BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age

DrudgeSunComp

Guest post by Alec Rawls

Nice hype by Matt Drudge, whose three linked quotes are all from the BBC’s one brief paragraph of text, but the accompanying video (full transcription below) is more substantial, with scientists talking about the likelihood of an extended Maunder Minimum type period low solar activity and the cold temperatures that coincided with the Maunder Minimum during the 1600’s.

Professor Richard Harrison from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is clear about the correlation [at 1:57]:

The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere. It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.

BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle doesn’t shy away from the possible implications today:

So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?

Best of all is Dr. Lucie Green from University College in London, who describes the unsettled state of the science [at 3:35]:

It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth’s atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.

Green then wraps up the segment by declining to suggest that anthropogenic warming can be expected to outweigh solar cooling:

… on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.

The weak link is solar physicist Mike Lockwood who makes irrational and unsupported claims about solar activity only affecting regional climate and not having a global effect.

The BBC voice-over sets up Lockwood’s unsupported speculation:

BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?

Lockwood [at 5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change, so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.

As Stephen Wilde has been pointing out for years, the wider meanders in the polar jet that seem to be associated with low solar activity can be expected to cause a net increase in cloudiness which would increase the earth’s albedo, having a global cooling effect. The jet stream follows the boundry where cold polar air slides beneath and pushes up warmer temperate air, creating storm tracks. Not only do wider meanders create longer storm tracks but the resulting cloud cover occurs at lower latitudes, where the incidence of incoming solar radiation is steeper, making the albedo reflection stronger.

Snow cover albedo effects would likely also be global, not just regional. A warmer Greenland has almost zero marginal albedo effect: it’s 98% white anyway. But a snow covered Europe and North America will reflect away a lot of sunlight. Also, the important thing over large parts of Asia and North America will not be temperature—it’s always going to be cold enough to snow during the Siberian winter—but the extent of the storm tracks, so that cloud and snow albedos both increase with the amplitude of the jet stream meanders, as seems to have been the pattern with the current solar lull. Here is a graphic showing the 21st century’s high average snow anomalies (from Rutgers, via Brett Anderson at Accuweather):SnowAnom_N-hemisphere_Rutgers

Lockwood is up against the paleologic evidence as well. He is suggesting that, while the Little Ice Age may have been induced by low solar activity, it was a northern-hemisphere-only event, but recent studies indicate that it was a global climate swing, as was the Medieval Warm Period.

Overall though, a very good report from the BBC. Have the recent revelations about top level BBC collusion with green propagandists reduced the power of the warming alarmists to censor other views? In any case, it is good to see them do some real reporting.

Full transcript (not provided by the BBC – is this unusual? – so I transcribed it myself)

BBC voice-over: The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with our star. The aurora borealis happens when the solar wind hits the earth’s upper atmosphere, but many of these displays may soon vanish. Something is happening to the solar activity on the surface of the sun: it’s declining, fast.

Professor Richard Harrison, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [0:28]: Whatever measure you use, it’s coming down, the solar peaks are coming down, for example with the flares. It looks very very significant.

Dr. Lucie Green, University College London [0:36]: The solar cycles now are getting smaller and smaller. The activity is getting less and less.

BBC: There is a vast range of solar activity: sunspots, intensely magnetic areas seen here as dark regions on the sun’s surface; solar winds and uv light radiate toward the earth; flares erupt violently and coronal mass ejections throw billions of tons of charged particles into space. Solar activity rises and falls in 11-year cycles and right now we are at the peak, the solar maximum, but this cycle’s maximum is eerily quiet.

Harrison [1:18]: I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive, in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak we have now you’ve got to go back about a hundred years, so this is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, it’s not something that a couple of generations before me have seen.

BBC: The number of sunspots is a fraction of what scientists expected, solar flares are half. Richard Harrison is the head of space physics at the Rutheford-Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. He says the rate at which solar activity is falling mirrors a period in the 17th century where sunspots virtually disappeared.

Harrison [1:57]: The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere [not only the northern hemisphere – A.R.] . It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.

BBC: Rivers and canals froze across Northern Europe. Paintings from the 17th century show frost-fairs taking place on the Thames. During the “great frost” of 1684 the river froze over for two months, the ice was almost a foot thick. The Maunder Minimum was named after the astronomer who observed the steep decline in solar activity that coincided with this mini ice-age.

BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle [2:46]: The Maunder Minimum came at a time when snow cover was longer and more frequent. It wasn’t just the Thames that froze over. The Baltic Sea did too. Crop failures and famines were widespread across Northern Europe. So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?

Dr. Lucie Green [3:04]: We’ve been making observations of sun spots which are the most obvious sign of solar activity from 1609 onwards and we’ve got 400 years of observations. The sun does seem to be in a very similar phase as it was in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum, so by that I mean the activity is dropping off cycle by cycle.

BBC voice-over: Lucie Green is based at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in the North Downs. She thinks that lower levels of solar activity could affect the climate, but she’s not sure to what extent.

Green [3:35]: It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth-atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.

BBC voiceover: Some researchers have gone way further back in time, looked into the ice sheets of particles that were once in the upper atmosphere, particles that show variations in solar activity. Mike Lockwood’s work suggests that this is the fastest rate of solar decline for 10,000 years.

Professor Mike Lockwood, University of Reading [4:20]: If we look at the ice core record we can say, “okay so when we’ve been in this kind of situation before, what’s the sun gone on to do,” and based on that, and the rate of the current decline, we can estimate that within about 40 years from now there’s about a ten or twenty, probably nearer a 20% probabilility that we will actually be back in Maunder Minimum conditions by that time.

BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?

Lockwood [5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change [a completely unsupported conjecture that is at odds with reason and evidence A.R.], so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.

Morelle: The relationship between solar activity and weather on earth is complicated but if solar activity continues to fall could the temperature on earth as a whole get cooler? Could there be implications for global warming?

Dr. Lucie Green [5:38]: The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. So we have human activity, we have the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.

BBC: So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum the future for Northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come, and we won’t even have bountiful displays of the northern lights to cheer us up.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

293 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sabretruthtiger
January 19, 2014 2:33 pm

Alan Robertson says
“any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.”
Wrong. Sunspot and solar flare activity correlates well. The claim is that it weakens after 1970 while temperature goes up but any number of systemic factors could cause that and we notice that sunspots and solar flare activity correlate with the recent cold circumpolar vortex/wandering jetstream.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

pat
January 19, 2014 2:40 pm

Carbon Brief’s spin:
17Jan: Carbon Brief: Roz Pidcock: BBC’s Newsnight ponders whether low solar activity “has consequences” for global warming
In other words, the slight drop in global temperature coming from a drop in solar activity may be just about detectable if we weren’t having a much bigger impact through carbon dioxide emissions. While the BBC could perhaps have been clearer on that point, Morelle concludes:
“So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, the future for northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come.”
So the report strikes the right note at the end, highlighting that colder winters in Europe aren’t inconsistent with a world that’s warming up on the whole. Let’s hope everyone stayed tuned in till the end.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/01/bbc%E2%80%99s-newsnight-ponders-whether-low-solar-activity-%E2%80%9Chas-consequences%E2%80%9D-for-global-warming/

WestHighlander
January 19, 2014 2:57 pm

Leif “lsvalgaard says:{ [HAL-9000 says:A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.]
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap “} — Even if true at the level of energy production per unit volume — this is a totally disingenuous statement — show me the million mile cube of compost — and I’ll show you one Heap of Heat Production. Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan

January 19, 2014 3:03 pm

So Northern Europe will have significantly cooler winters, but globally average temperatures (due to human activity) will be warmer. Britain is pushing up the costs of its energy bills to save the world from the costs of warming. If successful in reducing the global average temperature rise, it will be successful in making the cold winters worse. Much better for Britain to push up its emissions by switching to cheaper coal. The costs of the extra winter fuel will be much reduced, and the actual temperatures with be a tad warmer as well.
If on the other hand it makes no difference to global temperatures whatever Britain does unilaterally, then switching to the lowest cost forms of power is the best policy. Alternatively, if it acts against its own interest to benefit humanity, then it is only fair that the UK is compensated by more than the costs. To kick off, who in Australia is willing to send me on an annual fee of $200 now, rising to over $2000 by 2030? This is to cover both the extra costs per unit of the UK switching to renewables (to save you from frying) and the extra power to keep my family warm in the colder winters.

