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
Leif Which science is better will be determined by which forecasts prove most accurate and so would have been the most useful.( Cf Your Hubble efforts). Perhaps at some future date you will feel confident enough of your science to get into the game and make a testable climate prediction..
I look forward to that with considerable serious interest and anticipation..
Toto says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:48 am
“This is extremely insightful and also wrong. It illustrates a very common mindset, which happens to sidetrack the science. There are not just two possibilities, there are many, not to mention the ones which cannot be mentioned but which still have their vocal advocates. Willis has done us a great service by eliminating another article of faith.”
I cannot see anyone getting any traction with attempting to attribute all of the 20th century warming to internal variability. Willis has not eliminated anything, his analysis does not detract in the slightest from the fact that it gets colder during all solar minima.
lsvalgaard says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:32 am
“Why was it reliable? Because we understand the physics and mechanisms.”
================
Sometimes I’ll tempt Her, but never out loud. 🙂
lsvalgaard
I know you’re not interested in circulation, but I would advise to see.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/06/17/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-29.26,8.73,365
@ur momisugly ren on June 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm:
Re: nullschool-dot-net link
tl;dl
Too Large; Didn’t Load. Takes too long on my connection, and an interactive globe interface is too graphics-intensive for my equipment.
Here’s a tip. If it is more than a slide then it is too much. Humans want to see something quickly and assess the importance within seconds. It is part of our survival instincts, quickly evaluating possible resources and threats is built in.
If you have never seen a real slide, and especially not a carousel, and wonder why the ability of many graphics programs to sequentially display a group of images is named like a presentation of playground equipment, there may be no hope for you.
Pet peeve time: When referring to a nullschool Earth image (which are cool), PLEASE tell us in your comment what we are looking at. There are no labels that come with those animations. I could be looking at a globe shaped lava lamp for all I know.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 9:30 am
“1. Tracks really well? not science.
2. NAO is not the planet.”
The Dalton Minimum was not the planet either, but no doubt that the NAO was negative during most cold episodes in the regions that Dalton effected, and CET is a good proxy for the NAO. In the coldest part of Dalton from 1807 to 1817, there could have been as many as 5 El Nino episodes:
https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events
vukcevic says @ur momisugly: June 27, 2014 at 7:53 am
” Ms Gray
In that case you could start by reading Tony Brown’s contributions.”
If Tony were a meteorologist or displays the degree of familiarity with weather pattern variations such can be seen in Bob Tisdale’s work, yes. But I don’t need to see Tony’s reconstructions. There are good ones already in the peer reviewed literature.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimate.envsci.rutgers.edu%2Fpdf%2FGao2008JD010239.pdf&ei=ieCtU931EZenyATgx4CgAg&usg=AFQjCNEsYW1lx-Dpn_rn3ncKWQhQ5xOglw&bvm=bv.69837884,d.aWw
What they fail to do is organize them into a time and address stamped global weather pattern that might suggest mechanisms via oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections of the sort we see today. There is no reason for me to suspect that these teleconnections were somehow not in place during the time span this thread is focused on. I do propose they were disrupted and stalled, repeatedly, into a weather pattern variation that brings on extreme winter cold temperatures and less than ideal growing season temperatures well into mid-latitude areas, from which there was scant recovery before they were disrupted again and again, causing a continued jerky slide into the depths of the LIA. I then propose that the disruptions ceased to be a recurring issue and the slow climb back up commenced.
If we can cross date all the proxies and place them geographically on the globe with overlays of what we know are the general patterns of weather variations driven by oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections that cause wide swaths of cold weather, we would be a lot further down the road explaining the LIA.
Addendum: I also propose that there were not enough clear sky recharge events to warm the deeper layers of the oceans. It seems to me that the oceans had discharged all the spare heat they had and that recharge events were far and few between plus a day late and a dollar short. She said in scientific terms.
Ms Gray
I have read above comment, and will reserve my opinion on the contents.
all the best to you.
ren says:
June 27, 2014 at 1:00 pm
“http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/06/17/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-29.26,8.73,365”
————————————————————————————————————————
Here’s the thing about this very nice link: it shows color coded sea surface anomalies, not actual temperatures with no labels that I could see. The blue “cool” areas could still be very warm.
Ren Great link. Came right up. Kadaka needs to upgrade his system.
tonyb says:
June 27, 2014 at 9:31 am
Tony, thanks for your return, much appreciated.
