Both observational and proxy records of climate change often show quasi periodic variations similar to solar activity cycles over a wide range of time scales. However, the detailed mechanism and the extent of the influence of solar activity on climate change have not been clearly understood. Although the exact role of each of solar parameters on climate change has not been quantitatively clarified, several possible mechanisms are proposed; such as the forcing through total (e.g. Lean et al., 1995) and spectral irradiance (e.g. Haigh 1996; Kodera and Kuroda, 2005), solar wind (e.g. Tinsley, 1996) and the galactic cosmic rays (Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, 1997; Svensmark, 2007). Among these parameters related to solar activity, galactic cosmic rays possess characteristic variations depending on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic filed as shown in Figure 1.
The polarity of solar dipole magnetic field reverses at every maxima of 11-year sunspot activity cycle, and so the polarity reversals of solar magnetic field possess 22-year cycle. The cosmic rays are modulated by solar wind and the interplanetary magnetic field and hence the flux of cosmic rays at the earth varies with the 11-year solar activity cycle, while, the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field determines the trajectory of cosmic rays in the heliosphere and thus the flux of cosmic rays at the earth varies depending also on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field (Kota and Jokipii 2001). As is shown in
Figure 1, the patterns of cosmic ray flux over solar cycles slightly differ depending on the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, resulting in the component of 22-year cycle in cosmic-ray variation. This feature is very helpful in distinguishing the effect of cosmic rays on climate change from the other effects caused by e.g. irradiative outputs of the Sun.
Extension of the record of cosmic rays back in time enable us to examine if the connection between cosmic rays and climate change suggested by Friis-Christensen and Svensmark (1997) and Svensmark (2007) for the recent two decades had also existed in the past. We had investigated the history of Schwabe and Hale solar and cosmic ray cycles based on the carbon-14 content in tree rings with annual time resolution, originally for understanding the mechanism of multi-decadal to multi-centennial variation of solar activity level. Such record is however also applicable to investigating the Sun-climate relationship at decadal time scale. Carbon-14 is produced by cosmic rays, and circulates in the form of carbon dioxide to be absorbed in trees by photo synthesis. Since the age determination of each annual data is assured in the case of using tree rings, it is possible to determine the history of solar cycles with accurate timing. The beryllium-10 in ice cores from polar region can be also used for the reconstruction of solar cycles in the past.
In the case of using ice cores, it is often difficult to obtain the record with absolute age, while, it is possible to derive much clear signal than carbon-14 due to the difference in the circulation process. The combination of these two nuclides provides clear image of cosmic ray variation with reliable age.
…
The mechanism of the influence of cosmic rays on the cloud formation is not fully understood, however, our proxy based analyses of cosmic rays and climate change during the Maunder Minimum exhibit the importance of cosmic rays as a medium of solar forcing of climate change at decadal to multi-decadal time scales. The complex features of solar magnetic and cosmic ray cycles, such as the variable length of the “11-year” cycle, the subsequent lengthening/shortening of the “22-year” Hale cycle, the amplification of the 22-year cycle in cosmic rays at grand solar minima, may be able to explain some of the complex features of climate change at this time scale.
Influence of solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum
Hiroko Miyahara et al., Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets
Abstract. We have examined the variation of carbon-14 content in annual tree rings, and investigated the transitions of the characteristics of the Schwabe/Hale (11-year/22-year) solar and cosmic-ray cycles during the last 1200 years, focusing mainly on the Maunder and Spoerer minima and the early Medieval Maximum Period. It has been revealed that the mean length of the Schwabe/Hale cycles changes associated with the centennial-scale variation of solar activity level. The mean length of Schwabe cycle had been ∼14 years during the Maunder Minimum, while it was ∼9 years during the early Medieval Maximum Period. We have also found that climate proxy record shows cyclic variations similar to stretching/shortening Schwabe/Hale solar cycles in time, suggesting that both Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are playing important role in climate change. In this paper, we review the nature of Schwabe and Hale cycles of solar activity and cosmic-ray flux during the Maunder Minimum and their possible influence on climate change. We suggest that the Hale cycle of cosmic rays are amplified during the grand solar minima and thus the influence of cosmic rays on climate change is prominently recognizable during such periods.
Full paper (PDF)
Note to readers: I was given a tip to this story at the GWPF, which had a recent date on it of 9/24/14, and I originally labelled this as a “new” paper when it actually was from 2009. The title has been changed to reflect this. My apologies – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well.. it is not the sun.
