Guest essay by David Archibald
This post drew attention to the similarity between the recent warm decades and the period leading up to the extremely cold year of 1740. Now let’s investigate how a 1740-type event might play out. This graph shows the average of the monthly temperatures for the years 1736 to 1739 plotted with the monthly temperatures of the year 1740:
With respect to growing conditions, the 1740 season was a month later than the average of the previous five years and the peak months of the season were 2.5°C cooler. To get a perspective on how a repeat of 1740 might affect growing conditions in the Corn Belt, Bill Fordham, advising the grain industry in the Midwest, has kindly provided an update on the current season:
==============================================================
“So far here in the center of the Midwest, the 2013 growing season is almost identical to 2009 in regards to Growing Degree Days (GDD).
In 2009 48% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 62% was planted by May 19.
In 2013 18% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 71% was planted by May 19.
In 2009, we never received a killing frost until November 5 when the low was at 28F. The Midwest had a huge crop that was wet and light test weight, but never got killed by a frost. In 2009, the total GDD accumulation from May 15 thru September 30 was 2,530 GDD.
The bulk of the corn planted in the Midwest ranges from 2,300 to 2,700 GDD (based on Fahrenheit). With the volcanoes that have been erupting in Alaska and Russia, especially with Mt Sheveluch erupting to 7.4 miles on June 26, I will be surprised if we get through the month of September in 2013 without an early killing frost. If the heat dome and high pressure ridge stays centered in the west and over Alaska until Labor Day, the clockwise rotation will pump the cold air south over the Midwest along with the ash. There are millions of acres at risk in IA and MN, that are 2-3 weeks behind normal.
After silking, it takes 24-28 days to reach the Dough Stage when kernel moisture is about 70% and about 50% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
After silking, it takes 35-42 days to reach the Dent Stage when kernel moisture is about 55% and about 70% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
It takes about 55-65 days after silking for a corn plant to mature and for the kernel to reach black layer, normally at 30-35% moisture.
A killing frost, <30F, will do damage whenever it occurs before black layer, the earlier the frost, the more severe the damage. A hard killing frost <28F can reduce the yield up to 25%, or more depending on the variety, even a week before black layer.
In 1974 I experienced severe loss on some late planted corn when I got rained out on May 7 and didn’t get back in to finish planting for 3 weeks. The May 7 corn yielded 190 bushels per acre and the May 28 corn yielded 90 bushels per acre, same variety.”
================================================================
Based on Bill Fordham’s experience of 1974, planting three weeks later reduced the crop yield by 50%. If the peak growth months of June, July and August are 2.5°C (4.5°F) cooler as per the CET record of 1740, that would reduce the GDD by 414.
A repeat of the climate of 1740, with a late planting and reduced heat in the three months prior to harvest can be expected to reduce crop yield by well more than 50%.
RE: Philip Bradley says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Interesting idea about the ash from Tamboro getting to the pole and decreasing the albedo and melting the ice. I hadn’t thought of that.
Do you know if the ice cores show that much ash made it north from the equator? I can see a little ash making it out of the Hadley Cell, through the Ferrel Cell, and into the Polar Cell, but not that much. It would have to be a fairly steady rain of ash, as snowfalls cover it up.
I just threw the comment about the AMO out there to generate thought. It just struck me as odd that there should be so much melt associated with a time so frigid.
Further research has taught me that the Tambora volcano ejected ash through the tropopause and over ten miles further into the Stratasphere, beyond the reach of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar Cells.
Caleb
I wrote about the great melting of the arctic around 1818 in this article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
The Detailed scientific accounts of William Scoresby would be worth obtaining to investigate the soot/particulates question but in the article I noted this.
“Even more remarkable in this relatively recent document (drawing on historic sources) are the annual indices of summer sea ice from 1750 to 1870 (on page 122) and further references to the records of the Hudson bay co, which again illustrate the fluctuating ice levels noted elsewhere. (This account should be read in conjunction with the link immediately above it.)
