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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly HenryP
No I can’t prove it, but there are good reasons for it ( I am in process of writing paper on geomagnetics), summer nights in high latitudes are as short as 8 h in June and as long as 16 h in December, see this link.
@ur momisugly Lars P.
but then compare Loehle temp reconstruction to the geomagnetic bi-decadal change (post 1600 resolution of the ETHZ is in one year steps, but Potsdam data base pre 1600, is only at 10 year steps), not perfect correlation but still meaningful.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Stephen Wilde said:
Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.
Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.
Tim Walker says:
Thanks for trying to help Stephen. I appreciate it. The problem is that you are not correct. Glaciate the verb is going on right now in a multitude of places on Earth. Mostly glaciers away from Antarctica are not glaciating. They are not covering more ground. Take away the e and add ion you get glaciation the noun describing the result of glacial action which includes on going glacial activities. There is fresh glaciation even when the glacier is no longer glaciating.
Above Mr. Svalgaard created a nice big long list of references. It looks very impressive. In reality it is very stupid. All of his references relate to the use of glaciation to refer to glaciation that was created before the current Holocene interglacial period. I know what he is doing. He is referring to the past and purposefully refusing to respond to the fact that glaciation is happening right now through current glaciating activity. Glaciation the noun describes the results of the glaciating. Right now down in Antarctica scientists are looking under the ice at the results of glaciating.
Leif only wants to use the noun glaciation to refer to the past major epics of glacial activity. I presume that he has enough knowledge to really know glaciating is going on right now and that there is glaciation seen as a result of glacial activity since the last major epic of glacial activity. I don not doubt that he knows that Antarctica is in the middle of a major glacial epic. Most of the continent is still covered by glaciers. He must have ulterior motives for ignoring it and the glacial activity going on it other places. This along with his pedantic attitude is really annoying.
Mr. Svalgaard said all of this stuff down to where I respond:
Stephen Wilde says:
September 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.
Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.
Either way, the word ‘glaciation’ in the geophysical sciences refers to the episodes of ice covering extensive land areas intermittently several times during an ice age. As per the several examples I just gave. One of Tim’s quotes reads “‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ defines glaciation as: the noun of the verb glaciate”, although he is confused about the distinction between noun and verb. But none of this matters: the word ‘glaciation’ is in the geological sciences meant to signify wide-spread ice cover [which happen to be caused by changes in the orbital elements].
Mr. Svalgaard I have not disagreed that the term glaciation is used to refer to past episodes of ice covering extensive land areas. It also is used correctly for the results of glacial activity. By the way Mr. Svalgaard you do know that Antarctica is a extensive land area covered by ice. You do know Mr. Svalgaard that Greenland is a extensive land area covered by ice.
Oh, and sir I am not confused about the distinction between nouns and verbs. But since you are so pompous as to say such a thing maybe, sir you should give me your definition of a verb and of a noun. Doing so is pedantic and quite fitting for someone that would say I am confused about the distinction between nouns and verbs.
Tim Walker says:
September 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Mr. Svalgaard I have not disagreed that the term glaciation is used to refer to past episodes of ice covering extensive land areas.
I gave you a long list of scientific papers and references to ‘the last glaciation’. Which apparently according to them was about 20,000 years ago. Would you say that they are all wrong or written by little children. We are still in the middle if an ice age, which is why there are still glaciers around. During each ice age there are periodic glaciations due to the changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth. Nothing to do with the Sun. I repeat these things because you seem to have a hard time grasping them.
I always find it interesting that commenters in thesesolar discussions have the exact same “feel” as the rest of climate science :-
There are experts who know it all and they use denigrating language – now where have I seen this behaviour before ???
Rosco says:
September 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm
they use denigrating language
Like “You are … What a joke”
common sense says if the sun is pumping out more energy the earth is receiving more energy but that alone cannot explain Global Warming. It is not as simple as that. The Earth is a complicated entity that will not be defined by such simplistic scientific ideas and that is why the debate continues. Science should stop predicting the future where the Earth is involved, they will always miss the mark.
