Guest essay by David Archibald
In the time before the current period of faith-based science, much good work was done on the role of the Sun in controlling climate. One of the best monographs from that time of innocence is Hoyt and Schatten’s The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, published by Oxford University Press in 1997. That book starts with this paragraph:
About 400 years before the birth of Christ, near Mt. Lyscabettus in ancient Greece, the pale orb of the sun rose through the mists. According to habit, Meton recorded the sun’s location on the horizon. In this era when much remained to be discovered, Meton hoped to find predictable changes in the locations of sunrise and moonrise. Although rainy weather had limited his recent observations, this foggy morning he discerned specks on the face of the sun, the culmination of many such blemishes in recent years. On a hunch, Meton began examining his more than 20 years of solar records. These seemed to confirm his belief: when the sun has spots, the weather tends to be wetter and rainier.
So the idea that sunspots and the solar cycle control climate is at least 2,400 years old. In the modern era, the appreciation of sunspots started again in 1610 with telescopic observations by Galileo, Thomas Harriot and others. The solar cycle was discovered by Samual Schwabe in 1843 after 17 years of observations, though William Herschel’s correlation of sunspots and the wheat price in England dates from 1801. A 2003 paper by Pustilnik and Din entitled Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England confirmed Herschel’s observation.
The idea that the Sun controls climate is easy enough to understand. In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.
We know what causes individual sunspots – something to do with magnetic flux tubes rising to the solar surface due to bouyancy. But the cause of the solar cycle itself had remained a mystery until the recent publication of the second edition of Evidence-Based Climate Science, edited by the indefatigable Don Easterbrook. The first edition, published in 2011, contained a paper by Ed Fix, retired B-52 pilot from Ohio, entitled The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation, which demonstrated the modulation of the solar cycle by the gas planets. The second edition expands on that with a co-authored paper (Ed and myself) entitled Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response which details the relative contribution of those planets.
It has long been suspected that the solar cycle is largely influenced by Jupiter due to the closeness of the average length of the solar cycle of 11 years and the orbital period of Jupiter of 11.86 years. In 1984, Schwentek and Elling noted that “the clearly dominant spectral band in sunspot number, the solar cycle of 10.8 years, is given by the configuration period of Jupiter and Saturn (19.859 yr) times the ratio of their distances from the Sun (0.545).” Just over a decade later, Attila Grandpierre confirmed that whatever was causing the solar cycle must be extrinsic to the Sun – which leaves the planets as the causative agent.
Ed Fix’s 2011 paper was important because it provided a physical explanation for solar cycle behaviour. Many of the then observation-derived rules for explaining the fundamental properties of the sunspot cycle had not been quantified until that paper. To a large extent, existing solar science is based on non-mathematical observation, evidenced by Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s various predictions of solar cycle amplitude. The 2011 paper’s treatment of the sunspot cycle as an ideal spring driven by changes in radial acceleration provided a new paradigm. At the same time, this new model is consistent with the solar dynamo theory.
Ed Fix’s model explains why, for extended periods, successive increases in solar cycle amplitude are seen before the system gets out of phase and phase destruction occurs. Individual Hale cycles are not discrete magnetic events. The quantum of flux preserved in the system is the basis for the amplitude of the following cycle. Thus the sunspot cycle memory effect is explained.
The model also explains the Waldemeir effect – that strong cycles reach a maximum of amplitude in the shortest period of time. It also explains the amplitude-period effect (the anti-correlation between the peak amplitude of a cycle and the length of the preceding cycle) and the amplitude-minimum effect (the correlation between cycle amplitude and the activity level at the previous minimum). Ed Fix’s model hindcasts almost perfectly and that very close match, despite the model’s simplicity, suggests that a lot of confidence could be placed in what it is predicting.
Some have doubted the planetary basis of the solar cycle due to the weak effects of the individual planets on the Sun. That is certainly borne out by the work done for the 2016 paper. Figure 1, from that paper, shows that by itself Jupiter has little effect on solar variability:
Figure 1: Simulation model with Jupiter only compared to the full model
Similarly, Figure 2 running the model with only Saturn shows a similarly low amplitude response though with Saturn’s 29 year orbital period instead of Jupiter’s 12 years:
Figure 2: Simulation model with Saturn only compared to the full model
So, if Jupiter and Saturn have little effect on the Sun by themselves, as predicted by many, what does cause the solar cycle? This is the mystery that has not been explained until now.
It turns out that the interaction of Jupiter and Saturn causes most of the solar cycle. The effect on the Sun of these two planets is synergistic rather than additive as shown by Figure 3. It has been said that mathematics is the language of physics. What has been elucidated by this paper is the mathematical basis of the solar cycle.
Figure 3: Simulation model with Jupiter and Saturn compared to the full model
The red line shows the full model which includes Uranus and Neptune as well as Jupiter and Saturn. The difference between the red and blue lines is the effect of Uranus and Neptune. This can be additive or subtractive. In Solar Cycles 18 and 22, Uranus and Neptune increased the amplitude of the solar cycles relative to the model output of Jupiter and Saturn alone. In Solar Cycles 20 and 24, Uranus and Neptune had the effect of reducing the size of those solar cycles. Thus the cold period of the 1970s cooling period associated with Solar Cycle 20 may have been due to the influence of Uranus and Neptune.
Where to from here? Well, there is another big mystery remaining about the Sun. The hemispheres have different activities that are preserved on a multi-cycle basis. That is shown in the following figure:
Figure 4: Sunspot area by solar hemisphere
For the last three cycle, the southern hemisphere has had more sunspot area than the northern hemisphere. Its peak has also been later than that of the northern hemisphere. What could be causing that? It is likely to be the inclination of the orbits of the gas giant planets to the Sun’s equator. Those inclination are:
Jupiter 6.09%
Saturn 5.51%
Uranus 6.48%
Neptune 6.43%
It seems that the next step will be to make a 3D version of Ed Fix’s model.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmm. Reading more carefully a paper that I posted a link to above:
Orbital resonance and Solar cycles by P.A.Semi
Emphasis added.
