Readers may recall when Dr. Gavin Schmidt appeared on a television program with Dr. Roy Spencer, but by Gavin’s cowardly choice, not at the same time.
After listing the known causes for climate change aka global warming, Gavin Schmidt said:
“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes. We’ve looked at the orbit; it’s not the orbit.”
Interestingly, Gavin lists solar forcing as primary cause of colder temperatures during the Maunder Minimum and “little ice age” in this 2001 paper co-authored with Mike Mann:
Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294 no. 5549 pp. 2149-2152 DOI: 10.1126/science.1064363
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
Drew T. Shindell1, Gavin A. Schmidt1, Michael E. Mann2, David Rind1, Anne Waple3
+ Author Affiliations
-
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
-
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA
-
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
Abstract
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.
The full paper is here at PSU: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Shindelletal01.pdf
The conclusion reads (bold mine):
The GISS model results and empirical reconstructions both suggest that solar-forced regional climate changes during the Maunder Minimum appeared predominantly as a shift toward the low AO/NAO index. Although global average temperature changes were small, modeled regional cooling over the continents during winter was up to five times greater. Changes in ocean circulation were not considered in this model. However, given the sensitivity of the North Atlantic to AO/NAO forcing (37), oceanic changes may well have been triggered as a response to the atmospheric changes (38). Such oceanic
changes would themselves further modify the pattern of SST in the North Atlantic (39) and, to a lesser extent, the downstream air temperature anomalies in Europe.
These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by long-term solar variations.
==============================================================
In the paper: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia (PDF) it is demonstrated:
The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand maximum. Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates. These observational features of the long-term behavior of solar activity have important implications, especially for the development of theoretical solar-dynamo models and for solar-terrestrial studies.
More here: Paper demonstrates solar activity was at a grand maximum in the late 20th century
Another paper recently published predicts the sun is headed for a Dalton-like solar minimum around 2050
The author notes solar activity has been at a higher level in the 20th century saying”
“the Sun has emerged from a Grand Maximum, which includes solar cycle 19, the most active solar cycle in the last 400 years. Earth was cooler in Grand Minima. The trend line indicates we have entered a period of low solar activity.”
Note the red horizontal line on the graph below shows 50-year mean solar activity was at the highest levels of the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.
From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles. The prediction is that solar max via sunspot count will peak in late 2013/early 2014 (now):
Predictions are that cycle 25 will be even lower: First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years
Based on the slowing of the Sun’s “Great Conveyor Belt”, NASA solar scientist David Hathaway predicted that
“The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries.” He is very likely to have got the year wrong in that Solar Cycle 25 is unlikely to start until 2025.
In this paper: http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf,
Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.
Yet according to Gavin in his recent television interview,
“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun.”
Right, apparently the sun can only force climate one-way.
So in the upcoming two decades, as solar activity wanes, if it becomes globally cooler, will Gavin and Mike blame the sun, or will the disavow their previous work, pointing to studies like this one?
- Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows (wattsupwiththat.com)
Maybe Mother Nature is simply a great gypsy who wanders wherever she chooses for no particular reason at all. And all the while, shaman-scientists study chicken bones and meditate over goat scat in their efforts to divine where The Great Gypsy may go next. Finally, our high priests reveal to us what we must sacrifice in order to placate The Great Gypsy (lumps of coal and barrels of oil are popular at the moment).
Hockey Schtick says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Gavin Schmidt & Mann inadvertently discovered one of many solar amplification mechanisms that have been described in the literature: solar forcing of the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO], which in turn has large scale effects on global climate.
Many other peer-reviewed papers corroborate solar forcing of the NAO [as well as other ocean/atmospheric oscillations such as PDO/ENSO]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+nao
But, they ignore their own inconvenient work and conveniently only talk in public about the 0.1% change of total solar irradiance during solar cycles as being insufficient to force climate, which ignores the fundamentally different effects of wavelength shifts during solar cycles on climate, as well as solar amplification mechanisms.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun_21.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanisms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe you are correct in stating that Solar minima affect weather due to variation in the Sun’s emitted wavelength output … however.
An increase or decrease in UV that affects the Strat (destroys O3 and therefore warms) is not a NET increase in solar energy absorbed by the climate system. At least not a sig one as it does not penetrate into the Troposphere.
