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%.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 9:36 am
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:31 am
Tectonics is indirect positive forcing acting via ocean currents
“You have not explained how that works”
Hold on doc.
I can’t remember if Isaac Newton did explain why gravity works..
Here is the initial outlay of the ‘ tectonics – SST relationship’ hypothesis.
We have discussed Denmark straits on number of occasions; here is what the WHOI says:
“Crucial to this WARM-TO COLD oceanographic choreography is the Denmark Strait Overflow Water (DSOW), the largest of the deep, overflow plumes that feed the lower limb of the conveyor belt and return the dense water south through gaps in the Greenland-Scotland Ridge. The Icelandic Jet is not only a major contributor to the conveyor belt, but the major source of the ocean’s densest, coldest water.”
Denmark Strait is only 600m deep and about 200km of its ‘distance across’ is covered with sediment 500m deep. Minor part of the sediment is from the Greenland icebergs, majority is from oozing magmatic tephra carried southwards from Kolbeinsey Ridge where crust is split by tectonic plates movement.
When there is large movement, more sediment is built up blocking the cold Icelandic Jet Current, and the Subpolar gyre (further south) and the SST (AMO) get warmer. When tectonic action slows down erosion takes place, the IJC gets stronger, Subpolar gyre and the SST cool down as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
including positive forcing formula.
From my point of view, most interesting (and from yours most distressing) fact is that the tectonic movement since 1880s (as depicted in the above graph) strongly correlates with solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
Geomagnetic cycle and Loehle’s temperature reconstruction you often quote, corroborates the above.
But as it happens you know all of the above anyway, as Pope Clement VIII knew that the Earth revolves around the sun, and despite it set fire to Giordano Bruno.
That is why I say you are not following ‘good science practice’ of looking at all possible variables, not because any lack of knowledge, but because of dogmatic stance on ‘solar influence’ at various geo-processes.
leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm
The amount radiated for 0.1C would have varied by about 0.55 watt/m^2.
1) No, by 1.88 W/m2
since the ocean expansion is so nicely correlated with the solar cycle
2) Where do you get idea from?
————————————————————
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
2) try here:
http://www.jcronline.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/pinnacle/journals/content/coas/2011/15515036-27.3/jcoastres-d-10-00157.1/production/images/medium/i1551-5036-27-3-409-f06.gif
or here: http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
I should have said that variations in ocean expansion are nicely correlated with the solar cycle. I should also mention that this whole discussion should be concerned with amplitudes of approximately sinusoidal (to first order) oscillations of temperature and variations in the rates of sea level rise with various phase lags over a solar cycle. The arguments can be tightened, but without changing much.
lsvalgaard says:
“I find your claims unconvincing in the extreme. But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
Having convinced the most sceptical person I have ever known, maybe even yourself would be intrigued.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/17/dennis-lyons-obituary
The charges against Bruno included blasphemy, immoral conduct & heresy. Of eight known enumerated charges, only one had to do with his belief in infinite & eternal worlds, which idea he may have picked up in England, via a telescope predecessor, the Digges’ “perspective glass”.
I don’t know if Clement VIII were a secret Copernican, but haven’t seen any evidence to this effect, which I would welcome. He may have allowed De Revolutionibus to be read, but only as an hypothesis for use in calculations, not as advocating the physical reality of heliocentrism, which was in fact Copernicus’ belief.
Oops! Sorry, above reply is to vukcevic @ur momisugly July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm.
For a very large part of Africa maize (corn) is the staple diet, particularly in rural areas. Except for people growing the crop in locations that are marginal due to altitude, temperature is of little consequence. It is the adequacy, and timing, of rains that are the main governing factor of the yield. Since the demise of Rhodesia virtually none of the crop is exported off continent, but the yield governs the welfare of many millions of people. My point is that temperature per se is not the be all and end all of climate/weather.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I can’t remember if Isaac Newton did explain why gravity works..
Comparing yourself to Newton [or with Einstein, if memory serves] is bad form. The [BIG] difference is that Newton could calculate the effects of gravity and you cannot [or have not] calculate anything.
From my point of view, most interesting the fact [sic] is that the tectonic movement since 1880s (as depicted in the above graph) strongly correlates with solar activity.
The tectonic movements since 1880 amount to about 10 meter. Not changing the ocean currents very much I would think and is not even shown on your graph, and there is no evidence that those 10 meter show any solar cycle variation along a transect.
because of dogmatic stance on ‘solar influence’ at various geo-processes.
Because of deep knowledge [call it dogma if you must] about how these things work. And in particular what does not work.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
To compare with TSI you must multiply by 4, thus 4*0.55 = 2.2 W/m2, close to my value of 1.9 W/m2.
