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
In Australia, will still be very cold.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/17/0900Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=130.48,-64.82,365
Polar vortex at an altitude of 26500 m.
“Over the 11 or so year solar cycle, solar irradiance changes by typically 0.1%. i.e., about 1 W/m2 relative to the solar constant of 1360 W/m2. Once one averages for the whole surface of earth (i.e., divide by 4) and takes away the reflected component (i.e., times 1 minus the albedo), it comes out to be about 0.17 W/m2 variations relative to the 240 W/m2. Thus, if only solar irradiance variations are present, Earth’s sensitivity has to be pretty high to explain the solar-climate correlations (see the collapsed box below).
However, if solar activity is amplified by some mechanism (such as hypersensitivity to UV, or indirectly through sensitivity to cosmic ray flux variations), then in principle, a lower climate sensitivity can explain the solar-climate links, but it would mean that a much larger heat flux is entering and leaving the system every solar cycle. ”
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
ren says
However, if solar activity is amplified by some mechanism (such as hypersensitivity to UV, or indirectly through sensitivity to cosmic ray flux variations), then in principle, a lower climate sensitivity can explain the solar-climate links, but it would mean that a much larger heat flux is entering and leaving the system every solar cycle. ”
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
henry says
good show! this is the crux of the whole matter.
First of all: don’t confuse cause and result. As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
As the people in Alaska[must] have noted,
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
It is almost one K or whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better. NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
So we know we are cooling from the top latitudes down, as my results and those of others are showing.
How do we know it is because of what happens TOA?
I have analysed results of ozone [which is only one of many compounds formed TOA by the sun’s ultra short wave radiation]
Both NH and SH.
NH: On the best polynomial fit it showed general declining trend from 1951 and a general increasing trend from 1995. On the SH there are no results before 1980, but here too the graph available from the SS showed an inclining trend from 1995…..
There is also the flooding of the Nile, max. flooding 1950, min. flooding 1995. There is also the configuration of the planets to consider. The ancients reported celebrating every 7 x 7 years (Jubilee year) which cycle time would be correct [as observed from earth]
Note that a full solar cycle is the so-called Hale cycle of 22 years.
2 of these cycles make a half Gleissberg cycle. Every half Gleissberg cycle we are back to the beginning……
Hence my insistence that something switched on the sun in 1972 and it will/must switch back in 2015-2016.
The whole system works like a clock, to protect life…..against overheating.
Amazing, is it not?
Leif says, “At the atomic level Maxwell’s laws don’t apply. This was Niels Bohr’s great discovery. What happens is that when an electron moves from a higher orbital to a lower one, a photon is emitted with an energy equal to the energy difference between the orbitals. If the matter is not a plasma then the electrons are ‘bound’ and only discrete values of energy differences are possible and we get a spectrum with lines only at discrete frequencies. In a plasma some electrons are not bound, but are free to move around. They can therefore have any energy [depending on the temperature] and when they settle onto a lower orbital [and becoming bound for a very short time] the photons emitted do not have only certain discrete frequencies but can have any frequency and so form a continuous spectrum which we call ‘sunlight’.”
Thank you! Much clearer now with regard to plasma and why Maxwell’s laws don’t apply at the atomic level.
I had the chance to sub in a high school science class and was shocked by the rather simple chapter on electrons. So I immediately sent the kids to the computer bank to read this instead:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/atomorbs.html
Of course I have the same disregard for the counting to 100 chart posted everywhere in every kindergarten and 1st grade room. I would love to burn those charts up in one hell of a bon fire. Our counting system is NOT pendular, or circular, or spiral-like. It is linear. If there are two things I would chuck into the round file in lower education (and sometimes at the higher education college intro class!) it would be the count to 100 chart and the horribly miss-drawn atom picture.
And I would turn the multiplication chart into a geometric area form that they build like a puzzle one row and column at a time from the corner out as kids learn why 1 X 1 = 1, 1 X 2 = 2, and so on. There is so much about math that was turned upside down when we thought rote learning instead of problem solving was the proper way to build math sense. That same wrong headed thinking invaded science such that we “stylized” the atom into rote memory/wrong headed thinking as well.
HenryP, if you speculate that the Earth may be hypersensitive to say, averaged (not smoothed) UV variability, or has some other amplifying response to a small solar component, you must also logically say that it would show up in concert with that solar variation in the averaged (not smoothed) temperature series, IE the averaged trace should have similar statistically significant periodicity regardless of any lag. You would also have to say that this correlation would exist at least at the 11 year cycle, and if at the 11 year cycle, surely in incrementally smaller ways over longer periods. You must admit, based on your speculation, that if it is sensitive to smaller incremental changes, it would be easily sensitive to larger 11 year changes. If you say it is so only to incremental changes over a long period of time you fail in your speculation regarding the underlying premise you propose. If you say it cannot be easily detected because of Earth’s own variability, you fail in your speculation as to which is the more powerful source of variability.
