WUWT’s resident solar expert Dr. Leif Svalgaard (and others) says ‘None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle’ and the panel he was on talk about the current state of our solar cycle at the AGU Fall Meeting.
Here is Dr. Svalgaard’s current SSN plot:
Watch the video, Leif is on the left hand side.
At this year’s Fall Meeting of American Geophysical Union, held in San Francisco that I attended, prominent solar scientists made a presentation on weak Solar Cycle 24 and its consequences. They included:
- Nat Gopalswamy, astrophysicist, Solar Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
- Leif Svalgaard, senior research scientist, W. W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Marty Mlynczak, senior research scientist, Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
- Joe Giacalone, professor and associate director, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
They agreed that the current solar cycle is on track to be the weakest in 100 years and that is an unprecedented opportunity for studying the Sun during this period. While the weak solar cycle trend is not new for the Sun, it is new and interesting for scientists who observe and measure it today with modern instruments and methods.
In this panel, scientists examined the current solar cycle in relation to past cycles and discuss the consequences of the weak solar cycle on the various layers regions between the Sun and Earth, including implications for space weather, atmosphere and climate.
Here is part of the press release package:
Solar signatures and Heliospheric Consequences of the Weak Activity Cycle 24
Nat Gopalswamy, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771,
The Sun in the middle of its activity maximum that is relatively weak. The maximum phase ended in the northern hemisphere of the Sun and began about a year ago in the south.
The weak activity of cycle 24 is thought to be due to the weak polar magnetic field in cycle 23. If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, the Sun may be heading for a global minimum.
Whether global minimum or not, the weak solar cycle has resulted in milder space weather: there are not many large geomagnetic storms and the energetic particle events are also generally of lower intensity. The milder space weather also reduces the drag on satellites and it is easy to keep them in orbit. On the other hand the space debris also have longer life, posing increased collision threat to operating satellites.
The weak solar activity in terms of the sunspot number did not quite translate into the CME rate itself. The CME occurrence rate in cycles 24 and 23 are comparable in the maximum phase. Then how do we understand the mild space weather in cycle 24?
A clue to the reason for milder space weather came from the fact that all CMEs that produced particle events are halo CMEs in cycle 24, compared to about 70% in cycle 23. Halo CMEs originate from close to the disk center and expand rapidly and give the appearance of surrounding the Sun. There must be something different about the size of the CMEs in SC 24.
Gopalswamy and co-‐workers examined the relation between CME width and speed and found that the cycle 24 CMEs are wider than the cycle 23 ones for a given speed. For energetic CMEs (speed exceeding 1000 km/s), the width is higher by about 40%.
When they examined the total pressure (magnetic pressure + plasma pressure) in the heliosphere from measurements made by spacecraft such as ACE and Wind, they found that the pressure decreased by an astonishing 40% in cycle 24. From this they inferred that the pressure must drop by a similar amount near the Sun. CMEs released into this low-‐pressure medium, expand more than usual, resulting in weaker fields, and hence weaker geomagnetic storms. The magnetic field strength in CMEs decides the intensity of geomagnetic storms.
As far the particle radiation, the situation is a bit more complicated. The reduced total pressure means a slight increase in the Alfven speed in the heliosphere. The Alfven speed is the characteristic speed of the medium. A CME needs to be faster than the Alfven speed to drive a shock that accelerates particles.
Therefore, it is slightly easier for the cycle 24 CMEs to drive shocks. However, the shocks are propagating through a medium of reduced magnetic field, which is known to be less conducive for accelerating particles to high energies. This means the number of particle events is not very low, but the events are generally of lower intensity and energy.
Here are other parts of the press release. Source: AGU
WYWT’s resident expert???
Wouldn’t that be your resident expert?
Does anyone here know just how many “piggies” have their noses in the public trough, and how much cash is consumed by this “industry” with anything to do with weather?
So, if this weakness continues through cycles 25, 26, or longer what does this do to earth’s climate?
First again? And on a Solar thread?
Let’s see…ice skating in the streets of Dallas while summer snow falls in Australia…snow in Cairo and Jerusalem.
While the last few winters have seen snow in Tatooine, Tunisia (of Star Wars fame), tropical Brazil and Argentine Islands where no living local had ever seen snow. (see iceagenow.info for the litany)
You can tell me again it’s not the Sun, but I suspect there is more than TSI affecting the Earth. As climate is a sum of weather, maybe we should look at what constitutes weather and start thinking how the Earth’s interaction with the Sun contributes to that – ocean temps, jet stream locations, teleconnections, etc…
I love how the word “unprecedented” is used.
It may just be my eyes, but each cycle seems more chaotic at its peak – if that is so, why ?
Guys,
Dr.Svalgaard commented on such things himself very recently
“Science by press conference is often like that: To justify their funding [and beg for more], some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before…”
Must see this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/zombie-comet-ison-dies-again/
…might as well start from the bottom to see the bottom line
Press Release says:
“The weak activity of cycle 24 is thought to be due to the weak polar magnetic field in cycle 23.”
Is there a commonly held theory on the mechanism of weak polar magnetic field in prior cycle producing a weak cycle, or is this an observed correlation that this cycle has repeated?
Probably covered a million times before here, but the statement above seems reticent to assert a known causal mechanism.
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
some scientists tend to claim that what they are seeing is unique, has never been seen before…”
except in this case, we strongly emphasize that for the Sun such cycles are old hat and that we have seen several such, e.g., as we point out, 100 years ago.
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Is there a commonly held theory on the mechanism of weak polar magnetic field in prior cycle producing a weak cycle, or is this an observed correlation that this cycle has repeated?
Both, e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3408.pdf
Yes he is an unbelievably huge PITA, but he’s our PITA. Hats off to Dr. Svalgaard.
Imagine if we didn’t have a grand solar minimum at this time in history, when the entire planet was almost duped into and on the verge of conscription to an oligarch ruled global government? I understand the deep freeze hardship the new grand solar minimum is going to cause. But it’s totally worth it for our freedom and getting to stick it to the world’s oligarchs. No Carbon Dioxide Tax for you.
At 1:54 in this video;
“2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The Climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.”
Herman Van Rompuy is the first full-time President of the European Council.
How’s that NWO thing working out for you Herman?
Cairo snow: Egyptian capital sees snowfall for the first time in 112 YEARS. Something’s going on. Is it the weak sun? Or, maybe… global warming? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Yes, Dr. Svalgaard, and except in this case you are always truthful
How profoundly refreshing to hear a scientist say “we don’t know”. We need more of that.
Just looking at the graphs, if there are mechanisms not currently and precisely known for the sun’s variation to effect climate( new comprehensive multi-disciplinary research underway as I recall reading last January), could there be a lag in effect? If so, could the warming
prior to the current pause( 80s and 90s) possibly have been related to the peak activity in the 50s and early 60s? And in addition, might we expect possibly cooling ahead from the current downward trend in solar activity? I would appreciate if anyone here might address that question from this curious layman?
@charlie Johnson:
Yes, there is a “commonly held theory” that the spots in one cycle depend on how much magnetic field moved to the poles in the prior cycle.
To me this leaves a little bit of an issue about inflection points. Somehow you need to have a shift from “less” to “more” flux in order to get the spots going up… but happening in a cycle where the flux went down prior and spots went down and…. So there’s an inflection change issue that I don’t know much about… But the “what you had determines what you get next” is the general idea.
This discussion is way above my pay grade. I am here to say “Hi” to Chiefio.
When you think about all the known knowns and unknowns that affect our climate it does make you wonder. It makes me wonder why co2 has failed to budge surface temps in the last 16 years. [Please no one tell me that such pauses have been seen before since 1850 – they have not at our level of co2 ppm].
I would like to request that “thisisnotgoodtogo” be removed from participation on this website.
Excellent information!
Nice job Leif !
I do have a question relating to todays 2 trillion kilowatt hour measurement delta from the early 2000’s.
Can anyone quantify that delta over a years total of the same? Perhaps as a percentage of total?
I am just curious.
I consider it of prime importance that scientists always be honest.
I’ve referenced Dr.Svalgaard elsewhere, trusting.
I want to thank Dr. Svalgaard for the repository of his work and solar knowledge base which he maintains online and for his efforts here.
I still don’t know the answer to this question: Did the Maunder minimum cause cooler temperatures on earth? What evidence for or against? According to the panel, there is no correlation apparently.
phodges says:
December 13, 2013 at 5:51 pm
————————————–
That makes sense to me.
Leif is our resident expert. A treasure to have here in these disorientating times. Someone has their feet squarely on the ground.
Um, can this be the very same Dr. Svalgaard who claims solar output is constant?
Dr. Svalgaard,
Would you please give us a hint or two about what you will be looking to discover in this cycle? What new things might show up?
Don’t for a minute think that going into a cold phase or even a little ice age is going to stop the authoritarians. All they’ll do is rewrite history and claim that they knew this was going to happen and state that they need to be in charge to save us from the devastation of the freezing cold. Plus they will blame it on the capitalists and free markets. We must ration our gas and oil to prevent the third world from freezing. Redistribution will be their answer of course.
Dave says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“I still don’t know the answer to this question: Did the Maunder minimum cause cooler temperatures on earth? What evidence for or against? According to the panel, there is no correlation apparently.”
Look for yourself (and likewise for Ken L.’s question):
http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg
To go with that weak cycle…..
Snow Covers Egypt for First Time in 100 Years
http://mashable.com/2013/12/13/snow-egypt-syria-israel/#:eyJzIjoiZiIsImkiOiJfbGhsdGFhdHA2bG9va2NzMSJ9
I have just finished publishing about this article.
For a change, we don’t have to wait a hundreds years to see if a prediction is correct.
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013
Significant climate variations during the past 7.5 millennia indicate that bicentennial quasi-periodic TSI variations define a corresponding cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warmings to Little Ice Ages and set the timescales of practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system. Quasi-bicentennial cyclic variations of the TSI entering the Earth’s upper atmosphere are the main fundamental cause of corresponding alternations of climate variations. At the same time, more long-term variations of the annual average of the TSI due to changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, inclination of the Earth’s axis relative to its orbital plane, and precession, known as the astronomical Milankovitch cycles, together with the subsequent feedback effects, lead to the Big Glacial Periods (with the period of about 100,000 years).
Thus quasi-bicentennial variation of the TSI always leads to the unbalance of the annual average energy budget of the Earth-atmosphere system, while upcoming Grand minimum of the TSI leads to deficit of the annual average energy budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age.
See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
It is astonishing that the paleoclimatic researchers have not explained to the general public and the scientific community that there are cycles of abrupt climate change events in the paleorecord that correlate with abrupt solar magnetic cycle events. I find it difficult to imagine that no one has bothered to do cross discipline research related to the piles of anomalies to format a hypothesis as to the physical cause of what has happened in the past. I guess the absolute lack of curiosity and cross discipline discussion of anomalies explains the blasé attitude concerning what is currently happening to the sun.
Rather than blinding (ignoring the observational fact that the ‘sunspots’ are changing) continuing to count the number of sunspots groups and sunspots and then plotting the irreverent sunspot number on a graph and comparing that graph to other solar cycles graphs (comparison is not apples to apples), it should be noted that the ‘sunspots’ (what is observed on the surface of the sun) are changing as solar cycle 24 is progressing.
It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event, a once in 8,000 to 10,000 year event, a special solar magnetic cycle that causes abrupt cooling/abrupt climate events, abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, an astonishing increase in earthquakes. It appears at this time obvious based on observations (current, what has happened in the past, along with a physical explanation for what has happened in the past) that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. A consequence of the interruption (observations which support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted) was the temporary inhibiting of the GCR modulation of planetary clouds. An observation to support this assertion would be a sudden turning on of the GCR mechanism. (For example, a sudden increase in fog which occurred in the past when then was high GCR, sudden increase in cloud cover in high latitude regions, sudden cooling of high latitude regions of the planet, and so on.)