2) try here: http://www.jcronline.org/na101…
Seems to have broken down [at both ends]. this happens often with spurious correlations, they work for a while then break down: http://www.leif.org/research/SLC-SSN.png
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Having convinced the most skeptical person I have ever known
Do you have a link evidencing that he was truly convinced by your argument? or was just being nice to you…
Anyway, meet someone even more skeptical: me.
milodonharlani says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm
The charges against Bruno included blasphemy, immoral conduct & heresy. Of eight known enumerated charges, only one had to do with his belief in infinite & eternal worlds,
In the age of communism (east Europe) same type of ‘trumped-up’ charges were employed in prosecutions, often the main reason was never mentioned.
Heliocentric system was well known before Copernicus:
“It has been argued that in developing the mathematics of heliocentrism Copernicus drew on not just the Greek, but also the work of Muslim astronomers, especially the works of Nasir al-Din Tusi (Tusi-couple), Mo’ayyeduddin Urdi (Urdi lemma) and Ibn al-Shatir. In his major work, Copernicus also discussed the theories of Ibn Battuta and Averroes.”-Wikipedia.
I don’t know if Clement VIII were a secret Copernican
The Vatican was always interested in the matters celestial, they claim it was for a practical reason, i.e. inaccuracies in the Julian Calendar (drift in the dates for Xmas and Easter). The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world, or so they claim on their website.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:04 pm
——————-
Indeed the Vatican was interested in astronomy, but heliocentrism initially offered little or no improvement in predictive power over geocentrism, with all its adjustments & epicycles.
At least on ancient Greek astronomer advocated heliocentrism, but was dismissed as impious. Copernicus started the Scientific Revolution by using observations & math to support a sun-centered over a geocentric system. As I said, I’ve seen no evidence that Clement VIII believed in heliocentrism, contrary to the Bible & Church doctrine, whether via Copernicus (who dedicated his book to Pope Clement VII), or from ancient or Muslim sources.
But, yes, the Church did in some ways resemble Communist regimes. However, the charges against Bruno were not trumped up. He was a heretic. I don’t advocate burning heretics, but he was in fact guilty of what was then a capital crime. His belief in an infinite universe (which ours isn’t), was not the main reason he was burned to death.
leif says:
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm
1) 4 sigma T^3 dT= 4×5.67e(-8)(289)^3 x0.1= 0.55 W/m^2 at the earth surface, assuming a blackbody at 289 K and 0.1C temperature change, to first order.
To compare with TSI you must multiply by 4, thus 4*0.55 = 2.2 W/m2, close to my value of 1.9 W/m2.
————————————————-
Why would I want to compare with TSI without also adding in the heat flux changes necessary to account for heat exchanges with the upper layers of the oceans? That gets us up to about 1 W/m^2 required to produced the observed 0.1C variation of surface temperatures.
TSI variations of ~ 1 W/m^2, reduced by albedo and latitude effects yields 0.18 W/M^2. That is the appropriate comparison at the earth surface. Even without considering any deeper layers of ocean to participate in heat exchanges correlated with the solar cycle, 0.18 W/m^2 is too small by a factor of 3 to account for surface temperature changes. To me, this seems to be clear evidence that the sun is contributing to surface temperature variations via some mechanism other than TSI variability.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Why would I want to compare with TSI
Because it is better to compare apples with apples. The TSI outside of the atmosphere is a well understood quantity. That should be compared to whatever terrestrial measure one uses. Your way introduces intermediaries that are fuzzy and not well determined.[e.g. sea level change]. So, I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what your problem [or mystery] is.
@vukcevic
“According to Copernicus Thabit determined the length of the sidereal year as 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 12 seconds (an error of 2 seconds). Copernicus based his claim on the Latin text attributed to Thabit.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra#Astronomy
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm
…………….
Sediments build up and subsequent erosion, doc!
Just to remind you of a simple fact you may well know, 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.
All your comments in the reply to my post are based on misinterpretation, from Newton to tectonic movement. Knowing your well recognised scientific competence, I would assume it was deliberate not accidental, but if indeed accidental do Read Again! if deliberate than any further discussion with you is pointless, since your dogmatic approach is strongly biased in the favour of ‘science is settled’ and heresy must be suppressed by all means.
Why else scientist of your ability would waste his talents and very valuable time, in as you put it “educating scientific illiterates”. Life is short, use rest of your time to expand the age of scientific enlightenment not turning it into a moribund pool of stagnation.
Have a nice weekend.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:40 pm
But Thabit was a geocentrist, as was usual before Copernicus.
milodonharlani says:
“But Thabit was a geocentrist”
If he had measured the sidereal year to within 2 seconds, surely he must have noticed the difference from the tropical year?
