Guest blog by Marcel Crok
Over at Climate Dialogue we have started a new discussion about the influence of the sun on the climate. People familiar with climate discussions know that the sun has been and still is a popular argument to explain at least part of the warming since 1750. This has to do with solar proxies correlating well with climate proxies (in the distant past), although Willis Eschenbach in a series of posts here at WUWT has shown that the solar signal is often not easily detected in climate records.
Also the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, a period with few visible sunspots. So if the sun played a role in the past, why shouldn’t it in the present?
But figuring out how the sun has varied in e.g. the past millennium isn’t easy. And in fact, the science seems to be developing in the other direction, i.e. showing an even smaller solar influence than scientists thought let’s say a decade ago. AR5 said that in terms of radiative forcing since 1750 the influence of the sun is almost negligible.
Meanwhile solar activity has dropped to levels last seen a century ago. Some scientists suggest the sun might go into a new Maunder Minimum in the coming decades. What influence will that have on our climate?
So the timing of this dialogue is apt. We have a record number of participants, namely five. Two of them – Nicola Scafetta (USA) and Jan-Erik Solheim (NOR) – believe in a large role of the sun. Mike Lockwood (GBR) – in line with AR5 – thinks the sun is only a minor player. The two other participants – Ilya Usoskin (FIN) and José Vaquero (ESP) – seem somewhere in between.
In our Introduction we asked the participants the following questions:
1) What is according to you the “best” solar reconstruction since 1600 (or even 1000) in terms of Total Solar Irradiance?
2) Was there a Grand Solar Maximum in the 20th century?
3) What is your preferred temperature reconstruction for the same period? How much colder was the Little Ice Age than the current warm period?
4) What is the evidence for a correlation between global temperature and solar activity?
5) How much of the warming since pre-industrial would you attribute to the sun?
6) Is the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of the sun all that matters for the Earth’s climate? If not, what amplification processes are important and what is the evidence these play a role?
7) what is the sun likely going to do in the next few decades and what influence will it have on the climate? Is there consensus on the predictability of solar variability?
There will be a lot of area to cover. Please head over to the dialogue and feel free to leave a public comment. Keep in mind that the goal of Climate Dialogues is to find out on what participants agree, on what they disagree and why they disagree.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like a very interesting forum brewing! I think this is an area of science that needs to be explored as it relates to climate.
I should have written dialogue, not forum. Sorry about that.
Yeah, you were forum before you were against em.
”6) Is the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of the sun all that matters for the Earth’s climate? If not, what amplification processes are important and what is the evidence these play a role?”
This is an excellent question but incomplete. Amplification processes are not the only ways solar variation could have significant impacts to Earth’s climate. Variations in the components of TSI are orders of magnitude greater than variation in TSI itself. As we all know UV, Visible, and IR have very different capabilities/characteristics, for example interaction with O2 & O3, ocean penetration, and reflection by different surfaces just to name a few. So I would add: If not amplification processes then what component variations have the most impact and why?
Well stated John West!
Well, there’s more we don’t know about things we don’t know about. I often wonder whether the black body temperature of the sky isn’t variable. We take it as a constant, but is it really the same in all directions?
Why would it be the same in all directions ?
One half of the sky is illuminated by the sun and the other half by the darkness of space.
So it couldn’t possibly be at any equilibrium Temperature, or even a steady state Temperature, since the earth rotates.
The day side radiates at a much higher BB effective temperature. That’s why Trenberth’s budget cartoon doesn’t work.
IMO, UV component (which varies by about 100% while TSI only around 0.1% across cycles) & magnetic flux are IMO the most important solar variations affecting climate.
Completely agreed. We need to watch Vincent Courtillot’s presentation on YouTube again to remind ourselves that there’s more to the sun than TSI.
“Climate science” needs to become climatology once again, focusing on observation rather than GIGO computer modeling, as Freeman Dyson has so eloquently called for.
Great advances have been made in climatology despite the baleful influence of CACA since 1980, yet the GCMs still take no note of them. Fairly recently SORCE showed the surprise variation in the UV component of TSI, & before that it fell to a salmon fisheries student to discover the PDO, followed in the late ’90s by the AMO.
More data, please, & less modeling which produces the results its programmers are paid to show.
If the primary influence on the Earth’s climate is magnetic, via cosmic ray fluctuations, then there is no need for any ‘amplifications’.
Ralph
Exactly. Cosmic rays promote cloud formation and the sun governs cosmic ray of closure inversely to its sunspot activity a. Clouds are th v median blinds and I h wun’s irradiance in infrar d is virtually constant and inconse he rial.
See Paullitely.com for the full description of a global temperature model that WORKS. Also see Graphs of manipulation a of temperature records by virtually every official authority. Shameful!
It could be like this;
The sun is pouring out more or less a constant amount of energy per time.
We have a ball of water, where circulations are created because of the coriolis effect. These seacurrents are inhibited from flowing as they would have done without any landmasses.
This create complex oscillations.
It is the result of these oscillations we measure.
And that is all. When we started measuring, we jumped into a curve, seeing it go up and down. When it went a bit up, some people got panicked. Instead of just waiting a few years, and it would go down again.
Yes.
And could the periodicity of these oscillations be affected by changes in TSI and/or changes in solar magnetic field strength?
Yes, but there is also longer cycles. So sun output causing oscillations that we can wait to return,
but there centuries and tens of thousand of years cycles.
It seems the ocean dominates, but there is also atmospheric processes which are involved- particularly more relevant in shorter periods of time.
It seems to me oceanic mixing plays large role particularly in the longer term.
But generally speaking there is a lot unknown, other than we can fairly certain CO2 levels do
not have much effect upon global temperature.
Exactly. Climate patterns ranging from sudden changes to indefinite periods of stability can be explained solely by the sun’s energy input, without additional sources. This does not mean that the sun is the sole source in the system, but it does imply that we lack the ability to identify, let alone discern the effects of different sources and sinks. The present and foreseeable scientific domain simply does not contain the skill and knowledge to forecast or predict chaotic processes over large time and space offsets from a known frame of reference. The system is both incompletely or insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy.