To say that it influences weather – I mean that it rearranges the weather patterns but the heat processed by the it remains the same (bar the ~0.1% variation) in the Solar absorbed V IR emitted equation.
Our best demonstration of this is the correlation with Cold European winters and low solar (vis LIA). This via an induced –AO, due warming /disruption of the Strat vortex and down-welling of E’lies to the Surface.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
“Even though it only accounts for a minuscule fraction of total solar radiation, the impact of solar UV, EUV and X-ray radiation on the Earth’s upper atmosphere is profound. Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry, and increases in ionizing radiation significantly affect ionosphere-influenced temperature and electrical conductivity.”
And
“The sunspot cycle variation of 0.1% has small but detectable effects on the Earth’s climate.[30] Work by Camp and Tung suggests that changes in solar irradiance correlates with a variation of ±0.1 K (±0.18°F) in measured average global temperature between the peak and minimum of the 11-year solar cycle”
From: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
“Approximately 1% of the Sun’s radiant energy is in the UV portion of the spectrum at wavelengths below about 300 nm, which the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs. Although of considerably smaller absolute energy than the total irradiance, solar UV radiation is fractionally more variable by at least an order of magnitude. It contributes significantly to changes in total solar irradiance (15% of the total irradiance cycle; Lean et al., 1997) and creates and modifies the ozone layer, but is not considered as a direct RF because it does not reach the troposphere. Since the TAR, new studies have confirmed and advanced the plausibility of indirect effects involving the modification of the stratosphere by solar UV irradiance variations (and possibly by solar-induced variations in the overlying mesosphere and lower thermosphere), with subsequent dynamical and radiative coupling to the troposphere (Section 9.2). Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous.”
What they could do is change the way sunspots are counted and then find some rational to change the historical record of sunspot counts (which by the way I believe is the oldest continuous scientific measurement man has made) just as they have done to the temperature records. After all their beliefs have nothing to do with science and everything to do with money and faith.
RAH says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm
What they could do is change the way sunspots are counted and then find some rationale to change the historical record of sunspot counts
Except that is not what “they” do. BTW, I do that [on sound grounds] http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
According to wiki, fluorescent bulbs were invented in 1856.
It is tempting to belittle the greens for discovering in 2012 that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury.
Leif Svalgaard says “there has been no long-term trend in those parameters either …”
Are you denying the peak in sunspot/EM activity during cycles 21-22-23-24, as shown in your diagram?
solar-polar-fields-1966-now.png [see wattsupwiththat.com solar info page]
I fail to understand your reluctance to acknowledge the influence of the Sun, but I await your explanation
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Peter Taylor says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Leif…If there was no long term variability of solar activity as your work seems to show, then what natural causes can there be for the periodic and fairly regular shifts in climate – such as the MWP and LIA?
All complicated non-linear systems can have internal, natural variability, and the climate is no exception.
———————————————————————-
Well, that is a pretty weak answer. Changing global surface temperature a degree or two requires changing ocean temperatures to at least a few hundred meters depth. A lot of energy has to be sourced/sinked and variations of surface insolation are about the only way to do it. Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.
geologyjim says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Are you denying the peak in sunspot/EM activity during cycles 21-22-23-24, as shown in your diagram?
Just pointing out that solar activity was just as high in the 1830-1870s and in the 1780-790s…
I like what Matt Ridley (second half of the video) said – “Fossil fuels is responsible for the end of slavery. Because energy is cheap, it is cheaper to build machines than hire lots of people. You either have cheap labour or cheap energy, and frankly it is better for people to have cheap energy”.
If you look at where slavery is most prevalent in the world, its in places like Africa, or undeveloped parts of central Asia, where fuel is expensive, infrastructure nonexistent, and the only way to escape endless drudgery is to force someone else to do the work.
The CO2-global warming connection is based on an unobserved (and extremely poorly measured) change in water vapor. Water vapor changes dramatically due to naturally occurring weather pattern variations. What that means is that any change or trend in water vapor due to increased anthropogenic CO2 additions to the atmosphere would be buried in the natural noisy signal. It would even be buried in natural-sourced trends in water vapor. When a separate trend is buried in another trend which is buried in noise, I hardly consider that premise worth a farthing. The solar variation connection is based on an unobserved set of theories (I will call them various solar amplification theories) of which no plausible mechanism has been found and no correlations have been found.
