From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
“Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”
The sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why. Solar activity is in gradual decline, a change from the norm which in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age. We are supposed to be at a peak of activity, at solar maximum. The current situation, however, is outside the norm and the number of sunspots seems in steady decline. The sun was undergoing “bizarre behaviour” said Dr Craig DeForest of the society. “It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,” said Dr David Hathaway of Nasa. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
The fall-off in sunspot activity still has the potential to affect our weather for the worse, Dr Elliott said. “It all points to perhaps another little ice age,” he said. “It seems likely we are going to enter a period of very low solar activity and could mean we are in for very cold winters.” And while the researchers in the US said the data showed a decline in activity, they had no way to predict what that might mean for the future. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,” says David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, who analysed the same data and came to the same conclusion. “We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place but understanding it is now a focus.” As for when the next Maunder minimum may happen, DeToma will not even hazard a guess. “We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.” –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment. The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots – a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead, it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so. –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
A number of authors think it is probable that the sun is headed for a grand minimum similar to the Maunder-Minimums of 1649-1715. That may already manifest itself in 2020. There have been studies that attempt to project the impacts on global temperatures. Included here is a study by Meehl et al. 2013. The authors look at an approximately 0.25% reduction in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 2020 and 2070: They fed this into a climate model. Result: global temperatures could drop around 0.2-0.3 degrees Celsius with local peak values of up to 0.8°C, especially in the middle and upper latitudes of the northern hemispheres. –Frank Bosse, NoTricksZone, 14 July 2013
When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather”. Those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 10 July 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Leif No – The NGRIP data show the 1910 – 40 warming and then the 40 -70 cooling more clearly..
This is becoming tedious. Here is Figure 3 from Berggren et al. [http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf ] http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png no resemblance between temperature and 10Be Flux [The AGW people have a ready explanation: the temperature raise in just AGW 🙂 ]
WordPress louses up URLs:
[ http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf ]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
If we have a prolonged solar minimum and temperatures don’t go down Leif will be correct. On the other hand if temperatures do go down then I and others that agree,it is due to solar conditions will be correct. It is that simple.
No, it is not that simple. The first part is probably OK, but the second part is not as it does not follow that temperatures go down for your stated reason. There could be many other reasons.
Here is a paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s compatriots
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
which may not go down well with the Stanford’s Solar Supremo
(see Figure 1.7: Variation of Ice export through the Fram Strait and smoothed
values of solar cycle length (SCL121) (heavy curve).
via hockeyshctick
Leif I’m looking at the NGRIP in your original link. The 1675 -1710 BE high, The Be high at the Dalton minimum and the Be trend from 1910 to 40 to 75 inversely track temperatures .
I’m a geologist – correlating .well logs and data acrosss or between sedimentary basins is more like cobbling together a 4 dimensional jig saw puzzle with many bits missing than some neat mathematical exercise with a correlation co-effecient.
These bits of the puzzle look significant to me.I realise they may not to you or others.We’ll see.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Leif I’m looking at the NGRIP in your original link. The 1675 -1710 BE high, The Be high at the Dalton minimum and the Be trend from 1910 to 40 to 75 inversely track temperatures .
The plot where I compare 10Be and Temps show a high-definition version of the original plot [they are from the same paper]. The earlier data are difficult to deal with as we don’t have a good global temperature record. The trend from 1910 to 1040 is probably an artifact [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf ]. At our ISSI meetings we discussed this problem and came to the conclusion that the data for that period was not very good [had the largest errors – possibly climate related or contaminated by volcanic eruptions ]. An analysis by Webber and Higsbie http://www.leif.org/EOS/1004-2675.pdf concludes “more than50% of the 10Be flux increase around 1700, 1810, and 1895 is due to non-production related increases” [e.g. variation in climate or aerosols].
Since 1930 we are on much surer ground and as you can see there is no correlation http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
It is disconcerting that you refuse to discuss the real elephant in the room: the trend from 1930 to 2000.
vukcevic says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Here is a paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s compatriots
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
The ice data is probably good. The Solar Cycle Length analysis is nonsense.
[Trend to 1940, not 1040? or are you thinking of the new taxes you will owe under CAGW reg’s? Mod]
Trend to 1940, not 1040?
Obviously!
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
If the conversion of hydrogen into helium is driven by the gravity of the Sun then it seems credible that the movement of the planets could perturb this process. Why is the theory so discarded?
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
The change over billions of years is measurably small with our current technology
If the conversion of hydrogen into helium is driven by the gravity of the Sun then it seems credible that the movement of the planets could perturb this process. Why is the theory so discarded?
