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
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