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.
…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.
Have you looked at the De Built data from the Netherlands?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ilabrijn.dat
Hi Willis,
your postings are one reason to come back to this site.
Thanks:
Here a lin to a 250y Data set measured in the same location where nowadys the influence in staion cahengs were investigated.
Kremsmuenster:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152543
And one more: Basel
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/159527
Willis and Leif are right to call time on the whole solar thing. To say that climate is “just the sun” is an error of exactly the same type as to say it’s “just CO2”.
That error is to regard the climate as passive and climate change as necessarily being forced by an external agent, CO2 or the sun. Both bodies of opinion could collectively be called “passive deterministic climate science”.
This is a profound error. I follow the views of the likes of Robert Ellison, Tsonis, Wim Rost, Marcia Wyatt (&Judith Curry) that the dominant component of climate change is internally generated within the climate system by chaotic-nonlinear processes. In timescales of hours to days, in the atmosphere and on timescales of years to millennia, in the ocean. This is self-evident when one considers the nature of the climate system – a highly complex dissipative open system containing positive and negative feedbacks. If chaotic dynamics occur anywhere on earth they must occur in the climate system. Chaos denial is the biggest problem in climate science.
On Milankovich timescales there is of course an unmistakable driving role of solar variability on climate. But it occurs with a long lag that shows that the sun influences climate via the ocean. The figure below – provided by Javier needless to say – is the most important figure I have ever seen posted on a climate blog. It shows with glaring simplicity that obliquity drives the glacial-interglacial cycle with a delay of 6500 years.
It makes perfect sense that obliquity peaks correspond to increased insolation, and the 6500 year lag is the time taken for increased insolation to warm the oceans enough to flip the climate from the glacial to the interglacial attractor, and falling obliquity back to glacial.
Yes yes before you get started, it is equally blindingly obvious that not every obliquity peak (since the MPR) has caused and interglacial, the obliquity peaks that cause interglacials are those that coincide with the combined (and causally interconnected) peaks of eccentricity, modularion amplitude of precession and insolation at 65N in the summer.
That figure is the Rosetta stone of solat forcing of climate via ocean circulation.
A chaotic nonlinear oscillator such as earth’s climate system can br periodically forced from outside. Just like the classic Belousov- Zhabotinsky chemical nonlinear oscillator can be either internal or periodically forced, for instance by light flashes. So chaotic internal dynamics and astrophysical forcing of climate are not mutually exclusive. It can be both-and, not just either-or.
While it is really hard not to take your graph seriously, I think this applies to the millennial cycles.
We are looking at centennial cycles, which are the little squiggles up and down in your graph. The highs and lows between the much bigger highs and lows. It ultimately all plays out, but the question here does solar cycles play a part in the ups and downs over the centuries.
I’m not sure if it is truly chaotic, but I am coming to believe that such complex, non-linear systems may not be in equilibrium very often, if at all. That means that they are constantly changing in ways that are currently impossible to predict, partly because we do not know the initial conditions we are using to begin our predictions. We are being, in common with much of science at the moment, far too reductionist. We need to understand the whole before we can remotely say whether small changes have any effect, and if is, in what direction.
My expertise really lies in human biology and economics, but both are beginning to understand that the current models of our bodies and our economies are hopelessly simplistic. I can’t see that the climate is less complex!
“On Milankovich timescales there is of course an unmistakable driving role of solar variability on climate. But it occurs with a long lag that shows that the sun influences climate via the ocean. The figure below – provided by Javier needless to say – is the most important figure I have ever seen posted on a climate blog. It shows with glaring simplicity that obliquity drives the glacial-interglacial cycle with a delay of 6500 years.”
But any climate changes caused by obliquity cycles is not due to solar variability, it is due to insolation variability. The Sun does not vary it’s output due to any changing Earth conditions. It is important not to confuse those terms.