You’ll have to point out the good to me. Here’s a review of the bidding:
Dr. Mann’s original Hockeystick was based on an egregious mathematical error, had with-held data which Mann knew would discredit his work, used a method that actively mined for hockeysticks, and included proxy data which he knew was not recommended for use in reconstructions, the “stripbark” pine tree ring widths.
The result was the famous “Hockeystick” graph, which Mann used his position as a lead IPCC author to promote. It made his newly-minted PhD look really shiny … until the luster wore off as error after error and concealment after concealment were revealed.
Of course, as you might imagine, the unending series of revelations of hidden data and lies to the Senate Committee and newbie math mistakes drove him into uber-protective mode, to the extent where he has rarely admitted that any of his work has even the slightest problems.
Since then, his every effort has been to somehow, anyhow, create a replica of his fatally flawed original hockeystick that would not be found wanting. Fortunately for him, this isn’t hard to do for a simple reason. Any weighting system, not just Principal Component Analysis but any weighting system which is trained using the increasing temperature record of the last 150 years actively mines for hockeysticks. If you run any proxy weighting system involving the historical temperature record against red noise, you get a hockeystick.
Now, in most fields of science, they’d take one look at that and say “Bzzzzt! Data snooping! You can’t weight your proxies based on a comparison to the expected outcomes!”.
And they would be right. If you weight red noise pseudoproxies based on a comparison to historical temperatures and average them, you get a lovely hockeystick that looks just like both the original and all of the “stickalikes”, a long straight shaft with an upsweep at the end.
Think about what this means, Tony. You are discussing a procedure which is known to generate hockeysticks out of red noise AS THOUGH IT WERE A SCIENTIFIC RESULT! It’s not! It is a predictable, replicable result of their data-snooping.
And when you do that, when you discuss Mann’s spurious results as though they were actual science, you end up with people like the commenter I quoted above, who said:
There is no “best of Mann”, Tony, and you shouldn’t give him a place. Weighted multi-proxy data-snooped reconstructions are a scientific travesty.
Look, if you had pointed out EVEN ONE of the well known problems with the “hockeystick” style analysis (data snooping, effect of weighting, active mining for hockeysticks, mathematical mistakes, use of proxies that are known to be unsuitable, etc., etc.) I would agree.
But you didn’t do that. You were all balanced, taking them at face value. Now for Lamb, that’s not a problem.
But taking Mann at face value, as you absolutely did, without a word of the manifold problems, is totally deceiving your audience. His work is riddled with errors, his results are spurious.
If you think the NAS report is any better than any other piece of alarmism, you truly haven’t done your homework. They did their very best to cooper up Mann’s mistakes. More to the point, they didn’t understand that you could get the same result from red noise. And as for confirmation, I note that you didn’t quote the comments on Mann’s work from the scientists in the Climategate emails … they thought his work was wildly overhyped.
But again, the only thing you’re looking at are Mann’s results. Where is the discussion of the how the method ensures a straight shaft for the hockeystick? Or perhaps you’ve never considered why that might be, why there’s a straight shaft … like I said, Tony, and with all due respect, you’re way in over your depth here. Near as I can tell, you truly don’t understand the implications of the fact that their method produces a hockeystick, straight shaft, upturned end, when run against red noise.
You appear to think you are treating Mann and Lamb even-handedly … and you are. But that’s the problem. One is a scientist and one is a charlatan … so when you act like they are the same, you’re just doing what the alarmists do—notice and discuss seriously and fete and cite Michael Mann’s bogus claims, while overlooking everything we learned from Climategate.
Couldn’t agree more.
I certainly agree in general, but the devil is in the details. As to the “one off anecdotes” you say it is useless to quote, actually those were either from you or from your cited works. However, I do in fact support any effort to improve our knowledge of past climates … I’m just saying, comparing them to a random red-noise result isn’t a method I’d recommend …
Dang, my friend, I wouldn’t say that. However, you’re in the best position to assess that, I’m not gonna argue.
Whoa there, cowboy. I have been a very dynamic part of the fight to keep the alarmists at bay, a fight we are winning, albeit slowly. I was the guy who made the first Freedom of Information request to Phil Jones, and then publicly discussed it as they went through the steps of evading my requst. This was the act that (albeit unknowingly) led eventually to the revelations of the Climategate emails, which showed inter alia how Phil and others conspired to evade the law.
