Guest post by David Archibald
George Orwell said,” He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” Some amongst us have used that as an instruction manual and have attempted to create confusion about the sunspot number record. We can sidestep all that by using the F10.7 flux which can’t be fiddled with and adjusted. The F10.7 instrument record goes back to 1948:
It has been previously derived that the break-over between sea level rising and falling is a sunspot number of 40: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/ A sunspot number of 40 equates to a F10.7 flux of 100.
WUWT recently alerted us to the existence of Usoskin’s 2010 paper on solar activity during the Holocene, available here: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
Usoskin’s paper contains a lot of useful information that allows us to backtest the relationship between solar activity and sea level. For example, consider that if the average sunspot number over the Holocene had been above or below 40 over the Holocene, then sea level would have risen or fallen over the Holocene according to my theory. His Figure 18 provides the answer:
Figure 18 shows that the average sunspot number over the Holocene was very near 40. We can also tie sea level events over the Holocene to the detail in Usoskin’s Figure 17:
The figure above is the last six thousand years of sunspot number. It is evident the average sunspot number was higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. Sea level therefore should have been higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. That is confirmed by a 2007 paper on Holocene sea level variability: http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcuprd_054910.pdf
From the abstract,”the Holocene sea-level highstand of +1.0 – 1.5 m was reached ~ 7000 cal yr BP and fell to its present position after 2000 yr BP.” Low sunspot periods from Usoskin’s Figure 17 are evident in the sea level record. Further from that abstract,”During this ~ 5000 year period of high sea level, growth hiatuses in oyster beds and tubeworms and lower elevations of microatolls are interpreted to represent short-lived oscillations in sea-level of up to 1 m during two intervals, beginning c.4800 and 3000 cal yr BP. The rates of sea-level rise and fall (1-2 mm yr) during these centennial scale oscillations are comparable with current rates of sea-level rise.” On Usoskin’s Figure 17, the 4,800 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 2,800 BC and the 3,000 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 800 BC.
The Usoskin paper contains another instructive figure, his Figure 13 of an example of a reconstruction of the heliospheric magnetic field at Earth orbit for the last 600 years:
The benign period of the second half of the 20th Century is associated with a far more active Sun. The cold periods are associated with a heliospheric magnetic field of under 2 nT. How does that compare with the modern instrument record? The following figure shows that the recent range of the magnetic field equates to that of the first half of the 20th Century:
Now back to the F10.7 flux and sea level. Based on the length of Solar Cycle 24 derived from Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram and Livingston and Penn’s prediction of peak Solar Cycle 25 sunspot amplitude of 7, we can predict the general form of the F10.7 flux to 2040:
I have come to the conclusion that a F10.7 Flux of 100 is the breakover between heating and cooling on Earth. It explains most things to me. My best guess on that at this point is January 2015, following which, two decades of cooling will ensue.
chris y says:
September 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Do you still stand by your prediction of cycle 24 maximum occurring in 2011?
If you read the paper you’ll see that we actually did not try to predict the time of maximum. We mentioned 2011 as the ‘canonical time’ which is simply 11 years after the previous maximum in 2000, just to indicate that we were predicting an occurrence pretty much in the future [like at least 7 years]. Not everyone follow the solar cycles so some perspective is needed. I actually wanted to use a later date [as cycle 23 was rather low so its length was expected to be somewhat longer than average], but the referee wouldn’t let me, so we simply threw him a bone with the ‘canonical time’.
Neville. says:
September 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
The warmers made the 50,000 year figure up. That is why it is a nice round number. I just found a nice model of insolation and glaciation on my PC. Someone must have given it to me in March this year. From that, the next glacial period will be fully developed at 50,000 years and the next interglacial at 73,000 years.
Leif Svalgaard says: “Except they haven’t”
Yeah, let’s play “did , didn’t” for a while, that’ll fix it.
UAH lower tropo does show a marked reduction in rate of change: http://i45.tinypic.com/2lt1r4l.png
Tide gauges also show the moderate increase in sea levels of the early to mid 90’s was gone by 2000. (Satellite versions suggest the water was piling up in mid ocean until around 2005.)
