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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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
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.
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 !
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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? 😀
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.
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.
Not so bad in the winter, though, which is why you’re invaded annually by Yankees and Canadians.
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.
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.
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
If the authors of this study are right, hurricanes should get worse until mid-century. A colder world is generally a stormier world.
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.
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.
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.
If there are dual/multiple dynamos at work, the fourier methods David Evans was pursuing might be the proper modeling technique for solar cycles.
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.
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.
“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.
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
The fundamental processes are at 20 and 23.6 years, though. The higher frequency harmonics are merely rectification phenomena.
You mean the Hale cycles?
two successive Hale cycles make for one half of a Gleissberg.
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.
An article by Usoskin and Kovalt claiming to refute Zharkovas theory can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225224431_Simulation_of_Sunspot_Activity_During_Active_Sun_and_Great_Minima_Using_Regular_Random_and_Relic_Fields/preview/0fe142780cf2f204e9019820/Preview-225224431_Simulation_of_Sunspot_Activity_During_Active_Sun_and_Great_Minima_Using_Regular_Random_and_Relic_Fields.pdf?inViewer=true&pdfJsDownload=true&disableCoverPage=true&origin=publication_detail
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?
I believe the darkening of the Sun refers to nuclear winter occurring after nuclear WWIII.
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.
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]
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.
So now the liberals can say “we fixed global warming”.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
“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.
oh, yes
So what is this then
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
That is the DATA
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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
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
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].
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…
“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…
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.
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.”
“‘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?
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
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’.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
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]
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe there are warm events at that periodicity, it cannot map solar minima.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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’.
“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.
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.
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’.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
“you cannot just triple up”
Yes I can, and that is the simplest way to show your 145 year interval to be way too long. Fancy you trying to fob me off with the average of the intervals of the start and middle dates of Maunder and Dalton, tut-tut.
You just don’t get it. There is no fixed cycle. The length of the interval varies with time. From Maunder to Dalton it was 154 years [measured from start to start] or 125 years [measured from end to end]. From Dalton to Gleissberg, the length was smaller [91 resp. 102]. You still fail to provide what you consider the relevant years for the minima.
“You just don’t get it. There is no fixed cycle. The length of the interval varies with time.”
Do pay attention, I gave those intervals in numbers of solar cycles immediately before you butted in with your 145 year average interval nonsense.
Since solar cycles vary in length it is necessary to give the dates in years. So provide start, middle, and end times for M, D, and G.
The only way to see how long the intervals were is to express them in years. You should be able to see that the intervals have different lengths. The M-D being the longest, with a length depending on exactly when you place the start and end years:
http://www.leif.org/research/G-Minima-Intervals.png
That is why it is important that you provide such year numbers. You have evaded this up to now [and my predicting is that you will continue to evade it. Prove me wrong].
Getting around WP:
http://www.leif.org/research/GMinima-Intervals.png
Stop playing the control freak and demanding the unnecessary. Any reasonable start date for Maunder, plus the start date of the current minimum, already and alone proves your 145 year average interval between solar minima to be far too long. I don’t need to calculate the average to prove your figure wrong, and to do so with the two long intervals and the one short interval in the 1800’s, would lead to a very biased average figure, that would obviously not represent the longer term average well.
Nobody said that the average interval was 145 years. Only the first one.
And you still evade to give the years of start and end.
You should have made that clearer in your first comment then. Not that arguing whether it was 12 or 13 sunspot cycles between Maunder and Dalton makes a difference to a long term average between solar minima anyway, so it was a pretty pointless hairsplitting comment in the first place. And calculating the mean of the start and middle intervals of Maunder and Dalton is an arbitrary way to reduce that interval, it has no meaning.
You should have made that clearer in your first comment then
If you had paid attention, my first comment was ONLY about the Maunder-Dalton interval. I repeatedly stressed that the length varied in all subsequent comments.
It is not a given that it has more meaning to use only the start time [as the length of the minima varies]. There are three numbers one could reasonably use: the start, the middle, and the end time. Without cherry picking only one, a possibly less biased method would be to take the average of all three intervals. You still fail [grossly] in providing your dates. The point is that there is NO regular cycle [and perhaps no cycle at all, just stochastic random variation].
