Recent paper finds 1950-2009 Solar Grand Maximum was a 'rare or even unique event' in 3,000 years

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.”

 

Figure 1. Reconstructed decadal average of sunspot numbers for the period 1150 BC-1950 AD (black line). The 95% confidence interval is shown by the gray shading and directly measured sunspot numbers are shown in red. The horizontal dashed lines demark the bounds of the three suggested modes (Grand Minimum, Regular, and Grand Maximum) as defined by Usoskin et al.

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
451 Comments
August 9, 2014 1:52 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm
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.
The mainstream estimate of the solar wind magnetic field, B, during the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of 1 nT or less. Owens & Lockwood now claim that their model shows that average B back then was 2 nT [see slide 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf ], thus they find that B has varied LESS than commonly thought.

August 9, 2014 1:57 pm

vukcevic says:
August 9, 2014 at 1:34 pm
I’m not especially interested in anyone’s agenda, only in the best available data, here assuming that you considered it a reliable source.
I didn’t say it was reliable [on the contrary, I’m on record for saying it has problems], but it is the ONLY one [and the most recent one] we have with the backing of almost all scientists [‘chums’ you call them] in that field, so it is a starting point and a demonstration that we are not totally without clues [even if the series needs more work].

August 9, 2014 2:16 pm

Leif. If I thought it was the gospel truth I would say I was 100% sure not 65/35 as I said above.
I do note however that you do practice what you preach see slide 44 in your last link headed
We do not understand the 10Be modulation.

August 9, 2014 3:56 pm

Graph GMF-Dipoles
shows comparison between the Kundsen 2008 as used by Steinhilber and the Korte’s CALS7k.2 quoted by Steinhilber.
There are major differences not only in the millennial trends but degree of resolution. I would suggest that the CALS7k.2 would be a more realistic option.
Since I had no access to Korte CALS7k.2 dipole data, I calculated nearest approximation shown by the green line (see graph in the above link); result obtained agrees pretty well with the Korte’s dipole.
If I had uncorrected GCR data file, which I do not (perhaps you might be able to get one from your ‘chums’), I could follow the Steinhilber’s method as described in his ‘Supporting Information’, and so present an alternative view or a ‘second opinion of the alleged’ solar activities.

August 9, 2014 6:30 pm

vukcevic says:
August 9, 2014 at 3:56 pm
I would suggest that the CALS7k.2 would be a more realistic option.
Based on what?

August 9, 2014 6:32 pm

Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Mi>. If I thought it was the gospel truth I would say I was 100% sure not 65/35
Where do you get the 65/35 from?

August 9, 2014 6:59 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 9, 2014 at 12:54 pm
The attempt by Mann and other Team members to paint the LIA as a volcanic phenomenon fails the Null Hypothesis, just like catastrophic Man(n)-made climate change in general. It’s an ad hoc excuse to solve a problem for their hypothesis, not a scientific problem. The LIA and MWP are simply recent examples of a long-standing observation, ie climatic fluctuations. They don’t need a special explanation. The Null Hypothesis, that nothing out of the ordinary happened 1200 or 600 years ago stands. Same as for warming between the late 1970s and 1990s.

August 9, 2014 7:02 pm

sturgishooper says:
August 9, 2014 at 6:59 pm
The LIA and MWP are simply recent examples of a long-standing observation, ie climatic fluctuations. They don’t need a special explanation.
The same argument holds for the solar ‘explanation’

August 9, 2014 7:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 9, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Which solar explanation do you have in mind?
IMO, since the same pattern is observed in glacial and interglacial epochs over millions of years, the null hypothesis ought to be that continuously operating mechanisms explain the fluctuations.
I’m open to alternatives, of course, but to me the most reasonable explanation is the same modulation of solar activity that produces the 100K and 10K cycles of glaciation and interglacials, ie Milankovitch orbital mechanics, plus natural solar variations. No doubt other forces are at work to affect the precise wiggles, but the big moves are best accounted for by these known forces.