Correlation does not imply causation. I can’t buy this without there being an explanation of the physics involved. The forces are just too small to have any effect, IMHO.
True, and that’s the next part of the effort – to find the causation. A good amount of correlation does imply a relationship of some kind, wither one of the observed is a cause or there is a third party. Given the situation, however, it’s hard to think of any kind of third party that could cause both orbital resonance and sunspot cycles.
Don’t be fooled by the size of the effect. It is quite common for very small forces to have very large effects, if they occur at just the right time. The whole thesis here is about resonance conditions, where cyclical behavior reinforces like a child pumping a swing.
would plankton levels alter the amount of energy being stored by the oceans ? if this mechanism was affecting the level of uv output from the sun (it does vary by a huge amount) it could be responsible for huge fluctuations in plankton levels. when plankton levels are high would the sunlight that would normally go to warming the oceans be absorbed by the plankton and used for growth/population increase when uv levels were low ?
uv light kills/damages plankton, so fluctuation of uv light output from the sun must have a huge effect on the plankton levels. in turn with plankton being the largest individual biomass on the planet could this have an effect on the climate. pure speculation on my part ,but something i have been pondering for a while.
@bit chilly.. that is an interesting idea since UV is filtered by the atmosphere. When they did the drilling a few years back, along with pollen, ( some plants like it warm and some don’t) they were able to tell whether the ocean water in various places had warmed or cooled by type.
Well then, what does prove causation?
Granted the effect is small but it is a regular, “pulsing” influence and it has had billions of cycles to reinforce itself. Not proof but worthy of some study.
Actually, strong correlation DOES IMPLY causation. It just does NOT PROVE it. And small forces can have large effects if they are cyclic. For example, I can get a large suspended weight to swing in big arcs by tapping it lightly – if I tap at the right frequency – the resonant frequency of the system.
There is a hypothesis here, and it makes predictions. Let us see if the predictions pan out. If not, there is something further to learn.
A picture may be worth a thousand words but it’s no substitute for a formula accompanied by tables of data.
Back in my youth I had an old German physics professor. Once he wandered about the room talking to the students, and while they were not looking would change the signal generator driving the experiment. It was a lesson hard learned by most, that when you are measuring an effect, you must also monitor the INPUT.
My father invented a little game where we would fall backwards and he’d catch us. Then once, he’d just let you fall and smack yourself on the floor and then say : “that’ll teach you not to trust ANYBODY!”
Same principal I guess.
The claim that a model completely explains something, backed only with model output figures that cover only a portion of the period for which there is data and no direct comparison between model output and real data should make everybody here at WUWT very suspicious.
Are we skeptics or believers?
The influence of solar variability on climate change is not what it is being discussed, but the claim that this particular model based on planetary movements can completely account for solar variability when no evidence is shown to support such claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I’m treating this as an introduction to a possible new and interesting hypothesis. There’s really not enough information to evaluate it right now. I expect more details to follow. If that does not happen, then I’ll ignore it.
There is also the possibility that if the larger planets are effecting the sun, that this planet could be affected as well. I can understand that it is very complex. Quantifying it is a different matter.
I thought that maybe we might never solve this problem. … I’m always reminded of the first computer simulation of weather. Things were going along fairly well, then by chance the electricity went out. When they restarted it, the results were different because of the rounding and number of decimal places. … but then ” never say never”… I can see where we might… ripples in a pond sort of…
Predict solar cycles and you can predict earth’s climate.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com Water vapor increase is countering the temperature decline that would otherwise be occurring and might also be contributing to recent widespread flooding.
is the increase in water vapour responsible for the “missing heat ” ? a more humid atmosphere at the same temperature obviously contains more energy .
In the 28 yr 1988.5-1016.5 TPW increased about 1 kg/m^2
Heat of vaporization of WV = 2.465E6 J/kg
Earth area = 510.1E12 m^2
Energy to increase TPW = 1*510.1E12*2.465E6 = 1.257E21 J in 28 yr
1.257E21/28 = 0.49E20 J/yr
This isn’t much compared to Trenberth’s estimate of about 65E20 J/yr missing,
thanks for the informative reply.
On one of my first ever posts on WUWT – back in around 2008/2009? – I – a mere geologist and amateur astronomer – postulated that the interplay of Jupiter and Saturn must have an influence on the solar cycle. I was immediately shot down in flames by none less that Dr. Svaalgaard. To me it wasn’t rocket science: The 29.5 yr cycle of Saturn coupled with the 11.9 year cycle of Jupiter would cause a more ‘chaotic’ cycle of roughly 22 years. Or two ’11 year’ solar cycles. Throw into the mix Uranus and Neptune and we might get something predictable. As the chap on “The Layman’s Sunspot Count” website has been trying to get people interested in for a while…
Who knows, eh? The late Jack Eddy certainly didn’t. And I remember the humble quote which was posted here as a tribute on his untimely death.
My observation back then was that Jupiter and Saturn are either in opposition or conjunction every roughly 22 years.
Jimmy, could you explain how you get 22 from 11.86 and 29.5 ? Thx.
I suspect he meant that the period between conjunctions or between oppositions is 22 years. If you start with Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun in a line (a conjunction), it takes ~22 years for them to line up again. Jupiter is back where it started in 11.86 years, but saturn has moved along ~144 degrees in its orbit. Jupiter needs to rotate through that and then more to catch up. In general, the time is Jp*(sum((Jp/Sp)^n,n,0,inf)) which is [1/(1-Jp/Sp)]*Jp whereJ p is the length of Jupiter’s orbit and Sp is te length of Saturn’s orbit.
That is the equation for an alignment of Sol J and S from a viewpoint on earth.