Clearly the eruption of Tambora (or other factors) had a profound effect on the climate of the Arctic over a very short period, as previous mentions of especially harsh winters in Newfoundland in previous decades are hard to find. Whether soot particulates from the eruption could have fallen on the arctic to cause the melting is doubtful, as no discolouration of the ice/snow can be found in any record, so the net effect of the eruption is probably to have caused the severe ice mentioned in the ‘year without a summer’, which then quickly disappeared in the Enso year. This chart;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_sulfate.png
demonstrates the 1816-17 spike in sulphate particles, produced by Tambora, in the Greenland ice. This from;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1991/91JD01634.shtml
from Dai et al, 1991 also shows a spike of similar amplitude in 1810, from an unknown eruption, thought to be one of the Andean volcanos.
There are many more accounts similar to those above recording great variations in arctic ice and weather over these decades. We are able to pin point another reference to 1810 conditions, as according to the book ‘Ice Hunters’ by Shannon Ryan, in that year the comment ‘the ice conditions prevented the ships reaching the seal herds’ is described in detail (an event briefly mentioned in the Board of Trade Journals).
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dWY-gZTGLgC&pg=RA1-PA284&lpg=RA1-PA284&dq=ice+islands+1810+newfoundland+seal+fisheries&source=bl&ots=0CxEu02Mpq&sig=67q3SluOy-OIv4-3cO5vpgTmHag&hl=en&ei=R-UuSvrqLszLjAff4cmVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PRA1-PA291,M1
tonyb
Rhys Jaggar says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Soil conditions aren’t as good south of the I80.
David,
Would you kindly give us an update on these predictions from your paper:
SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS (Mar 2009)
David C. Archibald
“The strength of the solar-cycle-length – annual-average-temperature correlation
enables solar cycle length to be used as a climate predictor tool. If the month of
minimum for the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition is July 2009, this would make Solar
Cycle 23 over thirteen years long. This in turn would mean that it would be 3.2 years
longer than Solar Cycle 22, and imply that the annual average temperature of Hanover,
New Hampshire will be 2.2° C cooler during Solar Cycle 24 than it had been on
average over Solar Cycle 23.”
“The 1970s cooling period is associated with elevated counts over the second
half of Solar Cycle 20, relative to other solar cycles. Peak neutron count is
approximately one year after solar minimum, due to the one year delay in the solar
wind reaching the heliopause. The monthly neutron count is now higher than it has
been at any time for the last fifty years. If the month of solar minimum proves to be
July 2009, peak neutron count may not be until mid-2010. On this basis, and according
to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s hypothesis, peak cloudiness, and therefore peak
rate of cooling, will be reached in mid-2010.”
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm
geran says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:30 pm
You slap down Vuk
“As I slap down you. Dark Matter [DM] was proposed 80 years ago as out-of-the-box. It has taken 80 years of painstaking observations to convince astronomers of the reality of DM. That you do not rejoice in this masterpiece of scientific endeavor is your loss, but a sad commentary on science literacy in today’s America. Vuk is not an out-of-the-box ‘thinker’, he is simply and glaringly wrong and self-aggrandizing.”
Dark matter will continue to be a fudge factor to make the numbers work until someone actually comes up with a physical sample of same. Until then, it is merely more consensus science.
***
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm
It is well known that the solar flux at high latitudes varies strongly with changes of earth orbital eccentricity and axis inclination on about a 110,000 year period known as a Milankovitch cycle. The sun might remain relatively constant, but its effect on earth is not.
***
Read what I said — the sun’s output itself didn’t change. Shouldn’t have been that difficult.
Ya think Milankovitch orbital cycling changed significantly since the LIA, a mere few hundred yrs? Um, no….
While TSI doesn’t change much, its spectral composition does, with the UV component fluctuating by up to a factor of two, as discussed on this blog.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html
It is curious that there has been no public discussion concerning the exponential increase in the area of the South Atlantic anomaly and the rapid decrease in the geomagnetic field intensity.
