h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AS the worm turns…
This morning’s headlines from the GWPF:
1) US Lawmakers Vote To Block Obama’s Climate Policy – The Hill, 25 June 2015
2) US States To Defy Obama’s Climate Plans – Associated Press, 24 June 2015
3) Germany To Scrap Climate Change Levy On Coal Plants – Financial Times, 25 June 2015
4) EU Plans To Drop Methane Emissions Limits – International Business Times, 23 June 2015
5) Dutch Government Climate Policy Ruled Illegal Under Human Rights Law – Guardian Sustainable Business, 24th June 2015
6) Dutch Government To Appeal Court’s Climate Ruling – De Telegraph, 25 June 2015
I wrote about the structured retreat of global warming alarmists as in 2013 (below) – and possibly earlier.
The latest Met Office announcement is one more step in that structured retreat.
Think of it in military terms – they know they are going to lose the battle, so they form a defensive line, surrender ground slowly, and allow the main part of their forces to escape further harm.
First it was the warmists’ step-down in their estimates of Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) – the warmists’ ECS estimates are still far too high, but were reduced from previous absurdly high estimates. The magnitude of ECS is the key argument between the “mainstream” skeptics and the warmists and they are still far apart on this point.
Second the warmists conceded that natural climate variation was NOT insignificant, accepting a key component of the skeptics’ position.
Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.
Still, the warmists cling to the standard CO2 nonsense – the mantra of their faith – that increasing atmospheric CO2 is scary and dangerous – while they abandon all the elements that support their failed position.
At what point do we declare a rout?
See below for my proposal on this point.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week/#comment-1501616
Re-stating from 2002:
We knew decades ago that global warming alarmism was wrong. We confidently stated in 2002:
[PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
On global warming:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
On green energy:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
I suggest that our two above statements are now demonstrably true, within reasonable probabilities.
I also wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
On global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I expect that global cooling will be a reality by 2020, and may have already started. The Watermelons have already begun their retreat from global warming hysteria, and have moved on to “climate change” alarmism and “sustainability”, their new mantras to achieve greater political power.
In fact, these disreputable people have discredited true environmentalism with their false alarm. There remain real environmental issues that need to be addressed. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is NOT one of them.
Repeating from 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Regards to all, Allan
I am once again with you Allan 100%.
Thank you Salvatore – my proposal is hung up in moderation.
PROPOSAL – SUE THE WARMISTS IN THE USA UNDER CIVIL RICO
PROPOSAL – SUE THE WARMISTS IN THE USA UNDER CIVIL RICO
I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..
Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.
We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..
The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.
If serious funders are interested, please contact me through http://www.OilsandsExpert.com
Regards, Allan MacRae
Calgary
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm
More data that ties solar activity to the climate.
There is no mention of solar activity in your link.
You have to look deeper into the data which shows a meridional atmospheric circulation,a faster rotation rate of the earth, and lower temperature all correlate to one another and all are present at the same time the sun is in a quiet period of activity , and vice versa.
No, they talk about LOD etc the last 140 years, which some people think are the most active in 12,000 years…
“It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones correspond to the periods of global cooling. I think it is pretty well correlated that Solar activity is responsible for periods of global warming.
oops should have used blockquote instead of p
I think it is pretty well correlated that Solar activity is responsible for periods of global warming
Where is the correlation?
http://www.leif.org/research/dT-ACI-Zonal-GN.png
In reply to Leif,
William,
Why in the world are you plotting sunspot number vs planetary temperature? If one has absolutely no understanding of the mechanisms the analysis goes in circles. You continue to ignore peer reviewed papers that explain in detail how the sun modulates planetary temperature and that shows correlation of the key solar parameter (number of solar wind bursts and interval between solar wind bursts).
The variable to plot is the number of solar wind bursts and time between solar wind bursts: The variable that captures solar wind bursts in Ak, the four hour disturbance of the geomagnetic field. You for some weird reason plot monthly average Ap ignoring the how the mechanism works. i.e. Number of solar wind bursts and interval between solar wind bursts. The cloud changing properties lasts for three to six days after an event. Coronal holes are the principal reason for solar wind bursts and persist for months.
Solar wind bursts primarily caused by persistent coronal holes create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which in turn causes a movement of electrical charge from the earth’s poles to the equator. Note in the current solar cycle, that there is an abundance of coronal holes (same number of wind bursts as solar cycle 23).
Coronal holes of course have nothing to do with sunspot number. Why coronal holes appear, when coronal holes appear in the solar cycle, and at what latitude coronal holes appear on the sun surface is not known.
The space charge differential removes cloud forming ions in the high latitude regions which causes there to be a reduction in low level clouds and an increase in cirrus clouds. A decrease in low level clouds warms the region in question due to a reduction in short wave radiation that is reflected to space albedo and an increase in the high wispy cirrus clouds causes the region in question to warm due to increased greenhouse effect of the high altitude water.
The return electrical current changes cloud properties in the equator and changes cloud lifetimes in the equator. El Nino events occur when there is large movement of electrical charge.
