Data Comparisons

Post to discuss Sunspots

101 Comments

A visitor who uses a variety of names has posted twice pointing me to the stories on the reduction in sunspot numbers. I’ve read a few; I figure I can wait a few months to read whether scientists really are predicting that both insolation and number of spots will decline. In the meantime, any of you who know anything or think you know anything about sun spots, solar cycles or other important solar related topics, feel free to share what you know.

101 thoughts on “Post to discuss Sunspots”

  1. It appears to be in response to this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/nasa-jpl-on-new-insights-on-how-solar-minimums-affect-earth/

    And I have posted on several blogs:

    While I do find this interesting, it is a long way from matching cause to effect. Please, let us not in our haste to kill CAGW make the same mistakes they have, and jump to conclusions before the proof is in.
    I know proposals have been put forth as to the vehicle of effect, but they have not been fully explored and tested. All we have are hypothesis at this point I believe. While they are encouraging and appeal to common sense, let us not form a IPSC (Intergovernmental Panel on Solar Change) and go through this corruption of the scientific process again!

    I am not sure how it could be supported on your blog, as you work with real numbers and not speculation. Not really relevant here, but interesting none the less.

  2. Roy–
    It seems to me that today we are clearly seeing lots of PR on recent findings. That’s fine– the climatati have press releases for every new paper, seems to me the solar guys can too. But I know that you need too wait a few weeks to read various views. Also, time will tell whether the predictions about the sun pan out. Predictions often don’t. Even aside from predictions– I haven’t so far see any predictions on how this will affect the magnitude of insolation on the earth’s surface.

    But it is interesting.

  3. I like the way people who say that models are bad are suddenly believing prediction models for the sun.
    I like the way people who say the climate is chaotic and unpredictable, predict a spotless sun will drive us into an ice age.

  4. mosher–
    Yes. It’s not clear to me why we ought to be able to predict sun weather much further ahead than earth weather– but maybe the solar guys can. After all, they can look at lots of suns out there in the solar system. Still, I’ll believe we are in a maunder minimum when we find we are actually well into it!

  5. Lucia:
    I agree, that is why I do not want people to overemphasis the results of one paper.

    It could have meaning, or not!

  6. “I like the way people who say that models are bad are suddenly believing prediction models for the sun.
    I like the way people who say the climate is chaotic and unpredictable, predict a spotless sun will drive us into an ice age.”

    I agree Mosher, but this one does pass the “semblance of reality” check. It does not make it true, but “seems” more plausible. Time will tell.

  7. “I like the way people who say that models are bad are suddenly believing prediction models for the sun.”

    This from the guy who likes climate models. Cherry picking models, Mr. Mosher?

    Andrew

  8. My point was that AGW is finished for the following reasons: Nearly all the mainstream media is saying we “MAY” enter into cooling after reporting data from three independent studies showing sun is going into a maunder type minima. I emphasize “MAY”. Consider if we are actually putting into place “cooling” measures such as carbon sequestration etc because of a supposed AGW(which is also a “MAY” in my view although most here think its a definitive), when in fact people are being told that we MAY be cooling or going into an ice age. There is no way AGW will survive this in the eyes of the general public. It is indefensible and the previous sunspot data suggests strongly “MAY”. Its far too scary a scenario for the general population, they will dump AGW very quickly….Just my take of course, we shall see….

  9. Total Solar Irradiance is ramping up about as expected for moderate solar cycle (SORCE Tim is up 0.6 w/m2 for example) so unless there are also changes in wavelength intensities that we are not privy to, there is no change to date in the solar energy received from the Sun.

    That also means that one cannot use the Sun as an offset to GHGs to explain the current flat temperature trend.

    (Remember multiply by 70% and divide by 4 so a 0.6 w/m2 increase in the solar cycle to date is really only 0.1 w/m2 change – Stefan Boltzmann says that translates into just 0.019C and climate theory says it might be as high as 0.08C).

  10. NASA had a blurb about Livingston and Penn’s declining sunspot magnetism in September 2009:

    http://www.iceagenow.com/NASA_News_Are_Sunspots_Disappearing.htm

    In 2005 solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet modeler Janes Annan $10,000 that the globe would be cooler during 2012-2017 than it was in 1998-2003.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

    In 2007 Richard Mackey summarized views which held that solar cycles 25 and 26 would be so weak that a mini ice age would result.

    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

    The recent report from New Mexico was not about just one paper; people have been aware of the sun for a while.

