Solar activity report: the sun is still in a funk

Currently half-way through a USB-recorded sci-fi called ‘Sunshine’ (not much cop, by the way). In this film, our sun is dying: prophetic or watt?

Have the ‘team’ told us yet how this is the fault of AGW yet, becasue until they do I refuse to accept its happening .

“Indeed, and this cuts both ways. IF we should go into a Maunder type minimum, what excuses will the AGW skeptics have if we don’t get their much talked about and anticipated new “LIttle Ice Age”, but rather, on a decade to decade basis, global temps continue to rise.”
A lot of sceptics will re-access the position in that scenario – including me. That said I changed my mind in 2007 as it became clear that the warming had stalled – I don’t see any real evidence of it accelerating again at the moment.
What about if we cool though – some of the warmists in that scenario ought to be criminally prosecuted due to the public money that would have been wasted.

Didn’t anyone such as Landscheidt produce a graph from years ago to compare with Hathaway’s graphs ? Has Hathaway even heard of Landscheidt ?
It would be an interesting comparison if someone can produce a graph from the work done by Landscheidt and others many years ago.
Why haven’t Hathaway and others taken on board the work of Landscheidt and others. Perhaps once this is all over and they see how wrong they’ve been then they might start to move away from the co2 groupthink and return to real science, that is open minded science that embraces a wide range of other ideas and isn’t afraid to question received (conventional) wisdom.

D Caldwell says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:28 am
R. Gates says:
“IF we should go into a Maunder type minimum, what excuses will the AGW skeptics have if we don’t get their much talked about and anticipated new “LIttle Ice Age”
Not everyone here attributes a lot of forcing to solar cycles. Just because we don’t fully understand the dynamics of long term climate change doesn’t prove the increase in CO2 is now the dominant factor.
____
Fair enough, and of course, neither does WUWT represent the views of the entire AGW skeptical community, though I believe it has a fairly accurate sampling, and I’m especially impressed with the professional and self-taught scientists who sometimes frequent here.
But here’s the larger point: Global Climate models, while far from perfect, have accurately predicted some of the earliest effects of increased CO2, namely the decline of Arctic sea ice and general warming of the Arctic. Now AGW skeptics would love to say this has all happened before and show pictures of submarines coming up in open water at the N. Pole, etc., but any reasonably well-educated person who studies this issue in depth knows that the changes going on in the Arctic right now have not happened in at least 2,000 years, and probably much longer. GCM’s have shown this will occur based on CO2 and related positive feedbacks. To what do AGW skeptics ascribe it? It’s been happening now for far too many decades to be “natural variability”. And if it the Arctic does not recover, but continues to decline, despite a quiet Maunder Minimum sun, what will AGW skeptics continue to ascribe it too? GCM’s have shown it will occur based on CO2 increases, yet skeptics seem to be without an explanation other than “natural variability”. That excuse works for one or two years, or maybe up to a decade of out of the “normal” weather, but when it goes on 20, 30, or more years, and across multiple ups and downs of solar cycles, ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. etc. that excuse fails.

Does anyone have the predictions for SC24.
Suspect looking at the original forecast would better show how far things are out of tilt.

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:47 am
Just because their models ,produce a graph that nearly mimics observed temps (not nearly really according to Lucia’s rather good analysis) doesn’t mean that CO² was the cause. It could mean that they had a bit of luck and that the graph was ‘forced’ well.

M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
….namely the decline of Arctic sea ice and general warming of the Arctic…To what do AGW sceptics ascribe it?
Mr. Gates,
We meet again. Certainly not to CO2, I shall write about it soon, but here is a primer (note warning at the top of the web page)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-dBz.htm
____
Your ideas do at least intrigue me, and your pages do remain a great resource for general climate data.

My prediction:
SC 24 maximum – not before ~2014/15
SC 24/25 shift (next minimum) – not before 2021/22 (SC 24 is not going to be shorter than ~12 y, maybe even significantly longer).
Cooling ahead.

stephen richards says:
July 9, 2011 at 12:09 pm
R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:47 am
Just because their models ,produce a graph that nearly mimics observed temps (not nearly really according to Lucia’s rather good analysis) doesn’t mean that CO² was the cause. It could mean that they had a bit of luck and that the graph was ‘forced’ well.
_____
The GCM’s are usually poor on details but excellent at trends, and of course, not useful for spotting tipping points. If the GCM’s say the Arctic will continue warming, and sea ice continue declining, what does it really matter if it an totally ice fee summer happens in 2080 or 2050 or 2030? Tipping points, natural variability, and currently unknown (and thus not included in the model) climate forcing are the limits to making the GCM’s even better. The first two things can’t ever be improved upon, but the last can.