Recently although the number of sunspots has been dropping there has been a large number of persistent coronal holes on the surface of the sun in low latitude regions. It is these coronal holes that are partially responsible for the lack of significant cooling of the earth due to the astonishing slowdown in the solar cycle.
Offset the anomalous number of coronal holes is a reduction in the solar heliosphere density of 40%. The low density of the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and magnetic flux that stretches far past the orbit of Pluto.) reduces the rise time of the magnetic pulse that is caused by solar wind bursts which in turn reduces the effect on the earth ionosphere.
Now finally the size of coronal holes on the surface of sun has started to shrink and the coronal holes have started to move to high latitude regions on the surface of the sun where they no longer affect the earth. Bingo, there will be a significant increase in sea ice in the Arctic and the planet will cool. We are experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
This paper explains the mechanisms. Leif it appears you do not read papers that disprove your assertion that solar cycle changes effect on planetary temperature.
http://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf
The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
When coronal holes were first recognized as important [by the Skylab Mission], NASA convened the now famous Coronal Hole Workshop with the world’s foremost experts on solar phenomena and their effect on the Earth. The results of the Workshop were published in a Monograph edited by Jack Zirker containing chapters on all aspects of coronal holes. I wrote chapter IX http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf . You see, much of our knowledge of this was pioneered by me and I am still a world class expert on this and on geomagnetic indices [such as Ak and Ap]. Your comment is full of misunderstandings and wrong turns and belongs in a landfill.
Not the only people suggesting a solar cooling between now and 2050
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/CV_NScafetta.p
Abdussamatov
(2013)
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
.
J Geol Geosci
2: 113.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/morner-2013a.pdf
Great solar/climate connection theory with data.
Since when is anything on Tallbloke’s blog to be taken seriously? That the planets are controlling solar activity, the geomagnetic field, etc, isway out there on the fringe.
I agree.
I also am not sold on that aspect of things. it was the solar wind speed climate connection that got my attention.
As I have said Leif’s solar predictions I pay attention to.
From the fringes come the comets blazing gloriously.
==============
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03a.htm#FiguraA
If you view the data you will see how periods of low solar activity and high solar activity fit in with it.
no correlation with anything
I have a theory that I presented by Nils Axel Morner that supports my conclusions on this matter. It is in moderation but I think it will be allowed on the site.
Your theory does not support your conclusions. DATA would provide support.
Not my theory it is Nil’s theory.
Perhaps I misunderstood ‘I have a theory’
Correct.
‘by’, a clue.
=======
This is so ironic. A significant subset of the sun worshipers, who generally (and correctly) spend their time excoriating models of the climate on earth, have jumped on board a solar model … as though the sun were somehow easier to model than the climate …
Now, solar physicists have had mixed success predicting the evolution of the current and past sunspot cycles. Take a look at the many failed predictions of the most recent cycle, often made just a few years in advance of being wrecked by the fickle nature of the sun.
And now, everyone is going bonkers over some stupid solar climate model that claims to be able to simulate the evolution of the sun over the next century? A century? Really? Man, I thought I’d been guilty in the past of confirmation bias, but I’ve never let it overcome my skepticism about computer models of a hundred years from now.
Finally, no, solar activity is NOT “plummeting at the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years”. As near as I can tell, the authors just made up that claim and provide no backing for it. Here is the statement. It does have a citation, viz:
Reference 1 is Reconstruction and Prediction of Variations in the Open Solar Magnetic Flux and Interplanetary Conditions It says nothing about “faster than any other such decline in … 9,300 years”.
Nor do the authors provide any further evidence that I can find for the 9,300 year claim. Near as I can tell, they just toss it in and walk away from it.
I did find it hilarious that Reference 1, the paper that near as I can tell doesn’t say anything about fastest decline in 9,300 years, Reference 1 itself contains citations to no less than nine papers by Leif Svalgaard, the solar physicist that posts here at WUWT, the solar scientist that sun worshipers love to hate …
Me, I put my trust in facts and observations, not complex untested unvalidated unverified iterative computer models. I rate the value of this paper at 0 out of 10, and as such, it is absolutely no surprise that it is published in Nature. Sadly, that once-great mag has sunk into the mire …
w.
Oh, yeah. A “sun worshiper” in my world is someone who believes without evidence that minor variations in the sun affect the climate in some strong and significant manner. If that doesn’t describe you, then please don’t complain about my use of the term, because obviously I’m not referring to you.
w.
Your opinion not mine and many others.
Ah, the certainty of worship.
===========
Hi Willis, as I said previously the paper has more entertainment value than scientific value 🙂
Allan MacRea You say….
“Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.”
Can please explain why it is that this study supports that statement?
From the UKMO:
“Like other studies, they found the global impact from reduced solar output was relatively small – with a cooling effect of around -0.1 °C. This is much smaller than the amount of warming expected due to greenhouse gases, which is several degrees for this experiment.
