Guest essay by David Archibald
The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo. From that data set, this graph shows the heat loss since 2004 for the top 700 metres of the water column:
Figure 1: Monthly heat content anomaly in the uppermost 700 metres of the North Atlantic
As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity. That is shown in this graph:
Figure 2: Ap Index 1932 – 2016
We might not care too much about the animals that live in the North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe. So what has that been doing?
Figure 3: Time series depth-temperature diagram along 59 N across the North Atlantic Current from 30° W to 0°W.
As Figure 3 from Professor Humlum’s work shows, summer heating is penetrating to half the depth it used to 10 years ago and in winter earlier this year sub-8°C water was at the surface for the first time in more than ten years. That cooling trend is quantified in the following graph:
Figure 4: Average temperature along 59° N, 30°-0°W, 0-800m depth
This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend:
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
Two things the poster gets wrong:
ONE:
“… North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe.”
The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate
The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
by Richard Seager
https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1
TWO:
“… persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway …”
An old, 2013, story. Norway wheat is now (last 3 years) about the same as in the 1990s while the 2000s was higher.
In the last few years (following 2012) field crop production in the USA has been at record levels.
You can grow wheat but is it good enough for human consumption or is it sold as cattle feed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/05/norways-wheat-production-impacted-by-climate-change/
Norway, 1000 MT Wheat
1970: 11,601
1980: 65,000
1990: 223,606
2000: 313,400
2010: 331,358
2013: 199,400
2016: ~250,000
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=no&commodity=wheat&graph=production
Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone has a post by Kenneth Richard with a collection of papers on the correlation between solar activity and sea temperature:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/22/scientists-ocean-temps-vary-robustly-and-near-synchronously-with-solar-activity/#sthash.if1HBF0G.dpbs
Including this summary of a paper by Serjup et al:
“We have presented an oxygen isotopic proxy record of near-surface temperature of Atlantic waters from the area of their primary flow into the eastern Norwegian Sea and find that it is robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium.”
“Here is a link for Norway wheat and it depends purely on the definition of failure. I would not describe this as a total failure but it certainly does not look too good to me. Dropping from a high of 450 down to 250 is nearly a 50% reduction. not a total failure but enough to cause shortages to occur”
Most people in their rush for navel gazing in Norway, seem totally unaware of the recent total failure of the harvest in FRANCE this summer.
Yield is typically 60% down to the extent farmers have requested moratoria on their interest payments to the banks.
Luckily successful season 2015 storage won’t affect the prices for now…..
The reason for the unusually low yield?
An unusually cold wet spring, followed by a really lacklustre relatively damp summer.
YES chaps it IS cooler!
Colder northern hemisphere fanatics only need to look nearer to home in the UK and France, not even anywhere near 59N or even Norway, (which has nothing much to do with Greenland, – more of interest to the [Grain growing] Baltic states and St Petersburg region of Russia).
All those regions can testify to a miserable cool summer, the exception being URAL region which has been HOT, – largely unaffected by N Atlantic temps.
As Max Boyce used to say “I WAS THERE!”
I have been watching the weather in Southern Spain most days this year, and it is typically 2 to 3 degC below average temperatures.
I have a holiday home and the swimming pool has struggled to reach 30 degC, often being 28 to 29 degC. In previous years my swimming pool usually reaches 33 to 34 degC in late July/Mid August.
There have been very few really hot days, and the night time temperatures have fallen away quickly and are noticeably cooler than usual.
2016 will not be the ‘warmest year ever’ in Southern Spain, and I suspect that applies to most of the countries that boarder the Northern shores of the Med. There has, however, been very little rain.
Salvatore
Which is the climate is very stable and yet the earth has alternated between glacial and non glacial conditions and even more telling very abrupt climatic changes sometimes in the course of decades.