I have researched the reason for global warming and is all the fault of Pluto. Yes Pluto.
From the “Astrology is Settled” website:
http://www.modernvedicastrology.com/AstrologyOfClimateChange
“As above, so below”, goes the astrologer’s maxim. While it is most unlikely that planetary motion causes anything to happen on Earth, astrology contends that there is a correspondence between the movement of the planets and life on Earth. This applies to both human and natural events. I believe it is possible to make sense of climate fluctuations by using planetary cycles. Just as astrometeorologists can predict weather patterns using annual ingress charts of the Sun, I believe the ingress of the outer slower-moving planets can give clues about longer-term trends such as climate change. For climatological periods that span hundreds of years, I hypothesize that the motion of the outer planets, especially PLUTO, may offer an insight into climatological developments on Earth. Aside from its appropriately long 240-year periodicity, Pluto is the planet most associated with slow and deliberate change and transformation, characteristics that well demonstrate the shifting aspects of the weather. Another fitting parallel is that humans are subjected to the weather. We cannot change it; we must adapt to it. This is in keeping with the significations of Pluto as the planet that compels and forces changes upon us whether we want to to or not. Additionally, I will make the case for using Saturn Aries ingresses for assessing shorter climate cycles. Saturn is the slowest of the traditional seven planets and had many of the associations now conferred to Pluto: change that cannot be resisted, death, and the ultimate arbiter of Time. It may be true that all planetary ingresses have something to say about climate change. However, for purposes of brevity and efficacy, I have chosen to focus on Pluto and Saturn.
Simply stated, I assert that the ingresses of Saturn and Pluto into Aries reveals climatologically-relevant information. By reading the ingress chart and the influences on the ingressing planets and the Sun and Moon, we can establish if the coming period governed by the ingress will be predominantly warm, cold or neutral. With many influences and different ways of reading the chart, we need to be careful about the relative weight of the various factors. Although I am primarily a neo-Vedic astrologer, I will use only the tropical zodiac here. Although I believe the sidereal zodiac gives better results over time, I do not believe that the tropical zodiac is therefore “wrong”. And as Vedic astrologer Ernst Wilhelm has noted from a study of early Hindu texts such as the Panchasiddhantika and Brihat Jataka, there is strong evidence to suggest that some Indian astrologers including the great Vaharamihira may have used the tropical zodiac.
In terms of aspecting, I will generally follow standard Western aspecting with a special emphasis on hard aspects of the 8th harmonic — the conjunction, the semisquare, the square, the sesquisquare, and the opposition. Hard aspects convey planetary energy more directly to the recipient planet with less possibility of adaptation. So a square from Mars to the Sun will have a warmer effect than a trine from Mars to the Sun.
/Sarc
Hilarious… I see you’re showing off your in-depth knowledge of astronomy again. /src
So you are saying that this whole global warming thing is just Pluto getting revenge for being downgraded?
Alberta Slim September 29, 2014 at 8:29 am
By Jove! I think you’ve solved it. Grant applications, etc to follow?
All I can say is there is much evidence out there to suggest solar/climate connections are real and I think much more will be known before this decade ends as the current prolonged solar minimum continues and probably strengthens going forward.
A mechanism I would like clarified is why only the Japanese can write about this subject. (Russians and East Europeans, too, sometimes). We (US) seem to suffer from a Marxist doublethink phenomena. Are we that far gone?
Answer (as best as I can figure): The sun can’t be mitigated, capped, traded, sequestered, or taxed.
That won’t stop them from trying.
It’s fairly simple logic. If there is correlation between Solar activity and climate change then the Sun is the primary driver.
Normally correlation does not equal causation but as the earth’s climate cannot affect the sun then it is logically driven (primarily) by the sun.
As the sun’s influence can be amplified by the Earth’s climate system (cloud cover etc) one doesn’t need a massive change in TSI to explain the connection.
“It’s fairly simple logic. If there is correlation between Solar activity and climate change then the Sun is the primary driver.”
huh? there is always a correlation between two variables. between -1 and 1. The existence of a correlation doesnt tell you anything about primary or secondary. The sun explains a pitifully small amount of the variation in temperature. GCR even less.
Sometimes it can be a negative correlation, at which point it’s best not to draw the types of conclusions you think they have, Steven.
And I’ve never heard the sun explain anything–never mind how pitifully small.
That would require we fall back on the “science is settled” and “we know everything” memes, which is hardly the case.
The sun can’t explain anything. But people can, and there are numerous explanations. You may not agree with them, but they are still explanations.
