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
“On July 14, 2014, a sounding rocket will be ready to launch from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico a little before noon local time. Soaring up to 180 miles into Earth’s atmosphere, past the layers that can block much of the sun’s high energy light, the Degradation Free Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short wavelengths.
The total solar irradiance, and to an even greater degree, irradiance at high energy wavelengths is known to change over time in conjunction with the sun’s approximately-11-year solar cycle. How it changes over longer periods of time, however, is less certain – but fairly important if we’re going to understand how solar variability affects Earth’s space environment.”
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mission-to-study-the-suns-energy/#.U8PJf1V_sup
Henryp, what cooling? I think we are currently in a phase that allows a noisily balanced stored energy release from the oceans (in an on/off pumping fashion), which once in the atmosphere heats the air in an on/off fashion. Some of that warmth will be used up by flora and fauna, some of it will be lost to space, and some of it will stick around until the oceans belch another amount of it out. There is only one real mechanism that allows us to trend cool. It is when the oceans (and in particular the equatorial band) experience fewer clear sky oceanic recharging solar heating days and months. In other words, it runs out of gas.
Dr. Spencer’s global temperature series demonstrates that we are in a fairly stable yet noisy knee in terms of temperature. I don’t know if a cooling trend will begin or we experience another step up, or we stay in this knee. Nothing drastic has to change for any one of these three scenarios. The mechanisms (oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections) are there and Earth has a random-walk mind of its own as to what and when things happen to drive weather pattern variation trends. Variation in human-related CO2 and solar related TOA insolation need not apply.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
It seems you are the one that may need to learn to live with Earth’s fickle behavior.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lockwood+implicatins+of+recetn+low+solar+activity
The Lockwood study 2014
This study is right on and is a great read. Chances are extremely good that solar wind speeds going forward will be averaging around 300 km/sec , and much of my solar criteria is going to be met which I will post once again.
This study has big implications for it shows solar variability is much more then what mainstream keeps trying to convey to the public.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Bob Weber and Ren thanks for your contributions. I am in complete agreement.
I hope you read Professor Lockwood’s latest paper which I posted. Extremely good and represents the latest research which supports the earlier research.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/sorry-warmists-strong-el-nino-in-2014.html
Notice how there is yet to be a temperature graph produced which shows the range of global temperatures INCREASING during a prolonged solar minimum period or the range in global temperatures DECLINING during a period of prolonged maximum solar activity.
Guess what the same thing is going to happen once again going forward into this decade. Global temperatures will be falling in response to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
What is being missed by many read below.
The point is the temperatures of earth will always vary even when solar output is constant, due to random, chaotic climate changes within the climate system of the earth. What solar variability determines is what range the temperatures of the globe will be in ,not the random temperature changes up/down once the climate is in a given climate regime.
Next one has to take into the account the initial state of the climate. How close to glacial if in interglacial and vice versa, which will determine how much of an influence GIVEN solar variability will have on the climate. Given solar variability effect on the climate , will always vary depending on what the initial state of the climate is at the time the sun is exhibiting variability. This is why solar/climate correlations tend to get obscure at times. The climate system has much noise in the system and unless solar activity changes from a distinct prolonged active to a distinct prolonged minimum phase of activity solar/climate trends are hard to see. The initial state of the climate again also obscuring the solar/climate connection at times.
This is why this period of time is so great. We have switched from an very active sun last century to a very quiet sun post 2005 and the given state of the climate is such that it should respond to solar variability to one degree or another.
Look for exciting times ahead including the winter of 2014-2015 .
ren says (quote)
the Degradation Free Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short wavelengths.
henry says
so, we don’t really know TSI
NOW, do we?
This is what I [also] suspected
Bob I think past history proves grand solar minimums will cause global temperatures to fall into a lower temperature range. Again consideration must be taken into account for the initial state of the climate and the duration/depth of the grand minimum, but there is no doubt about it.
Bob if this were not so there would be examples of the global temperature range rising during a prolonged solar minimum period and falling during a prolonged solar maximum period. There are no such examples. The same thing will happen with this current prolonged solar minimum which is the global temperature range in response is going to be down.
I just said it but I will repeat. The temperature can vary when solar output is constant due to the random chaotic nature of the climate system but it is the range that matters not the up/down temperature variations from year to year. The range in temperatures will NOT vary under constant solar output. The climate will stay in the same climate regime which it has done since post Dalton Solar Minimum times. Going forward the range in temperatures is gong to step downwards to at least Dalton Solar minimum times in response to this prolonged solar minimum due to primary /secondary solar climate effects.
That is a very IMPORTANT distinction.
WHAT BOB HAD SAID BELOW MY RESPONSE ABOVE.
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
Pamela Grays says
Henryp, what cooling?
Henry says
You believe dr Roy
here is his data set
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2015/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2015/trend
note the trend from 2002 is [a bit] up
here are the other 4 major data sets
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
note the trend from 2002 is [a bit] down.
