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%.
Sorry to have had to to leave this nice discussion for some external reality, but let me continue with one last comment.
Leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Note that … the temperature varies about 0.08 C
The variation of TSI at the TOA is typically 1.2 W/m2. From dS/S=4 dT/T we find for T=289K that dT =0.08K. What is your mystery?
——————————————————
There is a major problem with your logic here. S=sigma T^4 gives the radiation rate from a blackbody surface at temperature T, measured just above the surface. For T and dT measured at the earth surface, the corresponding S and dS should also be measured there. You are assuming that dS at the surface is proportional to the dS at the top of the atmosphere, which is probably OK, but it is not true that S at the surface is proportional to S at the top of the atmosphere. If it were, then the proportionality constants would cancel and your method would be OK, but it doesn’t work that way.
To see what the problem really is, for T=289K, S=395.5 W/m^2, and for dT=0.08C, you get
dS=Sx4 dT/T=395.5x4x0.08/289=0.44 W/m^2.
Now you have the problem that you have been trying to avoid, namely, how to compare that with the solar flux variations that occur at the top of the atmosphere. If variations of solar flux there are about 1.2 W/m^2 coming in in UV/VIS, then one would expect the fraction of this reaching the surface to be about the same as the fraction of TSI that reaches the surface. That is about 166×1.2/1361 = 0.146 W/m^2. But that is only a third as large as what is departing earth surface as long wavelength radiation. The sun is doing more to produce that 0.08C temperature variation than just varying its TSI. BTW, you need to read Nir Shaviv’s work on ocean calorimetry.
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 9:11 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.
That, my friend, is the state of the art. Study it carefully and learn, lest you fall behind the curve.
bones says:
July 7, 2013 at 10:23 pm
But that is only a third as large as what is departing earth surface as long wavelength radiation. The sun is doing more to produce that 0.08C temperature variation than just varying its TSI.
What is departing the surface is not what is radiated to space. The effective temperature of the Earth is 255K radiating from an altitude of 5 km. The difference is called the greenhouse effect.
Carla says: July 7, 2013 at 3:03 pm
……………
Hi
New discoveries in the Arctic Ocean including rise of the Lomonosov microcontinent will eventually show to have an effect on the Arctic Ocean currents particular at the Beaufort Gyre system, that plays a flywheel role in stabilizing the climate of the entire Arctic region.
However all these changes are mostly within boundary set by the narrow Fram Strait which represents the unique deep water connection between the Arctic Ocean and the rest of the world oceans. Its bathymetry controls the exchange of water masses between the Arctic basin and the North Atlantic. The significant heat flux through water mass exchange and sea ice transport, i.e. transport of fresh water and sea ice southwards and transport of warm saline waters northwards, influences the thermohaline circulation at a global scale.
Silting and erosion of the Fram Strait could as important as that in the Denmark Strait, but for time being there is no data. Main difference is that the Fram Strait has a dip narrow channel, while the Denmark Strait is wide and shallow (see here )
Major mystery is why the geo-tectonics of the region correlates to the solar activity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
correction:
the Fram Strait has a deep narrow channel, while the Denmark Strait is wide and shallow
dbstealey says in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1357531
Also certainly minor compared to what temperatures at Earth’s surface were at a time when Earth was a molten rock, or even more minor compared to the temperature in the center of the sun. By deliberately choosing the y-scale disproportionally large or putting the variations into a misleading context one can make it appear as if it was nothing. The same would be true then for Archibald’s 1740 temperatures, though. These kind of dirty tricks just don’t prove anything.
Here we have Mr. Stealey’s opinion and assertion on one hand. On the other hand, we have a whole body of research in the field of climate science, with thousands of published, scientific publications, which have puzzled together and collected the empirical evidence for our current understanding of the Earth system, like it is compiled and synthesized in the last IPCC report, and will be in the new one that is going to be published this year. This is the basis for what I say. It’s Mr. Stealey’s assertions, which are baseless.