  11. Given the how well the predictions worked for Cycle 24 you would think they’d be a little reticent in making predictions for 25. Hope springs eternal I guess.

  12. Marie deschamps
    If temperatures keep resume rising the lack of sunspots will not make people stop believing in AGW. People going about their every day business notice if it’s warm or cold out; they don’t notice sunspots. (They don’t care about sunspots.)

    If temperatures start to fall, that will make people stop believing in AGW. But an announcement about sunspots? That’s not going to turn around the publics’ views.

  14. Re: Andrew_KY (Jun 14 18:43),

    huh. no I endorse the use of physics models. I’m pointing out that some who were critical of any models are now touting model results.

    The question is. how well does the model do and is it of any use.
    predicting sun spots is really a wheel that doesnt turn. predicting
    TSI would be a whole nother matter

  15. So lets sketch out the arguments.

    Minimum comes, minimum doesnt come.
    temps up, down, flat.

    pivotal question: if the minimum comes and temps go up, who changes their mind?

  16. Not me because unless the minimum is really low, I expect temps will still tend to go up. Anyone know how low the TSI is predicted to fall? All I’m seeing is discussions of sun spot numbers and “maunder minimum”.

  17. steven mosher (Comment #77218)-Not all models are equal, and some are more equal than others. For instance, when it comes to economic models, I’m not just skeptical, I’m a denier, because the very foundation of that approach is, in that case, wrong. In the case of the climate, the principles behind it are indeed physical, but very complex-so while in principle I think models can have some success (their use is not a priori wrong as in economics) I still think they are a long way from achieving reasonable usefulness. I personal would place the models of solar activity somewhere between economics and climate in terms of the reasonableness of the approach actually taken, in that the models are, as I understand them, statistical rather than physical, but I think models of solar activity have more potential for success than do models of climate, simply because, and I could be wrong, I tend to think that the system is going to be simpler. So I think one can contrary to what you imply, reasonably hold different views about the validity of models of different phenomena.

  20. Look, the big news here, is that there is a viable prediction from Dr. Hill that SC25 will be either extremely weak or may not even appear. This is based upon his observation of torsional oscillations. PERIOD!

    Nowhere in the press release or the paper did I get a distinct impression that DR. Hill was PREDICTING that global temps would drop.

    We have no REAL data that sunspots translate into temps here on earth. Just Proxies!!!

    SHEESH!!!

  21. Interesting times for solar physicists around the world.

    This is a pretty current overview of what we know/don’t know about solar variability and climate change:
    http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/rg1004/2009RG000282/2009RG000282.pdf

    Timo Niroma, a Solar Physicist from Finland focuses on long solar cycles and their effect on weather and climate: http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/
    The boys at NASA have discounted his ideas as crazy but he has predicted the coming low solar cycle for a long time in sharp contrast to NASA’s Hathaway. Maybe he is crazy like a fox.

    If the sun goes quiet for 50 years will thermometers fall? Historical glacier movement, high resolution GISP2 ice core analysis, and crude temperature records from 17th century Europe suggest that it will. As much as -2C during the deepest lows. Over the next 20 years we may even discover the source of this yet unknown forcing mechanism and answer the question: “Who are Mosher’s gremlins?”

    If temps continue to rise throughout a 50 year solar minimum then we are in deep guano come 2100 when the sun fully wakes up and atmospheric CO2 concentration is 800ppm. Interesting times for sure!

  23. Lucia, the presence of sunspots increases TSI ( a tiny bit) so if the sun goes spotless we will get a really good idea of the baseline for low TSI.

    Of course the GCR crowd will also be interested in watching.

    I’m hoping for a minimum, it would be good to pin some numbers down.

    going thru a minimum and having temperatures rise will be an interesting argument. temps flat to falling is less interesting.

    ok I just said that to start a fight.

  24. I’m sure that everyone at Wazzup realizes that the scientists they hate so very, very much say that temperatures will continue to rise even if the Sun goes into a prolonged period of inactivity. Assuming it does just that, somebody’s religion will face a test, and I doubt it will be the “Warmists.'”

  25. We had climate modellers telling us the world MAY warm and cause all sorts of havoc.
    Then came reams of papers on what MAY happen in a warming world.
    Now we have solar modellers telling us the world MAY cool,but we don’t know what the effect will be.
    Time for some scientists to jump on this bandwagon.
    Now I’m waiting for reams of papers telling us what MAY happen in a cooling world.
    Do we need a sunspot tax?Will all coral die?Will all fish die?Will some cities be buried under ice?Will those big,cuddly,white bears die for lack of food?
    Come on guys,we need to know.Get those crystal balls out.This uncertainty is awful.Please let me know that my grandchildren are in safe hands.
    Sorry
    I forgot the mantra
    Repeat over and over
    The only science that is settled is the science that says the world MAY warm.
    Ignore scientists who say otherwise,they are in the pay of big oil.
    All is well,just need to cut emissions,then my grandchildren will be safe.

