A Cool Question, Answered?

frozen_earthGuest essay by David Archibald

A couple of years ago the question was asked “When will it start cooling?” Of course solar denialists misconstrued this innocent enquiry. There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when. Solar activity is much lower than it was at a similar stage of the last solar cycle but Earthly temperatures have remained stubbornly flat. Nobody is happy with this situation. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have now been invalidated and my own model is looking iffy.

Friss-Christenson and Lassen theory, as per Solheim et al’s prediction, has the planet having a temperature decrease of 0.9°C on average over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. The more years that pass without the temperature falling, the greater the fall required over the remaining years of the cycle for this prediction to be validated.

The question may very well have been answered. David Evans has developed a climate model based on a number of inputs including total solar irradiance (TSI), carbon dioxide, nuclear testing and other factors. His notch-filter model is optimised on an eleven year lag between Earthly temperature and climate. The hindcast match is as good as you could expect from a climate model given the vagaries of ENSO, lunar effects and the rest of it, which gives us a lot of confidence in what it is predicting. What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003. From the latest of a series of posts on Jo Nova’s blog:

 

clip_image002

The model has temperature falling out of bed to about 2020 and then going sideways in response to the peak in Solar Cycle 24. What happens after that? David Evans will release his model of 20 megs in Excel in the near future. I have been using a beta version. The only forecast of Solar Cycle 25 activity is Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of a peak amplitude of seven in sunspot number. The last time that sort of activity level happened was in the Maunder Minimum. So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstuction, this is what we get:

clip_image004

 

This graph shows the CET record in blue with the hindcast of the notch-filter model using modern TSI data in red with a projection to 2040. The projected temperature decline of about 2.0°C is within the historic range of the CET record. Climate variability will see spikes up and down from that level. The spikes down will be killers. The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.

I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon. Then stock up on tinned lard with 9,020 calories per kg. A pallet load could be a life-saver.

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

UPDATE:

For fairness and to promote a fuller understating, here are some replies from Joanne Nova

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon.
You mean: falsification is coming very soon [if not already there].
So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstruction
which is very likely not correct to begin with.

There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when
It is much more a question about ‘by how much’. If TSI falls to get stuck at the level observed at solar minimum, the temperature will indeed be lower by up to 0.1 degrees C, which is inconsequential.

Kaboom

Love that model because it can be put to the test soon, not convinced about the rapid change it predicts, though.

Here is the most important thing I have read in that series. For once someone in the climate game makes a real scientific prediction. Karl Popper call your office!!

Science is about testable hypotheses.(1) Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which theory is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.
If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

The entire series of posts is worth your time and study if you are interested in the climate debate. I am not completely in agreement with him, but I do admire the honest scientific method in use. A falsifiable theory of climate! Shazzam!
(1) emphases is mine.

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:06 am
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
According to Figure above the criterion should be 0.5°C, not the measly 0.1°C.

noaaprogrammer

Is TSI being considered as a driver here or as a chance correlate?

If this is correct and we do indeed begin to see measureable cooling,
then President Obama’s statement that climate change is happening now
will be validated.
Uh, sort of.
🙂

Claude Harvey

If I successfully predict a decade of global temperature with the flip of a coin, am I good or am I lucky? At least with the IPCC climate models, we know their prognosticators are neither.

Madman2001

Thanks, Leif, for your participation. Your measured, knowledgeable posts are interesting and insightful.

Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2

Pamela Gray

For cryin’ outloud. The “…vagaries of ENSO…”. Everybody’s get out of town card. A tuned model always looks good. And retuning it every year or so will keep the cash coming in for whatever you are peddling. GIGO…different ingredients…still GIGO. Until the ENSO models get it right the rest of you global modelers might as well sleep in.

pochas

There is a need to differentiate global temperatures from northern continental interior temperatures. What has happened to date suggests that global temperatures may fall only a few tenths, while northern continental interior temperatures may take a wallop.