No. Lets take the phanerozoic, the last half billion years during which multicellular life has existed our climate proxy knowledge is reasonable. The earth is not continuously oscillating between ice age an interglacial. less than 10% of the phanerozoic has been in ice age. Glacial periods typically last a few tens of millions of years (e.g. Cryogenian, Minoan-Varangian, Saharan-Andean). The current glacial-interglacial flip-flopping of the Pleistocene simply represents a transitional phase as we cross the threshold into another prolonged glaciation which will deepen to eventually full uninterrupted glaciation for some tens of million years. As we all know, interstate flip-flops are typical of state transitions in quasi-chaotic systems:
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qm/Quantum/node78.html
http://www.buildart.com/images/Images2011/TIMELINE_FULL.jpg
http://www.hugovandermolen.nl/environmental%20affairs/pics/atmossphericCO2andtemperature,600million-years.gif
I AGREE.
Excellent work, David A., and well within your predicted 2 degrees down for cycle 24 made years back.
Here, astride the Mississippi in Central MN we’re experiencing the cloudiest, rainiest August in the nearly 60 I recall with a yet reliable memory. Normally, from 1970 thru the end of last millennium huge- high pressure systems setting up in the Rockies assured days of cloudless skies, hot and dry.
Normally we get 30 inches year round, this year 15 inches since mid-July.
@Oystein in Norway
Thanks for your comment. It gives me perspective and I it confirms my measurements,
namely that earth has already started cooling,
and that it happens from the top latitudes downwards, as evident from the increase of the amount of ice in the Antarctic for the past couple of years..
hence most people in between the poles have not yet noticed much change
[and are being deceived by the AGW supporters]
please keep us all informed of the development of the weather in Norway?
I have also been forecasting an extremely cold winter for this year for anyone in EUROPE north of 56N.
It only has to resemble 2010, for the UK to be within days of running out of fuel, and an electricity grid built for constant AGW.
It surely has to be the same competency that got the somerset levels flooded, because they failed they sold off all the dredging machines…
A wealthy “brexit designed” UK that imports more fuel and diesel oil than it refines…that put a generation of nuclear engineers into retirement, and burnt up all its own oil and gas reserves when climate was optimal and warm.
Cold, still freezing weather at -15C, no wind and little sunlight.
Just perfect conditions to test the theory and practice of all those over-hyped “renewables” .
In fact it only has to be another failed harvest in France in 2017.
We will have a plague of agricultural bankrupcies, a number of French banks fail, the French farmers blocking the ports, and everyone in France blaming everyone else.
The French revolution was started by repeated harvest failures.
I wouldn’t be suprised to see a repeat of it, when you look at the behaviour of that eco idiot mal-baisee Segolene Royale and her latest ideas to ban people even from driving a 2CV to the Tour Eiffel & her con men president ex who claimed to reduce unemployment then plans to close down the most successful thing in France:-
, – Its nuclear electricity.
Those belonging to the Church of Climatology have run afoul of this principle: Theory often heavily influences interpretation of data, particularly when the data isn’t comprehensive or complete. By claiming “the science is settled” they’ve automatically committed themselves to excluding certain data sets which don’t fit their theory and then heavily “interpreted” those data sets which are ambiguous at best. I just don’t see how “science” can go from preaching man-made cooling to man-made warming in just a matter of decades. And then there’s the warming “pause” which many of the apostles of global warming now strenuously deny by jiggering yet more data based on their a priori interpretative narrative.
Besides, if AGW is a reality, why don’t the true believers actually live like it’s true? I bet my carbon footprint is a hundred times less than the movers and shakers of the Church of Climatology with their jetting about and still driving ICE vehicles or taking diesel-powered public transportation. And I also bet that I have a smaller carbon footprint than 70% of those rank-and-file AGW true believers. And If the climate change evangelists really wanted no-carbon green power they’d be jumping on the nuclear electricity train.
BTW, dollar to donuts that in less than 20 years the eco-warriors will begin complaining about what an eyesore wind and solar farms have become.
William Astley August 21, 2016 at 10:58 am
———————————————————–
The peculiar solar cycle 24 — where do we stand?
Sarbani Basu
Department of Astronomy, Yale University,
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf;jsessionid=5258A2ABFA450E49964864E82318A677.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Thanks for bringing the above article to our attention, William.
A solar cycle prediction for Cycle 25 back at you..
..Given this floor value
for the HMF, our analysis suggests that the estimated peak sunspot number for solar
Cycle 25 is likely to be ∼ 62 (±12).
A Twenty Year Decline in Solar Photospheric Magnetic Fields:
Inner-Heliospheric Signatures and Possible Implications?