  26. steven mosher said in Comment #77255 June 14th, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    “I’m hoping for a minimum, it would be good to pin some numbers down.
    going thru a minimum and having temperatures rise will be an interesting argument.”
    ____

    Yes, it would be interesting, but I think some would argue if it’s not the sun causing the rise in temperatures, it has to be other natural causes because the earth has warmed in the past without man’s help, and the null hypothesis (natural warming) still hasn’t been rejected.

  27. Steven

    Perhaps the “hope” is, that with media takeup, alarmism either way will create a critical balance and emphasis shift so political decisions might be made to ensure sustainable or new energy becomes a practical way of adapting to whatever eventually emerges to confront us today and on into the future, the modeling importance is returned within the realms of science.

  28. The first order of business is to come up with cool nicknames and derogatory ones for proponents. Couple of possibilities: Marauders, Ra istas, Spotters, Ra Heads, Helidiots, Sunnies, Cyclists.
    It is going to be a few years before the results are in so we might as well have some fun.

  29. I agree with Lucia and Mosh. Unless its a severe cooling, we are not likely to see a temperature DROP. At best a flat line or just a moderation of warming.
    .

    The spaghetti graphs for historical anomalies shows temps at about -1 deg C for global temps during the Maunder. As we are warming the planet (my SWAG is 1 deg C/century), it should cancel at best.
    .

    That said, some regional studies show wider swings. Chesapeake sediments suggest a 2 to 4 deg C swing in the LIA.
    .

    (disclaimer: past performance is no indication of future results)

  30. Leif Svallgard predicted the weak cycle and possibility it could be like the Dalton minimum. He also predicted the weak cycle would get credit for cooling more likely due to the PDO shift.

    One thing the weak cycle should do is improve the TSI modeling for the first half of the 20th century. Then the 1910-1942 temperature rise should emphasis the impact of natural pseudo-cyclic patterns on climate.

    There may be some amplification of solar on climate, but the TSI change seems to be pretty predictable. Time will tell.

  33. The total energy produced by the sun is via fusion, which takes place far from the regions where sunspots (and related solar activity) appear to happen. Unless there is some reasonable mechanism by which the rate of fusion is altered in a cyclical fashion, I would argue that the average solar output must be fairly constant if averaged over a sufficiently long time… with ‘sufficiently long’ being comparable to the time for energy to migrate from the core region to the solar surface. In any case, measured TSI variation is (so far) quite small. Since there is pretty clear evidence of a solar influence on Earth’s climate, an amplification of solar influence, beyond direct changes in TSI, via cosmic rays or other mechanism seems likely.

  34. steven mosher (Comment #77244)
    June 14th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
    “pivotal question: if the minimum comes and temps go up, who changes their mind?”
    —————————-
    That is a pivotal question, indeed. Actually, John Cook in Jan 2010 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html) showed that the 11-year moving average (to remove the cycle) of TSI has been slowly dropping since ca. 1975 and has recently dropped even faster. Cook plotted GISSTEMP versus TSI, showing that the two have recently been moving in opposite directions. Note that at our current 100-year solar minimum, we have had two of the warmest years on record (2009, 2010).

    Back to the question – even if we plunged into a Maunder MInimum situation, and the temps continued to rise, I believe that few to none of the hard-core deniers would change their minds.

  35. “Back to the question – even if we plunged into a Maunder MInimum situation, and the temps continued to rise, I believe that few to none of the hard-core deniers would change their minds.”

    Owen, you are quite correct. We deniers don’t trust the temperature record, especially the record collected and adjusted by dubious agencies.

    Andrew

  36. Ok… so does anyone have a model fit to tsi vs. sunspot numbers?

    Also, even if the two-lump fits aren’t physical– anyone have a convenient one? I wanna do some swags.

  37. Andrew_KY (Comment #77272)
    June 15th, 2011 at 7:47 am
    “We deniers don’t trust the temperature record, especially the record collected and adjusted by dubious agencies.”
    ——————————-
    Do you trust Roy Spencer’s UAH temperature record?