You are right to point out that Milankovich cycles such as obliquity are about orbital variations, not changes in the luminosity of the sun 🌞 ; however both of these have the same effect of causing changes in sunlight received at earth. I was just making the point that the obliquity cycle in particular, in relation to the glacial-interglacial cycle, shows how variation in total solar irradiation (TSI) affects climate – i.e. via ocean heat, with a lag.
philsalmon March 19, 2018 at 3:56 pm
And you know this how? I’ve never heard this theory. The theory I’ve always heard is that low insolation in the NHem summers lead to growth of ice, which in turn reflected more sunshine. This positive feedback led to the glacial episodes.
So … where did you get your claim that it is “via ocean heat, with a lag”?
Regards,
w.
Phil, you might enjoy my two posts on the subject:
Into and Out of the Icebox 2015-01-23
Inspired by a random comment by Steve McIntyre over at his marvelous blog Climate Audit, I got to thinking about the ice ages. I’ve long heard that the ice ages are caused by the changes in summer insolation in the northern hemisphere. As the story goes, the Milankovitch cycles of…
The Icebox Heats Up 2015-01-24
Well, either it’s a genetic defect or I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to delve some more into the ice ages. This is a followup to my previous post, Into and Out Of The Icebox. Let me start by looking at the cycles in the insolation and…
Best regards,
w.
“You are right to point out that Milankovich cycles such as obliquity are about orbital variations, not changes in the luminosity of the sun 🌞 ; however both of these have the same effect of causing changes in sunlight received at earth. I was just making the point that the obliquity cycle in particular, in relation to the glacial-interglacial cycle, shows how variation in total solar irradiation (TSI) affects climate”
The difference between the temperature changes due to the very small changes in TSI and the difference in the temperature caused by obliquity is more than huge. It is not the TSI changes that bring the SST of the Gulf of Mexico from the high 80s F down to the low 50s F each winter nor is it the reason for the increase in those temperatures back into the high 80s F in summer. That is 100% obliquity. And that is for a latitude of only 28N.
Willis
Thanks for the links to your posts – I’ll take a look.
To answer your question, this figure posted originally by Javier shows that every interglacial (in the last million years) coincides with an obliquity peak lagged by 6500 years:
Now like you I’m no fan of wiggle-matching but this one seems unusually compelling. It’s well established how obliquity causes insolation heating of the oceans. And it’s also clear why not every obliquity peak – but every second or third – makes an interglacial since it has to coincide with maximal eccentricity/precession modulation/65N summer insolation.
However – why the 6500 year lag?? That’s the fascinating part. For me, it has to be the ocean – the time taken to warm it’s depths appreciably. To quote the writer of the book of Job, “if it is not He then who is it?”
Tom
You’re right – the effect of obliquity is the big seasonal swings. But these must warm the whole ocean indirectly. Sediment 18O data indicate that oceanic warming prior to Holocene inception started around Antarctica – probably due to the way the THC works:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~sgray/MARS350/deglaciation.pdf
See figure 5.
“Well, either it’s a genetic defect or I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to delve some more into the ice ages. This is a followup to my previous post, Into and Out Of The Icebox. Let me start by looking at the cycles in the insolation and…”
Your genetic defect is a boon to the rest of us.
John Finn
Although you are right about the warm years it is also a fact that CET Has been declining all this century
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperatures-help-needed-to-find-missing-data/
It must be sad that this is from a notably warm period In the 1990’s and hasn’t yet been gong on long enough to be a climatic trend.
Nevertheless it is intriguing and is noticeable enough to suggest we need to have a plan B for cooling as well as a plan A for warming
This might have ensured the authorities had actually bought grit for the roads during the two recent cold snaps and might have meant the shops had restocked quicker after the cold weather delayed deliveries.
Tonyb
Although you are right about the warm years it is also a fact that CET Has been declining all this century
Hmm – possibly a slight downward trend since 2000 but given the variability of the data (applies to most regional records) 18 years is far too short a time.
John
Yes, I do make that point in the article.
Nevertheless, it does have consequences in our just in time society and where we rely on an extended season to maximise farming and where expensive energy from unreliable sources impacts much more quickly when temperatures are headed down, rather than up.
We are unprepared for cold weather as we have been told not to expect it.
tonyb
“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.”