P. Janardhan,1 Susanta Kumar Bisoi,2 Fujiki,4
S. Ananthakrishnan,3 M. Tokumaru,4 K. . Jose,5
and R. Sridharan,5
11 July 2015
Abstract.
We report observations of a steady 20 year decline of solar photospheric fields
at latitudes ≥45 degrees starting from ∼1995.
This prolonged and continuing decline, combined
with the fact that Cycle 24 is already past its peak, implies that magnetic fields are likely
to continue to decline until ∼2020, the expected minimum of the ongoing solar Cycle
24. In addition, interplanetary scintillation (IPS) observations of the inner heliosphere
for the period 1983–2013 and in the distance range 0.2–0.8 AU, have also shown a similar
and steady decline in solar wind micro-turbulence levels, in sync with the declining
photospheric fields. Using the correlation between the polar field and heliospheric magnetic
field (HMF) at solar minimum, we have estimated the value of the HMF in 2020
to be 3.9 (±0.6) and a floor value of the HMF of ∼3.2 (±0.4) nT. Given this floor value
for the HMF, our analysis suggests that the estimated peak sunspot number for solar
Cycle 25 is likely to be ∼ 62 (±12).
Hmm also a prediction of a Heliospheric Magnetic Field floor value of ∼3.2 (±0.4) nT.
Is that consistent with the historical models floor value. Who might know that off the top of their head?
From another article..
“”It is important to bear in mind here that the transition seen in the wavelet spectra around
1995−1996 corresponds to the time when both solar high-latitude fields above ±45◦
and solar wind
turbulence levels in the entire inner-heliosphere began declining (Janardhan, Bisoi, and Gosain, 2010;
Janardhan et al., 2011).””
Maybe we should bring to the attention of the ‘Interstellar’ Astrophysical community the idea that a change in the interstellar wind direction may have occurred back in the mid 90’s. They probably all ready know this.
Maybe we should bring to the attention of the ‘Interstellar’ Astrophysical community the idea that a change in the interstellar wind direction may have occurred back in the mid 90’s. They probably all ready know this.
And as we have said before, nothing that happens out there has any influence whatsoever on solar activity, due to the supersonic solar wind.
To: Moderator
From: Me
Why did my last post go to the recycle bin?
Had a fairly reliable source doing a solar cycle prediction for Cycle 25 and everything.
[Messages drop into the queue based on several factors, several “key words and tricky phrases” as well. Be patient, we’ve gotten through the previous 1,860,000 responses in pretty good order. 8<) .mod]
Worse yet, their prediction of 62(+-12) is close to Dr. S.’s prediction of sorts for cycle 25 being slightly more spots in Cycle 25 than Cycle 24.
And the post hit the trash barrel?
Clearly this is another sign of AGW and/or climate change. The loss of heat in the North Atlantic is further proof of warming elsewhere. Once you realize every year is the hottest year ever, and especially so since all the previous data needed (will continue to need) adjustments, then it’s all the more dire that the Earth is hurtling towards heat death while the North Atlantic chills.
Amirite?
Is it reasonable to imply that the reduced solar influx is partially compensating for GHG-induced warming and that when the sun returns to normal that the compensation will end, producing a temperature spike?
No, as the variation of the solar output is so very tiny and has an effect less than 0.1 degrees.
There’s more to it than that. You are correct that, since Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies very little over a ≈ 22-year solar cycle, it probably also varies only a little between longer term minima and maxima. Yet there’s ample evidence suggesting that on multi-decadal time scales the longer term ebbs and flows of solar activity do, in fact, have a strong influence on the Earth’s climate. They are certainly correlated, anyhow.
So the question is, why are they correlated? Why does the earth’s climate cool so much during solar minima?
There are three main schools of thought:
1. Since TSI probably doesn’t vary much with shifts in sunspot cycle length/strength, the major climate shifts associated with those small TSI changes are evidence that the Earth’s climate is quite unstable, and easily perturbed, presumably due to strong positive feedbacks. That supports climate alarmists’ worries about the effect of anthropogenic CO2, because it suggests an improbably high climate sensitivity to apparently-minor forcings like anthropogenic CO2, presumably through the effects of positive (amplifying) feedbacks.
