Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I realized that like everyone else, up until now I’ve just accepted the idea of cold temperatures being a result of the solar minima as an article of faith … but I’d never actually looked at the data. And in any case, I thought, what temperature data would we have for the Maunder sunspot minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715? So … I went back to the original sources, which as always is a very interesting ride, and I learned a lot.
It turns out that this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature is a fairly recent development. Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”. In that paper, Eddy briefly discusses the question of the relationship between the Maunder sunspot minimum and the global temperature, viz:
The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). There is also a nearly 1 : 1 agreement in sense and time between major excursions in world temperature (as best they are known) and the earlier excursions of the envelope of solar behavior in the record of 14C, particularly when a 14C lag time is allowed for: the Sporer Minimum of the 16th century is coincident with the other severe temperature dip of the Little Ice Age, and the Grand Maximum coincides with the “medieval Climatic Optimum” of the 11th through 13th centuries (75, 76). These coincidences suggest a possible relationship between the overall envelope of the curve of solar activity and terrestrial climate in which the 11-year solar cycle may be effectively filtered out or simply unrelated to the problem. The mechanism of this solar effect on climate may be the simple one of ponderous long-term changes of small amount in the total radiative output of the sun, or solar constant. These long-term drifts in solar radiation may modulate the envelope of the solar cycle through the solar dynamo to produce the observed long-term trends in solar activity. The continuity, or phase, of the 11-year cycle would be independent of this slow, radiative change, but the amplitude could be controlled by it. According to this interpretation, the cyclic coming and going of sunspots would have little effect on the output of solar radiation, or presumably on weather, but the long-term envelope of sunspot activity carries the indelible signature of slow changes in solar radiation which surely affect our climate (77). [see paper for references]
Now, I have to confess, that all struck me as very weak, with more “suggest” and “maybe” and “could” than I prefer in my science. So I thought I’d look to see where he was getting the temperature data to support his claims. It turns out that he was basing his opinion of the temperature during the Maunder minimum on a climate index from H. H. Lamb, viz:
The Little Ice Age lasted roughly from 1430 to 1850 … if we take H. H. Lamb’s index of Paris London Winter Severity as a global indicator.
After some searching, I found the noted climatologist H. H. Lamb’s England winter severity index in his 1965 paper The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel. He doesn’t give the values for his index, but I digitized his graph. Here are Lamb’s results, showing the winter severity in England. Lower values mean more severe winters.
So let me pose you a small puzzle. Knowing that Eddy is basing his claims about a cold Maunder minimum on Lamb’s winter severity index … where in Lamb’s winter severity index would you say that we would find the Maunder and Dalton minima? …
Figure 1. H.H. Lamb’s index of winter severity in England.
As you can see, there is a reasonable variety in the severity of the winters in England. However, it is not immediately apparent just where in there we might find the Maunder and Dalton minima, although there are several clear possibilities. So to move the discussion along, let me reveal where they are:
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the dates of the Maunder and Dalton minima added.
As we might expect, the Maunder minimum is the coldest part of the record. The Dalton minimum is also cold, but not as cold as the Maunder minimum, again as we’d expect. Both of them have warmer periods both before and after the minima, illustrating the effect of the sun on the … on the … hang on … hmmm, that doesn’t look right … let me check my figures …
…
…
…
… uh-oh
…
…
Well, imagine that. I forgot to divide by the square root of minus one, so I got the dates kinda mixed up, and I put both the Maunder and the Dalton 220 years early … here are the actual dates of the solar minima shown in Lamb’s winter severity index.
Figure 3. H.H. Lamb’s England winter severity index, 1100-1950, overlaid with the actual dates of the four solar minima ascribed to that period. Values are decadal averages 1100-1110,1110-1120, etc., and are centered on the decade.
As you can see …
• The cooling during the Wolf minimum is indistinguishable from the two immediately previous episodes of cooling, none of which get much below the overall average.
• The temperature during the Sporer minimum is warmer than the temperature before and after the minimum.
• The coldest and second coldest decades in the record were not associated with solar minima.
• The fastest cooling in the record, from the 1425 decade to the 1435 decade, also was not associated with a solar minimum.
• Contrary to what we’d expect, the Maunder minimum warmed from start to finish.
• The Dalton minimum is unremarkable in any manner other than being warmer than the decade before the start and the decade after the end of the minimum. Oh, and like the Maunder, it also warmed steadily over the period of the minimum.
Urk … that’s what Eddy based his claims on. Not impressed.
Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.
And now, for the first time I’m looking at temperature effects of the solar minima … and I’m in the same boat. The more I look, the less I find.
However, we do have some actual observational evidence for the time period of the most recent of the minima, the Dalton minimum, because the Berkeley Earth temperature record goes back to 1750. And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have, and it is likely quite good for comparison of nearby decades. In any case, here are those results:
Figure 4. The Berkeley Earth land temperature anomaly data, along with the Dalton minimum.
Once again, the data absolutely doesn’t support the idea of the sun ruling the temperature. IF the sun indeed caused the variations during the Dalton minimum, it first made the temperature rise, then fall, then rise again to where it started … sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like what we’d expect. For example, if the low spot around 1815 is caused by low solar input, then why does the temperature start rising then, and rise steadily until the end of the Dalton minimum, while the solar input is not rising at all?
So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?
Now, a few caveats. First, I want to enlist your knowledge and wisdom in the search, so please just give me your one best shot. I’m not interested in someone dumping the results of a google search for “Maunder” on my desk. I want to know what YOU think is the very best evidence that solar minima cause global cooling.
Next, don’t bother saying “the Little Ice Age is the best evidence”. Yes, the Maunder occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). But the Lamb index says that the temperature warmed from the start of the Maunder until the end. Neither the Maunder’s location, which was quite late in the LIA, nor the warming Lamb shows from the start to the end of the Maunder, support the idea that the sun caused the LIA cooling.
Next, please don’t fall into the trap of considering climate model results as data. The problem, as I have shown in a number of posts, is that the global temperature outputs of the modern crop of climate models are nothing but linear transforms of their inputs. And since the models include solar variations among their inputs, those solar variations will indeed appear in the model outputs. If you think that is evidence for solar forcing of temperature … well, this is not the thread for you. So no climate model results, please.
So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?
My regards to you all,
w.
[UPDATE] In the comments, someone said that the Central England Temperature record shows the cooling effects of the solar minima … I’m not finding it:
As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET. Just as in the Lamb winter severity data and the Berkeley Earth data, during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last part of the solar minimum. IF the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would the earth warm up while the sun is still slumping? And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started … how on earth does this support the “solar slump” claim, that at the end of the Dalton minimum it’s warmer than at the start?
The Usual Request: I know this almost never happens, but if you disagree with something that I or someone else has said, please have the common courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS that you disagree with. This prevents much confusion and misunderstanding.
Data: Eddy’s paper, The Maunder Minimum
Lamb’s paper, The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel
Berkeley Earth, land temperature anomalies
As usual, I am grateful for your work: thank you.
Well, I would say that it is an incorrect analysis to compare temp with any single forcing. There are multiple forcings for Average Global Temp and to make a logical comparison of Temp vs the Solar Intensity you have to adjust the temp graph to EXclude other temp forcings like atypical volcanic activity, El Nino/La Nina, etc.
Mass index?: Earth, rock, seas/lakes? Once the earth starts to warm up after a solar minimum, how long does it take to affect the system? Same-same wrt warming. Is there a ‘lag’ in the system?
Willis, thank you. To be fair you should reference Jo Nova’s blog post and the notch filter idea with a link or two.
[As soon as I left for town I realized I’d forgotten to link to Jo’s blog, thanks for the reminder. Back now, it’s done. -w]
It is often forgotten that the descent into the LIA began around 1200 AD. The first regions to be affected were in the Arctic, e.g. Greenland.
By the 14thC, Europe too was feeling the effects of a colder, wetter climate.
Dalton and Maunder may have marked the coldest dips, but the explanation behind the LIA as a whole is far more complex, and very little understood.
“Once again, the data absolutely doesn’t support the idea of the sun ruling the temperature. ” Actually this only speaks of sunspots.
Willis
May I ask whether or not you checked the UV emissions during sunspot cycles and the lack thereof during the Maunder Minimum? I though, and I may well be wrong here, but UV output has effect on winter weather and by extension the lack of UV activity during the Maunder Minimum may well have some effect during this particular downturn during that period.
You’re confusing cause and effect. The solar sunspot cycles are an effect from a deeper Solar condition — the issue isn’t insolation (or lack of) from sunspots, but from the whole solar activity. The AP magnetic index is an example — a change in the big picture, and the sunspots are just a symptom.
The cycle ends, the activity decreases. Solar magnetic field is weakening. The Earth’s magnetic field is weakening. We’ll see what happens.
This analysis is pretty much meaningless relying as it does on one set of data about one location. To quote from an article by Burnel (http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/hubert-lamb-and-the-assimilation-of-legendary-ancient-russian-winters/) , “What Lamb’s winter severity map makes most evident is that even across a short arc of the globe, while there is evident a generalized pattern of change through time, this pattern can be experienced quite differently at different points along the arc. Some places experience the change more sharply than others. Sometimes the change is so much out of phase that the trend at the same time in different places is reversed.” For an analysis of the impact of solar variation on climate change on a global scale is needed.
The CET supports the Maunder Minimum at statistical significance, the Dalton less so.
For instance, here are some seasonal and monthly cold records in the CET:
Autumn: 1676
Winter: 1683/84
March: 1674
May 1698
June 1675
July 1816
September 1674 and 1807 (tie)
Other records are close to the usually quoted end dates for the MM (1645-1715) & DM (1790-1830).
Six chronologies based on the growth of Scots pine from the inland of northern Fennoscandia were built to separately enhance low, medium, and higher frequencies in growth variability in 1000–2002. Several periodicities of growth were found in common in these data. Five of the low-frequency series have a significant oscillatory mode at 200–250 years of cycle length. Most series also have strong multidecadal scale variability and significant peaks at 33, 67, or 83–125 years. Reconstruction models for mean July and June–August as well as three longer period temperatures were built and compared using stringent verification statistics. We describe main differences in model performance (R^2 = 0.53–0.62) between individual proxies as well as their various averages depending on provenance and proxy type, length of target period, and frequency range. A separate medium-frequency chronology (a proxy for June–August temperatures) is presented, which is closely similar in amplitude and duration to the last two cycles of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). The good synchrony between these two series is only hampered by a 10-year difference in timing. Recognizing a strong medium-frequency component in Fennoscandian climate proxies helps to explain part of the uncertainties in their 20th century trends.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcli/2014/578761/abs/
I should perhaps have added that the CET starts in 1659, so misses the first 14 years of the MM.
The 2009-2010 period was the quietest solar period of our lifetimes and it coincided with record high latitude blocking patterns (cold air distribution) in both hemispheres. What fascinated me was the very active series of stratospheric warmings that occurred during this solar minimum. These are things we couldn’t really measure during the prior minima, so I suspect we’ll learn a whole lot in the years ahead!
Summer months were also below average
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
and seasons
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Divide by the square root of -1? LOL!
Educational and entertaining. Thanks
Check Figs 8 and 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Here are some quotes.
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
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……..
The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature trends The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present (Cycle 24) is obvious……..
Fig9
It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.”
In a Maunder minimum shouldn’t we also expect the summers to be colder? Why only focus on the winter severity index?
It’s whatever Leif says it is. If Leif says minima dont cause cold spells then discussion over.
Interesting work , Willis – thanks for compiling that , as well as the other recent solar correlation posts.
There is an obvious next question this brings to my mind: What exactly has driven these shorter period changes in climate (by shorter, I mean sub-Milankovich scale cycles) ? It certainly wasn’t coal fired power plants and SUVs. It is the most fundamental question and one the CAGWers have no answer for.
I will say that if the skeptic crowd could develop a compelling theory / model of these past changes, it could potentially be possible to unravel the model temperature signal in terms of an natural signal & anthropogenic signal (if any).
If done with proper scientific rigor, it could be the final nail in the CAGW coffin.
Why are you guys obsessed about 11 year cycles….it’s 22 year cycles stupid! The temperatures changes are accociated to geomagnetic not solar….please redraft
Would like to see a graph with ACTUAL TEMPERATURE rather than some sort of non-defined “Severity index”.
WxMatt says:
June 23, 2014 at 12:39 pm
“The 2009-2010 period was the quietest solar period of our lifetimes and it coincided with record high latitude blocking patterns (cold air distribution) in both hemispheres. What fascinated me was the very active series of stratospheric warmings that occurred during this solar minimum.”
———————
And of course the blocking can lead to extreme cold over Europe & eastern NA.
From the Eddy paper:
“The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). ”
Drought in the SW is also consistent with persistent blocking – just like we saw this winter.
But is there any correlation between this high latitude blocking & solar activity? We know there is a correlation / causation from polar stratospheric warming events but do those have any relationship to solar activity? Hard to say from the data presented here – temp records would all depend on where blocking sets up (and if the data are from the cold side or warm side of the block).
I can’t say that I’d “stand behind and defend” this evidence as I haven’t looked into it much myself, but I would be interested in seeing your analysis on this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/
Yes, I realize the paper’s authors argue for a regional, rather than global, effect of solar activity. But perhaps regional effects during the very complicated little ice age altered people’s perceptions of it?
MattN says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm
CET temperature data clearly show the 1659 to 1715 partial Maunder Minimum period statistically significantly colder than the following interval 1716 to 1789, with the shorter Dalton Minimum, 1790 to 1830, less so, but still cooler. It all being the LIA, there are some unusually cold years in the warmer mid-18th century period as well.
Temperature declines clearly seen in the HadCET time series:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Having fun with graphs:
It is easily shown the AMO precedes the SSN when the planet is warming, thus AMO could predict SSN thus solar activity. It is when the planet is cooling that SSN leads AMO.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1860/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1860/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:2014/mean:61/normalise
The PDO is more complex, but since the most recent warming phase starting 1979 which I think Tisdale called The Great Pacific Climate Shift (something like that), SSN clearly leads PDO:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:2014/mean:61/normalise
Since it is clearly seen the sunspot cycle can lead PDO and AMO, and they go on to influence global temperatures, it is obvious the sunspot cycle influences global temperatures. There are the graphs, it must be true.
…
Of course, as I said, that’s just having fun with graphs. Although I would like to know the real reasons the graphs can line up so much, mainly as to why PDO and AMO “beats” line up as they do with the sunspot cycles, switching who’s first between cooling and warming phases.
MattN says:
Would like to see a graph with ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
…………..
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Underlying this work is the unstated presumption that sunspots are correlated with solar output. Is that true? How could we know?
Alan Poirier says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Starting in 1659 rather than 1772, to capture the Maunder as well as the Dalton Minimum:
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
the decline of the total solar irradiance ( a product of the two century bi-cenntenial solar component) gives indisputable evidence that the earth is heading for a new little ice age.(see Abdussamatov and Piers Corbyn)
A plausible mechanism might be a slightly lower irradiation, including lower UV, effects directly the amount of H2O in the atmosphere in the tropics. I assume H2O is a greenhouse gas although it,s not mentioned in the consensus literature. The result is a decline in temperature very small but in enthalpy more pronounced due to the latent heat of the water vapour. This cascades in the higher latitudes and subsequently lower temperatures. As soon as this process progresses the temperature especially at the higher latitudes accelerates to drop further. Maybe changes in weatherpattern during this process
might have influence as well.
Willis – turn off the Sun and then check the temperature. Anyone who assumes the Sun is not the main driver is “over-analysing” the simple reality that without the Sun we might as well be Neptune.
Several years ago I looked at volcanic indices and there were strange changes in the classes/frequencies of volcanic activity during the maunder (iirc) minimum. There are many potential directionality/cause/effect possibilities (did the effects of volcanic activity change the visibility of sunspots?). I don’t remember what I did and the hard-drive I did it on was fried.
There are at least 3 climate drivers: sun, natural variation beyond solar (e.g the apparent multidecadal Arctic ice cycles probably driven by ocean circulation and which affects albedo and thermohaline circulation), GHG. Untangling the mix is important, as these may operate on different time scales with different leverage, and with varying rates of feedbacks both positive and negative as they interact. After all, something was forcing change before CO2, and it probably hasn’t gone away.
As for the sun as one of the things in the mix, read Hoyt and Schatten, The role of the sun in climate change, Oxford University Press, 1997 (279 pp.) See also Hoyt, variation in sunspot structure and climate, Climate Change 2: 79-92 (1979). As for possible coupling mechanisms, see Schuurmans, Tropospheric Effects of Variable Solar Activity, Solar Physics 74: 417-419 (1981). Guess what: delta TSI, delta UV, delta heliosphere/cosmic rays, back in 1981.
Die Kalte Sonne is a modern read, page 69 being interesting. Now available in English as The Neglected Sun. Overstates the sun part, so just as wrong as the IPCC saying it is all about GHG. But more information to noodle on if one is so inclined.
[snip – no, we aren’t going there, and I’m not going to have you overrun another thread with your link bombing. Plate tectonics don’t have anything to do with this discussion -Anthony]
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:29 pm
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.long
Conclusions
We combined a new 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, comprising more than 1,800 data points with several other already existing radionuclide records (14C from tree rings and 10Be analyzed in polar ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica) covering the Holocene. Using principal component analysis, we separated the common radionuclide production signal due to solar and geomagnetic activity from the system effects signal due to the different transport and deposition processes. The common signal represents a low-noise record of cosmic radiation, particularly for high frequencies, compared to earlier reconstructions, which are only based on single radionuclide records. On the basis of this record, we then derived a reconstruction of total solar irradiance for the Holocene, which overall agrees well with two existing records but shows less high-frequency noise. A comparison of the derived solar activity with a record of Asian climate derived from δ18O in a Chinese stalagmite reveals a significant correlation. The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone. Other forcings like volcanoes, greenhouse gas concentrations, and internal variability also have played an important role. To quantify the solar influence on the Earth’s climate and to distinguish between the different forcings, climate model simulations are required for the Holocene, employing the new dataset of total solar irradiance. The dataset will be available online at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration paleo server (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html).
jpatrick on June 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm:
You compare TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and SSN (Sun Spot Number):
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/to:2014/mean:3/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/to:2014/mean:3/normalise
TSI is everything in the electromagnetic spectrum so use it for solar output. Just before 1979 is the start of this TSI dataset, using measurements. There are various TSI “reconstructions” that go back further. However, they get based on the SSN records which go way back before 1979, so comparisons aren’t helpful, you’ll be comparing SSN to a product of SSN.
Kirkby’s 2008 survey paper cites a bunch of stuff. One study he highlights is Mangini et al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.” Excerpt from Mangini:
Kirkby’s Fig. 2:
Caption: Comparison of variations during the last millennium of a) temperature (with respect to the 1961–1990 average), b) galactic cosmic rays (note the inverted scale; high cosmic ray fluxes are associated with cold temperatures) and c) glacial advances in the Venezuelan tropical Andes near Lake Mucubaji (8deg 47’N, 70deg 50’W, 3570 m altitude).
If you average the winter severity index over, say, a century-sized interval and then plot that average against its center point, I bet the coincidence in time becomes more remarkable. (So, for example, the “smoothed” severity index for 1650 would be the average from 1600 to 1700, the smoothed index for 1651 would be the average from 1601 to 1701, and so on). Granted, there are isolated up spikes near and inside the colored bars, but they are isolated — and the century-long averaging will tend to point this out.
Also, as a bit of a quibble, how severe was a dry — that is, little snow — but very cold winter recorded as being? If the amount of snow made more of an impression back then, since there were few or no thermometers, it’s quite possible that the winter severity index, like tree rings, records a combined precipitation and temperature impression of the climate.
Willis,
You’ve shown that the Lamb winter severity index doesn’t make a very good match with solar minima, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the solar correlation with climate is wrong—it might as well mean that the Lamb index isn’t a good measure of what climate was doing during the Maunder. So I took a look at the CET, extended back to 1538 by Tony Brown. What I see is a temperature maximum at 1650 dropping continuously to a low at 1700-1710. It’s as good (or better) a match as one could expect.
Both 10Be and δ14C show significant maximums during the Maunder, as well as for the Sporer, Dalton, and the 1880-1915 cool period.
The CET during the Dalton shows low temps during the entire interval, (extending beyond the Dalton limits). Like the Maunder it also shows significant 10Be and δ14C maximums.
The consistent relationship between solar minima, temperature, 10Be, and δ14C maxima would seem to indicate that it’s more than just coincidence. What I make of this is that the sun is driving climate, but not at 11-yr intervals or any other cyclic interval. It seems to be ongoing, but somewhat irregular and not likely to show up in any kind of regular cycle analysis. What is especially interesting are the 10Be, and δ14C maxima that match the solar minima and temperature records, suggesting an increase in cosmic radiation during the colder periods. This would lend credence to the Svensmark hypothesis.
I doubt that you will find any kind of regular, cyclic repetition in these data, but that doesn’t mean that the sun isn’t driving the climate.
Don
See also Kirkby’s graph of Bond’s study of ice-rafting debris vs. cosmogenic isotopes (from p.10 of Kirkby’s 2009 PowerPoint):
Not displaying for some reason. Image here:
http://s191.photobucket.com/user/AlecRawls/media/Environment%20and%20climate/Solar-IceRaftingBond2001viaKirkby_zps396798b5.png.html
The variability in TSI is far to small to make a difference in earth temperatures more than a tenth of a degree Celsius. BUT, from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html
…While total solar irradiance changes by 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts, scientists have discovered. Research shows such variations in the Sun’s emissions can affect the ozone layer and the way energy moves both vertically and horizontally through the atmosphere….
So why not do it simple Willis. On the following graph there is a 11 year mean on both HadCRUT4 and TSI from 1850 until today. There seem to be an astonishing relation between the sun’s irradiance and the global temperature. But something seem to happen in the 1980s….
I find it intriguing. What do you think?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5qjg045ugfxy4mv/HadCRUT4%20and%20TSI.pdf
Although it wasn’t called the little ice age until the 1930’s, the effect had been known for centuries before that. I think it is a mistake to attribute it to eddy or lamb. Numerous writers have referenced it in past centuries. Charles dickens noticed the effect having been born during the very cold period at the start of the 19th century and lived to see some very warm periods.
Here are the CET figures for each season from 1659. Cet was thought by many scientists including lamb, Hulme and the dutch meteorological service to be a reasonable proxy for at least the northern hemisphere
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/graph04.png
In 2011 I wrote this article which extended cet to 1538. In it i Compared the temperature reconstructions of both Hubert lamb and Michael Mann.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
I am currently extending it further to 1086 .There are numerous references to the cold and warm periods made over many hundreds of years. The little ice age is much more episodic than is generally believed. The period from 1500 to 1550 looks likely to be at least as warm as today. The 1730’s were only fractionally cooler. this period convinced Phil jones tha natural variability was much greater than he had previously believed.
Some of the sunspot minima match up well with colder temperatures,others do not. I remain unconvinced but it’s certainly a better match that co2 .Almost certainly the jet stream shifted as did the direction of winds. We had long periods of blocking highs and the weather during the cold periods and the transition in the 1200’s was often very extreme,
Tonyb
I have been coming to the conclusion that while the sun is the engine that drives our earths climate that it’s fluctuations are not enough to account for the long term climate changes. It is clear that some major factors even out the small variations and likely the biggest is the sea acting as that regulator that keeps climate stable. By the same token it is clearly arrogance that claims that humans can do what the sun isn’t doing and drive massive changes in the climate. Clearly as with the sun the changes will be small.
It is also clear that we need a lot more good solid research to have a handle on how climate really functions.
Thanks, Willis.
Cheers.
so I guess this is suppose to stimulate a discussion?
square root of minus 1 . LMAO
Don
I didn’t see your reply when posting mine.
I agree that the sun certainly has an impact and arguably the period around 1650 to 1700 displays a possible sun spot relationship although other things might also have had an effect.
I think lamb is wrong to attribute the start of the little ice age to 1500AD and we are not helping our understanding of that period by believing the period from say 1300 to 1850 or so to be one
Long deep freeze. The lia had numerous very warm periods and the extremely cold periods were generally fairly short lived although they occurred fairly often.
Sun spots? Long periods of no sunshine? Long periods of extended sunshine? Jet streams? At present we don’t know the causes of the loa, but whilst we have this intriguing period when temperatures were much warmer than today and much cooler than today, with the biggest hockey stick occurring in the period 1690 to 1740, it is certain that natural variability is much greater than mann’s hockey stick would have us believe.
Tonyb
A simple regression model of the TSI averaged over the previous 11 years as the single and only independent variable can predict the temperature with an r-squared of 0.61 Used to predict the past 15 years or so from data it has not seen makes predictions that are more skillful than any GCM model. Its really all that simple. It works. ‘Nuff said. Perhaps we will all understand all the things that go into making it work, but for that, we will have to stop the grantsmanship of the CAGW crowd and fund on merit.
Teddi says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Willis – turn off the Sun and then check the temperature. Anyone who assumes the Sun is not the main driver is “over-analysing” the simple reality that without the Sun we might as well be Neptune.”
The argument is whether small CHANGES in the Sun’s output match up with CHANGES in Earth’s climate.
I havent seen any evidence.
Ive seen proxies. Ive seen years cherry picked from one data series ( adjusted data no less )
But so far nobody has answered Willis’ SPECIFIC question
“what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
To do this you have to
1. Identify the precise DATES of the minimum you wish to argue for
2. Identify TEMPERATURE evidence.
3. Show that the solar minimum causes the temperature to cool, that entails ruling out other causes.
See how #3 works? when we try to attribute warming to C02 increasing, folks demand that other causes be ruled out. hence, showing the solar min causes cooling you have to show that it couldnt be something else.
Here is another thing.
If you point to a purely local record ( like CET) then you’ve havent made the case. Imagine I tried to show that C02 caused warming by only pointing to warming in canada. Why everyone would scream and say that wasnt global warming. In other words, CET cooling shows only CET cooling, not global cooling.
And here is another thing.
If you have ever blasted the use of proxies, then guess what?
Personally I think the painting of washington crossing the delaware is the best evidence some have.
Another way to look at this is to start with some basics.
There are a few estimates of delta TSI from maunder to today.. they range from a a few tenths
of a watt to something over 1 watt. ( recall peak to trough is 1.3watts and the mininum is an extended trough )
Lets call it 1 watt for simplicity. the no feedback effect of decreasing input by 1 watt is around
.4C
Think you can find a .4C difference giving the accuracy of the records at that time?
Look at berkeley earth error bars in 1800.
Put another way, if you argue for something greater than .4C then you are implicity accepting positive feedbacks.
Solar activity has been pretty much flat the past 300 years. For the Maunder Minimum we just had a workshop on that. Here is a report http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
Thanks Willis, really, your point is well taken as in that there actually was a cooling period. So what do you conclude caused the subsequent warming and cooling? Are you in disagreement with the IPCC? The IPCC chart comparing co2 and temperature is very clear, there was no increase or decrease in co2 during those time periods, and as result no change in the temperature either. “Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”. ” I can very clearly remember it being a topic of conversation way (at least 20 years) before 1976 particularly among ham radio operators, who, some of them happened to be scientists also.
Next decade or two will be very interesting don’t you think?
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Thanks, sturgis. However, since there is an overall trend in the data, finding that one period is cooler than the succeeding period is not evidence of anything but a trend, and that situation is quite common in the record. In any case, here’s the annual CET data:
As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET. Just as in the Lamb winter severity data and the Berkeley Earth data, during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last half of the solar minimum. If the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would it warm while the sun is still slumping? And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started … how on earth does this support the “solar slump” claim, that at the end of the Dalton minimum it’s warmer than at the start?
So I fear that I’m not seeing the evidence that you claim is there.
Best regards, and thanks for pointing to the CET, I’ll add this as an update to the main post.
w.
Data shows what you say is not the case.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Shindelletal01.pdf
Thanks Willis, very interesting stuff as always. Perhaps an evaporation and condensation cycle of any substance will tend to keep a planets temperature regulated around a certain temperature. Once the cycle is broken there will of course be a substantial shift in surface temp. So many possibilities, so little data. If you ever stop posting I will be quite put out. 😉
—————————————————–
vukcevic says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:30 pm
[snip – no, we aren’t going there, and I’m not going to have you overrun another thread with your link bombing. Plate tectonics don’t have anything to do with this discussion -Anthony]
—————————————————–
Snip me if need be but I am quite interested in the effects of water or land at the poles, as well as circum-global currents or lack there of on our global climate. Another post perhaps!
Solar activity has been pretty much flat the past 300 years. For the Maunder Minimum we just had a workshop on that. Here is a report http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf [if you cannot open the ppt]
jpatrick says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Good question, j. That is true, and we know it by actual measurements of sunspots and “TSI” or total solar irradiance. They vary in tandem.
w.
Teddi says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Teddi, here’s what I actually said:
I did not say that if you turn off the sun it will not cool down … so you are attacking a straw man. Do you see why I ask people like yourself to QUOTE MY WORDS? It is to avoid exactly this kind of confusion and misunderstanding.
w.
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Thanks, Rud, good to hear from you. Sounds like a long way of saying that there’s no evidence that you’re willing to stand behind … but if that’s not the case, then please present the evidence. AS I SPECIFICALLY SAID, I’m not interested in the slightest in a dump of a bunch of papers on my desk as you’ve just done. Pick one that you will stand behind, and show us not the paper but the EVIDENCE that it is cooler during solar minima. I’m totally uninterested in theory at this point, let’s see your evidence that an effect actually exists before you start trying to explain why.
w.
We seem to be looking for a single cause, one that has a similar 11-yr cycle. What if it (11) is more a harmonic/beat frequency from contributory multiple causes? Or as mentioned, a function of something more subtle like what causes the sunspots to begin with? Sunspots are a result of something, right? While we cannot correlate very well with sunspots, perhaps there is something in the root cause of sunspots that correlates. No clues here, just asking.
Of course, looking for multiple related causes could be a lifetime grant…..
Willis, is it possible for you to shift the Dalton Minimum 11 years to the right on your figure 4, in essence delaying the effect by 11 years, please?
My eyeball test suggests that would tell a somewhat different story, but as my eyes aren’t what they used to be, I would appreciate a more accurate visual confirmation.
If my suspicions are correct, that would be kind of interesting given what is going on at Jo Nova’s….
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:47 pm
That T in CET forms a trough at the SSN (as previously measured) low, then, as you note, climbs later in the low sunspot period, supports the solar activity correlation with T, far from arguing against it. T descends into the minima, then climbs out of them, with high correlation to the numbers. You seem to suppose that SSN is constant throughout the decades of minima, as identified. Nothing could be further from the case. The minima are intervals of lower than usual SSN which end when the numbers return to average, but their depths of lowest number coincide with the lowest T observations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
Alec Rawls says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm
To say the least. In the first panel, he shows no less than 5 different historical temperature reconstructions, ALL OF WHICH ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT.
Thanks for the reference, Alec. However, I fail to see how that could demonstrate anything … in particular, he says
Look at the freakin’ graph … do you see the “high cosmic ray flux” around 1050? Care to point out the “cold temperature” associated with that? And in any case, with five totally different temperature datasets, saying something is “associated with” cold temperatures is a joke.
Next, according to Kirby (as well as the other datasets I’ve looked at) the earth warmed for the latter half of both the Maunder and the Dalton minima … what is Kirby’s (or your) explanation for that?
Finally, it appears that that the proxy data that they are using is Mann 2008 … see my post on that POS called “Kill It With Fire” … it’s worse than useless, it’s a misleading and pathetic joke.
And since that misleading proxy data seems to be what Kirby is relying on the most … well, you can do the math.
w.
Beyond the CET, one of many such papers finding climatic cycles from around the world:
Article: 500-year climate cycles stacking of recent centennial warming documented in an East Asian pollen record
Deke Xu, Houyuan Lu, Guoqiang Chu, Naiqin Wu, Caiming Shen, Can Wang, Limi Mao
ABSTRACT: Here we presented a high-resolution 5350-year pollen record from a maar annually laminated lake in East Asia (EA). Pollen record reflected the dynamics of vertical vegetation zones and temperature change. Spectral analysis on pollen percentages/concentrations of Pinus and Quercus, and a temperature proxy, revealed ,500-year quasi-periodic cold-warm fluctuations during the past 5350 years. This 500-year cyclic climate change occurred in EA during the mid-late Holocene and even the last 150 years dominated by anthropogenic forcing. It was almost in phase with a ,500-year periodic change in solar activity and Greenland temperature change, suggesting that ,500-year small variations in solar output played a prominent ole in the mid-late Holocene climate dynamics in EA, linked to high latitude climate system. Its last warm phase might terminate in the next several decades to enter another,250-year cool phase, and thus this future centennial cyclic temperature minimum could partially slow down man-made global warming.
Scientific Reports 01/2014; 4:3611.
Forget about the modeled mechanism if you want, but the lag is well supported:
Article: A Mechanism for Lagged North Atlantic Climate Response to Solar Variability.
Adam Scaife, Sarah Ineson, Jeff Knight, Lesley Gray, Kunihiko Kodera, Doug Smith
ABSTRACT: Variability in solar irradiance has been connected to changes in surface climate in the North Atlantic through both observational and climate modelling studies which suggest a response in the atmospheric circulation that resembles the North Atlantic Oscillation or its hemispheric equivalent the Arctic Oscillation. It has also been noted that this response appears to follow the changes in solar irradiance by a few years, depending on the exact indicator of solar variability. Here we propose and test a mechanism for this lag based on the known impact of atmospheric circulation on the Atlantic Ocean, the extended memory of ocean heat content anomalies and their subsequent feedback onto the atmosphere. We use results from climate model experiments to develop a simple model for the relationship between solar variability and North Atlantic climate.
Geophysical Research Letters 04/2013; 40(2):10733-
East Asia isn’t the only place those studies were done. The common thread about the LIA and the MWP that they were local events and not world wide according to the IPCC. All of the other ones agree with the East Asian studies. One in particular was done off the cost of Peru. Whatever the cause, whether the drop in sunspots is a direct or an indicator for something else, I’m staying with activity in the sun. Of course there can be other factors. But I think that no matter how you look at it, sunspot activity is related to climate change. I’m pretty sure this is just a rehash of what has been put out before in an effort to distance any relationship between solar activity and climate, leaving co2 as the only factor, with a slight twist that there actually was a globally warming and cooling before the current period. (hard for the IPCC to deny now, but the arguments were settled years ago, so it’s “settled science”, except it isn’t) Accepting that there were periods of warming and cooling in the recent past would have laid the burden on them to prove in the absence of increased or decreased co2, the causes, which they don’t have any. And of course let’s not forget the new and improved temperature reconstructions that show little temperature changes prior to the Industrial Revolution.
They have an agenda, accurate climate science isn’t it. Or science in general.
Don Easterbrook says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Thanks, Don. As I point out above, the CET clearly shows that during the latter part of both the Maunder and Dalton minima the temperatures warmed steadily … if you could explain how that WARMING is a result of a continuing long term solar COOLING you might have something.
As it stands, however, that is evidence AGAINST a solar cause.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:15 pm
“Next, according to Kirby (as well as the other datasets I’ve looked at) the earth warmed for the latter half of both the Maunder and the Dalton minima … what is Kirby’s (or your) explanation for that?”
As I noted above, the explanation should be obvious. SSN was rising during the latter part of the Maunder & Dalton Minima, which refer to decades of lower than average SSN, but not constantly low. The numbers fall into the trough, then rise out of it, but are below normal for the whole period.
Willis you break the rules of the AGW mob and wont be a candidate for funding. You look at the facts. Thank you.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Sorry, not true.
Check the data, sturgis. The Maunder SSNs rose well AFTER the start of the increase in temperature in ~1680. And in any case, because the effects are claimed to be cumulative, in that years of below-average temperatures are supposed to add up to make the cold period, we shouldn’t see any rise in temps until well after the rise in SSNs.
Finally, the Dalton minimum is only two cycles long … are we really supposed to believe that the 11-year cycle is not visible in any climate datasets, but if two of them occur together it causes detectable global cooling? You’ll have to explain how that is supposed to work …
w.
CET shows nothing there’s not even a slight trend if you include latest data 2014
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
Alec Rawls says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm (Edit)
Seriously? Look more closely, Alec. Half the time the isotopes lead the rafting, half the time they trail the rafting … and the rest of the time the isotopes have nothing to do with the rafting.
Not impressed in the slightest, sorry.
w.
BTW, I for one would not use BEST data for anything please refer to Steven Goddard and GISS NOAA, Hadcrut Etc. You will realize this in 10 years time when it hits the fan big time. Its only being realized now in mainstream media. LOL
Willis is like a dog with a bone. I have no doubt that he will eventually get to the marrow.
Oh, yeah, Alec, one more thing about “cosmogenic isotopes” (14C and 10Be). Before you can convince me that those isotope levels serve as a thermometer for the temperature in 1066, it would seem necessary to show that they serve as a thermometer for the temperature in 1966, or 1906 for that matter … I’ve never seen that evidence.
But you, as someone who obviously believes that cosmic rays are indeed thermometers, must have seen such evidence and can refer me to it.
Or, if you haven’t seen such evidence … then why do you believe that cosmic rays are good thermometers?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Maunder T did not bottom c. 1680. The coldest decade of the MM was probably the 1690s, or possibly 1686-95, depending upon data set. The coldest winter in the historical record for the past 500 years at least was 1708/9, but that was largely an extreme WX event in the midst of a multi-decade cold cycle.
Oceans (to store) and ocean circulation (to transfer) would seem to be the elephants in the room on decadal temperature variation. My 2 cents worth.
And if you don’t have a reason why sun spots heat the Earth then correlation is not causation and especially poor correlation is not weak causation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Alec Rawls says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“Kirkby’s 2008 survey paper cites a bunch of stuff. …”
… galactic cosmic rays (note the inverted scale; high cosmic ray fluxes are associated with cold temperatures) …
Look at the freakin’ graph … do you see the “high cosmic ray flux” around 1050? Care to point out the “cold temperature” associated with that? And in any case, with five totally different temperature datasets, saying something is “associated with” cold temperatures is a joke.
The cosmic ray ‘data’ is even more of a joke [or even a fraud]. What Kirby shows in Figure two
[reproduced here at the left] http://www.leif.org/research/Kirby-Flaw-GCR-14C.pdf as the cosmic ray flux [blue curve] is NOT the cosmic ray flux, but the flux with the geomagnetic modulation removed. At the right I show the true flux [as given by the 14C data] as the red curve. The large variation [red curve] over the past 200 years is not due to the Sun, but to the Earth’s varying magnetic field. If the real cosmic ray flux was a significant driver then the true flux should be plotted at the left, not the flux with the Earth’s variation removed.
Willis, did any you guys even bother to look at the magnetic field of the earth since it has decreased 10- 15 % since, oh my, since the Industrial Revolution? It should be apparent to you the cross sectional area at the poles is not doubled in field strength but squared. And since magnetic fields are not known to be smoothed, but can be stronger or weaker in places, the burden of proof is on you. I can ask all the questions within reason if you are trying to prove something that is not. Prove to me that it is not the magnetic field of the earth. Prove to me that there isn’t a relationship between the pressure gradient in the solar wind, the compression of the atmosphere (remember as the IPCC told me, a little makes a big difference) which also heats it up, ( they use that technique in the toamack reactor to bring gas to a plasma state, squeezing it by magnetic fields) you know like in a CME, the magnetic fields of other planets, namely Jupiter, as to whether they buck or boost that field strength. Cosmic ray flux is just the tip of the iceberg. Ignoring this will not make it go away, nor calling it an opinion. It’s a system, non linear and chaotic. Looking for precise pieces to this puzzle is ridiculous. It’s too bad you can’t see the relationship between sunspot activity and climate change, I can.
Eliza says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Thanks, Eliza, but I fear that an unexplained and unsupported opinion carries no weight on this scientific website. There are issues with the Berkeley Earth data, to be sure … but you haven’t even begun to show that it is not useful for comparing a few adjacent decades as I have done.
Eliza says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Say what? Each of those three datasets has a definite trend.
w.
Sturgishooper For the 1000 year quasi periodicity see Fig 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
The key uncertainty in climate forecasting is where we are in relation to this 1000 year periodicity .
Looking at the downtrend in solar activity since cycle 22 fig 9 and the temperature trends since 1000AD Fig 3 it would seem more likely than not that we have just passsed the peak and should head down (with some bumps ) for the next 600 years or so.
[reproduced here at the left] http://www.leif.org/research/Kirby-Flaw-GCR-14C.png
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:43 pm
My bad, moving a bit too fast, but it makes no difference to my point. My data shows 1694 as the coolest year, but you still need to explain why the temperatures started rising before the sunspots …
w.
Hi Willis. No, I won’t pick one paper and argue with you here rather than at JoNovas. My suggestion was to read them for background knowledge you may not have.
My sole point was clear. There are at least three influences: solar whatever, GHGs, and Earths own natural variations, of which ENSO, PDO, AMO and Arctic ice are evidence (coupled, who knows. I am intrigued by the stadium wave as an equivalent of a phase locked loop oscillator. Anybody with a cell phone owns one). To say that only one factor explains everything is wrong in my view. To say that one of those big three is not a factor at all is equally wrong for the same reasons, again in my view.
Factors meaning on decadal or longer time scales.
Don Easterbrook says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Glad to hear it … are you going to offer a link to the Tony Brown dataset, or is that a secret? Because I’m happy to look AT it, but no way I’m going to look FOR it …
w.
The data used in Figure 4 looks suspect. Perhaps it is reasonable to assume a greater error margin as you move back in time, but the filtered time series also shows larger swings (trends) as you go back in time and that is a sign those trends are noise. There is no reason to expect variations in Earth temperature trends to have reduced significantly over the past 400 years.
Trond Arne Pettersen says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Thanks, Trond. I think that anyone using an 11-year mean on sunspot/TSI data should study my document “Sunny Spots Along the Parana River” until they give up that pernicious averaging practice entirely.
w.
Tonyb says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Tonyb, thanks for your attempt, but dang it, QUOTE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!
Far as I’ve seen, nobody, especially me, has attributed the concept or the identification of the Little Ice Age to either Eddy or Lamb, so you are arguing against a claim that nobody has made.
Folks, it’s more than just a good idea to quote what you disagree with. The mere process of looking for the quote that you remember as being wrong can be very valuable in showing you that you may have misunderstood what someone is saying.
And as a result, it can keep you from making these kind of foolish mistakes attacking a non-existent position …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:59 pm
You have not shown that T did start rising before SSN. But even if it did, solar activity isn’t the only variable. However, within margin of error, the correlation with rising & falling T is at worst too close to call.
But if you have in fact compared the average annual T in CET with SSN, I’d appreciate seeing those data & your statistical analysis of correlation.
Motl has analyzed rate of cooling and warming for different periods in CET, although he hasn’t posted cold/hot rankings by ten-year period. He found the fastest cooling of the MM during the 30 years 1666-95 and the fastest warming from 1691 to 1720 (five years out of the MM as usually defined).
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Tonyb says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Tony, the idea that Mann’s reconstruction is anything but GIGO is laughable. You trying to use it in a scientific paper is a joke. It is well-known that Mann made a foolish newbie math error in that paper, using un-centered principal component analysis that mined for hockeysticks. He also lied about the analysis to a Senate committee, and refused to reveal his data and code despite numerous requests. Finally, he knew before he published it that his results were bogus, as he stashed away inconvenient results in a folder named CENSORED TO 1400 … and you think what he did is science?
Really?
I fear that your failure to deal with or even discuss these issues in your analysis renders your entire approach worse than useless. Sorry to say that, but when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Since you either can’t see or are unwilling to discuss the glaring and widely discussed problems with the Mann hockeystick analysis, why on earth should I pay even the slightest attention to your opinions on anything?
w.
The solar barycenter affects sunspots and solar magnetic flows, and only affects Earth’s climate incidentally.
Earth’s temperature is regulated by hurricanes, not CO2 or other aerosols. The gradual increase in temperature since the last major advance of ice 11,500 years ago is due to gradual planetary thawing after an anomalous ice dump, not CO2. When oceans get too hot, they make big storms that puncture the upper atmosphere, and transporting huge quantities of moist warm air. The heat radiates into space and the cold moist air falls back to Earth in various forms. The stronger the hurricane is, the greater the heat will be radiated into space and the greater quantity of cold moisture will cover the ground. This is why extreme cold follows extreme warmth.
The cold spells, such as this past winter, are caused by changes in the electrostatic and electromagnetic forces holding the polar atmosphere into place. Low solar output (not just sunspot activity) results in upper polar atmosphere over Greenland falling to the troposphere and giving cold winters in the Eastern US. It has nothing to do with the amount of heat leaving the Sun.
Changes in the electrostatic and electromagnetic activity of the Earth at the planetary scale also affects the intensity and path of the jet streams, ocean currents, and cloud formation.
Willis
You referenced the relation between Sunspot minima and temperature as being a relatively modern idea dating to 1976 .
I was merely pointing out that the lia ( and the sunspot association that was the point of the article) dates back to way before this time.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything else, merely that eddy was the latest in a long line of correspondents.
As regards the association between sunspots and low temperatures, whilst there appears to be a correlation at times, there appears to be limited correlation at other times, when it would have been expected, according to the theory. As an example the sporer from 1500 to 1550 appears to have been rather warm. The 1450 to1500 sporer period however appears to have been rather cold.
Tonyb
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Fine, Rud. Then go back to Jo’s. If you don’t want to reveal your evidence, then you’re of no interest to me. Why should I talk science with someone who won’t take a stand and defend it with evidence?
Regarding discussing things with you at Jo’s, as I told Jo and David, I’m not doing anything further at JoNova until she and David publish all of the hidden data, code, equations, model, out-of-sample testing, and the rest of the stuff she’s refused to reveal to date. That kind of withholding and doling out of data and results isn’t my idea of science, so I said over there that I’m out of their game until she decides to stop faffing around and to act in a transparent and scientific fashion by publishing everything.
w.
Does anyone here know or have a suspicion as to what caused the Little Ice Age?
Steve from Rockwood says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Thanks, Steve, an interesting observation. First, recall what I said, viz:
Second, the greater variation is not a sign of greater “noise” as you claim. Instead, it is the inevitable result of using a smaller number of stations which are located in a smaller geographical area. Both of those will lead to greater variance in the signal … but that doesn’t make it “noise”. It is still the real average of real data.
And yes, I’d love to have better data … but it’s what we have.
Regards,
w.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm
In my opinion, lots of folks have suspicions, but nobody knows. I’ve never seen an explanation that’s held water for either why we went into the LIA (long before the Maunder minimum) or why we’ve been gradually warming ever since then.
w.
Willis
The long slow thaw was not a polemic. It was a serious study using measured language and incorporating thousands of references that examined the period to 1538 and used as a guide the studies of both Mann and lamb. I make it quite clear there, and in various other articles that I do not agree with Mann. He does not begin to reflect natural variability and I have said this numerous times here and elsewhere over the past five years.
Whatever our personal opinions of him and his science he remains far more credible than you or I and consequently we have to deal with that in our own way. I choose to do it in a measured way and you will have a different approach.
Tonyb
Gee what totally convinced me, the killer fact – so to speak was that in the ‘decade 1425 to1435 ‘Global Temps’ declined at their fastest rate on record. I mean at that point for me the science was settled.
Huh?
Wa?
In 1593!!!! Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermoscope, which for the first time, allowed temperature variations to be measured.
Darn!
(You know I’m beginning to think that Willis is actually parodying ‘Climate Scientists’ who seem to be able to hang the grandest theories on the flimsiest of data.)
By the way I was down at the beach for a paddle just then and I noticed that the ‘Pacific Ocean’ was warmer than it usually is at this time of year.
rishrac says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Thanks, rishrac. I hate to say it, but clearly you have a deep fundamental misunderstanding of science. In science, nothing can every be proven. So asking me to prove something is meaningless.
In addition, you misunderstand the burden of proof. For example, if you think that the earth’s magnetic field strength or the magnetic field strength of Jupiter affects the climate, then it is your job to come up with the detailed theory and the evidence for that claim. And you may be right about the magnetic fields, there’s lots we don’t know about the climate.
When you do come up with your detailed theory and your supporting evidence, I encourage you strongly to write it up and send it to Anthony, so that everyone can see if they can find fault with your logic or your data or your code or your evidence. If nobody can find fault with it, then it gets provisionally accepted as valid until the day someone may eventually find something that supercedes it.
But your idea that it’s up to me to “prove” that your vague, detail-free, physical mechanism free, evidence-free claims are untrue?
Sorry … that’s not how science works.
Since I can’t show a negative (i.e. that the 11-year sunspot cycle doesn’t affect the climate), what I’m doing is showing in as many climate datasets as possible that there is no significant effect. But no, I can’t prove that. All I can do is stack up contrary evidence.
w.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm
I suspect the same causes as of the prior centennial- or sub-millennial-scale cool spells which follow and precede warm phases of interglacials, which may well be the same as during glacials.
For the post-Optimum Holocene, to wit, the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages and Little Ice Age Cold Periods, for example.
Willis, you are not your usual self today. I must say, your somewhat snide ( in my view) reply to TonyB just above proves it. Anybody who is following these debates knows what ClimateReason is trying to do through painstaking original historical research. His website explains it in detail.
Understand natural variability back behind CET. And anybody who has bothered to read his fascinating posts (mostly at CE) would know he is as much or more critical of Mann’s hockey stick than Steve MacIntrye. And, in my opinion, with better popular arguments against the Mannian erasure of natural variability. Not everybody gets white noise/red noise and all that fancy statistical math. Everybody gets blizzards, rains, heat waves that caused crop failures, and such.
Calm down, and stop swinging so wildly at ‘friends’ like Tony, Don Easterbrook, etc.
Unfortunately for you, those wild swings are unlikely to be ‘disappeared’ as they probably would at SkS, RC, or other Warmunist sites.
IMO, Lassen has not been shown false:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Excerpt:
Long-term Variations in Solar Activity
and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate
K.Lassen
Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division,
Lyngbyvej,100, DK-2100 Copenhagen (2), Denmark
Abstract
The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series.
Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist.
A corresponding influence of solar activity has been demonstrated in other climatic parameters. Thus, both the date of arrival of spring in the Yangtze River Valley as deduced from phenological data and the extent of the sea-ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea have been shown to be correlated with the length of the sunspot cycle during the last 450 years.
Conclusion
70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
Introduction
Variations in the activity of the Sun greatly influence the physics of the upper atmosphere. Thus, magnetic disturbances, occurrence of auroras at low latitudes, sporadic ionization above -80 km altitude, and – as a consequence of the latter – reduced quality of shortwave radio transmissions all appear to follow the approximately 11-year soler activity cycle. This cycle is most distinctly seen in two observed parameters: the sun- spot number and the 10,7 cm radiation. For analytical purposes the intensity of the 10,7 cm radiation may be the best suited, but it has the drawback that observations were first initiated in the 1950s. For studies involving longer data series the only usable directly observed signature of solar activity is the varying number of sunspots. This has been subject of observation through several hundred years and may be regarded as reliable since 1750 (Eddy, 1976). The sunspot number, generally denoted R, is highly correlated with the 10,7 cm flux.
Tonyb says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Nonsense. Read the climategate emails, you’ll see that the other scientists thought he was full of bull, and that his study was nonsense. And his credibility was further damaged by his illegal actions in advocating and participating in the destruction of documents sought under a Freedom of Information Act request.
Finally, his wild attacks and his lawsuits have turned the stomach of even hardened activists. As a result, he’s way marginalized at this point, and his credibility is shot.
But my main point is, it has been clearly demonstrated that his hockeystick results were obtained through INCORRECT MATH. Is there some part of that which is not clear? His results are meaningless junk … and you clinging to them and citing them and discussing them as though they had not been thoroughly falsified destroys your own credibility entirely. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas—you cite and discuss garbage as though it were science, and everyone will conclude that your science is garbage. You may not like it, my anonymous friend, but that’s how the world works.
w.
Does anyone here know or have a suspicion as to what caused the Medieval Warm Period (in the northern hemisphere only)? – (Some scientists provide evidence of its global nature). Other scientists argue that it was not synchronous, ie they have no evidence that it was not globally synchronous. An obvious outlier suggest it may have been. (If only we had thermometers with good spread back in the day. Even today we argue about thermometer placement in the US OF A).
Dmitri Mauquoy et. al. – 2004
Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits
Willis writes: “Finally, it appears that that the proxy data that [Kirkby is] using is Mann 2008 … And since that misleading proxy data seems to be what Kirby is relying on the most … well, you can do the math.”
Nope, he is using Moberg 2005 [Kirkby’s reference #29, cited in the caption to Figure 2].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1938.pdf
“Look at the freakin’ graph … do you see the “high cosmic ray flux” around 1050? Care to point out the “cold temperature” associated with that?
The graph does indeed show a substantial dip in GCR, but only vis a vis the very high levels before and after. At bottom it gets around Dalton level, and the temperature proxies do indeed show a modest (Dalton sized) dip in global temperatures around that time. Not that I wouldn’t expect to see some counter-examples–other things besides solar activity might also affect climate–but I don’t see how this is a counter-example at all.
“why do you believe that cosmic rays are good thermometers?”
I don’t think they are thermometers at all. I think the cosmogenic isotopes that cosmic rays create have the potential to provide a usable proxy for solar activity, if they can be sufficiently dated and calibrated. Thermometers measure temperature, which is a variable that may or may not be driven by solar activity. I want to COMPARE the cosmic ray record to thermometers (to the temperature record) in order to judge whether temperature may be driven by solar activity.
Leif’s link tohis graph of Kirkby’s 14C data before the geomagnetic impact was removed does not seem to be working.
http://www.leif.org/research/Kirby-Flaw-GCR-14C.pdf
Do you have another link Leif?
philjourdan says:
June 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Divide by the square root of -1? LOL!
You are imagining things.
@M Simon – A requirement for ‘i’ numbers. 😉
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Tony Brown of Climate Reason is hardly anonymous.
The idea that sunspots influence temperature goes back to William Herschel.
For many years people have tried to use sunspots to forecast the weather without much success … unless the Farmer’s Almanac and Piers Corbyn count … or maybe not.
Is my second question now spam? I simply asked for the suspected cause of the Medieval Warm Period and its global scale and synchrony. Does anyone have a lead on this?
TODAY we are in a fierce debate about measuring temperature with satellites and modern thermometers. Now go back 1,000 years. How is it that your could grow figs in Germany and the rest of the world was just staying cold? (Mann et al). These are serious questions.
Mann et al
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm
“Solar activity has been pretty much flat the past 300 years. For the Maunder Minimum we just had a workshop on that. Here is a report …”
I was the only member of the public in attendance at the Extreme Space Weather Events Workshop you mentioned, via GoToMeeting. I have all 14 Maunder Minimum pre-workshop papers and the presentations. I specifically paid very close attention to what you were saying in your presentations. Dr. Svalgaard, your statement about a “flat” solar output only applies to the Sun’s magnetic cycle, not the sunspot number cycle, which are not the same thing, as you know.
You have reconstructed the magnetic cycle with your IHV index successfully. Good job. You’ve been working on a sunspot reconstruction process also, the results of which you indicate on page 29, the last page of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt. Anyone who looks at the nearly 300 year SSN history recontruction of yours will come away realizing it isn’t even close to flat over the centuries or even the most recent decades/cycles.
You know we don’t get our light and heat from the Sun via the magnetic flux, you know we get it from the irradiance, the “photon flux”, by definition, also a measure of “brightness”. You also know the F10.7cm flux is used as a solar activity proxy, which has a very nearly linear relationship to SSN over time, and represents radiant activity very well, which is why it is used. You know the Sun’s electric field is the basis for the photon flux definition, and you know that the photon flux is what heats the planets. You also know that the area under either the SSN or F10.7 flux curves integrated over time represents the total amount of solar heating we have received over that time.
Your page 29 SSN graph clearly indicates major differences between cycles. You must know that the amount of heat the planets receive via photon flux has varied significantly over time, cycle to cycle. In fact, a professional like you knows all about the daily solar data reports found here http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/quar_DSD.txt . I recommend everyone look at the day-to-day variation of solar output as registered there in SSN, 10.7 flux, and solar flares. There you will notice activity levels that vary over short time periods in magnitude exceeding the oft-quoted 0.1% variation in TSI. UV is also known to change much more in magnitude than higher wavelengths.
So now everyone else knows that the solar activity that counts towards changing the temperature here, through UV penetration into the ocean and atmospheric water vapor, and through IR, changes day-to-day, week-to-week, monthly, yearly, by the decade, and by the solar cycle. Every solar cycle has a length and magnitude that differ from each other most of the time. The recent “modern maximum” in solar activity – notice I didn’t say “grand maximum” – because it’s not necessary – even if by chance it is true – has provided enough extra heating of the ocean over its cooling rate to accumulate more ocean heat content (OHC). The discharge of that heat over time obscures the direct effect of relative amounts of solar heating, and makes it very difficult to extract an average solar cycle length temperature signal. You can ask Willis about that last part.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of accumulated OHC, please see David Stockwell’s two papers linked at the top of this article http://landshape.org/enm/solar-supersensitivity-a-new-theory/ (his blog is on the Skeptical Views list on the sidebar above, Niche Modelling – David Stockwell) , or yesterdays post by Paul Vaughn here : http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20140622%20Sun%20&%20SAM%20(Southern%20Annular%20Mode).pdf .
You cannot say that the Sun doesn’t vary enough to change the climate, when in fact the Earth responds to the Sun’s variable heating every day, changing the weather statistics every day that are used to generate long-term climate statistics, all the while “yesterday’s” solar heat stored in the ocean is also releasing and affecting temperatures, while the Earth continually cools to space via several outlets. You definitely cannot say with any veracity that the Sun’s heat output has been “flat” for 300 years, going completely against the accumulated experience and history of observers throughout that time, and the very laws of physics, and your own SSN reconstruction.
The challenge we all face is understanding the different contributions to temperature data from heat released via the oceans, solar direct heating, and the various cooling rates over different parts of the globe. Whatever CO2 does in relationship to temperature, IF it does anything, would also be modulated by the ever-changing solar radiant output.
Dr. Svalgaard you are a true pioneer in our understanding of solar activity and geomagnetics. However, the point is, the Sun does vary, enough.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:18 pm
These are serious questions.
==========
Exactly
Jimbo says:
Does anyone here know or have a suspicion as to what caused the Medieval Warm Period…
I suspect it’s like ringing a bell. You can see it here. The planet emerges from the last great stadial, then rings until it finally stops and enters the next one.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:03 pm
I suspect the same causes as for the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Minoan, Roman and Modern Warm Periods, and those between the Optimum and the Minoan.
Anyone who denies that the Medieval Warm Period was global ignores objective reality. The evidence is overwhelming. If anything, it was more pronounced in some other regions of the globe than the North Atlantic zone.
You can see it better here.
dbstealey says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:27 pm
The duration of interglacials depends chiefly on Earth’s orbital and rotational parameters. They vary in length by a factor of at least three, but probably more. Please excuse my source:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html
Whenever anybody mentions the sunspot cycles and those notable minimal periods, the source of information I turn to is the book, by “Willie” Wei Hok Soon; and Stephen H Yaskell, “The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth System.”
I’m guessing that Yaskell was more of a ghost author, as it’s a quite lengthy narrative and Dr. Soon probably felt he needed some help with his English. But I don’t know that, and wish I had asked Willie about that, when he referred me to that book of theirs.
It’s an extremely informative book, and Dr. Willie Soon, is a fun person to chat with, even in just a few e-mails.
And I notice, that he is one of the named three “heroes” of climate realism. He is well deserving of that recognition.
Buy the book; it is well worth the modest price.
I really don’t care whether it’s the sun or not. I do want to know the causes of LIA and MWP? I realise that we don’t know. I asked the questions knowing that we don’t know. Yet we ‘do know’ what the hot and bother is all about today. Just food for thought.
I really do want an answer to this simple question. How is it that the Medieval Warm Period was os hemispherical? Read below first.
Bob Weber says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm
====
Thank you Bob
Leif’s link to his graph of Kirkby’s 14C data before the geomagnetic impact was removed does not seem to be working. Try:
http://www.leif.org/research/Kirby-Flaw-GCR-14C.png
Bob Weber says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Dr. Svalgaard you are a true pioneer in our understanding of solar activity and geomagnetics. However, the point is, the Sun does vary, enough.
The recent work on the SSN, shows that solar activity in the 20th, 19th, and 18th centuries were pretty much the same: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png
Of course the Sun varies, but there has been no long-term trend the past 300 years. The variation seems to be quasi-cyclic with about a 100-yr ‘period’. So, I don’t know what you mean by ‘enough’.
Thanks. I am however more concerned with LIA and MWP. Those periods are the cause for great angst. The other periods can be waffled and easily explained away. – solar insolation for example.
Willis says: “Look more closely [at Bond’s graph], Alec. Half the time the isotopes lead the rafting, half the time they trail the rafting … and the rest of the time the isotopes have nothing to do with the rafting.”
Bond apparently posted some supplemental information on this issue when his paper was published. I haven’t looked into it, but it is referenced in the first column on his page 2133 where he writes:
Not sure how they dated the ice rafting debris but it was apparently not by cosmic nucleotides. In other words, they were not directly comparing the temperature proxy (amount of debris) to the solar activity proxies (14C and 10Be) by measuring both within the same geologic layer, but rather were using an independent method to date the rafting debris and comparing it to solar proxies from other sources.
This makes dating error on both sides relevant, with the potential discrepancy being equal to the sum of the possible errors on each side. Bond evidently went through the data by hand to see how many of the timing issues that you are noticing could be due to dating error. Of course these same dating errors also call into question his claimed results.
Web 3 sounds worth a look if anyone knows where to find it, but offhand I wouldn’t expect the dating accuracy to be such that inflection points would all lining up correctly even if solar activity were at all points the dominant climate driver (which I don’t think Bond is claiming).
I love ruds appeal to friends. Like jos appeal to friends with lubos.
Willis and I are friends. We attack each others ideas. Like real friends only can.
Once again nobody can offer evidence.
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Before Edward Walter Maunder (1851-1928) and Annie Scott Dill Russell Maunder (1868-1947), there was Friederich Wilhelm Gustav Spörer (1822-95).
And Frederick William (or Friedrich Wilhelm) Herschel (1738-1822) , of course.
The connection between sunspots and climate wasn’t first noted in 1976.
Steven Mosher says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:52 pm
You haven’t been paying attention. Willis has offered no evidence. Many others have done so.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm
I beg to differ. There is no way to hand wave away the Holocene Optimum, the Egyptian, Minoan and Roman Warm Periods and intervening cold periods, or the fact that prior interglacials have been warmer than this one. That the Team is concerned only with the Medieval Warm Period and the LIA doesn’t mean that skeptics should limit their critique of the “consensus” GHG hypothesis to just the past millennium.
But IMO it doesn’t matter, since the explanation for the MWP and LIA should prove the same as for previous warm and cool phases of this and prior interglacials.
“Once again nobody can offer evidence.”
=======
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/global-land-TAVG-Trend.txt
Years 1801-19.
Clearly we need to collect good data for the next 4 or 5 solar minima and maximums; then draw some decent conclusions to design some experiments for the next couple of centuries.
Maybe the models will be useful at that point.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm
I further suspect that the main underlying cause of both Bond Cycles in interglacials and the more pronounced D-O Cycles during glacials is ocean current variations, abrupt changes in which might be triggered by sudden outbursts of fresh water or SST from lagged solar variations, among other possible drivers of circulation and salinity and temperature parameters.
I trust I’ve made myself sufficiently vague.
Anthony:
Read this –
vukcevic says:
June 23, 2014 at 1:30 pm
[snip – no, we aren’t going there, and I’m not going to have you overrun another thread with your link bombing. Plate tectonics don’t have anything to do with this discussion -Anthony]
—————————————————–
Snip me if need be but I am quite interested in the effects of water or land at the poles, as well as circum-global currents or lack there of on our global climate. Another post perhaps!…
I will second that vote. I think it’s EXTREMELY NARROW to presume that plate technonics may not have any influence on climate. RING OF FIRE, Anthony…ever heard of that? Why are there no “active volcanoes on the Atlantic side? Why do we have the hot spots, Iceland, Yellowstone and Hawaii? Plate tectonics have begun to give the answers to those questions. AND, because of the discharges into the atmosphere from said volcanoes, there may well be a “cause effect” on long term atmospheric physics. Remember the underwater volcanoes offshore from Antarctica might yet be shown to have influence on the floating ice. What other connections are there with the crustal surface, the surface water interface, and the dynamics and composition of the atmosphere. I don’t know completely myself. I’m hesitant to dismiss there posibility off hand. It is ILLUMINATING to note that 99.99% of all geologists (applied, AKA petroleum and mining) and academic, regarded plate techtonics as an “impossible theory” by a turn of the century (radical) French geologist. He was right, they were wrong.
REPLY: Well if you can show that plate tectonics change in 11 year cycles, or some other direct measurable sun-earth relationship, it might be worth discussing on a new thread, but I reserve the right to keep this one on track. – Anthony
When tackling Warmists, try to stick to the goalposts. If not you will get a red card.
The Arctic Ocean was ice free during the Holocene Climate Optimum. You CANNOT use this argument against Warmists, but you at least have a basis to use the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Check it out. Why do you think they are OBSESSED with these TWO period? Do you hear them screaming about the Holocene Hypsithermal? Solar.
Jimbo says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:17 pm
I lack your long and heroic exposure to Warmunistas. I don’t know why you can’t use the thousands of almost ice free Arctic Ocean summers during the Holocene Optimum against them, but must accept your experience that they have some excuse for this fact. If it’s insolation, then they are wrong.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19299.full
Max Hugoson says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Which French geologist was that? I know of a German, Wegener, and a South African, du Toit (of partial French Huguenot ancestry), but no French geologist in the early history of plate tectonics. Please enlighten me. Thanks.
My first impression is you are trying to match things too closely. If the sun’s output changes, there are any number of lag effects, coupled with ocean cycles, which means any review of past temperature data with the sun’s output is not going to match exactly.
I do think this is the problem above, and your problem in general with examining the sun as the driver of climate. The alarmists do the same thing in the opposite direction, they dismiss late 20th century warming as being caused by the sun because the sun’s output was not increasing during this time, without accounting for lag effects and ocean cycles. The same sort of problem extends back into past history with your graphs above.
‘Lambs winter severity index’ is not a reliable indicator, for example. You are mixing an index of part of a year with an index of the sun’s output. Add lag effects, ocean cycles, problems with data, and it is meaningless.
The sun does not, and will not, EXACTLY match temperature indices due to variable lag and feedback effects which can span the order of decades, particularly with regards to the oceans, (which are entirely absent from the above discussion). Ocean changes have been suggested to account for some of the variability with regards to temperature proxies in some of Mann’s reconstructions, for example. The 20th century is also case in point, the PDO greatly complicated solar activity and the temperature record. Selected temperature indices may or may not match solar indices.
I have noticed that as I have gotten older and wiser, everything and I mean EVERYTHING I thought I knew was wrong. I could write a book on how wrong I have been.
Now Willis comes along and skewers the cause of the Maunder and Dalton minimums and when I look at the graphs I see noise.
Could it be possible that the Solar/Global energy flux is in equilibrium and always has been? What an idea.
I know what else doesn’t have an 11 year cycle – human activity of any sort.
Max Hugoson says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Dunno about the very roughly 11 year average solar cycle, but orbital cycles may affect volcanism.
The moon of course has often been cited as a tidal force on the crust and what lies below. But then there’s also this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/earths-orbital-cycles-may-trigger-peaks-of-volcanic-eruptions/
Dammit Willis, you always manage to make everything seem so …. uncertain.
The above is sarcasm/irony. I am grateful you are ruthlessly skeptical with all claims. Science can only work when every claim must be supported and can withstand the most rigorous cross examination. Keep up the good work.
The more I investigate climate and claims regarding climate change the more I come to the opinion that we simply don’t know, which is preferable to believing empty assertions of consensus.
As Mark Twain said:
What we know that we don’t know is a challenge and an opportunity. What we know for sure that just ain’t so will bite us.
“””””…..You know we don’t get our light and heat from the Sun via the magnetic flux, you know we get it from the irradiance, the “photon flux”, by definition, also a measure of “brightness”. …..”””””
Well strictly speaking, we don’t get either one of those things (light and heat) from the sun.
Yes, we do get the energy (electro-magnetic radiation) from the sun, but we make all the “heat”, right here on earth, and the “light” is all in your head, generated by your eye-brain partnership.
We even use quite different units, such as lumen, candela, lux, etc. to specify “light”, and differentiate it from EM radiant energy, which we measure in regular energy units, such as joule.
Irradiance is neither a measure of “photon flux” nor of “brightness.”
Irradiance is strictly a property of radiant power received on a surface, measured in watt per steradian per square metre
“Brightness” is a bastardized term for “Radiance” which has the unit of watt per steradian per square metre, and applies only to sources of radiant energy.
We use Radiant Emittance or radiant Exitance in watt per square meter, for sources of radiant energy; and Radiant Incidence in watt per square meter when referring to reception by irradiated surfaces. The angular distribution is irrelevant, when using those measures. One could describe that as radiant flux, but not “photon flux”, which would relate to photon numbers, and thus would be relevant only for radiation of a specific known photon energy. (wavelength or frequency).
The use of “brightness” as a scientific measure, is discouraged, because of its colloquial, every day common usage, as some nebulous property of “things”.
BUT ! when it IS used pseudo-scientifically, it invariably relates to “xxxxxx” per steradian per square metre., where “xxxxxx” could be radiant power (watt) or photometric “power” (lumen) or it is even used to specify the “brightness” of say an electron or ion source in some variety of units.
People messing around with particle sources , or even material evaporation sources, are presumably not third avenue street people, so generally they DO know precisely what they mean when talking “brightness” of whatever exotica sources they are mucking around with. So they sort of have Papal dispensation, to talk so loosely.
No derogation of third avenue street people is intended by any of the above.
And for the legal disclaimer; this was written straight out of my head, so no assurance can be given, that some French agency, has some nit picking differences, with my words and or speeling or capitalizations or even punctuation. But do use the correct terms, if you want to be understood.
Genghis says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Willis has not skewered anything. The “cause” of the Maunder and Dalton Minima is by definition the low number of sunspots observed during those decades. That is not in dispute, except possibly by Svalgaard’s team, intent upon changing how sunspots are counted. But I don’t know if they deny the existence of the minima.
What Willis is trying to show is that sunspot number is not correlated with climatic data sets of his choosing. This he has failed to do, as with his quest to show no correlation with the average 11 year solar cycle. To prove a negative requires doing much more work than he has done, while also ruling out all the lags and offsets that might mask the effect in the few, random, crude, mathematically questionable at best analyses he has done. This is not science but special pleading and bias confirmation on steroids.
A good time to revisit (vis esp figure 2)
Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?
M Lockwood, R G Harrison, T Woollings and S K Solanki,
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext/
CET winters were indeed sporadically colder during the Maunder, but not all winters. This aligns with the theory that low solar activity destabilizes the polar vortex, which allows cold air to move southward en masse. Sometimes, as last winter, the mass moves over the US, sometimes it will visit Europe.
Also,
Solar Forcing of RegionalClimate Change During the Maunder Minimum
Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, David Rind, Anne Waple
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
England has an oceanic climate. Continental interiors fared worse.
“””””…..sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:56 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Before Edward Walter Maunder (1851-1928) and Annie Scott Dill Russell Maunder (1868-1947), there was Friederich Wilhelm Gustav Spörer (1822-95).
And Frederick William (or Friedrich Wilhelm) Herschel (1738-1822) , of course.
The connection between sunspots and climate wasn’t first noted in 1976…….”””””
I said NO such thing. Please stop posting utter rubbish, with false attributions to me.
Some descriptive thoughts:
1. Good scientific speculators are very specific, allowing others to take their specific and detailed statements and work and hold them up to public scrutiny.
2. Bad scientific speculators are not specific, often making implausible and unsupported statements and unfalsifiable proposals.
3. Good scientific speculators make a herculean effort to find just one instance in the data that refutes the proposed speculation. If they find one, they look for more and spare us the drive by “It’s the [ ] stupid” comments.
4. Bad scientific speculators do not look for any refutation. They only look for and use metrics that support their speculation.
5. Good scientific speculators vet their literature, doing the hard job of critiquing supporting research to see if it will likely hold up to public scrutiny.
6. Bad scientific speculators throw out “supporting” links without having done the hard work that is theirs to do.
If you have speculated on a proposed theory for these odd periods of history, which of these are you?
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?
Soon’s book is valuable, but the Maunders were not the first to recognize the low sunspot numbers of the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:47 pm
So Willis is a bad speculator? We already knew that.
HI Willis,
Have you looked at the maximum temperatures in this record? Just an idea. Cool weather in the day time means pasture does not grow so well or crops germinate etc.
But, in Central Queensland we went through the 1969-1970 drought – no rain for 18 months. It was warm and cloudy through that second winter, then the drought broke with a 12 inch storm in September, that caused a flood that took all the unprotected (cf no grass cover) top soil and flattened miles of fencing.. That is beside the point.
During the drought we examined closely the rainfall record for our area – Springsure has record from 1863. In it we found the 11year cycle – two 11 year cycles, actually, that followed each other. One was wetter than the other although the actual amount of rain varied in each. Last century, the 1950 decade was wetter in CQ than any previous before the 1890s and then we had the 1970s – again very wet (1974 we had 31 inches in January. We sold out in 76 so have not studied stuff so much since.
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 pm
You can find standard definitions for everything I mentioned, and brightness is part of it. Notice you made a much much bigger deal out of the use of that word than I did, although Jack Eddy reported in the BBC video circa 1977 “The Sunspot Mystery” that people back during the Maunder Minimum observed the sun to be “dim”. That qualitative observation can be tested scientifically in this day and age. That video link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3frXY_rG8c . I recommend it for it’s historical perspective.
So here is what I am hearing. You have to take the temperature data and wring the shit out of it through several bottom up Earth soaks, cycles, delayed washings, and rinses before you can discern the top down solar imprint on the trend. Yes? And the various solar enthusiasts here are arguing over the exact number of bottom up Earth soaks, cycles, delayed washings, and rinses. Yes?
Do you see my point? What I am hearing from solar enthusiasts is that the temperature trends are made up mostly of Earth’s soaks, cycles, delayed washings, and rinses. The process of extracting the solar signal from the wrung out temperature data takes a tiny set of tweezers gently shoved up a gnat’s ass.
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm
You’ve exaggerated what some are saying about some data sets while overlooking the simple fact that it was colder during the SSN minima, with whatever lag, than during the intervals preceding and following them. There’s no way around that simple, indisputable fact.
It comes through in every relevant global physical scientific data set, in the historical, economic and cultural records, no matter where you look. So by solar enthusiasts, I assume you mean those who look dispassionately at the data.
This has been posted before – this shot clip from the global warming swindle does claim that the 11 year cycle is visible in tree ring proxy data and diatom proxies. I don’t know if links to the data and study used are available, but some digging should result in the data used for this presneation
( I don’t want to waste your precious time and thus the video may not be of much value without links to data).
However, I do find it strange that the author claims that the 11 year cycle and effects are easy seen in tree ring and diatom proxies.
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Regarding snideness, I see no difference in these comments from Willis’ norm. Indeed, he seems if anything less ad hominem and aggressively dismissive here than usual.
If I were looking for an indicator to relate weather to the human experience, I would look at the Growing Degree Days.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
For any lay readers interested in Soon’s work but lacking the time to read his book, here’s a pretty good summary:
http://www.suspicious0bserverscollective.org/the-blog/space-weather-the-maunder-minimum-solar-activity-vs-cosmic-ray-activity
Hey Mosher, before anything else, go explain your BEST Amundsen research station temperature modification from zero trend to a 0.2C warming trend.
