Story submitted by Cornelis de Jager
(past president ICSU;past pres. COSPAR)
In a recent publication entitled Terrestrial ground temperature variation in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle, Cornelis (Kees) de Jager and Hans Nieuwenhuijzen, from the Space Research Organisation of the Netherlands have analysed the dependence of the global earth temperature on the polar as well as the equatorial magnetic fields. The new aspect in this research is that all earlier investigations in this field only sought for the dependence of the terrestrial ground temperature on the number of sunspots, which is a “proxy” for the equatorial magnetic fields of the sun. But the sun has two big magnetic areas, the equatorial and the polar one. In this research both are included.
In their analysis the Utrecht scientists restricted to the relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature, such in order to exclude short-term phenomena such as temperature variations due to volcanoes or processes like El-Nino.
By including the two magnetic field areas in their analysis it could be shown that during the major part of the four centuries investigated, i.e. the period 1610 till around 1900 – 1950 , the average terrestrial ground temperatures depend solely on solar magnetic field variations. After 1900 there is an increasing excess in the temperature which is ascribed to anthropogenic activity. After the impressive Grand Maximum of the 20thb century the sun went through an exceptional, not before observed phase transition that lasted relatively long, i.e. from about 2005 till 2010.
Usually, the transitions between solar variability phases takes no more than one to two years. During that transition period and after that, solar activity was exceptionally low. The consequent small contribution to the terrestrial temperatures is the cause for the standstill in the rise of temperature observed since the middle of the 20th century.
The above can be illustrated in figure 1, the diagram shows three curves. The middle one is the average terrestrial ground temperature (dots) through which a smoothed average curve is drawn .(The LOWESS technique is used for smoothing). The upper line shows the solar contribution and the bottom curve is the difference between the two. It shows a nearly flat variation which demonstrates that the long-term component of terrestrial temperatures is solely due to the variation of the sun’s magnetic fields. The average “zero-line” show a very slow , yet unexplained, increase over the centuries.
The paper is published in Natural Science vol. 5, pp. 1112- 1120, 2013 (open access). It can also be consulted at http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf
Related articles
- A link between the solar magnetic field and weather patterns on Earth may explain our lower than normal severe weather in 2013 (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Commentary on the Article about the Interplanetary Magnetic Field influences (wattsupwiththat.com)
I tend to distrust ANY study that compares anything to the temperature record before 1979.
It’s true, the Globe has warmed … but we don’t have a clue as to how much. Global Warming is indeed real …. it is a real manipulaiton of data to make it appear as if the earth has warmed more than it has.
I too am wondering where the “grand maximum” comes from in this paper. Leif has pretty conclusively demolished this in terms of sunspot numbers, but since this paper is referring to magnetic field strengths and stating that this is more than just sunspots – is there something else they are measuring to come up with their maximum?
This then raises the question of where their data for this ‘something else’ comes from in the earlier portion of their graph, given that he only data we have from this period is sunspot numbers.
I still think there is solar influence on climate beyond just the TSI variation, but not sure this paper throws any light on the issue.
Magnetic Sun is Electric Sun.
D.Potter thinks
still think there is solar influence on climate beyond just the TSI variation, but not sure this paper throws any light on the issue.
henry says
you figured that one right
a quiet sun produces more UV, apparently
hence more ozone, more peroxides & n-oxides, TOA, …
hence more UV deflected to space..
hence we are cooling…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-suggests-the-suns-magnetic-fields-defines-climate-over-the-long-term/#comment-1462293
Maybe anthropogenic CO2 emission causes solar magnetic field modulations? Have you considered that?
I wonder what the inclusion of the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period would do to their analysis?
king dube says
Maybe anthropogenic CO2 emission causes solar magnetic field modulations?
henry says
are you serious?
ET go home
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
ohhh
and I am (still) a dutchman…
The difference is the adjustments to the temperatures that were made to the data sets to disinform people and get them to believe in global warming.
This paper isn’t making a lot of sense as shared here (conflicting statements). Hopefully a visit to the reference link will clarify.
Mods – PIMF means “preview is my friend”.
Since the uptick in terrestrial temperatures (above the unexplained background rate) is almost entirely a product of data manipulation it is unsurprising that the recent temperature data appears to diverge from historical norms. I would love to see this work redone only using temperature data from the satellite era to check if the correlation holds. Also, by using a “relatively long-term variation of both fields as well as the temperature” this will effectively mask the recent hiatus in global temperature increase.
Rigged data + hide the decline = epic fail.
However, very nice to see that even the CAGW crowd are capable of doing some good science and revealing a strong link between the sun and climate where unmolested data is available i.e. pre 1900 or so.
So much for De Jager.
The more recent astronomical knowledge reveals that space is anything but. The best way to visualize the Universe is as a fabric of plasma and a continuously varying E/M field whose nodes and H(x,y,z,t) can be described via some sort of grand tensor which itself is a function of time. Within this fabric reside the stars, black holes, quasars, planets, other celestial bodies, dust, gas etc. As Mr. Spock noted: “Fascinating.”