I had already described how irregular they are. The original point was that an average 208 years between minima is too long.
You still evade to show your list of minima timings.
Since there is no real cycle, it makes little sense to calculate an ‘average’ interval between minima.
You may also have misunderstood what the the de Vries ‘cycle’ is supposed to be, namely going between every second mimimum.
“Since there is no real cycle, it makes little sense to calculate an ‘average’ interval between minima.”
Solar cycles and minima are ordered by a specific planetary progression that does cycle with an intrinsic variability. It makes sense in calculating the long term average interval from the start dates. Calculating the average of the start and middle dates between two consecutive minima makes little sense.
Solar cycles and minima are ordered by a specific planetary progression
No, that is not the way the sun works.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5988
“No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity
Robert H. Cameron, Manfred Schüssler
(Submitted on 23 Jul 2013 (v1), last revised 25 Jul 2013 (this version, v2))
Recently, Abreu et al. (2012, A&A, 548, A88) proposed a long-term modulation of solar activity through tidal effects exerted by the planets. This claim is based upon a comparison of (pseudo-)periodicities derived from records of cosmogenic isotopes with those arising from planetary torques on an ellipsoidally deformed Sun. We examined the statistical significance of the reported similarity of the periods. The tests carried out by Abreu et al. were repeated with artificial records of solar activity in the form of white or red noise. The tests were corrected for errors in the noise definition as well as in the apodisation and filtering of the random series. The corrected tests provide probabilities for chance coincidence that are higher than those claimed by Abreu et al. by about 3 and 8 orders of magnitude for white and red noise, respectively. For an unbiased choice of the width of the frequency bins used for the test (a constant multiple of the frequency resolution) the probabilities increase by another two orders of magnitude to 7.5% for red noise and 22% for white noise. The apparent agreement between the periodicities in records of cosmogenic isotopes as proxies for solar activity and planetary torques is statistically insignificant. There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.
Calculating the average of the start and middle dates between two consecutive minima makes little sense.
The start date is difficult to determine. The better choice would be the deepest point [the ‘middle’ date]. But since you still evade to show us your list of dates, you are just waving hands in the air.
“You may also have misunderstood what the the de Vries ‘cycle’ is supposed to be, namely going between every second mimimum.”
The first time I have heard that, can you show me a reference for that?
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
“No, that is not the way the sun works.”
Because Abreu et al didn’t find it? that’s well funny.
Nobody has presented any credible evidence for planetary influence.
See also: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
“Large planets very close to their host star are expected to exert a much larger effect than the farflung smaller planets in our solar system. A ‘Mega Jupiter’ with mass 3MJ and at 0.052 AU would have a tidal effect 4*1003 = 4,000,000 times larger than our Jupiter’s [τ Boo]. We conclude that there is no detectable influence of planets on their host stars, which might cause a lower floor for X-ray activity of these stars”
(Poppenhäger & Schmitt, ApJ, 2011)
Magnetic cycles might be visible in XUV or X-ray emission, or even total brightness for large star spots So far, no star cycles synchronized with any exoplanets have been found.”
that’s well funny.
It seems that the joke is on you.
And I asked for a quote of the de Vries ‘cycle’ going between every second minimum, not a quote of what I wrote.
Since the de Vries cycle is supposed to be 208 years and the ‘usual’ Gleissberg ‘cycle’ is about half of that, there will be two G-cycles in every dV-cycle. I don’t think you need a reference to see that for yourself.
Plenty of folk claim de Vries to be the interval between solar minima, but I have never before heard anyone say that is is ‘supposed’ to be going between every second minimum, apart from you here in a your typical supercilious manner.
“It seems that the joke is on you.”
Well no I’ll have the last laugh because from my correlations I can see what you are all doing wrong, like assuming any effect would have to be gravitationally based.
Plenty of folk claim de Vries to be the interval between solar minima, but I have never before heard anyone say that is is ‘supposed’ to be going between every second minimum
If the dV-minima are every 208 years and the G-minima are every 104 years, it follows that the dV-minima with match every second G-minimum. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.
I can see what you are all doing wrong, like assuming any effect would have to be gravitationally based.
