Guest essay by David Archibald
The Maunder Minimum was not completely devoid of sunspots, as shown by the following graphic using data from SIDC. Will global warming be attenuated due to our current low solar activity?
In a comment on a previous post, a Mr B. Fagan notes that the authors of the solar physics paper quoted say “As a consequence, the increase of global warming will be slightly attenuated until 2100 A.D. However, the subsequent increase in solar activity will further enhance the global warming.”
He plaintively asks why the conclusion that global warming will overwhelm whatever the Sun might do is ignored.
Well, the reason it is ignored is because all solar physics papers that touch on climate have the same sort of wording, for exactly the same reason. For example, here’s a Usoskin et al. paper in which at the end of the abstract they say “Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” It is like reading Pravda in Soviet times. You ignore the Party line and read between the lines.
The price of getting published in solar physics is abjuring any role for the Sun in climate. Solar physicists will start giving that up over the next couple of years with the sharp step down in temperature that is underway because otherwise they will run reputational risk for ignoring the obvious. In the meantime they stoically bear the humiliation of having to utter these inanities.
What if you are a normal climate scientist, doing the usual modelling and so on, and you want to get the message out about the effects of the cold climate coming? Well, that requires some mental gymnastics. But it has been done. Professor John Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin shows how. In the CIA climate report of 1974 predicting severe cooling and a return to the climate of the neo-arboreal era (1600-1850), he is mentioned on page 24. Forty years later, Professor Kutzbach is still at the University of Wisconsin and still warning of cooling. In 2010, he was the co-author of a paper which investigated the effect of a 3.1°C temperature decline on plant productivity. The basis of the 3.1°C assumption was the low carbon dioxide levels of the glacial periods.
Saying the magic words “The Sun can’t have caused the warming” is enough to get most solar physicists published. Others have to recant in public if their findings proved to be inconvenient. For example, in 2011 Dr Richard Altrock published a paper in which he said that, based on observations of the green coronal emissions of the Sun, Solar Cycle 24 was 40% slower than the average of the previous two cycles. This would have a significant effect on climate through Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. That was followed in 2012 by a paper in which he said that some data had been overlooked in the 2011 paper and that Solar Cycle 24 was back to normal. He hasn’t published his diagram again since.
As far as I can tell, the first solar physicists to suggest that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum were Schatten and Tobiska in 2003. From their abstract,” The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
Others on their own efforts have subsequently attempted to untangle the solar record and derive a prediction from it. Thus Steinhilber and Beer, and from the tree rings, Libby and Pandolfi and the Finnish foresters. All are pointing down, steeply down from now. By the time of the CIA climate report in 1974, there was still a living memory of the colder years of the early 20th century, and an appreciation that humanity was in a special time of warmth and abundance. Now forty years on, the cold years that preceded the current warmth are not even a distant memory. Most think that this is the new normal.
Dikpati and Hathaway, both of NASA, in 2006 had predictions of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 190 and 170 respectively. In their press release, NASA said that,”Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented.” It was also terribly wrong, possibly unprecedentedly so. Significantly, no solar physicist is now predicting a return to the high levels of activity of the second half of the 20th century. Schatten and Tobiska’s prediction of a Maunder level of activity stands, is on track, and has no competition. Everyone is well advised to plan accordingly.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014).
Stephen may also be referring to his conjecture related to solar influences on the pressure systems at the poles (monitored via the Arctic Oscillation index) that pushes and pulls the jets out into a loopy broken ribbon or into a nice tight circle, thus affecting something else, which affects something else, which affects something else, etc…, amplifying in some way at each stage such that long term temperature trends become evident.
Again, not observed Stephen. But ash clouds do indeed immediately have an affect on temperature. My conjecture is that equatorial volcanoes blew their tops and continued to belch and sputter keeping the recharge phase of ENSO processes from working the way they should.
David Archibald says:
May 18, 2014 at 1:29 pm
“You are all missing the point of those few sentences. NASA had a whole section, or perhaps even more than one, studying the Sun. They had people working full time on it. If not the world’s pre-eminent experts, they were up there. But they were wrong, wrong, wrong. Hathaway said he went for a high number because he expected the trend of high numbers to continue. No physical basis but it was put out as a NASA forecast. Dikpati was NASA’s star and perhaps Hathaway had to be up close to her otherwise there would be questions and internal political problems. This is about experts being wrong (hint – think IPCC and the concensus), not about three co-authors who got it right.”