The same logic applies to CO2 and temperature and in recent times there not even a correlation. All those exogenous variables being blamed for this recent lack of correlation are, and have always been, available to play their part in climate formulation.
There is still the possibility that some unseen third thing is influencing both the Earth’s Temperature and the Sun’s output. That is the problem with showing causation on systems that you don’t control all the variables for. Just because we can’t think of what that must be doesn’t mean it must be the thing we are looking at.
That said, it would make sense that the thermonuclear reactor in the sky might have something to do with Earth Temperature.
sabretruthtiger said:
“…one doesn’t need a massive change in TSI to explain the connection.”
Well, the currently accepted, normalized value of TSI at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is 1362 watts per m^2. So, would a change of 1 or 2 watts (i.e. about 0.1%) be large enough to “explain the connection”?
That’s how much normalized change is actually observed over an 11-year solar cycle. Which is much smaller (factor of 70), BTW, than the un-normalized variance caused by the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
If Leif were here, he would probably point you to page 4 of his excellent 2010 presentation “Does the Sun vary enough?”. http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
0.1% of 300 K is 0.3 K. Bugger all but so is 0.6K. I know that its not as simple as that and a 70 times change would be about 20K, but an approximate linear response is good enough for a back of envelope when the change is very small.
Was the 28 years GCRs modulation pattern during Maunder minimum caused by solar or the earth’s magnetic field ?
Number of factors ranging from global atmospheric and oceans circulation to the plate tectonic movements affects the length of day (LOD) on different time scales.
Inner (solid) and outer (liquid) core follow these changes with certain lag resulting in the internal differential rotation. The conducting inner core is strongly coupled by Lorentz forces to the circulating liquid of the outer core, the area where the earth’s magnetic field is generated, result is secular change in the earth’s field, which also modulates the GCRs.
This illustration shows:
Top graph:
blue –rate of change in the Earth’s rotation based on the astronomical observations ( msec, left hand scale)
green – high pas filter out (msec, right hand scale)
magenta – 22 year cosine
1910 -1930 anomaly possibly due to the major geo – magnetic disturbance , cause not known
Lower graph: spectral composition
18.5 years – lunisolar tides
22 years – solar Hale cycle
29 years – main feature of the ‘current’ decadal variability in the Earth’s rotation, cause not known.
p.s:
By combining measurements of Earth’s magnetic field from stations on land and ships at sea with satellite data, scientists were able to isolate six regularly occurring waves of motion taking place deep within Earth’s liquid core, with varying timescales. ….
Their analyses isolated six slow-moving oscillations, or waves of motion, occurring within the liquid core. The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2420
The authors omit to mention that solar cosmic rays (as opposed to galactic, much lower energy but much higher particle counts) vary in phase with solar activity instead of inversely, hence may be the real effector. Solar cosmic rays can penetrate the terrestrial magnetic field more effectively during odd numbered cycles with solar magnetic field polarity anti-parallel to earth’s (Even-numbered cycles have a parallel polarity). That’s why even-numbered cycles obscure the warming effect of the odd-numbered cycles and it is the Hale cycle that correlates and not the Schwabe cycle. Solar cosmic rays energize the D layer (ionosphere), causing aurorae, radio transmission effects and may possibly cause ohmic heating at the poles which would alter the vertical circulation profile of the atmosphere and potentially contribute to the observed temperature effects on the lower troposphere. It has also been reported that precipitation patterns over certain river basins change with the polarity of the solar cycle. This may be due to the effects of electron precipitation from the D layer into the upper troposphere (Tinsley, 2004) with important effects on nucleation of raindrops from clouds.
The sun really matters.
What do you mean by “odd-numbered cycles” and “solar magnetic field polarity anti-parallel to earth’s (Even-numbered cycles..)”?.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/video-sun-has-flipped-upside-down-as-new-magnetic-cycle-begins-9029378.html
from the article:
“At the beginning, in 1997 the video shows the sun in Solar Cycle 23 with its positive polarity on the top (the green lines), and the negative polarity on the bottom (the purple lines).
Each set of lines gradually move toward the opposite pole, showing a complete flip around 2002, completing the sun’s previous cycle.”
Since the “north” pole of the earth is actually the negative magnetic pole, during the upswing of cycle 23 the solar north magnetic pole pointed up with respect to the stars, while the earth’s north magnetic pole pointed down. That’s what I meant by antiparallel. The situation reversed in the middle of cycle 23.
