Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.
From NASA GSFC: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.
Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.
In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
See also the December Solar slump here
Leif Svalgaard: TSI is where almost all the energy is, that is the strong informational content. Dismissing the overwhelming energy source is the weak viewpoint.
Isn’t one of the points of this re-examination that variations in some constituents may cause variations in the upper atmosphere that in turn cause variations in how much of TSI actually penetrates to the Earth surface? And that effects of the changes in those constituents may depend on season and latitude?
FrankK says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm
The theory of Lord Kelvin earth’s core cooling period comes to mind which was subsequently found to be substantially in error.!
The theory was not found to be in error on theoretical grounds. Nothing wrong with the model or the math. Kelvin’s theory faltered on new data and observations, e.g. the finding of a heating source unknown to Kelvin: radioactivity, and on the empirical discovery of radioactive decay that provides an absolute age of minerals and meteorites.
Mooloo says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Plate tectonics didn’t rely on new data, just a better interpretation of current data.
The better interpretation came after new data [on magnetic stripes on the seafloor and age determination of said floor]. Once the data had shown the way to a better theory everything fell in place.
There’s major issues with the “standard model” of particle physics.
The standard theory just got a major boost from the discovery of the Higgs boson…
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm
“As Werner Schmutz [SORCE 2011] concedes: “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!””
Evidently Schmutz does not know well the TSI data. Both ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite agree that there is a downward trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008 as shown here:
http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
as I have already stated, your own presentation slides page #4, #5, #7, #19, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
demonstrate that there was a downward trend between the solar minima in 1996 and 2008.
You do not understand your own presentation, do you?
For a second I was starting to respect NASA again, until I read this in the press release:
“…The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. …Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years. ”
Fitting with the party line that the MWP was regional (despite a thousand papers to the contrary), NASA is now claiming that Solar variation only has regional effects here on Earth.
So tell me this NASA:
Who’s controlling the magnifying glass?
For a second I was starting to respect NASA again, until I read this in the press release:
“…The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. …Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years. “
Fitting with the party line that the MWP was regional (despite a thousand papers to the contrary), NASA is now claiming that Solar variation only has regional effects here on Earth.
So tell me this NASA:
Who’s controlling the magnifying glass?
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Evidently Schmutz does not know well the TSI data.
It seems that nobody knows the TSI data, except the great [misguided] Nicola.
Leif.
Whilst I agree with you, that there is no way that cyclical changes in total TSI can be driving climatic changes directly, I am still open to the possibility that these changes do drive the climate somewhat in combination with connected changes in the Earth’s climate processes.
After all this is what drives us in and out of glacial periods. The changes in total TSI received in the Milackoviitch cycles are in no way large enough to do this directly.
Unfortunately, due to the length of time it takes for these types of cycles and the paucity of accurate data, compared to the time periods involved, it is going to take hundreds if not thousands of years of observations and measurements to get a sufficiently strong correlation.
I very much doubt that CO2 is going to produce the effects predicted by the alarmists as the Earth’s history, since life evolved, shows that the Earth does not react long term in this way to increased RF.
It might all be that, with such a complicated system as the Earth’s climate, that the current warming is just a random variation in a system that cannot possibly ever be completely stable for any length of time and therefore must be moving up or down at any one period of time.
Alan
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Evidently Schmutz does not know well the TSI data.
It seems that nobody knows the TSI data, except the great [misguided] Nicola.
***************
Leif, Is this your only argument to support your flat-sun theory? Don’t you have any other arguments than ad-hominems?
As I have already stated, both ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite and your own presentation slides at page #4, #5, #7, #19, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
and also figure 2 in the above article
demonstrate that there was a downward trend between the solar minima in 1996 and 2008.
If you want to propose a flat-sun theory, you are free to do it by proposing valid scientific arguments. However, you should not promoting your extremist theory by continuously misleading the readers of this blog by claiming that everybody already agrees with your theory. Sometime people needs to be honest also in science.
@David Oliver Smith If the Earth maintains a negative charge in a sea of positive solar wind, how is that negative charge replenished (and we know it is)?
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm (replying to )
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:13 pm
While both of you are here, let me ask a more general question.
I am using TSI as a a function of Day-of-Year (DOY) to calculate the received radiation at each degree latitude on earth on each day between June 22 and Dec 22.
Bason, who has made total and indirect radiation measurement in the high arctic over the period of interest in his paper, uses
Flux (DOY) = Flux (Solar Constant at TOA) * (1.033 * cos [360 * (DOY – 3)/365] )
and sets his solar constant at 1367 watts/meter sq.
This would cycle top of atmosphere flux between 1412 and 1321. True?
Other sources have used 1370, 1366 watts/m^2, 1360, 1362, etc for their TSI values. Others have “anchored” their “Day-of-Year equation to a different offset (that is, not 3 days from January 1.)
Earlier in this and other threads on the sun and sunspots, while talking about “recalibrating” and calibrating received TSI from satellite measurements, 1360 was said to be the “new” calibrated standard for 1 year.