If you want to comment on rate of change you’d better look at rate of change, not the time series.
David Archibald says:
September 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm
The warmers made the 50,000 year figure up.
Nonsense, this is what the expected cycles look like: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insolation-Cycles.png
P. Solar says:
September 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm
There is also the issue of which heat reservoirs lose energy faster, and which slower. In the same way a cookie on a baking sheet continues to cook after you take it out of the oven. If you want nice, soft cookies, you have to remove them from the baking sheet immediately. Otherwise, they will continue to brown and get crunchy (and, I don’t like crunchy cookies). The heat is still flowing from one reservoir, the baking sheet, to the other, the cookie. In the case at hand, from the oceans to the atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“How low? A century per data point? or a solar cycle?”
Significantly lower, I believe, than a solar cycle. Try different values, and see what you come up with. With the different reservoirs in play, as I mention above, higher than first order is justified.
I’m not saying it would necessarily bear fruit – it seemed to for the guy at the link I posted, but I don’t really know what all he did or which data he was using. I’m just saying that an instantaneous response is not what I would expect in any case.
If I had the data (and the time), rather than such trial and error, I might try estimating an actual transfer function under the assumption that the solar activity is the dominant influence on the temperature, and see if I could replicate the output temperature by passing the input solar activity through it.
I should correct my use of the term “fallen drastically”. I wrote that because I had been mugged by the rigged satellite GMSL data, before I compared to tide gauges. Falling from > 3mm/a to zero in 5 years would be “drastic”.
In reality, there was bearly any rise going on in the first place to the fall to zero is less “drastic” then it seemed.
Leif’s comment in reply to Bart: “somebody forgot to tell the Earth” thus remains incorrect , which was my basic point.
Bart says:
September 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Significantly lower, I believe, than a solar cycle. Try different values, and see what you come up with. With the different reservoirs in play, as I mention above, higher than first order is justified.
Often people use the 22-yr average which looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-22yr-Averages,png
The green box shows that at the height of the “Grand Maximum in the last half of the 20th Century’ 22-yr [centered] average AP was no different from what it was in the 1860s. Now, perhaps it was the same as it was in the 21st century BC and there is a 4100 year lag…
P. Solar says:
September 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Leif’s comment in reply to Bart: “somebody forgot to tell the Earth” thus remains incorrect , which was my basic point.
somebody forgot to tell the Earth about the drastic change…
Often people use the 22-yr average which looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-22yr-Averages.png
Bart says:
September 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
I might try estimating an actual transfer function under the assumption that the solar activity is the dominant influence on the temperature, and see if I could replicate the output temperature by passing the input solar activity through it.
If you do that be sure to use the phony Group Sunspot Number to ensure a good correlation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Perhaps you could suggest the best data to use, and where to find it? Not saying I will do it, or at least anytime soon, so don’t hold your breath.
Bart , I have a lot of respect for some oh the stuff you have posted at Tallbloke’s and CA but I think you’re going off line on this one.
Your cookies may continue to cook , that is a chemical change caused by their temparature, but they will not continue to get hotter once they are removed form the oven. The heat in the tray may slow down thier cooling but that tray (ocean) will not be getting any hotter either once the oven is turned off .
You can have a phase lag while the heat is still applied but falling like August being hottest yet two months after peak solar input. The rate of change will still be +ve, though reduced (deceleration). That is what the data shows in the plots I provided above.
Perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say to Leif. The fact that the temp is still rising (probalby not the case anyway) during a reduction in solar input does not prove solar isn’t a (or the) major driving force.
That is why I am saying we should be looking at rate of change. When the driving force is reducing the rate of change will be reducing. That is exactly what is shown in the data I plotted.
Interesting to watch Leif duck and weave on the grand minimum question. I too like Vuk remember past statements like “we are not entering a grand minimum” and SC25 was going to be a large cycle (a recent statement). He like the most of those involved in solar science have no clue on what’s coming. Now incredibly Leif is predicting a maunder type event based on the L&P theory which is also some sort of get out clause.