Is what you mean by “odd-numbered cycles”, in relation to the 22 year magnetic polar field reversal of the sun, where the suns positive and negative magnetic polarities reverse 360 degrees through the ecliptic latitude for one cycle?
(for example) starting off with the suns negative magnetic polarity at the ecliptic north pole and the positive magnetic polarity at the ecliptic south pole during solar minimum,
then after approximately 11 years during the following solar minimum (which is 180 degrees of the 22 year solar cycle) the suns negative magnetic polarity will be at the ecliptic south pole and the positive magnetic polarity at the ecliptic north pole.
And to complete the full solar reversal the suns negative magnetic polarity returns to the ecliptic north pole and the positive magnetic polarity returns to the ecliptic south pole.
During this Cycle the Earths negative magnetic pole remains at the ecliptic north pole.
Therefor at earths ecliptic north pole we will have a sequence from the suns ecliptic north pole of
negative -> negative
positive -> negative
negative -> negative
Is this “positive -> negative” part of the alternating cycle that you mean by odd “odd-numbered cycle”?
By “antiparallel” I meant the orientation with respect to the earth’s field that the solar field had during the upswing of cycle 23.
Consider Co-causation with positive feedback? Larger scale force(s) that impacts solar cycles also impacts earth cycles, with a sun>earth amplification
See also Dalton Minimum. What if Tambora 1815-1816 was “perturbed” by larger scale forces, impacting sun and earth. Another amplification created by the broader forces.
One would think NASA “climate” scientists would not simply dismiss and would examine. But the Golden Rule of Science = those who supply the gold set the research agenda.
& interesting about the idea that during the Maunder Minimum the Hale cycle phase could have been 180 degree phase reversed.
– – – – – – –
& where was the IAU journal’s thought police enforcing the climate change cause in 2009/2010? I could not find any inference or claim in the paper that the authors do not dispute consensus/settled science showing CAGW from fossil fuels. Did anyone see one? For skeptics this is a miracle to behold.
John
This paper supports my use of the neutron count and 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar “activity”
For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the natural 1000 year and 60 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature record and the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here is the summary of the latest updated forecasts and observations as of end July 2014.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 – with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-.
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees.
4) The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 2016 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
3.2.2. Observations.
a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
During the last year, Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then. This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months, and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase. The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non-appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
“There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA. At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United States. Indeed, as I write this in Houston on July 29, 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, the snow cover finally never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop, as suggested by Steve Goddard:
Saying “CO is doing it” is wrong and becoming very obvious of been silly to persist stubbornly with that line, and already gone out of any scientific rationale.
But saying the Sun is doing it and persisting stubbornly with that is no any better.
As energy source the Sun is considered as a constant, as far as climate concearned,….and rightly so.
From all data thus far on climate and climate change no any conections shown between a changing climate and the Sun.
The most you can get is that all external variations together [Sun icluded] that you can think of + any other possible anomaly from long term internal variations response time in the system……these all together don’t make it even as the half of the effect the CO2 has in the climate…….at the very best, while considered as all these aligned on adding and not on the canceling eachother out.
So, for example if CO2 effect is like 0.5C to 0.7C [seen as a constant CS] for 200ppm variation, the Sun and any other external effect you can think of will be part of a 0.2C effect for the same period…. at the very best max possibility…..or in a case of roughly average estimation will be just a part of a 0.1C, only a part not the whole of it.
In the end of the day is ok for someone or anyone to try to calculate and estimate the effect of the Sun, but that will be much much more difficult than the calculation and the estimate for CO2, especially while the latest one still not estimated and calculated correctly.
I would say, ….. before jumping on commiting to the same mistake as with CO2, simply based in the rationale “it is because it appears to be”, probably it will be better to consider all data related to the issue first.
Sun does not even make it as an amplyfier of the warming thus far……..
cheers
Whiten you say
“As energy source the Sun is considered as a constant, as far as climate concearned,….and rightly so.
From all data thus far on climate and climate change no any conections shown between a changing climate and the Sun.”
This assumption is nonsense and is the fundamental error made by the IPCC modelers which makes their models structurally useless for climate forecasting.
Until you know where we are with regard to the natural cycles and natural variability you can’t even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2. For a complete review see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Even Mike Mann agrees with the paper leading this thread that the Maunder Minimum is due to solar variability
“A minimum in solar irradiance, the Maunder Minimum, is thought to have occurred from
the mid-1600s to the early 1700s (1–3). Concurrently,surface temperatures appear to
have been at or near their lowest values of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere
(NH) (4–7), and European winter temperatures were reduced by 1° to 1.5°C (8).