R. Shearer says:
July 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Mr. Gates, three decades is not “too many.” Further, there is evidence that it was warmer in the arctic during the Medieval Warming Period, which occured less than 2000 years ago.
____
Please cite the research showing the Arctic was warmer during the MWP than now…I’d love to take a look at it.

I still remember the comments on the WUWT solar posts from 2009: people debating, throwing all sorts of predictions around and describing various scenarios. Some even claimed that the picture would become much clearer in 1 or 2 years…
» to July 2011 and still the mysteries remain! It gets more and more interesting the longer we wait and observe.
I believe it’s really starting to look like we will be experiencing a grand solar minimum in our lifetime!

@R Gates
You seem to have changed from being 25% skeptic to simply taunting skeptics.
Have you been neglecting to wear your tinfoil hat?

Billy Liar says:
July 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm
@R Gates
You seem to have changed from being 25% skeptic to simply taunting skeptics.
Have you been neglecting to wear your tinfoil hat?
______
Solar/GCR/cloud effects, UV stratospheric effects, solar-geomagnetic effects, etc. etc. etc.all remain quite interesting to me, but are currently unquantified. They are interesting and not to be completely discounted, hence I’m still a “skeptic”, but CO2 remains the best explanation for a large part of the warming we’ve seen over the later part of the 20th century, and which also made 2000-2009 the warmest decade on record.
Really don’t mean to “taunt” anyone, BTW

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm
—
Please cite the research showing the Arctic was warmer during the MWP than now…I’d love to take a look at it.
—
Here’s a reference for you:
“temperatures during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period,” defined as occurring “some 900 to 1300 years ago, “were as warm as or slightly warmer than present day Greenland temperatures”
Vinther, B.M., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Clausen, H.B., Andersen, K.K., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Johnsen, S.J. 2010. Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 522-538.
You know about the settlements of vikings, no?

The Earth in the long-range either follows a continuosly increasing “Hockey Stick” temperature graph or more and more people will feel cheated and misslead.

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Billy is correct: Your posts are trollish.
This thread is about the Sun, what it’s doing, and where it heads from here.
You want a link? Here: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
And here: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin10.htm

After reading this blog and other over the last several years, I am only sure of one thing: AGW is surely NOT settled science as we have been lectured about by Al Gore and his ilk.

R. Gates,
With the world’s population being what it is, we all better pray we don’t have another little ice age! Especially since the idiots in the government are doing their utmost to destroy our electric generating capacity.

” Further, there is evidence that it was warmer in the arctic during the Medieval Warming Period, which occured less than 2000 years ago. ”
No !:
Recent melt rates of Canadian Arctic ice caps are the highest in four millennia – Fisher et al. (2011)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811100097X
“There has been a rapid acceleration in ice-cap melt rates over the last few decades across the entire Canadian Arctic. Present melt rates exceed the past rates for many millennia. New shallow cores at old sites bring their melt series up-to-date. The melt-percentage series from the Devon Island and Agassiz (Ellesmere Island) ice caps are well correlated with the Devon net mass balance and show a large increase in melt since the middle 1990s. Arctic ice core melt series (latitude range of 67 to 81 N) show the last quarter century has seen the highest melt in two millennia and The Holocene-long Agassiz melt record shows the last 25 years has the highest melt in 4200 years. The Agassiz melt rates since the middle 1990s resemble those of the early Holocene thermal maximum over 9000 years ago.”
—————
A millennial perspective on Arctic warming from 14C in quartz and plants emerging from beneath ice caps – Anderson et al. (2008)
http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Anderson_et_al_2008.pdf
“Observational records show that the area of ice caps on northern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada has diminished by more than 50% since 1958. Fifty 14C dates on dead vegetation emerging beneath receding ice margins document the persistence of some of these ice caps since at least 350 AD.[…] The rapid disappearance of these ice caps over the past century, despite decreasing summer insolation, further demonstrates the unusual character of 20th Century warmth.”
————
A millennial-scale record of Arctic Ocean sea ice variability and the demise of the Ellesmere Island ice shelves – England et al. (2008)
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/6877/1/6877.pdf
“[…] Removal of the remaining ice shelves would be unprecedented in the last 5500 years. This
highlights the impact of ongoing 20th and 21st century climate warming that continues to break up the remaining ice shelves and soon may cause historically ice-filled fiords nearby to open seasonally.”
———–
Examining Arctic Ice Shelves Prior to the 2008 Breakup – Mueller et al (2008)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO490002.shtml
“This past summer, Ellesmere’s 50-square-kilometer Markham Ice Shelf also broke away, and there was major fracturing throughout the eastern half and well into the western half of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which is the largest remaining ice shelf in the Northern Hemisphere. Together, all of the Canadian ice shelves lost a total of 23% of their area during summer 2008, leaving only 720 square kilometers behind. Some fjords along northern Ellesmere Island are now ice free for the first time in 3000–5500 years”