Actually, your premise is wrong. Changes in the Sun’s energy output (from full of spots to quietly sleeping) measured at the top of the atmosphere does not explain to any great, dominant, or even less than half of temperature trends. Why? Not enough energy available in that variation to force trends up or down in our atmosphere or the oceans. Therefore, without a reasonable and plausible amplification device which would obviously track solar variation, solar variation by itself is an unlikely culprit.
Pamela, I’ve done the calculations for the additional energy added to earth between solar minimum and maximum. There is sufficient energy to explain a 2 degree C variation in temperatures.
VikingExplorer, so have others in peer reviewed journals. You may need to double check your calculations. You are off by at least one decimal point.
Lean, Judith L., and David H. Rind (2001). “Earth’s Response to a Variable Sun.” Science 292: 234-36 [doi:10.1126/science:1060082].
Lean, Judith L., and David H. Rind (2009). “How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?” Geophysical Research Letters 36: L15708 [doi:10.1029/2009GL038932].
Lean, Judith L. (2010). “Cycles and Trends in Solar Irradiance and Climate.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1: 111-22 [doi:10.1002/wcc.018].
Viking, you will find this paper of interest. Caveat: Whether or not solar-driven ozone cycles at the poles in the mesosphere layer is enough to cause differential heating changes on a global scale is not deduced. A possible link to local and regional affects is deduced. Given the much greater complexity of our Earth, it is my opinion that a series of higher solar cycles versus a series of lower solar cycles will not result in an identifiable temperature signal (given the degree of intrinsic noise in the temperature data) as a result of changes in polar ozone when comparing a low series to a high series of solar cycles.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141014/ncomms6197/full/ncomms6197.html
Total solar output is now measured to vary by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. How do you get a 2 degree Celsius bump from that? As a pre-clude, if you site UV variance as your source of this temperature change, remember that the energy “potential” in a smaller portion of TSI will be less than TSI, and in the case of UV, significantly less unless you believe that Earth supplies some kind of amplification.
Viking, I have searched high and low for any peer reviewed calculation that demonstrates a 2 degree Celsius change due to solar cycle min to max. Can’t find it. At most I found 1 degree. I found several less than that.
Energy in the Atmosphere:
mass = 5.1480×10 ^18 kg, Cp ~= 1000 J/kg/K, T = 287K (assuming most of the mass is near the surface), E = 1.48 x 10^24 J
Energy required to increase atmospheric temperature by 2 degrees C:
mass = 5.1480×10 ^18 kg, Cp ~= 1000 J/kg/K, T = 2K (assuming a lower average temperature), E = 1.03 x 10^22 J
Ok, it’s common knowledge that the sun receives 1.5 x 10^22 Joules each day, but let’s check that it makes sense. Because the earth is a sphere, only a quarter of the surface area is actually receiving the energy at any given point.
Surface area of earth facing the sun = 510 M km^2 / 4 = 127 M M m^2 = 1.27 x 10^14 m^2.
Seconds in one day: 60 * 60 * 24 = 86400 seconds
Energy received in 1 day = 1366 W/m^2 = 1366 Joule/sec /m^2 * Area * duration = 1366 Joules * 1.275 * 10^14 * 86400 = 1.5 x10^22 J
This matches the published value. As you pointed out, the delta TSI (max-min) = .1% of 1366 = 1.366 W/m^2
Extra received/day (Solar Max) = 1.366 W/m^2 = 1.366 Joule/sec /m^2 * Area * duration = 1.366 Joules * 1.275 * 10^14 * 86400 = 1.5 x10^19 J
Extra received (solar cycle) = Extra received/day * 5 years = 1.5 x10^22 * 365 * 5 = 2.746 x10^22
This is 2.66 x the amount needed to raise the atmospheric temperature by 2 degrees.
Even if we use only 3 out the 11 year cycle for “full power”, we still get 1.647 x10^22 Joules (1.6 times the energy required).
Not all of that final number is used to raise temperature. You must add together absorbance, reflectance, and transmittance (which must always equal 1). Absorbance is the part of incoming TSI calculations that is used to determine rise in temperature since that is the only part of the calculation that can heat. And you have to dig and tease for that heat because it is spread between land (the easier part to find) surfaces and transferred to air, and the ocean column. Needless to say, these two absorption “sinks” themselves vary in their absorption capacity on a seasonal and likely decadal basis in a feedback loop.
There are modeled calculations that will give you estimates of these three metrics but use with caution. As you must know error bands for estimates are huge.
Here is a beginning text on what happens to the top of the atmosphere calculation of TSI expressed as watts/m2.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156098/
>> Not all of that final number is used to raise temperature
Pamela, I will not let you get off topic. The question was:
Is there enough additional energy in a typical solar maximum to explain a 2 deg C temperature variation.
You said: “Not enough energy available in that variation to force trends up or down ”
These calculations clearly show that the answer is yes. While it’s true that the internal thermodynamics are complicated, we can say with confidence that as long as the temperature variation remains within the 2 deg C range, nothing extraordinary has happened.
>> heat because it is spread between land … seasonal and likely decadal basis
I did a steady state analysis, as opposed to writing time domain differential equations to study the dynamics. The point is to get a ballpark for the maximum variation possible.
Pamela Gray
October 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Pamela:
From the reference you linked to above:
That reference page is out of date (its graph, for example, extends through only 1999.) Leif tells us now that the correct Top-of-atmosphere TSI should now be revised DOWN to 1362 watt/m^2.
Now, given that the ENTIRE CAGW-hype is about a theoretical increase of solar radiation equal to only 3.2 watt/m^2 … should not ALL papers and programs written using previous 1367 averages be re-written to eliminate the CAGW effect entirely?
Victor, you are using an unconventional method. Every other calculation I have seen regarding the effects of TSI on temperature use the generally accepted set of factors. And certainly they all factor in reflectance before determining energy available for a temperature response.
RACook, thanks for the reminder regarding Leif’s work. You are right. However, if I remember the conversation correctly, Leif did not think it would make an important difference with regard to global temperature models using the higher number versus the lower number.
>> you are using an unconventional method.
How can basic science be “unconventional”? This one statement is a microcosm of the entire AGW movement.
>> Every other calculation I have seen regarding the effects of TSI on temperature use the generally accepted set of factors.
It’s best to start with first principles of physics, not applied mathematics.