=========================================================================
But you know that’s how real science works. People make predictions based on theories. Theories that show themselves to be correct get accepted and those that fail are discarded. (unlike current AGW). As long as one moves along that path even incorrect theories are valuable as they can be eliminated. So Dr Svalgaard based his prediction on the way he believed the cycles to work, so far is has been correct. So pointing out only the incorrect theories as some kind of damnation of those people isn’t helpful.
You go on to say “Significantly, no solar physicist is now predicting a return to the high levels of activity of the second half of the 20th century. Schatten and Tobiska’s prediction of a Maunder level of activity stands, is on track, and has no competition. Everyone is well advised to plan accordingly.” That is a direct result of earlier theories about cycle strength being wrong and discarded so that the focus is on the theory that so far looks to work. That is why you should have mentioned the “three co-authors who got it right.” But I understand the issues between you and Leif so it is not surprising you did not give him any credit.
David Archibald says:
“In the meantime, a 0.6 degree C fall from now to mid-2016, then sideways to down to the mid-2020s and then the big plunge to 2040. Then flat for a Maunder-type experience.”
David, last August I discovered how to map the position and duration of each grand minimum astronomically. From 1000 AD they alternate from between three and four solar cycles being weaker in each grand minimum at a mean interval of 110.7yrs, but at Maunder the pattern changes, with five cycles being effected. The Dalton minimum then effected mainly cycles 5&6. the Gleissberg minimum effected cycles 12 to 14, and the current minimum seems to have mainly cycles 24&25 weakened. The 2040’s should be well past this grand minimum and the worst cold.
On the longer term, new work that I have done this week identifies key break down points in Jovian cycles that occur at the dominant cold periods over the last 6,500 years. Each colder period lasts ~150-250 years, and their frequency varies dramatically over a 4627yr cycle, with intervals between them from as little as 90-150yrs and up to 1300yrs, as happened during the MWP era. Provisional dates for the start of the cold periods are from around: 4340 BC, 3530 BC, 2980 BC, 2570 BC, 2100 BC, 1350 BC, 510 BC, 380 AD. 1650 AD, and the next one is from 2056 AD. On the basis of these findings, I find myself somewhat agreeing with the general outlook that Steinhilber and Beer have for the next 200 years of solar activity.
The # 1 driver of our climate is always the sun. This is why, when the sun sets, it gets colder especially in hot deserts. The thing that makes things milder is moisture which is why wet climate areas see less drop in temperatures when the sun vanishes than hot deserts.
Pretending the sun is this steady state star is a total mistake. It is a variable star and we are parked quite close to its proximity so even seemingly small changes in radiance and activity has a huge impact on our planet’s climate.
I am baffled as to why many people can’t understand this simple business. Our oceans are ‘big’ but are tiny droplets compared to the sun. When the sun ‘warms’ the ocean, it does this ONLY when it is daytime, not at night. The temperature of the oceans are controlled by this level of sun shining which is why our polar regions are below freezing even when the sun never sets there due entirely to the fact that the sun isn’t shining directly on the oceans or Antarctic but is at an extreme angle and the atmosphere breaks up the light sufficiently to keep the sun from melting the ice to the same degree that is heats up the equator.
The la Nina/el Nino is an equatorial situation driven by varying levels of solar activity. The weaker the sun is, the more la Nina dominates and the more sun spots, el Nino strengthens and dominates. Nothing else drives these events as strongly as the sun.
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:23 am
“And the only source of energy sufficient to do that is what is stored in the oceans through Earth’s own ability to let more in or reflect more away, coupled with how much energy the oceans belch out or keep stored.”
But do we really know how much of that stored energy might come from under sea volcanic activity? I think not. The Earth’s internal heat is another large elephant in the room.
emsnews, three counter points.
1 The variation in solar insolation at Earth’s surface as well as total solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere have been monitored for decades. It does not vary much at all. However, the small variation it does have mathematically affects the temperature but only by a small fraction of a degree.