The GCR inhibiting mechanism is starting to decline. The increase in low cloud cover in the Arctic in the summer of 2013 resulted in the coldest arctic summer temperature in 20 years. High GCR results in cooling of the high latitude regions due to an increase in low level clouds which reflects more sunlight off to space, which results in colder summer temperatures. In addition the increased GCR causes a decrease in high level cirrus clouds (the wispy high level clouds, it is assumed that the increased GCR results in larger ice crystals in the cirrus clouds which fall to the earth) which results in more long wave radiation emitted to space, which in the winter results in colder winter temperatures. ( I would assume the cirrus cloud mechanism is inhibited over the Antarctic ice sheet as due to extreme cold temperatures due to altitude of the ice sheet, there is less water vapor to form cirrus clouds in the winter.) Unequivocal high latitude and global cooling will likely be a game changer for the climate wars, the end of EAGW and likely the end of lukewarm AGW.
Henry Clark says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:52 pm
—————————————-
Thanks for sharing that link.
So last happened 100 years ago, now we have sensors in place to observe.
Chance to learn more.
As to effects on planetary climate, not sure?
Please fix or explain title WYWT?
Misprint or new org?
REPLY: Fixed. I was dead tired when I wrote that post, even though it was only 8PM. The week at AGU took its toll on me and my typing suffered. – Anthony
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event, a once in 8,000 to 10,000 year event, a special solar magnetic cycle
There is no evidence for that.
Y ?
Waiting….
@William Howard Astley
“It is astonishing that the paleoclimatic researchers have not explained to the general public and the scientific community that there are cycles of abrupt climate change events in the paleorecord that correlate with abrupt solar magnetic cycle events. ”
I think you will find this is quite intentional. If it can’t be linked to CO2, then it is ignored. We have no control over solar magnetic cycles. They [can’t] be taxed, capped or traded or reduced to “save” the planet.
Make that “can’t” be taxed…
I want thank Dr. Leif Svalgaard for his presence on WUWT. Having an honest scientist who will speak to us heathen skeptics is a huge plus for us.
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
( I would assume the cirrus cloud mechanism is inhibited over the Antarctic ice sheet as due to extreme cold temperatures due to altitude of the ice sheet, there is less water vapor to form cirrus clouds in the winter.)
————————–
Spaceweather.com posted a video of noctilucent clouds over Antarctica. They have been occurring over a very large area of the continent over the time frame of several months. The video is still on their front page. I found myself wondering if there is some impact or relationship with the sea ice remaining above +2 on the trend line for the same period as this heavy display of noctilucents.
Mr. Astley,
Interesting assertions, where would someone find out some details on the “Heinrich” event ?
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a single paleoclimatic expert on a soapbox somewhere making the case for this.
Applause, applause!
What a treat to get to watch you, Dr. Svalgaard (your accent is adorable — NOT TO WORRY — as you no doubt are well aware, I’m a non-scientist; anyone whose opinion of you matters would find that fact completely irrelevant). Your memory for detail, great breadth as well as depth of knowledge (loved the anecdote about Sweden), and the conscientious accuracy of your answers make you truly a Science Giant.
You rock, Leif Svalgaard!
Well, done!
May you live to see many more Sun cycles (and interesting ones!).
Your grateful student,
Janice
P.S. LOL, you physicists were too smart for ol’ Borenstien; you never did pick up his rotten red herring “anthropogenic” loaded question. “Technical difficulties…” — right.
Anyone remember that ludicrous prediction by two solar scientists back in 2008 (?) how we were heading for a super big maximum for cycle 24? They disagreed only on how quickly the Sun would accelerate into the new super high cycle. The article ended by intoning “One thing is clear — there’s a big storm a’coming.” I can’t find the article now, the two scientists were a man and a woman. I’ll bet they’re hoping no one remembers their folly.
Finally Lief chimes in,
If the TSI is relative as constant as we are told, then other parts of the earth ought to be warmer than usual this winter to offset the freak events, such as snow in Cairo. I suspect that since more of the Southern Hemisphere is ocean, no one notices.
Too often, posts on this site make a lot of noise about the weather events that seem to refute CAGW, and that kind of tit for tat is no better than the warmist drivel from the usual collection of dolts. We should strive for more discipline.
This past week it was in the F degree single digits or zero, and colder than a witch’s you know what in a brass brassiere in the Midwest. Next week the forecast will put us in the 40’s, pretty much a standard December.
Dave says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Now, Dave was asking Dr Svalgaard, but I’ll ask he and rgbatduke to address my response below as well…)
No.
Perversely, that the Maunder Minimum occurred very near the “bottom” of global temperature dip between 1600 – 1666 may actually indicate that it was the “cause” of the following RISE in temperatures between 1650 and today’s (2010) Modern Warming Period. Except I am doubting that as well…… Because, if the Maunder Minimum DID cause a “rise” in global temperatures between 1650 and 2010, then today’s Modern Minimum (Sunspot) period could not be causing the “pause” temperatures at a high point in a global temperature cycle.
This because, barring a global regulator or external “intelligent designer” there is nothing but natural causes that can affect global temperature averages. (If you wish, today’s CO2 levels “might” affect global temperature averages, but then the government’s CAGW religion requires you accept that no changes in global temperature occurred previously over the past 2500 years ….)
Thus, somehow, one MUST account for a regular “long cycle” of 1000 years peaking near 0000 AD, 1000 AD, and probably 2000 AD of approximately 0.30 degrees magnitude, and a period – obviously – of 1000 years.
To this “long cycle” we must account for a “short cycle” of about 68 years (Pacific and Atlantic fishing records dating to the 1400’s, for example) but the simple sum of only two cycles can re-create the proxies going back to before the Roman Optimum Period, going through the Medieval Warm Period, and duplicate the Dark Ages, Little Ice Age, and even today’s “pause” in temperatures in 1930-1945, the decline into the 1970’s, and the rise from 1970 – 2000, then the pause again between 2000 – 2015.
Note: I do NOT claim to know a “cause” of either cycle, I am merely noting that they appear to be present, be stable, and account for most the recorded and proxy global temepratuer records.
Fine. We have described a result – NOT a process nor a REASON for the two cycles – but (like Copernicus’s “circlar orbits” a description that describes what is happening. i may need to let some one else determine that the planets circle in elliptical orbits, and let a future Newton describe gravity, and a future ??? define gravity … But let us continue.
If the world temperature is warming from the Dark Ages in 750 AD, assume it is subject to BOTH a CONTINUOUS COOLING forcing of 0.15 degree, AND a CONTINUOUS WARMING forcing of 0.15 degree C. Neither “forcing” is changing in method, but both are continuous events. Both are inversely proportional to the ‘global” temperature: The cooling “forcing” increases as temperature rises (thermal radiation increases, for example) as temperature to the 4th power); the warming “forcing” increases as temperature decreases (For example, cloud cover decreases as the world cools, so less radiation is reflected from the atmosphere before it hits the ground and oceans.)
Now, right at 750 AD, the two are equal, but the world is warming from the Dark Ages “up” towards the Medieval Warming period maximum of approximately 0.15 degree C, and that long 500 year increase can be represented in a physical or thermodynamic system as a massive thermal inertia.
It is the continuous but opposing 0.15 degree COOLING “feedback” that arrested the warming that began in 450 AD-550 AD, and that finally stopped the warming at its peak between 950 and 1050 AD. That the Medieval Warming Period “maximum” occurred between 950 AD and 1050 does NOT mean that any climate influence that also happened around 1000 AD warmed the earth’s climate up! It was already hot in 1000 AD. Also, that something “cold” happened in 1000 AD does not mean that “cold” event stopped the heating! The heating cycle had already stopped!
Equally, that any given single “cooling influence” of any kind happened between 950 AD and 1050 AD does NOT mean that specific cooling influence reduced temperatures between 1050 AD and the lowest point of the Little Ice Age. A periodic long term temperature cycle going between maximum and minimum temperatures may definitely be influenced by short-term Maunder-like solar minimums occurring near its lowest point, BUT that single Maunder minimum did NOT (could not actually) cause a gradual cooling between 1050 AD and 1600 AD.
instead, that long term tempratrure cycle CANNOT change UNTIL its cooling influence EXCEEDS its warmong influence by some amount: In a physical system like a mass suspended between two springs, the negative feedback must exceed the positive inertia if the system is to stop and reverse direction. Likewise, until even a continuous positive influence exceeds the negative inertia of the system, the mass continues downward, but is only slowing steadily. It is not immediately or suddenly changed. A continuous positive (heating) influence will continue to heat the system all the time, but this does NOT imply the system is at a single “steady state” or equilibrium temperature.
Rather, or even perversely, the maximum temperature of the system (at its peak) MUST exceed the “assumed” steady state temperature – if it did not, that continuous negative influence (such as radiation which increases to the 4th power of temperature as the system warms!) could never get large enough to (1) stop the increase in temperature, (2) begin to cause the steady decline (1000 years in the future) forces a minimum temperature….
The Perversion of Logic at Periods of Maximum and Minimum Temperatures.
So, if you assume the Maunder Minimum “caused” any sort of cooling event, then that cooling event occurred at the wrong time: The time of cooling was in 1000 AD because that is when the increasing temperature that we call the Medieval Warming Period stopped warming, and began to cool. The Maunder Minimum – if it assumed to affect global temperatures – must have (somehow) caused them to rise, because it was only after the Maunder Minimum stopped that global temperature s began increasing into today’s Modern Warming Period. I too for many years superimposed the effects because they overlap so, so very logically at 1600-1700, but have to reject sunspot counts at least, as having any effects because their effect occurs at the wrong time of their symptom.
likewise, the significant increase in sunspot counts in the last three solar cycles before solar cycle 24 (nbrs 21, 22, and 23) occurred as the last 68 year short cycle increased in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998. But, then the 2000-2010 pause happened – before the solar cycle 24 began.
I don’t understand. In the video, Marty Mlynczak said in the Q&A in response to a chat question by Seth Borenstein that there was no effect of the solar cycles on earth temps and said no one has seen any (“we don’t know of any effects on climate”).
Yet, graphs show correlations between no sunspots and the Maunder Minimum, and the vastly reduced sunspots and the Dalton Minimum (Solar Cycles 5 and 6 for starters). And various scientists writing here have reported that it is more than a correlation, it is a cause. I think IIRC that the head of a Russian space agency, Dr. Amdassamatov (Sp? form memory), said the same thing.
What am I missing?
Policycritic says:
December 13, 2013 at 9:29 pm
What am I missing?
That correlation is not necessarily causation.
Solar flux and geomagnetics baby! Its about time old Sol got some respect. Too bad that respect isn’t shared by everyone in the sciences. Too bad they’re not looking at the implications of variable solar activity on our daily weather and how that accumulates into “climate”. That entire area is the biggest blind spot in the “climate” sciences, and needs immediate triage.
I should have looked his name up. It’s Habibullo Abdusamatov (and I spelled it incorrectly). He’s the “supervisor of the Astrometria[1] project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory[2][3] of the Russian Academy of Sciences.”
Sigh…
Hit a key and suddenly a long comment is gone into the ether…
@GallopingCamel:
A lot of things conspired against me… including that I’m now the Senior Guy at work after 2 folks have moved on… so I’m suddenly not just picking up crumbs but leading the effort…. BTW, I intend to be at Grandma’s Kitchen about 2pm this Sunday if all works out….