>> And certainly they all factor in reflectance before determining energy available for a temperature response
But I assume that it’s obvious that reducing TSI by 30% (for reflectance) will not change the conclusion.
Yup. Add ice-field albedo positive feedback, ice-sheet dynamics & Milankovitch cycling & you get glacial/interglacial oscillations. No TSI change required.
Except the sun is NOT a constant source of energy, it varies. It is NOT stable at all. It is entering the next stage of existence which is more and more variable which is why we now have sudden ice ages and then very sudden ice melts.
Question “1) What is according to you the “best” solar reconstruction since 1600 (or even 1000) in terms of Total Solar Irradiance?” will be the one that stirs a lot of debate. As John West suggests, it’s changes other than just the total TSI that are of importance here. And the proxies are difficult at best to show the specific components of the TSI, at least in the past proxy records. I believe Leif thinks this is not an important area that should be studied – whether or not the sun influences climate significantly – but I strongly disagree. There is much to learn about how the ultimate source of earth’s received energy affects our planet and its climate.
I believe none of the TSI reconstructions are accurate. None.
Why? What part of the measurements do you think have errors?
Excellent question Pamela. The statement by A Smith is meaningless without qualification.
A belief doesn’t require qualification.
The answer may well lie in: “When and how was TSI first measured?”
TSI measurements are quite accurate and satellites have measured a full-on spotted Sun as well as a quietly sleeping spotless Sun. The difference in TSI between those two states in terms of temperature change at Earth’s surface under clear sky conditions has also been calculated. Unfortunately, in our noisy temperature data, the approx. 11 year cycle-sourced change in TSI and its affect on our temperature is buried in the noise of all the other intrinsic sources of variation we have on Earth.
Solar cycle signals have been recovered in many atmospheric phenomena on earth. Also hydrospheric & arguably even lithospheric. Study after study finding these signals have been quoted & linked on this blog. Don’t know how you missed them.
To include citations by others & me in comments to this very post, as this from, among others of his comments, by William Astley (October 18, 2014 at 2:43 am): :
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
See also please my comment noting the connection between solar cycles & Asian monsoons, known at least since 1926.
Same goes for Girma @ur momisugly October 18, 2014 at 4:08 am.
At least dozens of such papers have been cited on this blog over the years.
How about the solar wind?
“Here are excerpts from a NASA press release in 2008:
Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn’t decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.”
see
http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/solar-wind-13-cooler-20-dense/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
Bingo.
The ions in the atmosphere are also affected by solar wind bursts. High speed solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the atmosphere which creates a electrostatic voltage differential in the ionosphere which in turns removes ions from high latitude regions and affects cloud formation in the tropics. This mechanism is called electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts are caused by sunspots and coronal holes. What causes coronal holes is not known. For some unexplained reason there have been coronal holes in low latitude positions on the sun late in the solar magnetic cycle. These coronal holes created a solar wind burst which in turn removed ions from the earth’s atmosphere which in turn made it appear that high cosmic ray flux does not result in more clouds.
An observed change in the solar heliosphere during solar magnetic cycle 24 is a 40% reduction in the density of the solar heliosphere (The solar heliosphere is the tenuous cloud of gas and magnetic flux which the solar magnetic cycle creates that stretches past Pluto. The solar heliosphere and the earth’s magnetic field block cosmic ray flux. (See science, Swarm data, which notes for some unexplained reason the earth’s magnetic field is decaying 10 times faster than it had for the last 200 years.)
Due to a reduction in the density of the solar heliosphere the electrostatic strength of the solar wind bursts has decreased by a factor of roughly 2. (This was noted by solar specialists who gave an update of solar magnetic cycle 24 and how the solar magnetic cycle 24 changes have affected the solar heliosphere at the Fall, 2013 AGU meeting.) Due to the reduction in the intensity of the solar wind bursts, solar wind bursts will remove less ions from the earth’s atmosphere by the electroscavenging process.
This paper explains the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Now as this paper notes coronal holes appeared late in the solar cycle creating solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions making it appear that high galactic cosmic rays levels (GCR striking the atmosphere is the primary mechanism to create cloud forming ions in the atmosphere.) does not result increased cloud cover.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
How is it that radio communications, for example in the 10-15 meter band, might travel only a few hundred miles at the low point in the solar cycle, and many thousands of miles at the high point in the cycle, if the change in TSI is so small during the cycle?
Umm, maybe it’s because the TSI has nothing to do with freeing up electrons in the ionosphere because it’s a measure of photon intensity. On the other hand, the charged particles which are propelled by the solar wind ….
It’s the significant changes in UV. Up to 700% in some parts of the UV bandwidth. It is the UV that causes the ionisation.
Fred that is a very good and relevant question. To those who say in effect that the tiny variation in TSI ‘can’t have a strong effect on the atmosphere’ (which I hasten to point out is different from saying it can’t have a strong effect on temperature) I would also point out the dramatic change in the E and F layers of the atmosphere.
I attended a meeting of HAMs in Toronto many years ago at which a presentation was made attempting to demonstrate that injecting a radio signal into these layers at various angles did not ‘reflect’ signals but refracted them which contradicted contemporary and textbook explanations. Signals arrive at distant ground stations with ‘far too much energy’ to have arrived by multiple reflections. He demonstrated that he could pick different signal touchdown distances with conserved power by changing the tilt of the antenna. It was pretty convincing.
The overall efficacy of the layers to refract radio signals is strongly affected by the sunspot cycle. The variation is certainly more than an order of magnitude if one measures the efficiency with which the magnetic radiation from the transmitter is conserved within the system. It could be three orders of magnitude. Maybe more.
Solar radiation striking these active layers at a low angle could be assumed by atmospheric models to travel through the atmosphere and back into space when in fact they are refracted into the E and F layers, leaving later or making it to the surface.
As the incident angle covers the range from 0 to 90 degrees all the time, some angle is just right to be preserved, if the layers are ‘active’ or ‘efficient’. The state of these layers is posted continuously by HAM enthusiasts who know darn well and to their frustration, the efficiency variation. I have clearly heard a 4 watt transmission from a dipole under a roof near New York picked up by my 7 element copper wire Yagi in Swaziland – in the 70’s. It would require one or two orders of magnitude more power to accomplish that now – unless there was a burst of solar activity for a few hours.
