Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
2
1
vote
Article Rating
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 13, 2014 2:37 pm
@kadaka
Philistine yourself, there’s no difference between 1981 and 1994, and no difference between 1995 and 2004 :
http://snag.gy/3mgZy.jpg
August 13, 2014 2:40 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Why cherry pick precisely a century?”
You did so here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1708384
quote:
“Solar activity has been about equally high in each of the last three centuries.”
August 13, 2014 2:43 pm
And for the slow-witted who still don’t see it, here are the two graphs combined:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Temperature-Anomalies.png
August 13, 2014 2:49 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.
The Medieval, Roman & Minoan WPs are warmer than present globally, not just in the CET & other Atlantic reconstructions. Any study trying to show otherwise is a crooked CACA concoction.
For whatever reasons, the Holocene “warm period”, by which I assume you mean its Climatic Optimum, since we’re still in the Holocene, was warmer than now, just as were the warm periods since then, which have been getting cooler. The same is true for other interglacials before the Holocene. Since all these prior periods have been so much warmer than now, why do you imagine that human GHGs explain the current not very warm by historical standards warmth?
August 13, 2014 2:49 pm
Leif, where can we find your new composite GSN time series data? I’d like to sum the SSN from your reconstruction for each century, to compare each of the past centuries. If the century mark is not the best starting point for such 100 year comparisons, please state your preference.
August 13, 2014 3:10 pm
John Finn
You talk about vineyards but we need some context. Here is a history of English vineyards
http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/background/history/
The Romans established the vine here. There was a vineyard recorded in Exeter near the present day Met office. Tacitus said the climate was not suitable but it seems to have warmed up later in the roman rule.
Expertise was then mostly lost when the Romand departed as the Anglo Saxons preferred mead and it was not until the last couple of decades of the 11 th century that the French Vikings, the Normans, conquered England and restarted vineyards but the record in the domesday book shows an industry in its very early stages.
The reformation of the monasteries, the black death and the English having ready access to good French wine through their poessions in France all had an effect on vineyard numbers. Better husbandry today together with more time and money make comparisons with past times difficult.
The climate blip in the 13 th and 15 th century would not have helped wine production either
Tonyb
August 13, 2014 3:15 pm
milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.
I take it you can provide some of this evidence?
milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:50 pm
The adjusted “data” of HadCRU & GISS most certainly have been rigged. The satellite sets, not so much.
Well HadCRU and GISS are not making a very good job of their “data rigging”. Since 1990 the surface trends are both lower than the UAH trend.
August 13, 2014 3:15 pm
Bob Weber says:
August 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Leif, where can we find your new composite GSN time series data? I’d like to sum the SSN from your reconstruction for each century, to compare each of the past centuries. If the century mark is not the best starting point for such 100 year comparisons, please state your preference.
You can find it here http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls column F
But what is so special about 100-yr periods? Take e.g. the first half [mean 55.3] and the last half [mean 57.1]. In any case, this is a work in progress and the early part is still subject to revision as we learn more.
August 13, 2014 3:21 pm
Commenters here have showed you not just the evidence, but the objective, incontrovertible fact that the Met has cooked the books.
Not true. No-one has provided me with any evidence. Someone did give a link to Philip Eden’s “alternative CET readings” but these were higher than the CET readings. I’ve actually checked a number of station records which are either in the CE region (but not included in the CET record) or nearby and I can find no evidence of any deliberate inflation recent CET readings. On the contrary, the CET trend is generally lower than other station trends.
August 13, 2014 3:27 pm
vuk says:
August 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm
If you listen to second part narrative, all the way to the last sentence, ignoring the NASA’s promotional text, you would find out more about the context of Dr. S’s and mine disagreement.
Which is that you claim that the Themis team has ‘discovered’ things which contradict my earlier research, but you are evading producing links to their papers showing such contradiction.
Dr. S…has an advantage over you here, since he knows exactly what and how I have calculated,
Well, not ‘exactly’ as you are at times inconsistent and less than precise [and you are concerned that somebody will steal your brilliant discoveries and deprive you of the serious income you feel must flow from those], but well enough to classify it as first-rate garbage. I’ll state here for the record, that in my opinion you have never produced anything of any value. Referring to un-named institutions and un-named persons does not help your credibility. If you want consideration you must produce your ‘results’ such that they can be evaluated by anybody.
August 13, 2014 3:30 pm
Tonyb says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:10 pm
John Finn
You talk about vineyards but we need some context. Here is a history of English vineyards
I don’t talk about vineyards as I agree with most of what you write. Using wine production in England as a proxy for climate is flawed. However, there are plenty of commenters who openly cite Roman and medieval wine production on these blogs.
August 13, 2014 3:50 pm
John Finn
Yes, using vineyards as a comparison is difficult as there are so many variables. All it demonstrates is that it was warm enough to grow grapes at some points and it wasn’t warm enough at others but that the variables make it difficult to quantify precise temperatures as far as England goes.
Ladurie however produces a very useful temperature/ grape index for the continent which shows the ups and downs of temperatures over some 500 years.
I carried out my own CET temperature reconstruction back in December 2011
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
I started at the instrumental record of 1659 and am back to 1538 .at the same time I compared the reconstructions of Dr Mann and Hubert Lamb.
I am now working on going back further in time with particular emphasis on the period 1200 to 1350 which exhibits astonishing variability from very cold in parts of the first part of the 13 th century to at least as warm as today in the first decades of the 14 th century. I use the met office archives amongst other sources, as well as Cathedral records.
