Readers may recall the contentious discussions that occurred on this thread a couple of weeks back. Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released. But that aside, there is good news.
David Archibald writes in to tell us that the model has been released and that we can examine it. Links to the details follow.
While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.
I have not looked at this model, but I’m passing it along for readers to examine themselves. Perhaps I and others will be able to get to it in a few days, but for now I’m passing it along without comment.
Archibald writes:
There is plenty to chew on. Being able to forecast turns in climate a decade in advance will have great commercial utility. To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:
David Evans has made his climate model available for download here.
The home for all things pertaining to the model is: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
UPDATE2:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understanding, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
jmorpuss says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The suns magnetic field and the electric universe interaction keeps the sun rotating .
No, this is total nonsense. The sun rotates because of its intrinsic rotational angular momentum and does not need any to help keep going. Quite the opposite happens: the sun sheds angular momentum because of the solar wind, so over millions and billions of years, the Sun’s rotation will slow down [as it has been since the sun was born].
The sun’s initial angular momentum has been decreasing, perhaps on account of the solar wind, but also perhaps because of magnetic force interacitons, the latter becoming more dominant as the star ages. So “they” say.
mrmethane says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:46 pm
The sun’s initial angular momentum has been decreasing, perhaps on account of the solar wind,
This part is correct, but
also perhaps because of magnetic force interactions, the latter becoming more dominant as the star ages.
this part is not. The magnetic activity is also decreasing with age, because it is powered ultimately by solar rotation.
Leif I hope you’re not trying to disconnect the Sun’s electric-magnetic plasma activity from the Sun’s light-heat electromagnetic activity. Think about what Biermann said.
You get no magnetism without the motion of charged particles! Without the motion of charged particles, there is no electric field, no magnetism, and no light. They go together.
The Sun is electric because of localized plasma buildups of electrons and protons, that cause differential forces. It’s magnetic because of the motion of those charged particles. It’s electromagnetic because of the light and heat spectrum we get from the Sun’s photosphere and coronal electrons and protons activity.
The Sun is electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic simultaneously. It’s the Sun’s photons, protons, and electrons that do the work that ultimately cause climate change. Solar change drives climate change. Active Sun = Active Earth.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Leif I hope you’re not trying to disconnect the Sun’s electric-magnetic plasma activity from the Sun’s light-heat electromagnetic activity.
Yes, I am. The latter is generated deep in the Sun’s core by gravity and nuclear fusion. The former is driven by the sun’s magnetic field.
Think about what Biermann said.
Biermann was concerned with generating the very first magnetic fields. That is all that is needed. Since then the dynamo process keeps things going http://www.leif.org/research/The-Origin-of-Magnetic-Fields.pdf
There is no generally accepted theory that anything else [solar] influences the climate.
=========
history shows that generally accepted theories are almost always wrong, when looked at a few hundred years later. especially theories that seek to explain “why” or “how’.
Lol! Head. Wall.
Vuk, not mysterious. Proposed, observed, and modeled in peer reviewed literature.
One sample:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esrl.noaa.gov%2Fpsd%2Fpeople%2Fmichael.alexander%2Fliu_alexander.rg.6-07.pdf&ei=VovAU5bzLJKOyATzrYKoAw&usg=AFQjCNGMzQyLGePkNWtqQX1oz9gB275byQ&sig2=6NISVDochR46PUQVh0mqwA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
ferdberple says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm
history shows that generally accepted theories are almost always wrong, when looked at a few hundred years later.
Not so. newer theories usual expand the domain of validity of the older ones. Newton’s laws are still good for almost all purposes. Darwin’s Evolution theory is still the foundation of biology. Steno’s law about sedimentation is still good after 500 years. Huygen’s wave theory of light is still good today. Ampere, Coulomb, and Faraday are still good, etc. Once fundamental insight has been reached that stays as the bedrock of science.
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Pretty obvious to me he is not on anyone’s “side”:
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“Climate is driven by a combination of many processes. Some drivers [in decreasing order of significance] are; (0) non-linear combinations of the following: (1) the Sun [its output has increased 30% over the history of the Earth, and will eventually fry us], (2) plate tectonics [enabling ice sheets to form if land is near the poles, or creating vast deserts in the interior of equatorial mega-continents], (3) Jupiter [through its influence on the orbit of the Earth – Milankovitch cycles], (4) greenhouse gases [massive volcanic emissions, e.g. the Deccan Traps], (5) biosphere [changing albedo of the surface], (6) ocean circulation, (7) solar activity [causing a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation], and last [and probably least] (8) human activity [land use and CO2 emissions].”
how about this:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“I don’t think that your analysis and Bart’s will lead to savings of billions of dollars and any lives saved, because the AGW threat is political and not scientific”
or this:
Leif Svalgaard says: September 29, 2012 at 11:31 am
“On human time scales, I don’t think any single cause can be singled out. Any sufficiently complex system can have internal, natural cycles and climate seems to fit that bill.”
