Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, folks were complaining that my graph of the CET compared to the centennial solar minima was just one location, England. So here are the five European temperature records which start before 1815. Now, if the theory of the solar/temperature connection is correct, the temperatures should start trending downward when the solar minima start, and they shouldn’t start warming back up until the sunspots get numerous again after the end of the minima. Here are the records so you can see if they agree with the theory:
Color me unimpressed. As you can see, there is no obvious sign that the solar minima have caused any change in the temperature. Some go up, some go down, some go nowhere.
Yes, I understand that this is not a global dataset … but then, they generally don’t go back far enough to catch the Dalton Minimum, which starts in 1798. If you have a dataset you’d like me to graph up, put a LINK to the dataset in the comments.
I leave further discussion to the wisdom of the readers.
Best regards to all, another rainy night here, California needs rain so it’s all good,
w.
MY POLITE REQUEST: When you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO so that we all can understand what you are discussing. I’m serious about this, and I must warn you that I tend to get short-fused when people ignore my polite request …
DATA: I have used ECA Daily Data from here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…Best regards to all, another rainy night here, California needs rain so it’s all good,
w….
Heavy snow in the southern UK. We took a picture of a grandchild next to a snowman so that he’d know what snow was when he grew up….
dg
I’m perplexed. Snow is a thing of the past and California has a permanent drought caused by our emissions. Drought, which, when pressured, is redefined as ‘not enough water for people’. So basically a drought can be forced with political decisions like not building reservoirs, having more immigration (and population) to California, or just failing to keep built reservoirs in condition.
To the subject.
It is perplexing as well to explain little ice age with just sunspots. The sun is not just sunspots nor all climatic movents are related to the sun. I’m sure there are several factors in play, and that they can’t even be reduced.
Your problem is that you see something else than you are told. Visit your eye doctor.
Not very heavy snow at all – barely a covering – here in the southern UK (East Anglia)
East Anglia? Maybe Phil Jones is out there with a hair dryer physically adjusting the data by melting it away.
Sod the rain in California. Here in the sunny south west of England we are up to our eyeballs in global warming for the second time this year.
“Drivers stranded on A30 in Devon amid heavy snow”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43453713
Sorry for the two feet of global warming where you are, Phillip. Me, I’m a tropical boy—when the ice jumps up out of my glass and starts running around the landscape, I call that “water behaving badly”.
w.
Frost in Europe will be until the end of March. During this time, snow will fall all over Europe.
In the US, the cold will also be in April. The temperature at Hudson Bay will be very low.
oh is that why we have in Belgium the coldest 16 and 17 march since records began in 1833…. yes it is wahahahaharming.
i would say…. freezing 🙂
Our winter here in New England this year has been what I have come to call “The Backwards Winter”. Very cold and snowy at the beginning, with many temps well below 0F (-17C) for days on end from late December to mid January, then warmer than average temps in late January and mid February with little snow, then back into the deep freeze in March with well below average temperatures (what we usually see in late January/early February) and three major Nor’easters that each dumped more than 35 to 55cm (14 to 22 inches) of snow occurring in an 11 day span.
Philip
I live in the Torquay area. Very unusual to see this depth of snow in this part of the world and for the second time this month. The roads are chaotic. However its only weather.
‘Now, I am going outside now and I might be some time..’
tonyb
Tony,
I’m in north Devon, south of Exmoor. I’ve just been out and removed a load of snow from on top of the polytunnel to prevent what happened a few years ago, when it collapsed under the weight. The lane I live on is impassible for the second time this month. I’ve still got plenty of logs though!
Philip
Apparently the A30 has been closed all the way from Exeter to Bodmin, some 65 miles. As you know it passes over some relatively high land at some 1000 feet and altitude seems to make a huge difference in this part of the word under certain conditions.
Last time it took nearly 10 days for things here to get back to normal in the local shops with milk and bread being especially affected. Hope you’ve got supplies in. It was all forecasted well in advance but played down as the ‘mini beast from the east.’
This time round the snow has been much worse round here, although the temperatures have not been quite as cold.
tonyb
In France there is a weather related saying which translates as
Christmas on the balcony, Easter by the fire.
It has held pretty much in Limousin this winter.
The more air is dry in the north (La Niña), the stronger the impact of the weak polar vortex.
Currently, a major snowstorm is developing in the central US.