  38. Brendon

    Will the reduced solar activity also reduce ocean acidification?

    I don’t know any reason it would.

  39. steven mosher (Comment #77244) says: “pivotal question: if the minimum comes and temps go up, who changes their mind?”

    Are you expecting a drop in temperature during an extended minimum? If so, on what basis?

  41. I was left with the impression from the press release that their statements were based more on actual observation than models.

    What if it’s not about TSI ? What if it’s about cosmic radiation induced cloud cover ? Does anyone here know what the earth’s cloud cover was in the last LIA ?

  42. Bob–
    I think mosher is asking an if/then question. The issue is: Is there a subset of people who don’t change their mind based on new evidence that tends to contradict their view? Is there a subset who does change their mind?

    I think there are a lot of interesting questions that response to a period of low sun spots should answer:

    * How strongly is the average TSI over the cycle connected to sunspot numbers? (We know there is some connection during the cycle with a but more TSI at the top and less at the bottom. Will it be the same connection if we get a Maunder Minimum?)

    * Is the response the variations in the sun’s activity purely a function of variations in TSI or is something else going on?

    We’ll get answer to these one way or another. We’ll also see whether the earth warms or cools. I don’t personally predict cooling– but on the other hand, I don’t have a “model” to tell me how much one might expect the TSI to drop. I haven’t even seen the solar guys making quantitative predictions how much TSI might drop– I just see allusions to the fact that the earth’s temperature did drop last time sun spots disappeared. (I tend to figure to leading order the sun’s effect is through TSI. Maybe that will turn out to be wrong, and there is a “Leprechaun” effect where something else modifies the impact of TSI. I can’t say such a Leprechaun effect is impossible– I only call it Leprechaun because I have no idea what it might be. )

  43. John Crane

    that their statements were based more on actual observation than models.

    Some things are based on observations. Predictions into the future are based on models. The future has not been observed yet. So, for example, someone pointing out that if sunspot levels continue to decline at recent rates, there will be none by… 2015(?), that’s based on a simple statistical model called “linear extrapolation”. Others have more sophisticated models, but I don’t know their nature. (I haven’t looked into it.)

  44. Bob-
    Thanks. But there are something like 1300 pdfs to click through. To your knowledge does he have a fit to sunspot numbers vs. tsi?

  46. At one time, it was thought that TSI was 4 watts/m2 lower during the Maunder Minimum.

    This would drop temperatures by 0.2C to 0.5C.

    The most we have seen TSI change was a few days in October 2003 when (ironically) a big grouping of large sunspots dropped TSI by 4 watts/m2. This is the most we have seen the Sun change and is equivalent to a decline of 4K in the surface temperature of the Sun (just a coincidence but each 1K equals 1 watt/m2 TSI at Earth distance).

  47. RE: lucia (Comment #77279)

    “How strongly is the average TSI over the cycle connected to sunspot numbers? (We know there is some connection during the cycle with a but more TSI at the top and less at the bottom. Will it be the same connection if we get a Maunder Minimum?)
    Is the response the variations in the sun’s activity purely a function of variations in TSI or is something else going on?”

    I think these are valid questions. Observed changes in TSI during the 11 year solar cycle simply do not explain the climate change observed during Maunder. I suspect it is possible there is another mechanism involved during a deep solar minimum, or TSI drops off precipitously, far beyond the typical 11 year sunspot minimum. Perhaps TSI is simply the wrong yardstick to measure solar forcing and climate change. Either way I suspect we are about to find out.

  48. ivp0–
    Clearly, once you get to zero sunspots/year numbers, you can’t go lower. If something about the sun’s behavior results in variations in both sunspots and TSI, with sunspots only appearing above some certain threshold, it would be plausible that we should not expect TSI to reach some constant low value merely because there are no sunspots. That would mean we couldn’t begin to extrapolate to TSI based on sunspot numbers to periods when there are no sunspots.

    But it would still be interesting to know.

    Beyond that: Both climate sensitivity and time scales of the response to variations in TSI (or any forcing) might also explain a deeper dip during a protracted period of low TSI. So… that’s why I’d like to swag things. (Basically: it might be worth looking at John Cook’s argument accounting for various plausible levels of response time of the earth’s climate system. His “analysis” seems to assume instant response– which is odd because no climate modeler thinks the response to CO2 is instant. There is no reason to suppose it’s magically instant for solar.)