And that is the point temperatures like climate itself IS a local phenomena. There is not a global effect, there are only many, many local effects going on.
During the last LIA some places had anomalous droughts and heatwaves (especially during the start of the LIA), while other areas had anomalous floods, and/or long periods of frost, and/or persistent snow cover. Local weather factors and local topography rule.
Quoting the author:
But, but, but, …… the parameters that determine “changes” in/of near-surface temperature for the aforesaid “five European temperature records” are not equal, thus potentially negating any comparisons of said. To wit:
Stockholm, ————————- Sweden, —————- 59.32° N latitude, —— 0 feet elevation
Praha-Klementinum, — Prague, Czech Republic, —- 50.07° N latitude, — 1,309 feet elevation
Hohenpeissenberg, —– Bavaria, Germany, ———– 47.79° N latitude — 2,528.7 feet elevation
Milan, ——————————- Italy, ——————— 45.46° N latitude, —– 394 feet elevation
Bologna, —————————- Italy, ——————– 44.49° N latitude, —– 177 feet elevation
That’s why anyone who claims the average global temperature has any real climate meaning (other than for grant money) is stacking the deck.
Samuel C Cogar March 19, 2018 at 10:11 am
Two things. First, I’m not making any “comparisons”. I’m looking at each record in isolation.
Second, this is supposed to be some global effect … but if so, we should see it in individual records … sorry, not seeing it.
w.
But, but, but, …… the parameters that determine “changes” in/of near-surface temperature for the aforesaid “five European temperature records” are not equal, thus potentially negating any comparisons of said
Who is doing a comparison? My understanding is that Willis is inviting us to find a solar signal in ANY of the temperature records.
Willis Eschenbach – March 19, 2018 at 4:11 pm
First, I don’t think anyone mentioned anything about you personally “making any comparisons”,
Secondly, my post was simply pointing out the “geographical reasons” why no one, ….. yourself included, ….. should be “Colored impressed” by the plotted data of the five (5) different temperature record graphs that were posted.
And thirdly, the reason for my stated comment of, …. “thus potentially negating any comparisons of said”, ….. was simply because I apparently made a serious mistake in/of my reading comprehension ability when I apparently assumed that the author was “suggesting” or “inferring” that his reading audience should “compare the plotted temperature data of the 5 different graphs” via this quoted statement, to wit:
Now I don’t know what anyone else did, …. but apparently I acted foolishly and irresponsibly when I “flipped” back n’ forth to visually compare the plotted temperature data of the 5 different graphs in an attempt to appease my “curiosity” as to how great those “differences” actually were.
My humble apology iffen my posting inadvertently caused any emotional grief.
A large increase in the magnetic activity of the Sun in 2015 (latitudinal circulation) made it possible to release energy accumulated in the oceans (El Niño). However, the atmosphere does not accumulate heat, as evidenced by the large amount of snow in the northern hemisphere.
?time=1520212803000
Ren, I don’t understand your claim. Your link to the Ap Index shows that it has been increasing since 2010, and that prior to 2005, it was higher than it has been since.
What is the causative chain that you propose connects those facts with the snow levels?
w.
“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. ”
I don’t think that is right.
The temperatures start trending downward as soon as one passes a peak of solar activity but modulated somewhat erratically by the thermal inertia of multiple ocean oscillations that sometimes supplement and sometimes offset one another so that the time lag is itself variable.
The temperatures then start trending upward as soon as one passes the lowest trough of solar activity subject to such oceanic interference.
That is pretty much what the charts do show.
The low magnetic activity of the Sun to 2015 (meridional circulation) was delaying El Niño. The decline in solar magnetic activity (as it is now) will continue to disrupt the ENSO cycle.
ren March 19, 2018 at 11:08 am
Is there some memo I missed saying that science by assertion is just fine now?
How on earth would you know if the meridional circulation of the sun is “delaying” El Nino? How can you tell a “delayed” El Nino from an average El Nino.
Sorry, but those kinds of claims with absolutely no citation or support and no theoretical, logical, or other justification gets no traction on WUWT …
w.
