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.
Why bother? — talking about the solar activity and climate change is like talking about the weather. There is virtually nothing you can do about it and even if you could we could never agree on the right answer. Please remember that during the last 30 years vegetation on earth is 30% greater. Would you want to change that? There is nothing inherently wrong with a warmer earth. Just as there isn’t anything inherently wrong with a colder earth. The length of these cycles are multi generational. Now some will tell you we will reach a tipping point where all the methane from the arctic will be released and then we will really be SOL. Well except both the artic and Antarctic are gaining ice presently. I think all money spent on researching climate change would be better put to use creating Artificial Intelligence.
No one I know of has talked about this and my feeling
There is a small % Chance that what is going on with the sun and decreasing solar cycle activities COULD be more then the start of a short term minimum like Maunder and Dalton mins.
We could be at the edge of starting a New Grand Glacial period. Calculations are that one is over due by about 2000 years.
I don’t agree that just a slight change orbit of earth around the sun is what caused the past Glacial periods but only added to the cooling of the Glacial periods. I do feel very long periods with low solar activities similar to the Maunder min and Dalton min periods but much longer and deeper is the main cause of past Glacial periods.
The % chance is very small that a new Glacial Period is about to start but if one is, society would colapse.
The Holocene is liable to last about another 4000 years, at least, before the onset of renewed continental ice sheets where none now exist.
But each cold cycle should be cooler and each warm cycle less warm.
Quick….build a wall at the Canadian border while we still can….
Zombo:
Thing is there are more people in Mexico City or the State of California than in all of Canada so a few snowbirds won’t make much difference.
Besides, the next glaciation will grind the wall to dust anyway so we Canucks can sled on down to the US off the ice sheets. 😉
Shall we also establish a Night’s Watch to hold the Wall?
If a major volcanic eruption occurs, then the cooling will start even earlier.
“we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” The primary so called greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is H2O averaging around 2%. CO2 is now around .04%, So the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years has changed the total amount of greenhouse gas very little. By the way, molecule per molecule, the H2O molecule is a lot stronger absorber and radiator of IR than the CO2 molecule. If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the LWIR action of heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective and not a radiative greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be otherwise because of the atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.
Willhas, Your analysis is faulty because you are forgetting (or simply don’t know) that CO2 is the critical radiative coolant to space in the upper troposphere.
If what you are saying is true then more CO2 in our atmosphere should have a cooling effect. More CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect of lowering the dry lapse rate which in itself is a cooling effect.
willhaas, you say: If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
No, because 30 years is much too short a time to be sure you are seeing an underlying trend rather than natural variation up or down.
The effect should be instantaneous. The theory is that adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere increases the insulation properties of the atmosphere. A good indicator of the insulation properties of the atmosphere is the natural lapse rate. If adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. then the amount added over the past 30 years which according to the AGW conjecture is the cause of global warming, should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The insulating properties of the atmosphere have not change over the past 30 years yet CO2 levels have increased.
willhaas, You say: The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be otherwise because of the atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection.
No. The physics is clear that the surface warming effect (and the corresponding tropospheric lapse rate) is due to the restricted rate at which GHGs are able to radiate energy to space. This occurs increasingly towards the rarified upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where the probability of radiative emission to space gets much higher.
That this must be true can be easily appreciated from the following thought experiment: If we were to remove all the GHGs from the atmosphere but still keep the current quantities of all non-GHGs (nitrogen, oxygen, etc., which do not significantly emit radiation at earth temperatures) then the earth’s surface temperature would be similar to that of the Moon (around 200K). Add back in spoonfuls of GHGs, one by one, and the surface temperature would go up progressively until it reached the current level.
I think that is an over simplification of this issue [of science]
Truth is that most GH gases also re-radiate to space – hence e.g. we can identify CO2 on other planets by a certain band of UV radiated to us.
to single out a certain GH gas and claim that the net effect of more of it in the atmosphere must be that of warming you must come with a balance sheet showing how much it cools and how much it warms. I have never seen such a balance sheet anywhere for any GH gas.
