activity.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll by a distinguished solar physicist on a climate skeptic blog before?
Or is that too specific? Suggestions?
I suggest we get off the personal stuff and return to the science. Perhaps this thread has petered out and should be left to die in peace.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This attempt to misdirect also failed. I did not ask you your opinion about my knowledge of temperatures during the Holocene, Geoff. I made a very simple request. It was: 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.”
Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?
There are many reconstructions but like so many proxy records its a matter of choosing the one that fits your argument. But a conservative estimate would be a 1 deg C rise since the Maunder Minimum. The Moberg reconstruction (red) seems to carry some weight which flies in the face of a flat solar floor. The new paper we are discussing agrees with the Moberg reconstruction. Temperature trends following solar output, definitely worth looking into I think. I am looking forward to Leif presenting his case through his tutorial.
Bob Tisdale says:
“It’s +0.169 deg C per decade for the period of January 1960 to May 2011, for their 20C3M hindcasts/SRES A1B projections”
That is 0.017 degrees C per annum which is not too far away from my estimate of the global average of 0.020 degrees C per annum on my pool table.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
However, on the SH, I only measure an average increase of 0.003 degrees C per annum so far….That is virtually nothing. I therefore predict that it cannot be more than 0,03 degree C per decade in the antarctic (for the past 4 decades). If it is not, then you have to prove that to me with original (daily) data
In fact, I cannot find the original daily data from any antarctic station comprising at least the means, maxima and minima, going back without interruprion for the last 4 decades…There are just too many interruprions.
I did find an airport in the south of Argentine that has good daily data, which I will use. I will try to balance my table by latitude as well as same amount stations NH and SH
Obviously, I hope you do realize that the IPCC made the worst mistake any scientist can make: they looked at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed they knew what the problem was (i.e. more GHG causing most of the observed warming) and started working from that end.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Let’s try and stay away from the bickering and biting here because it leaves an impression that we are still stumbling around in the darkness, which in fact, if I look at many comments here, is not true at all.
Geoff Sharp says: “Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?”
Thank you for identifying Moberg. That’s a start. But you missed the key word in my question. The key word was data. I did not ask you for a link to a Wikipedia graph. I asked for data. Surely you have a link to the data. Your research into the relationship between long-term solar reconstructions and temperature reconstructions relies on data.