Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.

It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.

But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.

After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.

The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.

Professor Valentina Zharkova: 

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum. 

What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small. 

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on. 

So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years. 

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.

Professor Valentina Zharkova:  

Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.

Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Westhaver

solar constant = does not exist

Just like Climate stasis does not exist.

With a large enough Grant anything can be proved, kind of anyhow.

With a large enough lever, you can move the world too. 😉

The solar constant is the maximum amount of solar energy per unit of area that falls on the surface of the earth. Somewhere around 600 watts/ sq. meter. But you knew that.
[??? The solar constant is the yearly average energy received ABOVE the earth’s atmosphere at the average earth-sun distance per square meter perpendicular to the sun. Closer to 1362 watts/m^2 than to 600/watts/m^2. .mod]

John Harmsworth

Large enough hockey stick, anyway.

Nice touch!

cirby

A number of years ago, I was angrily lectured by an atmospheric scientist, and he informed me, in no uncertain terms, that “insolation is a CONSTANT!”

You have to take things in context. If he meant that up till now from the time of the Industrial Revolution, he’s right, which means up till now we can say that warming has not been caused by solar changes. If that’s not true in the future, that’s a different matter.

John Harmsworth

He meant the models say so!

Gabro

But it demonstrably isn’t.
The higher energy component of TSI fluctuates by about 100%.
The sun is a variable star, especially in the high energy part of its spectrum.

Which is not really a valid point. It is like saying that a billionaire’s wealth is measured by the number of loose gold coins in his pockets.

KLohrn

@ the Maunder minimum there were no $ billionaires or micro-sunspots, only pound weights and eyeball sunspots.

Johanus

> solar constant = does not exist
Why only ‘solar’? There are no provably exact constants (i.e. coefficient and rate measures) in physics. Even the so-called gravitational constant varies on a cosmological scale, so trying to discover entities with properties that are “exactly constant” is hopeless.
Rather, the challenge to physicists is observe and find measures that can be assumed to be nearly constant under conditions that permit testable hypotheses to be simplified to the extent that useful predictions can be made. (“Simple as possible”, Einstein said, “but not too simple”).
For example, the ratio of pendulum-length over gravitational force is not exactly a constant. It also depends on the amplitude of the pendulum. But for small angles the ratio is ‘constant enough’ to build clocks accurate enough for everyday use.
The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly (~0.1% over the duration of an 11-year solar cycle. This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Meteorology/climatology is saturated with simplifying assumptions of constancy.

This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…

Yet that ~0.1% equals the 2 watts/sqm of variance that accounts for a majority of the observed warming. Add in the data from surfacestations.org that shows that up to half of observed warming is solely Urban Heat Island effects of land use changes of urbanization, from forest to field, field to farm, farm to surburb, suburb to urban, urban to right next to the HVAC in the middle of the parking lot. So, how much of the remaining 10-20% maybe, at most, are you saying is actually due to CO2 (and not to, say, Methane, or CHC, or changes in aerosols, or soot, or a host of other factors)? Evans has shown that CO2 is maybe, at most, 10% of the observed warming. Now, how much of that CO2 is man made, vs a reaction of the ecology to previous natural warming, that often lags warming by 50-200 years?

george e. smith

Well you are wrong on [that] assertion.
The values of (c) (epsilon-nought) and (mu-nought) are exact and never change.
Also the value of (g), the standard gravitational acceleration due to earth’s gravity is also exact. at 9.80665 ms^-2.
Now that last one is tricky.
That is NOT what the actual earth gravity is at any point. It IS the defined value for the term: one (g) = 9.80665 ms^-2.
But of course the acceleration due to gravity on earth is seldom exactly one (g) (gee).
But the other three are exact, +/- nothing.
G

Gabro

Correct me if wrong. I’m not a physicist nor do I play one on blogs, but IMO the maximum speed of light is a constant. Recent work shows that under some regimes, it can be a bit slower than that maximum, however.
I don’t know if the rate of acceleration of the universe has been observed to be constant or not.

janus100

how about speed of light?

janus100

in vacuum of course….

Johanus

re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
As I said above, their “constantness” (i.e. time independence) cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, only proposed in theory and verified by observation. So constant for all practical purposes, but subject to change on a large scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Tests_on_time-independence
“By definition, fundamental physical constants are subject to measurement, so that their being constant (independent on both the time and position of the performance of the measurement) is necessarily an experimental result and subject to verification.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Gabro

Nothing in science is “provable” in a mathematical sense.
Science is testable and falsifiable, not “provable”. Proof is a mathematical concept or operation, not scientific.
The constant of the speed of light is observed, not “proved”, which is a human concept. Observation is a fact, not a concept.

John Harmsworth

Scientific integrity is likewise an assumed constant that seems to be diminishing in the modern era, at least in some fields. I almost said disciplines but most climate studies are anything but!

Gabro

I should say concept or construct.
Science is reality. Math is a useful fiction.

Andrew Bennett

I can give you one cast iron constant. My wife wont let me watch motor sports.

DredNicolson

Death, taxes, the guy in front of you always taking the last parking space.

ferdberple

The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly
====================
The unstated assumption behind TSI is that earths climate responds to watts/m^2 above all else.
However, a boiling pot of water remains at 100 C no matter how much you turn up the heat. Yet if you change the air pressure in the room, the temperature of the pot of water will change! Yet if you were to tell 100 people this simple fact, probably 99 of them would tell you that you were wrong.
This very simple experiment shows the fallacy of trusting thought over observation as the means to deduce science and nature. What seems logical often turns out to be wrong, and what seems illogical often turns out to be correct.

re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
==================
what about the speed of light in water as compared to a vacuum? light travels only 3/4 as fast through water as it does through space. Light travels slower through air as compared to through space.
Even in space the constant speed of light requires that clocks and distances are variable in absolute terms, depending upon the speed and acceleration of the observer. so if clock and distances are not constant, how can one trust that distance/time is constant? and if distance/time is not constant, then speed is not constant, and thus the speed of light is not constant.

bobl

C is not necessarily a constant, it is defined by the permittivity of free space ε0 – It is ε0 that is the perceived constant which then results in C being nearly constant in an (Approximate) vacuum. However is ε0 really unchanging, for example what “Bends space time” near masses or bends the path of photons near black hole event horizons. Does gravity affect ε0 and therefore C?
As I recall it the statement is actually not that C is a constant but rather C can’t exceed the Maximum of its speed in a medium with the permittivity of free space, that is, there is no known medium with permittivity LESS than that of a vacuum.
We try to apply that constant over all of spacetime, however is that true?, for example is the redshift not due to acceleration, but due to the expansion of the universe causing a reduction in the (density) permittivity of free space over time?
It’s much more interesting to ponder the things we don’t know than the things we don’t

RTUT

Do democrats have a tax plan waiting for the cooling phase too?

Bryan A

Them Crimeatologists probably do

htb1969

“This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…”
You say that is though solar irradiation is the only variable. Variations in solar magnetic flux and solar wind, its associated impact on cosmic radiation, and cloud formation could be very significant.

Evil Klown

You can be sure that the solution to global cooling will be exactly the same was global warming … stop using fossil fuels, and give the government your money.

Taphonomic

Cooling is climate change too.

observa

We might have got the sign wrong but there’s no doubt now it’s worse than we thought and ditto the funds.

Gabro

Sure. Already in place. Higher taxes on the fossil fuels people will have to burn to stay warm during colder winters.

Gabro

If we return back to the frigid ’60s and ’70s, heating oil and gas will go through the roof, so to speak. The poor will freeze to death without subsidies, despite high hydrocarbon production these days.

Paul Blase

It’s the “solar more-or-less-constant”.

Sigmund

Climate change biggest scam ever

LoganSix

“Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.”
And if the terrestrial things have no effect?

ShrNfr

Over the short term, the effect of any insulator is to keep its object warmer than it would be otherwise. CO2 is not really a warming gas so much as it is an insulating gas. The same can be said for H2O although H2O is obviously more important because it is a major source of enthalpy transport. If the source of energy to any object surrounded by an insulator is reduced the temperature of the object will begin to fall after a time lag that depends on its ability to store enthalpy. The TSI has been empirically known to vary with the solar magnetic field. We should have a lower TSI for the next 30 years at least. It has been my observation over time that the temperature of the contents of any tea kettle depends more on the height of the flame under the kettle than the contents of the kettle. All being equal, this will yield a colder period in the future.
C14 calibration curves appear to be compatible with theories such as those advanced by Svensmark.

It’s ok. The CO2 will eventually be wafted into space by the solar wind.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere/

“we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere”
——————————————————————————————
My objection is in your use of ” a lot more “. The reality is we are still talking in the Parts Per Million are we Not? So let’s not use Exaggeration

Rick Fischer

To put it in familiar terms, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere over the last century is the same, proportionally, as adding ten people to a full football stadium.

Bryan A

Talk about over crowded
A lot more IS a relative term …Relative to a preindustrial measurement of 280ppm we’ve increased that by 120ppm or not quite a 50% increase

seaice1

Indeed. Couldn’t agree less. It is not remotely feasible that a change to a tiny quantity could have any effect on, say, plant growth. The smallness of the numbers proves this beyond any doubt.

Phil Bickel

1.2 parts per 10,000 over the last 150 years. I always wondered to what the CO2 replaced, Oxygen, and Carbon, Nitrogen, I doubt if atmospheric density has varied much, since there’s no actual container. It would just expand upwards. Therefore the density should remain fairly constant?
Interesting note, that increasing CO2 levels are very beneficial above 6000 feet altitude where plants normally begin having difficulty respirating.

Phil Bickel

1.2 parts per 10,000 over the last 150 years. I always wondered to what the CO2 replaced, Oxygen, and Carbon, Nitrogen, I doubt if atmospheric density has varied much, since there’s no actual container.

You have to look at the rest of the atmosphere to understand that the “what does it replace?” question really doesn’t matter.
Count what is in a “Pure and pristine atmosphere” – You know, the one that existed before that nasty industrial revolution that has saved so many lives:

Find some 1,000,000 gas molecules.
780,000 nitrogens
210,000 oxygens
  1,000 water vapors (varies !)
    900 Argons
    280 CO2
992,180

Today, we have added (according to conventional theory) 120 more CO2 molecules to the mix, but that burned (consumed some 120 of the O2 molecules (240 Oxygen atoms), did it not?)

So, today we have
780,000 nitrogens, as N2
209,880 oxygen, as O2s
  1,000 water vapors (varies !)
    900 Argons (as Ar)
    400 CO2
992,180

Total gas pressure goes up?
Theoretically?
Really? Nah.
Oxygen goes down? Not really.
CO2 goes up? Yes, and the world is better because of it.
It is all in the multipliers. The CAGW models produce no noticeable heating UNLESS you add in feedback with multipliers of the water vapor and the CO2.

Bryan A

Considering that the oxidation process locks up Oxygen by combining it with the Carbon atom when burning, the CO2 would be replacing free oxygen. While Photosynthesis somewhat reverses the combination extracting some, but not all, of the Carbon and releasing some, but not all, of the Oxygen to repeat the cycle.

Gabro

So, since c. AD 1900, Earth’s atmosphere has gone from, by parts per 10,000 of dry air, 7809 parts nitrogen, 2096 oxygen, 93 argon and three carbon dioxide molecules, plus small amounts of other gases, to 2095 O2 and four CO2 today.
The horror!
Average global moisture content, by contrast, is around 300 parts H2O per 10,000, but varies from about four in the cold, dry polar deserts during winter to 400 or more in the moist tropics. As all know, water is a much more potent GHG than CO2, molecule for molecule, let alone its higher mean concentration, on the order of 100 times.
[It may be clearer to readers to use the per 1,000,000 number. .mod]

Gabro

No wonder I gasp for breath now when climbing mountains, compared to during the 1970s!
Couldn’t have anything to do with being 40 years older. Nah! It’s that extra molecule of nasty, evil, suffocating plant food in the air.

Steven

Green House Gases are responsible for a form of cooling no other gas type performs.
When you look at sunlight charts showing light striking atmosphere, vs light striking Earth’s surface,
the only type notches you see in that incoming light,
are all caused, by green house gases.
These gases stop some 19-22% of sunlight energy ever reaching earth; there’s a little heating and most of the light not reaching Earth, is deflected out to space.
The sun’s light is comprised of about, 40% infrared; and it’s this infrared, being blocked where you see those notches, in the sunlight arriving top of atmosphere, vs at surface.
Without the presence of Green House Gases, this cooling comprising 20% of sunlight failing to reach the planet could not occur.
Believers in AGW and Green House Gas warming have no answer to how these very gases stopping a fifth of all energy arriving, warm the planet. It’sanother of the infinite number of reasons they refuse to discuss their ”science” with real scientists.
”It’s settled science” means ”nothing I say will stand up to even casual examination.”

John M. Ware

To Mr. Seaice below: Yes, the change to a trace gas such as CO2 is an even smaller trace. However, its effects on plants are quite observable, even on a decade-to-decade basis. Here in central Virginia, certain tree leaves are the largest I’ve seen, and yields of many food staple crops have increased substantially due to the additional carbon dioxide. So, even if we’re looking at parts per million, the difference can be great. The parts of Africa that have been greening up with the increase of CO2 are another piece of evidence of how much difference even a minute fraction of the atmosphere can make.

Bill Huddleston

Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes.

Paul

“Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes”
Insulation and ammo too.

Donna K. Becker

Not to mention water and food, as well as plenty of warm clothing.

Invest in a good parka and snowshoes!

LOL, we have a lot more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere ? We have 3.8 parts per 10,000 molecules now compared to 3 parts per 10,000 before. So less than 1 part per 10,000 increase is deadly ? How moronic you people are.