What are the scientific references, on which this claim is based, according to which the global temperatures changed by tens of degrees on decadal time scales?
Just to put it in perspective what Mr. Stealey is claiming. The difference in the globally averaged temperature between the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and today is 4 to 7 Kelvin.[1] The transition between glacials and interglacials is major climate change. In comparison, Mr. Stealey claims tens of degrees of changes in the past. To get such a change like the one between the glacials and interglacials, it already requires large changes in the external forcings, like the one from the variations in the Earth orbital parameters, driving such major climate changes. So, when did this happen that the globally averaged temperature at Earth’s surface changed by a multiple of the change between LGM and today within a few decades? Such large climate changes don’t just happen out of the blue.
Also, the fact that Earth’s climate has changed in its geological past by a magnitude equal or larger than the climate change caused by human activities so far, does not refute logically or empirically that human’s activities have become a factor as well, which can change Earth’s climate of equal or even potentially larger magnitude now as the forces of Nature. It’s not in contradiction to any physics.
This is Mr. Stealey’s assertion. On the other hand, there is, for instance, a whole chapter on attribution of climate change in the IPCC report 2007:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
As starting point for the ones who are really interested, in contrast to Mr. Stealey.
There is no “ample evidence”. There is no evidence at all for this accusation. A link to a “skeptic” opinion website with some colored figures and assertions is not evidence. Evidence would be something else. And no, links to 100 or more similar opinion websites wouldn’t still make it evidence.
It’s just the typical libelous smear against scientists, which usually comes from “skeptics” who don’t like the results of published scientific research, because it contradicts their fixed belief system, but who can’t refute those results on scientific grounds. Why does it not surprise me that the first comment in a reply to my first comment that I wrote here, after Mr. Watts retracted the announcement previously made on his blog that I was a “persona non grata” here, contains such defaming statements?
Mr. Stealey accuses scientists of ethical misconduct. But it’s actually his accusations that are unethical.
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-2.html
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm
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.”
I am a certified firearms trainer and though I am good with a bow, do not attempt to teach its use to others. I suggest you do likewise and stay within your area of expertise. By the way, do you still suspect the local missing dark matter may be hiding inside the sun?
Jim G says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
stay within your area of expertise.
Physics is my expertise. You might still benefit from studying the link I gave you http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf as it is very accessible.
By the way, do you still suspect the local missing dark matter may be hiding inside the sun?
DM may not be missing in the solar system, but present everywhere. Possibly billions of DM particles will have passed through you when you are finished reading this comment.
The average dark matter density in the universe is about the mass of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The solar wind contains 5 million atoms per cubic meter so on the scale of the Solar System the effect of the dark matter is entirely negligible. It’s only when you get to interstellar distances that it starts becoming significant.
Perlwitz says:
“By deliberately choosing the y-scale disproportionally large or putting the variations into a misleading context one can make it appear as if it was nothing. The same would be true then for Archibald’s 1740 temperatures, though. These kind of dirty tricks just don’t prove anything.”
===============================
The honest y-axis I posted [from two different sources] is not “disproportionately large”, it is in degrees [AKA: the “Normal Form”] — not in tenths, or hundredths of a degree — which are not even outside the error bands of the thermometers used. Thus, the “dirty tricks” are those Perlwitz employs when using minuscule fractions of a degree to hand-wave about. The links I provided above show the temperature as it really is, not supposed temperatures under a bogus magnifying glass.
The difference between Perlwitz’ baseless assertions and everything I wrote in my July 7, 2013, 5:06 pm comment is that my comments were completely factual, supported by corroborating links. Those links render Perlwitz’ self-serving IPCC opinions irrelevant.
The fact remains that the planet has stopped warming for at least sixteen years now, even as CO2 continues to rise. The NY Times, the Economist, and many other publications now admit that global warming has stopped. Even über-alarmist Phil Jones admits it. CO2 simply does not have the effect claimed by the alarmist crowd, and those still demonizing “carbon” know it. The fact that they continue their charade demonstrates their lack of basic integrity.