The dry air in the north causes the temperature drop above the 80th parallel below the average from 1958-2002.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/v9zmh0f50xf3.png
El Niño could have already developed in 2015.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_nino3.4a_2009:2018.png
The highest magnetic activity of the Sun in this cycle is visible in 2015.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/c4j4f4a8ifsd.gif
This is also visible in the strong polar vortex in 2015 in the south. The strong polar vortex caused an increase in the ozone hole in of 2015.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Meridinal circulation disturbs the constant winds constants flowing along the equator.
Sorry.
Meridional circulation disturbs the constant winds flowing along the equator.
Solar Dipole from WSO.
Abstract
The association between solar activity and Asian monsoon (AM) remains unclear. Here we evaluate the possible connection between them based on a precisely-dated, high-resolution speleothem oxygen isotope record from Dongge Cave, southwest China during the past 4.2 thousand years (ka). Without being adjusted chronologically to the solar signal, our record shows a distinct peak-to-peak correlation with cosmogenic nuclide 14C, total solar irradiance (TSI), and sunspot number (SN) at multi-decadal to centennial timescales. Further cross-wavelet analyses between our calcite δ18O and atmospheric 14C show statistically strong coherence at three typical periodicities of ~80, 200 and 340 years, suggesting important roles of solar activities in modulating AM changes at those timescales. Our result has further indicated a better correlation between our calcite δ18O record and atmospheric 14C than between our record and TSI. This better correlation may imply that the Sun–monsoon connection is dominated most likely by cosmic rays and oceanic circulation (both associated to atmospheric 14C), instead of the direct solar heating (TSI).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4044623/
The Nino1,2 index shows that El Niño could have developed earlier. This index fluctuates the most.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inino2_2014:2018.png
My take is the overall temperature of the earth stays about the same. Where and when temperatures are changing is the big problem. By that I mean you get more unpredictable weather during the minimums, due to their effects on the jet stream. I really don’t care about the temperature in the Arctic I care what it is where we grow food. Also changes in rainfall patterns are more concerning than temperature as general rule.
Also I would say the sun is just one piece of the puzzle the AMO and PDO are big players as well. If all the cycles are stuck in warm phase we get hot and if all the cycles are in cold phase we get cold. If they are in different phases we are probably more neutral.
What is so great about this point in time in the climate is now we are going to have a test.
The test is going to show if low solar/geomagnetic fields first have more influence over the climate then CO2 ,which I think has zero influence by the way.
Secondly we might be able to find out the degree and duration of time the weaker magnetic fields are needed in order to show a stronger climate connection.
The signs will be an increase in silica explosive volcanic activity, an increase in global cloud cover and snow cover and a decrease in overall sea surface temperatures. In addition a more meridional atmospheric circulation evolving even further from what we have currently. The global electrical field strength will also have to be monitored.
(NOTE – A decrease in overall albedo of 1/2 of 1% just about or will wipe out all of the global warming since the Little Ice Age ended around 1830 which coincides with when the Dalton Solar Minimum ended.
The sun went from a very active mode from that time until year 2005. Now we are in an inactive mode.)
The culprits involved in the above will be less EUV, UV light, an increase in galactic cosmic rays ,and a shifting of where the galactic cosmic rays are directed(due to the geo magnetic poles moving toward lower latitudes currently).
As of now the latest alarming information shows the geo magnetic field is decreasing by 5% per decade.
The weaker this field gets the more it will compound given solar activity both in regards of allowing more galactic cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere and by allowing lower intensity solar flairs to have a greater impact than they would if the geo magnetic field was stronger.
All the terrestrial items that govern the climate are controlled themselves by the sun and the geo magnetic field strengths in my opinion.
I am not alone in this thinking as the study I sent earlier showed and a video I am going to send now will also show.
I say year 2018 is the turn point
Salvatore Del Prete March 19, 2018 at 12:58 pm Edit
As I showed in my graph in the previous post on the subject, the test has been going on since 1980, and your theory is in splinters. Here’s the graph again:
Best regards,
w.
No the test has been going on since 2006. Up to 2006 solar should have had a net warming according to my studies.