It appears the E and F layers are able to harvest more energy from the sun, or less, varying almost immediately with solar activity.
I don’t know why you’re all wasting your time with this.
Leif has explained quite clearly and in some depth that the earth’s climate is in no way affected by the sun.
Why can’t we all accept this and just drop the subject?
I don’t recall that statement. The Sun does indeed have a cyclic warming affect. However, Earth’s own rather energetic weather pattern noise, variations, and oscillations obscure this mild affect handedly.
Please humor an old man and learn the proper usage of the words “affect” and “effect”.
Affect: one fect
Effect: affect on the internet, e.g., an emailed fect
Infect: affect inbound; affect contained within an inbox
Disinfect: affect that is incoming and nearby; a particular infect implying a contrast
Perfect: a ratio obtained by dividing by affects; a singer/keyboardist married to a guitarist
Feckless: a joke without affect
Have you considered that he may be wrong?
Have you considered he may be right – but measuring the wrong thing(s), and/or using the incorrect metrics. After all the climatologists are all measuring atmospheric heat content using temperature which is entirely the incorrect metric for atmospheric heat content due to enthalpy changes; but that doesn’t seem to stop ‘scientists’ using it. Perhaps there need to be more engineers, metrologists rather than scientists and academics; even an HVAC technician would know better.
I keep seeing reports on the Indian Monsoon rainfall following the solar cycle.
Here is one example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051977/abstract
Conclusion
[12] There is greater rainfall over Arabian Sea, the west coast of India, Nepal, eastern India and the Bay of Bengal in 14 sunspot peaks. This pattern indicates an enhancement of mean monsoon precipitation. The average precipitation anomalies in the five recent sunspot peaks reach values as high as 20% above normal. This is also the case for the SLP anomalies, with relatively larger negative values over the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal, and smaller negative anomalies over central India. Thus, the response to the 11 year cycle in sunspot maxima is an enhancement of the mean monsoon precipitation and sea level pressure patterns, with a strengthening and eastward shift of the Findlater Jet off the coast of Africa.
This correlation has been found in paper after paper at least since 1926 for the Chinese & Indian monsoons:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F256146174_Solar_Cycle_Signature_in_Decadal_Variability_of_Monsoon_Precipitation_in_China%2Flinks%2F00b7d521e0eaac6813000000&ei=TdBBVPijIcbriQKZnoCYBQ&usg=AFQjCNHZcvymbUzTlMzNCsvEhBat2cV-Qg&sig2=JdqgZJ7PItevN5Vdu-WDBQ&bvm=bv.77648437,d.cGE
Fritz Fahrenvolt (sp?) has demonstrated quite well, in, “The Quiet Sun”, that the Earth’s climate is profoundly affected by the Sun. This is another area of settled science which is open to dispute. Are you sure you didn’t leave /sarc off by mistake?
Oh rly!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:48/offset:1/scale:100
These attempts at minimizing the sun as the major driver of climate amazes me. I figure we won’t be around for the next Ice Age cycle which looms in the future. I bet when this happens, we will notice the sun isn’t operational as a steady state star at all.
Seemingly small variations in solar energy output hitting the planet coupled with where the planet is in the 36,000 year cycle, can trigger either glaciation or swift melting. Neither the earth nor the sun are ‘stable’ anymore.
Hear are some fun facts. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/overview/Helio-facts.html#.VEGYoIxuvMI
1934 is considered one of the, if not the warmest year on record. Yet the 3 solar cycles preceding were very weak. ???????????
One year doesn’t mean much when the minimum period of climatic analysis is weather averaged over at least 30 years.
Yet the graph from this article shows the 1930’s as the decade with the most high temperature records.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/
The first cool counter-trend cycle of the Modern Warm Period occurred c. 1879 to 1915, coinciding with weak solar cycles after the strong mid-19th century cycles so well attested in history, to include its effects on the US Civil War. The solar cycle around the First World War however was stronger, which correlates with the pro-trend warming cycle of the 1920s to ’40s. There was a weaker solar cycle during this temperature upswing, but not weak enough to make a difference, apparently. The next cooling counter-trend cycle in the secular warming of the Modern WP was from the late ’40s until 1977, when the PDO shifted so dramatically.
Clearly, solar influence is modulated by the hydrosphere, atmosphere & lithosphere on earth.
Taking a longer-term view, the Little Ice Age emerges as a secular cooling interval dominated by three or four major solar activity lows, the Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima. The Wolf is generally considered a cooling counter-trend cycle in the secular Medieval WP, as it transitioned into the LIA. The correlations IMO are too telling to be dismissed, let alone ignored.
Sorry. Forgot to post the graph illustrating my commet:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/07/11/11jul_solarcycleupdate_resources/ssn_yearlyNew2_strip3.jpg
According to your graph the solar cycle around WWI may have been “stronger” relative to cycles before and after but it was still a weak cycle and does not account for the temperature increases. As you state in a later comment, insolation changes due to Milankovitch cycles are what gives us the major changes in climate, from glaciation into inter-glacials and back. I really think everything in between is relatively so small it can be written off simply as random flucuations in a chaotic system.
The expansion of the US really began in earnest during the end of the 1700’s and early 1800’s coinciding with 2 sunspot cycle lows. The way west out of New England was thru NY, Philadelphia and on into North Carolina. It became too cold to live in New England. If you don’t believe that, try driving from Trenton NJ to NYC on Rt 1 in the am. The sun is right in your eyes.
The USA data does not always track the global average.
What was the UV?
Only in North America.
@Tom ; “Yet the 3 solar cycles preceding were very weak. “, WEAK ? not even close to the Maunder Min. ?????
Tom, that was a mix of local weather with the usual outside forcings. Bad farming practices and the fact nobody knew they were sitting over an underground sea of fresh water. Temperature gains at the time which did nothing to wet the sky and allow precipitation, a hanging high pressure and so on..
What I find quite extraordinary is that for such a massive and unavoidably obvious input into the earth’s climate, in fact really the only fundamental input, is that all aspects of the Sun’s influence have not been the primary if not obsessive focus of climate ‘scientists’ the world over. Instead we have had billions if not trillions of dollars wasted on exploring and reacting to symptoms without really understanding if they are real, just appear so or are quite imaginary . Is this AGW alarmism all actually a placebo study?