January 19, 2014 3:04 pm

WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan
But almost all of its mass is involved as most of the mass in in the core of sun, so the volume thing is itself a bit disingenuous].
I was pointing out that the exploding hydrogen bomb image is incorrect [and so its intended emotive impact]. The gentle solar compost heap puts out a lot of heat simply because it is big.

Konrad
January 19, 2014 3:14 pm

“BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age”
“Overall though, a very good report from the BBC”
“In any case, it is good to see them do some real reporting”
No, not getting it. Not getting it at all. As Dr. Svalgaard has pointed out repeatedly, the current solar conditions were predicted over a decade ago. Think about why the BBC (the nexus of all these recent reports) is just pushing this now. Think!
Points to remember –
1. Current solar conditions predicted over a decade ago.
2. Even knowing of these predictions IPCC repeatedly claims no solar influence.
3. BBC has provided years of support for IPCC dogma.
4. If a yet unproven solar mechanism is about to mask CO2 warming, could not this unproven mechanism have cause the claimed warming?
Those who thankfully do appear to be getting it –
Eric Simpson says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:50 am
timspence10 says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:05 am
Silver ralph says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:07 am
john robertson says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:35 am
MikeB says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:41 am
DirkH says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:39 am
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm
To my fellow sceptics I say this – no matter how gratifying it may be to have other possible climate influences discussed after all these years, DO NOT LET THE BBC OFF THE HOOK.
They must pay for what they have done. It is far, far too dangerous to let 28Gate and the ClimategateII evidence of collusion with the “Team” go unpunished. The BBC shamelessly attacked science, reason, freedom and democracy. If they get away with this they will just do it again. You will have a UN “global fresh water crisis” on your hands before you know it. The BBC must take a fall with the global warming inanity. They must lose mandatory UK TV licensing.

WestHighlander
January 19, 2014 3:14 pm

Leif:says {: lsvalgaard says:[Jim G says:What would be possible definitions/causes of “nonproduction related increases” Have any been postulated? Extrasolar or local or both?]
10Be is mostly generated far from the polar ice [the non-polar part of the Earth is much larger than the polar regions] so most of the 10Be found in the ice cores have been transported to to polar regions by atmospheric circulation, determined by weather and climate. If that circulation changes we get non-production related changes. These are as large [and at times, larger] as the solar-produced changes.}
These transport factors effecting Be-10 in ice cores is very difficult to quantify since we can’t really measure the production of Be-10. Since there is no real-time Be-10 data that I’m aware of — we are stuck with ice cores.
However, we can see real-time variations in neutrons and muons that anti-correlate with solar activity on all timescales. Further, C-14 should behave the same way as Be-10 and it can be measured in real-time wherever you want to with just a mass spectrometer

January 19, 2014 3:17 pm

The Sun is a variable star – “February 5, 2010: For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.”
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,” says Lean. “How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate.”
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/science/timescale.php

January 19, 2014 3:21 pm

WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:14 pm
However, we can see real-time variations in neutrons and muons that anti-correlate with solar activity on all timescales. Further, C-14 should behave the same way as Be-10 and it can be measured in real-time wherever you want to with just a mass spectrometer
The real-time measurements give us no information about the relative proportions of solar and climate contributions in the past, which is where the problem is. C-14 is further hampered by a long residence times in the various reservoirs which have to modeled to extract a production rate.

Matt G
January 19, 2014 3:24 pm

The sun is big and its difficult to beat this excellent comparison.
.http://www.4to40.com/images/fastforward/feb2007/earth_with_sun_3.jpg

jai mitchell
January 19, 2014 3:42 pm

Stephen, what really matters is ice/snow levels during sunlit months. Not global total. This is because snow is about 95% more effective in reflecting sunlight. In the winter, as you know, the poles do not get any sunlight so ice/snow levels do not contribute to albedo.

nevket240
January 19, 2014 3:43 pm

((They must pay for what they have done. It is far, far too dangerous to let 28Gate and the ClimategateII evidence of collusion with the “Team” go unpunished. The BBC shamelessly attacked science, reason, freedom and democracy. If they get away with this they will just do it again. You will have a UN “global fresh water crisis” on your hands before you know it. The BBC must take a fall with the global warming inanity. They must lose mandatory UK TV licensing.))
do not forget the ABC in OZ and the ABC in the USSA for their International Socialist involvement. Paying these clowns our tax dollars is sheer madness. It is like a rape victim compensating the Rapist for bad sex.
regards

Paul Newcomb
January 19, 2014 3:50 pm

I was enjoying the science up until Lockwood started using progressive/socialist buzz words like “redistribution” and then suddenly the BBC collusion with green propogandists came back into sharp clarity.Paul was right…stack the wood high and long because the BS being put out is stacked much higher: redistribution of temp. X fear = redistribution of wealth.