Here is another one. WUWT is familiar with one of the authors.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CHUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fcb-48.pdf&ei=VovAU5bzLJKOyATzrYKoAw&usg=AFQjCNFZ30WsPadGl1XDY-OeOw27cLviwQ&sig2=BF_vVLtgFwzTaM_uJGbvaA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
My speculation is that under the current conditions (this interglacial’s placement of continents, etc), these teleconnections form a dynamic system that perpetuates a noisy self-correction to imbalance to self-correction to imbalance, etc. That noise is created because Earth’s energy-using systems are not steady state (IE sometimes it uses up and even stores energy and sometimes it reflects or leaks it out to space), but its energy source, the Sun, is a relatively steady source of energy at the top of the atmosphere. Thus I speculate that we have an oceanic/atmospheric climate dynamo.
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard….here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm
here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/
OK, I’ll make you a new one – up-to-date and more spacing on the x-axis. Stay tuned.
Leif,
The Sun’s output is light/heat and particles. Stepping back from the Sun’s internal dynamics and looking at how it is characterized from the outside, it is pretty easy to make an electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic analogy from the solar parameters used by yourself and others – and it’s appropriate.
The physics that Biermann cited that started things off as you say with seed field still is valid today. The dynamo is still operating according to electrodynamic principles – magnetohydrodynamics is the official term, controlled by the electric and magnetic forces generated by the motion of said electrons and protons – hydrogen plasma, and other ionic constituents. The dynamo behaves according to Maxwell’s equations, and so does the light/heat spectrum. Solar dynamo action both results from and causes motion of charged plasma.
The Sun’s polar fields and the solar wind component of the IMF are both characterized in magnetic terms – terms that would not be possible without the motion of electrons and protons, the Sun’s electric current carriers/creators.
The very definition of light is that it is electromagnetic. By virtue of the dual nature of light, wave and particle, the Sun’s radiant output is characterized by both frequency and wavelength, and by photon energy. The photon flux for any wavelength of light is calculated using electron-volt energy levels. Total solar irradiance is the integrated photon flux across the spectrum that is by definition related to its electric field. That is the way light is handled in many fields of science and technology, including the solar cell power industry. Solar cell output is directly a function of solar flux – the photoelectric effect in solar cells is proportional to the photon flux energy it receives.
So when you say “the Sun’s magnetic field” you are talking about the Sun’s electric field too. When you are talking about the Sun’s light/heat, you are talking about the Sun’s electric field too. It’s the electrical power in the plasma that generates the radiation caused by the motion of charged particles. Let’s not forget that electrical power, P, equals voltage times current, P=VI. The Sun’s electrical power & irradiance goes up when its electric & magnetic fields go up. That’s why TSI changes at all.
Solar minimums are times when the Sun’s electrical and radiant power output is lower, and vice versa. The Sun’s action could be likened to an electric lamp heater that cycles between a fairly stable minimum value, up to an ever-changing maximum output power level throughout the solar cycle, with each cycle having its own power curve, and resultant temperature signature. My SST-10.7 data show that very clearly. In fact, you don’t have to wait through whole cycles to see the effect on temps from the Sun’s variable output.
Ample evidence for that occurred during the previous 27 days, and the Sun will not dissapoint as the year progresses. The moon in its declination cycle is directly out of phase with the Sun’s output now and will be throughout this summer, mitigating the solar extremes for the next several rotations. Especially since this is happening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1KKpeW231Y . It’s going to be an interesting ride through this summer and into winter.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm
“here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/”
OK, I’ll make you a new one – up-to-date and more spacing on the x-axis. Stay tuned.
Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png
Note that this is the sunspot number. The plot you had was of the sunspot areas and those I don’t have yet past 2012. I’m not sure what difference it makes to you. The areas vary non-linearly with the sunspot number so the peaks in your plot look a nit more ‘ragged’.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:55 pm
The Sun’s output is light/heat and particles. Stepping back from the Sun’s internal dynamics and looking at how it is characterized from the outside, it is pretty easy to make an electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic analogy from the solar parameters used by yourself and others – and it’s appropriate.