I guess we will start to get a clearer picture over the next five years or so as cycle 24 starts to drop away from its peak.
The billions and trillions was always about regulating people, not climate. Climate is the yoke we’re all being strapped to. The loss of quality of life is the burden we will bear once the last yoke harness’ rivet is peened.
As a kid I was fascinated by watching waves on the open ocean (living in California, near the coast). I sat for hours and hours, sometimes with a stopwatch, sometimes just watching. I could see certain patterns that allowed the short term prediction of when the next few waves would come by, and about how big they’d be.
Now, some 50 years later, and being somewhat accomplished in both digital signal processing theory (and practice), as well as having physics, chemistry and computer science on my lapel, I reflect back on those wave-watching days, and it recurs to me that the superposition of wave-trains of varying frequency, amplitude, phase and in multiple-dimensions, direction behave in observably semi-predictable, but still quite chaotic ways.
In the case of Climate and Weather, we have well regarded influences from multiple directions, multiple periods, varying amplitudes. Indeed, many of the cycles aren’t even nicely sinusoidal. They are composed of many frequencies and their spectra is both complex and time varying.
With this observation, then it seems obvious that things such as the Sun and its varying solar cycles and conditions WILL affect both weather and climate overall. Factors such as the integration-over-time of insolation-turned-to-heat in the oceans, in the ecosphere, in the gases of the atmosphere, all contribute. The periodicity of the seasons, the precession of the poles, the nucleating influence of cosmic particles and rays (and their modulation by solar cycles) … again, all contribute. So do the influences of aerosols, both man-made and volcanic or environmental. Caprice of nature, the jiggling of Mother Nature’s bag of dice … cause sometimes the cycles to overlap in ways that exacerbate what would nominally have been “near – normal” weather conditions.
Like the Great Drought which lead to the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, sometimes the factors aren’t entirely cosmogenic or anthropogenic, but seem more just to be like the ocean’s waves: when a few key wavelets align on troughs or peaks, then together their effect can be multiplicative, with a factor k > 1.0 for the additive effect they otherwise would have. Sometimes, in the case of volcanism, the effects in the short term can so overwhelm the rest of the waves, that it might be likened to a great earthquake causing such a shift in water that Tsunamis are 10x to 100x the size of the normal background chatter of wave and wind.
From work that was done in Europe by [Svensmark] and others, I cannot agree with those who hold that the solar cycles, the effect of cosmogenic rays and particles, of the variability of the Suns output … amount to nothing compared to the other extant local variables. The answer is TOO pat. The effect of bloody stratospheric jets is itself rarely given consideration, but is yet another of the many contributing waves.
I hope that this monologue matches the eventual findings of this new blog, posted by the OP.
GoatGuy
So eloquently put…..
Go GoatGuy!
On the scale of 100,000 & 10,000 years the most important of the many factors controlling climate are Milankovitch Cycles, the superposition of earth’s orbital & rotational mechanics to affect insolation. IMO these cycles also influence climate on the order of millennia & centuries, & some on decades. But at these shorter time scales, variations in solar radiation & magnetism become significant, too.
On the order of millions, tens & hundreds of millions & billions of years, solar irradiance is also important, as it increases by about one percent each 110 million years. But if you want an ice age, it appears that you need particular arrangements of ocean currents & a land mass over a pole, although there does seem to be a 150 million year ice age cycle, too, based upon the solar system’s passage through a spiral arm of the galaxy, influencing cosmic ray flux. The Mesozoic had a cold spell at the appointed time, but a full fledged ice age didn’t develop because Antarctica & Australia weren’t far enough south & the continents weren’t sufficiently split up then.
In the long run, the fact that a big part of the earth’s continental landmasses are moving relentlessly towards the Arctic means yes, there will be a lot more ice in the future and much of the northern pole will be more like Antarctica and Greenland today: mostly ice bound.
All these factors are at work and CO2 is the least of these, of course, but the easiest to tax! Thus the relentless focus on it by elites wishing to tax us somehow without us revolting.
Yes as someone who has worked collecting data in the natural environment I have become intolerant of anyone who dismisses a hypothesis because a perfect correlation between cause and effect can not be established. As far as I’m concerned when I see a perfect correlation I see fudging at best and fraud at the worst.. The fact that a perfrect correlation may not exist between solar activity, TSI or magnetic, does not in any way imply that the sun does not have a significant effect on then climate of planet earth.
That is particularly true of inputs to non linear chaotic systems. The timing as well as the magnitude of the input will affect its effect . The butterfly has to flap is wings as the chaotic system is in precisely the right state or transition or there will be no effect.
If we could , and the sun has no effect on the earth warming why don’t we just turn it off .
That is a rather dim retort. The Earth receives a fairly steady beam from the Sun. But the movement of the Earth (on its axis and in its orbit) and its round shape creates large scale circulation patterns in the oceans and in the atmosphere. Because it is round-ish, there is also differential heating (more in the middle, less at the poles) that combines to set up unique fluid dynamics in both water and air that teleconnect with each other in large and small ways. Add to that the placement of continents and you have plenty of systems interacting with each other to create weather pattern variations and trends, let alone noise, in various temperature and pressure metrics.
We live on a highly variable planet. Far more variable than the Sun in terms of heat coming in at the top of the atmosphere (a rather steady beam) versus heat used on Earth (not so steadily used up through absorption and reflection variables). The Sun’s variability, which can be calculated, is buried in such a lively planet as we have here on Earth.
Pamela Gray writes: “The Earth receives a fairly steady beam from the Sun.” This is a rather dim statement, one which is only true if you state the beam in terms of TSI. Though it only varies some 0.2% from strong vs weaker cycles, the beam is not steady at all in other energy frequencies. This cannot be denied. Your statement precludes much fact about the sun.
Mario Lento October 17, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Mario, this claim might make sense … but only if you supported it by actual facts about the variation (in W/m2) over the cycle at various frequencies.
Since the variation in TSI is tiny (less than 0.5 W/m2 on a 24/7 global basis), I find it hard to believe that there is significant variation (in W/m2) in some sub-section of the total. As a result, some actual facts to back up your claims would be most welcome.