I am trying to get my blog activity back up. We’ll see.
@Those asking about Heinrich Events:
I think it’s not on the cards. Maybe a Bond Event, though that depends on if the Little Ice Age was a Bond Event or a 1/2 Bond Event. I had more in the comment that bit the dust, but these links cover it too:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full (which I think has it more right than I do in my speculations…. the graphs there imply about 300 years before it gets icky. Fine with me…)
Lief, when does something like that become causation? Or rather, the better question might be: what in your field of solar physics would cause you and other solar physicists to say ‘this causes that’. I appreciate how you pointed out that two 100-year cycles do not constitute a defining cycle of the sun, and given the life of the sun and our planet, that’s judicious.
But how do you know definitively? And it’s corollary, how do you know something ain’t so?
Sorry for misspelling your first name, Leif.
First off, I visit this site at least once a day, 365 days a year. I comment maybe twice a year. I must chime in….. I find Leif Svalgaard, whether you love him or hate him, to be one of a small population of honest scientists out there. Actually, probably all of the scientists in his field rank among the most honest. I have yet to see an astrophysicist or someone in the solar physics field pulling an Al Gore or a Michael Mann. These guys seem to work tirelessly in their efforts to develop a better understanding of their field and Dr. Svalgaard is always brutally honest. I find myself searching the comments to see what he has to say and I, for one, appreciate the fact that he is a part of the WUWT community.
Policycritic says:
December 13, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Lief, when does something like that become causation?
When we figure out what the physics is that is behind the correlation. Today we know that the Sun is the cause of geomagnetic storms because we know the mechanism; we know how it works. A century ago there was still doubt about this [Lord Kelvin…], but in the meantime we have found the mechanism and can account for the energy involved and there is no longer any doubt.
@RACookPE1978:
As Leif said: It’s a “correlation is not causality” thing.
There are a LOT of things that happen to correlate. So many that you can not attribute probable causality. IMHO, it is lunar tidal more than solar (that PNAS paper above) but that’s just a personal choice, not a proof.
The planets stir the solar system (most of the angular momentum is in the planets) and it all moves in correlated patterns due to Orbital Resonance. That causes a (likely too small to matter) change in TSI and a larger (and might be enough to matter) change in UV vs IR (so the solar energy ends up in different places – UV in the ocean deeps, IR in surface evaporation). At the same time lunar tidal movements change where the water is on the planet. At the same time atmospheric tides move the air around. At the same time crustal tides change the degree of volcanic activity. At the same time GCR change as the solar changes happen.
It’s all a big correlated mess that can not be disambiguated by time of happening. So pick your favorite Hobby Horse and put your hat on it. I choose Lunar Tidal, but it’s just a guess….
What is very clear from the period of Bond Events and even Heinrich Events is that it is NOT CO2. Nature has a metronome, not a consistent rise…
FWIW, the best I can figure is that we’re cold until about 2040, then warm again, then in about 300 years head into the meat locker for the next Glacial. No, not worried about it. Somebody else will have that problem. But warming is not a problem.
Is it just me or is there a curious near correlation to temperature.
Highs in the 40s and 50s dropping in the 70s (the global freezing scare) then climbing again in the 80s and now dropping again (as the temps all over the northern hemisphere seem to be following at the moment 😉
Yeah, it’s probably just me.
I wonder how past solar minima were named? Dalton, Sporer, Maunder etc. Any way we can nominate Dr. Svalgaard and have this one named the “Svalgaard Minimum”? He would be very deserving! Thank you, Leif, for your contributions to solar science. Merry Christmas, CRS
The SIDC sunspot cycle was one example I used to illustrate how bad running mean “smoothers” are and how they distort the data.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers
It’s interesting to note that the smoothed SSN show the cycle max aligns with the lowest monthly SSN count in last 2.5 years.
CRS, DrPH says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Maybe Leif has gone to bed – if not, he should do so.
Anyway, he has multiple times (starting several years ago) suggested the honor go to John Allen “Jack” Eddy. Should be easy to find out why. And now I’m going to bed.
[snip . . that was internally inconsistent, perhaps you could review and repost . . mod]
Solar scientists have no doubt that the Ap index is a direct and well established measure of solar output, after all the ‘terra-genic’ components from the geomagnetic measurements are eliminated.
Website http://www.solen.info/solar/indices.html gives daily range of the Ap index, I have tracked the daily maximum values for just under 3 years (starting 1/1/2011).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-Max.htm
Visual inspection shows that:
– there is no direct correlation with the observed sunspot number (SSN)
– emergence of something which looks like annual ‘oscillation’.
The first point is well known; there are extensive papers considering various aspects of the Ap index.
The second point is new to me, and since the sun ‘couldn’t care less’ about geo-year, possibility that the Ap measurements has some ‘terragenic’ contamination needs to be considered.
Notes on the spectral response
– main lobe is cantered at 364 days, but it should be noted that the resolution (for 1065 daily data values) is + – 5 days.
– Two additional lobes at 178 and 222 days have no immediately apparent obvious link to either solar or geo time base. However, the mid period is 200 days (here the spectral resolution is + – 2 days), giving possibility of a further elaboration, but that would be beyond scope of this post.
All of the above may be just a coincidence, or alternatively an aspect of the Ap index apparent only during weak solar cycles, or even as Dr. S often says ‘noting new there, all seen before’.
I am searching for someone whos memory is better than mine… A few years back there was a piece titled: “… Hope To Hell It’s Not True” or some such. It was about a group of students beginning back about 1995 tracking a spectral line in sun spots. This spectral line was diminishing and appeared to drift toward zero about the year 2015… I would like to review that post. Also I would like to ask a couple of questions:
1. Has that inquiry continued. 2. Is the trend still headed for zero in 2015.
Anthony, as this was your quote, do you still “Hope to hell it is not true!”
“Ken L. says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Just looking at the graphs, if there are mechanisms not currently and precisely known for the sun’s variation to effect climate( new comprehensive multi-disciplinary research underway as I recall reading last January), could there be a lag in effect? If so, could the warming
prior to the current pause( 80s and 90s) possibly have been related to the peak activity in the 50s and early 60s? And in addition, might we expect possibly cooling ahead from the current downward trend in solar activity? I would appreciate if anyone here might address that question from this curious layman?”
What then caused the GW in the 30s?
William Astley
‘It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event, a once in 8,000 to 10,000 year event, a special solar magnetic cycle that causes abrupt cooling/abrupt climate events, abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, an astonishing increase in earthquakes.’
As Maxwell Smart would say, the old catastrophic global cooling trick.
Leif still hasn’t made the connection between first snow in Egypt fir 112 yrs, 5 german winters in 6 being severe, UK december 2010 coldest for 100 yrs, UK wettest summer in memory, most severe russian winter in 100 yrs, etc.
@phodges
Well, the snow our children will not see any more must go somewhere. It’s all a matter of insolendynamics.
Umm, do I have to place the tag here?
If Leif wants a mechanism for a solar effect on the atmosphere before accepting solar causation of atmospheric changes would he accept at least the possibility of solar induced changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially at different heights and different latitudes ?
The solar effect on that balance does seem to differ above and below 45km and between equator and poles.
Such differential effects would affect tropopause heights and redistribute the surface pressure pattern in the form of high and low pressure cells and the jet streams flowing between them.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 14, 2013 at 2:00 am
If Leif wants a mechanism for a solar effect on the atmosphere before accepting solar causation of atmospheric changes would he accept at least the possibility of solar induced changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially at different heights and different latitudes ?
If placed on a numerical footing, perhaps. That is: calculating the effect of the various effects and putting numbers to them that can be compared with observations. Anything else is vacuous handwaving.
In reply to: Mike Wryley says: December 13, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Mr. Astley,
Interesting assertions, where would someone find out some details on the “Heinrich” event ?
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a single paleoclimatic expert on a soapbox somewhere making the case for this.
William:
The paleoclimatologists do not discuss the Heinrich events as they have no idea what causes the cyclic Heinrich events. The abrupt climate change events are global and hence require a mechanism that can abruptly warm and abruptly cool both hemispheres. The mechanism is direct and indirect solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
The last Heinrich event (H0) is called the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event which occurred 12,900 years ago. The Heinrich event both initiates and terminates the interglacial period (the effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart on the earth is dependent on the orientation of the earth’s orbit at the time when the solar magnetic cycle restarts, the key orbital parameters are: the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the tilt of the earth’s orbit, and the seasonal timing of perihelion (whether the earth’s Northern or Southern hemisphere is closest to the sun during the hemisphere summer). The current orbital position with perihelion occurring in January is optimum to terminate an interglacial period.
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM Jonathan T. Overpeck and Julia E. Cole
….Abrupt shifts between warm and cold states punctuate the interval between 20 to 75 ka) in the Greenland isotope record, with shifts of 5–15C occurring in decades or less (Figure 1). These alternations were identified in some of the earliest ice core isotopic studies [e.g., (22)] and were replicated and more precisely dated by subsequent work (23). Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials. Both Heinrich and D/O events exhibit clear global impacts. summer monsoon, saltier northwestern tropical Pacific, drier northern South America, colder/wetter western North America, cooler eastern subtropical Pacific, and warmer South Atlantic and Antarctic.
Event Age, Kyr
H0 ~12
H1 16.8
H2 24
H3 ~31
H4 38
H5 45
H6 ~60
H1,2 are dated by radiocarbon; H3-6 by correlation to GISP2.
Heinrich events are global climate fluctuations which coincide with the destruction of northern hemisphere ice shelves, and the consequent release of a prodigious volume of sea ice and icebergs. The events are rapid: they last around 750 years, and their abrupt onset may occur in mere years (Maslin et al.. 2001). Heinrich events are observed during the last glacial period; the low resolution of the sedimentary record before this point makes it impossible to deduce whether they occurred during other glacial periods in the Earth’s history.
Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years. However, difficulties in establishing exact dates cast aspersions on the accuracy—or indeed the veracity—of this statement. Some (Broecker 1994, Bond & Lotti 1995) identify the Younger Dryas event as a Heinrich event, which would make it H0.
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:47 am
The mechanism is direct and indirect solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover
There is no evidence of that causing Heinrich events.
The coolest periods on the planet have been:
–> 1890-1918 (Jan 1893 was the coldest month in the modern temperature record);
–> 1808-1816 (and the year without summer);
–> 1660-1699 (coldest part of the Little Ice Age).
How much of a coincidence is it that these are also the periods of lowest solar activity.
My biggest take away from this was the section by Marty Mlynczak, 1Trillion Kw more energy available to the Thermosphere CO2 to radiate away in 2002 than in 2012 (and it’s going to get even less), while the CO2 which COOLS the atmosphere is also increasing.
A Double whammy of cooling.
Per Joseph D’Aleo the first two of the century are twins. Some scientists are going overboard predicting a little ice age. The numbers don’t support that.
It will be a cooler century. Rush and Gore can make it to the grave in their Ocean front homes.
It has been my observation since 1974 (year I was first interested in climate predictions) that there are a host of factors that effect our climate on this planet. CO2 is one of the least of the factors if it is even one of them at all. The sun, on the other hand, is the ball of fire that warms the planet. Any change in the output of the sun will effect us to some degree — the question is “how much?” — and therefore the sun bears watching at all times.
Now the alarmist climate “scientists” seem to claim that you could turn the sun off and CO2 would still warm the planet; but I am not so sure that I would like to see that experiment occur. I do think that a prolonged period of low solar activity will always lead to colder temperatures on this planet. Those who don’t think so make me wonder what they have been smoking.