On a regional level, the study found a bigger cooling effect for northern Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America – particularly during winter. For example, for northern Europe the cooling is in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C.”
There is nothing new about low solar activity, and there has been speculation of a grand solar minimum for some time. We know there is a reduction in TSI of the order of 0.1-0.2% and a greater reduction at UV wavelengths…. this causing the regional response in regard to (some but not all) colder winters in Europe and E USA in particular. Again this is not controversial, as that is the proposed link to the Maunder minimum.
It does not mean “global cooling” at all – and is certainly not an admission of that possibility. A “cooling effect” is NOT global cooling. Just as the preponderance of La Ninas this last 10 years or so was not global cooling but a cyclic, climate effect. CO2 is not cyclic – it is incremental and 0.1C OFF the projected rises due to anthro CO2 is not significant.
Good spin though, unless you know the science – most will go with you.
Thank you Toneb.
What is your real name and what is your predictive track record?
The abstract of the Met study (below) is inconsistent with your comments. Good spin though…
“The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.”
Apart from all that, the statement “The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years” is not supported by the data, e.g. the 400-yr record we have
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
The declines from 1610 to 1630 and from 1780s to 1800 were steeper.
Why do you persist with this? It clearly says in the cosmogenic isotope record. Why give me sunspots?
========
Allan macRae:
You miss my point – your spinning was to claim that ….
“The latest Met Office announcement is one more step in that structured retreat.”
” they know they are going to lose the battle, so they form a defensive line, surrender ground slowly, and allow the main part of their forces to escape further harm.”
“Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.”
Followed by the usual blah, blah …
Like I said, a “cooling effect” is NOT “global cooling” which is what you said they said (even as a possibility).
“What is your real name and what is your predictive track record?”
Not that my name has anything to do with calling out the obvious amongst those in the echo-chamber here who do not see it – but I am Tony Banton and I have the same profession (well did – now retired) as Mr Svalgaard – with the UKMO actually – so you could say I have a “predictive record” yes.
And what is your “predictive record” allowing you comment *authoritatively* on climate science, may I ask ?
It is only asserted that the larger effect is only regional; it is not studied.
===========
kim June 25, 2015 at 1:28 pm
Why do you persist with this? It clearly says in the cosmogenic isotope record.
No it doesn’t, it clearly says: “in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data“
Yesterday’s headlines from the GWPF:
1) Met Office Issues Warning That Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase – Daily Mail, 24 June 2015
2) Climate Modellers Model “Regional Climate Impacts Of A Possible Future Grand Solar Minimum”
Nature Communications, 23 June 2015
3) Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling Ahead – The Daily Caller, 28 May 2015
4) The Sun Is Now Virtually Blank During The Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century – Vencore, Inc. 30 April 2015
5) The Sun Has More Impact On The Climate In Cool Periods – Aarhus University, 27 February 2015
Toneb – I did not “miss your point” – in fact, you changed your point – I suggest that you are dodging and weaving and being dishonest.
I have outlined my predictive track record here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963244
As regards your predictive track record as a member of the UKMO – if this is the same organization as the “Met Office”, they have a dismal predictive track record. They cannot even provide accurate seasonal weather predictions, and their long-term predictions of runaway global warming have been extremist nonsense.
Are you suggesting that the Maunder Solar Minimum was not a global cooling event? That would be news to me, and to the countless millions of people that died from cold and starvation during the Maunder.
I have no opinion on the Met’s claim that this solar decline “is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years”. The fact that the Met is actually acknowledging the possibility of a cooling event is significant, and I suggest this is part of a structured retreat from their extremist position on runaway global warming.
The Met is hedging its bets – a sensible move, especially since the Met has been predicting runaway global warming for the past two decades, and now solar activity is at a 100-year low.
Whatever the technical merits/demerits of the Met’s recent statement, it is primarily a political move – a classic CYA.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-paper-finds-another-solar.html
This is what the data shows and many who do not want to accept a solar/climate connection will either ignore or manipulate the data until it matches the outcome they want not what is.
Salvatore:
To those such a myself, that article is not new and neither does it mean what you think it means.
PJS diffluence and meridional blocking is NOT Global in terms of OVERALL ave temp change. For every meridional push the NH PJS applies S’ward to an Arctic airmass there MUST be a consequent N’ward push of warm air from a more temperate region. It’s just a simple conservation of mass. In order for the Sun to exert global cooling/warming there has to be a sig TSI change. UV levels affecting the Stratospheric Polar night jet (circulating the PV) does NOT do that. It is simply a MOVEMENT of air-masses.
Actually it involves global cloudiness changes which alter the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system
How ignorant to assert how it ‘has’ to be. ‘Twere better you were anonymous.
==============
The article is really not the point of the matter. The point is will the prolonged solar minimum exert a global cooling trend due to primary and associated secondary effects ranging from an increase in geological activity, more clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, a weaker expanded polar vortex due to ozone changes, a drop in sea surface temperatures due to lower visible /long wave UV light waves etc.
And what effect may a weaker geomagnetic field have on all of this.