2. Coincidence. Correlation does not always imply causation. It could just be coincidences.
That seems unlikely, though. Solar minima certainly do seem to cause cold periods on Earth. The Little Ice Age (LIA) began with the Wolf Minimum, eased a bit, then had another cold period during the Spörer Minimum, and was at its worst/coldest during the longest and most pronounced solar minimum, the Maunder Minimum. The later, less pronounced, Dalton Minimum coincided with another worsening of the LIA, though not as bad as the Maunder Minimum. That’s a lot of coincidences.
3. Indirect effects. The work of Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby & others suggests a third possibility: solar variation might be a much larger effective forcing than previously thought, not because of changes in TSI, but because of a much more obscure chain of effects: changes in the Sun’s magnetic field, which are strongly correlated with sunspot cycle minima & maxima, affect cosmic rays reaching the Earth, which affects cloud formation, which affects climate.
That would be consistent with both a low climate sensitivity to things like CO2 and TSI, yet a large effect from sunspot cycle changes. If Svensmark is right (or if there’s some other causal chain that isn’t yet understood) then it is quite possible that the cooling effect of another Maunder Minimum could exceed the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2, leading to another LIA even with CO2 levels in the 400-600 ppmv range.
Or, if mankind is very fortunate, the two effects could roughly cancel, resulting in a continuation of the current Climate Optimum. In fact it is quite possible that the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 is already preventing or delaying the onset of a new LIA.
If so, it means that it’s a mistake to try to reduce CO2 emissions.
OTOH, if that’s the case, then when CO2 emissions fall, due to mankind’s eventual transition to non-fossil fuels (e.g., thorium), the delayed next LIA can be expected to finally arrive, just as crop yields are falling due to reduced CO2 fertilization. Should both of those things happen at the same time, producing enough food to feed the world’s population could be challenging.
For more about the work of Svensmark, Kirkby, et al, see this interesting video:
The work of Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby & others suggests a third possibility
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”
from 1995 ozone is increasing, both NH and SH
as a consequence more UV is deflected out to space
BTW, I think that video is by:
http://mortensenfilm.dk/documentary
(I don’t know anything about them.)
New paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022689/abstract
Discussion is here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/25/svensmark-publishes-solar-activity-has-a-direct-impact-on-earths-cloud-cover/
The paper concludes that Forbush decreases have an effect on ions and suggests that ions play a significant role in the life-cycle of clouds, but the number of such decreases is very small [one per year on average] and each lasts only a few days, so the effect on climate is negligible.
Leif, why do you think the earth’s climate seems to be so well correlated with the strength of solar cycles? Why do you think the earth’s climate cools so much during solar minima, like the Maunder & Dalton minima?
Leif, why do you think the earth’s climate seems to be so well correlated with the strength of solar cycles?
I don’t think it is. And there is no good correlation. For example, solar activity have decreased the past several solar cycles and the climate has warmed instead of cooled.
I asked, “Leif, why do you think the earth’s climate seems to be so well correlated with the strength of solar cycles?”
Leif Svalgaard replied, “I don’t think it is. And there is no good correlation. For example, solar activity have decreased the past several solar cycles and the climate has warmed instead of cooled.”
1. Is two (Solar Cycles 23 & 24) your definition of “several?” In fact, even #23 was above average in solar activity. It only represented a decrease because #21 & #22 were extremely strong.
The decline in solar activity has only been clearly evident for less than a decade. In late 2006 NASA was still predicting a very strong Solar Cycle #24. They wrote that Solar Cycle 24 was expected to be “one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”
2. Even if you use the start of Solar Cycle 23 as the start of the decline in solar activity, that means 1996. But when the effects of volcanic aerosols and ENSO are subtracted, there’s been no appreciable warming since about 1993. Here’s a graph, from a paper by MIT’s Ben Santer and many co-authors:
http://sealevel.info/Santer_2014-02_fig2_graphC_1_100pct.png
As you can see, Solar Cycles 23 & 24 are associated with a plateau in temperatures, not with a significant warming trend.