Here’s a bit of observational science. Living in the south of Australia, two members of the family just spent 4 weeks in USA, mainly California and didn’t use sunblock and didn’t get sunburn. To compare your August/September summer/fall would be February/March summer/autumn in Australia. You can’t spend a day in the sun unprotected as you will get severely burned. Obviously there is a substantial difference between the North and the South of the Planet and science uses averages to explain it and the non-scientific person has to trust the scientist that he/she knows what they are doing. I think not.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Glaciation
askwhyitisso says
Here’s a bit of observational science. Living in the south of Australia, two members of the family just spent 4 weeks in USA, mainly California and didn’t use sunblock and didn’t get sunburn. To compare your August/September summer/fall would be February/March summer/autumn in Australia. You can’t spend a day in the sun unprotected as you will get severely burned. Obviously there is a substantial difference between the North and the South of the Planet and science uses averages to explain it and the non-scientific person has to trust the scientist that he/she knows what they are doing. I think not.
Henry says
The explanation is that the ozone layer is a lot thinner in the SH and also depleted by more than 100% in the SH during the warming period 1951-1995. Depletion of ozone in the NH was a lot less, for some reason.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/f10-7-flux-sea-level-and-the-holocene/#comment-1079609
I know the verb is ‘to glaciate’ and the noun is ‘glaciation’ but it just seemed to me that in some comments Tim was using the noun when the context seemed to indicate that he meant the verb.
No matter.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 9:12 am
Glaciations are due to changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth [cause by gravitational perturbations mainly by Jupiter] and have nothing to do with the Sun and its activity
==========
That is one theory. The 100k year problem suggest it is not the whole story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem
In reply to Leif Svalgaard’s comment:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm
William says:
September 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“Explain what you mean by the magic word ‘interrupted’.”
No sunspots, abrupt very large CME.
This has never been observed
Direct solar observations are limited to three to four centuries. The last solar magnetic cycle interruption occurred during the 8200 year BP abrupt cooling event or the Younger Dryas 12,900 BP abrupt cooling event. Something is causing the cyclic abrupt cooling events. As there are abrupt cosmogenic isotope change that correlate with the abrupt cooling event the cause must be either the sun or the changes to the geomagnetic field. The warming and cooling is not due to changes in TSI.
The Younger Dryas cooling period has 1200 years in duration. The solar magnetic cycle does not shutdown for a 1200 years. An abrupt change to the geomagnetic field is capable of causing what is observed. The liquid core changes are not however capable of causing geomagnetic excursions. The mantel is conductive so abrupt core based geomagnetic field changes will generate a counter EMF in the mantel which resists the change.
By the a process of elimination based on physical cause and limitations of what is physically possible the sun is the cause of what is observed.
If the solar magnetic cycle is periodically interrupted and the restart results in burn marks on the surface of the planet, something is fundamentally incorrect or missing from the basic solar magnetic model. The something that is missing explains a host of astronomical anomalies related to galaxy formation, galaxy evolution, and galaxy morphology. There is significant and widespread observational evidence to support this statement.
I am quite sure the above statements are all correct. What I am not sure of is whether the current solar change will lead to a solar magnetic cycle interruption or will it lead to a Maunder minimum. All the observational evidence supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, however, it will be a number of months or years until there is observational evidence to clearly resolve this question
Something is abruptly causing the cyclic geomagnetic excursions. It appears for the reasons noted above the physical cause is the sun. The correlation of orbital parameter is due to the mechanism by which the solar magnetic cycle restart effects the geomagnetic field not due to solar insolation at 65N or 60N.
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9}11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O’Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor a!ecting climate variations during the Holocene (see also Magny, 1993, 1995a), possibly operating together with oceanic forcing. For the Late Pleistocene, however, it is generally assumed that the abrupt climate changes are predominantly forced by fluctuations in ocean circulation (e.g., Bond et al., 1997; Broecker, 1997, 1998). However, van Geel et al. (1999b) proposed that solar variability played a major role by triggering the abrupt Late Pleistocene climate shifts. In this paper, we extend this idea by discussing in detail the possibility that a reduced solar activity triggered the start of the YD.
Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40}70& within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30 to 60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50} 80&in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70 %/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.
Henry@William Howard
So to summarize ur comment
We are on the same curve as compiled by Vukcevic
– june temps central England
We will drop by about one degree K until the end of the cooling
period 2039.
