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.
William Astley says:
December 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm
planetary cloud cover closely correlated to GCR for the period 1983 to 1995, however suddenly in 1995 there was an abrupt reduction in planetary cloud cover. Post 1995, planetary cloud cover no longer correlated with GCR. Now a scientist would ask: What is the physical reason for the sudden change? (Hint the sun changed.)
A much more likely reason is that the correlation was spurious to begin with.
vukcevic says:
December 30, 2013 at 9:57 am
I checked his latest work http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf submitted for publication, it doesn’t contain any or even mention, as far as I could find.
Well, when it suits you, you go blind. Check out Figure 8. At the bottom there is a red curve [the text reads “The red line at the bottom of the graph shows the standard deviation of the values of IDV in each year”] showing the ‘spread’ of the yearly values giving an indication of the uncertainty. Calculating an ‘error bar’ assumes that you have a statistical model for the data. Without that [which in my case would just be an assumption] and error bar is not too meaningful, but the standard deviation is well-defined and is a useful indication of the uncertainty.
I can see usefulness of the error bars, but are they really that essential or is it just another statistical whizz
If one is claiming a correlation, the error bars or the standard deviation of the residuals are quite essential.
Dominic Manginell says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:29 pm
put SC5 , SC14 , and SC24 MONTHLY counts up using pre-1945 methods . As all will see , SC14′s monthly count is VERY erratic with major peaks and valleys , but SC5 and SC24 have very limited swings each month…and LOW.
There is another important difference between the way sunspots are reported. For SC14, the reported SSN is based on a single observation per day, while for SC24, the SSN is an average of the counts by about 60 different observers. The average is always less variable than the individual counts. That may contribute to the smaller spikes seen in SC24. As for SC5, the data is simply too ‘spotty’ [no pun] and there are too few observations to get a good measure. Missing data was interpolated to fill in the gaps. Any detailed comparison with SC5 is therefore meaningless.
vukcevic says:
December 30, 2013 at 3:16 am
I took orbital values of two largest sources of magnetism in the solar system and the sunspot formula was defined.
Lord Kelvin was correct within the limits of the science known in his day. We cannot fault him for not taking into account what was not known. His objection that the Sun’s magnetic field could not affect the Earth was correct as the science was known at the time [he did not know about the conducting solar wind dragging the solar magnetic field out to the Earth and beyond], and that very same objection is still valid today [within the limits of science as we know today] when it comes to the magnetic fields of the planets affecting the Sun. There is no Jupiter-wind dragging Jupiter’s magnetic field out into space reaching back to the Sun against the supersonic solar wind. So “two largest sources of magnetism” have nothing to do with the solar cycle. And by the way, those sources are actually tiny compared to the heliosphere. So, your premise is fundamentally wrong, apart from the formula own failings.
I’m a fan of Stossel’s, but when it comes to AGW he seems to be kind of clueless, which is disappointing. In this particular case, there was almost no useful information provided by any of his three guests, although the idea of the Earth “greening” from increased CO2 was amusing.
The only really redeeming thing in the whole video was Dr. Schmidt’s bizarre antics. No normal person would buy the absurd argument as to why he wouldn’t sit on the stage at the same time – he showed HIMSELF to be to the eccentric crank, scurrying around like a cockroach, and you didn’t have to be a scientist to see it. Really, it is a wonder that he showed at all, and I have to wonder whether there is some real desperation afoot. An unimaginable amount of money has been spent in the name of the climate models of “settled science”, and as of this year the Earth’s actual temperature got to the point where it was below what ALL of them predicted. The models are spectacular failures!
Schmidt gave that bizarre, goofball, rationalization about mankind supposedly having (literally, I guess) “bet the farm” on climate remaining constant, even though he, himself, had just said that natural climate change has gone on forever. The whole idea is ridiculous on it’s face, since agricultural methods are being advanced all the time – change is the norm in agriculture, AGW or no. To think somebody calling themselves a scientist would suggest that ANY industry was so technologically stagnant that it could not adjust to changes that occur over decades is insane. He even seemed to try to tie that into rising oceans, even though most farmland isn’t anywhere near the oceans.