If you want to use that as a period of sun spot cycles it implies that the Earth is part of the cause too .
ShrNfr said: In general, the time is Jp*(sum((Jp/Sp)^n,n,0,inf)) which is [1/(1-Jp/Sp)]*Jp whereJ p is the length of Jupiter’s orbit and Sp is te length of Saturn’s orbit.
Show your work please. Both equations yield a distance (in terms of “the length of Jupiter’s orbit”), which is definitely NOT a time.
Jp is the length of the orbit in TIME. Sp is the length of the orbit in TIME. If Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun are in a line, after a Jp of time, Jupiter will have gone through 360 degrees of rotation and Saturn will have gone through Jp/Sp * 360 degrees of rotation. Jupiter now needs to rotate through that to “catch up with” Saturn. It does that in Jp*(Jp/Sp) in time. Of course, Saturn has not stayed still. It has rotated an additional Jp*(Jp/Sp)^2 * 360 degrees. Recurse and you get the formula for time. The earth has nothing to do with it. If he meant conjunctions as viewed from the earth, there are additional meaningless terms. Meaningless because the postulated effect depends on the gravity of Jupiter & Saturn and not on the gravity of Earth.
Again, a hypothesis that makes predictions. Certainly, it would not be outrageous for something to “pump” an oscillator that amplifies the pumping. Still, I am concerned about why there were few sunspots during middle of the last millennium. If all it does is to modulate another deeper process, the deeper process should be of interest.
Color me agnostic and awaiting the results of comparing the predictions versus the observations.
Predictions and observations are compared at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com 2015 trend predicted from 1990 differs less than 0.07 K from measured trend in 2015.
Is that the prediction you are talking about Dan?
You will pardon me, but predictions involve unknown but measurable values in the future. I can overfit a model ten ways to sunday to agree well with noise.
I have no problem involving the sun as the major driver of the earth’s climate. I consider it much more so than the cause espoused by the Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW.
Greg’s temperature graph bears ZERO correlation with reality…
GISS or HadCrud?
It shows steep nearly linear warming from 1980 – 2010…
no 1998 El Nino peak.
Its a load of fabricated garbage.
Greg – Yes, that was the prediction from 25+ years ago before the sudden sharp increase in water vapor as shown on Figure 3. The prediction from 2015, as shown on Figure 11 reflects the ongoing comparatively steep WV increase and predicts a 2020 trend about 0.06 K higher than the prediction from 1990.
Compare this to the 0.5 K or so error for the GCMs as shown at https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
The stated skepticism HERE is good to read,but don’t slam the door shut yet, since it is not specifically shown by anyone that this is a poorly written working hypothesis.
I am glad Anthony Watts,chose to expose this line of thought,to allow debate on the merits of the Hypothesis.It needs more support before it can be considered worth following as time is limited in research.
Sure, but it would be great to present some data and formulas and tables, and not just some charts with no backup
I didn’t read all the prior posts, but I know the answer to your question here.
Dr Leif says the Sun’s dynamo at minimum is “primed” by the residual magnetic field when the Sun’s field drops to zero.
Well there are 5 other dynamo’s and one great big chunk of iron in orbit around the Sun.
Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune are all North, Earth and Uranus are South.
And of course the Sun flips. And there was a paper showing the Sun and Earth’s magnetic filed will connect, so we know that is possible.
So, magnetic field lines can bundle up, and connect to the opposite pole between all of these moving magnets, and while the distances are far, they are big magnets.
But if you can picture the field lines bundling up and interconnecting between all the planets, the resultant field during the all important zero solar crossing point, would be susceptible (I’m supposing) to the planetary fields, and whether the magnets strongly add, or weakly add, or are blocked or shielded by another planet.
You are going back to the nonsense of “The Jupiter Effect” that John Gribbin wrote about 40 years ago.
Hi, is that “the” Jean Meeus , the astronomer?
Yes, that’s me.
How fortunate. Welcome aboard.
I tried to find a means of contacting you last year and drew a blank. I need someone with a deep understanding of the subtleties of lunar motion to help me explain an odd relationship I have noticed.
I did quite a bit of research to get the best values for various lunar periods and your work seems to be central to a lot high precision values that are used.
I’ll try to dig out the details.
OK, these may not be the most accurate figures I found but they serve to demonstrate the question:
pApsides=8.85058058889194 # polynomial @ur momisugly y2k
pSaros= 17 + (365 +(11+1/3.))/days_per_year = 18.0303665436874
mean frequency of these two periods :
pApSaros=2/(1/pApsides+1/pSaros)
11.8730348309697
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html
pJ= 4332.589 / days_per_year = 11.862236 year
These two periods will align something like every 25771y. Which I think is due to a mix of referential frames. In short it seems like there is a resonance between the saro period and lunar apsides which matches the mean orbit of Jupiter.
So my first question is : is this something which has already been noted or has an obvious explanation?
I would be most appreciative if you could comment. Thanks for any help you can give.
PS. can you suggest a means of determining a better figure for the mean saros period ? That one with 1/3 day in it seems to be based on the near repetition of alignment over three cycles. Is there a more accurate figure?
Yeah,I remember that silliness from John Gribbin, who should have known better as he has a Physics,Astronomy and Astrophysics degrees in his back pocket.
He sold a lot of books to push it:
Predictions
(1974) The Jupiter Effect: The Planets As Triggers of Devastating Earthquakes (coauthor Stephen H. Plageman), Random House ISBN 0-394-72221-3; revised edition published as The Jupiter Effect Reconsidered, Vintage Books (New York, NY), 1982 ISBN 0-394-70827-X
(February 1982) The Jupiter Effect Reconsidered
(1983) Beyond the Jupiter Effect, Macdonald ISBN 0-356-08686-0
He also published books on Global warming, like the good alarmist he is. He has no credibility for me at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin
could this be supported by the fact that a 7 year cycle has been found on proxima centauri, where none was expected … would it point to existence of large planets? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161012155933.htm
There would also be gravitational effects on Proxima Centauri from α Centauri (a system of two Sun-like stars) and β Centauri (two big stars and a dwarf).