To prove that the GH gases: ozone, H2O, CO2 and even methane [also] cool the atmosphere, you can study this paper:
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
esp. fig 6 bottom
The LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases has nothing to do with it. It turns out that the Earth radiates of space like a 0.0 degrees F black body at an equivalent altitude of around 17K feet. That altitude is at the centroid of the mass versus altitude profile in the Earth’s atmosphere.
willhaas, Thank you for your responses to which I reply as follows:
Contrary to your assertion that “The LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases has nothing to do with it”, it is clearly established physics that the LWIR absorption/emission properties of CO2 and the other GHGs in the atmosphere (principally water vapour) are the cause of surface warming above what it would be in their absence (namely around 200K, similar to that of the Moon).
Absorption and emission of LWIR by/from GHG molecules takes place at all levels in the atmosphere, with an increasing probability as we ascend the atmospheric column that a photon radiated from a GHG molecule will make it to space without being re-absorbed by another GHG molecule. Thus GHGs act as the principal cooling mechanism to space. (A small amount radiates to space directly from the surface.)
Like many other climate change sceptics, I believe that the reason why the change in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 30 years has not manifested itself as a measurable change in the lapse rate is that there are other natural compensating negative feedback mechanisms at work, such as increased cloud coverage, that keep the earth’s temperature sensitivity to changes in CO2 very low.
But it is certainly not because the LWIR absorption physics is wrong.
Thank you for reading my posts and commenting. The lapse rate as derived from first principals and confirmed by observation is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. That is why over the past 30 years , the increase in CO2 has not had an effect on the lapse rate. What I am saying is clearly established physics. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. Take for example, Venus, with an atmosphere that is more than 96% CO2 and is more than 90 times as massive as the Earth’s atmosphere. The high temperatures at the surface can all be accounted for by the convective greenhouse effect and the planet’s proximity to the sun.. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. It does not exist on Venus.
I read an article recently where the author pointed out the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were too high by a factor of 20 because the forgot to include the fact that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in the lapse rate which is a cooling effect. Then there is the issue of feedbacks which have to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough over at least the past 500 million years for life to evolve. The convective greenhouse effect on Earth as derived from first principals accounts for all 33 degrees C that the surface is warmer because of our atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.
Remember that heat transport by means of convection and conduction dominates over LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere. For example, next to the Earth’s surface a CO2 molecule will absorb a LWIR absorption band photon and will hold it for an average of .2s before re radiating because of that photon. Within that .2s the CO2 molecule will have on average about a billion interactions with other molecules, sharing energy with each interaction..
willhaas,
You say: The lapse rate as derived from first princip[le]s and confirmed by observation is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.
So what would you expect would happen if we were to remove all the atmospheric GHGs?
I would say that the earth’s surface would then radiate all its energy directly to space because its remaining gases (principally nitrogen and oxygen) do not radiate appreciably at earth temperatures.
Consequently, there would be a zero lapse rate and the earth’s atmosphere and surface would be isothermal at a temperature of about 200K, the mean temperature of the surface of the Moon.
In our real world, however, the heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere continually by radiation, conduction/convection and transpiration and exhibits the observed temperature lapse rate. But it only does this due to the presence of GHGs at all levels. These act as coolants, radiating the energy away to space, thus maintaining the continuing flow and the consequent negative temperature profile up the atmospheric column.
So, no, the GHGs are absolutely essential to maintaining the lapse rate.
Actually the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate signifies that H2O in our atmosphere causes cooling. Increasing CO2 will decrease the lapse rate as well. Eliminating them both from the atmosphere, ignoring cloud formation, would have a warming effect. Heat transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation throughout the troposphere yet the middle of mass altitude is where the effective radiating altitude is. This all has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. If the greenhouse gases were solely responsible for radiation to space then one would expect that the effective radiating altitude would be near the top of the troposphere but that is not the case.
The convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and the amount of greenhouse gases in each planet’s atmosphere does not matter for the lapse rate is still a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of any greenhouse gases. This is even valid for the gas bag planets whose atmosphere is mostly H2 which does not qualify as a greenhouse gas.
willhaus,
This is getting interesting and thank you for your polite and constructive replies.
You say that: …the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate signifies that H2O in our atmosphere causes cooling. Increasing CO2 will decrease the lapse rate as well.
Yes, and in the case of H2O that is indeed an empirically determined fact. It also appears to agree with common sense: increasing GHG concentrations would seemingly make it easier for the atmosphere to radiate to ~0K space because it would provide a larger and larger conduit.
So we are left with an apparent paradox: How do we account for the fact that the Moon’s surface (which is the same average distance from the Sun as the Earth) has an mean surface temperature of around 200K, much colder than the Earth’s, despite having no GHGs at all? (You may argue that the Moon has no significant atmosphere whereas the Earth would still have its very significant atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, but these gases are essentially non-radiative at earth temperatures).
How do you resolve this paradox?
@David
you are comparing apples with pears….
The amount of time the Moon takes to complete one turn on its axis with respect to the stars is 27.3 days, and it’s called a sidereal day.
there would be more cloudiness at the lower latitudes in a cooling period such as the one we have entered now – as the T differential between equator/poles increases.
the lower latitudes receive more radiation per square meter, hence the cooling is amplified as earth’s albedo increases
anyway, the point is moot
as I said
there is no man made global warming or if there is it is so small so as to be immeasurable.
Do not even count on CO2 helping you out to stop an ice age coming – if there was one coming
but I don’t see an ice age coming – not even a little one….
David, the Moon is nothing life the Earth except that it is virtually the same distance from the sun. A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
Henry. If our climate continues the way it has been for at least the past million years, our current interglacial period will be followed by another 100K year ice age but the transition may still be thousands of years away. No one really knows how the current ice age cycling got started but it seems to have gotten started when North and South America connected changing ocean currents.
David, your hypothetical world is just too hypothetical for relevance. The effective radiating temperature of the Earth is 0 degrees F at an effective altitude of around 17K feet which just happens to be at the middle of mass altitude of the atmosphere. These numbers are affected by the Earth’s albedo. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface if affected by the lapse rate in the troposphere. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface is not affected by the LWIR absorption properties of CO2.
willhaus,
You say: A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
I am afraid that’s a bit of a cop out. If you really think that a difference in albedo, and therefore surface emissivity, spoils my argument then let me express my ‘thought experiment’ differently:
Let us consider a hypothetical rocky planet, at the same distance from the Sun as the Moon, that…
(1) has the same albedo as the Moon;
(2) revolves at the same rate as does the Moon with respect to the Sun;
(3) is the same size as the Earth;
(4) has an atmosphere of similar volume to the Earth, but consisting only of nitrogen and oxygen (no GHGs).
Do you agree that such a rocky planet would have a similar mean surface temperature as the Moon (~200K)?
If you do agree, then we can proceed forward in our interesting discussion.
If you do not agree, then I shall be intrigued to hear your explanation for how such a transparent atmosphere (containing no GHGs) would nevertheless result in a temperature significantly above ~200K.
David, I am sure that your fantasy worlds with their fantasy physics will yield what ever results your fantasy dictates but they are not part of the real universe. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all real planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The convective greenhouse effect does not depend upon the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. Even a real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. If CO2 were such a great insulator the there should be some applications were CO2 is used as an insulator but there are none.
willhaus,
You say: A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
I am afraid that’s a bit of a cop out. If you really think that a difference in albedo, and therefore surface emissivity, spoils my argument then let me express my ‘thought experiment’ differently:
Let us consider a hypothetical rocky planet, at the same distance from the Sun as the Moon, that…
(1) has the same albedo as the Moon;
(4) revolves at the same rate as does the Moon with respect to the Sun;
(2) is the same size as the Earth;
(3) has an atmosphere of similar volume to the Earth, but consisting only of nitrogen and oxygen (no GHGs).