I will say this, if the temperatures do not turn this year and thereafter then I will reconsider.
One can have no confidence in any of the temperature records which are simply not fit for purpose, and therein lies the problem when seeking to look for correlation (still less causation).
There are many good reasons (frequently rehearsed on this blog and others) to suspect that if only temperatures were ascertained properly, and a true like for like comparison made, the temperatures of today would be no warmer than were seen in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
If that is the case, your plot would look somewhat different.
richard verney March 20, 2018 at 6:05 am
Thanks, Richard. Back In Javier’s thread I pointed out that HadCRUT, the temperature record I used, is very close overall to the UAH MSU record, viz:
This strongly supports the idea that the divergence of temperatures and sunspots post 1980 is a real and unexplained phenomenon for those claiming that sunspots have a significant effect on temperature.
Regards,
w.
We can always rely on Willis and Leif to drag us back to the data (or even lack of data, especially the supportive type). They are right, of course.
Yet, there are historical and scientific suggestions, lots of them, that the solar cycles do affect our climate. The earth is subjected to changes in magnetic field strength and direction, changes in solar wind, changes in total irradiance and particularly UV, changes in the microwave flux and then there are the consequential effects such as modulation of incoming cosmic charged particles and cosmic dust.
Some of these have effects on cloud seeding, ozone, luminescent clouds and atmospheric chemistry. Some of these things are well understood, some are not and I suspect that there are some that have not yet been discovered.
Correlation or lack of correlation is always important in seeking relationships but not essential. Combinations of several influences could produce a cumulative effect whilst each is ineffective on its own. Furthermore, small differences in timing can blur the overall temporal relationship. IR downwelling has a problem warming oceans but solar shortwave radiation does not. Ocean warming introduces a whole new timescale when it comes to tropospheric warming that registers in the records
We owe a great deal to Svensmark. He has pioneered a particular mechanism that demonstrates a solar effect. It is probably not enough but it is a start.
We need more constructive thinking. Great scientists are known for their innovative and creative insight, less so for their ability to shut down ideas.
This is well worth viewing in my opinion.
Clyde Spencer March 19, 2018 at 10:00 am
People conflate the fact that “virtually all of the energy that the Earth receives comes from the sun” with the question at hand, which is, does a change of a tenth of one measly percent in the strength of the total solar irradiation between sunspot peaks to troughs cause corresponding changes at the surface?
Despite looking in dozens of places I can’t find such an effect … and given the minuscule size of the change, I find that totally unsurprising. I had hoped when Svensmark came up with the cosmic ray theory that I’d be able to find something there … but I find no effect in the clouds, the temperatures, the river flows or anything else I’ve looked at. I’ve used all the analysis tools I know about, Fourier analysis, CEEMD analysis, scatterplots, cross-correlation analysis to see if there is a lagged effect … nothing.
Regards.
w.
I think average global temperature is the average temperature of the ocean – which is about 3.5 C.
It takes centuries to increase the average temperature of the ocean by fractions of a degree.
What reflects average global temperature is global surface temperatures, which is about 17 C.
What we tend to care about is land surface air temperature and over a period of years into the future – and that is related changing ocean surface temperatures.
So for human needs of future forecasts, one needs to be able to predict things like El Ninos and basically it’s weather and global weather.
And I also think solar activity is related to weather and global weather.
But people want to know about global average temperature hundred years or more in the future, and basically, we are in a icebox climate and we will be in icebox climate a 1000 years from now, just as been in this global climate for millions of years. So in 100 years the ocean might be a bit closer to
4 C. And the oceans at 4 C, will have a significant affect upon the average ocean surface temperatures which cause land surface temperature to be warmer. So continental US is currently at sat 12.5 C and if Ocean were at 4 C , US would closer to 15 C.
And the US at 15 C isn’t hotter summers or More heat waves, nor does mean it doesn’t snow anymore and mountains might get more snow.
And such change is similar to the change we have already had over the last century or two – which despite news reports hasn’t been much change, it appears mostly to have had been improving condition.
OOPS! When I read this post some hours ago, all of the charts appeared within the article.