Alpha Centauri A (α Cen A) has 110 percent of the mass and 151.9 percent of the luminosity of the Sun. Alpha Centauri B (α Cen B) is smaller and cooler, at 90.7 percent of the Sun’s mass and 44.5 percent of its visual luminosity.
Beta Centauri’s components are called β Centauri Aa, Ab and B (a B1 dwarf). Aa is 12.02 ± 0.13 times as massive as the Sun, while Ab is 10.58 ± 0.18 times as massive.
I am a bit confused about this article, or blog post,
and the relation of the following comments mostly.
The base of the article is about the assumed solving of the Sun spots “mystery” of its activity and its causation, very little actually how that offers a better support to the assumption that the Sun’s variation causes climate change.
Probably the author of this post can clarify it better.
In mean time my only criticism about the the sun variability and its its impact in climate can be related to this:
“The second edition expands on that with a co-authored paper (Ed and myself) entitled Aspects of Solar Variability and Climate Response which details the relative contribution of those planets.”
Where I think the appropriate tittle of the named co-author paper should have been :
” Aspects of Solar Variability and Weather Response” instead of what it actually is.
As far as I can tell there is no any data or evidence suggesting or supporting any kind of assumed climate response to any Solar variation, let alone the short term Solar variation.
All atmospheric response to Solar variation consist as only a short term one, a weather response, which actually can show how able the short term atmospheric processes can be and respond to Solar variation and nullify any possible long term effect from such variations of Sol. Aka no any climate response to Sun’s variation possible, as there no such effect existing in first place.
No matter how good the assumed understanding or the science of the solar spots and their causation could be, still this can’t change the fact that in climate terms such variation of Sun do not have even the slightest correlation with climate and climate change, for not saying that at times the data show actually that even in the case of a link found that is in the terms of negative relation instead of positive.
From my point of view the “old” fallacy still persist, the basic fallacy of “climate considered as long term weather”……
cheers .
Not exactly. The paper is concerned with a resonance relationship between the planetary motion and sun spot activity. The relationship between sunspots and climate is a separate issue which has been discussed elsewhere. However, if you accept that relationship than this does explain certain observed timings.
The tidal effects of orbiting planets affecting the fusion cores of stars should be intuitively obvious. Most of the stars we observe are variable with random, but mostly fixed, periods and amplitude. Only the effects of gravity are powerful and variable enough to result this much random, yet predictably periodic, behavior.
I am reminded of the works of Scafetta, not only with respect to orbital cycles, but also with respect to effects of angular momentum on solar dynamo activity. I note that this site has been critical of Scafetta’s work as mere ‘curve fitting’. This work would seem little different.
Rather dramatic Red Alert solar event in progress, Boyle Index just spiked to 255, and that ain’t nothing to sneeze at:
http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html
ISSUED AT 0350 UT ON 13 Oct 2016 by Space Weather Services
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN SPACE FORECAST CENTRE
A coronal Hole is expected to become geoeffective tomorrow, 14 Oct. A minor geomagnetic storm (Kp=5) is possible during 14-15 Oct, possibly resulting in significant space weather activity and visible auroras during local nighttime hours.
“In fact the Earth’s climate is exquisitively sensitive to changes in solar output, as shown in Nir Shaviv’s 2009 paper Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Professor Shaviv found that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations.”
Leif Svalgaard didn’t think much of the Shaviv’s 2009 paper ….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/
“Leif Svalgaard didn’t think much of the Shaviv’s 2009 paper…”
And, I am sure, prof. Shaviv doesn’t think much about Leif.
As long as Sun’s effect on Earth’s climate is of any concern, Leif and Willis are done for.
I never read their rubbish any more.
David, I’ve posted this analysis of Herschel’s early and incorrect claims about sunspots several times. Perhaps you haven’t seen it. Here’s the abstract:
In other words, Herschel was way wrong, and you are foolishly following in Herschel’s footsteps.
w.
Did you actually read that paper?
It’s absurd to use, as the authors do, wheat prices not only from London in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century (when climatic effects were pronounced), but from the late 19th century, and from America in the late 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, plus yield here during that period. Modern agriculture in the UK and USA is largely freed from solar-influenced climatic variations. Wet and dry years do indeed still affect yield for dryland crops, but not irrigated, while price is set by worldwide markets.
You can download the whole study from this site, after proving you’re not a robot:
http://thirdworld.nl/order/7d8adf4b8b690e80261677fa12778b672a96c12f
I’m sorry, Chimp, but a claim that a paper is “absurd” is meaningless. This is particularly true when you say it is absurd to use all available data … really? Should we restrict ourselves to the paltry short dataset available to Herschel?
Also, I don’t understand how modern crops would be magically insulated from “solar-influenced climatic variations”. Yes, irrigated crops are somewhat insulated from vagaries of climate, but they are still subject to frosts and extreme temperatures. But irrigated crops are only a small part of world agriculture.
w.
Talk about foolish! I guess you still haven’t read the paper.
The price and yield data should be restricted only to times and places in which weather and climate fluctuations play a decisive role, which is not the case in the 21st century USA.
Irrigated cropland produces over 40% of the world’s food. You really ought not to comment on topics about which you know so little.
Moreover, the price and yield data since 1880 in the study are all from the USA, not from the UK or the world overall. In 2012, irrigated farms accounted for roughly half of the total value of crop sales in America. The relevant crop for this study is wheat. In the 17 “Western” states (11 Western contiguous states, plus six Great Plains states from TX to ND) which produce most US wheat, about nine percent of acreage but a much higher share of production is irrigated, thanks to much higher and more consistent yield.