The physics that Biermann cited that started things off as you say with seed field still is valid today. The dynamo is still operating according to electrodynamic principles – magnetohydrodynamics is the official term, controlled by the electric and magnetic forces generated by the motion of said electrons and protons – hydrogen plasma, and other ionic constituents. etc, etc, etc
No, you are totally wrong. But, I can see that you are too far gone and that no explanation of the way things really work will make any difference to you, so I shall refrain from trying. A very short summary, though: The electric currents are generated by changes in the magnetic field caused by movement of neutral plasma. The original magnetic field was generated 13 billion years ago, possibly by Biermann’s process, which does not work anymore in the present solar system. That field is still around [in a certain sense] and is the main ingredient in the solar dynamo, being kneaded into sunspot flux ropes in every cycle.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png“
Leif, very nice.. fade those lines to gray on the X and you’ll have yourself a work of art there!
So are you saying the laws of physics changed from then to now? How and why? I am not wrong. YOU are too far gone. You are projecting. The magnetism of the Sun today results from the electric currents that are created by the charged particles that comprise the solar plasma. Look around the internet, you’ll find ample references to what I just said in all kinds of literature, including from NASA. You just don’t want to admit to being wrong. Just look up “electric currents” “solar plasma” or just about anything relating to solar magnetism and/or the IMF.
The IMF wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the solar wind, cosmic rays, and particles accelerated away from planets – charged particles creating an electrical current in space. The solar wind electrical current induces an electric field across the Earth’s poles, and merges with or otherwise influences the Earth’s magnetic field. But you know all that. You helped figure all that out.
What you’re refraining from doing is thinking through the definitions for things and misdirecting away from the truth that no matter what caused the Sun and Universe to exist, the laws of physics are still the same today. Electrodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and electromagnetics are all wrapped up in solar activity and there is no way for Leif Svalgaard to undo that truth.
The plasma is neutral? What difference does that make when the charges separate? The charges are separated in the Sun’s flux tubes. There will be a local electric and magnetic field created in each flux tube dependent upon the local flux density of charged particles, electrons and protons, within that tube. The superposition of the electric and magnetic fields from each flux tube across the face of the Sun constitute the Sun’s total earth-facing electric field, in addition to all photospheric and coronal particle electric and magnetic field contributions. All because of charge separation. The plasma is overall neutral – so what.
@ur momisugly leif
I think most understand how important the sun is to life here on earth . So what really controls earth natural climate is what the sun is conected to, as it also rotates around what? I see a universal fight between the proton and the neutron which are trying to create mass and the much smaller electron trying to create seperation. Because of the electrons small size and it’s negative charge and it’s the electrons job to create seperation, it has to work hard and fast , if they touch a small spark is emitted ,a photon of light is born . The reason why the universe is so big is because of the tiny electron creating seperation, the electric potential is mind blowing. If there really is a God I bet his last name is Electron .And no disrespect there Mr Electron sir.
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:32 pm
“Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png“
Leif, very nice.. fade those lines to gray on the X and you’ll have yourself a work of art there!
Faded to light green
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm
The solar wind electrical current induces an electric field across the Earth’s poles, and merges with or otherwise influences the Earth’s magnetic field. But you know all that. You helped figure all that out.
This is a microcosmos of the problem. The correct view is that ‘the solar wind magnetic field induces an electric field across the poles”. The same goes for all your other examples.
Here is more on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction
As I said, you are probably too far gone to accept this, so I shall not try much further.
@Pamela
Face slap comes back with a bat…
Leif, .Spot on.. but take my advice, gray looks a whole lot better.
lsvalgaard wrote ““The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima” This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.”
What I think you mean is that you believe that the direct thermal impact on temperature of the 1.5 W/m^2 you have guesstimated from reconstructions is that this should have a temperature impact of 0.08C.
You actually don’t know anymore than the rest of us do what the actual impact of changes in the sun will have given there are possible feedbacks to such things as changes in ultraviolet.
My understanding is that the reconstructions also don’t show changes in ultraviolet in a deep minimum.
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things. You believe that if the number of sun spots drop, that irradiance from the sun drops with it in a more or less linear fashion. However, this is a guess that could very well be incorrect in which case your whole idea about the 1.5 W/m^2 is wrong. Or do you have direct evidence of how TSI changed in the last grand minimum as well as how the solar spectrum changed when there were no sun spots visible for an extended period? My view is that if you are in fact guessing at the linear changes (you don’t have data), that this is an extremely weak guess that is almost meaningless.
BobG says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658,pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009”
BobG says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″