Here is CET to 1538. The part from today to 1659 is an instrumental record maintained by the Met office. The remainder is my reconstruction
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
I am a little ambivalent as to whether there is a close relationship between temperature and solar activity, although the match appears to be better than with Co2..
tonyb
climate reason says (in his quoted article)….
Or merely a hiatus in the ever upwards rise of temperatures since the start of the record in 1659 which may or may not be affected by CO2 and radiative physics?
henry says
I wonder if ever you got what I was saying, here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
it is the (extra) warming of the oceans that caused more CO2 to be released
as there are giga tons of bicarbonates in the oceans
HCO3- + heat => CO2 + OH-
there is a causal relationship
not that CO2 causes any more warming, whatsoever
there is really no proof of that….
Matt Skaggs says:
October 31, 2013 at 7:23 am
Can you show or explain what Slide 4 would look like after you have removed the artifacts from the sunspot count changes?
That is shown in Slide 5. The point is that the magnetic flux from the Sun did not increase dramatically from the 19th to the 20th century.
Would you also refute a claim that the temperature rise since the Maunder was associated with an increase in TSI? Do you think there is any aspect of TSI that correlates to a hiatus in the LIA recovery around 1890? Thanks in advance!
Since the TSI generally follows the sunspot number, TSI will not increased over the last 300 years as the sunspot number hasn’t.
More on TSI here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
If Leif is correct about the weighted sunspot numbers since after 1945 (which is very plausible) then the “grand modern maximum” is reduced by 20%, there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19) and what makes this 20% reduction very interesting is that there was a sharp decline in solar cycle 20 during the 1970s and then activity increased again with SC-21 during the 1980s and gradually declined again with solar cycles 22 and 23 over the 1990s and 2000s and has continued to decline until the present, solar cycle 24. If the earths temperature is greatly influenced by the sun then there should be no temperature hockey-stick.
The relationship between solar activity and temperature should resemble this http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
astonerii says:
October 31, 2013 at 9:23 am
“The difference is the adjustments to the temperatures that were made to the data sets to disinform people and get them to believe in global warming.”
The ‘adjustments’ are the anthropogenic influence, you see.
Sparks says:
October 31, 2013 at 11:51 am
there is still an increase in successive solar cycles and solar activity from 1875 (SC-12) to the peak of 1960 (SC-19)
Cherry picking end points is a common thing for people to do when they peddle their view point. You should start with 1859 [max of a cycle] and end with 2012 [also max].
I’m not impressed with this at all. Once again, it’s just curve fitting.
Rather than doing the rooting around myself, does anyone have links to the datasets used?
I also note that they didn’t show the stats for the relationships, and that they have compared smoothed datasets.
Not impressed at first look, that’s for sure. This is particularly true regarding this claim:
Say what? They don’t define a “Grand Episode”, other than as follows:
Sorry, but that’s just scientiphisticated handwaving. It’s particularly so when you consider that there hasn’t been any “Grand Maximum” … I’d give this paper a D- …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 31, 2013 at 1:03 pm
I’m not impressed with this at all. Once again, it’s just curve fitting.
____________________
Yep, but then, It all falls apart, late 20th century -> present.
Alan Robertson says:
October 31, 2013 at 3:54 am
pimf
[? Mod]
__
Preview Is My Friend… regarding formatting error in post immediately prior…
goofed off paying attention mostly to the girls in typing class (the only reason to take typing class.)
de Jager is a distinguished older solar scientist. His paper brings the following to mind:
Eddington in his later years had some really nutty ideas about ‘The Theory of Everything’. He once stared a lecture, in 1938, with the claim: “I believe that there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 013 206 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons”. As young, the physicist Samuel Goudsmit heard Arthur Eddington’s lecture on the fine structure constant and asked his older colleague H. A. Kramers if all physicists went off the deep end as they grew older. Kramers reassured him, “No Sam, you don’t have to be scared. A genius like Eddington may go nuts, but a fellows like you and I just get dumber and dumber”.
From page 4 of the pdf
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-CdeJ-HN-Sun-climate-NS-5-1112.pdf
“”” That curve confirms that dur- ing the years ~1600 till ~1900 the longer-scale terrestrial temperature variations are virtually only sun-driven. The deviating gradient of the lower end-part of that line might indicate some dependence on the Maunder Mini- mum. The upward gradient after ~1900 reflects the well- known temperature increase of the 20th century.”””
What is the contribution from a decreasing terrestrial magnetic field, to a sun driven warming, over the period? Like the hole we call the south atlantic anomaly SAA is been increasing in size, while the field has been declining radially outward from the SAA. allows more of anything in, that the sun throws our way.
Time to make the last run…
Carla says:
October 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Like the hole we call the south atlantic anomaly SAA is been increasing in size, while the field has been declining radially outward from the SAA. allows more of anything in, that the sun throws our way.
Not really. The solar wind sees the Earth’s magnetic field far [like 40,000 miles) from the Earth and at that distance smaller scale anomalies like the SAA are essentially gone as the magnetic field falls of very strongly with distance for structures smaller than the radius of the Earth.
The funny thing is that in the lab magnetic fields are used to direct particles(not much good for accelerating them) and electric fields are used to accelerate them… why does this change when we get to the sun??