Besides which, as I noted, the fact that wheat prices are now set globally means that the effect of weather in any one country or region has much less impact on price than it did in London in 1801.
So it is indeed absurd to use 20th and 21st century wheat price and yield data from the US to try to falsify Herschel’s hypothesis, since they are so much less affected by the natural variations he studied.
To quantify the effects of modern farming practices, from mechanization, fertilizer, pesticides, new seed strains, etc, consider that land which yielded at best 15 bushels of per acre in the soft white winter wheat region of the Pacific NW in the 1890s yielded 80 in the 2010s. This area practices summer fallow, so for an annual yield, you have to halve those numbers.
To quantify the effect of irrigation, compare the above 40 bu/A yield with that on much worse land in southern Idaho, where irrigation is universal. There, every year, regardless of rainfall, typical yields are over 120 bu/A.
The same tripling would show up in the irrigated regions of the Great Plains, which don’t summer fallow.
Can you now see why the authors needed to look only at dryland wheat from the era before the modern practices mentioned above, and preferably only on the same land? And why it was so absurd of them to compare, as it were, wild apples with an intensive commercial orchard of Fujis?
Further, when prices are high, more marginal land is planted to wheat, so yield falls, unless also more irrigated land is sowed to it rather than corn, potatoes, beans or some other crop.
Chimp, regarding wheat, there’s data here. It turns out that about 15% of the total US wheat crop is produced on irrigated lands. This includes the increased yield on irrigated vs rainfed lands (71 bushels/acre on irrigated vs 33 bushels/acre on rainfed).
This means that about 85% of the US wheat is rainfed and thus subject to all the vagaries of the weather.
Finally, that figure is for the US, which is likely the largest user of irrigation on the planet. Much less wheat in most other major wheat producing countries is irrigated. So irrigation of a tenth of the crop or so doesn’t mean that wheat is magically spared from the vagaries of the weather.
And despite the fact that as you point out the world wheat market is unified, that only affects the price. It does not affect the yields. And if the sun is affecting the wheat crop as you claim, surely it is doing so all over the planet. So if such an effect exists, we should be able to detect it in wheat yields.
But that detection of the purported solar signal,, of course, is something neither you nor anyone else has been able to do …
So if you’d like to make your case, you might consider giving up making excuses for the inability to find the elusive signal in the wheat yields, and instead provide some evidence that said signal actually exists.
w.
Using crops is useless and not reliable. More allthingsbeingequalism
Chimp October 13, 2016 at 12:04 pm
If you think that the weather doesn’t affect price and yield of cereal grain crops, you’ve never been a farmer …
According to the FAO, irrigated lands are only about 6.5% of the total agricultural area. More to the point, they are generally used for high-value crops, and NOT for wheat … which is what we are talking about.
So your claim is now not 40% but 9% … in other words, the overwhelming majority of wheat in the study is NOT from irrigated lands.
Here are the ugly facts. We can find NO EVIDENCE that the minor ~ 11-year solar variations in the sun has had any affect on wheat prices. This is true for BOTH old and new prices, as you yourself have pointed out when you said:
TLDR version? There is no evidence for Herschel’s claims, neither modern nor historical. If you have such evidence, now would be the time to bring it forward …
w.
I have been a farmer and I know that local WX affects yield, but much less so price for wheat, which is set globally, although local markets can be affected by WX to some extent. They don’t stray far from the world market, however.
You failed to grasp the essential point that nine percent of land produces a far higher share of the total crop than that, thanks to much higher yield, ie triple even the best dryland yield and up to six times lower quality land.
You seem to struggle with elementary arithmetic.
If, as I keep urging you, you had read the paper, you’d know of previous studies confirming Herschel’s results, such as Jevons’ 1875 paper. Of course it is now not possible to confirm his and Herschel’s findings because modern agriculture is so much freer of dependence on the weather, as I’ve showed. The study you cite relies far too heavily on 20th and 21st century data.
Since you refuse actually to read the paper you cited, this contains a link to Jevons:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-11-13/that-sunspot-could-make-you-a-killing
“William Herschel’s hypothesis that solar- cycle variation of the Sun’s irradiance has a modulating effect on the Earth’s climate and that this is, specifically, manifested as an anticorrelation between sunspot number and the market price of wheat.”
…
“As a test of Herschel’s hypothesis, we seek to reject a null hypothesis of a statistically random correlation between historical sunspot numbers, wheat prices in London and the United States, and wheat farm yields in the United States.
The analysis above is so terribly flawed that it is almost laughable. A little knowledge applied in a way that is wrong is a terrible thing. “William Herschel’s correlation of sunspots and the wheat price in England dates from 1801”
In 1801, assuming that the demand for wheat was fairly stable, the price of wheat would be very dependent on the volume of wheat and other grains supplied to the market. Wheat prices would go up if there were a shortage of other grains then. But now, this would not be so apparent given the size of the markets and inventories.
I’ll skip the analysis of the substitution effect I mentioned above and skip to just talking about one crop – wheat. Let me put it in a way that is more mathematical. In 1802, wheat yield was dependent on several variables that were not very controllable. Later, those variables were controlled.
For example, there are a number of “variables” diseases and insects that impact wheat yield that are now controlled by chemicals, a better understanding of the disease process and better wheat varieties. Due to the changes, diseases and insects have a lower impact on wheat yield. Farmers have access to better weather forecasts than they did in 1801. This can have a very large impact on yield. Chemical fertilizers and better seed varieties also reduce variability in wheat yield due to changes in weather. Farming has become more predictable and less dependent on having perfect growing conditions.
In 1801, variables such as small changes in humidity or timing of rainfall, when the crop is planted, changes in ultraviolet radiation have an impact on crop diseases. Length and depth of winter weather have an impact on insect survival that has a large impact on wheat yield. These variables are now much better controlled and have a much smaller impact on wheat. This is apparent to gardeners and farmers who use totally organic methods.