It is a wait and see game. It looks like we may be lucky enough to experience a full blown prolonged solar minimum event if so it is an opportunity to see if a solar/climate connection is for real or not. My bet is it is, but perhaps we will know for sure.
Call me crazy but what is fascinating about a site like this is that we (including myself) are all so sure we are correct and we keep arguing the same points over and over and over again month after month ,year after year.
Insanity – Doing the same thing (in our case it is saying the same thing) and expecting a different result.
I sincerely hope that some kind of clarification will come going forward so we can at least have some sense on what thoughts are moving in the correct direction.. Of course I want to be correct but that aside I just would like to really know.
Heh, I’m not the least bit certain I’m correct but I do find myself arguing the same points over and over again.
Like the alternating shape of peak cosmic rays from sharp to flat from each sunspot cycle to the next. With two phases each with three peaks, but with each phase predominant alternately in sharp and flat peaks, there is a clockwork mechanism to drive oceanic oscillations of approximately six sunspot cycles each. The clock is there, gears approximately in position, but does the shape of the peaks drive the motive mechanism?
==================
“Of course I want to be correct but that aside I just would like to really know.”
Join the warmists, be certain and cease to be fascinated and no longer crazy then, although I’m not so sure you can avoid the last bit. After all there’d still be the crazies here to cope with, not to mention natural climate variability to keep you on your toes.
I blame all those solar panels. The sun is not an infinite resource and renewables are starting to bleed it dry …
Willis, you appear to not read the scientific comments in this forum concerning solar cycle modulation of planetary temperature.
Please do respond or agree with the name label.
Please support your comments with observations (Also it would be helpful if you could acknowledge there are a set of observations that needed to be explained. You appear to believe isolated analysis of one parameter that is far off in left field will help resolve what will happen next. Have you looked at the Antarctic paleo record? Have you looked at the Greenland temperature record? Close your eyes, try to imagine at glacial phase for 100,000 years. What is your theory as to explain the glacial/interglacial phase that has happened again, again, and again (23 times)) and logic or:
agree that that you are persistent non-logical, cranky comment maker, who ignores holistic (holistic means you need to list all of the observation and explain all of them, there are no magic wands what happened again and again and again had a physical forcing function/mechanism) observational data and logic that requires a physical explanation.
Also it would be helpful if you provide an alternative hypothesis as to the forcing mechanism that causes cyclic abrupt climate change which it is a fact occurs in the paleo record and that has a periodicity of 1500 years plus or minus 400 years and that comes in a small, medium, and super large interglacial terminating size.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
We have been told in this forum again and again that the sun cannot cause significant cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Yet it is a fact before cosmogenic gate solar changes correlated with each and every warming and cooling period in the paleo record. (See the late Gerald Bond’s paper that looked at Be10 in the ocean sediments in the Atlantic ocean. Bond has able to track 23 cycles which have a periodicity of 1500 years plus or minus a beat frequency of 400 years.)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
William Astley June 25, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Sorry, but I fear you haven’t given enough information to respond to that.
Sorry, but “Either you do ‘A’ or it proves you are ‘B’ ” doesn’t work for me. I reject the underlying logic. Whether or not I respond is independent of whether I agree with the “name label” … which I assume is spelled out below in the OR clause as a “persistent non-logical, cranky comment maker”.
Sure. Glad to.
Congenital Cyclomania Redux
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
The Tip of the Gleissberg
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing”
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid!
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Sorry, but I have no referents for this.
Same problem. Makes no sense without any reference to a single word I’ve actually written.
Since I’ve posted on it several times, I’d guess the answer is yes.
Since I’ve posted on it several times as well, once again I have to say yes.
Not sure what “and logic” means at the end, but actually, nobody really knows the answer to that question. The problem is that there is no ~100,000 year solar cycle of any strength. The ice ages are often presumed to be a result of the Milankovic cycles, which may indeed be the case … but if so the mechanism by which the cycles and the ice ages are linked is not understood. In addition, the recent million years or so that we’ve had ice ages is only a tiny part of the Earth’s history … if Milankovich did it, was he sleeping until a million or so years ago?
Then we get to your above-mentioned “OR” clause, which is that if I don’t perform as you prefer, then automatically I am supposed to:
Actually, that’s not what “holistic” means. Per Webster’s Dictionary:
holistic: relating to or concerned with complete systems rather than with individual parts
And given the total number of observations of the weather made over the centuries up to the present, I haven’t a clue what you mean by “list all of the observation and explain all of them” …
In any case, to your accusations, I’d say that I am indeed persistent. At this point I’ve researched, analyzed, illustrated, and published over five hundred scientific posts, and authored four peer-reviewed articles, over the last decade and a half. Not only that, but I’m a self-taught scientist. So am I persistent?
You’re dern’ tootin’ I am persistent, and my accomplishments demonstrate it.