And then, when the Climategate story broke, I thought the game was over. I thought there would be a wave of revulsion and they’d throw the bums out … but they just cranked up the spin machine, it’s was all about “boys will be boys” and “that’s just how scientists talk”, and the like, they were going to sweep it all under the rug …
So I wrote up the story of my FOI and of what the emails actually showed … and lots and lots of folks read it, it was copied and linked around the blogosphere.
But the spin machine was still in full rinse cycle, so I realized I had to do more. So I emailed the story to every single National Academy of Science around the planet—US, Japan, Britain, places with lots of z’s and y’s, everywhere.
And then, I sent a copy to every address I could find at every professional body, AAAS, American Association of Physicists, meteorological organizations, every one.
And then, I sent a copy to every politician, national or state, whose email I could come up with … they tend to hide those.
Finally, at the end, I did what I should have done first—I sent it to every news organization and every individual journalist I could dig up an email for. Everyone from Tom Brokaw to FoxNews to individual journalists in Kazakhstan got a copy.
Did this make any difference? Hard to tell … but afterwards, the discussions of the event took on a much more sombre tone, they stopped trying to sell the “boys will be boys” meme and discuss actual investigations. And I realized for the first time that the internet gives immense power to a single individual, in a way that has never been true in history.
People tell me I take it too personally, but they don’t understand. I’m the person who was there. When I say that Phil Jones is a liar, it’s because I’m the guy he lied to. When I say Michael Mann plays dirty, it’s because I’m the guy whose ideas he made off with and published as his own ideas.
So yeah … it is personal, and for a good reason—I was and am an involved actor in the ongoing climate docudrama, not a spectator.
Since then, I’ve continued to write as a guest author for WUWT, which is by far the most visible climate platform on the planet. Bizarrely, my work is regularly read by most of the luminaries on both sides in the climate debate, and I thank them for their presence. Most of them never comment here, but I know they read my work, they tweet about it or email me about it or tell their friends about it and their friends tell me …
Anyhow, some of them read me to follow my insights, and the rest of the folks read me to see just what mad claims I’m making now for them to laugh and scoff at …
Not only that, but a quick internet search on any day of the week finds my latest claims being either lambasted or (far less often) lauded at climate web sites all around the web. There are guys who have whole web pages dedicated to nothing but hating on me … go figure. Not something I ever expected. Me, I love it—all that does is drive traffic to my idea. People read those sites, and they need to read my ideas to properly scoff at them, so they come to WUWT to read what I’ve written … hey, my work is done, what’s not to like?
In addition, I’ve used the opportunity to investigate and discuss my theory that the global temperature is regulated by the actions of emergent phenomena, a theory which I find is gradually attracting more interest across the spectrum.
So I’ve already made my mark on the history of climate science, Tony, paltry though my mark is in historical terms and compared with the giants, and I am continuing to do so regardless of what you think of yourself.
I couldn’t disagree more. Climate alarmism is falling apart. People can only be fooled for so long, and the lack of the 50,000,000 climate refugees solemnly predicted for the year 2010 is becoming kinda apparent …
At this point , climate alarmism is like a house with most of the nails pulled out, and held up by nothing but chronological inertia … the politicians will beat the drum, but its already at the bottom of the people’s agenda. Oh, the green rent-seekers will keep it alive for a while, but in the end, science does win out.
Whenever anyone tries to tell me that there are two and only two possibilities, I get claustrophobia from restricted opportunities, and I start looking for the third door out … and almost always, there is one. For example, here’s a third possibility—ignore them completely and just do science. Not saying I recommend it, just pointing out that you have committed the logical “fallacy of the excluded middle”.
More to the point, there’s a fourth possibility, the one you’ve taken—pretend that what they’ve done is defensible scientifically, do not mention any of the known errors and problems with their methods that invalidate their results, don’t tell readers that you can get their results from red noise, discuss their results only, and treat their results “even-handedly” and “equally” with real scientific results.
Me, I think the fourth possibility is a big mistake … although obviously, YMMV …
Mmmm … first off, as near as I can tell, most of the planet are not part of a conspiracy, or attempting a hoax, or are crooks.