Next, types of weather that might have a large impact on wheat yields in England might correspond to conditions or weather that causes better wheat yields in other parts of the world. In 1801, the wheat yield in Argentina would have a low impact on wheat price in London. Now, this is not true. A poor wheat yield in England combined with a good wheat yield in London may leave the wheat market unmoved. In 1801, that is not true.
Correct.
It is laughable, not just almost. And absurd.
But this is what passes for statistical analysis in the post-scientific world of “climate science”. So anathema are solar influences on climate that even Sir William, one of the greatest scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries must be attacked and falsely laid low. Instead, we have lowlifes like Mann.
It’s totally on the wrong track. The solar cycle of 11 years is the time it takes for the magnetic field to flip direction from North to South. But, a full cycle is North, to South, back to North again, and that’s 22 years. That’s where the resonance is, and where a coherent driver would have to be.
But, a resonance does not need a coherent external driver to produce quasi-periodic behavior. Random forcing will do it, as the resonance concentrates energy storage and release at its natural frequency. Hold a pot of water while driving down a bumpy road. You will see the water slosh at the same frequency regardless of the fact that the bumps are randomly distributed. But, occasionally, the slosh will dissipate (did someone mention the Maunder minimum above?) before ramping up again, and its phase will vary over time. That is the nature of randomly driven resonances. That is what we see with the Sun.
And, the random forcing from chaotic dynamics within the Sun’s core is well beyond the level that would totally dominate the teeny, tiny, infinitesimal effect of planetary tidal forcing. Trying to fit the plethora of astronomical cycles to solar observations, and pronouncing it the driving force, is numerology.
That’s where the resonance is, and where a coherent driver would have to be.
I agree, The visual variability witnessed by SSN is just the magnitude of a signed quantity. The noise pattern also suggests that the driver may be related to the sqrt of SSN.
David, I also did a complete analysis of Nir Shaviv’s paper about using the ocean as a calorimeter. I have shown that his claims are statistically not significant. No one found any flaws in my analysis. But that’s not uncommon in the “It’s the sun!” wing of climate science, false claims of significance abound.
You have cited Nir’s paper, saying:
… but you haven’t shown any problems with my math, my logic, my statistics, or any part of my work.
Nice try. Until you can show that my analysis of Shaviv’s statistically non-significant claims is flawed, Shaviv’s paper remains in the circular file along with the rest of the usual solar nonsense written about Hershel and the like.
w.
or you are putting too much faith in SST :p
mark – Helsinki October 13, 2016 at 1:48 pm
Professor Shaviv is the one with faith in SST, not I …
w.
Just a grenade W, I never expected a reply mate, carry on.
and thanks for the correction.
“using the oceans as a calorimeter ” does this take into account what the solar energy is turned into in the oceans willis ? stored heat or increased biomass beginning with plankton and ending with increased stocks of fish species ,similar to the gadoid outburst ?
i have no opinion on the claims made in this particular guest post. it does however prompt a bit of thought provoking , for me anyway.
At perihelion, closest, solar irradiance arriving at the earth is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion, farthest, solar irradiance arriving at earth is 1,323 W/m^2. The total variation is 92 W/m^2.
Because of the tilted axis and the oblique incidence of sunlight, TSI on a horizontal surface at ToA 40 N latitude is 630.5 W/m^2 at winter solstice and 1,268.5 W/m^2 at summer solstice, a total fluctuation of 638.0 W/m^2. These values also account for winter solstice currently occurring at perihelion.
The total impact of 261 years of additional atmospheric CO2 is a radiative forcing of 2 W/m^2 (Figure SPM.5). IPCC’s worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario is RCP 8.5 (W/m^2). How are we supposed to take these relatively trivial amounts seriously?
BTW an ISR of 342 W/m^2 +/- so often cited in assorted power flux balances, e.g. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10, is the consequence of a thought exercise supposing the solar irradiance is spread evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. Interesting approach for conceptual conversation and theoretical purposes, but absolutely nothing to do with reality.
And then there is the upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation fiasco.
The GHG/GHE theory displayed on the power flux balance referenced above shows 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface. This upwelling power flux is calculated by inserting an alleged average surface temperature of 59 F, 15 C, 288 K in the S-B BB equation with an ideal emissivity of 1.0. I consider this an invalid application of S-B. Can you explain why this S-B BB calculation is appropriate?
The 396 W/m^2 is 55 W/m^2 more than the 341 W/m^2 incoming solar energy at the ToA, 155 W/m^2 more than the 239 W/m^2 net of albedo passing through the atmosphere, and 235 W/m^2 more than the 161 W/m^2 power flux arriving at and absorbed by the surface. After accounting for all of the known upwelling power fluxes there is an unexplained and unsourced net 333 W/m^2 power flux loop with no apparent origin. Per the laws of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Where do all of these spontaneous power fluxes originate?
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling loop is 100% efficient, a perpetual energy loop and violation of thermodynamics.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling is absorbed by GHGs distributed throughout the troposphere which has an average temperature of about -40 C, 233 K. The S-B BB power flux for this temperature is about 150 W/m^2 or about half of the downwelling power flux claimed by the theory.
Per thermodynamics energy cannot flow, i.e. downwell, from low energy, 233 K, to high energy, 288 K, without the addition of work, e.g. a refrigerator. There is no outside work indicated.
The GHGs in the troposphere reradiate in all directions, there is no preference for radiating back to the earth. Let’s say 30% radiates back to the earth. GHGs are mostly transparent and CO2 has an emissivity of about 0.1. (Dr Nasif Nahle) Including these coefficients reduces the “back” radiation to about 4.5 W/m^2. Nowhere close to the theory’s 333 W/m^2.