As many are aware both glacial and interglacial termination events correlate with geomagnetic field excursions. There is interesting no explanation as to what periodically causes geomagnetic excursions.
As the paper linked to below notes the planet cools cyclically simultaneously which cannot be explained by insolation changes as the orbital changes to insulation are 180 degrees out of phase for the two hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere experiences warm summers when the North Hemispheres experience cold summers due to insolation changes.
A geomagnetic excursion forcing for the glacial/interglacial cycle explains why both hemispheres simultaneously cool.
There is currently no explanation for what causes the geomagnetic excursions and the archeomagnetic jerks. Both the geomagnetic excursions and the archeomagnetic jerks correlate with grand solar magnetic minimums. As others have noted there is a delayed significant increase in volcanic eruptions following the start of deep solar magnetic minimum.
South Atlantic Geomagnetic Anomaly
…More than 90% of the field strength at the Earth’s surface can be attributed to an axial dipole currently tilted by approximately 10.2° with respect to the rotation axis. However, the field is anomalously weak in a region centered in the South Atlantic and covering parts of southern Africa and South America. This area, where the field reaches less than 60% of the field strength at comparable latitudes, is known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, fig. 1a). It is caused by an increasing patch of opposite magnetic flux compared to the dipole direction at the core-mantle boundary (Bloxham and Gubbins, 1985) and its centre has moved from southern Africa to South America over the last 300 years (Mandea et al., 2007). …
William: The South Atlantic Geomagnetic anomaly now covers roughly 75 million square kilometers. The geomagnetic field intensity reaches less than 60% of the main field.
The paper linked to below notes there is a linear relationship between the increase in the earth’s ocean levels and extent of the South Atlantic Geomagnetic anomaly.
The physical reason why there is a relationship between ocean level and geomagnetic field changes is not primarily due to temperatures changes caused by the geomagnetic field changes (changes in the geomagnetic field intensity cause a change in low level clouds which explains why extreme climate change events correlate with geomagnetic excursions.)
There are cycles of increases followed by decreases of ocean level that correlate with the Heinrich events. There are geomagnetic excursions or partial excursions that also correlate with the Heinrich events. The same physical reason for the cause of the geomagnetic excursions is the same physical reason why the ocean level changes.
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct connection?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate In Synch Worldwide
An answer to the long-standing riddle of whether the Earth’s ice ages occurred simultaneously in both the Southern and Northern hemispheres is emerging from the glacial deposits found in the high desert east of the Andes.
“The results are significant because they indicate that the whole Earth experiences major ice age cold periods at the same time, and thus, some climate forcing mechanism must homogenize the Earth’s climate system during ice ages and, by inference, other periods,” says Michael R. Kaplan, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Edinburgh who conducted the work in a postdoctoral position at UW-Madison
“During the last two times in Earth’s history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods,” says Kaplan.
“Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation,” says Singer. “Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth.”
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/1/gubbinsd4.pdf
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought. We have investigated a possible mechanism for the instability of the geodynamo by calculating the critical Rayleigh number (Rc) for the onset of convection in a rotating spherical shell permeated by an imposed magnetic field with both toroidal and poloidal components.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998). One of us (Gubbins 1999) has suggested that this is evidence of a rapid natural timescale (500 yr) in the outer core, and that the magnetic field is usually prevented from reversing completely by the longer diffusion time of the inner core (2 to 5 kyr). This raises a number of important but difficult questions for geodynamo theory. How can the geomagnetic ¢eld change so rapidly and dramatically? Can slight variations of the geomagnetic field affect the dynamics of core convection significantly? If so, is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
Why is Svalgaard slapping Vuk?
Why is Vuk still having a great time and a good laugh?
Well,
Vuk has not one but a basket-full of aces up his sleeve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Vuk-Aces.htm
Svalgaard knows it, and further more it knows it can’t take a single one down, but throw mud at grinning Vuk.
Leif says:
“Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?”
I was talking about when the cold shots were, not exactly how cold it was.