Willis
Being especially interested in CET I have done a number of studies on CET and its relationship or otherwise to sunspots. The most comprehensive was one called ‘The Intermittent Little Ice Age’
There are a number of graphics. The most relevant paragraph is possibly this one
“The effect of sunspots on the climate is contentious. Looking at the data in Figure 8, it appears that the impact of the second half of the Sporer minimum on temperatures is difficult to discern. The Maunder minimum however appears to largely coincide with colder years, whilst the Dalton minimum is more mixed. However, there had been many cold years prior to the onset of these sunspot minimums and cold years returned after they had finished, so the relationship appears unproven and may be coincidental, where there is some correlation.”
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/
Having had a couple of years since that study I would add that even during the various sunspot minima there are warm years mixed in with cold ones. Perhaps (its a big perhaps) the lack of sunspots nudged the climate briefly at times when all other factors also conspired, but its hard to see any definite pattern.
To carry out a really thorough ‘scientific’ study someone would need to examine the monthly/annual temperature record of CET against the specific number of sunspots each month/year and see if there is a correlation or some sort of defined time lapse. To do this ‘other’ factors that might be related to the absence of sun spots would also need to be taken into account.
I’m nit convinced enough to carry this out even if I had the resources, but I suppose someone might have done so at some point as sunspots seem a perennially ‘hot’ subject.
tonyb
That’s how it is. What’s more, the summer can be very hot, due to the smaller amount of water vapor in the air (persistence of highs)
You need to look at the sum of All forcing.
A piecemeal approach will Yeild junk.
**You need to look at the sum of All forcing.
A piecemeal approach will Yeild junk.**
By forcing, I take it you mean all Measured forcing not the theoretical stuff done by IPCC.
Which is of course what you are doing if you assume that the only thing changing is the sun. That’s science. Or you could assume you already know the answer and just go with that. That’s climate science.
Yet, (!) obscene quantities of money have been spent examining the “Sum of all forcing” . . . . in the form of anthropogenic emissions of Carbon Dioxide. What a Farce.
Willis its been my impression that 1810–1830 and 1900–1920 are the generally accepted dates for those Gleissbergs.
Ironicman, I used the dates Leif Svalgaard gave in the previous post …
w.
Found it and (with respect) I think Leif has it wrong.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2013JA019478
Volcanoes in Indonesia are very active.
https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/live/seismogram/
Ironicman, there’s no way Lief could have got it wrong….the guy walks on water. 🙂
The seismogram will show the eruption.
I wouldn’t let most ‘climate scientists’ near a PID process controller!
We’re looking at this all wrong: there’s not one parameter, that much is obvious.
Weaker solar activity means greater influx of radiation: enhancing ionization; which means that “synchronously” charged atmospheric molecules in the ionosphere cling in greater number to magnetic field lines. This might cause them to snap more easily, causing the Earth equivalent of a coronal mass ejection hurling tropospheric water vapour into the stratosphere where it instantly freezes and releases latent heat causing less density and destroys ozone. All this opens for a Ferrell cell convective chimney all the way to the stratosphere where the out-radiation is now enhanced. Extremely cool and dry air descends to the surface to replace the rising air in the chimney.
If this is the case, then the placement of the magnetic field lines will cause a variance in effects. The magnetic field has moved since the little ice age.
This is just one possible explanation as to why we need an understanding of causations. There is variance between magnetic fields as well as the “memory” of the climate system to consider: these events only produce very short term cooling; it is the long term frequency of short events that may determine the rise and fall of temperature.
I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just trying desperately to make sense of things by actually proposing causation: I feel the discussions here bring very little to that table.
Per
yes, thank you.
beyond general physics I don’t have any particular expertise to comment on the mechanisms Per suggests, but the more general point…
While I applaud Willis for his data based approach, I say he has fallen victim to what I remember as the problem of the Rhetorics – being that it is easy to pull things down (even when this is undeserved), but very hard to build them up (even when this is deserved).
from another discipline, but the quote is apposite:
[p144, A History of Molecular Biology, Michel Morange, translated by Matthew Cobb, Harvard University Press, 1998.]
A builder chooses elements in which he or she has confidence and, on that basis, constructs a stable building. Researchers, by contrast, have only rotten planks available, with a non-negligible probability that they will give way. From these rotten planks they choose a few that they will use to build a new edifice. In most cases, the building collapses, but occasionally it holds. The rotten planks then become more and more solid as building progresses.
—
A modicum more humility from Willis will be appreciated; otherwise, thank you and keep it coming
Thank you, Francis. Nicely said.