Not that it matters. There is no apparent connection between the figure’s GHG/GHE loop and the radiative balance at ToA which NASA defines as 100 km. If this GHG/GHE loop is simply erased from the graphic there is no change in the ToA radiative balance and no difference in the temperature of the atmosphere.
“These values also account for winter solstice currently occurring at perihelion.”
Oh, yeah? Check your dates.
“Per thermodynamics energy cannot flow, i.e. downwell, from low energy, 233 K, to high energy, 288 K, without the addition of work”
OMG , here we go. A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted. The 2nd law only indicated net flow which is still out from the warmer earth even if there is some back radiation.
99% of the atmosphere’s mass is below 32 km. Above this level concepts like heat, temperature, conduction, convection get a lot fuzzy and S-B BB radiation rules. Below this level S-B loses out to conduction, convection, latent, etc. i.e. a large helping of emissivity.
“A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted.”
So random re-radiation can’t deliver 333 W/m^2 both ways, as much down welled as up welled, and the “loop” dies out. Any of the multiple ways you cut it this GHG/GHE loop cannot work as advertised.
I don’t recall an “net” flow theories in my thermo classes. Granted that was long time ago. Or any real actual examples in over 30 years of power generation experience. If this “net” were a real thing somebody would be making using of it.
January 4, 2017. Next perihelion.
Agree on this point.
Anything above 0K will emit photons.
So a 250K object will emit photons to the 300K object, but the 300K object will emit more photon’s.
So the net flow is from the 300K object to the 250K object.
Nicholas,
True. The Second Law does not mention anything concerning “net flow”. That’s a modern pseudo-science invention. Heat transfer is a one-way proposition; hot to cold.
With this “net” flow invention, you get all kinds of silly notions, like the earth actually warming the sun a minute amount.
Thermodynamics is about statistical properties of matter, not ejection of photons. Use some statistical term if you don’t like ‘net flow’ , I was just trying make the point that thermodynamics does not treat individual emissions and there is no reason why atoms in the high atmosphere can not emit downwards. This is not contrary to the 2nd law.
Greg,
“….no reason why atoms in the high atmosphere cannot emit downwards…”
OK, but S-B including temperature, emissivity, and random percentage calculate an almost undetectable amount.
Nicholas Schroeder October 13, 2016 at 1:17 pm
“A photon does not know where it’s going to land when it gets emitted.”
So random re-radiation can’t deliver 333 W/m^2 both ways, as much down welled as up welled,
Really, why not?
I don’t recall an “net” flow theories in my thermo classes. Granted that was long time ago. Or any real actual examples in over 30 years of power generation experience. If this “net” were a real thing somebody would be making using of it.
Perhaps you should have taken a course on radiational heat transfer, it’s being made use of on a daily basis.
http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7362225/slides/slide_14.jpg
Phil,
Heat transfer “q” is only one way, from the high temperature to the cold per the heat transfer equation. There is no two way heat transfer, as per the Second Law as well.
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/4764/ParaPF1.gif
SkepticGoneWild October 15, 2016 at 10:38 am
Phil,
Heat transfer “q” is only one way, from the high temperature to the cold per the heat transfer equation. There is no two way heat transfer, as per the Second Law as well.
Photons are traveling in both directions, ‘q’ is the net heat transfer between the two plates.
Suggest you read Hottel and Sarofim
https://www.amazon.com/Radiative-Transfer-McGraw-Hill-Mechanical-Engineering/dp/B0006BOZ9K
Phil,
I already have physics and thermo texts from my university courses. “q”, or heat, transfers in one direction only. You are confusing “heat” with electromagnetic radiation. “Photons” are not heat. There is no “net” heat transfer. The heat transfer equation and the Second law specifically state which direction heat transfers; hot to cold.
skepticgonewild October 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Phil,
I already have physics and thermo texts from my university courses. “q”, or heat, transfers in one direction only. You are confusing “heat” with electromagnetic radiation. “Photons” are not heat. There is no “net” heat transfer.
But apparently not Radiative Heat Transfer!
The T2^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the net heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.
Only “q” is the heat transferred in that equation. Heat does not get transferred from cold bodies to hot bodies. That would be a violation of the Second Law as well. Plus if the low temperature plate in the diagram you posted would cause the warmer plate to warm up further still, then the new warmer plate would then warm up the colder plate more…..with the self heating cycle continuing on and on. You would also be violating the First Law, since your two parallel plates would be warmer than original. That’s creating energy out of nothing.
Maybe we are saying the same thing, but maybe not. You stated:
“The T2^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the heat transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the net heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.”
I would state the above as follows:
“The T2^4 term is the energy transfer from plate 2 (flux of photons*h𝞶) to plate 1, whereas the T1^4 term is the energy transfer from plate 1. ‘q’ is the heat transfer from plate 2 to plate 1.”
I think you are conflating “energy” and “heat”. Stand next to a huge block of ice. The ice is emitting infrared energy towards you, but it will not cause you to heat up.
Nicholas Schroeder, why are humid nights *warmer* than nights with low humidity?
_Jim
Why are casual anecdotes as good as data?
Nicholas already answered that: “Below this level S-B loses out to conduction, convection, latent, etc. i.e. a large helping of emissivity”.
When air temps near dew points, the rate of cooling at night drops to a quarter or less the cooling rate earlier the same night when rel humidity was less than 80% or so. More water vapor, the higher the dew points.
As to ‘Griff’, we shd have an Appreciation Week for Griff” to recognize what he brings to the debate:
1. A Court Jester’s ability to reduce us to rib-aching laughter;
2. A constant reminder that there really are people out there who still think like him;
3. Living evidence of the power of propagandists and mannipulators to convert the gullible to zombie-like adherence to the Cause, regardless of any contradictory evidence.
I always watch out for his postings as I know I’m going to be entertained. I often wonder if he is an invention of Anthony’s to crank things up a notch on a ‘slow-day’?