Brandon - statistician

Moronic is a strong term. Look at your own math. If the atmosphere just went from 3 to 3.8 parts per 10,000 , then this is a 26.67% increase over the last century. It is totally possible that this level of increase could produce dramatic results. Maybe it isn’t proven, but it is possible. It certainly isn’t moronic, so take your name-calling elsewhere.

David

Global cooling/warming/climate change has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global redistribution of wealth.

AZ1971

Amen. One more molecule per 10,000 isn’t a run-away control knob no matter how insistent Al Gore and John Kerry are that it is.

Gabro

Brandon,
Watch whom you call moronic.
The main GHG is water. If the global mean for H2O be 300 parts per 10,000, then increasing CO2 by one molecule per 10,000 raises the concentration of the two major GHGs from 300 to 301.
Scary!

Gabro

Oops. Typing too fast. Meant from 303 to 304, obviously.

No, still moronic. A 26% increase in the volume of what amounts to a trace gas has the effect of doing basically, well, nothing to the volume or distribution of all the gases in the entire atmosphere. But go ahead and lean on hockey stick graphs and charts where you cut the bottom 99.99999% of the number off to show how “dramatic” the increase of some minuscule factor might be.
Oh, and remind me to avoid your statistical reports – if they are all based on this type of reasoning they cannot be useful for anything. YOU didn’t get the math right, much less the statistics.
3/10,000=.0003 – 3.8/10000=.00038.
It’s only an eight one hundred thousandth percent increase. You are trying to make a fart in a hurricane look like a fart in a shoebox. You cannot isolate one number and solve any equation. This torturing of numbers to make something out of nothing is marketing – not math or science.
Oh, and I’m not a statistician just an english major who prefers to look for errors in reasoning in the construction of arguments. It’s the basis of any good thesis – you know – logic?

george e. smith

Well Biff, it’s time for you to turn off your computer and exit stage left, because if you think one part in 10,000 can’t have any effect, then your computer cannot possibly be working.
A silicon crystal has about 5 x 10^22 Si atoms per cc, so one part in 10,000 would be 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc and your computer chips contain impurities in specific areas that are a lot less than 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc.
If I’m not mistaken (often happens) ordinary high purity water contains something like 10^7 H+ ions per cc, and the presence of that negligibly small amount, substantially changes the properties of that water.
So do come back when your computer starts working again.
G

If it is a 26.67% increase or a .008% increase (depending on which numbers one crunches), the BIG point called into question is whether the increase will generate CAGW, or just mild warming, or nothing at all.

catcracking

Brandon,
You need a better analogy than your % increase to make a valid point.
By your logic, if I have 1000 dollars and 1 penny, and I earn another penny, increasing the number of pennies by 100%, am I richer by a significant amount? Your line may work on a warmest blog but does not carry any weight here.
A large % increase in a small portion may not have any effect unless we are dealing with a dangerous substance like SO 2 which CO 2 is not.

Moleculist

Gabro you have it wrong. Water vapor is the opposite of a greenhouse gas. Clouds are a cooling agent bouncing sunlight back into space as opposed letting it hit and warm Earth. Lower magnetic activity by the sun allows more cosmic ray exposure on Earth and cosmic rays cause cloud formation which cools the Earth by blocking sunlight.

Brandon @ 8: “If the atmosphere just went from 3 to 3.8 parts per 10,000 , then this is a 26.67% increase over the last century. It is totally possible that this level of increase could produce dramatic results.”
In other news, a Swiss infantry company accidentally crossed into Liechtenstein, increasing the size of the military within this principality from 0 to 170. This infinite percentage increase in armed might in the heart of Europe was so disturbing to Russia, China and India that a nuclear war was only narrowly averted by the rapid deployment of chocolate and winter skiing lift tickets to Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi.
[Swiss incursion actually happened in 2007; the nuclear confrontation diffused through logistics and chocolate, not so much!]

Bohdan Burban

” … we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
Shouldn’t ‘gas’ be plural? Or are you implying that water vapor and methane are not gasses?

Mark Hillyard

Since we wiped out the American Buffalo or bison or whatever we were short on CO2 so we invented autos to bring Constance back.

djs1138

I for one hope this so-called “discovery” is covered up… I prefer living under a government that wants to tax the air we breathe… because that’s “Progress”….

alacran

Exactly! Perhaps somebody could find and show the “Minnesotans for global warming”! cover of the “monkeys” song
“Now I’m a believer”!Lol.

Lloyd

HenryP

funny

zedanski

Correction: The govt does NOT want to tax the air we breathe; only the air we exhale.

Taphonomic

Give them time, they’ll get around to the air we breathe.
Per the Beatles:
” If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet”

Mark Hillyard

I’ve been saving up for the day I get taxed.

drednicolson

Next crazy rational step: charge a tax on paying tax.
Because giving your money to the government is a luxury, and fair wealth redistribution demands a tax on all luxuries.

bobl

Don’t worry, The Australian government has that covered, we pay 39c a litre in Fuel Excise tax, upon which they charge 10% GST leading to fuel excise being taxed by 10% (3.9c per Litre).

John Edmondson

According to the climate models the sun is not a major factor in climate. We are about to find out that this is another thing which is wrong about the climate models.

Windchaser

According to the climate models the sun is not a major factor in climate.

No, the climate models don’t predict what the Sun will do. They can’t. They’re models of the Earth, not the Sun.
So they don’t say that the Sun isn’t a major factor.

MarkW

John said nothing about predicting what the sun will do.
His comment was in regards to the modelers claim that they can ignore the influence in the sun because it’s changes have no impact on the earth’s climate.

MICHAEL D Hambuchen

Your side often trembles when discussing major atmospheric dust clouds covering large areas of the planet from volcanoes or nuclear weapons. The clouds would block the sun and cause cooling. If the sun isn’t THE major factor, what is? Just because it is difficult or impossible to predict the sun’s activity does not mean it is not THE major factor.

Mark Hillyard

the son has nothing to do with it.

Moleculist

That’s like saying in a murder the forensics experts only looked at the wounds and the ax found next to the body wasn’t a factor in their consideration.

Pat Frank

Climate models can’t predict what the terrestrial climate will do, either.

Mark Hillyard

I can, different day different temp., especially Dec. 22.

george e. smith

Well the “climate models (I think they call them ” global circulation models ” for some reason,) but that’s weird because nothing seems to be circulating in those models, which is why they aren’t models of any planet we are familiar with.
G

Rainer Bensch

No, no, the models themselves are circulating around the globe to be used by clics worldwide.

climatefrank

I was looking for a paper of this, I only found a poster-abstract: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper64369.html .
Is there a link to a reviewed paper??

This is what Dr. Abdussamatov (Puklkovo observatory) has been saying for decades. The next maunder minimum will see Europe like present day Siberia. Buy your fur coats!

tekfr33kn

Everyone fire up your SUV’s and start smoking. It’ll save the planet.

Paul

I was in broadcasting for thirty+ years, running stations, also managing at network level. An accursed den of no-account, bottom feeder liars, colluders, pimps and thieves.
But I digress.
I became acquainted with long range climatologist Dr. Iben Browning in 1982. Holder of several patents, weather consultant to Paine Webber, fruit and vegetable growers’ associations around the world, ex-Sandia Lab scientist during the Cold War. The Browning newsletter went all over the world; he was incredibly accurate (more so than the U.S. Naval Observatory). He contended that there are THREE main drivers of climate. (BTW he NEVER predicted; he PROJECTED). 1.) Solar cycles – he would concur with these findings); 2). Cycles found in the earth’s radiation belts and the earth’s minute changes on its axis; and 3.) Crustal plate cycles or “tides” on the earth (very long term).
He insisted that we were headed for significant global cooling, mentioned the “Little Ice Age” and its drastic effects. He mocked the arrogant assertion that mankind was a climate driver with CO2 emissions, a compound that feeds the plants and enhances growth. He held that data was already being massaged back then to support the narrative.
He related that when Mount Pinatubo erupted, within mere days the entire globe was seeing red sunsets. Volcanic activity increases with movement of the crust; volcanoes eject monstrous plumes and widespread, lingering ash clouds reaching tens of miles in the air within minutes, circulating globally. Man is zilch. Nature corrects itself.
He was very outspoken about the coming scam amongst his “colleagues” in academia, as well as politicians and other weasels. He claimed “global warming” would be the biggest transfer of wealth and power in recorded history. He really made some VERY powerful enemies, he was essentially alone in his battle, and his end was quite sad.
Not long after our dinner, he made a “projection” (NOT a dire “prediction” of doom as the media ran away with,) about the potential for an earthquake on the New Madrid fault. The last time that fault let loose, the Mississippi River reversed its flow. His enemies and their ravenous sycophants in media distorted his memo, enabled by his establishment enemies. Hysteria was fanned relentlessly, covered by “journalists” the world over. He was roundly ridiculed and given no platform, granted no interviews, to correct the record.
I called him when I got the newswire at the TV station I was managing, knowing the press was lying. He was in tears; nobody had contacted him for his side of the issue. He had reporters crawling in the bushes under his daughter’s window, but had no say-so. Sadly, I personally knew some of the creeps pushing this from my days in TV. He died soon thereafter. A gentle, caring but bold and forceful man, destroyed by the machine that today wants to jail us deniers.
Reprehensible.
The last I heard, his daughter Evelyn Browning Barris was still publishing the Browning Newsletter. Not much remains of anything about his career, save for his public excoriation and humiliation.
Be very circumspect about challenging; know your data, and stick up for one another.

I was looking for a peer reviewed paper about this stuff. I only found a poster-abstract. Is there any link to a paper?

TroyGale

Read Dark Winter by John L. Casey. It pretty much comes up with the same conclusions at this study.

Jay Hope

Yes, Troy, it does.

Frank, you can start here with a paper she published a few years ago I found compelling:
Simon J.Shepherd, SergeiI.Zharkov and Valentina V.Zharkova, “PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21–23”, Astrophysics Journal, November 2014.
It’s earlier work but outlines the basics. I’ve been following the Zarkov/Zarckova’s work for a few years, I think they’re on to something, to the extent I purchased land and a home in an area about 1000 miles south of the area I was living 10 years ago.
I’m not looking forward to the world predicted by them, but I do take their work very seriously and I find it compelling. The word of today is nothing at all like the world of the Maunder Minimum and it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize. I honestly had hoped I wouldn’t live to see it. If it comes to pass I suspect we will experience global starvation.

Edit:
“Zarkova/Zarckova’s” should be “Zarkov/Zarckova’s”
“it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize.”
Mods: Please look into installing an “edit” button on this site?

EDIT 2: “I think they’re on to something”

Willis Eschenbach

I fixed your errors. Sadly, WordPress doesn’t have an edit function.
w.

Hi Willis. You’re correct WordPress doesn’t offer a a native “edit” function, however Disqus does and also offer a WordPress integration, you can see t used on several WordPress sites, I’m currently installing it on mine.
The advantages of Disqus are myriad, not least being it’s SEO (Search Engine Optimization) capable and also allows your forum participants to receive eMail only for direct replies to their comments. One thing that constantly hampers me when participating on WUWT is the WordPress eMail notification system, which is very course. If I want to get eMail notices for replies made to my comments, I seem to get a notice for any reply made on the thread, which can lead to an awful lot of eMail.
The details on the WordPress/Disqus integration are here:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/disqus-comment-system/installation/

Yes I was hoping to make it to 100 in 2053 but the odds look longer now.

Thanks much Willis. It seems I can’t proofread my own mistakes. Too many years depending on editors… 🙂

Jay Hope

Isn’t Professor Zharkova one of the scientists who discovered that solar flares produce seismic waves in the Sun’s interior?

David Rapalyea

We have reserves in potential caloric availibilty since so much grain is used for other purposes including animal feed and ethinol among other things. It all comes down to replacement costs. Further, i wonder what is being used to grow synthetic meat?
I may look into potential edible by products fro fossile fuels.

South River Independent

Bartleby – I worked as a technical editor, among other duties, for a staff of about 50 engineers and scientists for a number of years. No one can proof read his own writing adequately most of the time. That is why we have proof readers and editors. But even they are not infallible. That is why multiple reviews before publication is recommended.

South River: As you no doubt know already, I wasn’t joking and I am truly grateful (was “greatful” before spell-check) [for] all the assistance I’ve received over the years from editors. You really are appreciated.
[But Shirley, are you serious about the praise? .mod]

And then there are the typos…

Gabro

The video shows the paper. It was published in the Astrophysical Journal on 13 October 2014.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46/meta
PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21-23
Simon J. Shepherd1, Sergei I. Zharkov2, and Valentina V. Zharkova3
I assume Sergei Zharkov to be Valentina’s husband.

Gabro

Although of course could be her brother or son.

Bryan A

Zharkov and Zharkova could be as common and unrelated as Smith and Smyth though

Gabro

More likely her son, now that I check:
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/physics/staff/zharkov.aspx
Zharkov isn’t as common a name as Smith, which in Russian would be Kuznets or Kuznetsov. “Zhark-” means “hot”.

Gabro

Also, in Russian, female names end in -a. The male form is without the A.
So Mrs. Zharkov’s name is Zharkova, or the daughter of a Mr. Zharkov . It’s not a simple spelling difference, as in Smith and Smythe.

Gabro

Similarly, the patronymic of a boy, ie “son of”, as in Ivan Ivanovich (John, son of John), is -ovich, while of a girl is -ovna, as in Anna Ivanovna (Ann, daughter of John).

george e. smith

Well when I lived in St Louis MO, in the mid 1960s, if I told someone my name was ” smith “, the next question was: Is that two tees or is it dt.
Apparently back then, St. Louis had a large German population.
g

Gabro

Geo,
It still does, but they’ve learned to speak English now.