..said the haruspex, peering into the goat entrails…
Per said:
Per, before we can discuss causation, we need to find correlation … and to date there has been precious little of that.
Despite looking lots of places, I’ve not been able to find any correlation either in the short term (~11-year sunspot cycles) or as in this post, with the longer solar fluctuations.
w.
Willis,
You said, ” I’ve not been able to find any correlation either in the short term (~11-year sunspot cycles) or … with the longer solar fluctuations.” Which leaves us with a conundrum! Because virtually all of the energy that the Earth receives comes from the sun, one would expect that there should be a demonstrable correlation between incoming energy and Earth temperatures. The absence of such a correlation should cause the curious to ask “Why?” One obvious hypothesis would be that the various feedback loops buffer forced temperature changes. Although, the historical record of glaciation demonstrates that the hypothetical buffering can be overridden. Therefore, one should not be looking for a one-to-one correspondence, but instead step functions with a time delay.
Clyde, I think it is because we are on a water planet that cyclical correlation of air temperature and solar activity is difficult. There are lags of various lengths in various regions due to oceanic heat storage mechanisms and the hemispheres don’t distribute the energy from insolation in identical ways.
Sooner or later we should through observation be able recognise the interplay between all the parts of the “climate machine”. I won’t support any “single controller of climate” theory. If there is a solar effect, it is IMHO probably the shrinking of the heliosphere and cloudiness in the tropics encouraged by increased GCR flux. The variations in maritime cloud cover and SST cycles from year to year could very well mask the tiny correlation that does exist. But what of stratospheric shrinkage and cooling? Does that change the cloud propagation at the tropopause and increase albedo where it counts most?
But there is correlation with cycle length and temperature; there is correlation between solar minima and maxima and the frequency of stratospheric warming events: which means very cold winter – we’re witnessing one right now. But it is not perfect because the sun is not the only parameter, in fact it is very far from being the only parameter.
However, prior to the extreme warming event of the late 90’es according to NOAA reanalysis data there had not been a stratospheric warming event for 9 years, which is unprecedented in the record going back to 1958.
Also the duration of the cycle involved, according to Wikipedia, is recorded as 9,6 years. You have to go back to the first half of the 19th century to find this short a duration.
Then we can observe that during stratospheric warming events the tropical stratosphere cools and tropical SST warms (Care to explain that?), while most extra-tropical SST cool.
We ignore these phenomena at our peril: stratospheric warming/cooling events are linked to El Nino and La Nina, the Quasi biennial oscillation, the Madden-Julian oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation.
The crux of the matter is this: We can very likely establish a link between the frequency and magnitude of stratospheric warming events and temperature, then we can very likely establish another link between radiative phenomena, magnetic field lines, ozone and a host of other phenomena and the stratospheric warming events. Between all those phenomena and solar phenomena (magnetics, UV and solar wind to name a few) the dice can be loaded to over centuries and millennia produce an overall effect of gradual warming or cooling.
All warming and cooling events are not, repeat not! caused by the sun: it depends on all the dice, but the sun is a vital component to our understanding of the mechanisms.
Per Ulrik Bøge Nielsen March 20, 2018 at 12:18 am
Oh, wonderful. Another believer in “Science By Assertion” … per, around here such uncited, unreference, unsupported claims go nowhere. I didn’t even bother reading the rest of your comment. When you start out like that, my interest drops to zero.
If you want to get traction at WUWT, CITE AND SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS!
w.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NEH34LAsWqk/TxRBHFron0I/AAAAAAAAAKw/WUXprVGbexg/s1600/AMOSCL.gif
Did you bother to check for yourself, Willis?
Per
Per Ulrik Bøge Nielsen March 20, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Did I bother to check WHAT for myself? Your claim? Sorry, that’s your job.
And if you are asking whether I checked that ridiculous graph, no, I’ve never checked it, I’ve never even seen it. More to the point, there’s no way to check it, as you haven’t said where you got the information.
There’s also no reason to check it, because there’s no there there …
Why do I call it “ridiculous”. Well, in part because there are only N=12 data points in the solar data. Trying to establish correlation with that small a number of data points is ludicrous.
And in part it’s ridiculous because you’ve used a sixth-order fitted polynomial with seven tunable parameters to represent the solar and the AMO data. If you use sixth-order polynomials for both datasets, you are going to get similar results.
Finally, it only applies to a very small area of the planet, the North Atlantic. When you make a special selection like that you have to adjust your significance levels upwards, meaning you need to find even more significant results for your outcome to pass muster.