Thanks,
w.
Willis Eschenbach October 17, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Mario Lento October 17, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Though it only varies some 0.2% from strong vs weaker cycles, the beam is not steady at all in other energy frequencies. This cannot be denied. Your statement precludes much fact about the sun.
Mario, this claim might make sense … but only if you supported it by actual facts about the variation (in W/m2) over the cycle at various frequencies.
Since the variation in TSI is tiny (less than 0.5 W/m2 on a 24/7 global basis), I find it hard to believe that there is significant variation (in W/m2) in some sub-section of the total. As a result, some actual facts to back up your claims would be most welcome.
Thanks,
w.
++++++++++++
WIllis: Pardon, but you are referring to TSI, and I am not. I assume TSI varies only slightly, hence power over a given area remains too constant to be the cause of the magnitude of climate change we see. I suggest that the frequencies change substantially within that relatively constant power output. Different frequencies have effects other than direct radiative heating. Considering only total energy and not the make up of that energy leaves out the range of frequencies that vary substantially.
Let’s consider a reductio ad absurdum thought. Given that the sun’s TSI stayed perfectly constant, but the frequency output changed to include only 100% deep UV, and zero any other frequency including visible light. The watts/square meter would be the same. Would you bet this would have no measurable affect on Earth’s climate?
I remain a fanboy just the same Willis.
My reading, and i would have thought that this was the natural and ordinary reading, of Mario’s comment is that he is referring to the point made by John West
October 17, 2014 at 3:25 pm, namely:
“Variations in the components of TSI are orders of magnitude greater than variation in TSI itself. As we all know UV, Visible, and IR have very different capabilities/characteristics, for example interaction with O2 & O3, ocean penetration, and reflection by different surfaces just to name a few. So I would add: If not amplification processes then what component variations have the most impact and why?”
You will note that Mario endorsed that significant comment.
Rephrasing Clinton: ‘It is not all about TSI st*p*d’ It is far more suttle than that.
It also raises the question of whether a watt is just a watt, no matter where within the system it is inputted.
There is much yet to be undestood.
Mario Lento October 17, 2014 at 11:53 pm
Thanks, Mario. You said:
If the “it” you refer to is NOT talking about TSI … then what are you referring to?
Next, you say:
Thanks for the suggestion, Mario, but I was asking for facts, not suggestions. You know, numbers showing how much and how the frequencies change, and which ones change, that kind of thing.
w.
Willis Eschenbach October 18, 2014 at 12:15 am
Mario Lento October 17, 2014 at 11:53 pm Edit
WIllis: Pardon, but you are referring to TSI, and I am not. I assume TSI varies only slightly, hence power over a given area remains too constant to be the cause of the magnitude of climate change we see. I suggest that the frequencies change substantially within that relatively constant power output.
Thanks, Mario. You said:
Though it only varies some 0.2% from strong vs weaker cycles, the beam is not steady at all in other energy frequencies.
If the “it” you refer to is NOT talking about TSI … then what are you referring to?
Next, you say:
I suggest that the frequencies change substantially within that relatively constant power output.
Thanks for the suggestion, Mario, but I was asking for facts, not suggestions. You know, numbers showing how much and how the frequencies change, and which ones change, that kind of thing.
w.
+++++++++++++
richard verney October 18, 2014 at 12:14 am distilled the subject matter correctly.
The “it” is TSI.
The frequencies change substantially (on at least an order of magnitude)
Energy thrown at the Earth has to go somewhere. So where does the UV go?
Variances are extremely dramatic within the 8% (UV) everyone ignores.
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/resu_body.html
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/image/Rel_contri_col.png
“The Sun’s variability, which can be calculated, is buried in such a lively planet as we have here on Earth.”
Pamela, the problem with this affirmation is that we find the signal from Sun’s variability in the Earth climate:
For instance at the resilient earth there is a study where the tiny 11 years cycle variations are shown to have influence:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
“Though the Sun’s output varies by less than a tenth of a percent in magnitude during its 11-year sunspot cycle, that small variation produces changes in sea surface temperatures two or three times as large as it should. A new study in Science demonstrates how two previously known mechanisms acting together amplify the Sun’s impact in an unsuspected way. ”
OK, it is a modelling study, but sounds reasonable (at least to me).
Then prof Courtillot showed connection with the UV variability:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/
And another one about the UV :
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
“According to the authors, the “mechanism describes how solar UV changes can lead to a significant enhancement of the small initial signal and corresponding changes in stratospheric dynamics”, which in combination with a natural atmospheric circulation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, causes a “significant ocean response,” “
Prepare for NO government paid climate “scientist” to show up at all.
Is there any other kind of climate “scientist” (i.e., other than government-paid)?
Not as far as the government is concerned. That is unless you are the more enlightened Australian Government.
Why has no one mentioned “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten, (C) 1997, Oxford University Press? Although Hoyt & Schatten do not come up with the definitive solution, they thoroughly review the data and thinking extant in the mid 1990’s. As a measure of their thoroughness, their bibliography comprises about 500 references. Their book would be an excellent starting point for this discussion.
A more recent book on solar influences on climate, Die kalte Sonne, is now available in an updated, English version.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/highly-controversial-german-climate-book-to-appear-worldwide-in-english-september-1st/
A report on the bstorm its initial publication caused among German Green Meanies:
http://www.energytribune.com/10076/germanys-godfather-of-green-turns-skeptic#sthash.dPmJXycI.dpbs
I have always been disappointed that many seem to believe that the Sun’s influence should be measured only or primarily via changes in TSI, and am glad to see that other solar pathways, e.g Svensmark, the solar wind, even the Madman Hypothesis of Increased Volcanism During Deep Solar Minimums, are being explored in more depth.
Well, the Madman Hypothesis is still not being studied all that much yet, but my dog is totally onboard.
But figuring out how the sun has varied in e.g. the past millennium isn’t easy. And in fact, the science seems to be developing in the other direction, i.e. showing an even smaller solar influence than scientists thought let’s say a decade ago.
Smaller solar influence? A recent paper said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/17/climate-dialogue-about-the-sun/
That doesn’t suggest smaller to me.