Do you agree that such a rocky planet would have a similar mean surface temperature as the Moon (~200K)?
If you do agree, then we can proceed forward in our interesting discussion.
If you do not agree, then I shall be intrigued to hear your explanation for how such a transparent atmosphere (containing no GHGs) would nevertheless result in a temperature significantly above ~200K.
The wheels are falling of the progressive authoritarian bus as we speak! But don’t let the facts get in your way, you never do.
The propaganda media will save them. It always does.
Time to sell my Prius and buy a hummer…
If there is one common element in the posts here it seems to me to be that nature, with billions of years of successful experience, doesn’t know what it’s doing. Even those who seem to recognize that our home is a small part of a vast chaotic system that is governed by a few discoverable laws don’t seem to realize that the universe you see, from the smallest stone through entire galactic clusters, is well beyond our understanding much less control. We have no energies available to us that even come close to the energies involved in the suns warming of our planet. Even volcanoes here are more powerful, as a matter of course, that anything we produce. To believe that mankind could destroy the earth or its ecosystems is foolish, to pretend that it’s happening is idiotic.
Mother Gaia doesn’t do statistics. She deals with the real universe in real time, and everything happens just when it is supposed to happen.
The conditions that produced certain climate behavior in the past, are NEVER going to occur again, so trying to guess what is coming next is doomed to failure.
Nothing ever happens twice. It is always something new that was born out of a different set of starting conditions.
G
Whatever our species might or might not be able to do, it is hubris to imagine that we could have an effect approaching a pimple on the posterior of past mass extinction events.
Well don’t give up without trying!
Seems excellent research to me.
Another we are going into the LIA cooling trend level in the near future babble.It is overblown as all the others predicted similar have been.
Does solar cycles affect drought?
There is correlation, but no one has linked the two unequivocally.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/17/the-current-us-drought-is-not-a-surprise/
Discussed in this blog post.
In the GWPF newsletter today, I found the statement: ” Prof Zharkova said: “When it comes to controlling the earth’s temperature the sun trumps the work of mankind infinitesimally.” (Can’t find it here on WUWT on a quick & dirty browse.)
Doesn’t she mean ‘infinitely’ not infinitesmally?
Figures I ran some years ago indicated that the VARIANCE in Insolation over a Solar cycle vastly exceeds antyhing AGW warmihng can throw into the mix. (I can search my file for the calcs., but I seem to remember the factor was of the order of 33,333.
Can someone with better qualifications than mine (I’m merely an Engineer, and retired at that) check me out? [Delta-I] / [Sigma-AGW] over, say, one year.
If I’m right, it’s a killer-argument that IT’S ALL TO DO WITH THE SUN, FOLKS!
One more reason why I’m hanging on to my Suncor Energy and Enbridge shares.
If another Maunder Minimum IS on its way, then I’m glad I’m headed for the Out door. Good luck you youngsters. I’ll leave you my winter woollies!
“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.”
The 1650’s were largely very warm, the 1660’s had three cold years but were otherwise warm (CET). The cold part of Maunder was from 1672 to 1705, three solar cycles sunspot maximum to maximum.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but, here it goes. Being right for the wrong reason is just as equally bad as being wrong.
There wont be Maunder Minimum like conditions on the sun just yet, and the effects on the sun that (in my opinion) can cause a “full blown Ice age” is a long way off.
It’s always interesting to note when a paper et al discovers two polarities on a star.
It’s even more convenient to ignore preceding and on going research of the mechanism involved.
So far, this has been a drop-dead gorgeous discussion…
Awesome 🙂
Maunder Minimum was no picnic. But for the US, it was not so bad. Some tough winters certainly even into 18th century.