I hope to have the next article ready covering this period by the end of the year. Research takes a great deal of time as it needs to be correlated with other records
Tonyb
August 13, 2014 3:52 pm
From Leif Svalgaard on August 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm:
Here is the temperature record since 1753 http://www.leif.org/research/BEST-Temperature-Anomaly.png
Ideally it should note BEST is land only, thus only 30% of the globe is represented, at best.
But as the historical SST records are sparse crap with the “datasets” modeled advanced guesswork, BEST land-only may just be the best approximation of a global record to that far back.
Thanks for providing the new Group Number values.
August 13, 2014 3:53 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm
……………
Hi doc
Although it is none of my business to question either your judgment or your memory, it appears that at least the memory is failing you. You had a copy and delivered a judgment that two magnetic fields can’t mix, but I maintain that the data does imply such possibility.
You also said:
“the video is NASA nonsense of the worst kind”
I suppose that is a grade or two above “ the first-rate garbage”
the attribute ‘the first rate’ is a superior to “the worst kind”
It’s getting late, good night doc.
August 13, 2014 4:04 pm
Vuk says: Re: GSO
I spent months of research, collecting data, emailing institutions, and worked out calculations and now you demand to be served over to you on a plate. In 2012 I wrote a paper, which has been accepted by an important European scientific institution,….”
I do not demand to be served on a plate, I demand to know what I’m being asked to look at.
So now we know that it took months of work but we still don’t know what it is we are looking at.
We now know that it is not a currently available and recognised measurement but is a result of “calculations” based on multiple undisclosed sources of some undisclosed presumably physical measurement.
We now know that you have a paper accepted by an undisclosed but important russian journal, presumably to be printed at some undisclosed point in the future.
We still don’t know whether you will make the mysterious data available once published.
So, it seems like, having evaded about a dozen requests for an explanation of what this “data” represents, you are now implying the following reasons for posting a meaningless graph of an unknown quantity:
1. It is part of on going current research, so it is secret pending publication.
2. You have years of work invested in it so why should you let anyone else have it.
If that is the case what prevented you saying so in reply to my first request instead of persistent evasion. It would have looked more credible, not it just looks like a defensive excuse.
You may wish to add :
3. You do not have the permission of all the institutions who provided the data to make it public.
4. You require signature of a non-disclosure agreement before you will provide the data.
5. There is a “distribution charge” of several hundred euros for the work involved in extracting the data from your database.
6. Why should you let me have it , I only want to find something wrong with it.
I get the picture. I apologise for having wasted your time by taking you seriously. My bad.
August 13, 2014 4:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm
“and you are concerned that somebody will steal your brilliant discoveries and deprive you of the serious income you feel must flow from those”
Missed that bit.
Wrong again, everything has been available with a free access to anyone for about two years now.
I did earn living for number of decades with a world wide known, privately owned company, where nonsense was not tolerated, and now and in foreseeable future have no reason to either solicit, look for or work to earn income.
August 13, 2014 4:12 pm
milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm
John Finn says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Did you forget about or miss all the references on how the Met cooks its UHI adjustments? I recall them, so wonder why you don’t.
A simple link to one of these references would be useful. However, I’m not interested in opinions or baseless accusations. I will look at data which claims to show that the recent CET record includes spurious UHI warming.
Look – when I first started to become interested in global warming a decade or so back, I tried to look for evidence of UHI and I started with the CET record. I live in the CE region so had access to a number of local station records which were in locations I knew very well. I felt sure I’d turn something up but I soon became discouraged. It became obvious to me that, if there was any UHI influence in the CET record, it was pretty small.
At that time, a number of respectable commenters sceptical of CAGW had been praising the quality of the Armagh Observatory record (as constructed by Butler et al). The Armagh Observatory is located in an area which has been virtually unchanged for 200 years. Armagh is about 200 miles from the CE region. I got hold of that data and found the trends over comparable periods were higher at Armagh than CE.
If the CET record is not adequately compensating for UHI then it should be possible to detect it. Philip Eden has produced an alternative record which supposedly reflects the stations that Gordon Manley used in his original reconstruction. The Eden readings are actually higher than the official CET readings.
By all means provide details of a proper analysis which shows a significant UHI influence in the CET record but don’t expect me to read some rubbish which hints at a “problem”.
August 13, 2014 4:41 pm
Tonyb says:
August 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm
John Finn
I carried out my own CET temperature reconstruction back in December 2011
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
Tony
I will read this but not on a laptop. I’m going to print it. Do you have a PDF/Word version?
August 13, 2014 4:54 pm
From Ulric Lyons on August 13, 2014 at 2:37 pm:
Philistine yourself, there’s…
Wait a moment. What myself? That word is not a verb. I think something was lost in the English-to-English translation.
Philistine yourself, there’s no difference between 1981 and 1994, and no difference between 1995 and 2004 :
Your middle yellow highlighter line actually goes to 2005.
It is strange you are also showing 2006 to present as also being flat, after declaring “from 2005 onwards” to be one of the periods of sea ice loss acceleration.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1981/to:1995/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1995/to:2005/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/to:2014/trend/
And now I’m wondering how you are drawing flat lines through what is clearly not flat. Moreover, why go 1995 to 2004 inclusive, when clearly that section of ice loss extends to 2007 inclusive? Likewise 2008 to 2014 inclusive is another run of ice loss.
Are you picking periods that correspond with the NAO to show the NAO corresponds to ice loss?
In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.
Edited abstract:
Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.
* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.
* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.