Sun said to be “bi-modal”
While many, including the IPCC, suggest the modern Grand Maximum of solar activity from 1950-2009 has nothing to do with the 0.4C global warming measured over that time frame, it does seem to be unique in the last three millennia.
from CO2 Science: A 3,000-Year Record of Solar Activity
What was done
According to Usoskin et al. (2014), the Sun “shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima, but the nature of the variability is not fully understood, mostly because of the insufficient length of the directly observed solar activity records and of uncertainties related to long-term reconstructions.” Now, however, in an attempt to overcome such uncertainties, in a Letter to the Editor published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.”
What was learned
As illustrated in the figure below, the authors report there is “remarkable agreement” among the overlapping years of their reconstruction (solid black line) and the number of sunspots recorded from direct observations since 1610 (red line). Their reconstruction of solar activity also displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” which they describe as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”
Further statistical analysis of their reconstruction revealed the Sun operates in three distinct modes of activity – (1) a regular mode that “corresponds to moderate activity that varies in a relatively narrow band between sunspot numbers 20 and 67,” (2) a Grand minimum mode of reduced solar activity that “cannot be explained by random fluctuations of the regular mode” and which “is confirmed at a high confidence level,” and (3), a possible Grand maximum mode, but they say that “the low statistic does not allow us to firmly conclude on this, yet.”
What it means
Usoskin et al. (2014) write their results “provide important constraints for both dynamo models of Sun-like stars and investigations of possible solar influence on Earth’s climate.” They also illustrate the importance of improving the quality of such reconstructions, in light of the fact that previous reconstructions of this nature “did not reveal any clear signature of distinct modes” in solar activity.
Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this paper to address the potential impact of solar activity on climate. Yet the reconstruction leaves a very big question unanswered — What effect did the Grand maximum of solar activity that occurred between 1950 and 2009 have on Earth’s climate? As a “unique” and “rare” event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Reference
Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity. Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.
Abstract
Aims. The Sun shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima, but the nature of the variability is not fully understood, mostly because of the insufficient length of the directly observed solar activity records and of uncertainties related to long-term reconstructions. Here we present a new adjustment-free reconstruction of solar activity over three millennia and study its different modes.
Methods. We present a new adjustment-free, physical reconstruction of solar activity over the past three millennia, using the latest verified carbon cycle, 14C production, and archeomagnetic field models. This great improvement allowed us to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of details.
Results. The distribution of solar activity is clearly bi-modal, implying the existence of distinct modes of activity. The main regular activity mode corresponds to moderate activity that varies in a relatively narrow band between sunspot numbers 20 and 67. The existence of a separate Grand minimum mode with reduced solar activity, which cannot be explained by random fluctuations of the regular mode, is confirmed at a high confidence level. The possible existence of a separate Grand maximum mode is also suggested, but the statistics is too low to reach a confident conclusion.
Conclusions. The Sun is shown to operate in distinct modes – a main general mode, a Grand minimum mode corresponding to an inactive Sun, and a possible Grand maximum mode corresponding to an unusually active Sun. These results provide important constraints for both dynamo models of Sun-like stars and investigations of possible solar influence on Earth’s climate.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 9:13 am
The 2009 count is significantly higher than 1964 or 1986.
Since I have already shown you that different stations show different trends, explain why you blatantly ignore that.
Oulu shows an increasing count, Thule [Greenland] shows no trend, and South Pole shows a decrease:
ST12-05-D3-PM2-CD-004 (ST12-05-A011) AOGS 2014 Sapporo, Japan, July 30, 2014
Long Term Decline of South Pole Neutron Monitor Counting Rate – A Possible Magnetospheric Interpretation
Paul EVENSON#+, John CLEM
University of Delaware, United States
#Corresponding author: evenson@udel.edu +Presenter
“The neutron monitor at the Amundsen Scott Station, located at the geographic South Pole, has operated with some interruptions since 1964. The neutron counting rate follows an 11-year cycle with maxima at times of low solar activity, but over the entire interval exhibited a steady decline, totaling approximately 10% by 2013…”
If you think the ‘Grand Maximum’ supports your 1000-yr cycle, then you have a problem as Usoskin claims it was a unique event, thus not repeating every 1000 yrs. You can’t have it both ways.
vukcevic says:
August 9, 2014 at 9:19 am
You’re welcome. I know there is a lot. I’ve read it and Pamela hasn’t, yet she accuses me of ignoring volcanoes. I don’t. My study just shows me that they are not responsible for the centennial to millennial scale cycles so evident in all paleoclimatic data back at least as far as the Miocene.