What is worthy of a look is the regularity of and predictability of weather cycles: wet to dry, and, cold to warm. These warm/wet, warm/dry, cold/wet and cold/dry yearly cycles recur with significant predictability (Wheeler’s (R.I.P.) work is the Occams Razor for weather cycles). The half cycle for hurricanes made a low last year. Watch for the increase to show up this summer and into October as intensity picks up first, then comes the frequency combined with intensity of the storms in following years.
Finally, look at where Paris is and then check out where 90+% of the US territory is and where 95+% of the US population lives. We are south of Paris and most of the rest of Europe. So I expect to see the ‘cold’ years to be a minimum on a relative basis to Europe and Asia. Earthquake frequency will increase for a time too.
We can assume most of the US will boom in both manufacturing, mining and agriculture as we produce food and materials for those who can’t grow or mine enough.
Florida real estate and tourism will increase by a factor of at least 10. As Yogi Berra said, Florida “is too crowded. Nobody goes there any more.” 🙂
I really do study this stuff. The complete boom and bust cycle for developed industrialized economies is … wait for it … ~11 years!! Like 1999 to late 2010.
My question is, will Al Gore die penniless because he can’t believe global cooling is what is coming?
If Professor Zharkova’s results turn out to be valid, that’s going to rock a lot of rice bowls. Maybe that’s why some “climate scientists” are so angry with her.
The Gore-bought “consensus” has been suppressing solar theory and evidence from the beginning of Stephen Schneider’s human-caused global-cooling/global-warming alarm. The leading theory of global climate change when Schneider’s phony anti-human “science” entered stage-left was solar driven, thanks to John Eddy’s 1970’s documentary evidence that what he called the “Maunder Minimum” of solar-magnetic activity was real, together with his survey of quite a bit of evidence that such variations in solar activity seem to be correlated with global temperature.
For Schneider and his fellow Stanford neo-Malthusians Ehrlich and Holdren it was always about finding excuses to curtail human population. Schneider even wrote a Malthusian utopian fantasy book/ policy-prescription called The Genesis Strategy, where the planet would be saved by starving half the planet so that their food could be saved as “seed corn” for the future. Hey, it’s no more wackadoodle/murderous than the contemporaneous plan of Obama’s science advisor John Holdren to forcibly sterilize a large fraction of mankind.
That such thoroughly politicized figures were ever treated as legitimate scientists is half the scandal. Their blatantly untenable scientific claims should have been examined with extra skepticism on account of their clearly expressed ulterior motives. Instead the consensus response was a lessened concern about the validity of the alarmists’ scientific claims on the grounds that their policy prescriptions would still be right. We need to curtail energy consumption and economic growth anyway don’t we, to keep overpopulation from destroying the planet and ourselves?
No. The climate alarmists are not just wrong about climate. Their population alarmism is just as wrong. The answer to all genuine environmental concerns, both natural and human-caused, is technological progress, which is created by PEOPLE. We are not the problem. We are the solution. So long as we don’t make the Schneiderian mistake of thinking that we can make progress by telling lies. The climate “consensus” is one big Schneiderian mistake.
solar driven, thanks to John Eddy’s 1970’s documentary evidence that what he called the “Maunder Minimum” of solar-magnetic activity was real, together with his survey of quite a bit of evidence that such variations in solar activity seem to be correlated with global temperature.
At the time it was believed that the variation of solar TSI was in the 1% to 2% range, which would, indeed, give us the Little Ice Age. when we later discovered that the variation was an order of magnitude smaller, Jack Eddy abandoned the idea that the Sun was directly responsible for the observed climate change [Dinner talk at SORCE Science Meeting, Sonoma, Ca, 2003].
That’s a great place for a friendly dinner. Let’s hope our star remains stable.
Sir, Doubtless all this is correct as a matter of science.