We used a version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation
model (GCM), which includes a detailed representation of the stratosphere, to
simulate the difference between that period and a century later, when solar output remained
relatively high over several decades.The model contains a mixed-layer ocean, allowing
sea surface temperatures (SSTs) to respond to radiative forcing, and has been
shown to capture observed wintertime solar cycle–induced variations reasonably well ”
see Shindell et al
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
@ur momisugly Dr Norman Page
As far as I am concerned, apart from the Graph above, 1950 to 2000, there is no any other data concerning climate, especially the long term one, showing any connection or a assumed effect of the Sun.
As per the Maunder Minimum you mentioned, actually not only Mann but also Nuccitelly [at least, could be others too] toed the same line.
Makes one wonder why!
The Solar minima in regard of these lower temperatures you mean, did start well after, while actually the temp was going up, and the data shows no any observable or otherwise effect or impact of that Sun minima in the LIA temp.
That solar minima happend clearly after the LIA started to break out of the chilling point. Was already a colder LIA [previously] before any sign of that sun minima starting, look closely at that data, is very clear about tha point.
The LIA does not seem to have started, getting to the depth it got… and did not end because of the Sun variation.
As I told Dana once: “The data are stubborn on that regard”…:)
As for the rest I can put it as a tip…….Once you get rid of Holocene, you can claim anything in regard to climate and climate change, to your heart content, and almost you will be right with any possible kind of claim….
From that point will be possibly equally true, no way of any better assesment possible.
Anyway, thanks for your reply…. no hard feelings and no offence meant..:)
cheers
Whiten Just check Figs 5,6,7 ,10,11,and 12 at last post at
http://climatesense-norpag-blogspot.com
to see solar influence on climate. Note especially the cosmic ray temperature correlation seen in Figs 10 and 11.
a weak correlation exists between reconstructed solar sunspot cycles and delta-O18 levels only between 1640 and 1720 (see their figure 5.) That’s it. It’s something, but I don’t see how that contributes to our understanding of global mean temperature trends.
Even that proxy correlation (the length of the Hale cycle detected in the reconstructed temperature is also stretched to be ∼28 years. )
is more likely to be modulated (in the absence of the solar cycles) by the earth’s magnetic field (see my comment further above ).
Leif Svalgaard: This is not a new, but is from 2009
With respect to the comments by alx and me (maybe others), does this paper show anything important at all concerning possible CO2 induced warming?
Johanes: Basically some “hand waving” conjectures here. Nothing (related to CAGW) to get excited about.:
that was “basically” my response as well.
Solar activity has not declined since the last peak as is evidenced this month. This is good in the long run because it lends support that this cycle in addition to being very weak is going to be very long. I bet at least 14 years.
This has some interesting connotations to it.
The first is the fact this low output will remain low for a long duration. This will result in sustained and more rapid cooling on earth.
Second is the fact that solar magnetic waves will remain reduced causing lower solar wind. this allows the earths own magnetic field to expand. This expansion (generally near the poles) will allow further and more rapid cooling of those regions.
Third is the lack of background indicators for the coming cycle. This appears to indicate that the next cycle will be much lower than the current cycle and will most likely be just as long.
I think we are about to find out just what a Dalton or Maunder type event will do to food production and how well man is prepared for a much cooler world in general. There has already been an uptick in virus mutations globally as the solar radiance fails to kill many strains in the air allowing full life cycles of the viruses..
There are many reasons we humans do better in a warming world..
My take on why/how the climate changes and may change.
As far as solar activity it is different now then it was before 2005 and just how much different will remain to be seen. Post 2005 being much quieter in contrast to years before 2005.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .
With all the nonlinear feedbacks, nonlinear control theory and the math that comes from it tells us that multidimensional Lorentz attractors exist,but two of which dominate, as seen by cold glacial, and warm interglacial. Earths climate is currently circling about the warm attractor with higher dimensinal excursion states in LIA, MWP, RWP, etc. until until it kicks suddenly and unpredictably to the the cold attractor.
Could changes of solar system’s barycenter be the responsible of large fluctuations of the sun?
Maybe, this is one of the facts that could explain large periods of low solar activity, and thus, the influx of more cosmic rays.
And as Svensmark says more cosmic rays reaching Earth, more cloud formation, and why not, more earth quakes, and lazy jet stream due to stratosferic sudden changes.
If this scenario is true, could we know the future solar activity knowing de relative position of all planets?