What is the “official” standard equation for radiation at top of atmosphere for each day of the year?
Does this value (if using a simple year-long cos function) vary significantly with the earth’s rotation about the earth-moon barycenter, and not a sun-earth average radius on the elliptical?
How about thinking outside the square!
It is just possible that the effects of the level of solar cycle upon the Earth’s climate is “amplified” by the possibility that lunar atmospheric tides (driven by lunar orbital cycles) act in symphony with the solar activity cycles.
Even if you not willing to listen to a person that Leif considers a “pseudo-scientist” you might want to read about the research work of Dr. Claire Perigaud.In collaboration with her research colleagues Dr R. Gross, Caltech/ JPL, USA, Dr E. Rignot, Caltech/JPL and UC Irvine, USA,
Dr D. Waliser, Caltech/JPL, USA
ENSO modulation by 14.7 day and 18.6 year Lunar Cycles
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaudabstract.pdf
ENSO modulated by Lunar Cycles
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaud.pdf
Biweekly Oceanic and Atmospheric – Tropical Instability Waves
http://coaps.fsu.edu/scatterometry/meeting/docs/2009_may/posters/perigaud.pdf
Importance of the Earth-Moon system for reducing
uncertainties in climate modelling and monitoring
ftp://ftp.cerfacs.fr/pub/globc/exchanges/GOASIS/Fermat_2009.pdf
Earth-Moon-Sun alignments influencing El Niños and water/air mass momentum
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/seminars/yly_seminar/past/2011.htm
Caveat #1
“Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.”
Caveat #2
“Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. ”
Many in this thread seem to be crowning themselves correct way too soon.
I got banned for saying there’s more to the sun than TSI.
Maybe I should email Cook and see if he’ll un-ban me now. /sarc
richardscourtney says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:35 am
In these circumstances simple correlations are not likely to disprove any hypothesis of solar effects in the atmosphere.
====
How about lack of correlation for 15, 16, … er 17 years and counting? Doesn’t finding no correlation actually prove AGW highly unlikely?
Doesn’t lack of correlation actually tells us more than finding a correlation, because lack of correlation is proof that something is false, while correlation is only evidence that something is true?
Kudos to this effort. To me this says the science is not settled which should have been said by all scientists involved all along.
I’m not a fan of any method or model that lumps together unknowns to make up a total unknown which can be used for (you guessed it) every unknown imagined.
Some interesting unknown variables can be used in this vague assertion “This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere”. Has the chemical composition of the atmosphere changed recently? Can it be attributed to this model of TSI? is it anthropogenic in nature?
And there you have it, the sun now causes unknown chemistry and thermal change in the upper atmosphere related to a model.
Stephen Mosher;
Simple, make a quantitative prediction ( use numbers ) .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Based on the format established in AR5, I predict that in the future temperatures will be higher, lower, or the same (though not exactly the same) as they are now.
@Lief Svalgard: ‘Open mind’ has nothing to do with science. I would say, rather the opposite, namely healthy skepticism, not blindly accepting any ideas that comes your way.
+++
This thinking suggests that a closed mind has everything to do with science. And I know you cannot mean that… but it’s what your words suggest.
NASA, IPCC, NOAA and you have been closed to the idea. All of these collective minds have been shut closed to the idea that the sun has much to do with our climate changing all the time. Your team has strongly put forth a strawman argument that the only affect on climate the sun has is the TSI.
Leif, please retract or modify your statement. You are brilliant and I love your posts, however they do seem closed to the idea that the sun’s variance has an effect on our climate. To suggest otherwise polarizes the very idea of science being open to possibilities which may be different than your preconceived notions –that must be true no matter what.
I say, people in your camp will start to face the possible reality that it’s more than a simplistic argument that TSI varies little therefore it can’t significantly affect our climate.
Leif please explain what you mean.
Hey, at least he didn’t lump you in with half the US population who he thinks believes the Earth is just 6000 years old. (September 11, 2009 at 5:20 am post)
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:45 pm
both ACRIM and PMOD TSI composite demonstrate that there was a downward trend between the solar minima in 1996 and 2008.
PMOD suffers from uncompensated degradation [As Schmutz also says] as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
If ACRIM agrees with PMOD then ACRIM has the same problem.
If you want to propose a flat-sun theory
Not ‘flat’. You should not misrepresent me like that [as you say ‘people needs to be honest also in science’ – apply that to yourself]. There is considerable solar cycle variation, but it is also clear that there is no variable ‘background’, that is what the issue is. Educate yourself on that.
bacullen says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm
@David Oliver Smith If the Earth maintains a negative charge in a sea of positive solar wind, how is that negative charge replenished (and we know it is)?
The solar wind is not positive, it is neutral and so is the Earth. If the solar wind were positive then the sun would become more and more negative as all that positive charge left. After some time the electric attraction between the negative sun and the positive wind would prevent any more wind from escaping. That is why the solar wind has to be neutral.