jtom says:
July 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Someone likened the cold winters to the door of a refrigerator (the polar regions) being left open, cooling the room (northern hemisphere). If you leave the door to a refrigerator open, it will cool a room down somewhat (assuming the heat from the refrigerator’s condensor isn’t pumped back in the room. But what happens to the temperatures inside the refrigerator?
It gets warmer. No CO2 involved.
Agree except for the “it gets warmer” part. With the sun out of the picture during the Polar Winter, the heat in the refrigerator is just like the leaking O2 aboard Apollo 13….it escapes to space. We certainly have extended winters and springs as collateral data, as well as cold fronts getting much further towards the equator. The next step is to be able to establish proof that the Sun is responsible.

steven mosher says:
July 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm
“Please cite the research showing the Arctic was warmer during the MWP than now…I’d love to take a look at it.”…
“I love the “evidence” people pull up to “prove” this. the same yokels who dont believe todays thermometers lap up the MWP bathwater.
C02 (according to the consensus) is less than 50% of all forcings. And, if the MWP was warmer, with less C02, then you’ve got a more sensitive climate. It makes for a worse future.”
———-
????? I find no logical consistency in your argument. If the climate were so sensitive to CO2 as you claim, would we not be much warmer now than in the Medieval Warm Period, no matter what the sun was doing? What has this to do with the so-called consensus that CO2 is responsible for less than 50% of all forcings? Since the warming in the MWP has not been explained, there is nothing to say that our current warming is not due to exactly the same factors, and that CO2 plays a miniscule role at best. “Sensitive climate” refers to CO2 sensitivity, for which I have seen no compelling demonstration from the scientific community. Where is the evidence that our supposed warming is worse than ever before (which is the warmist argument)?
I know R.Gates would like us to dig up the thermostatic scientific records from the WMP, to finally convince him. Of course, the thermometer lay 400 or more years in the future. I accuse him of ‘scientism’ which privileges scientifically-derived knowledge above all other forms. Surely the historical evidence must give some pause to the alarmists – records of Norse farming and semi-successful settlements in Greenland etc.. On top of this, modern archaeology (or simple observation) is discovering new northerly sites revealing human activity previously covered in glaciers or snow. I would like to see the warmist explanation for these phenomena, to justify the contention that it was not warmer in the past. It’s in your court, Steve Mosher and R. Gates.

“Here’s a clue gents.
1. it may well have been warmer in the MWP
2. That means the climate is MORE sensitive than we currently think”
This nonsense does not die.
How warm it was in the MWP, has nothing to do with “climate sensitivity”.

Those wishing the ice to melt in the Arctic to prove their precious CO2 global warming need to go further back to pre-history. Human habitation in the last ice age that has recently come to light with a melting of some previous ice covered areas, would tend to suggest that the arctic in an ice age is relatively benign. The nasty bit of the ice age is further south. Thus wishing the ice to melt in the Arctic is a fools errand that may be a precursor to our next cold spell.

BenfromMO says:
July 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“You can not tell me that the models are correct to within the required parameters to predict even arctic warming…..that is just a coincidence.”
____
Before making such an outrageously wrong statement, I suggest you really get familiar with the complexity of global climate models. Sure they aren’t perfect, but their ability to predict Arctic warming and decreased year-to-year sea ice is hardly a coincidence. I suggest you start here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/
And this statement regarding your perception of how you perceive climate scientists think::
““We do not know what is causing the warming, so it must be CO2.”
Display incredible ignorance on how this process works. Really.