Hope this helps …
w.
PS—I have NEVER heard any logical reason why the length of the sunspot cycle should affect anything. How is that supposed to work? I realize that it is not necessary to establish a physical connection … but not being able to even imagine such a connection is another point against the theory.
Willis, it’s fairly old hat: I had somehow imagined you were aware. Anyway, I don’t appreciate being handed an argument from ignorance, when I have just given you a lead.
I am not going to repeat myself, except for this: the magnitude and frequency of sudden stratospheric warming events are key to our understanding of short to long term temperature change. They are probably to some extent modulated by solar activity.
I’m no expert: you asked for correlation, I said it ain’t perfect (only a fool would expect it to be), you insisted, you got it… Shut me down on technicalities if you will – your loss.
The adulterated global temperature products still show a modicum of the same phase variants, so here’s a hint: the Atlantic inflow/outflow to the Arctic Ocean determines the breath and reach of the most influential climate zone for at least the last 3 million years. You might expect temperature variations in that small area to be highly significant. – Or you can pretend otherwise… your prerogative.
Per Ulrik Bøge Nielsen March 20, 2018 at 11:53 pm
It appears you didn’t understand my objection, which is that you did not provide a link to any of the data that you used. It’s not that I’m not “aware”. It is that you have ignored the most basic requirement if you want someone to discuss your scientific claims—PROVIDE A LINK TO THE DATA YOU USED!
Sheesh …
Did you see my analysis of SSW below? If not, take a look—there’s no visible effect of sunspots on SSWs. And what does that have to do with your graph?
QUOTE MY WORDS, YOU HOCKEY PUCK! I have no idea where you said “it ain’t perfect”, or where I “insisted”, or what I “insisted” on. You’re just flinging excrement at the wall and hoping it sticks … which it does, but only to you. QUOTE MY WORDS!
“Technicalities”? Trying to establish correlation with N=12 and a pair of sixth-order polynomials is not a technicality, it is a gross idiocy. It is MEANINGLESS.
LINKS! I spit on your hand-waving “hints” and vague statements, like
“Phase variants”? Say what? What does “phase variant” mean? And how the heck do you know what was happening three million years ago? That makes no sense at all.
I’m not going to chase a will-o-the-wisp for any man. If you have data that you think is important then link to it and we can discuss it. Until then, I’m not interested in the slightest, and no, I’m not pretending …
Sincerely, and sadly,
w.
PS—I have NEVER heard any logical reason why the length of the sunspot cycle should affect anything.
Argument from ignorance.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
You’re just flinging excrement at the wall and hoping it sticks
In that case I’m apparently not the only one applying body matter where it doesn’t belong:
LINKS! I spit on your hand-waving “hints” and vague statements
“Phase variants”? Say what? What does “phase variant” mean?
I imagined it meant variations in sinus wave amplitude, but I might be mistaken – kill me…
And how the heck do you know what was happening three million years ago? That makes no sense at all.
You might want to look into the whole subject of paleoclimatology before you get wise about what I can and cannot know. And if you insist that I provide you with that insight I’m sorry: I’m pretty sure that I can’t.
You can look into the tectonic origins of the Gulf Stream if you like, and the significance of that in regards to the evolution of northern hemisphere ice sheets. That would be essential to understand Arctic climatic variability in relation to the North Atlantic and it’s effects on global temperature past and present.
But I suspect you’re not gonna do that. Actually I rather suspect that I naively took you for someone you’re clearly not, for that I’m sorry. You accuse me of employing the same tactics that you do, and I don’t take kindly to that… I now regret ever having had this conversation – my own fault entirely.
Keep up the good work Willis
Spain is living a “global warming” winter too. We had a cold December (60% were colder), a very cold February (<20% were colder) and March, so far, has had January-like temperatures all the time with lots of rain and snow, so I expect it to receive an "extremely cold" category (top 3 coldest March months in last 30 years).
Oh, and remember the drought? Nevermind.
Something went wrong with my comment. December was meant to write ” less then 40% of previous Decembers in last 30 years were colder”.
Oh and I see now it also disappeared the January part, I can see what happened, all text between the “less than” and “more than” symbols was taken away as if it was an unconprehensible tag in html. I need to pay more attention to special characters. January was warm (more than 60% of previous Januaries were colder).
Nylo, the greater than and less than symbols work most of the time … but very occasionally it mistakes them for the start and end of an HTML command.