  49. Sure, but sunspots are simply an indicator (proxy) of processes and cycles within the sun. Sunspots do not drive TSI. During a deep solar minimum is it possible for TSI to fall much lower than the threshold for sunspot formation? Yes of course. TSI may fall much lower indicating a far more variable star than we have grown accustomed to. This reminds me of Louis Pasteur and germ theory. People were dying suddenly all over Europe and no one understood why. The mechanism turned out to be virus and bacteria. A previously unknown driver of disease.

  50. Sure, but sunspots are simply an indicator (proxy) of processes and cycles within the sun.

    Precisely. As such, below 0/year, you lose the proxy information. Also, TSI might or might not be a linear function of sunspot numbers when the do appear (though that is something that could be tested empirically if we had lots and lots of data.)

    We know the maunder minimum had no sunspots for periods. We know the earth’s climate cooled. I think the solar guys know other things (Carbon 14 evidence etc.) We don’t have direct TSI measurements during that periods. So…. Predicting what will happen if we enter a new Maunder Minimum? I certainly can’t do it!

  51. Lucia, if you still wanted numbers to compare reconstructed TSI to SSN,
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/sidc-ssn – SSN only back to 1749

    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20%28Reconstructions%29.txt – various TSI back to 1700

    Might be best to just ask Svalgaard. He’s a legend and will answer even mundane questions posted here within hours:
    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1587&page=5

    AFAIK he thinks most GW is ocean cycles – dismissing CAGW and Svensmark as “bad science”.

  54. I have seen TSI/sunspot charts before and I believe there is a correlation but it is not linear, especially over the last 15 years. I will look for them. I do think we will lose our sunspot proxy so finding another yardstick would be useful in predicting future changes in solar output.

  55. AFPhys–
    I was hoping someone else computed the link to sunspot numbers. (Not that I can’t do something– I just wanted that calculation to be independent of me.)

    I think I can do some swagging with the Lean stuff. I’ll also try to get Willis Eschenbach’s version of “Lumpy” (the fit to GISS output.) That would be the “model” for the earth’s response. (This would be a SWAG type thing.)

  56. Lucia, I should have said Catastrophic AGW, I’m very sure he believes there’s a man-made contribution and that he believes solar variability is only ~0.1C.

    I’ve never seen him lay out his reasons fully – he gripes about people wiggle-matching and not having mechanisms to explain their theories so that may be it.

  57. steven mosher (Comment #77255) -“the presence of sunspots increases TSI ( a tiny bit)” Minor point, but this is physically wrong. The presence of faculae increase the brightness, the spots themselves actually have the opposite effect. But spots are surrounded by much brighter/hotter than average areas like faculae, so they together amount to a net increase in the brightness. But again, the spots themselves are dark, and do not increase the radiance. Alright, pedantry off now. 🙂

  59. RE: Andrew_FL (Comment #77296)

    Yes, the Wiki chart is from a recent paper indicating that the sunspot/TSI/Solar flux relationship is unraveling.

  60. When focusing on TSI, you may want to consider the NASA’s 12/17/10 report, “SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise”at:
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

    “Two satellite instruments aboard NASA’s Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission — the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) — have made daily measurements of the sun’s brightness since 2003….
    Both instruments measure aspects of the sun’s irradiance, the intensity of the radiation striking the top of the atmosphere…. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths — including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light — into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum…
    Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance. However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall… The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate…
    ‘If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,’ said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
    It would also imply that the sun’s contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.
    However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution…”

    Thus, the spectral qualities of the TSI may also have to be kept in mind, even with an overall lower TSI which give a continuing “bright spot” for AGW proponents.

  65. “Yes, it would be interesting, but I think some would argue if it’s not the sun causing the rise in temperatures, it has to be other natural causes because the earth has warmed in the past without man’s help, and the null hypothesis (natural warming) still hasn’t been rejected.”

    What null? I’ve yet to see anyone formulate a QUANTITATIVE Null about “natural” warming. what would it even look like, mathematically? ponder that

  66. RE: BRIAN M FLYNN (Comment #77299)
    Changing spectrum during solar variability is a good clue to climate change but Gavin’s conclusions based on one brief period of unusually low activity are balderdash.

  67. If a repeat of the Climatic Conditions that existed in the Maunder Minimum were to occur it’s extremely questionable if we could feed the world with the associated reduced growing season.

    We have all sorts of theories about what the impact on agriculture would be for ‘global warming’. We have historical fact to guide us as to what would happen if ‘global cooling’ were to occur. A ‘litte ice age’ isn’t going to make life any easier for the worlds 7 billion inhabitants.