This said, regardless of the merits or otherwise of Zarkova et al’s latest paper, is it not the case that Occam’s Razor should be applied as a starting to point for the investigation into what drives long term variations in climate?
To quote Swinburne “…the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis…its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that…[demonstrates] an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth…”
Levels of GHGs must have something to do with the variations – that doesn’t need to be assumed, as I understand the “raw” science proves it. But the Sun and what it is “doing” over any given time surely has something to do with it as well, as it with must all the other complex “systems” ocean/atmosphere circulation etc.
Are these “systems” not to a very large, possibly a dominant, extent “driven” by the Sun over the long term? Might the very levels of GHGs in the atmosphere themselves not be “driven” by the Sun to a far greater extent than by industrialization, though no-one should deny the impact of the latter?
It seems to me that what no-one can get away from (at least in the absence of further research disproving the hypothesis) is that the Sun is the source of most energy in the earth’s “climatic systems” (in the very broadest sense – not a helpful description I know, but I’m no scientist, so forgive layman’s terms) – and perhaps much more than just the climatic systems.
To posit the above in a different way: Take away the Sun’s “energy”, and is it the case there are no planetary “climatic systems” (and indeed no Solar system as we think we understand it?) other than perhaps those driven by whatever might come from within a planet (volcanism and the like)?
Is that not as true for Earth as it is for Mercury and Venus, or Pluto? It’s just the degree of influence of the Sun that varies in each case is it not?
Zarkova’s hypothesis, research methodology, results etc might not stand the scrutiny of science, but does that mean the starting point that the Sun has an influence, and perhaps “the” influence on climate variability is wrong – if so, why?
It cannot be enough to say that insolation variability is very small, so the Sun can be discounted as a driver of climate variability. That it seems to me is lazy science. Take the Sun away and see what happens then.
KO, the Sun doubtless has an influence, and plenty of climate phenomena can be explained by an assumption that its output varies. It is an attractive and rather likely assumption. Unfortunately, such a variation has not been observed – yet. So scientists who assume a “solar constant” have not (yet) been contradicted by Mother Nature.
Well, maybe Eddy got it wrong!
Based on what he knew back in 1974, he got it right.
Based on what we know after the first measurements from space in 1978, he realized that, indeed, he got it wrong.
Correct me if wrong, but it wasn’t until later (maybe as recently as 2011, but not sure) that SORCE data revealed the great variation in the high-energy end of the solar spectrum. Eddy might have changed his mind again following that discovery.
No, that was long known. And that variation of the high-energy part of the solar spectrum in terms of actual energy (Watt/m2] is very tiny. Eddy was good friend of mine, and I know he didn’t get cold feet and changed his mind. Check out http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/floyd_svecse.pdf
Thanks very much for the link. It appears that the UV variation was already evident by 2003, at the start of SORCE, as you informed me.
The paper’s authors however do not discount the climatic effect of the large variation in UV flux, stating:
“Relevance to Earth’s Atmosphere
Absorption of Solar EUV/UV
Solar UV absorption drives
atmospheric:
I constituent densities,
I thermal structure, and
I dynamics.
Solar UV is absorbed by:
I ozone (200–320 nm)
I molecular oxygen
(140–242 nm)
“Solar UV and Earth’s Climate
I Climate and weather data shows connections to solar activity,
e.g. QBO, NAO, and SST.
I Models show possible solar UV connections to dynamical
changes descending from the stratosphere to the troposphere.
I Cosmogenic isotopes show correlations to climate over the
past two millennia, independent of Milankovich (orbital and
terrestrial attitude) changes.
I Solar causal connections to climate are poorly understood.
Solar UV variation is a leading candidate.”