The current problem is that the climategate emails showed that many of the leading lights of the climate alarm movement, many of the biggest names in the field, were part of a conspiracy of crooks who, although not consciously “attempting a hoax”, were using any number of underhanded, sneaky, evasive, malfeasant, deceptive, and in some cases criminal means to forward their alarmism, spread the fear, and silence and hobble their scientific opponents. And one of their most energetic members was Michael Mann.
Now, I expected that after Mann and the others were convicted by their own words, that there would be a reaction among the many “highly intelligent and scientifically trained people” who make up the bulk of climate scientists … foolish, foolish me. Mann and Jones and Peter Gleick the rest of them have not suffered any negative consequences at all for their reprehensible actions. To the contrary, they have been feted and defended and honored and invited to speak at conferences …
So when you stand up and say well, let’s treat Michael Mann’s work as though it were defensible science … sorry, but that is a charade that leads your readers to congratulate you for advancing Mann’s work, as happened over at Judith’s. My advice is to shun them, do not give their ideas even one more airing.
I have produced peer reviewed science. My experience is that I have a much greater effect on the outcome by not spending six months in the preparation, submission, and defense of a journal paper. Among other reasons, in climate science peer review means absolutely zero, and every serious researcher knows it. So much of all kinds of garbage has been published by journals from the smallest up to Nature and Science that the entire brand of scientific journals is in great disrepute.
So instead, I produce publicly peer-reviewed science that has a large impact. For me, what I realized was that I wasn’t interested in being part of the history of climate science by having my name in the journals.
Instead, I was interested in affecting the direction of the climate dialog. New issues in climate science arise every day and are widely discussed and acted on. I have a choice—do the scientific research and take a clear scientific position on the subjects today while people are actively discussing the issue … or write a paper on the research and publish it six months from now when the issue is resolved and forgotten?
For me, it was a no-brainer …
Again, the fallacy of the excluded middle, coupled with an inaccurate metaphor. There is no “big tent” with people in the binary state of inside or outside, that’s a false parallel.
Instead, for the first time in history there is an unparalleled opportunity for people like you and I to participate in scientific discussions and debates far above our nominal pay grade, and get our ideas out to a huge audience.
Look, Tony, I know I’m a polarizing figure. What most folks don’t realize is that I take the most extreme defensible positions for a purpose—to legitimize the more central positions. It buys space for people other than myself to take a position which is daring but not out at the edge of the envelope.
Consider for example my position on the 11-year cycle. I don’t say it doesn’t exist, that’s not defensible. I say I haven’t seen one piece of strong evidence for it to date, and I invite people to give me their best shot, the best data they can point to that they think supports their position.
Is that position extreme and polarizing? Dangbetcha, already about 900 comments, and it seems to have driven some commenters ’round the twist.
But that’s fine. I want the issues to be made visible, and the sap rising. I want the lack of evidence to be faced head-on. I want people impassioned enough to do their best to prove me wrong. Science is a blood sport, people are doing their best to cut and wound and smash each others ideas and theories, and to me it is a mistake to play it dispassionately. Stand up and defend!
Finally, I’ve often said that the problem is not that I’m too outraged … the problem is that by and large y’all aren’t outraged enough, e.g. by the antics and crimes of Mann and the others ..
I heated up your site name into a link there so people could just click to see your interesting site, good stuff.
And indeed, thank you for your reasoned thoughts and calm demeanor, something to learn from. On my part, I’m working on becoming more Canadian … but as you may have noticed, it’s a slow process …
Regards,
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:03 am
——————————-
With regard to this potential UV accumulation effect, surface UV is more important than TOA.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/uv-exposure.html
This selective surface mechanism has also been looked at with regard to biological turbidity. It is notable here that the authors do not consider the oceans a “near blackbody” in their modelling.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO2740.1
Greg Goodman says:
June 27, 2014 at 2:18 am
———————————
Greg,
http://www.biblioteca.uma.es/bbldoc/tesisuma/1663844x.pdf
– has some empirical measurements of UV penetration into the oceans.
Of interest was figure 3.(d)
Here’s my take on the hockey stick from
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
“Over the last 25 years an immense amount of valuable instrumental and proxy temperature and possible climate driver data has been acquired and it turns out that climate forecasting on the basis of recognizing quasi cyclic – quasi-repetitive patterns in that data is fairly simple and straight forward. Interested parties should take the time necessary to become familiar with the general trends in both the instrumental and proxy time series of temperature ,forcings and feedbacks.