Now, I have pointed dr Roy to this and suggested he might have a [calibration] problem especially with zero point calibration.He updated his set, but it did not come right, did it?
Never mind the 4 official data sets that all show [global] cooling from 2002,
I still prefer my own three data sets because I know that I used a sampling technique that was thoroughly thought through by balancing on latitude and other factors.
see here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Basically, I say all the other data sets are still muck, even if they do show it is globally cooling, because they are not properly balanced.
My data set says it is cooling at a rate of -0.015K/annum since 2000
Minima are currently falling at a rate of -0.01K/annum since 2000 and the curve [I found] is absolutely perfect for a random sample…..[100% correlation]
[see graph at the bottom of the minima curve]
So the whole world is cooling. We are cooling from the top latitudes down.
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
Antarctic ice is increasing.
I know you are one of those who think that [somehow] I cooked my [own] results and that it is not random. I challenge you on that. Either you admit that the world is cooling or we agree to disagree and part our ways.
All the best,
H
@lsvalgaard says:
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun.
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…”
But what if the output of the sun varies more than expected and in the grand minimum it goes lower than your new TSI graph indicates? The reason to question the TSI graph is that the temperature did vary more than usual and the temperature remained cool for longer than typical from volcanic or other typical sources. This might be a result of changes in TSI. Another reason to question the TSI graph is simply that it goes “flat”. This implies that there is a minimum TSI value – which should set an upper limit to variability. This does not seem consistent with similar stars. “Ground-based photometric surveys of solar-like stars find that the solar irradiance is a factor of 2 to 3 times more stable than the sample stars of similar spectral type and activity index (Radick et al. 1998).” http://kepler.nasa.gov/Science/about/targetFieldOfView/stellarVariability/
Also: “Whether the range of solar variation has been significantly greater in the past remains a matter of some debate; Lean et al. (1995) estimated that at the time of the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) the TSI may have been 0.24% lower than its present value.” http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/171/1/260/pdf/71056.web.pdf (Page 260).
The last link provided above has a tentative conclusion indicating in part that solar variation of the sun based on the limited data that they have is probably low.
“Because of selective absorption and scattering processes in the Earth’s atmosphere, different regions of the solar spectrum affect Earth’s climate in distinct ways. Approximately 20-25% of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and ozone, by processes that are strongly wavelength dependent. Ultraviolet radiation at wavelengths below 300 nm is completely absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere and contributes the dominant energy source in the stratosphere and thermosphere, establishing the upper atmosphere’s temperature, structure, composition, and dynamics. Even small variations in the Sun’s radiation at these short wavelengths will lead to corresponding changes in atmospheric chemistry. Radiation at the longer visible and infrared wavelengths penetrates into the lower atmosphere, where the portion not reflected is partitioned between the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, and becomes a dominant term in the global energy balance and an essential determinant of atmospheric stability and convection.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/ssi-data/
BobG, you should spend time reading all of Lean’s work. She no longer subscribed to her 1995 estimates.
@Pamela Gray
Pamela said: “BobG, you should spend time reading all of Lean’s work. She no longer subscribed to her 1995 estimates.”
Thanks. I will look for it.
My overall point – and there are other sources of data is that we only have a relatively short (in time) amount of data showing how variable our star is and how TSI varies. I don’t think the proxy data showing changes in cosmic rays shows the exact magnitude of change back during the Maunder Minimum and prior solar minimums. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to believe that TSI dropped more than various estimates show for the Maunder Minimum.
I think we will get more data in solar cycle 25.
The latest research from Professor Lockwood supports Leans earlier findings and just gives more support that the sun is more variable then what mainstream is trying to convey.
In addition Willie Soon’s latest research is showing many sun like stars exhibit Maunder Minimum type of activity just like our sun. Our sun is most likely a typical variable star which we know varies by more then .1 In-fact during the short recent solar lull solar irradiance was off by .15
During the Maunder Minimum I estimate solar irradiance was off any where from .25 to maybe .6 %
Solar wind speeds were in the 200’s km/sec
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
This shows much evidence that a solar/volcanic connection does exist and this is a part of my global cooling scenario associated with prolonged solar minimum periods. One of the many associated secondary effects.
BobG says
But what if the output of the sun varies more than expected and in the grand minimum it goes lower than your new TSI graph indicates?
henry says
You did not get it
When the sun goes “hotter”, earth goes cooler
leif says
and this is a part of my global cooling scenario associated with prolonged solar minimum periods
henry says
Occasionally I watch some of the US s TV serials here
Most recently it strikes me that most are showing real cold and heaps of snow around living areas.
……/////
I am thinking about that now
…../////
truly, it seems to me that the USA is probably going to be more affected by global cooling than any other country, and by my account it won’t stop cooling until 2038,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
so remember, that day, when you stand there and curse the cold [and God]
that it is [really] just there to protect us from the heat……
Go figure.
God bless you all
Henry