So the anthropogenic CO2 theory has just as much, if not more, validity as the solar theory. If I were a solar enthusiast, I would have to admit the on-paper equality (or the slight advantage of the water vapor theory) and be sobered by it. Yet, solar enthusiasts continue to blather on about their driver, completely unwilling to face or admit serious weaknesses in their proposals. It boggles the mind.
Meanwhile, one of the greatest IR filters combined with one of the greatest heat storing entities in the known Universe keeps chugging along, churning up and belching warmer or colder waters onto our shores and either heating us up or freezing our asses off with decades-long impunity. This mechanism is known. It has the energy necessary to cause such trends. There is no need for magical or otherwise amplification. The nose on the face of the globe could not be any bigger. Ignore it at your own embarrassment.
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.
Well, it didn’t come from the Sun, because solar activity has not changed enough.
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm
The ap index and the solar wind have shown no trend the past 170 years:
Correct, but is the Ap index as measured the true representation of the interplanetary magnetic field for the solar magnetic field alone, i.e. magnetic field carried by the solar wind among the planets of the Solar System, or those planets have something to do with it as well
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
Its spectral composition suggests that science is not settled on that one either.
It’s inevitable that complexity will gradually return to climate science. Propaganda can only work for so long.
“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes. We’ve looked at the orbit; it’s not the orbit.”
Well something is causing a 60 year cycle I the data (and it is not CO2!)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3
Gareth Phillips says: @ur momisugly December 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
albertalad says: @ur momisugly December 28, 2013 at 1:17 pm
….But there is one thing we do know, from observation, not models and not hypothesis, and that is that the world is warming. Past trends and behaviour are not a 100% fail-safe guide to future unknowns, but they are a good indicator and the only one based on evidence which is objective. There may be a slowing of that rise, but the overall trend is still up….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That depends. If you look at the total Holocene interglacial the actual trend is cooling from the Holocene optimum with some up and down squiggles. We are at present in an up squiggle thank goodness.
The best graph I have come across yet is HERE.
There are plenty of studies that back up that graph too. Such as:
A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.
The authors of BOTH papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:31 pm
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.
Well, it didn’t come from the Sun, because solar activity has not changed enough.
———————————————————————————–
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover. Perhaps those are chaotic variations, but there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover
Clouds are part of the climate system too, don’t you think?
there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.
Like these? :
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
Gavin could not, and would not be caught in the same room as the reasoned, respected, and intelligent scientist, Dr Roy Spencer,
Instead, Gavin, scurried away like the cockroach that he is.
Greg Cavanagh says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:19 pm
According to wiki, fluorescent bulbs were invented in 1856.
It is tempting to belittle the greens for discovering in 2012 that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One must remember that it was the eco freaks who forced us to place them in our homes using a lie. they may not have invented them but they dam sure forced us into poisoning ourselves by government fiat!
lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover
Clouds are part of the climate system too, don’t you think?
there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.
Like these? :
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
————————————————————
I was thinking of something that more directly related surface insolation variations to the solar cycle. In a previous post, I provided a reference to direct solar insolation measurements from Antarctica. I will try to find it and post it again. The effect was large; several percent change.
It is fascinating that the climatocracy is able at once to sit in the seat of high social prestige while at the same time being unable to debate their point and win. Gavin learned after losing to Michael Crichton to never actually debate the issues he makes his living promoting.
Yet the billion$ roll in, and “progressive” leaders line up to find ways to sneak their ideas into law and avoid the voters. It used to be that if you could not win the debate you would lose the argument. But in the age of CO2,anything is possible.
ELKE Presentation Pier Corbyn:
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:02 pm
I provided a reference to direct solar insolation measurements from Antarctica
Antarctica has strongest solar magnetic correlation anywhere found on the Earth
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
@ur momisugly R. de Haan
Piers Corbyn, Gavin Schmidt and I are products of the same university (GS university college, P.C and I imperial)
If Leif was a tv detective, he would be the kind of tv detective that solves cases on the basis of a ‘hunch’. He just kinda ‘knows’ deep down he’s on the right trail – even if the pesky clues don’t seem to line up!