You fail to address the point that a drop in temperature equivalent to a single increment of the Y-axis of your linked graph would plunge the world into a catastrophic ice age. The claim about “minor fluctuations” should be considered in this context – just as Jan Perlwitz suggests (or implies).
Stephen Walters says:
July 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
—
Thanks for the link Dr. S., and congratulations. I know you’ve been working on the Sun Spot numbers series for sometime now. Why hadn’t any one seen the discrepancies between the different counting methods before?
Pretty cool checking out the telescopes and Wolf’s pocket scope.
Nice to see a collaborative effort from a somewhat international community. (did I see some Chinese letters)
Walters, I used to use the Grand Maximum mantra, I now use ‘consecutive med-high solar cycles’ to describe this period.. Dr. S. had em by the ah numbers. What a mess to have to try and straighten out at this particular epoch in the history of mankind. Like in the face of all this global warming ah stuff.
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:24 am
—
Thank you for the update and links Mr. Vuks. That is some interesting development, microcontinent.
Not what one would expect, yet not totally suprising. Now how does one go about separating Earths regular daily tectonic action, from a Solar induced reaction?
Carla says:
July 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Why hadn’t any one seen the discrepancies between the different counting methods before?
Good question. When Hoyt & Schatten came out with their Group Sunspot Number most people believed that this was the definitive series and began to use that [it also had a very convenient secular change leading up to a Grand Maximum which fitted many pet theories, e.g. about Global Warming]. Because H&S never updated their series after 1994, people eventually began to switch back to the old Wolf Series [or worse: mixed the two series]. There has been large resistance to our effort of correcting the deficiencies that everybody [in the business of making sunspot numbers] now finally agree are there. The obvious reason is that our effort invalidates [or at least makes suspect] much correlative work using the SSN as input. Final acceptance may be another solar cycle away. One reason for not ‘discovering’ the problem may be that Waldmeier claimed that he used the same counting method as the Zurich observers had used back to 1882. This claim we now know [as one could have known all along by digging into the literature] was false. Whether it was fraudulent is an open question and we may not want to go there [as it doesn’t really matter – we can just fix the numbers]. We anticipate to publish our analysis and the final [definitive, official?] series after our meeting in Locarno [Switzerland] next year.
John Finn says:
“…a single increment of the Y-axis of your linked graph would plunge the world into a catastrophic ice age.”
What “single increment” would that be? One degree? That is the single, smallest increment in the graphs I posted. And, one degree up? Or down? You don’t say.
Whether you are referring to a 1ºC, or to a 1ºF increment [I linked to charts showing both], your statement is still incorrect. A one-degree fluctuation is normal, natural, and to be expected. It has happened before and it will happen again.
The planet has warmed more than 1ºF since the beginning of the industrial revolution, causing no global harm whatsoever. It could easily retrace that rise, and we would be no worse off than we were during the American Revolutionary War. Note that we were not “plunged into a catastropic ice age” then, despite the planet being 1º colder than now. And the 1º warming has not caused runaway globhal warming, as was incessantly and universally predicted by the climate alarmist crowd.
The fact is that the planet’s temperature fluctuates constantly — and naturally. If you go back beyond the Holocene, you will see much greater fluctuations, during times when CO2 remained very low, and constant.
The entire CO2-based conjecture that claims “carbon” causes global harm has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is a false alarm. The planet itself proves that beyond any doubt.
And with that deconstruction, the entire climate alarmist argument is falsified. The “carbon” conjecture has been proven to be wrong. That is all there is to it. The debate is settled in favor of skeptical scientists, and the only people who still carry on about it are arguing based on their ego, not on scientific evidence. They have been proven wrong, but they will never admit it, because it would be too damaging to their fragile egos, and to their grant income.
William Astley says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:46 am
The D-O cycles’ warming period has been found to occur when there is a concurrent solar grand maximum. The cooling phase of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle occurs when there is a concurrent solar Maunder like minimum.
