## Svalgaard Solar Theory

Lif Svalgaard writes (moved from another thread for convenience”)
Line 1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.

Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the suns surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called modes) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didnt change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

Line 3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Suns web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.

Line 4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a floor, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~$4*10^{14}$ Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼$10^{11}$ Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima  we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind  both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum  this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.

Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the Magnetic Needle, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earths main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a floor in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.

Line 6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].



Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the background TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of floors in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The five lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a hidden source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.



#87: The Zeeman splitting is not applicable because the floor is not derived from solar magnetograph data. The point about the radius is well-taken and there are efforts underway to measure the radius precisely. Helioseismology [as well as the success of general relativity] has pretty much ruled out a rapidly rotating solar core which would give rise to oblateness. And it is perfectly true that there may be effects we dont know about, but as Wittgenstein said of that which we dont know we should be silent.

Now, this is a BIG subject and you are in a sense watching science in the making, but the picture is becoming clearer and there is enough NEW evidence that simply quoting old papers [even rather recent ones] is old hat. If you look carefully at the various reconstructions they all rely on some combination of the [too low] Group Sunspot numbers and/or the [too low aa-index] and/or the now discredited doubling of open magnetic flux in the last 100 years [not even Lockwood thinks so anymore]. With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the all-time high solar activity. But as I said, this whole thing will probably take some time to play out – lets say about a solar cycles worth. Each of the issues mentioned above is complicated and requires a lengthy analysis and much convincing before they sink in. But at least you are now forewarned :-)

All the lines are connected, you cannot easily accept some and reject the others [with possible exception of #1]. So accept all or reject all. Im very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is flinging nonsense. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part.

1. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

The Scafetta & West paper(s) assume that there is some solar variability. There are indications that such variability is significantly smaller than even recent reconstructions. I’m presenting a poster at AGU [by coincidence just next to Scafetta] that argues that solar variability has been overestimated:

GC31B-0351
(No?) Century-scale Secular Variation in HMF, EUV, or TSI.

Recent work suggests that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field (HMF) strength, B, at each sunspot minimum varies but little (less than a nT). The variation of B within a solar cycle seems to be due to extra (and likely closed) magnetic flux added by Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) riding on top of a “floor” of somewhere between 4 and 5 nT, leading to the conclusion that the open magnetic flux is nearly constant with time, and that, in particular, there is no secular variation of the open flux. B inferred from geomagnetic data back to the 1840s further support this conclusion. In fact, B for the current cycle 23 matches well B for cycle 13, 107 years earlier. The amplitude rY of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). As for the HMF there seems to be a “floor” in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years. Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Reconstructions of TSI, all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the “background” TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of “floors” in HMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. I would suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a “hidden” source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima. This obviously has implications for solar forcing of terrestrial climate.

—–

In another paper at the same meeting we argue that the increase in solar activity measured by the Group Sunspot Number since the Maunder Minimum is itself on an unsure footing. The early GSN are likely about 50% too small:
SH13A-1109
Origins of the Wolf Sunspot Number Series: Geomagnetic Underpinning

Cliver, E W & Svalgaard, L.
The Wolf or International sunspot number (SSN) series is based on the work of Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf (1816-1893). Following the discovery of the sunspot cycle by Schwabe in 1843, Wolf culled sunspot counts from journals and observatory reports and combined them with his own observations to produce a SSN series that extended from 1700-1893. Thereafter the SSN record has been maintained by the Zurich Observatory and, since 1981, by the Royal Observatory of Belgium. The 1700-1893 SSN record constructed by Wolf has not been modified since his death. Here we show that Wolf’s SSNs were not based solely on reports of sunspots but were calibrated by reference to geomagnetic range observations which closely track the sunspot number. Nor were these corrections small; for example Wolf multiplied the long series (1749-1796) of sunspot counts obtained by Staudacher by factors of 2.0 and 1.25, in turn, to obtain the numbers in use today. It is not surprising then that a competing SSN series obtained by Hoyt and Schatten based on group sunspot numbers is different, generally lower than that of Wolf. Comparison of the International number with current magnetic range observations indicates that, as Wolf found, the magnetic range (specifically, the average annual Y-component of mid-latitude stations) can be used as an independent check on the validity and stability of the SSN series. Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar EUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century.