Falsification is indeed required for legitimate hypothesis. With that said, and for those curious as to when the next major glaciation might be predicted, see:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygv83mwpytn4p65/AN%20ENGINEER%E2%80%99S%20TAKE%20ON%20MAJOR%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20F.53.pdf
Long winded but you’re likely to find it thought provoking.

SAMURAI

“The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.”
I thought the Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645~1715. Isn’t a 25yr lag a little too long after the fact? I could understand attributing causation had the great famine occurred during the Maunder, but a 25-year lag seems a bit of a stretch.
What am I missing?
The CET record does, however, show considerable cooling during the Maunder Minimum.

It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Apart from the use of the obsolete Lean TSI for the early years, the most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense. Here is TSI since 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003. As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with. This concludes my comments as the prediction is worthless on its face.

SIGINT EX

Perhaps the “temperatures” measured are not the temperatures people think they are measuring.
Back to the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws.
QED

II am extremely pleased to see that this information is started to be seen on other sites. I think of this hypothesis as the unifying theory of Climate Science. It is a bare bones hypothesis with falicification points. It needs inputs from others like yourself. Hopefully it will put the stake in the heart of CAGW. I have a very limited income and fuel, energy and food costs are killer for everyone.

richardscourtney

Steven Mosher:
Your post at June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am says in total

Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2

That is merely more non sequiter from you.
The logical matters you have failed to understand can be stated as follows.
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it could be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it could be normal and there is no reason to suppose it is caused by anthropogenic co2.
Richard

Excellent accurate information. Past history has shown us each and every time prolonged solar minimum conditions are present the temperature response has been down.
One item that could slow down solar effects somewhat is ocean heat content.
Anthony good article.
..

James of the West

Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?

Garfy

don’t worry we shall get a reply in december 2015 – great meeting in Paris concerning climate change – and Arnold Swarzenneger will be there (so maybe Al Gore too) – and the president will be Laurent Fabius –
so cheer up !!

it is clear to me that many “scientists” need to go back and learn some BASIC concepts……..there are NOT competing theories, in science a theory is the present best possible understanding…….there are competing hypothesis being discussed………..human caused global warming is NOT a theory in science it is a FAILED hypothesis…….the real word refuses to follow the hypothesis that humans by releasing co2 are causing warming and in so doing proves it to be FALSE…..really simple stuff folks.

James of the West says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?
The model is based on wrong input and so is ‘not even wrong’, but meaningless and worthless.

Pamela Gray

Putting this post here may be purposed to the task of finally demonstrating how far afield David is in his knowledge base with regard to solar speculation. Truly, trolling for a solar indices that matches your speculation has to be the most obvious sign of research bias there is. Very much like Mann trolling for trees that only speak to his bias. Which one is worse? Flip a friggin coin. We will see which of the two learns from their past invalid practices.

mobihci

mosher-
“Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2”
considering the climate on the earth changed BEFORE so called human intervention with steady co2 levels, there must be natural variation caused by some OTHER source.
by saying the warming is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the co2 is perfectly logical because this was the previous condition.
by saying the cooling is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the sun is illogical because the sun can not be ‘removed’ from natural variation. you could say the sun may not be causing the cooling, but you cannot say ‘therefor it cannot be’.

Steve Keohane

Mosher is finally starting to get it, the climate is normal.

rogerknights

JohnWho says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:29 am
If this is correct and we do indeed begin to see measureable cooling,
then President Obama’s statement that climate change is happening now
will be validated.
Uh, sort of.

He contemptuously said, ^some Republicans have even predicted that it will cool.^ What fun it will be if it does!

Wally

ive been told there are no stupid questions….
what does “0.0” represent? is this fixed or subject to the author’s interpretation and/or modeling?