3. I realize that your adjusted SN & SG numbers for the late 1700s seem to be a possible exception to the general correlation between solar activity and climate, but you know better than anyone that the solar observation data from that period is very sparse. I realize that you went to extraordinary exertions to do the best possible analysis of that data that you could, but I’m sure you agree that there’s considerable unavoidable uncertainty in them.
But do you at least agree that, other than that possible exceptional period, before human activity began dramatically increasing atmospheric CO2 & CH4 levels, the major solar minima (most recently, Maunder & Dalton) were strongly correlated with colder climate? Assuming that you do, then what do you think accounts for that correlation?
BTW, if you’d like a suggestion for your next paper, I’d like to offer one. I think it would be very valuable if you would try to put error bars around your SN & SG numbers.
I realize that’s difficult. But omitting error bars invites the sort of confusion you lamented in your paper: “In most analyses and publications, the sunspot number series is assumed to be carved in stone, i.e. it is considered largely as a homogeneous, well-understood and thus immutable data set.”
1. Is two (Solar Cycles 23 & 24) your definition of “several?”
21, 22, 23, 24 are several.
In late 2006 NASA was still predicting a very strong Solar Cycle #24.
So what? They were wrong. And I predicted [correctly] that cycle 24 would be the weakest in a 100 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
As you can see, Solar Cycles 23 & 24 are associated with a plateau in temperatures, not with a significant warming trend.
21 to 24 has a warming trend. It is called Global Warming.
but I’m sure you agree that there’s considerable unavoidable uncertainty in them.
They are good enough for the purpose.
Dalton) were strongly correlated with colder climate? Assuming that you do, then what do you think accounts for that correlation?
Solar activity now is comparable to the Dalton. Is climate?
BTW, if you’d like a suggestion for your next paper, I’d like to offer one. I think it would be very valuable if you would try to put error bars around your SN & SG numbers.
I suggest that you actually read the paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf and study the careful determination of the error bars [e.g. sction 3.4]. Then come back and apologize.
Leif wrote, “solar activity have decreased the past several solar cycles and the climate has warmed instead of cooled.”
I asked Leif, “1. Is two (Solar Cycles 23 & 24) your definition of “several?””
Leif replied, “21, 22, 23, 24 are several.”
#21 & 22 were not decreases, Leif.
#21 was an increase, not a decrease, to a very high level of activity.
#22 was the virtually identical to #21, still very high, not a decrease, at least not a significant one.
#23 was finally a decrease compared to #21 & #22, but still bigger than average
#24 is a big decrease.
.
Leif wrote, “They [NASA] were wrong. And I predicted [correctly] that cycle 24 would be the weakest in a 100 years.”
And the 1/2005 paper said, “we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years,”
I am impressed! Truly!
That SN prediction was spot on.
Your date prediction was off by several years, but even that (“~2011”) was better than NASA’s prediction (“2010 or 2011”), despite the fact that NASA wrote their prediction 2 years later than you wrote yours!
Well done!
.
I wrote, “Solar Cycles 23 & 24 are associated with a plateau in temperatures, not with a significant warming trend.”
Leif replied, “21 to 24 has a warming trend. It is called Global Warming.”
That’s wrong. #21 & 22 (1976-1996) were unusually strong solar cycles, and they were associated with a warming trend. #23 & #24 (1996-present) are weakening solar cycles, and they are associated with a temperature plateau.
.
I wrote, “…for the late 1700s… you know better than anyone that the solar observation data from that period is very sparse. … I’m sure you agree that there’s considerable unavoidable uncertainty in them.”
.
Leif replied, “They are good enough for the purpose.”
Arguably. You mentioned in your 2014 paper there is “still ongoing debate about a missing short cycle between cycles 4 and 5,” in the late 1700s. That is a testament to the paucity of data from that time period.
.
I wrote, “before human activity began dramatically increasing atmospheric CO2 & CH4 levels, the major solar minima (most recently, Maunder & Dalton) were strongly correlated with colder climate… what do you think accounts for that correlation?”
Leif replied, “Solar activity now is comparable to the Dalton. Is climate?”
Of course not. Why would it? “Now” is not “before human activity began dramatically increasing atmospheric CO2 & CH4 levels.” Do you suppose that 120 ppmv of CO2 and 1.1 ppmv of CH4 have had no warming effect at all? (Did you think I was one of those people?)