Dang, mess up the link. It should have been:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/
I know this may appear to be an ignorant question but why, when the sun goes down at night, does it get cooler?
If it’s a “minor” player that is?
The fact that Earth gets cooler is a reflection of what the Earth does, not the Sun. Night and day heating differences are therefore intrinsic (Earth) factors, not extrinsic (solar) factors.
http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
Pamela Gray : take a look at this sight if you believe direct sunlight makes no difference c.
Psst lonie.. that’s a “site”, not a sight.
Think what happens when you step out of direct sunlight into shade. The Sun has not changed, you have changed the insolation on your skin. When we discuss whether or not the Sun has a significant effect on climate, we are paying attention to the amount of changes in solar output..
Thank you kindly,
Yes, I do get that. I guess my point was that the big, hot, yellow ball in the sky MUST have a most profound effect on the climate/weather (and not a minor one) in view of the energy it puts into the system (yes, assuming the energy can get into the system…clouds, particulates, interstellar dust and the like permitting).
Thanks again for your reply.
I’m not in any way a climate scientist (whatever that term actually means) hence my understanding is purely that of the laity.
Jones
It is interesting that on the dark side of the moon, the temperature is no where near absolute zero. Indeed, even in some of the craters at the poles that never receive sunlight, the temperatures are about 30 to 40K, so nowhere near the 3K of background space. The same is so regarding Pluto, even though it receives little sunlight.
re Jones:
The Sun certainly sets the base conditions for life on Earth. Insolation differences are responsible for the creation of seasons and types of climate in different areas of Earth. But these insolation differences are due to conditions of the Earth not the Sun. The discussion of how the Sun influences climate is centered around the question of whether the slight CHANGES in solar energy originating in the Sun can overcome the insolation changes due to orbital mechanics. Another question is whether or not CHANGES in solar energy can be a factor in cloud creation due to GCRs. So we are always addressing the CHANGES in solar energy represented by TSI at 1 AU.
By “it”, I presume you mean the location where you are. While your location is moving into the the shade, other locations with equal area are emerging into the sunshine. For the Earth as a whole, the solar energy received does not change significally (in the short period of a day).
SR
Over the period of a day, no, TSI apparently does not change.
But Leif’s daily TSI/TOA solar database from 2001 through 2015 DOES CHANGE by +1/-1 watts/meter^2 from year-to-year.
Is the Sun a constant from a modeling standpoint ?
Everything else is secondary, no?……
In my paper “Power spectral analysis of total & net radiation intensities” published in Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics 6: 60-66 [1977] I observed that the total solar radiation and net radiation intensities shows sunspot cycle [10.5 years].
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Due to the reduction in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots, the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots are now being torn apart by convection forces in the solar convection zone. The solar wind removes roughly 99% of the magnetic flux that is produced in the sun to create sunspots. The remaining sunspot flux is believed to create, maintain, and explain the variance of the solar large scale magnetic field. This process (reduction in sunspot intensity, followed by tiny sunspots, and then finally followed by no sunspots only a region that has a slightly higher magnetic field) is more advanced in the solar northern hemisphere than the solar southern hemisphere. There are now almost no remaining sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere and only tiny sunspots (referred to as ‘pores’ by the solar specialists) in the solar southern hemisphere.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/…_4096_4500.jpg
Comment:
The northern polar field changed polarity first in June 2012, then weakened and was near neutral in March 2014. (William: The solar northern polar field intensity is now roughly zero which is anomalous and indicates the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. The sun is very, very rapidly moving to a type of deep Maunder minimum.) The southern polar field reversed in July 2013. In past solar cycles when the solar polar field reversed, the solar polar field intensity passes through intensity zero and rapidly increases in intensity soon after reversal. As can be seen in this graph the solar northern magnetic field is now essentially zero.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Now a solar polar field that is essentially zero indicates the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and the sun is about to very rapidly move to a ‘Maunder minimum’ state where the sun no longer produces sunspots. The past deep solar magnetic cycle minimums have lasted roughly 100 to 150 years
The following is an explanation of what is physically happening to the sun.
1) Sunspots are believe to be formed from magnetic flux tubes that formed deep within the sun at the solar tachocline which is the name for the narrow region of the sun that separates the solar convection zone from the solar radiative zone. The magnetic flux tubes are buoyant and rise up to the surface of the sun traveling through the solar convection zone.
2) Calculations indicate that the magnetic flux tubes require a minimum field strength of around 20,000 to 30,000 gauss when they leave the tachocline to enable them to withstand the turbulent forces in the convection zone. The small tight bundle of magnetic flux tubes expands as it rises up through the convection zone. For some unknown reason the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly for a number of years.
3) We are now at the point where the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes is less than the minimum strength to avoid being torn apart in the convection zone. Initially just as that threshold (magnetic flux tubes are starting to be torn apart as they rise up through the convection zone) is reached and there is an increase in sunspot number as large sunspots are replaced by many tiny pores (small sunspots)
4) As the process continues (magnetic field strength of the flux tubes continues to decline) the magnetic flux tubes are torn apart in the convection zone and there is nothing left to create a sunspot on the surface of the sun. Observational evidence to support that assertion are regions on the surface of the sun that have higher than average magnetic field strength but no sun spots.
Marcel, thanks for the post. You say:
The LIA started well before the Maunder Minimum. So for the LIA to be caused by the Maunder Minimum we’d have to believe in the reversal of time …
I’m so tired of people posting this kind of solar nonsense without the slightest attempt to substantiate it. How about you give us a graph showing the LIA and the Maunder Minimum?
The sun may indeed have an effect on climate … but nonsensical claims about the Maunder and the LIA aren’t doing your cause any good.
w.
Willis Eschenbach,
You assert that Marcel Crok has a ’cause’. What ’cause’ do think Marcel Crok has?
John
Planetary cooling is also caused by an abrupt reduction in the geomagnetic field intensity which can occur in advance of the Maunder like minimum. Of course there was a physical reason why the planet cyclically warmed and cooled cyclically in the past, the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The modulation of planetary cloud cover is caused by three principal mechanisms. 1) High or low galactic cosmic rays (also called cosmic ray flux CRF which are mostly high speed protons). The GCR/CRF create ions in the atmosphere which increases the amount of low level clouds. 2) Solar wind bursts that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn then removes cloud forming ions for roughly 2 weeks creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere. The resulting global electric current reduces cloud cover in high latitude regions and reduces the lifetime of tropical clouds. and 3) changes to the geomagnetic field intensity and orientation (the geomagnetic poles abruptly change position which moves the highest GCR/CRF regions to lower latitudes).