As to “cranky”, mmm … I’d say that I take very poorly to being called a liar, I don’t respond well when folks accuse me of bad intent or scientific malfeasance, and at times I’m far less magnanimous than I should be. Hey, I’m a work in progress …
Finally, as to being “non-logical”, sorry, I’m not agreeing with that one at all.
In any case, I don’t advise trying that bogus “If you don’t do A to my satisfaction it means you agree with B” stuff on anyone who you want to either impress or convert. It’s not pleasant to be on this end of such an attempted squeeze play.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
You are confusing whether I do or do not ‘like’ about your comments with a request to support your comments about the solar cycle modulation of planetary temperature with observations and logic.
Simple contradiction or creating and destroying straw dogs or general comments such as people who assert that solar cycle changes cause cyclic abrupt climate change are sun lovers is not purposeful scientific discussion. Note cyclic abrupt climate change is not a theoretical issue. The sun has abruptly changed. There is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record.
What caused and causes the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet? What ever caused cyclic warming in the past is still capable and will cause cyclic climate change in the future.
It is a fact that the planet cyclically warms and cools with a fixed period.
As the paper I quoted notes, internal earth processes are chaotic which rules them as the cause of past warming and cooling. The motion of the sun by the large planets causes the sun to change cyclically. The movement of the sun about its barycenter is the explanation for cyclic solar changes. Note cyclic solar changes is different than counting sunspots or how the number of sunspots changes.
The point is the periodicity of cyclic climate change points to the sun as the cause of the change.
My issues with your comment in the solar thread is you appear to not understand the fundamental constraints (which come from observations and logical analysis) of the forcing function that is causing cyclic climate change.
Do you agree it is a fact that something is cyclically forcing planetary temperature?
Following a logical train of thought, picking one hypothesis and then comparing that hypothesis to competing is how scientific problems are solved.
What is the competing hypothesis as to what cause cyclic climate change? What Is the B suspect for the crime?
Something causes cyclic climate change and the something roughly every 10,000 years causes abrupt climate change a climate change forcing that is capable of and does terminate interglacial periods. Interglacial periods end abruptly, not gradually, There are small, medium, and super large climate change events in the paleo record. They all occur on the 1500 year sequence.
I support your assertion that planetary cloud cover and cloud forming time in the tropics regulates planetary temperature resists forcing changes. That explains why there has been almost no warming in the tropics while based on the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space and the fact that atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere there should have been the most warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. The point is if the earth resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback), then there is a massive forcing change that can and does cause past cyclic abrupt climate change.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
<blockquoteTiming of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
The paper I quoted explains the planetary temperature correlates closely with the number and time between solar wind bursts. The paper I quote notes the primary cause of solar wind bursts is coronal holes not sunspots. Why then do you provide links to discussions sunspots vs planetary temperature? That is called creating a straw dog which you then destroy asserting that you have somehow proved that solar cycle changes do not cause the majority of cyclic planetary climate change on the earth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
It is a fact that the sun has abruptly changed. It is a fact that there is now observed cooling both poles.
Do you see the connection to the paper quoted above, to the fact that the sun has just abruptly changed and to the fact that there is now cooling both poles? What has changed to suddenly cause there to be the most amount of sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year?
What you are missing is the implications that the sun caused the past abrupt climate changes. If the sun causes cyclic abrupt climate change, then the sun can and does change in manner which we believe is not possible due to the ‘standard’ solar models.
If the sun can and does change in a manner to cause cyclic abrupt climate change the standard solar model are incorrect.
I presented in this thread detailed astronomical observations and analysis that supports the assertion that the stars are different than the standard model.
The fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change on the earth supports the assertion that the solar standard model is not correct.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
If the sun can and does change in a manner to cause cyclic abrupt climate change the standard solar model are incorrect.
More likely it is your understanding of climate change that is incorrect rather than the very successful standard solar model.
Willis this person seems very immature. You have been gracious and civil.
michael
This debate about the big blob of very powerful energy near our planet versus our tiny planet’s ability to suddenly shift temperatures is bizarre.
Look, just as I can flick a fly with my finger, the sun merely has to flick our planet with some extra energy and voila: suddenly it heats up. Ditto with cooling off. Our planet looks large only because psychologically, we see the sun as ‘smaller’ than the earth when we look at it from where we stand.
The geocentric view of the cosmos is very ancient and irresistible. The sun simply has to shift gears very slightly and our planet and Mars feel the effect very strongly. I am pretty certain that Mars heats up when the earth heats up and has ice ages when we have ice ages.
emsnews June 26, 2015 at 3:18 am
emsnews, thanks for your comment. As prelude to my remarks, you gotta understand something important. I started out as a sun worshiper. I believed that Herschel was right about wheat prices and sunspots (he wasn’t). I spent untold hours writing my own spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric motion. I started looking into variations in cosmic rays.
And after some years I started to say, wait a minute, none of these claimed effects are visible in the observational record. I started looking more seriously into the “evidence” that the rather small ~ 11-year variations in the sun have a statistically detectable effect on the climate.