2. We receive only a small portion of the Sun’s rays as most of those rays bypass us because we are so small compared to the Sun.
3. As to your poles and day/night comment, the rotation and seasonal tilt of the Earth are intrinsic Earth based factors, not related to your supposed solar variability.
The Earth is why temperature varies so much, not the Sun.
emsnews says:
May 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm
You say:
1) “The # 1 driver of our climate is always the sun. This is why, when the sun sets, it gets colder especially in hot deserts….”
But that has nothing to do with any changes in the Sun, it is simply a rotating Earth.
2) ” even seemingly small changes in radiance and activity has a huge impact on our planet’s climate.” but then later you say ” our polar regions are below freezing even when the sun never sets there due entirely to the fact that the sun isn’t shining directly on the oceans or Antarctic but is at an extreme angle and the atmosphere breaks up the light sufficiently to keep the sun from melting the ice to the same degree that is heats up the equator.”
Again, not changes in the Sun, changes in orbit and obliquity.
3)”The weaker the sun is, the more la Nina dominates and the more sun spots, el Nino strengthens and dominates”
Obviously you do not read Bob Tisdale’s very informative essays on these conditions.
Yes, the Sun is the sole warmer of the oceans, however air temperature and wind can lower the SST. Case in point: last weekend the Gulf of Mexico off my beach was a nice 85 F but after several days of cooler weather and strong winds, especially at night, the temperature this weekend was 82 F. Very unusual for the temperatures to get lower this time of year. Now the cold front is gone, the winds have calmed and the Sun will reheat the water back to around 85 F very quickly. This also happens each winter. Cold air comes in and cools the water but in winter the angle of the Sun only allows enough energy to hit the water to warm it to around 55 F. As we move towards summer solstice the Sun becomes more and more overhead allowing more of it’s energy to hit the water so it continually warms. But this is not about changes in the Sun but rather the Earth and its orbit.
One more thing, the little that the Sun varies would not produce enough energy to drive and sustain changes in ENSO parameters related to El Nino/La Nina.
Wow, percolating volcanic activity following the massive Samalas eruption in Indonesia preventing a recharge phase during La Niña. That has to be one of the most logical explanations for how the cold was maintained for so long after the abrupt kick start of the LIA. Kamchatka certainly has percolated since 2009.
There have been numerous eruptions in Indonesia in the last six years, though nothing too big.
We seem to be plenty cool now without a really large eruption and following the harshest winter in over a century. Certainly breaking low temp records at times. Crops are planted in fairly good shape (5 year avg) but germination is behind… Come on El Niño, don’t putter out.
See 6 refereed Citations to: Schatten and Tobiska in 2003.
Note:
Sunspot Number Prediction by an Autoregressive Model Werner, R. Sun and Geosphere, vol.7, no.2, p.75-80. 11/2012
Werner’s 2012 prediction appears to have been more accurate than Dikpati and Hathaway (2006)
I noticed when solar cycle 24 had been predicted to be the most active solar cycle ever, (which is true) the media and famous futurists at the time exclaimed how this solar cycle would exacerbate Global Warming, now that this cycle has turned out to be a ‘weak solar cycle’ we are hearing from the experts that solar activity has nothing to do with solar activity, on top of all this expertise these claims are disappeared as quick as they were made up! hahahaha!
Her colleague at the Institute, Vaclav Bucha also has mechanismless correlations between geomagnetic status and the loopiness of the jetstream – published material, but also ignored.
Piers Corbyn uses that “fact” or similar for long term weather prediction.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/05/follow-the-evidence/
I noticed when solar cycle 24 had been predicted to be the most active solar cycle ever, (which is true) the media and famous futurists at the time exclaimed how this solar cycle would exacerbate Global Warming, now that this cycle has turned out to be a ‘weak solar cycle’ we are hearing from the experts that GLOBAL WARMING has nothing to do with solar activity, on top of all this expertise these claims are disappeared as quick as they were made up! hahahaha!