James Strom

Mark’s quote from David Evans:
“A fall of at least 0.1°C…”
That would be well within the adjustments we are seeing and not really definitive. However, it differs enough from the CO2 models to give Evans some bragging rights if it comes to pass, but such an outcome doesn’t seem much different from the way nature is already diverging from the GCMs.

What has to be watch gong forward are the AP index, Solar Flux values and Solar Wind Speeds.
This is what correlates best with the temperature not sunspot data or TSI per say. TSI being very hard to peg since some of it is in phase with the solar cycle while other parts are in anti- phase with the general level of the solar cycle..
I fully expect the following two climatic changes to happen in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions becoming more established once again as this decade proceeds. . They are a more meridional atmospheric circulation (more extremes or persistence in weather patterns) followed by cooler temperatures. The one factor that must be taken into consideration is ocean heat content which can act in opposition to the solar effect. . On the other hand another unknown will be future volcanic activity which seems to correspond with prolonged minimum solar activity which will enhance the given solar effects.
We saw during the very low recent lull in solar activity back around 2008-2010 that much blocking was present, I expect the same response to happen going forward .
Remember the climate is non linear, chaotic and random and the beginning state of the climate is always in flux meaning factors that impact the climate impact the climate solar for example are not going to give the same climatic outcomes.
To make it more complicated are possible thresholds that may or may not come about, this is why precise climatic forecast going forward are very hard to make. General trends are much easier to predict.

James Strom

lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:47 am
Aren’t you being a little hasty? Once you establish the correct record for historical TSI wouldn’t it be prudent to use that as the input to their model, and see what results?

Anthony all my future post if put on will be like the last post. I am just going to present my findings based on data I have to share with all of you.

James Strom says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:38 am
Aren’t you being a little hasty? Once you establish the correct record for historical TSI wouldn’t it be prudent to use that as the input to their model, and see what results?
It would seem that authors of the model should do that, but since they claim that their model fits the old, wrong data, then it would not fit any other data set, so I don’t see the need.

Eliza

Pochas above: I agree 100% I think same will happen in the Southern hemisphere as well as Antarctica keeps expanding northward at an alarming rate (it seems),.especially in South America which is the only significant large land mass closer to Antarctica. The surrounding (relatively warmer unchanging temperatures) of the ocean prevent the same effect.I “shudder” (pun intended), to think what effect this will have on the Asian land mass on the Northern hemisphere over time

Much as I respect Leif’s solar knowledge and have adapted my views in light of it I do have some concerns about his comments here.
Note that I have no problem with his combative style.
In particular:
i) He seems not to be accepting that many contributors to the climate debate realise that TSI is not the primary indicator of the solar effect on Earth’s climate. There is some sort of amplification factor in play which David Evans labels as ‘force x’.
ii) TSI may be slightly higher now than in 2003 but is Leif denying that the peak of cycle 24 is lower than the peak of cycle 23?
In my opinion force x, which amplifies the effect of TSI variability, is the precise mix of wavelength and particle variations from the sun depending on the level of solar activity.
That variable mix appears to be capable of altering stratosphere temperatures differently between equator and poles so as to allow shifting of the climate zones and jet stream tracks between equator and poles.
That is what amplifies both the warming and cooling effects of solar variability.
That is what we perceive as climate change.
Nothing else fits the observations.