Ulric Lyons says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Apparently not, or if he did, he kept quiet about it, or his heliocentric work didn’t come down to us & wasn’t commented on at the time. Or I could be wrong.
link should be: Kolbeinsey Ridge
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Sediments build up and subsequent erosion
So you claim you have a record of the variation of the submarine build-up of sediments and its variation with time including the times when the build-up was negative according to you [where did the sediments go?]
if deliberate than any further discussion with you is pointless
All I say is deliberate, obviously.
since your dogmatic approach is strongly biased in the favour of ‘science is settled’ and heresy must be suppressed by all means.
Yours is not heresy, just ordinary nonsense. Such need not be ‘suppressed’, just generally to be ignored, except for the possibility of teaching you something.
as you put it “educating scientific illiterates”.
That is, indeed, as goal of mine, although you are a good example [there are more] of how difficult it is to overcome inherent learning disability [deliberate or not].
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm
[where did the sediments go?]
Hmm. .. Educating scientific illiterates, and failed to learn about your motherland’s colonial geography.
Down the world’s highest waterfall
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/1DSsfp.gif
all 2000 m of it.
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Down the world’s highest waterfall
Not really the issue which is your claim to have an accurate record of the sedimentation over hundreds of years and can calculate how much that changes the ocean currents and hence the temperature in Europe. It all comes down to the usual issue: you have not defined what your variables are and how they are calculated and how much the current is changed, etc. Until you do, you have nothing.
Leif says:
Your way introduces intermediaries that are fuzzy and not well determined.[e.g. sea level change]. So, I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what your problem [or mystery] is.
So how about that factor of three inadequacy of TSI without considering any sea level changes? Or are duty cycle, latitude and albedo effects too fuzzy to suit you? Either way you do the comparison you will have to consider these. I chose to do the comparison at the earth surface. What do you think is wrong with that?
An ‘enlightenment age’ scientist might say:
“At Stanford we have world renown geologists, I can ensure they treat your data with confidentiality; they can validate data and consider elaborating the forcing formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm ”
but a dogma pursuant obscurantist might say:
“…you have nothing” and get lost vukcevic!
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm
What do you think is wrong with that?
Hard to say as it is not clear what you say. To make it clear, I’ll go back to your earlier comments and ask for clarification [going in small steps]:
So here it the 1st point:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm; “variation of solar surface heat flux that is an order of magnitude larger than the TSI variations over the solar cycle”
‘solar surface’ means at the Earth’s surface? not the ‘Sun’s surface’.
‘heat flux’ goes which way: is that the flux (W/m2) that we receive from the Sun measured at the Earth’s surface? or the flux that the Earth returns to space?
‘TSI variation over the solar cycle’ is what? if it is the flux (W/m2) that we receive from the Sun measured at the Earth’s surface? If so, how is that different from the ‘heat flux’?
vukcevic says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:50 pm
An ‘enlightenment age’ scientist might say:
“At Stanford we have world renown geologists, I can ensure they treat your data with confidentiality
That is not how science should be conducted. c.f. Phil Jones’s refusal to hand over his data. You are just in that same boat. I repeat: no data, no science. A main reason for not opening up data is that they are suspect.
lsvalgaard says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Bill H says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm
It’s is also possible that due to the weakening of solar magnetic fields that the sun spots will fade. The internal motor (so to speak) is not welling them to the surface. Those same magnetic fields affect earths fields allowing in greater amounts of ionizing radiation.
What seems to be happening is that the magnetic fields do come to the surface [thus increasing TSI], but the [unknown] process that concentrates them into visible spots is operating less efficiently. During the Maunder Minimum [and other Grand Minima] the magnetic field was strong enough to modulate cosmic rays even more vigorously than in recent decades.
—
Speaking of adding to the radiation budget ..
Now Dr. S. don’t let the title mess with your head, they are begging the question ..
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct
connection?
A. DeSantis a,b,n, E.Qamili a,c, G.Spada d, P.Gasperini e
ftp://ftp.ingv.it/pro/terrasol/space/DeSantis_et_al_JASTP_2012.pdf
On pg. 2, figure 1;
Fig. 1. Global geomagnetic models from1600 to 2005.
Geomagnetic field from GUFM1 (validity1590–1990),
IGRF (validity 1900–2010) and
CHAOS(validity1999–2005)
models from 1600 to 2000 at steps of 100 years, together with 2005.The surface area of the SAA is evidenced by the white area with field values less than 32,000 nT.
Take a good look at the SAA and decreasing field and increase in the size over the period. Take a good look at the overall progression of the decrease in Earths magnetic field and the possibility of an incremental increase in the amount of radiation penetration.
Well the corn here in the back yard? Is my knee high for the 4th of July. Deer corn, planted late. Deer wont need it till winter anyway.. But by comparison of other years in driving around the state seems short in height. Used to also scoff at the knee high thing, as was seeing waist and shoulder heights.