——-

So, if there is ‘solar activity’ or TSI forcing, the sensitivity of the climate system to this must be much greater than generally assumed. A simpler hypothesis is that there is no solar effects on the timescale of decades or centuries.

2. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

#69 Boris:
I’ve read it, and the assumption is ok with me. They are trying to quantify the total solar forcing (including all indirecte effects and feedbacks) by assuming TSI was the dominant climate driver prior to 1900. Rasmus’ critique at RealClimate does raise some other serious concerns though, such as comparing the Mann2003 20th-century temperature rise to their Moberg2005-derived solar influence.

3. Francois Ouellette
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

#65 Leif,

But there are some very good correlations, S&W included, indicating that the Sun is the main driver of past (and present?) climate variability. Plus it makes physical sense. Whatever the presumed “water vapor” feedback amounts to, it seems to me that albedo might be a more important feedback in the end. It seems to me (it’s really just a physicist hunch) that if there is water vapor feedback, it must be strongly constrained, simply because water condensates and turns into clouds and starts reflecting light. From what I’ve read, the “pure” water vapor feedback (e.g. clear sky) may not be that common. Clouds, on the other hand, can intuitively have a large influence on the radiative balance. And clouds are possibly affected by cosmic rays, which are indirectly affected by the Sun’s activity. I don’t know what the correlation is between CR’s and TSI. What I mean to say is that I find it simplistic to rely only on TSI as a forcing, and to discard all the possible feedback and indirect amplifying mechanisms of the interaction with the Sun. There is still no definitive explanation of the glaciations, which arise from very little change in solar irradiation. I’ve just read a paper where they try to figure out the interaction between the biosphere and the climate, and how the advent of higher organisms had a cooling effect (by reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) and may have triggered the glacial ages. I learned that life thrives in cold water, which is quite counterintuitive. Obviously, that’s another area where there is not a very deep understanding.

4. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

The correlations are just that. They mostly rely on temperature rising the last 150 years and the presumed similar rise of solar activity, but it now seems that solar activity has not risen.

5. Gunnar
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

>> solar activity, but it now seems that solar activity has not risen

But all the evidence is that it has.

off topic: er du norsk?

6. windansea
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

Edward

Dr Svalgard is an astrophyscist, NASA solar panel member, has a very good record in predicting solar cycle strenghts, and is citng some of his own work as well as others. Y9u might want to ask some questions instead of flinging nonsense.

7. windansea
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

oops, thats Svalgaard…sorry Leif!

Here is Leif’s research page

http://www.leif.org/research/

I emailed Leif to join this discussion as he has much to contribute and also has world class programming skills (google Fast400)

8. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

Gunnar: nej, dansk, living in Houston, TX.
About evidence: what I’m talking about is that there is accumulating evidence that our previous ‘dogma’ that solar activity was the highest ever (or at least in the last umpteen thousand years) is crumbling. This is all quite new and is still being debated and well-entrenched opinions die slowly [often have to await the departure of their carriers]. Science is largely self-correcting and will eventually come around so that progress can be made. This takes a certain amount of time during which confusion and heated arguments will reign. But to be proactive y’all might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.

Steve: It would certainly confirm the view advocated here that the interpretation of proxies needs to be done very carefully and each stage cross-examined and verified.

9. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

Leif,

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02995.html#B1

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847

Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf

By Lockwood and Fr¨ohlichs own data, solar magnetic
activity is still high compared with 100 years ago. As
to when the recent easing of activity began, counts of
cosmic-ray muons at low altitudes were historically low
when the muon record-keeping ended in the early 1990s
(ref. [7]). That implies an increase in relevant solar mag-
netic activity continuing till that time.

There are more.

Steve: You can assume that Leif is familiar with the literature.