R. Gates tosses out a series of challenges that beg to be met. Inasmuch as R. Gates appears to have as little science background as I do, I’ll undertake to meet his simple challenges.
To begin with, R. Gates challenges skeptics to establish what their response will be if the predicted solar minimum fails to slow “decade to decade” rise in global temperatures. Next: R. Gates tells us that the “larger point” is that global climate models have “accurately predicted” a “decline of Arctic ice and general warming of the Arctic.” Moreover, if the Arctic and its sea ice have not recovered by the end of the solar minima, then climate is not warming because of natural variability, but because of CO2. After all, R. Gates says, CO2 based GCMs have been tested for decades….maybe 30 years or more! Lest we fear that GCMs do not take into account all the possible variables, R. Gates assures us, the models are continuously updated with all “forcing dynamics.” Indeed, R. Gates would head to Las Vegas if GCM, “running vastly different simulations, but using the basic physics of CO2” all indicated AGW! Moreover, CO2 is the thermostatic switch that Milankovitch cycles initiates.
My reply is: If the current solar minima turns out to be merely an unusual solar minima, then we’ve learned something. Hopefully, we’ve recorded all the lows and highs of solar variability and plugged them into our collective knowledge base. Nonetheless, I’m already in “Las Vegas” going long on orange juice futures and short on Canadian grain. I’m also thinking winter clothing is a good investment. Mr. Gates’ “larger point” that GMCs, tested for almost 30 years, “accurately predicted” the “decline of Arctic ice and general warming of the Arctic”; thus, if the Arctic ice doesn’t increase in the near future, then CO2 drives the climate! I’m not at all convinced that the Arctic is warmer and the ice there is less than frozen. Winds and currents appear to have moved the Arctic around a bit, but it still appears to be frozen. What I find interesting is that the Arctic Oscillation—discovered in the 19502—has recently turned largely negative, not to mention the NAO, PDO and ENSO. I personally am interested in seeing what that will do to not only the weather in the next few years, but to the Arctic ice as well. I personally wonder whether the prolonged diminution in solar wind has caused a “collapse” of the polar atmosphere, which in turn has caused a relative high pressure system and a negative AO. Maybe, after 30 years or so of study, R. Gates will add that into a GCM.
Given that GCMs rely on less than half a century of data and “hindcasts,” I find little comfort in R. Gates’ promises that GCMs are updated to include newly discovered “forcings dynamic” on climate and weather. Notwithstanding his assurances, heretofore, his CO2 AGW GCMs appear to marginalize TSI as a constant, which in recent years is shown to be far more variable than previously recognized. Indeed, the more energetic solar spectra vary significantly with the variability of the star.
Moreover, R. Gates is content that he is favored by a benign phase of the Milankovich cycle as well as multiple GCMs, “running vastly different simultaneous programs, but using basic physics of CO2,” so that he will head to Las Vegas at his earliest opportunity to lay down his money on global warming. I’d rather he tell us what he buys on Wall Street, so that we can take the contrarian view in the next few years and see who is the richer for the experience.

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 7:00 pm
=======
OK, i’m cherry-picking but you say:
“…I suggest you really get familiar with the complexity of global climate models. Sure they aren’t perfect….”
So, I’m too stupid to understand the complexities of the climate models, which are too stupid to model the climate.
Now what ?

And this statement regarding your perception of how you perceive climate scientists think::
““We do not know what is causing the warming, so it must be CO2.”
Display incredible ignorance on how this process works. Really.
————————————————————————————–
Go read the principle of exclusion again. They narrowed out every possible result that WE KNOW of and since CO2 is all that is left, assumed the rest of the warming is CO2. You see, if you knew what I was talking about there and had read about this logical fallacy which was features here on WUWT, you would realize that this mistake happened once before and it happens in science when you assume that we know everything there is to know about say the climate. That is just arrogant beyond extreme to assume like that and likewise: WRONG.
This is a cardinal mistake, and by defending it and futher insulting me for calling climate scientists to task on this is rather put: (Self-censored) –
What I can’t believe is how many parameters they assume are just correct in GCM’s. If Steven Mosher’s description is correct and I was mistaken, just wow. I thought it was common sense to fine-tune parameters based on actual data, not on laboratory physics that have nothing to do with real life. To explain it further, the climate is a chaotic system. This is a given. In a chaotic system, every variable has an effect on every other variable, so changing one variable at one point means you have to fine-tune every other variable over-time, otherwise the chaotic and correct GCM is then nothing more then a linear model approximation of that which you are modeling. In order to predict “tipping points” and other such points in a chaotic system, this absolutly requires changing variables, and not just cloud cover…
I thought the problem with hind-casting was simple incompetentence or bad modeling practices, boy if this is correct, it means the problem is more deep-seated and originates from a lack of understanding of even the fundamental facts of the climate and weather systems. Shame on them for even pretending to be experts…..and for pretending to be chaos scientists working on the frontier. If this is the case, GCM’s are not chaotic models, they are linear models and are no better then weather models…in fact I would say worse since they tell us they can predict the future.
However, I appreciate you explanation S. Mosher, and I give you props. I do think you might be somewhat mistaken on the interaction of variables or maybe factors in a chaotic system. Even if climate sensitivity is higher (which can not even be proven assuming a MWP) then we think, this just means that the variables are more dynamic so to speak. This means that it doesn’t take as large of changes obviously to change the basic premises we think are true..and as such it leads to large changes which in the end are unpredictable. This means we have no clue to what the actual effect of CO2 increasing has on our planet. ZILCH, no idea whatsoever. My guess, your guess, everyone’s guess is just the roll of the die..maybe somewhat educated or maybe not, but its still just a guess since the higher the sensitivity of the climate system, the more likely we can not even begin to model it correctly.
What can we do with what we know: we can predict something large might happen, but then again, another negative feedback could come up, swallow up that effect and leave us with no change too. We could also have a point where a positive feedback (increased CO2) results in temperatures driving downward due to tipping another variable (which we do not understand) and making us colder. This is just a likely as assuming CO2 has a certain forcing based on conditions in a greenhouse…and that this value is stagnant if not larger at all times. Its all a guess like I said…and I think you were making a similar point to me, but I still do not quite understand how they could model this in this method, it just does not make sense for a chaotic system……
To condense somewhat: Most feedbacks in a chaotic system tend to drive the system towards a new stability point. After a series of bad (read maybe extreme) events, the system evens out and a new equilibrium is reached. I know this is important because in the end even if sensitivity is increased, it just means we can not predict the future climate as well as we think we can.
Or maybe our assumptions are wrong in the input parameters and the said interactions. That is a serious problem with GCM’s, and I am sure I am not the first to talk about this, but since cloud cover is still not fixed as an issue, I still wonder why we still talk about GCM’s in any regard?
That small blunder alone sets them out as wrong, and I think real modeling would prove them wrong on just about every variable. At some point, yes they are probably correct given a temperature of 20.1322 C and Rel Hum = 34.213%, but as you vary from that the forcing will change in small steps.
I know this is long, but RGates, no insults. That gets you no where, and by the way, your link was worthless. It told me nothing of value about GCM’s.
If you have more relevant information on how they make GCM’s, feel free to share it, just don’t call me wrong and link me to some site that tells me nothing on how I am wrong.
I am from the State of Missouri, SHOW IT TO ME or stand down soldier. That is all.