WestHighlander
January 19, 2014 3:57 pm

Leif: — I think we are essentially agreeing now that the compost heap model is based on a very large and hard to imagine compost heap — the rest is detailed speculation — lsvalgaard says:{WestHighlander says:[Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan]
But almost all of its mass is involved as most of the mass in in the core of sun, so the volume thing is itself a bit disingenuous].
I was pointing out that the exploding hydrogen bomb image is incorrect [and so its intended emotive impact]. The gentle solar compost heap puts out a lot of heat simply because it is big.}
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise — All we really know is that the sun put’s out a measurable amount of visible, IR, UV, X-ray — {TSI orTotal Solar Irradiance) and some amount of charged and neutral particles in the solar wind — all the above is driven by Thermonuclear Fusion in the core — but reaction rates are really a guess as no-one can make a lab experiment based on gravitational confinement
so far the attempts to directly measure neutrino fluxes from the core are associated with very large error bars
PS: my reference to Global Warming and Titan was associated with a presumably Red Giant Phase of Solar evolution when the volume of the Sun was substantially larger to enable H burning in the region outside the current postutlated core and He burning in the “traditional core”

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 3:59 pm

O. H. Dahlsveen says: January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm
….Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is already gone. There is only this comment
“He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. “
I imagine that information will be wiped and older books mentioning it burned…. Our local libraries are selling books off or dumping them in the trash.

Gail Combs
January 19, 2014 4:14 pm

jai mitchell says: January 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Stephen, what really matters is ice/snow levels during sunlit months. Not global total. This is because snow is about 95% more effective in reflecting sunlight. In the winter, as you know, the poles do not get any sunlight so ice/snow levels do not contribute to albedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you read Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

…thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place….
…Thus, glacial inception occurred ~3 kyr before the onset of significant bipolar-seesaw variability…
…Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012).”
PAPER: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012-hlt.pdf (PDF highlighted)

And then read what RACookPE1978 has to say.

For the past two years, Antarctic sea ice has been consistently two std deviations ABOVE normal levels for sea ice, AND that sea ice extends around the continent to latitude 60 south at maximum extents in September. Arctic sea ice (through this year) been right at 1.5 to 2 std deviations low from normal. BUT! The Antarctic sea ice extents maximum is just under 20 Mkm^2, but the entire Arctic ocean is only 14 Mkm^2: There is much more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic. At minimum extents, the difference is more impressive: Antarctic continental ice (14 Mkm^2) is as large as the entire Arctic itself, but that rock-based icecap is in turn surrounded by 3.5 Mkm^2 of permanent ice shelves, and then by the ever-changing Antarctic sea ice. So even at today’s minimum Antarctic sea ice extents 2-3 Mkm^2 (and increasing!) the total southern ice is 14 + 3.5 + 2.5 = 20 Mkm^2. At maximum southern extents, those become 14.0 + 3.5 + 19.5 = 35 Mkm^2 is frozen. 2-1/2 times the maximum of what sea water is available up north.
On the other hand, Arctic sea ice lately (last 12 years) is only 3.5 – 4.0 million sq km AT ITS MINIMUM in September. We can lose AT MOST only another 3.5 million sq km2. That is it.
How much larger can Antarctic sea ice get? There is no limit. At today’s rate of Antarctic sea ice increase, Cape Horn itself could be closed to ship traffic due to sea ice within 8-10 years for months at a time every September and October. It probably won’t happen, but the trend is there: we have been seeing just under 1.0 Mkm^2 more sea ice each year for several years now.
To the specific point of open Arctic waters being a heat loss area from the earth. Notice that we are assuming far-north openings here, not a theoretical physics textbook ice mass of theoretical albedo = .95 floating off the ice-filled (Equatorial) waters of Polynesia where the sun is directly overhead (Air Mass = 1.0) with perfectly clear skies and no humidity. 8<)
But this little bit of remaining 3.5 Mkm^2 Arctic sea ice is actually in the water up between latitude 78 north to 83 north. At that latitude, in mid and late September when arctic sea ice is at its minimum extents, there is MORE heat lost from open waters due to more evaporation losses, more conduction losses, more convective losses, and more radiation losses from open sea water than can be gained from that exposed water getting heated by the ever-lower sun angles! At those latitudes, at that time of year, the HIGHEST the sun can get is 8 – 12 degrees above the horizon, air masses are 18 to 34. There simply is no solar heat penetrating the atmosphere at those low solar angles to be gained if the Arctic ice continues to melt.
The more the Arctic sea ice melts from today’s minimum extents in August and September, the more the planet loses heat energy to space and cools down ever more. Your CAGW’s religiously amplified but majestically feared “arctic amplification” due to sea ice meltdown is totally, completely backwards.
But it is worse than you think!
At today’s levels of BOTH minimum AND maximum extent in the Antarctic seas, today’s (and last year’s!) record breaking sea ice extents DO reflect much more solar energy than the exposed waters! At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice at 60 – 70 south latitude, ALL YEAR, every day, the record-breaking Antarctic sea ice extents IS reflecting MORE solar energy and IS cooling the planet down even more.
And thus we slide quickly into the next major ice age.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/polynyas-are-very-important-for-marine-life-and-cooling-the-oceans/#comment-1518956