Now, you appear to misunderstand what the debate is about. It is NOT about whether if the sun doubles its output the earth will fry. It will. No one doubts that. The debate is not about whether the sun is very powerful.
The debate is about whether the very small ~11 year cycle of solar activity affects the temperature or other climate variables… and as far as I can tell the answer is no. Nor is that particularly surprising. To take the example of one solar variable, total solar irradiance or “TSI” is the total radiative output of the sun. The variation in TSI is only about one watt per square metre (1 W/m2) peak to peak, out of a total of about 1,360 W/m2 total brightness … that’s less than a tenth of a percent. For that small a variation to be visible there would have to be some strong amplification mechanism involved.
For a while, I thought the amplification mechanism was cosmic rays. But I was unable to find any evidence for that one either. Frustrating! I had truly thought that the relationship
decrease in solar magnetic field –> increase in cosmic rays –> increase in cloudiness –> lower temperatures
was a valid one, and I couldn’t find a scrap of observational evidence to support that theory. Grrrr.
So I decided to cast a wider net. Rather than trying to figure out the exact physical mechanism involved (e.g. variations in extreme UV, or changes in cosmic rays) I reasoned that IF there is such an ~ 11-year sun-climate connection, then regardless of the details of causal mechanisms, it would be reflected as an ~ 11-year cycle in the variable that the sun was affecting.
Here’s the problem.
Despite the undeniable existence of solar variations running on an ~ 11-year cycle, I have not been able to find any significant ~ 11-year cycle in any climate variable that I have analyzed.
And it’s not for lack of looking. I’ve looked at dozens of sea level datasets, and temperature datasets, and lake levels, and river levels, and solar winds, and atmospheric temperatures, and sea surface temperatures … and none of them have shown an ~ 11 year cycle. Nor have any of them have shown a significant correlation with sunspots, the usual measure of the solar variability.
Well, that’s not entirely true. Someone pointed out with great fanfare the study he said was the best evidence for such a sun-climate connection. He said the study found a good fit between solar variations and tree rings. And when I read the study it did indeed find a good fit, a significant correlation between solar variations and tree rings … for one single solitary tree. In Peru. So after I finished laughing at that study I kept looking. I still haven’t found any such ~ 11-year cycle in any dataset that I’ve studied.
Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else … but like I said, I started out as a sun worshiper so I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Now, I do understand that some folks think differently about the sun. But when I’ve looked at their evidence, the claims have not endured statistical analysis. And although there has been a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth at my results, folks have not been able to poke holes in my statistics or my analyses. They don’t like them … but they can’t point out any errors.
But since no one can prove a negative, the debate rages on.
However, we are making some progress in understanding. The very fact that the debate continues indicates that if the ~ 11-year sun-climate effect exists it must be very, very, weak. Otherwise we’d have seen incontrovertible evidence of the effect of the small variations, and the debate would be over.
Now, if you think you have have such incontrovertible evidence, then please send me a link to the dataset in question. I’m happy to take a look at the claimed relationship.
Regards,
w.
Well, Willis, I’m not at all surprised that you and everyone else have failed to find a solar / climate link across the 11 year solar cycle.
The thermal inertia of the oceans is huge and irregular and the system also contains substantial chaotic variability.The 11 year signal is completely swamped.
What does seem clear to many of us is that there is evidence of a solar / climate link across multiple cycles as they become progressively more active or progressively weaker.
As Salvatore asked:
Can anyone point to a run of weak cycles ( I suggest 4 to 6) leading to warming or a run of 4 to 6 active cycles leading to cooling.?
On the contrary.
We see that multiple weak cycles lead to cooling with meridional jets as in the LIA and multiple active cycles lead to warming and zonal jets as in the MWP and in the late 20th century.
That is where the research funds should be directed and I suggest one start with my ozone / stratopause height related hypothesis and work outwards from that.
What does seem clear to many of us is that there is evidence of a solar / climate link across multiple cycles as they become progressively more active or progressively weaker.
Since in each of the last three centuries the same pattern of active and weaker cycles is observed, the climate should follow similar changes if what ‘seems clear’ is actually happening:
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
It seems clear that the climate didn’t get the memo.
That should read ‘tropopause height’.
The evidence suggests that the sun alters the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to allow more (when the sun is weak) meridional movement and more zonal patterns when the sun is active.
The former scenario leads to more clouds than the latter, not because of cosmic rays but because one has longer lines of air mass mixing leading to more clouds.
Willis the data is there but you choose not to look at it differently. Many people do not look at the solar/climate connection data the way you interpret it which is why your conclusions are not the same as some of us when it comes to this matter.
Still Willis, something regulates the climate which gives it a 1470 year semi cyclic nature and I maintain it is a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, Geo Magnetic Changes ,and Land/Ocean Arrangements. Sometimes these factors resulting in a major climatic change while at other times a minor climatic change depending on how these factors relate to one another. .
Until someone could come up with some other explanation that one is the best and this random chaotic intrinsic earth change approach is not going to cut it for may reasons.