well, NASA seems to give credit to unusual wind patterns, re arctic ice – although quietly.
but then, R Gates simply won’t let current climate science get in the way of his bulldozer.

BenfromMO says:
July 9, 2011 at 10:36 pm
RGates says:
Before making such an outrageously wrong statement, I suggest you really get familiar with the complexity of global climate models. Sure they aren’t perfect, but their ability to predict Arctic warming and decreased year-to-year sea ice is hardly a coincidence
———————————
So tell me, since they are so perfect on that score, why is it that they predict a warming arctic? Since you are the resident expert on GCM’s after calling me wrong, why not tell me why it is that GCM’s predict a warming arctic? (lets not even worry about year to year sea ice for now…but if you get part 1 correct, you can answer that as well.
______
I am not the resident expert on GCM’s, but thanks for that. I do understand them well enough though to know that their simulations are far from “dumb luck” when showing certain scenarios. They involve the extremely complicated formulas and some of the most complex models ever created– they are after all, modeling solar, ocean, ice, atmosphere, etc.interactions for an entire planet at increasingly higher and higher resolutions. The super-computers used for running the earth climate simulations (and I’ve seen some of them at NCAR in Boulder, CO) take up entire large rooms. Yes, it is a nice past-time for skeptics to bash these models and claim that the climate is all either a random walk or simply, “the sun did it all” but neither of these explanations has any scientific basis. To your question though, the reason that the Arctic is the area where global warming has been modeled to, and in fact is, warming first and most dramatically with increases in CO2 has to with many factors, including polar amplification, the nature of heating in the tropics versus the polar regions, the difference between the 2 mile thick land based ice at the south pole and the few meter thick sea ice at the north pole, etc. A rather nice, easy to understand summary of all these dynamics can be found here:
http://www.digitaluniverse.net/Arctic/articles/view/131804/?topic=8709

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 1:49 pm
“…….I’m still a “skeptic”, but CO2 remains the best explanation for a large part of the warming……
Really don’t mean to “taunt” anyone, BTW.”
R. Gates says:
“July 9, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Ah, the old, “it’s all the wind and currents moving the ice around.” answer eh? If you really believe this, I mean really believe it, then you are beyond educating as there is plenty of evidence and massive data to completely refute this simple-minded explanation, but you would probably reject it all as you don’t want to consider them. There is no need for us to have any more dialog.”
Response – If you really believe, I mean really believe that your 9:31pm arrogant, derisive, dismissively taunting response does not conflict with your 1:49pm statement that you “really don’t mean to taunt anyone”, then you are fundamentally dishonest, as your direct duplicity demonstrates. You. deserve no further respect or tolerance. You are not “25% skeptic”. You are 100% TROLL. Your dismissive statement “There is no need for us to have any more dialog.” is self prophetic. Please stand by that statement. There is no need for anyone to have any more dialog with you.

Just FYI, Willis Eschenbach has done a “black box” analysis of a couple climate models, e.g. here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/
The discussion was quite lively.