For those who do not know, Amundsen is the exact South Pole science research base (home of famous BICEPT2 and the recent microwave background polarization possiblemfindingmprovingmbothninflation and gravity waves–although independent confirmations awaited, since there is a cosmic dust question their data cannot resolve). BEST modified the Amundsen/Scott careful scientific temperature record by eliminating 26 cold lows that ‘did not correspond to the regional climatology’. Data posted on BEST website for all to see, station 166900. Now, the problem is that Antarctica ” regional climatology” is either a BEST model fiction, or comprises data from the other Antarctic research bases like McMurdo–all of which are along the coasts and moderated by oceans. WTF! The BEST quality control manufacturing slight warming at the South Pole is a self evident fail. Subtract out all the extreme colds measured at the South Pole scientific research station in order to produce warming there in BEST data! It is posted on your website for all who care to look. Berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/166900 Too late to take down or fix, since has been archived.
No fancy math needed to see the complete logical screwup in your BEST upward adjustment of the worlds most remote scientific research base’ exact temperature record.
You, Muller, and BEST should be relieved that you are too insignificant to be a direct target in my forthcoming next book on climate and energy, due out perhaps in the fall. Wrote you in, then edited you out. Bigger fish to fry. So many easy targets, I had to decide which ducks to shoot. Perhaps worth reconsidering…Since 166900 is a big fat easy duck.
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:22 pm
Thanks for helping to expose the shameless “data adjustment” scam, which is finally starting to get ink in the MSM. The whole hoax is unraveling before our eyes, thanks at least as much to Mother Nature slapping the fraudsters down as to the efforts of pro-science skeptics over the past four decades.
Steven M. Mosher, B.A. English, Northwestern University (1981); Teaching Assistant, English Department, UCLA (1981-1985); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Corporation [Grumman] (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering [Simulation], Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Corporation (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment, Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President of Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); Founder and CEO, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-2012); Vice President of Sales and Marketing, VizzEco Inc. (2010-2011); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-2013); Advisory Board, urSpin (n.d.); Team Member, Berkeley Earth 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization unaffiliated with UC Berkeley (2013-Present)
Mosher writes “Once again nobody can offer evidence.”
I’m only sceptical of the evidence he is using. I dont think TSI (as proxied by sunspots) is an effective enough measure to be definitive.
For example if the only “sun data” I had was the time the sun rose and the time the sun set and I note that data, when averaged over enough years, leads to the conclusion the sun doesn’t impact on our climate. …then well thats intuitively a weak argument.
IMO using TSI is also a weak argument when we know the wavelengths that make up that total vary considerably…and the different waverlengths interact with our planet’s atmosphere and oceans differently and we dont really know how they vary over the longer term.
sturgishooper, which cold period are we talking about? Both? More than the two in the lead post? And what do you consider to be the time spans of these cold periods? There are different opinions in the scientific literature as to when these cold periods began and ended.
Willis said:
?w=840
“As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.”
And yet the three coldest periods are all in solar minima, cycles 12-14 was a minima too. The data disagrees with you.
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm
With respect to Willis’ post, just the Maunder and Dalton. But no matter which definition you prefer, the Maunder and Dalton were cooler than the periods before, in between and after them.
The same is true for other minima, eg the Spörer, Wolf and Oort. In denying this connection, you’re setting yourself up against 200 years of science by the best scientists who studied the issue, starting with Herschel. You could be right, but without abundant evidence supporting your view, please excuse me if I go with Herschel, Spörer, Maunder, Lamb and Eddy, et al.
No disrespect intended, but I have to wonder why you fail to find a solar influence on climate.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:52 pm
I wish I could be as sure of anything with evidence as Willis, my neighbor Pamela, Mosher & the Team are without evidence, indeed with all or the preponderance of evidence against their faith.
True belief is proof against all assaults by reality.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm
Data? We don’ need no stinkin’ data!
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:01 pm
“I beg to differ. There is no way to hand wave away the Holocene Optimum, the Egyptian, Minoan and Roman Warm Periods and intervening cold periods, or the fact that prior interglacials have been warmer than this one.”
Now you’re talking climate cycles, which raises the risk of causing coronary events among several of the principals here. The operative is “Don’t Go There.” We must avert our eyes.
I compared the “400 years of Sunspot Observations” against the “Central England Temperature 1659-present”. I think that using the sunspot observations is better than assigning a date range to the two minima.
Until 1700 the sunspot is near 0 and the temp is falling. Both are at their minimum.
From 1700 to 1725 both are increasing rapidly.
Apart from the Dalton Minimum, the sunspot count doesn’t change much until the 2nd half of the 20th century. Neither does the temperature.
In the 2nd half of the 20th century both go up.
We could say that over short periods the correlation is poor, and there is a lot of unexplained variation, but the bigger picture seems to hold up.
There are three short periods where they don’t match well: the big rise in temperature at the end of the Maunder; only a small dip in the Dalton; the dip around 1880.
If you allow moves of 0.3 degrees for 15 years due to unexplained variability (Enso, PDO, volcanoes, chaos), that would cover all three of those.
Climate is not the average of weather, it’s the consistency of weather …
http://s24.postimg.org/6k9ghkkyb/Scotch_Mist.png
You can read about all those swings and spikes here:
http://www.jitterbrush.com/lens/TheHistoryOfBritishWinters.pdf
Nobody notices mean temperature going up and down a tad but throw the seasons all out of whack for a decade or so and folk rally start to take notice. So do crops and livestock. Especially if you throw in the odd brass monkey winter or exceptional summer.
Can’t be bothered to pretty it up with titles etc. The top one is the annual rate of change of CET from monthly averages, the bottom one is SSN (dotted line is proposed correction). Of course it doesn’t line up precisely with solar cycles, do you really expect it to at temperate latitudes with the Atlantic rushing past?
pochas says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:06 pm
I guess, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of “cycle” is.
How about fluctuation on roughly the same wavelength? A Bond or D-O cycle or fluctuation might be around 1470 years on average, which means mean trough to peak of 735 years, but could be, say, 500 to 900 years, depending upon other factors.
It seems to me that as the Holocene Interglacial slouches toward the next glacial the “cycles” are getting shorter, perhaps also increasing in amplitude as well as frequency. But that might just be an artifact of improving resolution. IMO however the downward trend of the past 3000 years is well supported.
Irish chronicles, especially those related to religious organizations are quite detailed and very old. The author describes reliable (and additional less reliable) recorded Irish descriptions of cold events that have a time stamp on them. By comparing these timed descriptions of cold events to volcanic activity ice core records, a clear and very close connection can be made as to the timing of the cold event and volcanic activity. In a very real sense, volcanos could be at least one of the elephants in the room. Folks, before you dismiss it, we are talking about volcanic activity that was frequent and MUCH more explosive than anything we have experienced in modern times. The mechanism is there (decreased solar insolation), though not completely understood and is the focus of several research projects and models. I don’t think they have the ENSO disruption right yet but they are getting closer. One of the current limits is the very poor modeling of ENSO further out than a couple months. These large eruptions lasted in some cases more than a year and the stratospheric road to the ice cores from distant locations took a while.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024035/article#artAbst
Carl Chapman says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:12 pm
That indeed is not only better, but the only satisfactory methodology for testing the correlation of SSN with T. Differing start & end dates for the minima are a little fungible, but the actual count (as previously made) isn’t as subjective as picking approximate years to label as the “Minimum”. This is the point I tried to make with Willis, but which his anti-sun worship belief system compelled him obdurately or obstinately to abjure as apostasy.
The Spörer Minimum dating is obsolete. There was a solar minima from the 1430’s to the 1470’s, and another from the 1550’s to the 1590’s, both agreeing with CET reconstructions and Lambs winter index.
Let me state the obvious Willis. You are clearly much better at this and smarter than I am. But just like with your fracking obsession you may be focusing on the wrong thing. The argument is not that sunspots are driving climate but that solar activity influences albedo changes, which drive temperature trends. I think that you are looking at the wrong thing.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Svalgaard’s team, intent upon changing how sunspots are counted.
What we have uncovered is that sunspots were counted in different ways at different times. What we are doing is trying to bring all counts onto the same scale, referenced to the same method and way of counting, thus just the opposite of what you say.
71% of this planets surface is ocean. It does not absorb energy as a “near blackbody” but rather as a “selective surface”. Therefore looking only at TSI is disingenuous. Spectral variance is critical.
Energy absorbed below the overturning layer can accumulate, and it is the shorter frequencies that penetrate to these depths. It is also these frequencies that vary most between solar cycles. It is notable that surface UV has increased ~ 10 – 20% in the last 30 years, but stabilised since the mid 1990s –
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html
It should also be noted that UV-A still has the power of ~10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
Changes in ocean heat content due to this mechanism would be slow and cumulative below the thermocline. This would allow short diurnal and seasonal signatures to occur in SSTs, with 11 year signatures masked or smeared due to deeper circulation patterns. This mechanism could easily account for 0.8C in 150 years.
The good news is that the UV variance is so great that the data is highly resistant to being “stamped flat”.
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Volcanic activity does not explain climatic fluctuations like the MWP or LIA. There may well be connections between climate and volcanism and even between volcanic activity and the sun, moon, planets and stars, but correlation is lacking for the well-supported centennial-scale cycles, if I may call them that, and volcanism alone.
Your baseless assertion that “Folks, before you dismiss it, we are talking about volcanic activity that was frequent and MUCH more explosive than anything we have experienced in modern times. The mechanism is there (decreased solar insolation), though not completely understood and is the focus of several research projects and models” is false on its face (not to mention that anyone who uses the word “folks” to mean anything other than his or her parents is immediately suspect).
You do have Tambora toward the end of the LIA (during the already underway Dalton Minimum), but nothing comparable even to Krakatoa (early in the Modern Warm Period) at its beginning. Where are the initiating mega-eruptions in the 14th and early 15th century that your special pleading, hand waving excuse to ignore the obvious solar influences requires?
There is a possible mid-1400s (probably South Pacific) event of some significant VEI magnitude, but by then the LIA was already well underway. Sorry, but volcanoes don’t wash.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:31 pm
That sunspots were counted in different ways at different times in the past is hardly a discovery.
What you are doing is trying to impose your way of counting retroactively on recalcitrant practitioners of real science, which just happens, big surprise, to support the Team. Who is paying for this supposedly purely disinterested, corrective scientific activity on your part? Let me guess. Could it be the same paymasters as the Team?
Steven Mosher: But so far nobody has answered Willis’ SPECIFIC question
Exactly so. Willis Eschenbach has been presenting a series of focused analyses, testing particular hypotheses with respect to specific relevant data, and finding that certain common claims about solar variation and Earth climate response have been promoted and disseminated without much evidentiary support. Maybe one day he’ll delve into Beryllium isotopes or changes in magnetic field strength, but today we have sunspot minima and a particular climate index that turns out to be pretty independent. It is worth while to absorb these points.
I would also like to thank Rud Istvan and Tonyb for illuminating elaborational comments, which seem pretty mild to me, not critical of anything Willis Eschenbach wrote in the intro.
TimTheToolMan:IMO using TSI is also a weak argument when we know the wavelengths that make up that total vary considerably…and the different waverlengths interact with our planet’s atmosphere and oceans differently and we dont really know how they vary over the longer term.
I wouldn’t rule that out, but there isn’t the supporting/testing evidence either. Or is there?
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:39 pm
What you are doing is trying to impose your way of counting retroactively on recalcitrant practitioners of real science, which just happens, big surprise, to support the Team. Who is paying for this supposedly purely disinterested, corrective scientific activity on your part? Let me guess. Could it be the same paymasters as the Team?
You have no idea what you are talking about. The revision of the sunspot number is a collaborative effort involving dozens of experts from across the world, supported by the Royal Observatory of Belgium, the National Solar Observatory, Stanford University, the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Specola Solare Ticinese. You can learn more here [should you care to educate yourself]: http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:06 pm
Not being a mind reader, if a man posts here anonymously to me he is indeed anonymous. I have no way to know who the person posting as tonyb might be. If he wants to post under his own name, he’s free to do so. Until then, he’s anonymous to me, and will be treated as such.
w.
commieBob says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:11 pm
.
Thanks for quoting me, Bob. It makes it easy to verify that I was not talking about the 11-year sunspot cycle, which Hershel did indeed comment on, but on the association of sunspot minima such as the Dalton or Maunder and temperature … about which Herschel said nothing.
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:47 pm
I’m already fully educated as to what you’re up to, thanks. It doesn’t matter how many co-conspirators you have recruited to try to enforce your new orthodoxy on the recalcitrant heretics who persist in practicing science.
Your unwillingness to answer my question as to your funding says it all. Not that I needed to know. The question was rhetorical, since I already know.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I’m already fully educated as to what you’re up to, thanks.
You give a very good impression of someone who doesn’t have a clue. {and the source of my funding was mentioned, but if you already knew, that should not have been a surprise}.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:56 pm
I have more than a clue, and so do you. Why don’t you let readers know when, why and how your current crusade to overturn perfectly good SSN counting systems began. And if you can, please distinguish your funding from that of the Team.
Thanks.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 5:56 pm
And if you had QUOTED MY WORDS, you would have noticed that I didn’t say it was first noted in 1976. I said:
And if you’d read that and thought about it, you’d have realized that if I’m talking about “modern interest”, that surely there must have been earlier interest, duh
And if you’d bothered to read the links I provided, you’d notice that I had linked to Eddy’s actual paper, in which he goes over the earliest interest in detail, including the stuff that you are breathlessly trying to retail as your own dazzling insights.
But noooo … you want to point out how dumb I am and how brilliant you are, so you don’t do any of that …
You see why I have little time for random anonymous internet popups, sturgishooper? It’s because you guys are more than willing to shoot your mouth off about anything, because you know you’ll never have to take responsibility for your words.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:48 pm
I realize that even the most rudimentary research is anathema to you, but in seconds you could have found out who Tony B is. It seems that of all regular commenters and posters here, you’re the only one totally clueless as to the identity of Tony Brown.
Are you equally as ignorant of the identity of that other distinguished Brown, rgbatduke?
That someone is anonymous to you hardly is a basis for rejecting his inoffensive comments. For anyone that is but you.
thingadonta says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Thanks, thing, but “match things too closely”?
Look, I’m not the one that claims that the solar minima coincide closely with the temperature drops. I’m not the one claiming that there are 11-year cycles in the climate that match closely with solar cycles.
I’m just the one looking to see if it’s true … and so far there is very little support for the claims. So if you want to bitch about matching things too closely, go talk to the guys making the claims that they match closely, not me investigating the claims that they match closely.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:59 pm
What do you mean by modern? In every decade since the Maunders popularized Spörer’s work for the English-speaking world, their observations have been commented upon. You trash the history of science as willy-nilly as all other relevant fields, never bothering to do the least little bit of literature search, let alone actual substantive research.
I’m not a pop-up. I’ve commented here before on a variety of topics within my area of expertise. To me it appears that you have no area of expertise beyond applying totally inappropriate and badly executed mathematical operations to inadequate data sets cherry picked by you. Your posting and publishing constitute the antithesis of science. Yet you with unbridled hubris claim to be a “scientist”, while refusing steadfastly to practice the scientific method.
When have you ever taken responsibility for your unrelieved record of shameless error and prevarication? You help make skeptics a laughing stock, so do science no service. Quite the contrary.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Why don’t you let readers know when, why and how your current crusade to overturn perfectly good SSN counting systems began.
As per http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home the 1st SSN workshop was held in September, 2011. The ‘why’ is explained in the Wiki [should you care to look]. And the SSN was not ‘perfectly good’.
And if you can, please distinguish your funding from that of the Team.
The ultimate funder is the US Taxpayer [i.e. you among others]
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:01 pm
If a man wants to post here (or anywhere) anonymously, absent a really good reason to do otherwise, I respect his desire for anonymity. As a result, I make no attempt to find out who he actually is.
So you can stuff your nasty allegation that “rudimentary research is anathema” to me up your fundamental orifice. I decline to dig out a man’s secrets out of politeness, a subject regarding which you seem remarkably ignorant …
w.
Willis:
“…what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
Here it is:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:756/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/normalise
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:11 pm
The SSN were all good as long as you took into account how they were counted. Your crusade doesn’t solve that problem, but only makes it worse, intentionally so IMO.
You’re right that we taxpayers are your ultimate funders, much to our discomfiture, but consider the actual agencies and parts thereof who are implicated.
Your effort, however initially motivated by a desire to improve science, is part and parcel of the fundamentally corrupt campaign that is modern “climate science”. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Climate sets of MY choosing? That is totally untrue. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but other folks did see that I have asked people to bring in the dataset of THEIR choosing for analysis.
w.
Willis Eschenbach: It turns out that this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature is a fairly recent development. Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”.
Well. In defense of tonyb, the “strong association” of which you wrote wasn’t that “recent”, unless now you are going to redefine “strong” or “recent”. And if “sparked” does not “attribute” “modern interest” to John Eddy, then you are writing in some language other than English. Your angry response to tonyb was unwarranted.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:16 pm
The SSN were all good as long as you took into account how they were counted.
The problem is that nobody did and almost nobody knew. We are rectifying that.
Your effort, however initially motivated by a desire to improve science, is part and parcel of the fundamentally corrupt campaign that is modern “climate science”. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
Ah, you finally showed your hand and dripping your agenda-driven venom.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:12 pm
It’s not digging out a secret. Tony Brown, like many here, posts through some conduit in which he already had an ID, so that he comes up as climatereason or tonyb. Many who do so make no secret as to who they are, again like Dr. Brown of Duke.
“Digging” would have taken you mere seconds, literally, and I’m sure, if I may speak for him, that Tony Brown would not have felt in the least violated by your having so searched. Interestingly, the Team pull no punches or make no bones about identifying him in their attacks on the excellent science he practices in reconstructing temperature to extend the CET further back in time.
pochas says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
Thanks for the two links, pochas, but was there some part of the following that was unclear?
Both of your links were to model studies … not interested.
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm
It’s not true that nobody did. IMO your rectification only makes matters worse.
My agenda is science. I wonder what yours is, but have my suspicions.
Willis, two pieces of advice based on the unfortunate above record, which I presume resulted from the sort of ‘bad hair day’ we all occasionally have, even if we no longer have hair.
1. Army rule of holes. If you are in one and wish to get out, stop digging. (Why did you continue digging today against your own fan base?)
2. Listening enables hearing. (Listening is very hard, but most Native Americans and all successful hunters eventually learn how to. I am the latter.) You are not listening to this unfortunate thread.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:23 pm
It’s not true that nobody did.
If so, can you tell me who did? otherwise you cannot make the claim.
Sturgishooper you need to be brought up to date on ice core records of volcanic ash and sulfur deposits. The deposits that show up at both poles are significant in terms of global weather pattern variations. The largest volcanic eruption in the last 7000 years was in 1258, at the very beginning of what is known as the LIA. Further, the entire span of the LIA (considered to be 1280-1850 A.D. as the outer boundaries in the literature) was a period of exceptional volcanic activity. So I am not sure where you are getting your information but it certainly is not up to date.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.envsci.rutgers.edu%2FIVI2%2F&ei=XvqoU5rEO4OuyAS0oYKACA&usg=AFQjCNE8XEJr1O4CN2DJs5HsunA6TJBniw&sig2=xbi4GoRPoX_-B-74MCWBhQ&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
Terry Jackson says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Thanks, Terry. If you have a citation to a dataset, I’m happy to look at it.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm
Gosh, I didn’t know that, Ulric. What is the name of that minimum, so I can refer to it in future?
Or are we supposed to call it the “Ulric Minimum”, after the first person I’ve heard refer to it as a “solar minimum”?
w.
Willis says:
“So if you want to bitch about matching things too closely, go talk to the guys making the claims that they match closely”
I can talk to these guys, but there is something here you should consider. It’s a classic ‘lost in translation’ problem. One person’s language and meaning doesn’t exactly match another.
Your efforts here have stumbled upon one of the major issues in climate science, and that is to be commended. The difference between statistical convenience and/or assumptions, as well as language and ‘lost in translation’ problems, and messy reality. As a field-based geologist for several decades, I have seen this very often.
When people say solar activity and temperature ‘match’, they are paraphrasing. You are quite right in pointing out statistical mismatches, but as a statistician, you may be missing the point. They don’t match, and you are quite right, but there are other factors involved which means this mess called climate science is not going to be resolved anytime soon. (Note: academics and statisticians generally hate ‘lag’ effects, because they are taught within both mathematics and statistics to rectify/ignore/’fix’ these from day 1. What if they don’t need ‘fixing’?).
The best example I can think of in climate science, is the example I gave on 20th century warming. Alarmists are ADAMENT late 20th century warming doesn’t match solar activity. They entirely fail to account for, or consider decadal lag effects, especially regarding ocean cycles. I saw a program where melting ice in Greenland lakes somewhere peaks something around March 21, a full 3 months after the summer solstice. And it is entirely solar driven. Go figure. If you want to match solar activity even in a season with melting ice, you can’t. Its a very simple concept, but completely ignored.
Prediction. Field based observations will win out in the end, with the sun being a/the major factor driving climate, including late 20th century warming. This understanding won’t come from statisticians. It’s happened before, geologists couldn’t prove either the age of the earth, or plate tectonics, statistically or otherwise, but their gut-based observations were on the money, verified eventually by better observations and better data. Field-based observations won in the end.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm
… cycles 12-14 was a minima [sic] too. The data disagrees with you.
Solar activity now is on par was it was during 12-14, but the climate is not.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm
You seem confused about cause and effect. At the end of the Dalton minimum, the temperature was well above what it was at the start … why?
And in both the Dalton and Maunder minima, the temperature started to rise well before the sunspots started to rise … why?
At the onset of the Dalton minimum, the temperature rose for a decade … why?
The fact that we see cold spells that coincide with minima does NOT mean that they are caused by the minima. If they were, I wouldn’t be asking “why” above.
You seem to think that because the Maunder minimum OCCURRED near the end of the Little Ice Age, it CAUSED the Little Ice Age. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any solar minimum that happened to occur during the LIA would have cold temperatures … so what?
As to the famous “Ulric Minimum” of cycles 12-14 … you’ll have to wait until it gets re-named by an official body before it enters into anyone’s calculations.
w.
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:24 pm
You are wrong on so many bases that I hardly know where to begin and will necessarily have to leave some points out.
1) No one dates the LIA from as early as 1258. Few if any even start it at 1280*. I’ll believe you that someone does, but please show me who this is. Thanks. (See below.)
2) It is not certain that there was a single VEI 6 or above eruption in AD 1258. Such evidence as exists supports a number of alternative hypotheses:
http://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-mysterious-missing-eruption-of-1258-a-d/
3) My information is at least as up to date as yours. Please show your work by which you determined that the LIA, ie c. AD 1350 to 1850, was a period of increased and sustained on a regular basis volcanism, statistically significantly greater in frequency and magnitude than during the preceding Medieval and following Modern Warm Period.
*Dating the LIA: the most common dates are AD 1350 to 1850, but NASA narrows it to 1550 to 1850. There was climatic deterioration after 1250 and famine in Europe during the first half of the 14th century, but these were associated with normal fluctuations toward the end of a warm period (same happens in reverse toward the end of cool periods, such as the LIA). And of course there are decadal ups and downs within centuries-long cool and warm periods.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:52 pm
So far, the only information we have seen regarding the Sporer and Wolf minima is Figure 3, which totally disagrees with your claim. If you have other estimates of the temperature in say 1450-1560 during the Sporer minimum, please provide it.
Please cite for us Herschel’s statements about the Sporer and Wolf minima … or any of the great sunspot minima, for that matter.
Finally, you are arguing that there is a 200-year scientific consensus on whether the Oort minimum caused cooler temperatures. If so, please provide your supporting evidence for such a claim.
w.
How reliable are the start and end dates of the various minima (Dalton and Maunder in particular)?
Shifting the start/end dates around could change your interpretation of the data, so I was wondering how precise those dates actually are? i.e. what’s the +/- on the dates?
Matthew R Marler says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:43 pm
————————————
“I wouldn’t rule that out, but there isn’t the supporting/testing evidence either. Or is there?”
First off there are simple empirical experiments you can run demonstrating the spectral variance / depth of absorption issue with selective surfaces –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Illuminate both blocks with equal SW and block A runs far hotter. However illuminate with equal wattage of IR and both run at the same temperature. A clear demonstration as to why spectral variance is critical to calculating ocean temps. Treating the oceans as a “near blackbody” effected only by a 0.1% variance in TSI is demonstrably wrong, and given this engineering knowledge of selective surfaces is decades old, inexcusable.
Second, you can find papers such as this one discussed at CA in 2005 –
“Impacts of Shortwave Penetration Depth on Large-Scale Ocean Circulation and Heat Transport”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO2740.1
While the paper is modelling based and is largely concerned with biological turbidity, the physical mechanisms proposed would have similar effects to solar variance in strength of UV penetrating to depth. It is notable that the authors understood the difference between “near blackbody” and “selective surface” and thereby why the depth of absorption was critical to heat content and circulation patterns.
Thirdly, we know that surface UV variance in the last 3 decades has been two orders of magnitude greater than TSI variance.
Finally, we are building a record of ocean temps below 100m via ARGO. However this will take time.
The bottom line is this – if you don’t understand how the sun heats the oceans, you can’t understand the effect of solar variability on the oceans. “near blackbody” + “TSI” = garbage.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:24 pm
That is an excellent question, worthy of and doing credit to a great specialist of your caliber.
The easy answer is that I can do it when looking at different historical data sets or counts, so why can’t anyone else? But admittedly that doesn’t suffice. I’d even support your general goal of agreeing on a single count system, while quibbling with the specific one your group is trying to impose.
What does suffice, IMO, is the fact that understanding how the Wolf number is or was derived allows a careful scientist to make valid comparisons.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:47 pm
The 200 year old observation is the connection between sunspots and climatic data.
I should add that the Oort and Wolf Minima are named for those astronomers. They didn’t necessarily share Herschel’s or anyone else’s suspicion of a climatic connection with SSN.
Vangel says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:31 pm
A “fracking obsession”? Any man who starts a comment by accusing another man of having an “obsession” without providing a single scrap of evidence is not worth talking to. That’s just mudslinging, not interested, thanks.
w.
JPG says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:47 pm
The start and end dates, as I’ve commented here, are to some degree fungible. Basically, they are whenever SSN falls below or rises back to an average level, so are approximate.
I can not find the WUWT post but I won’t let that stop me.
As the magnetic fields that work together to cause the sunspots weaken, their interactive efficiency becomes less. At that time the number of sunspots reduces faster than the output of the sun reduces.
So during a grand minimum the sun may be able to decrease and increase output without changing the number of sunspots.
Is there a sun influenced isotope chart?
Also what were the volcanoes and the PDO doing?
I think the sun and orbit are the least strong but most persistent enforcers of climate change.
And there is rarely just one answer.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Thanks, Matthew. Regarding 10Be, see my post here. Short version? 10Be is far from what it is claimed to be, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice core 10Be records don’t even agree with each other.
w.
At the risk of being crude (and ignorant), why TF would you divide anything by the square root of minus 1? It’s kind of like E=MC squared. Really? Why TF would you square the speed of light?
@gymnosperm – It is a joke. He did not divide by the square root of -1 (i)
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:48 pm
What does suffice, IMO, is the fact that understanding how the Wolf number is or was derived allows a careful scientist to make valid comparisons.
That fact is that no-one alive has done this, except the experts now re-evaluating the SSN. And nobody [except the observers in Locarno] I know of, knew that the Wolf number was artificially inflated by 20% in 1947. Did you know this? I discovered this in a few years back, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-12Jan.pdf which gave the impetus to the SSN-workshops. What we are doing is simply providing the understanding needed to use the Wolf Number correctly.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:23 pm
It’s not true that nobody did.
If so, can you tell me who did? otherwise you cannot make the claim.
So you cannot tell.
Your venomous agenda-driven rearguard resistance to divulging to researchers the flaws that have been uncovered in the historical SSN is understandable [there are many just like you], but is hardly science, regardless of what you say.
Well, stick around. I think we are about to find out(in many of our life times).
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Regarding agreement between the poles, as usual, you could not possibly be more wrong.
http://www.clim-past.net/9/749/2013/cp-9-749-2013.pdf
Not also the 11 year cycle recovered in these synchronized data. Had you done a rudimentary literature search, you’d have found this and so many other studies showing your pet theories to be fantastic delusions. Why anyone here or anywhere else pays the least heed to your garbage (to use your favorite term for the work of those who dare to disagree with you), I don’t know, but have my suspicions. I prefer drivel to garbage:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12004748
Abstract
Cosmogenic 10Be in polar ice cores is a primary proxy for past solar activity. However, interpretation of the 10Be record is hindered by limited understanding of the physical processes governing its atmospheric transport and deposition to the ice sheets. This issue is addressed by evaluating two accurately dated, annually resolved ice core 10Be records against modern solar activity observations and instrumental and reanalysis climate data. The cores are sampled from the DSS site on Law Dome, East Antarctica (spanning 1936–2009) and the Das2 site, southeast Greenland (1936–2002), permitting inter-hemispheric comparisons. Concentrations at both DSS and Das2 are significantly correlated to the 11-yr solar cycle modulation of cosmic ray intensity, rxy=0.54rxy=0.54 with 95% CI [0.31; 0.70], and rxy=0.45rxy=0.45 with 95% CI [0.22; 0.62], respectively. For both sites, if fluxes are used instead of concentrations then correlations with solar activity decrease. The strength and spectral coherence of the solar activity signal in 10Be is enhanced when ice core records are combined from both Antarctica and Greenland. The amplitudes of the 11-yr solar cycles in the 10Be data appear inconsistent with the view that the ice sheets receive only 10Be produced at polar latitudes. Significant climate signals detected in the 10Be series include the zonal wave three pattern of atmospheric circulation at DSS, rxy=−0.36rxy=−0.36 with 95% CI [−0.57; −0.10], and the North Atlantic Oscillation at Das2, rxy=−0.42rxy=−0.42 with 95% CI [−0.64; −0.15]. The sensitivity of 10Be concentrations to modes of atmospheric circulation advises caution in the use of 10Be records from single sites in solar forcing reconstructions.
From Girma on June 23, 2014 at 9:12 pm:
756 / 69 = 10.9565
Close enough to the 11 of the sunspot cycle for the running mean of the temperature to have an imposed “11” cycle.
So let’s build a running mean from primes. 3*5*7*7 = 735, no 11. However 3*7 is close to 2*11, so I’ll also take out a 7. I’m also adding endpoints for whole years and starting from the shortest dataset.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:735/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:735/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:105/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:105/normalise
Huh, at 735 months HadCRUT4 started leading SSN about 1885.
But at 105 months, it looks more like an inverse relationship, one goes up while the other goes down.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:15/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:15/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:105/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:105/normalise
And with the other 7 out, pretty much nothing there at all.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:03 pm
I did not know this until I read your work, but that doesn’t mean that people didn’t know previously that there were problems with the Wolf number.
As I said, my agenda is science. I don’t think that your current efforts are an improvement on the data sets that you hope to overturn. IMO they’re worse, but I would welcome a valid revision of Wolf number or any previous attempt to make a consistent actual or reconstructed count of SSN.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:03 pm
To clarify, I’m not fighting a rearguard action against divulging problems. I support drawing attention to the limits of past SSN counting systems. I do however object to the scheme which you wish to substitute and which your team is intent upon imposing, complete with sanctions upon heretics who resist reeducation. I guess I have failed to make that clear.
Are we enabling our own home grown Nuccitelli? Just for example, take the reply above….
Must I really wade through another cranky post? If you don’t understand it, W, that doesn’t mean other people don’t. I noticed many years ago the Greenland and Antarctic cores didn’t agree. What you can’t deny is the Greenland core shows a Youger Dryas signal. That doesn’t happen by accident. What caused it is debatable. Now there’s where some good discussion can get interesting, but no, instead we have to slog though half-analysis and undergraduate charts.
Oh, crap. Now I’m getting cranky. Does that happen to everybody when they get older?
The Samalas volcano in Indonesia was identified as the most likely candidate for the 1257 volcanic event recorded in ice cores at both poles.
From the abstract:
“Drawing upon compelling evidence from stratigraphic and geomorphic data, physical volcanology, radiocarbon dating, tephra geochemistry, and chronicles, we argue the source of this long-sought eruption is the Samalas volcano, adjacent to Mount Rinjanion Lombok Island, Indonesia. At least40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra were deposited and the eruption column reached an altitude of up to 43 km. Three principal pumice fallout deposits mantle the region and thick pyroclastic flow deposits are found at the coast, 25 km from source. With an estimated magnitude of 7, this event ranks among the largest Holocene explosive eruptions. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal are consistent with a mid-13th century eruption. In addition, glass geochemistry of the associated pumice deposits matches that of shards found in both Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, providing compelling evidence to link the prominent A.D. 1258/1259 ice core sulfate spike to Samalas. We further constrain the timing of the mystery eruption based on tephra dispersal and historical records, suggesting it occurred between May and October A.D. 1257.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Willis Eschenbach…
Regarding agreement between the poles, as usual, you could not possibly be more wrong.
If you were aware of recent literature you might know that there are serious disagreements between the 10Be measurements between hemispheres and even between ice cores in the same hemisphere, e.g. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
From sturgishooper on June 23, 2014 at 10:12 pm:
Wrong. The Wolf number is the one they are building to remedy the problems with the others. How would people know previously there were problems with a new yet-unborn creation?
Matthew R Marler says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Since Eddy was only able to find a few articles in obscure journals to reference as prior art regarding the association of solar minima and temperature, what are you calling “strong”?
And “sparked an interest” does NOT mean “the idea is attributed to”. It means that following the publication of the article, it was cited and discussed and the ideas became much more prevalent. It doesn’t mean that the author originated the idea, it just means that he sparked more interest in an existing idea.
Finally, tonyb claimed that it was a mistake that I had “attributed it to eddy or lamb” without having the common decency to quote my words. Where is he claiming that I attributed it to Lamb, for example? I said nothing of the sort about Lamb, I defy you to find anything like that. It’s just tonyb’s fantasy, and I’m tired of being asked to defend myself against some fool’s fantasy about something I neither said nor implied.
Not only that, but you, without checking to see if I’d said a single word about Lamb and the association of solar minima and temperature, are now here to defend tonyb’s fantasy about Lamb … you sure you want to do that? Because I assure you, defending his bs is not a plus for your reputation …
Sorry, Matthew, but I’ve had it up to here with accusations that I’ve made a mistake that are coming from anonymous jerks who can’t be bothered to quote my words after being requested over and over to please do so. And well-meaning, decent folks like you who for some unknown reason blindly jump in to defend someone else’s uncited fantasy accusation that I’ve made a mistake just make it worse. Didn’t your momma ever tell you to stay out of bar-room fights until you understand the issues?
Anyhow, that’s my take … so sue me …
w.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:15 pm
I do however object to the scheme which you wish to substitute
The revised SSN [or Wolf Number as we shall call it] is based on careful comparisons and review by many experts, so is forced upon us by the data. We have little choice or wiggle room.
You can only object if you have done a similar analysis and thereby come to a different result [which we would love to see]. If not, your reaction is just agenda-driven inertia based on ignorance.
Willis,
Nice investigative work. Here are three things I have picked up over time that might give you further territory to explore on this subject. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these points because I have not looked up the data myself.
1. The sunspot population apparently follows Earth’s seasons with the local maximums occurring near the equinoxes.
2. Surface water flow rates follow the inverse of the sunspot cycles delayed by 44 years.
3. The sunspots may correlate with higher temperature because they both arise from the same mechanism, not because sunspots cause the higher temperatures. The Little Ice Age did occur and the sunspot minimums occurred during the Little Ice Age. That in itself may be 100% correlation if the time scales for both to exhibit themselves are on the order of the length of the LIA. Or, it may be just coincidental.
Good Hunting
Joe
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm
I’m sorry, but you may NOT speak for tonyb. He is quite able to speak for himself. He is also free to post under his own name if he wishes. Your fantasies about what he would feel are a meaningless sick joke. Obviously, he prefers being anonymous or he’d use his name.
As to how much time it would take to unearth his secrets, why on earth would this be a concern to me? You seem to have missed the point entirely. I am NOT INTERESTED in piercing anyone’s veil on anonymity, regardless whether it takes me five years or five seconds, and regardless whether or not you claim they wouldn’t mind in the slightest, honest, they wouldn’t.
Like I said … you don’t seem to have even the most primitive understanding of respect for someone’s desire to be anonymous.
w.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:21 pm
By Wolf Number, I meant the method of counting before the Svalgaard team which they’re trying to change.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:27 pm
IMO the problem is not that you’re forced to a new approach, but that you’re trying to force your approach on others. Maybe too glib, but IMO, your desire for a new approach is scientific, but your attempt to force a consensus on your colleagues is not only unscientific but antiscientific. If your approach is correct, time will show it so. Science advances by the death of adherents of the previous paradigm. I’m not sure that your answer to the problems which you have IMO correctly identified is the right answer.
For example, Galileo, like you, made important contributions, but was wrong in other important ways. He at least did not want to, or at least lacked the power to, enforce his new views on others. Quite the opposite. Only the evidence could show him right or wrong, as it did in time both ways.
Rud Istvan says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:24 pm
Rud, was there some part of me saying QUOTE MY WORDS that escaped your notice? I see that you are accusing me of something, but I have no idea what it is. Metaphors about “digging holes against my own fan base” mean nothing. Who in my “fan base” am I “digging against”, and exactly how am I doing that?
You seem to be hard of reading today, so read my lips—if you disagree with something I said, quote it or go away. I won’t deal with that kind of vague handwaving and unreferenced, unclear claims.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:32 pm
It should be a concern of yours, since you sought to denigrate him as anonymous, just as your engage in ad hominem against all who dare question your obiter dicta. If Tony Brown wants to object to my allegedly taking his full name in vain, I hope he will. But as usual, you’re trying to divert attention from your substantive failings with a side issue.
In the past few years, several disciplines have convened to discuss the onset of the LIA. Yes, it is controversial. And some researchers pull it back even further in time.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract;jsessionid=9677FE1390FDB6F5C161F921AEB6F180.f04t03
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:37 pm
IMO the problem is not that you’re forced to a new approach, but that you’re trying to force your approach on others.
We are not forced to a new approach. We have discovered flaws in the historical data and are correcting them. The flaws are clear, obvious, for all to see and understand and are easy to correct. In this sense, if we wish to do science we are forced to correct the flawed record.
Science advances by the death of adherents of the previous paradigm.
No, by overwhelming new data or insights, e.g. Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics, Expanding Universe, …
thingadonta says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Climate scientists ignore lags? How many cross-correlations have you seen me do, which explicitly include lags? And a cross-correlation of your example solar and melting ice will indeed show the match.
Or what about my analysis of the models, showing that they are simply a lagged transform of the inputs?
And of course, any spectral analysis includes lags, because it is looking at cycles whether they are lagged or not … i.e. a lagged 11-year cycle is still an 11-year cycle. So those analyses also include lags.
The claim that climate scientists “completely ignore” lags is totally untrue. Here’s a typical statement, one of literally thousands in the myriad of studies:
Lags are “completely ignored” in climate science? Don’t make me laugh. They are a major focus of study, nothing happens instantly, and climate scientists are well aware of that.
w.
JPG says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:47 pm
Good question, JPG. They are said to start at the minimum before the first low sunspot cycle, and end at the minumum after the last low cycle. As a result, the +/- is more accurate in modern times, less so in the 1700s, and pretty sketchy prior to 1600.
w.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:37 pm
I’m not sure that your answer to the problems which you have IMO correctly identified is the right answer.
Your uncertainty may just be ignorance, so let us try the Socratic Method:
1) If you discover that a single observer [out of dozens] inflates his count by counting bigger spots with a higher weight than others [e.g. a big spot is counted as five spots], would you not undo his inflation by reverting to count all spots singly in order to align him with all the other observers?
Pamela Gray says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:18 pm
So you now have walked back from “the largest eruption in the last 7000 years” to “one of the largest”. Big difference. It still pales against Tambora.
I have no problem with a VEI 7 eruption around 1258, although the paper you cited hardly settles the issue. There have been at least two VEI 7s since then, ie Tambora (~150 cubic kilometers of tephra) and the also enigmatic 1452/53 event (36 to 96 km^3), both estimated about equal to or larger than the presumed Indonesian 1258 eruption (40 km^3).
But what does a VEI 7 at c. 1258, if it happened, have to do with the start of the Little Ice Age about a century later?
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm
I was just quoting you, who said that “The revised SSN [or Wolf Number as we shall call it] is based on careful comparisons and review by many experts, so is forced upon us by the data. We have little choice or wiggle room” and that “The flaws are clear, obvious, for all to see and understand and are easy to correct. In this sense, if we wish to do science we are forced to correct the flawed record.” If my use of “approach” was the wrong word, I apologize.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm
If you want to get Socratic on my ass, then how about this?
If I want to stop counting bigger spots with a higher weighting than others, should I then also count single large spots the same as single small spots, rather than trying to find a proper weighting system?
(Asking questions in this way is actually Sophistic, not Socratic, but you can be forgiven for making the same mistake as law schools.)
I freely admit that compared to your knowledge and understanding of sun spots, I am ignorant, but that’s beside the point as long we both know what we’re talking about. Which maybe I don’t.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:50 pm
No, it’s the claimed connection between the 11-year sunspot cycle and climate that is 200 years old. The connection between long-term sunspot minima and temperature, which is what this post is about, is more modern. Surely you can see that these are different subjects, which is why one is called “11-year sunspot cycles” and the other is called “solar minima”.
w.
“sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:55 pm”
I think you will find the Lake Taupo erruption in New Zealand in 180AD dwarfs Tambora.
gymnosperm says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:01 pm
It was just a humorous excuse, purporting to be the reason that I’d misidentified the Maunder and Dalton by 220 years …
All the best,
w.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:07 pm
If I want to stop counting bigger spots with a higher weighting than others, should I then also count single large spots the same as single small spots, rather than trying to find a proper weighting system?
If everybody else [including Wolf] counted single large spots the same as single small spots [i.e. regardless of size] then to maintain a homogeneous dataset over time you must do just that. The proper weighting scheme to be compatible with the rest of the historical record is no weighting.
(Asking questions in this way is actually Sophistic, not Socratic, but you can be forgiven for making the same mistake as law schools.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:07 pm
If I want to stop counting bigger spots with a higher weighting than others, should I then also count single large spots the same as single small spots, rather than trying to find a proper weighting system?
If everybody else [including Wolf] counted single large spots the same as single small spots [i.e. regardless of size] then to maintain a homogeneous dataset over time you must do just that. The proper weighting scheme to be compatible with the rest of the historical record is ‘no weighting’.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:08 pm
QUOTE MY WORDS, I’m reluctant to guess what you are talking about. But on the off chance you are talking about the correlation between the Greenland and Antarctic 10Be, run the numbers yourself and report your results. I’ve done that and linked to it above, including links to the datasets so you can’t complain on that regard … so where’s your calculation of the correlation?
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm
The proper weighting scheme to be compatible with the rest of the historical record is ‘no weighting’.
To continue with Socrates: do you agree with the above?
If so, should we not reduce the lone observers count to compensate for the overcount?
Please compare.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2013.gif
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
Hoser says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Well, that’s all of that comment that I read.
Hoser, if you want a man to pay attention to you and respond to your objections, don’t start your very first comment with a snarky insult. It marks you clearly as a man looking for a fight rather than a discussion. And I don’t have time to faff around with anonymous internet popups who are looking for a fight rather than a discussion, not enough hours in the day to screw around with jerks like that.
w.
You cannot use any of the data supplied by NOAA, GISS, hadcrut, BEST etc to do ANY analysis. Its all fraudelent, but.If you wnat to keep using it for your analysis go ahead.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaa-and-nasa-data-alterations-are-global/plus all his other analysis which I as I scientist consider 100% valid.The data is all there to see and analyze plus all the articles from the past
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Terry Jackson says:
June 23, 2014 at 7:13 pm
If I were looking for an indicator to relate weather to the human experience, I would look at the Growing Degree Days.
Thanks, Terry. If you have a citation to a dataset, I’m happy to look at it.
w.
Willis: It is a relatively recent number. It may be possible to tease an approximation out of old to ancient records of crop prices and volumes. It also does not account for drought. Does this suggest tree rings from the breadbasket? (wink) I know of no index, and creating it would be tedious and time consuming. I am not a volunteer. The historic record shows the ebb and flow of the ancient societies.
Each important crop has a Minimum Degree Days number for ripening. The number eliminates anomalies, highs, lows, averages and focuses on the warmth needed to produce a crop. It also eliminates any consideration of winter.
The LIA and crop success are, I suspect, very related. The people could tolerate cold winters if the crops, and food, were abundant. H.H.Lamb notes evidence of retreat from higher elevations and colder growing temps.
Your quest shall be forever hindered by a lack of records unless you resort to the ancient food and drought records. They are not accurate to within one hundredth degree of anything, but they are accurate for living conditions.
Regards:
Terry
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Thanks, Leif. Near as I can tell, sturgishooper just makes things up if he doesn’t know them. Gotta say, though, that his conspiracy theories about the evil scientists who are working to distort the sunspot numbers are hilarious.
Oh, well … I suppose that as long as he keeps a couple spare rolls of tinfoil on hand it will work out all right …
w.
Matthew R Marler writes “I wouldn’t rule that out, but there isn’t the supporting/testing evidence either. Or is there?”
No, its missing evidence and that alone doesn’t support the argument that the sun impacts on the climate. What it does support, however, is the argument that we dont have enough information to rule out the sun as a climate changing force.
@Jimbo
What caused the LIA? My guess is low solar irradiance. Pouillet measured the solar irradiance with a pyrheliometer in 1838 and got a value of 1228 W/m^2 solar constant. Lower than current value of 1361 W/m^2. This translates to -33 W/m^2 TOA radiative forcing. Enough to cause 6 C cooler temperature.
What caused the MWP? My guess is thermohaline circulation. It transports heat to the polar regions and has a cycle time of about 1,000 years. Roman Warm Period occurred ca. 40 AD and MWP ca. 1000 AD. A thousand year interval of warm Greenland and Northern Europe. Places at or near the north polar region.
sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 10:40 pm
WHAT should be a concern of mine? What are you babbling about now? Are you truly too stupid to QUOTE MY WORDS?
Get back to me when you’re willing to quote whatever I said that has your panties in such a twist. I’m not going to try to guess what it was in my comment that you’re upset about, that’s a fool’s game.
w.
ren said on June 23, 2014 at 11:23 pm:
First shows a strong annual cycle, consistent with being North Hemisphere.
Second shows the International SSN varied all over the place in 2013.
Clearly no connection.
[snip and still off-topic -mod]
“I’m only sceptical of the evidence he is using. I dont think TSI (as proxied by sunspots) is an effective enough measure to be definitive.”
Another person who will not answer willis’ question.
you are skeptical of the evidence he gives, but offer NONE of your own.
Willis is basing his belief on evidence.
1. The sunspot record which he believes is a good proxy for TSI
2. Various temperature records.
And he is concluding based on that evidence that there is no support for the claim that the solar
minimum results in a cold period.
Next he ask people for their evidence.
So, Rud blathers on and basically asserts he has none. Others point at mann proxies,
somebody chatters about sun spots, Nobody but nobody assembles the data and shows why
they believe..
here the thing. Most of you believe this because you were told to
Dr Strangelove,
What happens with the thermohaline circulation?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-27.60,-7.18,276
lsvalgaard
I know that California it is hot but in Scandinavia and Canada, it gets very cold.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
I am not into the correlation argument, but the Summer 3 months is flat except for a 1995-2000 lift(centre a straight line on 15.5°).Winter definitely has an upward trend, that contributes to the Annual upward trend. Why ? I do not know, may involve more wind movement in Summer.
Thank you for an interesting analysis, but to me it seems to be a correlation, but the sunspots are delayed 2 -3 decades to the temperatures
.
Such phase shifts could be explained by physical behavior in the solar interior.
I mean, imagine that both the sunspot level and the temperatures on Earth are caused by some other mechanism in the Sun. This other mechanism may not be directly measurable here on the Earth.
Since we know that sunspots are governed by a quite long cycle, 22 years when counting the magnetic polarity, it would reasonable to assume that the time from that underlying mechanism take effect to the sunspots show up would also be quite long.
If this mechanism affect the temperatures without much delay there would then be a phase shift between temperatures and sunspots.
“71% of this planets surface is ocean. It does not absorb energy as a “near blackbody” but rather as a “selective surface”
Wrong. The best up to date measurements of ocean emissivity in the 8-14 μm range are 0.98 to 0.99. The 8-14 μm range is well-known because of the intense focus on sea surface temperature measurements from satellite. BTW 8-14 um is the longwave infrared a.k.a. “greenhouse effect.”
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
Do you really can not see that in 2008 there has been a strong spike of ice around Antarctica?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
ren
“What happens with the thermohaline circulation?”
Isn’t the 20th century also warm like the MWP? A thousand years interval. Okay MWP was warmer.
From Dr. Strangelove on June 23, 2014 at 11:32 pm:
Pyrheliometer:
ISO was founded 1947, WMO in 1950. So obviously Pouillet wasn’t using today’s calibration standards. Intercalibration with others at that time wouldn’t help much if as a class they read lower than today’s precision instruments.
Without evidence of the accuracy of his instrument, the low reading may be disregarded.
Huh, says here about Claude Pouillet:
While a pioneer, I don’t think his instrument was all that accurate.
The Maunder and the Dalton Minimums may be different beasts. The Maunder is unique in our observed history of the sun. Is there any good explanation for why it happened? The Dalton Minimum on the other hand may just be a natural variation in the sunspot cycle pattern. Would it even have a name if it didn’t coincide with the LIA? If the Maunder is different, we can’t say how it would have affected the climate without knowing how it was different — presumably it was not the lack of sunspots itself, since that is not established for the other times.
lsvalgaard
Are you able to anticipate what will be the winter in the north this year, with a further decline in solar activity?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-78.69,31.97,963
In case you missed it the planet has started to cool due to solar magnetic cycle 24. We can watch the cooling in real time with satellite data. Antarctic sea is in now setting at its highest level in ‘recorded’ history for every month of the year. The Greenland ice sheet has started to cool.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
What Willis has discovered by using Lamb’s 1965 winter severity of London and Paris paper with no knowledge of local climate and the jet stream is how the jet stream changes when there are very, very, cold winters in the US. When there are very, very, cold winter temperatures in Canada and the Northern US states the jet stream (Rossby wave) is pulled down which due to the rotation of the earth results in the direction of winds in the London and Paris coming from the South-west rather than the west or North-west.
This is a very interesting paper that explains why the west coast of Europe is much warming than the east coast of the US (same latitude).
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate
The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe’s mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_wave
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles.
Thanks for your reply Willis. But isn’t there a difference between finding a significant 11-year cycle in the temperature data and a bigger picture? Do you actually mean that the variability of the sun does not affect the global temperatures at all? So you don’t like averaging. But what about accumulated departure from average, as used here by Jim Goodridge, to see the bigger picture:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/07/california-climate-pdo-lod-and-sunspot-departure/
If I use the same method on both TSI and temperatures, the picture is once again intriguing. When the graph is falling the measurements are less than average and opposite when it is rising. Both the sun and the temperatures data give the the same picture, and the turning points are at the same time. When the sun is below the average of activity for the period, so is the temperature.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pwfy9r19jkz8tfh/HC4%20and%20TSI%20-%20acc%20dep%20from%20av.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
(William: Yes. Solar magnetic cycle changes cause the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet and cause the abrupt climate changes. The regions of the planet that warmed (high latitude) is the same region that warmed in the last 70 years and the last 30 years.)
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows there the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Willis said (amongst many other things) about me
‘Not being a mind reader, if a man posts here anonymously to me he is indeed anonymous. I have no way to know who the person posting as tonyb might be. If he wants to post under his own name, he’s free to do so. Until then, he’s anonymous to me, and will be treated as such.’
Willis, over the last 7 years I have made thousands of comments and written around 15 major articles, many of which have been carried here. I post these in my own name. I originally used tonyb as there were numerous Tony Brown’s blogging. I am hardly anonymous.
Each major article takes many months to research. ‘The Long slow thaw part one’ took 2 years and involved travel to various parts of the country as well as desk research. Part 2, which takes the record back to 1200AD at this stage, has taken three years of research which includes much detailed work at places like the Met office library and archive. I have spent my own time and money in researching crop records and other relevant material, and have had items translated from the original Latin scrolls and rediscovered old diaries.
The purpose of all this work is ultimately to try to point out the inaccuracies of the Hockey stick and its spaghetti derivatives. Whatever your opinion on Dr Mann, the HS is still believed at Government and educational level and it is to this market that my articles are increasingly aimed.
I have personally found that more influential doors are opened if you behave in a measured fashion and carry on a dialogue in a restrained and reasonable manner. . You choose polemics to make your points-that is fine. But please do not denigrate other people such as myself merely because our style is different.
I offered some information early on in this thread as I have a very good knowledge of the last 1000 years of climate and are trying to point out-in a different way to you-to those that dictate the climate debate that the climate is much more variable than they have believed. It is a battle I have had with such as the Met office where I was fortunate enough to meet up recently with David Parker who created the 1772 CET record. At the recent Exeter Climate Conference with IPCC reviewers I was fortunate enough to be able to ask a sceptical question (the only one) of Thomas Stocker and had a discussion with Richard Betts.
I am sorry that you appear to be the only person on this blog who does not know me.
We are natural allies for the most part as our aims are the same-to use science to find out more about the climate. Why you choose to misinterpret and attack me I have no idea. .
Good day to you.
tonyb (Tony Brown).
From Toto on June 24, 2014 at 12:38 am:
The Sun is a messy place. It has gone along on its own for billions of years, and we try to find meaning in 11-year twitches because they are meaningful relative to our lifespans.
The Maunder Minimum may be unique since we figured out how to safely view the solar disk and started drawing the specks and counting them, but I doubt it is unique at all for the Sun. Likely such are regular occurrences.
The cyclic abrupt climate changes correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and correlate with cyclic unexplained abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field. The glacial periods are terminated by a geomagnetic excursion which is interesting as a very, very rapid geomagnetic excursion is currently underway.
Has anyone looked at the Swarm data? Why the sudden interesting in the geomagnetic field?
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMGP44A..02S
Historical observations document ~1100 km change in the position of the North Magnetic Pole (NMP) over the last century. This movement has accelerated over the last few decades to an astonishing 40 km/yr and along with the diminishing intensity of the dipole field has led to speculation of imminent reversal or excursion.
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997).
However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate.
However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:13 am
————————————
“Wrong. The best up to date measurements of ocean emissivity in the 8-14 μm range are 0.98 to 0.99.”
I’m not sure you understand the difference between “near blackbody” and “selective surface”. I have a comment trapped in moderation that has the relevant empirical experiment.
As to the IR emissivity of water, this is just one factor in determining how it reacts as a selective surface. For selective surfaces, UV/SW absorption and IR emission can have different values, and for water they most certainly do.
IR emissivity values for water above 0.9 are what should be used for in situ IR measurement. This is an issue of “apparent emissivity”, covering holdraum and cavity effect. The “effective emissivity” is very different.
To determine effective emissivity, it is necessary to measure with all background IR eliminated. I have taken emissivity measurements of water under a cryo cooled “sky”. I can only cool down to -40C at this stage, but that has been enough to determine that the effective emissivity of liquid water is lower than 0.8. I suspect older texts showing 0.67 may be correct, but I do not have the equipment to reduce background to 3K.
Now what did climastrologists use for their “settled science” calculations? Effective or apparent emissivity? Again my claim “97% of climastrologists are assclowns” is substantiated…
PS. I still remember what you tried at Dr. Spencer’s site.
As always Willis you are asking some good questions. However, I don’t think your attempt to reduce Maunder and Dalton minima to some sort of binary on/off representation is particularly helpful or informative.
Whenever I see this kind of coloured band on a graph I know someone is trying to lead my eye. Show me the data.
Here I’ve used Svalgaard’s “corrected” SSN and CET
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=973
It seems that warming coming out of Dalton matches SSN fairly well, despite what your choice of end date suggests. If anything there is a discrepancy going into Dalton.
It’s clear that there is more to CET than slavishly following SSN but there does seem to be grounds for suggesting a long term link between the two. In fact I’d never realised how well it matched the 1960 dip, probably because I’ve always looked at rather misleading ‘global’ averages rather than CET.
It is also interesting to note that cooling following Mt Agung, El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo all coincide with solar minima. If anything Pinatubo can be associated with _warming_ towards the end of the decade, since the dip in temps is far less
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=974
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
Further evidence of the long term warming effect of vulcanism.
Here you can see how important it is circulation for cooling. Waves zonal in the stratosphere circulation controls the. Temperature anomalies of ozone in the ozone are due to changes in solar activity. Solar activity fell in April and is immediately visible at ozone.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2014.gif
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-78.69,31.97,963
lsvalgaard, how you foresee solar activity?
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
William Astley says:
What Willis has discovered by using Lamb’s 1965 winter severity of London and Paris paper with no knowledge of local climate and the jet stream is how the jet stream changes when there are very, very, cold winters in the US. When there are very, very, cold winter temperatures in Canada and the Northern US states the jet stream (Rossby wave) is pulled down which due to the rotation of the earth results in the direction of winds in the London and Paris coming from the South-west rather than the west or North-west.
100%
Willis says:
“Lags are “completely ignored” in climate science? Don’t make me laugh”.
This is the MAIN reason the climate alarmists, as well as the IPCC, dismiss late 20th century warming as being solar related. They even convinced David Attenborough of looming climate catastrophe over this very concept. Hansen has even invented some sort of equilibrium ‘constant’, in more recent years to explain it away. (I can’t figure it out, but it perhaps echoes Einstein’s cosmological constant). John Cook’s website got all in a befuddle over the very mention of solar heat lag, because they keep repeating ad infinitum that late 20th century warming wasn’t solar related, because it doesn’t match solar activity on a yearly basis.
Alec Rawls has a good post on this site which says exactly the same thing, most alarmist research papers (he makes a good list of them-Usoskin, Sherwood etc) on solar activity say exactly the same thing; they have not factored in multi-decadal solar heat lag in their dismissal of late 20th century warming (in collaboration with the positive PDO at the time). They assume equilibrium of the oceans and atmosphere with the sun is almost instantaneous, otherwise they have a real problem on their hands-late 20th century warming would not then be attributed mainly to C02.
Roy Spencer says a paper of his in recent years was rejected over exactly the same concept, the reviewer stated he wouldn’t even accept a modification because Spencer suggested that warming from the sun could have occurred after a lag in time and without the sun going up at exactly the same time-he describes this paper’s rejection, as well as mentioning the pot on the stove story-in his book The Great Global Warming Blunder.
Solar heat lag is a concept that repeatedly gets rejected because it opens up the major issue of what the IPCC relies on, most warming since the mid 20th century has to have been caused by c02 and not the sun because solar activity was not increasing at the time; if you have multi-decadal solar heat lag, this concept breaks down spectacularly. And the IPCC is then in a major befuddle.
Toto says, June 24, 2014 at 12:38 am
Try this on for size: http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/download/253/147
Greg Goodman said on June 24, 2014 at 1:17 am:
The data source link to ERBE in your post is 404.
Your graph gives the following data source:
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/project/erbe/edition3_rev1/Edition3_Rev1_wfov_sf_monthly_tropics.txt
It says: ERBE WFOV Edition3 Revision1 Monthly Means of TOA Fluxes, Solar Incidence, and Albedo (20N – 20S)
Thankfully 20N-20S for tropics matches UAH, per the readme at the lower troposphere data directory:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
Although WoodForTrees users will notice for HADCRUT4 tropics they use 30S-30N.
So your “evidence” is for a narrow band of the planet, not global.
Mount Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991. It’s at 15°08’30″N so it is in the defined tropics band.
But then global temperatures dropped about 0.5°C for a bit. Your graph shows a bump, temperatures had a brief upward pulse. But longer term there was cooling, to about 2000 where the graph ends.
However as Eschenbach showed in Volcanic Disruptions in 2012, for global temperatures there was a quick recovery from the cooling.
Thus you have decidedly not presented “…evidence of the long term warming effect of vulcanism.”
PS: It’s spelled “volcanism”. A vulcanism is a particular type of wise-sounding saying, like “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” or “Only Nixon could go to China”.
Such a distribution of ozone in the north causes specific circulation.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/ozone/toast/images/toast_nh.png
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-47.52,56.01,318
You can see it very accurately over the Atlantic. Click Earth.
From William Astley on June 24, 2014 at 12:40 am:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/normalise
Wow. I don’t know what you get there, but don’t hog the bong, man, there’s a lot of people on this thread who’d like a hit of that stuff.
Toto. Then there’s this … (plus what we’ve already seen this cycle, which has a while to go yet).
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/Publications.files/Zolotova_Ponyavin_2007_Solar_P.pdf
Whew! What a can of worms!
When apparent climate cycles appear in the historical and geological record, why assume that there are single drivers like solar or CO2? What are the apparent congruences? Which of these factors or it’s absence remains in effect long enough to maintain a warm or cold cycle?
Just askin.’
Here are just a few posts relevant to solar heat lag, often ignored or explained away by alarmists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/
Us see the distribution of ozone over the South Pole. High levels of ozone near Australia inhibits the polar vortex.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/ozone/toast/images/toast_sh.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.gif
You keep using that word …
From Greg Goodman on June 24, 2014 at 1:15 am:
By your graph, from 1790 to 1830 the CET held steady, dipped, then soared. SSN was a trough between highs. Coming out of the Dalton, SSN dipped about 1840 while CET peaked.
If anything, your graph ably shows SSN and CET are not related, too many trends going in too many different directions.
commieBob says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:42 am
——————————————
“You keep using that word …”
Yep, it means what he says it means.
Oh, wait? Were you into that lukewarmer pseudo science?
So sad…
This image shows exactly what is happening with the southern polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z10_sh_f00.gif
From ren on June 24, 2014 at 5:01 am:
Yep, both images show the “hole” over the South Pole, often known as the Ozone Hole.
What about it?
How does one explain away the coincidence factor? These minimums fall within the LIA, and whilst a direct cause and effect cannot be charted via severities and temps, could there be another mechanism at work? What about the sunspot activity in the ~100 year interludes between minimums, is there ‘normal’ sunspot activity?
Let us hypothesize the swing-set reason where your child’s demand for “higher!” requires you to push. When you don’t push momentum is lost. Maintaining an equilibrium is easier if there is a constant push. When you stop pushing and your child demand again to go higher, it takes more work to reach that equilibrium again (depending on weight and strength). Could it be that the sun/earth relationship has an equilibrium point? Has anyone tested that point? What if we stray to far above or below that point? Is it logical that the reason we don’t see an 11 year correlation is because it takes multiple cycles below ‘normal’ to create a decreased temp (with the opposite being true for increased temp)?
Willis
Before you throw Lamb under the bus, you need to read his entire book, “Climate History of the Modern World”.
I’m in agreement with Rod Leman (The 2nd Comment in the list of Comments); and I quote: “rod leman says:
June 23, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Well, I would say that it is an incorrect analysis to compare temp with any single forcing. There are multiple forcings for Average Global Temp and to make a logical comparison of Temp vs the Solar Intensity you have to adjust the temp graph to EXclude other temp forcings like atypical volcanic activity, El Nino/La Nina, etc.”
Many folks have been alarmed or annoyed by fabricated visions of Warming. It takes but one 24 hour cycle for everyone to realize that the Sun affects temperature. The Sun is Earth’s Warmest neighbor. However, it’s severe Cold which gravely harms Life – and Cold also creates Drought. Historically, extinctions of Life are associated with Asteroid/Volcanic Activity .. which significantly block the Sun’s radiation for extended periods of Time – causing Earth’s Temps to swiftly plummet as if the Sun Itself were turned off. Cold Kills. Dinosaurs and more (upwards of 90% of all Life’s species) were wiped out at the K-T boundary of 65.5 million years ago. Two catastrophic events occurred at that time: A) The massive Chicxulub/Yucatan Asteroid and B) The very massive volcanic Deccan Flats event in India. THE POINT? Yes, Earth’s Climate is not only affected by the Sun.
If you are talking CET you are talking AMO. Knudsen et al 2014 is a good paper claiming external forcing of the AMO. They find it interesting that their break off point for finding good correlations is 1775 when comparing the AMO to solar and volcanic forcing. I’m not sure how it would look if combined and scaled with the reconstruction of Gulf Stream transport Lund et al 2006 which goes from fairly flat to a positive trend at about this time.
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:13 am
“71% of this planets surface is ocean. It does not absorb energy as a “near blackbody” but rather as a “selective surface”
Wrong. The best up to date measurements of ocean emissivity in the 8-14 μm range are 0.98 to 0.99. The 8-14 μm range is well-known because of the intense focus on sea surface temperature measurements from satellite. BTW 8-14 um is the longwave infrared a.k.a. “greenhouse effect.”
Typical of you to talk emissivity when Konrad talks Absorption, can’t you even read what he has said?
And the Sun doesn’t rule the heating. Hmmm. As far as I am concerned, you can turn the furnace back in the house, slosh the water in the indoor pool back and forth until hell freezes over, and you are not going to warm the house. Yes, the Sun DOES rule the temperature, we just don’t know the exact way how it does it.
Reason for the CET getting in and out of phase with the SNN envelope is likely due to the fact that the CET is equally affected by two major variables N. Atlantic SST (warming) and Icelandic Low atmospheric pressure system (cooling).
Although they exist along each other, they run with slightly different multidecadal periods (based on data since 1860s).
willis
You said
“As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.”
I agree with you . I think there is perhaps more support for the cycles of North Atlantic ocean SST being a factor behind the cool CET temperatures during past major solar minima .Bob Tisdale demonstrated a 65-70 year Atlantic ocean SST cycle between 1880 and 2010 .If we extend a 70 cycle back,, troughs in this cycle correspond with low CET temperature or troughs and they just happen to also be during major solar minima .
Here are periods when North Atlantic SST was in the cool mode using a 70 year cycle
1940 to 1975
1870 to 1910[Minimum 1880-1910]
1800 to 1835[Dalton minimum 1790-1820]
1730 to 1765
1660 to 1695 [Maunder minimum 1645-1715]
1590 to 1625
1520 to 1555 [Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
1450 to 1485 [ Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:29 pm
“Gosh, I didn’t know that, Ulric. What is the name of that minimum, so I can refer to it in future?
Or are we supposed to call it the “Ulric Minimum”, after the first person I’ve heard refer to it as a “solar minimum””
It is occasionally referred to as the Gleissberg Minimum.
“You seem confused about cause and effect. At the end of the Dalton minimum, the temperature was well above what it was at the start … why?”
On the contrary, you were confused into thinking that “there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.””, and you are confused about how long Dalton is, it not does reach to 2030 by any means. The start of Dalton is actually SC5 from 1798, and the coldest run of years are from 1807 to 1817.
“You seem to think that because the Maunder minimum OCCURRED near the end of the Little Ice Age, it CAUSED the Little Ice Age. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any solar minimum that happened to occur during the LIA would have cold temperatures … so what?”
Nothing could be further from the truth, the LIA would not exist without the solar minima that occurred through it. And Maunder was not near the end.
“As to the famous “Ulric Minimum” of cycles 12-14 … you’ll have to wait until it gets re-named by an official body before it enters into anyone’s calculations.”
I can plot that the next one starts in the 2090’s, and will last 4 solar cycles, I can name it the Lyons Minimum.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
See Willis’ Challenge at the bottom of the post. This is a very challenging analysis.
A dispassionate observer might have the impression that he thought ‘science’ meant: disagreeing for the joy of being disagreeable.
Willis Mosher Pamela
You all seem happy to ignore the solar activity – climate connection referred to in my earlier comment.
“Check Figs 8 and 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Here are some quotes.
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
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……..
The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature trends The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present (Cycle 24) is obvious……..
Fig9
It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
The value of the Steinhilber interpretations is indicated in the following link posted earlier by Sturgishooper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12004748
“This suggests that studies which assimilate bipolar composite 10Be records in solar or cosmic ray
intensity reconstructions (e.g. Steinhilber et al., 2012), or variants,
such as the leading principal component of multiple records (e.g.
Muscheler et al., 2007b) are less likely to introduce spurious
climate-related signals than those assimilating 10Be records from
individual sites (e.g. Bard et al., 2000; Vonmoos et al., 2006;
Shapiro et al., 2011). Using multiple 10Be records in addition to
cosmogenic 14C (from tree rings), which has a very different
geochemical behaviour to 10Be, can help to further decouple the
climate signal from the 10Be record (e.g. Muscheler et al., 2007b;
Usoskin et al., 2009; Steinhilber et al., 2012”
lsvalgaard says:
“Solar activity now is on par was it was during 12-14, but the climate is not.”
I am not surprised, there was far less global warming in the 19th century so the global mean temp base line was lower, and the worst cold in this cycle will straddle the second half of SC24 and the first half of SC25, from 2016 to 2024, much like 1807 to 1817 in SC’s 5 & 6.
But something seem to happen in the 1980s….
=============
the two graphs diverge with the fall of the soviet union when thousands of weather stations across Russia went permanently off line. Remove a lot of cold stations and the potential exists to create an artificial warming, that cannot be explained by any other mechanism except CO2, because they only looked for CO2.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:57 am
I am not surprised, there was far less global warming in the 19th century
Even if solar activity was nearly the same in the 19th century as in the 20th. So clearly the Sun is not involved. As you say: not surprising.
the CET clearly shows that during the latter part of both the Maunder and Dalton minima the temperatures warmed steadily
============
This only makes sense. During the latter part of the Maunder and Dalton minima, the minima was ending. Thus temperatures warmed. This would indicate the minimal follows a curve (sin/cos), not a step function (on/off).
Steven Mosher said:
“If you point to a purely local record ( like CET) then you’ve havent made the case.”
CET tracks the NAO really well, that’s not local, and the NAO tracks the short term solar variability far better than any global mean that is hugely damped, and with major negative feedbacks in the form of oceanic modes working in opposition to the solar signal.
KDK says:
“It says: ERBE WFOV Edition3 Revision1 Monthly Means of TOA Fluxes, Solar Incidence, and Albedo (20N – 20S)”
… as does the legend on the graph as well as the linked provided under “…that is detailed here:”
“Mount Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991. It’s at 15°08’30″N so it is in the defined tropics band.
But then global temperatures dropped about 0.5°C for a bit. Your graph shows a bump, temperatures had a brief upward pulse. But longer term there was cooling, to about 2000 where the graph ends.”
My graph shows a “bump” because it’s temperature of the lower stratosphere ( TLS ) . Today you have learnt that volcanoes have the opposite effect on the stratosphere. They then take what looks like a definitive step down. That part is covered in more detail here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
“However as Eschenbach showed in Volcanic Disruptions in 2012, for global temperatures there was a quick recovery from the cooling.”
And one of the main reasons for that recovery is what I showed here. Changes in the transparency of the stratosphere leading to an additional 2 W/m2 making it into the tropical lower climate system.
If volcanoes cause a _temporary_ cooling of the extra-tropical regions, someone ought to be explaining why it warms up again. The orthodoxy pretend this is due to AGW. What I have shown here is that it is far too closely linked to aerosol density and the timing of volcanic eruptions.
Had you bothered to follow the link below the graph you would have got the full story, in all it’s technical detail:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
So I have provided evidence if you could be bothered to read it before sounding off.
Thanks Willis, interesting as always. I’m very late to this party and was too lazy to read all 304 previous posts. However, here is my 2 cents worth.
1) We receive 98+% of our energy from the Sun so it is the probable cause.
2) Our orbit and tilt vary over time, providing additional variability in energy input.
3) Earth’s climate is dominated by negative feedbacks as evidenced by Earth’s relatively stable climate over millions of years.
4) Deep ocean currents have a tremendous impact on Earth’s climate as evidenced by the change three million years ago when volcanic activity in Central America connected NA & SA, changing those currents and leading to our current glacial/interglacial cycles.
Therefore, there are multiple drivers and multiple negative feedbacks that keep Earth’s climate relatively stable. Plus/minus 5K over ~300K mean Earth average temperature is very stable! You are looking for multiple harmonics in an extremely complex and dynamic system.
In conclusion, it is obviously the Sun. Take away the energy from the Sun, and we begin to freeze in 8+ minutes. However, that is only the primary driver and minor fluctuations in that primary driver are hidden by Earth’s dynamic systems responses. We simply don’t know enough to separate all the harmonics to see the true impact of minor variations in the Sun’s influence to determine the true impact of the Sun Spot cycles.
Bill
Why are you guys arguing about sun spot records and temperature records…..like any of them are factual? ( and no, I won’t quote anything)
Willis,
I can create a temperature graph using random numbers, where the amplitude of the peaks drop exponentially over time from +/- 4.0 to +/- 0.5 from 1700 to 2020. If I then filter this data set (by decade say) I will see significant peaks and troughs (the period being a function of filter length) where amplitude is a function of “noise”. This will produce hot and cold periods early on with amplitudes exceeding 1.0 degrees, but only small hot and cold periods later on with amplitudes less than 0.1 (not worthy of a LIA or MWP). All of this is caused by noise in the data and has nothing to do with solar activity. I can then correlate my fictitious graph with sun spot count and remarkably will find some correlation because the Maunder and Dalton Minimums correspond with the oldest parts of my data set. Also in the Figure 4 data set the time period at the Dalton Minimum corresponds exactly with an increase in noise of the temperature record, exactly where we would expect a major peak or trough to occur due to filtering alone. I have an Excel spread sheet showing this. The code is below:
assignfile(txt,’noise.txt’);
rewrite(txt);
for i := 1700 to 2020 do
begin
y:=(random(800)-400)/100.0; {generate a random time series from +/- 4.0 deg}
y:=y*exp(-(i-1700)/150); {make it exponentially decrease with TC = 150 yrs}
y:=y+(i-1700)/500; {add a linear trend for fun}
writeln(txt,i:10,y:10:4);
end;
closefile(txt); {now put that in Excel and filter}
Note that y first holds the random error (+/- 4 deg peak to peak).
Then y is scaled to decrease exponentially with a time constant of 150 years. This better matches the noise I see in the temperature record (Fig. 4).
Finally, I add a simple linear trend of approx. 0.2 deg / century to give an apparent (CAGW) trend upward.
If you want my data just ask Anthony for my email address and I’ll send you the code (Pascal) as well. But it’s pretty simple. You can see you get a couple of LIA’s and MWP’s with every run, earliest on in the data record.
If multi-decade changes in solar output are mostly manifested on earth as regional effects over time and translated to other heating and cooling factors and systems, including poorly described and monitored ones, then the story is incomplete rather than closed.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:02 am
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:57 am
“I am not surprised, there was far less global warming in the 19th century”
“Even if solar activity was nearly the same in the 19th century as in the 20th. So clearly the Sun is not involved. As you say: not surprising.”
To say, “So clearly the Sun is not involved.” is clearly an extreme over statement. As has been pointed out by other comments in this, and many other posts, temperature is undoubtedly a result of a complex mutivariate mix of causal variables, evidently nolinear, which may, indeed, be actually a chaotic mix. This does not mean that the Sun is “not involved”. Nor does it mean that its effect can be estimated in the linear fasion you regularly quote as 0.2 degrees or whatever. Better to simply say that its overall effect, in combination with the other variables with which it interacts, which magnify or reduce its effect, is presently not known.
Jim G says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:26 am
“Even if solar activity was nearly the same in the 19th century as in the 20th. So clearly the Sun is not involved. As you say: not surprising.”
To say, “So clearly the Sun is not involved.” is clearly an extreme over statement.
It should be clear that what was meant was ‘in a major way’. There is no doubt that the Sun is involved at the 0.1 degree level, but that is not what the issue is.
Better to simply say that its overall effect, in combination with the other variables with which it interacts, which magnify or reduce its effect, is presently not known.
That is an extreme under statement. If not known, then the null-hypothesis must be that there is no major influence.