If we see a major solar minimum and we also see colder temperatures globally; will some “scientists” finally see that the sun is one of the major factors if not the major factor? I do hope so. (of course, we need to record honest temperatures and not the bogus lies that pass for “data” these days)
In reply to: lsvalgaard says: December 13, 2013 at 8:13 pm
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event, a once in 8,000 to 10,000 year event, a special solar magnetic cycle
There is no evidence for that.
William:
Contrary to our comment, there is unequivocal observational and analytical evidence (past and current): 1) that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and 2) that the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle will after we experience the Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling, cause a Heinrich event.
For example the Livingston and Penn observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. The observational change in sunspot size (reduction in size and increase in the number of small sunspots in a sunspot group) as the magnetic flux tubes that rise up from the solar tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are starting to be torn apart by the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone. The next stage in the progress of the solar physical event will be no sunspots and an abrupt reduction in the solar large scale magnetic field.
The Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events are cyclical (which requires cyclical very, very, strong forcing mechanism that can simultaneously cause significant warming and cooling at high latitude regions which is exactly what has occurred in the last 70 years, next step to warming is cooling due the abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle) and there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every event which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes are causing happened in the past. Working back and forth (determining/developing a mechanism that can cause global climate changes, modulation of planetary clouds, abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, and so on)and then in turn determine how the sun must have changed in the past to cause what occurred on the earth.
Observational evidence to support the above comments and the mechanisms would be observed cooling of high latitude regions of the planet and a spotless sun. Cooling of the high latitude regions has started and will continue and increase in magnitude if the mechanism is correct. There are almost no sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly 14 months retarded in time from the solar northern hemisphere (which explains the double peak in sunspot number) and is repeating what was observed in the solar northern hemisphere in the past 14 months. Based on what has happened to the solar northern hemisphere and the sun will be spotless by quarter 4, 2014.
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 4:26 am
Contrary to our comment, there is unequivocal observational and analytical evidence (past and current): 1) that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
No evidence for that. And what is ‘interrupted’?
The other odd thing to come out of question and answer section was Marty Mlynczak’s answer to Seth Borenstein’s question about the affect on Earth’s temperature.
Although they admitted there appeared to be a correlation between the Maunder Minimum and low temperatures, they couldn’t think of any mechanism for a similar drop in temperatures happening now.
It shows that Solar Scientists also have little idea how the Climate system works.
John Finn says: December 14, 2013 at 3:55 am
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.
Only by the massaging of the Temperature Record for the Climate Commission, try reading a bit of Australian History, especially when Europeans first migrated there.
Periods of heat when Animals and people were dying from heat stroke, even Birds falling out of the Sky, Dead from the Heat Stroke.
How much of that was there last year?
Try looking at the Satellite records for Australia.
Weighing in on the correlation/causation question, I suspect it depends on how much correlation there is. If the correlation is so strong, that we can foretell the future with almost complete fidelity, then there is good reason to suppose a cause exists, even though we may not understand the cause. As is the case for gravity.
Whether this is currently the case for things to do with climate, I don’t know, but it seems to me that there is a strong case for suggesting that if correlation exists, then the thing to do is to try and use that correlation to foretell the future. If this can be done, then there is good reason to suppose that a cause exists.
Of course, the opposite is true. If you have a hypothetical cause with the correlation, and this cause is incapable of foretelling the future, then there is good reason to suppose the cause is incorrect.
Grand minimum appears imminent in
our life time!
Dave says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“I still don’t know the answer to this question: Did the Maunder minimum cause cooler temperatures on earth? What evidence for or against? According to the panel, there is no correlation apparently.”
My thoughts exactly with Seth Borenstien getting exactly the answer he wanted. . Yet the link between los sunspot numbers and the LIA seemed to be skipped over. Maybe we’ve all go too carried away and there is no correlation between these events , indeed in some quarters the LIA was just a localised event,
Thanks, Dr S. Predictable are the usual “theorists” that seem to think they understand the sun more than the top solar researchers on the planet.
I guess one reason for that is the unfortunate, shoddy work by many climate researchers, tho.
NZWilly at 8:54…
Were you thinking of this?…. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/07/science/sci-solar7
[snip – you’ve been warned before -mod]
***
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 4:26 am
The Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events are cyclical (which requires cyclical very, very, strong forcing mechanism that can simultaneously cause significant warming and cooling at high latitude regions which is exactly what has occurred in the last 70 years, next step to warming is cooling due the abrupt change in the solar magnetic cycle) and there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every event which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes are causing happened in the past.
***
Unnecessary to invoke solar “explanations” for D/O events. Ice-sheet dynamics (particularly at the restriction between Greenland & Iceland which can clog the Fram Straight) are sufficient:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf
“John Finn says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:55 am
Australia recently had it’s warmest October on record and it looks likely 2013 will be its warmest year.”
Rubbish! Check out the BoM.
Dont real scientists calculate energy in # of Hiroshima atomic bombs.
How can this study be taken seriously?
Question:
“Now that the billion dollar effort at climate modeling is a palpable failure, what now?”
Answer:
“We don’t know.”
Question for Leif: The press release toward the bottom says this:
“When they examined the total pressure (magnetic pressure + plasma pressure) in the heliosphere from measurements made by spacecraft such as ACE and Wind, they found that the pressure decreased by an astonishing 40% in cycle 24.”
Do you know of any mechanism, including hypothetical, by which less total pressure might translate into a change in temperatures on Earth?
Tedi says:
“It may just be my eyes, but each cycle seems more chaotic at its peak – if that is so, why ?It may just be my eyes, but each cycle seems more chaotic at its peak – if that is so, why ?”
*Very* interesting observation. Someone needs to run this data and find out if your eyes are correct.
Jim Cripwell says:
December 14, 2013 at 5:19 am
If the correlation is so strong, that we can foretell the future with almost complete fidelity, then there is good reason to suppose a cause exists, even though we may not understand the cause. As is the case for gravity.
=============
Agree 100%. Get the forecast right before worrying about the cause, because in an infinite universe you cannot separate the chicken from the egg, or the CO2 from the temperature.
Where climate science (and modern science in general) went off the rails was to assume that knowing cause and effect would allow you to make successful prediction. this is the flaw in the ointment. you can know the cause with 100% certainty and still not be able to calculate the effect.
Take an event A that causes for B and C. Often you cannot predict B or C from A, due to computational complexity. This is very common in time series analysis, where round off errors quickly overwhelm the accuracy of the result.
However, since B and C have a common cause, there may be a simple computational relationship between B and C that can be exploited to predict one from the other, even though there is no cause and effect relationship.
So for example, one can use the shadow of the rock at Stonehenge to predict the seasons, without the rocks at Stonehenge being the cause of the seasons. One can use the position of the planets in the heavens to predict the tides, without the position of the planets being the cause of the tides.
John says:
December 14, 2013 at 7:50 am
Do you know of any mechanism, including hypothetical, by which less total pressure might translate into a change in temperatures on Earth?
No, because that pressure is exceedingly minute. In the corona, the pressure is less than that under the foot of spider crawling across your palm and at the Earth that pressure has decreased ten thousand times.
There are various less powerful events that mathematically have the potential to wriggle a temperature reading (solar, anthropogenic CO2, etc). However, the real drivers of visible (in other words not mathematically small change but large scale visible change we can see happen on a temperature sensor) temperature change will have reasonable energy chops to cause that degree of visible wriggle. Searching in the orifice of a gnat’s ass and calling what you find there a visible, measurable temperature trend driver is silly. Yet many here do it. Remember, watts per square meter is the measure that levels the temperature trend driving playing field and allows real drivers temperature trends up or down to rise to the surface of reasonable speculation. I for one just can’t find a variable solar mechanism with that kind of watts per square meter muscle to drive a temperature trend measured at our planet’s surface.
Gopalswamy : When they examined the total pressure (magnetic pressure + plasma pressure) in the heliosphere from measurements made by spacecraft such as ACE and Wind, they found that the pressure decreased by an astonishing 40% in cycle 24.
NASA: Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and
load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .
This is exactly what is expected: Magnetic reconnection (magnetic cloud – magnetosphere) results in an almost instantaneous release of the energy contained in the CME’s magnetic field, subsequently causing a drop in the magnetic pressure.
Do we have any direct evidence of this effect or terragenic response , which may or may not influence climate?
I think we do, there is as much as one millisecond (1 ms) change in the LOD (length of the day change) variability between peaks of even and odd numbered cycles:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
There is a growing list of scientists which are positing that climate change is somehow linked to the rate of geo-rotation
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
I do not expect Dr. Svalgaard to agree with any of the above.
Rather OT, but it is about stars, and interesting:
http://www.universetoday.com/107141/when-is-a-star-not-a-star/
Does this mean there is no time lag between “a weak sun” and lower global temperatures? Or is the assumption that during the weak sun, snow in Cairo (not seen in 112 years) is the same as CO2 causes warming and “1998 was the hottest year on record” (i.e. unrelated)?
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says:
December 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Press Release says:
“The weak activity of cycle 24 is thought to be due to the weak polar magnetic field in cycle 23.”
=========
Warm temperatures today more often than not follow warm temperatures yesterday. Did yesterday’s warm temperatures cause today’s? Or were the warm temperatures today and yesterday both caused by the same (hidden) event, with the lag between yesterday and today giving the (false) impression of cause and effect?
Victor Borge explains the solar magnetosphere.
About correlation not being causation.
With the Sun, since we can’t do a controlled experiment, we are stuck with correlation implying causation.
I think it is an intellectual mistake to say that until we understand the mechanism, we cannot infer causation. Darwin deduced evolution from natural selection from his observations. He couldn’t do a controlled experiment. And, he couldn’t explain how beneficial traits were passed to the offspring. He didn’t know about DNA. But, that didn’t stop him. He was off course reviled by many, who noted that he had a big gaping hole in this theory.
Stone age farmers created all our major food crops from selective breeding, even though they had no idea how these traits were inherited.
So, let’s just follow the facts. The theories can catch up later.
To Leif: thanks for your answer,
Johm
Joel, we have lots of facts already. We can measure all kinds of things. And physics gives us several avenues into testing energy required to do things. For example, cloud chamber experiments reveals how much solar driven “seeding” is required to make the kind of changes needed in actual clouds to make a difference in temperature trends (so far the experimental effect is so small as to be barely measurable, let alone capable of causing actual cloud seeding to occur such that temperature trends are affected). If our real-life in-situ hypothetical driver demonstrates a decided lack of such power, we need to seek some other driver.
Addendum: What is quite powerful is the persistence demonstrated by both anthropogenic CO2 and solar variability enthusiasts in beating dead horses.
No, because that pressure is exceedingly minute.
===============
“The milder space weather also reduces the drag on satellites and it is easy to keep them in orbit.”
Even the smallest of forces acting over time can have profound effect.
at 11:58 DocWat asked about “Hell” and now it is morning and no answer has been given. Maybe it was the “group of students” part that caused the void. My guess is the Doc is looking for a specific post on the Livingston and Penn research.
Searching here on WUWT with the names reveals many posts and this one comes close to “… Hope To Hell It’s Not True” sought by DocWat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
First line is:
From the “I hope to God they are flat wrong department”, here is the abstract of a short …
Big thanks from me too, Dr. Svalgaard. Yer da man..
Some interesting points from the conference for me,
The way that halo CME’s propagate during weak cycles, with weaker magnetic fields. And how that effects Ap. How it expands along its width and that it is less efficient in acceleration due to the weak magnetic field.
Seeing the GCR graph with the “overall” aspect even during solar cycle 24’s max.
40% reduction in the heliospheric pressure. My guess was 30% lol..