Gravity is the only force that can propagate from the outside of the sun. Magnetic and electric forces are counteracted by the solar wind that sweeps any such influences out of the solar system, but there are plenty of folks who [like you] will postulate this or that, but with no basis in valid physics. For them [and thus for you] there is no hope. They [and you] find happiness in their illusions and it will be almost a crime to yank them out of their bliss.
” If the dV-minima are every 208 years and the G-minima are every 104 years, it follows that the dV-minima with match every second G-minimum. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.”
As if I couldn’t see that. So one has before said that de Vries is supposed to between every second minimum, you made that up.
“..but there are plenty of folks who [like you] will postulate this or that, but with no basis in valid physics. For them [and thus for you] there is no hope. They [and you] find happiness in their illusions and it will be almost a crime to yank them out of their bliss.”
Pure pompous prejudiced presumption, my research is based on observations not postulates.
It is you who is under the illusion that the planets do not order solar activity.
It should have been clear that the dV is claimed to line up [coincide] with every second G-minimum.
On the planet stuff: people have been proposing a relationship for 150 years, but to date none has passed muster. Not only is there no observational support, but there is also a problem with a credible physical mechanism [not enough energy]. That, of course, does not stop some people to still beat that dead horse.
“It should have been clear that the dV is claimed to line up [coincide] with every second G-minimum.”
To you or I, but apparently not for Javier and many others.
“Not only is there no observational support..”
That you are aware of. I have identified a specific multi-body progression that regularly and reliably maps each sunspot maximum, within a year in many cases, and the start and duration of each solar minima. And a predictable logic of the gas giant ordering of solar activity levels at syzygy and at quadrature, that provides essential clues to the nature of the mechanism.
I have identified a specific multi-body progression that regularly and reliably maps each sunspot maximum, within a year in many cases, and the start and duration of each solar minima. And a predictable logic of the gas giant ordering of solar activity levels at syzygy and at quadrature, that provides essential clues to the nature of the mechanism
The proper way of dealing with this is to write it up and submit it to a good peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise it is just yet another wild-eyed illusion feeding an overheated ego.
Sure would like to hear abt that progression?
The correlations have puzzled me for a long time…
“Otherwise it is just yet another wild-eyed illusion feeding an overheated ego.”
Yet if the planetary ordering of the solar cycle and of solar minima is true, then that says similar for mainstream solar science and their internal solar dynamo theory. Rather like climate science and their ‘internal’ natural variability assumption.
Yet if the planetary ordering of the solar cycle and of solar minima is true
There is no evidence that it is true. Lots of evidence [e.g. stars with large planets] that the planetary ordering is false. If you think otherwise, write it up, submit it, and be on your way to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
The more i study nature the more i stand amazed at the works of the Creator..
Javier, it has been my experience that people vary radically on what they think is going to happen. No one expected the “pause”, but it has been fun to watch the people who had been so certain CO2 was behind the warming. We’ve put lots and lots of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 18 years. Yet the only rise in temperature was due to the recent el nino, not CO2. Before you can say people will be disappointed in the near future, you need know what they expect, and it may not be what YOU expect. I don’t know what to expect, that is for sure. Your prediction is what it is, a prediction, not a guarantee of results. In time we’ll see how the prediction holds up. That is the scientific way. You might have something, and then again, you may not. We’ll see.
I don’t know if somebody was expecting the pause or not, as nobody would have paid him/her attention, but in retrospect it is clear that the pause could have been predicted on the basis of the ~65 year cycle in AMO and temperatures. The problem is that this explanation requires natural variability to be an important factor and dominant scientists were/are not ready to accept that.
In my experience it is better to expect the ordinary than the extraordinary, because the extraordinary rarely happens. Chances are there won’t be any grand solar minimum on our watch, nor a runaway greenhouse warming hell. Just a little warming here or a little cooling there, pretty much as before. But people being people, most expect that either we are going to burn, or freeze, or both sequentially. Go figure.
“it is clear that the pause could have been predicted on the basis of the ~65 year cycle in AMO”
Absolutely.
Proves without a doubt the AGW crowd are not scientists, but grants protectionists for their leftist political agenda
How does this rehashed, unproven theory prove anything? It’s even been proven false.. But nice try though.. We know which baffoon camp you’re in.