Hi Willis, Always a pleasure to absorp your writings. My best shot would be the increase/decrease in the rotation speed of the earth as measured by IERS. See this link: http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html. The reason (for me) is the link between the sun’s magnetic regime (reverse of the sun-spot regime, see the notch of david evans) and the rotation speed of the earth designated as LOD (length of day). The more active the sun’s magnetic field the slower the LOD and vice versa. A higher earth rotation speed may spread the colder air and water layers in ways different from a lower earth rotation speed; colder meaning more dense and hence (my opinion) more equitorial distribution under higher rotation speed conditions. In combination with your emerging atmospheric phenomena driven by temperature resulting cloud cover and distribution it may, I said may generate further insight.
The Sun is the major player providing radiation: consider it ROCK
Major Volcanic Activity severely blocks solar radiation: consider it PAPER
PAPER COVERS ROCK Sometimes – Significantly Lowering Earth’s Temperatures
The Sun is not the only player in the Earth’s Climate Game
I believe that the discussion has degraded to the level of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We cant know even assuming they exist. That pretty sums up our knowledge of the climate. It changes and we really dont know why so arguing about what level of co2 or sunspots it takes to change the weather seems pointless.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:36 am
Again, non-linear. Not known means just that, not that there is NO effect. Why is it so difficult to admit that we just have not yet figured out the relationships?
Leif would you care to comment on this quote from my 6:51 am post.
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
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……..
The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature trends The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present (Cycle 24) is obvious……..:
(you might like to read the whole 6:51 comment and check the science direct link before replying)
Jim G says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:43 am
Again, non-linear. Not known means just that, not that there is NO effect.
It means that there is no evidence for an effect.
Why is it so difficult to admit that we just have not yet figured out the relationships?
Tell that to the sun-enthusiasts who invoke the stupid mantra ‘it’s the Sun, stupid’. If there is no evidence it is no surprise that we haven’t figured anything out, in which case the null-hypothesis stands.
Sturgis, the 1257-58 eruption is approximately twice the size of Tambora. You are not presenting yourself very well here. The 1257-58 event is considered to be the largest explosive volcanic event in the past 7000 years. All ice cores with records that extend through that time span demonstrate this signal as clearly being of greater magnitude than Tambora. While your thesis can be whatever you want it to be, at least get your facts straight. What is more concerning however, is that in my opinion it is evident from your comments you must be choosing not to.
“Estimates of its stratospheric sulfate load are around eight- and two-times greater than those of Krakatau in A.D. 1883 and Tambora in A.D. 1815, respectively (6), ranking it among the most significant volcanic events of the Holocene (7).”
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.full
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:46 am
Leif would you care to comment on this quote from my 6:51 am post.
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate.
There is much evidence that the cosmic ray record is heavily influenced by the climate [if you need references it just shows that you are not current with the literature], so the ‘usefulness’ is highly dubious, in fact there is a fair amount of circular reasoning involved.
Willis wrote,”As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.”
The graph you posted shows the Maunder Minimum as the coldest period in the graph. Take Leif Svalgaard’s presentation slide 31, bottom graph, “Total absolute magnetic fluxes on the Sun”. Place that graph over the CET graph, and there is what I would consider to be reasonable correlation. About as correlated as I would expect if the sun has some impact on temperature but with other things going on like changes in ENSO cycles and etc.
The problem here is that you are saying that there is no support or very little support for solar minima causing cool temperatures. I believe this statement is not correct. The correct statement is that there appears to be some correlation. Correlation is not causation. So, more research is needed to determine how solar minima cause temperature changes and to what degree it causes them (if it does).
Willis wrote, “…during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last half of the solar minimum. If the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would it warm while the sun is still slumping?”
The answer is that determining the actual changes in heat in the oceans and on land is very difficult even today. Even today, the analysis is not very accurate. Locations on land are influenced by multidecadal changes in the PDO, AMO, NAO, AO and etc. If various of those cycles are in the “positive” mode, and there was a small change in the sun, it might take 20 years or more to see any major impact and that impact would vary depending on the location. Second, no one really knows what impact the sun has and what mechanism(s) are most responsible. For example, is it changes in ultraviolet radiation from the sun or is it galactic cosmic rays that have the most impact? How do they impact climate and how long does it take for the impact to be seen? The answers to those questions are unknown.
That said, your analysis is very interesting as always and I remain a Willis fan :). It also started a good discussion. Thanks for posting it.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:47 am
Jim G says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:43 am
Again, non-linear. Not known means just that, not that there is NO effect.
“It means that there is no evidence for an effect.”
Unless one continues to think in single variable linear terms, there is also no evidence for your 0.1 degree estimate of solar involvement.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:36 am
If not known, then the null-hypothesis must be that there is no major influence.
=====
Leif, thanks for a great example of word-smithing…..
The null would be…..we don’t know
Jim G says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:03 am
Unless one continues to think in single variable linear terms, there is also no evidence for your 0.1 degree estimate of solar involvement.
When changes are small, everything is linear. There are claims of a solar cycle effect of the order of 0.1C, but it is true that that effect is so small that it is almost lost in the noise.
The 0.1C effect is what we expect solely because of the variation of TSI over a cycle. If that variation has no effect, then we need to explain why, and what is your explanation for the lack of effect?
Latitude says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:04 am
The null would be…..we don’t know
As Wittgenstein noted “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
lsvalgaard says:
“Even if solar activity was nearly the same in the 19th century as in the 20th.”
It was not, there were two grand minima in the 19th century. The 20th century only had the the last cycle of the Gleissberg Minimum.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:14 am
It was not, there were two grand minima in the 19th century. The 20th century only had the last cycle of the Gleissberg Minimum.
Not so: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png
Latitude:
At June 24, 2014 at 8:04 am you write
NO! Absolutely not. You are rejecting the scientific method.
lsvalgaard is right and you are wrong.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and it forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In this case the assertion was that solar changes would affect climate. The affects on climate are not observed so the Null Hypothesis says the solar changes did not induce them to a discernible degree.
Of course, the Null Hypothesis may be wrong because other effects masked the investigated affects. It is always possible that the Null Hypothesis is wrong but the scientific method decrees that its indications must be accepted in the absence of other evidence.
Richard
Richard, you just said we don’t know enough to know if the null applies or not…….
…which was exactly my point
Latitude says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:20 am
Richard, you just said we don’t know enough to know if the null applies or not…….
…which was exactly my point
The null has to do with what we observe, not with what you think we know.
I always thought it was the Sun too but am becoming increasingly doubtful that the Sun had anything more than perhaps a slight effect on the LIA.
Unfortunately for the hard-core denialists here it may be a decrease in CO2.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/columbus-arrival-linked-carbon-dioxide-drop
Latitude:
At June 24, 2014 at 8:20 am you say to me
I fail to understand why you think I said that. I wrote
Richard
I think it is high time that these discussions find someone who follows the course of events and to troubleshoot this, to date, the most difficult puzzles of which depends on many human activities.
I again, who knows the way, participants could help me by giving me the right address, I declare my evidence about the real causes of all events on the sun, and thus climate change which are the main indicators of the sunspot cycle. If this is read the owner and editor of this magazine, then I ask him to help me how to find the right place where I can express my proof of the solution of this enigma. These discussions can last for several hundred years, which again is not going to find a real and true causes of the sun. Maybe I’m not versed in the rules of publishing houses and these discussions, but it seems that no one has any interest to get this resolved. Why are you afraid to tell someone where they can present evidence, but with a contractual obligation, because the solution to this puzzle is worth several trillion dollars of mankind, provided that the proof is correct. To all of you strange when I offer a solution, which is logical, because I’m an unknown figure in science. I’m trying for several years to publish other works, which are adjusted current scientific evidence (König’s theorem, Kepler’s laws, irregular motion of the planets, causing spin the planet, causing retrograde planets, and the like. Seems that the science can be taught only as a member of a rich group ( Mason), or if paid in advance for membership, regardless of what kind of benefits the science. come to my time when many will pray to know the truth, but then may be too late.
To you I say to all: the cycle of the sunspots average of 11.2 years is base to which are connected to many other cycles that you do not want to know, nor without it can resolve the issue.
Anthony:
Since there was no information on what you “spiked” from V., I cannot address that matter. As you say you can and should “reserve the right”. There is an implication that it had something to do with sunspot cycles, and plate tectonics, which I would also agree would probably be rather specious. And, the other case, would be the total non-sequitor comment. This would be deserving of the elimination also. Plate tectonics would seem to involve things more on the geologic time scale, which would bode to climate influences ALSO on that time scale. That may be of interest, but as you noted, in a separate discussion.
Nikola Milovic says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:28 am
I again, who knows the way, participants could help me by giving me the right address, I declare my evidence about the real causes of all events on the sun, and thus climate change which are the main indicators of the sunspot cycle.
One way would be to write it up and submit it as a guest post to WUWT.
“….And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have”
What you have just isn’t good enough. If you don’t have the data, you can’t prove or disprove anything.
Leif Willis Mosher etc y’all might profitably look at the Figs (esp 3) in Yamaguchi et al
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.full
here’s the abstract
“The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to
investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became
exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different
from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the
oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central
Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible
sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution
solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope
records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O
record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy
seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with
decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around
minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the
climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes
in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal
link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further
supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of
tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core
10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with
the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally
related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least
during the Maunder Minimum.”
Leif I suppose you don’ agree with the Pedro et al quote I posted earlier.
“The value of the Steinhilber interpretations is indicated in the following link posted earlier by Sturgishooper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12004748
“This suggests that studies which assimilate bipolar composite 10Be records in solar or cosmic ray
intensity reconstructions (e.g. Steinhilber et al., 2012), or variants,
such as the leading principal component of multiple records (e.g.
Muscheler et al., 2007b) are less likely to introduce spurious
climate-related signals than those assimilating 10Be records from
individual sites (e.g. Bard et al., 2000; Vonmoos et al., 2006;
Shapiro et al., 2011). Using multiple 10Be records in addition to
cosmogenic 14C (from tree rings), which has a very different
geochemical behaviour to 10Be, can help to further decouple the
climate signal from the 10Be record (e.g. Muscheler et al., 2007b;
Usoskin et al., 2009; Steinhilber et al., 2012″
“Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:38 am
Leif Willis Mosher etc y’all might profitably look at the Figs (esp 3) in Yamaguchi et al”
I see nothing in that paper that supports the contention that the grand minimums caused a cooler planet.
1. They cite a change in GCR. However, looking at the highest resolution measured data we have
on GCR, clouds, and temperature we can find no relationship between GCR and temperature.
2. They use proxies from one limited area of the globe.
3. they cite Mann 99 for a recon on the NH
Epic fail.
Please do not tell me that the REASON YOU BELIEVE is a study that uses mann 99
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:38 am
y’all might profitably look at the Figs (esp 3) in Yamaguchi et al
“10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with
the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally
related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least
during the Maunder Minimum.”
Although I value the opinion of my good friend Miyahara, there is little profit to extract from their paper. They advocate a 22-yr cycle impulse of short duration, based on superposed epoch analysis of only four cycles. This is much too short for any firm conclusion. If they would extend that analysis to the many more cycles that we actually have, their paper would be of interest.
Leif I suppose you don’ agree with the Pedro et al quote I posted earlier.
Many researchers do not agree with Pedro et al. There is a strong climate signal in the cosmic ray record [as strong or stronger than the solar modulation] so no real conclusions can be drawn.
Your problem is selective attention to papers that support your ideas without consideration of others that do not. I have yet to see your list of non-supportive papers. Perhaps you could take some time to compile such a list.
Where can one find a copy of the data for the “new” SSN’s? Also, have there been changes to the official dates for the various cycle maxima and minima?
william says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:41 am
I believe that the discussion has degraded to the level of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We cant know even assuming they exist. That pretty sums up our knowledge of the climate. It changes and we really dont know why so arguing about what level of co2 or sunspots it takes to change the weather seems pointless.
———————————————
There is nothing wrong with looking for answers but I would agree with you. My analogy to predicting climate is to get in a small boat in the middle of the ocean and predict by how much and when waves will move you up and down… with your eyes closed. All you have to go on is past up and down motions and your records of those are pretty spotty. Good luck.
RomanM says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:02 am
Where can one find a copy of the data for the “new” SSN’s? Also, have there been changes to the official dates for the various cycle maxima and minima?
As the data is still being finalized you will have to be content with an approximate list [which should be good for most kinds of studies]: Take the official SIDC/SILSO list and increase all values before 1947 by 20% or decrease all post-1946 values by 20% [which is what we decided to do]. The times of maxima and minima are not affected.
“Paul Westhaver says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:37 am
“….And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have”
What you have just isn’t good enough. If you don’t have the data, you can’t prove or disprove anything.”
##################
science is not about proof. math and geometry and logic do proofs.
Science is about the best explanation for the data as given.
That means you use the data you have to constrain belief, to bound belief, to rule out as much as you can. You use the data as given to create the best explanation given the data. And then you work to improve that.
lsvalgaard says:
“Not so”
Yes it is so, Dalton was cycles 5&6, Gleissberg was cycles 12-14. Four cycles effected by solar minima in the 19th century, and one cycle effected in the 20th century.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:10 am
Thanks.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:14 am
Yes it is so, Dalton was cycles 5&6, Gleissberg was cycles 12-14.
Too much wishful thinking on your part. SC15-16 were on par with SC12-13 and the smallest cycle in that era was SC14 in the 20th century. SC23-24 would be the next minimum and yet the temperatures now are higher than ‘ever’, e.g. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2705
So, no evidence for your contention.
[snip . . perhaps you could just point out their errors rather than saying they should just be got rid of . . thanks . . mod]
“The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and it forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation.”
Wrong. The null hypothesis is related to statistical testing. The term was coined in 1935.
Clearly, newton did science before the null.
In its simplest form the Null is this: its a statement that there is no relationship (statistical relationship) between two variables. But clearly, newton was doing science when he formulated his laws, and Einstein was doing science in 1905.
The null is not the basis of understanding or investigation or interpretation. The null is a TOOL used to check the results of statistical tests. Do not mistake a step in the entire process of coming to understanding as the foundation of understanding.
When newton formulated that F=MA, he did not set out by asserting a null and then disproving it.
Quite the opposite. He set out by postulating a relationship.
“Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:07 am
Steven Mosher said:
“If you point to a purely local record ( like CET) then you’ve havent made the case.”
CET tracks the NAO really well, that’s not local, and the NAO tracks the short term solar variability far better than any global mean that is hugely damped, and with major negative feedbacks in the form of oceanic modes working in opposition to the solar signal.”
1. Tracks really well? not science.
2. NAO is not the planet.
You havent made the case.
“the two graphs diverge with the fall of the soviet union when thousands of weather stations across Russia went permanently off line. Remove a lot of cold stations and the potential exists to create an artificial warming, that cannot be explained by any other mechanism except CO2, because they only looked for CO2.”
WRONG.
one reason you must ALWAYS use anomalies. We use anomalies because if you dont then dropping “cold” stations will bias the answer. However, if you translate absolute temperature into anomalies then you will NOT bias the answer when you drop cold stations.
That in fact is provable.
Any of you statistical wizards out there ever tried, or are aware of, any AID types of analysis done upon the hodge podge of variables believed to effect global temperatures? All I seem to find are time series and regressions, mostly single variable, or graphical representations with multiple time series of one variable at a time. Perhaps an AID approach could discriminate among the factors causing ups and downs in temperatures. Just a thought.
Steven Mosher says:
“…You use the data as given to create the best explanation given the data. …”
Yes. Of course. I am simply making the point that no definitive result can be rendered with the data set in question. On another issue, There is no attributional of error or measurement uncertainty on any of the graphs which I always find troubling. I expect that a real graph would be a region rather than a line, and the region would be dark at higher certainties and faint gray at the edges.
Why is this important to me?
In a single earth day, where the sun varies negligibly in its solar output, the earth surface AIR temperature can vary over 30 C. So we know the effect of turning the sun off and on. We know its time constant.
To discover fractions of a degree change in decades form a solar flux variation superimposed on this signal would mean that you would have to be able filter out that very robust effect.
These analysis methods, by virtue that they are devoid of consideration of the measurement precision or certainty, must be no more that graphic ideation. Which I guess is ok for a start.
Steven Mosher says:
The null is not the basis of understanding or investigation or interpretation.
In fact, it is.
The Null Hypothesis is used to obtain an understanding of whether or not the current global climate and temperature is normal and natural, or whether it is unusual and unprecedented.
The Null Hypothesis makes it clear that current climate parameters are not unusual, or unprecedented. Everything observed today has happened before, and to a much greater degree: global T has been much higher, and also much lower before human emissions were a factor. Arctic ice cover has essentially disappeared a few thousand years ago, during the present Holocene. Sea level rise has been greater than now. Extreme weather events happened more frequently in the past. And so on.
Kevin Trenberth wants to get rid of the universally-accepted climate Null Hypothesis, and replace it with his own fabrication, which would force skeptics, in effect, to have to prove a negative. Skeptics would have to prove that global warming is natural, with Trenberth’s default Null being the assumption that global warming is man-made. That isn’t science. That is witchcrtaft juju, and it would negate the Scientific Method. Fortunately, Trenberth is getting no traction with his latest doctrine.
As we see, the Null Hypothesis has caused great consternation among climate alarmists. It holds their feet to the fire, and they don’t like it. So they want to either disregard it, or move the goal posts far down field.
But this is science. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, and that fact effectively deconstructs the entire alarmist narrative. That’s why Trenberth is going basllistic. He cannot accept anything that derails his gravy train.
They will probably try to get rid of the Scientific Method next.
Regardless of the sniping and knicker twisting, the thread has been invigorating.
WRT LIA volcanic activity that can 1) trigger, 2) sustain and 3) enhance cooling, I have been perusing research related to ENSO perturbations following an intense stratospheric equatorial volcanic pyroclastic explosion with multiple pulses (of which the Samalas Volcano shows evidence of). The evidence of ENSO disruption is building in the research community. But they are not there yet in terms of full understanding. So there is room for speculation. I do know this: ENSO processes are still poorly understood and have yet to be successfully modeled. Ask Bob Tisdale about that one. The dynamical models run too hot, and the statistical models are impaired by a lack of analogue years to draw from. To be sure, this scenario of mine is speculation for little ice ages, not for normal weather pattern variations such as we see currently. Nonetheless, I speculate:
The Trigger: Using Bob Tisdale’s explanation of how equatorial warm and cool pools of water are subsequently circulated and distributed throughout the globe, demonstrating current, serial, and lagged teleconnections with far flung large oceanic/atmospheric systems such as the AO and AMO, I speculate that stratospheric class equatorial volcanic eruptions can reduce solar insolation to the point that an El Nino event is initiated which discharges heat into the atmosphere, causing further cloudiness and disrupting subsequent opportunities for clear sky La Nina conditions to the point that adequate oceanic recharging is not sufficient to keep the planet within an average temperature band. Eventually the cooler, circulating upper layers of the oceans cool the land surfaces, thus causing temperature decrease on a global scale.
The Sustainer: With continued tropospheric and stratospheric veiling (it takes a while for super volcanos to quiet down), equatorial recharge continues to be damped, further enhancing the cooling oceans. I surmise this is why the comparatively sudden cooling is preceded by a very nicely warmed environment due to continued discharge of stored heat into the air (which also explains why some areas are warmed by an eruption before getting cold). But it is a potentially dangerous set up for sudden cooling when the oceanic source of the land heat is gone.
Once this onset phase has been initiated and likely sustained as the veiling continues with additions of aerosols as the large volcano continues to burb and gurgle, it likely eventually triggers other systems to go into their cool mode (see final note below), causing especially severe flora and fauna devastation from mid-latitudes to the poles.
WRT the Little Ice Age, evidence is building for an earlier initiation of that event. It is being found in high latitude flora kill dates that demonstrate a decided turn towards much colder temperatures of a rather sudden nature occurring before global temperatures demonstrate a steep dive. This is important and makes sense. Prior to global temperatures taking a steep dive, it is likely that freezing conditions started earlier and at higher latitudes. This has been confirmed, which is why the initial date of the LIA is being pushed further back from where it has been historically set. This makes complete sense. Ice Ages big and small come from the North and have to travel quite a ways before the Thames freezes over. The various systems have to be triggered which then cascades over time into lower latitudes. Yes, it is sudden in the time scale used here in that it may take a couple hundred years or less before global temperature proxies show it as a clear signal.
All this is to say that the most recent research related to the Little Ice Age trigger is showing hard evidence that things started dying from cold waaaayyyyy before the solar Maunder Minimum when the Sun was just fine and working like a trooper. This earlier kill date meshes with my speculation (and one that is appearing in the literature more and more) that a super event such as an equatorial stratospheric eruption in 1257 could have been that trigger as well as the sustainer.
The Enhancer: Imagine if it had happened during a normal weather pattern variation that was already on the cold side. Yikes!
lsvalgaard says:
“SC15-16 were on par with SC12-13 and the smallest cycle in that era was SC14 in the 20th century.”
SC15-16 had slightly higher SSN, and a higher Ap index.
SC23-24 would be the next minimum and yet the temperatures now are higher than ‘ever’”
CET has taken a sharp downturn from SC24.
Dennis
“Before you throw Lamb under the bus, you need to read his entire book, “Climate History of the Modern World”.
So, the reason you believe is because Lamb wrote a book?
or read this book and you will believe?
Im not getting the scientific argument here
What data suggests that Lamb was right?
Did lamb make an argument connecting the solar minimum and global cooling?
Did Lamb RULE OUT other causes.?
Folks are forgetting this last step
It is not enough for warmists to show a relationship between C02 and warming. They also have to show that it other causes are ruled out. How many times have we seen this argument?
well the same challenge awaits those who want to claim its the sun stupid
And there is more. Notice what Willis is pointing out in the limited records we have. There is no clear relationship, during minimums the temperature also goes up. Now, look at the C02 versus
temperature in the past 15 years. C02 has gone up and temperature has stayed flat.
A) how many of you conclude from this disconnect that c02 is not the cause of warming.
If you do, then what do you make of the disconnect between solar staying flat and the
temperature going up? goose meet gander.
B) note the special pleading.. “yes there is a disconnect BUT.. xyz might explain the disconnect.”
Now, consider the arguments about C02.. yes there is a disconnect but the heat is hiding
in the ocean. goose meet gander.
It’s pretty clear that two groups of thinkers fall into the same argumentative patterns.
those groups would be 1) its C02 dammit. 2) its the sun stupid.
Those two groups do the exact same things when asked for evidence. They point to papers they never read or audited. They engage in special pleading when the data and their theory are at odds.
Just an observation.
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:13 am
Doc, don’t bother. Konrad did an experiment which has convinced him that the emissivity of seawater is ≈ 0 in the thermal infrared, and like Peter Parker’s spider bite, it has given him a mysterious power which enables him to ignore all other scientific results on the subject.
And no, Konrad, this is not an invitation to discuss your idee fixé, nor is it the thread for that. Please, let’s stick with solar minima, thanks.
w.
William Astley says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:40 am
Thanks, William. To date, neither the RSS nor the MSU satellite temperature data show cooling. Their trends have been ≈ 0 for a decade and more.
What satellite record of global temperatures are you referring to that shows the cooling in real time?
w.
***
Konrad says:
June 23, 2014 at 8:32 pm
It should also be noted that UV-A still has the power of ~10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
***
10 W/m2? The solar-cycle TSI variance is a mere ~1.5 W/m2. I realize UV varies more than TSI, but are you sure that much gets to the surface? Most UV is absorbed in the thin stratosphere.
If UV decreases during solar minimums more than TSI, solar IR must increase to mostly compensate (to get to the ~1.5 W/m2 change), and solar IR is not significantly absorbed in the stratosphere and mostly gets to the surface. That seems to suggest slightly more W/m2 are penetrating the atmosphere & reaching the surface during solar minimums.
The proposals about ozone absorption affecting jet streams, etc, are not convincing to me.
“In fact, it is.
The Null Hypothesis is used to obtain an understanding of whether or not the current global climate and temperature is normal and natural, or whether it is unusual and unprecedented.”
Did netwon do science?
what was his null
Did einstein do science?
what was his null.
When foucault postulated that the earth rotated, and built his pendulum to demonstrate this
what was his null?
when rotengen discovered X rays what was his null?
In none of these cases and countless others, there was no null.
A Null is not foundational to doing science. it is a tool. merely a tool
Now, on to your “null”
Is the current temperature “normal” or unprecedented?
1. That is not a proper null
A) normal is undefined’
B) unprecedented is undefined.
2. Assuming a working definition of normal ( normal = the full envelope of temperatures earth has seen since forming) we see the following
A) todays temperature falls WITHIN the bounds of normal.
B) it is warmer now than in 1850.
3. Science tries to explain 2B. That is. science seeks the BEST explanation for the very normal
rise in temperature since 1850. One does not have to show that a phenomena is abnormal
to explain it.
Its like this. I note that your kids are smaller than mine. your daughter is 5 foot 2, mine is 5 foot
11. Both fall within normal bounds. neither is a giant. neither is a midget. We do not stop
explaining simply because a phenomena is “normal” ( which is not actually a scientific concept)
we try to explain why my daughter is taller than yours. A good start to explaining that would be genetics. Does genetics explain it all? probably not.
The 9400-year record contains 26 Grand Minima (GM) similar to the Maunder Minimum, most of which occurred as sequences of 2 – 7 GM with intervals of 800 – 1200 years in between, in which there were no GM.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SoPh..286..609M
Pamela Gray says:
WRT the Little Ice Age, evidence is building for an earlier initiation of that event… This earlier kill date meshes with my speculation (and one that is appearing in the literature more and more) that a super event such as an equatorial stratospheric eruption in 1257 could have been that trigger as well as the sustainer.
That makes sense to me. Something caused the LIA, and it wasn’t the usual suspects. It is an anomaly that produced one of the coldest episodes in the 10,700 year Holocene. As the planet emerged from the LIA, CO2 coincidentally rose for a small part of that time. That spurious correlation was enough to generate the climate alarm industry, and we are finally starting to emerge from that, too.
Trond Arne Pettersen says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:41 am
Thanks, Trond, always happy to see someone running the numbers for themselves.
However, do me a favor. Use the same method on a straight line with a trend. What you’ll find is a U-shaped diagram that looks almost identical to the accumulated average that you have for HadCRUT4.
Does this mean that HadCRUT4 is related to a straight line, or that there is a causal relationship?
No … it just means that you’ve neglected to detrend your data before taking the cumulative sum.
The other problem with your analysis is that you are using the old sunspot data. The new data is available on Leif Svalgaard’s site here, it’s the first link.
Best regards,
w.
“a super event such as an equatorial stratospheric eruption in 1257 could have been that trigger as well as the sustainer”
Tony Brown would be the best person to ask, you may well find that summers in NW Europe were normal to warm in the decade following 1258.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:53 am
CET has taken a sharp downturn from SC24.
What is important is the global temperature. Now you are claiming that CET is not a good measure for the global temperature.
Anthony only you can decide that . You have to evaluate if they are in error or not based on all the data you have access to and take it from there. I have access to that same data and from my point of view they are both going strongly against what the majority of all the latest research is pointing to.
I know you feature David Archibald and that gives some balance to your site. Maybe more of that slant of an article will help bring more balance if they(Leif and Willis) are to stay as main posters on your site. Balance is so important especially in this crazy field.
I had sent you a nice article yesterday which was a study done on the temperature variance from 1680 to 1780 that was never posted. I could send so many studies showing or collaborating the same conclusions exactly the opposite of what Willis/Leif keep trying to convey..
They have no answers while they dismiss everything right out of hand.
Anthony think about what I am saying. I have talked to some in the climate field about you and they all had good things to say.
Good luck next month in the climate summit. take care
lsvalgaard says:
“What is important is the global temperature.”
What is important is cold in the regions that are known to have been cold during Maunder and Dalton etc. Global mean surface temperature could easily rise initially due to ENSO and AMO responses.
“Now you are claiming that CET is not a good measure for the global temperature.”
As we can see since 2010, it can be a poor measure in the short term.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:18 am
Thanks for the reply again Willis. If the straight line had a negative trend it would sure not be U-shaped. But, the point is that the trend is similar for both TSI and temperature. But I don’t say for sure that there is causal relationship, but I find it (more than) interesting that the graphs have such a likeness in profile, and also that the change of direction is exactly at the same point of time. And the average is for the chosen period, 1850 until present for both. And, yes, it is Leif new numbers: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-HMFB-TSI.xls
Thanks Ulrich, but I have a satisfactory answer from my literature review. Here is just one example of evidence of an extreme change in weather post 1257 in Europe. There are others, including mass graves.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agu.org%2Fbooks%2Fgm%2Fv139%2F139GM16%2F139GM16.pdf&ei=m7mpU6m8HIGjyATh7oKQBw&usg=AFQjCNGsxjyLp5pW6afi2jYpUpDqqBXcdQ&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
lsvalgaard
You’re making a mistake talking about global temperature. The decrease in solar activity means the strong temperature fluctuations associated with anomalimi atmospheric circulation. Check the temperature in Antarctica.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/mspps/np_images/amsua_ts_des.gif
Steven Mosher:
You continue your attempt to redefine the scientific method with your post at June 24, 2014 at 10:08 am where you ask and assert
I refer you to my above post at June 24, 2014 at 8:17 am which is here because it answers each of your questions and explains your errors when it says
Some cases that you cite as a question are ambiguous (e.g. which work of Newton?) but in each case the Null Hypothesis was that the considered system did not experience a change unless there was evidence of a change. This must be true because it is a fundamental principle of empiricism; indeed, it leads to the assumption that the same physical laws exist throughout the universe.
All of the scientific method is a tool
(and I have resisted the temptation to add an ad hom. for amusement).
Your lack of understanding of such basics of the scientific method goes a long way to explaining your many strange comments on WUWT.
Richard
@Pamela Gray
There are apparently numerous reports of crop failure and famine in 1258, though one cold year is not sustained cooling.
William Astley says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:40 am
WIlliam, this is exactly why I asked you for the one study that you are willing to stand behind … I cannot even replicate their simple results. Take a look at their figure S1-c, and tell me if you think there is a 0.5 correlation between ∂18O and temperature. I took one look at that and said “no way, their claim is way out of line”.
So I digitized their data, and yes indeed, the correlation is much smaller, only 0.29.
Finally, they run off and check the relationship between 14C and ∂18O in the Maunder … but they didn’t check the more modern relationship where they would actually have observational data to cross-check.
In any case, since the temperature-∂18O correlation is very weak in modern times (r2 = 0.08, n=35, NOT statistically significant), I fear that the study is useless. If you can’t show the claimed relationships have statistical significance today, why should we believe them for a period 400 years in the past?
If that’s the study you’re standing behind, William, I fear you just lost all credibility. However, I doubt if you put that up there to stand behind, so your credibility is intact, I reckon you just tossed it at the wall in the hopes it would stick.
It didn’t …
I say again—I’m not interested in something that you found with some google search. I want the study that in your best judgement is bulletproof, the study that doesn’t fall apart like this one did at the first analysis.
w.
lsvalgaard
Whether not you understand that cosmic rays will be targeted in certain areas? Over the equator increase a little, but, for example, over northern Canada, much more. This is bad news for America.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/33avsdl.jpg
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:30 am
Balance is so important especially in this crazy field.
No, balance is about opinions. Science is about data and facts [evidence in short]. On that there can be no balance.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:49 am
“Now you are claiming that CET is not a good measure for the global temperature.”
As we can see since 2010, it can be a poor measure in the short term.
Yet you use it for SC24, go figure.
“Some cases that you cite as a question are ambiguous (e.g. which work of Newton?) but in each case the Null Hypothesis was that the considered system did not experience a change unless there was evidence of a change. This must be true because it is a fundamental principle of empiricism; indeed, it leads to the assumption that the same physical laws exist throughout the universe.”
Wrong.
The null hypothesis as a tool was developed in 1935.
it is tool used in statistical testing.
When netwon postulated that F=MA he was doing science. There was no null
When Einstein formulated e=Mc^2 he was doing science. there was no null.
The null is a tool. it It is a historical development, not foundational. It is used in experiments, If the experimenter is a frequentist. Baysians need no stinking null.
But tell me? when the structure of DNA was postulated, where they doing science?
what was their null?
When foucault did early measurements of the speed of light was he doing science?
what was his null?
An observation based investigation into what scientists ACTUALLY DO, an empirical investigation of what scientists do, a scientific investigation of what they do, will show you this.
A null is not required. The null is a tool. its a tool used by ONE school of statistics. you can do science ( see newton, see ANYONE before 1935 ) without a null.
When Fischer defined what the null was did he argue that it was the foundation of science?
It’s simple. if the null were foundational then one could not do science without it.
When X rays were discovered, that was surely science. What null was specified before that discovery?
lsvalgaard says:
“Yet you use it for SC24, go figure.”
As I explained, not for global temp in the short term.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:56 am
As I explained, not for global temp in the short term.
For the Sun to be a major player in global climate, you should use global values. But perhaps you don’t think the Sun is important.
lsvalgaard
I do not know what you want to prove? That Thames has not frozen? Great Lakes is not frozen?
ren says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm
I do not know what you want to prove?
Why do you think I want to prove anything? Except that you have no clue.
“but in each case the Null Hypothesis was that the considered system did not experience a change unless there was evidence of a change.”
That’s not a null. That is a tautology.
If you want some reading on criticisms of using a null start here
http://polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/gill99.pdf
The criticism go back to the very invention of the tool.
try Tukey.
http://forrest.psych.unc.edu/jones-tukey112399.html
or this
http://lesswrong.com/lw/g13/against_nhst/
or this
http://www.bayesian-inference.com/hypotheses
Maybe it’s strange to you because your theory of how science actually works is wrong.
Your theory. the null is foundational.
the observations: people do science all the time without a null.
when the data contradicts your theory, call dr feynman
I wonder why the Swedes during the Maunder Minimum they wandered south?
Steven Mosher says:
Did netwon do science?
what was his null
Did einstein do science?
what was his null.
They falsified a number of null hypotheses. Newton falsified infinitesimals, etc.
The Null Hypothesis is a tool. A very powerful tool. The Null Hypothesis falsifies the cAGW conjecture.
I understand why believers in the “carbon” scare hate the Null Hypothesis, and that they try to denigrate it in any possible way. But unless it can be falsified, it is showing us that AGW makes no measurable difference in global temperature.
I understand that steps on a lot of toes. But, there it is.
Great paper on the devastation following the 1257-58 eruption.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjrscience.wcp.muohio.edu%2Fclimatepdfs02%2Fclimimpts1258volcaclimchg00.pdf&ei=VsmpU866AZCiyASAhIKoDA&usg=AFQjCNHLGf3IVaNVvZvVXYt9GrJOwgSFjQ&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
But is there evidence of a rebound back to stability?
There is building evidence of a slow temperature decline from the time of the 1257-58 eruption to what is considered to be the coldest periods of the LIA, with a sudden rebound, a span of time that took centuries to slide and then rebound. Caveat: Different models produce different results. One of the major, or THE major, drawback of general circulation models is their failure to reproduce ENSO events and oceanic circulation of ENSO affected upper layer sea surface temperature. In other words, WRT the LIA, they do not simulate the lack of recharge or the subsequent circulation of this now cooler water throughout the globe. Some do a better job of atmospheric circulation but even those do not fully consider oceanic recharge or lack of recharge. Given the abundant volcanic activity throughout this period, Earth would struggle (and apparently fail) to recharge its oceans to the extent that it could recover from such an explosive event quickly. Given the nature of the clouds getting in front of a willing Sun, even under normal circumstances, it is heavy work.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimatechange.rutgers.edu%2Fcomponent%2Fdocman%2Fdoc_download%2F22-mira-berdahl-alan-robock-poster%3FItemid%3D234&ei=PMypU6TNB8mNyATWiIGIDw&usg=AFQjCNG5B6T2UAH2YdFWqeekpm2HZpf-vw
tonyb says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:54 am
Tony, you overestimate your own importance in other peoples minds. I had no clue you were posting as “tonyb”, so to me, you are indeed anonymous. And if I don’t know, there must be many others out there in the same boat.
You have to realize that I read literally hundreds of comments a day. People who use their own names I recognize after a while. And particularly egregious anonymous commenters as well, so I can avoid them.
But most of the time, anonymous commenters are somewhat of a blur, they come and go and use different names, and I’m damned if I’m going to spend the time memorize an alias and associate it with a point of view when you may change your alias tomorrow. In addition, if you post anonymously, I discount anything but scientific claims by about 90%, so I pay much less attention to people using an alias.
Finally, if you polled the folks who read the blog and said “what is the real name of the anonymous poster “tonyb”, my guess is that only one in ten would get the right answer, perhaps one in five … sorry, but it’s not all about you.
Tony, please correct me if I’m wrong, but from my you have used Mann’s work as a part of your extension of the CET backwards in time. However, nowhere that I could find in “The Long Slow Thaw” have you mentioned that because it was built around a bozo math mistake, that the Hockeystick results are meaningless …
In fact, you say the exact opposite, which was
My friend, I fear that if you think the Hockeystick is “essentially confirmed” by the NAS study, you are most definitely way, way out of the loop. You desperately need to spend a week at say Climate Audit doing google searches on these questions. Your opinions are so ungrounded in reality that they are not even wrong.
And how do you combine a claim that you are trying to “to point out the inaccuracies of the Hockey stick” with your claim that the Hockeystick is essentially right? For that matter, where in the Long Slow Thaw do you mention that Mann’s incorrect math mines for hockeysticks? I must have missed that part …
So I fail to see what your point or your purpose was in using the hockeystick.
And me, I agree with the bumper sticker that says “Nice women don’t make history” … go figure.
Is there some part of QUOTE MY WORDS that sounds like a foreign language? You have accused me of “denigrating” you because “our style is different”. How am I supposed to reply to that kind of vague mudslinging, Tony? Obviously you are upset by something I said, but I have no clue what it is, and no way I’m gonna guess. Either tell me EXACTLY what I said that you’re upset about, or go away—I have no use for vague accusations that I’ve hurt your feelings boo hoo, that goes nowhere.
And?
OK, you have “very good knowledge of the last 1000 years of climate”, which you say based on the bogus Hockeystick … is that supposed to be impressive? All that proves is you haven’t done your homework.
And according to you, you’ve actually talked to some climate scientists … is that supposed to convince us that you know your stuff?
Oh, right, I’m the one guy reading this who is ignorant of the true identity of “tonyb” … you vastly overestimate your alias recognition, my friend. It’s funny how aliases have that effect, for some reason they make it hard to know who is using them …
Natural allies? You are promoting the Mann Hockeystick as “essentially confirmed”. I say that it has been demonstrated that it contains an egregious math error which mines for hockeysticks and thus renders the results meaningless. How on earth does that make us natural allies? It certainly doesn’t convince me that your aim is to “use science”, quite the opposite, you’re using Mannian garbage and claiming it is science. And to top it off, you don’t even quote me when you attack me, hardly the action of a natural ally in my book.
Bizarrely, you’ve just done it again, claiming now, in a final bit of throwaway mudslinging, that I “misinterpret” you, one more uncited, unreferenced attack before you go. WHERE did I misinterpret you, Tony, and WHAT did I misinterpret? Without those, it’s just cheap sniping at me on the way out the door, and I don’t do well with that.
Look, Tony, I’m sorry I didn’t snap to attention when I read “tonyb”, but it’s one of the results of your choice to post anonymously. Not my choice. Yours. When you post anonymously, you lose some things, and name recognition is one of them.
And I regret that you are upset, and I’m happy to discuss that. Not only that, but I’m a man who apologizes when I’m wrong, I just had to do it over at Jo Nova’s … but you have to let me know exactly what I said that you disagree with. I’m not going to guess.
Best regards,
w.
Konrad: Thirdly, we know that surface UV variance in the last 3 decades has been two orders of magnitude greater than TSI variance.
Can it be shown that changes in uv irradiance correlate with changes in Earth surface temperature?
The thermal structure and composition of the atmosphere is determined fundamentally by the incoming solar irradiance. Radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths dissociates atmospheric molecules, initiating chains of chemical reactions—specifically those producing stratospheric ozone—and providing the major source of heating for the middle atmosphere, while radiation at visible and near-infrared wavelengths mainly reaches and warms the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface1. Thus the spectral composition of solar radiation is crucial in determining atmospheric structure, as well as surface temperature, and it follows that the response of the atmosphere to variations in solar irradiance depends on the spectrum2. Daily measurements of the solar spectrum between 0.2 µm and 2.4 µm, made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instrument on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite3 since April 2004, have revealed4 that over this declining phase of the solar cycle there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding. This reduction was partially compensated in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wavelengths. Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude. Our results, simulated with a radiative-photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura-MLS satellite, although the short time period makes precise attribution to solar effects difficult. We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity. Currently there is insufficient observational evidence to validate the spectral variations observed by SIM, or to fully characterize other solar cycles, but our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
Greg Goodman says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:15 am
Thanks, Greg, always good to see someone actually crunching the numbers. However …
First, it’s not “my choice of end date”. Those are the standard dates of the Dalton minimum, I didn’t make them up.
Second, what is the actual correlation (adjusted for autocorrelation) between the SSN and the CET? I grow weary of folks claiming correlation, but not calculating correlation. Come back when you’ve done that, and we can discuss it. An overall look at two smoothed datasets is not that useful.
I ask because I calculate the correlation (using detrended annual data 1700-2013) as being 0.3 after after adjustment for autocorrelation, and 0.08 before adjustment, which means that it is not statistically significant no matter how you look at it.
However, since you prefer a different presentation including both datasets (as I often prefer as well), here’s that graph:
As you can see, the oddities are:
1. Other than one cold year, the temperature from about 1785 to 1805 is relatively flat, with little to no cooling.
2. After that, the temperature dropped precipitously until 1813, long after the decrease in the sunspots.
3. The temperature starts rising steadily after that, long before any rise in the sunspots.
Oh, yeah, the correlation over that 71 year period shown in the graphic?
Oh, it’s a whacking great 0.02 … pathetic.
So I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, the claim that the Dalton Minimum caused cooler temperatures is falsified.
w.
Leif,
It would be interesting to get a view from the solar physics community what changes in TSI would be required to produce significant climatic change given
a) TSI variation is stable at +/- 0.1C over many solar cycles.
b) It’s well understood that changes in orbit as per Milanković’s theory can induce climatic change.
It’s the conflation of these two ideas together which is giving some ‘lay’ readers an impression that solar TSI variation alone could be responsible for the mulidecade heating and cooling we’re seeing.
denniswingo says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:31 am
Throw Lamb under the bus? I’ve hardly mentioned Lamb, I’ve used his data, and I’ve said nothing about his point of view regarding solar minima. In fact, I’ve never seen a comment of Lamb’s about either the Maunder or the Dalton.
So … exactly how am I throwing Lamb under the bus?
You see why I asked you to QUOTE MY WORDS, dennis? … and even when I do ask, people like you still think it’s wonderful to toss out bogus claims about what I’ve said.
Quote me or go away. I’m tired of picking spitballs off the wall.
w.
willis Eschenbach: And well-meaning, decent folks like you who for some unknown reason blindly jump in to defend someone else’s uncited fantasy accusation that I’ve made a mistake just make it worse. Didn’t your momma ever tell you to stay out of bar-room fights until you understand the issues?
No, my momma did not tell me anything about barroom fights, and anyway, this is not a barroom and your dispute with tonyb was not a barroom fight. I did not “blindly” jump in, but I do admit to being “decent” and “well-meaning”.
I think you over-reacted to tonyb’s very mild comment.
OTOH, I have read some of the other totally unjustified criticisms of you over the past couple years, and I think I appreciate why “you get your hackles up” (as I wrote once before) so quickly.
But now look at this: Look, Tony, I’m sorry I didn’t snap to attention when I read “tonyb”, but it’s one of the results of your choice to post anonymously.
You didn’t have to “snap to attention”: common courtesy would have been sufficient. I don’t know who tonyb is either, except that he posts at ClimateEtc; you don’t have to know. Your language unnecessarily turned a small problem into a big on, and then a bigger one.
Lastly: Natural allies? You are promoting the Mann Hockeystick as “essentially confirmed”. I say that it has been demonstrated that it contains an egregious math error which mines for hockeysticks and thus renders the results meaningless. How on earth does that make us natural allies? It certainly doesn’t convince me that your aim is to “use science”, quite the opposite, you’re using Mannian garbage and claiming it is science. And to top it off, you don’t even quote me when you attack me, hardly the action of a natural ally in my book.
Bizarrely, you’ve just done it again, claiming now, in a final bit of throwaway mudslinging, that I “misinterpret” you, one more uncited, unreferenced attack before you go. WHERE did I misinterpret you, Tony, and WHAT did I misinterpret? Without those, it’s just cheap sniping at me on the way out the door, and I don’t do well with that.
I can’t find where tonyb promoted the Mann Hockeystick as “essentially confirmed”, but tonyb did write some criticisms of Mann. You assert that tonyb uses “Mannian garbage” without a single supporting instance. I’d suggest that provides 2 of the “misinterpetations” you want cited in the second paragraph. Thee are a number of others, should you care to reread what you wrote about what he wrote.
So you think that Mann is metaphorically a flea infested dog, but tonyb chooses to debate Mann in the published literature. You are natural allies with different strategy choices.
Pamela Gray and I have been pointing to Volcanic Eruptions as known causes of causing global temperatures to drop.
View on iceagenow.info Preview by Yahoo When one thinks about, for instance, what could have possibly caused the extremely rapid drastic global temperature drops during the last glaciation one could conclude that the only explanation is that Sun simply ceased radiating for a number of years. Another related explanation is that the Sun’s radiation ceased reaching Earth for a period of years. One very plausible explanation ties in with known observations of volcanic events whereby ejectae soot blocks Solar radiation affecting Temperature. Piggy-backing that explanation are the known volcanic activities occurring at the time of prior mass extinctions of Life. Yes, the Sun gives Warmth, but what Else could possibly have caused the abrupt rapid Global drop in Temperatures during the series of Glaciations of the prior Ice Ages?
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:48 am
As I showed with tephra deposition data, the 1257-58 eruption was not twice the size of Tambora in this standard measure of VEI. What you meant to say was that its sulfate load has been estimated at twice that of Tambora’s. It is not considered the largest explosive volcanic event of the past 7000 years, but one of them, as I pointed out and your own citation says in the first sentence of its abstract:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.full
“Based on ice core archives of sulfate and tephra deposition, one of the largest volcanic eruptions of the historic period and of the past 7,000 y occurred in A.D. 1257.”
What compels you to lie so blatantly, not just once, but twice? It is not I but you who need to get your facts straight.
Furthermore, one of the authors cited in your linked study has this to say about the climatic effect or lack thereof of the 1257-58 eruption:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD01751/abstract
Stratospheric loading and optical depth estimates of explosive volcanism over the last 2100 years derived from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 ice core
Gregory A. Zielinski
“The high-resolution and lengthy records of volcanic aerosol deposition in ice cores allow assessment of the atmospheric impact of different styles and magnitudes of past eruptions and the impact of volcanism during periods of varied climatic conditions. The 2100-year long volcanic SO42− time series in the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was used to calculate the mass stratospheric loading (MD) of H2SO4 and resulting optical depth values (τD = MD/1.5 × 1014 g) for individual, and multiple, closely spaced eruptions. Calibration of the calculated optical depth values with other compilations spanning the last 150 years provides a range of values for each eruption or set of eruptions essential to quantifying the climate forcing capabilities of each of these events. Limitations on the use of the results exist because this is only a single ice core, sampling was biannual and transport, and deposition of aerosols is not consistent among individual eruptions. The record of volcanic optical depth estimates is characterized by distinct trends within three consecutive 700-year time periods. The period from 100 B.C. to A.D. 600 is characterized by the fewest eruptions, and optical depth values are lower than those in the rest of the record. The exception is an extremely large signal of 3 years duration that is probably associated with an unknown Icelandic eruption around 53 B.C., with the possible contribution of another high-latitude eruption. The presence of another signal at 43 B.C. suggests that at least two eruptions impacted climate in the middle decade of the 1st century B.C. The period from A.D. 600 to 1300 has intermediate numbers and magnitudes of volcanic events except for the very large 1259 event. Stratospheric loading and optical depths values for the 1259 event are twice that for Tambora (A.D. 1815). The state of the climate system in the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. may not have been sensitive enough to the atmospheric perturbation of the 1259 eruption, thus the apparent lack of abundant proxy evidence of climatic cooling around A.D. 1260. The most recent 700 years (A.D. 1400–1985) are characterized by the greatest number of eruptions (half of those recorded over the 2100 years of record) and, in general, the highest stratospheric loading and optical depth values for individual and the combined effects of multiple eruptions. The large Kuwae eruption (A.D. 1450s) may have perturbed the atmosphere at least as much as Krakatau and possibly of a magnitude similar to Tambora. Multiple eruptions in the 50-to 60-year periods from A.D. 1580s–1640s and A.D. 1780s–1830s may have had a significant impact on enhancing the already cool climatic conditions in those time periods, particularly around A.D. 1601 and 1641. These findings imply that multiple eruptions closely spaced in time are more likely to have a major impact on a decadal time scale when existing climatic conditions are in a more sensitive or transitional state. The GISP2 ice core record also indicates that several relatively unknown eruptions may have been large sulfur producers during the 17th and 19th centuries A.D., thereby warranting further studies of those particular events.”
Had you read further into the study you linked, you’d have seen that it too discusses the fact that adding more sulfate doesn’t cause a linear increase in climatic effect.
As for the main point, ie the cause of the LIA, it was not the 1257-8 eruption. There is, as noted above, no evidence to support a climatic effect, let alone lasting, from this event, nor any other single eruption or multiple eruptions, much as Warmunistas try to make believe that’s so. You claim without support that evidence is accumulating for an earlier onset of the LIA. Besides your mention in passing of burials, please present this accumulation. Thanks.
Climate did start to decline in downs and ups after the height of the Medieval Warm Period, but didn’t cross over into colder than post-Optimum normal until the latter 14th century at the earliest, as shown in the first IPCC’s graph, later expurgated. For example, the Greenland Norse survived into the 15th century. On 14 September 1408, Icelander Thorstein Olafsson and local girl Sigrid Björnsdottir were married in the church on Hvalsey Fjord.
In much of the world, the LIA didn’t register until about 1500. For example, eastern China:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP71C..09L
“Abstract
The long-term climatic pace has often been interrupted by short-term abrupt changes. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period represent the two most important such changes over the last two millennia. Largely due to a dearth of high-resolution climatic records, our knowledge on the spatial extent, duration, and moisture characteristics of these two events is incomplete, and this has hampered our understanding of the driving force causing them as well as the recent global warming trend. Here we present high-resolution climatic records reflected by the delta 18O and delta 13C in three stalagmites from limestone caves in China…Although the three caves are more than 1000 km apart, their long-term delta 18O records show patterns that are remarkably similar. The records show that in eastern China, the Medieval Warm Period started around 1000 AD and lasted until 1500 AD. A brief cooling during this warm interval occurred around 1150 AD. The Little Ice Age in China started at around 1500 AD and ended in the mid-1800s. Since then, all three locations show a warming trend that has been observed elsewhere in the world. The records of S312 and SF show that for the past 4,000 years, the two locations has had similar temperature variations with five distinct warming trends, but a different moisture variability which is probably more sensitive to local atmospheric circulation changes than temperature. In general, it was relatively dry during the Medieval Warm Period and wet during the Little Ice Age in eastern China. Of the five warming trends, the most recent one is the strongest.”
Moreover, volcanoes can’t explain the previous warm and cold periods of the Holocene or any prior interglacial, although it’s possible that volcanism increases after glacial phase ice sheets start to melt during the initial warming leading to interglacials.
A C Osborn says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:56 am
Typical of you to talk emissivity when Konrad talks Absorption, can’t you even read what he has said?
Ummm … before climbing on your high horse you might google Kirchhoff’s law, AC. It states that absorptivity is equal to emissivity … so your claim is wrong, and your gratuitous insult just makes you look vindictive.
w.
Tom O says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:06 am
I don’t know who you think made the claim that “the Sun doesn’t rule the heating”, but it certainly wasn’t me. Is there something wrong with your ability to read the following from the head post?
But nooo, a polite request means nothing to Tom O, requests are for the common people, not for Tom, so you just grab your nearest fantasy of what I said and you run with it …
Seriously, folks. You look like jerks when you do this. I will continue to point and laugh. Quote what you disagree with, or go away, I’m not interested.
w.
PS—Tom, what I actually said was totally different from your claim. I put it in the first sentence, so fools like you might actually notice it. I said:
And I went on to explain that the “slow changes” meant the Maunder, Dalton, and other minima.
Learn to read.
After I objected to Ulric calling sunspot cycles 12-14 a “solar minimum”, I asked:
Ulric Lyons says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:35 am
Since I’ve never heard of that I googled it, and I got this, emphasis mine:
I also don’t find it in any list of solar minima …
w.
sturgishooper says: June 23, 2014 at 10:55 pm
“It still pales against Tambora.”
I have shown you several lines of evidence that the 1257-58 eruption was a greater event than that of Tambora. You say otherwise. Where is your evidence? I have not once come across a line of research that says Tambora was greater or even equal to the earlier event. So please, fill me in. I want links.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:13 pm
I don’t know why Willis or anyone else would imagine that Tony Brown’s work supports Mann. Willis must have missed this WUWT post from less than a year ago, for instance:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
Let alone consider Tony Brown “anonymous”.
Francis Grose (@JackPudden) says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm
changes in TSI would be required to produce significant climatic change given
A useful formula is dTST/TSI = 4 dT/T so a 1 degree dT over T = 288K gives dTSI = 4*1/288 TSI = 19 W/m2 which is about 200 times larger than the solar cycle variation.
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Moreover, volcanoes can’t explain the previous warm and cold periods of the Holocene or any prior interglacial
And there is no evidence that solar variability was the cause either.
You are evading the Socratic Method. I asked you to consider specific questions. Do that.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Your own link shows the dense rock equivalent tephra deposition for Samalas. I showed you the comparable for Tambora, which it would have taken you mere seconds to check out, should have chosen not to believe me. But I’ll save you all that trouble searching (all data are sourced):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quaternary_volcanic_eruptions
Mount Tambora, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia; 1815, Apr 10; VEI 7; 150 cubic kilometres (36 cu mi) of tephra;[2] an estimated 10-120 million tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted, produced the “Year Without a Summer”[23]
Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Lombok Island, Indonesia; 1257; 40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra, Arctic and Antarctic Ice cores provide compelling evidence to link the ice core sulfate spike of 1258/1259 A.D. to this volcano.[34][35][36]
Lots of others deposited more tephra than Samalas over the past 7000 years, as you’ll discover should you bother to look.
Why did you keep claiming falsely that Samalas (suspected as the 1257-8 event) was the biggest eruption in the past 7000 years, when your own source did not make that claim, for the simple reason that it couldn’t?
Steven Mosher:
I am answering your post at June 24, 2014 at 11:45 am. It is far too long for me to quote all of it so I provide this link so anybody can easily check what I am answering.
The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of the scientific method. This fact is not affected by Fischer having applied the Null Hypothesis to statistical testing in the 1930s.
You say
Actually, Newton’s three Laws of Motion are the first formal statement of the Null hypothesis of which I am aware, it applies to mechanics, and was formulated long before Fischer made such a formulation for application in statistics.
As I have repeatedly told you,
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
Newton’s First Law of Motion
An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
This law is often called “the law of inertia”.
Newton’s Second Law of Motion
Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).
Newton’s Third Law of Motion
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
I could go through your series of silly questions, but there is no point because they are silly. They assume that the Null Hypothesis being a fundamental principle of the scientific method means it must be used in every scientific activity. That is a non sequiter.
Parsimony (often known as Occam’s Razor) is another fundamental principle of the scientific method but it, too, is not applied in every scientific activity.
You pose several pointless questions (probably in attempt to pretend you know what you are talking about) but they are a distraction. As illustration, I will answer one of them.
You ask me
I answer that they were assessing a structure as indicated by an X-ray crystalograph. Their Null Hypothesis was that the optical rules which govern X-ray diffraction had not altered. They did not apply the principle of parsimony because there was no need, but this does not exclude that principle from being fundamental to the scientific method.
I have answered every significant point in your post.
And your assertion that science was not conducted before 1935 is plain daft.
Richard
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:51 am
Actually, Doc, I’m not ignoring the sun-climate connection you mention. I’m ignoring you. I’ve taken too many trips down the rabbit holes of your citations that ended up with nothing, so I quit going. But since you insist, let me have a look …
…
OK. I looked. It’s a long page with a great number of claims, no original graphics, about 13 graphics from a host of sources, dozens of links, no math, and lots of subjects. It’s headed “1. The Demise of the IPCC and the CAGW Delusion”, which is enough to make me stop reading right there. But I persevered, I put on my hip boots and started wading … until I’d traversed miles of mire without a single mention of solar activity, at which point I came to
… and I ran out of steam, climbed out on the bank, took off my hip boots, and came home.
As I’ve stated before, I ignore anyone who starts waffling on about “quasi repetitive” or “quasi-cyclic” or “quasi-60 year cycles” or anything of the sort. “Quasi-repetitive” has no definition, it can mean something happening twice, or something happening like a clock for ten years and then disappearing for fifty years, or anything else you’d like it to mean. It’s not science at that point, it’s just handwaving.
Sorry, Doc, but there’s no way I’m digging through that mud in the hope of finding a pearl. That kind of link to your stream-of-consciousness recital of your meandering thoughts and claims is the exact reason why I started ignoring your posts, and this excursion has given me no reason to change my habit.
You’ve got to boil it down, and don’t try to cover everything in one post, if you want folks to pay attention. You start with the death of the IPCC, you shift to Eisenhower, from there you jump to the “sinister symbiotic relationship” between politicians and scientists, and before I know it, you’re off on your hobby-horse with a new whiz-bang climate forecasting model, heedless of the huge changes of subject all along the path … and then just when I’m getting used to it, you’ve given up on your forecasting model and you’re talking about neutron counts or something else.
My suggestion for you is that you divide up that page into maybe three or more posts, focus each one on a single topic, and that you try to make them what I call “BCI”, meaning “Brief, Clear, and Interesting”. If you have good insights on the sun-climate connection, that has no place in an article about the demise of the IPCC, and vice versa.
You are trying to get your claims and insights noticed in what is a very crowded marketplace of ideas. To do that, you have to present them in a form that people want to read, and while your post is many things, it’s not something that I want to read.
My best regards to you, and best of luck with your blog,
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:52 pm
I thought I had answered your question last night. I didn’t see any new questions today.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:52 pm
IMO there is evidence that solar variability contributes to the fluctuations observed in the Holocene and prior interglacials, much as glacials and interglacials are mainly caused by changes in Earth’s orbital and rotational parameters, leading to variation in insolation.
oebele bruinsma says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:40 am
Thanks, Oebele. From your link, the change in LOD looks like this:
I certainly don’t see any link to either a 22-year, 11-year, or longterm solar cycle in there … what connection are you talking about?
w.
lsvalgaard
Since you have such knowledge please cause the sharp growth of ice around Antraktydy 2008-2014.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Mount Tambora, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia; 1815, Apr 10; estimated 10-120 million tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted, produced the “Year Without a Summer”[23].
Samalas volcano…Arctic and Antarctic Ice cores provide compelling evidence to link the ice core sulfate spike of 1258/1259 A.D. to this volcano.
And how big was the Tambora sulfate spike?
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm
I thought I had answered your question last night. I didn’t see any new questions today.
Never got and answer to this one:
lsvalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm
The proper weighting scheme to be compatible with the rest of the historical record is ‘no weighting’.
To continue with Socrates: do you agree with the above?
If so, should we not reduce the lone observers count to compensate for the overcount?
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm
IMO there is evidence that solar variability contributes to the fluctuations observed in the Holocene and prior interglacials
Links please.
“””””…..sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?
Soon’s book is valuable, but the Maunders were not the first to recognize the low sunspot numbers of the late 17th and early 18th centuries……”””””
Sturgis, so you put here: …..george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm ….
Then once again, you post statements that I DID NOT MAKE.
So if you wish to reference something Willis said, why not say Willis said it, instead of saying I said it.
And note that Willis asks you to quote his exact words that you disagree with.
My post was strictly to introduce Willie Soon’s book, to anyone unaware of it.
I made no statement with regard to the Maunders, or the Maunder minimum’s discoverers, or anything else.. I mentioned a book, which people mayread for themselves for whatever reason..
Don’t write ” george e. smith says: ” unless you follow it with words I actually said. I didn’t say anything about 1976.
Paul Westhaver says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:37 am
Thanks, Paul, but you’re talking to the wrong guy. If we don’t have the data then we can’t say that there is a connection between the slow solar changes and the climate … but there are lots of folks out there claiming that just such a connection exists. So you should talk with them.
Me, I’m showing that even the fragmentary data that we have doesn’t support their claims, which is a worthwhile exercise in itself. Not only that, but we have relatively good CET and Berkeley Earth data for the Dalton, and that data doesn’t support their claims either.
Regards,
w.
Milton
Thank you. I have absolutely no idea either why Willis thinks My work supports Mann any more than I have any idea as to why he believes I am attacking him.
I made some extremely mild comments which Willis seems to have taken against. Remembering his diatribe against Janice Moore I think it’s time to leave Willis alone. He can plough the climate furrow in his own way and i will.plough it in mine,hopefully some day he will come to realise that our destination is the same, even if our routes are different.
Tonyb
Willis
Thanks for your reply to me. I remain completely baffled as to the reasons for your diatribe against me and the best thing to do is to bow out of commenting on your threads. Goodbye
Tonyb
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm
As estimated in the various linked studies, some have found that the presumed Samalas eruption released about twice as much sulfate as Tambora, which ejected almost four times as much tephra as the older Indonesian event.
Sorry I missed that follow up question after turning in.
If it were up to me, I’d count all the spots observable and measure the total area covered. If that’s not possible for all the historical record, then make the best estimate, taking into account properly adjusted radionuclide evidence on earth.
As for evidence of possible solar influence on interglacial climate fluctuations, there’s this recent study, comparing solar and volcanic effects on the AMO, which as you know is implicated in Bond cycles (so-called):
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html
It finds a statistically significant solar influence before c. 1775 and a solar and volcanic effect thereafter (I suppose possibly because of nearby Laki, 1783-4, and distant but big Tambora). Citations are also helpful.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:30 am
That’s great news, Salvatore. If that’s the case, then please pick the very best one, the one you are willing to stand behind, and post it here so we can all take a look at its quality.
Best regards, I look forward to your posting the ONE study you think will stand the test of time.
w.
From the link that announced evidence for the Samalas location of the 1257-58 eruption:
“Table S1. The largest well-documented volcanic eruptions (M > 5) during the Holocene”
The authors placed Samalas 4th on their list.
In the past 7000 years Santorini (1627–1600 BC) and Samalas (1257-58) are clearly neck and neck in terms of which is the greater eruption with one having slightly greater magnitude and the other having slightly greater intensity. No other eruptions in the past 7000 years comes close. Mazama, a real banger right here in Oregon, was bigger but was +7000 years ago by about 700 years. It is mincing words to say which is THE biggest in 7000 years. There are only two vying for the title “THE” biggest. Pick between the two. Some authors now point to Samalas as being the bigger one due to its slightly greater intensity. Others give it a tie. Still others rank Santorini barely ahead because of its slightly greater magnitude. It may yet turn out to hinge on the evidence of global climate proxies and evidence of global disruption to flora, fauna, and civilization as to which eruption was the more significant one climatically. So far the edge goes to Samalas. Barely.
Tambora is clearly in third place.
So once again, the line of evidence tells me that when you said Samalas “pales against Tambora”, I have to question your knowledge.
george e. smith says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm
The book you recommended is about the Maunders. You know that, right?
Willis’ post is about his attack on Eddy’s 1976 paper based upon previous work by the Maunders and Spörer. How can that fact not be relevant?
I know you didn’t mention the paper. Thought that would have been obvious.
Sturgis. Wikipedia? Come on. Show me a peer reviewed article.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:30 pm
How many times do you need to be shown the same data?
The fact is that Samalas pales in comparison with Tambora and a number of other eruptions based upon the critical parameter of tephra ejection. The estimates are not even close.
Again for the I don’t know how many-th time: Tambora 150 km^3; Samalas 40 km^3. Forty pales in comparison with 150. For the reasons described in your very own link, the climatic effects of Samalas’ greater sulfate spewage were negligible, as also verified in my link to a paper by the very guy who made the sulfate comparison relied upon by the author of your link.
Got it now?
ren says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Because it was the Little Ice Age, which started well before the Maunder? That’s my guess, anyway.
The fact that it is cold, and at the same time there is a solar minimum, does NOT mean the sun caused the cold.
w.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Do you see all the little numbers inside brackets in the Wiki list? Those are links to peer reviewed articles. You know how to click, don’t you?
Some of those linked are the very ones I’ve used to try without success to educate you about volcanoes.
@Willis Eschenbach
June 24, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“Finally, the rather long series of moderately weak cycles 12 – 16 is occasionally referred to as the “Gleissberg Minimum” –”
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-6&page=articlesu3.html
If you google “solar minimum late 1800’s” there’s many more results.
Leif,
Many thanks for the hint. Since we haven’t seen a 200 times change in TSI, then it can’t be responsible.
Is this paper a fair view of Cosmic Rays as a mechanism?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045022.pdf
Quoted direct from the paper’s conclusions:-
“Numerous searches have been made to try establish whether
or not cosmic rays could have affected the climate, either
through cloud formation or otherwise. We have one possible
hint of a correlation between solar activity and the mean
global surface temperature. This is comprised of an oscillation
in the temperature of amplitude +/- 0.07 degC in amplitude with a
22 year period. The cosmic ray data show a similar oscillation
but delayed by 1–2 years. The long term change in the cosmic
ray rate is less than the amplitude of the 22 year variation on
the cosmic ray rate. Using the changing cosmic ray rate as a
proxy for solar activity, this result implies that less than 14%
of global warming seen since the 1950s comes from changes
in solar activity. Several other tests have been described and
their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar
activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have
contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the
twentieth century.”
Francis Grose (@JackPudden) says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Sorry, but that’s not making sense, perhaps a typo. TSI is measured in W/m2, not C.
w.
Sturgis, tephra deposit in the surrounding area is not the best measure of overall magnitude and intensity. What gets into the stratosphere is the better measure of its global impact and therefore significance climatically. Even better, when ice cores from both poles show the eruption, you can say to one and all, that was a big one. The eruption of 1257-58 shows up in North and South Pole ice cores and stands way above the signatures of other bi-polar sulfur and ash deposits, including Tambora’s.
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm
As estimated in the various linked studies, some have found that the presumed Samalas eruption released about twice as much sulfate as Tambora, which ejected almost four times as much tephra as the older Indonesian event.
So Samales was much bigger than Tambora. Good to establish that.
If it were up to me, I’d count all the spots observable and measure the total area covered.
My question was not what you would do. I’ll repeat it:
svalgaard says:
June 23, 2014 at 11:15 pm
The proper weighting scheme to be compatible with the rest of the historical record is ‘no weighting’.
To continue with Socrates: do you agree with the above?
If so, should we not reduce the lone observers count to compensate for the overcount?
As for evidence of possible solar influence on interglacial climate fluctuations
The past few hundred year hardly qualify as ‘interglacial’.
Tonyb says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm
You’re welcome. That’s just Willis being Willis.
Thanks for all the hard & excellent work you’ve done on reconstructing paleotemperature data, & analysis thereof.
“””””…..Bob Weber says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:56 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 pm
You can find standard definitions for everything I mentioned, and brightness is part of it. Notice you made a much much bigger deal out of the use of that word than I did, although Jack Eddy reported in the BBC video circa 1977 “The Sunspot Mystery” that people back during the Maunder Minimum observed the sun to be “dim”. That qualitative observation can be tested scientifically in this day and age. That video link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3frXY_rG8c . I recommend it for it’s historical perspective.
“”…. brightness is part of it. Notice you made a much much bigger deal out of the use of that word than I did, although Jack Eddy reported in the BBC video circa 1977 “The Sunspot Mystery” that people back during the Maunder Minimum observed the sun to be “dim”. ….”””
“”…. brightness is part of it. ……………observed the sun to be “dim”. ….”””
So OK, just what does the word …… DIM …… have to do with the word ……BRIGHTNESS……”” ??
Those two words, don’t even have the same number of syllables; let alone the same meaning.
I noticed YOU didn’t cite ANY of those “standard definitions” of everything you mentioned.
I’ve been using all of that terminology, continually for at least the last 55 years of gainful employment. I have shelves of standard textbooks, that go into them in interminable detail.
So I don’t actually need to know what your “standard definitions” references say. It’s my bread and butter, which is why I keep them all in my head..
I once wrote an extensive invited paper on radiometry and photometry, and its measures and units, for a very popular Electronics Industry weekly magazine, to educate electronic engineers on the metrology for LED light sources. That was more than 40 years ago.
The magazine editor “edited” my raw copy, “to make it more interesting to read.” Then he sent it to me, asking me to check it for technical correctness, and send it back.
Everywhere I had used some correct scientific unit or quantity or word, with precise defined meanings, the editor had simply replaced them willy nilly, with some street language synonyms from a thesaurus; well, to make it more interesting (and quite meaningless).
So I sent his script back to him with the short note; “It WAS technically correct, as I originally wrote it.”
The magazine published my App Note verbatim, and never changed a single word or punctuation mark.
The editor subsequently apologized for not understanding that scientific terms have specific meanings, and cannot be replaced by colloquialisms ; like “brightness” for example.
If you want to keep using incorrect terminology; go for it. I actually don’t care, that you do that. I do care that you mislead others.
Francis Grose (@JackPudden) says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:40 pm
“Several other tests have been described and
their results all indicate that the contribution of changing solar activity either through cosmic rays or otherwise cannot have contributed more than 10% of the global warming seen in the twentieth century.”
Sounds like a sober and well-supported analysis
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm
The geologists who set up the VEI disagree with you. VEI ratings are based upon tephra volume, as you easily could have found out had you bothered to look on the Internet.
http://www.agu.org/books/hg/v002/HG002p0143/HG002p0143.pdf
How many more times do I need to show you that higher sulfate record at the poles does not translate into greater climatic effect? Tambora’s massive ejection did have a global climatic effect.
I would have thought it obvious that if you want to claim that Samalas caused the Little Ice Age, you have at least to show that it had some climatic effect.
Time to quit digging yourself a deeper hole.
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:46 pm
You did not establish any such thing. As I’ve repeatedly shown Pamela, Tambora was about four times as massive as Samalas. Tephra and not sulfates is how eruptions are measured.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. No, we should not reduce the observer count to compensate.
I also guess you’re less familiar with elementary earth history than I assumed. The Holocene is an interglacial. It started over 11,000 years ago but includes the past several hundred years right down to today. So, yes, AMO fluctuations since the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have occurred during an interglacial.
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:59 pm
No, we should not reduce the observer count to compensate.
Then we would have an inhomogenous record which is useless for studies. If an observer uses a much larger telescope should we then not reduce his count to compensate?
So, yes, AMO fluctuations since the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have occurred during an interglacial.
That is like saying that what has happened the last five minutes is a millennium phenomenon.
William Astley says:
In case you missed it the planet has started to cool due to solar magnetic cycle 24. We can watch the cooling in real time with satellite data.
Thanks, William. To date, neither the RSS nor the MSU satellite temperature data show cooling. Their trends have been ≈ 0 for a decade and more.
What satellite record of global temperatures are you referring to that shows the cooling in real time?
Although the 17+ yr temp is flat, both the RSS UAH data show a 5-yr cooling trend of 2.5 C/century
Milodon
My bad. In noticed that In my previous teply to you My iPad decided It preferred the name Milton. Sorry.
Tonyb
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:05 pm
No. As I’ve advocated, adjust the smaller count up, if there’s reason to think that the other observer missed some spots.
You make no sense. Fluctuations on annual to decennial scale, like the AMO, PDO & ENSO, and on the centennial to millennial scale, like the MWP, LIA and previous similar warmer and cooler periods occur in this and other interglacials, as shown in all proxy records. That Bond cycles operate in interglacials at a similar frequency but less amplitude than D-O cycles during glacials is also well supported. This issue is what causes these fluctuations. Is it insolation, as has been established for the fluctuation between glacials and interglacials themselves, ie on the scale of ten to 100 thousand years?
IMO the evidence strongly suggests so.
oebele bruinsma says:
…….
Re LOD
Couple of years ago I wrote an article about LOD , but never put it on line. From two sets of data (geodesic and geomagnetic), by using simple filtering I produced two graphs now added to my CET-D comment above .
Tonyb says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:16 pm
That autofill is a bitch. Try typing Spanish on an English iPhone sometime. I could switch default languages, but that takes almost as much time, & the phone is starting to accept Spanish words anyway.
No worries. My real name is John, not Milo or Milton anyway.
The absurdity of Leif and Willis is comical. More will be leaving this site until their free run and control of this site is curtailed. So many valuable posters have left already because of them being able to run free with all of their repeated absurd statements. They are off way off. I think Leif is more or less not based in reality. I am serious.
You need (Anthony) at the very least to start posting articles in opposition to what they are trying to say. Secondly you need to reach out to those who oppose them . This way your site will once again be in balance. Right now it is not.
REPLY: See, here’s the thing, and there is no way of getting around this: 1) Willis and Leif don’t control WUWT, I do. 2) you haven’t refuted what they have to say about a solar climate connection, so you go ad hominem, say they are making absurd statements, that Leif is mentally imbalanced, and try to guilt me into banning them. From my perspective, that’s just not going to fly here. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but please refrain from commenting like this any further unless you have some science to discuss. If you feel you can’t, then you are most certainly welcome to make good on your threat of leaving. – Anthony
Willis
You asked for data showing the sun climate connection. You are not ignoring me – you are ignoring Steinhilber . I gave you a reference to a specific Stenhilber paper that is what you choose to ignoring.
Leif’s stock answer to any work on GRF is to point out that there are some problems taking into account depositional processes in analyzing the data properly – truly an amazing discovery.
The Sturgishooper reference pretty well takes care of that.
I said
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
This paper shows the direct connection between the various LIA minima and GCRs
This should be read in association with my other comment above
“The value of the Steinhilber interpretations is indicated in the following link posted earlier by Sturgishooper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12004748
“This suggests that studies which assimilate bipolar composite 10Be records in solar or cosmic ray
intensity reconstructions (e.g. Steinhilber et al., 2012), or variants,
such as the leading principal component of multiple records (e.g.
Muscheler et al., 2007b) are less likely to introduce spurious
climate-related signals than those assimilating 10Be records from
individual sites (e.g. Bard et al., 2000; Vonmoos et al., 2006;
Shapiro et al., 2011). Using multiple 10Be records in addition to
cosmogenic 14C (from tree rings), which has a very different
geochemical behaviour to 10Be, can help to further decouple the
climate signal from the 10Be record (e.g. Muscheler et al., 2007b;
Usoskin et al., 2009; Steinhilber et al., 2012″
Couple of questions,
1What do you think of Steinhilbers paper- specifically his Fig 3 CD
2 Do you not think that a reasonable case – a useful working hypothesis- can be made from Fig 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
for a quasi millennial connection? (If you think that natural climate periodicities are not going to be quasi – you are in the wrong business)
2 If so where do you think we now stand relative to the late 20th century peak?
This link describes a new kind of data set that records volcanic explosiveness based on volcanic flux, as well as other measures, extrapolated from sulfur/ash records in ice cores. It describes the extent of stratospheric sulfur loading. This metric of volcanic significance carries global information. For the periods we are talking about related to global cooling, this kind of index provides information germane to this topic, whereas amount of tephra surrounding a volcano is not as germane. In terms of shear explosiveness into the stratosphere as measured by volcanic flux (total flux minus background flux), Samalas takes the prize by more than a length.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1029%2F2011JD015916%2Fpdf&ei=ZfepU9zwBs-HyATynoDAAw&usg=AFQjCNHhAoZswLECaxKdbtP3ma97Pe8MCA&sig2=900fOILT6noCxAQwf1GB4Q&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:16 pm
No. As I’ve advocated, adjust the smaller count up, if there’s reason to think that the other observer missed some spots.