Johann Wundersamer

So you were out mostly in carnival. Lots of booze, hampers spelling.

Truth

John, look at 5:21 in the video – you’ll see the Astrophysical Journal edition, article title, date of publication and authors.
The thing that strikes me, is that this was published 2 years ago, and it’s barely being reported in the media, especially considering all the mentions of “climate change” they’ve made. And what does it say about the climate modelers who find the publishing of this article to be so offensive they want it withdrawn (and for what reasons?)? It says they’re more interested in getting government grants and covering up truths than in science or finding truth – in other words, they’re crooks in bed with crooked or power hungry politicians.

Keith Willshaw

Since the last Maunder Minimum didn’t make Europe look like Siberia I dont see the next one managing the trick. Its very likely things will be colder and crop yields could fall but lets not fall into the warmist habit of hyping everything to the max.

It was much colder up north in the 1970’s and we were feeding the Soviet Union because their crops were failing due to cold. If the Thames river froze and they were able to hold festivals on it during the Maunder minimum, can’t you imagine the havoc that would wreak with the world’s crop harvests and trying to feed the world population now?

Mark - Helsinki

There was a lot less people to feed then. Above and below the 40 lats wont be suitable for growing in the theory is valid. Billions will die, “IF”. An important IF though if you follow through on the precautionary principle, the possible danger of an extra 2c is nothing compared to the risk of the above

Johann Wundersamer

Interesting market forecasts for Australia, Argentina.

Griff

Bill, one reason the Thames froze was that old London Bridge dammed the Thames so it could more easily freeze over… i.e. local conditions contributed to the freeze
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/

TimTheToolMan

Griff quotes and article that says

During winter, pieces of ice would get lodged between the piers and effectively dam up the river, meaning it was easier for it to freeze.

There was a Thames freeze in 1962-3 as well. Freezing isn’t “typical” but it isn’t “little ice age” only either.

Bruce G Frykman

Should we toss Newton, Kepler, and Maxwell out. No one ever voted on their assertions.

Exactly .The sun in the year 2005 went from an active to inactive mode therefore do not believe any predictions based on solar activity from post Dalton – present because the sun during that period of time was in an active mode.
My solar criteria is starting to be realized and will be and at that time the primary and secondary solar effects will if past history is correct ,start to impact the climate.
It is looking quite good at this juncture as solar activity seems to be cooperating after the weak maximum of solar cycle 24.
If one goes back to the Holocene Optimum and takes into account Milankovitch Cycles, and superimposes Solar activity upon this and further superimposes Volcanic activity and ENSO one will find a strong climate correlation as tied to these items in totality.
Of course those who disagree never give much credence to the climatic history data because it goes against what they want to try to convey.

Pamela Gray

I give credence to plausible mechanistic sound theoretical equations, not your ill-defined throw everything on the wall and hope some of it sticks mechanism.

gunnyginalaska

Has Bush been messing with his Sun machine again? Owl Gore needed, STAT!

http://dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
More data from the past which shows this period of warmth is NOT unique.
I am going to keep harping on this to expose how misleading the AGW enthusiast when presenting their case to the public.
Five cornerstones from where I come from on the climate issue are as follows:
1. Past history shows this period in the climatic record is not unique.
2. Past history shows that each and every time solar enters a period of PROLONGED minimum solar activity the global temperatures have responded down. I have listed the criteria (in the past) which was last met in the period 2008-2010. With that said I think there is an excellent chance of this criteria being met presently and this time the duration could be much longer.
3. There is a GHG effect but I maintain it is more a result of the climate/environment rather then it being the cause of the climate.
4. If one looks at the climate just since 1950 -present(to take a recent period of time) and factors solar, volcanic activity, global cloud cover and ENSO versus resultant temperature changes one will find a very strong correlation.
5. Temperature data of late must be met with suspicion. I maintain satellite temperature data is the only valid temperature data.
Remember if global cloud coverage should increase and snow coverage/sea ice coverage should increase in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions that would accomplish the albedo to increase. Even a .5% to 1% increase would wipe out all of the recent warming.
Albebo is hard to change and at the same time it takes very little change in it to have climatic effects.
It is similar to Ice Age conditions versus Inter-Glacial conditions; hard to go from one regime to the other but at the same time the change required is very minimal. It is a balancing act which most of the time is in balance but every so often factors conspire to throw it out of balance which we know when we look at the climatic history of the earth.
CLIMATIC HISTORY – which is totally being ignored by the AGW movement has to be kept in the forefront and I am going to do that each and every time I combat their notion that this period of time in the climate is somehow unique.
I wonder what it is going to take to get the truth out about this period of time in the climate which is by no way unique?

JVJJ

What is going on here? This is a travesty! Somebody could at least call Al-Buffoon!! Arrest the doubters!

sz939

Considering the fact that NO so called Climate Model considers variations in Solar Output to have ANY bearing on CAGW, it will be very interesting to watch the END of the Climate Change Agenda once the TRUE variable in Climate Change – the Sun, takes effect in the coming years. We have already seen a decrease in the temperatures following the end of the current El Nino cycle which show a rapid drop-off in temperatures from the 1998 cycle, which can best be explained by the current Solar Minimum.

Resourceguy

At a minimum, this potential new Maunder Minimum will minimize the practice of minimizing solar effects in long term climate models. That means it will receive maximum attention from profit maximizers in the maximum scare biz to marginalize it.

Crispin in Waterloo

What an interesting response to her unimpeachable offer of cooperation. The search for truth requires….searching for the truth.
The search for particular numerical answers to questions that avoid the truth is something else. Of course they didn’t want to cooperate on a level playing field! Good grief! That sort of collegiality opens the door to conclusions that may not fit ‘the agenda’. Such conclusions would be ‘off message’. CAGW is all about ‘the message’.
Even if she had instead offered to take a junior role in approving her own research, they still wouldn’t have accepted it because they know full well from their own studies that open-ended questions about the solar-Earth link to climate bring nothing but problems for the ‘message’. Questions already raised about GCR (ozone, Prof Lu; CCN, Dr Svensmark) are problem enough and clearly point to that round thing in the sky and an important variable. Establishing a clear link between the magnetic engine(s) in the sun offers nothing positive for the ‘message’ – only a downside, followed by messy, work-intensive downside message management.
Rejecting cooperation is one thing, but the real sin is to try to interfere with publication. That is unpardonable because that action is anti-science.

Alan Robertson

Yes, but… anti- science is the new science. Grantsmanship sets the standard.

Crispin in Waterloo

They have standards??

Pamela Gray

I’m glad that at least in solar science, colleagues are defined as questioning and pushy. Good research requires that you offer it up for duplication, replication, and robust application. Trial by fire. If she can’t take “pushy” colleagues, she should get out of the game.

Cinder

Oh thank goodness. After all the global warming, it was getting a bit too hot.

The joe

I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how or why they “know” the Earth’s current temperature, is “wrong.” Please, someone tell us what is the “right” temperature of the planet Earth. Scientific proof would be a bonus.
The Earth has been much warmer, and much cooler, in the past, absent any man made CO2. I also understand the Earth is still technically coming out of an Ice Age. I also understand the Sun is major influence on Earth’s climate. Our technological advances in measuring and monitoring have enabled us to generate lots of data, but I think we’re far from understanding the complexities of the inter-relationships/inter-dependencies. My guess is the Sun’s influence far outweighs most anything mankind can do.

As it happens sun is (and will be at least for next week or so) active well above its recent average
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIC.jpg

Ozzone Layyer

“but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.”
Of course. Climate science is all based on a lie that man is responsible for global warming and the last thing they will do is allow the truth to be revealed.

What about the hole in the ozone layer? or the Hockey stick? or The Day After Tomorrow!!!! OH!!! the humanity!!!! ….Btw…I have a whole pallet of carbon credits for sale, cheap.

Mark - Helsinki

If things do get cold, they already have excuses lined up “the Atlantic did it”

I’m expecting “mankind did it”.

so… a scientist that says models are just that and we will have to see if this happens. Global warming scientists seem to thing their models are facts carved in stone only to be changed as we move past the time when the predictions didn’t happen (Al Gore). That’s right, look at the predictions of twenty years ago. COMPLETELY WRONG. Oh, that’s right we aren’t supposed to talk about that. I lived through it folks, Al won a Nobel Peace prize for prediction that haven’t even been close.

The sun is on it’s way down this activity is nothing of consequence.

Donna K. Becker

Is this new research from Dr. Zharkova, et al., or just a re-posting of last summer’s article?

Looks like a rehash of last year’s. Now as then, the ‘theory’ is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either
Simply plotting the ‘theoretical’ values against observations how how wrong they are:
http://www.leif.org/research/Zharkova-2015-Double-Dynamo-Fail.png
They e.g. have the timing wrong, e.g. saying that the Dalton Minimum was around AD 1750, while it should have been around 1815.

Gabro

They do have the Dalton Minimum offset to the left, ie too early. There was an 18th century warming cycle between the two cold snaps.
The Dalton is variously delineated as from 1790 to 1830 or 1796 to 1820.
Their hindcast does however correctly show rising solar activity after the Maunder during the 18th century and a drop off toward its end.

Gabro

I should add that the 18th century warming was greater in amplitude and duration than the late 20th century warming, maybe not surprising coming off the depths of the Maunder Minimum in the trough of the LIA.
The Dalton was the last blast of the LIA, although the world muddled along colder than usual (ie, trend of the past 3000 years) until the middle of the 19th century.

Regardless, the Zharkova et al. ‘prediction’ is simply plain wrong, in gross and in details.

ulriclyons

Sporer should be two separate solar minima, one from around the 1430’s, and another from around the 1550’s.

Carla

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
July 9, 2015
…”We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
_____________________________
When the authors say we found, do they mean they observed these waves? Or is it just a theoretical construct?
I know that there is no forecast or hindcast for this new theory. And that the data sample was a small period but, this wave theory is still interesting.
You can say it if you want Dr. S., that what happens way out there doesn’t affect anything on the sun.
And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose, polar squashing, offset solar tail on the heliospheric bubble, have on the interior solar magnetic fields propagating outward.
Oscillating solar magnetic waves out of sync. Hemispheric changes in solar magnetic fields and hemispheric changes in sun spot production amounts.
Oscillating Interstellar magnetic waves creating pressures either in the northern heliosphere or southern heliosphere in time.
Good night catch up with ya later.

And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose,
We do know that since the solar wind is supersonic, whatever happens out there cannot propagate inwards and affect the sun [or the Earth]

Richard Brown

Zharkova’s “Heartbeat of the Sun” paper published 29 Oct 2015 is a fascinating read…downloaded via her research page at Northumbria

A classy, cautious and non-confrontational presentation. Hats off to GWPF.
(Whether there will be a discernible climate impact, I doubt anybody is more than guessing, not because they don’t know the direct effect, but because of all the likely unknown negative feedback dampening any direct external effects.)

Paul Westhaver

“Professor Valentina … discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.”
Well isn’t that interesting. Needless to say “this has been known” for 40 years so it it either unimportant or wrong and Valentina needs remedial education, or its “nothing new”.
In any event, it is refreshing that a creative effort is being made that models the 11 year cycle and possibly more nuanced variations in the various solar outputs. Looking at the sun as an input to terrestrial climate variation seems like an obvious avenue of research to me. Although, nobody is going to get rich by way of UN handouts for this discovery. How can you tax it?

There’s the man explaining his science so concisely.
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
So what to be done?
Svalgaard: “abandon them, modify them, etc.”
Precisely !

Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
You have this backwards. The data was getting in the way of blaming the Sun for GW, so one must abandon that ‘explanation’. You ignore the fact that the AGW crew needs the solar ‘explanation’ to explain climate variation before SUV’s.
The DATA is the raw data that we have re-examined.
What you are peddling is that if correction of known and identified errors makes the result disagree with sacred views, the correction should not be doe. This is an example of the anti-scientific attitude you have.

“The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum.”
More like Dalton minimum in the early 1800’s (says my formula, which by an ‘incredible coincidence’ predicted exact value of the SC24max, but don’t ask me to explain how and why, details are HERE ).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif

the above is an old graph fetched out from WordP cache (a nuisance), the latest including July data is HERE

Tom in Florida

C’mon Vuk. Your graph fails from 1850-1860, 1890-1900, 1920-1930 and fails miserably 1960-1980. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally.

Tom, you should be looking at the red line tracing the SSN cycles peaks envelope, while the blue line indicates source of periodicity (one we do not discuss here).
What do you expect? “sun is a messy place” says Dr. S. Actually Svalgaard’s numbers come a bit closer, SSN updated to July 2016 here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0716.gif
Tom, perhaps you should go back to January of 2004 and find anyone who will beat the above, else you may consider raising your hat (hopefully you got one with mosquito net attached).

Your formula is a dismal failure in the 18th century [and likely in the 21th too]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failure-34.png
Such is the fate of ‘predictions’ not based on valid physics.
Here is a valid prediction [from 2004]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

lsvalgaard August 9, 2016 at 10:25 am
“Your formula is a dismal failure in the 18th century [and likely in the 21th too]”
Hi doc
Never fail to promptly turn up .
So what I got 3 out of 30 cycles wrong (is that 90%, when I get it down to one cycle wrong it’ll be 97%, the number of the decade!
Doc, I do the ‘sun stuff’ for free, if I was given chair at Stanford and your money, I would get those 3 cycles during 1760-1790 right too.
Mind you, you boosted 1760-1790 so that the true Grand Maximum became no more, and you and your mates short-circuited the global’s Grand warming generator, so AGW guys got race truck clear of any obstacles, how convenient for them, and just too bad for the rest of us.
For the Maunder minimum you yourself said it was cycling all right, despite records show few spots, or have you change your mind? Is there a Grand Minimum in late 1600? or has that gone too?
Still predicting SC25 greater than SC24 ?
If you come cropper, your prediction theory based on the last 3-4 cycles goes down the drain, it will not look good at all.