Best regards,
w.
Solar activity is a good basis of understanding but i think Jupiter and Saturn oscillations are important.They come closer to the sun about 0.5 UA for Jupiter and 1 UA for Saturn,it’s a lot.Because of électromagnetic resonnance with earth magnetic field and tidal effect they have cyclic effect on earth.Cyclic proton acceleration have been found for Jupiter and is just one part of is action.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.08418.pdf
Power of Jupiter is linked to the plasma density of the solar wind, the great red spot will disapear with solar wind density decline.Power of Saturn depends more of GCR.Solar activity change behavior of the gas giant,maybe it’s a part of the multioscillatory climatic puzzle.
2020 and 2030 will see more earthquake and volcanic eruption because of Jupiter and Saturn alignement.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-7692-5_49
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-014-1571-z
Earth is not alone in the cosmos with just C02 in the atmosphere, sun and giant planet have a effect, it’s a very complex system, climate model have no chance to predict the future in their actual form.External forcing seem’s to be very important.
look at http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf
How many cold days do you need to have an extreme cold winter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia
‘When the remnants of Napoleon’s main army crossed the Berezina River in late November, only 27,000 effective soldiers remained; the Grande Armée had lost some 380,000 men dead and 100,000 captured’
So the Russian invasion was over before the real winter really started.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_638276120000_14_0/station.txt
Or were the Russians lucky to have an early winter that year?
https://youtu.be/2KQ9ZKkeqaY
Depends on what you call the “real winter”. About 20% of the time in Moscow, November is actually colder than December … and by the accounts of the time, it was a particularly cold October and November.
w.
‘About 20% of the time in Moscow, November is actually colder than December’
Not in the GISS Station Data: Moskva (55.83N, 37.62E) 1880 – 2018. Only 8 out of 138 years nov were colder than dec. 1914,1951,1956,1960,1965,1993,1998,1999.
‘and by the accounts of the time, it was a particularly cold October and November.’
Don’t we see a Dalton Minimum effect there? Do you have any data for the rest of the 1812 winter? Did it even become much colder in jan feb or mar?
And summer had been very warm.
Many French soldiers who had previously campaigned in Egypt claimed that they had never marched in such a heat.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%201800-1899.htm#1812: Napoleon’s Russian summer campaign
So does a solar minimum provoke more extreme weather ? You don’t need a lot of extreme weather events to destroy your food supply.
Peta visits a police station..
Copper: Hello Peta, what brings you?
Peta: I think there’s been a murder
Copper: Aw wow, I’ve always wanted a murder to investigate.
Copper rushes off into his office, then out the back door to organise teams of detectives hack lumps out of trees, check other station and dig up some ice (yes, it was summertime in Cumbria) Others visit libraries and museums while other trawl the interweb. Its dreadfully serious. And expensive.
Returns to his office, strikes up the computer, does satistatishuns, sheetssheets and trendlines.
Copper does his knowing smile and returns to the front desk. Big brownie point coming up here, maybe even a Nobel Distinguishment Prize.
Surprisingly, Peta is still there.
(Breathless) Copper: Thanks so much for your info Peta. I’ve done all the research although more may be needed, and now we know your motive, how you did it and where you did it. It’s a definite and we know everything.
(Have you worked it out yet?)
Peta: Oh that’s good. I wasn’t all too sure myself
Copper: All I need now is to know who you murdered and where the body is.
Peta. Oh I didn’t murder anyone and don’t know the victim. Not at all.
Copper: Never mind now, where’s the body?
Peta: Dunno that either, it was a little while ago when it happened.
Copper: So how do you know there was a murder?
Peta: I overheard a coupla women talking on the bus.
Copper: How did they know about this murder then?
Peta: Nah, dunno that. Probably they saw it on telly. Or the interweb -where you saw it just now in your investigations. Close the door next time eh?
Copper: Are saying we’ve wasted all this time and effort on something that someone else saw on the telly?
Peta: I’m just passing on what the girls on the bus said. As you yourself will say ‘Better safe than sorry’
Point: Are thermometers really the best thing we have for measuring climate?
Why would someone paint a picture of the frozen River Thames if it was an everyday occurrence?
Are not the people in that picture, basically, having a party? Not dying in droves.
How did they manage to make babies? They know they did, we are those babies.
Who was richer and more intelligent?
Who was/is more sensitive to ‘climate’
Who is on the butt end of One Big Phat Joke (hoax)
Us or them?