I am very disheartened that the skeptic community has not challenged the so called L&P theory. There are quite a few scientists that are questioning this theory that have solid evidence and I also have been building data that flies in the face of the very weak skewed data that L&P and now Leif are putting forward.
I will provide some links and data shortly for those that wish to read all the science.
Bart says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Perhaps you could suggest the best data to use, and where to find it? Not saying I will do it, or at least anytime soon, so don’t hold your breath.
It depends on which parameter you want to use. There are several
1) TSI [the most obvious one]
2) SSN [everybody uses this one]
3) Ap [for the ones that say that what matters is the solar wind]
4) and for the temperatures: no matter what you do, someone will say the data is invalid
And which time resolution [month, 27-day rotation, yearly average]
I would use SSN or TSI.
A preliminary SSN series is here http://www.leif.org/research/New-SSNs.txt and an old [but still good] TSI series is here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.xls column L
Both of these are works in progress and may differ in details, but the general run should be better than the ‘official’ values. Another way to look at the difference is that represent some measure of uncertainty.
P. Solar says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say to Leif. The fact that the temp is still rising (probalby not the case anyway) during a reduction in solar input does not prove solar isn’t a (or the) major driving force.
A time base of a decade or two is not enough to decide this. The FAIL comes from the fact that temperatures have risen significantly the past 200-300 years, but solar activity has not.
Don’t be fooled on the attempted discreditation of the GSN record. This is science with an agenda.
There has been a flood of statements in the last few weeks on the unreliability of the GSN record coming from one source who has the ironing board out. The whole truth once again needs to be placed on the record, which has not been done yet and it is way too early to be making grand statements.
OK. So what “is” the cycle that is being (potentially) influenced?
Fusion happens deep in the sun’s core. Neutrino emission from those fusions happens (almost) instantaneously. Energy released – from some given fusion somewhere in the deep core – happens immediately.
But energy from a single “fuse” doesn’t get to the earth immediately.
But how long does that bit of energy take to get up from the core to the “emitting” surface of the sun so that it can get to the earth’s orbit so it can begin (potentially) influencing earth’s heat balance? Light radiation takes 8 minutes to arrive. But I understand it takes years for energy to go up through the sun. If so, just what offset is correct if one is trying to relate changes in received radiation to changes in cosmic radiation, planetary position, or climate?
10Be is formed in direct proportion to the amount of galactic cosmic radiation received, which is inversely related to the “protection” that the solar wind creates. So, if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
Geoff Sharp says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:33 pm
There has been a flood of statements in the last few weeks on the unreliability of the GSN record coming from one source who has the ironing board out. The whole truth once again needs to be placed on the record, which has not been done yet and it is way too early to be making grand statements.
The whole truth has been on the record for a while, even Ken Schatten agrees with our findings:
http://www.leif.org/research/HAO-Seminar%2C%20How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Schatten.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf
But I can understand your uneasiness when your foundations crumble.
and SC25 was going to be a large cycle (a recent statement)
You make the same mistake as Vuk.
It is clear that SC24 is going to be like SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj-3.png
and it has been clear for quite some time [since 2003] that we are headed for a period of low activity :
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a ‘Maunder’ type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.
This based on the polar field method that we pioneered back in 1978
http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
RACookPE1978 says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
But how long does that bit of energy take to get up from the core to the “emitting” surface of the sun so that it can get to the earth’s orbit
It takes about 200,000 years
if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
99.9% of the change in TSI comes from the fusion in the core, the remaining 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
99.9% of TSI comes from the fusion in the core [which does not change on time scales for which we have data], the remaining [variable] 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm
I am very disheartened that the skeptic community has not challenged the so called L&P theory.
And for good reason!
Our latest paper in the Astrophysical Journal notes:
Decreasing Sunspot Magnetic Fields Explain Unique 10.7 cm Radio Flux
Livingston, W.; Penn, M. J.; Svalgaard, L.