From David Archibald’s Update, I’ve been struck by the similarity between Solar Cycles 22,23,24 and Cycles 3,4,5. It occurs to that if the sun was the main driver then the temperatures over the 2 periods should be pretty similar. I checked the last 15 years (1996-2010) of the CET record with the corresponding solar cycle period (1786-1800) in the late 18th/early 19th century. However there seems to be quite a difference.
Mean temp 1786-1800: 9.06 deg
Mean temp 1786-1800: 10.21 deg
The most recent 15 year period (covering SC23 and the start of SC24) is more than 1 deg C warmer than the last 15 years (covering SC4 and the start of SC5) of the 18th century. Remember this is comparing exactly like with like, so lags are not an issue. Also both periods follow strong solar cycles (i.e. SC3 and SC22 respectively).
Actually the mean temperature for the 15 year period following 1786-1800 (i.e. 1801-1815) was 8.97 so the deepening minimum didn’t have that much of an effect anyway. But the real “dagger to the heart” of the solar case is that the mean temperature for the 1771-1785 period (i.e. covering the strong SC3 cycle) is 9.12 deg C – hardly any different at all. It looks like Lockwood and posters such as Vukcevic may be right. Apart from, perhaps, increasing the likelihood of a cold winter, solar activity has very little influence on average temperature.
The 1781-1820 linear trend is a NON-significant -0.04 deg per decade
I’m pretty sure it’s a similar story if you check out other long term records such as Armagh and Uppsala. It’s not just a CET issue.