“”When they examined the total pressure (magnetic pressure + plasma pressure) in the heliosphere from measurements made by spacecraft such as ACE and Wind, they found that the pressure decreased by an astonishing 40% in cycle 24. From this they inferred that the pressure must drop by a similar amount near the Sun. CMEs released into this low-‐pressure medium, expand more than usual, resulting in weaker fields, and hence weaker geomagnetic storms. The magnetic field strength in CMEs decides the intensity of geomagnetic storms.””
Any comments on the 28 1/2 day structure seen in the solar rotation. Comparison between solar cycle 20 and 24? How the flux transport has varied?
M. Opher had an Interstellar Magnetic field modeling presentation at the AGU worth noting. (subtle hint)
And the IRIS presentation shows some spectacular images and movies on solar flows..pretty cool details. Are you hoping IRIS will be used in mapping flows around “sectors and boundarys?”
Andres Valencia says:
December 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013
_______
That’s a pretty DIRE looking projection (prediction) in the graphs of Figure 1
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
Figure 1. Variations of both the TSI and solar activity in 1978-2013 and prognoses of these variations to cycles 24-27 until 2045. The arrow indicates the beginning of the new Little Ice Age epoch after the maximum of cycle 24.
Pamela Gray says:
December 14, 2013 at 8:10 am
I for one just can’t find a variable solar mechanism with that kind of watts per square meter muscle to drive a temperature trend measured at our planet’s surface.
===========
how does the very small force a child delivers to a swing result in such a large motion? If one calculates the energy required to lift the child an equivalent distance vertically it is enormous.
If one simply looks at the trend while the child is swinging upwards, what we see is impossible. It is only when the trend is examined as part of an oscillation that the truth becomes revealed.
vukcevic says:
December 14, 2013 at 8:16 am
______
Less drag on the Earth from high speed CME’s and such..
Less drag Earth rotates faster..
Remember Earth’s field is on a steady decline..
It’s going to be very interesting to see the effects of a centennial-low solar cycle and a possible Grand Solar Minimum starting from SC25 in 2020.
It seems that we’re already experiencing the effects of diminishing solar activity with no warming trend for 17 years, 1000’s of low-temp records broken, record global snow extents, record Antarctic ice extents, record low Arctic summer temps, etc.,
If these cold phenomena and falling/flat temperature trends continue during low solar activity, it seems logical the CAGW hypothesis must be abandoned soon, especially with record amounts of CO2 emissions being broken.
The CAGW hypothesis assumes solar flux has little effect on climate and that CO2 is the magical master control knob of Earth’s climate… Not so much… The strongest 63-year string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996, so if the warmunists try to blame recent cold events on low solar activity, then they also have to admit 20th century warming was primarily due to strong solar cycles. Although the warmunists often try, they can’t have their cake and eat it, too..
I do think the sheeple are starting to get it
http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html
When I look at the data I see a small solar influence. The bottom of the LIA was reached in the 1500s. From there it should have started warming but that appeared to be delayed somewhat by the Maunder minimum. The Dalton cooling and early 20th century cooling also show up during weak solar activity. However, solar is not the big kahuna. It is not the cause of the RWP, the MWP or the LIA. And, it is not the cause of the modern warming period.
The main cause is changes in the MOC speed. When the MOC speeds up it brings cold water to the surface as a faster rate (and sequesters warm surface water). When it slows down the opposite occurs. The speed of the MOC is controlled by density differences within the oceans. ON top of that we see the ~30 year cycle of the PDO/AMO which is stronger but shorter in duration. The combination of the MOC and these “stadium wave” ocean oscillations can explain everything over the last 2000 years.
Note how this supports RACook’s description of the warming and cooling over time. While the sun has a small, temporary affect, it does not persist. In general, small solar changes are buffered into our massive oceans making it very difficult to isolate them.
When might the sun in its orbit have more drag (resistance) time?
From the outside in .. changes in the outer rings of a vortex .. uh stuck
the pressure is less than that under the foot of spider
==========
the pressure under an old style phonograph needle is twice that of the deepest ocean. the gravitational force of the Milky Way is minute, yet I’m unable to escape from orbit.
Pamela Gray says:
December 14, 2013 at 8:49 am
Addendum: What is quite powerful is the persistence demonstrated by both anthropogenic CO2 and solar variability enthusiasts in beating dead horses.
………….
Neither of two are dead horses, your hero Dr. LS is realistic and does say that CO2 and solar cycles have a role, however the extent of either is not adequate, but that is only one opinion. Some of us will listen and learn as necessary but don’t take for granted words of any man whoever it may be.
Regarding persistence here are two quotes from someone who knew failure and success (none lesser than that half American, Winston Churchill):
“Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.”
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again.”
eeek CO2 not being heated up like it used to eeek
phodges says:
“You can tell me again it’s not the Sun, but I suspect there is more than TSI affecting the Earth. As climate is a sum of weather, maybe we should look at what constitutes weather and start thinking how the Earth’s interaction with the Sun contributes to that – ocean temps, jet stream locations, teleconnections, etc…”
E.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
Seems everyone beat around it and some hit it. In summery.
Two small cycles in a row and some climate lag- Global warming will restart 2035.
Good time to correlate sunspot activity to earthquake activity.
Hurricane seasons will decline.
Winters will grow longer. Winters without summers eventually.
Drought will continue thru 2033.
First phase will compare to 1962 to 1979 weather data.
Large amount of crop lost which means less exports and more suffering overseas; beginning food shortages will create a worldwide food Black market.
Large numbers of Cattle and various farm animals will be lost and hopefully some creativity in deer and elk herding will take place. More he gardens home farm animals will return to urban and suburban life. Lost 20,000 head of cattle and numerous horses, sheep and lambs in South Dakota due to a snow blizzard, October 4, 2013.
There Is already an increase in the lost in human life due to drought, cold and wars in recent years.
I receive about 15 Google news Alerts a day and drought, And lost of human and farm animals also are increasing and great amounts of lost food is taking place.
From An historical perspective, what is ahead through 2035 is what I call “The Thinning of The Herd”.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
lsvalgaard says:
December 14, 2013 at 8:06 am
John says:
December 14, 2013 at 7:50 am
Do you know of any mechanism, including hypothetical, by which less total pressure might translate into a change in temperatures on Earth?
No, because that pressure is exceedingly minute. In the corona, the pressure is less than that under the foot of spider crawling across your palm and at the Earth that pressure has decreased ten thousand times.
_______
excuse me..
Could we take that out distance to like lets say Pluto. Or.. Voyager 1, like shrinking out of the heliosphere.
distant effects will be greater though
Leif,
What went into the selection of of cycle 14 as the example of what cycle 24 appears to be like? There are obviously several earlier ones shown on your slide which appeared to be similar. Was it merely the most recent of these with the most data available or was it the best correlation of wiggles or were other factors involved which were not mentioned?
thought from the deep end.
If manmade CO2 contribution is no longer being warmed from sun..
I would not want to be a Russian living N. of China or India when the CO2 is cold.
the pressure is less than that under the foot of spider
==========
the pressure under an old style phonograph needle is twice that of the deepest ocean. the gravitational force of the Milky Way is minute, yet I’m unable to escape from orbit.
==========
Yep. And electrons drift at low cm/s speeds in wires, creating a magnetic field which is explained as a relativistic effect.
Anyone that’s wrapped a wire around a nail and attached a battery has seen relativistic effects.
DocWat says:
December 13, 2013 at 11:58 pm
John Hultquist answered this, I’ll add a bit more, as the topic is my all time favorite thing I’ve learned here. Leif brought this to our attention and frequently notes things are still going pretty much as anticipated. The straight line decline is leveling out a bit, but that may be because we’re already missing some sunspots.
From “Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT” (See link in the right side nav bar):
Looks like it’s about time I check for recent updates, perhaps when it’s clear we’re on the downside of SC24.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:23 am
———-
So much to do and read .. so little time ..
Thanks Ulrich but that one deserved its abstract put up front and center..
Not to mention its title and authors…
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes
Limin Zhoua, Brian Tinsleyb, Jing Huanga
Available online 21 September 2013
Abstract
Indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation show correlations on the day-to-day timescale with the solar wind speed (SWS). Minima in the indices were found on days of SWS minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading. The spatial distribution of surface pressure changes during 1963–2011 with day-to-day changes in SWS shows a pattern resembling the NAO. Such a pattern was noted for year-to-year variations by Boberg and Lundstedt (2002), who compared NAO variations with the geo-effective solar wind electric field (the monthly average SWS multiplied by the average southward component, i.e., negative Bz component, of the interplanetary magnetic field). The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geo-effective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.
I would imagine Stephen Wilde and Vuks might be intrigued…
Bill ILLIS
Your comments about past coolestperiods
I have been looking at possible causes other than reduced solar activity for the CET temperature drops during past major solar minimums
Graph below is a detrended historical plot of the sea surface temperature anomalies (HADSST3) for the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins from pole to pole The peaks and valleys of this plot match the peaks and valleys of global atmospheric cooling and warming periods over the last 130 years . The surface temperatures of these oceans have peaked and are again heading for a cold trough by about 2040/2045 like they did 1910 and 1975
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s and WUWT web pages
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/a-quick-look-at-the-hadgem2-es-simulations-of-sea-surface-temperatures/
If we hind cast the above ocean graph and in particular the 70 year Atlantic Ocean SST, pole to pole , we find that major SST troughs like 1905/1910 and 1975 could have also happened in 1835, 1765, 1695 For example the North Atlantic Ocean may have been cooling during the following past periods [And probably the Pacific as well.] based on the 70 year pole to pole cycle The major solar minimum periods are noted. They do match .
1940 to 1975
1870 to 1910[Minimum 1880-1910]
1800 to 1835[Dalton minimum 1790-1820]
1730 to 1765
1660 to 1695 [Maunder minimum 1645-1715]
1590 to 1625
1520 to 1555 [Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
1450 to 1485 [ Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
This could account for much of the cooling noted in the CET records during major solar minimums . These periods are also visible on the following reconstructed North Atlantic SST graph
Courtesy of Bob Tisdale
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
http://i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
In other words a 70 year major oceans SST cycle could be partly [ together with volcanic eruptions] behind the extra cooling noted during historical major solar minimums .
Historical geological data shows that there were major volcanic eruptions [level 5 and higher] during past solar minimums or cooler periods. There were 10 major eruptions during Maunder minimum [1640-1721], 3 during Dalton Minimum 1790-1822 and 6 during the 1880-1910 Minimum. These eruptions included major eruptions like Long Island , level 6 in 1660, Krakatau, level 6 in 1883, Tambora ,level 7 in 1815, Santa Maria ,level 6 in 1902 and Novarupta ,level 6 in 1912 Volcanic ash and other suspended particles tend to block out the earth’s sunlight, thus reducing solar radiation and lowering mean global temperatures for up to 5 years as we saw with the Krakatau eruption in 1883.
Oh my goodness can we not talk about variations in climate without going to the sky is falling extremes.. it gets warmer.. the sky falls, it might get cooler.. the sky falls. I have to tell you Im getting really sick of worst case scenario legislation.
Good article though! Such a big leap from nothing to see here move along:)
In reply to: beng says: December 14, 2013 at 6:34 am
***
William Astley says: December 14, 2013 at 4:26 am
Bing says: Unnecessary to invoke solar “explanations” for D/O events. Ice-sheet dynamics (particularly at the restriction between Greenland & Iceland which can clog the Fram Straight) are sufficient:
William:
The silly suggestion – it is not even a hypothesis as there is no mechanism to explain how ‘ice-sheet dynamics’ can simultaneously affect both hemispheres was disproved 20 years ago. There is not even a back of the envelope calculation to explain what the heck causes the ice sheets to suddenly cyclically change and there is no calculation or even a couple of paragraph explanation as to how a change to the ice sheets could possibly cause both hemispheres to warm and then to cool. Get real. The bing/purge suggestion is at least 20 years old. It failed due to my comments and due to the fact that during the glacial period geographically disconnected ice sheets suddenly all start to change which requires a global forcing mechanism i.e. duh the sun. There are cosmogenic isotopes changes at each and every climate change event. The cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. The scientific problem is not if solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic climate change, including the massive climate forcing change a Heinrich event that is capable and that has terminated past interglacial periods.