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 757, Issue 1, article id. L8 (2012).
Abstract
Infrared spectral observations of sunspots from 1998 to 2011 have shown that on average sunspots changed, the magnetic fields weakened, and the temperatures rose. The data also show that sunspots or dark pores can only form at the solar surface if the magnetic field strength exceeds about 1500 G. Sunspots appear at the solar surface with a variety of field strengths, and during the period from 1998 to 2002 a histogram of the sunspot magnetic fields shows a normal distribution with a mean of 2436 ± 26 G and a width of 323 ± 20 G. During the observing period the mean of the magnetic field distribution decreased by 46 ± 6 G per year, and we assume that as the 1500 G threshold was approached, magnetic fields appeared at the solar surface which could not form dark sunspots or pores. With this assumption we propose a quantity called the sunspot formation fraction and give an analytical form derived from the magnetic field distribution. We show that this fraction can quantitatively explain the changing relationship between sunspot number and solar radio flux measured at 10.7 cm wavelengths.
Thanks Leif but It still doesn’t explain why this interglacial should extend to 61,000+ years. I’m sure that much of that forecast would be guesswork.
E.G why did the Eemian have the more regular peaked top and the slide into the next full glacial then seems much faster. Or if jupiter suddenly changes next year wouldn’t you have to quickly change your mind.
Btw I’ve tried to get an answer to the scare of future dangerous SLR. Gore, Hansen , Flannery etc all frighten us with possible SLR of 20 foot by 2100, but the graph on all the models from the Royal society shows little rise for the next 300 years.( by 2300)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html
If all the models show negative contribution from Antarctica until 2300 where is that dangerous SLR to come from by 2100 I wonder?
These are the same models that the alarmists base their IPCC reports on. Anybody got any ideas?
This is what Mr. Svalgaard, our want to be teacher, said, “Tim Walker says:
September 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Your problem sir is that you posted not the precise meaning of glaciation, but of GLACIAL PERIOD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period : “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation)”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glaciation.html
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_glacial.html
You confuse the term ‘glaciation’ with ‘glacier’. Glaciers expand and shrink all the time. Geologists call it a glaciation when glaciers expand and move on a continental scale. This happens rarely [every tens to hundreds of thousands of years] controlled by changes in the orbital elements of the Earth [caused predominantly by Jupiter] and seems to be contingent of particular arrangements of the continents and ocean currents. In the past 500 miliion years there have been a handful of periods where glaciations happened. We call those ‘ice ages’ [each ‘age’ consisting of many ‘glaciations’]. And they are not caused by variations of activity of the sun.
This is what I say Mr. Svalgaard.
Since when does the Wikipedia provide the precise meaning of anything, as you put it and are now trying to weasel out of. Here is the precise meaning of the word glaciation and as anyone can see unless they have their eyes shut and are repeating, “If I don’t see it I don’t have to believe I am wrong.” glaciation is not a synonym for GLACIAL PERIOD.
‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ defines glaciation as: the noun of the verb glaciate, which is to (a) cover with a glacier, (b) to subject to glacial action.
‘The Free Dictionary’ by Farlex defines glaciation as: noun 1. glaciation glaciation – the condition of being covered with glaciers or masses of ice; the result of glacial action; “Agassiz recognized marks of glaciation all over northern Europe”
‘Merriam-Webster’ defines glaciation as the noun of the verb glaciate: (a) to subject to glacial action; also: to produce glacial effects in or on; (b) to cover with a glacier.
McGraw-Hill Science and Technology Dictionary defines glaciation as: Alteration of any part of earth’s surface by passage of a glacier, chiefly by glacial erosion or deposition.
Macmillan Dictionary defines glaciation as: the process in wich land becomes covered by glaciers.
I could go on sir, but I suspect you are just like other bad scientists I have heard about in the last few years. You are so right in and of yourself you will refuse to discuss something that might impinge upon your own ideas. You just want to pontificate as you have so ably shown here.