You agree?
vukcevic says:
September 16, 2012 at 1:54 pm
@ur momisugly Lars P.
……
thanks vukcevik. That is quite something!
Have you ever tried to superimpose the solar reconstruction over it? Even maybe there is no need for better alignment with the error range of the temp reconstruction….
On the SSN changes – I was always skeptic of any revision of older data, but yes, sometime it is needed. Time will tell. If for instance in the near future TSI would vary 1 or 2 W it would raise a lot of questions to the validity of the new reconstructions which show a narrow band of 1 W between minima and maxima of each cycle over 300 years with almost constant minima. Even a 0.3 W deviation of a minima would be an unseen event.
@ur momisugly Lars P.
There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field. If it is solar originated, than either close flux reaches the Earth’s magnetosphere, or it is due to the open flux, it is far to weak to have such an effect.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 15, 2012 at 10:13 am
vukcevic says:
September 15, 2012 at 9:48 am
McCracken did good work, his data is not questioned,
They are very much questioned. His main problem is the splicing of the ion-chamber measurements of the 1930s-1950s to the neutron monitor measurements 1950s-now.
You’re confusing science with Climate Science. That’s SOP in Climate Science.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2012 at 12:15 am
LS says
So, you (Henry) claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C…. Henry says
oh dear. You cannot even read a graph? The red line is the long term average change (of temperatures in JUNE in mid England) from the average measured. It has a slope of 0.0001 = 0.0001 degree C change per annum. Over 300 years it was 0.03 degree warmer.
I asked you to supply me with a calibration certficate of a thermometer that is 300 years old?
_________________
Ahhhh. The specter of the logical fallacy of spurious accuracy raises it’s ugly head.
The climate where I live (inter-mountain west ) frequently enjoys daily swings of 25 deg C.
My thermometer is calibrated in 2 deg. increments. Yet we see temperatures rendered to 2 decimal places. I defy anyone to be able to sense .03 degrees of change through their skin. And so we will try to move heaven and earth to ‘prevent’ change we can’t control.
Thanks Henry for your response however my point is that scientists use averages. I live in Australia and I am fully aware of the depletion of the Ozone Layer and that it is thinner in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North, however if the Southern Hemisphere is subject to more intense solar energy (ultraviolet)than the North and granted the south is mainly water, and the North is warming more than the south, you have to ask – is it land mass/albedo that sets the temperature and not the Sun.
ferdberple says:
September 17, 2012 at 7:00 am
That is one theory. The 100k year problem suggest it is not the whole story.
Indeed, the whole story is a bit more involved and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit has a 400k period and is near zero every 400k years, so the 100k cycle does not operate for about 100k years every 400k years, in particular, the coming 100k years. During such periods the 40k-yr variations of the axial tilt provide the necessary modulation. I include that variation in the general term ‘orbital variations’ [although not strictly correct]. The main point is that this variation will be there even for a completely constant sun.
William says:
September 17, 2012 at 8:55 am
The last solar magnetic cycle interruption occurred during the 8200 year BP
Whatever is the cause for the YD etc, it is not the ‘mystical solar magnetic cycle interruption’ [you have still not defined what you man by that]. Even during the Maunder Minimum we know that the solar cycle operated normally as cosmic rays were modulated as today [or perhaps even a bit more strongly]
vukcevic says:
September 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field.
Just shows that there is no physical coupling between the two.
askwhyisitso says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/f10-7-flux-sea-level-and-the-holocene/#comment-1080776
Henry says
Less ozone shielding from <0.5 um radiation means more UV in the SH oceans. Water absorbs in the UV (blue )and therefore most of that radiation is converted to heat. The heat of the SH oceans was taken to the NH by weathersystems and currents. That is why the NH is warming and the SH (landmass) did not warm (much).
So, it is the sun. Maxima started dropping in 1995 at pretty much the same time when ozone started increasing again. There are few here people that believe there is a connection, i.e. small changes in the distribution of the solar constant due to solar activity causing a different set of reactions on top of our atmosphere, producing amongst other things, more ozone.