So from now on we’re allowed to call Lief ‘old snort’. I like it! 🙂
Well, something is perhaps causing the multi-century time period variation in temperature, and Dr Svalsgaaard is vehement in stating he cannot find any evidence for a solar effect. I am just bad enough in math to have the odd thought the quasi-periodicity might be a chaotic effect, with no “cause” per se, which means it is well beyond what I understand.
Or perhaps simply well beyond prediction?
Dr. S. makes his criticisms based on the “inextactnes” of the hindcast and the resulting forecast, but the underlying cycle, while as unpredictable as the ENSO, still appears to have periodicity and the precursors of a minimum, even in his own model, show a preference for another solar minimum of a lesser duration (which Zarkova also suggests).
So we might predict a cooling trend of a shorter duration with higher probability than an imminent warming trend, which, I believe, would be the point?
Bartleby, given that we know the W/m2 difference between solar max and solar min at the top of the atmosphere, and that this resultant solar signal is buried in the much greater variability wrought from internal teleconnections between our atmosphere and our oceans, I fail to see your mechanism whereby we can maybe predict, see, and then connect a cooling trend in our noisy temperature data to a quieter Sun.
Leif showed the measures, the method, the tools. You’re still talking about model.
Gives one the shivers.
Well, Johann, I thought we were talking about models? His model, the other lady’s model? In this example, it’s models all the way down yes?
Pamela. perhaps you misinterpreted the observation. I’ve made no attempt to explain a much greater variability. I suggested the system was unpredictable, and continue to old that opinion.
I observed that the graphs Dr. S. presents aren’t fundamentally in conflict with those of cited paper. There may be phase differences. Regardless, both models indcate a higher probability of cooling vs. warming.
Gotta comment here. Can’t bear to read the rest. It comes down to this: The radiative heat transfer equation has two means by which the terrestrial equilibrium temperature can vary: (1) changes in insolation, and (2) changes in the ratio of the (spectrally averaged) absorprtion coefficient to the emission coefficient. Everyone is obsessed about (1). The fact of the matter is that (2) allows the temperature to be darn near anything, depending on how that ratio swings. Some people dimly get this point when they ponder the albedo. We know albedo to maybe 10% error. This alone would correspond to a 7.23 K (13 F) temperature variation. Albedo is greatly sensitive to the extent and quality of clouds, ice, and water (not to mention vegetation, rock, and soil). I’m not even mentioning the similar variations in absorptivity and emissivity.
And, whoever said that (1) and (2) are independent? Hard to imagine that (2) would affect (1), but far too easy to surmise that (1) would affect (2). To me, the overarching fact is that we have a steady march of ice ages in the era we now exist. Something is doing it, and something is undoing it (if you get my meaning). I haven’t seen any good explanation of that cycle–but then I’m only a bystander. Even so, if there were a good explanation, I would expect to see that referenced as background to all these discussions.
When it comes to Nature, the jury is always out.
Mike, you are right in that the energy supply may vary, and that the energy balance may vary. You are not the first one to think of it; one hundred years ago a Serbian prisoner of war in an Austrian POW camp developed a theory – amazing, what he did just with pencil and paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Time will tell so far so good for those of us who want very quiet prolonged solar conditions. I like the way this is winding down.
You are a fool for wanting a quiet Sun. Climate history has shown us that the quiet Sun brings untold suffering to humankind due to climatic deterioration. The Sun is the source of life and the active Sun has brought the global warming that has blessed humanity since the Little Ice Age. The longer it goes the better for all.
Depends on what you think is worse – a moderate cooling that we now have the technology to deal with, or the authoritarian monsters who would use continued warming to gull the intellectually stunted into giving up their freedoms potentially past the point of no return. I choose the latter.
Techno-optimism is unwarranted. If agricultural output decreases and we get a couple of bad crops years this could turn quickly into a global catastrophe of untold proportions.
More CO2 has also been good for agriculture and forestry.
I thought this research had been published and discussed about a year ago. Is there something new here?
Where is the data that says “there’s a lot more greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere? Where? Since when? See, this is where the Hoaxers fall flat on their face. No data.
[??? .mod]