Right. A Starry Night must have been a rare occurrence.
Willis
Ever graphed these temperature records against major volcanic eruptions?
Bob
This is Wilis’s thread and I don’t want to hijack it but if you go to my post about ‘the intermittent little ice age’ just above, you will see graphics of sunspots and volcanic eruption. . Limited correlation.
Perhaps if ALL the factors conspired at the same time these activities will have some sort of enhaced impact but I need to be convinced
tonyb
You have to look at both solar and volcanos.
and everything else. Except CO2. No point in considering CO2. Its demonstrably irrelevant.
Mosh
That’s what I said. There may also be other factors not mentioned here that cause one or other element to be amplified. These may vary from time to time.
Surely you must have created a paper that looks at all the possible interrelated factors including co2?
Tonyb
No, you have to take everything into account, if you are going to go with these bizarre snippets of arguments.
But if you use just solar, and solar describes it all perfectly, then guess what?
Leo, spot on. CO2 is like the alter boy in the church, who plays a small but necessary part in the ‘mass effect’.
(pardon my pun)
Bob boder said:
Sure, several times. See “Missing the Missing Summer” …
You also might enjoy “Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models“.
w.
Thank you
The word California is derived from a couple of older words, something to do with it being hot . .
Willis, if you want local divergences from normal / extremes (like rain) just relocateto somewhere with the word tropical in it
“Color me unimpressed. As you can see, there is no obvious sign that the solar minima have caused any change in the temperature.” BUT – There is a correlation to colder temperatures and the beginning of the solar minima in your graphs. That same correlation would also be observed if you similarly graphed the Maunder minimum. I have no causal theory.
Joe D’Aleo has posted today on Weather Bell charts that show record snowfall years correlating very closely with the beginning what you are calling the Gleissberg and the record snow accumulations of the last ten years. Combining the ideas; the oceans drive climate and the rational assumption, changes in Solar TSI will time-lag in its effect upon the oceans – leads you to your conclusion. It is rational.
The PDO shift to Negative in 2007 merely correlates to the beginning of the last solar minimum. Wait and see. I have no explanation why the record cold and snow associated solar minima occur more or less immediately and do not seem to lag.
So are we in the “cold period” now? I only ask because GISS, Hadley and even Roy Spencer at UAH doesn’t appear to think the earth overall has been particularly cold. Quite the opposite in fact. Even local records show that the last few years have been warmer than average. The CET is slightly down in the first few months of this year but the 3 warmest years have all occurred since 2006.
If this is a solar driven cool period perhaps we should be concerned about what might happen when solar activity picks up again.
“So are we in the cold period now?”
Wait and see. You can’t tell. Maybe. The top annual snowfall records for many areas in the US have pushed the last ten years into uncharted record territory. The ‘hard’ winters of Gliessberg, Dalton, and Maunder fit the same general early pattern. The correlation with hard winters and the onset of grand solar minima is what we are observing in the past. Time will tell if we are observing it now.
“So are we in the cold period now?”
Wait and see. You can’t tell. Maybe
That’s what I like about the solar correlation hypothesis. We just need to wait long enough to have it confirmed. Is there some sort of “elastic lag” involved. i.e. one that stretches indefinitely while we wait for the solar effect to kick in. Whatever – it’s pretty handy because you can’t ever be wrong. The AGW crowd have missed a trick with that one.
“So are we in the “cold period” now? I only ask because GISS, Hadley and even Roy Spencer at UAH doesn’t appear to think the earth overall has been particularly cold. Quite the opposite in fact.”
None of those organizations or people can tell you, because they don’t know the temperature of the Earth, because there is no such thing. They’re deluding themselves.
Willis: I suspect that industrial urbanization during the Gleissberg period may ruin the record for this purpose. Where were the thermometers? Next to a steel fabrication plant? Downtown during an expansion of the urban core? If you just look at the Dalton, perhaps you see a better signal.
If you just look at the Dalton, perhaps you see a better signal
Really? If you can see a solar signal in the Dalton, I assume you can see the much clear CO2 (?) signal in the modern period. You can’t have it both ways.
Willis: I suspect that industrial urbanization during the Gleissberg period may ruin the record for this purpose..
These temperatures have been recorded at Observatories by people who were well aware of the UHI effect. For example, the data fro graph 2 comes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenpei%C3%9Fenberg_Meteorological_Observatory
They will never agree to facts. That’s why people use the D word.