During recent years an explanation of D-O events have been emerging, culminating in a the publication of a plausible mechanism for D-O events [we already knew were not cyclic]: “an ice shelf acts in concert with sea ice to set the slow and fast timescales of the DO cycle, respectively. The abrupt warming at the onset of a cycle is caused by the rapid retreat of sea ice after the collapse of an ice shelf. The gradual cooling during the subsequent interstadial phase is determined by the timescale of ice-shelf regrowth. Once the ice shelf reaches a critical size, sea ice expands, driving the climate rapidly back into stadial conditions. The stadial phase ends when warm subsurface waters penetrate beneath the ice shelf and cause it to collapse. This hypothesis explains the full shape of the DO cycle, the duration of the different phases, and the transitions between them and is supported by proxy records in the North Atlantic and Nordic Seas.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
No need to invoke mysterious solar cycle connections [that don’t match anyway].
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Fraudulent? There’s no fraud in science. Ever! Scientists aren’t mere humans, motivated by base desires. Get a grip. Impossible that any “scientist”, with a PhD from a reputable institution ever could, ever would engage in fraud. Perish the thought! Especially “climate scientists”, purest of the pure, purer than driven, “black carbon”-free snow.
Need I go sarc?
dbstealey says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:17 pm
…
————–
Nice rebuttal Stealey, well said.
Vuks or Dr. S.
Got those cosmic rays on the brain asking questions.
Anyone know what the solar wind speed is at that creates a Forbush decrease. Are most of those cosmic rays flushed out the system due to re-acceleration processes? During slow solar winds are cosmic rays just pushed in and decay or burn out in the atmosphere?
milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Fraudulent? There’s no fraud in science. Ever! […] Need I go sarc?
No, because we are not going there as it does not help. Suffice it to say that Waldmeier had a very strong ego and did not tolerate dissent when it came to the sunspot number. But all that is water under the bridge and not helpful today, as the data themselves when compared to other people’s counts carry an imprint of the manipulations. Of course, there are people today also with strong egos that oppose any correction of the ‘precious historical record’. Such ‘rearguard’ reactionism is to be expected, but will eventually die away [if not sooner then literally as time goes by].
Mark Bofill opined in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/further-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1358756
What do you mean with “nice rebuttal”? Do you mean the blunt lies by Stealey like the one that it had been “incessantly and universally predicted” a 1 degree temperature increase would cause a runaway global warming, or that Phil Jones “admitted” that global warming had “stopped”?
vukcevic says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:24 am
—
.. Now how does one go about separating Earths regular daily tectonic action, from a Solar induced reaction?
—
Have you seen this article yet Vuks? Looks like a keeper..
Common dependence on earthquake magnitudes for the trapped
particles bursts approaching the earthquake
Ping Wang, Huanyu Wang, Yuqian Ma, Hong Lu, Xiangcheng Meng,
Jilong Zhang, Hui Wang, Feng Shi, Yanbing Xu, Xinqiao Li, Xiaoxia
Yu, Xiaoyun Zhao, Feng Wu, Zhenghua An, Wenqi Jiang, Hanyi Liu
Institute of High Energy Physics,Chinese Academy of Science, 100049 Beijing, China
17 November 2012
pg2
…A variety of premonitory phenomena associated with earthquakes exhibit anomalous ef-
fects which believed to be correlated with seismic activity, such as mechanical deformation,
geochemical and hydrological precursors, and electromagnetic precursors. Recently, radi-
ation belt energetic particle fluxes showed promising sign of precursor of strong seismic
activity from past several space experiments[1–5]. These particle fluxes are characterized by
an anomalous short-term and sharp increase of high-energy particle counting rates which
are referred as particle bursts (PBs).