In the beginning I just said this: Glaciations have nothing to do with the Sun? Wow, quite the statement of certainty. I like this statement better that Leif Svalgaard made, “There is still debate about the Maunder Minimum, but that is what our ISSI workshop [next one in April, 2013] is meant to resolve.
And there is something true about the bruises….”
I like seeing debate between scientists. When I see definitive statements about theories, I expect to see those statements proven wrong at least to some degree in the future.
For your definitive statement about the sun to be true, then the Maunder Minimum must not have been caused or affected by the sun in anyway or else the sun does have some kind of effect on glaciations.
Saying this I tried to get a bit more discussion and less of, ‘This is the facts from on high.’. But no. You insist on pontificating or as you, Mr Svalgaard said: Your education is not a discussion.
You Sir sound like the worst of the professors I ever had in college or as the worst of the AGW crowd.
LS says
There is always a lag. With a very long time constant, the lag can be quite long.
Tell that to HenryP
Henry says
You are confusing issues and people again. The lag (from the change of energy input into the atmosphere,= 1995 as CAN BE SEEN WHEN OBSERVING MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES), is a couple years.
For example, this can be seen from the data supplied by vukcevik earlier on this thread:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
LS says
A time base of a decade or two is not enough to decide this. The FAIL comes from the fact that temperatures have risen significantly the past 200-300 years, but solar activity has not.
Henry says:
Significantly? Really? How much is significant? Going by Vukcevic’s June data quoted above it amounts to ca. 0.02 to 0.03 degrees C over the past 200-300 years.
This is significant? How accurate were the thermometers 200-300 years ago? Do you have a calibration ceritificate of a thermometer from that time?
(Someone) asked:
How much will temperatures decline?
Henry says
Again , I think the June data from Vulcevic look good to me. We will fall by about 1 full degree C or K until about 2039. It will be cold enough for all the arctic ice to freeze back as it did from 1920-1940.
RaCookPE1978 says
So, if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
Henry says
I have been studying the rate of change of maxima against time (data from 47 weather stations) , this is the deceleration of warming and the curve looks like someone threw a ball: completely natural, binominal. My rsquare on that was 0.998. From that I calculated that in 1995 we changed signal, from warming to cooling. Realizing this is an ac-wave I was able to put it in a sine wave, best wavelength 88 years. So we came from 44 years of warming and now moved into 44 years of cooling (from 1995), looking at energy in. I have since been doing some puzzling, coming to the conclusion that the rise and fall of energy in coincides with the decline and rise of ozone, both NH and SH. On the SH the fall in ozone until 1995 was as much as 100% and more. So it seems to me that a small change in the distribution of the solar constant changes the chemical reactions happening on top of the atmosphere.
HenryP said:
“So it seems to me that a small change in the distribution of the solar constant changes the chemical reactions happening on top of the atmosphere.”
Agreed, and the result is a changed air circulation affecting global cloudiness and albedo.
The precise detail of the chemical reactions involved is currently not known but it alters the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.
The recent finding that during the period of quieter sun the amount of ozone unexpectedly increased above 45km is an important diagnostic indicator.
This is interesting too:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017719.shtml
which excludes CO2 as the primary factor but still leaves it open (for the time being) for it to be asserted that human CFCs caused the observed ozone reduction and stratospheric cooling when the sun was more active.
However, on the basis of the various longer term correlations, I think it has to be a natural solar induced phenomenon rather than anything attributable to CFCs.
Tim Walker says:
September 15, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Since when does the Wikipedia provide the precise meaning of anything
In Science, some words have a more precise meaning than in ordinary speech. ‘Glaciation’ is one of them. Another one is ‘theory’. I [and Wikipedia – and the other references which you ignore] gave you the scientific meaning of ‘glaciation’. That you will not learn is your loss.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Going by Vukcevic’s June data quoted above it amounts to ca. 0.02 to 0.03 degrees C over the past 200-300 years. … We will fall by about 1 full degree C or K until about 2039.
So, you claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C and in the next 25 they will fall 1 C…