CORRECTION
Re: John Finn says:
July 10, 2011 at 3:38 am
This

Mean temp 1786-1800: 9.06 deg
Mean temp 1786-1800: 10.21 deg

should say this

Mean temp 1786-1800: 9.06 deg
Mean temp 1996-2010: 10.21 deg

RGates, so you have no clue on why the GCM’s predict a warming arctic along with a eroding arctic ice pack? This is at least an honest answer, and I do give you props on being honest.
But I can tell you why its the way it is. When you average out grids over 200KM (which is where most climate models are doing today.) You take a very high average that generally assumes “land” or “ocean” depending on a number of guesses. Of course, this is approrpriate in modeling, you can not get infinite accuracy. I did do a little more research on this problem but still can not get much farther then I am since most posts are aimed at scientifically and computer illiterate persons.
But to be clear, when you average out over any distance…and as time goes by this decreases and theoritically the models should get more accurate, but no matter how small you get, you have assumptions here that may or may not work for the Earth. In the case of GCM’s, they assume a certain albedo for arctic environments…and this is worthless…because the angle of the sun and the amount of solar actually absorbed at these extreme latitudes is not enough to make a difference in temperatures anyway…no matter what the albedo..so they miss the boat for the arctic. In addition, this changes a TON over small changes in latitude in the summer as day length can change over hours of time when you travel 200KM. There are tons of things like this that cause issues in GCM’s in arctic and antarctic environments. They just can not really do well in these environments due the vast differences in the grid cells. Smaller grid cells do not fix this problem, this problem is inherent in the GCM paradigm…that in which differences between blocks are assumed to be the same over the entire globe to a certain extent and they do not even get close to attempting to figure out if this is true or not. So albedo factors as I have noted are just a guess for the arctic, because in the end the averaging and the weather pattern forecasting/modeling which work for the most part on the rest of the globe run into the problem of “changes in latitude at the arctic result in larger differences between cells in the arctic.”
So why would they keep these false albedo and other approximations if they are generally that bad? The assumption I can tell you comes from a fudge factor. (not the famous fudge factor mind you, just another..I found 3 new ones last night just looking at various GCM’s that I would call fudge factors but they call them “inspired” in one case…what a laugh.)
But this fudge factor is based on 2 different trains of thought:
The basic premise of AGW is that the arctic warms fastest and temperate regions warm faster then tropics because the solar insolation and heat (energy) trapping effects of CO2 have basically no impact in the arctic especially. This means there is NO DIRECT EFFECT from CO2. This is not something that is argued. Somehow, the arctic has to originally heat. Where does this original heat come from?
In the theory of AGW, it comes from a hot troposphere hot spot which via hadley/ferral cells moves warm air north. The solar insolation is so vastly superior in tropical and temperate zones that the heat can therefore move north at much larger volumes then the pitiful changes in albedo seen at the poles.
But they can not approximate a large transfer of heat in this fashion easilly with GCM’s, so instead of approximating this (which would make the GCM’s vastly more complicated, and which would not match reality today) they fudge this and simply keep the incorrect albedo readings to an extent and keep the generalized average albedo reading for the rest of the globe which result in arctic values which are just plainly: wrong. So yes, its a simple coincidence that these models match reality at all in the arctic. The fudge factors there would make the arctic warm up no matter what world temperatures did, and this is the key you should be looking for above all else. Without an enhanced arctic warming and sea-ice melting, these models are impossibly incorrect and this fudge factor pops up like the monster it is. This is why so many warmists are so strongly jumping up and down about the arctic. If sea ice started going up and the arctic cooled down “Beyond a reasonable doubt” this throws the monkey into their models and they are proven wrong that way. As I said, their fudge factors assume a warming arctic just about no matter what..and if the arctic is not warming, its COOLING by a ton. Just watch as we start to cool naturally and sea ice picks up…it oughta be fun right?
Can I say that I know the answer to these grids in the arctic which are so vastly different then any other grid that represents the planet? No, and I doubt anyone has a simple model with the GCM paradigm. I would submit that GCM’s will never work for modelling the Earth correctly….and this is largely due to the arctic where you would have to use either smaller grids or different metrics of cell interaction. Becomes very complicated very quickly beyond anything we can imagine…
So in essence, roughly 8% of the globe in arctic (antarctic) environments skews the general models…and this 8% is enough to throw this entire region into question, and when talking about such topics as sea ice and temperatures, I don’t think anyone who takes these predictions to the bank really understands how models work and how the basic curvature of the Earth results in such huge problems for modeling the arctic globally. The simple explanation: Its the curvature and low angles of the sun…….that result in huge differences and problems in modeling the grids in the arctic anyway similar to the rest of the globe.
They might get most physics and reactions on this planet right. I don’t know anyone who has found blatant mistakes yet in GCM’s, but they are riddled with fudge factors, incorrect physics (especially in clouds which they have changed around every year for the last 7 years)…and other factors its a shame to be honest. That anyone takes their results for granted and says they match reality when our elementary method of measuring sea ice (maximum extent at the minimum..seriously thats a good metric?) I tried to explain earlier how small mistakes in the physics can lead to huge erroneous results further down the pipeline, but I was called names for pointing that out….
Arctic temperatures (lets just make the same mistake with the measured data that we did with our models (Dr. Hansen) and use cells in our temperature adjustments so that we make the same mistake with the same methodology in measuring arctic temperatures…GISS) And then what happens in GCM’s if sea ice starts an inevitable upward track?
In that case, the GCM’s start showing enhanced arctic cooling like I mentioned earlier…so basically these models are so sensitive (hyper or too sensitive if you ask me) that they are basically worthless and just guessing.
How much is the arctic warming? Well if you measure it with the same technique you used to model it, I am sure both methods will prove to be correct.
But does that match reality? That is the goal of every model on the planet to match reality. Well we shall see I guess. I give the GCM’s .000001% chance of being right. And that chance I base on the God of Dumb luck, so yes R Gates, I do believe these models are nothing but wastes of space and that they come up with arctic warming and sea ice going downwards due to fudge factors that they never decided to fix correctly. So its dumb luck that it matches reality even close to today despite a couple facts which you really need to consider:
GCM’s never predicted the last 15 years almost not showing very little or no warming. Has the arctic been warming during this time period? Well who knows?
But in essence the questions that should be asked when showing lower sea ice is this: (not the ones that have been asked I remind you by warmists..)
Have temperatures correlated with lower sea ice? Is there lag time between minimum sea ice at minimum and temperature?
Is weather an influence on the yearly minimum?
Is this metric even worth showing?

What is it with the troll R Gates? Most of his/her arguments are just ad homs and appeals to authority and “my computer is really really big and my equations are very complex so they got to be better than yours” and “none of you know what you are talking about”.
YAWN. I have just about had enough of his/her condescending contributions that unfortunately add nothing that relates to this thread.
/ignore

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:51 pm
“But in terms of the basic dynamics of increases in CO2 at the levels we’ve seen over the past few hundred years and it’s relationship to global warming…yes, I think we’ve got most of this modeled pretty well. (at least the linear part, for we may never model the non-linear “tipping points” very well as these are chaotic by nature.”
The old “we got the basic physics right” Realclimate canard, and then followed by an admission that we unfortunately can only guess the dynamics. R. Gates, by that argument i could say that each time it rains the Earth gets wet, so we’ll all necessarily drown (we still have to figure out what happens between rainfalls but we have the basic physics right).