So what I got 3 out of 30 cycles wrong
Failure is failure [and you can’t count either. E.g. cycle 20 is also wrong].
Pseudo science has to be debunked whenever it raises its ugly head and pollutes an otherwise good blog like WUWT.

Tom in Florida

Vuk says: “Doc, I do the ‘sun stuff’ for free, if I was given chair at Stanford and your money…..”
Perhaps there is good reason why you do not have a chair at Stanford.

Tom, just so you know; vukcevic’s comments and graphs are very welcome here, and very much appreciated. Whereas your presence adds nothing. Just so you know.

Tom
If by any chance they made such capital error of judgement, they would boot me out within minutes of taking up the post.
Why ?
I would tell them that they are denigrating science as represented to the thousands of young men and women who pay good hard earned money (usually by the badly informed parents) .
here what it says:
“Finding Climate Solutions across Stanford
Human activities and resource use are undeniably altering Earth’s climate, most prominently through emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, and through alteration of the land surface. Climate change, in turn, is affecting other Earth processes, making the critical 21st-century challenges of providing food, water, and energy to a growing human population much more difficult.”
further down they recommend:
“The highest-scoring climate paper comes from the very beginning of the 2015.
The paper describes how keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels requires 80% of known coal reserves, 50% of gas reserves and 30% of oil reserves to remain unburned.
Coming in second
The research suggests that the severe drought in the region since 2006 was a catalyst for the Syrian conflict and that climate change has made such droughts in the region more than twice as likely.”
and so on, to finally conclude
“The research found that human activity has pushed the Earth into critical mode. Four out of nine “planetary boundaries” have now been crossed, the researchers said, with biodiversity loss, fertiliser use, climate change and land use all now exceeding the point where the risk of sliding into a “much less hospitable” world becomes high.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/climate-solutions
You might agree with the above Stanford proclamation, however I think it is opposite to the truth, and they are selling ‘snake oil’ to unsuspecting young minds.
Tom, let’s be honest would you pay tens of thousands of $US and send your kid to what is regarded to be one of the 3 or 4 top US if not world universities?

Apart from Sour Grapes, that they are bad does not mean that you are good.

Hi bazzer
Tom in Florida is OK guy by me, it just that he and many others in here are simply overwhelmed by the Dr. S’s immense expertise and experience in the solar science field. Thanks for the comment about my graphs, but if it wasn’t for Dr S’s heckling and occasional insult going back some years now, I doubt that you would ever have heard of me and my graphs.
Huh, after all that, I think I need a break.

lsvalgaard
“Pseudo science has to be debunked whenever it raises its ugly head …….
…… that they are bad does not mean that you are good.”
Not much heroism in debunking vuk and few ‘cranks’, aim your armoury to the real ‘baddies’
Oh, no that would be too tough, so it appears to me you very happy nesting with the Stanford’s pseudo science flock.

There is no heroism in debunking anybody. Spreading pseudo-science, as you do, must be denounced by every scientist who cares about the truth.

“ must be denounced by every scientist who cares about the truth.”
Doc, that must be a joke, I’m sure.
Any evidence that you ever denounced any one in particular, of the multitude of your Stanford colleagues who are charging lot of money for promoting what has not been scientifically verified as correct and is a million of miles away from the truth:
“Finding Climate Solutions across Stanford
Human activities and resource use are undeniably altering Earth’s climate, most prominently through emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, and in turn, is affecting other Earth processes, making the critical 21st-century challenges of providing food, water, and energy to a growing human population much more difficult.”
Recommended reading for the Stanford’s students:
“The highest-scoring climate paper comes from the very beginning of the 2015.
The paper describes how keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels requires 80% of known coal reserves, 50% of gas reserves and 30% of oil reserves to remain unburned.
Coming in second
The research suggests that the severe drought in the region since 2006 was a catalyst for the Syrian conflict and that climate change has made such droughts in the region more than twice as likely.”
and
“The research found that human activity has pushed the Earth into critical mode. Four out of nine “planetary boundaries” have now been crossed, the researchers said, with biodiversity loss, fertiliser use, climate change and land use all now exceeding the point where the risk of sliding into a “much less hospitable” world becomes high.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/climate-solutions
Since I have seen no evidence of any kind whatsoever of your denouncement of any of your colleagues, I assume you agree or could not care less “about the truth” as you put it.
Come on, where is the evidence?
There are occasionally but regretfully very rare honourable cases of scientists who raised their voices in the protest, some even resigned and many more were dismissed by the institutions they work for, but it takes a brave person to protest against his/her employer’s stance.
bye for now

I have seen no evidence of any kind whatsoever of your denouncement of any of your colleagues
My criticism of Zharkova’s claim [and many others] is evidence of denouncement. One an disagree with the science [and that is as it should be], but there are claims [like yours and others on this or other blogs] that are not based on science or are of the ‘not even wrong’ variety. Those must be debunked as a matter of course. The degree of denouncement is a function of how vocal the perpetrator is. Ignorance is no sin, but willful ignorance [like yours] is.

Your denouncement of Zharkova’s claim ?
That is cop-out, what a joke, Zharkova has been looking at my graph and formula for years, so she decided she has to do something about it and came up with something even worse than my qusi-science.
Come off it doc, gives us a break, go and do proper defence of science, direct your denouncements at the Stanford’s climate catastrophists, a letter to the Nature would do, or maybe you wouldn’t dare denounce the Stanford’s climate scaremongers.

My view is well-known [ http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf ].
One thing is to disagree, another is peddle nonsense [as you do].
As I said, just because others are bad, does not make you good.
There are enough people who disagree with CAGW, that yet another stone on the pile won’t make much difference. With you, it is another matter. It is not that your claim is particular problematic, but it is rather the anti-science stance that you peddle, that must be countered. The CAGW cult can spread partly because quacks like you help break down people’s appreciation for and understanding of what science is.

So, you don’t care much about false science they peddle in exchange for large sums of money that young people have to pay for the courses, the true quackery in anyone’s mind.
Your problem is that when one digs into data, it is as clear that good climate data correlates to solar activity until the solar and AGW cabal decided to reduce one and increase the other as after 1980 as per the graph shown below.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs0.gif
I show it as it is in the data, if you change the Solar Grand Maximum data for Group Sunspot Number, so that the Grand Maximum ain’t any more, it’s something I can’t do much about it.
Solar system is a system of mutually interacting bodies, with the sun in its centre. Sun provides the energy to the Earth, solar energy impact determines climate of the planet. The impact is not constant, it varies on numerous time scales so does the climate. Numerous efforts of so called ‘professional scientists’ negating rather than investigating link between two is regretful, but eventually reality will prevail.

I show it as it is in the data, if you change the Solar Grand Maximum data for Group Sunspot Number, so that the Grand Maximum ain’t any more, it’s something I can’t do much about it.
It is the data that compel us to revise the group and sunspot numbers. If the data then no longer supports your ideas, there are lots you can do: abandon them, modify them, etc.

There’s the man explaining his science so concisely.
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
So what has to be done?
Svalgaard: “abandon them, modify them, etc.”
Precisely !

bobl

Sometime Leif, you need to take your own medicine. You have stated before that variation in insolation could not be the cause for the cold periods because the insolation change is too small to be effective without taking into account that the spectrum changes and the earth does NOT respond the same way to all wavelengths of light. You also don’t know (as I don’t) what the effects of the particle bombardment of the earth is except that we know that it charges and thickens the ionosphere, and potentially changes the reflection due to ozone produced by the electrically charged atmosphere.
Is it not possible then that particular combinations of spectrum + charged particles + magnetic changes from the sun cause a couple of degrees of variation in temperature. Personally I don’t doubt that such an effect is possible. I certainly can’t say it doesn’t happen because most of the mechanisms are completely unresearched.
It is in fact possible that Vuks characteristic is broadly correct but there are other factors leading to the few misses such as I have outlined maybe the spectral changes were different that time, or ionospheric conditions were different, or vulcanism or … On the other hand you might be right and he is a crank. Frankly we don’t know and can’t call it either way, science does not know enough about all the mechanisms acting to know. Insolation is not the only thing acting here.
I want you to open your mind to possibilities, not to keep it closed.

Pop Piasa

You beat me to it, Vuk, I was going to say the presentation was a little bit hyped by the comparison to the Maunder min. as if maybe nobody would know about the Dalton minimum. That would more accurately be the predicted activity’s closest comparison, am I correct?

David Smith

Maybe the sun changed to fit your formula. No wait – that’s the other guys tactic.

You know that you can just keep adding more cosines to your formula and you can get it to match the past as accurately as you wish, cf Fourier? But nobody will be impressed.

Pamela Gray

Au contraire. There are leagues who follow the elephant’s wriggled trunk in solar wriggle conjectures. In fact, wriggle machinations are their bread and butter. If a little is good, more is better, and the crowd cheers even louder.

ParodyOfALiberal

The sun has NO EFFECT on climate on earth. Or anywhere in the solar system, for that matter.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED (notice all caps for EMPHASIS).

Jeff Mitchell

Yup. We could put the sun on the other side of the galaxy, and nothing would change. We get all our energy from the other stars, don’tcha know. /sarc

Erich

Does this mean we can start putting special taxes on people who don’t emitt enough carbon? Makes sense. Electric car? Global cooling tax. Solar panels on your house. Global cooling tax. Hey, your lack of carbon emissions are causing non-Arctic animals to freeze to death. Why do you hate the environment?

Tom in Florida

Keep in mind that Florida is full. Please go elsewhere.

first cover the state with mosquito netting then build a wall, or is it the other way around.
My Canadian relatives are still pondering their move.

Tom in Florida

Mosquitoes are not as big a problem as the media make them out to be. You just have to be informed and intelligent about it.
As for moving to Florida, tell them to stay in the north part, it gets cold enough there to remind them of Canadian autumn.

CD in Wisconsin

@Tom In Florida. Sorry Tom, but there is a lot of real estate for sale in Florida. Land, homes, even a nice sized island (Deer island) off the NW coast in the Gulf and north of Cedar Key. Very remote, you would have to be off-grid. Only $1.5 million if anyone is interested. If I was rich enough, I would be tempted. Leaves me wondering how all that real estate is supposed to get sold if Florida is “full”.
If the solar physicist in the post piece is right about a coming cooling, a lot of out-of-staters are going to be interested in a lot of that real estate. Are only in-staters allowed to buy Florida real estate?
Maybe I’m wrong Tom, but I think a lot of Florida real estate agents would get quite upset if only in-staters were allowed to buy all that real estate. Florida still has a ways to go before its as densely populuated as New Jersey and the New England states.
Not that you would probably want it to be.

Tom in Florida

CD,
Just because there is real estate for sale doesn’t mean we need more people to come and buy it. No need to overcrowd those nice open spaces. We don’t need to be as densely populated as the Northeast (as a former New Englander myself). BTW, that opinion only came after I moved here and settled in. 🙂

Tom in Florida:
If it gets nice and cold, then sea level will fall and you will have more real estate to sell in Florida. Until the tides change and a hurricane comes by. And no ski season. Jeez. Who’d want that? 😀

Gabro

Having just experienced summer in Orlando and Miami Beach, I’m in no hurry to move, you’ll be glad to hear, I’m sure.
Showering four times a day, thanks to 100 degrees F and 100% humidity, amid rain and lightning every afternoon, holds less appeal to me than perhaps to a more obsessively hygienic person.

Tom in Florida

Which is why I live on the central west coast about a mile from the Gulf. Nice clean air with comforting sea breezes and it rarely gets over 92F. But I understand, you really got to like this type of weather or you are doomed.

Gabro

Not so bad in the winter, though, which is why you’re invaded annually by Yankees and Canadians.

Global Warmist

This is silly. How would it be possible for the sun to have any effect at all on global warming, good or bad? If Barack Obama and John Kerry agree that global warming is the greatest threat to the Earth then we should believe them without question. Who cares if the Earth is 4.6+ billion years old and we don’t really understand anything about how it operates, or that much of the “data” used by global warmists is from a period when thermometers were hard to read and didn’t include degrees in many cases, much less tenths of a degree. Stop bring up questions like “If a one degree change in temperature over 100 years will destroy all life on Earth, why doesn’t the 100+ degree changes experienced every year from summer high to winter low have any negative effects?”. Just believe without question and leave the “science” to Obama, Kerry and other politicians. They can control weather and climate if given enough money and people (not rich people or politicians, just regular people) are willing to sacrifice.

mOOn

Who cares if John Kerry and Al gore and Obama have a lower IQ than George Bush and making money off this scam.

The upside is the the stunted trees that produce the wood for awesome sounding violins and guitars.

B DA Truth

By 2010 the Oceans will have completely covered our major cites and hurricanes will be more numerous and worse than ever. Total fraud total BS

Gabro

If the authors of this study are right, hurricanes should get worse until mid-century. A colder world is generally a stormier world.

BFL

Well Obama did say that the entire planet will be under water if we don’t change our ways:
“They’re going to need electricity, they’re going to need energy, but if they duplicate the ways that we produce energy here, or have in the past, then the entire planet is under water.”
However the MSM , so use to picking even mundane statements apart, of course passed on this one because it’s one of their God like sources.

Jess Sain

All brilliant post, very deep, insightful, full of facts and data. Allow me to boil it down to it’s essence, follow the money. If a bloated tick like Algore can make money off of this, it wasn’t long before entire governments looked at this as a cash cow and ideal way to control a populace.