She OTOH, after asking me for peer reviewed papers supporting solar influences on these cycles, refused to provide any supporting her view of volcanic control. When she finally did dredge one up, it was of Mannian ilk, based upon modeling and tree rings, which as all here should know, don’t well record temperature, but are of some utility for moisture. In any case, there is no physical mechanism by which a VEI 6 eruption every twenty to 100 years could possibly cause the Little Ice Age. At least she has not presented one. Just unquantified hand waving.
Leif. I agree that for various reasons different stations show different counts. Everyone cherry picks the data to fit their own overall interpretation i.e what to them makes more sense in the overall scheme of things.
Whether the 20th century maximum was “grand” or not is a matter of semantics. As far as I’m concerned the important thing is that was certainly a maximum since the Maunder minimum.
As to the existence of an approximately 1000 year cycle see Figs 5 thru 9 at the last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.com.
Also see Steinhilber et al Fig 9 B at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JA014193/pdf
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Figs 1 & 8 in Steinhilber et al are killer!
The IMF reconstruction by Floor, Svalgaard and Cliver appears to show a cycle nearer to 2000 than 1000 years, but IMO close enough for government work to Bond’s 1470 years.
However, I’m presently leaning more toward orbital mechanical modulation of insolation than intrinsic solar fluxes in creating centennial and millennial scale climate cycles on earth.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 9, 2014 at 11:38 am
http://www.leif.org/EOS/PNAS-2012-Steinhilber.pdf
Friedhelm Steinhilber and his 13 cheering chums are not exactly to be taken for granted as the ‘top’ word on the subject.
Steinhilber et al use the old ‘low resolution’ Kundsen geomagnetic dipole for estimating the geomagnetic field modulation of the cosmic ray particles.
Let’s the man speak in his own defense:
“Note that the variation on the millennial time-scale of F depends on the geomagnetic field. If another geomagnetic field reconstruction like for example Korte M & Constable CG (2005) The geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 7000 years – new results from a global model.) were used F would show another (long-term) trend on millennial time scales.”
i.e. If another geomagnetic field reconstruction were used F would show another (long-term) trend on millennial time scales.”
There is no useful, let alone a reliable reconstruction of the sunspot cycles before 1600 !!
Even the ‘observed’ sunspot counts since 1600 are currently subject of a significant corrections.
Leif http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
As is so very clearly shown by the commentary the data which is quite convincing and has been derived not from a single study but many studies is still being ignored by some.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Everyone cherry picks the data to fit their own overall interpretation i.e what to them makes more sense in the overall scheme of things.
There is a word for this: Confirmation Bias. If one is scientifically honest one can show the cherry picked choice, but should then also warn the reader that this is a cherry pick and show the stations that do not agree. Anything else is agenda-driven deception, a la Evans.
Whether the 20th century maximum was “grand” or not is a matter of semantics. As far as I’m concerned the important thing is that was certainly a maximum since the Maunder minimum.
And a maximum in the 18th century [and I think larger than the one in the 20th] and a maximum in the 19th, and a maximum around 1600. The recent maximum does not stand out as particularly different.
Past historical data as well as the recent short but severe solar lull and the current overall prolonged solar minimum are making a very convincing argument that solar variability is much GREATER then many on mainstream want you to believe and that this variability has an impact on the climate thru primary and secondary solar effects.
It makes much sense for those that have a AGW agenda to down play solar as much as possible because it shatters the theory which already has been proven to be wrong IF one looks at the data objectively.
In the end which is very close to coming on, the data will show even more conclusively that the sun is quite variable and that this variability is responsible for the climate to change.
The data has already proven this to me but apparently some are still trying to keep the soon to be obsolete AGW theory alive and one great way to do it is to down play solar as much as possible.
That is what the deniers have been doing and will continue to do to the bitter end.
Good luck because you will need it.
For the record I have NOT misunderstood anything. I understand completely what I have been reading.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Also see Steinhilber et al Fig 9 B at…
Also see Figure 2 at http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
vukcevic says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Friedhelm Steinhilber and his 13 cheering chums are not exactly to be taken for granted as the ‘top’ word on the subject.
That does not stop people from quoting him when it fits their agenda.
See the spike this will be exceeded going forward. That is going to happen going forward. In addition expect the ap index to be sub 5 month in and month out.
The solar lull from 2008-2010 which pails in comparison to the Maunder Minimum both in degree of magnitude change but especially duration of time has greatly improved the position of those of us that stress solar variability.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Past historical data as well as the recent short but severe solar lull and the current overall prolonged solar minimum are making a very convincing argument that solar variability is much GREATER
No, solar variability the past several centuries has been within the limits we have always had. If anything we are finding that those limits are likely to wide and that the sun has varied less.