RE: tonyb says:
July 7, 2013 at 5:18 am
That article you wrote is a great reference. I can remember being engrossed by it back in 2009. Thanks for reminding me and linking to it. And thanks for the huge amount of work you obviously put into it.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:59 am
IIRC Leif ascribes the cause of this possible event to Jupiter and not the sun.
Not quite. Jupiter [with a bit help from the other planets] is the cause of the glaciations during ice ages by changing the Earth’s orbit and tilt thus modulating the solar radiation falling on high latitude Northern Hemisphere land areas. But has nothing to with variations on a time
—
I had some thoughts about that Dr. S. similar to what you state above. My theory deals with the ‘degrees’ of a solar system de-screening, which occurs when the interstellar density increases. This increase may happen very slowing and over long time period. The outer planets being affected first, followed by the Jovian giants duet system going into longer elliptical orbits. I could see the Earths tilt in this scenario being affected by Jovian Giants, but didn’t think that the Earth was being dragged along for the ride.. I blame the interstellar background for those glaciations and changes to the solar system and Jupiter.
Also, thanks for the volcanic reminder early on in this thread..
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:59 am
—
Thanks for the links and comments William.
When thinking about the SAA, I also try to incorporate the Van Allen Belt, whose inner belt at around 100km above the surface, tends to fluctuate as well. I have read that as the inner belt grow closer to the earth the SAA anomaly gets larger. The overall field continues to weaken. Which means ACR, GCR and whatever CR have an access point in equatorial regions. I would think, this would allow more solar and cosmic radiation in at this latitude. Which would affect the global electric circuit.
There has been work done on what they refer to as the Horns of the Van Allen radiation belts. Something I recall about the latitude where they are closest to in higher latitudes varies.
vukcevic says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:59 am
Well,
Vuk has not one but a basket-full of aces up his sleeve
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Vuk-Aces.htm
Jupiter and Saturn angles and their magnetospheric angles.. interesting Vuks..
When I saw aces in the link I had to take a looky see. I did giggle abit..
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm
—
Maybe Archibald should have a looky see what Dr. Svaalgaard did with the Nobeyama data in this pictorial presentation. Dr. S. is still having some fun, with many fine accomplishments along is journey.
Solar Predictions Using Nobeyama Data
L. Svalgaard (Stanford University)
Y. Kamide (Nagoya University)
SPRO2012, Nagoya University, 22 November 2012
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Predictions%20Using%20Nobeyama%20Data.pdf
Pg.34
Plotting the reconstructed Sunspot
Number (pink) from the composite 2800 MHz flux using the 1947-1990
relation shows the increasing discrepancy with the SIDC ‘official’
sunspot number (blue) the past ~15 years:
When I saw that article Dr. S. Oh boy F 10.7 wasn’t good enough here he goes again.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:57 am
I am aware of the daily group numbers and your attempt to change the data, I was referring to sunspot numbers.
The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number. The data I referred you is the original Hoyt&Schatten data with the Group Sunspot Number.
The daily or monthly data shows the state of the dynamo (or whatever you want to call it). The high and low peaks of SC14 are significant and show a solar state of unusual proportions. It is quite different now with basically just low activity, this can only be seen with detailed data.
Since we only see half of the Sun, the wild swings occur when the spots are on the backside, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Start-of-SC14-and-SC24.png In addition the cycle proceeds in a number of ‘episodes’ adding further variability
Only those in the Babcock camp would consider Choudhuru prominent.
Every reputable solar scientist is in the Babcock camp. That is how the sun works.
Times are a changing.
As far as the dynamo is concerned: not at all.
Jim G says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:46 am
Dark matter will continue to be a fudge factor to make the numbers work until someone actually comes up with a physical sample of same. Until then, it is merely more consensus science.
Consensus science is the science that works. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hard-won facts, regardless of our lack of understanding of their nature [just like gravity is a fact regardless of Newton’s lack of understanding of its cause], see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm
…………….
.””Although the Iceland’s active volcanoes number just over 1% of the world’s total, it is estimated that they produced more then 30% of the total lava since 1500 A.D””..