10. Gunnar
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

>> But to be proactive yall might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago

My view of climate change is not dependent on the logic “gosh it’s hot, must be c02”. A critical thinker requires more than that. So, if your view is correct, ie that solar activity is “no different” (quite a broad brush), then I would say “that’s ok, since the temperatures are too”.

They don’t get to violate my rights without using the scientific method to show 1) man is capable of changing c02 levels 2) delta c02 is capable of affecting the thermodynamic system to the extent of raising the global temperature any detectable amount, let alone a catastrophic amount, and 3) how c02 can accumulate in the atmosphere

They also have to answer a) why catastrophe melting didn’t occur during the MWP, and b) why investing in greenland real estate is not the appropriate response, rather than wholesale statism.

Denmark stands to gain in a big way, since Greenland is still yours I believe.

11. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

If only solar activity was the sole variable.

Just because it’s not “different” doesn’t mean that there isn’t somthing else in the system reducing or increasing its effects.

Of course, it doesn’t mean that there is something else in the system reducing or increasing its effects either.

12. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

65 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am

How is it possible to exclude the Zeeman splitting aberrations in the magnetograph data which might contribute to creating an artificial floor?

How can the present much less past luminosity and irradiance of the Sun be known with sufficient accuracy when we have not yet measured the Sun’s oblateness and therefore radiative surface area to greater accuracy than tens of MAS? What is the potential range of error for TSI given the present unknown range of the Sun’s oblateness and radiative surface area?

13. Edward
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

I know who Svalgaard is and I like his prediction for cycle 24. I admire him for coming to his own forcast and not the high NASA generally accepted forcast. Some of his NASA buddies are way over predicted. I can’t believe that he believes that solar activity has not changed in 500 years (I know you said 150 years, why 150?). What about the weak cycles at the beginning and middle of the 20th century and the corresponding cooling. Is he saying everything is internal driven? No external mechanism to drive climate. There are a lot of smart people at NASA who are dead wrong about climate. Does everyone here belive what Hansen says or Hathaway or the IPCC?

14. windansea
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

Just because its not different doesnt mean that there isnt somthing else in the system reducing or increasing its effects.

There you go, as Leif said earlier

So, if there is solar activity or TSI forcing, the sensitivity of the climate system to this must be much greater than generally assumed. A simpler hypothesis is that there is no solar effects on the timescale of decades or centuries.

albedo, PDO, AMO :)

15. mccall
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

re 83: “that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.”
1859 was an interesting year. I presume you don’t mean virtually unchanged from then to now (end points), but year-to-year, from then to present? And the weak SC24 and especially SC25 predictions are not energy deterministic?

16. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

I said that this is still under debate and there are still holdouts, but at least you can say that you “heard it first here” :-) The lines of evidence are:

Line 1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23”. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.

Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the suns surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called modes) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didnt change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

Line 3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Suns web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.

Line 4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a floor, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~4×10^14 Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼10^11 Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima  we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind  both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum  this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.

Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the Magnetic Needle, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earths main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a floor in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.

Line 6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].

————–

Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the background TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of floors in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The five lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a hidden source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.

——

#87: The Zeeman splitting is not applicable because the floor is not derived from solar magnetograph data. The point about the radius is well-taken and there are efforts underway to measure the radius precisely. Helioseismology [as well as the success of general relativity] has pretty much ruled out a rapidly rotating solar core which would give rise to oblateness. And it is perfectly true that there may be effects we don’t know about, but as Wittgenstein said “of that which we don’t know we should be silent”.

Now, this is a BIG subject and you are in a sense watching science in the making, but the picture is becoming clearer and there is enough NEW evidence that simply quoting old papers [even rather recent ones] is old hat. If you look carefully at the various reconstructions they all rely on some combination of the [too low] Group Sunspot numbers and/or the [too low aa-index] and/or the now discredited “doubling of open magnetic flux in the last 100 years” [not even Lockwood thinks so anymore]. With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the “all-time high solar activity”. But as I said, this whole thing will probably take some time to play out – let’s say about a solar cycle’s worth. Each of the issues mentioned above is complicated and requires a lengthy analysis and much convincing before they sink in. But at least you are now forewarned :-)

All the lines are connected, you cannot easily accept some and reject the others [with possible exception of #1]. So accept all or reject all. I’m very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is ‘flinging nonsense’. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part.

17. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

mccall says:
November 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
re 83: that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.
1859 was an interesting year. I presume you dont mean virtually unchanged from then to now (end points), but year-to-year, from then to present? And the weak SC24 and especially SC25 predictions are not energy deterministic?

Note how Leif was observing a distinction between the irradiance resulting from a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) versus the TSI observed during the quiet solar periods in which few or no sunspot activity was producing such CME. Leif as a co-author of a publication about the Great 1859 solar storm.

Nonetheless, CME activity does deliver substantial quantities of energy into the Earth’s atmosphere, and the 1859 event very briefly doubled the Solar luminosity from the vantage point of the Earth. How is all of this reconciled with the findings of Lockwood and others regarding a long term increase in solar activity into the present?

18. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

re 97: ‘re 83: that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago. 1859 was an interesting year. ‘

Yes it was. Ed Cliver and myself have studied that in detail:

THE 1859 SOLARTERRESTRIAL DISTURBANCE AND THE CURRENT LIMITS OF EXTREME SPACE WEATHER ACTIVITY
E. W. CLIVER and L. SVALGAARD
Solar Physics (2004) 224: 407422.
Abstract. It is generally appreciated that the September 1859 solarterrestrial disturbance, the first recognized space weather event, was exceptionally large. How large and how exceptional? To answer these questions, we compiled rank order lists of the various measures of solar-induced disturbance for events from 1859 to the present. The parameters considered included: magnetic crochet amplitude, solar energetic proton fluence (McCracken et al., 2001a), SunEarth disturbance transit time, geomagnetic storm intensity, and low-latitude auroral extent. While the 1859 event has close rivals or superiors in each of the above categories of space weather activity, it is the only documented event of the last ∼150 years that appears at or near the top of all of the lists. Taken together, the top-ranking events in each of the disturbance categories comprise a set of benchmarks for extreme space weather activity.

——

‘I presume you dont mean virtually unchanged from then to now (end points), but year-to-year, from then to present?’

I’m not sure what you mean. There is still the solar cycle and there are still small cycles and large cycles [and cycle 19 is still the largest although cycle 3 comes close]. By unchanged I mean that given a subset of the cycles you would be hard pressed to tell when it was taken; near the beginning, in the middle or at the end.

‘And the weak SC24 and especially SC25 predictions are not energy deterministic?’
Again I’m not sure what you mean. But I guess my answer would be “no, not that I know of”.

19. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

re #99:
‘How is all of this reconciled with the findings of Lockwood and others regarding a long term increase in solar activity into the present?’

Maybe the best answer is a paper of ours now under peer-review at Journal of Geophysical Research:

Comment on McCracken.pdf

20. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

re #101: I forgot the full URL, here is it:

Comment on McCracken.pdf

21. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

re 102: this time for sure:

Comment on McCracken.pdf

22. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

Leif

solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago

About 160 years ago, solar energy was high enough to get the earth out of the last parts of the Little Ice Age.

And since then, the temperature has risen about 1C – 1.2C with a few downward periods that can be explained by aerosols and air pollution.

Yup … sounds to me like we both agree that all post 1850 warming was solar.

Congratulations! You are now a denier!!!!

23. Gunnar
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

>> Of course, there [have] still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].

Actually, I don’t think it’s correct to focus on an alleged long term trend. The reality is that solar energy input into the earth thermodynamic system is varying significantly because of “small and large [solar] cycles”, probably enhanced by iris effects (feedback). Because of this, the earth globally averaged temperature is varying by similar amounts. There is nothing to explain.

We really have no idea of any long term trends, because we have no globally averaged temperature records that go back further than 1978. There is no scientific reason to attempt to explain the bald assertion that temperature trends are looking like a hockey stick. There is nothing to explain.

