Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima

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? …

lamb england winter index wo datesFigure 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:

lamb england winter index wrong datesFigure 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.

lamb england winter index w datesFigure 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:

berkeley earth land temperature plus daltonFigure 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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
1K Comments
milodonharlani
June 24, 2014 6:22 pm

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.

milodonharlani
June 24, 2014 6:23 pm

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.

LT
June 24, 2014 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. 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

June 24, 2014 7:04 pm

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.

June 24, 2014 7:12 pm

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.

Dr. Strangelove
June 24, 2014 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

LT
June 24, 2014 7:28 pm

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.

June 24, 2014 7:31 pm

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”]

milodonharlani
June 24, 2014 7:40 pm

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.

LT
June 24, 2014 7:43 pm

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

milodonharlani
June 24, 2014 7:48 pm

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.

June 24, 2014 8:08 pm

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/

Dr. Strangelove
June 24, 2014 8:09 pm

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

June 24, 2014 8:21 pm

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]

June 24, 2014 8:31 pm

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.

Matthew R Marler
June 24, 2014 8:34 pm

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.

June 24, 2014 8:52 pm

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.comment image?w=840

Konrad
June 24, 2014 9:28 pm

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?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 24, 2014 9:57 pm

From Greg Goodman on June 24, 2014 at 7:10 am:

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:”

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.

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:

What I learned is you have said of it:

Further evidence of the long term warming effect of vulcanism.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 major eruptions have a notable effect on the annual variations an adaptive method is applied that is detailed here:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

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?

June 24, 2014 10:10 pm

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.

Dr. Strangelove
June 24, 2014 10:21 pm

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

1 18 19 20 21 22 41