You are not answering the question. Careful analysis shows that for the weighting scheme no spots are missed, just the larger ones overcounted because of the weighting. So to be clear: if you have two observers counting the same spots but one is weighting and nobody else in the world is weighting should we not reduce the weighted count in order to get a homogeneous series? Analogously, if one observer measures a temperature in Fahrenheit and another in Centigrade, should we not convert one series to the other by using the appropriate scaling?
similar warmer and cooler periods occur in this and other interglacials
There is no data for solar activity in other interglacials, so you are overstating your case.
richardscourtney: The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of the scientific method. This fact is not affected by Fischer having applied the Null Hypothesis to statistical testing in the 1930s.
nitpick: I think you mean R. A. Fisher.
Oppenheimer states that, “The global climatic impacts of large eruptions are known to scale, in a non-linear way, to the mass and distribution of sulphate aerosol formed in the stratosphere as a result of the atmospheric injection of sulphur gases (e.g. Robock, 2000).” Clearly, again, Samalas stands out. In terms of its ability to shoot its sulfur content up into the stratosphere and in huge amounts, the explosiveness of Samalas is unequaled in the data string studied by Oppenheimer.
For the purpose of this thread, I stand by my opinion that based on the literature review, Samalas stands out as the most significant and explosive volcano in the last 7000 years and certainly one of the most significant and explosive in the Holocene. Based on its signature, I have no qualms about accepting that it figured largely in the beginning years and I speculate decades of the slide down towards the depth of the last LIA in terms of its disruptive affect on ENSO processes that serve to recharge and discharge oceanic heat.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFUQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fjoc.891%2Fpdf&ei=ZfepU9zwBs-HyATynoDAAw&usg=AFQjCNEOg3_dn4mRMN76bW81HT8bt8ln3w&sig2=1jV5_zjlsLN7uIKb8f91YQ&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
Leif Svalgaard, thank you again for your many pertinent posts.
beng says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:07 am
———————————
Beng,
while there is considerable uncertainty regarding TSI, it is fairly safe to say it only varies around 0.1 to 0.2%.
The issue is spectral variance and its effect on energy accumulation in the oceans. Here TSI is not a useful measure as it does not account for depth of energy absorption. For selective surfaces such as our deep transparent oceans, depth of absorption has a significant role in rate of accumulation or discharge. The experiment posted up thread is a clear demonstration of this mechanism.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:59 am
———————————-
“And no, Konrad, this is not an invitation to discuss your idee fixé, nor is it the thread for that. Please, let’s stick with solar minima, thanks.”
“idee fixe”… “monomania”..yes, yes, nice strawman. Well stabbed. Multiple physical principles, multiple separate experiments, falsely called one idea and then stabbed. Brilliant.
Lets stick with solar minima.
When I posted a comment regarding just one of my experiments, it was because it directly related to how spectral variance rather than minor TSI changes could effect energy accumulation in the oceans. The sort of thing that occurs at solar minima.
The problem here is we have little TOA UV data prior to 1978 and no accurate ocean temp data below 100m prior to 2003. The good news is the ARGO data base is building, and empirical experiment can tell us where to look.
Funny thing, I found this UV mechanism while looking at an entirely different issue. But it seams to match very closely to what David and Jo are looking at.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Leif’s stock answer to any work on GRF is to point out that there are some problems taking into account depositional processes in analyzing the data properly – truly an amazing discovery.
This has been known for several years now and is not controversial, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL03804-Berggren.pdf
“the transport and deposition rate is influenced by atmospheric mixing, scavenging and snow accumulation” and “Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar acitvity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [the last 600 years].”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“We have made other tests of the correspondence between 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based”.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:25 pm
As I said, you really need to quit digging and lying more. Your link provides no such thing as “a new kind of data set that records volcanic explosiveness based on volcanic flux, as well as other measures, extrapolated from sulfur/ash records in ice cores”. Sulfates have been measured in ice cores since long before 2011. Nor have sulfates replaced tephra as the index of volcanic eruption explosivity, as you appear to try to insinuate.
However what your link does do however is explain why Tambora, despite being about four times as massive as the presumed Samalas eruption, appears in ice cores to have emitted only half as much sulfate.
“Three other events (1334, 1274, and 1235) are comparable to Tambora (Table 2) in volcanic flux magnitude. However, the actual atmospheric aerosol mass loadings by these volcanic events are probably not as large as that by Tambora, for, as discussed earlier, the Tambora flux in SP04 is much smaller than expected as a result of the significantly reduced accumulation rate in the period of 1500–1900 A.D. The Kuwae eruption and 1259 UE are the largest volcanic events in the second millennium A.D. in most Antarctica ice core volcanic records, except those from Dome C [Castellano et al., 2005], Siple Dome [Kurbatov et al., 2006], and DT401 [Ren et al., 2010], in which the Kuwae signal is smaller than that of Tambora. The magnitude of volcanic signals in low‐accumulation areas (e.g., Dome C and DT401) is highly variable, compared with signals in areas of moderate or high accumulation [Cole‐Dai et al., 2000]. Signals in the Siple Dome record may be significantly affected by the unusually high and variable nonvolcanic background at the at the coastal West Antarctica location [Kurbatov et al., 2006].”
And why was there a reduced accumulation rate during 1500 to 1900 at site SP04? The authors state that, “Usually, a significant shift in accumulation rate on a century timescale is a characteristic of climate change [EPICA Community Members, 2004; Li et al., 2009]”. However, they go on, such a reduction for so long hasn’t been reported previously. Never the less, it coincides with the LIA, and might reflect reduced snowfall during such a long, cold, dry spell.
The upshot is that Tambora’s apparently lower sulfate loading could be an artifact of deposition, not production.
You really ought to read all of the papers which you link.
In any case, you still haven’t offered any evidence that the 1257/8/9 event caused the LIA. On the contrary, your own sources state that doubling sulfates (if such a thing happened) doesn’t double the climatic effect.
Nor have you shown that Samalas, if that were it, is the biggest eruption of the past 7000 years. Based upon its estimated tephra volume of 40 km^3, it’s only a VEI 6 (10-100 km^3), while Tambora is a 7.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Thanks as always, Matthew. The “bar-room fight” is what is called a “metaphor” for a situation where there’s a fight going on but you don’t have a dog in the fight … the dog is a metaphor as well, but you knew all of that.
Again its a metaphor, Matthew. When I see a comment from you, for example, I metaphorically “snap to attention” because your ideas are worth listening to. But the name “tonyb” didn’t engender that response.
You go on to quote me saying:
Sorry, I’d quoted it in the previous comment so I figured that covered it. In any case, it was quoted from the paper he referred to, where he said:
Where is my “misunderstanding”?
By “Mannian garbage, I meant the Hockeystick and the various “stick-alikes” by Mann and others attempting vainly to rescue the Hockeystick from well-deserved oblivion. So yes, he did use Mannian garbage. Again, where is my misunderstanding?
Matthew, you’ve just proven conclusively that you don’t know what Tony meant by his unreferenced accusation that I misunderstood him. And this is no surprise, because nobody but Tony knows what he meant.
As to whether I should “care to reread what you wrote about what he wrote” in a vain effort to decipher his meaning, no, I wouldn’t care to do that. I used to do that. When someone tried something like that, I’d pore over his words and then respond to what I decided he was talking about … only to be told, often rudely, that I’d picked the wrong thing.
So I gave it up, and I’d advise you to do the same. It’s a fools errand. Instead, I do what I did above—I asked Tony what he meant.
Nope. After all the fighting I’ve done against the Hockeystick and its demon spawn (e.g here among others), anyone claiming that the Hockeystick is “essentially confirmed” is not my ally. Nor are they paying attention. Let me recommend to you what I said to Tony—take a week, go to climateaudit, and do a search on both the hockeystick and the NAS report. Both of them are trash, and anyone who thinks that the NAS report is fit for more than a series of post-evacuation exhaust pipe wipeups hasn’t done their homework.
In any case, I was serious about you being a decent and well-meaning guy, and I do snap to attention when I see your name on a post … tonyb, not so much.
w.
PS—And that doesn’t even touch the time when Michael Mann appropriated my ideas and published them as his own … so yeah, anyone saying that Mann’s work is “essentially confirmed” is no friend of mine, or of the truth for that matter …
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:27 pm
IMO I did answer the question, and it’s that, yes, of course you should convert C to F or vice versa.
Apparently you’ve now agreed that there is evidence for a solar influence in Holocene fluctuations, for which recognition I’m glad. But there is also evidence from prior interglacials, so I’m not overstating anything:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F249521092_Cyclic_climate_fluctuations_during_the_last_interglacial_in_central_Europe%2Ffile%2F60b7d52271d554955b.pdf&ei=4wOqU6jZLJXtoASk6oJQ&usg=AFQjCNHrImtooQSqwRkblar8YRRpdY_aSw&sig2=qc0-V6XlDkv4Lk2uUaVIpA&bvm=bv.69620078,d.cGU
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Did you actually read any of Tonyb’s WUWT posts mentioned by him and others in these comments, to see if in fact, as you imagine, he supports Mann’s HS?
Sturgis: FYI regarding volcanic flux as a metric of explosive power.
“A number of recent studies have used volcanic flux [Zielinski,1 995; Zielinski et al., 1997] and volcanic acid/sulfate concentrations [Robock and Free, 1995] to estimate mass aerosol loadings and to infer the climatic forcing of volcanic eruptions, although caution is essential when such extrapolations and inferences are made from ice core data. Cole-Dai et al. [1997] used a relative scale (volcanic flux normalized against the 1815 Tambora eruption) to compare the magnitude of volcanic events found in different ice cores. An eruption is considered large if its volcanic flux is comparable to or exceeds that of Tambora.”
By this measure, a preponderance of ice cores at both poles places Samalas quite a bit ahead of Tambora. Yes there are volcanos that have spewed larger amounts of tephra, but what does that tell us about the explosiveness of that volcano? Not as much as what gets into the stratosphere measured by fall out at the poles. Clearly you can understand the physics related to shooting something straight up that high. And surely you understand that volcanic flux as an extremely important factor in climate discussions.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1029%2F2000JD900254%2Fpdf&ei=gQKqU8PfBOmb8AGPsoHIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEtDHWJGVIl_z9X5LvYOjFlxYktqw&sig2=d92c3QcIjkEU8XYOB0xxkw&bvm=bv.69620078,d.b2U
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm
IMO I did answer the question, and it’s that, yes, of course you should convert C to F or vice versa.
So one should also convert the overcounted spots to unweighted spots or vice versa. right? In both cases it is just a question about a scale factor, right?
Apparently you’ve now agreed that there is evidence for a solar influence in Holocene fluctuations, for which recognition I’m glad.
This is a standard cheap trick. If you want to pull that one quote my exact words for that.
But there is also evidence from prior interglacials, so I’m not overstating anything
There are no evidence that the changes are related to solar activity, so you are overstating a lot.
Thanks to thingadonta for linking my articles on the timing implications of ocean equilibration. I just want to clarify the sense in which the timing issue can and cannot be properly described as a “lag.”
What Usoskin, Solanki and a host of others keep claiming is that the 20th century’s high level of solar activity cannot be responsible for late 20th century warming because solar activity was not rising at this time. When I press them on whether they are actually claiming that it is the TREND in solar activity rather than the LEVEL that would drive warming they admit that they are assuming very rapid ocean equilibration (so that solar activity would indeed have to keep going up to cause continued warming. But this assumption does not stand up to the least bit of scrutiny, and without it, temperatures will not stop rising when the forcing stops rising, but will only stop when the system equilibrates to the new higher LEVEL.
Notice that there is no lag in the warming effect of an increased forcing. (There could be some lag in the time it takes feedbacks to work through, but that doesn’t alter the fact that forcing effects are immediate. I would also expect feedbacks to be close to zero, or negative, if Willis’ excellent Thermostat Hypothesis is correct.) The timing of the appearance of this warming in the surface temperature record can be obscured by ocean oscillations but if we had good heat content data, we would see the warming immediately.
Where there IS a lag is in the inflections points. When solar activity hits its peak and turns back down the forcing effect does not turn immediately from warming to cooling. Just as the day continues to warm well past noon, so too will warming continue until the forcing effect from the level of solar activity falls below the level needed to maintain the temperature of the system. After 3 PM the level of diurnal insolation has fallen below the level needed to maintain the achieved daytime temperature and the day starts to cool. Diurnal insolation drops at noon, then after three more hours of warming the temperature levels off and start to drop.
In sum, changes in the LEVEL of forcing immediately affect the heat content of the system. Changes in the trend affect the trend in temperature with a lag. Maintaining precision in the use of these terms helps to avoid confusion. Just saying that there is a lag in which solar effects show up prompts the question of why. Why wouldn’t warming be immediate? Yes it would be (except as obscured by the random, not lagged, effects of ocean oscillations). It is only inflections that show a lag.
george e. smith says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Obviously, YOU didn’t “read the post at the head of these comments “. Not only that, but you’re the latest in a line of charming fellows who try to impute a point of view to me without a quotation. All that does is get your face slapped, and deservedly so.
What I actually said was:
Since Eddy could only come up with a couple of references in obscure journals as prior art, I stand by that characterization.
However, I NEVER said that the recognition of the Maunder occurred in 1976, nor did I say anything like that. I said nothing about the “onset of recognition”, that’s all you.
In fact, the Eddy paper I cited gave a complete history of the recognition and naming of the Maunder minimum, so I figured nobody would be dumb enough to think I claimed recognition of the Maunder started in 1976 … foolish me.
Not only that, but I already explained this upstream when some other jerk made the exact same accusation. And I thought that might put the question to bed … foolish me.
In any case, are you really too distracted to notice when I say QUOTE MY WORDS, or are you just ignoring what I said, or do you have Oldztimers Disease where you forget what you just read?
It gets old, george, and every time you try this your reputation slips a bit. I’d give it up before it slides down to your knees …
w.
Alec Rawls says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm
What Usoskin, Solanki and a host of others keep claiming is that the 20th century’s high level of solar activity cannot be responsible for late 20th century warming
The problem here is that the 20th century solar activity was not particularly high compared to the previous two centuries, regardless of how many repeat the myth that it was.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm
You are standing by your lie that it was the biggest eruption of the last 7000 years, when your own source claimed only “one of the biggest”? Interesting. Even Santorini was smaller than Tambora.
Your own source and those I linked or quoted plainly state that doubling sulfate load doesn’t double its climatic effects. Now here you come, quoting the less recent Oppenheimer (2003) to the same effect, again destroying your own case with a quotation you provided! What part of “non-linear” do you not understand?
When I say stop digging, I really mean it.
I’m supposed to buy your conclusion based upon your “literature review”, when your own sources and the AGU’s VEI disgree with you? Sorry. No sale.
Please show how in your imagination Samalas caused the Little Ice Age. Oppenheimer says nothing about ENSO. He does state that the sulfate spike should have produced “a stronger climate forcing than hitherto recognized”, because “the comparably sized Kuwae eruption has been associated with a cool NH summer in AD 1453 (Briffa et al., 1998) and a sulphate anomaly in the GISP2 core at AD 1460”.
But the more recent studies I cited found no evidence of climatic effect. However, more importantly, neither they nor Oppenheimer argue that Samalas caused the Little Ice Age. So first, please show a long-lasting climatic effect in physical or historical records resulting from this eruption, then how these assumed effects led to the centuries long LIA, while also explaining the warmer decades between c. 1260 and 1350, 1400 or 1500, when the LIA is variously argued to have begun.
Thanks.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm
What you said was, “Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”.” This is blatantly false on its face, as I and others noted.
You yourself reference Lamb’s 1965 paper! Talk about Oldtimers’ Disease! You couldn’t recall what you had written in a previous paragraph. Or to you is 1965 not “modern” but 1976 is?
Seriously, are you OK?
Tonyb says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm
I said specifically and more than once that you supported Mann by claiming that the hockeysticks had been “essentially confirmed”, viz:
Sorry, but that’s just not true. The Hockeystick has never been “essentially confirmed”. How could it be, it’s the result of a newbie mathematical mistake … a fact which you never mentioned, despite it being central to the question. So yes, you are supporting Mann with those kind of claims, and yes, I told you this before so your current mystery about why I said it is … well … curious.
Really? You want to go there? Well, OK … Janice tried to use the time of my grief at the death of my father-in-law to sell me Jesus. I got upset, but I apologized. However, most everyone (apparently including you) seemed to think Janice’s actions were perfectly fine and acceptable.
So I asked everyone at the time if doing that at a Christian eulogy would be appropriate … I mean, if a Moslem tried to use a Christian’s time of grief to tell him that Jesus is a liar who can never bring him lasting peace, and try to convert him to Islam, would that be an acceptable and moral and right thing to do? Simple question. I just took exactly what Janice had said to me and substituted religions.
No one, including yourself from your account, had the stones to even try to answer the question. Not one person.
I fear that everyone refusing to answer that simple question is the shameful part of the episode. I stand by what I said and did. Yes, I initially responded out of my grief, and as a result my first response was over the top, and I apologized for that. Four times, in fact, because people weren’t satisfied. And after that they wanted another apology, but I figured four was good enough.
However, I didn’t apologize for calling Janice out on her attempt to use the time of my grief to sell me Jesus, nor will I … and that seems to have driven some people round the twist.
You, on the other hand, chickened out and refused to even take a stand … so you’ll forgive me for ignoring your attempt to teach me morals. You forfeited that right when you wouldn’t answer a simple question about the morality of Janice’s actions.
Tony, I didn’t mind your “extremely mild comments”. I objected to the fact that you had accused me without quoting what I said. It had nothing to do with relative mildness, it had to do with a simple fact. I can defend what I’ve said. But I can’t defend myself against your fantasies of what I said. You accused me, for example, of “misunderstanding” what you said.
But without a quote to show what I misunderstood, that’s just underhanded mudslinging, regardless of whether it is mild or not. I won’t put up with that kind of scurvy attack, because there’s no way on earth to defend myself against it.
So … I asked you what you meant.
However, as with my question about Janice, you haven’t answered … your choice, but don’t pretend that the ball’s in my court when it’s you that isn’t answering the questions …
w.
Tonyb says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Tony, I’ve explained my reasons in great detail, in no less than 12 comments, both to you and to others. If you still have questions, fine, perhaps you should ask them. But you absolutely cannot claim that I have stinted in my efforts to explain my position to you, I’ve done little but that in regards to you.
However, if you want to hop on your horse and ride away from answering my questions and continuing the discussion, that’s your option.
It’s also your choice, not mine. I’m still up for further clarification. For example, you could start by showing where in your “Long Slow Thaw” you point out that Mann’s Hockeystick paper was based on the newbie mathematical mistake of using an un-centered principal components analysis, and as a result it was meaningless … I missed that part.
Or not, you can keep riding.
w.
AW I think youre allowing a warmist troll to wreck your site chao
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm (Edit)
While you and others CLAIM that it is false, to DEMONSTRATE that it is false you’d have to show significant interest prior to 1976 in the subject of temperatures during the Maunder. Eddy could only find a few papers that discussed temperatures during the Maunder prior to his study. Not only that, but the earliest reference which Eddy found was dated 1961 …
Which means to me that there was little interest pre-1976. As just one example, Lamb wrote the entire paper that I cited and never mentioned either the Maunder or solar variations even once … so it couldn’t have been a big feature in the climate landscape in 1965.
Nor is this surprising, as until the 1970s climate wasn’t really that much on the radar, so there was little interest in temperatures and the sun.
However, subsequent to Eddy’s study, interest went way up, with many, many papers referencing Eddy’s work in their investigations. There have been 1700 papers citing Eddy’s work since 1976, and I know of only about a half dozen papers at the most prior to that, with most of them in the previous decade. … that’s called “sparking the modern interest”, sturgis. It doesn’t mean there was no interest prior to that, which is why I called it “modern interest”. It means that it brought the Maunder to the forefront.
So I fear that you haven’t even begun to substantiate your claim of substantial interest in the subject prior to 1976.
w.
Leif writes:
Muscheler 2007:
Whether solar activity in the second half of the 20th century was “exceptionally high” or merely “high” makes no difference for the question of whether it could explain late 20th century warming. So long as the climate system has not yet equilibrated to a higher level of forcing (by whatever mechanism that forcing is transmitted) then warming will continue until equilibration is reached, and there is no reason to think that equilibration does not take many decades. Indeed, this is what the IPCC assumes in its models when it conducts its “commitment studies.” As I previously quoted from the draft AR5:
Up to 2.5C of continued warming over the next 100 years from the current level of forcing… This is radically inconsistent with the claim that ocean equilibration is close to instantaneous, as these same scientists assert as their grounds for dismissing solar activity as a possible explanation for late 20th century warming.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Thanks for that, Dr. Page, and I’d be happy to look at it … but where is it? A link, my kingdom for a link …
w.
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm
I hope the young Norse couple wed in 1408 sailed or rowed away to Iceland, where the LIA, while terrible, at least didn’t wipe out everyone (there being no Inuit to survive or thrive). Iceland has such good records, it might be possible to find out their fate, if they went to live with his family rather than stayed with hers, to perish or be absorbed by the Inuit (the Eskimos of Greenland & eastern Canada).
IMO one reason why the Kuwae (c. 1453) & Tambora (1815) eruptions left a climatic signature, while Samalas (c. 1257) not so much, is because they occurred during the already tough LIA. Tambora of course was also during the coldest interval of the Dalton Minimum.
There were what would now be called extreme weather events in Europe in the late 13th century, & the Great Famine of 1315-17, followed by the Black Death from 1346, plus nearly constant warfare, but intervening decades remained warmer & more equable than usual for the past 3000 years or so. In fact the bounty of the Medieval Warm Period made it possible to breed & raise big war horses capable of carrying knights in full plate armor, which evolved during the 14th century, plus sometimes their own armor.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Seconded, and also for your calm demeanor. I envy your patience.
w.
1. Sulfur injection into the stratosphere, as measured by ice core records indicate that Samalas was likely the cause of the well-recorded cold and cold-related events around the globe.
2. Volcanic sources of atmospheric sulfur appeared to be ubiquitous during the span of time encompassing the LIA, thus continuing to affect climate. The ice cores record only extremely explosive volcanic events thus sulfur in the ice cores at both poles would indicate stratospheric sulfur sufficient to reduce solar insolation at the surface.
link: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/
3. Models support the hypothesis and observational record that large equatorial injections of sulfur into the stratosphere can disrupt oceanic and atmospheric patterns and teleconnections at least on a hemispheric basis, in particular the processes involved in ENSO.
“Impact of Strong Tropical Volcanic Eruptions on ENSO Simulated in a Coupled GCM” Masamichi Ohba et al (paywalled)
4. My speculation is based on my literature review and Bob Tisdale’s work on the recharge/discharge process of ocean heat. It is shown in the literature that these eruptions slow the Walker circulation, trigger and enhance El Nino-like equatorial conditions, and would thus lead to oceanic heat loss, cloudiness, and direct atmospheric cooling. This veiling and subsequent cloudiness on a global scale further decreases any solar ability to recharge an ocean that is losing heat. Inbetween sulfur veil clearing the system takes haulting steps to regain sufficient solar insolation to recharge depleted ocean heat stores. However, the now circulating colder water now brings cold temperatures to land, especially during re-injections into the stratosphere, as was the case during the LIA. As long as these injections were happening equatorially, El Nino like events and slowed Walker Circulation would encourage heat discharge, not recharge. Eventually the supply of ocean heat becomes seriously low leading to extreme cold on a global basis. It may take centuries for sufficient recharge to reach an unequal seasaw ocean heat balance returning climate to a more normal pattern.
5. Temperature proxy records show that there was a slow step-fashion decrease in global temperature from a warm period. I speculate for that to happen the oceans are losing heat, not gaining heat. Volcanism, especially of the kind that occurred during the LIA is a candidate for that long up and down slide to the depths of the LIA.
6. My next search will be related to how did we get out of it. Once the force is removed that has been preventing sufficient oceanic recharge, the oceans should be able to crawl back to a previous level of oceanic recharge/discharge that keeps us fairly comfortable between cold and warm normal weather pattern variations.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm
It’s easy to find material on the Maunder from the ’60s & first half of the ’70s. You have but to look:
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html#lamb
See the graph at the top of this article, taken from H.H. Lamb, “Climatic Fluctuations”, in H. Flohn (ed), World Survey of Climatology. Vol.2. General Climatology (New York: Elsevier, 1969), p. 236; & Schneider, S. H., and C. Mass, “Volcanic dust, sunspots, and temperature trends”, Science, 190 (1975) 741-746.
Note reference to sunspots from Ellsworth Huntington’s “Civilization and Climate”, Yale, 1922.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-qooAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=sunspots+climate+1930&source=bl&ots=tZPEq1Q3yn&sig=X6TwtW2A_GD4sRJgqQAsZnRPQOU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hhyqU6aPGYX-oQTr8YCoBA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=sunspots%20climate%201930&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_Huntington
I know that anecdotes are verboten, but I studied sunspots & climate as an undergrad at Stanford, 1969-73.
Leif
Berggren does say
“We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar acitvity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [the last 600 years].”
He also says
“occasional short term differences between the two sites indicate that at least two
high resolution 10Be records are needed to assess local variations and to confidently reconstruct past solar activity”
Look at his Fig1 in the link you gave. The DY3 data is a beautiful; example of how the 20th century
solar activity climbs ( falling Be Flux) to levels not seen in the previous 600 years.
All interpretations of data are cherry picked one way or another. Scientific insight is the ability
to know which cherries to pick.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract
Link regarding the proposed volcanic LIA trigger.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm
1. Sulfur injection into the stratosphere, as measured by ice core records indicate that Samalas was likely the cause of the well-recorded cold and cold-related events around the globe.
—————————
Please provide the records which support this assertion, contrary to the recent studies linked & quoted here above which could find none. As noted above, your own link found no summer effect comparable to Kuwae, but just assumed it must have happened, despite lack of support. Thanks.
Then please explain how the many long warm intervals between c. AD 1260 & 1500 happened. If they coincide with periods of low volcanic activity, please make that connection, too. Thanks again.
Then please provide evidence for volcanoes causing the other cold periods in Holocene climate history comparable to the LIA, & explain why the planet has been in a long term cooling trend for over 3000 years, broken at fairly regular intervals by warm spells, the peaks of which are also declining. Volcanoes have a lot for which to answer. Thanks yet again.
Not to disrespect your work or all the countless hours of dedicated research… but why?
Why must there be some Holy Grail, magic formula, simplistic answer to everything?
Why can’t it be a more complex combination of contributing factors that influence our climate?
Sorry to be such a dolt but seriously… the mindset of A, B, C multiple choice? Have your ever considered “all of that above”?
Here is where I think possible further research is needed in the trigger and continued step-fashion slide into the LIA. They need to find a way to model the recharge/discharge function of ENSO processes under conditions of low solar insolation due to the sulfur veil, cloudiness, and decreased Walker Cell circulation. Then send those un-recharged cooler waters around the globe. Continue to hamper the recharge phase and force the equatorial region into sustained heat losing El Nino’s till sulfur injections reduce to background noise.
Milo, all of the links I have included note cold and cold-related events around the timing of Samalas. Do you need more?
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Says nothing about the 1257 eruption, for the good reason that a strong effect from it on climate is not detectable, contrary to your claim.
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Gifford H. Miller1,2,
Áslaug Geirsdóttir2,
Yafang Zhong1,
Darren J. Larsen1,2,
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner3,
Marika M. Holland3,
David A. Bailey3,
Kurt A. Refsnider1,
Scott J. Lehman1,
John R. Southon4,
Chance Anderson1,
Helgi Björnsson2 and
Thorvaldur Thordarson5
“Abstract
[1] Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes. However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived. Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.”
Gifford Miller, of the dead moss clumps showing unprecedented warmth fame or infamy.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/10/23/cu-boulder-led-study-shows-unprecedented-warmth-arctic
Sorry to see you go over to the Dark Side, Pamela.
From supporting materials. Note reliance on Mann & models:
[12] The PDF peak defining abrupt LIA cooling 1275–1300 AD coincides with an interval of four large stratospheric sulfur loadings from explosive volcanism following a multi-centennial warm interval, during which complete revegetation of deglaciated sites would have fully reset the radiocarbon clock (Figure 2c). The PDF peak between 1430 and 1455 AD corresponds with a large eruption in 1452 AD, although the ages of the three largest 5-year bins appear to precede the eruption date. In contrast to the earlier 13th Century peak, the second PDF peak occurs at the end of a 150-year interval of variable but falling snowline (Figure 2c), raising the possibility that the PDF peak plausibly reflects a brief natural episode of summer cold that preceded the large 1452 AD eruption. Alternatively, the apparent lead of kill dates with respect to the 1452 eruption may be a consequence of combined measurement and calibration uncertainties.
[13] Volcanism exerts strong negative radiative forcing [Robock, 2000] that could easily explain the observed rapid snowline lowering, but the short residence time of stratospheric sulfate aerosols precludes a lasting influence on the regional energy balance from a single eruption. Decadally paced eruptions may produce greater cooling than a single large eruption if the recurrence interval is shorter than the upper ocean temperature relaxation time of decades [Schneider et al., 2009]. This may explain multidecadal cold episodes, but many Canadian sites that became ice-covered ∼1275 AD and ∼1450 AD, following episodes of strong explosive volcanism, remained continuously ice-covered until the most recent decade (Figure 2c). Such a long-lasting response suggests that explosive volcanism must have engaged a substantial and largely self-sustaining positive feedback(s).
[14] Climate modeling reveals one such possible feedback mechanism. Following Zhong et al. [2011], we tested whether abrupt LIA snowline depressions could be initiated by decadally paced explosive volcanism and maintained by subsequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks. We completed a 550-year transient experiment (1150–1700 AD) using Community Climate System Model 3 [Collins et al., 2006] with interactive sea ice [Holland et al., 2006] at T42 × 1 resolution. Our transient simulation was branched off a 1000 AD control run, and forced solely by a reconstructed history of stratospheric volcanic aerosols and relatively weak solar irradiance changes (Figure 2b) [Gao et al., 2008]. Details of the experimental conditions are given in the Text S1. In addition to a continuously sustained sea-ice expansion following the late 13th Century eruptions (Figure 3b), the simulation also shows a sustained weakening of northward heat transport in the North Atlantic averaging 0.04 PW less than the mean of our control from 1300–1600 AD (Figure 3d; statistically significant at the 99.9% level), and an anomalously cold and fresh North Atlantic subpolar gyre (Figure S5). A significant increase in April-September surface albedo poleward of 60°N (Figure S4) results in a net summertime energy decrease of ∼1.5 Wm−2 averaged over the three centuries following late 13th Century eruptions. Albedo increase, expanded sea ice, and lowered ocean temperatures produce a persistent reduction in summer air temperature across Arctic North Atlantic continents (Figure 2e), consistent with our primary observations of expanded ice caps at this time. In a sensitivity test using the same model, initial conditions, and 13th Century volcanic forcing, Zhong et al. [2011]showed that increased southward sea ice export following the eruptions led to freshening and vertical stratification of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre, reducing open ocean convection and thus weakening the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These changes reduced basal sea-ice melt sufficiently to produce an expanded sea-ice state that persisted in the model for more than a century after the final eruption, without additional forcing. These mechanisms are similarly engaged in our transient simulations, suggesting that the initial snowline depression may have been sustained by the sea-ice/ocean feedback identified byZhong et al. [2011] for centuries after the initiating eruptions.
image
Figure 3. Climate model results for 1000 AD control (black), and volcanically perturbed transient beginning 1150 AD (red). Black dashed lines and gray bars represent mean and standard deviation of the control. (a) Monthly global downwelling surface shortwave radiation anomalies forced by aerosol loadings [Gao et al., 2008] after 1150 AD; earlier portion is unforced control. (b) Yearly and 30-year running mean of NH sea ice volume in Sept. from perturbed transient compared to control from its branching point. (c) 30-year running mean of the northward heat transport in the North Atlantic at 26°N. (d) 30-year running mean of average summer (JJA) surface air temperature over North Atlantic Arctic land (>60°N and 90°W to 30°E).
[15] Sea ice is the largest contributor to enhanced Arctic climate sensitivity [Serreze and Francis, 2006], and our transient simulation indicates that repeated explosive volcanism might have led to a persistent expansion of sea ice state during the LIA. This possibility is reinforced by a reconstruction of the abundance of sea ice in surface waters north of Iceland (Figure 2e). Sea ice does not form around Iceland; it only appears when there is a large export of sea ice from the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice was rarely present on the North Iceland shelf from 800 AD until the late 13th Century, when an abrupt rise in sea-ice proxies suggests a rapid increase in Arctic Ocean sea ice export, followed by another increase ∼1450 AD, after which sea ice was continuously present until the 20th Century [Massé et al., 2008] (Figures 1 and 2e). The increase in sea ice north of Iceland at the start of the LIA, and its persistence throughout the LIA, supports our modeling experiments suggesting explosive volcanism and associated feedbacks resulted in a self-sustaining expanded sea-ice state beginning 1275–1300 AD. Additional support for regional cooling beginning in the late 13th Century comes from the inversion of temperatures measured in a borehole through the south dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1). Although the temporal resolution is muted by thermal conductivity and ice flow, the pattern of temperature change (Figure 2f) [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998] closely resembles our ice-cap growth histories, whereasδ18O values from the ice cores are poorly correlated with the borehole record, presumably because they are dominated by winter temperatures and changing seasonality of precipitation [Vinther et al., 2010].
[16] Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD [Eddy, 1976]). Together with climate modeling and supported by other proxy climate reconstructions, our results suggest that repeated explosive volcanism at a time when Earth’s orbital configuration resulted in low summer insolation across the NH acted as a climate trigger, allowing Arctic Ocean sea ice to expand. Increased sea ice export may have engaged a self-sustaining sea-ice/ocean feedback unique to the northern North Atlantic region that maintained suppressed summer air temperatures for centuries after volcanic aerosols were removed from the atmosphere. The coincidence of repeated explosive volcanism with centuries of lower-than-modern solar irradiance (Figure 2a) [Schmidt et al., 2011] indicates that volcanic impacts were likely reinforced by external forcing [Mann et al., 2009], but that an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Milo, all of the links I have included note cold and cold-related events around the timing of Samalas. Do you need more?
———————
I don’t more. I need some. I’ve read your links & they provide no such thing, that I saw. If you think they’re there, please quote them. Thanks.
milodonharlani says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm
OK, I looked. That reference lists exactly ONE paper on the Maunder, the Schneider paper which was one of the three papers cited by Eddy … so you have provided nothing past what I provided, Eddy’s three references.
Unresponsive, we’re looking for discussions of the Maunder w.r.t. temperature.
So despite your claims that it’s “easy to find material on the Maunder”, you have not added one single study to the list I provided.
Regards,
w.
Barbee says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Who on earth are you talking to? Leif? tonyb? milodon? Me? sturgis? Matthew?
The world wonders …
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:22 pm
I discussed this paper at length in “Dronning Maud meets the Little Ice Age“. Short answer, it foundered on an ugly reef of facts …
w.
I plotted reconstructed TSI and temperature as available from Dr, Roy Spencer and their seems to be a reasonable trend of temperature and changes in solar activity. Changes in solar activity take decades to play out because of the buffering of the oceans.
http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg484/ltwells3/TSIvsTemp_zps49b836e6.png
Alec Rawls says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Whether solar activity in the second half of the 20th century was “exceptionally high” or merely “high” makes no difference for the question of whether it could explain late 20th century warming. So long as the climate system has not yet equilibrated to a higher level of forcing (by whatever mechanism that forcing is transmitted) then warming will continue until equilibration is reached, and there is no reason to think that equilibration does not take many decades.
You will have to say ‘centuries’ as solar activity was as high in the 18th century as in the middle 20th.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm
The DY3 data is a beautiful…
There is general consensus that the Dye3 data is awful, because of the complex ice flow regime at Dye-3, where ice from the oldest strata has experienced significantly different summer melt and accumulation conditions than observed presently at the Dye-3 drill site.
Scientific insight is the ability to know which cherries to pick
So you are an excellent cherry picker, I won’t disagree with that.
LT says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:43 pm
I plotted reconstructed TSI and temperature as available from Dr, Roy Spencer and their seems to be a reasonable trend of temperature and changes in solar activity.
The ‘reconstructed’ TSI is not correct. The is no evidence for the long-term increase.
Osborn
“Typical of you to talk emissivity when Konrad talks Absorption, can’t you even read what he has said?”
You and Konrad are Dragon Slayers or simply ignorant of radiation physics. Study Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation: absorptivity = emissivity
lsvalgard,
Whatever, it is in the ballpark, and of course there is a long term increase, sunspots are a proxy they are wrong as well. Everything is wrong, it is a matter of how wrong it is.
LT says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:28 pm
of course there is a long term increase
You state that without evidence and as a belief [“of course”]
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Could not agree with you more on the value of Miller, et al.
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Worse than worthless as to conclusions.
lsvalgard,
The cosmogenic Isotope proxy clearly shows a long term increase in solar activity, I thought that was an accepted metric. Please correct me if I am in error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#mediaviewer/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Do you yet again want me to do all your research for you? I said it was easy to find papers from before the ’60s on the connection between sunspots & climate & weather, because it is. The one I cited, Huntingdon’s 1922 book, most certainly does make that connection.
This mentions some others:
The Influence of Sun-Spots Upon Climate
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1910PA…..18….8P
Harvard University
by AH Palmer – 1910 – Cited by 1 – Related articles
That not all the papers between the Maunders’ & Eddy’s use the term “Maunder Minimum” doesn’t mean that they don’t connect periods of low SSN with cooler climate, more clouds, more wind & other climatic parameters, because indeed they do.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Climastrology makes for strange bedfellows. You’re truly sleeping with the enemy by citing that very model of post-modern Mann-made global warming garbage.
Pamela Gray says:
June 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm
All I saw in your links was a claim that there should have been an affect on summer temperatures from sulfates, not any evidence that there actually was. Your links, as did all the others, also pointed out that the cooling effect of aerosols doesn’t scale linearly, just as my sources noted.
Sorry, but your pet hypothesis is busted. As Willis correctly points out, it crashes on the rocks of reality, ie reefs of facts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/dronning-maud-meets-the-little-ice-age/
kadaka
“ISO was founded 1947, WMO in 1950. So obviously Pouillet wasn’t using today’s calibration standards. Intercalibration with others at that time wouldn’t help much if as a class they read lower than today’s precision instruments.”
Modern pyrheliometers are calibrated to attain > 99% accuracy. Even if Pouillet’s measurement error is 5% that would still give lower solar constant enough to cool the planet by 3.5 C. How do you know his error is > 5%?
Around 200 BC, using sticks, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth with less than 2% error. His sticks were not calibrated by ISO and WMO. (To answer critics, Eratosthenes used the Egyptian stade = 157.5 m since he was in Egypt and obtained data from Egyptian surveyors)
Is it hard to believe the sun was less active in the LIA? Sunspot records show it. 1600-1850 sunspots < 50 most of the time. 1950-2000 sunspots average 75.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
LT says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:43 pm
The cosmogenic Isotope proxy clearly shows a long term increase in solar activity, I thought that was an accepted metric. Please correct me if I am in error.
Both the sunspot number shown and the cosmogenic record are not what we today think are the correct versions. For the sunspot number see Fig. xx4 of http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf and for the isotopes see Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf [note the team members]
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:09 pm
Is it hard to believe the sun was less active in the LIA? Sunspot records show it. 1600-1850 sunspots < 50 most of the time. 1950-2000 sunspots average 75.
The revised SSN series has average SSN 1749-1799 as 64, 1800-1899 as 51, and 1900-2014 as 62. Values before 1749 were lower, but also very uncertain. The number of sunspot groups was average 1749-1799 as 5.3, 1800-1899 as 3.9, and 1900-2014 as 4.7. Hardly any systematic long-term increase.
Willis Eschenbach: The accuracy of the ‘hockey stick’ type reconstruction shown above was essentially confirmed by The National Academies of America in 2006 with their paper ‘Surface temperature reconstructions for the past 2000 years.
So that’s what you mean. I think the reference is to the use of the most important principle components of multiple time series, followed by an attempt to derive a linear relationship between temperature and the principle components by some form of linear regression. MBH98 was the first such effort in climatology, and the the method has been widely applied since then. MBH98 contained errors, which were pointed out by McIntyre and McKittrick, whose work was in turn shown to have some errors (though more minor.) Mann has continued to publish, better work, the best of which does not support the MBH98 and elaborated “Hockey Stick” (though he seems to claim it still does), which “hockey Stick” itself was disconfirmed by others and isn’t any longer accepted by the UNIPCC or anybody else who pays attention to details.
In 2007, the NAS was not quite ready to commit to the idea that Mann may have been worse than sloppy, as I was not quite ready at that time. I think careful reading of Mann’s work, McIntyre’s careful critiques, the the full interchange published in Annals of Applied Statistics, and other work undermines belief in Mann’s honesty. But I still think that tonyb’s (and others’) strategy of debating Mann head on is defensible.
thank you for your later reference to my patience. It is a strategy. I am able to take out my frustrations in chopping trees, hefting heavy stones, and digging and hauling dirt in the carrying out of “landscaping” projects. In person I am actually crabby.
milodonharlani says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Since you’ve never done a scrap of research for me, I have no clue what you are babbling about.
No, you didn’t say anything about “the connections between sunspots & climate & weather”. That’s provably untrue. You can’t even be bothered to quote yourself. What you actually said was:
Which made sense, because if you follow your own comments back, the trigger for our interchange was my challenge (emphasis mine):
Citing my challenge, you claimed it was “easy” to do that … but I fear that to date you haven’t been able to even begin to do it.
Since Huntingdon’s book doesn’t mention the Maunder, it’s meaningless in this question. And since you still haven’t come up with one new citation that discusses the connection between the Maunder and temperature, to date you are losing, and losing badly. You claimed it was easy to show “significant interest”, and to date you don’t have one single example.
w.
As you can see, there is much support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET, in all three of the coldest periods.
?w=840
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm
———————————-
I have no association with any “slayers”. All my work is my own.
Any claim that I am associated with “slayers” is a lie. Care to retract your lie?
Further, none of my experiments challenge existing laws of radiative physics. Any claim that they do would also be a lie.
The experiment I presented on this thread concerning selective surfaces was a simple demonstration of basic engineering covered by researchers at Texas A&M in 1965. Nothing special, nothing new. It’s just that climastrologists are too stupid to qualify for engineering. If I said “C” grade students, that’s not “C” for credit average, that’s “C” for conceded pass.
Now what did the researchers in 1965 work out? Evaporation constrained solar ponds –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
– work best when layer 3 rather than layer 2 is black, even though more SW is absorbed when layer 2 is matt black. Think your standard S-B scribblings can answer that? Think again.
And think again before you lie and call me a “slayer”.
PS. Remember Dr. Spencer’s site? The Internet does. Forever. Not the first time you have lied outright now is it?
From Greg Goodman on June 24, 2014 at 7:10 am:
Wrong. There is no notation of the latitude range on the graph. You have two legends saying “TOA reflected tropical SW anomaly” and then how the data were mangled. They don’t match, I provided more info.
What I learned is you have said of it:
You present evidence of cooling, and say it is warming. But there was no evidence of long term warming.
So are you claiming there will be tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling? We were told that was evidence of (C)AGW.
Of course, as shown in the Eschenbach 2012 piece Volcanic Disruptions, the apparent atmospheric transmission of direct solar radiation (aka transmittance forcing change) is disrupted far more for far longer than the surface temperatures are perturbed, if they notice eruptions at all.
Therefore what affects the higher parts of the atmosphere may not affect the surface and lower troposphere temperatures. Your evidence of stratospheric cooling is evidence of stratospheric cooling, nothing more.
There is a curious artifact of your 8 month smoothing, the flux anomaly starts curving upwards many months before the actual June 15, 1991 eruption. From what was the prevailing trend at 1990 before the up-curving to the end of the smoothed line about 1997.4, there might be a 1.5 difference.
If someone swats a tree branch aside, there needs to be an explanation why it springs back to where it was? The temperatures are naturally resilient, Eschenbach’s Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis allows for quick recovery and the heat from the tropics is transported to the higher latitudes. Plus there is the natural buffering effect of the oceans.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/to:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/to:2000/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/to:2000/detrend:0.283982/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/to:2000/detrend:0.283982/trend
Where’s the volcano? The oceans didn’t notice, so the global temperatures hardly noticed.
Which is something I’ve avoided mentioning until now. You point to that post here as some great explanatory thing where all these tidbits are revealed. But your actual post that you gave as “further evidence” says:
Since I just came for the “further evidence” and not to examine your “adaptive method”, I had no reason to click on it.
So you have been berating me for not looking at info that you didn’t label as pertinent for your “further evidence”.
And that’s also a shoddy practice. You said it was further evidence, which it wasn’t. But now you’re saying it needs the other post. After peeking at your long-winded other post, you basically said “The evidence is this graph”, and when I go there you’re saying “The evidence is this graph and this book, happy reading”.
Do you know what happens to retailers who advertise this device is what you need, and when you get in the store they tell you it’s what you need IF you add in all these other devices and services?
Leif I’ll take your last comment (7:04pm) as the compliment which I’m sure you intended.
However it does show a basic difference in approach. Your reference to poor data related to the base of the core which you then extrapolated to the top for no necessary reason. My comment referred to the top of the Dye 3 ice core BE data which looks good to me.
Climate science is an historical science at its core. Look at the Geological Time Scale- It is cobbled together from looking at many different kinds of data. time series from all over the world with all sorts of gaps ,deficiencies, differences in data quality etc. You have to judge which bits fit together to make a coherent whole- which bits make sense in the context of the whole. Many observations can be disregarded as not being particularly useful for one reason or another, others act as ” Golden Spikes” to pin down some events in time and space.
You have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater- you need to do some constructive rather than destructive cherry picking and see where it takes you. For example the same Fig 1
shows very nicely the Maunder and Dalton temperature minimums in the 10 Be solar related data.of the NGRIP ice core. After correlating all sorts of wiggles for 40 years I have no problem using the NGRIP for the Maunder and Dalton and the DYE 3 for the 20th century. It is the sort of thing you have to do when dealing with a complex system with multiple variables. Those whose training is in physics and maths are obviously not going to feel comfortable with this sort of approach and prefer to beat their heads against the wall of computer modelling the system.
At the same time I acknowledge the value of your detailed critical analysis of the reliability of the sunspot and magnetic data – it must be considered when deciding which cherries to pick even if one in the end chooses not to pick some of the ones you like and to pick some of those you don’t like.
Isvalgaard
Do you really believe the Maunder and Dalton Minima occurred during the LIA is purely coincidental? The sun was unusually weak and the climate was unusually cold but they have no relation, just coincidence.
“one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years.” (Solanki et al)
Were you not part of the Max Planck Institute solar research team?
http://www.mpg.de/495993/pressRelease20041028
Dr Norman Page says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:10 pm
After correlating all sorts of wiggles for 40 years I have no problem using the NGRIP for the Maunder and Dalton and the DYE 3 for the 20th century. It is the sort of thing you have to do when dealing with ,,,
Fig. 3 of Berggren shows how poor Dye-3 is for the 20th century before ~1950, so you should have a problem. The whole level of Dye-3 before 1950 is wrong [too high]. The NGRIP data in Fig. 3 shows what the level should be. How do I know this? Because the cosmic ray flux can be derived from the strength of the solar wind magnetic field which we now know rather accurately back to 1845. So, you are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
One should not pick cherries according to what one likes, but according to the reliability of the data.
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Do you really believe the Maunder and Dalton Minima occurred during the LIA is purely coincidental? The sun was unusually weak and the climate was unusually cold but they have no relation, just coincidence.
That is right.
“one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years.” (Solanki et al)
Is not true, as I have shown several times, but perhaps you were not paying attention.
Were you not part of the Max Planck Institute solar research team?
No, but Solanki and Co. are on my ISSI 233 team: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
Leif says:
The period from 1750-1800, where Leif has the revised SSN averaging about 64, was a period of substantial global warming (I’m looking at Moberg 2005), not far short of the substantial warming since 1950 (if we can believe HadCRUT, GISS etcetera), during which time solar activity was a bit higher still (according to Steinhilber 2009).
I don’t see how Leif is able to construe the 18th century coincidence between rising global temperatures and high solar activity (not exceptional perhaps, but high) as evidence against high solar activity as a major driver of global temperature. Pretty bizarre Leif.
The sun the same will judge who is right.
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/c2/1024/latest.jpg
From Dr. Strangelove on June 24, 2014 at 8:09 pm:
How do you know that would cool the planet that much? Between Eschenbach’s Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis and numerous other proposed regulating mechanisms, giving a temperature drop by crunching TSI through a simple equation seems foolish. The Earth is not a block of aluminum on a digitally-controlled hot plate.
First off, don’t you think the Egyptians had standards? They built pyramids and cities and monuments, so I’m sure they likely figured out the importance of reference standards.
As to the rest, dear Lord you really stepped in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadion_%28unit_of_length%29
The drop in temperature in the stratosphere most visible over the South Pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2014.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2014.gif
Matthew R Marler says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Nope. The reference is to the accuracy of such reconstructions, not the use of principal component analysis. If you look at say half a dozen of these reconstructions, they are all over the place, floor to ceiling … how can anyone seriously claim that that is “accurate”? That’s a joke. If they were accurate they would all get approximately the same answer. They don’t, therefore they are not accurate.
The methodology in MBH98 was an incorrect uncentered PCA analysis, so no, thankfully that method has never been tried again. And generally, they try out some new whiz-bang method with a new acronym with each new incarnation. I think the latest was “ECS”.
Mann’s later work is as shabby as MBH98. For heaven’s sake, he used the Tiljander data upside down, then defended using it upside down, then used it again in Mann2008 … and again upside down. Better work? Don’t make me laugh.
Please, please, Matthew, do your homework. Go to climateaudit and read about the successive unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the hockeystick. Read about his sleight of hand regarding withholding proxies to “test” his method. Read about the “CENSORED TO 1400” folder. You’re just making things up if you claim Mann did “better work”, you have no evidence of that at all.
Finally, the issue is not whether these days they use PCA or some other method. They are always inventing a new one. The problem is use of “data snooping” and post-hoc proxy selection, along with a method which actively mines for hockeysticks, combined with an addiction to discredited bristlecone pine proxies and careful elimination of any troublesome proxies. You truly are way out of your depth, my friend. The multi-proxy analyses all have very serious problems, and claiming that they have been shown to be “essentially confirmed” is simply not true.
There’s nothing there to “debate”, Matthew, and claiming that there is gives him false prominence.
He is convicted by his own words of advising his co-conspirators to destroy emails sought under a FOI request, and undoubtedly destroyed his own copies of those emails … and you sit here waffling about his honesty? Truly, neither you nor Tony appear to have any idea of the kind of man you are dealing with and want to “meet head on”.
Perhaps you’ve never heard that “any publicity is good publicity”, and I assure you, Tony saying on Judith Curry’s blog that Mann’s methods have been shown by the NAS to be “essentially correct” is publicity that Mann would gladly pay for. That was a huge win for him.
As a result, you and Tony are actively facilitating Mann’s ability to spread further falsehoods. Color me disappointed. Tony is holding hands with a crook, claiming said miscreant is essentially correct, and meanwhile not pointing out his math mistakes, nor his use of upside-down proxies, nor even his bogus stripbark pines, much less a single word about his illegal actions … and you see no problems with that, you’re right there symbolically holding hands with the both of them and busting me for objecting to this charade.
Your choice, but I wouldn’t … like the song says:
“As near as I remember, ’twas a year ago November,
I was walking down the street in tipsy pride.
No one I was disturbin’ as I lay down by the curbin’ …
And a pig came up and lay down at my side.
As I lay there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I cannot utter,
A lady passing by was heard to say
‘You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses!’ …
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.”
Sorry to be so blunt, Matthew, but the mann is a snake …
w.
The drop in temperature in the lower stratosphere over the equator.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2014.gif
Leif
I see you disagree with Solanki et al but your paper is just a proposal to research. Where is the output of the research team?
From ren on June 24, 2014 at 11:16 pm:
Have you never heard of winter? North Hemisphere has summer now, so South Hemisphere has winter. Thus cooling.
Where I live in central southern England UK, snow is a rarity, an occaisional light dusting but usually gone that afternoon. But in the winter of 2009, the second year without sunspots, (not sure I remember the exact year) we had 20cm of snow and I couldn’t get to work for a week. But for me the real interest that year were the BBC weather reports where we were getting record low and near record low temperatures here and there in the UK.
OK in almost any year there are record lows or highs from time to time, but it seemed to me that we were getting more near record lows then. Probably nothing that would stand out in the statistics, but I thought then that it was interesting and so I am looking forward to seeing what effect the putative lack of sunspots might have in about 2022 or so.
I think that the one year without sunspots every 11 years or so has no discernable impact, but I suspect that several years on the trot without sunspots will have an impact, and that we saw a hint of that in 2009. Bring on 2022. Mechanism, no idea.
I think that we should be open to any and all ideas, even extreme and apparently crazy stuff if only to re-affirm dismisal of those theories. There is no harm in re-examining received wisdom. If we are open minded enough an unexpected correlation may be found, then eventually after research somone may find a plausible, perhaps unexpected mechanism, and science and understanding moves forward.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:58 pm
——————————————————–
Southern sea ice extent reached 1.794 mil on today,s Cryosphere page. That is the second highest anomaly in the 35 year satellite record. This should be another record setting year down there for the sea ice.
kadaka
“The Earth is not a block of aluminum on a digitally-controlled hot plate.”
Of course but it still obeys S-B law of radiation. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Or you don’t believe the greenhouse effect?
“don’t you think the Egyptians had standards?”
Yes they do but it’s not certified by ISO and WMO. If Eratosthenes had a bigger error it’s because his Egyptian sources got the distance between Alexandria and Syene wrong. But his sticks were pretty accurate though also not certified by ISO and WMO.
lsvalgaard
says
“Both the sunspot number shown and the cosmogenic record are not what we today think are the correct versions. For the sunspot number see Fig. xx4 of http://www.leif.org/research/ISSI-Book-Section-4.pdf and for the isotopes see Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf [note the team members]”
Sounds interesting, however there are a number of studies based on pollen as well as diatoms that correlate long term changes solar activity with the MWP and LIA, you guys have your work cut out for you if intend to prove that each solar mimum and maximum returns TSI and solar magnetic field strengths roughly to the same value over many decades.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140109/srep03611/full/srep03611.html
From Dr. Strangelove on June 25, 2014 at 12:41 am:
Do you? From out in space where observers of Earth will see energy in = energy out, Stefan-Boltzmann describes Earth. You can calculate the effective temperature of the planet once you account for the actual absorption.
But here underneath the greenhouse gases, our “global average” temperature is controlled by the rate of heat retention. So it is foolish to think S-B will give surface temperatures.
Don’t forget all the feedbacks like clouds, etc, that affect absorption and retention. We can maintain the current temperatures with a bit more or a bit less TSI.
Then who maintained the standards of the time? Wasn’t there an authority establishing the accuracy of measurements, at least for commerce?
But Pouillet was a pioneer. What authority back then supplied standards and calibration procedures for pyrheliometers? Pouillet had made his own device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
So there are two other reasons he got a bigger error. And it was really 16.3%.
Although I think I remember a PBS show, Nova or Scientific American Frontiers or something, that gave the small error. They might have then explained how global warming had not yet significantly increased global circumference due to thermal expansion, or not, it’s been awhile.
The Bunyip
Friday 28 November 1902
Sir, In my letter to you which appeared in your issue […] you have reversed my remark with reference to sun spots. What I said was that a minimum of sunspots was accompanied with wet, and a maximum with dry seasons.
-J. Harcourt Giddons, M.SA. London, Astronomical Meteorologist
Clarence and Richmond Examiner – Saturday 2 January 1904
Recent researches into tho nature and periodicity of sun-spots throw a good deal of light–if the paradox may pass–upon the recurring dark places of the solar photo-sphere. Those who believe that there is a direct connection between sun-spots and the rainfall will no doubt be able to extract some support for that view from an article by the Rev. Father Cortie, in the November number of the “Ninteenth Century.” This observer, with the cautious reserve of a true scientist, refuses to commit himself definitely.
Examiner
Tuesday 6 September 1904
Knowledge of sun spots is distinctly limited, and Sir Norman Lockyer contended that the discovery and understanding of these phenomena will prove one of the most beneficial additions to the world in general. He advances the theory that such knowledge may enable astronomers to convert the sun into an agent to enable us to cope with droughts and famines, and that the spots on the sun may render it possible to predict with practical certainty the coming of famine and the exact part of the world where it will take place.
Western Champion
Friday 12 April 1912
Dealing with the question “Has a spot on the sun anything to do with the price of wheat” … “The whole question..is still in its primitive stages”
Bendigo Advertiser
Saturday 16 March 1918
There is a correspondence between sun spots and the weather. The more sun spots there are the more cyclones in the Indian Ocean, and the more West Indian hurricanes. The years when the sun spots are at their maximum are apt to be cold and wet.
The Australasian
Saturday 6 January 1923
The Commonwealth meteorologist (Sir. Hunt) states that there is nothing in sun spots to suggest any effect on the weather.
The Northern Miner
Wednesday 18 August 1926
“Terrestrial weather is another phenomena which may be connected to solar activity, and this is also a subject of study in many laboratories and observatories.”
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate
Wednesday 7 September 1927
The extraordinary storms which the Earth has been going through, first in one phone and then another, are attributed by many to the usually large sun spots observed at the leading observatories.
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate
Tuesday 3 December 1935
The effect of sun spots on terrestrial conditions is an important branch of Solar research work. Their presence has been identified with magnetic storms, terrestrial aurorae, etc., and increasing evidence tends to show that they have an effect on plant growth.[!]
The Argus
Saturday 11 October 1952
LOS ANGELES: Gigantic explosions on the sun set off a chain reaction which resulted in tropical rainstorms along the Pacific equator, a scientist reported yesterday. The first substantial evidence to link solar disturbances and formation of storms within the earth’s atmosphere was revealed by Dr. Clarence Palmer, of the University of California Institute of Geophysics. Bright spots on the sun, Dr. Palmer said, were followed by a consistent meteorological pattern along the Pacific equator.
BBC
Friday, February 13, 1998
Scientists blame sun for global warming — Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth. Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual – but a mini ice age could soon follow.
* * * * * * * *
See the sudden change of temperature in the stratosphere in 2001.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2001.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2001.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2001.gif
At the beginning of 2001 suns magnetic activity strongly decreased.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html
Willis
I had not intended to return to this thread as the argument you seem to have with me makes unseemly reading and detracts from your own article. However your very long reply to Matthew has caused me to return. Especially this;
‘Tony is holding hands with a crook, claiming said miscreant is essentially correct, and meanwhile not pointing out his math mistakes, nor his use of upside-down proxies, nor even his bogus stripbark pines, much less a single word about his illegal actions … and you see no problems with that, you’re right there symbolically holding hands with the both of them and busting me for objecting to this charade.’
As you have said, there have been myriad articles that point out in explicit terms the shortcomings (as sceptics see them) of the HS. However they have had little impact outside the febrile area of a few blogs and the hockey stick and its many derivatives still influence main stream thinking whether we like it or not.
What on earth do you think would be gained by yet another bitter attack on this icon? For this is surely what you are suggesting I should have done when you complain that I have not explicitly referenced these flaws for the umpteenth time? Don’t you think there might be other ways to undermine the ‘science’ than being perpetually angry about something that is securely embedded in the minds of those taking decisions relating to the climate?
Willis, we all have different ways of writing. You tend to be outspoken whilst I tend to be understated. The reason for this no doubt lies in our backgrounds and nationalities and the audiences we address. I am trying to reach both warmists and the uncommitted and I can’t do this if from the outset I put forward arguments they will immediately dismiss and at that point stop reading.
In ‘The Long slow thaw?’ I reconstructed CET from 1659 to 1538 and thought it would be useful to run it alongside two more famous reconstructions, that of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb as that was likely to retain the interest of readers on all sides of the debate. Mann and Lambs results differ substantially as I showed in various graphs. Throughout the article I make numerous understated sceptical references as to the accuracy of the Hockey stick. Perhaps you missed them? Here are just a few examples;
‘Mann’s research was thorough and interesting, and like Manley’s work with CET, and Hansen’s with global temperature, was a considerable feat of research and re-interpretation of existing knowledge, which until then had accepted considerable variability, with previous episodes of warming exceeding those in the modern era.’
‘….coupled with a lesser impact of the ‘Little Ice Age’ than had previously been accepted.’
‘An alternative explanation is that the reconstructions and instrumental global data sets in fig 15a together with those city ones mentioned in (37) do in fact accurately represent the prevailing climates of the time, and therefore it is ‘the hockey stick’ that is not a reliable representation.’
‘Coupled with the long lived CET instrumental records, this appears to show that if the Mann reconstruction is correct, the British climate has at times varied substantially from that of the remainder of the Northern Hemisphere for 400 years or so.’
‘ So we have two competing climate history stories-one developed over a lifetime of academic research mostly before the computer era, and the other derived from a scientist using modern statistical techniques and the extensive use of novel proxies interpreted in a highly sophisticated manner using computers.’
Now it is unkindly said that the Americans don’t do irony, but does any of that sound as if I am supporting Dr Mann?
Like it or not the hockey stick remains influential to this day and to believe it has been discredited is surely wishful thinking. So, you are working on the basis that no one believes it whilst I work on the basis that it still represents mainstream thinking that affects govt and institutional thinking, albeit things have moved on with other reconstructions.
I choose to try to point out that natural variability is much greater than is currently believed and thereby try to undermine the results of the HS. To this end I research and publish material that relates to this considerable natural variability. I think this is more effective than producing yet another angry condemnation that no one in the wider and influential world will take any notice of.
That my sympathies lie with the natural variation depicted by Lamb rather than the ‘highly sophisticated’ (irony, Willis) computer rendition of Mann can be seen in the conclusions to the article under section 7 of which I have quoted only a small part.
— —-
The long Slow Thaw-Section 7 conclusion;
4) The nature of the proxies used in MBH98 and 99 have inherent problems and have proved very controversial. Tree rings have an inability to adequately represent the conditions of the entire year, amongst other difficulties, whilst SST’s have their own considerable shortcomings. Mixing proxies also causes their own problems. Taken in total, the data used in such studies is unlikely to accurately represent the climates prevailing at the time back to 1400AD and 1000AD. Carrying out complex statistical analysis on questionable data does not render the initial data any more meaningful as a scientific measure. Paleo reconstructions as a whole should be treated with caution when it relates to precise representations of temperature.
5) Lamb gathered together a variety of forms of evidence in his reconstruction. The schematic of composite graphs seen in figure 16 and 17 -when compared to the reconstruction to 1538- seems to confirm with other research that Lamb’s view of climate history was broadly correct. The main caveats we would place is that our own 1538 reconstruction seems to indicate slightly warmer humps around 1550 and 1630 than Lamb notes. This needs to be checked as it was unexpected
6) The hockey stick remains a potent icon to this day. However the gradual decline in temperatures over the centuries that it depicts cannot be detected, nor the lack of variability of the climate over the same time scales. The sharp uptick in temperatures from the start of the 20th Century is a likely artefact of computer modelling through over complex statistical interpretation of inadequate proxies. Modern warming needs to be put into its historic context with the patterns of considerable natural climatic variability that can be observed from the past.
——- ——– ——-
Willis, I really do not intend to return after this time as this extended debate serves no purpose. I take the view that Mannian thinking is alive and well, you seem to believe its many problems have been fully exposed.
However, the continued advance of policies designed to prevent apparently catastrophic warming continues, mitigated only by financial constraints, surely suggests that the belief in the what the hockey stick appears to be telling us, albeit in its modified forms, still remains main stream thinking and that sceptical critiques have had little mainstream impact.
As I have said before, we each plough our own furrows in our different ways but ultimately we are heading in the same direction.
All the best
Tonyb
@ Isvalgaard, you are the only one among the discussants who saw something interesting in my discussion and it is not the first time. So thank you for your attention and realize that your “sensors” closer to natural laws. You advise me to offer my proof this journal WUWT. What would I benefit from it had to announce something big (if true), the list where you pay almost no attention to innovations in science and where the majority of speakers refute the evidence of other, indicating some unproven works and thoughts of some third party (say scientists ). To test my ideas is essential organizations like NASA with the help of the U.S. government. We are talking about programs that contain memory in terabytes.
We talk about the sunspot cycle of about 11 years on average. Imagine those 11 cycles (11.2×11 = 123 years). The figure 123 is a cycle of a butterfly diagram of these spots. There are 4 cycles of 11.2x and many others. in which one can see images of the entire solar system and the interrelationships that cause any changes in the sun. Sunspots are only indicators of something powerful consequences are climate change on all planets. I will try to analyze and Maunder minimum, and other distinctive features such as on and see cause and a similar occurrence in the future. You should not expect, never to be repeated something equivalent. Everything happens for a variety of intensities and at different intervals, but need to convert to the program. It can only be said institutions, if they have any interest. So far, it did not show.
Paraphrasing from my viewpoint:
Willis: Man(n) is a vile deceitful creature, contaminating science, and his Hokey Stick is a pusillanimous globule of virulent corruption that is unfit for all but incineration as contagious toxic waste before it destroys more innocent lives!
Tonyb: Yeah, I agree it’s terrible, but a lot of people think it’s valuable so let’s see what we can get for it!
Alec Rawls says:
June 24, 2014 at 10:44 pm
I don’t see how Leif is able to construe the 18th century coincidence between rising global temperatures and high solar activity (not exceptional perhaps, but high) as evidence against high solar activity as a major driver of global temperature.
It is quite simple: temperature the last 300 years has been increasing while solar activity has not.
Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:35 pm
I see you disagree with Solanki et al but your paper is just a proposal to research. Where is the output of the research team?
In press. Coming soon.
LT says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:58 am
you guys have your work cut out for you if intend to prove that each solar mimum and maximum returns TSI and solar magnetic field strengths roughly to the same value over many decades.
This might help: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
One could turn the problem around: why would there the solar minimum values vary when there is no activity?
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 5:00 am
You advise me to offer my proof this journal WUWT. What would I benefit from it had to announce something big (if true)
Just writing it up in a presentable form will benefit you. In addition, the many eyes at WUWT will give you a [free] review.
Leif. is your paper going to change the number of spot free days or is the chart on the paper you linked going to be about right?
steven says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:14 am
Leif. is your paper going to change the number of spot free days or is the chart on the paper you linked going to be about right?
The number of spot free days will not change. The revised sunspot number of a change of scale.
The preliminary SSN is just ‘about right’.
Leif The Dye 3 data match the neutron count and ionization chamber trends better than the NGRIP. When you derive a data set from observations of a different phenomena you get one more step removed from what you are actually measuring and introduce a whole new set of theoretical assumptions into the data.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:32 am
Leif The Dye 3 data match the neutron count and ionization chamber trends better than the NGRIP.
The ionization chamber data is not calibrated correctly and should not be spliced to the neutron monitor data. Here we have a good example of cherry picking faulty data because it fits your agenda.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:32 am
Leif The Dye 3 data match the neutron count and ionization chamber trends better than the NGRIP.
The ionization chamber data is not calibrated correctly and should not be spliced to the neutron monitor data. See slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
Leif I note that you did not question my reference to the Maunder and Dalton minima seen in the NGRIP Be data which you seem to think is good .
It is very clear from Fig 1that the rise in Be 10 from about 1640 to the 1700 peak and the sharp peak at about 1810-15 reflects the decline in solar activity which is the most probable cause of the cooling of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Can you accept this as a causal connection and if not why not?
For other readers (Willis and Mosher?) Here is the link – see Fig 1.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL03804-Berggren.pdf
Hey Willis,
You are setting up a tiny bit of a straw man, when you examine the Lamb/Eddy data instead of modern data that fully spans the events and looks beyond temperatures in England, which no doubt has distinct local cyclic behavior superimposed on top of the global trend. If you look at this:
2000 year temperature comparison
then you see that the series of minima do indeed occur across the LIA. If they are integrated phenomena — as Eddy suggests — it isn’t inconceivable that they have a long term, average, impact. But I do agree that it is difficult to see a smoking gun level of correlation in a sane temporal order. Any effect would definitely be mixed with and modulated by other long time constant climate behavior, e.g. thermohaline turnover, modulation of the decadal oscillations.
I don’t quite despair of finding a simple linear causal driver of climate, but based on the data I’ve seen I do keep reducing the probability of one being discovered. It certainly isn’t CO_2. I think that if one generates a scatter plot of CO_2 concentration vs global average temperature as estimated by proxies over the last half-billion years, there is absolutely no meaningful statistical correlation between the two, out to CO_2 concentrations over 10x the present.
rgb
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:29 am
Leif I note that you did not question my reference to the Maunder and Dalton minima seen in the NGRIP Be data which you seem to think is good .
That I do not question everything you say or imply does not mean that I agree with your missives. I tend to concentrate on the most egregious errors.
It is very clear from Fig 1 that the rise in Be 10 from about 1640 to the 1700 peak and the sharp peak at about 1810-15 reflects the decline in solar activity which is the most probable cause of the cooling of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Can you accept this as a causal connection and if not why not?
Those sharp peaks are likely not solar at all. My inclination would be that they are of volcanic origin. Take the peak near 1700 [about in 1705 or so]. We have evidence for widespread solar magnetism just at that time: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
“The historical eclipse observations described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Hence, the red-flash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time”.
This is yet another example of a paper that you omit because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm
I have done your research for you, repeatedly.
Your SOP is to make bold claims on the basis of practically no research. I had to show you all the species which you failed to consider in your first paper, on extinctions, then just recently had to show you all the research finding an ~11 year signal in climate data.
While your statistical analysis is usually good, you fail to realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not less than ordinary. Thorough literature searches at a minimum should precede publishing conclusions, not follow it, provided by readers.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
That the tiny solar variations are the cause of the LIA is an extraordinary claim, so where is the extraordinary evidence for that?
rgbatduke says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:36 am
Dr. Brown, I couldn’t access your link, so went this route:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
This link also allows blowing up the spaghetti graph for the past millennium.
The spikiness during the LIA to which you refer IMO shows up well in the GISP2 ice core series:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
I agree that multivariate factors probably mask whatever primary driver might be operating on the centennial-millennial time scale, if such there be, comparable to insolation as modulated by orbital mechanics for the 10,000 to 100,000 year scale.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:45 am
I don’t think that extraordinary evidence is yet available, which is not to say that there is none. But there is more than for any other candidate as primary driver, if such a forcing exists.
Nor do I consider solar variations all that tiny, given the pronounced fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & in magnetic flux. Perhaps oddly, there do seem to be positive feedbacks for relatively small changes in solar parameters, such as albedo, water vapor concentration & atmospheric & ocean current circulation.
But of course I agree with you that the jury is necessarily still out. Unfortunately climate science is no longer climatology, with far too much emphasis on modeling & not enough on gathering & analyzing actual data, ie observations of the climate system.
For “climate science”, please read “climate computer science”.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:00 am
Nor do I consider solar variations all that tiny, given the pronounced fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & in magnetic flux.
Those spectral variation in TSI give rise to temperature variations less than 0.1 degree and there are no pronounced variations in the magnetic flux, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
***
Konrad says:
June 24, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Beng,
while there is considerable uncertainty regarding TSI, it is fairly safe to say it only varies around 0.1 to 0.2%.
***
Right. 1.5 w/m2 (solar-cycle variance) divided by an average ~1365 w/m2 (TSI) = ~0.1%. But I disagree that there is uncertainty in the sun’s TSI — actually it’s very precise (measured by satellite well away from earth). The uncertainty is how much gets into the earth’s atmospheric/ocean system & how it is absorbed (upper or lower atmosphere, land, ocean).
But that creates a quandary. If someone thinks solar cycles (1.5 w/m2 changes) have significant climate effects, how can they dismiss the 3.7 w/m2 (I’ll accept the IPCC’s number for this argument) for CO2 doubling? As the crazy, grizzled old gold-miner said, “That don’t figure”.
The issue is spectral variance and its effect on energy accumulation in the oceans. Here TSI is not a useful measure as it does not account for depth of energy absorption. For selective surfaces such as our deep transparent oceans, depth of absorption has a significant role in rate of accumulation or discharge. The experiment posted up thread is a clear demonstration of this mechanism.
Not sure which experiment you’re referring to. What you say is correct — energy absorbed below the ocean surface will not show up instantly, but w/some time-delay (and the immediate warming is actually reduced compared to surface-absorbed energy). Bottom-line for me, tho, is watts are watts, and absorption above 50m depth is going to show most of itself in the ocean surface temps in just a few yrs. Volcano Pinatubo blocked solar SW (which some of the visible light & UV gets absorbed below the ocean surface) and its effects were over in a few yrs.
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
in the NGRIP data reflects a decline in the solar magnetic field strength and an increase in the GCRs entering the atmosphere? Thus introducing the possibility of cooling via some version of the Svensmark hypothesis via clouds,aerosols and changing albedo or optical depth. The effect of TSI is seen on the quite different Milankovic time scales- mainly the eccentricity.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
in the NGRIP data reflects a decline in the solar magnetic field strength and an increase in the GCRs entering the atmosphere? Thus introducing the possibility of cooling via some version of the Svensmark hypothesis via clouds,aerosols
by 1700 the solar magnetic field was strong enough to produce a chromosphere http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
““The historical eclipse observations described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. ”
And Svensmark’s hypothesis is pretty much dead by now as evidence for it has evaporated.
One problem with you is that you don’t even bother looking at the links I provide.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif One last go at this one . Do you not agree that the overall rise in 10Be from 1600 -1700
Yet another example of cherry picking [different cherry this time]. Your beloved Dye-3 data shows a flat 10Be flux from 1600 until the end of the century [Figure 1 of Berggren]. Now, the data isn’t all that good, but does illustrate your flitting cherry picking.
I do not believe that obliterating the MWP-LIA a la Mann and the hockey stick is a tenable position. Looks like Willis needs to re-consider his methods or fix his digitizer.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:07 am
The effect of an increased UV component to TSI isn’t limited to air temperature. It has other climatic effects, to include on stratospheric ozone concentration & ocean surface heating & CCN production, although we have disagreed on the extent of its effect on oceanic factors.
The Maunder Minimum papers were informative, thanks very much. As the authors (including Eddy) of the second study observe however, by AD 1706 SSN had already been on the rise for some time & 1715 was the conventional last year of the MM.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:45 am
The effect of an increased UV component to TSI isn’t limited to air temperature. It has other climatic effects, to include on stratospheric ozone concentration & ocean surface heating & CCN production, although we have disagreed on the extent of its effect on oceanic factors.
People have modelling all that and the combined result is in the 0.05-0.1 K range.
As the authors (including Eddy) of the second study observe however, by AD 1706 SSN had already been on the rise for some time & 1715 was the conventional last year of the MM.
The big 10Be spike in cosmic rays was in 1705, c.f. Berggren Figure 1.
rgbatduke says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:36 am
Robert, as always, it’s good to hear from you.
Your linked graph shows the results of three “multi-proxy” reconstructions. One is by Michael Mann, and has been shown at ClimateAudit to have a variety of problems. Another is by Moberg, ditto. The third I haven’t heard of, by Huang … hang on … oh, yeah, I remember now, that’s the borehole data that basically disagrees with all of the other proxies. Boreholes, in fact, are ludicrously bad proxies, see my analysis here. They can’t tell a temperature from a hole in the ground, as the saying goes …
In addition the graph includes proxies like the Kilimanjaro ice core data, which is known to be badly contaminated by human activities. We also have the required collection of discredited stripbark pine proxies in the Mann 2004 dataset, plus others equally bad in the Moberg multi-proxy farrago. Plus a number of other proxy datasets, apparently picked at random.