1. does not reconcile with the fact, the climate of the earth is semi cyclic in nature.
2. does not explain why the climate of the earth reverts back to it’s mean.
3. If the climate was governed by intrinsic random earth changes the climate once it moved in a given direction would then keep going in the same direction but it DOES NOT, and the reason is because the climate is bound to a regulator or regulators that change it yes, but always sooner or later bring the climate back in a complete cycle. although the ride within a particular cycle could vary dramatically in contrast to other cycles.
Again until an adequate alternative is proposed this is the best one that is out there and the one that fits best to the historical climatic record of data.
Who is talking about an 11 year sunspot cycle versus climatic changes? It sure is not me. I would go further and say the 11 year typical sunspot cycle brings stability to the climate system because the duration of the effects within the cycle almost exactly balance out one another.
This is why I came up with low average value solar parameters that not only need to be realized, but their duration of time has to be sufficient and they (the low average value solar parameters) have to follow x years of sub-solar activity in general to have a climate impact. I would say10 years or so which we now have.
This is what is necessary Willis ,and it does indeed work when one views prolonged minimum solar periods and prolonged solar maximum periods of time versus the global temperature trend.
Willis, you are in denial even the Met Office accepts the Little Ice Age/ prolonged minimum solar relationship and they are by no means solar enthusiast when it comes to climate change.
The Little Ice Age corresponding to minimum solar activity while the modern and Medieval warm periods corresponding to high solar activity. Willis no matter how much you try manipulate the data you can not make it go away.
I will make this prediction, which is when the global temperature trend starts to decline in conjunction with prolonged solar minimum conditions, Willis will still insist that is not the reason.
The reality is it will be the reason as it has been in the past.
Leif this comment is for you.
You ignore the fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record and the periodicity of the cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record (internal earth forcing function are chaotic and are hence not periodic and are not capable of affect both hemispheres) supports the assertion that the sun is causing what is observed.
Please do explain what did cause cyclic abrupt climate change both hemispheres. What is the B suspect that causes cyclic abrupt climate change? As I stated, whatever caused cyclic abrupt climate change in the past will cause cyclic abrupt climate change in the future.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
As every scientist knows there is a physical explanation for everything that happens, there are no magic wands. And as every scientist know observations trump theoretical models.
Please do explain why you told us nothing unusual was happening to the sun? The peer reviewed solar paper I quoted has solar observation item after item which is anomalous.
There is now the highest sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. There is paleo records of 342 warming and cooling events on the Antarctic paleo record. What caused the past 342 warming and cooling events that have the same periodicity of the warming and cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere?
What changed besides the sun to cause most amount of sea ice in the Antarctic in recorded history for every month of the year?
The sun causes cyclic climate change and causes abrupt cyclic climate change. The sun has abruptly changed and there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
Solar cycle 24 is not particularly peculiar. It is just the last in a series of several that have had a progressively deficit of the smallest spots. Presumable the next cycle will continue that trend [but we don’t really know, do we?]
The overwhelming data shows time and time again that there is indeed a solar/climate connection.
I have posed this to Willis many times(below) and never have received an answer.
Something Willis ,is not only causing the climate to change but change in a semi cyclic beat with not only a variance in the intensity of the changes, but in a direction which will always revert to the mean. Meaning the climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from.
If it is not a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability and land ocean arrangements then what is it? If it were a matter of simple random and chaotic happenings the semi cyclic nature of the historical climatic record in that case would not be present, as well as the climate always reverting back to it’s mean. This leads to the conclusion that there has to be climatic factors that exert an influence upon the climate and that these factors have to have a cyclic variability to them. There is no other way to go with this given the historical climatic record of change, this explanation is the one that fits the best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Willis, inherently stable meaning what? Does that include a range in temperature that delineates glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions such as in the data I presented? If so then I agree in principal, but nevertheless even so one can say the climate is stable but the threshold between glacial versus glacial conditions is unstable meaning it only takes a small change of the so called stable climate system to plunge a good portion of the earth from glacial versus non glacial conditions.
So inherently stable I think needs to be specified in so much of what limits of variability does that lend to the climate system and does that meaning incorporate the degree of change the climate can under go from glacial versus interglacial conditions?
Willis does your inherently stable climate reconcile with changes in the climate from a glacial state to a non glacial state?
alvatore Del Prete June 26, 2015 at 8:19 am
One of the oddities of chaotic systems is that what appear to be perfectly regular cycles appear out of nowhere, last for a while, and then disappear. A great example is sea level. There was a period of time that lasted for more than half a century where sea level lined up with sunspots. Excellent correlations.
Unfortunately for the sun worshipers, when we include the periods before and after the time of agreement, the agreement disappears or even reverses.
Now, note that this is over about eight sunspot cycles, which you’d think would be long enough to establish causation … but in truth, such cycles simply appear out of nowhere, stay around for sometimes pushing a century, and then just disappear.