I think this is something interesting to see…
Thanks
Has anyone considered how cloud formation at high altitudes can increase loss of LWIR from the Earth through condensation rather than the GHE? The stratosphere is dry but there is enough water for cloud formation above the polar regions. Formation of liquid water in fine droplets that don’t increase albedo but increases cooling of the stratosphere would be more sensitive to the activity of the Sun than change in albedo at lower latitudes.
I saw what happened to the temperature during the eclipse in about 1990 I was about one degree from the centre under the sun the temperature fell a degree in seconds we had a little more than 6minutes without the sun we lost about 15/20degree.The sun has a great deal to do with the earths temperature..
I continue to be amazed at the ability of the IPCC – CAGW crowd to ignore the blindingly obvious.
This is not only scientific incompetence but simple stupidity
When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW – CO2 based scare, some simple observations presented themselves.
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more wildly in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days – humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor.
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g)I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that the sun was the main climate driver . More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine, the amount of cloud cover, the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday. It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.
These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone’s time are much nearer the truth and certainly much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC – Met Office models
Based on a, b, c and e it seems to me that insolation is the main climate driver.
The principal component of climate change is different at different time scales. Check Fig 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
This shows clearly where we are relative to the Milankovitch cycles – i e we are on the way down to the next ice age.
The Milankovitch cycles are then modulated by solar activity cycles of varying lengths – Most important for climate forecasting are the 60 year and especially the 1000 year cycle. For the latter see Figs 5 and 9 at the link.
Another schoolboy error of the modelers was to try to forecast future trends based on 70 years or so of data when the pertinent time scale was millennial. This is exactly like taking a temperature trend from say Feb – June and then projecting it ahead in a straight line for 10 years or so – basically bonkers!!
I certainly agree about the Milankovitch cycles. Precession and obliquity changes are heading us out of the interglacial, however as Dr Svalgaard reminds us, eccentricity may be too low for quite some time and will slow the fall back into glaciation. Although when looking at the big picture, we should remind ourselves that we will all be long dead before any of this happens.
I believe we underestimate the effects of the Earth’s internal heat source, particularly the effects upon the oceans caused by geothermal heating, for which we have little data. These effects along with the significant impact that we know the oceans have upon climate play a larger roll than normally discussed. Note that ice ages of any type did not even begin to occur until about 2.5 billion years after the Earth had formed, probably due, at least in part, to the time required for the Earth to cool from that formation event.
Let graphs speak for themselves over the years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Another effect is ozone (!!!!) Yup. Take for instance this image.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/global_total_ozone_change.gif
Then invert and fit to the above graph date for date.
What you see if stretched and located vertically is two ozone peaks that fit over alternate solar peaks. Solar magnetic polarity at play? It almost follows the climate but drops off early.
You might wonder what made me think of this… Here you are.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
CO2 & O3 are radiators in the stratosphere.
Don’t let the liberals realize CO2 can cause cooling. Cuz’ as most honest folks here recognize, cooling climate will be far far more catastrophic than a warming one.
@Joel O’Bryan
…….cooling climate will be far far more catastrophic than a warming one.
————–
Especially if the CO2 emissions so high and probably in a point of making the CO2 or the greenhouse effect seem like becoming a “cooling amplyfier” and causing a doubling of the cooling, causing a 50% increase of cooling.
I know this to be beyond even belief to almost all concerned, but as far as I can tell is probable and the way the other explanations and projections stand, this one still has an equal oportunity.
Is not very difficult to see it that way, ……does not mean necesary this is the truth, but the explanation could be far more simple in this case than in any other case of whatever extreme acrobatics with the climate data…..
cheers
Oh, Can I submit wtf as an image? Cheeky attempt 🙂
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
Just a note, this is a conference publication and is not peer-reviewed,
http://www.iau.org/static/scientific_meetings/authors/IAU_combinst_20121209.pdf
“The IAU does not require that manuscripts of individual papers for the Proceedings have
to be refereed.”
Wake me when statistical analysis and mechanism allows accurate back- and fore-cast without the need for tuning. It seems solar proponents are always saying, “just wait and see, it will come to pass”. Then when it doesn’t a new tweek is added to the theory with another round of, “just wait and see, it will come to pass”. Kinda reminds me of the CO2 camp come to think about it.
No experimental evidence so far of link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate.
“using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols.”
“The CLOUD result adds another significant measurement in understanding the climate. But it does not rule out a role for cosmic radiation, nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change