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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
charles nelson says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:32 pm
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!
Nonsense.
Gavin was for solar before he was against it? But from my lurking at Real Climate, reading the CRU emails and from his public behaviour, has Gavin ever been for ethical behaviour and honesty?
The Sheniderism of Science?
I truly think that it is honesty that is missing in the climatology realm more than there being a lack of common sense. I am not being cynical or snide with this comment; I can not explain the alarmist’s position that anthropogenic CO2 drives the climate and will burn us to a crisp other than to believe they are dishonest. Stupidity is just not enough. (although “Dr.” Mann’s stupidity is legendary I’ll admit)
How many times have the main climate data sets been “adjusted”? What percentage of the time does the “adjustment” make cAGW look better rather than the other way around? (100% I’d say)
This whole enterprise is fraud and has been since Hansen testified in congress during the summer with the A/C turned off.
Yet according to Gavin in his recent television interview,
“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun.”
Doesn’t he mean, “We’ve ignored the sun, its not the sun”
Not looked at clouds also or is that ignored clouds too? Another inconvenient truth.
“We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes.”
Well partly true because the reduction of major volcanoes to zero after 1992 has contributed to less cooling since. It’s not volcanoes having any influence on the non-warming period recently.
Leif You say
“The old Shindell et al. paper from 2001 was based on the erroneous Hoyt-Schatten reconstruction of TSI, so cannot be used anymore. The notion that solar activity in the 20th century was at an all-time high is also incorrect. When the data used to infer relationships are in doubt, anything goes, and no valid conclusions can be reached.”
This statement not self consistent. If the data are in doubt as you say it is then this implies that you don’t know whether Hoyt is right or not or whether or not solar activity is at an all time high or not.
The idea that you don’t know what solar activity has been over the last 400 years is also the conclusion of the in press paper you linked – you say
“There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten millennia
of cosmic ray proxy record”.
and the abstract says .
“Is there a varying background which dominates all other variations and forms the first-order
forcing and influence on our environment? We do not know.”
How can you say you don’t know what the solar variability is and then say other interpretations are wrong. – Doubtful – OK -wrong -I don’t think so.
It is also of interest to note that Mann was also a co-author of the Shindell paper.
I have used that paper as a quasi empirical guide to some of the various cooling forecasts at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
These forecasts suggest that the neutron count (and 10Be record }is a useful proxy for the solar activity effect on climate but are agnostic as to the mechanism involved I say:
” NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
Loved the video – after all, how can the science be debated when the science is settled, right? LOL!
All that means is that those who spout man-made global warming, know that they will lose in a debate and that is why not one of them will debate the issue. How sad, but oh, how so revealing, eh?
Anthony,
Thank you for posting the video, I hadn’t realized that the situation was that ridiculous.
This needs to be talked about but he wont talk about it ( that says alot) science is an open forum that should hear other ideas but they wont entertain an open forum they fear being proved wrong thats the issue here.
Wasn’t Gavin for a specified period of no global surface warming after which he would reconsider CAGW? I can’t find it but I vaguely recall it was a question in one of Real Climate’s comments sections.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:48 pm
“The old Shindell et al. paper from 2001 was based on the erroneous Hoyt-Schatten reconstruction of TSI, so cannot be used anymore. …”
This statement not self consistent. If the data are in doubt as you say it is then this implies that you don’t know whether Hoyt is right or not or whether or not solar activity is at an all time high or not.
I would never write anything that is inconsistent. I may be wrong, but never inconsistent.
Anyway, Hoyt-Schatten is not in doubt, it is simply wrong. There is some debate about whether there is a slowly changing ‘background’, but indications are that there is not, so the ‘doubt’ is a minor one. We are working to dispel whatever doubt there might be so that the climate community can have a vetted dataset to work with. I have given my reasons for why there shou;dn’t be doubt, but, human nature being what it is, as long as there is the slightest chance for doubt, people will jump on that if it fits their agenda.
I see the paper above by Drew T. Shindell1, Gavin A. Schmidt1, Michael E. Mann. This makes me reflect on something earlier by the very same people. Here is my comment and references:
Think about this little observation by Michael Mann on the Medieval Warm Period that he says he can’t explain? Can someone else explain the following observation by Michael Mann about FIGS AND OLIVES IN GERMANY????
A moderation question.