RACookPE1978 says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Flux (DOY) = Flux (Solar Constant at TOA) * (1.033 * cos [360 * (DOY – 3)/365] )
and sets his solar constant at 1367 watts/meter sq.
This would cycle top of atmosphere flux between 1412 and 1321. True?
True enough for most uses. But use 1362 instead of 1367.
What is the “official” standard equation for radiation at top of atmosphere for each day of the year?
It is extremely complicated and you don’t want to go there.
Does this value (if using a simple year-long cos function) vary significantly with the earth’s rotation about the earth-moon barycenter, and not a sun-earth average radius on the elliptical?
The simple cos function does not take into account the Moon, but the Moon’s effect is very small.
Ninderthana says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Even if you not willing to listen to a person that Leif considers a “pseudo-scientist” you might want to read about the research work of Dr. Claire Perigaud.
By all means listen to her.
Tom in Florida says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Many in this thread seem to be crowning themselves correct way too soon.
Called confirmation bias.
Birdieshooter says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Kudos to this effort. To me this says the science is not settled which should have been said by all scientists involved all along.
All scientists would [and should] say that the science is never settled. Only Al Gore & Co and the skeptics claim the science is settled [although on opposite conclusions].
OMG Leif
“Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations [including variations of the individual components] in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI [just the total] rather than to anthropogenic influences”
Returning to the acid copper plating solution with a couple dozen organic components I might say:
Ongoing discussion of the role of organic component variations in the plating solution has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in striations could be due to changes in TOC rather than to temperature variations that was previously blamed.
So, with the above statement I haven’t ruled out organic component variation or temperature but have ruled out TOC. Similarly, the NASA statement doesn’t ruled out solar variation or anthropogenic effects but does rule out TSI.
Stephan
Thanks for the help. Now a few more questions
I’ll help Steven Mosher out a bit :
1.What variable changes in solar output ?
Changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths so as to alter atmospheric chemistry especially as regards ozone thereby altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and interfering with the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator
1. What particles
2. What wavelengths
3. What changes in chemistry
4. How will the verticle temperature profile change
5. What changes to the gradient
‘altering” changing.. are not testable unless you SPECIFY in advance the kinds of changes you expect. Without quantifying this you have no theory to test.
2. What circulation change does it create ?
The climate zones and jet stream tracks are then enabled to slide to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
1. what climate zones’
2. how are they defined
3. how do you measure a jet stream ‘track”
4. what do you mean numerically by “to” and “fro”
5. how quickly will this change happen in reference to changes in solar output?
3. How is cloudiness altered ?
More meridional or equatorward jets increase the length of the lines of air mass mixing to produce more clouds.
1. Which types of clouds
2. how quickly does this effect take to become detectable
3. how quickly does the effect dissipate?
4. What is the change in input to the oceans?
Less clouds when the sun is active and the jets more poleward or zonal allows more energy into the oceans especially beneath the expanded subtropical high pressure cells.
1. which types of clouds.
2. what level of “solar activity” induces this effect
3. How much more poleward
4. How much more energy can we expect to see into the oceans
5. would the change be detectable in argo data
6. You mention expanded high pressure cells. Define what constitutes high pressure.
7. how much expansion.
5. Under what cases does it skew to El nino and what cases la Nina ?
More energy into the oceans skews ENSO in favour of El NIno and less energy into the oceans skews ENSO in favour of La Nina. The basic ENSO oscillation continues in the background
1. what do you mean by “skews”
2. given we are coming to a max, do you expect
A) more el nino? less
B) more la nina or less
C) more intense el nino? or less
D) more intense la nina or less
E how much more intense?
3. what is the deta energy input required to trigger the effect
All that and more is already set out in detail in my work and in my past blog posts
Err, no it has not, otherwise i would not have to ask for an explaination. As always you never quantify your ‘theory’ it remains untestable. So vague in fact that its consistent with evrything and testable by nothing
So we stand at a Max or very close to one. How many more clouds? what type? where will we see them? will argo change? numbers. testable predictions.
Leif Svalgaard: The theory was not found to be in error on theoretical grounds.
Nevertheless, it was wrong, as was subsequently shown by evidence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1090817
Allan MacRae says: September 26, 2012 at 3:32 am
So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?
Leif Svalgaard says: September 26, 2012 at 5:09 am
Essentially, yes. As the Sun does not vary enough.
Dr Norman Page says: September 26, 2012 at 7:32 am
The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.
Allan says:
OK…… Glad we cleared that up.
Could possibly resolve this question through a scintillating game of rock, paper, scissors?
🙂
With so many candidates in the running and the CAGW 100 Year Dash to 2 degrees now reduced to 87 years, it is time to pick a winner (just one) in the “Who is the Lance Armstrong of climate science?” competition. I know climate alarmism is a Team sport but in the end there can be only One.
With this paper it appears the NASA team is having doubts about who should be wearing the Yellow Jersey.