PBs arises when subjected to electromagnetic disturbances in space environment. For
inner radiation belt, pitch angle diffusion plays dominant role compared with other
processes[6], where trapped particles are scattered into loss cone and result in PBs events
and particle precipitation. Practically, the occurrences of PBs events are frequently in-
fluenced by many natural phenomena, such as thunderstorm or geomagnetic storm[7–10],
which could result in that earthquake origin of PBs events are difficult to distinguish from
those of non-seismic sources. Furthermore, many earthquakes indeed do not accompanied
by PBs events within time intervals between them, namely time windows, from several hours
to several days. So the validity of earthquake origin of PBs remains largely unsolved.
In this research, we investigated the frequency of PBs occurrence centered around earth-
quakes within different time windows for various magnitudes, and found essentially nearly
the same systematic dependence of PBs frequency on earthquake magnitude and its char-
acteristic time evolution behavior. These findings indicated that PBs events approaching
earthquakes are positively correlated with earthquake magnitude and its average number
is uniformly decreased with time from the beginning of earthquake events. Our results
more directly related the PBs events with earthquake and should strengthen the validity of
earthquake origin of PBs events..
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1796.pdf
Hope I have some time later today to finish reading this one. Notice the radiation belts mention above among the many other things. Still playing in the radiation belts. Gotta get back to IBEX..
I think the interesting lesson is not just 1740 – but how the 1740s and subsequent decades differed from the 1730s. Temperatures in 1740 may have been affected by volcanic dust, but the Central England Temperature (CET) record shows a very significant ‘shift’ in climate that occurred abruptly at the end of the 1730s. The decade to 1739 (1730-39) had a mean CET of 9.86C (49.7F). This is only 0.34c (0.7F) lower than the most recent ten years (2003-12). That gives you some perspective how warm the 1730s were. In sharp contrast the ten years ending 1748 had cooled by one whole degree C to 8.83C. There was some recovery afterwards but renewed cold continued into the early 19th Century with peak cooling in the ten years ended 1772 (8.74c) and 8.67C in the ten years ended 1817.
To me that is the lesson of 1740 and onwards – how quickly climate can change. The journals of Thomas Barker of Lyndon Hall, Rutland, England (in the Midlands of England) made detailed climate observations during this whole period and spoke of the significant ‘change in the weather’ during these years.
Chris Martin says:
July 9, 2013 at 5:42 am
Exactly. There was a regime change. Any volcanic activity was a coincidence. One whole degree would shift growing conditions 150 km-odd south. Scotland would cop it.
With respect to the radiation belts, SAA and tectonics..
The Beatles “Fixing a Hole”
hi ho hi ho
Jan P Perlwitz says:
July 8, 2013 at 8:40 pm
…
————————-
Oh, hi there Jan. 🙂 I’ve missed you around here.
What do you make of this statement, anyway?
Do you suggest or imply this?
Mark Bofill says:
Nice rebuttal Stealey, well said.
Thank you, Mark.
Also, Perlwitz calls my comment a lie, which only reflects badly on the proven liar Jan Perlwitz. I do not lie. But Perlwitz suffers from psychological projection: as Anthony has pointed out, he lied when he denied his connection to GISS:
“…you have previously refused to acknowledge you work for [GISS], even though you are listed in the GISS directory, have a GISS phone number, and have a NASA GISS email address.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html
Your denial is epic.” – Anthony
And of course, contrary to what Perlwitz falsely claims, Phil Jones admitted that global warming stopped at least fifteen years ago: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.” ~Phil Jones, admitting that global warming has stopped.
With mendacious incompetents staffing GISS, it is no wonder they are forced to resort to lying about the temperature record through their devious “adjustments” in order to keep the fake climate scare alive. It is truly scandalous that our tax money is used to keep such prevaricators emitting their false climate propaganda.
Now Perlwitz is on another personal campaign — once again apparently using taxpayer-paid time — to denigrate and attack Dr. Salby throughout the work day on another thread. Is that what Perlwitz is paid to do? I personally doubt it. But the time stamps speak for themselves.
Your “minor fluctuation” comment linked to this graph
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Each increment on the Y-axis appears to be 10deg F.