They further state that the “contribution of UV to TSI variation (0.1%) range from 17% to 60%”. And that:
“Solar EUV/UV Irradiance Spectrum
I extends from 30 nm in the EUV to the visible (400 nm)
I spans roughly 5 orders of magnitude
I contains about 8.7% of the total solar flux
I shows exponential increase in FUV to Al-edge (208 nm)
I for increasing lambda, the spectrum is characterized by:
I strong emission lines (120–181 nm)
I absorption lines (220–400 nm)
I line-blanketed continuum
I continuum at ~160 nm from solar temperature minimum.”
Among further research topics, they include, “What was the solar UV irradiance during the Maunder Minimum?”
They further state that the “contribution of UV to TSI variation (0.1%) range from 17% to 60%”.
That is of the already tiny 0.1%. And the 60% is for the low-energy UV which does not vary very much.
Also, it is good for funding to say that one’s research is important for the climate. 🙂
Environmental scientists must be sexist . . .
You know, you “deniers” are at risk of being arrested for blasphemy. sarc
Except, that isn’t really “sarc”, when one looks at statements made by the burners: we should be variously killed, imprisoned, re- educated in camps, etc.
So first it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, and now it’s global cooling. Come on people make up your mind. I guess the checks ran out for the first and second ones. Now they need a third to keep that government handout coming…
Beware the coming Global Thermal Ambivalence!
Observations from an old guy:
When I was a kid, CO2 was plant food, not a pollutant.
This morning, west of Pueblo, CO it was 58F before the sun rose. The high was predicted to be in the 90sF. Now that’s observable planetary warming.
Circa 1000 AD, this part of the world was much hotter(and dryer), causing the Anastazi indians to abandon their cities and cliff dwellings. Pre-SUV, by the way.
The AGW enthusiasts are fooling only themselves when they claim not to have a religion.
During the coming minimum, I have plans to be deceased.
Climate “science” is in a sad state.
The only way to get attention is to predict something.
Something unusual.
I can’t predict the future climate, nor can anyone else, but I can summarize climate history:
(1) The world’s “average” climate (whatever that is !), as narrowly defined by the average temperature, has barely changed in the past 150 years.
(2) The slight warming since 1850 has been good news, since it followed several unusually cool centuries.
(3) There has been nothing unusual about the climate in the past 150 years — The scaremongering about a coming ‘runaway warming’ completely ignores 4.5 billion years of climate history, mainly with higher CO2 levels … with no known runaway warming.
I think I’ll send my climate history summary to a few hundred newspapers and see if any print it !
In spite of the fact that a high percentage (97% ?) of prior predictions of the future climate have been wrong … people keep making … wrong predictions !
I have been reading about solar cycles since 1997 … and predictions of solar-related cooling since 2005 !
Given the flat average temperature trend between the 1998 and 2015 El Nino temperature peaks, the predictions of (solar) cooling … seem just as wrong as the more common predictions of (CO2) warming!
The lesson learned is to stop making predictions, and develop a better physics model of climate change — the “CO2 is the “climate controller model” is obviously wrong.
I suppose the sun will be very important in that new model … but there may be variables not yet discovered.
I believe it is safe to identify three climate trends:
(A) Warming
(B) Flat Trend (perhaps a flat trend is just a “pause” in an ongoing warming or cooling trend?)
(C) Cooling
Is there a human effect on the temperature?
There must be some effect … from urbanization, economic growth near thermometers, soot on Arctic ice and snow, inaccurate non-global measurements … and perhaps most important: “adjustments” to raw data by smarmy left-wing “scientists”.
Here’s my two predictions:
(1) The climate will vary
(2) Data “adjustments will eventually be found to cause more “global warming”
than adding more CO2 to the air.
Wrong predictions are great though, if we learn what it is that went wrong. The AGW crowd isn’t trying to do that. They are simply trying to find new ways to “prove” AGW. That they have their conclusions drawn in advance is an insult to science. As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit would say: there aren’t sufficient opportunities for graft in real science.
All this ”climate change” crapola is just more leftist boogie-man scare tactics designed to keep the people terrified into turning their lives over to leftist governments.