Because the gravity that the planets exert on the Sun is extremely minute compared to the Sun’s own gravity. Furthermore, it takes about 200,000 years for the energy to slowly diffuse out from the core so any variation on a time scale much less than that is completely washed out [even if there were a perturbation]
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant, then how can a minimum be a lower minimum than previous if the TSI is continually increasing?
The change over billions of years is much too small to be measurable with our current technology
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm
….”completely washed out [even if there were a perturbation].”
===================
Have we just invoked the possibility of “perturbation change” into the lexicon,
cus I need to keep up 🙂
Leif I think that the Webber and Higbie approach could be improved.
Modest suggestions. 1. Dont average the two data sets- it degrades both.2 They are getting confused by high frequecy noise ( Local weather and environment) 3 I’m reasonably sure that a thirty year moving average of the annual Be data from both cores separately from 1600- present would produce more meaningful results ( note – not 22 year forget SSN for the time being). 4. I agree the 1930 – 2000 data looks problematic – for the present I would follow Manns noble example and simply use the Oulu neutron data post 1964 until I can figure out what is going on..
Incidentally I’m interested in a millenial cycle .Has anyone made a 500 year moving average of the Be data for the entire Holocene? Then adjusted it for changes in the earths magnetic field and compared to temperatures?
Leif pointed us to this chart:
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
but the annual average purports to show a warm spell from the 1950s to the 1970s which is clearly the opposite of the truth.
An explanation would be appreciated.
Lief: (and all others commenting herein and hearout ..)
Lots of comments, and much feedback. Thank you for your investment.
But …. Are we not collectively, forgetting (or failing to anticipate) the “time” between an event within the sun that “might” affect the earth’s climate, the potential display of such an event on a particular sunspot cycle (max nbr of sunspots, minimum nbr of sunspots, length of cycle, minimum energy of sunspots in that cycle, or whatever the symptom somebody wishes to discuss), the length of time that such an event takes place between “start” and stop” of the event, the “acceleration of either the start of stop of an event, and then the time for that event to “show up” as a recognizable change in the earth’s temperature?
Thus: Suppose a change in the internal currents of the sun happens: goes up, goes down, stops all together, reverses, whatever. Specifically, suppose a change in the solar reactions takes place that will eventually cause a change in the Be10 ratios on earth. How long will it take that change in the sun to be seen as a change in the nbr of sunspots? Will that change ever change the number of sunspots? What is the change in solar activity that causes the change in Be10 ratios? How long after the change in that activity can we first begin to “count” the Be10 change? When the activity returns to “normal” how long will it be until the Be10 ratios return to normal?
If a photon takes takes hundreds of thousands of years to move from the center of the sun to the photosphere before it can be transmitted towards earth, are the solar changes that might be affecting today’s climate be coming – not from changes we see in today’s sun – but the interior of the sun’s changes 100,000 years ago?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm
but the annual average purports to show a warm spell from the 1950s to the 1970s which is clearly the opposite of the truth. An explanation would be appreciated.
As always you have to be specific. Which curve are you talking about? The temperature curves are just the ‘standard’ global warming curve, e.g. from here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The temperature is lower from 1950-1970 than the surrounding years so I don’t know which ‘warm spell’ you are talking about.
The insert at the lower right is the 10Be flux [‘cosmic rays’], as you can see there is no correlation.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
are the solar changes that might be affecting today’s climate be coming – not from changes we see in today’s sun – but the interior of the sun’s changes 100,000 years ago?
The question had to do with whether the position of the planets today could ‘perturb’ the fusion in the core [today, obviously]. If what we observe today is the result of changes that happened 100,000 years ago, it is hard to believe that they would match the position of the planets today [as the planet nuts believe]. In any case, because the diffusion of the energy [really absorption and new emission of photons- it is not the ‘same’ photon taking 200,000 years to get out] is a random process, any variation on time scales much less than 100,000 years would be washed out.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
What is the change in solar activity that causes the change in Be10 ratios? How long after the change in that activity can we first begin to “count” the Be10 change? When the activity returns to “normal” how long will it be until the Be10 ratios return to normal?
The Sun’s magnetic field at the surface is dragged out into the heliosphere by the solar wind, the tangled magnetic field is an obstacle to the free flow of cosmic rays so the 10Be is a proxy for the solar surface magnetic field. It takes about a year for the solar wind to get to the ‘edge’ of the heliosphere, so there is a lag of several months before a solar change shows up in 10Be. Now, the 10Be lingers a bit in the atmosphere before falling to the ground [they are just single atoms]. The atoms attach to aerosols and rain or show out. This process is usually said to take 1 to 2 years [although I think it is a bit longer – perhaps 10 years]. So 10Be reacts relatively quickly to solar changes [a few years].