January 19, 2014 4:20 pm

WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise
We do know [in considerable detail] how much is involved.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
so far the attempts to directly measure neutrino fluxes from the core are associated with very large error bars
No, not at all. The directly measured fluxes match very well the flux calculated from the known reaction rates.

RoHa
January 19, 2014 4:35 pm

So now we are doomed because the sun is taking a rest?

January 19, 2014 4:39 pm

Gail Combs says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:59 pm
O. H. Dahlsveen says: January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm
….Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is already gone. There is only this comment
= = = = = = = = = =
Gosh Gail, you are right. They sure do not waste much time those warmistas, do they?

RACookPE1978
Editor
January 19, 2014 5:07 pm

jai mitchell says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm (replying to Stephen)

Stephen, what really matters is ice/snow levels during sunlit months. Not global total. This is because snow is about 95% more effective in reflecting sunlight. In the winter, as you know, the poles do not get any sunlight so ice/snow levels do not contribute to albedo.

Funny you mention that ….
See, since 1959, the DMI has been recording actual temperatures at 80 north latitude every day of the year. And, across those 55 years of ever-increasing CO2 levels in the very high Arctic, summer temperatures – when, as you so clearly point out above – the sun IS shining and CO2 “should be” critical in reflecting long-wave infrared radiation LWIR BACK towards the surface – surface temperatures have been ….. declining.
Yes, the 2013 average Arctic summer temperature IS lower than it was back in 1959 … And it was lower than than every year since 1959.
Worse, the error in those summer months is very, very small! Less than 1/8 of one degree std dvt for every day that temperature is over 0 degrees C.
Further, the ONLY time when Arctic temperatures could be shown to rise is the winter, when the running average is higher some years, on average other years. But the winter std deveiaiton? 5-6 degrees C!

January 19, 2014 5:23 pm

“Latest version of my proposition:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“The sun causes latitudinal climate zone shifting with changes in the degree of jetstream zonality / meridionality by altering the ozone creation / destruction balance differentially at different heights above the tropopause. The net result is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator (relatively high) and poles (relatively low).
The cause appears not to be raw solar power output (TSI) which varies too little but instead, the precise mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun which vary more greatly and affect ozone amounts above the tropopause.
That allows latitudinal sliding of the jets and climate zones below the tropopause leading to changes in global cloudiness and albedo with alters the amount of energy getting into the oceans.”
Stephen Wilde
That is pretty close to the conclusions I have come to from studying it all over the years!

Paul Hanlon
January 19, 2014 5:26 pm

@Leif
In various places, I have read that UV and high energy light constitutes between 6 and 10 per cent of incoming energy. Is that true?
I’ve also read that UV light has gone down by 10 per cent over the last few years. Is that true?
I have looked, but most of the stuff that I’m finding seems more concerned about our exposure to UV light rather than quantifying the actuality.

1 4 5 6 7 8 12