(sorry about the error in my last comment) 🙂
Stephen, I know the paper and the discussion we had surrounding it. The authors point to a decreased overturning circulation due to an influx of fresh water at the poles where the overturning process takes place. That may indeed have happened (I think it is a stretch) but that theory still needs to answer why the oceans got cold in the first place. What about the far flung effects starting at different times?
I speculate that the La Nina recharge process was severely diminished due to ash riding the winds along the equatorial belt, essentially pulling a blind over the equatorial belt. Eventually that cooler water would circulate via the currents and instead of handing out warming to the land, there was nothing in the “bank” so to speak. This would result in pulses of extreme cold dry weather that would ice up decreased river flows, eventually leading to near continuous winter conditions especially in northern areas of the Pacific.
But what of England? If that ash made its way into the Caribbean area of the Atlantic where the Gulf Stream originates and is warmed by the Sun, equally cold currents (since the Sun had a shade in front of it) would turn England into a frozen world, devoid of its normally pleasant weather due to an unusually cold gulf stream current.
Village Idiot says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:46 am
Let me explain to you why there is Time.
So everything doesn’t happen all at once.
Again, can someone explain why the 2003 paper ( Schatten and Tobiska ) is not available, in full ?
Actually, the cold years that preceded the current warmth are STILL a memory for some of us. I was in my teens in New England during the polar vortex of 1963, and the decade of the ’60s was cold and snowy for much of the northeast. Back then, though, we boomers were about 45% of the population, whereas we’re about 20% now. If a boomer described the late ’50s and early ’60s to the current majority age group, they’d look at him as if he were describing an exotic culture from ancient times. That’s why “Mad Men” is so popular.
Steve try Google Scholar. Just type it into the address bar. Next, once you are searching with Google Scholar, type in the name of the article with the letters “pdf” before the title. This will often lead to the article preprint.
Steve in Seattle says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Again, can someone explain why the 2003 paper ( Schatten and Tobiska ) is not available, in full ?
Private circulation perhaps? all you need is the ‘abstract’ anyway.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010239/full
Gao et al (2008) shows approximate sulfur loading in the atmosphere for the last 1500 years. It shows the spikes of volcanic eruptions leading into the LIA and throughout. The eruptions from remote places are surprisingly easily hidden, so you won’t see that many of them at the Smithsonian. Quilotoa in Ecuador was a VEI 6 about 1280, Pinatubo VEI 5+ sometime in the 1400’s, Sakurajima VEI 5+, Bardabunga VEI 6, VEI 5 from St Helens. Who knows how many eruptions came from some remote places.
There was a warm up about 1400 then the other smack down. You see another spike in sulfur loading in figure 2. So there was definitely a lot going on back there volcanic, compared to the 20th century.
IMO solar minimum is a plausible explanation for past cold periods. This is hard to prove since we don’t have direct measurements of solar irradiance in the past. The earliest measurement was in 1838 by Pouillet. He got a value of 1,228 W/m^2 or 133 W/m^2 lower than today. More than enough to make global climate cooler. That was after the Dalton Minimum and near the end of the Little Ice Age. Read this http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/16943/meteo_2008_60_36.pdf
For those interested in geopolitical matters, a post of mine now up at American Thinker:
http://americanthinker.com/2014/05/chinas_mobile_national_territory.html
David Archibald
“China will wear down the Japanese forces and then invade the Senakaku and Yaeyama Islands. If successful in taking them, China will then extend its ADIZ to at least 300 km east of the Yaeyama Islands, isolating Japan from the rest of Asia. “
🙂
Pamela,
Changes in cloudiness affecting the proportion of solar energy reaching the surface are powerful enough as argued on this site previously.
The sequence of changes that I listed in my ‘conjecture’ is exactly in accordance with actual observations.
Volcanic outbreaks do have the effects you mention but not for long enough and not large enough over centuries.
It is indeed all about ‘closing the blinds’ so as to affect the proportion of solar energy entering the oceans but I think the cloudiness changes are the main player with volcanic activity modulating the cloudiness effects in the same way as internal ocean cycles modulate the cloudiness effects.
The recent cessation of warming has occurred despite a relatively low level of volcanic activity but instead correlates to more cloudiness since around 2000 when the jets started to become more loopy again.
David Archibald says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:41 am
Good show.