Leif says:
“The insert at the lower right is the 10Be flux [‘cosmic rays’], as you can see there is no correlation.”
Lets look again:
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
I clearly misread the chart because the 10Be flux is also in blue.
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower and on either side of that period the flux was lower when temperatures were higher.
So there is a correlation even on Leif’s own data.
“””””……Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm
If the Sun’ irradiance is continually increasing from the dim Sun paradox to a red giant,…..”””””
“irradiance” is incoming, not outgoing.
You mean the sun’s radiance; Watts per square meter per steradian.
Irradiance is just Watts per square meter; it is what falls on a surface.; such as the irradiance on the earth by the sun.
@ur momisugly Salvatore Del Prete
“””””…..Leif is obsolete in his thinking and has no clue about climate/solar relationships.
NOTE- OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IS CORRELATED TO THE STRENGH OF SOLAR VISIBLE LIGHT(.5 MICRONS) WHICH PENETRATES THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 100 METERS NOT CO2 AND THE INFRARED LIGHT IT ABSORBS WHICH PENETRATE THE OCEAN TO A DEPTH OF 1 MILLERMETER!……”””””
Well ALL light is visible ( to the human eye) By Definition. Light is the psycho-physical response of the human eye to electromagnetic radiation in the narrow range from about 400 nm to 800 nm.
So there is no solar visible light; just visible radiation which the human eye responds to.
Yes the radiation enters the ocean to a 1/e depth of about 100 metres; light doesn’t.
And infrared radiation, by definition is not visible to the human eye so it is not light, and does not evoke the light response in the human eye.
Light is measured in Lumens, and Candela, and other named units, not in Watts etc which are used for measuring EM radiation.
Most of the infrared solar spectrum, in water, has a 1/e absorption depth of about 10 microns. At 3.0 microns wavelength where water is most opaque, the 1/e absorption depth is less than 1.25 microns.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower and on either side of that period the flux was lower when temperatures were higher.
I put a green box around the elephant to assist the visually impaired.
Leif said:
“I put a green box around the elephant to assist the visually impaired.”
Within that green box lower 10 Be flux correlates with higher temperature but the temperature rise is exaggerated for reasons commonly discussed on this site.
“but that is but a gnat on the elephant’s rump.”
Only if one limits one’s attention to TSI. If one broadens one’s vision to changes in the overall mix of wavelengths and particles and proposes an effect on ozone concentrations in the stratosphere then one has the necessary amplification factor.
Then project such variations across a millennial solar cycle rather than just looking at a few decades and all becomes much clearer.
Both TSI and the 10 Be flux are merely proxies for the relevant variable which is the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths.
Thanks Lief.
I can’t help being disappointed that measures of other stars helped deduced the history/future of Sol but it cannot be measured by the fancy shmancy satellites in orbit. The change in a couple of hundred years would be minute compared to a billion.
After considering the scales involved it does seem far fetched that the planets would effect influence on the fusion in the interior of the Sun.
Are sun spots a surface phenomena or are they related to the fusion process(es)?
Stephen Wilde says:
July 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/NGRIP-10Be-Temp.png
Anyway, one can see that the 10Be flux was higher when the temperatures were lower …
Since the 10Be flux correlates [inversely] with the Sunspot Number and thus TSI, one would expect a solar cycle variation of the order of 0.1C and there may indeed be such a variation [as expected], but that is but a gnat on the elephant’s rump.
In fact, Leif if the temperature track in the green box were to be corrected i.e. to somewhere near the 1930s peak then the inverse correlation between temperature and 10 Be would be very clear.
Your so called ‘elephant’ is simply an artefact of inappropriate or inadequate temperature ‘adjustments’. We all know that UHI has not been correctly dealt with in recent decades and that earlier temperatures have been adjusted downwards.
Kajajuk says:
July 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm
Are sun spots a surface phenomena or are they related to the fusion process(es)?
As far as we know sunspots are generated somewhere in or near the convection zone [which is the outer 70% of the Sun – in radius] while the core is the inner 20%. Of course, the energy involved comes ultimately from the core, but any time variation of that is washed out by the long diffusion time out of the core. Some people speculate that perhaps some kind of wave or oscillation can propagate from the core to the convection zone in much shorter time [years? days?]. This smacks of special pleading and there is no evidence of such waves, unless you assume they are there otherwise your mechanism wouldn’t work. I would not put much credence in such tortured speculation.