This will drive the illegal immigrants (USA) and Muslim refugees (Europe) back south. The religious right will claim it was God’s will.

bsl

If this supposition is correct and the climate cools, it will be interesting to track the CO2 levels to evaluate the effect of temperature on equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration.

cedarhill

If there are dual/multiple dynamos at work, the fourier methods David Evans was pursuing might be the proper modeling technique for solar cycles.

Tiberius

Should we enter a MM period, cheap energy for heating will be vital for the survival of millions of poor. Or will their welfare be sacrificed to the flat earth-ers renewable/climate change godheads?

Global warming – Feds demand more taxes and more regulation. Global cooling – Feds demand more taxes and more regulation.

Simple: Plant a half billion tree to replace those cut down the past 400 years. It will absorb the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. When the cold comes, burn the trees to warm things up. If the cold does not come, we still reduce CO2 and the effects of global warming. Everyone wins.

MarkW

You assume that there is any reason to reduce CO2 and that there is something wrong with the mild warming that might be caused by CO2.

Bartemis

“The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down.”
It would be more accurate to say that the two components of high Q processes alternatingly interfere constructively and destructively.
“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.”
It’s actually two components at about 20 and 23.6 years which, when rectified for power, produce harmonics at about 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/ssn2.jpg

The middle plot is the hypothetical PSD of a time varying process which, when the absolute value is taken, produces an output similar to the SSN. The periods associated with the natural frequencies of this two mode model are P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years. When the data are squared, the PSD convolves with itself, producing 4 peaks with associated periods at P2*P1/(P2+P1) = 10.8 years, P2*P1/(P2-P1) = 131 years, P1/2 = 10 years, and P2/2 = 11.8 years.

Ian Wilson

Reply to Bartemis August 9, 2016 at 10:37 am
P2/2 =11.8 years is very close to sidereal period of Jupiter = 11.862 = 23.724 /2 years
P1/2 = 10 years is very close to half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn = 9.929 = 19.858 /2 years
(23.724 x 19.858) / (23.724) = 121.86 years
which has a multiple of 2 x 121.86 years = 243.72 years which is very close to the length of the 243 year transit cycle of Venus across the face of the Sun

Bartemis

The fundamental processes are at 20 and 23.6 years, though. The higher frequency harmonics are merely rectification phenomena.

HenryP

You mean the Hale cycles?
two successive Hale cycles make for one half of a Gleissberg.

Morris Minor

Well of course they’re not going to work with you. Your data doesn’t give them the results they want.

more likely because their model has been debunked.

You know Steve (ya know in the vernacular), whenever I see someone write the word “debunked” instead of quoting credible source it give me heartburn and makes me ru towards the loo.
So the next time you’re motivated to debate, would you mind quoting sources? For the sake of my lower G.I. tract? Thanks 🙂

Editor:
“it gives me heartburn”
“makes me run towards the loo”

Scrivener, DAFS

Sorry mod, I didn’t find DAFS (direct access file system) particularly enlightening. I put a smiley on it though.

Editor:
“instead of quoting credible sources
I’m sorry Willis. I understand the limits you’re working under but I just can’t get behind them. I invented the internet. Call Al. Tell him I was there a few years before he was, but I do remember his useless speeches on the “Smart Valley” topic. [trimmed]

[trimmed] was aimed at Al, not you Willis. Sorry for any possible confusion.
[Better yet, don’t write it at all the next time. .mod]

And I replied to the wrong reply. See reply to Steve Mosher above.

This is very interesting because maybe it’s that the sun is not only cooling but may also has started diming as Christ said the sun will be darkened!! Thats the reoccurring vision I’ve been having for many years now and never understood when or how something like this would show signs that it is starting to occur. Would it be suddenly or over a certain number of years time frame that cause men hearts to began to fail the as Christ also said, because of the things occurring in the Heavens?

Tom in Florida

I believe the darkening of the Sun refers to nuclear winter occurring after nuclear WWIII.

Gabro

The sun is not dimming secularly. The older it gets, the brighter it gets. But it does have cycles of higher and lower magnetic and radiative activity within this long-term trend.
The solar cycles observed by astronomers have probably occurred for the past 4.5 billion years.
The Bible has nothing to do with it. Sorry.

Jeff Mitchell

Well, I know Jesus wanted more CO2 in the atmosphere. He said “feed my sheep” for the third time. John 21:17. Sheep need plants. Plants need CO2. Couple that with the parable of the multiplying Talents, and voila he wants more CO2. I’ll be you didn’t know he’d taken sides in the CO2 wars. He was there 2000 years before it became such a hot topic. /grin
[Big on grapevines, trees, fruit, and wheat fields, too. Never any beer, mead, or cider though. 8<) .mod]

Gabro

OK. I stand corrected.
God clearly wants more CO2 in the air, and has caused humans to be fruitful and multiply in order to produce it in quantities helpful to all life on the planet.

John

So now the liberals can say “we fixed global warming”.

RH

At his inauguration, Dear Leader did say this: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”
Mission accomplished.

Javier

Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong. We are not approaching a grand solar minimum. Solar cycle 25 should be similar to SC 24, and afterwards SC 26 should start increasing again, being similar to SC 23. We are approaching a situation similar to 1900-1920 when there was reduced solar activity but not grand solar minimum.
We are approaching the height of the ~1000 year Eddy solar cycle at about 2100. The chances of a grand solar minimum at this time are very small. We are living through a prolonged warm period, like the Roman Warm Period, that is likely to last about three more centuries. We are lucky.
Those that predict a Maunder type grand solar minimum will be disappointed, first in about 8 years, when SC 25 ends up similar to SC 24, and then in about 20 years, when SC 26 ends up higher.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Scafetta2c_zpsit66xrpm.png

Javier your prediction is just that a prediction.

Javier

It is actually a projection from combining our knowledge about the main solar cycles, ~2400 yr Bray cycle, ~1000 yr Eddy cycle, and 208 yr de Vries cycle, together with the evolution of solar activity for the past 400 years.
Projecting that evolution 100 more years from the present is very easy, and for such a short period it is unlikely that there will be important deviations.

Javier if it is that obvious and straight forward I would think predictions would be uniform instead of all over the place.
This is why I say let the data lead the way and go from there. I say so far the data has been favorable for a quiet sun going forward , that may change but thus far it has not.

Javier

The way most people predict the future is by extrapolating from the present and the recent past. Obviously when you come against cyclical phenomena like climate that is a guarantee for wrong predictions. For example you are extrapolating solar activity towards the future, so you are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Solar activity should hit a minimum after SC 24 and then start growing again.

The way most people predict the future is by extrapolating from the present and the recent past
The proper way [that we use] is to rely on physical understanding, theory, and modeling, and then from observations of known physical precursors calculate the run of the next cycle. Not by extrapolation of ‘cycles’.

Javier

Leif, our understanding of solar variability is so poor that we can hardly predict the amplitude of one Sxhwabe cycle in advance, and still we cannot predict its duration.
However through observation people were able to predict the cycles of nature (days, seasons, years) and develop calendars a long time before they could understand what caused them. Perhaps we are losing our observation capacity. Solar variability cycles are clearly observable in the climate proxies.

hardly predict the amplitude of one Schwabe cycle in advance
But we can. Once the polar fields stabilize some 3 to 4 years before the minimum, we can predict the next cycle with fair precision. Right now the south polar field has stabilized and in a year or so, the north polar field will follow suit and we can have a good prediction of cycle 25. We can also already see the next cycle develop. e.g. here
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1657

Solar variability cycles are clearly observable in the climate proxies
We do not know if they are all solar variability cycles. They are climate cycles [if real], perhaps nothing more, and mostly without provenance.

Javier

Paleoclimatologists are totally convinced. They see the climate cycles, they see the solar cycles, and they match. Almost every paper I read on past climate events at a time of low solar variability shows the authors assuming a solar variability cause. This is all observation based, a huge amount of observations. We might not have a mechanism, but the evidence is there. For example:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/SolarLakeLevels_zpsuhaodp6x.png
From: Magny, M. (1993). Solar influences on Holocene climatic changes illustrated by correlations between past lake-level fluctuations and the atmospheric 14 C record. Quaternary research, 40(1), 1-9.
And it is like this paper after paper. Judging by the number I’ve read (over a hundred) there’s probably thousands of papers on paleoclimatology assuming solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling, and essentially points to an atmospheric effect.

The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
And assuming what some effects are due to, does not make them so.

Javier

“The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
You always say that but you only have an unpublished paper to show, and only for 10Be, when I was presenting 14C data. I suppose you know they are different isotopes with different origin, transport and deposition mechanisms. You cannot bundle them as if they were interchangeable or had the same problems.
In the end it doesn’t matter the amount of evidence when one does not want to see it. We have the same problem with the CO2 hypothesis. It does not matter the amount of evidence that it is faulty because its defenders refuse to see it.
As Max Planck famously said science advances a funeral at a time. It is possible that the current generation of top climate scientists will have to die before the proper role of solar variability on climate change can be established.

Cosmic ray proponents are always at pains to stress that 14C and 10Be show the same variation…
In the 1970s Sun-Weather-Climate connections had a serious revival [I was partly responsible for that]. The generation of scientists pushing the field back then is largely gone by now, so, you are right, science advances one funeral at a time.

That is the DATA

Javier

14C and 10Be show the expected degree of correlation for two isotopes that are generated by the same phenomenon, and the expected degree of variation for their completely different transportation and deposition mechanisms. Reconstructions that take all this into account, like Steinhilber et al., 2012, show very good agreement with the 400 hundred years of registered solar activity from sunspots telescope observations, and also with previous naked eye sunspot observations and aurorae records.
We can probably reconstruct solar activity for the past 9000 years a lot better than we can reconstruct temperatures. Your claim that past solar activity reconstructions cannot be trusted because of climate contamination appears a gross exaggeration and contrary to the published literature where the technique is not widely criticized as unreliable.
I see that for the next cooling period the field will be ready for another revival, then. Cooling periods appear to be correctly spaced about 65 years apart to fit two generations of scientists defending opposite views. Some no doubt change their view to stay within the dominant trend of the time.

lsvalgaard August 10, 2016 at 4:22 am
“The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself”
a) cosmic rays DATA closely correlates revised Group Sunspot Number (says Svalgaard’s graph above)
b) the cosmic rays DATA is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself ((says Svalgaard above)
since climate contaminates cosmic rays DATA and can’t contaminate Group Sunspot Number DATA it follows that:
Climate that modulates cosmic rays DATA it is also closely correlated to the solar activity DATA.
Dr. S you got a bit of a problem there.

Not at all: if the cosmic ray record depends on both the climate and the sun, then the two curves should be correlated, if the climate and the sun are correlated. The issue is not if there is correlation, it is if the influence is dominant or not. We may consider that the climate response can be approximated by Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise. The issue is what A, B, C, and D are.
Much more important for your comment is that UNLESS you accept the revised Group Number, your argument is void.

Javier

You cannot have it both ways Leif,
Either 14C is a good proxy for past solar activity or it is contaminated by climate. If it is contaminated by climate it cannot match past solar activity for 400 years during which climate changed wildly as it does.
Ergo it is concluded that 14C represents a good proxy for past solar activity most of the time. You should stop singing the climate contamination song when somebody shows a 14C reconstruction of past solar activity that matches climate change.

You cannot have it both ways Leif, Either 14C is a good proxy for past solar activity or it is contaminated by climate
Of course, I can have it both ways, if we measure ‘past solar activity’ by 14C. There is general agreement that the cosmic ray record is contaminated by climate. The questions are ‘how much’ and ‘does it vary’.The fallacy is to postulate that in Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise, all the coefficients are zero except one [reflecting your bias], i.e. [as you said] to have your mind ‘boggled’.

Dr. S, I’ll go along with that
A – solar : 50-60% by far the most dominant
B – humans: 0-5% UHI
C – internal : 25-30% geodynamics (magnetic field, volcanoes & postglacial uplift, all loosely correlating to the solar)
D – noise: 5-15% Lorenz attractor

Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not agree with you, and your ’causes’ for C are basically nonsense.

Javier

“There is general agreement that the cosmic ray record is contaminated by climate. The questions are ‘how much’ and ‘does it vary’.”
It cannot be very contaminated after the corrections, because the agreement between 14C solar activity reconstructions and sunspots based activity is very good as I have said and it has been shown.
“The fallacy is to postulate that in Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise, all the coefficients are zero except one [reflecting your bias]”
I do not fall into that fallacy. Anthropogenic warming is significant but in my opinion it is overestimated, while solar variability has been underestimated. There is also an oceanic cycle detected in the Bond series and other proxies that could also have an external forcing. Plus to me the most important factor of all is Milankovitch forcing, that has determined that every millennia since 7000 BP has been colder than the previous one. Somehow I doubt that this millennium, of which only a few decades have past, will break that trend, which means there is some serious cooling waiting for the planet in just a few centuries.
I do not think anthropogenic warming is responsible for more than 1/3 to half of global warming since 1950. Every time the rest of the coefficients turn around global warming is stopped in its tracks no matter emissions.

My point is that A, B, C, and D likely vary with time [certainly B does], and that it is a fallacy to assume that they do not and to use ‘modern’ estimates for the distant past.

And the ‘overwhelming, mind-boggling’ evidence that temperature and GCR modulation is strongly related is perhaps not so:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps.png

Javier

I remember distinctly saying “solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling”, not temperature. your focusing on temperatures is a strawman.
Let’s say for example Bond events.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-3.png
That figure (with my red markings) is from:
Bond, G., et al. (2001). Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science, 294(5549), 2130-2136.
A paper cited 2218 times according to Google scholar. Really weird such a successful paper on solar variability effect on climate.

“Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University postulated the theory of 1470-year climate cycles in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[3][1] However, more recent work has shown has shown that these tracers provide little support for 1,500-year intervals of climate change and that the reported ~1,500 ± 500-year period was a statistical artifact.”

Perhaps. In climate “science” the more recent the paper, the less likely it is to be unbiased and accurate; but the older the paper, the less likely it is to have been manipulated and distorted through today’s peer-review and fudging (er, funding) filters.
Thank you for finding this older paper.

Javier

What is not an statistical artifact is the correspondence between increased ice rafted detrital deposition in the North Atlantic and increased 14C production, which is what we are discussing.

I think the general opinion at the moment that it indeed is an artifact. You believe otherwise at your peril.

Obrochta, Stephen P.; Miyahara, Hiroko; Yokoyama, Yusuke; Crowley, Thomas J. (2012-11-08). “A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609″. Quaternary Science Reviews. 55: 23–33. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.08.008.

Javier

Thank you for the reference, but its only mention to the relationship of the Bond series to solar variability is actually supportive:
“Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ~1000 and ~2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability.”
So I would say that the general opinion is that the relationship between Bond series and solar variability is not an artifact and does not rely on the real frequency of Bond events.
I manifested my opinion on the Bond series last April on this comment in a different blog:
“However in a stretch of self deception Gerard Bond assigned only eight numbers (his figure 2), because he wanted to manipulate the average spacing of his series. 12000/8=1500 et voilà the magical spacing of the D-O series. If we count as you did 10 we only get 1200 years and if we even count double peaks as independent coolings, as they probably are, we get a cooling period for every millennia. That is the real frequency of strong cooling periods during the Holocene.”
As you can see I reached the same conclusion as that paper by myself from just looking at the data.
But we are still left with an undeniable relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.

But we are still left with an undeniable relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.
I deny it herewith. In fact there is only one event that can be reliably tied to a cold event, namely the 8.2 kyr event.
I have discussed all this with [the late] Gerard Bond long ago and his arguments were not convincing then and are not convincing now. You are right: progress happens one funeral at a time.

Javier

“In fact there is only one event that can be reliably tied to a cold event, namely the 8.2 kyr event.”
That’s your opinion only. Climatic deterioration (do not fixate on temperatures), solar grand minima (SGM), and Bond events are tied by multiple evidence at the following times:
11.2 Kyr BP – Bond 8 – Preboreal SGM – Preboreal oscillation
10.3 Kyr BP – Bond 7 – Boreal 1 SGM – Boreal oscillation 1
09.3 Kyr BP – Bond 6 – Boreal 2 SGM – Boreal oscillation 2
08.3 Kyr BP – Bond 5b – Sahel 1, 2, 3 SGM + Lake Agassiz – 8.2 kyr event
07.3 Kyr BP – Bond 5a – Jericho 1, 2, 3 SGM – Boreal/Atlantic transition
05.2 Kyr BP – Bond 4a – Sumer 1, 2, 3 SGM – Mid-Holocene transition, Ötzi, start of Neoglacial period.
02.8 Kyr BP – Bond 2a – Homer SGM – 2.8 kyr event, Subatlantic minimum
00.4 Kyr BP – Bond 0 – Wolf, Spører, Maunder SGM – Little Ice Age
All of them are supported by ample bibliography. I can provide some of it if interested.
This is the reason Gerard Bond’s landmark 2001 paper has over 2000 citations. Anyone studying any of those cold events notices the temporal coincidence with the Bond series and cites his paper. Gerard Bond was right (not in the 1500 year periodicity) and you were/are wrong on this.

The generally accepted situation is “Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal”.

Events appear to be semi-regular, the recent events occurred at half the frequency of the earlier ones. The first 5 events listed above are spaced by approx 1 Kyr apart, while the last 4 are separated by a bit above 2 Kyr.

Javier

“The generally accepted situation is “Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal”.”
That’s an empty statement without supporting evidence. The events that I have listed are known, named, and studied in the paleoclimatic bibliography. Essentially all significant climate changes that took place during the Holocene did so during a Bond event, and the majority coincided also with periods of increased 14C production.

There were about 27 Grand Minima in the last 10000 years. but not that many Bond Events. With so many minima to choose from you can easily find coincidental matches [even given the uncertainty in dating] without any real physical connection. The easiest person to fool is always yourself.

Javier

“There were about 27 Grand Minima in the last 10000 years. but not that many Bond Events. With so many minima to choose from you can easily find coincidental matches [even given the uncertainty in dating] without any real physical connection.”
Of course, but they would also coincide if there is a physical connection. Those 27 SGM are not randomly distributed. They tend to cluster at certain times, and those times are very strongly correlated with periods of climate deterioration. The Sahel, Jericho, Sumer, and LIA SGM groups are examples of this clustering.
And then when there is a cluster of SGM you would have to explain why climate variables generally coincide in changing following the presence or absence of SGM. Let’s take for example the LIA:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/0.4kyr_zps7whaf5t2.png
Bibliography for this figure:
a) Steinhilber, F. et al. 2012. “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.16: 5967-5971.
b) Christiansen, B. & Ljungqvist, F.C. 2012. The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Clim. Past 8, 765–786.
c) Versteegh, G.J.M. et al. 2007. Temperature and productivity influences on Uk37 and their possible relation to solar forcing of the Mediterranean winter. Geochem. Geophys. Geosy. 8, Q09005.
d) Massé, G. et al. 2008. Abrupt climate changes for Iceland during the last millennium: evidence from high resolution sea ice reconstructions. Earth Planet. Sci. Let. 269, 565-569.
e) Holzhauser, H. et al. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15, 789-801.
f) Polissar, P.J. et al. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. PNAS 103, 8937–8942.
g) Trouet, V. et al. 2013. A 1500-year reconstruction of annual mean temperature for temperate North America on decadal-to-multidecadal time scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024008.
So unless these people have faked their data, it is very clear that the available evidence supports a non-fortuitous coincidence between climate deterioration and low solar activity.
Don’t forget that the fooling of oneself works both ways. You can fool yourself into believing that something that exists does not.

The curves are all over the place, agreeing and disagreeing. Fertile grounds for fertile imaginations.

lsvalgaard

The curves are all over the place, agreeing and disagreeing. Fertile grounds for fertile imaginations.

I will only note that: If the system were known well enough, if the physics were indeed known (and the parameters and coefficients of the physical equations were known precisely enough), then there would only be one curve, and there would be little disagreement and little room for fertile imaginations.
But there is not. We saw NASA predictions by “experts” even as late as cycle 23 transition to cycle 24, that cycle 24 was going to be even larger than 22 or 23. Instead, cycle 23 is closer to one half of cycle 23.
Several problems in all of this discussion:
The “pure math” of cyclical analysis, and of extracting predictions from cyclical analysis, is that the analyst MUST assume that the sub-ordinate cycles being added together are “pure” waveforms. If, instead,each of the sub-ordinate waveforms are themselves only a “little bit” random in periodicity and amplitude, then their addition over even short periods of time (four to eight short cycles) becomes problematic.
the “We do not want to see solar TSI changes over time” charge has been made earlier in this thread. Is that not like the geologists and professors between 1924 and 1955 who refused to analyze global circulation (er, plate tectonics) because they could not see the entire theory and its evidence?
But, far more difficult is the following.
The earliest models of global warming MUST use the accepted TSI radiation values available at that time the programming was run. (A presentation made in summer 1988 before Congress based on a paper published in 1988 is based on a program run in 1987 based on a calculation and on programs run in 1986-87 predicting CO2 effects of 3.0 watts/doubling of CO2 must be based on 1986-1987 TSI radiation values, plus all of the other physical constants from 1988 measurements. No one can make a 1988 presentation based on TSI values only known in 2008.
Well in 1988, TSI = 1372 watts/m^2. Or 1367 watts/m^2.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
Now, Dr Svalgard properly notes that the ACTUAL TSI never was 1362 watts/m^2 (nor 1376 watts/m^2), but was ALWAYS equal to today’s properly calibrated 1362 watts/m^2. OK, fine. We must accept 1362 watts/m^2 for a TSI in 1905, in 1935, in 1975, in 2005.
Notice however, that the remaining physical constants used in the global circulation models have not changed between 1986 and 2016!
So, where are the “corrections” to Hansen’s and Mann’s and everybody’s 1988-2008 global circulation models accounting for the “lost” 5 watts/m^2 of “it was never there in the first place” solar radiation energy between yesterday’s 1367 watts/m^2 and today’s 1362 watts/m^2?
If doubling CO2 “adds” a mere 3 watts/m^2 of “greenhouse gas heating, ” but that prediction is based on an artifically high +5.0 watts/m^2 of non-existent TSI, then is not today’s CO2 merely trying to make up for a missing -2 watts/m^2 of “never there” TSI corrections?
How can ANY of the model runs so vital to the CAGW religion of death be accepted between 1988 and 2008?

The issue is not with temperatures, but only with solar output [TSI, sunspots, EUV, etc].

lsvalgaard

The issue is not with temperatures, but only with solar output [TSI, sunspots, EUV, etc].

From your side of the equation, from your very limited side of the problem, the issue is quite properly ONLY limited to the correct value of TSI. More precisely, to determining the correct value of TSI over time, as it may ( or may not) vary over time by some effects that may (or may not) be related to the presence or absence of interstellar dust, sun spots, internal solar currents, gravitational effects, etc.
To the rest of the world, the ONLY important value is the sensitivity of the earth’s heat balance due to a doubling of CO2.
Because Hanson-Mann-Gore-Oboma-Pelosi-Moon-Pope Franctic’s hysteria is based on international legal pressure based on a 3.0 degrees/doubling (doubled again as each paper and at each conference using effect requiring +4 to +10 degrees increase!) is set on the original 1367-1372 watts/m^2, every CAGW program run using ANYTHING higher than 1362 watts/m^2 is simply dead wrong.

Actually, it makes VERY little difference what the exact, absolute value of TSI is [1367 or 1362 or whatever]. What matters is the variation about that value, and that is of the order of 1 in a thousand, resulting in a temperature response of 1 in 4000 or 0.07 C which is below the noise level and thus cannot even be measured.

Politely but briefly put, no.
The global circulation models are supposedly “run” from a zero-zero condition into a radiation thermal equilibrium for thousands of model runs to establish the model circulation patterns and regional (each grid point) temperatures. Then the model is perturbed – almost always by changing CO2 levels, and a “new” equilibrium circulation pattern and temperature grid is calculated to return to a radiation equilibrium.
When “Energy in = energy out”, to phrase it simply, the modelers assume they have predicted a new climate based on the new parameter. If modeled
“energy in” = “actual energy in + 5 watts/m^2”
then
(calculated equilibrium temperature out)^4 = (actual equilibrium temperature out + X(energy difference in))^4
where “X” is some portion of the mythical CO2 doubling factor.
Thus, for ANY CGM run at any time using ANY value of TSI greater than today’s 1362 watts/m^2, the equilibrium temperature at “end of run” is wrong. The CGM’s merely balance the “total radiation in” against their predicted world’s “total radiation out”.
true, for a single model running today, they can – and do! – adjust future TSI changes of only a small fraction of one percent and proe their is only a very small temperature difference between models.
My point is that NO CGM run using ANY TSI value higher than 1362 can be used to determine anything, because TSI never was 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, or 1367 watts/m^2.
So, either their results are wrong and must be retracted, or their physical constants that were used to create “valid predictions” of future temperature equilibriums were then, and are now, wrong.

Well, when the modelers actually rerun their models with the lower value of TSI, it makes almost no difference [less than 0.1 C].

HenryP

the energy coming from the sun, has a chi-square distribution, and whilst the surface below [=TSI] may not vary much, there is my postulation that in a time when the solar polar magnetic field strengths are low – such as now – the peak of the curve may shift a bit – to the left.
That means more of the most energetic particles are released and obviously earth is doing what it knows best to defend us,
it makes more ozone, peroxide and N-oxides TOA.
In turn these chemicals deflect more UV off from earth, and that means less energy into the oceans.
Hence earth is cooling, as seen by me on a random sample of 54 weather stations balanced by latitude, and 30/70 % inland /@sea on maxima, means and minima,
contrary to all your graphs…

Javier

“The curves are all over the place, agreeing and disagreeing.”
No they are not. Within dating uncertainties they all show periods of climate worsening that roughly coincide with the solar minima, whether you agree or not. By looking at the titles of the articles you can see that several of the authors agree with me. There is no reason why these climate indicators should track solar activity other than they are physically related to solar activity.

Articles were picked [by you] that agreed with you…No wonder…

Javier

It is clear that my position is defensible because it has been successfully defended many times in peer review. I would say the corpus of paleoclimatology does not support your position that is all due to fertile imagination, or scientists fooling themselves.

It is enough that some are fooled some of the time. Here is a counterexample to your foolery:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps.png
Not much correlation to gloat about.
Now, one can extend the foolery by claiming that temperature is not all: sometimes it is rainfall, sometimes temperature, sometimes ‘climate extremes’, sometimes whatever. Just pick to ones that make the relationship better as needed.

Javier

Your graphs prove nothing because nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity, which is your favorite strawman argument.
I am surprised that you still have not realized that what the evidence is showing is that:
Most solar grand minima, and specially very long solar grand minima and clusters of solar grand minima correspond very well to periods of climate worsening.
That is the argument that you have not refuted because you can’t. Those useless graphs do not disprove that tenet.

‘climate worsening’ is a woolly, undefined term that can be used as the fudge-factor to make wishful thinking fit.

nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity
Javier August 10, 2016 at 3:57 pm:
“But we are still left with an undeniable [?] relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.”