I find it surreal that we are having this thread discussion as it is obvious from observations, that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. We have started to experience the first observed cooling (UV radiation has dropped by 20%, the solar heliosphere pressure has dropped by 40%, GCR levels at the peak of solar magnetic cycle 24 are the same as the average levels in past cycles).
Unequivocal significant cooling (reversing of the warming in the last 70 years and a return Little Ice age temperatures before the Heinrich event) is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 was cause by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
The pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match the predicted pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing mechanism. As shown in Bob Tisdale’s graph, temperature anomaly, land and ocean, average 2007 to December, 2012 by latitude, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. That observation contradicts what the IPCC model predicted. The IPCC models predicted that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where the most amount of long wave (infrared radiation is emitted to space).
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question that is emitted to space before the increase in CO2. As the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Weak solar cycles have been associated with Grand Minimums and cooler temperatures. Are we on the cusp of our next Grand Minimum?
pkatt says:
December 14, 2013 at 11:10 am
Oh my goodness can we not talk about variations in climate without going to the sky is falling extremes.. it gets warmer.. the sky falls, it might get cooler.. the sky falls. I have to tell you Im getting really sick of worst case scenario legislation.
______
Yes, but.. now we see how it falls ( goes up and down) and that’s the fun part. Let that other stuff just go..
Read it slow it’s a mouth full.. (SWS solar wind speeds)
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes
Limin Zhoua, Brian Tinsleyb, Jing Huanga
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
Available online 21 September 2013
“””The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geo-effective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.””””
Day-to-day changes in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations correlate with solar wind speed and relativistic electron precipitation.
Interannual changes are similarly correlated.
A connection via the global atmospheric electric circuit and cloud microphysical changes is suggested.””
And the flux of whatever else coming down..
Puts a whole new or another “Twist” on the following video clip..
Apologies for the typo in the first sentence and for the long time it took to get corrected. I was dead tired when I wrote that post, even though it was only 8PM. The week at AGU took its toll on me and my typing suffered. After 10 hours of sleep, I’m somewhat normal again. – Anthony
Once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends the solar /climate connections should become more clear. I list possible solar mechanisms and solar criteria ,below.
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
William Astley says:
“It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event…”
Should we nuke the ice jam in the Fram straight to keep the ice flowing out of the Arctic when that happens then?
Though looking rationally at past behaviour, the current temperature is far too high to get a sudden drop in Arctic temperature, more likely it will slowly drop for several thousand years, like from the Eemian: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Epica-vostok-grip-140kyr.png
@ PolicyCritic. One possible thing you are missing is Political Correctness, or the need to not rock the boat for reasons of preserving funding. Leif is a solar scientist and it is perhaps best he should distance himself from temperature speculation and stick to pure solar science as he does.
However, for the rest of us we can speculate. Whatever the mechanism, the apparent historical correlation between reduced sunspots and colder times would seem to be unassailable. The co2 faithful should be giving up their religion somewhere between 2020 and 2030.
@ Ulric. I don’t know anything about nukes. But I suspect it’ll take quite a lot of them and probably won’t solve the problem.
@ Salvatore. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters
Got any numbers (joules or watts or something) for that energy ?
Lief, glad you showed the 24 cycle 14 comparison in your talk…….I had been looking at cycle comparisons and plotting them for some time and came to exactly that conclusion!
And like you said several times, cycle 14 is multi-peaked and so is cycle 24 likely to be multi-peaked.
Pamela Gray: I for one just can’t find a variable solar mechanism with that kind of watts per square meter muscle to drive a temperature trend measured at our planet’s surface.
My reading, hardly exhaustive, has led me to the same place: no convincing demonstration has been provided linking a hypothesized mechanism to the association of solar cycles with Earth temperature. The time series of solar measurements and the time series of Earth temperature could be completely independent time series, and of the zillions of time series data that humans have collected, it is happenstance that their peaks and troughs happen to line up, at least approximately.
But do we have enough evidence that there is no mechanism behind the association?
I expect the next 20 years to be extremely informative. If the Earth mean temperature continues to diverge from what is predicted of it, or to decline, while CO2 continues to increase and sunspot activity continues to decline, then I think the hypothesis of no causal link between sunspot activity and Earth temperature will lose credibility, and the hunt for evidence of mechanism will increase. Personally, I put this in the class of known unknowns.
Salvatore del Prete: NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
There is a great quantity of work to be done to cover the distance between that post of yours and a quantitative demonstration of the sort Pamela Gray referred to. I expect scientists to find a lot of illuminating evidence in the upcoming 20 years.
More solar inputs in changing “surface atmospheric pressure.”
What do with all the solar inputs.. oh my
The interplanetary magnetic field influences
mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
Published 4 October 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf
Abstract
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the
interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially,
there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric
electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high
latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is
concentrated in the polar regions. We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the
IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures
during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant
mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves. Our results show that a
mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is
also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes. We suggest the
mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable
to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a
relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an
important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric
processes.
I am a big fan of Dr Svalgaard but I really don’t understand why he can’t at least suggest that the 100 year cycle might relate to changes in the solar motion of the large planets around the sun as in the case of the 11 year solar cycle.
c, that looks rife with mechanisms for amplification without runaway.
==========
In reply to:
Ulric Lyons says:
December 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
William Astley says:
“It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event…”
Should we nuke the ice jam in the Fram straight to keep the ice flowing out of the Arctic when that happens then? Though looking rationally at past behaviour, the current temperature is far too high to get a sudden drop in Arctic temperature, more likely it will slowly drop for several thousand years, like from the Eemian:
William,
It will be interesting to hear the suggestions to address planetary cooling. There is no respect for abrupt climate change as the group think does not include a mechanism to cause abrupt climate change. The warmists argue irrationally that the planet must amplify forcing changes in order for there to be an explanation as to how insolation changes at 65N could cause the glacial/interglacial cycle, as the insolation changes are an order of magnitude too small to cause what is observed in addition to there being multiple periods when there is a lack of correlation which disproves that mechanism. The lack of warming and Lindzen et Choi’s paper indicates the planet resists forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud in the tropical region. If it is a fact that the planet resists forcing changes, then there is a massive periodic forcing change which causes abrupt climate change and the interglacial/glacial cycle.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, (William: 70% of the Younger Dryas cooling occurred in less than a decade) which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.
Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain these sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate. Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a ‘glacial’ world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea ice cover. However, a major sudden cold event did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial, around 122,000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.
According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.
kim says:
December 14, 2013 at 4:42 pm
c, that looks rife with mechanisms for amplification without runaway.
==========
Two step process..
The interplanetary magnetic field influences
mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
Published 4 October 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf
page 5
4. Discussion and conclusions
To explain the observed correlation of IMF By with surface
pressure we propose that the mid-latitude surface pressure is
influenced by IMF By via a two-stage process comprising:
(i) a change in the polar surface pressure involving the
global atmospheric electric circuit [5, 6], and
(ii) a resulting change in the mid-latitude surface pressure via conventional
meteorology.
The first of these two processes, concerning
the influence of IMF By fluctuations on the polar surface
pressure remains under-explored and controversial [17, 18].
However, our analysis of the surface pressure anomaly field
provides new evidence supporting a direct relationship
with the ionospheric electric potential.
Figure 3 is a schematic representing this two-stage
process:
Continued..
The interplanetary magnetic field influences
mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure
M M Lam, G Chisham and M P Freeman
Published 4 October 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf
..In particular, it affects the structure of the Rossby
wavefield, which is key in determining the trajectory of
storm tracks [24]. The configuration of the North Atlantic jet
stream is particularly susceptible to changes in forcing [25].
In turn, so are the location and the timing of blocking
events in this region, in which vortices are shed from the
jet stream leading to prolonged periods of low or of high
pressure [26]. It has also been proposed that the low-frequency
variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) arises as a
result of variations in the occurrence of upper-level Rossby
wavebreaking events over the North Atlantic [27]. The NAO
itself is key to climate variability over the Atlantic–European
sector stretching from the east coast of the United States to
Siberia, and the Arctic to the subtropical Atlantic [28, 25].
Our results may therefore provide part of the explanation
for previously observed correlations between Eurasian winter
temperatures and solar variability [29, 30], and for the ‘Wilcox
effect’ where reductions in the areas of high vorticity in
winter storms are seen at times of solar wind heliospheric
current sheet crossings [31] (which are characterized by sharp
changes between steady, opposite IMF By states).
Thanks Dr Svalgaard and Anthony – this has been an extremely interesting post.
:o)
I have been reading this article and the comments with great interest. I have come to a conclusion (interpretation) about the suns influence on our weather and climate, as have many writers in a certain genre. We on Earth actually live in a Petry dish, the changes in the weather are caused by a [rest not in accordance with site policy. Mod]
Matthew R Marler says:
December 14, 2013 at 2:53 pm
The time series of solar measurements and the time series of Earth temperature could be completely independent time series, and of the zillions of time series data that humans have collected, it is happenstance that their peaks and troughs happen to line up, at least approximately.
Possible, but unlikely to this extent:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
As it can be seen, more accurate data (closer to present time) closer is the correlation.
John F. Hultquist says:
December 14, 2013 at 8:53 am Thanks
Ric Werme says:
December 14, 2013 at 10:03 am Thanks
William Astley says:
December 13, 2013 at 8:02 pm
You could be right but there’s no funding money, prizes or headlines for that sort of talk at the moment. On the other hand, if you are correct there will be some high rollers ducking for cover down the track. No one knows for sure as there is little point in comparing the ever changing historical temperatures anomalies presented by GISS to the historical SC chart.
William Astley says:
“If it is a fact that the planet resists forcing changes, then there is a massive periodic forcing change which causes abrupt climate change…”
The Vostok cores do not show the same rapid changes as Greenland, it needs a regional explanation, like the Fram Strait blocking with sea ice. Also Greenland seems to be maintaining a higher temperature relative to Vostok than it did 120Kyr ago:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Epica-vostok-grip-140kyr.png
cba says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:28 am
What went into the selection of of cycle 14 as the example of what cycle 24 appears to be like?
Cycle 14 was simply the latest such low cycle, and we have good data for it.
***
William Astley says:
December 14, 2013 at 11:16 am
The silly suggestion – it is not even a hypothesis as there is no mechanism to explain how ‘ice-sheet dynamics’ can simultaneously affect both hemispheres was disproved 20 years ago.
***
A silly suggestion is that 1 w/m2 (less than 0.1%) variance during solar cycles is a mechanism to explain anything — especially when it cycles back & forth. And as Ulric Lyons already pointed out, Antarctic ice-cores show much less variance than Greenland cores.
re: Fred Berple’s statement re a child’s swinging motion. The energy necessary to begin a swinging motion (and to sustain it as well as make it go higher) is easily calculated and quite predictable from the known physical properties of the swingset and the position of the child (as well as the properties of the child) at rest and as the child shifts the center of gravity. The two main realms of importance in the calculations would be pendulum mechanics and center of gravity shift. In other words, the energy needed to produce a pendulum motion of a child on a swingset can be calculated. The child, via displacing the center of gravity, is entirely capable of producing the kind of energy (from potential to kinetic), sustaining it, and building it. An important point is that a pendulum has resonant frequencies that can also be calculated based on the physical properties of the pendulum (Fred, you should know this), requiring relatively smaller amounts of energy to bring about a swinging motion at those frequencies. Lifting a child vertically involves entirely different physics-based calculations. Your comparison post makes no sense to your point, which I assume to be that of amplification of tiny variables into a powerful climate trend driver.