Also, of course, the Dalton Minimum lasted for several solar cycles, and we’re just barely past the peak of the first Dalton-level solar cycle, this time. So it’s a little early to be assessing the effects, don’t you think?
.
I wrote, “if you’d like a suggestion… I think it would be very valuable if you would try to put error bars around your SN & SG numbers.”
Leif replied, “I suggest that you actually read the paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf and study the careful determination of the error bars [e.g. sction 3.4]. Then come back and apologize.”
That is great! I had not seen that 2015 paper. I was talking about your 2014 paper. I thank you for the link, and I look forward to reading it.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC21-to-24.png
?w=720
That’s wrong. #21 & 22 (1976-1996) were unusually strong solar cycles, and they were associated with a warming trend. #23 & #24 (1996-present) are weakening solar cycles, and they are associated with a temperature plateau
the late 1700s. That is a testament to the paucity of data from that time period
As http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf demonstrate, there is enough data to get a reasonable reconstruction of solar activity.
Just a comment, no conclusions drawn, but notice from the graph that atmospheric temperature estimates during the 1998 Super El Nino exceed those of surface estimates? By the 2016 Super El Nino, that had been reversed, significantly.
Just Mk1 eyeballs, again, but it does seem that late 20th Century generally higher tropospheric estimates had been erased by the early 21st Century. In contrast, though, over the last 10 years or so, surface estimates become higher.
Maybe a Phd. or two could explain how my “lie’n eyes” may have deceived me?
Leif, read your graph
notice the double pole switch 1971 and 2014
notice that you can draw bi-nominals for the field strengths top to bottom and bottom to top, representing the average polar field strength
what is there not to understand that the Gleissberg is for real, and lasts ca. 86.5 years, on average?
hence I find the bending point at 1995.9
nov. 1995
live with
it will be getting cooler
wherever you live
Back in early 2013, I analysed all results from 54 weather stations, balanced, ie
27 NH, 27 SH, balanced to zero latitude, and 70/30 @sea/inland
To summarize the results on maxima, I had the following average results, in K/annum
38 0.036
32 0.028
22 0.015
12 -0.013
the relationship is best given by
y=0.042ln (x) – 0.1167
where y = speed of warming/cooling in K/annum
x = years in the past counted back from 2012.
the Rsquare on that is 0.9966
If your maths is not too rusted you can work out that when y=0, x= 16,1 years ago, counted from 2012, i.e.
ca. 1995.9
that means the change from warming to cooling occurred toward the end of 1995.
I think if we all started looking at maxima and minima we will gain more insight as to what happens on the sun instead of looking at means and getting confused.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
Note that the results of one weather station in Alaska would have been enough for me to come to the same conclusion as the global result….
Here is a graph from stations in my surroundings on minima that shows you how you can repeat my results (using a different sample of stations)
To the contrary there is much evidence of cosmic ray links to global cloud coverage.
there is much evidence of cosmic ray links to global cloud coverage.
You mean like this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
I do not think we had a prolonged solar minimum condition during that time interval.
I do not think we had a prolonged solar minimum condition during that time interval.
Svensmark bases his hypothesis on that interval, so you are saying that he was wrong on this.
Leif, to what do you attribute the declining trend in low clouds shown in that graph over the decade from about 1997 to 2007?
I have no idea, except it is not due to increase of cosmic ray flux.
“The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, ‘I do not know.’” Jack B. Sowards (screenwriter), voiced by Lt Cdr Data (Brent Spiner).
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html
One of many studies.
Which concludes:
“The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.”
That is not the point the point is cosmic rays do effect cloud coverage as shown with Forbush events which gives evidence to the idea that galactic cosmic ray increases associated with prolonged solar minimum conditions will also effect cloud coverage.
Apart from the fact that it is not generally accepted that Forbush decreases changes cloud cover, it does not follow that the lack of Forbush decreases increases cloud cover:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Clouds-GCR-Temps-Palle.pdf
“It seems likely therefore, that the simplified scenario of cloud amount governed by solar activity (GCR) alone, is not valid as trends in cloudiness go the opposite way to predicted”.
ABSTRACT
Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between
changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from
a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The
satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epochsuperpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray
flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP
and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long
or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the
1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible
that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from
ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional
scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their
effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a
widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.
it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.