“They will never agree to facts. That’s why people use the D word.”
Er, no Steven, they use the D to try and make people sound like Nazis. As you well know.
I know you know very little about science, but even in your area of expertise, do not reasonable men disagree about things? And have you not seen any science whatsoever where reasonable people disagree about what are actually “facts”? Or is there some Lord of Science Facts we are not aware of that you bend the knee to?
“Facts” are just facts until they are disproven. That’s what science is. And science never stops trying to disprove facts. That’s how it works. If you want to make silly assertions and little white lies, please go elsewhere.
What are you going on about? Being “aware” of UHI and the importance of thermometer siting hasn’t solved anything. That’s how WUWT became big. I was hoping that Willis would make an answer, since he likes these data sets.
The Dalton period in these graphs has a dip in temp (or decline) for all 5 graphs. That’s something. The Gleissberg, on the other hand, occurs during the “second” industrial revolution. That’s when you might expect UHI to take off. I was hoping to argue that this data supports a strong solar connection with temperature.
The solar /temperature correlation(when sun enters a prolonged minimum period) is so clear cut it is not worth arguing over . Javier showed this beyond a doubt not that I did not know beforehand from all of the other many studies.
And it is going to happen again meaning from now going forward. It is already starting and the big item that is being ignored is the strength of the geo magnetic field.
An item like the sun which is the engine of the climate system if it changes has to effect the system it runs.
Now, is that in the same way that CO2 is so clear cut it is not worth arguing over?
It is asinine to compare the two.
It is asinine to compare the two.
Yes – because if we’re to be totally honest with ourselves the CO2 link looks to be considerably stronger – assuming it is CO2 that’s caused the late 20th/early 21st century warming.
Except that If we’re to be actually honest with ourselves, the CO2 “link” is non-existent, which is a huge problem for the solar d nayers.
The solar /temperature correlation(when sun enters a prolonged minimum period) is so clear cut it is not worth arguing over
I think it is worth “arguing over”, Salvatore. I remain totally unconvinced of a strong solar/temperature link.
It is not just solar the other part is what the geo magnetic field is doing. They need to be in tandem to get the maximum result, in addition to having a degree of magnitude fall and duration of time sufficient enough to set things in motion.
Look at the study I sent.
Don’t deny the solar link. That science is settled for some gullible skeptics. Data be damned.
What is not settled is that the temperatures have varied over the ages. In addition we do not know with certainty what has caused it.
There are a bunch of blowhards that insist that the CO2 is doing it now. That is the main point to get rid of today, then we can study the real causes.
Whether it is solar minimum or any other cause, cycles will likely show cooling in the near future.
“What is not settled is that the temperatures have varied over the ages. In addition we do not know with certainty what has caused it.”
Again, there is no “it.” PLaces don’t warm or cool uniformly. The illusion of a global temperature, or global anomaly is just that, pure illusion. While it could be warm in lots of places where people live, it might be cold in lots of places where people don’t live, or aren’t particularly concerned about. And really, when we’re talking a degree or two C, you can’t call that warm or cold, you’d probably not even notice if moving from one room to another in your house. It’s rather silly really, all these useless averages.
Hi Willis
Here are some more historical temperature data, partly from 1700 upward and with an explanation in relation to sunspot cycles from Eike.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2011/10/05/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/
(German language)
HTH
https://www.scribd.com/document/327612486/Impact-of-the-Geomagnetic-Field-and-Solar-Radiation
Here is where I am coming from . This study.
Here is where I am coming from . This study
Salvatore, I’ve just had a quick scan of the study and have noticed Fig 3 (the historical sunspot record).
I’m pretty sure Leif Svalgaard will confirm that this reconstruction is obsolete.
Yes they use old janky solar data.
“Yes they use old janky solar data.”
And you use old, janky (whatever that means) temperature data, incorrectly average it all together, and call it a result.
Europe’s temperatures, for the most part, are a function of the North Atlantic water temperatures and the wind direction. The water temperature oscillates over time (NAO) and the wind direction is primarily west to east. So to have an “abrupt” change of temperature, you will need an abrupt change of water temperature or a change in wind direction bringing in air from the north or northeast, especially in winter.
Water is a great heat sink and gives it back pretty slowly. Additionally most of the “heat” in the North Atlantic comes from the tropics via the Gulf Stream, which in itself has it’s controlling parameters (tropical water temperatures and wind strength among others). So any water temperature change is going to take place over a fairly long time. Prevailing winds north of 40 deg are from the west.