Cycle 14 has more and larger peaks and valleys than cycle 24. Therefore, IMHO, cycle 24 seems to be more similar to cycle 12. See http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/Comp_24_12_14.pdf.
The maximum smoothed sunspot number of cycle 24 is until now 66.9, the max SSN of cycle 14 was 64.2, and max SSN of cycle 12 was 74.6. These values do not be part of my argument.
As was told by Leif during the press conference, solar activity seems to show a cycle of about 100 years. This is very intriguing. The most important is that scientists will learn a lot from this weak cycle! Each solar cycle is different.
”
‘If Leif wants a mechanism for a solar effect on the atmosphere before accepting solar causation of atmospheric changes would he accept at least the possibility of solar induced changes in the balance of ozone creation / destruction differentially at different heights and different latitudes ?’
If placed on a numerical footing, perhaps. That is: calculating the effect of the various effects and putting numbers to them that can be compared with observations. Anything else is vacuous handwaving.”
Isn’t it the job of scientists to actively attempt to disprove own hypotheses?
thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:03 am
” Anything else is vacuous handwaving.”
Isn’t it the job of scientists to actively attempt to disprove own hypotheses?
Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…
Carla says:
December 14, 2013 at 9:27 am
Could we take that out distance to like lets say Pluto. Or.. Voyager 1, like shrinking out of the heliosphere….distant effects will be greater though…
A hundred times further out the pressure is 10,000 times smaller yet. BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
“Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…”
That depends on how one defines a scientist.
As regards falsifiability I have challenged Leif and others many times by listing specific observations that would falsify my hypothesis.
So far none of them have happened and in the meantime there have been unexpected data findings that support my hypothesis.
“I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.”
I’m impressed that your work disproved it
Stephen, please post all the observations that do not support your hypothesis. It is your responsibility, not Leif’s.
Solar variability can be clearly seen in the 10Be record, obviously the Beryllium-10 is mostly produce by cosmic ray spallation, and is distributed by weather patterns and the relationship between the surface temperatures of ice as the concentration of Beryllium-10 gets deposited.
So why is it, during all these random chaotic stages after the Beryllium-10 is produced does the Beryllium-10 record still hold with solar activity?
Why does climatic variability not effect the Beryllium-10 concentration in ice, it appears to me that melting and forming ice is following a similar pattern as solar activity.
The solar cycle averaged and inverted graph also looks to me like a temperature anomaly.
Here are my graphs of NGRIP Beryllium-10 concentration and SSN data.
SSN v Beryllium-10 concentration
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be.gif
SSN v 10be concentration averaged over solar cycle length
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be-solarcycle-avg.gif
SSN v 10be concentration averaged over solar cycle length inverted
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ssn-v-10be-solarcycle-avg2.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
———
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..
For instance the article I posted above says,
“However, our analysis of the surface pressure anomaly field
provides new evidence supporting a direct relationship
with the ionospheric electric potential.”
or this one
The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1:
Wilcox effect revisited
P. Prikryl1, V. Ruˇsin2, and M. Rybansk´y3
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1/2009/angeo-27-1-2009.pdf
…Prikryl et al. (2001, 2003) have suggested that auroral atmospheric
gravity waves (AGWs) are another candidate for
the “missing link” between the solar wind and tropospheric
weather. Auroral AGWs may release instabilities that lead
to tropospheric convection, convective clouds and storminess
(Prikryl et al., 2009).
Using the International Satellite
Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D1 dataset, a statistically
significant response of high-level cloudiness to fast solar
wind from coronal holes is found (Prikryl et al., 2003,
2006, 2009). These results are consistent with the previous
finding of solar wind influence on mid-latitude tropospheric
circulation (Wilcox et al., 1973; Lundstedt, 1984).
In this paper, we use the improved meteorological reanalysis
data to verify the Wilcox effect and to extend the analysis
to the Southern Hemisphere. The results are corroborated
by a correlation with coronal holes, from which high-speed
solar wind streams flow. Also, the occurrence of severe extratropical
weather events and extratropical storm sea level
pressure deepenings is examined in the context of solar wind
disturbances to support the argument that auroral AGWs may
impact the extratropical cyclone activity after the arrival of
high-speed solar wind streams…
or this..
The dynamics of solar activity and anomalous weather of summer 2010: 2. Relationship with the active longitude zone; effects in the west and east
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793212010045
K. G. Ivanov, A. F. Kharshiladze
or not..
@ the mod, can you explain to me why or what was offensive in my post and so was deleted, it was in jest, please E-mail me, you have my E-mail address.
The Sun is around 20,000,000°C – how does this change with sunspot activity?
Carla says:
December 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“Leif Svalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
BTW, I was a co-discoverer of the ‘Wilcox-effect’ and am of the opinion today that the effect was spurious, i.e not real.
———
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..”
The spurious is unspurioused.
The not real is not real
Myrrh says:
December 15, 2013 at 5:33 pm
The Sun is around 20,000,000°C – how does this change with sunspot activity?
The temperature at the center in about 15,000,000 K and does not change with solar activity.
Carla says:
December 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..
If it was spurious then, it is spurious now…
Stephen Wilde says:
December 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm
“Stephen Wilde is no scientist and his hand waving is hardly falsifiable…”
That depends on how one defines a scientist.
I don’t think so.
there have been unexpected data findings that support my hypothesis.
Any data whatsoever have always supported you hypothesis…
“Stephen, please post all the observations that do not support your hypothesis. It is your responsibility, not Leif’s.”
I haven’t come across any yet because I built the hypothesis on the observations so that it is consistent with them.
I’m awaiting falsification but it hasn’t happened yet.
The types of observations that would falsify it have been set out by me several times before.
Examples:
i) Cooling stratosphere with a quiet sun or warming stratosphere with an active sun.
ii) More poleward / zonal jets with a quiet sun or more equatorward / meridional jets with an active sun.
iii) Anomalously negative AO and AAO with an active sun or anomalously positive AO and AAO with a quiet sun. I don’t count the minor variations across a single cycle for this purpose. One needs 3 or 4 cycles with a significant trend for the relationship to show up above chaotic variability. The recent extreme negative AO at the same time as the lowest solar activity in our lifetimes is unlikely to have been a coincidence.
iv) Increased global cloudiness with poleward / zonal jets or decreased global cloudiness with equatorward / meridional jets.
v) Upward temperature stepping from one positive PDO phase to the next whilst the sun is becoming less active (across multiple cycles) or downward temperature stepping from one negative PDO phase to the next when the sun is becoming more active (across multiple cycles)
There are lots of other observations that could falsify it but you get the picture.
“Any data whatsoever have always supported your hypothesis…”
Maybe its right ?
What have you got that doesn’t ?
Prikryl et al. (2001, 2003) have suggested that auroral atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs) are another candidate for the “missing link” between the solar wind and tropospheric weather.
Arctic area is unusually ‘sensitive’ to geomagnetic storms, the assertion is supported by geological data. Arctic area is critical to the N. Hemisphere’s temperature & climate changes (polar jet stream etc). Since the N.H is where most of historic data originate from, these changes are reflected to a great extent in the global data.
One of the most reliable aurora records comes from Denmark’s observers; these show that the geomagnetic storms have a strong solar magnetic cycle (twice SSN) component
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
which is also very prominent in the global temperatures as shown above.
Everything that all researchers so far discovered , measured and calculated and drawn . using models and mathematics , is not nearly enough to learn the true causes of climate change on our planet and on other planets . Complete , up to now , the displayed image changes with the sun and its behavior are just indicators of a much consequence influential factors is the main cause climate change, and we have not yet noticed and deciphering . Why ? Because science does not want to deal with the ” simple ” thinking about the laws of nature , and what she considers just exactly what the evidence is very complicated mathematical apparatus and ” gracious ” model . The data obtained are only indicators of some hidden processes that take place in a much simpler way than the way of how science is looking for and wants to get the process going on. Maybe it’s impolite to say that I now have almost all the previous conclusions of the above questions, based on illogical assumptions set . In our country there is a saying : “Where there is a lot of grandmothers , children are sufferin from hernia ” . And the conclusions of previous studies , in most cases the same case . I do not insist that you believe , but I think there is a way to alleviate this phenomenon completely , only to have the technical and financial capabilities . I have an idea that I check , but I do not have the above conditions . So if anyone has an interest to make it happen , we can make the appropriate contractual obligations , which will be cheaper than if I show that my work is accurate . Then , you can estimate how much it will cost. I seriously working on it and I think the sunspot cycle of 11.2 years , the fastest and best way to resolve the enigma . This is not the first time that I offer ideas and cooperation. It will not bring down the world if it fails this time , but my work will not fail. ( Excuse my poor English , but it is better for the majority of what you know slightly )
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 12:29 am
I’m awaiting falsification but it hasn’t happened yet.
The types of observations that would falsify it have been set out by me several times before.
i) Cooling stratosphere with a quiet sun or warming stratosphere with an active sun.
Since solar activity has been decreasing in recent decades and the stratosphere has been cooling, it would seem that even your first example of falsification has been met…
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/extremes-cold-snow-records-december-2013-20131207
“The first full week of December 2013 has been packed full of bitter cold, snowy and icy extremes. On the following pages, we walk through some of the most interesting facts about this wintry start to December beginning with the extreme cold.”
“On the morning of Dec. 7, Jordan, Mont. recorded a low temperature of -42 degrees. Not far behind was Havre, Mont. with a low of -39 degrees. Sunday morning, Harve, Mont. was the coldest spot in the nation with a low temperature of -37 degrees.”
“That same morning, Great Falls, Mont. dipped to -33 degrees, setting a record for the coldest temperature ever recorded so early in the season. The extreme cold led to power outages in southwestern portions of the city.”
Its it a coincidence?
“Since solar activity has been decreasing in recent decades and the stratosphere has been cooling, it would seem that even your first example of falsification has been met…”
Cycles 21, 22 and 23 were all active and the stratosphere cooled.
Since the end of cycle 23 with the arrival of quieter cycle 24 the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may now be warming.
No falsification there. Quite the opposite.
Question if the “sunspot area %” graph shown still includes the added Another text file contains daily sunspot areas (1.51 Mb). These derived data include the correction factor of 1.4 for data after 1976. Does this non-stated correction factor make the comparison with earlier cycles change?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml – near the bottom.
stephen wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 8:39 am
Cycles 21, 22 and 23 were all active and the stratosphere cooled…
Since the end of cycle 23 with the arrival of quieter cycle 24 the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may now be warming.
The cooling really began in the 1990s and the temperature has been flat since. No correlation with the cycles. But since you don’t quote any numbers nothing can be made of your vague statements.
Whoa! It’s changed from cooling to flat since when? Since 33 minutes, yeah, there’s a number.
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif. The dybbuk made me do it.
==================
kim says:
December 16, 2013 at 9:08 am
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif.
II guess you have to follow Stephen’s lead…
The stratosphere’s not warming, folks, for how long not even kim knows.
==========
Last year at this time northern stratospheric temps were well below average, before a sudden stratospheric warming. This year they are even lower. Will we get the SSW?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.gif
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-temperature-lower-stratosphere
The above link shows the cessation of stratospheric cooling which occurred from about 1994 onwards as solar cycle 23 declined towards low cycle 24.