Central to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.
Here are links to some of the most relevant papers-starting with the hockey stick.
://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
note Espers comments on the above at
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf
and see how Mann’s hockey stick has changed in later publications
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
an important paper by Berggren et al relating solar activity to climate is
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below ) is: Steinhilber et al – 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
for Holocene climate variability in general there is much valuable data in Mayewski et al :
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Mayewski2004.pdf
Of particular interest with regard to the cause of the late 20th century temperature increase is Wang et al:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.
The recurring millennial cycle is also seen in the ice core data.”
Interesting links. In the time span of interest, regardless of what decreases solar insolation (the Sun or a veil over the Sun – and ya’ll know which one I think has the greater potential, this diminution in Solar insolation should cause the Earth to respond in the same way it does now. Decreased insolation eventually leads to a slowing of the Walker Circulation (which depends on strong clear sky solar insolation) which causes the winds to calm and sets up a layering of ocean water such that a lot of heat is evaporated away. If things stay that way too long, all the heat is used up to the point that the oceans are now circulating less warm water than it did. We all know what happens when less warm water sits off our respective coastlines. BRRRRR!
mpainter says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:24 am
Look, guys, you all seem to think that I have a photographic memory and that you are the only commenter I’m dealing with.
Instead, my mind is usually filled up with scientific speculation and consideration and puzzle-solving, and I am dealing with hundreds of commenters and writing thousands of words every day.
So for example in this instance, I’m sure I said something to you sometime about some unknown curve.
I have no idea what it was. No memory of the comment or the context. I write’m and forget’m, there’s no way I could possibly keep it all straight.
And in part this is why I insist that people quote my words, so there is some kind of “audit trail” that I and other can follow to find out what the commenter is referring to.
However, you give me nothing … well, nothing except claiming (again without quotation) that I “won’t let myself be helped”. Now that’s a joke. You know what would help me? If charming folks like you would QUOTE MY WORDS so I can understand your comments.
I don’t go on snipe hunts these days, mpainter, gave it up. I have neither the time nor the interest to guess at some search terms and wade through 900 comments looking for what you might possibly mean.
So I’ll let myself be helped, any time … but you’ve gotta help me. And this kind of uncited, unquoted comment is no help at all.
w.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:27 am
Leif Which science is better will be determined by which forecasts prove most accurate and so would have been the most useful.
Since what you do is not science, but just wiggle matching, your forecast has no discriminatory value as you could be right for the wrong reason, or alternatively there are many theories or ideas [some even scientific] that produce forecast similar to yours. So it just be that one of those [instead of yours] is the right one.
Konrad. says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm
With regard to this potential UV accumulation effect, surface UV is more important than TOA.
As the variation of the energy of surface UV is less than a fifth of the energy of the variation of TSI, UV does not play a major role.
Whether inhibition of the Gulf Stream can be predicted?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-49.32,51.76,419
What drives the weather and temperature locally and regionally?
Sea surface temperatures(mode of sea circulation system) and the mode of the air circulation system, high or low pressure etc.
This winter in Scandinavia was very mild but at the same time very cold in parts of USA. At the same time the global temperature did nothing.
Santa Baby
Circulation is now important for the U.S. because it causes floods. Important, too, was in the winter.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-56.70,33.91,553
Willis
Thanks for your reply. It appears we disagree fundamentally in our approach in tackling climate alarmism. Perhaps you need to tell your President it is falling apart?
However, it seems to me that we are where we are in our personal philosophies and it may be a good thing for two people to work from opposite ends of a problem and ultimately meet in the middle. As you know its called a pincer movement which has borne much fruit in the past in previous conflicts. .Ultimately however it will be science and nature who will decide whether alarmists or sceptics are correct
All the best
Tonyb
Tony Brown
Is the temperature of the ocean to the south around Africa affects the circulation, or not?
http://ziemianarozdrozu.pl/i/upload/zmiany-klimatu-zjawiska/cyrkulacja-oceaniczna.jpg
tonyb says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:12 am
Thanks, Tony. The famous Irishman, O’Bama, is always behind the times, no surprise. And as I said,
He’ll figure it out in a while … he’s kinda slow.
Indeed, my friend, sounds good—you hit’em high, I’ll hit’em low, no problems.
And my best to you as well,
w.