Pamela Gray says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:10 am
…….
Bohr’s atom model (in parts) is outdated. You should recommend The Feynman Lectures on Physics which introduces more realistic ‘electron cloud’ model.
@pamela
I have stated several times that you can pair the deceleration of maximum temps. with declining solar polar magnetic fields.I suspect a [small] shift to the left of the chi type distribution of TSI, not affecting total TSI much.
I invite you again to look at the graph on the bottom of the minima table
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
;;;;////
there is no room for any man made global warming or earthly variables? Minima is [apparently] controlled solely by the sun.
Now you tell me or you can guess where that minima graph is going to go for the next 40 years?
Henry, ren – astounding! You guys have a real heart for humanity. I think the same as you about food & energy production as you so adequately explained. When I get my website up I’d like you guys to feel free to write and post articles on these topics if you wish.
This constant BS about imminent warming caused by CO2 has got to stop so humanity’s attention and energy can be directed to supporting our needs for food and energy during what we expect and what the warmists have no clue about – cold times ahead. I’d rather be over-prepared for cold times than caught empty-handed because of ill-thought plans due to ill-thought science contradicted by all real observations and evidence.
Joe D’Aleo has two great articles here from July 11 &12: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HLN_Weather_Whys_July11.pdf and from July 12, “Polar Vortex summer version prelude to brutal winter and potential major energy issues” (see http://icecap.us)
The ozone layer has a limited ability to prevent major changes the amount of ozone in the case of long-term decline in solar activity.
The explanation is simple – a decrease in the UV.
“Variations in constituents such as ozone and aerosols affect air quality, weather and climate. Atmospheric composition is central to Earth system dynamics because the atmosphere integrates spatially varying surface emissions globally on time scales from weeks to years. NASA works to provide monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the effects of climate change on ozone recovery and future atmospheric composition, improved climate forecasts based on the understanding of the forcings of global environmental change, and air quality modeling that take into account the relationship between regional air quality and global climate change. Achievements in these areas via advances in observations, data assimilation, and modeling enable improved predictive capabilities for describing how future changes in atmospheric composition affect air quality, weather, and climate. NASA draws on global observations from space, augmented by suborbital and ground-based measurements to address these issues.”
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/focus-areas/atmospheric-composition/
HenryP, there are several issues with your data.
1. Not long enough sample to say anything but coincidence (indeed is it really even that?) between temp and field. If you have not sufficient statistical power, your speculation is unjustified.
2. What does the noisy average say? Is your decline buried in the series? The thing with white noise is that you can also have trends. Again, your speculation is unjustified if white noise can produce the same appearance.
3. Absolutely no plausible mechanism undergirded with calculable physics in terms of solar energy required and energy available (in any frequency) to drive temperature trends. Plausibility.
4. Is the reverse true? Does an Increasing field mean hotter temps? Every condition must be explained by your proposal, not just a declining acceleration.
5. What other mechanisms are capable of such a temp change? If there is an equal mechanism, your speculation changes. Anything that has an equal chance means your speculation does not have a chance. And it only takes one incident.
@pam
you did not answer my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685099
surely the [global] cooling cannot go on forever?
Something has to switch.
As far as I know there is only one man who figured it out right. That is William Arnold and it was before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
The heat coming through the atmosphere behaves like an a-c wave
The wheel simply has to turn back up again. Your friend Leif says the paper is nonsense but my own subsequent investigations find the paper’s conclusions to be largely correct except for a 5-7 year error on the actual switch times.
The variation in TSI is too small to cause the average global temp. change currently standing at -0.015K/annum since 2000. So there is amplification. To understand how the amplification works you have to understand that if there is more ozone & others TOA, more UV is deflected to outer space. That means less heat in the oceans. There is also amplification due to a shift in cloud formation. No need for any GR etc. Everything starts and ends at the sun and starts again…we hope…
First, HenryP, I have cited article after article in peer reviewed literature about intrinsic factors (oceanic-atmospheric teleconnections) that have both long and short term mechanisms, and the energy necessary, to drive temperature change. They have been well researched, observed to be reflected in the temperature series, and modeled. Your speculation has not received that triplet set of attention. Second, I offer no guess. I can only formulate scenarios based on a priori conditions. I cannot predict when those a priori conditions fall into place in a pattern conducive to a slide into much colder temperatures.
We appear to be at a knee and will either go up again in a step, stay in a noisy stable conditions, or start a slide down irrespective of solar insolation (IE considering the entire spectrum in total and in parts) at the top of the atmosphere. I do not predict another little ice age unless we have a series of stratospheric injections of sulfur and ash, on top of oceanic atmospheric teleconnections that would lead to cooling.
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
Leaf:” What is comparable, though, is the situation when there are no spots now. This is then no different from the situation then.”