If the stratosphere resumes cooling whilst the sun remains quiet then I would accept that as a problem for my hypothesis.
More likely a continuing quiet sun should soon come through as a trend towards stratospheric warming.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 10:42 am
If the stratosphere resumes cooling whilst the sun remains quiet then I would accept that as a problem for my hypothesis.
From your link:
“Global average temperatures in the lower stratosphere for 2012 were below the 1981–2010 average”.
Short term ups and downs do not count.
My link shows cooling from 1958 to 1994 interrupted only by volcanic eruptions.
During that period all the cycles were more active than the historical average.
Cycle 20 was slightly weaker and you can see a slowdown in the rate of stratospheric cooling at that time.
From 1994 to date there has been no significant cooling. If anything the trend has been a slight drift back up but that depends on which measurement set one adopts.
There has certainly been no resumption of the pre 1994 rate of stratospheric cooling.
Kim & Pochas say:
(re SSW)
……….
It is as clear as a bottle of Kamchatka vodka ( I am told it is one of the best selling vodkas in America).
It is lot to do with Kamchatka’s volcanoes.
Here are some links for those interested in the sudden stratospheric warming (winter event, when the sun is low on the horizon)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.htm
(note that frequently active volcanoes often pump lot of hot gasses before eruption) Here is what NASA says for last winter
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80226
Now check out these four volcanoes (Shiveluch, Bezymianny, Tolbachik, and Kizimen) at this link
http://www.activolcans.info/volcan-XYZ.html
replace XYZ with the these names in turn:
Kizimen
Bezymianny
Shiveluch
Tolbachik
Nicego, nothing, nichts, zilch in the last month or so, but if volcanoes start ‘eructation’ (belching) in next few weeks the SSW will be there.
NOTE: SSW is extremely rare event in the Antarctic (there is only one atmospheric active volcano Mount Erebus, but most of time asleep, any activity has to coincide with 3-4 winter months), hence SSW is unlikely to do with the solar activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 16, 2013 at 11:27 am
Short term ups and downs do not count.
From your link:
“From 1979 to 1996, satellite and radiosonde measurements show that temperatures in the lower stratosphere declined, although that trend was interrupted by episodes of warming due to the El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions. For most of the last two decades, there has been little trend, but no sign of a reversal. “
“no sign of a reversal. ”
Not yet, which I conceded but it does depend on which interpretation one adopts.
However, to falsify my hypothesis one needs a resumption of cooling to match the pre 1994 rate and there s no sign of that.
For example, the purple line does show signs of a reversal.as does the blue line to a lesser extent.
vukcevic: Possible, but unlikely to this extent:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
As it can be seen, more accurate data (closer to present time) closer is the correlation.
I would hate to have to make a decision based on evidence to date. How “unlikely” depends on the conditions for which the probability is calculated, and I don’t think we have enough information to accept any of those calculations.
Not to say you are wrong.
I want to thank Leif Svalgaard for his post and many informative replies to commenters, and also to thank those commenters who have provided links to other data.
If one were to plot the average ap(aa) index and or sunspot activity versus global average surface temperature the correlation is quite strong.
I can not find a period of time when solar activity was low for a prolonged period of time and the global average temperatures increased overall although ups and downs occurred within the trend, while vice versa I can not find a period of time when solar activity was high for a prolonged period of time and the average global temperatures decreased, although up and downs occurred within the trend.
Some recent examples are the Maunder Minimum (1640-1700), Dalton Minimum(1790-1830), Medieval Warm Period(around 1000-1200 ad), Modern Solar Maximum last century.
Not to forget the start of the Little Ice Age around 1300 ad associated with the Wolff and Spor Solar Minimums.
Solar minimum events and approximate dates
Event
Start
End
Homeric minimum [8] 950BC 800BC
Oort minimum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1040 1080
Medieval maximum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1100 1250
Wolf minimum 1280 1350
Spörer Minimum 1450 1550
Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
Dalton Minimum 1790 1820
Modern Maximum 1900 present
Matthew R Marler says:
December 16, 2013 at 12:12 pm
I don’t think we have enough information to accept any of those calculations.
Not to say you are wrong..
Mr . Marler
you would be on much safer ground if you said I was, but thanks for the note anyway. My contributins are based on the best available data I can get hold off, any calculations are done by Excel, based on simple filtering, trigonometric functions equivalents etc, so I assume that the actual numbers should be ok.
As far as the background physics is concerned it is only a guesswork, and as such it is sure to be dismissed rather than given any credence. I am happy if readers consider it as numerical curiosity, mirroring reality it is an extremely long shot which may never hit the target.
Ps. If your post got stuck in the mod’s-bin, I am to blame, possibly because posting an anti-IPCC cartoon with a sarcastic comment which was not denoted as such
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/15/friday-funny-9/#comment-1476041
(the cartoon http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IPCC-GT1995-2011.htm )
“kim says:
December 16, 2013 at 9:08 am
Sorry for the cheap shot, Leif.
II guess you have to follow Stephen’s lead…”
Does right side up look upside down after looking through telescopes ?
Thank you for your work and honesty.
I find Mr Von Rompuy’s speach to the chilling. Global government, no way!
lsvalgaard says:
December 15, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Carla says:
December 15, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Newer studies, newer observations .. might want to take a browse..
If it was spurious then, it is spurious now…
————
With respect to the “Wilcox effect,” am wondering why Dr. S. finds it spurious.
Is it because it does not take into account existing wave circulations as the primary drivers?
Like atmospheric waves and vortices produced from rotation, (coriolis effects) or Solar and Lunar tides which also produce atmospheric waves and vortices structure? Or, gravity waves..
So here it is again..(but my brain is stuck on Ultra relativistic electron precipitation ).
The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1:
Wilcox effect revisited
P. Prikryl1, V. Ruˇsin2, and M. Rybansk´y3
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1/2009/angeo-27-1-2009.pdf
…Prikryl et al. (2001, 2003) have suggested that auroral atmospheric
gravity waves (AGWs) are another candidate for
the “missing link” between the solar wind and tropospheric
weather. Auroral AGWs may release instabilities that lead
to tropospheric convection, convective clouds and storminess
(Prikryl et al., 2009).
Using the International Satellite
Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D1 dataset, a statistically
significant response of high-level cloudiness to fast solar
wind from coronal holes is found (Prikryl et al., 2003,
2006, 2009). These results are consistent with the previous
finding of solar wind influence on mid-latitude tropospheric
circulation (Wilcox et al., 1973; Lundstedt, 1984).
In this paper, we use the improved meteorological reanalysis
data to verify the Wilcox effect and to extend the analysis
to the Southern Hemisphere. The results are corroborated
by a correlation with coronal holes, from which high-speed
solar wind streams flow. Also, the occurrence of severe extratropical
weather events and extratropical storm sea level
pressure deepenings is examined in the context of solar wind
disturbances to support the argument that auroral AGWs may
impact the extratropical cyclone activity after the arrival of
high-speed solar wind streams…
And this which has some high speed relativistic electrons..
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes
Limin Zhoua, Brian Tinsleyb, Jing Huanga
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
Available online 21 September 2013
“””The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geo-effective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.””””
Day-to-day changes in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations correlate with solar wind speed and relativistic electron precipitation.
Interannual changes are similarly correlated.
A connection via the global atmospheric electric circuit and cloud microphysical changes is suggested.””
And coriolis effects are changed when rotation rate changes, which is related to high speed solar winds causing more drag on the Earth and slowing it down.
Back to the Radiation belts loss of ultra relativistic electrons and its affects on atmospheric circulations.
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 7:46 am
With respect to the “Wilcox effect,” am wondering why Dr. S. finds it spurious.
Because with more data it became weaker. Even this latest paper only claims a 95% significance level. Now, it is always good that researchers later re-visits old claims, so perhaps the effect is not completely dead yet, but IMHO it does not look very much alive either.
Thank you Dr. S. but 95% eh. If you will, could you encapsulate “Wilcox effect” for us?
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows. This article sounds like a “wet blanket,” effect, to me. Calling it an analog to the proton precipitation.
Overlaps your department Dr. S., so might like it too..
Ultrarelativistic electrons in the near cosmos and X-ray aurora in the middle polar atmosphere
G. F. Remenets1, M. I. Beloglazov2
Article first published online: 5 NOV 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA018822/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
[1] The rare phenomenon of ultrarelativistic electron precipitation into the middle polar atmosphere, prevalent under calm geophysical conditions, was established from ground-based radio wave measurements during the period of 1982–1992. Precipitating electrons with energy ∼ 100 MeV and sufficient density to generate X- and gamma-ray bremsstrahlung create a sporadic layer of ionization in the atmosphere under the regular D layer of the ionosphere. Very low frequency radio waves reflect from this sporadic layer with abnormal weakening and with an unusually low height of reflection. The layer has a horizontal linear scale of about several thousand kilometers, with a thickness in altitude of about 20–30 km, and persists for several hours. Due to this layer of electric conductivity, the effective height of this “ground-ionized atmosphere” waveguide diminishes in exceptional cases by 2–2.5 times. The auroras of X-ray bremsstrahlung have been detected by the reflection of radio waves with wavelengths of 30–20 km. This phenomenon may be termed “a polar cap absorption effect of the second kind” as an electron analog of proton precipitation………………………..
May I suggest that, you might want to take your own pointing device to the next AGU meeting. Life has enough surprises. smile, yer on candid camera.. flash from the past..
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
Thank you Dr. S. but 95% eh. If you will, could you encapsulate “Wilcox effect” for us?
The 95% level is usually not considered compelling. It is sort of the minimum level for even looking at something. The Wilcox VAI effect is the claim that the ‘storminess’ in winter has a minimum a day after passage of a sector boundary.
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows.
As these events are very rare, they are of little interest for the climate debate.
lsvalgaard says:
December 22, 2013 at 9:08 am
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
..The Wilcox VAI effect is the claim that the ‘storminess’ in winter has a minimum a day after passage of a sector boundary.
And the list of articles concerning, “precipitating relativistic electrons,” grows.
As these events are very rare, they are of little interest for the climate debate.
——-
Thank you, Dr. S., in that article the rare part is the “calm geophysical condition,” as opposed to ..
And it is very much of interest in the climate debate..
Have you seen?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/scientists-solve-a-decades-old-mystery-in-the-earths-upper-atmosphere/#more-99632
Carla says:
December 22, 2013 at 9:45 am
Thank you, Dr. S., in that article the rare part is the “calm geophysical condition,” as opposed to ..And it is very much of interest in the climate debate..
Your link says: “The rare phenomenon of ultrarelativistic electron precipitation into the middle polar atmosphere”. And those events are rare, period, and in particular under calm conditions [which are not rare in themselves], so are not of interest.
Yep you are correct.. in the way it is stated. my bad
It is interesting to see the different atmospheric heights that “energetic particles” including the electrons make it down to…
Figure 17
Dynamics of the Earth’s Radiation Belts and Innner Magnetosphere
Danny Summers, Ian R. Mann, Daniel N. Baker and Michael Schultz
2012
Page 32
SAMPEX: Long-Serving Radiation Belt Sentinel
Figure 17.
Ionization rates due to different types of precipitating energetic particles as a function of atmospheric altitude. The colored bands show where various particle types are most effective in stopping and ionizing atmospheric constituents.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bGwqFBnuWzIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=SAMPEX:+A+Long-Serving+Radiation+Belt+Sentinel&ots=3rfMMLeM5k&sig=LpN7rX-e-ov6hWv5kI8eqDv1bUo#v=onepage&q&f=true
Jay Leno said it best: (paraphrase) It s so cold, books on global warming are now being put in the fiction department of the bookstore.