Logically, to avoid a-priori thinking, we cannot start with “AGW is real”, therefore, “there must be a long term trend”, and then ignore the reality that we just don’t have the data. Data from one location is called weather.

A proper scientific approach would go from “C02 cannot cause a significant temperature change of earth’s atmosphere”, therefore, what else is causing thermal variations. If one doubts this assertion, prove it wrong with the experiment described here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2378#comment-164267.

>> Nonetheless, CME activity does deliver substantial quantities of energy into the Earths atmosphere

Exactly, when we focus on thermodynamic energy, we get a bit more humble. In size alone, A CME dwarfs the earth. A direct hit would be quite a warming event and unobservable in past historical times.

24. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:37 PM | Permalink

Leif

With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the all-time high solar activity.

Solar activity 150 years ago was high enough to end the Little Ice Age.

The quotation I posted from Solanki made it clear that is was the duration that was unsual, combined with solar acitivity within 10% of the “all-time high”, and that the last time the high was so long lasting was 8,000 years ago.

Think of it this way Leif, it might have been true in Noahs time that day 1 and day 40 had the exact same amount of rainfall. But the accumlated rain for 40 days and night were the cause of the flooding.

Solanki puts the duration of the solar high at 70 years. You claim 150.

Turn the thermostat up for 70 years or 150 years, and its going to get warmer. Warm enough to end the Little Ice Age. Warm enoguh to add 1C — if you believe the instrument record isn’t just warped by UHI.

25. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have
an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general
similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and
different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both
SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just
prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprece-
dented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the
SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the gen-
erally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100
and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature
(the medieval warm period) [30]. To clarify whether this
similarity reﬂects a real physical connection requires a
more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms
for a solar inﬂuence on climate [31].

26. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:48 PM | Permalink

Re 99 and 105: CMEs are spatially large, but gossamer thin and have very little direct warming effect even with a ‘direct hit’.
When they create a magnetic storm we do get some Joule-heating in the ionosphere. The energy is about what is released in a magnitude 6 earthquake [if memory serves – it is some time ago that I made the calculation] and that is not devastating on a global scale. [and the sun’s output didn’t double during the 1859 event].

Generally: I’m not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread.

Bruce: I have no idea what you are talking about [and don’t really wanna know].

27. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

103 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Thank you for the link and previous information.

The use of proxies in other studies has been the source of much disappointment in this forum as critical flaws in them were discovered. It appears as though you too are finding what you perceive as critical flaws in the proxies relied upon by McCracken, Solanki, Lockwood, and others. Have you and/or your co-authors attempted to compare the 10Be results from the Lunar rock samples to those from the Earth?

If so, to what extent are CME events, extra-solar particle radiation, and extra-solar cosmic ray events reflected in the respective Terrestial and Lunar rock samples and Solar Cycle timelines?

28. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

re 107: maybe just point out that Usoskin knows that so far all he has got is a correlation that does not imply causation. And don’t forget that they used the [much too low] group sunspot numbers in their reconstruction.

And since we are doing the ‘citing papers’ trick, let me direct you to this one:

Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045;
Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity?

Raimund Muscheler Fortunat Joos2, Simon A. Müller & Ian Snowball
Arising from: S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler & J. Beer Nature 431, 10841087 (2004); Solanki et al. reply.

To put global warming into context requires knowledge about past changes in solar activity and the role of the Sun in climate change. Solanki et al. propose that solar activity during recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today.

P.S. I just love Ian’s last name on a ‘climate paper’.

29. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

re 109: no, we have not looked at the lunar stuff. Hard enough to interpret the terrestrial record :-) but maybe something to keep in mind. However, the day only has 24 hours …

30. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

108 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

CMEs are spatially large, but gossamer thin and have very little direct warming effect even with a direct hit.