Table 1.Volcanoes of greater than or equal to VEI of 5 from 1650 to 2009. This list of large volcanic eruptions since 1650 was used as the baseline list for comparison against solar activity, i.e. periods of reduced sunspot count to determine any apparent associations. 5* = a class five VEI with potentially large date uncertainty, P* = plinian large class eruption, assumed >VEI 5. The study did not include activity associated with geological hot spots or caldera (super volcano) sites. Source: Smithsonian Institute.
Volcano Location Year VEI
1. Shiveluch Kamchatka Penninsula 1650 5
2. Long Island N.E. New Guinea 1660 6
3. Usu Hokkaido, Japan 1663 5
4. Shikotsu Hokkaido, Japan 1667 5
5. Gamkonora Halmahera, Indonesia 1673 5*
6. Tongkoko Sulawesi, Indonesia 1680 5*
7. Fuji Honshu, Japan 1707 5
8. Katla So. Iceland 1721 5*
9. Shikotsu Hokkaido, Japan 1739 5
10. Katla So.Iceland 1755 5
11. Pago New Britain 1800 P**
12. St.Helens Washington State, USA 1800 5
13. Tambora Lesser Sunda Islands,Indo. 1815 7
14. Galungung Java, Indonesia 1822 5
15. Cosiguina Nicaragua 1835 5
16. Shiveluch Kamchatka Penninsula 1854 5
17. Askja N.E.Iceland 1875 5
18. Krakatau Indonesia 1883 6
19. Okataina New Zealand 1886 5
20. Santa Maria Guatemala 1902 6
21. Lolobau New Britain 1905 P*
22. Ksudach Kamchatka Penninsula 1907 5
23. Novarupta Alaska Penninsula 1912 6
24. Azul, Cerro Chile 1932 5+
25. Kharimkotan Kuril Islands 1933 5
26. Bezimianny Kamchatka Peninsula 1956 5
27. Agung Lesser Sunda Islands, Indo. 1963 5
28. St. Helens Washington State, USA 1980 5
Chichon Mexico 1982 5
30. Pinatubo Philippines 1991 6
31. Hudson, Cerro So. Chile 1991 5+
************************************************************************
Of the 31 eruptions documented since 1650 with a VEI greater than or equal to 5, a total of 25 occurred during a reduced period of sunspots if not a major reduction in sunspots or a solar hibernation, e.g. the Dalton or Maunder Minimums. This preliminary study showed 80.6% of the largest eruptions took place during extended solar activity minimums. Significantly, the following list of the eight largest volcanic eruptions globally (VEI>6) since 1650, shows all but one took place
only during a solar hibernation, or significant reduction in solar activity as measured by sunspot count.
3

beng

Dr S updated & improved the Lean reconstruction yrs ago & it’s been linked to many times. Anytime I see “Lean reconstruction” used for analysis, I dismiss it.
David, please get up to date.

That is what the data shows for volcanic versus solar. More data to follow.

Jimbo

What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003.

Another model, BUT the predictive skill can be tested within a very reasonable amount of time. It is falsifiable! Good grief.

Eliza

The only problem with Evans model AGAIN is using the “adjusted temperatures” against the model., If average temps are all C###, all bets are off (ie: there has been NO warming since 1880). Refer to Goddards analysis and recent posting at Judith Curry sites.

William Astley

The sun is currently almost spotless based on a visual count of sunspots. How many sunspots do you see visually?
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/…_4096_4500.jpg
It appears the sunspot count is being propped up which is a misguided effort as it will make the sudden fall in sunspot count more pronounced.
The below link shows pictures of ‘active’ regions on the surface of the sun. The picture of ‘active’ regions is created by an overlay of the magnetogram image of the sun and a visual image of the sun. The magnogram image is created by observing the sun with a filter that is restricted to a frequency that is produced by iron ions that occurs when the iron ions are in an magnetic field (using the Zeeman effect to determine the regions of the sun that are magnetic active). As you can see there are now multiple regions of the sun that have the magnetic residue of magnetic flux tubes that have been ripped apart in the convection zone as they no longer have sufficient strength to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone and no sunspots.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
It appears based on observations that the sun will be spotless by late 2014 or early 2015.

docduke

Re: There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. Lower irradiance, yes .. but fewer sunspots? Willis really made an impression on me with: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/ His point was the questionable data quality of this feature for which “there is no doubt.”