More to the point for this analysis, look at the other graphic on the page:
This shows the longer view of the same proxies used in your graphic … you sure you want to claim that there is a common solar signal in those? As you can see in the other graphic on the page, these proxy datasets differ from each other by up to three degrees … three degrees. I’m sure not seeing any common signal in those at all.
In addition, we have things like the ODP 658 ocean core … they are interpreting it as a temperature proxy, when in the field it is usually used as a precipitation proxy. In addition, it’s also used in the Moberg multi-proxy analysis, so it is over-represented.
Finally, you say:
I’m sorry, but I see no such thing in that graph. As near as I can tell, there is no common thread at all, and no series of common minima. If you think they are there … then in what years do they occur? Cause I’m not finding them … unless I’m not understanding what you mean by a “series of minima”.
So I have to admit … given these well-known problems with both the individual proxies and the multi-proxy studies, and the near-total lack of agreement between the proxies, and the use of proxies more than once, I’m stunned to see you refer to the average of this pile of random proxy data, including proxies which are known, not suspected but known, to have serious problems, as though it had any meaning at all. It has the famous “upside-down Tiljander” in it, it has the bogus stripbarks, it has the Yamal nonsense, it’s like a rogues gallery of bad proxies … you sure you want to use this as a poster child for solar effects?
Finally, I keep coming up against the lack of the 11-year cycle. We don’t see a significant 11-year cycle in the climate data anywhere. Despite that, when there are two small 11-year cycles in a row (e.g. the “Dalton Minimum”), it’s supposed to cause a detectable depression in the temperature … how does that work?
People on this thread and elsewhere have done a lot of handwaving about “thermal mass” being the reason we can’t find the 11-year cycle in temperature data, but the reality is that we’re not measuring the changing temperature of the entire planet. Instead, we’re measuring changes in the thin top layer of earth, ocean and air. And that top layer swings more than 10°C each and every year … so why on earth would it magically soak up an 11-year cycle? It swings more than a degree on a DAILY cycle, for heavens sake. How does that translate to soaking up an 11-year cycle so thoroughly that no trace of it remains … and yet a much smaller two-cycle reduction in sunspots over a quarter century in the Dalton Minimum is supposed to cause a significant temperature drop?
In conclusion, while I’d love to have an accurate 2000 year dataset to examine for clues to solar cycles as you suggest, the one you have linked to is totally and completely inadequate for such a purpose … too bad, it would have been an interesting study.
Best regards, and thanks as always for your thoughts,
w.
PS—In comparison to the Central England Temperature data, you describe the average of the temperatures which have been calculated (often by arcane and bizarre methods) from the proxies as “modern data”. I have a problem with that, let me try to explain why.
When I was a kid we used to use crickets to tell the temperature by counting their chirps. It is actually not a bad proxy for temperature, much better than stripbark pines.
But I don’t think I’d refer to an estimate of temperatures calculated from an average of cricket chirps and stripbark pines as “modern temperature data” … it may be a modern temperature approximation, or a modern temperature estimate, but “data” to me indicates something a bit more solid than bugs … or stripbark pines, for that matter.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:50 am
Late Be10 spike may be an annual fluctuation during a decade of decline. The winter of 1709 was also historically cold, for instance, although the 1690s was a colder decade.
Eddy’s paper allows that the flashes observed were from the last decade of the MM. Too bad there aren’t observations from the late 17th century, but even after making proper adjustments, there is an average radionuclide signal associated with the lowest stretch of the MM.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:03 am
there is an average radionuclide signal associated with the lowest stretch of the MM.
But it is not a given that that signal is solar. In fact, there is considerable doubt about that, e.g. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“this implies that more than 50% of the 10Be flux increases around, e.g 1700 A.D , 1800 A.D and 1895 A.D is due to non-production related increases”
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:10 am
I couldn’t agree more with the authors (two apparently related, one at Microsoft) that more & better data are required, as per my comments above.
For all previousdiscussions and findings, it is evident that there is no efficient and logical evidence on the causes of the appearance of the sun, so that this discussion can serve to “surplus killing time” with those who think that this is something accomplished.
My question to all: if any of you have real evidence about the causes of climate change and all the causes of phenomena in the sun in our solar system, what would you ask that you pay for such a colossal discovery.?
Would you publish it anywhere without compensation?
Again, note that in these discussions, in general, we can not expect any real solution to the causes of climate change and the emergence of the sun. You discuss Maunder cycle, and if any of you sure that at that time was not possible to identify and measure the number of spots, especially on the far side of the sun you could not register at the time. So, and this cycle is questionable.
Willis says:
“Finally, I keep coming up against the lack of the 11-year cycle. We don’t see a significant 11-year cycle in the climate data anywhere.”
I reckon this is regular enough to forecast from. A warm AMO inter-annual temp’s tend to be out of phase with the solar cycle, while during a cold AMO they are in phase with the solar cycle:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
The reverse of this has been found with temp’s in Edinburgh, page 15:
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:29 am
Willis has been led to studies showing an 11 year cycle, but can’t be made to read them.
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:26 am
what would you ask that you pay for such a colossal discovery.?
Would you publish it anywhere without compensation?
You have this a bit backwards. Scientists usually pay to have their findings published to cover the cost of publication. A recent paper of mine cost me 12,000 US$.
tonyb says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:53 am
Tony, thanks for your willingness to return to the discussion.
I’m not sure where you get your claim that the flaws in Mann’s work have had little impact outside of the blogs. The climategate files show clearly that the leading alarmists don’t believe Mann and never have, because they were privy to the flaws long before we were due to his refusal to show his work. And while any meme lasts longer than I might wish, I don’t find any serious scientists currently citing Mann’s Hockeystick in any context … well, except for you. His laughable bitter outbursts against his enemies and his filing of lawsuits have even the activists turning away from him.
I made no such suggestion. I am not saying you should make a “bitter attack”. Read what I said.
I said that for you to bring up his work and say it was “essentially confirmed” was PR for Mann that he couldn’t purchase at any price. Remember, he has attacked Judith bitterly … and there you are on Judith’s blog, blithely quoting the nonsensical NAS report to laud him as though that report had any more value than Mann’s work itself. You are way in over your head, Tony, clearly you haven’t done your homework.
That sounds EXACTLY like you are supporting Dr. Mann. I’m sorry, but Mann’s research was not thorough. It was not a “considerable feat of research”. It was nothing like Manley’s work with the CET.
Instead, it was built on a horrendous mathematical mistake, contained proxies that were recommended not to be used, and had censored results. In addition, he lied about what he had done, and refused to release his data and code.
Any description of his work which fails to note those issues is indeed “supporting Dr. Mann.” You don’t seem to get it. When a guy is a crook, introducing him to your friends without pointing out that he is a crook is both SUPPORTING him, and misleading your friends … and that is exactly what you are doing. I’m not recommending that you get bitter about him. I’m recommending that you stop discussing him as though he were just another honest scientist. He’s not, both he and his work are fraudulent … but nobody would ever discover that by reading your descriptions. From your piece, nobody would ever conclude that there was a problem with his work at all, other than that you disagreed with a few of his conclusions.
Whether Mann’s work is discredited or not is not the issue. And I’m certainly not recommending that you adopt my methods or style, every man has to pick that for himself.
But when you discuss his work without pointing out the mathematical mistakes, the cheating, the bogus proxies, and the lies, you are supporting him.
It has been said that for evil to succeed, it’s only necessary for good men to do nothing … and you are doing nothing in spades when you fail to point out the egregious errors in Mann’s work. That is misleading by omission.
I hope that this makes my objections clearer. Look, I don’t think your a bad guy. I just think you’re in over your head, and you don’t really understand the nature of the guy you’ve gotten in bed with. Please, please, I implore you. Spend a week or so over at ClimateAudit, and do your homework. Mann is not a scientist of any stripe, and for you to discuss him as such damages your reputation and makes you look like a fool.
And you may be many things … but I sincerely doubt that you are a fool.
Best regards,
w.
@ Isvalgaard, we did not understand, I ask you, how valuable evidence that would allow the knowledge of the causes of climate change. If America spends on all aspects of these phenomena around 21.4 billion annualy, I would ask for the solution about 1% of that amount, and I think it would be a very small amount compared to how much it would be worth finding.
Here is my last post on this thread regarding the Samalas eruption and its comparison to Tambora. I will not be repeating the links. Please refer to my previous comments for those.
1) The climatic affects of Samalas are, based on all the data and records available, global in nature. Its explosivity gives it a VEI 7 or greater. Ice core data from dozens of cores places it heads above Tambora in terms of stratospheric volume. So I agree with all the authors who have studied the 1257 event. Samalas was more explosive and had greater global impact than Tambora, thus should be, and has been placed in peer reviewed literature, above Tambora in scale (note: wikipedia would not be a sound reference).
2) If it occurred when oceanic heat had reached a maximum discharge state (IE it needed substantial recharging to keep from falling into a normal oscillatory colder state) and that recharging did not happen, the slide into a colder oceanic state would have been initiated and worsened by such a thick solar veil. Indeed, temperature proxies do indicate the oceans had been busy warming the globe via heat discharge. Then came Samalas. ENSO recharge disruption, general circulation patterns and additional veils recorded in ice cores could have triggered and sustained that free fall into deeper cold oceanic states. Why? Because of the tendency of equatorial volcanic eruptions triggering El Nino conditions and a decreased Walker Cell circulation, further reducing oceanic recharge due to the double whammy of veils and clouds.
3) The LIA volcanic trigger, as examined by geochemist Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado published in 2012 is worth revisiting and revising by that same author along with Volcanologist Franck Lavigne of the Université Paris whose seminal work on the identification of the 1257 event was published in 2013. Together they should add a topnotch statistician to the lead team so that statistical analysis will be valid and reliable. They should also add a world class ENSO expert knowledgeable in the mechanics of recharge/discharge ENSO functions to this lead team as this mechanism is a significant part of a plausible driver of the LIA. A solar expert current on reconstructed solar indices should be added who can provide the necessary calculations of TOA irradiance with subsequent solar insolation at the surface throughout the time span of interest. One more addition to the team of investigators would be to add an expert on general circulation models. Together I believe they can build a stronger case than solar-leaning investigators. Anthropogenic researchers need not apply.
In summary, clearly in terms of paleoclimatic records (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html), the timing and extent of all the LIA eruptions is in concert with the LIA temperature proxies. Not so with solar data. The mechanism for the continued slide into colder oceanic states with trade wind/Walker Cell diminution and decreased solar insolation due to sulfur veils is a plausible and data-supported hypothesis capable of affecting solar measures to a far greater degree than ol Sol himself.
Finally, while Sturgis (unknown background or university association) has all manner of opposite opinion related to this entire issue, I wholly place my opinion in agreement with the literature (and have changed my mind about that literature over time), so if I am lying, Sturgis is saying that a dozen or more experts in volcanology, chemistry, global circulation mechanics, and geology are lying, not me. Take your pick. Sturgis. Or peer reviewed and vetted published experts.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:41 am
More claims without citations … yawn …
My paper on extinctions was good enough to be published in a scientific journal. Somehow, they didn’t consider my work faulty, as you claim … go figure.
As to “all the research finding an ~11-year cycle in climate”, I’d requested that you give me one, just one, study that you consider valid … and I got garbage, shabby studies, mathematical errors, unsupported claims.
But if you want to bring up that one study right here right now, the one that clearly shows the 11-year cycle in climate, I’m more than happy to look at it. Bring it on, my friend.
And yes, I have asked for people’s assistance in the search. I asked, not you but everyone, to point me to what you think is the best evidence on a couple of subjects, including in this post. I do this because I don’t have a big budget and assistants and graduate students like most scientists have. It’s just me and a computer and not many hours in a day.
So yes, I have asked for peoples assistance, but NOT in doing the research for me as you claim. Instead, I have tried to utilize the knowledge of people who support some theory by asking them to point out the evidence that they think is worthwhile and solid … you seem to see that as some kind of crime, but they are the people most familiar with the claim, who better to ask?
There is more garbage published every day than any one man could possibly read, and the accumulation is immense. As a result, I’ve asked the readers to assist me. After all, I don’t believe in the “11-year cycles in climate” theory, they do.
So I’ve offered them an opportunity to prove me wrong in the simplest way—by identifying a single study that they thought would stand the test of time. A number of people have tried. None have succeeded.
But your claim that my asking people to identify the best evidence for THEIR theory is some kind of failing on my part? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It’s called “crowdsourcing”, look it up sometime.
As to a “thorough literature search”, you’re the guy who claimed my literature search for this post was faulty and that it is “easy” to find pre-1976 articles linking the Maunder minimum to temperatures … and you’re also the guy who then failed to come up with even one such study, much less the number of them that you claimed would be easy to find. So at this point, your opinions on literature searches are … well …
Finally, while it is true that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, the problem is that few people agree on what is an extraordinary claim.
For example, consider the claim that the climate is totally non-responsive to the relatively large 11-year swings in sunspots, but when two small sunspot cycles occur in a row and change the average solar intensity ever so slightly, the climate has a large response. In other words, the claim is that the climate doesn’t respond at all to 11-year solar variations but at the same time it responds strongly to much smaller variations.
Now me, I consider that a quite bizarre and extraordinary claim, and despite it being widely believed, I can’t even find ordinary evidence for it. All we have are hints and coincidences.
So … I asked you and others if you can assist me by pointing me to what you consider to be the strongest evidence you know of, an act which for unknown reasons you find reprehensible.
But despite my request, neither you nor anyone to date has brought up any extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim that the climate ignores large solar variations but responds strongly to small solar variations. Nor, for that matter, has anyone come up with a theoretical mechanism for that … well, except for David Evans goofy “notch filter” theory. But since to date he’s completely refused to reveal the data, code, out-of-sample testing, model, or results of the theory, it’s just an advertisement at this point, and no evidence has been produced. So at present, we still lack even ordinary evidence for this extraordinary theory.
But then, you can’t even find the evidence that you claimed was “easy” to find, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you can’t find evidence for this theory either.
w.
mpainter says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:39 am
Look, this is getting tiresome. QUOTE MY WORDS. I have no clue why or where you think that I am “obliterating the MWP-LIA”, I said nothing even remotely resembling that. Nor do I have any interest or time to spend in trying to figure out what you are babbling about. Without a quotation or other means to tell what on earth has your knickers in a twist, your post is meaningless blather.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:29 am
So your strongest evidence for the existence of a climate cycle in phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle is the fact that over time some given variable goes into and out of phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle???
I swear, sometimes this struggle seems overwhelming.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:35 am
More uncited accusations … yawn …
w.
“And your assertion that science was not conducted before 1935 is plain daft.
Richard”
That is not my assertion. My assertion is that in the cases I present and dozens of others the researchers in NO WAY ever formulated a NULL. period.
They were doing science and they had no need of a null hypothesis.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
Your first point is simply flat out untrue. Samalas was not a VEI 7. It was a VEI 6, ie tephra volume between 10 & 100 cubic kilometers. As has been repeatedly commented here, explosivity is measured by tephra deposition, not sulfates. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
You also keep carping about Wiki, while its list cites sources, often multiple, for its figures, many of which have been linked here, including by you.
Further, as has also been shown from your own cited sources, the sulfate load of Samalas isn’t directly comparable to VEI 7 (~150 cubic kilometers of tephra) Tambora’s because it occurred during a period of lower snow accumulation.
Your second point, if the ocean can be shown to work that way, is also invalid, since that would be only a temporary effect, as your own source said. You’d need a high-sulfate eruption every couple of years for the effect to last, which are not in evidence, to say the least.
All I can say to 3) is, Gifford Miller, really? Talk to Willis about his “study”. Adding more CACA activists to his team would only make it worse.
You still have not shown the supposed climatic effects from Samalas which you allege & claimed to have shown. The best most recent study of its sulfate load in the ice record admits that no such effects are in evidence. There is nothing in the literature to support your faith in Samalas as the cause of the LIA, despite your repeated assertion to that effect.
What does Sturgis’ background have to do with it? He has produced peer-reviewed study after published by experts study devastating your unfounded belief in this volcanic eruption as the cause the LIA, which is comparable to prior regular cool periods in the Holocene & other interglacials following warm periods of similar length, while the studies cited by you weaken rather than support your unfounded case. FWIW, the endowed chair in “Earth & Planetary Science” at Harvard is named after a Sturgis Hooper, not that that counts for anything. It’s currently held by a Warmist, so you might wish to check out his work to see if it could be made to back you up.
In short, your unsupported assertion that Samalas caused the LIA has not a leg upon which to stand. That you have to fall in with CACA spreaders like Miller in a vain quest for such support ought to give you pause rather than reason for maintaining your baseless faith.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:24 am
Uncited???
Did you even read any of the comments in your anti-11-year posts?
You refused even to look at study after study shown you. Have you really forgotten so soon?
With all that yawning, maybe it’s time for your nap.
Leif – checked your link http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“
Heres quote I would cherry pick -( I especially like Fig 5 )
“One does notice a certain “regularity” in the 10Be ice core variations, however. In Figure 5 we show as blue lines, the envelope of the “minima” in the 10Be cyclic intensity variations.
This “envelope” has long term periodic maxima occurring at ~1685, 1815 and 1895 A.D. This
type of variation could possibly be related to long term 10Be production changes. Indeed 22 year
averages (filters) of the 10Be concentration, which smooth out the shorter term cyclic variations,
show broad maxima at approximately these times (McCracken, et al., 2004). These times also,
more or less, coincide with the times of maxima of 14C concentration in tree rings”
On this basis just connect the minima of the HMF on page 11 at
http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed. I’m happy to cherry pick your slide here.
Willis
Re: “this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature”
Vis rgbatduke “If they are integrated phenomena”
Bob Weber
See David Stockwell at Niche Modeling: “Cointegration Primer”
Solar insolation is thermal flux of integration order I(0) while temperature relates to cumulative heat and thus is integration order one or I(1). For quantitative details see Stockwell on “solar accumulation”
From physics, I recommend formally comparing global temperature with the integration of solar insolation.
PS Stockwell notes CO2 is I(2).
For quantitative papers testing CO2 to Temperature see Beenstock et al. Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming etc.
Willis says:
“For example, consider the claim that the climate is totally non-responsive to the relatively large 11-year swings in sunspots..”
Consider my last comment, could the ~11yr signal be phase cancelled out over longer periods?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669182
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:49 am
Nikola, if you wish to profit from your discovery, the most direct way is to begin successfully predicting say next year’s weather. If you can do that regularly, people will pay you big bucks for your forecasts.
Another way is to look at the climate effects that cause large changes in commodity prices, say frosts in Brazil. Then buy commodity futures based on your knowledge, and you’ll be a wealthy man. Of course, for that one you have to put your own money where your mouth is …
But of course, to start with, you have to make the successful predictions … once you’ve got that, the world is yours.
However, you can’t just claim you’ve got a wonderful prediction method. You have to actually make a string of exact, falsifiable, public predictions of climate events, predictions that come true at a level well beyond chance.
So that’s your first step towards eventual profit—tell the world your predictions, and we’ll see if they come to pass. If they do, I assure you, money will no longer be a problem.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:30 am
Yes, uncited, just like this post. You do understand what a citation is, don’t you? You do realize you’re not providing them, don’t you?
Actually … I guess you don’t … yawn …
As I said above, milodon, you are invited to cite the one post you claim I “refused to look at” that you think is the pick of the litter, the best of the bunch, and I’ll review it here and now. And in response to my invitation to put your money where your mouth is … no citations … yawn …
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:33 am
It could be anything, Ulric … but without evidence, such speculation about possible electrical analogues is not meaningful.
w.
I will NOT post on this site again( and many others feel the same way ) until Leif and Willis free run of this site has ended. They are spreading propaganda nothing more, and the only posters that are left to challenge them are weak(much to polite) at best. All the informative strong posters have LEFT for the playing field is not level.
If you look at the commentary from this article by Willis, most of the post are being done by very few people. Many post but from a select few. This trend will continue unless you (Anthony) take some action.
Anthony my prediction is the evidence about solar/climate connections is going to be known to a much greater degree over the next 5 years as the current prolong solar minimum becomes more established once again.
Next prediction is Willis and Leif will wind up with egg on their face as the evidence keeps mounting (not that is hasn’t already) that is contrary to all of their ridiculous nonsense assertions.
.
Willis said:
“So your strongest evidence for the existence of a climate cycle in phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle is the fact that over time some given variable goes into and out of phase with the 11-year sunspot cycle???”
To identify that it does change phase is essential for understanding the responses, rather just assuming that the response should always be in phase. The interesting question is why does it change phase.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:37 am
Why should I post again so many that you have already ignored? You’ll just refuse to look at them again. You know perfectly well where to find them, unless you really have suffered organic brain damage.
If you actually don’t recall refusing to look at links from among the many presented unless the commenters picked one & only one, nor recall whole posts here by Anthony & others citing such studies, then I can’t help you. Yet by the very nature of your assertion, you would have at a minimum to look at dozens of such studies to maintain your position that there is no 11 year signal.
Go back to your last 11 year post & you’ll find all the citations you could ask for. I know what citations are. It’s you I wonder about, since you’re so afraid of clicking on links to cited studies.
Or recall this post by our blog host, upon which you commented:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/
In your responses to comments in your later 11 year posts, you dismissed Meehl’s work mentioned in our host’s post because you didn’t like Meehl’s modeling, while ignoring the many instances of strong 11 year signal recovery in the tropical Pacific, both for temperature & rainfall, cited in it & by commenters. It was the strength of these signals that led Meehl to the modeling to which you objected. As our host’s post said:
“Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
“The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.”
The reference to Meehl may have arisen out of my comment on the connection between the 11 year (average) cycle & precipitation. Just off the top of my head, without going back to them, I also recall some studies from Chile which you refused to consider. If I can remember them, why can’t you?
If you’re not too tired, maybe you can go back to them now or look at the papers cited in Meehl, et al showing the solar signal, which you so airily dismissed previously. This is probably one of the Chilean studies:
http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/AD.pdf
Why does everyone else always have to do all your research for you, repeatedly?
Willis said:
“It could be anything, Ulric … but without evidence, such speculation about possible electrical analogues is not meaningful.”
Well it would certainly mess up your periodicity analysis search for a ~11 solar cycle signal in any climate data for any more than a few solar cycles as the responses shift phase with the AMO.
A linear relaxation response that Willis has written about in relation to IPCC models ( see blackbox of chocolates article ) can provide quite a good fit to global averaged SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
It also fits the major ups and downs of CET going back to 1750, although a lot less closely. Since CET is a regional, NH only, land record that is perhaps not surprising.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=975
Willis, here are authors & abstract from another of the studies (or one like it) which you refused to consider in comments to one of your 11-year posts:
http://mtc-m16.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/marciana/2005/01.03.10.15/doc/2.1AS_Rigozo01.pdf
Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozo (1,2), Alan Prestes(2),
Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann(2), Ezequiel Echer(2),
Luís Eduardo Antunes Vieira(2) and
Heloisa Helena de Faria(2)
1Faculdade de Tecnologia Thereza Porto Marques – FAETEC,
CEP 12308-320, Jacareí, Brazil
Fone: 55 12 39524231
2Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais – INPE,
CP 515, 12201-970 São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Fone: 55 12 39456840 – Fax 55 12 39456810
E-MAIL: rodolfo@dge.inpe.br, prestes@dge.inpe.br, nordeman@dge.inpe.br, eecher@dge.inpe.br,
eduardo@dge.inpe.br, hfarai@dge.inpe.br
Abstract
Tree ring index chronologies, representing standardized annual growth rates for Fitzroya cupressoides at
Cordillera de la Costa de Osorno in Chile, have been employed for the search of solar periodicities during the last 400
years. Spectral analysis of tree ring series by multitaper method has determined significant periodicities at about 21 and
10.7 years. These values are close to two known present basic solar activity periods at 22 and 11 years (Hale and
Schwabe cycles). Other periodic component appears at 5 years, which may also be related to solar variations. The short
periods found probably may be due the environmental and climatic influences. The application of band pass filter
techniques shows that the 11 year cycle present in tree ring series correlates with the sunspot numbers with a time lag
of about two years, since AD 1700, the extent of accurate sunspot record interval.
Willis Eschenbach: Mann’s later work is as shabby as MBH98.
I wrote that his later work was “better than mbh98”, and you cite remaining errors to claim “as shabby as” — I think that, despite the remaining errors (and some inconsistency in describing the importance of particular time series, an inconsistency documented at climateaudit and possibly being intentionally deceitful) my ranking is correct. For example, this paper was much better: Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao Ni Science 27 November 2009: 1256-1260. [DOI:10.1126/science.1177303] .
Interestingly, McIntyre studied the supporting online material, a point I’ll come back to.
Please, please, Matthew, do your homework. Go to climateaudit and read about the successive unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the hockeystick.
I have read much at climateaudit, and I cited McIntyre and McKittrick by name, and indirectly through my reference to the Annals of Applied Statistics papers (McShane and Wyner, and many discussants 2011, vol5, . In the supporting online material, it is revealed that Gavin Schmidt helped to correct errors by McKintyre and McKitrick, and by McShane and Wyner — credit where it is due.) In this series of papers as well, McKintyre carefully read the supporting on line material, and taking that som with the som from the aforementioned Science paper, and Mann’s writing at RealClimate, showed that Mann was inconsistent in his claims about the importance of particular time series.
That said, despite its flaws, mbh98 was influential in introducing the method to a generation of climatologists, and following the numerous published debates, most people, including Mann and co-authors, do not repeat the mistakes. It is quite fair to say that Mann is more widely cited and believed than the rest of us combined. Steve McIntyre (and Ross McKittrick) is admirable for his thoroughness and tenacity in following the inconsistencies of Mann’s presentations, and for critiquing Mann directly in the published literature. That you quote McIntyre with respect but say of tonyb’s efforts that if he lies down with dogs he’ll get up with fleas is an inconsistency. Mann’s works must be debated and rebutted in the scientific literature, and anyone who does that is your “natural ally”. Debating Mann in public is the only way to reduce his influence in the long run.
Did you notice that after quoting me and tonyb, you then paraphrased and critiqued the paraphrase? Perhaps some day you’ll reread all of this in order in a relaxed frame of mind.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
Yeah, I figured you’d wimp out … no citations … yawn …
Regarding your request for reasons why you should post what you feel is the one best piece of evidence for the existence of the 11-year cycle in climate datasets, well …
1. It could conclusively prove me wrong.
2. It could actually show the 11-year cycle.
3. It would prove that you are not just blowing smoke.
4. It would be a chance to show that you actually can provide a citation.
5. It would be a contribution to science to take a hard look at the study.
6. It would show that you can tell the good studies from the bad.
7. It’s a chance to show what a total idiot I am if I make some newbie mistake in the analysis.
8. I have no way to know what you think is the best evidence for your hypothesis unless you tell me.
… do you need more reasons? If so, let me know.
Finally, I am asking for ONE citation, so please don’t try your previous trick of heaping my desk with everything you can find on google that mentions sunspots, and then accusing me of ignoring them … ONE citation, to the best piece of evidence that you have. It’s a simple request, milodon, why are you wriggling so hard to get out of it?
w.
Ulric, “To identify that it does change phase is essential for understanding the responses, rather just assuming that the response should always be in phase. The interesting question is why does it change phase.”
While not impossible, I think the idea of shifting phase is a bit tenuous without some direct explanation. I think main reasin is that there is a 9y lunar signal that drifts in and out of phase with the solar signal. Much of what is attributed to solar since 1950 is solar in phase with lunar. ie partially false attribution. In early 20th c. they were out of phase. IMO the lunar signal is a bit larger in around the 9-10y periodicity.
Also tropical SST is very resistant to surface changes in radiation. Probably the reason for the longer timescale and heavy damping of the solar signal is that it is predominantly the deeper penetrating UV that has a long term cumulative effect. Wavelengths that are absorbed at the surface suffer strong negative feedbacks.
Willis seems to be digging his heels in on the presense of not of a statisically significant 11y solar signal as definitve proof of whether there is a solar influence. I think that is a mistake.
A smaller 11y signal may not be “significant” in the presence of others signals or just noise around 11y, that does not prove that a longer term accumulation may not exist and be significant.
The penetration depth of UV could explain how a long term signal circumvents the tropical surface feedbacks of which we are both so fond.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 11:14 am
What’s the hang up on one & only one citation, when you’ve been shown so many which you ignored, while choosing to comment upon those which you felt you could attack on whatever grounds?
Why could you not yourself have picked one of the many shown you? I have never, ever wimped out on providing you citation after citation, but have grown tired of having the links others & I offer dismissed out of hand, without your even deigning to look at them, as with Meehl, or ignoring them, as with the Chilean tree ring studies, same as you do with other posters’ links.
Clearly, you not only can’t handle the truth, but don’t dare even look for it.
lsvalgaard
“One could turn the problem around: why would there the solar minimum values vary when there is no activity?”
Two things,
A)
The longer term cycles (beyond the 11 year / Jupiter influence) regulate the amount of energy that is being output. The wobble of the SUN based on the position of all of the outer planets cause the various plasma currents to vary in speed and cause decadal variations in energy output, regardless if there are any sunspots present or not.
B)
Because there is evidence. The instrumental record shows trends in TSI changes with each minimum, particularly the ACRIM composite indicates that the minimums do vary, at least over the last three cycles. Of course PMOD removes the minimum variance, but there is still variance even in PMOD.
If your contention is true, that means that a sunspot count can almost be assigned a direct value for TSI, and I find that hard to believe, however I have no problem accepting that, if it turns out to be true. I mean, thank goodness for all of us SOL is a very stable star. Another decade of data, will be helpful resolving this issue, assuming the orbiting instruments hold together.
http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_ACRIM_Composite.pdf
LT.
Greg You say
“Willis seems to be digging his heels in on the presence of not of a statistically significant 11y solar signal as definitive proof of whether there is a solar influence. I think that is a mistake. ”
You are exactly right .The 11 and 22 year year cycles are just froth on top of the longer term solar periodicities sometimes they turn up on particular time series sometimes they don’t.
For significant time periods see the data in the links in my 10:30 AM comment.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:30 am
On this basis just connect the minima of the HMF on page 11 at
http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed.
Apart from the plot not showing HMF but TSI, the curve to look at is the upper red one [the other ones are faulty], which does not show any grand modern maximum. The Dalton and Maunder minima are just as every one of the 27 other minima.
“””””……Dr. Strangelove says:
June 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm
Osborn
“Typical of you to talk emissivity when Konrad talks Absorption, can’t you even read what he has said?”
You and Konrad are Dragon Slayers or simply ignorant of radiation physics. Study Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation: absorptivity = emissivity……”””””‘
Perhaps you too should study “Kirchoff’s Law”
That particular law ONLY applies to a system that is in thermal equilibrium with the radiation field at some single Temperature. And it also applies to each and every single wavelength. So the spectral absorptance must equal the spectral emittance at each and every wavelength or frequency.
Such conditions are seldom encountered. The radiation would necessarily have to be thermal radiation, with a spectrum that depends on Temperature.
Kirchoff’s Law is a crutch that is leaned on far too heavily.
LT says:
June 25, 2014 at 11:32 am
The longer term cycles (beyond the 11 year / Jupiter influence) regulate the amount of energy that is being output. The wobble of the SUN based on the position of all of the outer planets cause the various plasma currents to vary in speed and cause decadal variations in energy output, regardless if there are any sunspots present or not.
There is no evidence for that. The planetary theory doesn’t work.
Because there is evidence. The instrumental record shows trends in TSI changes with each minimum, particularly the ACRIM composite indicates that the minimums do vary, at least over the last three cycles.
ACRIM has severe calibration problems and should not be taken seriously.
If your contention is true, that means that a sunspot count can almost be assigned a direct value for TSI, and I find that hard to believe
The variation in TSI is solely due to the variation of the magnetic fields on the Sun, which closely follow the sunspot number.
Milo and Sturgis, if you look further into snow accumulation rates and the effect on sulfur measures in ice cores you will see that this issue has been identified, quantified, and taken into consideration related to the relative stratospheric thus climatic significance of Tambora and many other smaller and larger eruptions evidenced throughout the ice cores. For these stratospheric events, there are several lines of ice core evidence (Arctic cores, Antarctic cores, and glacial cores) as well as snow accumulation rate algorithms that help arrange events into place in terms of global affect. This data is then used as input in climate models. Your concern is under-reviewed by both of you.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/
Dear Moderators,
Re this post from “Greg”, and this post, etc, can you please get him to standardize his handle? At least for his own sake, as those searching for his learned insightful postings would likely search for “Goodman” rather than the more common “Greg”.
Besides, it’s damn annoying how he willfully switches between “known” and “anonymous” and could get confused with another Greg, accidentally or otherwise.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 am
It is disappointing, surprising, indeed shocking, to me that you keep repeating the same lies over and over again, when you have been shown over and over that they are false. Your own source, cited by Wikipedia, gave 40 km^3 for the presumed Samalas tephra deposition, as you’ve seen I don’t know how many times. That makes it a VEI 6, which fact has also time and again been pointed out to you. Yet you persist in claiming it was highly explosive.
A volcano can release a relatively large amount of sulfates without ejecting a lot of tephra, ie being explosive. And as I also demonstrated from your own source, Tambora’s apparent sulfate load isn’t directly comparable to Samalas’, due to markedly different accumulation rates.
It’s equally disappointing to read you descend into ad hominem. Forget about my qualifications or lack thereof. What counts is that the peer reviewed studies (not that peer review is a guarantee of quality) by experts which I have cited, and in fact the older one cited by you too, show you wrong on all points, as I’ve already abundantly demonstrated.
What caused the gradual descent into the LIA and what caused earth’s climate to come out of it into the Modern Warm Period is likely what caused prior Bond cycles in the Holocene and other interglacials and Dansgaard–Oeschger events in glacials, namely rearrangements of oceanic (such as more freshwater) and atmospheric circulation in response to changes in insolation, ie solar irradiance reaching the surface (and lower atmosphere), modulated by various longer-term factors, not by a year or two of more volcanic aerosols. Volcanoes can make cold period conditions worse, as happened with Kuwae and Tambora during the LIA, but which did not happen (at least no evidence shows it) with Samalas during the Medieval Warm Period, even those 1257 was already at the start of the decline in the MWP.
These explanations enable predictions subject to test. When so tested, volcanic explanations for the onset and end of the LIA and other such periods fail. Yet advocates of man-made global warming keep running them up the flagpole in hopes that the media will salute and swallow the swindle. Too bad you’re gotten into bed with these charlatans who aim like Stalinists to rewrite (earth) history.
Greg says:
“While not impossible, I think the idea of shifting phase is a bit tenuous without some direct explanation.”
I had no idea, it is an observation, and not what I would have expected. The explanation follows.
“””””…..Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm
george e. smith says:
June 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm
“””””…..sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?
Obviously, YOU didn’t “read the post at the head of these comments “. Not only that, but you’re the latest in a line of charming fellows who try to impute a point of view to me without a quotation. All that does is get your face slapped, and deservedly so.
What I actually said was:
Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”.
Willis. My post was solely to tell someone to stop writing : “george e. smith says.” and then posting something that I absolutely never said at all; but that they may have excerpted from someone else.
At NO TIME was anything I wrote, in ANY way a comment on ANYTHING you had said. I have made not a single comment on ANYTHING that you have written in this essay, or subsequent posts precipitated, by other peoples comments on that.
So I have joined NOBODY who might have taken any issue with your work, or the opposite.
MY SOLE ADDITION to this thread, with regard to “the Maunder Minimum”, was to simply mention Willie Soon’s book on the subject; that is all. I have added no comment re either your essay, or any other person’s comment on it; other than to tell folks to stop attributing quotations to me, that I did not make, and I made no judgement either pro or con to those misquotations; just said STOP SAYING I SAID THIS; I DIDN’T !!
If that is cause for ME to have MY face slapped, then have at it.
Leif and Other Readers- I’m sorry I had posted the wrong link on my 10:30 am post.. The reference should have been to page11 at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669289
lsvalgaard,
Well, you make statements as being facts, but there is no proof of any of this because all you have to work with is proxy data. It is possible to model the Sunspot cycle based on the position of the planets. Put your money where your mouth is, I will bet you 200 dollars US that in ten years TSI will be at least 1 watt/Square Meter below the last minimum.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.pdf
LT
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 11:41 am
The paper which you yourself cited pointed out the problem with comparing Tambora and Samalas in the Antarctic data. The issue is hardly under-reviewed by me. I brought it to your attention. I’m well aware of attempts to compensate for the accumulation issue in the 2008 revised data sets you cite and elsewhere.
Gao, et al’s revisions still show 1258 globally twice the sulfate load of 1815, which is not a problem for me, since as I said time and again, doubled sulfate doesn’t equal doubled climatic effect. And indeed, there is no evidence of a lasting climatic effect from the 1257 or so eruption, or really any effect at all, however transient. Certainly none that you have demonstrated.
I wonder if you actually looked at the revised data sets. Had you done so, one of the problems with your hypothesis would have become immediately obvious. Between 1284 and 1452, the vast majority of years experienced no sulfate load. There were only two years with even double digit amounts in all that time, and just six years with single digits. Between 1259 and 1284 there were three double digit eruptions.
So the LIA began in the midst of a long volcanic drought, although there were some eruptions without observable global climatic effects in the 13th century, during the MWP, just as there have been during the Modern Warm Period.
The 10:30 AM post should read
“Leif – checked your link http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“
Heres quote I would cherry pick -( I especially like Fig 5 )
“One does notice a certain “regularity” in the 10Be ice core variations, however. In Figure 5 we show as blue lines, the envelope of the “minima” in the 10Be cyclic intensity variations.
This “envelope” has long term periodic maxima occurring at ~1685, 1815 and 1895 A.D. This
type of variation could possibly be related to long term 10Be production changes. Indeed 22 year
averages (filters) of the 10Be concentration, which smooth out the shorter term cyclic variations,
show broad maxima at approximately these times (McCracken, et al., 2004). These times also,
more or less, coincide with the times of maxima of 14C concentration in tree rings”
On this basis just connect the minima of the HMF on page 11 at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669289
to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed. I’m happy to cherry pick your slide here.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
No surprise Willis is yet again ignoring all those citations, just as predicted. He can run and apparently can also hide.
It’s useful to note where the coldest run of years are in CET through previous solar minima. In Gleisberg, it was from 1885 to 1895, just after SC12 max to just after SC13 max. In Dalton it was 1807 to 1817, just after SC5 max to just after SC6 max.
sturgishooper says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm
There were ten years with sulfate readings between 1861 and 1991 in Gao, et al. So maybe volcanoes cause warm periods rather than cold periods.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200611_paleoclimatology/
This is one of many studies which refutes the nonsense being put forth on this site.
Of which six were double digit sulfate load years!
“””””…..“””””…..sturgishooper says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:52 pm
george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?……”””
Now Willis; ALL of that above this point, I simply cut and pasted, from YOUR post, in which YOU slammed ME, and slapped MY face.
Now ALL of this part:-
“””””…..george e. smith says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:45 pm
I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?……”””
IS THE SOLE WORK OF STURGISHOOPER. NOT ME !!
So it was HE that wrote ” george e. smith says ”
AND it was he that posted this “”..I wasn’t referring to you, but to Willis’ view that 1976 saw the onset of Maunder Minimum recognition. Did you read the post at the head of these comments?……”””
So it is sturgishooper whose face you should slap. HE said that ; I did NOT.
He apparently was saying it to ME.
But I don’t know that, because he evidently is one of these clowns, who simply can’t separate, that which he himself says, from something he lifted from someone else, or even from a fourth party’s lifting from a third party.
MY “””””…..xxxxx…..””””” nonsense, is done deliberately, to differentiate what I cut and pasted from someone else, from that which I subsequently pen myself.
I didn’t say anything about any 1976 comment of yours; or about anybody else’s comment about any 1976 comment.
As I said Willis; I’ve made zero comment on your essay that is the subject of this thread.
And yes; I have indeed read your entire essay. I read EVERYTHING you post. More often than not. I am incompetent to make any intelligent remarks, on most of your essays. It’s not MY field of expertise, so I read it to learn.
“There were ten years with sulfate readings between 1861 and 1991 in Gao, et al. So maybe volcanoes cause warm periods rather than cold periods.”
Well I have no evidence test whether this is a general effect or just related to removal of recent industrial pollution, but there is a positive forcing from recent stratospheric eruptions.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
A rise then an apparently permanent drop in reflected top of atmosphere SW, synchonous with the changes in stratospheric temps. This must thn be getting absorbed by the lower climate system.
At about 1.8 W/m2, it’s enough to matter.
george e. smith says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:29 pm
I doubt if anyone else failed to realize that I was talking about Willis in context of your mention of Soon’s book on the Maunders. If you reread what I wrote, maybe you will, too.
Others and I have already slapped Willis down on the claim that interest in connections between climate and the SSN low during the 17th century was only “modern”, ie post-1976.
Greg says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm
OK. It’s settled, then. Volcanic eruptions caused and sustained the Modern Warming Period, not the Little Ice Age.
Just kidding.
But the negative correlation between volcanic activity and the origin and end of the LIA and the Modern Warming should drive a stake through the heart of the Warmunista lie that volcanoes caused the LIA. You can always find volcanic eruptions within 100 years of climatic changes. That doesn’t mean eruptions cause the centennial-scale colder, or warmer, intervals.
That hasn’t stopped The Team from trying to move the onset of the LIA back to c. 1250, rewriting history. I’m still waiting for Pamela to present the evidence she says is accumulating for a 13th century end of the Medieval Warming and start of the LIA cooling. Same with evidence for the climatic effect of the c. 1257 eruption or eruptions.
Not to trigger massive solar enthusiast tearing of hair out, but it seems that at least in current models using the older now doubted solar data series, there appears to be an issue with a solar signal in the tropics based on model simulations (that’s the tearing of hair out que). The solar signal, based on the following research article, is possibly smaller than previously thought. I wonder what the outcome will be when the new solar data that corrects for the weighting factor is used. The volcanic signal was evident.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atmos-chem-phys.net%2F14%2F5251%2F2014%2Facp-14-5251-2014.pdf&ei=WSerU8eNO5KNyASq_YKQCg&usg=AFQjCNE6no5ED85JQ80sbx7ZFuxXUMWsgA&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
Leif writes:
How about:
The demonstrated existence of substantial internal-variation “noise” makes it hard to assess the impact of any theorized forcing over decadal time scales, especially when looking at only a couple of hundred years of data. Even so, the observed sunspot record matches up quite well with temperature variation over this period. These 400 years of the observed sunspot record are supposed to provide the case AGAINST a solar driver of climate? Absurd.
[UPDATE: As a placeholder I originally put “350 years” in my draft comment because I figured Leif wouldn’t have been wrong about solar activity already being high “300 years” ago, then right after I posted I remembered to check the record (Steinhilber) and edited my comment about a minute later. Sorry for the inconvenience.]
Sturgis, don’t worry about the stake. If one is used it needs to be a very long and sturdy one to get through the mounting evidence that TOA solar factors were NOT the triggers or sustainers of the LIA and that a more plausible explanation is building. As for waiting, you can wait as long as you wish and be as opposing as you wish. For my part, there is no need for me to restate my case.
I find this to be an interesting thread, not all because of Willis original post but, in particular, the reaction it’s getting. All Willis has said is that he cannot find a statistically significant trace of the 11 year solar cycle in certain surface temperature data – a truism that he and most everyone else has previously accepted without question. He has looked for data showing such a signal without success and now suspects that the sunspot cycle’s effect on surface temperatures has been exaggerated and consequently asks for a single dataset that shows shows a significant 11 year signal – a very reasonable request. Rather than simply providing what he has asked for, he is being treated by some as a heretic instead. Very similar to the reaction AGW skeptics get from those that have been taught over their entire educational process that man is screwing up the earth’s climate.
Just because all processes that drive weather and climate are powered by the sun doesn’t mean that small variations in that power can easily be detected in measurements that are the result of many chaotic processes.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Any hair tearing will not be by “solar enthusiasts” but by climate skeptics in general. You truly are sleeping with the enemy now.
Models show what they are programmed to show. GIGO. Warmunistas have fallen back on volcanoes as one of the last refuges of scoundrels desperate to keep peddling GHG snake oil in the face of the plateau or downward slope in GAST.
Here you cite a paper in which simulations are compared with simulations. As Willis would say, “Garbage!”
“Abstract. We investigate the relative role of volcanic eruptions,
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the quasibiennial
oscillation (QBO) in the quasi-decadal signal in the
tropical stratosphere with regard to temperature and ozone
commonly attributed to the 11 yr solar cycle. For this purpose,
we perform transient simulations with the Whole Atmosphere
Community Climate Model forced from 1960 to
2004 with an 11 yr solar cycle in irradiance and different
combinations of other forcings. An improved multiple linear
regression technique is used to diagnose the 11 yr solar signal
in the simulations. One set of simulations includes all observed
forcings, and is thereby aimed at closely reproducing
observations. Three idealized sets exclude ENSO variability,
volcanic aerosol forcing, and QBO in tropical stratospheric
winds, respectively. Differences in the derived solar response
in the tropical stratosphere in the four sets quantify the impact
of ENSO, volcanic events and the QBO in attributing
quasi-decadal changes to the solar cycle in the model simulations.
The novel regression approach shows that most of
the apparent solar-induced lower-stratospheric temperature
and ozone increase diagnosed in the simulations with all observed
forcings is due to two major volcanic eruptions (i.e.,
El Chichón in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991). This is caused
by the alignment of these eruptions with periods of high solar
activity. While it is feasible to detect a robust solar signal
in the middle and upper tropical stratosphere, this is not the
case in the tropical lower stratosphere, at least in a 45 yr simulation.
The present results suggest that in the tropical lower
stratosphere, the portion of decadal variability that can be
unambiguously linked to the solar cycle may be smaller than
previously thought.”
The authors have “investigated” only their computer programming ability. Please come back when you have some of the actual evidence for which you’ve been asked over and over. For starters, where is the climatic signature of the 1257 eruption?
As for the topic of the execrable computer printout you’ve been shameless enough to cite, did you notice that the perpetrators attribute warming to the volcanic activity, not cooling. They say that this is because the eruptions occurred during periods of high solar activity. So with all this natural warming going on, the main driver is supposed to be man-made GHG forcing?
Could this garbage possibly be any trashier?
As I keep saying, you need to quit digging your hole deeper and start trying to climb out. I refrained from repeating myself to that effect when you posted revised sulfate data which showed yet again how dead wrong you are.
Lester Via says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm
How did you miss all the links provided here and in prior posts which do show an 11 year cycle, and which Willis has studiously ignored or pooh-poohed, refusing even to consider for one lame excuse or another?
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm
If you think you have mounting evidence, please supply it, as you haven’t yet done so here, despite being asked for it over and over again. All you’ve done is provided support for the proposition that a volcano did not cause the LIA.
You’ve got nada, zip, zilch. All you have said has been negative.toward your unsupported position, not positive.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm
“http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200611_paleoclimatology/
This is one of many studies which refutes the nonsense being put forth on this site.”
————————————————————————————————————————
Your kidding, right? Gavin Schmidt’s older models and a GISS report from 2006 are what you are claiming to be the proof?
Sturgis, I supplied the documented and linked climatic events on civilization as well as the temperature proxies following the eruption upthread. That you say I haven’t simply means you have not read my comments or the research I linked to. I will not keep repeating those links. It has come to a ridiculous point on your end. Stop it with the “no evidence” meme. You are beginning to act like a toddler who has demanded candy after being told no.
Willis
At 9.38 you said;
‘I hope that this makes my objections clearer. Look, I don’t think your a bad guy. I just think you’re in over your head, and you don’t really understand the nature of the guy you’ve gotten in bed with. Please, please, I implore you. Spend a week or so over at ClimateAudit, and do your homework. Mann is not a scientist of any stripe, and for you to discuss him as such damages your reputation and makes you look like a fool.’
Willis, I try to treat you with respect and it would be nice if you would reciprocate. I have previously said that I have written numerous climate related articles and tens of thousands of words in blog comments, many of them in trying to dismember the hockey stick. Of COURSE I am aware of all the numerous ins and outs of this sorry piece of science and have spent much time over the years at Climate Audit, though I rarely comment. How could I not be aware of the debate?
You earlier commented;
“I said that for you to bring up his work and say it was “essentially confirmed” was PR for Mann that he couldn’t purchase at any price. Remember, he has attacked Judith bitterly … and there you are on Judith’s blog, blithely quoting the nonsensical NAS report to laud him as though that report had any more value than Mann’s work itself. You are way in over your head, Tony, clearly you haven’t done your homework.”
Bearing in mind you had earlier said I was (to paraphrase) inconsequential (which I am) how I had therefore managed to give MM such a boost to his credibility must remain a mystery. However, more to the point is that Judith Curry provides huge help, guidance and input to those who write articles for her. She never believed I was providing a career boost to Dr Mann and nor has anyone else who has read it but you it appears.
The always excellent Matthew Marler astutely said;
‘That you quote McIntyre with respect but say of tonyb’s efforts that if he lies down with dogs he’ll get up with fleas is an inconsistency. Mann’s works must be debated and rebutted in the scientific literature, and anyone who does that is your “natural ally”. Debating Mann in public is the only way to reduce his influence in the long run.’
Mann’s HS and its descendants remain wholly dominant in the wider climate debate. From personal conversation I know the IPCC reviewers I have met believe in it. The Met office believes in it, my MP believes in it, my Government and the Opposition believes in it. The EU believes in it, your President believes in it and 97% of all scientists believe in it (British irony Willis) To believe the study is dead buried and discredited and we should all move on whilst hurling insults at the much lauded author, seems to me to be demonstrably false.
Here is the point. You believe the debate is done and dusted because a few sceptics hopefully say so. The wider and much more influential world however doesn’t appear to realise their hero has been utterly vanquished and continue to act as if the Hockey sticks’ findings still have relevance. We will therefore have a difference in approach to the beast. I believe we need to debate it and attempt to challenge it and its descendants in their core belief of the non variability of past climate, whilst you choose to call Dr Mann a ‘crook’ and believe the debate is over.
I bear you no animosity Willis and to demonstrate it I have a challenge for you in order to see whose world view is right.
I suggest we jointly write an article entitled;
‘Is the Hockey Stick dead, buried and discredited…..or does its influential descendants live on? ‘
You will write in favour of the proposition whilst I will attempt to show that this particular hydra has many heads and remains as influential as ever.
We could ask Anthony Watts and Judith Curry to carry the article simultaneously as each will have a different audience. Are you up for it?
tonyb
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm
You most certainly did not provide temperature proxies for any effect from the c. 1257 eruption(s). You provided a link to a general temperature reconstruction site of NOAA’s NCDC, ie Jones and Mann! But not a single link at that site says anything at all about the civilization or temperature effects of any 1257 event. Is that really how they practice “science” at your school?
That you’ve provided not a single scrap of actual evidence to support your baseless assertion is not a “meme”; it’s a fact of which you should be ashamed. Unless you posted something other than in the comment containing the NCDC site, which is the apparent basis for claim about temperature.
Your lack of response amid continued repeated unfounded assertion is truly shocking.
Williis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:33 am
Nikola, ……….and so on ……..,
@ Willis, all of what you said in the above specified dates corresponds honest intentions, but there is one big problem about weather forecasting and climate change. It is this: I found and checked my one assumption, which are the main causes of which are consequences of various changes in the sun. These changes and the appearance of the sun are just indicators of something much more powerful than many suppose. Sunspots the cycle of about 11 years, the simplest case of events, a different time cycles, which is the basis of 11.2 years, were different and the duration and intensity far reaching impact of these pathogens. Yes this is my check, I need a program with lots of astronomical data when obtaining numerous diagrams and tables, can then be compared with past events, check the accuracy of the data and later make and present all possible cycles at all times. Problem is, in this sense, for me, a difficult and unworkable no established program to my idea of the events. For a confirmation of a time some events kick hundreds, even thousands of calculations for some of the formula, and such points can be established for almost every second of time. Another problem, which I do not possess the necessary astronomical data, which must be true if you want accuracy in drawing a diagram as a function of time for a lot of influential elements. That’s why I mentioned that it is necessary to make a contractual commitment with powerful institutions such as NASA and the government of America. It is very difficult I am to do. That’s why I’m looking for some collaborators, so if you have an interest, and I am convinced that I am on the right path.
Sturgis one more time.
Sulfur measures taking into account accumulation rate:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2F222.66.161.186%2Fpublicinfo%2Fpdf%2Fda70bb77-821b-46e4-80b5-82cf786e1209.pdf&ei=kTKrU-nVIZGUyAS43oGoDg&usg=AFQjCNFcI_U878R7qDusWgbS-IqsVir15w&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
Estimated magnitude of 7:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1307520110
Climatic effects:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjrscience.wcp.muohio.edu%2Fclimatepdfs02%2Fclimimpts1258volcaclimchg00.pdf&ei=jjSrU6-8FY2YyAS09YL4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHLGf3IVaNVvZvVXYt9GrJOwgSFjQ
sturgishooper says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm
“How did you miss all the links provided here and in prior posts which do show an 11 year cycle, and which Willis has studiously ignored or pooh-poohed, refusing even to consider for one lame excuse or another?”
Willis asked for one dataset link – the best example that shows an 11 year cycle. That way he would only have to look and comment once. I can understand his request.
lsvalgaard says:
“It is quite simple: temperature the last 300 years has been increasing while solar activity has not.”
Most of the rise we see over the last 300 years occurred since 1988:
http://snag.gy/LefLV.jpg
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
Tom, maybe this will be more convincing. There are hundreds more.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Yet again, my comments to which you have not been able to respond:
No one denies that around 1257-59 in the records of both poles, there is a sulfate spike. The main issue is that sulfate loading effects are non-linear, as your own source insisted. The second issue is that you have utterly failed to show any effect from this spike in the climate record, let alone one lasting long enough to cause the LIA. The third issue is snow accumulation, which, despite Gao, has not been adequately adjusted, not that it matters, since, see main issue above.
Your source says “one of the biggest”, not “the biggest”, as you asserted. It claims an estimated magnitude of seven, yet in the very same abstract, it give the concrete figure of 40 km^3 of tephra (dense rock equivalent), which is mid-6. I showed you how VEI is calculated, not by me but by the AGU. The paper’s authors may claim a seven, but that’s not what the data show. Maybe in the body of their work they try to justify that rating, which on its face is at odds with the AGU system.
Your paper on “climatic” effects is limited to local European weather events down to 1261, which it compares to Tambora’s “year without a summer”, which of course occurred during the LIA, not the MWP. The paper’s discussion of “climatic” effects is likewise limited to a few years at most. No wonder you didn’t want to copy and paste its actual verbiage. I said at the outset that there were “extreme” weather events in late 13th century Europe. There was also the Great Famine in early 14th century Europe, without benefit of sulfurous volcano.
However, if you do as Lamb and scientists before and after him (1965) have done, ie use proxy and actual thermometer readings, it’s clear that the depths of the LIA didn’t kick in until around AD 1500. Here is a link in which you can find his CET analysis:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stgeorge/geog5426/Lamb%20Palaeogeography%20Palaeoclimatology%20Palaeoecology%201965.pdf
There may well have been an effect on weather. Climate, not so much.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/moreqbo/MZ-Labitzke-et-al-2006.pdf
Another one, This will be the last one for now. All of these and so much more refute much of what is being said by certain persons on this site. Let ‘s get some balance here.
Lester Via says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Willis was provided “just one” link over and over again, but rejected even considering it, then asked for another. Please read the comments in his last or prior posts on looking for a ~11 year signal in climatic data sets. When selecting his own from those proffered, he cherry picked those he felt he could best attack.
Now today, yet again, when new and old links and studies are provided here, he’s suddenly absent again. I hope he will comment on the contents of Meehl, for instance, this time instead of dismissing it out of hand because of its modeling, without looking at the studies it cites in support of an 11 year signal, or at one of the Chilean studies, also retreads he refused to consider before, since no one selected one for him, yet he has no problem with choosing his own to examine.
If he wants me to pick one for him, then how about the easiest, the last one linked about Southern Hemisphere tree rings and precipitation? But there is so much in Meehl, IMO he really should look into all the studies cited therein.
lsvalgaard says:
“It is quite simple: temperature the last 300 years has been increasing while solar activity has not.”
What nonsense. Solar activity has been on a tear post Dalton. More info to follow.
Comprehensive review of temperature reconstructions over the past 2000 years. If you look at the graphs, it is clear that the slide towards the commonly held (which is up for debate) view of the LIA, it stand out quite clearly as to when that slide began. At issue here is the “knee” point of the slide. That “knee” occurs prior to 1400 AD. If you cannot see that, I cannot provide more because I will have to conclude you do not want to view this debate in a straightforward non-agenda fashion.
Warning: The report includes the likes of Jones and Mann in reconstruction work among others.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdels.nas.edu%2Fdels%2Frpt_briefs%2FSurface_Temps_final.pdf&ei=yj2rU-TeGYa1yAT0ooG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNE1sKnvR8zZtMQO-zyE0wmXwgx0bw&sig2=OBayis9Diw37kXzVhGGOsA&bvm=bv.69620078,d.aWw
Sturgis
For what it’s worth I tried to put forward details on the 1258 volcano to Pamela in a previous thread.
I have some time for Richard Stothers but in this case he has failed to analyse what happened before the volcano eruption. Contemporary observations and crop records obtained from the met office archives and church records illustrate that the climate had already turned down some 5 years before the eruption. Undoubtedly 1258 was a terrible weather year but it returned to’normal ‘ immediately after.
Similarly eruptions later in that century cited by giff miller as the likely cause of the lia once again seem to have missed out on the reality of a downturn shortly before the eruptions and a return to normality immediately after.
Climate oscillations eventually calmed down with The period around the mid 14 th century seemingly being once again rather settled and very warm. The true down turn to the lia occurred in the mid 16th century.
The actual evidence for a long lasting effect by volcanos on climate is difficult to find when looking at the contemporary records.
Tonyb
Salvaatore del Prete: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200611_paleoclimatology/
This is one of many studies which refutes the nonsense being put forth on this site.
Exactly what idea was refuted by that press release?
Pamela
Your post was not up there when I composed mine. Looking at contemporary records it is difficult to see the knee occurring before 1400 . Undoubtedly there was a partial down turn early in the 13 th century with substantial climate oscillations which occurred at various times over the next century but with a return to mwp conditions later on
Phil jones has written a number of interesting papers and a particularly interesting book about the climate from 1500 . He has also of course been involved in other more dubious writings.
Tonyb
These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate
change is synchronous.
MY FOUR FACTORS
1. The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
.
2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
.
3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
By the way, anyone can download reconstruction data and develop their own graph.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-reconstruction
The climate puzzle (additive thoughts) commentary appreciated
Ice climate dynamics tied into the beginning state of the climate needs to be addressed when one is considering abrupt climate change or climate change in general.
The magnetic field of earth must be included because it will enhance or moderate solar effects, along with the position of the continents versus oceans and how vastly they differ from the N.H. versus the S.H.
All these factors I take into consideration.
With prolonged solar activity the atmospheric circulation is likely to become much more meridional , result more extremes in climate or at least persistence. Can have compounding effects if persistent
The beginning state of the climate can give completely different outcomes for GIVEN solar variability. In addition the climate is non linear and chaotic /random in nature.
Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest
Earthquakes and Volcanoes
Press Release – SSRC 1-2010
8:00 AM March 1, 2010
Today, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) releases its preliminary findings of the incidence of major geophysical events including earthquakes and volcanoes tied to the Sun’s activity and climate change.
The SSRC, the leading independent research center in the United States on the subject of the next climate change to a period of extended cold weather, has concluded a detailed comparison of solar activity with major earthquakes and volcanic activity. It has found a significant correlation exists between periods of reduced activity by the Sun, previously linked to cold climates are now identified with the most disastrous earthquakes in the United States and major volcanic eruptions around the globe.
The research for this preliminary study was completed in September 2009. The research report was posted today on the SSRC’s web site. It establishes a strong link between what the Sun is doing and the largest natural disasters and significantly extends the potential impact on the Earth of changes in the Sun which the SSRC and others have established as the most important element of global climate change.
According to SSRC Director, John Casey, “ The wide range and depth of research done by the SSRC and its associated scientists over the years on the Sun’s activity for determining impacts on the Earth’s climate change has produced what may be another important revelation of how the Sun may affect the Earth. Not only is the Sun the primary driver for climate change, but it may even be a significant influence in tectonic plate movement resulting in cycles of increased intensity of geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes.
The recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile though not part of the original study are nonetheless in line with reduced periods of solar activity and are especially correlated to the advent of the current “solar hibernation.” These “hibernations,’ a term coined by the SSRC in 2008, are the times when the Sun reduces its level of energetic output to historically low levels, roughly every two centuries. As we know from the ample research of other solar physicists world-wide and the SSRC’s own work, solar hibernations always bring long lasting cold climate eras to the Earth.”
Casey added, “It now appears these reduced activity periods of the Sun that bring us cold climates could bring much more. We may have found another tool for predicting the onset of greatly increased geophysical activity by following the same cycles of the Sun just as we can to predict climate change. The next hibernation has begun as a component of a repeating 206 year cycle of the Sun, the same cycle that brought us the past decades of global warming. This new research by the SSRC strongly suggests we should expect and plan on a new round of historically large US earthquakes and globally impacting volcanic eruptions that can occur at any time for the next 20 years of the current solar hibernation. I expect when the final version of this study is done we will be able to fine tune these conclusions even further.”
The preliminary research report titled “Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events,” SSRC Research Report 1-2010, is available at the SSRC web site, http://www.spaceandscience.net.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:30 pm
That’s right. It’s a fabrication of the Team, the hockey goal of which is “to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” & with it, the LIA. As Willis would say, “Garbage!” You keep referring to “accumulating evidence” for a start date c. 1250, but so far have failed to offer any. Mann and Jones are not “evidence”.
If you wish to change the LIA, please first read the seminal works on it, starting with Lamb, who summarizes what went before. He broke his temperature and precipitation reconstructions (obviously not all CET, although Tony Brown is working on extending that series further back in time) into fifty-year intervals. In the middle of the MWP, Lamb found 300 years (AD 1000-1400) of average warmth higher than 1900-50, with the warmest 150 years from 1150 to 1300. The interval 1400 to 1550 was a little lower than his “modern” reference fifty years, but 1550 to 1700 a lot lower, then back to a little for 1700 to 1900.
So, obviously, whence you date the end of the MWP and start of the LIA is somewhat fungible in Lamb’s and subsequent data sets (as for Chinese caves, cited above, c. 1500), but c. 1250 is a stretch requiring more evidence than has been found, or presented by you (although the Team is busy trying to insinuate that date into the literature by hook and by crook). So please, if you truly believe that actual evidence is accumulating in support of an earlier onset, not just the GIGO wishful thinking of Mann, et al, let’s see the accumulated pile.
Thanks.
Tonyb says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm
You have expressed climatic reality in those centuries more succinctly than I, thanks to your years of toiling in those vineyards, so to speak. Northern British vineyards yielding wine superior to the French.
It has been shown through historical data and many studies that increase volcanic activity will warm the stratosphere and cool the troposphere and can have dramatic although not long lasting impacts on global temperatures.
Solar interactions with EarthEdit
There are several hypotheses for how solar variations may affect Earth. Some variations, such as changes in the size of the Sun, are presently only of interest in the field of astronomy.
Changes in total irradianceEdit
◾ Overall brightness may change.
◾ The variation during recent cycles has been about 0.1%.
◾ Changes corresponding to solar changes with periods of 9–13, 18–25, and >100 years have been measured in sea-surface temperatures.
◾ Since the Maunder Minimum, over the past 300 years there probably has been an increase of 0.1 to 0.6%, with climate models often using a 0.25% increase.
◾ One reconstruction from the ACRIM data show a 0.05% per decade trend of increased solar output between solar minima over the short span of the data set. These display a high degree of correlation with solar magnetic activity as measured by Greenwich Sunspot Number. Wilson, Mordvinov (2003)
Changes in ultraviolet irradianceEdit
◾ Ultraviolet irradiance (EUV) varies by approximately 1.5 percent from solar maxima to minima, for 200 to 300 nm UV.[20]
◾ Energy changes in the UV wavelengths involved in production and loss of ozone have atmospheric effects. ◾ The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.
◾ UV irradiance increase causes higher ozone production, leading to stratospheric heating and to poleward displacements in the stratospheric and tropospheric wind systems.
◾ A proxy study estimates that UV has increased by 3% since the Maunder Minimum.
See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name
Changes in the solar wind and the Sun’s magnetic fluxEdit
◾ A more active solar wind and stronger magnetic field reduces the cosmic rays striking the Earth’s atmosphere.
◾ Variations in the solar wind affect the size and intensity of the heliosphere, the volume larger than the Solar System filled with solar wind particles.
◾ Cosmogenic production of 14C, 10Be and 36Cl show changes tied to solar activity.
◾ Cosmic ray ionization in the upper atmosphere does change, but significant effects are not obvious.
◾ As the solar coronal-source magnetic flux doubled during the past century, the cosmic-ray flux has decreased by about 15%.
◾ The Sun’s total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 from 1964–1996 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.
Effects on cloudsEdit
◾ Cosmic rays have been hypothesized to affect formation of clouds through possible effects on production of cloud condensation nuclei. Observational evidence for such a relationship is inconclusive.
◾ 1983-1994 data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) showed that global low cloud formation was highly correlated with cosmic ray flux; subsequent to this the correlation breaks down.[21]
◾ The Earth’s albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the most recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar “Earthshine”. Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.
◾ Mediterranean core study of plankton detected a solar-related 11 year cycle, and an increase 3.7 times larger between 1760 and 1950. A considerable reduction in cloud cover is proposed.
◾ A laboratory experiment conducted by Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center was able to produce particles as a result of cosmic ray-like irradiation, though these particles do not resemble actual cloud condensation nuclei found in nature.[22]
Other effects due to solar variationEdit
Interaction of solar particles, the solar magnetic field, and the Earth’s magnetic field, cause variations in the particle and electromagnetic fields at the surface of the planet. Extreme solar events can affect electrical devices. Weakening of the Sun’s magnetic field is believed to increase the number of interstellar cosmic rays which reach Earth’s atmosphere, altering the types of particles reaching the surface. It has been speculated that a change in cosmic rays could cause an increase in certain types of clouds, affecting Earth’s albedo.
Geomagnetic effectsEdit
Magnetosphere rendition
Solar particles interact with Earth’s magnetosphere
The Earth’s polar aurorae are visual displays created by interactions between the solar wind, the solar magnetosphere, the Earth’s magnetic field, and the Earth’s atmosphere. Variations in any of these affect aurora displays.
Sudden changes can cause the intense disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic fields which are called geomagnetic storms.
Solar proton eventsEdit
Energetic protons can reach Earth within 30 minutes of a major flare’s peak. During such a solar proton event, Earth is showered in energetic solar particles (primarily protons) released from the flare site. Some of these particles spiral down Earth’s magnetic field lines, penetrating the upper layers of our atmosphere where they produce additional ionization and may produce a significant increase in the radiation environment.
Galactic cosmic raysEdit
File:Heliosphere drawing.gif
An increase in solar activity (more sunspots) is accompanied by an increase
MY commentary
there is more but this gives a general picture of things.
Exactly what idea was refuted by that press release?
The idea that the temperature did not change in response to very quiet solar conditions during the Maunder Minimum versus a much more active sun post Maunder Minimum.
The data from the map shows clearly this was NOT the case although some parts of the globe due to atmospheric circulation changes in response to solar changes did exhibit(10%of globe) opposite effects.
Sturgis, you report that Lamb said, …”with the warmest 150 years from 1150 to 1300.” That makes perfect sense. Given that it was quite warm at that time, I am speculating that the oceans were discharging stored warmth in order for it to BE warm. If a series of discharge events occurred without equivalent recharge, the temperature would eventually slide down. Which it did. A catastrophic volcanic event would turn that slide into a potential disaster, which it did at different places and different times on the globe. Which also makes perfect sense in terms of general circulation patterns that distribute equatorial waters around the globe.
Sturgis, my speculation is that just prior to the 1257 event, the oceans had just past their peak discharge of stored heat (IE the bank of stored heat that made the Mid Warming Period warm was now bankrupt). At that point in time it is my speculation that because a series of El Nino’s is many times followed by La Nina conditions (something not uncommon in the current records) that bank could ordinarily be restored (IE the La Ninas would serve to recharge the oceans). However, the eruption may have disrupted that recharge event, essentially leaving the oceans gasping for heat. Thus the uneven slide down.
I speculate that long oscillations of strong El Nino’s then deep La Nina’s serve to create measurable trends in the short and long term, as they currently do. Any event that would keep the oceans in an El Nino stage would seriously deplete the oceans of stored heat, leading to very chilly conditions from which it would be difficult to recover from. Under this scenario, the signature of the LIA would be an initial catastrophic trigger timed at the end of discharged heat followed by up and down steps sliding down (a continued sporadic loss of heat events not fully recovered by short recharge events), and up and down steps crawling back up as the stratosphere clears, the Walker Cell circulation is restored, and clear sky La Nina’s recharge the depleted ocean. Episodic volcanic activity strong enough to send sulfur into the stratosphere following the main event would very much be a part of that scenario.
Support for a volcanic interference via stratospheric veiling disrupting normal ENSO discharge/recharge processes and global circulation patterns at the peak of a likely heat-depleted ocean at the end of the MWP is building in the literature.
I think my post may have gone to the bin.
Pamela
read the part where they talk about confidence before 1600.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 3:23 pm
As noted repeatedly, your hypothesis crashes on the rocks of temperature reality (as reliably reconstructed). Volcanic eruptions at most affect weather for a few years. Global temperature remained elevated for centuries after 1250, with minor cyclic ups and downs, as usual during secular warm and cold trends. For example, Kuwae early in the LIA, Tambora late in the LIA, Krakatoa early in the Modern Warm Period and Pinatubo well into it. Same goes for Samalas in the Medieval Warm Period (c. 800 to 1500, c. 900 to 1400 or c. 950 to 1350, take your pick, but Mann’s 950 to 1250 won’t wash).
Sorry, but the paleoclimate data simply don’t support either your hypothesis or proposed mechanism for it.
If you’re interested I can support non-volcanic rise and fall for these comparable climatic intervals averaging around 700 years, ie about half of a Bond Cycle:
AD 100 to 800 Dark Ages Cold Period
600 BC to AD 100 Roman Warm Period
1300 to 600 BC Greek Dark Ages Cold Period
2000 to 1300 BC “Minoan” Warm Period
Ups and downs without the subsequent downward trend (eg. Egyptian Warm Period not hotter than the Minoan) 3000 to 2000 BC
6000 to 3000 BC Holocene Climatic Optimum (longer if you ignore the Dryas-like 8.2 Ka Event).
Like you, I look to the oceans (and winds) for explanations, but driven by insolation, not by volcanic eruptions, about as common during warm as cold spells. Maybe the same problem with sunspots highlighted by Dr. Svalsgaard occurs with volcanic eruptions. You can count individual ones large enough to be detected in polar ice, or weight the biggest ones more. Or both.
“Willis asked for one dataset link – the best example that shows an 11 year cycle. That way he would only have to look and comment once. I can understand his request.”
Lets review his request which no believer has seen fit to answer
“So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
He is asking for the BEST ONE PIECE of temperature evidence that shows
solar minima cause cold spells.
reading through this thread, nobody has done it.
Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2014 at 3:47 pm
I hope not.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
Still waiting for you to look at any of the temperature & precipitation studies cited in Meehl, or even one of the Chilean tree ring analyses, finding ~11 & ~22 year cycles. Same as last time you were showed these & other such papers.
Surely nap time is over by now.
Thanks.
I now see what Willis is up against here and why he sometimes is a bit hostile. He simply asked –
” … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
It should be plain to most that in the context of his essay he was asking about surface temperatures as, not temperature in the stratosphere. I have yet to see any links presented so far (have only checked a few) that provide the evidence he asks for. The typical link provided gets me to a long document that may or may not even mention that sunspots may cause surface temperature changes. You must at least scan through documents nearly 50 pages long to find nothing that is hard evidence – something the poster has obviously failed to do but expects Willis and others to waste their time on.
I am no climate expert, just a retired engineer that has followed the AGW controversy since reading James Hansen’s Scientific American article (which I recognized as bogus at the time and subsequently let my subscription lapse) but I assume we must have a lot of very good sources of temperature data over many, many, recent solar cycles so if there is an 11 year cycle that shows statistically significant cold spells, references should abound. Why cannot any of you provide a link to temperature data that shows what Willis asked for. I too would also like to look at it.
climatereason says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Excellent suggestion. Hope Willis takes you up on it.
IMO Mann & his cronies are still trying to sell hockey sticks. His 2009 paper trying to cut the Medieval Warm Period down to size, if not totally “disappear” it, is evidence to that depressing effect.
One of the things that interests me is how solar heating influences global oceanic/atmospheric circulation (and the lack thereof). A very instructive set of youtube lectures titled “Without the Sun” helps to explain the disruption of these various circulation patterns. It is germane to this discussion for those who wish a visual/auditory presentation on what happens to cool the planet when solar insolation is diminished, or in the youtube case, gone.
Here is episode one. There are many. Anth*** should love the first episode. It demonstrates the inner workings of a Stevenson Screen. The way it should be done (though I do not have a full 360 degree picture of its location so don’t know if it is located next to a building).
I still see that my post right after “Pamela Gray says: June 25, 2014 at 3:23 pm” has not shown up. Therefore I assume it got sent to the trash bin. I know that happens occasionally. No big deal.
Lester Via says:
?w=840
” I have yet to see any links presented so far (have only checked a few) that provide the evidence he asks for. ”
He provided the evidence for solar minima to cause cold spells in his own post:
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:59 am
Like I said, until you have evidence of the effect, speculation about possible mechanisms is very premature.
w.
Lester Via says:
June 25, 2014 at 4:30 pm
We have provided it in every one of Willis’ posts on the topic of the 11 year cycle. He just refuses to look at them, which accounts for what you perceive as hostility.
Except of course, you don’t bother to provide that ONE link in the post you just made.
Sheesh!
beng says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:15 am
———————————-
“Right. 1.5 w/m2 (solar-cycle variance) divided by an average ~1365 w/m2 (TSI) = ~0.1%. But I disagree that there is uncertainty in the sun’s TSI — actually it’s very precise (measured by satellite well away from earth).”
Have a care, the modern TSI record is not as certain as often claimed –
http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/1366-and-all-that-the-secret-history-of-total-solar-irradiance/
“But that creates a quandary. If someone thinks solar cycles (1.5 w/m2 changes) have significant climate effects, how can they dismiss the 3.7 w/m2 (I’ll accept the IPCC’s number for this argument) for CO2 doubling?”
First, due to spectral variance, the changes in UV entering the accumulation layer of the oceans (below the diurnal overturning layer) is varying as much as 20% between solar cycles not a mere 0.1% as the TSI bleaters would like you to believe.
Second the IPCCs 3.7w/m2 can be easily dismissed. It doesn’t exist. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. The Warmist claims are based on the idea that DWLWIR is keeping the oceans above -18C. However the simplest empirical experiments show that incident LWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (it works over land but not over the oceans).
This does create another minor quandary. What is keeping the oceans above their theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C if not DWLWIR? The answer is that the oceans are nowhere close to a “near blackbody” as the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climastrology falsely claim. They are instead a UV/SW “selective surface”, and as such, the sun alone would drive them to +80C were it not for atmospheric cooling. (and how does the atmosphere cool?)
“Not sure which experiment you’re referring to.”
This one –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
This experiment demonstrates why spectral variance matters when dealing with “selective surfaces”
Illuminate both blocks with full sun (~1000 w/m2) for three hours and Block A will have a 20C higher average temperature than block B. Base temperatures will vary by as much as 40C. However illuminate both with equal IR and there will be no temperature differential between blocks A&B. For selective surfaces, depth of absorption and spectral variance matters a great deal.
Simple experiments such as this easily demonstrate why claims of only 0.1% TSI variance not having the power to effect climate are clearly disingenuous.