Yes, but the warming does have the effect of expanding the thermosphere and exosphere enough to interefere more with low orbiting satellites. Do you know of anyone who has attempted to quantify and characterize how the resulting atmospheric expansion changes the rate and amount of radiative transfer of energy from the Earth to outer space? How long after the impact of a CME does it take the atmosphere to return to its pre-impact base state? Are you satisfied that you sufficiently understand how CME ionization of the upper atmosphere of the Earth and the geomagnetic field lines affects the accuracy of isotopic proxies on the Earth?

[and the suns output didnt double during the 1859 event].

The anecdotal report I had in mind was a claim that astronomers of the time described the Sun’s brilliance as doubling very briefly at the time of the CME event. I wouldn’t in anyway equate such an anecdotal report to some kind of doubling in the Sun’s total energy output. Do you have some comparison of the relative amounts of energy contributed by the CME and other Solar radiation, insignificant though the CME may be?

31. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

Leif

Bruce: I have no idea what you are talking about [and dont really wanna know].

Of course you don’t.

I’ll be clearer. The Sun is at record levels for high solar activity + duration. You claim that 150 years ago the levels were just as high.

I’m saying that no wonder the earth came out of the LIA. Solar activity was at a a record level if you are right.

Got it?

32. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:49 PM | Permalink

Leif

#110 As i’ve quoted … But in they reply letter to Nature, Solanki et al says it was the duration of solar activity at this level that was unique for the last 8,000 years. Yes, it may have been slightly higher (by 10% they say). But it has never been this high for the length of time (70 years says Solanki st al).

Muscheler does not contradict Solanki. He just claims it has been higher. But Solanki points out it was never for this long.

You now say the Solar Activity was just as high as it is today 100-150 years ago. I don’t think that rules out solar activity as the driver of current climate change or the ending of the LIA.

33. Bruce
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

Leif

Solanki’s reply to Mueschler is quoted in #84.

34. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM | Permalink

112: The effect of solar activity on the thermosphere is well studied and understood. Hundreds of [military] satellites depend on it [so there is your guarantee]. The double brilliance referred to the light within the small field of view: the flare was twice as bright as its immediate surroundings, but since the flare area was a VERY, VERY small fraction of the solar disk, the total output didn’t change much. Note that I talk about the FLARE, not the CME. The flare is the visual impact of the process that causes the CME. A very large flare releases over its life of, say 1000 seconds, about 1/10,000 of the total solar output in that time.

35. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

114: Raymond Mueschler’s data show variations with lots of power around a timescale of ~100 years, so there has been many such over the centuries. None is particularly long compared to the others. I have no idea what climate variation is ruled out or in as a function of solar activity [you do apparently], but I just wish to point out that people are mistaken if they think they ‘understand’ and their models ‘confirm’ the relationship between the flawed and poorly known temperature records discussed ad nauseam in this and other blogs and the generally assumed solar record that is increasingly unsubstantiated.

36. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

116 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm

The effect of solar activity on the thermosphere is well studied and understood. Hundreds of [military] satellites depend on it [so there is your guarantee].

Yes, I know. I used to make some of the measurements at the PMTR. I had something quite different in mind. Fractionation of water isotopes and its adverse effects upon ice core proxies has been a prior topic of discussion. Consequently, all investigations which rely upon 10Be and other isotopes for reconstructions are under intense scrutiny for potential errors. Antarctic and Arctic sources for such isotopic markers are under even greater scrutiny because of their unique characteristics as a consequence of being at the geomagnetic and geographical poles of the planet. To secure any degree of confidence in any research using such isotopic markers for reconstruction will require the elimination of confounding factors. Can you tell us anything about what steps were taken in your study to eliminate errors in 10Be concentrations due to meteorological conditions at the time of deposition and errors introduced by compression in the ice and ice coring recoveries?

Thank you for more accurately describing what I was attempting to say about the observation of the flare.

37. Posted Nov 27, 2007 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

119: If you look at Figure 2 of this paper, you’ll find that the value of the heliomagnetic field derived from 10Be and 14C back to ~1500 match quite well, giving us some confidence that the various problems with either proxy have not been too troublesome:

A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field.pdf (Ap Letters, 2007)

38. Bruce
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

#117

I don’t think Solanki is contradicted by Muscheler.