Javier

“‘climate worsening’ is a woolly, undefined term that can be used as the fudge-factor to make wishful thinking fit.”
The effects of grand solar minima on climate are quite well characterized, they include:
– Changes in precipitation patterns: Increased precipitation in mid and high latitudes, decreased precipitation in tropical and subtropical areas.
– Weakening of the summer monsoon
– Increased polar circulation
– Increase in wind strength
– Cooling of the sea surface and general cooling
– Glacier advances
– Increased iceberg deposition
The changes are global in nature but better characterized in the North Atlantic and West and Central Europe. They suggest changes in the position of the atmospheric cells and a possible weakening of AMOC.
The effects over human societies are very disruptive. In Europe they cause wet cold periods that are difficult for agriculture and often lead to general settlement abandonment, and specially on primary and secondary drainage networks and lake sides that are subjected to frequent flooding. They are often accompanied by famines and plagues.
Is this specific enough?

Enough to cherry pick from.
And you used to say the real criterion was it being COLD, remember?
Or do you now walk back from that?

Javier

“nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity”
No, because outside of solar grand minima there is no correlation with the temperature. Solar grand minima correlate with cold periods, but there is no correlation between solar activity and temperatures. Is this difficult to understand?
When solar activity is very low temperatures drop. When it is normal or high, other factors control temperatures. Long periods without solar grand minima, like the Roman Warm Period tend to be warm, but still have temperature changes that do not correlate with solar activity.

Solar grand minima correlate with cold periods, but there is no correlation between solar activity and temperatures. Is this difficult to understand?
Yes, this is a contradiction in terms. And contrary to what you used to claim.

Javier

“Yes, this is a contradiction in terms. And contrary to what you used to claim.”
It is not contradictory. Solar activity only appears to have an important effect on climate when it is too low. And it is not contrary to what I used to claim because I have always been talking about solar grand minima.

The GRAND minimum around 685 AD [one of the deepest and longest ones the past 2000 years was not cold:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps-NOT.png
You are contradicted left and right.

Javier

“The GRAND minimum around 685 AD [one of the deepest and longest ones the past 2000 years was not cold”
Finding one grand minimum that was not cold would not necessarily invalidate the model. However that is not the case for the Roman Grand Minimum of 600-700 AD. Apparently there is a problem with your temperature reconstruction.
There is one period called Dark Ages Cold Period or DACP, that essentially runs between 425 and 900 AD, with the coldest part between 530-700. It is well reflected in the literature and coincides with the migration period that starts with the Huns and ends with the Muslims. A volcanic eruption contributed to the 6th century cooling, but the 7th century cooling fits the SGM hypothesis rather well by coinciding with the Roman Minimum.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/DACP_zpszrfe7sgb.png
You are the one being contradicted left and right.

As usual, it all comes down to carefully cherry picking the desired reconstructions [of which you seem to be a master]. ‘My’ temperatures are by Loehle [supported by one by Moberg]. Take it up with them if you need to quibble.

Javier

“As usual, it all comes down to carefully cherry picking the desired reconstructions [of which you seem to be a master].”
What do you mean picking up reconstructions? We are talking about evidence. The period of the Roman solar grand minimum was the stormiest in 2500 years in the Western Mediterranean, and saw the biggest cold excursion in the GISP2 Greenland temperature series in 3000 years. It coincides with Bond event 1a which means there was high iceberg activity in the North Atlantic, and displays very strong winds in Iceland measured by grain size in loess deposits.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/DACP3_zpsi07hhl0l.png
I know paleoclimatology is not your specialty, but if you know so little of it, why do you sound so sure when you say that solar activity has little impact on climate? You couldn’t possibly know.

We are talking about evidence
Here is evidence:
http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Snow-Temp-4000-yrs.png
The deep solar minima [red boxes] were warm, not cold.
Actually paleo-anything is a specialty of mine. Especially Greenland, where I have lived and worked.
So, again, your correlations fail.

Javier

“Here is evidence:”
No. That peak in temperatures at 600 AD is an artifact, as can be seen when compared to a stack of six Greenland ice cores:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi%20artifact_zpsysfhiizh.png
“Actually paleo-anything is a specialty of mine. Especially Greenland, where I have lived and worked.”
Then it needs updating. Kobashi himself corrected his Northern High Latitude temperature reconstruction in 2013.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi%204000_zpswbaqmfvu.png
Now Kobashi (and Kaufman) defend an Arctic cooling for the 600-700 AD period.
By the way, you conveniently forgot to label the other six solar grand minima in the period that support my hypothesis. I have done it for you in blue. Perhaps you should apply to yourself your comments about picking the desired reconstructions and fooling yourself.
I am coming to think that you are unable to recognize that you may be wrong even if presented with ample evidence.

henryp

That is why I gave him the name: Dr. No

You misrepresent Kobashi’s 2013 paper. He does not correct the OBSERVED Greenland temperatures, but rather compare them with models derived from [i.e. fitted to] the cosmic ray data [and volcanic and GHC records] and notes that the models only explain between 14 and 20% of the observed variation.

This is what the paper concludes:
“The Greenland temperatures over the past 4000 yr reconstructed from trapped air within the GISP2 ice core (Kobashi et al., 2011) provided an extraordinary opportunity to investigate the late Holocene climate changes because of several advantages: (1) the resolving of precise multidecadal to millennial temperature variation; (2) the recording of “mean” annual temperatures (many palaeotemperatures are spring to summer proxies); (3) the tight age control; (4) the understanding of regional climate (Kobashi et al., 2013); and (5) the plentiful palaeoclimate information that is available from the GISP2 ice core. With the reconstructed climate forcings (orbital, volcanic, solar, greenhouse gases, and aerosols) over the past 4000 yr, we calculated northern high-latitude and NH average temperatures with 1-D EBM. Then, modelled Greenland temperature was derived considering negative Greenland temperature responses to changes in solar output.” I.e. that lower solar output increases Greenland temperatures.
So, you fooled yourself into believing that the model is the real thing.
This is a typical example of willful self-deception.
The paper goes on with:
“In this study, we proposed a new way of investigating the multidecadal to centennial NH temperature variation with the climate model and the Greenland temperature record (Kobashi et al., 2011) that provides seasonally unbiased estimates of temperature change. It indicated that current multidecadal NH temperature (1990–2010) is more likely unprecedented than not (p = 0.36) over the past 4000 yr.”
That is, they compare the models with the real thing, NOT correcting ‘unbiased estimates of temperature change’.

Javier

I don’t think I have misrepresented Kobashi et al., 2013.
The upward spike that Kobashi et al. 2011 find for 600-700 AD in their measurements is contradicted by six Greenland ice cores D18O measurements that show no such increase, but a decrease.
In the 2013 paper instead of using their Greenland temperature reconstruction, Kobashi et al. use ice core observations and correct them for a Greenland Temperature Anomaly to build their Northern High Latitude temperature reconstruction (the red line in the figure). This red line is what you call “the real thing”. The increase in temperatures at 600-700 AD is now gone.
Then for comparison they also built a model with known forcings and run it with GHGs (dark blue discontinuous in the figure above), and without GHGs (medium blue). I have ignored the model, so I did not fooled myself into believing that the model is the real thing, nor did I willfully engage in self-deception.
Kobashi et al. reconstructed Northern High Latitude temperature record does not show an increase in temperature for 600-700 AD, and in doing so it agrees more with Kaufman, Vinther, et al. 2009 reconstruction, that using 23 high-resolution Arctic proxies, show a strong cooling for 600-700 AD (Green in the figure).
So Kobashi’s spike at 600-700 AD is:
a) Not confirmed by multiple Greenland records.
b) In disagreement with other published Arctic reconstructions.
c) Corrected by his authors when they want to represent Northern High Latitude temperatures.
And according to you I am the one that misrepresents the article and engages in self-deception.
I am disappointed because I see that no matter the amount of evidence I bring supporting my position, even when you are clearly wrong like when using Kobashi’s upward spike against my hypothesis, you will never accept it and instead twist it to try to discredit me. This is not a scientific conversation because you don’t want it to be one. Instead of an honest exchange of information and ideas your only goal is to end up above even if it means defending the indefensible. I do not think you care too much about the truth. I have learned a lot from you, but you seem unable to learn from anybody. You are here at WUWT to defend the orthodoxy that you represent by any means.
I don’t see much point in further engaging you except to prevent other readers at WUWT from being mistaken into thinking that your beliefs constitute the best current scientific knowledge.

You continue to misrepresent Kobashi. One of the findings of his is that, contrary to your claim, increased solar activity means reduced Greenland temperatures, and thus that Grand Minima result in warming, rather than cooling:
http://www.leif.org/research/Kobashi-High-Solar-Equals-Cold.png
You didn’t seem to understand his papers [probably because they contradict you].
Here is his latest [GRL, 2015]:
“The abrupt Northern Hemispheric warming at the end of the twentieth century has been attributed to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Yet Greenland and surrounding subpolar North Atlantic remained anomalously cold in 1970s to early 1990s. Here we reconstructed robust Greenland temperature records (North Greenland Ice Core Project and Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) over the past 2100 years using argon and nitrogen isotopes in air trapped within ice cores and show that this cold anomaly was part of a recursive pattern of antiphase Greenland temperature responses to solar variability with a possible multidecadal lag. We hypothesize that high solar activity during the modern solar maximum (approximately 1950s-1980s) resulted in a cooling over Greenland and surrounding subpolar North Atlantic through the slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation with atmospheric feedback processes.”

Javier

I do not misrepresent Kobashi’s finding, and I think I understand his papers.
Perhaps you remember the list of effects that I put above:
“The effects of grand solar minima on climate are quite well characterized, they include:
– Changes in precipitation patterns: Increased precipitation in mid and high latitudes, decreased precipitation in tropical and subtropical areas.
– Weakening of the summer monsoon
– Increased polar circulation
– Increase in wind strength
– Cooling of the sea surface and general cooling
– Glacier advances
– Increased iceberg deposition”

It does not say Greenland cooling, nor does it say Greenland warming.
In the Roman (600-700 AD) solar grand minimum I have already shown:
– Changes in precipitation patterns (high lake levels in Central Europe and increased storminess in Western Mediterranean)
– Increase in wind strength (Iceland loess deposits, increased storminess in Western Mediterranean)
– Cooling (GISP2, Scandinavia, Arctic)
– Increased iceberg deposition
I think I have made my case, but you want to discuss what according to Kobashi constitutes the special case of Greenland that shows a pattern of antiphase Greenland temperature responses to solar variability.
If true I don’t see how it would be a problem for my hypothesis. We could just add Greenland warming to the list of effects that a solar grand minimum causes. I am not totally convinced with Kobashi’s claim of Greenland antiphase response, however it could be easily explained as a secondary effect of increased polar circulation. When polar circulation increases the polar vortex becomes bigger and masses of cold air invade mid-latitudes provoking colder temperatures there. At the same time that cold air is exchanged for masses of warmer air that invade the polar region creating an antiphase effect.
In any case it is clear that Greenland is not the best place to look for the effect of solar grand minima on climate, as the response could be antithetic.
But the rest of the effects are still there, supporting that the Roman minimum had an important effect on climate. Your only reason to oppose that effect, a supposed warming in Greenland, is no longer a valid reason.

Of course you misrepresented. You tried to use the output of his MODEL [based on input of solar activity] as support for your claim, even though the model was constructed using the opposite of what you claim. Perhaps this is even worse than simple misrepresentation, bordering on deception.

Javier

Out of scientific arguments now you are starting to talk nonsense and come after me. Pitiful.
I’ll make the figure bigger so your tired eyes can see better.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi_zpsaaaofbcn.png
I have used their reconstruction (red line) and Kaufman reconstruction (green line) to show that they both show cooling and not warming at 600-700 AD. I have not used their MODEL (blue lines) as it is totally unnecessary.
As you said above, it is Kobashi et al. reconstruction. “Take it up with them if you need to quibble.”
And quite frankly, when you are outdone with scientific arguments, to call your opponent a deceiver on a petty excuse over how Kobashi did its reconstruction is shameful. You are finding new lows today.

As Kobashi says:
“The Greenland temperatures over the past 4000 yr reconstructed from trapped air within the GISP2 ice core (Kobashi et al., 2011) provided an extraordinary opportunity to investigate the late Holocene climate changes because of several advantages: (1) the resolving of precise multidecadal to millennial temperature variation; (2) the recording of “mean” annual temperatures (many palaeotemperatures are spring to summer proxies); (3) the tight age control; (4) the understanding of regional climate (Kobashi et al., 2013); and (5) the plentiful palaeoclimate information that is available from the GISP2 ice core. With the reconstructed climate forcings (orbital, volcanic, solar, greenhouse gases, and aerosols) over the past 4000 yr, we calculated northern high-latitude and NH average temperatures with 1-D EBM. Then, modelled Greenland temperature was derived considering negative Greenland temperature responses to changes in solar output.” I.e. that lower solar output increases Greenland temperatures.
So, you fooled yourself into believing that the model is the real thing.
This is a typical example of willful self-deception.
The original 2011 graph [based on measurements] is thus still the valid one to compare with.
Not the model-based one that uses solar activity as input, thus forming a circular argument.
Note that Kobashi found just the opposite of what you claim: high (low) solar activity results in cooling (warming).
So, you have deceived yourself. Such confirmation bias is quite common, and you are no exception.