So too are the “I can’t find a 11 year solar cycle in 17th century wallpaper designs so the sun can’t be… blah, blah)” arguments. Variance in UV absorption below the ocean thermocline cannot be expected to show a clear 11 year signal in surface temperatures.
Here’s what I think Willis is trying to say: Greenhouse gases are the cause of the planet warming. Since there has been an unprecedented amount of co2 that has entered the atmosphere of which we can measure and the rate. Also since the temperature has been calculated to be much higher than now because of that buildup. Therefore, since that hasn’t happened, the only conclusion is that with out the build up of co2 in the atmosphere it has prevented the onset of what can only be described as a very cold period. The real temperature should be, what, maybe a full 2, perhaps 3 C than 1997/1998. That’s scary. The real underlying temperature is dropping like a rock
rishrac. Your post makes no sense.
I am taking the idea that co2 increases temperature by retaining heat at face value. What’s so wrong with consulting the IPCC chart showing the increase in co2 and the increase in temperature? If the temperature is suppose to be currently higher than it now, all things being equal, then the qualifying idea is that it is in fact getting colder, what ever the cause.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 5:09 pm
“He provided the evidence for solar minima to cause cold spells in his own post”:
He also explained, adequately I thought, why that data didn’t provide much proof of causation.
It is also data form a single area of the earth. Now, if all other areas of the earth showed a cold spell at the same time that would tend to be more convincing. There are just too many confounding variables for the CET data to be proof of anything other than too many variables to draw a valid conclusion. I am sure most of those commenting here that have actually done much research have jumped to conclusions based on insufficient data they later found to be false. I could generate a thousand separate random data sets and expect some of them to correlate with virtually any unrelated thing I selected. The important thing to me is that Willis attempted without success to find evidence of an 11 year signal in a lot of other more recent data. While 11 years is much shorter than the Maunder minima period, any effect would probably still be detectable in recent much larger volume of data. Willis never said there was no effect, only a statistically insignificant one in the CET data and the other more recent data he looked at. While there is much data indicating the temperature of the stratosphere is affected by sunspot activity, his skepticism about there being a meaningful effect on surface temperatures seems justified.to me. But that is just my opinion.
Let us say that solar minima, lets say, the 11 year sunspot cycle, do not change temperature noticeably (because of the totally boring, like, data that doesn’t show it). Let us also say that there are regulatory mechanisms on earth that keep the temperature stable. And let us also say that, minus these regulatory mechanisms, the 11 year sunspot cycle would change temperature. Can we detect a change in one or more of these regulatory mechanisms, say cloud cover, or thunderstorm onset in the tropics, that has an 11 year cycle? Does anything in climate follow the sunspot cycle?
Note that really, it would not be 11 year cycles like clockwork, but would follow minimas and maximas whatever their length. Say, you would see some change in something during solar minima, whenever that may occur. Might be hard to see in past records.
@ rishrac on June 25, 2014 at 6:10 pm:
If you knew about Willis Eschenbach’s writing, you would notice he takes “conventional wisdom” and puts it to the test. If it’s commonly accepted, he’ll want to know why and he’ll check the data.
Here he’s continuing examining why it’s thought solar variations noticeably affect Earth global temperatures. He looked for the well-known sunspot cycle, couldn’t find it, can’t find it in the presented “evidence”. So now he’s widened the search to much-longer phenomena, solar minimums, and seeing if there’s the oft-mentioned planetary cooling.
So what he’s saying is, if you have evidence solar minimums have cooled the Earth, this is your shot, give him the best piece of evidence you got.
Steven Mosher: “Willis asked for one dataset link – the best example that shows an 11 year cycle. That way he would only have to look and comment once. I can understand his request.”
Lets review his request which no believer has seen fit to answer
“So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
He is asking for the BEST ONE PIECE of temperature evidence that shows
solar minima cause cold spells.
reading through this thread, nobody has done it.
Just so. My argument about other details should not obscure my agreement with Willis Eschenbach on his main point.
rishrac says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:23 pm
“I am taking the idea that co2 increases temperature by retaining heat at face value. What’s so wrong with consulting the IPCC chart showing the increase in co2 and the increase in temperature?”
Because the IPCC chart not only shows correlation but causation. The CO2 change lags the temperature change indicating the temperature change causes the CO2 change rather than the other way around. This lag is easily seen in the graph more than 100,000 years ago when the CO2 levels remained near their high peak while the earth fell into an ice age. The CO2 levels didn’t fall much until we nearly reached the lowest temperatures. At other times the lag is not so apparent and the ice core data must be consulted.
Mosher writes “you are skeptical of the evidence he gives, but offer NONE of your own.”
Thats because there is only about 7 years worth of SIM data which shows more variation than expected. I cant offer data because there is none. But I can offer scepticism on using what could be the “wrong” data to be making the claim the sun cant be responsible.
Mosher also wrote “here the thing. Most of you believe this because you were told to”
In this case I can see a hole in the theory and hold my scepticism against that. Nobody told me to believe anything. In fact people like Leif have their own “beliefs” about what the sun has likely done and they hold that the sun doesn’t impact on the climate (much if at all)
What’s your excuse for believing the sun doesn’t impact (much) on the climate when you know there are still unknowns? Bias maybe?
Yah, even I got that. And I don’t know mathematics from Appomattox.
milodonharlani says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:55 am
Gosh, milodon, I can’t thank you enough for finally responding to my request for the one study that you think is the best indication of the sun’s powerful influence on the climate … actually, I had looked at this study the last time it was brought up.
I do find it kind of odd, though.
Folks, after much thought, milodon has finally produced what he thinks is the linchpin, the piece of research that will be the solidest evidence of the 11-year cycle … tree rings.
Yep. Tree rings. The signal doesn’t show up in the temperature, it doesn’t show up in sea levels, it doesn’t show up in river flows … but according to milodon, there it is in the tree rings. Chilean tree rings.
And how many trees were analyzed to bring out this solar effect?
Well … um … not to put too fine a point on it, they analyzed one tree.
One.
Tree.
I find this astounding. After all his faffing about, milodon has finally revealed the secret best evidence, the data to convince the unbelievers, and it is …
One.
Chilean.
Tree.
milodon, I gotta say … if that’s your best evidence, I can certainly see why you fought so hard to keep it a secret.
Now, what did the One Chilean Tree show? Well, according to the authors, the following significant periodicities (at the 95% levels) are present in the tree rings. Here are those periods, in years:
2.03 yrs.
2.3
2.6
2.7
4.0
4.3
6.3
10.7
13.1
17.5
20.9
38.0
140
Well, there you have it, folk. Clear proof … of … cycles of some kind or other at a host of frequencies in the One ChileanTree.
Let me pause here and ask you two questions, milodon. I’m not asking for evidence, just your best guess about the following:
1. Is this the only tree the authors have analyzed? and …
2. If the authors had found a second tree showing the solar signals, would they have included it in this study?
Seriously? One tree?
And while it is certainly tempting to say that a 10.7 year cycle in the One Chilean Tree is solar … what causes the 17.5 year cycle, or the 6.3 year cycle, or the 2.7 year cycle? Maybe the 10.7 year cycle is nothing but four of the 2.7 year cycles.
Not only that, but most inconveniently, the One Chilean Tree shows no effect from the Maunder minimum … the ring width of the One Chilean Tree didn’t even twitch for the Maunder. Not a wiggle. Nor did it notice the Dalton minimum. Not a bit.
Anyhow, here’s a part of the discussion of the solar effect, from the authors:
I love that logic.
IF we assume that the cause of ring width variation in the One Chilean Tree is solar,
… it means that the length of the solar cycle can be calculated from the variation in the ring widths, and
… that shows that the length of the solar cycle was different back then. And from that they conclude … nothing. The line of inquiry stops.
These guys are classic. Here’s another:
So … the 5.1 year harmonic before the Maunder is clear evidence of the solar effect, but the lack of the 5.1 year harmonic after the Maunder is not evidence that the effect is not solar.
Ourboros wept … not only that, but if 5.1 years is the second harmonic, the fundamental frequency is 10.2 years. How does 10.2 years fit into anything? I love these guys. Any cycle between about 9.5 and 13 years is automatically a “solar cycle” …
Anyhow, in no particular order, here are the other problems in the study of the One Chilean Tree:
Internal Variability:
The authors say:
They took a “chosen radius” and made a series of measurements of tree ring width along that radius. This is a fairly standard procedure, corresponding to the more common method of using a “corer” to extract a sample of ring widths along a given radius. Here’s a graphic to show the problems with that method:
Now, note the two sections, a wide one entitled “What is falsely believed to be the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ “, and a narrow one entitled “Actual ‘Medieval Not-So-Warm Period’ “. If you follow the rings around the tree, you’ll find that both the wide and the narrow sections are the same rings. They’re just wider in one section than another. I’m sure you can see the issues with this.
Normally, this kind of variation present in any individual tree is dealt with by taking cores of a large number of trees and averaging them. The fact that the authors have not done so, but have limited themselves to the One Chilean Tree, is … well … revealing.
Data:
The data for the One Chilean Tree isn’t archived anywhere … bad scientists, no cookies.
Code:
The code for the analysis of the One Chilean Tree is also not archived. Ditto. No data, no code, no science.
Autocorrelation:
One of the problems with this analysis is that they claim that there are no less than 13 cycles which are significant at the 95% level … riiiight. Anyone who has done much analysis will find that very difficult to believe. The most likely answer is that the authors have not considered the pernicious effects of autocorrelation on significance … a lack of understanding that is sadly common in climate science, where a statistician is far too often seen an un-necessary addition to a team of geniuses intent on Saving The Planet From Thermageddon™.
Lack of an Internal Check:
Unlike many studies, they had the entire cross-sectional disk of the tree. As a result, the obvious test of their results would have been to pick a different radius along which to make their ring width measurements. If they have done this, I don’t find it mentioned.
Alternately, they may have measured it along a number of radii and not mentioned it, the description is a bit vague on that … but if that’s the case, they should have shown the corresponding analyses of the individual radii as well as the average results.
Misunderstanding of results:
In doing this kind of analysis, I often take a look at the results for subsections of the data. In their case, to their credit, in addition to the overall results I listed above, they’ve divided the data into pre-Maunder, Maunder, and post-Maunder, and looked for cycles significant at the 95% level.. Here are those results, showing what they say are all of the 95% significant cycles in years:
Pre-Maunder Cycles
3.2 yrs
5
32.7
So … before the Maunder, they don’t find any significant solar cycles. However, although they report the result, they never ask the obvious question …
Why not? Why no solar cycles before the Maunder? Does anyone believe that there were no sunspot cycles before the Maunder? And if the trees didn’t respond to them then, why would they respond to them now?
Maunder Cycles
2.1 yrs
3.1
3.9
Same deal. They ask no questions … questions like, why would a change in solar input make the 5-year and 32.7-year cycles disappear? Were they secretly solar cycles?
Post-Maunder Cycles
2.1 yrs
2.3
3.1
3.5
4.8
6.3
9.3
13.3
21.3
93
140
Again, they’ve reported the results, but they don’t ask the questions. What happened to the 11.7 year solar cycle that appears in the full analysis? What happened to the 3.9 year cycle that was prevalent in the Maunder? And are all the new cycles that appeared actually solar cycles … and if not … what are they?
For me, these variations between the sections of the data are clear evidence that the cycles are probably NOT driven by the sun. They are also evidence that their “95% confidence levels” are probably … well … let me call them “very optimistic”. I also deduce from those results that there are no truly significant cycles in the tree rings … but of course, without the data I can’t actually check that.
Anyhow, there you have milodon’s very best, most solid evidence for the existence of an 11-year signal in climate … the very questionable analysis of the One Chilean Tree.
Now, milodon keeps saying that he is “doing my research for me”. Consider his oh-so-difficult contribution to this analysis—he provided a link to the study.
Did he do the analysis above that shows the problems with the study? Well … if so, he’s hiding his light under a bushel.
Did he present any independent research at all into the study or the results of the One Chilean Tree? Well … no.
Did he bother to actually read the study and think about it?
Well, I hope the answer is no, because he seems like a pretty smart guy. So if he did actually read it, and despite having read it he still recommended it as the best evidence for the 11-year solar cycles … well, like I say, I hope he didn’t read it.
So is he “doing my research for me”? Near as I can tell, he’s not even doing his own research …
My best to everyone, and please … if you are planning to recommend a study as being strong, valuable evidence for the claimed 11-year cycle (or for the claimed Maunder-temperature connection), please read the study first, and then apply your best critical thought to it before recommending it. Take a lesson from milodon … not pretty.
And on a lovely coastal evening with the fog blowing inshore past my house, my best regards to everyone,
w.
PS—I see this as one of the problems with anonymity. Milodon’s foolish actions will never affect whoever he actually is. His reputation will not suffer, his friends won’t know, there’s no price to pay for his words, ever.
Whereas for me, I have to live with my errors and mistakes. And as a result, I actually read and think hard about the studies I’m analyzing, or promoting as good science, so that people won’t be laughing at me for years … but for milodon, he can walk away at any time, disown his words, change his alias, come back as someone else, there are no consequences. So he can make his foolish claims and put forwards his junk study, and his employer and his friends and relations will be none the wiser …
LT says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Put your money where your mouth is, I will bet you 200 dollars US that in ten years TSI will be at least 1 watt/Square Meter below the last minimum.
I hope I live long enough to collect.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Most of the rise we see over the last 300 years occurred since 1988
When solar activity has been decreasing.
Alec Rawls says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm
It is quite simple: solar activity climbed dramatically years ago to a level where it been for the past 300 years and temperatures have been climbing ever since.
Alec Rawls says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm
It is quite simple: solar activity climbed dramatically 300 years ago to a level where it been ever since while temperatures have been climbing ever since.
Willis says:
“We don’t see a significant 11-year cycle in the climate data anywhere. Despite that, when there are two small 11-year cycles in a row (e.g. the “Dalton Minimum”), it’s supposed to cause a detectable depression in the temperature … how does that work?
An averaged response to shorter periodicities with large amplitudes.
Try this. You turn an air conditioner set to cooling on and off relatively quickly (the 11 year cycle), with a large amplitude variation (i.e. the air con on and off). This up and down temperature variation will not be picked up by a thermometer located on the other side of the room, because it takes too long for these short term temperature changes to disperse through the room. What you might get over a slightly longer period, is a down ‘averaged’ trend, such as the Dalton Minimum, but without the shorted cycles showing up. The earth has too many other cycles/ and thermal dispersion time lags etc for shorter cycles to necessarily show up in the data, but you may get general trends, such as the various Dalton, Maunder Minimums etc.
Note also the Dalton occurred around the time of large volcanic eruptions, further complicating the picture.
Not a very well explained answer, but again, I think there are too many background cycles coupled with lag effects etc to make definitive statements such that ‘there isn’t a good correlation between solar cycles and temperature’, such as the statement above. Averaged cycle responses can account for the Dalton Minimum.
Legatus says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:56 pm
An interesting question, legatus. Here’s what I see as the difficulty.
I have shown in several ways that the main throttle control for the planet is the timing of the emergence of tropical clouds. The problem is that this is a very, very sensitive and powerful throttle. The onset of clouds is typically around 10:30 in the tropics. It reduces solar input by something on the order of 400 W/m2.
This means that if the onset time changes by 1 hour, we get something like 400 W-hrs/m2 of change in energy for that day, which works out to something like 16 W/m2 averaged over the 24 hours in the day. Of course that’s only where we get thermally produced cumulus clouds, so the global average change might be something like 5 W/m2 for an hour’s change in cloud emergence time.
Assuming for the moment that there is no mysterious “amplification” of the TSI signal, the TSI change over the 11-year period is something on the order of a quarter of a W/m2. This would be offset by a shift in the cloud onset time of about 3 minutes … so even if there is some “amplification” that say triples the effect, it would be offset by a shift of 9 minutes in cloud onset time … and as far as I know, we have no datasets for average cloud onset times in the tropics with anything like that kind of accuracy.
So the general answer to your question is that small shifts in cloud onset time make a very large difference in the amount of energy entering the system.
Next, the control system is distributed, and only emerges in response to local conditions. So any changes in forcing (either from solar variations or anything else) will NOT be met by a global three minute change in cloud onset time. Instead, wherever on the planet that extra heat ends up, there and only there will there be a large, but likely short-lived change in the cloud onset time … and how would we be able to reliably detect that?
Finally, it is not only the onset time of the clouds that is of importance. The onset time of thunderstorms is perhaps even more important, because they both control the throttle (cloud reflections) and also function as giant air conditioners that quickly cool the surface. In addition, there is a further state of organization (multiple thunderstorm lines stretching horizon to horizon) that occurs when the temperature gets even higher. Finally, in addition to onset time, the number/density of cumulus, thunderstorms, and squall lines is a part of the control system as well.
Next there are things like dust devils, the forgotten emergent phenomena. Their onset times and numbers are part of the control system.
Of course, there’s the El Nino pump, that kicks in whenever the Pacific overheats and pumps warm water to the poles, as well as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that alternately impedes and assists that poleward movement.
Where in that shifting, locally governed, globally distributed system of overlapping emergent phenomena would we find a signal of a small shift to control a small change in solar input? It’s a very hard puzzle, a difficult signal to tease out … but I continue to look.
All the best, thanks for the question.
w.
“At other times the lag is not so apparent and the ice core data must be consulted.”
The lag relationship is seen in recent SST vs CO2 data too. The short-term variations show shorter lags. This was noted by Allen McRae , Ole Humlum and others.
If you plot SST and CO2 you get a circa 9 month lag. If you plot d/dt(CO2) you see it in phase:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=720
This shows at least a partial temp causes CO2 rise relation in recent data.
Costa Pettersson has estimated about 50/50 human vs outgassing: see false-alert.net
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:56 pm
Alec Rawls says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm
It is quite simple: solar activity climbed dramatically 300 years ago to a level where it been ever since while temperatures have been climbing ever since.
====
That would suggst a very slow centennial scale adjustment, which is not impossible if deep oceans are implicated.
However,
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
tau=5y would settling to 95% in about 15y. Sadly SST records are a bit short to see the major minima.
As you pointed out solar activity has been dropping for a while. There is a divergence since about 1985-1990.
This does not fit well with CO2 growth since at least 1960 but it could be a factor. As could increased transparency of the stratosphere once intial aerosols have settled out.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
From Willis Eschenbach on June 25, 2014 at 8:39 pm:
When the data mongers gather and present their methods, from old to self-created “new and revolutionary”, for teasing out small signals from the body of data, I think of what happened when professionals tried to tease out a bullet from the body of James Garfield. The results can be remarkably similar.
konrad: “Energy absorbed below the overturning layer can accumulate, and it is the shorter frequencies that penetrate to these depths. It is also these frequencies that vary most between solar cycles. It is notable that surface UV has increased ~ 10 – 20% in the last 30 years, but stabilised since the mid 1990s –
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html
It should also be noted that UV-A still has the power of ~10 W/m2 at 50m depth. ”
===
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
1.8 W/m2 of water penetrating SW is more that a 2xCO2 IR (that doesn’t) : without hypothetical positive feedbacks presumed for IR
That SW is not accounted for in current models and will thus get spuriously attributed to the nearest variable which is riseing long term. Guess what that may be.
Willis likes cumulative integrals, here’s one:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png?w=843
Derivation here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
Greg Goodman says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:04 pm
That would suggest a very slow centennial scale adjustment, which is not impossible if deep oceans are implicated.
As a watt is a watt, that would apply any kind of forcing: CO2, volcanoes, albedo changes, Jupiter shine, etc. I don’t think that fits with what most people would believe.
“As a watt is a watt, that would apply any kind of forcing:”
Well a watt is a watt, but a LWIR is not a SWUV.
Putting to one side arguments about whether well-ventilated water can be warmed by incident IR, it will only heat the immediate surface and will be subject to negative feedbacks. Evaporation, convection, tropical storms etc.
Volcanoes and albedo will affect SW, CO2, not so much ( not sure about your Jupiter shine ).
So simplistic statements like a watt is a watt and all forcing are created equal are probably inaccurate and misleading.
TimTheToolMan says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Thanks, Tim. But … who is making the claim that the sun can’t be responsible? Certainly not me. I’m very cautious about what I claim, and that’s not among the things I’ve said.
What I have said is that despite my best efforts, using every tool at my disposal and looking a very, very wide variety of datasets, I have not been able to find any sign of the 11-year sunspot/magnetism/gcr/solar wind cycle. That is a very different claim.
In addition, I’ve invited the readers who think I’m using the wrong tools or the wrong datasets to use their own best tools and datasets to demonstrate their claims are true. To date, nobody has been successful in that quest either.
Finally, I’ve said that I am totally unimpressed by the data that Eddy used to make his claims about the cold Maunder at the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), and that I don’t find any kind of solar footprint in the Dalton. In particular, in both of them the temperatures start rising long before the corresponding solar cycles start rising … highly unlikely that it’s caused by solar. In addition, it’s warmer at the end of the Dalton than at the start … how can that be if the lack of sun is the cause? And it’s clear that the LIA is NOT from the Maunder, it occurs way too late in the LIA to be the cause.
But no, I’ve never said the sun can’t be responsible … among other things, you can’t prove a negative, and I’m too smart to try to do so.
Regards,
w.
Greg Goodman says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 pm
So simplistic statements like a watt is a watt and all forcing are created equal are probably inaccurate and misleading.
Probably not, as the Earth’s energy budget is counted solely in watts:
http://www.leif.org/research/Earth-Energy-Budget.png
see http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing
Regardless of whether you understand this, your ‘scale adjustment’ would apply to any energy absorbed.
TimTheToolMan says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Tim, I’m not Mosh, but I think you missed his meaning. He’s saying that neither you nor most of the readers have done what I’ve done, to actually look at the data. Instead, you believed it because, well, that’s what “science” said, and so it went unquestioned.
You’re right, nobody told you to believe anything. But Mosh is making a different distinction, between believing something because you’ve looked at the data, and believing something because other people believe it.
Mosh’s point is that regarding the question of solar minima and cold, that you and I and others didn’t look at the data. I’m definitely included in that, see my comment in the opening of the head post:
That’s the distinction Mosh is pointing to.
w.
Someone said, and Leif did not object : “The sun was unusually weak and the climate was unusually cold but they have no relation, just coincidence.” It’s about time that was cleared up.
Later, Dr Norman Page says:
and Leif responded:
Finally. The TSI level does not seem to drop below 1365.5 W/m2, ever, even during the grandest of minimums. And the max TSI is only about 1 W/m2 above that. The bottom line is that the sun’s output is remarkably constant. What we call solar activity is just a superficial variation. The fusion or whatever it is just keeps on going, sunspots or no sunspots.
thingadonta says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:08 pm
Try this. Put a running average of some kind on the sunspot data. Of course it has to be a trailing average, since otherwise the future affects the present.
Now, run that average and see what happens in the Dalton minimum. As you point out, what happens is that when the sun cycles drop in size, so does the long-term average.
There are two big problems with this picture, however. The first is that the long-term average will not start to increase until the first regular-sized solar cycle … but in both the Maunder and the Dalton, the temperature starts rising way before that. And since the sun is not causing the rise in temperatures … why should we believe it caused the fall?
The second problem is more subtle, and is the problem that I was pointing to above. For your plan to work, you need a trailing average long enough to totally wipe out any single-cycle signal variation … but the average needs to be short enough to have a big response to two small cycles in a row. And the single-cycle variations (max to min) are much larger than the change in average from two successive cycles … so any filter long and strong enough to entirely wipe out the big single-cycle peak-to-trough variation will hardly twitch if there happens to be two smaller cycles in a row, as happened in the Dalton minimum.
When you have run the numbers and figured out what kind of a moving average can do that, wipe out a large single-cycle signal yet not wipe out the much smaller effect of a couple of pint-sized cycles, please let me know, because I can’t think of one …
w.
Greg Goodman says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:21 pm
———————————–
When it comes to selective surfaces such as our deep transparent ocean, covering 71% of the lithosphere 4 to 5 Km deep, then watts are not watts. Frequency matters. It matters a lot.
Listening to the leaf blower? Forget it. Notice the bleating about TSI not spectral variance? Someone carries the burning shame of talking Jack Eddy down over solar variance. A shame that can never be erased in the age of the Internet. “Disingenuous” is me being polite. [snip] is closer to the mark.
And Wally? Where’s Wally now? Still stuck where he was in 2011. Still thinks that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
Hello Wally.
Hello down there..
Yoo hoo..
Oh Yoooo Hoooo!
Keep digging. Send us a post card from China 😉
From Willis Eschenbach on June 25, 2014 at 10:27 pm:
As I understand it, as I absorb this stuff, the reason for checking for autocorrelation is the next data tends to be similar to the last data. The near past is like the near future which is like the near past.
Thus I don’t understand why it must be trailing average. You’re invoking a chronal paradox whereas a centered average simply admits the present will likely resemble the future.
@smith
“Such conditions are seldom encountered. The radiation would necessarily have to be thermal radiation, with a spectrum that depends on Temperature.”
That would be true for all radiations. I have enough of this.
Willis says:
“in both the Maunder and the Dalton, the temperature starts rising way before that.”
“any filter long and strong enough to entirely wipe out the big single-cycle peak-to-trough variation will hardly twitch if there happens to be two smaller cycles in a row”.
My only answers tho these right now are mostly non-statistical, and without going into the data too much deeper:
–the Dalton has only two low cycles, which quite rightly shouldn’t really affect a longer term average if it doesn’t affect single 11 year cycles, except that here there were also volcanic eruptions (not your cup of tea I understand) messing things up, and also the earth was still partly ‘locked’ into the cold conditions of the Maunder. It might be easier to re- plunge the earth or self-reinforce a ‘little ice age’, if the earth hasn’t come out of a colder period for very long. (eg high ice albedo levels etc), such as going back into a generally cooler Dalton not very long after the Maunder. Again, there might be background factors here which don’t come up in a pure statistical analysis.
– background cycles which are already going on, such as changes in ocean phases (have you checked the PDO changes within the Dalton/Maunder? etc, do we have that data?-probably not-this may explain a warmer trend before the sun springs back to life)
-the data you have used in the above graphs is not accurate enough at the yearly/multi yearly scale, such as ‘Lambs winter severity index’ which is only part of a year, (although the CET is better, but this is not a world temperature).
-ultimately the weaknesses in the data (yearly accuracy, single locations such as CET rather than the whole world etc) and any background cycles, lag effects, do not allow further penetration of the solar-temperature correlation. You can only say to those who advocate a solar- temperature correlation, that they have untested assumptions about background cycles etc because data on finer scales doesn’t really match all that well; the 11 year cycle in particular barely shows up if at all, which I agree with you about.
Exactly the same sort of issues with the natural variability going on now with ‘the pause’ etc. There is turning out to be a lot of ‘background natural variability’ out there. My favourite fudge factor is ocean cycles messing things up. Cosmic rays and clouds might be another. Do they change (ie the solar wind etc) exactly in sync with solar output? I’m guessing they don’t. (And I’m guessing you are getting to your favourite theory-that it isn’t background cycles messing the solar-temperature correlation at all, nor volcanos in the Dalton, nor cosmic rays etc, but the earth’s tropical thermostat. It might be all of them together).
lsvalgaard says: June 25, 2014 at 9:42 pm
….. Jupiter shine…..
You got it doc. Now we only need to find an event with 398 day period. I can’t think of one, but have found that the IDV (IHV) has sharp and distinct peak at 17.81 Bartels (which I think comes to 480 days), any ideas why could that be?
kadaka
“our “global average” temperature is controlled by the rate of heat retention. So it is foolish to think S-B will give surface temperatures.”
S-B equation will give you the radiative forcing at TOA. Will it change surface temperature? It should. If you claim it will not. You should compute the counter forcing that will cancel it. Like Trenberth’s “the ocean is taking up X amount of heat therefore the atmosphere will not warm” That’s how to present a scientific argument. (even if we disagree with it) But all you’re saying is “it will not because it’s too complicated to compute.” It’s a philosophical conjecture.
You claim 3 errors of Eratosthenes:
“1. That Alexandria and Syene lie on the same meridian.”
Trivial. You can measure a circumference across different meridians.
“2. That the distance between Alexandria and Syene is 5000 stades.”
Not his error. It was measured by Egyptian surveyors long before Eratosthenes. I suspect the distance was accurate but the road was not a perfect straight line. A straight distance would be shorter.
“3. That the Earth is a sphere.”
It’s a good assumption. Earth is close to an oblate spheroid.
It was Carl Sagan (1980) who said Eratosthenes got a value of 40,000 km (less than 2% error). He assumed 5,000 stades = 800 km. A rare mistake by Sagan. The point is scientists in the past made fairly accurate measurements without authorizing bodies. I said enough. Goodbye.
Greg says:
June 25, 2014 at 11:20 am
Are you really too stupid to read when I write QUOTE MY WORDS IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, or are you really such a big jerk as to think that they don’t apply to you?
Your claim about my position is total fantasy of your own creation. It is nothing like the views I hold.
I have said nothing at all about “definite proof” for example, that’s just your weird interpretation of my views. Even if you don’t realize these things, I’m quite clear that a) you can’t prove a negative, and b) in science nothing can be proven. As a result, I’ve said nothing about my results “proving” anything. You’re just making up a position out of the whole cloth and claiming that it’s a position that I hold. Sorry, not buying it.
QUOTE WHAT I SAID.
Regarding the 11-year signal in the climate, what I’ve said is that there are a lot of people out there that believe that such a signal exists, but that despite lots of looking, I’ve never seen it. So I’ve asked adherents of the theory where the best evidence is, and I’ve look at that evidence, and I’ve still never seen it.
I have made no effort, and in fact I’ve deliberately refrained, from making the kind of further conclusions that you list above. I have NOT said that the sun has no influence on the climate, for example. I have NOT said that the lack of the 11-year cycle proves anything about the solar influence.
What I’ve said is that I can’t find the 11-year signal. I also can’t find the Gleissberg cycle, either in the sun or in terrestrial datasets. In addition, I can’t find the cooling that allegedly accompanies the Dalton and Maunder minimums.
The only conclusion that I’ve drawn from all of that is that those facts support my hypothesis that the earth has a thermostat. It’s not strong evidence, there may be other reasons, but the observations certainly support my hypothesis as a possible explanation.
And that’s all that I’ve said. The further conclusions that one might draw from those facts, Greg, I leave to you … although given the hash you’ve made of assessing my position, I probably should leave them to someone else …
w.
toto
“The bottom line is that the sun’s output is remarkably constant.”
It amazes me when laymen and even scientists say this because the earliest direct measurement of solar irradiance was in 1838 by Pouillet and he got a lower value than today. The belief that solar irradiance must be constant is very strong that we would rather disregard Pouillet and look for proxy data that confirm what we believe. It would be more honest to say we don’t know because nobody measured it before Pouillet.
BTW the 1 W/m^2 observed variance in solar constant translates to 0.25 W/m^2 change in irradiance. It can melt 1 inch of ice over a year. Sea ice is about 72 inch thick. Sea ice could disappear in 72 years with that small solar variance. What if it’s a negative variance? Remove that much heat for 100 years (1600-1700) and you will see sea ice and glaciers grow. You will see a little ice age in the Arctic region and Northern Europe. The River Thames in London will freeze on winters. Haven’t we seen that before?
Ohooo…
Too difficult? Too harsh?
I play a long game. Ten years. Screen shots for every post.
But trust me. Anthony is A-OK. However Wally and the leaf blower might be under the bus….
But then, who cares about those squealing bitches?
Willis says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm
“…..
Eliza says:
June 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm
CET shows nothing there’s not even a slight trend if you include latest data 2014http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
Say what? Each of those three datasets has a definite trend.
w.
……”
The CET summer trend is definitively not significant at 2 sigma level , and the winter trend is maybe just barely hanging in or on the verge of falling out of the 95% CI, though the annual trend can probably be said to be within statistically significant. limits at the 95% level.
( and nota bene all three have a lousy explanatory factor {r²} ). So no Willis , there is not a definitive trend in ALL three datasets, at least not in the strictly statistical sense.
But that said, its a minor quibble in my mind , because the CET time series just like the rest of the surface datasets most toted ,unfortunately do not satisfy the assumptions necessary for a valid least squares analysis to be anything but a very corse grained flat low resolution black and white snapshot of a many faceted and multicolored , multidimensional thingy.
For all participants, including the moderator magazine WUWT.
All the discussion so far and from now on, refer only to the conclusion phenomenon in so far as science is able to vividly convey to the stakeholders. But the real causes of phenomena have their origins hidden to be discovered, as well as some kind of strange disease. The doctor can not determine the correct diagnosis on the basis of the patient’s temperature. Who determines easier dijagnose, a doctor or a vet? Animals do not know tell me how you feel. Even with this consideration should enter the “interior” of the system, and to the solar system. You need to know who is the one who causes sunspots, their cycle and intensity.
Here, on this occasion, I give you a suggestion throughout this forum: to form a team of experts who will link up with strong institutions and governments of America, to make a deal for deciphering the true causes of the appearance of the sun, and with it the sunspot and a lot more.
It is certain that these and all participants will spend a third of the sum of 21.4 billion dollars and will get solutions for all time. Surest proof, set in the past, when something important happened and based on the budget transfer in the future. My evidence shows that the cycles of various phenomena “scattered” in time (past, future and present are), with different amounts of time and intensity, but all within the laws by which this happens. We’ll see how many people will be interested to solve this problem. It’s go time there.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Like I said, until you have evidence of the effect, speculation about possible mechanisms is very premature.”
I would not be discussing it if I had not seen evidence for it in the observations in the first place. If anything is premature, it is your assumptions about solar forcing, page 15:
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
Lester Via says:
“He also explained, adequately I thought, why that data didn’t provide much proof of causation.”
He said:
“As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.”
Yet the three coldest periods in CET are ALL during solar minima, so clearly he is talking nonsense.
[snip . . maybe you have had a long day. . mod]
What explanations exist for the extremely abrupt temperature drops during the last glaciation?
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
Probable Explanation: For a period of years a minima of Solar Rads reached Earth.
Several generalized explanations of declines in Rads include:
A) The Sun’s radiation strength declines
B) Solar radiation is blocked from reaching Earth
One known culprit for B is volcanic ejecta.
What explanations exist for the extremely abrupt temperature drops during the last glaciation?
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
Greg says:”… Willis seems to be digging his heels in on the presence of not of a statistically significant 11y solar signal as definite proof of whether there is a solar influence. I think that is a mistake.”
Willis says: “Are you really too stupid to read when I write QUOTE MY WORDS IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, or are you really such a big jerk as to think that they don’t apply to you?
Your claim about my position is total fantasy of your own creation. It is nothing like the views I hold.
…
I have NOT said that the lack of the 11-year cycle proves anything about the solar influence.”
Easy on the insults big fella. I’m not going to go trawling the last six months of your threads here on WUWT for a precise quote.
If that is now your stated position, fine, I’ll bookmark this page.
You suggested above someone run a trailing running mean. Hang on I supposed I’d better quote you before you start shouting again….
“Try this. Put a running average of some kind on the sunspot data. Of course it has to be a trailing average, since otherwise the future affects the present.”
Now I know you’re not a fan of running means, so I’m guessing that was just to make it easy to do. Why you want him to introduce frequency dependent phase shift is a bit odd, do you now think you need to lag the result of a gaussian filter as well?
In any case, one case where you will not centre the data is when applying a exponentially decaying weighting to simulate a relaxation response. This is also a convolution. This does add a delay, as you have shown in the past, one that is physically meaningful, determined by the response time of the system.
Implementation here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/scripts/
This gives the graph I’ve posted already
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Now we’ve already seen that there are other signals that perturb the 11y cycle, it is not the sole driver of climate. However, that longer term trend seems a remarkably good match across most of the record.
You dived in to lambaste me not quoting you but so far you’ve avoided commenting on what I’ve shown in response to your call for people to post what they think may indicate a solar signal.
” The only conclusion that I’ve drawn from all of that is that those facts support my hypothesis that the earth has a thermostat. It’s not strong evidence, there may be other reasons, but the observations certainly support my hypothesis as a possible explanation.”
As I have repeatedly said, I think you have pointed out a key fact about tropical climate. It is remarkably stable and to a large degree probably for the reasons you suggest.
However, this applies less strictly to extra-tropical zones that do not have the same climate. They are more sensitive as I showed in detail with my volcano stack plots. So I think it would be over-doing it to suggest total thermal regulation, temperatures do change. In that graph I show how that may coincide with variations in SSN.
That would seem to be the sort of thing you have been searching high and low for, so it is odd you chose to ignore it. Perhaps you just missed it , so I’ll provide it again along with a possible explanation of how this is compatible with your hypothesis:
“The penetration depth of UV could explain how a long term signal circumvents the tropical surface feedbacks of which we are both so fond.”
Salvatore Del Prete
Observed increase in ozone in the region of the South Pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.gif
thingadonta says:
“-ultimately the weaknesses in the data (yearly accuracy, single locations such as CET rather than the whole world etc) and any background cycles, lag effects, do not allow further penetration of the solar-temperature correlation”
Nothing can characterise Maunder and Dalton better than the negative NAO episodes during each of the monthly-seasonal cold hits in the regions known to have been effected by LIA weather.
Here we are in a weak solar cycle, and CET has already fallen 0.6°C due to an increase in negative NAO conditions. And it will follow the same pattern as Gleisberg and Dalton and get much colder again from just after SC24 maximum through to around SC25 maximum. Given that this will promote a return to warm AMO between SC24&25 maximums, and initially stronger El Nino (i.e. negative NAO = weaker trade winds), I don’t think that global mean temp’s is a good measure.
Sounds good Ulric, can you post some data support that rough outline.
” I don’t think that global mean temp’s is a good measure.” Are you saying that you don’t think there is a global impact because of induced climate variations? If I’m reading you correctly you are saying there feedbacks which keep temps constant.
may be short term that could explain the attenuation of 11y signal. Long term there are changes that appear to follow SSN.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
vukcevic says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:59 am
but have found that the IDV (IHV) has sharp and distinct peak at 17.81 Bartels
There are no such peaks in either IDV or IHV. The only significant large peaks are at 10.4 yrs and 11.0 yrs, respectively. In addition, IHV has a very sharp peak at 0.5 yrs because of the well-known semiannual variation.
According to the Temperature Chart the 1950’s were a fraction of a degree different than the Dalton minimum. We know the Thames froze over during that time period and not in the 1950’s.
IMO your temperature graph is incorrect as are most that scientists use today.
Ex. In April, the temperature when the sun sets in NYC is a full 10 degrees warmer than the temperature on Long Island. I’ve personally measured this many times. What does NOAA or most scientists say the temperature difference is due to UHI?
The temperature graphs are wrong and we need to look at the big picture which shows that the Sun spot count and the temp are closely related.
Greg Goodman says:
“” I don’t think that global mean temp’s is a good measure.” Are you saying that you don’t think there is a global impact because of induced climate variations? If I’m reading you correctly you are saying there feedbacks which keep temps constant.”
I’m saying that initially the global impact to a short term drop in solar forcing, is a temperature rise, due to El Nino and a warm AMO functioning as negative feedbacks, with considerable overshoot. Both have a negative effect on upper OHC and so result in longer term cooling of global mean surface temp’s. The corollary of that is when stronger solar forcing resumes, it results in a short term drop in global temperature due to La Nina and a cooler AMO, fueling longer term global mean temp rise by recharging of the upper OHC.
“may be short term that could explain the attenuation of 11y signal.”
I think these phase shifts in the response to solar cycles need to be taken into account:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669182
Toto You quoted an earlier comment I made .giving a link. to one of Leif’s presentations. I had inadvertently posted the wrong link. A corrected post follows.
“The 10:30 AM post should read
“Leif – checked your link http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“
Heres quote I would cherry pick -( I especially like Fig 5 )
“One does notice a certain “regularity” in the 10Be ice core variations, however. In Figure 5 we show as blue lines, the envelope of the “minima” in the 10Be cyclic intensity variations.
This “envelope” has long term periodic maxima occurring at ~1685, 1815 and 1895 A.D. This
type of variation could possibly be related to long term 10Be production changes. Indeed 22 year
averages (filters) of the 10Be concentration, which smooth out the shorter term cyclic variations,
show broad maxima at approximately these times (McCracken, et al., 2004). These times also,
more or less, coincide with the times of maxima of 14C concentration in tree rings”
On this basis just connect the minima of the HMF on page 11 at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669289
to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed. I’m happy to cherry pick your slide here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
There is see some periods in-phase some out of phase. Maybe with red/green 3D glasses they line up better 😉
Toto and other readers I’m sorry again .I keep managing to post the wrong Leif link .This is the one I want See page 11 to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed.in the HMF data
http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Greg Goodman says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 pm
So simplistic statements like a watt is a watt and all forcing are created equal are probably inaccurate and misleading.
lsvalgaard says: “Probably not, as the Earth’s energy budget is counted solely in watts:”
http://www.leif.org/research/Earth-Energy-Budget.png
see http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing
Regardless of whether you understand this, your ‘scale adjustment’ would apply to any energy absorbed.
====
I talk about the differene of absorption at the ocean surface and you reply about TAO.
You are a master ( or probably PhD ) in obfuscation and missing the point in order to bluster your way through. Of course all watts are equal when auditing TOA energy budget.
Let’s try again without taking part of what I said out of context. :
==
Well a watt is a watt, but a LWIR is not a SWUV.
Putting to one side arguments about whether well-ventilated water can be warmed by incident IR, it will only heat the immediate surface and will be subject to negative feedbacks. Evaporation, convection, tropical storms etc.
Volcanoes and albedo will affect SW, CO2, not so much ( not sure about your Jupiter shine ).
So simplistic statements like a watt is a watt and all forcing are created equal are probably inaccurate and misleading.
==
UV penetrates the ocean surface , IR and LWIR will affect the surface and be subject to strong -‘ve feedbacks which shorter wavelengths will not.
So some watts will somewhat affect the long term deeper temperature, other watts somewhat less, being transferred rapidly to the atmosphere on their ultimate journey out of the system.
So, while all watts are equal in TAO budget, they are not all equal in the effect they have on SST.
Like many in higher (or lower) education you seem to be used browbeating undergrads with a smart quip. You may find many this tactic less effective with grown-ups.
Try being intelligent instead of trying to be smart, I’m sure you are capable, even if it’s less fun.
Leif and Willis are all agenda. They have yet to present any conclusive proof to support any of the positions they have taken. Nada.
In contrast I and the many others who agree with me have presented data over and over again which shows there are solar/climate connections and this is going to all happen once again during the course of this current prolonged solar minimum.
Once again I see many of my post did not make it. Maybe they were to much to handle. Can’t get certain people upset.
REPLY: No, it is because you are becoming a troll, doing serial taunting instead of engaging in productive conversation. That’s a fast track to being banned if you keep it up. The ball is in your court. You can either a. engage in dialog without taunting and calling names, or b. Continue taunting/name calling and find yourself to be a permanent resident of the troll bin. Either way, feel free to be as upset as you wish but for now since most of your posts are in the “b.” category, your posts are being moderated. -Anthony
Dr Norman Page says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:29 am
This is the one I want See page 11 to see the recent solar grand maximum and the Dalton and Maunder Minima very nicely displayed.in the HMF data
http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
That page 11 is there to show the failing of the model. If you want to see the output of a better model, look to page 6, where you can see that all minima have the same HMF and that the variation on top of that base level is closely given simply as a function of the SSN: B = 4 + 0.318 SQRT(SSN). Note that there is no modern solar grand maximum.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:35 am
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Greg Goodman says:
June 25, 2014 at 9:55 pm
So, while all watts are equal in TOA budget, they are not all equal in the effect they have on SST.
1) the sea surface temperature varies closely as the atmospheric temperature
2) the the UV that penetrates to the surface is a small part of the over all UV
3) variations in that UV follow closely that of TSI [or the sunspot number if you will]
4) that UV is a small part of TSI
5) you seem to think that it is only that tiny UV that warms the sea water. That is wrong.
Changes in UV during the LIA due to changes in the Sun would be vanishingly small compared to changes brought on by volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections. In addition, equatorial eruptions have been implicated in Walker Circulation diminution which would set up a (triggered?) El Nino event or make one in process much worse, prompting yet another UV barrier, thick clouds. These conditions have been observed and documented, as well as modeled. Solar sourced changes in UV clearly would not be a prime suspect in the volcanically active period we are discussing. Intrinsic barriers to the entire energy spectrum from the Sun would be, given their far greater capacity to let in, absorb, and reflect the solar energy spectrum.
New papers from Lockwood will severely challenge Svalgaard, Livingston & Penn along with WUWT. These papers are not getting a look in or mention on WUWT.
REPLY: Well if you want to bring something up, provide a citation/link, don’t just whine about it. – Anthony
Why not post them Anthony?
Willis Eschenbach: Yep. Tree rings. The signal doesn’t show up in the temperature, it doesn’t show up in sea levels, it doesn’t show up in river flows … but according to milodon, there it is in the tree rings. Chilean tree rings.
And how many trees were analyzed to bring out this solar effect?
Well … um … not to put too fine a point on it, they analyzed one tree.
One.
Tree.
I find this astounding. After all his faffing about, milodon has finally revealed the secret best evidence, the data to convince the unbelievers, and it is …
One.
Chilean.
Tree.
Tears of laughter. Honest.
Till next time, keep up the good work.
yours truly,
Matthew
From Dr. Strangelove on June 26, 2014 at 1:01 am:
TSI * (1 – albedo) gives you radiative forcing as that is what is absorbed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us the Earth’s average surface temperature should be 255K, -18°C. As Earth’s average surface temperature is considerably warmer, pushing it through S-B will yield an erroneously high TOA radiative forcing amount.
An equation should change surface temperatures? Are you a climate modeler?
An equation requires a counter force?
A truly scientific analytical mind would first make the observation “the (surface) atmosphere is not warming.” By default this indicates there is no net increase or decrease in (surface) atmospheric energy content, sources and drains are balanced. Nothing happening here, move on.
But Trenberth believes there must be an imbalance, energy content must rise, there must be global warming, and rising surface temperatures are the marquee proof. Thus he departs from scientific thinking. He believes the excess is there somewhere so he looks for it. By process of elimination, he arrives at the deep ocean as where the excess he is certain is somewhere must be hiding, as he’s run out of sufficiently-large places to look, and cannot measure the heat content there to eliminate it as a possibility.
Therefore the scientific argument would be: As prevailing theory indicates there shall be increasing heat content in the climate systems, yet no increases of sufficient net magnitude can be located in the climate systems excluding the deep oceans, either the remaining excess heat content is being absorbed by the deep oceans or prevailing theory is incorrect.
That is far from what I am saying. But it is easier for you to say that than to admit your misunderstandings.
With the correct geometry. Eratosthenes assumed a sphere.
I quoted that part of the Eratosthenes’ Wikipedia entry for you:
CAMELS.
When you use shoddy numbers and get shoddy results, that is your fault for not getting better numbers.
It introduces error, which may be acceptable for the accuracy and perhaps precision required.
Eratosthenes came up with a clever method that gave a good enough number for scholars to have a working estimate of the size of the Earth. Why must you photoshop the apple?
There were still standards. Governments learned the value of such for commerce, extending to multinational standards, which was in their self interest. Egyptians would not like getting paid 13% less silver for their grain because they received Babylonian talents of silver which were 13% smaller than Egyptian talents.
Scientists of the past made fairly accurate measurements for their time. Reference standards like the meter and kilogram improved science. Nowadays the trend is towards “field reproducible” standards, by defining seconds with atomic reactions and length as a function of light speed in a vacuum.
Scientifically you would say: “I said enough on these matters for now.” It may freely be assumed you will eventually say more things on these and other subjects, barring the possibility that immediately after posting you promptly committed suicide or otherwise quickly died.
But trust me. Anthony is A-OK. However Wally and the leaf blower might be under the bus.
That is all they are Anthony bags of wind.
If I had them on a level balanced site I would show how much manipulation is going on with these two with the data.
But Anthony can not part from these two. You need to.
From kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:54 am above:
Going to disagree with you there:
That equation is ONLY valid for a uniform sphere, of uniform material, at equilibrium, in a perfect vacuum, radiation losses being the ONLY heat transfer mechanism for heat losses, all heat being lost into a “perfect cold” perfectly dark black-body sphere surrounding the object.
That equation is at best an approximation, but is not valid for the earth. Yes, it is used by the CAGW crowd because that IS the level of their approximations they need to make their imprecise models almost work under assumed conditions and approximated outcomes.
This is one of the papers I refer to when looking at temperature reconstructions. It includes %certainty with regard to potential error bars. It’s cream white to dark brown gives a visual picture of outlying temperature reconstruction values that is worth considering as we discuss the span of time encompassing the LIA.
The paper also includes using volcanic forcing in models. The volcanic forcing algorithm is based on sulfur flux causing a decrease in solar insolation.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.envsci.rutgers.edu%2Fpdf%2FGao2008JD010239.pdf&ei=DUasU7PnKYaeyASKm4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNEsYW1lx-Dpn_rn3ncKWQhQ5xOglw&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA019973/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA019972/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA019970/abstract
http://www.ann-geophys.net/32/383/2014/angeo-32-383-2014.html
climatereason says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm
This is why it is so valuable to quote what I said, and I thank you for doing so. It was valuable in this case because I used it to look at what I said … and as I had remembered, I’d said it to tonyb, and not to you.
Best regards,
w.
climatereason says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Dear heavens. After posting the above, I went to look at the rest of your post … and I find that this is actually tonyb posting under yet another alias. What, the previous disguise wasn’t good enough for you? You hadn’t screwed around enough, you needed a new sock puppet?
Tony, if you want to discuss this, start over and post under your own damn name. I’m done with this hide and seek. Now that you’ve suckered me by adopting yet another disguise, I’m done with it.
If you post under your own name here, I’m happy to discuss things with you. Posting under one alias, and signing it with yet another alias, is not on. I’m glad to discuss it. I’m not glad to be suckered by your disguises. Post like a man, sign it with your own name, stop trying to hide your identity, and I’m more than happy to have all the discussion you want.
See, Tony, now the problem is whenever I see someone with a new alias pop up, if he sounds even remotely like you I have to consider, “Is this just another sock puppet for Tony what’shisname”?
Is that your goal? Because that’s what’s happening.
w.
The point of all of this is the reconstruction of TSI by Lean is very close to that of Lockwood’s solar reconstruction. If correct it will show that the Sun has had a bigger variance in TSI over the sunspot record that is far greater than the 0.1% .
Which has been one of my contentions all along. Time will tell.
I would challenge this long-used truism of geography: Granted, of course, this calculation was made to one degree of accuracy or another. We know it was made.
Now, the real question.
How many people world-wide, in positions of trust, power, knowledge, responsibility, influence and control KNEW IT, USED IT, and put their kingdom’s money power and ships to use with it PRIOR TO the Portuguese voyages down south on the African coast, or Christian Spain west towards (what they thought was) India?
We do know Columbus was wrong about his assumption of diameter, but where is the evidence that “everybody” knew he was wrong? (That “anybody” knew he was wrong?) Court gossip recordings? Other contemporary writings? Or is this “fact” just “conventional wisdom gossip” promoted now by biased (anti-Columbus! anti-Euro-centric) revisionists? You will find nothing in any texts in wide use across Europe using this diameter. I dispute the conclusion that “the earth was known to be a sphere” if – in use – nobody did anything with the supposed knowledge. Where are any other contemporary writings citing this diameter, and disagreeing with the thousands of quotes and millions of classes across every city in Europe since the Romans that taught ONLY the other Greek classic thoughts on natural philosophy?
The Chinese made long voyages down towards IndoChina and the western/Indian islands, but one all-powerful bureaucrat (echoing today’s “consensus of conventional bureaucracy ” perhaps) decided that the government did not want to pursue this exploration, and so they turned back inside their rules and inside their chosen culture.
The true value of Columbus’ voyage was the fact that his sponsors went back. They returned to America, to South America, to the Caribbean islands, and did something with their knowledge.
Leif, time after time, when reading model results, I see that TSI values are integral to the dynamic/algorithmic components that produces the suite of model output. Millions, perhaps billions, of dollars have been spent on these models and the use of them to make policy. Do you have any thoughts about how these various CO2 models that include TSI to “get it right” would change if they had to use the corrected reconstruction value? I would also imagine these researchers would really not want to face the issue of having to start all over again.
From RACookPE1978 on June 26, 2014 at 9:13 am:
Ah hell, and here I thought S-B worked for cavity radiation as well!
And I was first taught that in public school, so I can’t demand a refund!
Nikola Milovic says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:47 pm
Fortunately, this is 2014, and every bit of the information you need is available from JPL, the NASA jet propulsion laboratory. Their “Horizons” system is here.
In addition to having an HTML interface to allow you to browse and look for data, you can also access it directly through telnet or via an api. See here for more information.
All the best,
w.
lsvagaard says: “5) you seem to think that it is only that tiny UV that warms the sea water. That is wrong.”
Thanks,
No, I don’t think that, its a progessive change right across the spectrum, depth of penetration is a fn of wavelength.It’s not black and white, and there’s not cut off.
The point is different frequencies will more or less deeply . Those that heat the first few microns will mainly contribute to evaporation and not have much effect on the SST. Those then get deeper will not directly cause evaporation but will contribute to a long term rise in SST.
That heat will mix, diffuse, disperse with, for a simplistic model, a relaxation response. The time constant depending upon the reservoir they interact with.
You said earlier solar activity rose 300 years ago and temperatures have been rising since.
And if we apply a relatively short relaxation response to SSN what do we see:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Ironically this is not that dissimilar to what Lean et al were incorrectly doing to TSI and is what your more logical TSI reconstruction gives via a relaxation response in the oceans.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Thanks, Salvatore. Perhaps you didn’t notice that I asked for your best evidence, not for all of your evidence. Please pick the one study you think is the very strongest, let me know what it is, and I’m happy to take a look.
w.
The opinions could not be more diverse. From those who believe in AGW theory to those who oppose it, to those who believe in a solar /climate connection to those who oppose.
What makes this time period for climate so wonderful is nature is giving us a very special opportunity through the current prolonged solar minimum combined with increasing levels of CO2 for us to find out through observation and collection of data where the truth lies.
sturgishooper says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Say what? As usual, you provide assertions but no links, quotes or other means for me or anyone to determine which study you are referring to. It’s just more of you running off at the mouth.
Provide the link, sturgis, I’m more than happy to look at it. Be a bit cautious in the choice, however, and learn from the fate of milodon above …
w.
Regarding SSNs and the AMO.
It would make sense that SSNs would precede warming if there were already an underlying warming trend such as that shown in the Gulf Stream transport reconstruction of Lund et al 2006.
Multiple weak solar cycles would have a more obvious effect than a single one if the effect were to change the ocean heat transport by changing the volume instead of the temperature per volume. This would deplete the ocean heat content during the winter while having little effect on summer SSTs where the heat transport is already in excess of that lost to the atmosphere.
The ocean heat transport to the North Atlantic has gone down over the last decade. The ocean heat content of the North Atlantic has gone down since 2007. It could be because of the weak solar cycle or it could be internal variability. It is coincidental that a long term trend in ocean heat transport began at about 1775 and Knudsen et al 2014 claim a 0.83 correlation between the AMO as reconstructed from tree rings and SSNs given a 5 year lag time and with volcanic forcing taken into account since 1775.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Thanks, Matthew. I looked at that joke of an insurance industry puff piece when Salvatore posted it, and I couldn’t bear to answer Salvatore, I knew I’d blow it. Your approach is much better.
w.
Yuppers. 8<)
But, at the 1/10 of one degree levels, those "little" approximations will matter. Tremendously.
And, not to make you feel bad, but the esteemed University of Notre Dame actually used your simplification of the S-B Equation on one of their mid-term exam questions in a climatology class to calculate the heat balance of an iceberg floating in the Arctic Ocean in summertime: No equilibrium, no vacuum, heat transfer by conduction, evaporation/sublimation, short-wave and long-wave radiaiton not in balance, radiating into a real-world cloudy/clear sky real sky mix NOT at a -273 degree C temperature with real humidity and air masses interfering (but NOT included). Oh, and the exam used the wrong albedo, the wrong emissivities of ice and ocean water, and the wrong shape factor.
Now, for an isolated, half-insulated perfectly flat pure-water iceberg in space with a perfect cover over exactly half of a perfectly flat surface in a perfectly black space cavity perpendicular to be perfectly insolated by perfectly theoretical solar radiation in a perfectly round orbit about a perfectly uniform solar field of perfectly average conditions over a perfect 24-hour/day of no night ….
Eh, SSNs would not have to precede SSTs if there were already a warming trend in my above comment.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm
My commentary is, please take it somewhere other than this thread if you wish to discuss your theory. Your theory may be interesting. It may even be right. But this is a thread about the Maunder and the sunspot cycles, not a place for you to expound on your understanding of climate. Please take that somewhere else.
Thanks,
w.
“…. sign it with your own name, stop trying to hide your identity”
TonyB has been posting for years as “climatereason” , it the name of his wp site. It’s not deceit, “hiding” or sock puppetry, it’s that once WP has you logged-in, having done something on your own WP, it’s easy to post without realising here.
I often get caught out and only realise once it goes up, with no preview or edit, that I’ve posted as “climategrog”.
That does not mean he’s less of a “man” than you are. Don’t get on your identity high horse over it.
Having said that there are several good reasons for not using a “real name” on the internet and I respect anyone who makes that choice. I don’ t see it as an indication of the size or number of cojones. involved. However, abusing people from the safety of a Macbook probably is. ( I’m sure you don’t need to dig out a quote. )
http://www.isac.cnr.it/climstor/EVENTS/usa-ita/shindell.pdf
Willis let’s use this for the sake of argument as best evidence.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:53 am
Do you have any thoughts about how these various CO2 models that include TSI to “get it right” would change if they had to use the corrected reconstruction value? I would also imagine these researchers would really not want to face the issue of having to start all over again.
since the solar effect is so small, using a better reconstruction is not going to change anything significantly. So this is not an issue for the ‘researchers’. Of course, it is a different story for all the armchair sun-enthusiasts who assume [against evidence] that the solar effect is huge.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:04 am
And if we apply a relatively short relaxation response to SSN what do we see
Apart from this falling apart the last 30-40 years, the rest could just be a circular reasoning as you pick a relaxation response to produce the fit.
Those then get deeper will not directly cause evaporation but will contribute to a long term rise in SST.
As whatever gets deeper scales directly with TSI and the sunspot number we only have to consider those variables.
Konrad says, quoted in full:
June 26, 2014 at 2:08 am
Say what? Are you drunk-blogging or something? That makes no sense at all.
w.
From Greg Goodman on June 26, 2014 at 10:04 am:
I see in http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ssn-exp60mo_hadsst32.png on my laptop monitor you have displayed 5 3/16″ of SSN to show your fit to only 1 13/16″ of mangled SST, thus only 35% of the SSN range is utilized, 65% of your graph is extraneous.
Thus it seems most likely you are either lazy, or trying to prevent the closer scrutiny of your “fit” that might result from only using the relevant SSN data for that size graph. Both together is a possibility.
Note those measurements were made with a new Stanley 12′ tape measure and my eyes without magnification, so my estimate of the percentage of total meaninglessness of your beloved creation may not have your preferred levels of accuracy and precision.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:50 am
So the answer is b), you’re too much of a jerk to think that my request to quote me applies to you, you think that you just get to make bald unsupported assertions and we’re supposed to believe them … got it.
Next contestant, please …
w.
My speculation has been bandied about in the literature regarding longer-term effects of sulfur injections into the stratosphere via “triggered to trend towards a cooler Earth” oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections. At issue is the one Bob Tisdale is vocal over as well as myself. Current general circulation and global warming models do not do a good job of incorporating equatorial El Nino/La Nina discharge/recharge processes and subsequent circulation of affected ocean temperatures. The following paper is of interest to my speculation and offers both “what if” and “can’t be” sides of the debate. It also includes the top tier geoengineering aspect of cooling down the Earth to combat CO2 warming (I have to bite my lip to keep from laughing over that one). But yes, the proposal is to inject sulfur compounds into the stratosphere.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFkQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdstate.edu%2Fchem%2Ffaculty%2Fjihong-cole-dai%2Fupload%2FVolcanoes-and-Climate-10-1002-wcc-76.pdf&ei=DUasU7PnKYaeyASKm4GwDw&usg=AFQjCNFX9Cp1blMitxHHZ9OF58BphrazgQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw
lsvalgaard says:
……
Dr. Svalgaard here are some numbers:
Bartel rotation = 27.0 days
Carrington Rotation = 27.2753 days
I would suggest that the solar rotation = 27.851 days
(say as inferred from the geomagnetic field ?)
This would imply ~13.1146 (magnetic) instead of ~13.5278 Bartel rotation per annum.
I do not expect you to agree, also not knowing the effect on the ‘solar wind’s sector magnetic structure’ (Svalgaard-Wilcox 1970s) (drift?)
but it would explain some of the instrumental records inconsistencies.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:13 am
Thanks, RA, but I’m not following you. What kadaka said is that the energy that is not reflected is absorbed … if that is not true, as you say, then where is it going? I mean, if it’s not reflected and it’s not absorbed, where is it?
w.
Willis
As they say, context is everything. After reading my post you must have realised that the only person it could possibly be that was replying to your specific points was me. There is also my name clearly at the bottom.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669400
How on EARTH could you fail to notice it was me bearing in mind the specific context AND that my name was there at the bottom?
Suckered you? For Goodness sake. As someone correctly remarked earlier on in this thread, the address details are Automatically filled in when logging in.
On my laptop it fills in this name. On my IPad- for reasons best know to itself- it fills in ‘climate reason’, my website. However I ALWAYS sign my name ‘tonyb’ at the foot of all my responses so there can be no doubt.
I am sorry that you appear to have got so easily.confused. I note that you have not responded to my offer but instead have gone off at a tangent.
I am out of here. Goodbye.
tonyb (climate reason)
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:27 am
I don’t care if he’s posted his whole life as climatereason. At this point, I’ve been suckered twice by his aliases, and I’m done with it. If he wants to talk to me (and I’m more than happy to do so, he’s a sharp guy), he can do so under his own name or not at all.
And I have no interest in discussing the question with you or with anyone but Tony. Why should I talk to the monkey when I can talk to the organ grinder? If he wants to explain or provide reasons, I’m glad to discuss it. But unless he’s appointed you as his spokesmodel, your opinion is irrelevant.
w.
vukcevic says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:42 am
Bartel rotation = 27.0 days
Carrington Rotation = 27.2753 days
I would suggest that the solar rotation = 27.851 days
(say as inferred from the geomagnetic field ?)
The Bartels rotation rate probably refers to a persistent structure in the deeper layers and is a real physical quantity.
The Carrington rotation rate refers to the average sunspot rotation rate [averaged over all latitudes] at the time Carrington made his observations and is not a physical entity.
The rotation rate of the corona [which is what controls the HMF period at Earth] is a mixture of the Bartels rotation rate and another system rotating at 28.5 days so your 27.851 days is not a physical entity, i.e. the Sun does not rotate at that rate.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:28 am
Thanks for that, Salvatore. Hang on, let me take a look …
…
OK, been there, read that. Where shall I start?
First, it’s not a study of any kind. It’s the visuals for some kind of presentation. As a result, and as we’d expect, it doesn’t contain a scrap of actual data, or a link to any data. No surprise, usually those things don’t go with graphical presentation visuals.
Second, it’s models top to bottom. As I said above, there is no question that model results will contain a solar signal. Hang on, let me get the exact quote … OK, here’s what I said in the head post:
Unfortunately, you’ve fallen into that exact trap. Yes, Salvatore, model results do indeed show a solar imprint … and that means absolutely nothing.
So there’s nothing of note in your citation, Salvatore. Oh, they make a couple of claims regarding the Maunder, but a) no data, b) no code, c) they used the old, incorrect TSI reconstruction, the one that shows a huge gain in TSI since the Maunder, d) they used either models or Michael Mann’s bogus and long discredited proxies.
As a result, their claims about the Maunder have no solidity and no validity at all. It’s just another pathetic modeling exercise being passed off as something related to the real world.
I’m gonna let go of this piece of junk right there, Salvatore, as the rest of my opinions on that piece of Shindell-Michael Mann-Gavin Schmidt model-based fantasies would not be fit for a family blog …
Let me say, however, that if that’s your best evidence about the Maunder, I don’t ever want to see the second best.
Regards,
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Sorry, but that’s just another computer modeling exercise masquerading as observational data. You’ve been fooled again. Computer models do show a solar effect, because they are just linear transformation machines—they take the solar inputs, change their shape, and present them as temperature outputs.
And if you seriously believe that those model results mean anything at all about whether the climate shows a solar imprint the same way that the model results do … well, as the man said, if that’s the case you’re “far beyond my poor power to add or detract” from your lack of comprehension.
w.
Willis says “So the answer is b), you’re too much of a jerk to think that ”
Well there you go bravely mouthing off from the safety of your laptop again, whilst accusing others of not being “man enough” because of a login error.
Still, I suppose that’s the best way to act tough at your age.
Now what the subject of this thread again? Oh yes….
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:28 am
http://www.isac.cnr.it/climstor/EVENTS/usa-ita/shindell.pdf
Willis let’s use this for the sake of argument as best evidence.
##########################
“Next, please don’t fall into the trap of considering climate model results as data. The problem, as I have shown in a number of posts, is that the global temperature outputs of the modern crop of climate models are nothing but linear transforms of their inputs. And since the models include solar variations among their inputs, those solar variations will indeed appear in the model outputs. If you think that is evidence for solar forcing of temperature … well, this is not the thread for you. So no climate model results, please.”
Now can someone ANYONE please demonstrate that they can READ, Understand, and comply with Willis’ simple request.
Here is the upshot. Nobody who believes that the solar minimums cool the planet has taken a systematic look at their OWN beliefs. They think they are experts on the matter, and have forgetten what feynman said: science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.. and they have fooled themselves.
It’s really simple
lsvalgaard : “…a mixture of the Bartels rotation rate and another system rotating at 28.5 days ”
What is this “other” rotation period called? What is the most accurate figure for it?
I’m sure this has been noted but it is curious that this very close the lunar anomalistic month: 27.5545
Now obviously the moon is not causing the rotation but maybe whatever determines the anomalistic month is also affecting that rotation.
lsvalgaard says: June 26, 2014 at 11:10 am
……..
I understand and accept your point, but what I found in number of data files (from various geomagnetic related records is ~ 27.851 days). I will also look at the Kyoto dst data, one year of daily numbers should be suffice.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:30 am
————————————
“That makes no sense at all.”
It will, but it may take a few years 😉
Ultimately everything you are doing in these innumerable “it isn’t the sun threads” is a dead end.
Just as I said many moons ago –
“if you don’t understand how the sun heats the oceans, you can’t understand how the sun effects climate.”
For the question –
“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling of the oceans?”
– there can only be one right answer. And for any climate question, including the issue of solar influence, there is no way forward until you have the right answer.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:29 am
lsvalgaard : “…a mixture of the Bartels rotation rate and another system rotating at 28.5 days ”
What is this “other” rotation period called? What is the most accurate figure for it?
It does not have a distinct name. 28.5 days is close enough. For what it is worth, it is also the rotation period of the radiative inner core [which has rigid rotation a bit slower that the differentially rotating outer layers]. I don’t know if this is important, but it is suggestive of a connection. The discovery paper is here http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf see in particular Figure 5. The data since the 1970s fully confirms this picture.
I’m sure this has been noted but it is curious that this very close the lunar anomalistic month: 27.5545
A little care: the periods quoted above are the synodic periods, i.e. as seen from the Earth. The synodic period is about 2 days longer than the real rotation period [the sidereal period] because the Earth moves around the Sun and thus the Sun has to ‘catch up’.
Now obviously the moon is not causing the rotation but maybe whatever determines the anomalistic month is also affecting that rotation.
I am pretty sure it does not [for many reasons].
sturgishooper says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Dear heavens, sturgis, this again? Did you not see what happened to milodon? You and others have already tried this on. Let me recap the bidding.
First, I NEVER said that the interest was “only modern”. That is your fantasy. To the contrary, to date I’m the only one who has provided citations for pre-76 studies.
I provided 3 pre-1976 citations discussing the connection between the Maunder and temperature, and I issued this challenge:
In response to my challenge, milodon claimed that finding such references was “easy” … but to date he hasn’t found even one. Oh, he pointed to a reference to one of the three citations I’d already linked to, but that was all he could find … easy? I don’t think so. So he’s shown that he’s all hat and no cattle.
Now, it’s your turn. Since you claim you can do what milodon failed at, then it’s time to back up your big mouth with actual links to pre-1976 studies with a discussion of Maunder and cool temperatures. Put up or shut up, sturgis. It’s time to pay the piper and find the actual data to back up your fatuous idea.
And don’t stop with one study, I’ve already shown that there are three, finding one more proves nothing. The Eddy paper has been cited 1700 times, that’s what I called the the “modern interest”. You’ll need a good number of pre-1976 citations to show that there was significant prior interest in the subject as you claim.
I’m waiting … your move …
w.
climatereason says:
“How on EARTH could you fail to notice it was me..”
That’s what I thought. You clearly stated in comment above that you wrote the long thaw article from which Willis quoted your words from. I see no fair reason to refer to you as anonymous, let alone as a jerk. Tony, your work makes data available that is vital to investigating natural variation, and you are the only one doing it. I’m sure that your name will be around for a very long time.
“Thus it seems most likely you are either lazy, or trying to prevent the closer scrutiny of your “fit” that might result from only using the relevant SSN data for that size graph. Both together is a possibility.”
Listen kakada, if you can avoid being pissy and just ask for what it is you think should be bigger or whatever it would be more productive. I can produce a SVG image if you can suggest somewhere to drop it, then you can zoom in to your heart’s content.
I showed the full length of SSN data to demonstrate the long term rise which was half the point and scaled the two to fit SST to it. Your suggested motives are just because you are feeling bitchy, nothing to do with why I scaled the graph that way.
Now if you’d like a close a look a some part just say what you want so that I don’t get all lazy and produce something else not to you taste. Or suggest where I can drop you ans SVG file, wordpress won’t take them.
For the record, I scaled the relaxation calculation by 1/90 to match the SST variability.
vukcevic says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:36 am
I understand and accept your point, but what I found in number of data files (from various geomagnetic related records is ~ 27.851 days). I will also look at the Kyoto dst data, one year of daily numbers should be suffice.
What you find by mixing oranges and apples is some artificial period which is about the average of 27 and 28.5 days. One year of data is never enough.
Regarding the reconstruction attempts and the seemingly incongruent nature of different proxies, I have some thoughts. This is especially the case for warming and cooling periods and could be what is causing such a spread in these reconstructions.
Re: Oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected systems and their warming/cooling patterns. We have seen that the globe responds to these teleconnections in patterns, IE some areas are warmer and some are colder, and some are dryer and some are wetter. We know this pretty well about El Nino/La Nina and the Arctic Oscillation. Other large systems have their unique pattern of temperature/weather pattern variations. In addition, when oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected systems are not in phase with each other one kind of pattern develops. When they are in phase, another kind of pattern develops. The point is that if you pick a proxy from the warm location of the pattern, your cooling will not show up. But that is not to say that warming in that location is evidence against a cooling period. It could be part of the expected pattern. So I don’t get my knickers in a twist over incongruent reconstructions. That’s why I like the cream to dark brown combined reconstruction referred to in an earlier link I provided. That spread may indeed be showing us an oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected “pattern” or set of patterns that would help us understand why it got colder/warmer.
“The discovery paper is here http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf see in particular Figure 5. The data since the 1970s fully confirms this picture.”
Thanks I read that later.
It looks like sturgishooper has taken his ball and gone home wrt to the Socratic Method we started on. I interpret that as meaning that he has seen the light and no longer object to my reconstruction. Good for him.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:48 am
“The data since the 1970s fully confirms this picture.”
Thanks I read that later.
A modern update is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
[from a seminar I gave At Lockheed-Martin].
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:44 am (replying to)
Thanks, RA, but I’m not following you. What kadaka said is that the energy that is not reflected is absorbed … if that is not true, as you say, then where is it going? I mean, if it’s not reflected and it’s not absorbed, where is it?
You are correct – but only for an isolated body in a perfect infinite vacuum inside a perfect black body. The S-B equation cannot be used for a body of real-world ice floating in a real-world ocean at a real-world latitude radiated by a real-world sun beneath a real-world atmosphere transmitting only a portion of a annually-varying solar radiation that varies day-by-day.
Heat transfer is always instantaneous: The amount of long-wave radiation emitted at any given point int time is dependent on the instantaneous surface temperature, the actual emissivity at that temperature, and the area emitting (the local geometry immediately above the surface). The long-wave energy absorbed is proportional to the albedo at that received radiation frequency, the angle of emission/absorption direction of the ray coming into that surface, the temperature (energy) of the body emitting the received radiation, etc. The rest of the energy absorbed can be evaporated out, conducted out, convected away (by air AND by water), sublimated away (if the ice is topside), conducted to/from the iceberg interior, or increased by the condensation of excess humidity above the surface onto the surface. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the various energy transfers can (and always do!) go on at the same time in different directions. Thermal equilibrium is rarely – if ever! – actually achieved in the real world.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:55 am
Thermal equilibrium is rarely – if ever! – actually achieved in the real world.
The question is not if the equation and assumptions are strictly correct, but if they are good enough for the purpose [which I think they are – show me with experimental data if I am wrong ]
lsvalgaard says:
===
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:04 am
And if we apply a relatively short relaxation response to SSN what do we see
Apart from this falling apart the last 30-40 years, the rest could just be a circular reasoning as you pick a relaxation response to produce the fit.
===
Why is that circular? Yes I did an approximate fitting of the time-constant variable to demonstrate that a relaxation to a SSN induced change could produce something close to long term SST variability. That’s not circular..
Neither does it “fall apart”. There is a progessive divergence near the end of a long record. I did not hide , crop it off of blend in a thermometer record, I drew attention to it. I estimate it diverges from about 1988-1990.
Now raises the question why surface temps are running flat when SSN is dropping. Either it’s totally unrelated or there’s another factor(s) at a play. Seems a bit late for AGW but maybe it could brought in somewhere, or maybe there is anther reason for extra net TOA energy since that time , like: 1.8 W/m2 of extra SW:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png?w=843
lsvalgaard,
“Put your money where your mouth is, I will bet you 200 dollars US that in ten years TSI will be at least 1 watt/Square Meter below the last minimum.
I hope I live long enough to collect.”
I hope we both do so I can collect, either PMOD is wrong or you’re contention that SSN can be directly translated to TSI is wrong, which is probably correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1980/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/mean:12/normalise
climatereason says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:52 am
I read only far enough to check the quote. It’s always the first thing I do, to make sure the person is quoting me correctly, and that they are responding to something I said to them, and that the quote is not taken out of context.
But when I checked the quote, I saw that I hadn’t been responding to some new person posting as “climatereason”, I’d been responding to “tonyb”.
At that point I stopped reading, since obviously there had been some major confusion, and I don’t have time for reading confused threads. I noted the problem in my comment, and then moved on to the next comment … but as you say …
… at which point, of course, I noticed the signature at the bottom of the comment. However, it was NOT “[your] name clearly at the bottom”, as you fatuously claim.
It was just your other alias.
And since I’d already been fooled by that other alias, I realized that I’d been fooled again, and responded in my comment.
Oh, I see. It’s my fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are using two aliases. It’s because I’m “easily confused”.
Finally, I never responded to your “offer” because I never read your “offer”. When someone is screwing me around by using two aliases, I fear their comment goes unread. And now you’ve come back, told me I’m “easily confused”, claimed I’m being unresponsive to whatever your “offer” might be, and once again, you’re “out of here” … like it’s all my fault.
As I said quite clearly in my response, Tony …
So your claim that I’m being unresponsive and I’ve gone off on a tangent is simply not true. I have overlooked the fact that I’ve been fooled twice by your aliases, and said that if you post under your own name I’m happy to respond and discuss these issues with you. And I am.