August 9, 2014 7:15 pm

sturgishooper says:
August 9, 2014 at 7:09 pm
Which solar explanation do you have in mind?
Since I’m not pushing any, I have none in particular in mind, but there are many people here who are pushing their own pet solar explanations. Your argument [which I agree with] pertains to any and all of those.

August 9, 2014 8:54 pm

Leif I thought I’d made that clear.
I said
“. 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)
It is just a subjective impression of how certain I feel about my forecasts at this time.
As understand your position you are 100% sure that nobody including yourself has made, or indeed can make ,any forecast of future global temperatures over say the next 2 or 3 decades that you would be willing stake your reputation to lay any odds of success on.
This is a perfectly rational position to take -even if a bit unadventurous.

August 9, 2014 8:57 pm

Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 8:54 pm
“. 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.
In my book, personal opinion which is not based on a calculated probability is worthless.

August 9, 2014 9:05 pm

Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 8:54 pm
As understand your position you are 100% sure that nobody including yourself has made, or indeed can make ,any forecast of future global temperatures over say the next 2 or 3 decades that you would be willing stake your reputation to lay any odds of success on.
You do not understand my position. I will stake my reputation and give any odds of success on the forecast that the global temperature 30 years from now is not more than 10C from what it is for 2014. It is all a question about error bars, you see. And it is a safe bet for me as I will be dead by then.

August 9, 2014 9:57 pm

Leif I think we have reached the core of our differences – It is a question of epistemology. You have more faith in the power of numbers and mathematical equations than I do. I think that multivariate natural open systems are so complex that our ability to calculate outcomes is much more limited than is generally recognized – certainly by the climate modelers.
While there are some quasi repeating quasi periodic patterns in nature which exist for various times – the state of the system as a whole never actually repeats .Further you can’t specify the original conditions of any system’s starting point with sufficient precision and with a sufficiently fine grid mesh of data points to avoid the outcomes diverging – essentially by the butterfly effect.
Again, once you have more than a handful of variables and processes you can get the same answer from different models because of compensating differences between some of the variables and you don’t know which variables are parameterized correctly or incorrectly.
The subjective judgment of persons with wide knowledge and long experience in the field is at the end of the day what we have to rely on. In climate science we can look at some ones forecasts and after some time form an opinion of their judgment always supposing they are willing to make a forecast in the first place,

August 9, 2014 10:27 pm

Leif Nice to see you finally willing to make a forecast.
Look at my forecast for 2035 see Fig 15. at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
I’m forecasting the SST3 moving average temp anomaly for 2035 to be minus 0.15. If you like error bars I’ll specify from minus 0.05 – minus 0.25
Would you care say what your forecast for the SST would be on that same date with an error bar of similar magnitude.?
I’m 80 years old but I plan to be around to check the outcome – my mother lived to almost 102.

August 9, 2014 10:30 pm

Leif – that is the global temperature anomaly

August 9, 2014 11:26 pm

New post: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/its-sun_9.html
“It’s the Sun”
Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wLCEUB9Aw28/U-cGLCEaBPI/AAAAAAAAGMQ/NAl4KtFKmog/s1600/sunspot+integral+2.jpg

August 10, 2014 12:29 am

vukcevic says: August 9, 2014 at 3:56 pm
I would suggest that the CALS7k.2 would be a more realistic option.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 9, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Based on what?
……………
I suspect you didn’t look at comparison of dipoles GMF-Dipoles .
Knudsen – far to much smoothing, on the other hand CALS3k.4 looks the most realistic of all, based on what we know from the latest description of the World Magnetic Model (WMM) 2010.
I was hoping you might suggest a link to the uncorrected un-corrected GCR data file if one is available
..

August 10, 2014 3:38 am

Dr Norman Page says:
August 9, 2014 at 10:27 pm
I’m forecasting the SST3 moving average temp anomaly for 2035 to be minus 0.15. If you like error bars I’ll specify from minus 0.05 – minus 0.25
I don’t consider that a ‘valid’ forecast as it is just within the usual random fluctuations
Would you care say what your forecast for the SST would be on that same date with an error bar of similar magnitude.?
No, mine was 0C plus/minus 10C. Useless.