Let’s hear if for Griff!
I’d like to thank the many dedicated scientists of the world, without whom all this would not have been possible…
Edward Rowland Sill. 1841–1887
The Fool’s Prayer
THE ROYAL feast was done; the King
Sought some new sport to banish care,
And to his jester cried: “Sir Fool,
Kneel now, and make for us a prayer!”
The jester doffed his cap and bells, 5
And stood the mocking court before;
They could not see the bitter smile
Behind the painted grin he wore.
He bowed his head, and bent his knee
Upon the monarch’s silken stool; 10
His pleading voice arose: “O Lord,
Be merciful to me, a fool!
“No pity, Lord, could change the heart
From red with wrong to white as wool;
The rod must heal the sin: but, Lord, 15
Be merciful to me, a fool!
“‘T is not by guilt the onward sweep
Of truth and right, O Lord, we stay;
‘T is by our follies that so long
We hold the earth from heaven away. 20
“These clumsy feet, still in the mire,
Go crushing blossoms without end;
These hard, well-meaning hands we thrust
Among the heart-strings of a friend.
“The ill-timed truth we might have kept— 25
Who knows how sharp it pierced and stung?
The word we had not sense to say—
Who knows how grandly it had rung?
“Our faults no tenderness should ask,
The chastening stripes must cleanse them all; 30
But for our blunders—oh, in shame
Before the eyes of heaven we fall.
“Earth bears no balsam for mistakes;
Men crown the knave, and scourge the tool
That did his will; but Thou, O Lord, 35
Be merciful to me, a fool!”
The room was hushed; in silence rose
The King, and sought his gardens cool,
And walked apart, and murmured low,
“Be merciful to me, a fool!” 40
Off topic
There was hoopla that September was the strongest Arctic sea ice growth in recorded history for September ( I wont mention that the start dates for each year vary, call it a handicap race) however October looks like it may well be the slowest growth. 5.04 msqkm on the 1st and only 5.37 by the 12th. Thats almost a flat liner.
Now back to solar / sunspots and the great post above.
There’s a lot of variability on the fortnighly scale, so looking at any such periods and trying claim a record this or that is meaningless. Suzanne Goldberg who sometime manages to sell here dross to the Guardian tried this on during the spring this year, claiming that some cherry picked period was the steepest whatever in “recorded history”.
The next two weeks went the other way and the spring melting was generally slower than average.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/10/starting-their-graph-at-the-right-year-to-produce-maximum-fraud/
Yes, with very low concentrations across the remaining ice and much dispersed ice there was a quick freeze up after minimum, but now it has slowed right down… We are pretty near a lowest ever for this date.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/amsr2/index.html
also the volume figures are low…
take a look at this:
I don’t base my scientific knowledge on youtube vids. Apparently, you do. That may explain a lot.
The only DATA we have on ice volume is from Cryosat2. Go look at that.
“We are pretty near a lowest ever for this date.” So what does one day tell us? That’s even less informative than a two week “trend”.
Yes ice area/extent is about a slow as it was in 2007 : a decade ago. It now higher than is was in 2012 five years ago. Hardly OMG run away melting.
Griff bases his “science” on Garniad articles, and then goes from there, he has stated that, but he has never posted where that article leads. So, one can safely extrapolate that he knows nothing other than what is in the media, ie, nothing in scientific reality!
Hey, I don’t base my science on any type of article – I base it on the science.
but if I want to refer to that science on the internet, I need somewhere to refer to – a newspaper article linking to the research paper is a good way to communicate a summary of the science before people get into the detail.
and strangely, UK papers like the Daily Mail (for example) don’t refer to science much and the likes of the Times is paywallled.
Greg – you want to dispute the data represented in that video? any evidence the volume figures are not as shown?
And here’s another Guardian article for you all – links to research which examines the satellite temp data.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/14/climate-scientists-published-a-paper-debunking-ted-cruz
Ignore the Ted Cruz clumsy link, look at what it says about the ‘pause’, satellite temp data
(worth a post of its on here admins????)
The lowest Ever in 37 years?… Get a grip Griff.
Griffter,
Apparently you haven’t noticed that Arctic sea ice has stabilized since stormy 2007, with the low of stormier 2012 holding in the even stormier 2016.
Antarctic sea ice of course has grown all during the interval since 1979. How is that possible, if a global air temperature rise due to man-made CO2 increase be the alleged cause of Arctic decline?
“Griff October 14, 2016 at 3:53 am
The recent paper just published looked at these two claims. The authors found errors in the analysis that, when corrected, debunked the contrarian claims. Let me explain some of the science.
First, these atmospheric temperatures are measured by satellites which can “see” the temperature of gases in the atmosphere.”
From the linked article, it is flawed right off the bat with that statement. If you knew what you were talking about you’d know why the last sentence is totally wrong and misleading.
If the giant planets are affecting the solar cycles how about the alleged Planet Nine. Would that produce an additional long period cycle?
Only when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.
How is the orbit of Jupiter supposed to cause sunspot cycles. Remember that the Sun is rotating on its axis with a period of 24.47 days at the equator and Jupiter’s orbit is almost circular and aligned with the equator of the sun. That means the only thing that changes over a Jovian year from the Sun’s point of view is that Jupiter is “overhead” at a slight different point in the rotation cycle, which unless there is something else up there to compare to is going to be completely unnoticeable. Given the symmetry of the situation there is absolutely nothing on the sun in relation to Jupiter which varies over an 11.6 year cycle apart from perhaps the relationship of Jupiter to the background stars; and good luck trying to even detect that from the surface of the sun.
Without a mechanism this is just astrology.
Uh huh.
If there was a convincing correlation, preferably one that made testable predictions, one could search for a mechanism later. This article does not even attempt to show a correlation.
I’m not even sure why Anthony posted it.