Javier

The way Kobashi et al. did their reconstruction of Northern High Latitude temperatures is their business. We can accept it or reject it, but I point to you that Kaufman et al. did their reconstruction of Polar temperatures from 23 high resolution proxies and show one of the most profound coolings for over a millennia in 600-700 AD.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kaufman_zps89bblysz.png
So you now disagree with everybody. With Kobashi et al. because you don’t like the way they reconstruct Northern High Latitude temperatures in 2013. With Kaufman et al. because they show a cooling in the Arctic when you think it should be a warming. With GISP2 because it shows the most profound cooling in 3000 years in Greenland. And with a stack of 6 Greenland ice cores because they don’t show an increase in Greenland temperatures in 600-700 AD.
If anybody is self-deceiving himself here it is you. Your confirmation bias is huge. I have showed 7 independent confirmations of climate deterioration coinciding with the Roman minimum, yet you are arguing that the antiphasic response of Greenland at the time is proof of the opposite even when the authors of the study believe that the correct reconstruction of high latitude temperatures should show cooling instead of warming.
You have cornered yourself into an untenable scientific position and your reaction is accusing me of deception, misrepresentation, willful self fooling, and confirmation bias. I think it is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

What you show is the by cherry picking a suitable reconstruction you can fit any position. The Kobashi measurements [not model or proxy derived] are probably the best we have of the actual temperatures in Greenland. The Kaufman reconstruction [as discussed in Climate Audit] uses some proxies upside-down and is not reliable.
The point is that the data is shaky and often biased and have not convinced me, but [evidently] fooled you.

Javier

“The point is that the data is shaky and often biased and have not convinced me, but [evidently] fooled you.”
I see. You hold the criteria for when the data is convincing and if anybody is convinced before you, he is fooled. How arrogant. Obviously you will never be convinced, so anybody who is, is a fool.
Data presented for the Roman minimum:
– High level of Central European lakes: Magny, M. (1993). Quaternary research, 40 (1), 1-9.
– Increased iceberg activity in the North Atlantic: Bond, G., et al. (2001). Science, 294 (5549), 2130-2136.
– Cooling in an Ireland speleothem: McDermott, F. (2004). Quaternary Science Reviews, 23 (7), 901-918.
– Cooling in Scandinavian tree rings: Cowling, S. A., et al. (2001). Journal of Ecology, 89 (2), 227-236.
– Huge increase in West Mediterranean storminess: Degeai, J. P., et al. (2015). Quaternary Science Reviews, 129, 37-56.
– Cooling in Greenland: GISP2 ice core.
– High wind in Iceland: Jackson, M.G., et al. (2005). Geology 33 (6), 509-512.
– Cooling in Northern High Latitudes: Kobashi, T., et al. (2013). Climate of the Past 9 (5), 2299-2317.
– Cooling in the Arctic: Kaufman, D. S., et al. (2009). Science 325 (5945), 1236-1239.
So what is the deal? if you disagree with any of them, then there is no significant climate influence by the Roman grand minimum? Or are they all shaky and biased and unconvincing?
I could easily double that list, and maybe even triple it. But what is the point? You play with marked cards. All data that does not confirm your beliefs is shaky and biased, because you know you are in the right and whoever is convinced by the mounting evidence is a fool.
You are playing the scientist at WUWT, but you are not following the rules of science. You dismiss evidence by just waving your arms or making bold unsupported statements as if anything that you don’t like can simply disappear. You might convince the simpletons, but anybody with an inquisitive mind will clearly see through you.

Kobashi’s measurements are convincing to me and they still stand uncorrected. That his data disagree with many model- and proxy-derived reconstructions just goes to show how shaky the whole thing is, which in my book equals no real evidence. That you believe otherwise is your problem and I shall not try to change your mind as it seems set in concrete. As they say: “nothing personal, just business”.

Javier

My mind is not set in concrete. I already did a complete turnaround on the issue of solar variability influence on climate from thinking it had no significant effect to thinking that it has a big effect but only during solar grand minima, when paper after paper added piece after piece of evidence.
Kobashi’s measurements show a very unusual millennial scale climate change in Greenland precisely at the time of a millennial scale reduction in solar activity. Some experts, including Kobashi, believe that the response of Greenland to solar variability is antiphasic.
Yet surprisingly you come to the conclusion that this millennial scale coincidence not only is unrelated but actually supports that big reductions in solar activity do not greatly affect climate. Your own choice of data is saying the opposite. In Greenland between 600-700 AD there was a millennial variation in 18O (GISP2), and a millennial variation in 15N and 40Ar (Kobashi). I would take that as evidence of Climate Change with capital c, not of the opposite.
When the evidence piles up against the hypothesis that one defends there are only two things one can do. One can change the hypothesis or one can ignore the evidence. I decided to do the first and you have decided to do the second. Yet you accuse me of having my mind set in concrete. It is again a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

When there is no general agreement about something where some people claims one effect and others the opposite, it usually means that there is no effect to speak of. Instead of one side being right and the other being wrong, it is more likely that both are wrong.

Jim G1

Leif,
“When there is no general agreement about something ..”, that is where science begins, without consensus.

Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong.
Not because they can’t predict the future, but because they [as Vuk as well] fail in reproducing the past.

wrong

Future is certain, the past not so, there are always ‘experts’ insisting in changing past data regardless of the subject, might be from sunspots and climate related temperatures at one end to who and where wrote history of the world events at the other end of the never ending data changing enterprise.
(don’t google ‘vuk’ image)
.

Sure, if your ‘theory’ looks like junk, blame the data [and lose all credibility]

Duster

And then there’s Trenberth in the Climategate emails, “the data must be wrong.” Strangely, looking at various temperature adjustments prior to 1950 thermometers were characteristically running hot and the overgae apparently increases into the past. Something is quite definitely wrong.

Leif, you continue to be the penultimate advocate of science; not “climate” science, just science. I commend you and the horse you rode in on.
Thank you. Keep it up. I salute you very seriously with a sword raised high. Good fucking job Leif. Really. Thank you you old snort! Damn fine job!

Mods: I left out the /sarc tag on purpose. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Svalgard’s work.

u.k(us)

@ bartleby,
You snuck that f-word past the mods.
===
I’ve tried once, twice, maybe three times, but always felt dirty afterwards.
But only on this site.

PA

lsvalgaard August 9, 2016 at 11:05 am
Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong.
Not because they can’t predict the future, but because they [as Vuk as well] fail in reproducing the past.

This quite frankly is bull. The past is so badly known and so frequently adjusted or waterboarded that what the actual “past” was is a matter of conjecture.
Since about 2003 we have reasonably comprehensive data about everything except land surface temperature. The only standard for measuring global warming is land surface temperature and ocean temperature. Air is a working fluid and the temperature really doesn’t matter.
If ocean heat content starts declining we can forget about “global warming” as a theory since the actual forcing would have to be less than 1/3 of the median claimed value. If the ECS was actually 3 there wouldn’t be any way for the small decline in solar forcing to cool or even stabilize the ocean temperature.

The issue is about sunspots not temperature. Sunspots have been observed and counted by some of the greatest astronomers over the past 400 year, such as Galileo, Herschel, Wolf, Waldmeier, etc.

PA

The issue is about sunspots not temperature.
Well, she is broadly correct.
She has the 1300s correct.
Her theory has game and we will know soon enough.

Interesting graph.
Looks more like 5x shorter cycles of about 55 years, superimposed on one long period cycle that may be 900-1000 years.
Hmmn. Much like the short-cycle, long-cycle we see in global temperatures.

ulriclyons

I don’t understand the interest in the ‘208 yr de Vries cycle’, it would go out of phase with the natural frequency of solar minima, which is roughly every ten solar cycles, with a long term average of around 108 years. Though the real intervals are very variable, e.g. SC5 to SC12 for Dalton to Gleissberg (7), and SC12 to SC24 for Gleissberg to the current solar minimum (12).
My heliocentric solar cycle model discretely maps all past solar minima for timing and duration, does show this minimum to short and over by SC26, but it shows two deep protracted solar minima, from the late 2090’s and from around 2200. I don’t but the 1000 yr cycle either, the clusters of deeper Sporer-Maunder minima can be anything from 400 to 1200 years apart.

Javier

The 208 year de Vries cycle comes from climate proxies, as it was detected in tree rings from Central Europe and the Tibetan Plateau.
It has also been detected in Berilium deposits in ice cores from the last glacial period, making it one of the oldest solar cycles that we can detect.

ulriclyons

Maybe there are warm events at that periodicity, it cannot map solar minima.

Javier

Distance between Dalton and Maunder, and Maunder and Spører is 208 years. Distance between Sporer and Oort and Greek and Homer is 2x 208 years.

ulriclyons

“Distance between Dalton and Maunder, and Maunder and Spører is 208 years.”
Which makes Dalton far too late. I make it 12 solar cycles between the start of Maunder and the start of Dalton, around 135 years. The interval between the Gleissberg Minimum and the current minimum is also 12 solar cycles, while between Dalton and Gleissberg it is only 7 solar cycles. Sporer is really two minima, from the 1430’s, and from the 1550’s.

You are probably both wrong.
Perhaps because of the vague timing.
how about this:
Start Maunder: 1645; start Dalton: 1800; distance 155 years
Middle Maunder: 1675; middle Dalton: 1810; distance 135 years.
Average distance 145 years = 13 cycles.

ulriclyons

lsvalgaard “Start Maunder: 1645”
The 1660’s are still fairly warm on CET, the colder period begins from 1672 around the sunspot maximum of SC-8, giving 12 solar cycles to the maximum of SC 5 in Dalton, where the colder period was 1807-1817.
“Average distance 145 years = 13 cycles.”
Starting from Maunder, that would make Gleissberg and the current minimum happen far too late. And I clearly remember you previously referring to weaker solar activity occurring on average every ten solar cycles, which I agree with.

Starting from Maunder, that would make Gleissberg and the current minimum happen far too late.
Staring from WHEN in Maunder?
And there cycles are really not that regular. The length of every ‘cycle’ is very variable. There cycles are not real [sharp] cycles, just approximate recurrences.

ulriclyons

“Staring from WHEN in Maunder?”
I did say, but the point is your 145 year intervals going back from now would place Maunder starting at around 1580.

Say again. What year?
You cannot just ‘go back’ from now, as there is no real, strict cycle.

ulriclyons

What year? it doesn’t matter when you are that much in error, you choose. A 145 year interval is patently much too long.

Perhaps you are confusing the Gleisberg and de Vries ‘cycles’.

ulriclyons

“Perhaps you are confusing the Gleisberg and de Vries ‘cycles’.”
Perhaps you are looking for a pointless argument rather than admit that your 145 year estimate demonstrates who the confused party is.

What you need to do is the list here and now what your timing is.
Start of Maunder, middle of Maunder, end of Maunder,
Start of Dalton, middle of Dalton, end of Dalton,
Start of ‘now’, middle of ‘now’, end of ‘now’.
That would let people calculate for themselves what the ‘distances’ are.
If you do not make such a list right here and right now, you have no argument.

ulriclyons

One only needs the start, and going by your 1645, the current minimum would start in 2080 with your average interval of 145 years. It is you that has no argument.

You fail to give the years that would settle this.
Come on, don’t be shy.

ulriclyons

False, I gave your start date for Maunder, which is very early. The matter is settled.

You fail to give the nine numbers:
Start of Maunder, middle of Maunder, end of Maunder,
Start of Dalton, middle of Dalton, end of Dalton,
Start of ‘now’, middle of ‘now’, end of ‘now’.

ulriclyons

You failed to include Gleissberg. For amusement, it would interesting to hear your justification for requiring start, middle, and end dates to calculate the average interval.

You didn’t give any. Try again.
Start 10, end 20, average [and middle] 15. Can you see that?

ulriclyons

You didn’t explain why you required them, and made your poor 145 year interval estimate only from the start dates. I don’t need to try anything again, your 145yr estimate is far too long where ever you start Maunder from.

Jeez, you are denser that usual.
You and I both need all of these dates so we can agree on the duration of the various intervals. I’ll give you mine again:
M 1645-1675-1700
D 1799-1810-1825
G 1890-1912-1933
N 2009-2030?-20XX?
D-M = 154, 135,125 [avg = 138]
G-D = 91, 102, 102 [avg = 98]
N-G = 119, 118?, XXX? [avg = 119?]
average of averages = 115
No 208-year De Vries cycle.
What are yours? If you have any.

ulriclyons

“Jeez, you are denser that usual.”
Ad hominem. At last you have worked out that your 145yr interval was too long, well done.

You still fail to provide the years. My ad-hom seems well placed.

So, I’ll help you out one more time.
If we assume the Maunder started in 1645 and the Dalton in 1799 we get an interval of 1799-1645 = 154 years using start dates. If we assume the Maunder ended in 1700 and the Dalton in 1825 we get an interval of 1825-1700 = 125 years. If we assume the Maunder middle was 1675 and Dalton was 1810, we get an interval of 1810 – 1675 = 135 years. The average of 154, 125, and 135 is 138 years. If we don’t use the ending date, we get an average interval of 145 years.
If you still don’t understand how this works out, there is not much hope for you.

ulriclyons

From the start of Maunder, plus three times 145 years is at least 2080, which is patently far too late for the start of the current minimum. No middle and end dates required, and not even the start dates of Dalton and Gleissberg required. You’ve merely over complicated the whole thing to distract from the fact that you were wrong in the first place, and shows a complete lack of integrity.
“The average of 154, 125, and 135 is 138 years. If we don’t use the ending date, we get an average interval of 145 years.”
But that is just between Maunder and Dalton, and so cannot represent the average interval between minima. I’m not going to lower myself to calling you dense, but that looks like a rather fraudulent move to me.

From the start of Maunder, plus three times 145 years is at least 2080
There are no real cycles in this game, so you cannot just triple up.
The average ‘Gleissberg Cycle’ is something like 115 years, but varies at least +/-30 years.
The Sun does not a strict memory of the past.
And you still fail to provide your dates for when you think the cycles started and ended.

ulriclyons