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.
Little Ice Age? Maybe if we are Lucky. Our Modern Warm Period is so far cooler then the Medieval Warm Period which was cooler than the Roman Warm Period which was cooler than the Minoan Warm Period. How much longer can the current interglacial last? Maybe if we are Lucky there will be some more cooling and warming cycles before the next full ice age is underway. That would give us a few thousand years more of such relatively blissful climate. I wish that we could use CO2 to control climate but I do not think that such is possible since there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.
rgb,
What should be very telling is often overlooked. That 90 W/m^2 difference between aphelion and perihelion is almost sync’ed up at present with NH/SH winter and summer. SH get’s the max during summer while NH gets the minimum TSI during its summer. Most land mass is in the NH and relatively little is in the SH.
Surface albedo for water is very low, much lower than for land, coming in typically at under 0.04. Earth’s nominal 0.3 albedo is mostly cloud/atmosphere with the surface contributing closer to 0.08 on average.
It should be evident from this that clouds must play a serious roll in what is going on and the fact there is very little temperature differences between NH and SH despite the significant different in TSI each receives. It would also appear that there is likely far less difference between hemispheres in the TSI received because of a cloud feedback mechanism. Otherwise, there would be a tremendous heat flow engine from SH to NH at work to bring about the uniformity of temperature.
best regards,
cba
Dr Norman Page said:
“The main periodicities are the milankovitch cycles – possibly with the addition of the precession of the perihelion http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Steel_PPPIGW.pdf
These are modulated by cycles of solar activity – notably the 60 year and millenial cycles.
I agree that the mechanisms and teleconnections of these variables with climate remain obscure.The UV – climate connection looks like being more influential than previously supposed.”
Agreed, but I think we need not limit it to UV. To be on the safe side I suggest we involve the entire mix of particles and wavelengths which changes significantly with the level of solar activity. Far more than 0.1%. An effect on ozone amounts has a profound effect on the height and equator to pole gradient of the tropopause.
I have proposed that the changes in solar activity alter global cloudiness with an effect on the balance between El Ninos and La Ninas within the ENSO cycle. A 60 yearsolar cycle fits that nicely, 30 years of El Nino dominance and 30 years of La Nina dominance, approximately.
A millennial solar cycle then deals with the MWP/LIA/Current Warm Period.
THE PROBLEM -is mainstream thinks the sun’s variations are much smaller then what they are. Mainstream for some reason cannot connect the dots when it comes to solar variations and the secondary effects which result from these solar variations.
I say fine, because this decade and beyond is going to provide a first hand opportunity to see how variations on the sun result in secondary effects; both of which have a profound effect upon the climate.
If it is not magnetic field strength changes in both the sun/earth, what is it that caused all the many abrupt climatic changes ? I wait for alternative answers.
I will leave with this. The sun is the main driver of the climate therefore it stands to reason any changes on the sun should have an effect on the climate.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:03 pm
As you said, most of the predictions you refer to are based on complex models of the solar dynamo etc.
No, I specifically drew attention to the blue bars on the plot. They are all over, so show no predictive power, but they are also the ones that just used the cycles in the data for prediction [no complex models of dynamo]. The intent was to show that prediction based on cycles without physics does not work.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm
I challanged [sic] you to prove me wrong
It is worse than we thought: you are not even wrong.
Stephen is on the correct path, cloudiness and ozone changes are some of the secondary effects associated with weak magnetic fields. This in turn can be shown to be connected to ENSO.
Ozone changes will cause the atmopheric circulation to become more meridional during weak solar conditions which will result in a cooler N.H.
Latest research papers show a tie in with low solar activity/increase in volcanic activity and low solar activity an increase in cosmic rays, the latter equating to more clouds.
The make up of the earth’s magnetic field also comes into play, which will compound solar effects, when weak.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 10:00 am
………….
Hi
There are too many unknowns that prediction based on the current ‘knowns’ is often no more certain than a dice throw, that is why steer clear from predictions.
As you are aware I do lot of graphs based on some sort of data which often offer extrapolation possibility for the immediate future.
Although Maunder type events are very rare particularly if the solar activity and global temperatures go down concurrently, than humanity may suffer but science would benefit greatly, not only from studying the event but also from the human inventiveness to overcome major crisis, and I mean very major crisis.
p.s. My previous post was in a light-hearted manner (notice authors name on the graph), since it is not often that 3 PhDs offer in a quick succession, their distinct views on the subject at hand.
Leif , has no reply because he does not have any conviction in what he says. He offers no explanations, while saying the explanatins given have no merit.
LEIF, tell us why the climate changes abruptly, and so often. Give us YOUR explanation.
Right or wrong I have one and have enough conviction to stand by it and put it out.
Time will prove me right or wrong not.
Maybe Leif does not believe in abrupt past climate changes. That must be it.