Ginger

My brain is short-circuiting.
Did I just read a climate scientist questioning his own work?
Climate scientists are not supposed to do that. That is science in the old-fashioned way.
Did I just read a climate scientist inform how a scientific theory or model can be tested?
That’s old school, as when Einstein, after presenting his Theory of Relativity, informed the world how his theory could be tested during a solar eclipse and even telling them what had to happen for the theory to be invalidated.
Mann, et al flew in the face of thousands of peer-reviewed studies and was immediately accepted, without question, by “2500 of the world’s top Climate Scientists”.
That’s the way climate science works. Please do not deviate from the path.
The science is settled.

William Astley says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:48 am
It appears the sunspot count is being propped up which is a misguided effort as it will make the sudden fall in sunspot count more pronounced.
Nonsense, William. Amateurs all over the world count spots and you cannot meaningfully claim that they are in on the hoax.
magnetic flux tubes that have been ripped apart in the convection zone as they no longer have sufficient strength to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone and no sunspots.
As you have been told many times, ALL flux tubes are ALWAYS ripped apart in the convection zone.

Doug Proctor

David,
I think you are still right. Within 18 months, perhaps, but I’m still looking for 2015 as the start of cooling beyond ALL of the models. I don’t think the world will plunge into a Dalton, but your work has the advantage of strong observational evidence.
It is not imperative that the process be understood, but that the implications of observations be understood – if you are grounded. The pragmatist recognizes “cash value” as one of the determinants of truth: whatever you figure out has to have use, something that takes you forward, something that benefits you in a way you weren’t benefited before. You have seen a connection; that is the start, just as Copernicus saw a mathematical solution in circular (or elliptical) orbits that answered big questions about our universe. Copernicus did so without gravitational physics, and at the time nobody expected him to say why, exactly. It was enough to understand how it was; the “why” was someone else’s project.
We live in interesting times. The next couple of years I see as very exciting, because if the world cools by more than 0.2C, and the continental interiors by perhaps 1.0C, the CAGW narrative will be well and truly busted. But more importantly, Gore, Hansen, Romm, McKibben will HAVE to admit that they were fighting for a noble cause, not for the climate per se, in other words, the science was not important but a tool to them.
By the way, for our Canadian readers, Suzuki does NOT support explicitly or implicitly Gore, Hansen, the IPCC or Global Warming/CAGW. When pressed, his Foundation says he/they support “peer-reviewed studies”. That’s it. They USE CAGW, but do not necessarily stand behind it. Suzuki recognizes it is an edifice built on sand, and it and its believers are therefore useful even if, as time goes on, they are the “useful idiots” as identified by the Soviets.

The following is more research data and conclusions of many. Some will agree while others will not . But his need to be brought out which is what I am doing to show there is a strong case to be made for solar variations and the secondary effects these solar variations could have on the climate and why they could have those effects.
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 in the “solar wind,” which is an outflow of ionized particles, mostly protons and electrons, from the sun. The Earth’s geomagnetic field, the solar wind, and the solar magnetic field deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A decrease in solar activity increases the GCR penetration of the troposphere and stratosphere. GCR particles are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere above 1 km (below 1 km, radon is a dominant source of ionization in many areas).
Levels of GCRs have been indirectly recorded by their influence on the production of carbon-14 and beryllium-10. The Hallstatt solar cycle length of approximately 2300 years is reflected by climatic Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles, and there also appear to be similar climate patterns occurring on this time scale.
Cloud effectsEdit
Changes in ionization affect the abundance of aerosols that serve as the nuclei of condensation for cloud formation. As a result, ionization levels potentially affect levels of condensation, low clouds, relative humidity, and albedo due to clouds. Clouds formed from greater amounts of condensation nuclei are brighter, longer lived, and likely to produce less precipitation. Changes of 3–4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have been correlated to the 11 and 22 year solar (sunspot) cycles, with increased GCR levels during “antiparallel” cycles.[23] Global average cloud cover change has been found to be 1.5–2%. Several studies of GCR and cloud cover variations have found positive correlation at latitudes greater than 50° and negative correlation at lower latitudes.[24] However, not all scientists accept this correlation as statistically significant, and some that do attribute it to other solar variability (e.g. UV or total irradiance variations) rather than directly to GCR changes.[25][26] Difficulties in interpreting such correlations include the fact that many aspects of solar