    Correlation without causation isn’t proof of anything…ignoring historical precedent because you lack causation isn’t a particularly good idea either.

  68. Mosher – I agree, as far as I can tell the baseline for all these climate discussions is missing.

  69. Roy Weiler (Comment #77216) June 14th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
    .
    [“While I do find this interesting, it is a long way from matching cause to effect. Please, let us not in our haste to kill CAGW make the same mistakes they have, and jump to conclusions before the proof is in.”]
    .
    Wise words indeed, Roy.

  70. The Maunder minimum was a brief period from about 1645 to 1715. The little ice age is supposed to have been from about 1550 to 1850

    At best it caused a brief dip that may have exacerbated other factors, including the long term increasing southward movement of the NH snow and ice pack as the milankovitch forcing weakened at high northern latitudes.
    Possibly the huge demographic changes of the late medieval and early modern periods (with perhaps up to half of Europe’s population and may be up to 90% of the population of the Americas dying) along a huge growth in forests slightly reducing CO2 concentrations (link)
    Gerard C. Bond has suggested that a mini Daansgard Oescher event may have been underway ([URL=”http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF”]read his paper hear[/URL]), in his theory ice berg rafting from the previous warmer period reduced salinity of the north Atlantic slowing the thermohaline circulation, obviously strongly borrowing from the famed Wally Broecker.
    Others suggest things like falling TSI or some ocean based cycle mechanism for the centuries long cool period.

    But what ever it was the Maunder minimum is unlikely to have been the trigger or been much more than a short term dip in a longer term trend.

    Off course you have to start by accepting we can know something useful about the climate of the past 1000 years without a bun fight of epic proportions.

    Incidentally

    Somebody need to tell the earth its supposed to be headed into a mini ice age.
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ seems to be getting a tad near 2010’s highs again.

  71. This
    [URL=”http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF”]read his paper hear[/URL])
    Should be this
    this

  73. @DeWitt Payne
    People can and will argue when it started I just chose to go with the dates shown on Wikipedia (1550) as I thought it was likely to be the least likely to spark an argument.

    The Great Famine in Europe seems to have been more about wet summers than cold per se. A change in the jet stream or perhaps the Gulf Stream could also account for it, after many good years populations expand and when the bad returns a region gets hit hard as the population is too big for the poor harvests.

    I am a touch skeptical linking the great famine and the black death as over 30 years had passed and the black death hit areas not affected by the great famine. Enough for people to have pretty much recovered

  74. If the world is about the enter another mini-ice age, it means Canadians and Americans will soon flooding south to Mexico by the tens of millions as illegal immigrants to keep from freezing and for food, and Europeans south to Africa, and the Chinese into Indonesia and Australia for the same reasons.
    Think the southerner­s will welcome the northerner­s better than what happens/ed the other way around? Hah. Hug a Mexican and hope for the best.

  75. dorlomin, Wiki is actually quite likely to start an argument. The articles are basically controlled by friends of the Team, and rely heavily on Hockey Stick and related studies with similarly problematic methodologies. At any rate I don’t think it makes sense to define time periods as “the MWP” and/or “the Little Ice Age” for the simple reason that what is even meant by those terms is not defined clearly, which would seem to preclude defining when they begin and end.

  76. lucia (Comment #77281) says: “To your knowledge does he have a fit to sunspot numbers vs. tsi?”

    Sorry, Lucia, can’t help you.

    The only interaction I’ve had with Leif on sunspots and TSI is when I’ve used monthly sunspot numbers as a proxy for TSI in a long-term comparison graph. Leif suggested I increase the sunspot count by x% before a specific solar cycle (around 1940 if memory serves me) since sunspots were undercounted before then. I’d be happy to find his comment if you need the specifics.

  77. Bob–
    I’ve found TSI stuff. I think I’m just going to fiddle with that. I’m curious about Skeptical sciences article and I’m wondering about something to do with time constants. 🙂

  78. Lucia
    Here’s a couple of items that may be of interest:

    History and Calibration of Sunspot Numbers
    Leif Svalgaard  Edward W. Cliver  and Kenneth H. Schatten
    http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Calibration.pdf

    Sunspot number data at NOAA
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/ssndata.html

    Solar Databases For Global Change Models by
    H.E. Coffey, E.H. Erwin and C.D. Hanchett, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, NOAA
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

  79. Lucia
    Some TSI info:

    Leif Svalgaard
    M TSI-F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Recent solar activity (daily) (Hi-res)
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