Sturgishooper. Yeah I like Fig 8 too.
As to your last point,
Here is a quote from my post at the link above.
“Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities,….. we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.”
It all depends on what time scale you are looking at. At the Milankovitch scale the Obliquity cycle was predominant until about 1 million years age – then the eccentricity cycle seems to predominate.
These cycles are then modulated by the solar cycles of wavelengths between10,000 – 11 years.
As far as climate cycles go sometimes one wavelength predominates sometimes others. For the Holocene the 1000 year periodicity appears quite often with varying degrees of precision in timing.
The same post also says
“The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”
I do think that the obliquity/perihelion of the precession timing can be seen in the climate – mainly through its probable control of the polar sea-saw.
Overall I think we are pretty much on the same page.
Wrong solar variability based on the lull from 2008-2010 shows us that solar variability is real and much more then what mainstream keeps trying to convey. Al one has to do is compare the solar data from those years versus the recent modern solar maximum of last century. A dramatic difference. Solar variability on display.
streamer belt;
near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field
Abstract
From the variation of near-Earth interplanetary conditions, reconstructed for the mid-19th century to the present day using historic geomagnetic activity observations, Lockwood and Owens (2014) have suggested that Earth remains within a broadened streamer belt during solar cycles when the Open Solar Flux (OSF) is low. From this they propose that the Earth was immersed in almost constant slow solar wind during the Maunder minimum (c. 1650–1710). In this paper, we extend continuity modeling of the OSF to predict the streamer belt width using both group sunspot numbers and corrected international sunspot numbers to quantify the emergence rate of new OSF. The results support the idea that the solar wind at Earth was persistently slow during the Maunder minimum because the streamer belt was broad.
View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTMLTO VARY MORE
Exactly what I am conveying.
Sturgishooper. Yeah I like Fig 8 too.
As to your last point,
Here is a quote from my post at the link above.
“Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities,….. we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods
My four basic climate factors are the initial state of the climate, solar variability(primary and secondary effects) , Milankovitch Cycles and the strength of the earth’s magnetic field.
All of which when phased properly can cause a dramatic change in the climate.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Extraterrestrial, atmospheric, oceanic and lithospheric influences all interact in ways that make prediction difficult, even for the 10,000 and 100,000 year cycles so clearly predominantly under Milankovitch, ie orbital mechanical control. No one can say whether the current interglacial will last 1000 more years or 10,000, for instance.
But we can agree that the supposed “main control knob on climate”, CO2, isn’t even a fine tuner in reality.
Time will be telling the truth in the very near future. I am very confident in all of my positions.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm
From the variation of near-Earth interplanetary conditions, reconstructed for the mid-19th century to the present day using historic geomagnetic activity observations, Lockwood and Owens (2014) …
what they are arguing is that during the Maunder Minimum there was persistent CME activity and that the solar wind magnetic field did not fall to very low values. This is progress as before, they postulated the near disappearance of the magnetic field. Thus solar variability is less [they claim] than they thought before. Thank for for bringing this to our attention.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:38 pm
For the record I have NOT misunderstood anything. I understand completely what I have been reading.
Your frantic, desperate comments betray you otherwise.
Leif My assumption is that the readers of this blog are well enough informed to know that countervailing data exists and that my views are based on what I consider to be the overall weight of the evidence. I usually express how certain I am of my forecasts – and in the climate business I can only express this in terms of my personal opinion. (This b t w is the same method used by the IPCC – where 20 guys sat around a table and decided that 95% certainty was about right)
My last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
says
“How confident should one be in the predictions in this post? The pattern and quasi-periodicity method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However, statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and, in relation to an ensemble of IPCC climate models, are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in, as some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure (say 65/35) for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:43 pm
That does not stop people from quoting him when it fits their agenda.
I’m not especially interested in anyone’s agenda, only in the best available data, here assuming that you considered it a reliable source.
We have discussed Steinhilber some months back, and my view has not changed since.
Any C14 and 10Be based reconstructions is as good as the geomagnetic reconstruction used, but the paleo-magnetic reconstructions use radio nucleation for dating; sort of a ‘circular’ science in action.
Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Leif My assumption is that the readers of this blog are well enough informed to know that countervailing data exists
How about other readers? You probably do not have ONLY WUWT readers as your intended audience. And regardless of your assumptions, you must still mention that other data exists that contradict what you show. And you still point to your cherry picked set as if it was gospel truth.