In the years that I have commented here (sporadically I suppose) I have have never had a comment “snipped” for any reason and most of them under the new policy just get posted right away. But every once in a while I get one held for moderation.
I think I dimly remember that the new policy has it that if you mention certain things or certain people then the comment automatically gets held. Can someone point me to the post where this was outlined please? I am almost positive that our fine host’s name is one of the things that will get a comment held: and I think a certain Dr. at Penn State. (or is that State Penn? … I always get that mixed up) Anyway, I have now forgotten what I read about the new moderation system and need a refresher on it.
TIA.
Then it came to an end. German babies, toddlers, teenagers and adults all know what bloody freezing weather and snow is since 2009. Less sunlight coming through last winter too. How gloomy can it get? That is climate change. It is changing and it is real!
The science isn’t settled. May never be.
Those who say it is…. Dare I say, are antiscience, or haven’t bothered to look.
Leif:
I don’t think that this sentence makes any sense:
[i]By virtue of a lack of strong evidence detected from the numerous satellite- and ground-based studies, it is clear that if a solar cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude and could not have contributed appreciably to recent anthropogenic climate changes. [/i]
Those things might contribute to warming (or not) — but to the anthropogenic portion?
Gavin says-
“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.”
Interesting claims, in light of what the climate experts have been saying of late-
Hansen blames aerosols from nonexistent volcanic eruptions to explain the pause in temperature rise over the recent 15 years.
“Another prominent source of natural variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle.”
Kevin Trenberth, May 22, 2013
‘Nonetheless, he agrees that earlier warming may have been deceiving.
“I think it’s true that some rather sloppy discussion of the rapid warming from the 20th century has given people unrealistic expectations about the future course of warming.”
Ray Pierrehumbert, May, 2013
…“It’s certainly the case that we got some of the forcings wrong,” [Ben Santer] says of the factors that specify the influence of any particular component of the atmosphere. “It’s likely we underestimated the true volcanic aerosol forcing, and may have underestimated the cooling effect of stratospheric ozone depletion.”
May 2013
The dead certain settled science is unsettling.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm
More like when the solar wind is slower.
—————————————————
That rings a bell within me. Just recently in the last week, I was musing about the winter temp changes this fall/winter. The cold moved in quickly from early October and then held a steady very cold night time for close to 2 months. Then there was a slight warming that started almost 3 weeks ago. The Sun was in a slump prior to and all through the cooling, and since this last upturn in ssn count and high flux my local night time temp rose 20F to a range between 26F to 30F. It just started dropping in the last two nights back into the teens. What a coincidence that this so exactly matches the ebb and flow of the solar output.
The supplied video doesn’t work for me.
So
Putting all comments by Mann and Schmidt together, they previously said the historical indicators support a LIA in the Northern Hemisphere, and a MWP also in the Northern Hemisphere, but these are NOT global, only local. Later (the hockey stick and others) they claim tree rings and some other data (almost all from NH) show no LIA or MWP, only a recent sudden rise from human activity. It appears the same Northern Hemisphere data is used both ways. Also, with little data in the Southern Hemisphere before about 150 years ago, how do they know what the global average was? It surely is not from ice core data.
Leif:
I read this with some interest as well…
There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten illennia of cosmic ray proxy record.
I am curious as to whether you use the information embedded in rock. We routinely use the information in mineral exploration — and in core orientation etc.
Are you using that type of information as well as a proxy for the magnetic field etc.?
Trivia: 3.21× 10^-23
The decimal fraction of the sun’s mass in the form of energy sufficient to heat all oceans by 1 C (I think I calculated that right 😉 a mere wisp of a breath)
For all of you who think we are heading for global cooling due to the sun:
2013 Australia’s hottest year on record
2013 is the year Australia marked its hottest day, month, season, 12-month period and, by December 31, hottest calendar year.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20131220-2zqpf.html#ixzz2oozXXcue
Now, what’s missing here? Deep sea ocean heat release? If it can get down without detections then it can get out without detection? No? Did the oceans eat the heat during the Medieval Warm Period? Roman Warm? Holocene Climate Optimum? Minoan? Dana plugged himself into his own hole.
WillR says:
December 28, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Are you using that type of information as well as a proxy for the magnetic field etc.?
on a timescale of years and decades the rock data is not useful. We use deposits in icecaps.