    780 TSI From McCracken HMF.pdf (TSI Reconstruction 1428-2005, Santa Fe, SORCE 2008)
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf

    775 McCracken Comment.pdf (Comment on McCracken HMF 1428-2005, JGR (rejected) 2008) Report-Reply
    http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken%20JGR%202.pdf

    770 TSI (Reconstructions).xls (TSI Reconstructions 1700-present, 2008) [as text, as PDF]
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls

    The minimal solar activity in 2008–2009 and its implications for long‐term climate modeling
    J. Schrijver, W. C. Livingston, T. N. Woods, and R. A. Mewaldt, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L06701, doi:10.1029/2011GL046658, 2011
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf

  80. Lucia
    The rest of Leif’s TSI articles:
    *1150 PMOD TSI-SOHO keyhole effect-degradation over time.ppt (SORCE, Keystone, CO, 2010)
    http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.ppt

    *760 GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf ((No?)Century-scale Secular Variation in HMF, EUV, or TSI; AGU Fall 2007)
    http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf

    *730 TSI-LEIF.pdf (My version of TSI, 2007)
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf

    *710 CAWSES – IMF, EUV, TSI.pdf ( CAWSES Newsletter:vol 4, issue 2, 2007)
    http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20IMF,%20EUV,%20TSI.pdf

    Wheat Proxy: Historical records covering 454 years show a clear influence of solar cycles on wheat production. See:

    “Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat market in Medieval England”, Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312244.pdf

    We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. . . . We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.

    For Earth’s time constants see: Nicola Scafetta’s
    Comment on ‘‘Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system’’ by S. E. Schwartz JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, D15104, doi:10.1029/2007JD009586, 2008
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf

  82. The most likely cause of solar induced climatic changes is through the control of jetstreams via UV/ozone stratospheric effects.
    I also suspect that the effect may be based on change of temp rather than temp level, rather like unstable spring vs stable autumn/fall.
    Stable periods causes reduced atmospheric mixing, zonal wind patterns and warming climate. unstable causes increased atmospheric mixing, meridonal wind patterns and cooling.
    The russians have seen this wind pattern occur on a multidecadal timescale similar to PDO.
    Of course it may be ocean driven.
    The other thing to consider is the long term effect on the stratosphere of large volcanic eruptions like pinatubo.
    High SO2 eruptions like pinatubo strip water from the stratosphere, resulting in a boom and bust scenario in stratospheric temp. Considering that tropospheric temp inversely lags stratospheric temp it is quite possible that the pinatubo eruption was responsible for the late 90s step increase in global temp.

  83. Mosher,

    Your point about consistent model skepticism is both astute and valid, although it’s unclear to me how much this solar work depends on models that have yet to show useful skill. If it does turn out to be based on unvalidated models then will you also demand equal consistency from those who find unproven models convincing enough to drive economic and political actions?

    Your laudable appeal for consistency should fall equally on both sides.

  84. Steve Mosher
    “I’ve yet to see anyone formulate a QUANTITATIVE Null about “natural” warming. what would it even look like, mathematically? ”

    For starters, how about identifying major natural causes that give a basis for a null hypothesis projection.

    e.g., See Syun-Ichi Akasofu, projecting multi-decadal oscillations on top of a linear recovery from the Little Ice Age.
    International Artic Research Center

    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
    Natural Science Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010)
    doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149

    Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change (2009)

    N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

    These show the majority of changes (“warming”) due to natural causes. The theory of anthropogenic causation must show a statistically significant difference from these projections.

  85. Marie deschamps (Comment #77223)
    June 14th, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    If you believe CO2 has no effect on climate, then clearly carbon sequestration can have no effect either. Right?

  86. lucia (Comment #77273)
    June 15th, 2011 at 7:48 am
    Ok… so does anyone have a model fit to tsi vs. sunspot numbers?

    Krivova’s SATIRE model does essentially that, although it’s more complex than mere numbers as the cycle length plays a large role.

  87. lucia (Comment #77287)
    June 15th, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Also, TSI might or might not be a linear function of sunspot numbers when the do appear (though that is something that could be tested empirically if we had lots and lots of data.)

    We do have lots and lots of data. We have daily data on sunspots and TSI for 30 years, and during the SC24/25 minimum (at least) there were weeks at a time with zero sunspots. There is a correlation, but it’s not hugely strong, IIRC. Would be interesting to test for heteroskedasticity.

  88. KAP (Comment #77389)-“We have daily data on sunspots and TSI for 30 years”

    Yes, but there is no universally agreed upon continuous record of TSI, just several short records that need to be stitched together, and not everyone agrees how to do that (see the PMOD/ACRIM controversy).