So I agree with you that things change in a “semi-cyclic beat”. The problem is that those beats appear, hang around, and then maddeningly, they disappear and some other “semi-cyclic beat” pops up to take their place. Or not, and we have a period with no beats.
As a result, the existence of such “semi-cyclic beats” is not evidence of anything but the chaotic, complex nature of the climate itself. Remember that it is a system that is not only driven by cyclical phenomena but has a number of subsystems (ocean, atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, etc.) that both have internal resonances but also have periodic cyclical energy interchanges between subsystems. So the existence of mystery waves that appear and stay and disappear is not really a mystery—it is the expected behavior of such a complex, chaotic system as the climate.
In particular, the existence of such “semi-cyclical beats” is NOT evidence that the small ~ 11-year solar variations have a demonstrable effect on the climate. Nor is it evidence that such cycles will “always revert to the mean”.
As to your theory that “climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from”, that assumes that there is some ideal “mean” from which everything is a deviation … a theory which leads to questions like:
What is that “mean” global average surface air temperature to which the Earth’s temperature will eventually revert?
The problem with your theory is that you have assumed what is called “stationarity” of the temperature dataset. “Stationarity” means that the “moments” of the data don’t change over time. The moments of the data are its mean, variance, and skewness (asymmetry). An example of a stationary dataset might be 100,000 spins of a roulette wheel. It wouldn’t matter whether we looked at the first ten thousand spins or the last ten thousand spins—they’d show the same mean, the same variance (or standard deviation), and the same skewness. And you are right that in such a dataset, the results will always revert to the mean.
However, we have no such confidence with the climate. It doesn’t appear to be “reverting” anywhere, whether on the short or the long term.
Regards,
w.
PS—You say you’ve asked me that question many times, and that is quite possible. I hate to say it, but usually I just skip over your comments. The signal to noise ratio is generally too poor, and citations and supporting evidence are in too short a supply, to make your comments worth reading.
I do have to thank you, however for your comment below where you say
I had to laugh, because when I went to the “historical climate data Willis, not manipulated” web site you referenced and I looked at their “historical temperatures” page, I found a graph from one of my own posts …
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/speleothem_temperature_records_adj.jpg
… so you’ve referred me to my own work as being “historical climate data”. Well, at least it’s good to know it’s “not manipulated” …
I did like the site, however, thanks for the tip.
Willis this is what makes a ball game. We all see things differently . Some agree with you some do not as is evidenced by the many postings over this site.
Only time will resolve this . Thanks for your reply.
Willis, let me try to approach it in this manner. Your shortfall when it comes to climate is you are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow you have this opinion that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition you seem not to be able to incorporate lag times into the equation of the climate. You expect instant results from something said to have an effect upon the climate.
I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws you off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures for you the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime. That being the basis of your problem when it comes to the solar/climate connection.
Willis it is these four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never as you said in some regular fashion ,that again is due to what I said in the above and what follows.
The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.
This explains why the cycle is there but it varies so much over time.
In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.
Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.
Then finally Willis, you have the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate at times the 1500 year semi cyclic climatic cycle.
I have posed this to Willis many times(below) and never have received an answer.
Something Willis ,is not only causing the climate to change but change in a semi cyclic beat with not only a variance in the intensity of the changes, but in a direction which will always revert to the mean. Meaning the climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from.
If it is not a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Variability and Land Ocean arrangements then what is it? If it were a matter of simple random and chaotic happenings the semi cyclic nature of the historical climatic record in that case would not be present, as well as the climate always reverting back to it’s mean. This leads to the conclusion that there has to be climatic factors that exert an influence upon the climate and that these factors have to have a cyclic variability to them. There is no other way to go with this given the historical climatic record of change, this explanation is the one that fits the best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Willis, inherently stable meaning what? Does that include a range in temperature that delineates glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions such as in the data I presented? If so then I agree in principal, but nevertheless even so one can say the climate is stable but the threshold between glacial versus glacial conditions is unstable meaning it only takes a small change of the so called stable climate system to plunge a good portion of the earth from glacial versus non glacial conditions.
So inherently stable I think needs to be specified in so much of what limits of variability does that lend to the climate system and does that meaning incorporate the degree of change the climate can under go from glacial versus interglacial conditions?
Willis does your inherently stable climate reconcile with changes in the climate from a glacial state to a non glacial state?
Sorry for my typo of my name when I had first sent this post out.
http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
Here is the historical climatic data Willis, not manipulated.
I challenge you to show me a period of sustained rises in global temperature during a sustained period of prolonged solar minimum activity and vice versus a sustained drop in global temperatures during a period of high prolonged solar activity.
The overall global SUSTAINED temperatures have risen during the Medieval and Modern relatively active solar periods and have fallen during the recently prolonged inactive solar periods the most notable being the Maunder Minimum.
As a result, the existence of such “semi-cyclic beats” is not evidence of anything but the chaotic, complex nature of the climate itself
Willis says, which is wrong.
It appears that to agw crowd if the sun disapeard we would still have global warming.
disappeared excuse my spelling.