Good to see that you agree with the conclusion of your link, that there is no robust evidence for what you claim.
Which you sent which does absolutely nothing to prove there is no link between GCR and global cloud coverage.
Why because there was no prolonged solar minimum condition during that time and the threshold of cosmic ray intensity needed was not reached during that time interval which is sustained counts of 6500 units or better for several years.
Which you sent which does absolutely nothing to prove there is no link between GCR and global cloud coverage.
That interval was what Svensmark used as evidence for his hypothesis. So it does absolutely nothing to prove there is a link between GCR and global cloud cover. So you are advocating that Svensmark was mistaken.
Here is another recent analysis:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/No-Cloud-Cover-GCR-Link.pdf
“The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmic-Rays-and-Clouds.pdf
“Once more there is no support for the cosmic ray hypothesis for cloud modulation”
the threshold of cosmic ray intensity needed was not reached during that time interval which is sustained counts of 6500 units or better for several years.
When was that ‘threshold’ reached the last time in the past? And what is your evidence for that?
It was reached during the 2008-2010 solar minimum.
and I might add we are close that level now once again and will exceed it gong forward.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697000011
This study has a different conclusion.
That study is what has been repeatedly debunked ever since [1997]. And did the GCR count reach 6500 units for ‘several years’ back then? The level you claim is NECESSARY to trigger the effect.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PalleBago.pdf
Another study and we can go on and on forever. All studies you do not agree with are debunked which means nothing .
The data mean everything, and they show no evidence for GCR having any effect on climate.
And was the cloud cover higher then?
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Fraction-2001-2011.png
That chart shows a slight increase in cloudiness since 2000 which (as I’ve been saying since 2007) was when I saw the jet stream tracks becoming more wavy again after a period of greater zonality.
That increase, being slight, has only put a stop to the warming trend. Cloudiness needs to increase a little more for cooling to begin though some say there has been slight cooling since 1998 or so despite the recent large El Nino.
That increase in cloudiness ties in with the decline in solar activity since the peak of cycle 23.
It is not just GCR it also has to do with what Stephen has been saying which is how meridional the atmospheric circulation is.
I also think the geomagnetic pole positions play a role, and sea surface temperatures, ENSO etc.
Many items effect total cloud coverage.
except, evidently, GCRs.
I don’t think it is GCRs because I couldn’t think of any way they could disturb the jet stream tracks.
To do that one must somehow interfere with the temperature of the stratosphere so as to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
You can do that by changing the balance of the ozone creation/destruction process differently above equator and poles.
Various particles and wavelengths from the sun do indeed do that and they vary by far more than does simple TSI.
I don’t think it is GCRs because I couldn’t think of any way they could disturb the jet stream tracks.
That is the Argument from (personal) incredulity fallacy.
It is an argument from careful study and lengthy consideration.
Do you know of anyone who proposes thar GCRs change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles when ozone is the dominant player and GCRs are not known to have an effect on ozone?
The fallacy stands.
Tell me who you have in mind for your question.
follow the logic that I used to explain my result:
=> decreased solar polar field strengths
=> more of the most energetic particles can escape from the sun
=> more ozone TOA
=> less UV reaching the oceans
oceans is the capacitor [of warmth/energy]
hence we are currently cooling
despite what anyone else may tell you…
Thanks Henry, I agree.
Well, you are the expert on arguing from ignorance because that is the basis of all your doubts about solar effects on climate.
That was intended for Leif but is incorrectly nested
Let us remove the sun from our solar system for a while and just see where that would leave us…..
Quite so, Henry.
Leif doesn’t accept that any other feature of solar activity other than simple TSI could possibly have any effect on the earthly climate.
That is an argument from ignorance par excellence.
Leif’s nickname from now on should be ‘the hypocrite’ 🙂
@Stephen Fisher
I already chirped in before you,
I nicknamed Leif: Dr. No
Dr. No
that will stay in my mind
but I still wonder why?
perhaps trying to please too many people
[and characters]
does become a problem to one’s brains
Trolls will be trolls, distracting, minimizing, denying and prevaricating with their last breath.
May their data be corrected in the future by Boeotians.