However, blaming the fact that you are posting under two different aliases on some fault in WordPress or blaming it on your iPad won’t cut it. If you aren’t smart enough to figure out how to post as “Tony Brown”, I’m not interested. Seriously. I’ve told you I’ll discuss things with you if you post under your own name. I’m done with trying to guess what your new alias might be.
Look, Tony, I’m not happy that this has gone all pear-shaped, but truly, I don’t even make any attempt to connect an alias with a real person, or even more so, with another alias. Not enough hours in the day. I had no idea that tonyb was Tony Brown, and even less idea that “climaterealists” or “climatereason” or whatever your other alias is was actually tonyb who is actually Tony Brown. Other people’s worlds don’t revolve around you, my friend.
So I repeat my offer. Post as Tony Brown and I’m happy to discuss the science. Post as climatereason or tonyb, and you’re talking to the hand …
w.
Sure – Easy example, though as always, an incomplete example.
Essentially “all” thermal energy received on earth (as a sphere) is received as IR radiation from the sun, but – as you confirmed several months ago, the solar energy received at TOA (top of atmosphere) as a good approximation of day-of-year (DOY) is:
TOA (DOY) = TSI_average_year) x (1+ cos (DOY-3)/365)
So it TOA = a varying amount varies between 1310 watts/m^2 (early July) up to 1410 watts/m^2 in Jan 3.
Northern hemisphere radiation varies even more – maximizing in summer this week (the solstice) and minimizing in late December. But, actual NH temperatures peak 4-6 weeks later in late July-first of August. NOT at the peak of radiation, and NOT at the highest solar elevation angles or length of day. Coldest NH days are after the peak of solar TOA AND 2 months AFTER the minimum solar elevation angle.
Since longwave radiation emitted is a function of actual instantaneous temperature of the emitting surface, emitted radiation is of course immediately proportional to the thermal energy (temperature) (Tkelvin)^4 .
From this, emitted radiation is NEVER equal at ANY time of year to received radiation. In EVERY case – even at the whole-earth level on a total-over-the-average-day level, you have to include thermal lag and thermal transfer (hot areas to cold areas) to get a total heat transfer. And the “hot areas (because they are eventually radiating to a near-perfect space at 0.3 K) will always dominate the longwave radiation loss total.
For example, an open ocean Arctic at 4 degrees C radiates to a cloudy atmosphere at -30 degrees C. How much less energy is lost by radiation from a ice-covered arctic at -20 degrees C?
Look at ice areas for a different thermal “un-equilibrium” example: Maximum arctic sea ice extents are the first 2 weeks in April – well AFTER even the coldest days of the year, well after the minimum solar elevation angle/length of day, but getting towards the peak of the NH radiation. Antarctic sea ice maximums are late October, also as the Antarctic olar exposure increases AND as the SH summer approaches. Antarctic sea ice minimums are late February – which doesn’t ANY of the other peaks nor troughs.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:55 am
Thanks, RA, that’s all quite interesting, but you haven’t answered my question. Kadaka stated mathematically that the solar energy that is not reflected is absorbed.
You said no, you disagreed.
So I asked … IF (as you say) the solar energy is neither reflected nor absorbed … then where is it?
That’s what you didn’t answer. It has nothing to do with the S-B equation, by the way. It’s a simple question.
Regards,
w.
Phrasing it to those terms:
Solar energy in => IR + UV energy absorbed (heating the air or dust + clouds or land or water or ice or plants => that later cool off and heat something else) + latent and sensible heat changes + LW radiation losses to the atmosphere (that later re-radiate or radiate to space) .
Heat absorbed does go into those temperature and state-of-matter changes and thermal delays.
Leif Check Fig1 at
http://www.leif.org/research/Goelzer-Comment-with-Suppl.pdf
Join the minima on your red curve . Note 20th century rise in solar activity from 1902-45.decline 1945-67 rise from there to 20th century solar max plateau 80 – 90. Then of course sharp fall to 2010.
This fits nicely the Berggren Dye 3 20th century 10 Be flux data and Hadcrut temps. Even the 1945 -60 decline is seen.
I note the difference between you and other investigators especialy pre 1910. and need more time to investigate.
Do you think recent sharp fall presages global cooling in the near term?
“A modern update is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
[from a seminar I gave At Lockheed-Martin].”
Thanks again the looks very interesting. Is the polarity data that was used to create that FFT power spectrum archived anywhere. I’d be very interested to in having a closer look at some aspects of that.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Why is that circular? Yes I did an approximate fitting of the time-constant variable to demonstrate that a relaxation to a SSN induced change could produce something close to long term SST variability.
That is circular because you say: see the SST and the SSN match, but the variable was chosen to make them match.
I estimate it diverges from about 1988-1990.
That is the correlation falling apart.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Thanks again the looks very interesting. Is the polarity data that was used to create that FFT power spectrum archived anywhere. I’d be very interested to in having a closer look at some aspects of that.
You can find the polarity data 1926-present here: http://www.leif.org/research/spolar.txt
The data is year, month, day, Bartels rotation nr., 27 X and ‘.” symbols, one for each day. X is polarity into the Sun. ‘.” away from the Sun.
lsvalgaard says:
What you find by mixing oranges and apples is some artificial period which is about the average of 27 and 28.5 days.
The rotation rate of the corona [which is what controls the HMF period at Earth] is a mixture of the Bartels rotation rate and another system rotating at 28.5 days so your 27.851 days is not a physical entity
The Bartels rotation rate (27 days) probably refers to a persistent structure in the deeper layers
It does not have a distinct name. 28.5 days is close enough. For what it is worth, it is also the rotation period of the radiative inner core [which has rigid rotation a bit slower that the differentially rotating outer layers].
………..
BINGO. “The rotation rate of the corona”. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) !
Thanks.
It is likely that either a) 27 days or b) 28.5 days are not exact physical numbers, so 27.851 is (a+b)/2. 27 days may be the more likely candidate for obvious reason, error of 0.7%, i.e. 27.2 would do nicely, alternatively 28.7 or any other combination is just as welcome.
From my point of view, the actual rotation number is not so critical, it is what what may have an effect and detected and recorded in the data.
Thanks, you just resolved a two year long dilemma.
so much for the speed of light
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html
Dr Norman Page says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Note 20th century rise in solar activity from 1902-45.decline 1945-67 rise from there to 20th century solar max plateau 80 – 90. Then of course sharp fall to 2010.
Note the 19th century rise in solar activity from 1901-1850 going back in time.
This fits nicely the Berggren Dye 3 20th century 10 Be flux data and Hadcrut temps. Even the 1945-60 decline is seen.
If you quantify your statement you’ll se that it does not fit at all.
I note the difference between you and other investigators especialy pre 1910. and need more time to investigate.
Yes, the purpose of the note is to point out that they are very wrong. Good that you caught that.
Do you think recent sharp fall presages global cooling in the near term?
No, why would it? And you are not precise. Global cooling by 0.0001 degrees, 0.01 degrees, 1 degree, 10 degrees, etc. Which one?
According to the Svensmark hypothesis, Cosmic rays are the mediator connecting solar activity with climate. But there is the implicit assumption that cosmic rays from outside the solar system are constant. Suppose that as the activity of the sun changes the magnitude of cosmic rays entering the solar system changes and that climate is a function including both solar activity and cosmic ray input.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:54 pm
Yet again you step in it. Thanks at least for replying, however. Now that I’ve played your game, how about you’re returning the favor & looking at another paper?
Now the one I ask you to consider is Meehl, et al, to include all the studies it cites finding the 11 year signal.
If you yet again refuse, then we’ll know for sure that you’re intentionally dodging. That’s the “one” study I now ask that you review, or else be known as a dodger.
Charles Tossy says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Cosmoclimatology doesn’t presume that GCR flux is constant. Quite the contrary.
Please see Nir Shaviv’s explanation for the fairly regular occurrence of Icehouse intervals on earth, based upon spiral-arm passages.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/1.18.full
vukcevic says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:00 pm
From my point of view, the actual rotation number is not so critical, it is what what may have an effect and detected and recorded in the data. Thanks, you just resolved a two year long dilemma.
Well, there is not one rotation rate. Your analysis, if it is any good, should have picked up three rates: 26.8, 27.2, and 28.5. It did not, so …
Charles Tossy says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm
According to the Svensmark hypothesis, Cosmic rays are the mediator connecting solar activity with climate. But there is the implicit assumption that cosmic rays from outside the solar system are constant.
And on the time scale of hundreds of years the cosmic ray intensity is constant. But the Svensmark hypothesis does not hold water, i.e. is not supported by the data, as the cosmic ray intensity measured in the Earth’s atmosphere does not vary as the temperature.
‘milodonharlani”
“Now the one I ask you to consider is Meehl, et al, to include all the studies it cites finding the 11 year signal.
I can do better than that!
Willis The one study I ask you to look at is the study I just did.
google “sun LIA”
That study contains all the references.
milodon.
RECALL THE REQUEST
“So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?”
TEMPERATURE EVIDENCE.
go ahead.
you know what temperature is.
please point to the data.
not a paper that points in a thousand different directions. but temperature evidence.
So I made two posts specifically to Willis Eschenbach; one of them @ June 25-2014 at 12:04 PM, and the second one at 12:29 PM.
Both of them for the purpose of pointing out to him, that the statements for which Willis slammed ME, and slapped MY face, were in fact ALL made by someone else; sturgishooper, in fact.
I made NO statements whatsoever; regarding ANYTHING that Willis has said in this entire thread.
The above two posts, I expected, would make that error quite clear to Willis; and perhaps even elicit a retraction from him; or maybe even an apology, for branding me for something entirely the work of Sturgishooper.
Evidently I wasted my time. Willis apparently opted to ignore those two posts explaining what actually happened.
That’s a pity. I had thought better of him.
george
Steven Mosher says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm
In comments to Willis’ prior post on his quest for the 11 year cycle, I mentioned the studies finding the signal in precipitation records. Meehl cites studies finding it both in temperature & precipitation. I haven’t read your study, but will Google it.
On this sidenote: I’ve been here for quite a few years. Who the hell is tonyb??? And now that I know his name, who the hell is Tony Brown??? And now that I know his blog’s name, who or what the hell is climatereason??? Do I want to know?
Nope. But apparently he does. [snip]
Steven Mosher says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Could be big challenge to the null hypothesis, but I wonder how precisely the delay between post-supernova collapse neutrino and photon arrival is known.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Are you replying to my question? If so, you haven’t answered it. Everything you’ve said so far is in total agreement with KD.
w.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Tony Brown has guest posted on this blog & is well known to readers interested in paleoclimate temperature reconstructions.
Here’s one from last year, already posted in these comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Steven Mosher says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Looked for but didn’t find it. Could you please post a link? Thanks.
george e. smith says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Willis makes a habit of ignoring people & papers.
Milo, you must have had a moment of blindness and skipped the part where I said, “Nope.”
Did ya’ll know that the authors of the Constitution of the United States actually came to blows with each other hashing out the particulars? Funny how they named hysteria as a female term for monthly crankiness. Maybe I can coin the word hysterio. Males sure do spend a lot of time rattling branches and bunching knickers.
I suspect i may be one of the few dumb enough to actually look at the documents cited recently by Salvatore Del Prete. Those 4 posted at June 26, 2014 at 9:31 am never mention any temperature data whatsoever. As Willis has pointed out, the document posted at June 26, 2014 at 10:28 am cited as “best evidence” compares proxied temperature data with data from a model during the Maunder minima. All the comparison shows is that the model exaggerates the actual data as determined by an unmentioned proxy. This putative actual data shows little change over the surface of the earth due to the Maunder minima – typically less than 0.2 deg. C.with no mention of the probable error in the proxy. It, in no way can be considered as an intelligent response to Willis’ request for evidence.
.
Looking at the above mentioned citations posted by Salvatore Del Prete has been a waste of my time. May Salvatore forever endure the wrath of Willis who has far more skill than I at dealing with those of Salvatore’s ilk without resorting to gutter language.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:52 pm
He has a lot to do & has done much of it. I wasn’t blind. Just wanted to show why you should know who he is. If you want to make a case for an early onset for the LIA, you need his temperature reconstructions.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:56 pm
“Female hysteria” (ultimately from the Greek for “womb”) didn’t refer to PMS, but to other maladies imagined to be specific to women, resulting from disturbances of the uterus. Of course, these supposed disorders had no biological or medical validity, while testosterone poisoning might.
Milodon
Thanks for referencing that article.
Pamela Gray, who has never heard of me, commented on that very article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/#comment-1392236
We have had numerous friendly exchanges over many years, Some people have short memories as in an article here last week I was commenting on her volcano emissions references.
I hope we can return to that state in the future. Expressing that wish is the main reason I have returned to comment here and i see no reason to do so again as when Willis refers to Greg– a highly intelligent commenter- as my monkey and routinely insults others commenters we have really reached a very sorry state of discourse.
Tonyb
Milo you are too funny. Gosh darn I did not know that!!!!!!!! I am such a clueless female!!!!!!!!!!
Like I said, branch rattling and knicker bunching.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Who the hell is tonyb?
….
Ms Gray
Tonyb (Mr. Tony Brown) is an Englishman, but first of all he is a gentleman.
“”””””…..Dr. Strangelove says:
June 25, 2014 at 11:44 pm
@smith
“Such conditions are seldom encountered. The radiation would necessarily have to be thermal radiation, with a spectrum that depends on Temperature.”
That would be true for all radiations. I have enough of this……..””””””
When I see this kind of statement, (and post), I feel like I should just give up and go fishing.
My assertion “such conditions are seldom encountered”, was related to the requirement for thermal equilibrium between an isothermal body, and a radiation field, in order for the Kirchoff Law regarding equality of spectral absorptance , and spectral emittance, to be applicable.
And I added that was also only true of thermal radiation. Radiation with a broad spectrum dictated by the Temperature of the radiating body.
So Dr Strangelove asserts, that applies to “all radiations”.
So at what Temperature would a rock absorbing the beam from a He-Ne laser, emit (not reflect) that same wavelength, and at an equal rate.
So just how Temperature dependent is the hydrogen Lyman series of lines, that we can see from the sun, and also here on earth in a tube at about room temperature.
Not ALL radiations are Temperature dependent.
Atomic spectra, are uniquely dependent on atomic structure, and are emitted or absorbed by single atoms, which can no nothing of any temperature.
Yes in real gases, molecular or atomic collisions can broaden spectral lines, due to the Doppler effect of a moving source, or the collision termination of an excited state, which will shift the emission energy.
But atomic and molecular spectra depend on structure; not temperature; whereas thermal spectra are totally characterized by the material temperature. That’s why they are called thermal spectra.
The Bohr-Sommerfeld hydrogen atom, and its spectra, can be understood by anyone with just a little classical physics. Yes some of the assertions just have to be accepted at face value.
It’s a lot easier to understand the hydrogen atomic spectra, than it is to understand how BB like thermal radiation arises in ANY material, based on temperature and independent of atomic or molecular structure.
There’s too much wheel spinning going on here, because some folks don’t understand much about radiation or heat energy.
“Heat energy” is the only form of energy that can change a temperature. All other forms of energy have no connection to temperature. Most other forms of energy can be interconverted with very high efficiencies; say mechanical and electrical for example.
Heat energy, can not be converted to anything else at high efficiency (like near 100%) It is the crappiest form of energy there is; total garbage in fact..
But I gave up teaching over half a century ago; just not worth the aggravation.
tonyb, I asked who the hell are you, not whether I had seen your [fill in the blank] name here. You SEEM to think you are worthy of note and that at least Willis should know the name of your first born for crise sake.
Here is what people know of me. My name is Pamela Gray. That’s it. Nothing more to add. I assume people don’t know me. If I went by my CB handle “strawberry shortcake” people would only know that about me. The rest doesn’t matter and I don’t care if people know me or not. This is all to say, be done with it already. Get passed it. Let it go. Smooth your feathers. Stop going on about it so. Do you need a Midol?
Goodness gracious.
From milodonharlani on June 26, 2014 at 2:49 pm:
He works this like a manager. If you can’t make it worth his time to take a look in two seconds, then you won’t. If you made him believe it was and he finds out it wasn’t, you wasted his time, you might get chewed out, and he will make a mental note to not trust you much the next time you try.
Dr. S : Your analysis, if it is any good, should have picked up three rates: 26.8, 27.2, and 28.5. It did not so.
Dr. S also use to say “Sun is a messy place” and since many of these events last more than a day or two, also depending on latitude they come from, and which one is the most dominant and /or frequent, an average of 27.851 days is an ‘excellent’ number.
Thanks.
I think this thread is ‘ripe’ for closing.
REPLY: Think all you like but that is my decision – Anthony
vukcevic says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Dr. S also use to say “Sun is a messy place” and since many of these events last more than a day or two, also depending on latitude they come from, and which one is the most dominant and /or frequent, an average of 27.851 days is an ‘excellent’ number.
No, it is misleading and meaningless. Just like saying that the average speed of a man walking and a jet-liner is 300 miles/hour.
When I heard he was Tony Brown of Climate Reason thus he should be known, I checked the blogroll. Not there.
If you’re not on the WUWT blogroll, how important can you currently be (or formerly were)?
Willis said:
“IF the sun indeed caused the variations during the Dalton minimum, it first made the temperature rise, then fall, then rise again to where it started … sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like what we’d expect.”
Well how do “we” know what to expect then Willis? You don’t.
And you are so keen to reject the whole thing on the basis of your own baseless opinions of what you expect to happen , that you fail to notice the pattern that does exist in at least the last two solar minima:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669328
A pattern that will repeat itself in this solar minimum.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Clueless is as clueless does. Sex is irrelevant.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Did you also Google him? You’d find lots of hits in which CACA advocates attack Tony Brown of Climate Reason by name, plus his posts & comments on this & other well-known climate blogs.
Besides which, Tony resides atop WUWT Paleoclimate Pages:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/paleoclimate/
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm
That’s not how he works in my experience. If a poster makes a claim contrary to the findings of dozens (at least) of scientists based upon analysis of a handful (at most) of papers or data sets, then IMO he or she should examine all relevant suggested studies. That’s why standard scientific paper format includes a literature survey section, which SOP Willis specifically declined to follow in his second published paper. He also relied on far too small a data set for his paper.
Nor does it explain why he ignored repeated requests from George Smith.
Tonyb says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm
If memory fails, then a simple Google search of “WUWT & Tony Brown” would have sufficed to jog Pamela & Willis’ memories, since both have commented in your past posts & replied to your comments in those &/or others.
Doing so yields “about 26,300 results (in) 0.75 seconds”. Not all may refer to you, of course.
Greg Goodman says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:04 am
———————————
“Those then get deeper will not directly cause evaporation but will contribute to a long term rise in SST.”
And Dr. S responded –
“As whatever gets deeper scales directly with TSI and the sunspot number we only have to consider those variables.”
Did I say the continuous bleating about TSI was disingenuous? And bingo, there it is on full display.
We only have to consider TSI and SSN? Utter tripe. Surface UV may have increased as much as 20% since 1978. As ocean depth increases UV becomes a greater component of radiation heating at that depth. Therefore the 0.1% variance in TSI can not be used as a measure of how much solar absorption varies in the accumulation layers of the ocean. Below 50m variances of up to 2 w/m2 can easily be occurring.
Greg, if you read back over this thread, you will notice there has been no scientific rebuttal of the mechanism of UV variation below the thermocline effecting ocean energy accumulation. Just the usual panicked “No, no, no..” and then the scuttle back to “TSI, TSI, TSI..”
Willis said:
“And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started …”
I understood that Dalton was solar cycles 5 & 6, that would be from 1798 to 1823.
CET annual 1798 to 1823: http://snag.gy/TrB1G.jpg
Konrad says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Did I say the continuous bleating about TSI was disingenuous? And bingo, there it is on full display…We only have to consider TSI and SSN? Utter tripe. Surface UV may have increased as much as 20% since 1978.
The Magnesium II index [MgII] is an excellent proxy for the UV flux in the region 160-400 nm, both on short and on long time scales: http://www.leif.org/EOS/MgII-index.pdf
We have an excellent reord of the MgII index since satellite measurements started in 1978.
The MgII-index follows the SSN and TSI closely, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Froehlich.pdf
so, as I said, as TSI and SSN vary, so does UV.
Pamela Gray says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:43 pm
On this sidenote: I’ve been here for quite a few years. Who the hell is tonyb??? And now that I know his name, who the hell is Tony Brown??? And now that I know his blog’s name, who or what the hell is climatereason??? Do I want to know?
Nope. But apparently he does. That’s a man with not a lot of shit to do.
==============
I ain’t got shit to do either.
So I’m reading your shit.
I must be F$%^ing bored.
How’s that for introspection ?
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Careful! By questioning her omniscience, Pamela is liable to accuse you of sexism.
Leif Willis Mosher check P12 at
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Froehlich.pdf
I believe the interpol Br line shows clearly the solar activity rise to a solar max at 1980-90.
This reflects also the increase in GCRs during the 20th century also seen in the Berggren Dye-3 Be10 flux data and also corresponds well with the Hadcrut temperature trends seen in Fig6 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:49 pm
You make a habit of posting uncited, unreferenced BS … as witness this claim. Without cites or examples, you’re just slinging mud at the wall and hoping it sticks. I finally got you to identify your one best study … are you claiming I ignored that paper? You wish …
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:52 pm
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Careful! By questioning her omniscience, Pamela is liable to accuse you of sexism.
==============
The thought never crossed my mind.
Are you new here ??
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Really? We need temperature reconstructions based on Michael Mann’s Hockeystick? I wouldn’t trust a reconstruction that had been within a hundred miles of any of the multiproxy reconstrutions, their problems are legion.
Unfortunately, Tony believes that the hockeystick is “essentially confirmed”. Sorry, but no reconstruction at all is far preferable to one based on the hockeystick in any fashion.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
As even you must know, that is entirely unwarranted. Tony’s reconstructions have nothing at all to do with Mann, et al, but are based upon his own time-tested collation of available data from all sources, same as has been practiced since Lamb’s time, if not before. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Mann, et al’s misuse of tree rings for temperature rather than precipitation.
That distinction also, no surprise, escaped you in responding to the Chilean 11 year signal data.
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 7:55 pm
What do you mean by new? I’ve been around a few years. Maybe several.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 7:53 pm
I have never posted anything uncited, Willis. You OTOH, refuse to look at the best studies. Even if handed them on a silver platter, you ignore them. Instead, you insist on looking at just one at a time. When your challengers comply, you insist on another one. This is as far from science as is humanly possible.
You are a poseur. Which is not to say that some of your analyses don’t have merit, but the last thing that you can reasonably claim to be is a scientist. To make that claim with justification, you would have to practice the scientific method, which you admit to ignoring, along with every study which shows you to be FOS.
lsvalgaard says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:12 pm
———————————
“so, as I said, as TSI and SSN vary, so does UV.”
The point is that UV variance between solar cycles is far greater than the minuscule 0.1% TSI variance. And because the oceans are a selective surface not a near black body, this matters. TSI alone cannot answer how the oceans accumulate energy.
The solar radiation absorbed at depth is reduced to just blue light and UV. This is provably varying far more between solar cycles than 0.1%. Solar radiation absorption below the diurnal over turning layer can be cumulative. Easily enough to cause the tiny 0.8C in 150 years that has been observed.
And within the over turning layer? Here variance in solar absorption will more closely match the 0.1% TSI variance as a greater range of frequencies are being absorbed and the water is vertically mixed. Diurnal and seasonal cycles would be detectable but not 11 year cycles. This is why the “I can’t find an 11 cycle in SSTs” game is so inane. It’s no better than “I can’t find an 11 year cycle in 17th century wallpaper designs” or “I can’t find an 11 year cycle in Victorian era corset boning keratin levels”.
There is no way out with the “near blackbody” + TSI game. The oceans are a selective surface and spectral variance is critical to how they accumulate and discharge energy.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm
I believe the interpol Br line shows clearly the solar activity rise to a solar max at 1980-90.
If you look at the longer record back to 1845, Figure 6 and 7 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf
you’ll see that th 1980-1990 activty is on par with the activity around 1870.
This reflects also the increase in GCRs during the 20th century also seen in the Berggren Dye-3 Be10 flux data and also corresponds well with the Hadcrut temperature trends seen in Fig6
As we have discussed earlier the Dye-3 data is not reliable and the solar activity in Figures 6 and 7 in the link above is not at all similar to the Hadcrut temperatures in your Figure 6. You capacity for self-delusion is quite formidable.
Dear Willis,
For the umpteenth time, how about looking at the studies cited by Meehl, whom you dismissed out of hand as a modeler, but which are based upon actual observations, not modeling. Your mendacious claim that I don’t cite studies is purely a fabrication to avoid your having to confront reality. It has become clear that your posts are all about narcissism & have nothing to do with science.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swpc.noaa.gov%2Fsww%2Fsww11%2FSWW_2011_Presentations%2FFri_1030%2FSolar.April.2011.ppt&ei=qOOsU9-2E8r5oAT464KwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFBWXryVJsHmGqwcZp41Xcb-vq8Jg&sig2=tAGZXU311tqmgxFQTm2QTg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.cGU
The second & third pages mention studies showing the 11 year cycle. If you really want to support your counter-consensus position, you’d have the courage to take on a lot of good evidence instead of asking repeatedly for just one more data set.
I have repeatedly linked this study, but you keep ignoring or pooh-poohing it. Fine as to Meehl’s modeling in search of an explanation for the phenomena he notes, but how about finally, after repeated requests, responding to the empirical studies which compelled him to seek an explanation?
I also repeatedly replied to your requests for yet another “just one” study, in hopes that eventually you would look at all of them, as a real scientist would have done. Now it’s time to put up or shut up.
I can see now why Dr. Spencer was so offended by your claiming to have discovered a commonplace of climatology, ie tropical thunderstorms, because you didn’t. As he showed, the literature, had you bothered to search, is filled abundantly with discussion of this phenomenon, which is far from the be all & end all which you tried to bill it as.
When you have thoroughly analyzed the studies cited in Meehl, then you can start to write a real scientific paper presenting your faith-based belief in no 11 year signals in climatic data. If you want to play a scientist on blogs, then you have to behave like one in the real world.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:10 pm
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 7:55 pm
What do you mean by new? I’ve been around a few years. Maybe several.
================================
I’ve paid my dues towards this website, not sure the money covered all my stupid comments.
It must be 5-6 years by now ?, there are some characters that …..enliven the joint.
You don’t need to tell me when to be careful.
[Note: Your first post here was @2009/12/05 at 3:59 pm. ~mod.]
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:36 pm
When you have thoroughly analyzed the studies cited in Meehl, then you can start to write a real scientific paper presenting your faith-based belief in no 11 year signals in climatic data.
Meehl does not do a good job presenting those studies [mostly van Loon’s] or even summarizing them, but actually we would expect a 0.1K solar cycle effect [which is very hard to dig out of the noise]. So when solar activity sinks to solar minimum values, temperatures are expected to drop 0.1K, which would then also represent the drop to be expected if we had a long-duration solar minimum as the Maunder Minimum.
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:40 pm
OK. Careful wasn’t the best way to phrase it.
And you’ve been here longer than I, thanks to a misspent decade at RealClimate & to not misspent but not frequently commenting at ClimateAudit.
[Your 1st post here: 2011/10/02 at 1:17 pm ~mod.]
lsvalgaard says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:57 pm
I agree. There may well be other papers which aggregate studies finding a solar signal, but for starters, why couldn’t Willis consider those?
IMO it’s not standard scientific practice to assert a position, then expect commenters to find papers in opposition for the proposer to analyze, but only one at a time.
It’s shirking your scientific duty to present an hypothesis, then ask others to try to dig through prior work to falsify it. Real science, IMO, would be to test the hypothesis yourself, either through experiment or at least a thorough literature search.
As your excellent & ever improving own Web site does, aggregating relevant studies whether they support your current view or not.
Tonyb says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm
So … you’re still unable to figure out how to post under your own name, and you don’t even bother to sign your post with your own name, but you bitch when Pamela and I don’t recognize your alias. Or to recognize your other alias. Or we don’t connect one alias to the other alias. Is that all the aliases you have, by the way? I’d hate to hurt your feelings by not recognizing each and every one of your aliases … or is the plural “alii”?
Me, I’m generally so concerned with the content of the comment that I often pay no attention to the name of an anonymous author. Don’t even notice if it’s “presidentobama”. Not interested. Oh, if it’s someone with enough nerve to sign their own name, like Pamela, over time I come to know who she is.
But I deal with dozens and dozens and dozens of comments every day of the year, from folks posting as “johnl”, and “rob191”, and “tonyb”, and a hundred other variants of nothingness, and so I make no attempt to remember them. I’m much more interested in their comments, the names are meaningless.
Here’s the thing. Knowing that posters using an alias desire anonymity, I’m happy to oblige. I take no interest in their name, I make no attempt even in my mind to try to figure out who they are. So when you post as “tonyb”, I respect your anonymity, I’ve never either known or wondered who “tonyb” might be in real life … and now you’re complaining that your double-alias quest for anonymity has been too successful? And not only that, but it’s our fault that we don’t recognize you?
Say what? If you want to be recognized and remembered, use your own dang name. If you don’t, you have absolutely no grounds for any complaint, especially any claim it’s our fault that you’re not being recognized.
So I can understand perfectly why Pamela may not have recognized your alias. You’re just another in the endless series of anonymous internet popups, why should she waste neurons on something so unimportant as an alias that she may never see again or that you might change tomorrow?
As to Greg, unless you appointed him as your spokesmodel, his attempts to speak on your behalf were both meaningless and disruptive, and I told him so. I’m sick of “well-meaning” people getting in the middle of some dispute or discussion and trying to tell me what the other person talking to me is thinking, or attempting to explain or excuse the other person’s behavior. His making excuses and explanations for your actions and his guesses at your motives don’t help anything, they just muddy the water.
Me, I figure you are more than capable of providing any comments, explanations or excuses for yourself, and if you don’t provide them, that’s your choice. As a result, in my eyes Greg’s attempt to provide them for you is an insult to you. He’s claiming that you’re not enough of a grown man to explain yourself, so he’s going to fill the bill and explain what you’re thinking and doing. Doesn’t work for me in the slightest.
In short, I’m happy to discuss any issues with the principals, but I have no use for the explanations and excuses and attacks and justifications of the underlings, busybodies, and hangers-on.
Nor am I alone in this. It’s such a common situation that we have a folk saying about it—“I’ll talk to the organ grinder, but not the monkey”. Don’t like it? Sorry, but that’s how my world works, and I have no intention of changing that. If you want to deal with spokespeople, that’s your call. Not my style. I’ll talk to the main actor or not at all. And if a man or a woman tries to interpose themself, to butt in and act as your spokeswanker, I’ll tell them in no uncertain terms to practice their craft elsewhere.
Finally, you claim without any examples that I “routinely insult” other commenters, despite my express and oft expressed request that people quote what they disagree with. If you’re going to attack my actions, that’s fine, and there are folks that I’m sure I’ve insulted, and in my opinion with good reason. Some people can’t take a hint, and so sometimes I reach for a two-by-four. And I’m happy to discuss any particular case. So take a number, your turn to attack me will come when your number is called …
But you should at least have enough blanquillos to let us know what you are upset about. Otherwise, as in this case, it’s just meaningless whining in a failed attempt to besmirch my character. There’s nothing in it that I can respond to, nothing I can deny, nothing I can discuss—it’s just a sleazy, unsupported accusation that I can’t possibly defend myself against.
Tony, I don’t like this bunfight any more than you likely do. That’s why I made you my offer—if you can figure out how to post under your own name, I’m more than happy to set this all aside and discuss the science with you. You seem like a smart guy, and smart guys are generally worth talking to.
Until then …
w.
Off-Topic Question: IF CO2 follows Temperature by many hundreds of years (ref: Vostok) must we pin the cause on the current rise in CO2 to the Medieval Warming Period?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Let’s start with a simple fact. I read literally hundreds of comments almost every day, and there is no possible way to answer them all.
As a result, I have to practice constant “comment triage”—worth a long answer, worth a short answer, not worth an answer, not worth reading. I do my best to answer any serious scientific issues, claims, or questions. But with the volume of comments, I’m not always successful.
You are right that the main issue is time. If someone posts a long screed that is obviously cut and pasted, I don’t have time. If it’s someone that has sent me on a futile quest in the past, it better be good this time. If it’s an SIF, a “single issue fanatic” like Konrad with his experiment, I try not to disturb them for fear they’ll start up again and waste everyone’s time. If it’s someone like Robert Brown, I’ll pore over every word. If it starts out by insulting me, I’ll either ignore it or slap the guy and move on. If it’s someone’s 12th post in a row, I may only make it to the third one and skip the rest.
So yes, there are people I don’t reply to … but other than people who I know from past history to be worthless or to be trolls, there are few people I ignore. milodon is mistaking me making a triage decision not to respond to some one, with me ignoring them.
As to ignoring papers, I asked specifically for people to pick the ONE paper that they think is the best. In part this is because in the past, folks like milodon have done a google search and dumped a dozen or so random papers on my desk … and then accused me of “ignoring papers”. Tricksy hobbits …
In this thread, as far as I know, I have analyzed all of the individual papers that people have said were their one best example, including milodon’s joke of a recommendation … his real complaint is not that I haven’t analyzed someone else’s paper, it’s that I have analyzed his account of the One Chilean Tree and found it to be meaningless.
But in any case, I’m still here, so if someone’s ONE best example hasn’t been analyzed, bring it on … milodon can lie about it all day long, but I’m still analyzing them as fast as they appear.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:14 pm
“When your challengers comply, you insist on another one. This is as far from science as is humanly possible”
I must take issue with your comments as you and a few others are the unscientific ones, not Willis. Either you have not bothered to look at the documents you cite, or you don’t even understand his request – simply for data showing a stronger correlation between sunspot minima and periods of cooler than normal surface temperatures than does the data he has already discussed in his essay, which he justifiably considers rather weak, considering the degree of the general belief that the correlation is fact rather than mere suspicion. He also specifically warned that computer model are not what he is looking for.
I have looked at most of what has been cited and can find not a single reference that is an intelligent response to his request, Every paper cited either presents the same data as Willis did in his essay, or show only temperature effects in the stratosphere, or only changes in measured quantities other than temperature, or were computer models. The few that even mentioned surface temperature effects also mentioned that the link to SSN was controversial among scientists which seems to support the position Willis has taken here.
I see why you and others that make similar comments don’t use your real names here. If you cannot do any better than make fools of yourselves by making the sloppily researched comments as you have done here, how could anyone ever lend credence to any opinion you may express.
\
.
Konrad. says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:29 pm
The point is that UV variance between solar cycles is far greater than the minuscule 0.1% TSI variance.
You are being very imprecise here [perhaps deliberately, perhaps not]. The 0.1% TSI change is within a cycle, not between cycles. And the important number is not the percentage, but the number of watt/m2. The UV that reaches the ground [300-400 nm wavelength] varies about 0.2 watt/m2 over the solar cycle [about 15% of the total variation of TSI], so the variation of UV [in terms of actual energy] is small compared to that of TSI.
Your argument about the ‘far greater’ variation is akin to saying that Bill Gates’ total wealth is determined by the amount of loose change in his pockets.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, Ulric. Actually, the claim of what to expect is made by those that say that the cause of the dip in temperature is less energy from the sun.
IF that is the case, if it is true that the temperature rises and falls with the slight variations in the sun, then we would not expect the temperature to rise until the energy of the sun increases.
You could think of it as a stove. If you turn down the gas, the temperature of the frying pan drops.
But if the temperature rises BEFORE you turn the gas back up, that’s not what you’d expect.
Actually, as you point out, that’s not what I would expect … so what would you expect? Because that’s what the earth is doing. So … would you expect the frying pan to warm up before you turn the gas back up?
I thought not … so in answer to your question, that’s how we “know what to expect”, in the same way that we make many such evaluations—by analogy with a parallel situation.
Regards,
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Are you just being obstinate, or are you really too stupid to provide a citation for your claims?
w.
We do not have truly global temperature data for either the Maunder or the Dalton. So, there is no existing evidence other than proxies to know what the overall temp. of Earth was duing those times.
As we see these last 5 years, the East-West procession of Jet Stream has turned to (at times) very much more North-South, dragging polar air to the temperate zones and warmer air of the temperate zones to the Poles. And there’s no way to predict reliably who is in the crosshairs on any given year for what.
What meterological data do we have, then, for the Maunder and Dalton?
Perhaps Amplitude of change, where in the CET record there is evidence for or against large-scale air mass changes from year to year, as in the dragging of exceptionally cold (Polar) air some years vs balmy air masses in adjacent years, leading to larger amplitudes in the record.
And, how many years since the long minima of SC-23/24 before we saw last winter’s Polar Vortex’s wreaking havoc in selected areas (lucky them!). As if things were not complicated enough.
Don’t give up yet, Willis.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Thanks, Ulric. I used the standard definition of the Dalton minumum. While you are free to cherry-pick any interval you want to try to bolster your claims, I fear your personal definition has nothing to do with my analysis. What’s next, you gonna adjust all of the minima to fit your preconceived ideas, shift the dates of the Maunder?
Me, I just played the hand I was dealt.
w.
Here is another thing for you to consider:
Today’s memory on computers is read/written on the rising and falling edges of the clock wave (signal).
Double Data Rate or DDR.
Does the rising and falling edges of long-term climate changes work the same way on both edges of the signal? Does it reverse itself each rise and fall, like the Sun does for Sunspots?
Leif I choose to think that the relative HMF and solar activity of the period from 1840 -80 and the last half of the 20th century is more properly represented by the NGRIP and Dy-3 Be10 flux in the Berggren paper than your adjusted HLS analysis .I am however amazed at your scientific output for which many thanks for making it so easily accessible.I can’t imagine where you get the time to engage in the blogosphere.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Leif I choose to think that the relative HMF and solar activity of the period from 1840 -80 and the last half of the 20th century is more properly represented by the NGRIP and Dy-3 Be10 flux in the Berggren paper than your adjusted HLS analysis
There is general agreement that the HMF controls the cosmic ray flux. The HMF is now determined with good accuracy back to the 1840s. Much better than the cosmic ray modulation, so your choice reflects your agenda, not a sober scientific choice.
I can’t imagine where you get the time to engage in the blogosphere
This is easy [can do it with one hand tied behind my back as they say] as most comments have little or no scientific content.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Pamela? Seems very doubtful, given what I know of her … but as a separate issue, you’re once again spreading your slime by accusing Pamela of sexism without any citation, quote or evidence. Ah, well, cheap mudslinging seems to be your stock in trade …
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:44 pm
“You are being very imprecise here [perhaps deliberately, perhaps not]. The 0.1% TSI change is within a cycle, not between cycles. And the important number is not the percentage, but the number of watt/m2. The UV that reaches the ground [300-400 nm wavelength] varies about 0.2 watt/m2 over the solar cycle [about 15% of the total variation of TSI], so the variation of UV [in terms of actual energy] is small compared to that of TSI.”
Then allow me to clarify. Biology studies have found the strength of UV-B in some waters to 10 w/m2 at 50m depth. That’s just one UV frequency. Nasa studies have found surface incident UV to have risen as much as 20% since 1978 (flat-lining just before satellite measured tropospheric temps did). So that could be as much as 2 w/m2 variance in the layers of the ocean where energy accumulates. This is clearly comparable to the “forcing” falsely attributed to CO2.
Oh, and “over the solar cycle”? Everything I have written on this issue states “between solar cycles”. Only Willis is interested tin the 11 year thing. Most are interested in 0.8C in 150 years.
Re Willis Eschenbach on June 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm:
Willis, you got me confused there. Did you, as a person with managerial experience, mind or not mind being described as acting like a manager? Isn’t “doing triage” and handling dozens of things vying for your attention at once, managing?
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm
=============
I NEVER SAID THAT WILLIS, YOU MESSED UP THE QUOTES !!!
I EXPECT A QUICK RETRACTION !!!
YOU MIGHT EVEN WANT TO LOOK AT MY REPLY TO THE ORIGINAL COMMENT.
[Thanks, UK. Actually, the quotes were exactly as they were in Milodon’s post, which is what I was quoting. However, I can see how it could be misunderstood, so I’ve changed it to make it clear that Milodon said it, not you. Apologies for the confusion. -w.]
Mods ???????????????????????????????
Read my last comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just clean it up, I don’t care what you change.
I.E. delete whatever you want, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From milodonharlani on June 26, 2014 at 4:32 pm:
So his blog is not worthy of WUWT blogroll inclusion, which would show up on every WUWT page.
But Tony Brown gets a mention two levels down in the toolbar, for his graph at Climate Etc. With said page having “use at your own risk” graphs including several questionable examples, that are taking way too long to load on my connection, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never bothered to look at it before now.
Thus the relative importance of his Climate Reason blog is established.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:09 pm
“As even I must know”? So now you’re the expert on what’s in my mind? And pray tell, why “must” I know that?
In any case, a link to Tony’s reconstruction would be valuable. Because from what he said in his post over at Judith Curry’s, I got a very different impression.
Next, you say that his extension of the CET backward in time used a “time-tested collation of available data from all sources”. In contrast, here’s Tony’s description:
I’d be curious how “historic records (not instrument readings)” can be “time-tested” as you claim. I mean, if Joe Blogs wrote in 1621 “Boy, it’s been cold this winter” … how do you time-test that? I’m also curious about how to find the link in “Section 8 of this paper”, since the paper had only 7 sections …
I also object to his claim that he is “extending” the CET. What he is doing has nothing to do with the CET. He is creating his own proxy estimate of temperature based on anecdotes from the past, while the CET is a thermometer based record of actual observations. For him to graft one onto the other is just as bad as Michael Mann’s grafting of instrumental records onto the proxy data, for which Mann has been rightly criticized.
Not only that, but he’s using things like this:
Say what? Sounds like he’s lamenting the fall of man, and projecting it onto the planet. But regardless, how are you planning to get a temperature from that? And more to the point … the statement is from some preacher in Prussian Alps who sounds like he’s foreseeing the Second Coming. What does that have to do with temperatures in Central England??? But Tony just adds it to the mix … is this more of the “time-tested” stuff you spoke of, milodon?
Then we have this …
We know the average height in Europe in 1559 to the nearest tenth of an inch, with no error estimate? Really? What is this guy smoking? But no problem … it’s all gospel to Tony. Care to know the strange part? I looked at his link (23), it’s to this paper … but although it has some similar claims, I can’t find that claim anywhere in the referenced paper. Is this part of the “time tested” method as well? And what is the temperature that corresponds to a 0.8″ decline in height?
Instead of what he says, the actual paper he cited says this:
Since 2 cm is about 0.8 inches, that seems like the source … but he’s out by an entire century, they call it the “General Crisis of the 17th Century”, not the 16th century as he claims. And you think we should trust his proxy reconstruction when he can’t even get the century right?
He also cites this, not of course from a scientific study, but from a popular book:
Umm … how is this evidence of any kind? It’s not a contemporaneous account, it’s just some guy’s claim. That’s not evidence of anything. How does he know that the coldest period of the LIA started in 1564, and not 1563? And since he knows the onset of the cold to the nearest year, why does the “coldest period” end in the vague “1730s”?
This is his “evidence” upon which he’s building his proxy reconstruction? Claims out of a popular book on malaria?
The following extract is from ‘The Little Ice Age’ by Brian Fagan. Tony quotes this book at great length, and in his comment he seems to confuse it with a contemporaneous account:
Many OTHER references from this period? That reference is not from 1560-1600, it’s from 2001, and contains only uncited claims.
It also seems that neither Tony nor Brian Fagan have any concept of accuracy, error, or significant figures. For example, he claims that we know the “storm activity” (whatever that means) in both the first and second halves of the 1500’s so accurately that we can say there was 85% more storm activity in the second half … not 84%, not 86%, not “about 80%”, but 85%. When I see those kind of claims, far more accurate than what the data will support, I get very cautious … but not Tony. To him, it appears that anything written by Brian Fagan is taken as gospel, and converted by “time-tested” methods into degrees C.
In any case, let me close a comment from someone who read his post at Judith’s …
Nothing like mixing the “best of Mann” into a climate reconstruction to make a guy feel good …
In conclusion, milodon, I still haven’t found his “time-tested” method for converting an Alpine preacher’s rant about the sorry state of just about everything into degrees Celsius. And absent a detailed description of that method, I doubt greatly if it’s even possible. Perhaps you could point me to that detailed description to me, since you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, and it wasn’t in the link he provided, and I don’t want to be looking at the wrong document …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm
———————————
“If it’s an SIF, a “single issue fanatic” like Konrad with his experiment, I try not to disturb them for fear they’ll start up again and waste everyone’s time.”
No Willis, that won’t work either 😉
We both know it’s multiple physics principles and multiple separate experiments. Remember the little list I gave you when you tried this on for size at Jo Nova’s? Yet here you are trying the same thing…
Does relative height of energy entry and exit effect average temperature of as gas column? (yes)
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
Does LWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? (no)
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Does Willis’ steel green house work? (yes)
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
Is water a “near blackbody”? (no)
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Does the surface conductively cool and warm the atmosphere equally? (no)
http://i57.tinypic.com/24qsrrn.jpg
Is AGW even physically possible? (no)
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
Smears, snark and insults are all par for the course. But lying Willis?
What a strange thread! u.k.(us) says, “Just clean it up, I don’t care what you change. I.E. delete whatever you want,”
Huh?
And the rest of it is also… unusual. For example, tonyb has commented and posted articles here for years. People don’t know that?
After more than 800 comments, I suppose folks might stray a bit. But this is about sunspots and the Maunder/Dalton minima. That should be the topic, no?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Apologies for the lack of clarity, as you point out, I was agreeing with you.
w.
From dbstealey on June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm:
So people can search for them, what’s the tag(s) for his articles?
u.k.(us) says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Thanks, UK. Actually, the quotes were exactly as they were in Milodon’s post, which is what I was quoting. So I didn’t mess up anything.
Not only that, but milodon quoted you in exactly the same style that you’ve quoted me, by just noting the name and the location of what is being referred to, without quoting any actual words from that person.
As a result, your post has exactly the same problem that milodon’s had, it makes it looks like I said the words in capitals when I didn’t say them …
However, I can certainly see how it could be misunderstood, so I’ve changed my comment to make it clear that Milodon said it, not you.
Apologies for the confusion.
w.
milodonharlani says:
June 26, 2014 at 8:36 pm
milodon, this is why I pay little attention to you. I just followed your link. It goes to a powerpoint presentation by some guy named Chris Nankervis entitled “Water Vapour & Cloud from Satellite and the Earth’s Radiation Balance” … not an auspicious start.
In any case, I looked at pages two and three as requested, and neither one of them mention a single study, much less a study about the 11-year cycle. Not one study in sight. So I searched it for “Meehl”. Nothing. There’s fifteen minutes wasted that I’ll never get back. Like a damn fool, I listened to you and gave you another chance, and you sent me on a wild goose chase … well, that won’t happen again.
And you wonder why I tend to ignore your bogus claims?
I gave you the same opportunity as anyone else, to publicly prove me wrong by pointing me to your best evidence, the evidence that will show the existence of the 11-year cycle. You keep claiming that it’s terribly bad of me to give people the opportunity to freely select their best evidence and then step up to the plate and show I’m wrong . You think that offering people the chance to validate their position and prove me wrong is some kind of awful practice, and that instead I should waste the rest of my life going through every garbage paper ever written on the subject. How is that wrong? Who else but me is crazy enough to offer their opponents their opportunity to take their best shot at me and show I’m wrong?
Me, I say it’s not a terrible practice, it’s a way to cut through the BS. If people can’t provide me with good evidence for what they say they believe, then they shouldn’t believe it. It’s your chance to squash me like a bug … and you somehow think that’s terrible.
I’m the one taking the chances here, milodon, you could come up with the solid evidence and blow me out of the water … and instead, you give me the One Chilean Tree, and some random Powerpoint presentation that has nothing at all to do with the 11-year cycle.
Bizarre … but I’ll guarantee, you won’t fool me into another snipe hunt. I’ve now given you two bites at the apple, and that’s all you’ll ever get from me on this subject. I’m not going snipe hunting again.
w.
dbstealey says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
Thanks, db. I can’t tell you how little attention I pay to aliases. I’m interested in the content, not the speaker. But that’s not the main reason.
I am an omnivorous reader, both of my own threads and those of others. There’s no way I could keep all of those hundreds and hundreds of anonymous commenters with names like b@by1974 sorted out.
So if someone stands out, I may or may not remember their alias. But the basic random anonymous internet popup? I make no attempt at all to remember them. I don’t waste a millisecond in trying to figure out if jimmyS is the same person as climatereally.
On the other hand, people with names, I do work at remembering them. I figure that’s why they sign their work. So folks that comment here like Steven Mosher and Joel Shore and Pamela Gray and Robert Brown and Steve McIntyre, them I remember.
But people without names, just an infinity of aliases? I make no attempt to remember them. I figure that’s why they don’t sign their work. And since they’re not proud enough of it to sign with their own name, why should I waste time associating their ideas with an alias that they could change tomorrow?
Look, db, please be clear that I’m NOT saying that anonymity is wrong. Some people have very valid reasons for not wanting to take a public stand—job, family, military, stalkers, age, public position, vulnerability, those are all very valid reasons for posting anonymously.
But when you choose to do that, you lose some things. For example, you lose ownership of your own ideas. My hypothesis that emergent phenomena regulate the earth’s temperature is an example. My name is associated with it.
More to the point, however, is that if you post anonymously you can evade accountability and responsibility … and as a result, you lose credibility. If you post anonymously you can walk away from your words, change your alias to AryanAngel, and never have to take responsibility for a single word you’ve said.
I can’t do that. I can’t walk away from my words. Nor can Steve Mosher or Joel Shore or Anthony Watts. Like me, they’ve got skin in the game that no anonymous poster has or can have.
And call me crazy, but from bitter experience I trust a man who has skin in the game a whole lot more than I trust a man on the sidelines with absolutely nothing at risk … in my world, anonymity costs you credibility.
Which is my way around to answering your question, “tonyb has commented and posted articles here for years. People don’t know that?” by telling you that no, I truly had no name recognition for the name “tonyb”. Zero.
For the name “climatereason”, I did recognize the name, but only as someone who had commented. Period. Oh, not quite. One time when I saw “climatereason” I thought it said “climatreason” and I thought “cool name”, and then read it again the right way. And in neither case did I have either any clue nor any interest in the fact that they were aliases of Tony Brown.
Ugly, I know, but there it is. All I can do is tell it like it is.
My best to you, dbstealy, and to every one out there, named or not …
w.
Funny … I look around the site, and I find a comment from “tonyb2” … you see why I don’t bother?
w.
“As to Greg, unless you appointed him as your spokesmodel, his attempts to speak on your behalf were both meaningless and disruptive, and I told him so. I’m sick of “well-meaning” people getting in the middle of some dispute or discussion and trying to tell me what the other person talking to me is thinking”
I was speaking on my own behalf and expressing my own opinion on your “real name ” ranting. No where did I try to tell you what tonyb was thinking, so you just making shit up in a pathetic attempt to justify yourself.
This concerns me too because like I posted, I sometimes make the same mistake and post as climategrog. So your stupid insult that his somehow indicates tonyb is not “man enough” and is using sock-puppets could by the same logic apply to me.
Not only is this spurious, it is hypocritical when you are bravely sitting there throwing out insults from the safety of you Macbook.
You’ve been getting increasingly shitty with an increasing number of posters here recently. Maybe you should take your personal frustrations elsewhere and leave this place for scientific discussion.
Konrad : “Then allow me to clarify. Biology studies have found the strength of UV-B in some waters to 10 w/m2 at 50m depth. That’s just one UV frequency. Nasa studies have found surface incident UV to have risen as much as 20% since 1978 (flat-lining just before satellite measured tropospheric temps did). So that could be as much as 2 w/m2 variance in the layers of the ocean where energy accumulates. This is clearly comparable to the “forcing” falsely attributed to CO2. ”
Could you provide links to that, it sounds relevant but “studies have found ” does not carry any weight and is of no use other than bar chat.
I think net SW variations are a significant factor in the last few decades
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png?w=843
If you have links what you reported, it would be useful.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 27, 2014 at 1:08 am
“Look, db, please be clear that I’m NOT saying that anonymity is wrong. Some people have very valid reasons for not wanting to take a public stand—job, family, military, stalkers, age, public position, vulnerability, those are all very valid reasons for posting anonymously.
But when you choose to do that, you lose some things. For example, you lose ownership of your own ideas.”
That whole post is sensible and relevant comment , without the need for insults or questioning peoples manhood.
Perhaps we can now get back to the science.
Thanks, Willis.
My comment re: tonyb was in response to Pamela Gray, not you. But I appreciate your input. You always have my respect.
Konrad. says:
June 26, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Nasa studies have found surface incident UV to have risen as much as 20% since 1978 (flat-lining just before satellite measured tropospheric temps did).
If you have no link to this, it is worthless. The MgII-index I linked to shows no such increase.
Oh, and “over the solar cycle”? Everything I have written on this issue states “between solar cycles”.
Again you are imprecise. Do you mean ‘at solar minimum between two cycles’ or the ‘difference of the solar cycle average from one cycle to the next’.
Leif You think that my choice reflects my “agenda” while your choice represents a sober scientific choice. Not so. We just choose differently based on our different experience of how to analyze complex systems. Based on my methods I have made forecasts of future temperature trends
see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/29/commonsense-climate-science-and-forecasting-after-ar5/
which can be judged as time passes.
.As I understand it you are unwilling to make any forecasts of future temperature trends presumably because you think either that the sun has little effect on climate or you that you don’t know enough to say anything meaningful. This is a perfectly reasonable position – but provides no basis for judging how useful your methods are.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 6:45 am
Leif You think that my choice reflects my “agenda” while your choice represents a sober scientific choice. Not so. We just choose differently based on our different experience of how to analyze complex systems.
I choose what the reliable data says. That data is not about a complex system, but about a well-understood and rather simple physical process [the ring-current around the Earth – the Van Allen belts].
As I understand it you are unwilling to make any forecasts of future temperature trends
A forecast should be made based on correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past. As you do not have those, a ‘forecast’ is no more than wishful thinking.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:47 pm
“Thanks, Ulric. Actually, the claim of what to expect is made by those that say that the cause of the dip in temperature is less energy from the sun.
IF that is the case, if it is true that the temperature rises and falls with the slight variations in the sun, then we would not expect the temperature to rise until the energy of the sun increases.You could think of it as a stove. If you turn down the gas, the temperature of the frying pan drops.
But if the temperature rises BEFORE you turn the gas back up, that’s not what you’d expect.
Actually, as you point out, that’s not what I would expect … so what would you expect? Because that’s what the earth is doing. So … would you expect the frying pan to warm up before you turn the gas back up?
I thought not … so in answer to your question, that’s how we “know what to expect”, in the same way that we make many such evaluations—by analogy with a parallel situation.”
Actually, prior to your obfuscation of what I pointed out, I pointed out that you don’t know what to expect, but you think you do, and that’s your mistake. And because your expectations have not been met, you then declared:
“As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET”
And yet without fail it gets colder in every solar minima through CET.
No I don’t want to think of it as a gas stove, and about slight variations in TSI that are not large enough to account for the magnitude of the temperature changes anyway. All that we can see very little support of, is of your expectations of when it should be cooler or warmer. Your analogy or model fails to explain the cold, and by no means does it prove that it was not the Sun.
You asked: “so what would you expect?”
Nothing, I would try to understand why the cold happened where it did actually happen. Not try to claim that it should be also happening elsewhere through the minimum. You can’t do that as you have not explained the cold bits yet, i.e.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669328
The warming over the last 50yrs, comes down to two possibilities, CO2, or the Sun. Those who insist that it is not the Sun, are doing Mann et al, the greatest of services.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 6:45 am
Based on my methods I have made forecasts of future temperature trends…
In your forecast posting you said”
“With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.”
This is a typical example of how lack of understanding leads you astray. Due to the drift of cosmic rays in the heliosphere as a function of the sign of the solar polar fields, the neutron count is ALWAYS lower in every other solar minimum [such as your cycle 22 low] and has nothing to do with solar activity. Here is an example of this phenomenon http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu.ac.za/files/files/p-nm/SRU%20Neutron%20Monitors%20Monthly%20Graphs.pdf
So a ‘forecast’ based on lack of understanding is not worth to even consider.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Thanks, Ulric. I used the standard definition of the Dalton minumum. While you are free to cherry-pick any interval you want to try to bolster your claims, I fear your personal definition has nothing to do with my analysis. What’s next, you gonna adjust all of the minima to fit your preconceived ideas, shift the dates of the Maunder? ”
I’m not so sure that there is a standard, Dalton is often said to be from 1795 to 1825. If that is the standard though, it makes little difference the pattern of where the colder run of years happened in each recent minimum. http://snag.gy/eZDgi.jpg
I want to be clear about my view of Mann’s work and in fact all year by year reconstructions based on a small set of locations. It cannot be said enough that the location of material used for proxy records may unfortunately give the impression that global temperatures were thus and so. Or that the cold versus the warm was limited and not global. On the contrary, almost paradoxically, the spatial pattern of warm and cold could very well be used to confirm that it was generally colder or generally warmer. I say this because of what we currently understand about spatial weather patterns of, for example, a negative leaning Arctic Oscillation http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html . This link, from the State Climate Office of North Carolina, has done a great job of demonstrating visually this phenomenon.
It follows then that reconstructions need to be seen in light of whatever oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections were in place at each individual “ring” of data and at each individual location of the tree. These spatial patterns may indeed show up in the proxies as being warm in one latitude and very cold in another, with both confirming that indeed the global average cooled, or warmed, whatever the case may point to. Mann seems to have tried to get rid of the MWP by showing that his tree ring data flattened it. He may have actually confirmed it as part of the spatial pattern one would expect in a warming world. Indeed, a ring of tree rings at the same latitude would help determine whether or not there was a loopy jet stream undulating with persistent blocking pressure systems, or it was generally warmer while just a few latitude degrees higher all the tree rings indicate it was freezingly colder. I wonder.
Could it be that Mann did just the opposite with his tree rings? Did they confirm the MWP? Were his trees at that latitude telling us about El Nino? Or a negative phase of the Arctic Osillation? Or a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? It does seem interesting that Mann has been studying the AMO. Maybe he is beginning to see that average global temperature trends are really a combination of entrenched spatial weather patterns that are a combination of lesser or greater warmth “here” and lesser or greater “cold” there that when averaged together, demonstrate a trend.
Which leads me back to this thread. We may be addressing this ass backwards. Instead of starting with the Sun, we should start with the weather pattern variation that would make a great deal of the Northern Hemisphere cold during the time span encompassing the LIA. And then follow the trail back to where it might show us the cause of that weather pattern variation.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 6:45 am
Based on my methods I have made forecasts of future temperature trends
Your ‘forecast’ said:
“1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -”
With May 2014 being the warmest ever recorded, it seems that your forecast is already in a bit of trouble.
Pamela Gray says:
June 27, 2014 at 7:32 am
Which leads me back to this thread. We may be addressing this ass backwards. Instead of starting with the Sun, we should start with the weather pattern variation that would make a great deal of the Northern Hemisphere cold during the time span encompassing the LIA.
………..
Ms Gray
In that case you could start by reading Tony Brown’s contributions.
leif You keep on about why my forecasts are useless. You say
“A forecast should be made based on correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past. As you do not have those, a ‘forecast’ is no more than wishful thinking”
My concern was about your forecasts, if any, which you would define as “made on correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past.”
Are you or are you not willing to make any forecasts of future temperature trends made on your , no doubt, correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past.
Or to back off a step would you would you be willing to forecast the HMF at the Cycle 25 solar activity peak?. If so are you able or willing to forecast whether global temperature will be warmer or cooler than the present at that time based on the HMF or any other criteria you may judge appropriate?
As to my forecasts there are different ways of projecting past trends to the future ( multiple working hypotheses) and I used a different approach in the NH and Global forecasts.
I also said
“1. NH
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.”
Incidentally these forecasts are in the ballpark with the new cooling predictions on the Jo Nova site.
From Greg Goodman on June 26, 2014 at 11:45 am:
I had wondered about your SSN 5y relaxation vs hadSST3 post, where was the rest of the data? HadSST3 goes back to 1850, so why terminate it about 1865?
But now I see, your “fit” goes noticeably out of phase about 1890, your “relaxed” SSN starts matching peaks to SST troughs as it goes further back. The 1910 mismatch is allowable as a quirk of the SSN minimum of a large cycle that shows up due to the data mangling, about 1895 is arguably a peak to peak match, but beyond there they are clearly not synchronized.
Plus my eyeball tells me there is likely divergence, if there was SST before 1850 it’d be trending lower and would not match the mangled SSN.
You showed enough to show a “fit”, had to have enough pre-1900 to indicate it was close, but pre-1865 would have obviously shown problems.
Likewise on the near end, about a 1975 mangled SSN dip is where they go out of sync towards the present, SST looks like it might continue trending up post-2000 while the mangled SSN is already going down, and the data is cut off either at or just before 2000.
To be honest and look at where they are in sync, actually 1925 could be the start, 1975 the end, thus they’re only together for fifty years out of 164 years of SST data.
Now the cutoffs could be unintentional, as with an honest 30 year running mean there would be 15 years cut off both ends. But you groan and moan exuberantly about the awful “runny mean” so would never use it and your legend swears a “5y filter” was used so only 2.5 years would be lost.
Thus as was obvious with the tree ring divergence and the Hokey Stick, I find only one conclusion makes sense as to why the rest of the data was “disappeared”.
Good Afternoon Willis
You seem to be expecting me back,so I will return for one final attempt at conducting a civil exchange with you
In creating my own reconstruction of temperatures prior to Manley’s 1659 CET record (which incidentally is by no means entirely instrumental) it seemed a useful exercise to do this whilst walking alongside two much more famous reconstructions, that of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb, who presented two very different (for the most part) versions of our climate. This provided the opportunity of looking at the detailed background and evidence used in each reconstruction in a way that neither myself, nor probably most of my readers will have previously done.
Not all of what Dr Mann produced was by any means bad, and not all of what Hubert Lamb produced was by any means good. As I made abundantly clear in this article, as in others, I do not agree with Dr Mann’s view of a stable climate but side with Hubert Lambs argument that climate is highly variable, albeit there were a few parts of his work that I disagreed with, or that surprised me.
When assembling evidence in order to put forward the viewpoints of both parties in an even handed manner –so it does not degenerate into a polemic and turn off your audience at the outset- you are going to be relaying information you may disagree with. The time to put forward an alternative view is later in the article when discussing their relative merits.
In this context you continually claim that I believe the Hockey stick to be essentially confirmed and as a result spit fire and brimstone at me. I said nothing of the sort, I said;
“The accuracy of the ‘hockey stick’ type reconstruction shown above was essentially confirmed by The National Academies of America in 2006 with their paper ‘Surface temperature reconstructions for the past 2000 years.”
Not essentially confirmed by me Willis-but by the NAA. Once the evidence setting out the stalls is out of the way I make my feelings on the dubious science of the HS and the results achieved by the spaghetti derivatives perfectly clear. There is however a very pertinent part of the NAA report that speaks directly to me. It is this;
“Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to further improve our knowledge of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, particularly if additional
proxy evidence can be identified and obtained from areas where the coverage is relatively sparse and for time periods before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900.”
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
That is exactly what I am trying to do –to improve our understanding of the climate prior to 1600 because it is an Achilles heel.
The methods of creating temperature reconstructions through the use of proxies are described in such works as ‘A millennium of weather winds and water’ by A Van Engelen, J Buisman and F Unsen of De Bilt, whereby you give a weighting to various climatic states. One off anecdotes by unknown persons may be interesting but have little value by themselves and there is no point you quoting them out of context back to me. Those from reliable commentators, diaries and other information such as rainfall, snow and crop records can be put together with scientific papers (of which there are many) academic books (again there are many of these) glacier records etc, and combined with other unlikely proxies such as fish movements and Malaria incidence, both reliant on cold or warm weather.
Now, here is the crux of the matter. I have previously said in this thread that I am inconsequential. You seem to have missed this in somehow believing that I have in some way been offended by your not recognising me. So what? That was not the point. So let me repeat again, I am inconsequential to climate science. But, and here is the thing Willis. So are you.
We are so far outside the big tent of climate science and policy makers making decisions that affect our lives, that we are wholly invisible. Sitting inside the big tent -whether we like it or not- is Michael Mann and his acolytes and the main stream thinking-albeit it has evolved-is that climate varied little in the past until our co2 producing ways fundamentally changed it. That is to say the Hockey Stick and its direct descendants have come to be the predominant icon of our age.
Now we can either shout very loudly and froth at the mouth at a great distance from the tent that the HS has been proven to be broken and its mastermind is a ‘crook’ and believe that by so doing we are having an impact on those running the show. Or we can attempt to deal with the realities of where we find ourselves-on the outside looking in.
My viewpoint is that if we want to be seen by those in the big tent and taken seriously we can do one of two things. Match their science by trying to tackle the inconsistencies in the data head on with better science and try to disprove various parts of their narrative and view of climate history. Or we can try to gain their attention by brawling in an unseemly fashion. Whilst the latter may prove temporarily entertaining to the very few outside of the sceptical blogosphere who notice it, such behaviour will have no impact whatsoever on policy and thinking.
I would prefer to be inside the big tent talking in an appropriate fashion to those inside rather than brawling. I think that can best be done by calm, sensible and rational debate in the knowledge that the vast majority of those inside the big climate tent are not involved in a conspiracy, or attempting a hoax, or are ‘crooks,’ but are for the most part highly intelligent and scientifically trained people who we greatly underestimate if we believe they have not examined most aspects of climate science in a manner far more diligently than we can manage with our extremely limited resources, albeit through the too narrow prism of co2.
You are perfectly capable of producing peer reviewed science that will have an impact. So are a number of others in the sceptical blogosphere. Rather than fighting amongst ourselves don’t you think we would be better employed meeting those we disagree with head on, testing our ideas first in excellent blogs such as this one, then engaging the wider world by producing material of lasting merit and interest that have been peer reviewed and is agreed to have some worth by those who control this debate?
Now if you want to be outside the big tent frothing at the mouth with impotent rage that is your decision but would be a waste of a fine and incisive mind. For my part I have chosen to tread a rational path of engagement in attempting to demonstrate that the belief in climate stability is misguided. That includes being realistic in recognising the importance and influence of those we might disagree with, such as Dr Mann. Thank you
Tony Brown (tonyb)
Owner of climate reason.com-a repository of related climate material maintained at my cost for use by anyone interested in paleoclimate.
Hi Mods
A few minutes I posted a long reply to Willis. Normally when something is over long or has too many links it will display the post on my screen and read ‘under moderation.’ However there is no sign of it. Has it gone into the netherworld of spam?
Thanks
Tonyb (Tony Brown)
Maunder through CET shows a very similar pattern to later solar minima in where the longer runs of colder years occur relative to the solar cycles. The first run of persistently colder years starts just before the cycle maximum at around 1675, and continues to the next maximum at 1685 where it warms briefly for a couple years. It then returns to a persistent run of cold years lasting two solar cycles, up to around the cycle maximum of 1705.
The reason CET reaches 10°C in 1686 in the middle of this very cold period, is short term planetary ordering of solar activity. The same type of configuration is behind warmer years around 1727, 1796, 1826, 1865, 1934, 1948, 1975, and 2003: http://snag.gy/OhdXX.jpg
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 8:15 am
My concern was about your forecasts, if any, which you would define as “made on correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past.”
Are you or are you not willing to make any forecasts of future temperature trends made on your, no doubt, correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past.
I don’t think ANYBODY can make a good forecast of the temperature trend at this point in time.
Or to back off a step would you be willing to forecast the HMF at the Cycle 25 solar activity peak?.
As HMF is well approximated [and we understand why] by HMF nT = 4 + 0.318 SQRT(SSN) a forecast of the HMF hinges on forecasting the sunspot number SSN. This we can do as soon as the solar polar fields stabilize after their reversal at solar maximum. In the past that has been a good forecast for several cycles including cycle 24 which we successfully forecast back in 2004. As the polar fields are the ‘seed’ for the solar dynamo generating solar activity, we also understand why the polar field method works, so have confidence in it. The polar fields right now are reversing and the new polar fields have not been established yet, so we cannot forecast cycle 25. We can GUESS that SC25 will be small, but that is not valid forecast, just a guess.
How confident should one be in these above predictions?
I would not place any confidence in your predictions.
PS to Goodman, fix your dang image linkings. MouseOver of your d/dt(CO2) vs SST [1 year filter] graph shows the same title as your post, but the link goes to “attachment_id=721”, next post by the numbering.
When I do a MouseOver and see the pointer change, I normally expect a link to a larger version. Sometimes I might expect a link to the next in a series, if I’m reading webcomics and I know there is no larger version.
But when I MouseOver “SSN 5y relaxation vs hadSST3”, the graph title is again the same but your link is to “attachment_id=36”, some junk named “icoads_monthly_adj0_40-diff1-gauss24_FFT”!
It’s crud like that backed by deceptive practices that led to good browsers displaying what URL you’d be clicking to. Thankfully I have one or I wouldn’t know where the hell you were trying to send me and what possible malware would await.
Learn how to do correct linking or don’t do it at all. And Fix Your Mess!
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 8:15 am
My concern was about your forecasts, if any, which you would define as “made on correct understanding of the physics and on the ability to explain the past.”
Back in 2003 there were concerns that the Hubble Space Telescope would crash to Earth because of increasing solar activity. Such an uncontrolled crash has the potential of damage to structures and people and is not considered acceptable, so NASA were investigating methods of a controlled re-entry
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9909 which would cost $60-230 million. Our forecast in 2004 of SC24 promising to be “the smallest in a 100 years” was deemed to be reliable by NASA and Hubble was left in orbit, did not crash, and has since given us a lot of wonderful science. This is an example of an ‘actionable’ forecast so reliable that you can make serious decisions based on it. Why was it reliable? Because we understand the physics and mechanisms.
Leif Thanks – Fair enough. Since you said “I don’t think ANYBODY can make a good forecast of the temperature trend at this point in time.”
Would it be correct to assume that you also think that all the temperature forecasts (predictions-projections),.impact studies etc of the IPCC on which the climate and energy policies of the UNFCCC, European Governments and the OBama administration are based also provide no reliable scientific basis for action relative to predicted climate change.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:41 am
Would it be correct to assume that you also think that all the temperature forecasts (predictions-projections),.impact studies etc of the IPCC on which the climate and energy policies of the UNFCCC, European Governments and the OBama administration are based also provide no reliable scientific basis for action relative to predicted climate change.
They are in the same league as you as far as predictions are concerned, although their science is far better, yet still not good enough.
Someone said (I won’t say who because this is not about him):
This is extremely insightful and also wrong. It illustrates a very common mindset, which happens to sidetrack the science. There are not just two possibilities, there are many, not to mention the ones which cannot be mentioned but which still have their vocal advocates. Willis has done us a great service by eliminating another article of faith.
willis, I was referring to the curve done by your “digitizer”. Others knew what I meant, even if you did not. George Brown tried to get you to see that your plot was obscuring the MWP-LIA, but you would not take a hint. We were just trying to be helpful, Willis, but you won’t let yourself be helped.
Leif Which science is better will be determined by which forecasts prove most accurate and so would have been the most useful.( Cf Your Hubble efforts). Perhaps at some future date you will feel confident enough of your science to get into the game and make a testable climate prediction..
I look forward to that with considerable serious interest and anticipation..
Toto says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:48 am
“This is extremely insightful and also wrong. It illustrates a very common mindset, which happens to sidetrack the science. There are not just two possibilities, there are many, not to mention the ones which cannot be mentioned but which still have their vocal advocates. Willis has done us a great service by eliminating another article of faith.”
I cannot see anyone getting any traction with attempting to attribute all of the 20th century warming to internal variability. Willis has not eliminated anything, his analysis does not detract in the slightest from the fact that it gets colder during all solar minima.
lsvalgaard says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:32 am
“Why was it reliable? Because we understand the physics and mechanisms.”
================
Sometimes I’ll tempt Her, but never out loud. 🙂
lsvalgaard
I know you’re not interested in circulation, but I would advise to see.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/06/17/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-29.26,8.73,365
@ ren on June 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm:
Re: nullschool-dot-net link
tl;dl
Too Large; Didn’t Load. Takes too long on my connection, and an interactive globe interface is too graphics-intensive for my equipment.
Here’s a tip. If it is more than a slide then it is too much. Humans want to see something quickly and assess the importance within seconds. It is part of our survival instincts, quickly evaluating possible resources and threats is built in.
If you have never seen a real slide, and especially not a carousel, and wonder why the ability of many graphics programs to sequentially display a group of images is named like a presentation of playground equipment, there may be no hope for you.
Pet peeve time: When referring to a nullschool Earth image (which are cool), PLEASE tell us in your comment what we are looking at. There are no labels that come with those animations. I could be looking at a globe shaped lava lamp for all I know.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:30 am
“1. Tracks really well? not science.
2. NAO is not the planet.”
The Dalton Minimum was not the planet either, but no doubt that the NAO was negative during most cold episodes in the regions that Dalton effected, and CET is a good proxy for the NAO. In the coldest part of Dalton from 1807 to 1817, there could have been as many as 5 El Nino episodes:
https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events
vukcevic says @: June 27, 2014 at 7:53 am
” Ms Gray
In that case you could start by reading Tony Brown’s contributions.”
If Tony were a meteorologist or displays the degree of familiarity with weather pattern variations such can be seen in Bob Tisdale’s work, yes. But I don’t need to see Tony’s reconstructions. There are good ones already in the peer reviewed literature.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.envsci.rutgers.edu%2Fpdf%2FGao2008JD010239.pdf&ei=ieCtU931EZenyATgx4CgAg&usg=AFQjCNEsYW1lx-Dpn_rn3ncKWQhQ5xOglw&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw
What they fail to do is organize them into a time and address stamped global weather pattern that might suggest mechanisms via oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections of the sort we see today. There is no reason for me to suspect that these teleconnections were somehow not in place during the time span this thread is focused on. I do propose they were disrupted and stalled, repeatedly, into a weather pattern variation that brings on extreme winter cold temperatures and less than ideal growing season temperatures well into mid-latitude areas, from which there was scant recovery before they were disrupted again and again, causing a continued jerky slide into the depths of the LIA. I then propose that the disruptions ceased to be a recurring issue and the slow climb back up commenced.
If we can cross date all the proxies and place them geographically on the globe with overlays of what we know are the general patterns of weather variations driven by oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections that cause wide swaths of cold weather, we would be a lot further down the road explaining the LIA.
Addendum: I also propose that there were not enough clear sky recharge events to warm the deeper layers of the oceans. It seems to me that the oceans had discharged all the spare heat they had and that recharge events were far and few between plus a day late and a dollar short. She said in scientific terms.
Ms Gray
I have read above comment, and will reserve my opinion on the contents.
all the best to you.
ren says:
June 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm
“http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/06/17/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-29.26,8.73,365”
————————————————————————————————————————
Here’s the thing about this very nice link: it shows color coded sea surface anomalies, not actual temperatures with no labels that I could see. The blue “cool” areas could still be very warm.
Ren Great link. Came right up. Kadaka needs to upgrade his system.
tonyb says:
June 27, 2014 at 9:31 am
Tony, thanks for your return, much appreciated.
You’ll have to point out the good to me. Here’s a review of the bidding:
Dr. Mann’s original Hockeystick was based on an egregious mathematical error, had with-held data which Mann knew would discredit his work, used a method that actively mined for hockeysticks, and included proxy data which he knew was not recommended for use in reconstructions, the “stripbark” pine tree ring widths.
The result was the famous “Hockeystick” graph, which Mann used his position as a lead IPCC author to promote. It made his newly-minted PhD look really shiny … until the luster wore off as error after error and concealment after concealment were revealed.