Pamela Gray says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:35 am
——
Pamela,
I thank you for your dispassionate and clear statement on climate change determination criteria.
I concur generally.
I suggest, that in addition, there needs more real earth system evaluation (not by models) of the ‘radiative physics’ which some say causes statistically significant (wrt natural variation) permanent warming by the (unfortunately named) greenhouse CO2 gas. It is not sufficient to say ‘all things being equal’ that additional CO2 simply yields either significant transient or permanent warming when statistically compared to natural variation.
John

R Gates,
“IF we should go into a Maunder type minimum, what excuses will the AGW skeptics have if we don’t get their much talked about and anticipated new “LIttle Ice Age”, but rather, on a decade to decade basis, global temps continue to rise.”
Then the sceptics will also have been proven right about the scamming of the temperature record!!
8>)

Steven Mosher,
“Now, if a small change in the suns output ( remember we only care about the change in forcing
not the source, watts is watts) drives a big chill… well, then you better be more worried about C02. Thats a more sensitive climate.”
Actually that is exactly what part of the argument is about. Watts is NOT Watts. (sorry Anthony)
If the amount of energy is the same but the frequencies delivering that energy changes, the effect on the earth can change. You know this.
We have seen that there is some validity to the high energy cosmic ray theory of Svensmark. Again, this will cause extra cooling for the same change in Watts.
Then there is the change in the direct effects on the magnetic field and upper atmosphere by the charged particles of the solar wind and the sun’s decreased magnetic field.
These and possibly other effects are there in the net measurements, but, not attributed correctly.
So, the deflection is NOT only a direct influence of Watts (or TSI) and we probably don’t have to worry about a glaciation starting anytime soon.

From the projected Linear Trend Department:
Hear ye, hear ye: All trends are hereby etched in stone. All areas getting warmer will fry like egss. All areas getting colder will enter a cyrogenic state. All areas getting wetter will wash away or become inundated. All areas getting drier will turn to a pile of sand & rocks.
The Earth will continue to move towards the Sun indefinately, since we have passed aphelion, until it burns to a crisp, until awoken by Mrs Bronson, where the Earth moves relentlessly away from the Sun.
Don’t you just love linear trends without end, amen? /sarc

steven mosher says:
July 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm
………………
1. it may well have been warmer in the MWP
2. That means the climate is MORE sensitive than we currently think.

More sensitive to what?

R. Gates,
The “Maunder type minimum” occured during the Little Ice Age, it did not cause the LIA.

jtom says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:07 pm
You misunderstood, my bad. The Sun is only out of the picture for warming the Arctic during Winter.
The question should be: Do we have solid evidence that the Sun is responsible for shoving the Jet Streams toward the Equator?

Jimbo says:
July 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm
R. Gates,
The “Maunder type minimum” occured during the Little Ice Age, it did not cause the LIA.
______
How can you be so sure that solar influences didn’t play a causal role in the LIA? Not perhaps the only role, as we know there were volcanic eruptions, but a causal role at some level It seems that even the much beloved Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have come to this conclusion (no doubt much to the surprise of many AGW skeptics, who fail to grasp the bigger issues). In a 2001 paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.full.pdf) they wrote:
“These results provide evidence that relatively
small solar forcing may play a significant
role in century-scale NH winter climate
change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures
over the NH continents during portions
of the 15th through the 17th centuries
(sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and
warmer temperatures during the 12th through
14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm
Period) may have been influenced by longterm
solar variations.”
Does this surprise some skeptics? I suppose it would if they’d not done their research to understand that solar influences have never been excluded from having an effect on earth’s climate by all climate scientists. The real issue is the point at which anthropogenic factors overwhelm the natural sources of variability such as the sun and even Milankovitch cycles.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the claim that a warmer MWP means a higher “climate sensitivity” (CS) that supports the CAGW agenda. The SteveF reference helped (thanks, Mosh!), and I understand that for a forcing of known magnitude, the greater the net temperature response the greater the CS.
But for the claim about the MWP to be true,
1. Don’t we have to know the magnitude of all the forcings for the MWP?
2. If so, do we?
BTW, I’m awfully skeptical about calculating CS from history/prehistory, given the uncertainties in temperature and “forcings” reconstructions, but if the alarmists are pushing this point…

Stephen Wilde says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:38 am
John Finn.
The average global temperature doesn’t change much because the system response is always negative for any forcing whether towards warming or cooling.
I’m not sure how you explain the glacial/interglacial periods then.

Steve Mosher linked to http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
Steve, that post SteveF points out a few weaknesses in his approach. However he leaves out the biggest one of all which is that sensitivity depends almost completely on the distribution of water vapor. If water vapor is evenly distributed, then sensitivity will be high. If not it will be low (as low as negative feedback to warming). You are SteveF and many other people are hung up on the radiation is fungible concept. It is, but it is irrelevant. The radiative forcing of GHGs as a whole depends on what happens with water vapor.

R. Gates says:
July 9, 2011 at 11:09 am
on a decade to decade basis, global temps continue to rise.
—
Please let me know when that starts.

Let’s hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

It’s so entertaining watching the climate boffins clutch at reasons for why there’s been no warming since 1998. Aerosol emission by Chinese coal is my favorite so far.