P.S. Curiously or ironically the geomagnetic field intensity is now dropping 10 times faster than physically believed possible 2%/decade rather than 2%/century. There is now unequivocal observational evidence of the start of global cooling, record sea in the Antarctic and the start of the recovery of sea ice in the Arctic. The cooling will accelerate. There is of course a physical reason why the geomagnetic field intensity is suddenly now dropping at 2%/decade. Subject for another comment.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
November 1, 2013 at 8:25 am
William:
Problem solved, the paradox is resolve. You (William: Svalgaard and others) quoted older papers that were incorrect and have been superseded. The Maunder minimum is return (there is an explanation for why the planet cooled during the Little Ice age, very low period of solar magnetic cycle activity and why the planet warmed during the Medieval warm period, very high period of solar magnetic cycle activity) The recent grand solar maximum is returned. Furthermore the 2012 paper notes the high resolution long term climate record tracks the solar cosmogenic isotope changes (planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is high and there is low cosmic ray flux and the planet cools when the solar magnetic cycle is low and there is high cosmic ray flux), which as the paper notes: “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.” This is fortunate as this provides a physical explanation as to why there is cyclic global climate change in the past.
The 2012 paper notes the cosmic ray flux during the Maunder minimum was 1.6 times greater than current, see figure Fig. 3. (C) Same as (B), but zoom-in of the past millennium. Capital letters mark grand solar minima: O: Oort,W:Wolf, S: Spörer,M: Maunder, D: Dalton, G: Gleissberg.
The older papers you quoted concerning cosmogenic isotope analysis were incorrect. They used the old Antarctic Be10 record which does not capture Be10 changes as the rate of snowfall in that region has not sufficient. That explains why the Greenland Be10 record which is high temporal resolution did not agree with the old low temporal resolution Antarctic Be10 record. The 2012 paper uses a high resolution Antarctic ice core and uses multiple radionuclide records. As the 2012 paper notes there is strong correlation of past climate changes and solar activity which “is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone.”
The following are key quotes from the paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
“9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings” by
Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms, February 14, 2012
The LIA started well before the Maunder Minimum.
True.
But there was also the Wolf Minimum from 1280-1350 followed by the Spörer Minimum from 1460-1550.
The increasing depths of the 3 minimums correlate nicely with the increasing depths of the Little Ice Age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Solar_activity
(compare radiocarbon record with temperature reconstructions)
As I’ve repeatedly mentioned in response to comments by you & others on the Maunder Minimum & the LIA, please recall that the LIA contained not just one extended solar minimum but three or four, depending upon from when you date its onset.
The Wolf Minimum occurred from c. AD 1280 to 1350, the Spörer from c. 1460 to 1550, the Maunder from c. 1645 to 1715 (or 1710) & the Dalton from c. 1790 to 1820. In between were warming intervals, most notably that from c. 1716-39 (IMO from 1710), which was greater in amplitude & longer in duration than the recent warm spell from c. 1977-96.
The correlation is so great that the LIA is best seen as centuries of unusually deep & frequent solar minima, centered on the Maunder, which was preceded & followed by similar but less powerful, pro-secular-trend cooling cycles. I don’t include the Wolf, since IMO it occurred as a counter-trend cooling cycle during the transition out of the peak of the Medieval Warm Period into the LIA, but was followed by decades of strong warming before the plunge into centuries of a secular cooling trend.
OK. So let us test that hypothesis:
1. Assume that visible sunspots are proportional to solar activity, and that visible solar activity does actually vary at the same time as “total heat sent towards earth”. Note that either of those assumption may, or may not, be correct. Regardless, assume that sunspots are proportional to “heat available to the earth”….
2. Sunspot counts (solar cycles) vary by length of cycle AND by intensity (peak visible sunspot count) of each cycle.
3. So, to eliminate variations of length of solar cycle, peak count, and positive/negative cycles, sum every six cycles into a solar group, beginning at the first solar cycles counted. You will get – on average, a 66 year period that may, or may not, correspond to the short term temperature cycle, but remember, you are NOT counting spots every 66 years, but the sum of six cycles each time:
Plot the total sunspots for each group nbr against the earth’s best-available long-term temperature record. If there is a temperature pattern that varies with either even or odd solar cycles, or if there is a period of times when sunspots are more frequent and solar cycles are occur faster (closer together) , if either affects the earth’s measured temperatures, then that effect should be visible.
If several solar cycles occur closer together, and if the timing of solar cycles matters, then it should be visible.
If several solar cycles in a row are higher (have more sunspots) then that effect should be visible.
If positive cycles are in some way different than negative cycles, then that should be visible over time.
IMO all those results are visible, within the error limits of solar activity & temperature records, which are large.
Thank you for the information…we must never forget the sun is the main driver of climate for all the planets…many people like to ‘simplify’ things in order to win an argument. The complex pattern of solar sun spot events in the past runs alongside seemingly huge changes in climate especially in the vulnerable northern hemisphere.
The sun is not stable. The output varies and each variation caused a ripple effect on earth, either melting ice or freezing water depending on whether there is an increase or decrease in sun spot activity.
Other factors feed into the system, too like volcanoes, cloud formation, magnetic field strength, tilt of the planet relative to the sun, etc.
Can I add another meaningless vote for NOT assuming that the sun’s effect on Earth’s climate is limited to, proportional to, or defined by TSI? Thank you.
Hi Willis
Thanks for your comment. I read with great interest your articles about the solar “influence” on the climate.
Please understand that in this short announcement I try to introduce the dialogue and the range of views that it covers. I am myself fully open to the possibility that a) the Little Ice Age wasn’t that cold after all (although the advancement of glaciers in this period is the best indicator that some global cooling happened) and b) that the sun played only a marginal role in this period.
So let’s just see how the dialogues and how convincing different hypotheses will be presented.
Cheers
Marcel