In the Maunder Minimum, the solar activity did change quite a bit from now. One proof of that is that radiocarbon C14 came to have a 22 year cycle but cosmogenic isotope Be10 still had a 11 year cycle and was not strictly in antiphase with the 11 year sunspot cycle http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2000JA000105.pdf. No similar changes were seen in the last solar minimum. The situation then with no spots does seem different to me.
Leaf wrote, “The paper also calls attention to observations of the sun’s emission [measured by the temperature] from areas where there are no spots. Livingston found [Figure 2] that that was constant [does not vary with the solar cycle] and there is no reason to believe that this was any different during the Maunder Minimum. ”
I can think of a good reason that there is reason to believe that the temperature of the sun or at least TSI does vary more during a grand minimum. The reason to believe that it did is the temperature of the earth did in fact drop quite a bit during the Maunder Minimum. Unless you are willing to believe that the small change in TSI is responsible, then something else changed.
Looking at the graph of TSI on page 33: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
That graph shows that TSI is very flat from around 1650 to 1700. An alternative view is that TSI did continue to drop below the flat area.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:15 pm
In the Maunder Minimum, the solar activity did change quite a bit from now. One proof of that is that radiocarbon C14 came to have a 22 year cycle but cosmogenic isotope Be10 still had a 11 year cycle and was not strictly in antiphase with the 11 year sunspot cycle
That just shows how poor the data is as the two records should show the same variation being due to the same cause [cosmic rays].
Here are two papers that touch upon the quality of the isotope records:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
The reason to believe that it did is the temperature of the earth did in fact drop quite a bit during the Maunder Minimum.
As the temperature of the earth is not very dependent on variations of the solar output, your logic is circular.
@lsvalgaard
Leif wrote, “That just shows how poor the data is as the two records should show the same variation being due to the same cause [cosmic rays].”
Or alternatively, it shows incomplete understanding. The fact that local concentrations of Be10 are greatly impacted by local climate – and that there seems to still be a 11 year modulation of concentration that is more in phase and stead of anti-phase, indicates that solar minimum and solar maximum has an impact on how this is deposited – in the Maunder Minimum. There is an alternative view – as their always is when there is too little data and the theory is not nailed down.
Leif wrote, “As the temperature of the earth is not very dependent on variations of the solar output, your logic is circular.”
I believe that the temperature of the earth is mostly dependent on changes in the Sun. Your point though is I assume mainly that the earth’s temperature can vary quite a bit even when the sun’s output changes little. The counter point to that is the cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun. No one can yet prove that the grand minimum caused the cold period. But the hypothesis seems equally as plausible as those you have put forth.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
But the hypothesis seems equally as plausible as those you have put forth.
No, that is false. It is as saying that either I win the lottery or I do not, so it is equally plausible that I win as I lose.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun.
Here is an argument [and a good one] that TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than today: Sunspots are dark and thus diminish TSI. If no dark sunspots, there is nothing to diminish TSI…
It is clearly visible blockade ozone in the region of Australia. Lows arctic and jetstream will move north. Ice stopped.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_50_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/500gz_anomalies_sh.gif
Sun also inhibited. UV radiation is correlated (opposite) of cosmic rays.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/amef7a.jpg
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
Mistake, should be lows Antarctic. In the Arctic is so.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
“The first part of this week will feel more like September than the middle of July, typically the hottest time of year, throughout the Midwest.
The unseasonably cool air is arriving via a piece of the polar vortex.
That does not mean that kids across the Midwest will be trading their swimming gear for sled and skis.
As AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski first reported last week, this is a summertime version of the polar vortex that has broken off from the Arctic and is dropping southward.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif
leif says
Here is an argument [and a good one] that TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than today: Sunspots are dark and thus diminish TSI. If no dark sunspots, there is nothing to diminish TSI…
henry says
now this is what I have been saying all along.
There is a small shift in the chi square distribution [of TSI] to the left making TSI somewhat bigger – but not much- and this releases [somewhat] more of the smallest [most energetic] particles.
That this happens clearly has to do with the declining solar magnetic field.
Again, in its turn this extra [harmful] radiation reacts TOA to form extra ozone, peroixides and nitrogenous oxides. Again in its turn, more ozone & others deflect more UV from the sun to space due to absorption, re-radiation and subsequent back radiation. More back radiation from earth to space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
i.e. the red part becomes a bit less, especially on the left hand side, when there is more ozone & others..
[note that Trenberth only mentioned ozone, making the white area, hence the missing energy, did he not know that there are others too?]
Less UV in the oceans means less warmth, eventually.
Hence it is cooling
@pam
are you not convinced that it is in fact cooling ..globally?
80-90 year cycle are reported by many people, e.g.
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
live with it.
For comparison, UV index in July 2002 and July 2014.
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2002/07/uvief20020713_w.gif
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2014/07/uvief20140712_w.gif
ren says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685525
henry says
just so we are all on the same wavelengths – no pun intended
the pictures show that there is less UV being allowed through the atmosphere July 2014 compared to July 2002.
[because somewhat more of it is sent back to space, i.e. more UV is back radiated]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685477