But now, only one shows and the four Dropbox-hosted charts do not appear. The error from Dropbox is:
This link is temporarily disabled. The person who shared it hit their daily limit of traffic or downloads. Learn about traffic limits.
Perhaps the charts can be hosted elsewhere?
Grrr … I was having trouble uploading these to WordPress so I put them on Dropbox … didn’t think that of course WUWT would lead to big traffic.
Hang on, lemme see if I can upload them to WordPress today … OK, WordPress seems to be back in gear, or maybe it’s my computer, but in either case it’s fixed.
Thanks for the heads-up, Paul,
w.
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth Willis, high traffic means you’re getting through to folks here.
My wish is that you would become an iconic scientist/journalist widely known for your clarity of thought.
Thanks, Pop. My wish is that my ideas take root …
w.
Somehow, an optimistic quest for climate truth must replace the continually repeated propaganda of “worse than we thought” and “we must act now, no matter the cost – just to stay safe”.
You are a luminary in that quest. In St. Louis Mo slang- “You go boy!”
There is a lag of 50-70 years between sunspots and temperature, don’t know why. Maybe heat is stored in oceans.
Peter Langlee March 19, 2018 at 1:35 pm
And you know this how? Science by assertion gets no traction here, sorry.
w.
Just going with the temperature records I would have eyeballed the “low” as an ~century long 1830 – 1920 or so with some warm years. The Stockholm record seems to show the best fit to to the Dalton and Gleissberg. The Italian ones may have been changed by Mediterranean/North African weather, but of course, that doesn’t support the sunspot cooling theory either.
If there is an effect of cooling and low SSN that can be overwhelmed or exacerbated by other factors, we will have better data going forward if we are getting an extended quiet sun. Certainly something big happened to freeze the Thames, the Bosphorus, New York Harbour and down the New Jersey coast, etc.
Gary, I think that in our panic over climate, we are missing the chance to appreciate this opportunity to study and enlighten ourselves on the effects of deep solar minima across the entire spectrum of recently acquired technologies in the satellite era. There is much to learn in the next few decades- F*ck “settled science”!
We are doing the snow dance here in northern Vermont with three Nor’easters in two weeks which saved our ski season. We received only 2-3 feet of snow for the entire month of February and we just picked up 3-4 feet from 1 to 18 March. Love playing in the stuff though the commute is slower!
The temperature at Hudson Bay is still very low.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00961/kdmspdsfvkl3.png
I can see this becoming the new battleground on this site. Is it coincidental that the Sun’s magnetosphere is weakening and we’ve just had an epic winter? I’m with Svensmark. The sun goes quiet and emires fall.
Willis etal…this contains some science behind “cycles” and SSN. Also notes periods align with “cold” history. https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5009
“The most precise resonance – between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun:
This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles – the position of syzygy between Earth and Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of “severe winters”. We show, how cycles in angular momentum of Earth and Venus planets match with the Sunspot cycle and how the main cycle in angular momentum of the whole Solar system (854-year cycle of Jupiter/Saturn) matches with climatologic data, assumed to show connection with Solar output power and insolation. We show the possible connections between E+V events and Solar global p-Mode frequency changes. ”
In addition, this was written some time ago so contains amount of predictiveness – we are in essence in the future as far as the article is concerned. The points I see are: Figure 94 shows extrapolation of angular momentum of Emb relative to Sun, with a prediction of next
Sunspot cycle maxima arround 2013,2022,2036 and minima arround 2020 and 2032, (with still a large level
of uncertainty – since the cycle depends on more variables, among others by damping and exciting by
angular momentum changes (with a main cycle of 934* years in case of Jupiter/Saturn), by Uranus/Neptune
cycle (178.5 year cycle corresponding with the Gleissberg cycle) and possibly other cycles and
interferences).
And
Figure 81 – Compared scalar sum of angular momentum of 9 planets and Sun with the climatologic data
(Moberg at al. 2005, average temperature (light blue line), with gaussian filtering applied (bold blue line))
Reference for the climatologic data:
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution
proxy data.
Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
According to this connection, the current warming rate should slow down a little now, but will grow to local
maximum arround year 2040, from which point it should drop to next little ice age arround year 2430 and to
next warming arround year 2900.
Food for thought but I think Javier will like it.
Macha
Eschenbach,
listen up !
The trick with minimums is to
focus on one of them.
If you look at two, or even all four
during the Little Ice Age, you
get four different stories.
Thatsa no good !
If you look only at the Maunder Minimum,
you CAN say it was cold during the minimum
… but …
you’d also expect falling temperatures
during a minimum, with the average
temperature declining from the beginning,
to the end.
But even the Maunder Minimum
doesn’t do that,
per temperature reconstructions,
that I’ve seen.
Anecdotal written evidence strongly suggests
the Maunder Minimum cold was broadly
recognized, and hated, but not the same
for the three other Little Ice Age minimums.
So the trick is to focus on the Maunder Minimum,
develop a solar theory based on that,
and ignore the rest of the Little Ice Age !
Just like the temperature rise in the 1990s
was extrapolated 100 years into the future
by the global warmunists.
You must seize the data that support
your theory, and ignore everything else
— that’s how “modern” climate science works!
My climate change blog.
Common sense — no climate predictions:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Willis,
“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.”
That is the sane problem the IPCC has, just assuming CO2 is the main cause. Seems to me you have to consider all the causes at once in order to sort out how much is due to the sun. For example see Prof Akasofu.
aashfield March 20, 2018 at 11:29 am
Hey, aashfield, I’m not the one making the claims like “It’s the sun, stupid” and claiming that the solar variations make visible, significant changes in the temperature record.
That would be Javier et al. Please direct your complaints at them.
w.
I was talking to someone today about the recent snow we have had in Lincoln UK and he told me that in the winter of 1947 they had snowdrifts 14ft deep just outside Lincoln and that he remembered walking along the tops of double decker busses covered by the snow, those trying to free the busses bought a snow blower from the USA to try and free them but it did not work the wind blew the snow back as fast as the blower moved it away. the years :1947, 1963 , 2010 and 2018 were all around the time of solar minimums this seems to be more than coincidence here.
Donald, “science by anecdote” is no better than “science by assertion”. Making such a claim based on 4 anecdotal observations is … well … let me call it unsupported and leave it there.
If you’re interested, there’s a good analysis of the level of UK snowfalls since 1875 here.
And because I’m someone who actually does the hard yards, finds the data and runs the various analyses, I can tell you that the correlation of British winters with sunspots is abysmally low, R^2 = 0.006, p-value = 0.34.
In other words, sorry, but what you saw IS coincidence.
w.
The incidences of arctic SSW correlating with a quiescent sun is pronounced. SSW events are a significant precursor to European and North American cold and snow. There is nothing anecdotal about the correlation.
willybamboo March 20, 2018 at 2:34 pm
Sorry, Willy, but until you provide a link to a study it is absolutely anecdotal.
w.
The lack of correlation of UK winters with sun spots could be caused by the fact that the UK and northern Europe plus Eastern USA has warm periods and cold periods, we have had a warm period from the eighties to the beginning of this century roughly and now we seem to be entering another cold period which seems to be linked to the decline and stabilisation and perhaps future increase in Arctic sea ice extent. During a very cold period a long time ago the place where I live was covered by glaciers so you have to take these changes into account.
https://www.weatherbell.com/images/imguploader/files/Hurd_Willett.pdf
Good luck willis – if you aren’t a subscriber to weatherbell you may not get to the Willett paper. Call Joe D’Aleo if you need help
willybamboo March 20, 2018 at 6:01 pm
Sorry, but I find that paper totally unconvincing. It’s from 1974, which is not a bad thing but is likely why it is totally innocent of any mention of autocorrelation. That means his statistics are garbage, particularly because of his chosen analysis method which actively increases autocorrelation.
There is also no mention of the Bonferroni correction, which means that his statistics are double garbage.
Finally it is using a totally outdated sunspot dataset. Now to be fair at the time it was state of the art … but then that was nearly half a century ago.