For those endlessly bickering over ‘what is is’ or what verb can be nound…
English, even “scientific” English, has wide range and significant ambiguity in it. In English, nouns can be verbd and verbs can be nound. “Power Sander”… I power sanded the car. “Shotgun” I shotgunned the trees. (And don’t get me started on ‘shotgunned the answer’…) “Fry” as in “Fry that steak” can be “french fry” or “We’re having a big fry at my place, bring your fish!” ( Or fish for fish …)
Then we have endless bickering over just when is a glacier glaciering. Heck, I’m surprised nobody pointed out that “ice age” is often used for “Ice age glacial period”. We are, right NOW, in an “ice age”; but most folks will not think so. (Most scientists might, at least those in or near the field; but don’t as psychologists…) So does it really matter?
Leif used the term correctly (as used in papers having to do with ice ages). The alternative use ( as in “Glacier park had a minor glaciation event in the LIA but has now retreated”) would be accepted as OK by most anyone not in an “ice age” mind set. Hey, it’s English… it does that kind of thing… you need to pick up “correctness” from context.
Me? I try to regularly and fully disambiguate such things (but do not always succeed) with longer phrases, like: “An ice age glacial” or “A small glacier with increased glaciation during the LIA”. The extra verbage makes the meaning clear (even if not strictly matching Strunk, or any other “Style Guide”…) I don’t know what “reviewers” require, and hope I never need to find out…
It really isn’t worth it to haggle such petty stuff. It’s haggled way to much as it is. So don’t waste your haggle on it…
Since I’m here… For all those doing a bicker, that is bickering, having bickered, your bicker is best bickered with some lunar solar tidal causality. The sun can be correlated with Jupiter and climate via an orbital resonance match that has actual causality via a Lunar / Tidal / Ocean actual causality:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf
Wiggle matching is NOT enough. You can causal it all you want, but the mechanism is lacking in a wiggle match, so you will be, in the end, correlated back to reality…
As per the Younger Dryas:
There is very strong evidence for a big rock fall from space into the ice shield over N. America (and leaving a major platinum deposit being mined in Canada, BTW). Ring the Bell of Earth with a Giant WHACK! – what happens to all those Be and Magnetic values? I know I don’t know… so on those major “excursion” events, using a uniformitarian approach may be limiting and using a bit of catatrophism on it just might be helpful.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled “did so” “did not” “You can’t verb that noun!” “I’ll noun it if I want to”…
Interesting few paragraphs down towards the end of that paper you just referenced:
“Moreover, we have noticed a similar tendency on the decadal
time-scale. The plotted arcs of the 18.03-year Saros cycles, shown
in Fig. 1, based on accurate orbital data, are more regular than
those plotted in Fig. 2, based on assuming constant lunar months.
The irregularities that we find in tidal strength and timing over
longer periods might further decrease if we prescribed more
exact motions of the moon and earth, as well as prescribing
variable climatic precession.
[A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be
resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the
outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the
average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1y10 of
that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun’s rotation
about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the
latter a manifestation of planetary resonances (13).]”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm
vukcevic says:
September 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field.
L.S: Just shows that there is no physical coupling between the two.
…………………….
Not necessarily.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Correlation is too strong too be ignored by any scientist searching for the true cause.
Suggested alternatives:
a) close flux of the CMEs (has strength enhanced with frequency of occurrence)
b) Internal amplification (e.g. – polar field and next SSN cycle)
c) ‘Remnant’ magnetism type positive feedback (e.g. alternator)
d) External forcing for both, sun and the Earth
e) Combination of two or more of the above
vukcevic says:
September 18, 2012 at 1:52 am
Correlation is too strong too be ignored by any scientist searching for the true cause.
What a load of self-serving crap. Correlation is lousy, and your suggested ’causes’ don’t work. You have found a new word [‘closed’ flux]. The open flux follows the closed flux [open = floor + coefficient * square root of closed].
Hi doc
Your vigorous protestations are suggesting that your are in a direct conflict with your own data.
– re: Closed flux In comparison, the recent reconstruction of Y. Wang et al. (2005) is based on solar considerations alone, using a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed flux that generates bright faculae. yours truly IPCC
– re: What a load of self-serving c… no need to comment that one
On more general note:
progress of science requires understanding of natural process not a denunciation .