  89. Rest my case this has been taken up by ALL mainstream media and mostly world “may cool”. So AGW is over as a concept, money, science, modelers and institution etc.

  90. Marie deschamps,

    Apart from the fact that solar forcing is relatively small… A prolonged minimum might cool us ~0.1 C globally, but wouldn’t make too much of a dent in other forcings (though that raises an interesting question: presumably solar forcing would be subject to the same feedbacks as CO2 forcing, so would one calculate the net response with feedbacks as [GHG – solar] * λ and not GHG * λ – solar, so the total solar-forced response could be larger than the solar forcings alone if λ > 1).

  91. Zeke (Comment #77429)-“solar forcing is relatively small” Assuming it is just TSI and not other effects, yes.

    “A prolonged minimum might cool us ~0.1 C globally”

    The mistake you are making here is by referring to a prolonged minimum, using the change associated with observed, brief minima, and forgetting (irony!) the delayed response time! Now how off that makes your calculation I couldn’t begin to guess, but it’s too small for sure.

  93. Marie–
    But you’ve been saying AGW was over for years now!

    The fact that news agencies picked up a story can’t in an of itself cause cooling. About the cooling: We’ll see.

  94. I have a wacky theory:

    Lockwood’s recent paper reckons that a quiet Sun pushes the jetstream equatorward (at least over Europe) – especially during that hemisphere’s winter. This involves high pressure over Greenland. As we all know, high pressure means cloudless skies which has got to allow extra cooling during a 6-month night.
    Coupled with the clouds pushed to lower latitudes for shade and I figure there’s a net cooling. Maybe.

  95. Hi Giys,

    I think you’ve all missed the point, focus your stats on Google search. This is a new internet meme called the ‘Eddy Minimum’ (named by Tony Watts and David Archibald after John A. Eddy). There’s an online petition to name the next next minimum so get on board. Any crazed sex-poodle can see that this will be big, big, big!

    From a marketing perspective this prediction may be good until 2022 (UMMV), so you have plenty of time for book sales and tours!

  96. See: Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots
    Reviews historical solar cycles, glacial advances, temperature, & famines.

    The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. . . .when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. . . . About a third of the population of Europe perished.

  97. RE: David L. Hagen (Comment #77457)
    I checked out that post. Read the comments section. The errors and inconsistencies are just awful. Sad really.

  98. MikeA (Comment #77442) -I think the name “Eddy Minimum” was proposed by Leif Svalgaard, actually. Certainly the effort has been spearheaded by Anthony. Considering the man (Eddy) is the “discoverer of the Maunder Minimum” I think the case can be made he deserves it.

  99. Re: ivp0 (Comment #77305)
    I read Gavin’s comments as a conditional admission about a shortcoming in present climate models which fail to weight those spectral components of TSI which contribute more to earth’s climate (otherwise, an overall decline in TSI may not produce a proportionate impact on climate). His reasonable “condition” was that SIM observations are an accurate measure, and I found his admission refreshing.

    Aside from a closer look at TSI, I also believe more focus should be made upon the low solar magnetic activity which WUWT has reported for some time now. With the continuing theory that low solar magnetic activity coupled with low solar wind allows for greater cloud formation on earth (also changing earth’s planetary albedo to reflect more of the sun’s energy), a reduction in the “warming components” in TSI with an increase in cloud formation should produce a cooling greater than that, I believe, would be credited by AGW proponents.

  100. Brian Flynn–
    Modelers can’t include an effect until after they have some sort of quantitative model for the effect. I’m pretty sure that no one has a quantitative model for how solar magnetic activity or solar wind affect cloud formation, particularly not in a computational grid cell.

    If cloud formation is affected during the upcoming predicted sleeping sun period, maybe someone will develop a good model.

  101. As a long time lurker and very occasional commenter I’ve always thought that the climate models underestimated the power of natural forcings.

    While I accept that our modellers are very bright people they cannot overcome a simple problem, the lack of detailed long term data. Perhaps a prolonged “Eddy” Minimum will give them better data to work with. Previously all they had were “normal” cycles, it will be interesting to see what an “abnormal” one does.

    I will add that I think too much emphasis is placed on TSI and not enough on its constituent parts. To a degree it is incoming UV that is changed to outgoing IR that can be intercepted by CO2. A reduction in incoming UV would mean a reduction in outgoing IR and a resulting reduction in warming.

Comments are closed.