Willis Eschenbach

David, there are a raft of problems with this analysis.
First and foremost, David’s Evan’s claim of a notch filter is a joke. If you run his model against white noise instead of global temperatures, you get an identical notch. Is it your contention that there is a “notch filter” in white noise?
Next, David Evans has not released the data, the model, the model results, the equations, the out-of-sample tests, or any of the details. This is the same garbage we got from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And now, here you are cluttering up WUWT with the same kind of garbage. There is no transparency. There is no data. There is no code. In what alternate universe does this pass for science?
Next, as Leif points out, he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.
Next, he posits an incredibly intricate model, vis:

Really? We’re supposed to believe that the climate has all of these items, neatly connected in a very specific order?
In any case, this is one of the most complex and useless curve-fitting exercises I’ve ever seen … and to date, we still don’t even know how many tunable parameters have been harmed in the process of making the whole thing look realistic.
I’m sorry, David, but your attempt to channel Michael Mann’ data-withholding, code-withholding style is just as offensive when you do it as when he does it. I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that they’d publish the code and data and out-of-sample tests when they damn well felt like it … science at its finest.
In any case, David, since you are among the blessed few, how about you tune the model using the first half of the data, and then see what it predicts for the second half … Jo said that David has already done that, but they’ve refused to release the results.
The most bizarre part of this whole thing is that I’ve been saying that there is no 11-year cycle in the climate … and getting brickbats and abuse in return. Meanwhile, David Evans is saying the exact same thing over at JoNova’s, and people are genuflecting in awe and proclaiming that he’s a genius.
WUWT?
Finally, you say:

There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when.

What? You mean that finally, after all these years, evil doubt has been banished and The Science Is Settled™? Gosh, that’s great to hear … how did I miss such a momentous occurrence? [/sarc]
In fact, as my recent series on the Maunder and Dalton minima have shown, IF (and it’s a big if) there is cooling from solar variations, it is so small as to be lost in the weeds.
I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones, David. I’d thought y’all were scientists. Ah, well, live and learn.
w.

Steve W.

“Solar denialists”
For shame. Using “denialist” against your opponent is defamation. Period.
You concede that your own model (fantasy?) is iffy. So people that laugh at it deserve this label? You owe us all an apology.

What strikes me the most with the data I just presented is the significant increase in solar magnetic activity last century which corresponds to the temperature increase. In addition the increased solar activity of last century matches up quite strongly with ocean heat content changes.
Again because the climate system is so dynamic with so much noise cause and effect are not always going to be so obvious. which I talked about in my earlier post.
That is it thanks for the time.

David (Archibald).
I suspect that you may have overestimated the speed of system response from a fall in solar activity bearing in mind that the oceans have been accumulating energy since the depths of the LIA.
The thermohaline circulation takes 1000 to 1500 years to run its course and it does apply a moderating influence on sea surface temperatures.
As per the solar climate model of David Evans the thermal response of the Earth system to a single solar cycle is smeared across 3 to 15 years and ultimately negated by the thermal inertia of the system (probably due to the oceans) but we have had a lot of accretion to ocean heat content since 1600 and it is going to take more than one quiet solar cycle to start making a dent in that.
IMHO I think that if we just see a trend change towards net cooling over the next 5 years that will be enough to validate the solar theory without having to expect more.
Especially if our CO2 emissions keep rising at the current rate.
To validate the CO2 theory we would need to see a rise in atmospheric temperature DESPITE a quiet sun and a negative Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (PMO).
We should stop using the term PDO in favour of PMO because Bob Tisdale correctly tells us that PDO refers only to a surface pressure differential which has no causative effect in itself.