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
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.