August 10, 2014 3:55 am

vukcevic says:
August 10, 2014 at 12:29 am
I was hoping you might suggest a link to the uncorrected un-corrected GCR data file if one is available
Slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Hockey Schtick says:
August 9, 2014 at 11:26 pm
shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s
But fails completely to match the temperature record for the period 1600-1750 [as far as we know it – see the above link]. The temperature didn’t fall 1.5C during that time.

August 10, 2014 4:13 am

Hockey Schtick says:
August 9, 2014 at 11:26 pm
shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850
This kind of ‘analysis’ is very sensitive to the starting point [and of course, the starting value of the integral will be exactly equal to the ending value]. Staring in 1750 [from which data we have resonably good sunspot values], the integral looks like this http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Integral.png

Sam Glasser
August 10, 2014 7:08 am

Hey, Leif: Where is your mathematics for this, written at 1:21 PM?
“Your frantic, desperate comments betray you otherwise”. This type of personal opinion is NOT in the spirit of the “Scientific Attitude”. I have a suggestion for you: “In my book, personal opinion which is not based on a calculated probability is worthless.” I happened to notice this in another reply – but don’t remember where.

August 10, 2014 8:44 am

Sam Glasser says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:08 am
Hey, Leif: Where is your mathematics for this, written at 1:21 PM?
“Your frantic, desperate comments betray you otherwise”.

It is based on this 40 personal opinion comments that bring nothing to the table except proclaiming that he is right and that he will be vindicated and that he and many subscribe to certain views, etc.

August 10, 2014 9:58 am

Sam Glasser says:
August 10, 2014 at 7:08 am
=====================================
You must have missed the many hundreds of similar comments from del Prete over the last year. Leif,s personal opinion in this matter is correct. Also, his comment regarding personal opinion is in connection with personal opinion as related to scientific thought. Leif most likely regards my comments in a somewhat similar fashion. At least I do not endlessly repeat the same ‘mantra’ over and over and over and over and over again. Plus I have decent descriptive ability with my comments. Add in a few more dozen ‘over and over again’, and you will have a better understanding of why Leif made that comment regarding del Prete.

Pamela Gray
August 10, 2014 10:01 am

Sturgis, Vuk, Page, and Prete, have another look. Considering the extent of research happening now that the 1257-8 explosion has been identified in terms of place and power, I counter that solar variation pales in comparison to the stratospheric veil during this time span. We can calculate the change in solar insolation at the surface and top of the atmosphere for both extrinsic and intrinsic sources of such insolation diminution. Volcanic sourced veils trump solar variation in terms of watts/m2. Such occurrences bury solar variation in the noise of these events, which were stratospherically ubiquitous thus beyond the reach of rain-out during the LIA. One should also note that when measuring ice cores to date volcanic ash and sulfur fallout, the peak year is identified, not the side bars. Meaning that the ice cores may have several years of continued deposition but the usual method of showing the data is to record only the peak year.
I recommend that you critique the paper, not me. I provide it for your consideration, not as yet another opportunity to suggest how stupid or deep in the “dark side” I am. Those types of arguments are silly. What are the merits and demerits of this paper as well as their references?
I find it a wholly reseasonable proposal that has more merit than solar variation, given that not all the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections related to volcanic veils, or alternate explanations for the up and down temperature swings of the LIA have been determined. However, major significant mechanisms triggered by equatorial explosions have been mechanized and modeled (such as the El Nino response), and diminution of solar insolation on a short and long term scale due to both tropospheric local, and stratospheric global scales.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geos.ed.ac.uk%2Fhomes%2Ftcrowley%2Fcrowley_PAGESnote_volcanism.pdf&ei=dKHnU6XXEKLUiwLDuYDIDA&usg=AFQjCNFMeYdd9z2d-lptY0r18M85yaurSw&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGE

1 11 12 13 14 15 18