What is valid for 15 active volcanoes is valid for hundreds of miles of permanent submarine magma flow from the Gakkel ridge.
—
You might want to add that at that latitude the Earth due to rotation is compressional. That area would always show tectonic and volcanic activity. Including volcanos on Gakkel ridge recently discovered, being compared to Mt Vesuvius?
LOD might have some role in it too..
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:46 am
the current solar grand maximum was uniquely long lived
There has been no current solar Grand Maximum.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
As low planetary clouds reflect sunlight into space, more low level clouds
There is no good evidence that changes in cloud cover are caused by solar activity:
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120049.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”
David Archibald claims in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1355817
In what parallel world does Mr. Archibald live? Apparently, he doesn’t live in my world, since the globally averaged surface temperature in the one in which I live is about 0.8 Kelvin higher than in the 19th century. And my world has not been cooling at all in recent decades. On the contrary. The recent multi-decadal warming trend since the mid 1970ies, for which the increase in the anthropogenic greenhouse gases was the major cause, is statistically significant with more than eight standard deviations.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The extremely minor fluctuation in global temperatures over the past century and a half has nothing to do with human activity. Any such implication is a baseless assertion.
Global temps have fluctuated by tens of degrees in the past, on short, decadal time scales. That could happen again. But for the past 150 years or so, we have been fortunate to have lived in a “Goldilocks” climate — a completely benign climate with no measurable human influence. Any opinion that asserts a human influence on temperature fails the Scientific Method of testability, and thus is a baseless conjecture.
Finally, there is ample evidence that GISS has falsified the temperature record. Anything that GISS asserts is highly questionable, and should be rejected on the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. GISS has no honesty in its recordkeeping, as proven in the link above. Perhaps things will change now that Hansen is gone. In the interrest of honest science, one can hope.
Lord have mercy, must we argue so….I know that this far down the thread very few will read but Hell this is un-comfortable at best. Lief with so many comments starts disagreeing with him self, Can we not all get along, for the most part we are on the same side…..A post that says, “HHMM this is interesting 1740 maybe 2015…here is a corralation not a causeation just an interesting idea leads to all of the above….just sad.
PS I read every comment looking for inteligant reparate’ found very little
“Consensus science is the science that works. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are hard-won facts, regardless of our lack of understanding of their nature [just like gravity is a fact regardless of Newton’s lack of understanding of its cause], see e.g. ”
That is what they said about Newtonian physics when they did not accept relativity. The flat earth people would have welcomed you as well.
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 2:57 pm
The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number. The data I referred you is the original Hoyt&Schatten data with the Group Sunspot Number.
This statement sums up your scientific skill. You actually believe you can accurately apply a group to spot ratio of 12.08 that applies to all cycles whether they occur during normal or grand minimum times?
Using this type of tool or yearly smoothed averages in far from solid science.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:10 pm
“The Sunspot Number is 12.08 times the group number”
This statement sums up your scientific skill. You actually believe you can accurately apply a group to spot ratio of 12.08 that applies to all cycles whether they occur during normal or grand minimum times?
[start educational section]
The 12.08 is a calibration factor to bring the Group Number onto the same scale as the Zurich Number [average over all cycles]. A different issue is whether the Zurich Number has a constant ratio to the number of groups. Historically the ratio has been around 10 [origin of the standard formula SSN = 10*groups+spots]. In the past decade it has fallen to between 6 and 7 due to the Livingston and Penn effect, but all that is not relevant for the run of the sunspot numbers over the cycle or for the rapid month-to-month variations.
[end educational section].
You could benefit mightily from studying my paper published today: http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Jim G says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:56 pm
That is what they said about Newtonian physics when they did not accept relativity.
But now relativity is ‘consensus science’ and thus suspect in your opinion, right?
I take it that you did not read the link I gave you http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf and missed the great opportunity for some free education in modern cosmology. Your loss.
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
You could benefit mightily from studying my paper published today:
You have to be kidding, it is the same old stuff rehashed, viewed from your own universe.