Now, if you don’t know how to correct statistics for autocorrelation and you have never heard of the Bonferroni correction … well, perhaps some further study might be indicated before you comment on the subject or recommend such studies.
And if you do know how to correct statistics for autocorrelation and you have heard of the Bonferroni correction … then why on earth would you recommend this study?
My best regards to you,
w.
Denying the forest because you think someone miscounted the trees is myopic. The spectacular arctic SSW event that has driven the recent nor’easters and the “beast from the east” in Britain was forecast with uncanny accuracy by weatherbell analytics (Joe D’Aleo & Joe Bastardi) Key to the SSW forecast was low solar and an east QBO. NOTHING validates a correlation better than its efficacy in forecasting.
Oh, yeah, Willy, one final thing. You made a claim about “SSW”, sudden stratospheric warming … but the link you put up to support the SSW hypothesis says exactly zero about SSW …
w.
willybamboo March 22, 2018 at 3:35 am
Provide a link to their “uncanny” forecast and I’m glad to discuss it. Or not, up to you, but I’m not going on a snipe hunt based on your vague handwaving.
w.
willybamboo March 20, 2018 at 2:34 pm
As I mentioned, I’m the guy who does the hard yards, gathers the data, does the analysis, and writes it up. I don’t believe a study until I’ve run the numbers myself. Interested by Willy’s anecdote, I went and got the data on all of the large Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) events from January 1958 to January 2013. It’s available here. There have been 41 such events, which was an immediate red flag due to the small number of warming events.
Undeterred, I compared the distribution of the sunspots at the time of the 41 events with the distribution of all sunspots for the whole period. Here’s that result:
As I had feared, with only 41 events, the 95% confidence intervals are far too large for any conclusions to be drawn. (Confidence intervals have been adjusted with the Bonferroni correction because we are looking at more than one trial.) In any case, it is clear that there is no sign of “SSW correlating with a quiescent sun” as Willy claimed.
Anyhow, once again a beautiful theory has run aground on a reef of hard facts …
w.
As I have said lag times have to be factored in along with countless other factors such as the strength of the geo magnetic field, the given state of the climate, the degree of magnitude change and duration of time of the weak geo/solar magnetic fields, the locations of the south and north magnetic poles, the surrounding space environment (super nova in vicinity which would increase galactic cosmic rays) when magnetic fields are weak, Milankovitch Cycles ,where we are in respect to them, land elevation and land and ocean arrangements.
Then you have the threshold argument which is what combination, what degree of magnitude change and duration of time is needed to bring the climate to that threshold of change against the back drop of Milankovitch Cycles , land and ocean arrangements , the given state of the climate (how close or far is it from the interglacial/glacial tipping point . This meaning the closer the climate is to this intersection the less forcing would be needed to bring the climate to a threshold.
Then you have had at times the rogue asteroid impact which would upset the whole climatic system and put things into chaos and have climate correlations at these times be thrown out the window.
I will say it again IF solar/geo magnetic fields weaken enough in tandem and for a sufficient duration there is going to be a climatic impact.
I think we may have it at tis point of time. We will see.
So trying to show x change in x something is going to give an x climate result does not work unless all the factors I have mentioned are incorporated into the picture, and even then the degrees of magnitude change and duration of time needed to change the climate at a given point in time will always be different due to the other factors I mentioned.
I am positive it has to be the combination of all the things I have mentioned that must impact the climate because if it is not these items what is it????
When I say I think we may have it in this point in time ,what am I saying is I think this year and the succeeding few years is going to put AGW theory under pressure because at best for them temperatures will stay where they are, much less decline from here which is what I believe.
Going out a few years later say to 2025 it is going to depend on how weak the solar/geo magnetic fields have been and are at that time. I do not have the answer other than the trends are weakening for both fields with the geo magnetic field fading rapidly but still not that weak by historical standards but the decline has been dramatic and continues as of now. It will become weak by historical standards if this continues and the [N. MAGNETIC] POLE is now racing toward Siberia, while the South Magnetic pole now in the Indian ocean is moving North.