For the most part, I think it will be hard to see direct changes to European temps via changes in the Sun other than gradual trends. Certainly not over a few years.
However if the Sun is directly associated with stratospheric warming or other causal effects (like Pacific warming/cooling) that moves the jet stream from zonal to variable to highly variable, then you have something.
This winter is a great example of a highly variable polar jet. It is meandering all over the place and the US and Europe are having a winter to remember. If this is a direct result of low solar (I don’t know if it is or isn’t), then in fact it is a big deal. Ask the UK rugby team playing in a white out or count the number of Nor’easters we are seeing in the NE US in March. The Euro has it at five major storms this month followed by single digit (F) temps after the last one next week.
So if low solar is the causal agent in where and how the jet sets up in winter and we are subject to years of winters like the one we are going through, sooner or later the average temperature records will reflect it. At this point in time, we have a lot of heat in the oceans, so the boundaries between the polar air and the maritime create large lows, but every storm takes out some of the heat and the water cools some.
watching this data closely was mostly between +.30c to +.38c this past summer.
Expect this to continue overall lower in the coming months.
When I started following this site, I considered that the sunspot number-and-climate model was well established. The evidence, though, just does not really support it, and these records are just one more shovelful of dirt on the grave.
The problem that besets climate science is the lack of good quality data. Almost all is not fit for scientific purpose, and in other sciences would be thrown out.
That’s science for you! What is the interesting question is then what causes the large variations we see between 1750 and 1900, if it’s not the sun?
Until mathematics tackle the problem of how much energy is needed to drive weather systems into stable pressure systems we know create cold or warm weather regimes and keep them there, all the comments about the cause being “it is likely this or likely that” are speculation at best and just a wag at worst. There are some mathematics out there, for example the energy required to scrub out a blocking high pressure system which would then allow an estimation of what it takes to keep it there.
Ms. Gray sez:
“Until mathematics tackle the problem of how much energy is needed to drive weather systems into stable pressure systems we know create cold or warm weather regimes and keep them there, all the comments about the cause being “it is likely this or likely that” are speculation at best and just a wag at worst.”
My comment:
There are not many women here,
so I am not trying to scare you off !
I have have no disagreement
with your comment.
But the use of short sentences,
with few commas,
would make you
a much better communicator.
Reading each sentence out loud will help
you edit your writing
I tried to read your sentence above
out loud, and fell asleep in the middle.
I’m not trying to say writing short
sentences proves I’m a brainiac,
although my IQ is
150 +/- 50 points.
[The mods disagree – and find that short “poetical” separated thoughts are more difficult to follow – but each reader and each writer and each righter of that writer is entitled (and en-authored) to create their own style. .mod]
Richard, for me your pseudo-poetry is clumsy and reads very poorly. However, don’t let my opinion affect your writing. You should write as you wish, not as I wish.
Here’s the problem. My experience is that no matter how I write, somebody will jump up and in a most patronizing manner they’ll tell me how I’m doing it all wrong. If I’m using short sentences they’ll say I should use longer sentences. But if I’m using long sentences, someone else is sure to recommend shorter sentences. Etcetera ad nauseum.
I did love this line of yours, however:
Two commas in a short sentence, and the sentence you quoted from Pamela Gray has only one comma … medico, cura te ipsum.
Finally, if anyone here writes long, run-on sentences, sentences liberally sprinkled with commas, well, that would be me … and despite that, I’m the most-read guest author on the site.
Go figure …
Anyhow, Pamela, I wouldn’t advise you to change anything in your writing based on random objections from the intarwebs. That way lies madness. Change what you want to change, not what anyone else wants to change. If Richard wants to write blank verse in the style of e. e. cummings, good for him … but don’t let that affect your writing.
Best to all,
w.
Look at volcanic activity during the Dalton.
Volcanism is a biggie in global temperatures. It certainly was during Dalton.
“Now, if the theory of the solar/temperature connection is correct, the temperatures should start trending downward when the solar minima start, and they shouldn’t start warming back up until the sunspots get numerous again after the end of the minima.”
That kind of theory cannot explain why only certain parts of Maunder, Dalton and Gleissberg were notably colder. And that kind of theory cannot be true as UK temperatures tend anti-phase with sunspot cycles during a cold AMO phase. So it has nothing directly to do with sunspot number.
If the theory of solar/temperature connection is correct, spring would start February 15, and not March 20. There is a delay, something to do with thermal capacity.