Of course, as you might imagine, the unending series of revelations of hidden data and lies to the Senate Committee and newbie math mistakes drove him into uber-protective mode, to the extent where he has rarely admitted that any of his work has even the slightest problems.
Since then, his every effort has been to somehow, anyhow, create a replica of his fatally flawed original hockeystick that would not be found wanting. Fortunately for him, this isn’t hard to do for a simple reason. Any weighting system, not just Principal Component Analysis but any weighting system which is trained using the increasing temperature record of the last 150 years actively mines for hockeysticks. If you run any proxy weighting system involving the historical temperature record against red noise, you get a hockeystick.
Now, in most fields of science, they’d take one look at that and say “Bzzzzt! Data snooping! You can’t weight your proxies based on a comparison to the expected outcomes!”.
And they would be right. If you weight red noise pseudoproxies based on a comparison to historical temperatures and average them, you get a lovely hockeystick that looks just like both the original and all of the “stickalikes”, a long straight shaft with an upsweep at the end.
Think about what this means, Tony. You are discussing a procedure which is known to generate hockeysticks out of red noise AS THOUGH IT WERE A SCIENTIFIC RESULT! It’s not! It is a predictable, replicable result of their data-snooping.
And when you do that, when you discuss Mann’s spurious results as though they were actual science, you end up with people like the commenter I quoted above, who said:
There is no “best of Mann”, Tony, and you shouldn’t give him a place. Weighted multi-proxy data-snooped reconstructions are a scientific travesty.
Look, if you had pointed out EVEN ONE of the well known problems with the “hockeystick” style analysis (data snooping, effect of weighting, active mining for hockeysticks, mathematical mistakes, use of proxies that are known to be unsuitable, etc., etc.) I would agree.
But you didn’t do that. You were all balanced, taking them at face value. Now for Lamb, that’s not a problem.
But taking Mann at face value, as you absolutely did, without a word of the manifold problems, is totally deceiving your audience. His work is riddled with errors, his results are spurious.
If you think the NAS report is any better than any other piece of alarmism, you truly haven’t done your homework. They did their very best to cooper up Mann’s mistakes. More to the point, they didn’t understand that you could get the same result from red noise. And as for confirmation, I note that you didn’t quote the comments on Mann’s work from the scientists in the Climategate emails … they thought his work was wildly overhyped.
But again, the only thing you’re looking at are Mann’s results. Where is the discussion of the how the method ensures a straight shaft for the hockeystick? Or perhaps you’ve never considered why that might be, why there’s a straight shaft … like I said, Tony, and with all due respect, you’re way in over your depth here. Near as I can tell, you truly don’t understand the implications of the fact that their method produces a hockeystick, straight shaft, upturned end, when run against red noise.
You appear to think you are treating Mann and Lamb even-handedly … and you are. But that’s the problem. One is a scientist and one is a charlatan … so when you act like they are the same, you’re just doing what the alarmists do—notice and discuss seriously and fete and cite Michael Mann’s bogus claims, while overlooking everything we learned from Climategate.
Couldn’t agree more.
I certainly agree in general, but the devil is in the details. As to the “one off anecdotes” you say it is useless to quote, actually those were either from you or from your cited works. However, I do in fact support any effort to improve our knowledge of past climates … I’m just saying, comparing them to a random red-noise result isn’t a method I’d recommend …
Dang, my friend, I wouldn’t say that. However, you’re in the best position to assess that, I’m not gonna argue.
Whoa there, cowboy. I have been a very dynamic part of the fight to keep the alarmists at bay, a fight we are winning, albeit slowly. I was the guy who made the first Freedom of Information request to Phil Jones, and then publicly discussed it as they went through the steps of evading my requst. This was the act that (albeit unknowingly) led eventually to the revelations of the Climategate emails, which showed inter alia how Phil and others conspired to evade the law.
And then, when the Climategate story broke, I thought the game was over. I thought there would be a wave of revulsion and they’d throw the bums out … but they just cranked up the spin machine, it’s was all about “boys will be boys” and “that’s just how scientists talk”, and the like, they were going to sweep it all under the rug …
So I wrote up the story of my FOI and of what the emails actually showed … and lots and lots of folks read it, it was copied and linked around the blogosphere.
But the spin machine was still in full rinse cycle, so I realized I had to do more. So I emailed the story to every single National Academy of Science around the planet—US, Japan, Britain, places with lots of z’s and y’s, everywhere.
And then, I sent a copy to every address I could find at every professional body, AAAS, American Association of Physicists, meteorological organizations, every one.
And then, I sent a copy to every politician, national or state, whose email I could come up with … they tend to hide those.
Finally, at the end, I did what I should have done first—I sent it to every news organization and every individual journalist I could dig up an email for. Everyone from Tom Brokaw to FoxNews to individual journalists in Kazakhstan got a copy.
Did this make any difference? Hard to tell … but afterwards, the discussions of the event took on a much more sombre tone, they stopped trying to sell the “boys will be boys” meme and discuss actual investigations. And I realized for the first time that the internet gives immense power to a single individual, in a way that has never been true in history.
People tell me I take it too personally, but they don’t understand. I’m the person who was there. When I say that Phil Jones is a liar, it’s because I’m the guy he lied to. When I say Michael Mann plays dirty, it’s because I’m the guy whose ideas he made off with and published as his own ideas.
So yeah … it is personal, and for a good reason—I was and am an involved actor in the ongoing climate docudrama, not a spectator.
Since then, I’ve continued to write as a guest author for WUWT, which is by far the most visible climate platform on the planet. Bizarrely, my work is regularly read by most of the luminaries on both sides in the climate debate, and I thank them for their presence. Most of them never comment here, but I know they read my work, they tweet about it or email me about it or tell their friends about it and their friends tell me …
Anyhow, some of them read me to follow my insights, and the rest of the folks read me to see just what mad claims I’m making now for them to laugh and scoff at …
Not only that, but a quick internet search on any day of the week finds my latest claims being either lambasted or (far less often) lauded at climate web sites all around the web. There are guys who have whole web pages dedicated to nothing but hating on me … go figure. Not something I ever expected. Me, I love it—all that does is drive traffic to my idea. People read those sites, and they need to read my ideas to properly scoff at them, so they come to WUWT to read what I’ve written … hey, my work is done, what’s not to like?
In addition, I’ve used the opportunity to investigate and discuss my theory that the global temperature is regulated by the actions of emergent phenomena, a theory which I find is gradually attracting more interest across the spectrum.
So I’ve already made my mark on the history of climate science, Tony, paltry though my mark is in historical terms and compared with the giants, and I am continuing to do so regardless of what you think of yourself.
I couldn’t disagree more. Climate alarmism is falling apart. People can only be fooled for so long, and the lack of the 50,000,000 climate refugees solemnly predicted for the year 2010 is becoming kinda apparent …
At this point , climate alarmism is like a house with most of the nails pulled out, and held up by nothing but chronological inertia … the politicians will beat the drum, but its already at the bottom of the people’s agenda. Oh, the green rent-seekers will keep it alive for a while, but in the end, science does win out.
Whenever anyone tries to tell me that there are two and only two possibilities, I get claustrophobia from restricted opportunities, and I start looking for the third door out … and almost always, there is one. For example, here’s a third possibility—ignore them completely and just do science. Not saying I recommend it, just pointing out that you have committed the logical “fallacy of the excluded middle”.
More to the point, there’s a fourth possibility, the one you’ve taken—pretend that what they’ve done is defensible scientifically, do not mention any of the known errors and problems with their methods that invalidate their results, don’t tell readers that you can get their results from red noise, discuss their results only, and treat their results “even-handedly” and “equally” with real scientific results.
Me, I think the fourth possibility is a big mistake … although obviously, YMMV …
Mmmm … first off, as near as I can tell, most of the planet are not part of a conspiracy, or attempting a hoax, or are crooks.
The current problem is that the climategate emails showed that many of the leading lights of the climate alarm movement, many of the biggest names in the field, were part of a conspiracy of crooks who, although not consciously “attempting a hoax”, were using any number of underhanded, sneaky, evasive, malfeasant, deceptive, and in some cases criminal means to forward their alarmism, spread the fear, and silence and hobble their scientific opponents. And one of their most energetic members was Michael Mann.
Now, I expected that after Mann and the others were convicted by their own words, that there would be a reaction among the many “highly intelligent and scientifically trained people” who make up the bulk of climate scientists … foolish, foolish me. Mann and Jones and Peter Gleick the rest of them have not suffered any negative consequences at all for their reprehensible actions. To the contrary, they have been feted and defended and honored and invited to speak at conferences …
So when you stand up and say well, let’s treat Michael Mann’s work as though it were defensible science … sorry, but that is a charade that leads your readers to congratulate you for advancing Mann’s work, as happened over at Judith’s. My advice is to shun them, do not give their ideas even one more airing.
I have produced peer reviewed science. My experience is that I have a much greater effect on the outcome by not spending six months in the preparation, submission, and defense of a journal paper. Among other reasons, in climate science peer review means absolutely zero, and every serious researcher knows it. So much of all kinds of garbage has been published by journals from the smallest up to Nature and Science that the entire brand of scientific journals is in great disrepute.
So instead, I produce publicly peer-reviewed science that has a large impact. For me, what I realized was that I wasn’t interested in being part of the history of climate science by having my name in the journals.
Instead, I was interested in affecting the direction of the climate dialog. New issues in climate science arise every day and are widely discussed and acted on. I have a choice—do the scientific research and take a clear scientific position on the subjects today while people are actively discussing the issue … or write a paper on the research and publish it six months from now when the issue is resolved and forgotten?
For me, it was a no-brainer …
Again, the fallacy of the excluded middle, coupled with an inaccurate metaphor. There is no “big tent” with people in the binary state of inside or outside, that’s a false parallel.
Instead, for the first time in history there is an unparalleled opportunity for people like you and I to participate in scientific discussions and debates far above our nominal pay grade, and get our ideas out to a huge audience.
Look, Tony, I know I’m a polarizing figure. What most folks don’t realize is that I take the most extreme defensible positions for a purpose—to legitimize the more central positions. It buys space for people other than myself to take a position which is daring but not out at the edge of the envelope.
Consider for example my position on the 11-year cycle. I don’t say it doesn’t exist, that’s not defensible. I say I haven’t seen one piece of strong evidence for it to date, and I invite people to give me their best shot, the best data they can point to that they think supports their position.
Is that position extreme and polarizing? Dangbetcha, already about 900 comments, and it seems to have driven some commenters ’round the twist.
But that’s fine. I want the issues to be made visible, and the sap rising. I want the lack of evidence to be faced head-on. I want people impassioned enough to do their best to prove me wrong. Science is a blood sport, people are doing their best to cut and wound and smash each others ideas and theories, and to me it is a mistake to play it dispassionately. Stand up and defend!
Finally, I’ve often said that the problem is not that I’m too outraged … the problem is that by and large y’all aren’t outraged enough, e.g. by the antics and crimes of Mann and the others ..
I heated up your site name into a link there so people could just click to see your interesting site, good stuff.
And indeed, thank you for your reasoned thoughts and calm demeanor, something to learn from. On my part, I’m working on becoming more Canadian … but as you may have noticed, it’s a slow process …
Regards,
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:03 am
——————————-
With regard to this potential UV accumulation effect, surface UV is more important than TOA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html
This selective surface mechanism has also been looked at with regard to biological turbidity. It is notable here that the authors do not consider the oceans a “near blackbody” in their modelling.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO2740.1
Greg Goodman says:
June 27, 2014 at 2:18 am
———————————
Greg,
http://www.biblioteca.uma.es/bbldoc/tesisuma/1663844x.pdf
– has some empirical measurements of UV penetration into the oceans.
Of interest was figure 3.(d)
Here’s my take on the hockey stick from
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
“Over the last 25 years an immense amount of valuable instrumental and proxy temperature and possible climate driver data has been acquired and it turns out that climate forecasting on the basis of recognizing quasi cyclic – quasi-repetitive patterns in that data is fairly simple and straight forward. Interested parties should take the time necessary to become familiar with the general trends in both the instrumental and proxy time series of temperature ,forcings and feedbacks.
Central to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.
Here are links to some of the most relevant papers-starting with the hockey stick.
://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
note Espers comments on the above at
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf
and see how Mann’s hockey stick has changed in later publications
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
an important paper by Berggren et al relating solar activity to climate is
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below ) is: Steinhilber et al – 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
for Holocene climate variability in general there is much valuable data in Mayewski et al :
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Mayewski2004.pdf
Of particular interest with regard to the cause of the late 20th century temperature increase is Wang et al:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.
The recurring millennial cycle is also seen in the ice core data.”
Interesting links. In the time span of interest, regardless of what decreases solar insolation (the Sun or a veil over the Sun – and ya’ll know which one I think has the greater potential, this diminution in Solar insolation should cause the Earth to respond in the same way it does now. Decreased insolation eventually leads to a slowing of the Walker Circulation (which depends on strong clear sky solar insolation) which causes the winds to calm and sets up a layering of ocean water such that a lot of heat is evaporated away. If things stay that way too long, all the heat is used up to the point that the oceans are now circulating less warm water than it did. We all know what happens when less warm water sits off our respective coastlines. BRRRRR!
mpainter says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:24 am
Look, guys, you all seem to think that I have a photographic memory and that you are the only commenter I’m dealing with.
Instead, my mind is usually filled up with scientific speculation and consideration and puzzle-solving, and I am dealing with hundreds of commenters and writing thousands of words every day.
So for example in this instance, I’m sure I said something to you sometime about some unknown curve.
I have no idea what it was. No memory of the comment or the context. I write’m and forget’m, there’s no way I could possibly keep it all straight.
And in part this is why I insist that people quote my words, so there is some kind of “audit trail” that I and other can follow to find out what the commenter is referring to.
However, you give me nothing … well, nothing except claiming (again without quotation) that I “won’t let myself be helped”. Now that’s a joke. You know what would help me? If charming folks like you would QUOTE MY WORDS so I can understand your comments.
I don’t go on snipe hunts these days, mpainter, gave it up. I have neither the time nor the interest to guess at some search terms and wade through 900 comments looking for what you might possibly mean.
So I’ll let myself be helped, any time … but you’ve gotta help me. And this kind of uncited, unquoted comment is no help at all.
w.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:27 am
Leif Which science is better will be determined by which forecasts prove most accurate and so would have been the most useful.
Since what you do is not science, but just wiggle matching, your forecast has no discriminatory value as you could be right for the wrong reason, or alternatively there are many theories or ideas [some even scientific] that produce forecast similar to yours. So it just be that one of those [instead of yours] is the right one.
Konrad. says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm
With regard to this potential UV accumulation effect, surface UV is more important than TOA.
As the variation of the energy of surface UV is less than a fifth of the energy of the variation of TSI, UV does not play a major role.
Whether inhibition of the Gulf Stream can be predicted?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-49.32,51.76,419
What drives the weather and temperature locally and regionally?
Sea surface temperatures(mode of sea circulation system) and the mode of the air circulation system, high or low pressure etc.
This winter in Scandinavia was very mild but at the same time very cold in parts of USA. At the same time the global temperature did nothing.
Santa Baby
Circulation is now important for the U.S. because it causes floods. Important, too, was in the winter.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-56.70,33.91,553
Willis
Thanks for your reply. It appears we disagree fundamentally in our approach in tackling climate alarmism. Perhaps you need to tell your President it is falling apart?
However, it seems to me that we are where we are in our personal philosophies and it may be a good thing for two people to work from opposite ends of a problem and ultimately meet in the middle. As you know its called a pincer movement which has borne much fruit in the past in previous conflicts. .Ultimately however it will be science and nature who will decide whether alarmists or sceptics are correct
All the best
Tonyb
Tony Brown
Is the temperature of the ocean to the south around Africa affects the circulation, or not?
http://ziemianarozdrozu.pl/i/upload/zmiany-klimatu-zjawiska/cyrkulacja-oceaniczna.jpg
tonyb says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:12 am
Thanks, Tony. The famous Irishman, O’Bama, is always behind the times, no surprise. And as I said,
He’ll figure it out in a while … he’s kinda slow.
Indeed, my friend, sounds good—you hit’em high, I’ll hit’em low, no problems.
And my best to you as well,
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Most of the rise we see over the last 300 years [CET] occurred since 1988.
lsvalgaard says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:54 pm
“When solar activity has been decreasing.”
The sharp rise in CET from 1988 to 1995 was a matter of increased summer sunshine hours and warmer circulation patterns due to the NAO being very positive. This was at a time when solar plasma forcing was at its greatest, it then declined from the mid 1990’s:
http://snag.gy/YztLh.jpg
From 1995 onwards there was a marked increase in negative NAO, that rapidly forced the warm AMO phase (and warmed the Arctic), and naturally raised average CET values, as they are impacted by SST’s in the region.
re kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 27, 2014 at 9:25 am
Now the cutoffs could be unintentional, as with an honest 30 year running mean there would be 15 years cut off both ends. But you groan and moan exuberantly about the awful “runny mean” so would never use it and your legend swears a “5y filter” was used so only 2.5 years would be lost.
Thus as was obvious with the tree ring divergence and the Hokey Stick, I find only one conclusion makes sense as to why the rest of the data was “disappeared”.
===
You should not let your ignorance feed your cynicism so readily.
Not all filters have the same support kernel as runny means. In order to get a better, less distorting filter you need a longer kernel. That was done with a lanczos filter
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/lanczos-filter-script/
This has the advantage of short transition band, so it keeps as much LF as possible. For this reason I chose it over a gaussian which tends to make everything look like sine waves.
The cut-off was exactly what you originally thought before making incorrect conclusions about the length of the 5y filter and how I was sneakily cutting the data. In fact I drew attention to the divergence after 1988 and discussed it with lsvalgaard. Hardly playing “hide the decline” is it?
We know the temps ‘plateau’ after 2000 and the relaxation does not have any truncation, so use your imagination. The point here was to look at centennial scale change and whether SSN could be a factor.
I have also pointed out many times in numerous threads here on WUWT and my article two years ago that there is significant variability around 9y period and that this is why the SST signal is distorted and has a phase drift w.r.t SSN.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
I don’t expect or suggest that the 11y variation matches in either straight SSN or 5y relaxation response. The point was to look at the long term variation.
As for all your shouting about the links, it’s not my links, it’s what WordPress does for you. I don’t like it but I don’t have time to make my own personal version of WP and convince them to adopt it.
Thanks for looking, I’m sure you could make a more useful contribution if you were not just out to snipe.
Leif You seem to imply that that the sort of thinking and approach which produced the geological time scale for example or which produced the current amazing rise in US oil and gas production is not “science” whereas what physicists do is. From my perspective you have too narrowly focussed a view of nature and how complex systems work and as a result you tend not to be able to see the wood for the trees .I’m not saying that what you do does not produce valuable and useful information- as you know I have several times complimented you on your scientific output. I would note however that relative to climate which is what the WUWT site is about your approach has up until now apparently been unable to produce any forecast whatever of future temperature trends that you are willing to put forward.
Page, your comment about Leif not putting any forecasts out for future temperature trends is his defining feature that puts him leagues ahead of all the top notch modelers of CO2 prognostications. And I agree with him on another point. Their science is better!
Dr Norman Page says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am
Leif You seem to imply that that the sort of thinking and approach which produced the geological time scale for example or which produced the current amazing rise in US oil and gas production is not “science” whereas what physicists do is.
The examples you mention are based on hard data, not on extrapolations of non-scientific guesses. Your approach is not science by even a generous definition.
From Greg Goodman on June 28, 2014 at 6:21 am:
And that’s something that makes your work so funny. I had noticed that, searched, found out a Lanczos filter is appropriate for digital signals, like with image processing. Where you’d expect groupings of similar pixels, and patterns among the pixels.
So here you are using photoshop tools on short streams of sampled data from analog processes, and waiting for everyone to recognize your brilliance.
Keep on going with these negative examples, Greg, you’re giving me a great education on how NOT to mangle the data until it conforms to the observer’s preconceptions.
WUWT doesn’t have that problem with their image links and it’s hosted on wordpress-dot-com. I know other wordpress-dot-com sites without that problem. Heck, I’ve played with my own wordpress-dot-com blog and didn’t have that problem.
I find your explanation to be less than satisfactory. PEBKAC.
Leif
My approach is based on the rational scientific inferences which can be made from the data shown in Figs 3 ,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
Actually my general approach is to post links to the data and have readers draw their own conclusions and readers are invited to go to links and do just that – see also
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2012/11/global-cooling-climate-and-weather.html
(Note this was posted in Nov 2012.)
Dr Norman Page says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:33 am
My approach is based on the rational scientific inferences
No, your extrapolations [some based on cherry-picked data] are not science, however much it may hurt to admit it [which, of course, you never will]. A true mark of a scientist is to admit when he is wrong.
Leif You say “. A true mark of a scientist is to admit when he is wrong.” I agree entirely .
and look forward to hearing from you in about 2020.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:01 am
Leif You say “. A true mark of a scientist is to admit when he is wrong.” I agree entirely .
and look forward to hearing from you in about 2020.
I hope you will admit defeat long before that [but will not hold my breath]
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:23 am
You have been shown links to Meehl repeatedly. Why would it take 15 minutes to look at his references.
Your unwillingness to look at any studies which you suspect will show your claim false is why your assertion of no 11 year signal in any records is baseless.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:25 am
You have been shown links to Meehl repeatedly. Why would it take 15 minutes to look at his references.
There are many references and they in turn reference many other papers which in turn reference …, etc.
This very quickly becomes extremely tedious. You could be of great help if you could distill all that into a single paragraph and show it here.
tonyb says:
June 27, 2014 at 9:31 am
The PDO was discovered by a Pacific NW salmon researcher, so fish movements are indeed a good climate proxy.
Don’t worry about not being in the circus big tent of climatastrology. The consensus will sooner or later be so thoroughly shown false that its charlatan practitioners like Mann will go down in shame in the history of science.
Also, as citizens, those outside the tree ring circus still can have influence. Maybe more in the US than the UK, since at least there are some members of Congress willing, indeed eager to listen. My senators aren’t. but my representative is, although he keeps voting for windmill subsidies, since his district has more of them than anywhere else in the world. He survived a Tea Party candidate in the primary, but might not be so lucky next time, despite his present position of power. The GOP establishment is running scared since Majority Leader Cantor was defeated by a Tea Party opponent in the Virginia primary. One reason the US has never enacted a carbon tax is citizen resistance, although the EPA is trying to achieve the same result extra-legally.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:29 am
I’ve already listed the key references in this & other blog comments. All Willis had to do was note the sources listed in the second & third PPT panels & Google them. But here goes again. Two of many references from:
G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing, Science 325:1114-1118, 2009
The response in the Pacific to the sun’s decadal peaks and contrasts to cold events in the Southern Oscillation
Harry van Loon, Gerald A. Meehl
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/vanloon_meehl_2008.pdf
INTERDECADAL PACIFIC OSCILLATION AND SOUTH PACIFIC CLIMATE
M.J. SALINGER*, J.A. RENWICK and A.B. MULLAN
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.691/pdf
These are not obscure papers. IPCC AR4 & NASA cite them.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:53 am
I’ve already listed the key references in this & other blog comments.
I didn’t ask for more references. Can you not distill the science and summarize the evidence in your own words in a single paragraph?
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Sorry. Misunderstood you. IMO it’s summarized adequately in the NASA link I’ve posted repeatedly, including above. If you want a single paragraph, the first below might suffice:
“Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
“The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
“In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
“Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”
“Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
“Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.”
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific … correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle”.
“signs of’? You call that compelling evidence? I am not impressed. Meehl’s paper is just like the other hundreds of papers making vague claims with little or ambiguous evidence.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:13 pm
As you know better than anyone here, scientific language is often not couched boldly. You could form your own opinion of the work upon which that sentence was based by reading the papers cited in Meehl & the other studies mentioned by your frequent contracting agency, NASA.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:20 pm
You could form your own opinion of the work upon which that sentence was based by reading the papers cited in Meehl
Already have as I boldly expressed
your frequent contracting agency, NASA.
Your appeal to authority does not impress. Who do you think NASA asks?
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:23 pm
I wasn’t appealing to authority, but to the work of your colleagues cited by NASA, which does ask other scientists besides yourself for their results. I’m sure all here could benefit from your analysis or review of the studies the agency cites in its discussion I linked.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:27 pm
I’m sure all here could benefit from your analysis or review of the studies the agency cites in its discussion I linked.
The agency does not cite anything, Meehl does.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:36 pm
The NASA-authored publication I linked above cites Meehl & other studies. IMO the agency’s officially mentioning & discussing those papers counts as citing them.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:44 pm
The NASA-authored publication I linked above cites Meehl & other studies. IMO the agency’s officially mentioning & discussing those papers counts as citing them.
NASA issues press releases on many things. Most are overhyped and many are misleading. The Agency does not an ‘official opinion’ and is simply reporting on work by some scientist, not ‘citing’ the work in the usual meaning of that word.
Milodon
Thanks for your comment. I have seen some of the Plymouth fish records-and others-which date back to the 12th century. They tell of a constant change between warm and cold water fish that matches up nicely with what we know of the temperature changes over the last 800 years.
tonyb
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:48 pm
It’s not citing in a journal paper, you’re right. However, the NASA document is more than just a press release. It is about the publication & conference linked below, but also cites relevant journal articles & discusses them.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
As a reporter, I’d be happy if all press releases so closely resembled an article, quoting outside experts & referencing their studies.
IMO before dismissing your colleagues’ work, it would be respectful to read it.
climatereason says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm
The more proxy data, the better. Tree rings for temperature is hardly the be all & end all. Dendro is better for precipitation, IMO, which isn’t as easily translated into T as Mann et al would like everyone to believe.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
IMO before dismissing your colleagues’ work, it would be respectful to read it.
Their work [although old] was known to me and I have read it and most of the literature cited. None is convincing, or even suggestive.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Did you attend the 2011 workshop, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”, which occasioned the NASA article? The 2012 report is freely downloadable:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=R1
It’s pretty up to date.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Did you attend the 2011 workshop, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”, which occasioned the NASA article?
No, not that particular one, but half a dozen similar ones the past several years.
Now, I wonder why you did not draw attention to the Figure on page 10:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=10
or the paper by Foukal [page 14] which concludes:
“There is no evidence for the large (~0.3%) increase in TSI during the early 20th century reported in a recent, widely quoted, study of 10Be. That level of increase in TSI would require the complete disappearance of the quiet network and internetwork going back in time to 1900. This requirement contradicts the presence of a fully developed network on Ca K spectroheliograms available since the 1890s. Foukal asserts that this model, which also predicts strong TSI driving of climate throughout the holocene, cannot be correct”
and many others of a similar tone.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm
I was tempted to mention it because of his funny name, as in “do you know Foukal?”, but it doesn’t bear on Willis’ request for studies finding a c. 11 year signal in climate data.
IMO all here would benefit from your analysis of the many studies which have found such a solar signal in T & precipitation observations, associated with atmospheric & oceanic parameters.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:08 pm
IMO all here would benefit from your analysis of the many studies which have found such a solar signal
That would be a massive undertaking, and unthankful, because regardless of my findings the believers of either stripe are not going to pay any attention and are not going to accept anything that is contrary to their own views.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Did you attend the 2011 workshop, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”, which occasioned the NASA article?
You might be interested in the report from another NASA workshop [in 1977] that I participated in [and helped to edit]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf
It is illuminating to compare then and now. Not much progress IMHO.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:14 pm
I understand that looking at all of them would be a major project. But analyzing just the 2008 paper which you found unconvincing would be helpful, as it references similar earlier work:
The response in the Pacific to the sun’s decadal peaks and contrasts to cold events in the Southern Oscillation
Harry van Loon, Gerald A. Meehl
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/vanloon_meehl_2008.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Fascinating indeed how little real climatology has progressed since the important climate year of 1977. “Climate science” was hijacked by the Carbon Mafia (Carbonari?) & computer modeling, to the great detriment of gathering & analyzing real observational data. As you know, Freeman Dyson has expressed a similar sentiment.
Willis might want to read the pages in your link on the 11 & 22 year cycle correlations with atmospheric pressure, temperature, precipitation & droughts.
Thanks!
Abstract of v. Loon & Meehl (2008) linked above:
Van Loon et al. [2007. Coupled air–sea response to solar forcing in the Pacific region during northern winter. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D02108, doi:10.1029/2006JD007378] showed that the Pacific Ocean in northern winter is sensitive to the influence of the sun in its decadal peaks. We extend this study by three solar peaks to a total of 14, examine the response in the stratosphere, and contrast the response to solar forcing to that of cold events (CEs) in the Southern Oscillation. The addition of three solar peak years confirms the earlier results. That is, in solar peak years the sea level pressure (SLP) is, on average, above normal in the Gulf of Alaska and south of the equator, stronger southeast trades blow across the Pacific equator and cause increased upwelling and thus anomalously lower sea surface temperatures (SSTs).
Since the effect on the Pacific climate system of solar forcing resembles CEs in the Southern Oscillation, we compare the two and note that, even though their patterns appear similar in some ways, they are particularly different in the stratosphere and are thus due to separate processes. That is, in July–August (JA) of the year leading into January–February (JF) of the solar peak years, the Walker cell expands in the Pacific troposphere, and the stratospheric wind anomalies are westerly below 25 hPa and easterly above, whereas this signal in the stratosphere is absent in CEs. Thus the large-scale east–west tropical atmospheric (Walker) circulation is enhanced, though not to the extent that it is in CEs in the Southern Oscillation, and the solar influence thus appears as a strengthening of the climatological mean regional precipitation maxima in the tropical Pacific.
Additionally, CEs have a 1-year evolution, while the response to solar peaks extends across 3 years such that the signal in the Pacific SLP of the solar peaks is similar but weaker in the year leading into the peak and in the year after the peak. The concurrent negative SST anomalies develop during the year before the solar peak, and after the peak the anomalies are still present but are waning. In the stratosphere in solar peaks, the equatorial quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is amplified when it is in its westerly phase in the lower stratosphere and easterly phase above; and the QBO is suppressed when in its easterly phase below–westerly phase above. Such an association is not evident in CEs.
Dr. S.
It is illuminating to compare then and now. Not much progress IMHO.
……
Including pages 19-23 ?
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:46 pm
The response in the Pacific to the sun’s decadal peaks and contrasts to cold events in the Southern Oscillation Harry van Loon, Gerald A. Meehl
Is typical for it showing average response as maps. That makes it difficult to assess repeatability and error bars. Useless IMHO.
vukcevic says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:12 pm
“It is illuminating to compare then and now. Not much progress IMHO.”
including pages 19-23 ?
especially those pages.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:46 pm
I took a look at your study by Gerald Meehl. He is comparing sunspot cycles to computer model results.
Now, I know that your reading is kinda sketchy, but was there some part of the following that eluded your keen eye?
So after all of your bleating and whining about Meehl, and why didn’t Willis look at Meehl, you finally get around to post the Meehl study, and they compare sunspots to nothing but the reanalysis output of a computer climate model.
Let me say it real loud so you get it and can shut up about Meehl forever:
CLIMATE MODELS WHICH INCLUDE SOLAR DATA IN THEIR INPUT, LIKE REANALYSIS MODELS, WILL SHOW A SOLAR EFFECT IN THE OUTPUT! AND YES, MEEHL FINDS A SOLAR EFFECT IN THE OUTPUTS OF JUST SUCH A MODEL … SO WHAT!
Climate model outputs are linear transforms of the inputs, so finding a solar signal in climate model outputs is meaningless. As I said above, if you seriously think that the climate model results in the Meehl study are evidence of solar forcing, you’re dumber than you look.
Unfortunately, given the three monumentally crappy pieces of “evidence” you’ve put forwards as the best support for your theory, not just bad but ridiculously and laughably bad, I’m starting to think that that is entirely possible …
w.
PS—His grasp of statistics is also not up to the task, but that’s another issue. Not an unimportant issue, large enough to sink the whole study by itself … but since he’s just studying Modelworld and not the real world, it’s just another nail in the coffin …
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Are you intentionally being obtuse? I’ve repeatedly said to ignore the modeling in Meehl’s papers & look at their supporting studies which demonstrate the decadal & bidecadal climate phenomena from observations.
Meehl 2008 is chock full of the studies all of which a real scientist would have examined before pronouncing no 11 year cycle, instead of making a baseless assertion, then challenging others to do his or her work for him or her.
How about this for a one stop shopping place to start your inquiry? It has already been posted but no surprise so far ignored by you. Read the relevant studies cited in this recent workshop, then get back to us. Or start with the 1977 paper linked here by Dr. Svalgaard, which likewise discusses the evidence for 11 year signals in climate data available then. But either way, conducting a thorough literature survey before asserting your view would have been the standard scientific method to employ.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=R1
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf
Thanks.
lsvalgaard says:
June 27, 2014 at 9:14 pm
————————————
“As the variation of the energy of surface UV is less than a fifth of the energy of the variation of TSI, UV does not play a major role.”
Dr. S,
can I get a confirmation on this. Are you claiming that surface incident UV has changed less than 0.3 w/m2 in the last 30 years?
With regard to the UV/selective surface issue, I am not claiming this is definitely a proven mechanism for solar influence on climate, just that it may possibly be one of Jack Eddy’s “many plugs”.
A. The oceans are not a “near blackbody”, they are a “selective surface”
B. Spectral variance effects energy accumulation in semi transparent selective surfaces
C. Shorter wavelengths penetrate below the diurnal overturning layer of the oceans
D. It is the shorter wavelengths that vary most over and between solar cycles
E. Shorter wavelengths effect ocean biological turbidity and depth of absorption
F. UV variance effects ozone and thereby UV opacity of the atmosphere.
G. We are only looking for 0.8C in 150 years.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:11 pm
Or start with the 1977 paper linked here by Dr. Svalgaard, which likewise discusses the evidence for 11 year signals in climate data available then.
The problem is that ALL the evidence we thought we had back then has turned out to be spurious and did not survive the passage of time.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:26 pm
I assume you refer to evidence for c. 11 & 22 year signals in the data. Or other possibly solar-related patterns?
IMO Lamb’s 1965 CET & reconstructed data supporting a Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age are still good, regardless of cause, ie whether SSN-associated, as per Eddy 1976, or not.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:36 pm
I assume you refer to evidence for c. 11 & 22 year signals in the data. Or other possibly solar-related patterns?
To avoid misunderstandings, I’ll restate what I said: “The problem is that ALL the evidence we thought we had back then and attributed to a solar cause has turned out to be either spurious or not attributable with any confidence to the sun and thus did not survive the passage of time.”
I realize that my current views on this may be colored by the failure of our efforts back then to pan out.
I chose one of the studies cited in your link, ie King (1975), to see if it indeed has been found spurious with the passage of time. Based upon the more recent work citing King, it appears not to have survived the passage of time, so ALL seems a bit of an overstatement, based upon a sample of one paper, which is all falsification requires.
From the journal “Advances in Space Research”, solar correlation with rainfall was found for two of three Brazilian sites (as in King, 1975, for the Hale cycle):
http://mtc-m16.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/marciana/2004/12.08.11.30/doc/sdarticle.pdf
Bidecadal cycles in liquid precipitations in Brazil
A.A. Gusev a,b, I.M. Martin c, M.G.S. Mello c, V. Pankov b, G. Pugacheva c,d,*,
N.G. Schuch a, W.N. Spjeldvik e
a National Institute for Space Research, INPE, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil
b Space Research Institute of Russian Academy Science, Moscow, Russia
c Institute of Physics, University of Campinas, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
d Southern Regional Space Research Center/INPE, Santa Maria, Brazil
e Weber State University, Department of Physics, Ogden, USA
Received 1 November 2002; received in revised form 15 February 2003; accepted 15 March 2003
Abstract
Data on liquid precipitation in Brazil for three meteorological stations in Pelotas, Campinas, and Fortaleza from 1849 up to 2000
were considered. The stations span practically the entire latitude range of Brazil. Periodic analysis of the annual rainfall level in
Pelotas and in Fortaleza shows a pronounced bidecadal periodicity that extended for about 100–150 years with great variation
amplitude reaching of about 90%. Considering a possibility of solar activity signature in this variation we need to assume the
existence of a phase change in correlation between rainfall level and solar activity. In this case a high correlation/anti-correlation
coefficients with the 22-year solar cycle can be obtained: 0.8 for Fortaleza and 0.6–0.8 for Pelotas. No correlation was found for
Campinas. Correlation with 24-year periodicity independent on solar cycle possibly connected with ocean–atmospheric coupling is
0.5 in Fortaleza for a total period of 151 years. Short term correlation of rainfall level with crossing a sector boundary of interplanetary
magnetic field by Earth during 50 years of observations was also found. The results appear to have bearing both as a
scientific instrument for progress in our understanding of sun–weather connections and, if established, possibilities for long term
practical forecasting in the South American region and elsewhere.
2004 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Brazil precipitation; Solar activity cycle; Bidecadal cycles in climate
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:46 pm
I appreciate your efforts both then (when we were both at LSJU, a mere junior university) & now.
But as above, it appears that not all of the findings then have since been shown spurious.
Konrad. says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:17 pm
can I get a confirmation on this. Are you claiming that surface incident UV has changed less than 0.3 w/m2 in the last 30 years?
The total change over a cycle of UV at the surface is of the other of 15% of the change of TSI. This has been known for a long time, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Science-1989-LEAN-197-200.pdf
The MgII-index I referred you shows that there has been long-term trend in UV.
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:50 pm
But as above, it appears that not all of the findings then have since been shown spurious.
Because I played an important part of the workshop and the research at the time [as I recall, I was one of the most cited authors [with Wilcox and Roberts] in the report] I have followed this topic ever since and I don’t know of any of those studies that has stood the test of time. There are, of course, lots of claims of similar things as there has always been. Ken Schatten counts more than 2000 papers claiming sun-weather-climate relations. None of them compelling. If there were even ONE that was compelling and conclusive we would not be having this discussion.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Before you can pound nails in a coffin, you first must build a coffin. That you have not done.
As so many have observed so often, your MO is not scientific SOP.
Build your coffin for short term solar influences first by surveying at the very least all the leading recent literature (citing previous work) finding a signal for a ten to twelve or 22-year cycle and attacking same on whatever bases you can. This essential first step you have not accomplished.
Once you have conducted such a search, then you can further analyze each additional new study that comes out contrary to your position and, if you can find fault with them as well, those can be additional nails in the coffin you should have carefully built previously.
Sorry, but that’s how it’s done in the real world of science. And with good reason. I can’t agree more strongly with Pamela’s excellent summary of scientific paper-writing on this important point.
sturgishooper says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Hey, you are still here. How about our Socratic Method inquiry? What is your response, if any?
Konrad. says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:17 pm
The MgII-index I referred you shows that there has not been a long-term trend in UV.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:00 pm
I’m sure that you have followed subsequent developments closely.
But IMO it appears prima facie that Gusev, et al (2004) pretty conclusively confirms King (1975) regarding Brazilian rainfall & the 22 year Hale cycle.
I haven’t checked out other papers cited in your excellent link.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Did I miss another follow up question, or did you miss my last reply answering it?
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:11 pm
But IMO it appears prima facie that Gusev, et al (2004) pretty conclusively confirms King (1975) regarding Brazilian rainfall & the 22 year Hale cycle.
Already back in 1977 I considered the Brazilian rainfall ‘correlations’ to be dubious: sometimes positive, sometimes negative, sometimes changing phase, etc. So, the Gusev paper did not impress me.
sturgishooper says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Did I miss another follow up question, or did you miss my last reply answering it?
lsvalgaard says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm
sturgishooper says:
June 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm
IMO I did answer the question, and it’s that, yes, of course you should convert C to F or vice versa.
So one should also convert the overcounted spots to unweighted spots or vice versa. right? In both cases it is just a question about a scale factor, right?
milodonharlani says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:48 pm
milodon, I took a look at that paper. It’s hilarious. Here’s the money graph:
Their evidence for the relationship is that for part of the record the rainfall kinda sorta moves in negative correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain decreases. But then in about 1940, the rainfall changed somehow, and was a flip in polarity, From that time on, the rainfall kinda sorta moves in positive correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain increases.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … and you buy that?
Well, if so, take a look at the other of the three sites that they claim shows something …
Bizarrely, in this nearby rainfall record, the situation is exactly reversed. In the early times the rain is positively correlated, and in the later record, it is negatively correlated. This is the opposite of the first record.
In addition, this new record flips polarity in about 1920, not 1940 as in the other record.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … while the nearby rainfall does the exact opposite and doesn’t flip at the same time … and meanwhile, the other nearby rainfall doesn’t do either one.
That’s evidence in your world???
My friend, you are truly batting 1000 … the citations you’ve provided have not only been bad. They’ve been execrable. Those two graphs prove that the rainfall there is NOT regulated by the sun.
I agree with Leif. The problem is, as with this study, that when you actually look critically at them, they fall apart. As Leif said, if they hadn’t all fallen apart, if there were some that actually were solid, we wouldn’t be having this discussion …
w.
From sturgishooper on June 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm:
And how would you build a coffin, with glue and wood pegs? Or like a dugout canoe, grab a chunk of tree trunk and scoop out what you don’t want?
Perhaps you’d make a big box with dovetailed sides and the bottom held in with a dado, with lots of glue on the sides? No glue for the bottom as that’s a floating panel. Of course that’s really a casket, a coffin has a specific shape and it’d be fun to hook together the two side pieces needed at the obtuse angle.
But if you would make yourself a nice casket with dovetailed sides as described with a matching flat lid, you could attach the lid with a piano hinge, throw some cushions on top, and have a nice combination bench and chest until you get around to needing it. Without pounding any nails at all.
Willis writes:
“Their evidence for the relationship is that for part of the record the rainfall kinda sorta moves in negative correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain decreases. But then in about 1940, the rainfall changed somehow, and was a flip in polarity, From that time on, the rainfall kinda sorta moves in positive correlation with the sun—sun increases, rain increases.
So their “evidence” that the sun rules the rainfall is that sometimes the rain goes up with the sun, and sometimes it goes down with the sun … and you buy that?”
Given that UK temperatures, and the AMO both exhibit the same phenomena, I think that we may have something new to learn here in what the responses are to solar cycles during different teleconnection and oceanic modes. And also why you fail to find an 11yr signal in any more than 3 solar cycles worth of weather or climate data:
http://snag.gy/MTnui.jpg
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/scale:0.5/normalise
“Those two graphs prove that the rainfall there is NOT regulated by the sun.”
No they do not, they suggest that the terrestrial response changes phase according to the major teleconnection and oceanic mode phase.
Milo, you remind me of myself as a little girl picking rocks out of wheat and oat fields. I thought we grew rocks. Every fall or spring (after plowing and before disking and sometimes in the late fall after harvest) we would go out into the field and pick up rocks that sat on the soil surface. We would throw them onto the hay wagon. When full the hay wagon would leave and come back empty. We did the same thing with bales of hay. So I deduced that we grew rocks. So I would go out and find what I thought was a perfect rock and run back to grandma asking, “Gramma, is THIS one a good one?”. It would be a constant question related to what I thought were perfect rocks. Occasionally Grandma would tire of the process and tell me it was not a good rock and I had to go find one that was just a certain way and that it would probably be a long ways away from the hay wagon. I was thrilled with the task and so off I went far away from the hay wagon in search of just that rock.
When I look back on this memory it is pregnant with lessons. Of those that are possibly germane to you is this: Don’t assume that rocks can be grown, even though everything is correlated to look as if you can grow rocks. And decide for yourself whether or not the rock you have in your hand is a good one.
Pamela Gray says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:33 am
You remind me of yourself as a little girl.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:23 am
You failed to analyze their statistical significance calculations. Just presenting the graphs & saying they don’t look good to you doesn’t cut it. So, yet another swing & a miss.
More accurately, you haven’t even really begun to bat yet, but are still in the bullpen, taking practice swings.
When you have examined all the most frequently cited papers on the 11 & 22 year cycles, starting in at least 1923, then you can present an hypothesis. Not before.
I’ve pointed you to where to start. You have the bat & now know where to look for the balls as well.
Batter up.
Willis says:
“Bizarrely, in this nearby rainfall record, the situation is exactly reversed. In the early times the rain is positively correlated, and in the later record, it is negatively correlated. This is the opposite of the first record.”
Surely they must be in different climate zones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortaleza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelotas
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:14 am
Willis can’t be expected to consider the real world when there is a graph to generate, along with hilarity.
The authors made the point that their three sites were located across all the latitude zones of Brazil: tropical (Fortaleza, at ~4 S), subtropical (Campinas, “Grass Fields” at ~23 S) & arguably temperate (Pelotas, at ~32 S, possibly subtropical too, but being on the eastern edge of a continent in the cooler hemisphere, also might be temperate).
More importantly, their climatic zones, as you note, differ. Pelotas is rated as “humid subtropical or temperate (Cfa)”, while Fortaleza has a tropical wet & dry (or savanna) climate (Koppen As, which differs only slightly from Aw, summer & winter not varying that much so near the Equator).
So it’s not in the least bizarre that their situations should be reversed.
milodonharlani says:
“So it’s not in the least bizarre that their situations should be reversed.”
Displacement of the rain band, one region gains while the other region has a deficit:
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_precip
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Excellent graphic.
When living in the windy Amazonian portion of Bolivia, I daily experienced what it shows.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 7:17 am
Indeed such possible connections are still being actively investigated. While Dr. Svalgaard believes that solar effects on WX & climate found between at least the 1920s & 1990s have now all been shown invalid, present researchers disagree, as shown by the results of the 2011 workshop I’ve linked on the NASA site above, & by other recent books & papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG017i004p00724/abstract;jsessionid=5B7E6F143120A4DA465377A5118E03CB.f04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
This 2013 USGS summary reproduces & endorses work from the ’80s & ’90s, including by Roberts, cited in Dr. S’s excellent historical link for his 1975 detection of the 22 year cycle in US droughts:
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/drought/
This textbook, “Space Physics: An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the Heliosphere and Magnetospheres”, by May-Britt Kallenrode, 2004 (Third Edition), finds “amazing” dependence of droughts on Hale cycle:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HnyPP4B4n-4C&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=hale+cycle+drought&source=bl&ots=J-FjuXLhUo&sig=qDPi0F6HKH59VQkZEPbzN2s6-ds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CXiwU6uhCoi6oQS0m4DwCg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=hale%20cycle%20drought&f=false
Not just in the US, but India & elsewhere.
Milodon, I begin to despair. The authors of your chosen study that I analyzed couldn’t find any significant solar cycles using either Fourier or cross-correlation analysis … so they looked at three rainfall datasets, and they came up with the bizarre claim that
• sometimes the rain moves in phase with the a sunspot cycle if you flip the sign of alternate sunspot cycles, and
• sometimes it moves in opposition to the sun if you flip the sign of alternate sunspot cycles, and
• sometimes it switches from one to the other, at different times in different datasets, and
• sometimes it doesn’t react to the sun in any discernible fashion.
I’m sorry, but that hypothesis is not even testable. There’s no meat there, no way to falsify it.
You excoriate me for not calculating the statistics, but I wouldn’t even know where to start in statistically evaluating such a ludicrously vague claim. If you think that there are appropriate statistics for such a situation, you’ll need to identify them.
For me, the fact that one dataset shows one pattern, another shows the opposite pattern, the time of the reversal differs by decades, and the third dataset shows nothing, well, that says everything I need to know. That’s nothing but an ad-hoc patch-up in my book.
However, since you think that you understand the claim well enough to calculate the statistics, please be my guest. Let us know what statistics you would use, and the results that show statistical significance. Please remember to adjust for autocorrelation, and of course, show your work.
Or not … it’s your choice. I say that the underlying hypothesis is far too poorly formed to admit of statistical analysis, so the ball is in your court. Near as I can tell, the hypothesis is as follows:
Sometimes rainfall moves with the sun, and sometimes rainfall moves in opposition to the sun, and sometimes it flips from one to the other, and sometimes it shows no effect at all.
I look forward to your analysis of the statistics, this should be fun … but of course, my expectation you’ll figure out some bogus reason to say you won’t do it.
I gotta say, milodon … your choice of studies is quite … interesting. You’ve accused me many times of doing my research for me … of course, you haven’t done my research, all you’ve done is point at bogus studies and claim that they are the best you can find, and when I’ve actually researched them, I’ve found that they don’t hold water.
But now, you have a chance to actually do my research, because here, I admit it—I’m stumped. It’s all I have no clue at all how to statistically analyze such a farrago of a claim, that rainfall is sometimes this way, sometimes not, and sometimes nothing at all. That claim alone tells me that the relationship is highly unlikely.
But I do look forward to your statistical analysis …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm
I don’t have to, as the authors did the correlation calculations, which you haven’t bothered to analyze.
The research I’ve done for you is to point where you should have started on your quest, rather than picking random data sets which may or may not be appropriate, instead of doing the genuine scientific work of searching rigorously through the literature from the beginning. Start either with the latest literature & work back, or start with the earliest & work forward, which as I’ve repeatedly pointed out is how the authors of genuine scientific papers do it.
What doesn’t wash is continually asking for a single study from commenters, rather than your conducting a thorough literature search before even presuming to assert you can’t find a signal. First you need to look for it in earnest. I would have thought this should be obvious.
Leif has provided an historical starting point, & I a recent one. I hope you’ll now do what you ought to have done at the very beginning & systematically review the literature on evidence for ~11 & 22 year cycles in temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure & other WX & climatic parameters.
I despair of your ever practicing the scientific method.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm
They claim a “correlation between droughts and solar activity at the 99% level” … but no citations and no math to back up the claim.
Perhaps you’d be kind enough to identify the datasets that they have used for the droughts and for the solar activity, as I couldn’t find it anywhere …
Look, milodon, I know that there are hundreds and hundreds of bogus claims out there like this one, long on mouth and short on data. I’ve asked you for your one best dataset. To date you’ve given me five of them, all of which didn’t pass the laugh test.
So for now, I’m done with your ridiculous references. I’m gonna just wait until you provide the data and calculations for your drought claim, and you provide the statistical analysis of your rainfall claim. If you are not willing to provide those, then I’ll just assume that you’re not interested in anything but attacking me and making noise.
But then I knew that already …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm
The references backing up her claim are in the book. The references aren’t ridiculous, but the work of real scientists, which you can’t ignore when baselessly asserting that you’ve been able to find no correlation, for the simple reason that you haven’t looked hard enough, indeed hardly at all.
Should I be done with your ridiculous refusal to practice science, while claiming to be a scientist? Actually, I’d rather you did do a genuine literature search & systematically evaluate your hypothesis against the experiments & analyses of real scientists over the past century, at least.
The references I provide contain dozens if not hundreds of studies, which is my whole point. Yet you ignore them, asking for single ones. That’s no way to run a scientific investigation, as you should know, I’d have thought.
Please get back to us with a blog post when you have done what you failed to do in your two published papers (or letter & paper), ie basic literature search. Pamela showed you the standard, accepted practice, which dates back centuries, for good reason.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:01 pm
The references backing up her claim are in the book. The references aren’t ridiculous, but the work of real scientists
The claims were already dubious back in 1977. There are hundreds of stations to choose from. You can always find some that show what you want. That is called Confirmation Bias. The true test goes something like this: here is a list of 600 stations. Pick a number of them at random and show they exhibit the effect. Only then are the so-called confidence levels valid.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:26 pm
I don’t know if anyone has done that. Failing that operation, a researcher would need to look at the statistical significance of each of the many studies in separate countries & regions, or aggregate the results.
The claims may well have been dubious in 1977, but present workers, presumably in good faith, or at least better than the Carbonari Team are still finding statistically significant correlations.
Many solar references in this list:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/
For instance, Coughlin & Tung (2004) on the 11 year cycle seen in temperature:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JD004873/abstract
“[1] A statistically significant atmospheric signal, which represents the influence of solar radiation changes on our climate, is found in global data (1958–2003). Using a nonlinear, nonstationary time series analysis, called empirical mode decomposition, it is shown that atmospheric temperatures and geopotential heights are composed of five global oscillations and a trend. The fourth mode is synchronized with the 11-year solar flux almost everywhere in the lower atmosphere. Statistical tests show that this signal is different from noise, indicating that there is enhanced warming in the troposphere during times of increased solar radiation.”
Ka-Kit Tung’s more recent paper:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-remarkable-correlation.html
Dunno if it has been linked here before or not.
PS: Tung (2013) in a pre-publication form is among the many cited & discussed in the 2011 workshop to which I’ve repeatedly linked as a rich source of studies finding solar connections to climate.
Also here:
http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/Talks_detail.php?talkID=2297
Sorry not to have consolidated these.
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:01 pm
That’s great news, milodon, thanks. However, I couldn’t find them in the book, despite looking, but I’m sure you can point out where they are. Soon as I have them I’ll see what they have to say. The authors imply that they’ve compared droughts and sunspots since 1400 … not sure how that would work.
w.
milodonharlani says:
?w=840
June 29, 2014 at 1:30 pm
“Indeed such possible connections are still being actively investigated. While Dr. Svalgaard believes that solar effects on WX & climate found between at least the 1920s & 1990s have now all been shown invalid, present researchers disagree,”
I’m sure most people would disagree if you showed them this graph:
Without fail, it gets cold in solar minima, with this minimum being no exception.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 4:27 pm
That has indeed been my observation, which is why I find more evidence for solar effects than the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious view of Pamela, Willis, Mann, Jones, Overpeck et al, that a volcanic eruption in 1257 caused the LIA, which began sometime between 1300 & 1500.
[trimmed. Think twice before resubmitting. .mod]
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Look, if you can find the claimed references, I’ve told you I’m happy to analyze it.
If you can’t find them, I don’t give a rat’s differential.
I have assumed all along that you don’t know where the references are either, and so far, you’ve supported that claim quite neatly …
Of course, if you’d like to prove that my assumption is wrong, you’re welcome to provide the references. I don’t care either way.
w.
I am surprised by the lack of evidence for solar variations influencing climate. I would have thought that some sort of evidence could be produced since people seem to be so adament about the relationship.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:45 am
The null hypothesis states that all observed phenomena can be explained by the laws already considered valid.
Hence, Newton most certainly did respond to what would now be regarded as the null hypothesis, ie that planetary motions could be explained by laws then known. His Principia stemmed from Halley’s 1684 visit in which he asked Newton’s opinion on the problem of planetary motions, which topic he had discussed previously that year with Hooke & Wren.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:45 am
The null hypothesis states that all observed phenomena can be explained by the laws already considered valid.
Newton’s Principia did indeed stem from a question as to what would now be regarded as the null hypothesis. In 1684, Halley asked Newton’s opinion on the problem of planetary motions, which issue he had discussed previously that year with Hooke & Wren, without getting satisfactory answers.
When I read and watch, although I do not get much to do), everything that is published only WUWT, then one must ask in fear, “Is God really so complicated this all about climate change?” In my opinion and understanding of the issues-not!. So much material on the basis of measurements, calculations, assumptions and other components thrown in for evidence of causes, provides no basis that it can come to the real and true cause of all these phenomena on the sun and the planets. Displayed is hundreds of diagrams of temperature change on sea, on land, in the atmosphere, but no conclusions on this phenomenon, how and why it occurs and how it behaves. It is certain that the temperature of the earth is by no means was such that repeating the same value at various times. Entered are from the Earth to its end, there will always be changes, but in certain laws that we do not know. Same is the case with magnetic fields, eruptions, solar spots and all phenomena in the solar system. All these phenomena occur as a result of one of the main “culprit” to be “caught” and handed over to the criminal investigation. He was present there every second and every millennium just camouflage by changing the intensity, position, duration, and various forms of looks and effects.
He can not be identified on the basis of immediate appearances and looks, because it will never happen again in the same size. These cycles “camouflage” the causal agents are constantly changing, but by certain laws that must be seen. Who can reveal the causative agent of the First World War on the individual situation on the battlefield.?
These discussions and searching for solutions, they behave almost as they act as the cause of climate change. I end, if I do not use logic. And this is (my conclusion): effects of mutual influence of celestial bodies in the solar system. Let this be the beginning of the right path towards a real solution to the enigma of the millennium.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Sorry about the duplicate comment above. Thought I wasn’t able to post.
Variation in solar energy & spectral distribution certainly does demonstrably show a global temperature solar cyclic pattern, along with other climatic parameters.
Here is a recent (2013) instance of the numerous studies finding a statistically significant correlation between solar cycles & temperature:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1
“Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a “bottom up” mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an alternative to the currently favored “top down” mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.”
I know Willis refuses to consider the many papers based upon data reanalysis because of the reanalysis. However apparently I’m not the only reader of climatological papers who does not reject statistical analysis of observations. Their authors clearly accept NCEP reanalysis as valid. It’s not like GCMs. Is there a good reason for rejecting it other than to try to maintain an unsupportable assertion?
Here is one of the many for precipitation.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00867947#page-1
“The objective of this study is to examine critically the relationship between solar cycles and Indian monsoon rainfall, for the period 1871–1984, and to search for significant periodicities, by utilizing the maximum entropy spectral technique (MEST). The results of this study using MEST show the maximum entropy spectral technique (MEST). The results of this study using MEST show clearly a significant 11-year cycle in solar activity and rainfall. Also present is a significant 7.33-year cycle in rainfall. The double (Hale) sunspot cycle is not discernible here either in sunspot number or in rainfall. The cross-spectral analysis between the sunspot number and rainfall confirms the existence of a reasonable correlation over an 11-year cycle with a relative phase lag of 0.16 year (sun lead).”
Others for lightning, atmospheric pressure, drought & other climatic phenomena abound. That earth’s climate responds to solar variations should hardly come as a surprise.
Milo:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm
As I pointed out above, reanalysis “data” is nothing of the sort—it is the output of a computer model. As a result, it outputs some linear transformation of its inputs. This means that the solar input to the model will indeed show up in the output.
And as I also said above, if you think that finding a solar signal in a computer model output means anything about the real world, you’re not as smart as you seem.
This is my third request in general, and the second request to you, to please not send me analyses of model outputs. Your repeated ignoring of my request is getting old …
w.
Milo, here is the study that reported on how that reanalysis data came about. It is indeed the product of a model. I will let you digest it and see what you think.
http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/publications/bams1996mar/bams1996mar-bm.pdf
Nikola! Finally! You have come to your thesis (but not your senses): barycenter. Got it. You could have used one sentence and then we wouldn’t have had to slog through all those words!!!!! Your thesis, proposed by others, has been debunked MANY times here.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Your steadfast refusal to practice the scientific method got old a long time ago.
Why do you refuse to do what every real scientist does before writing a paper, ie review the literature & show what it has found or point out the problems therewith? Asserting an hypothesis, then daring others to show it false is not how science is done. You have to do the work yourself, then ask for review & rebuttal.
Let’s see what you have to say about the monsoon data. I told you in comments to a previous blog post that the solar cycle is well supported in precipitation data, which have not been “reanalyzed”. Had you done your scientific due diligence, you’d have already discovered this fact.
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Pretty funny, coming from a supporter of Mann, Jones, et al on computer modeling in support of the post hoc ergo propter hoc volcanic initiation of the LIA.
Concluding from the observation of an eruption producing a sulfate spike c. 1257 that the LIA, which began sometime in the 14th, 15th or 16th century, was caused by a volcano, is a classic example of this logical fallacy.
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Surely the issue is, what do you think of the project? I find that it is worlds away from the GCMs, & an appropriate use of modeling. Most importantly, it’s based on actual observations, & checked against them.
If you & Willis don’t accept the reanalysis as valid, please state in detail why.
Thanks.
Milo for heaven’s sake, the challenge is for YOU to stand behind and defend your best piece of evidence. Here are Willis’ words in his original post:
“So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?”
So you provided a link and I provided the pdf of that link. The data was reanalysis data, not temperature data from the usual series, and since Willis objected to it, I also provided the pdf of that reanalysis for you. Now the stage is yours! Defend your very best piece of evidence!
Tell us what what the strengths and weaknesses are. Why did you present this as your best piece of evidence? What is better about reanalysis data? How do you respond to Willis’ contention that what the model used will also show up in what was spit out?
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 7:23 pm
It’s not my best piece of evidence. It is just to show the anti-scientific nature of Willis’ & your methods.
Neither of you has provided a valid reason for objecting to the reanalysis of actual data on any grounds whatsoever, except that it involves a model. That’s not good enough.
More recent inconvenient precipitation correlation, as if more be needed after a century of correlations, for Willis to ignore:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CGEQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F256146174_Solar_Cycle_Signature_in_Decadal_Variability_of_Monsoon_Precipitation_in_China%2Ffile%2F60b7d521e0eaac6813.pdf&ei=FMW0U9HfJoe_oQT9nIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHD8D_5Wsd_X53KXkIdgZn8ruRUdQ&sig2=3xzX1SbFwVHzmQHSZco4iw&bvm=bv.70138588,d.cGU
Solar Cycle Signature in Decadal Variability of Monsoon Precipitation in China
Liang ZHAO, JingsongWANG and Haijuan ZHAO
National Satellite Meteorological Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
(Manuscript received 6 January 2011, in final form 30 August 2011)
Abstract
Monthly high-resolution land surface precipitation data from 1901 to 2006 associated with sunspot number (SSN)
data is investigated for the relationship between summer precipitation in China and the decadal solar variability. Gen-
erally, on a national scale, precipitation is poorly correlated with SSN. However, in many regions, the long-period (>8
years) variability in summer precipitation is significantly (at >95% confidence level) correlated to SSN. Absolute value
correlation coefficient can exceed 0.48 (at >99% confidence level) in some regions. If only the decadal (9–13 years)
precipitation component is considered, the correlation becomes stronger with a maximum (minimum) correlation co-
efficient of 0.73 (–0.73) (at >99.9% confidence level). Considering that the decadal component is the most important
factor among precipitation’s low-frequency signals in the high correlation areas (because it explains more than 50% of
the precipitation’s low-frequency variance), it can be concluded that solar variability seems to dominate the long-period
variation of summer precipitation in these areas. Furthermore, in these high correlation areas, temporal variation patterns
in the power spectrum of summer precipitation is similar to that of SSN, strongly suggesting that there is a very likely
physical link between solar variability and precipitation in these regions. More convincing and direct evidence shows the
significant difference of low-level monsoon flow between high and low solar activity years, which may cause the higher
precipitation rate for high, rather than low, solar activity years in central China.
http://www.iject.org/vol5/spl2/ec1115.pdf
IJECT Vol. 5, Issue Spl – 2, Jan – March 2014
www. i j e c t . o rg International Journal of Electronics & Communication Technology 43
ISSN : 2230-7109 (Online) | ISSN : 2230-9543 (Print)
Sunspot Activity Over the Indian Rainfall Pattern
1D. K. Tripathi, 2A. B. Bhattacharya
1Dept. of Physics, Narula Institute of Technology, Kolkata, WB, India
2Dept. of Physics, University of Kalyani, Kalyani, WB, India
Abstract
The average number of sunspot data and rainfall data from 1820
to 2005 have been utilized to analyze the characteristic variations
and to find any possible correlation between them. A strong linkage
between average number of sunspot and annual Indian rainfall
pattern is obtained from the analysis. The result further shows
that the 10-year moving average of annual Indian rainfall and
the 10-year moving average of mean sunspot number are falling
since 1996.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Hiremath2012-d/HiremathMandi04.pdf
Influence of the solar activity on the Indian Monsoon rainfall
K.M. Hiremath a,*, P.I. Mandi b
a Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore 560034, India
b Basaweshwara Science College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
Received 5 March 2004; received in revised form 21 March 2004; accepted 1 April 2004
Available online 22 April 2004
Communicated by W. Soon
Abstract
We use 130 years data for studying correlative effects due to solar cycle and activity phenomena on the occurrence of
the Indian Monsoon rainfall. We compute the correlation coefficients and significance of correlation coefficients for the
seasonal and the annual data. We find that: (i) for the whole years 1871–2000, the spring and southwest monsoon rainfall
variabilities have significant positive correlations with the sunspot activity during the corresponding period, (ii) the FFT
and the wavelet analyses of the southwest monsoon rainfall variability show the periods 2.7, 16 and 22 year, respectively
(similar to the periods found in sunspot occurrence data) and, (iii) there is a long-term trend indicating a gradual
decrease of occurrence of rainfall variability by nearly 2.31.3 mm/year and increase of sunspot activity by nearly
3.91.5 sunspots/year compared to the activity of previous solar cycle.
We speculate in this study a possible physical connection between the occurrence of the rainfall variability and the
sunspot activity, and the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Owing to long-term positive and significant correlation of the
spring and southwest monsoon rainfall variabilities with the sunspot activity, it is suggested that solar activity may be
included as one of the crucial parameter in modeling and predicting the Indian monsoon rainfall.
Milo, do you know how to do research critique? I get the impression you do not. But let’s test it.
Which product from which labeled list (from http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/publications/bams1996mar/bams1996mar-bm.pdf) did Tung and Zhou (at http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf)
use?
And how did the reanalysis project determine error bars for the products? Are there error bars for all of their products are just some of them? How confident are you that the comparison between the product and actual measures were tight enough to allow this team of researchers to say that they found a signficant result?
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Why is it up to me to test the validity of the dozens or hundreds of studies that show a solar signal?
Surely that is Willis’ job, which he has refused to do systematically before positing such an outre assertion as that there is no signal. The onus is on him or you to show why reanalysis is invalid.
But go ahead & ignore the work of generations of real climatologists because you & Willis want to throw out data sets & analyses thereof which you find inconvenient. It’s clear that neither of you wants to practice the scientific method, despite your previously well stated summary of how to write scientific papers, the rules of which Willis so blithely ignores willy-nilly because it’s too much work or because it will invalidate his pet belief prima facie.
PS: I can’t improve on NOAA’s own identification of problems with its data reanalysis, which addressed & fixed issues discovered:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/reanalysis/problems.shtml
If you really want to show how well you can critique research, let’s see you do so with the Team studies which you have cited in support of your insupportable volcanic LIA causation scheme. Now there is a field rich in opportunities for critique.
Milo, I take it you are not willing to step up to the plate and defend (IE critique) your best one piece of evidence for a solar/temperature measurable correlation. Willis’ position is the null hypothesis. It is in your court to propose that there is a connection that is measurable. So defend your proposal.
Let me do some of your job. I have lots of problems with the reanalysis data. And so do the product developers, as well as, I imagine, researchers who use those products. Caution is advised openly in the use of reanalysis products by the authors themselves. Why? Could it be because of the number of times their products have changed? They often do as better data comes along. Because they (as they should) freely admit to improvements, error bars must be assumed and research that has used an out-of-date product will have to be redone (just as Lean suggests with her TSI reconstruction). Ouch. Could it be because of the fact that some of their products cannot be checked with observations so are pure model outputs? How wide could those error bars be and how firmly do YOU want to stand on that kind of information?
Do you get the process now? So far all I have seen from you is cut and paste. Where are your own thoughts about the papers you refer to?
I’ve had the privilage of defending a thesis so I know what it takes. It takes more than pasted links and abstracts. But for our purposes here, we don’t need to go full out. Still, I don’t engage in drive-by pasting of links and abstracts I’m interested in and then wait for someone else to summarize them for me. I have provided my own summaries of my links. So I helped you out by providing links to the pdfs of the papers you are interested in. So get to work.
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Why is it up to me to test the validity of the dozens or hundreds of studies that show a solar signal?Because most of them are poorly done or contradict each other in the effect. If you believe that some are better than others and that you therefore put confidence in them then it is up to you to tell us which ones that might be.
Pamela,
My intention was to somehow draw attention to my thesis. You are the first who flew carelessly “a minefield”, claiming that my thesis broken many times where you discuss.
That’s the big problem is that so far no one would seriously utilizing existing natural laws, to deal with and look for an answer to where you can not see it. Why? Because most of you deal with the “scribal activity”, repeating what someone else said. But despite so much work, effort, some evidence, measurements, formulas, diagrams and theory, there is no solution. Yes there is a solution, it would not be so much discussion. What’s the problem? The fact that today’s scientists and science do not want to fix the problem for the benefit of mankind, but prefer to earn “not welcome”.
I have checked the evidence that my thesis arose from the true sources and causes of these phenomena, and what you can not see it, look for the answer in nature and not in the PC, or wait until I publish my thesis (broken into chunks), but my post will be slightly less expensive than the total amount of the spent so far without result.
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 7:10 pm
milodon, to date I have analyzed the following datasets looking for the purported effect of the 11-year sunspot cycle. In many cases I have been doing exactly what you said, pointing out the problems in the studies I’ve found in my review of the literature, studies involving the following datasets:
In none of them is there any sign of a significant 11-year cycle. Not one.
If you can find a researcher who has looked for the sunspot signal in more places than that, please point me to his/her research, I’d love to see it. And at that point you can tell me how I have the second best record for scientific diligence in this field of anyone you know of.
If you can’t, then I’ve done more research on this question than anyone you can point to … so I’ll thank you to stop babbling about how I haven’t done the research, or more laughably, your ludicrous claim that you’ve done my research for me. You haven’t analyzed one paper that I know of, your research count at present is zero.
Somewhere along the line, I realized that if I were to live for a hundred more years, I still couldn’t dig through all the junk studies that have been done on the subject. So I thought, let me offer the opportunity to the supporters of the theory to identify the very best examples that they know of. That way, I won’t have to spend 30 years “reviewing the literature” and rooting through hundreds of garbage studies.
And while some people have taken the opportunity to put up their best studies, like someone suggesting the Nir Shaviv study, on the other hand you’ve given me four pieces of the junkiest science I can imagine, including the laughable “One Chilean Tree” study. And meanwhile, despite the fact that you haven’t done one single analysis, and obviously can’t tell a good study from a piece of garbage, you keep whining about how I should waste the rest of my life slogging through the hip-deep muck that passes for solar studies. Sorry, milodon, not gonna happen.
I already looked at your Brazilian rainfall data above, it was just as bad as the rest of the junk in the field. So to date, if the “solar cycle is well supported in precipitation data”, you have failed to link to such records.
Now, I see that you’re off now on another tangent, some claim about monsoon data. Of course, you haven’t bothered to identify or link to the study. When you do, I’ll look at it … although I’m unsure why I should pay the slightest attention to anything you suggest, given the rubbish you’ve tried to pawn off as science, including referring me to studies of climate models despite the fact that they can be expected to show solar outputs that are simple linear transforms of their solar inputs.
Anyhow, give us a link to your monsoon data. Please check to make sure that it is NOT a study of reanalysis “data”, which isn’t data at all, you’ve tried twice to slip one of them past me. And don’t bother me with anything paywalled. I’m not paying $35 to read another one of your junk studies.
Best regards,
w.
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 7:19 pm
I’ve told you exactly why upstream, not once but twice. It’s clear that you are unable to remember it, but if you’re too dumb to find it, do a search on “reanalysis” … and you accuse me of not doing my research?
w.
If you can tell whether the AMO will stay in its warm phase, or transition to its cold phase, that should tell you if the AMO will continue out of phase with the solar cycles, or revert to being in phase with the solar cycles:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855/normalise
Ulric, you are describing a set of school bus window wipers (which back in the old days had their own little wired-to-the-car-battery engines, one for each wiper). I used to watch them cycle into and out of phase. It was readily predictable thus could be calculated via variable formula http://rgraphgallery.blogspot.com/2013/04/rg21-plotting-curves-any-formula-normal.html.
The fact that I can calculate a function between two things does not mean the windshield wipers have a cause-effect relationship between them and that results in their in and out of phase cycles.
It reminds me of the old women libber contention in the 60’s and early 70’s that our cycles were in and out of phase with the moon and therefore were connected to the moon. Utter and complete nonsense.
It is nothing like your analogy whatsoever Pamela. The phase relationship stays locked in while the AMO remains in the same mode. What is required is an explanation for the observed phase shift phenomena.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:17 am
Thanks, Ulric. Of all the arguments that I’ve heard for evidence for causation, the idea that two things are related to each other because they go into and out of phase with each other is far and away the weakest.
milodon tried that one on upstream, with the three Brazilian rainfall datasets. One started in phase with sunspots and then went out of phase; one started out of phase with sunspots and then (at a different time from the first one) went into phase. The third one did nothing at all.
Anyone who sees that as evidence of a relationship doesn’t understand how science works. As you point out, absent any explanation of the reason for and the mechanism of such a phase shift, it is meaningless. You can pick just about any two variable phenomena, say the dow jones index and women’s hemline heights, and very possibly you’ll find that they go into and out of phase with each other at various times in the record …
So what?
w.
PS—Your graph doesn’t show the AMO staying “locked in” as you describe. Run a correlation window that is say three decades wide across your two datasets and you’ll see what I mean. If it were “locked in” as you describe, the correlation would stay high while it is “in phase”, and switch to highly negative while “out of phase”.
Trusting your eyeballs in this matter is madness. You can’t just squint at a graph and draw conclusions, the human brain is stupendous at and famous for seeing patterns where none exist. That’s one reason we invented statistics, to save us from ourselves …
Willis says:
?w=840
“If it were “locked in” as you describe, the correlation would stay high while it is “in phase”, and switch to highly negative while “out of phase”.”
It appears to take around one solar cycle for the AMO to change mode. How do you know what it should do?
“Trusting your eyeballs in this matter is madness. You can’t just squint at a graph and draw conclusions, the human brain is stupendous at and famous for seeing patterns where none exist. That’s one reason we invented statistics, to save us from ourselves …”
But you see none where they do exist, i.e. “As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET.”
I definitely do not trust your eyeballs, the coldest periods in CET are all during solar minima.
Glad you brought this problem up again.
I was watching a TV program about typhoon Hyuain (sp.), and the commentator made several references to the warm Pacific Ocean water, and the amount of energy transferred from the water to the storm.
I recalled your first post on the relation between sunspots and climate variations, and thought to myself “If the storm is getting energy from the water, then the water mus be cooling” and it occurred to me that this mechanism MIGHT be PART of the answer to your question as to the cause of the climatic minima.
I don’t have any data on similar occurrences preceding the mimima noted, but is it possible that similar ocean cooling occurred prior to the climatic minima.
I know that Anthony told one poster that plate tectonics was not involves in this situation, but New Madrid in MO experience 8.0 quakes in 1811 and 1812.
Possibly a combination of factors?
Willis Eschenbach – I have 2 questions for you.
1. Willis,you said you searched for any temperature record of any sort that displayed the ~11 year solar cycle. Does this satisfy your quest?:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
The 2 blue graphs display thermosphere density variation over the last 4 solar cycles. The density variation is purported to be the result of temperature variation of the thermosphere caused by the solar EUV flux variation during each solar cycle. Since thermosphere density varies in time with the solar cycle, so must its temperature.
2. Does the annual variation of the Earth-Sun distance show up in any temperature record, or any record linked to temperature?
SR
Steve Reddish says:
“The density variation is purported to be the result of temperature variation of the thermosphere caused by the solar EUV flux variation during each solar cycle.”
The dominant temperature spikes in the thermosphere follow the geomagnetic index particularly well.
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg
http://snag.gy/jOpqq.jpg
Steve Reddish says:
July 5, 2014 at 3:46 pm (Edit)
Thanks for that, Steve. The highest reaches of the atmosphere such as the thermosphere are clearly responsive to the sun, as are things like the Van Allen belts. And solar storms blast the heck out of satellites. I’ve never denied that.
The curiosity is that none of that makes it down through the tropopause to where the weather happens. That’s why I’ve been looking for what I called “climate datasets”. The thermosphere is interesting, but I don’t think I’d call it a climate dataset. I’m looking for stuff happening where the weather is going on, which is basically from the tropopause on down to the surface layers of the ocean.
Regards,
w.
Willis says:
“The curiosity is that none of that makes it down through the tropopause to where the weather happens.”
Did you check the literature? there seems to be quite a lot on thermosphere – stratosphere coupling in the polar regions:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC087iC09p07206/abstract;jsessionid=E742AEC956CC8CBF77C32B238C1389F0.f02t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL022003/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043619/full
http://www.athena-spu.gr/~upperatmosphere/index.php?title=Nitric_Oxides_in_the_Mesosphere