Then he made that ridiculous claim about Sandy causing more damage because the ocean was less than 1 FOOT higher. Last I heard, ocean levels move on the order of a foot a CENTURY. So, a foot higher since WHEN, Dr. Schmidt? Since the Depression? And does anybody really buy the idea that 1 FOOT would be significant, anyway?
All Dr. Spencer said on both these points was a blanket “I agree with most of what he said,” and even Stossel didn’t call him on how absurd it was. All he questioned was the hurricane statistics, and then backed off on the rest, saying he wasn’t an expert. Hell, Dr. Schmidt was spouting nonsense well outside his area of expertise!!
Nobody (neither Dr Spencer nor anybody in here, with one exception) even questioned when Stossel says that everybody agrees the Earth is warming! There hasn’t been any warming in 15+ years!! “Everybody” agrees that the Earth warmed a little between about 1978-1998, but since then CO2 is as predicted, but the global temperature hasn’t budged AT ALL. Obviously, CO2 is NOT the dominant player in any Global Warming that has happened, but Dr. Spencer wouldn’t even say THAT, saying it could be up to 90% responsible! Huh?
Finally, that whole “energy stops slavery” thing was just stupid. Some say slavery was on the way out in the US until the cotton gin was invented, suddenly making the cotton that the slaves produced more valuable. Every economy is always based on people doing work. Just because energy is available to multiply the value of that work doesn’t mean people stop working and therefore don’t need to be enslaved to do it. There’s always a need to have people do SOMETHING. The idea is complete economic nonsense, and it detracts from his larger point (which might be perfectly legitimate).
Svalgaard @ur momisugly vukcevic
“The red line at the bottom of the graph shows the standard deviation of the values of IDV in each year”] showing the ‘spread’ of the yearly values giving an indication of the uncertainty. Calculating an ‘error bar’ assumes that you have a statistical model for the data. Without that [which in my case would just be an assumption] and error bar is not too meaningful, but the standard deviation is well-defined and is a useful indication of the uncertainty.
Tectonics shows number of events in each year
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHO.htm
thus average for a particular year is the same, so standard deviation calculated for each year is 0 , zero .
Tectonics is ‘unpredictable’, no model exists according to the current science, so error bars would not make any sense.
Once article suitable for publication is written, detailed description and sources of data will be given. I take your remarks seriously, when they lead to a step forward, so to the above page link I have appended annual numbers.
Have a Happy New Year.
vukcevic says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Tectonics shows number of events in each year … so error bars would not make any sense.
You dance around this without getting to the point, which is a determination of the goodness of fit between the two time series, not their individual ‘error bars’. In calculating the goodness of fit, you should not use smoothed data and if there is a lag, should show how much the value of the lag influences the fit, i.e. the lag has an error bar. All this is standard scientific method.
I take your remarks seriously, when they lead to a step forward
Is a lopsided and wrong attitude; they should be taken even more seriously if they disagree with your approach.
vukcevic says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Tectonics is ‘unpredictable’, no model exists according to the current science, so error bars would not make any sense.
The proper way to deal with ‘events’ is the Superposed Epoch Analysis. If one thinks [to take an example] that geomagnetic storms are triggering tectonic event [‘earthquakes’ for example], then one uses the storms as ‘key times’ [a storm has a sharp initial phase – a ‘sudden storm commencement, SSC’] and count up the number of tectonic events on day time of the start of the storm, and on the day after the storm and the day after that, etc extending several days before [and particularly] after the storm. That count has an error bar [the square root of the count] as appropriate for counts of rare events [Poisson distribution]. Here is one example: http://www.elif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png which BTW shows no relationship rising about the noise.
example: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png which BTW shows no relationship rising about the noise.