As it happens it at this moment Mike Lockwood is pontificating on the Maunder minimum (BBC4)
Svalgaard
If you go to Vukcevic .talk.talk web page and lookup graph CET.D which shows CET SEASONAL TEMPERATURES and if you compare that with the graph in the SUN SECTION of CLIMTE4YOU and look at graph SOLAR IRRADIANCE SINCE 1610, ANNUAL VALUES and RUNNING 11 YEAR AVERAGES, you will note that CET annual temperatures follows the pattern of THE 11 YEAR RUNNING AVERAGE of SOLAR IRRADIANCE during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.. The temperature drop is not 0.1 C as you suggested but .more like 2 degrees C when the sunspots were zero during the Maunder Minimum.. Yes you will say it was all caused by other factors . I am not that affirmative and think that there is a sun connection somewhere . The next decade or two will show where the truth lies. Like I say I hope you have good snow tires for the decade ahead in case things are different than you say . I close my comments for this track.
I concur with herkimer.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“If it is not magnetic field strength changes in both the sun/earth, what is it that caused all the many abrupt climatic changes ? ”
Isn’t that the exact type of reasoning that the believers say about CO2 and AGW?
herkimer says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:46 pm
graph in the SUN SECTION of CLIMTE4YOU and look at graph SOLAR IRRADIANCE SINCE 1610, ANNUAL VALUES and RUNNING 11 YEAR AVERAGES
That graph is based on obsolete data, and is constructed simply as the Group SSN riding on top of the 11-yr average Group SSN [under the dubious assumption that there is such a background – there isn’t]. As you can see on Slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf the last decade’s data falsifies the assumption of the background. In addition, we know now [check the other slides], that the Group SSN is wrong and should not be used anymore [or should at least be fixed]. So whatever correlation you find with the old, obsolete reconstructions will not carry much weight.
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum I recommend
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
One of the et als is Mann- remember few people are wrong 100% of the time.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum I recommend
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
That old paper used Lean’s 1995 and Hoyt&Schatten’s 1995 solar forcing based on their reconstructed TSI. Those reconstructions are way out of data and no longer useful.
Leif – Again you are focussed on the wrong thing – I’m not so interested in their solar forcing models which may or may not be valid but on the empirical or semi empirical data against which they checked them.They say
“This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern
Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1¡ to 2¡C), in agreement with
historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.”
It is the historical records and proxy data I’m referring to to estimate Maunder Cooling not the model outputs.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Again you are focused on the wrong thing
What is that ‘Again’ doing here?
But I think not, because of what you said:
For those interested in the cooling due to a Maunder Minimum
So you assume that there is a causal connection [this is where the model comes in] rather than just a coincidental empirical correlation between proxies.
Leif OK drop the again.
If there is a good empirical correlation between proxies its a better place to start looking for causal connections than where there isnt..As I said earlier – if you can identify quasi periodical repetitive patterns in the temperature data while it would be helpful to know the mechanics – it is not necessary in order to make rational and possibly successful forecasts.
Perhaps I should have said more precisely – those interested in the cooling during the time commonly referred to as the MM.(if you find any inference of causality disturbing).Im quite happyy to admit that at this time the sun climate connections are obscure but at some point I have no doubt that someone like yourself ( perhaps even you ) will sort it out.
Dr Norman Page says:
July 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
if you can identify quasi periodical repetitive patterns in the temperature data while it would be helpful to know the mechanics – it is not necessary in order to make rational and possibly successful forecasts.
The people making solar cycle predictions used that same argument and my slide shows that it doesn’t work. I’ll contend that the same is true for temperature and any other variable as well.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:22 pm
“If the SSN just was like the red curve on Slide 7, I would not call it Grand.
For the corrected Wolf Sunspot Number red curve come out this parameters from my spreadsheet:
SSN average for 18th century: ~55
SSN average for 19th century: ~51
SSN average for 20th century: ~64.5 (- 17% higher than 18th century and 26% higher than 19th century)
Call it Grand or not, the corrected Wolf sunspot count average for the 20th century is quite higher than for 18th and 19th century and the relatively high solar cycles 17-22 cause it.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 16, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Call it Grand or not, the corrected Wolf sunspot count average for the 20th century is quite higher than for 18th and 19th century and the relatively high solar cycles 17-22 cause it.
A difference of 10 in SSN corresponds to 0.1 W/m2 of TSI corresponding to 0.005 degrees C so not Grand.
Kudos to you Leif for struggling through the comments, reasonable or not.
There should be more scientists like you out here.
Leif Svalgaard
Your comments indicate that you are a proponent of the theory that a weakened heliosphere and solar wind affects both cosmic ray flux bombardment of the atmosphere and global temperature. Yet, you seem not to adhere to the theory that low altitude clouds cause enough shadowing to do the job. I tried to look at the page you directed me to*, but it is coming up as “not available” on my computer.
This chart, offered by Svensmark, shows a good correlation between cosmic ray count and low cloud cover
Is contradicted by the actual data:
* http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
e.g. Figure 5. “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
So, I need to ask the question: Do you have a theory that explains the strong correlation between solar wind strength and global temperature or do you just suspect what doesn’t work (ie. reflective clouds)?