What do you claim is “unsubstantiated”?

39. Reference
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM | Permalink

#98 Leif Svalgaard

Have you considered any of the evidence accumulated from the Apollo lunar samples that indicates a “remarkable constancy of the lunar environment at least over the last several million years”? By 2019 or sooner it will again be possible to extensively sample lunar regolith and rocks, this may help to extract the solar history for the previous 50 years.

40. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:54 AM | Permalink

122 Reference says:

November 28th, 2007 at 1:02 am
#98 Leif Svalgaard

Have you considered any of the evidence accumulated from the Apollo lunar samples that indicates a remarkable constancy of the lunar environment at least over the last several million years?

One of the curious inconsistencies in the Lunar samples is the greater number of protons with high energies in the 10Be versus the lower energy or soft protons in the Terrestial samples of 10Be.

41. rk
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

@Lief…thank you very much for your comments, there are many “lurkers” out here reading what you have to say intently.

42. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

120 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 27th, 2007 at 11:46 pm

119: If you look at Figure 2 of this paper, youll find that the value of the heliomagnetic field derived from 10Be and 14C back to ~1500 match quite well, giving us some confidence that the various problems with either proxy have not been too troublesome:

A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field.pdf (Ap Letters, 2007)

It is perhaps likely the research is too recent to be reflected in your sources for the reconstructions appearing in your figures. The researchers dug a snow pit in the Antarctic to collect current precipitation samples containing 10Be. They determined that seasonal meteorological conditions modulated the concentrations of 10Be that were being deposited in the Antarctic snows. Fractionation of the isotopes by water vapor temperatures in warm versus cold air masses introduced observable differences in the amounts of 10Be deposited at the Antarctic site. In the absence of measurements of the weather conditions in the air masses which deposited the 10Be during the time periods of reconstructions, the accuracy of the reconstruction methods are unknown and may prove to be in substantial error as a consequence of not including the variables introduced by phenomena as the PDO, AMO, and other warm versus cold weather systems.

Joel Pedro et al, Evidence for climate modulation of the 10Be solar activity proxy. Received 13 October 2005; accepted 22 June 2006; published 7 November 2006. Journal of Geophysical Research JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D21105, doi:10.1029/2005JD006764, 2006

43. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 5:05 AM | Permalink

Re 125: We are well aware of the problems concerning the deposition of 10Be. There are also differences between Greenland and Antarctic sources. But you do the best you can with what you have got. Lunar data may come in handy. I don’t know how to date such data as presumably no yearly signatures are present in lunar dust. Again, the similarity of IMF derived from 10Be, 14C, and Sunspot numbers as shown in Figure 2 of the the paper I cited, is an indication that things are not all that bad.

44. Edward
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:30 AM | Permalink

Leif #98

Example Assumptions:

The sun’s energy/behavior does not vary much over thousands of years. The very old constant sun argument.

Ignore the coupling between the sun and the larger planets. The orbital (spin and rotation about the solar center of mass) energy of the sun varies by this coupling with the planets which in turn affects sunspots, etc.
Some sort of diurnal consistency assumption

45. DaveR
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

#128, Edward

The orbital (spin and rotation about the solar center of mass) energy of the sun varies by this coupling with the planets which in turn affects sunspots, etc.

Is this really accepted by solar physics community?

46. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

128,129:
The Sun is in free fall in its orbit around the barycenter of the solar system, and [as a astronaut in free fall in orbit around the earth] does not feel any forces due to that movement. Both the Sun and the astronaut will feel ‘tidal’ forces, but these are very weak (falls off as the cube of the distance) and are generally not thought to have any effect on the sun. Much has been made in the past of the ‘closeness’ of Jupiter’s orbital period to the solar cycle, but the tidal forces from Venus are actually stronger than those from Jupiter. So, no serious astronomer [well, almost none] entertains any notions about ‘planetary’ influences back on the Sun.

128: I don’t think I have made any special assumptions about the Sun. Rather, I let the Sun speak for itself.

47. MarkW
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

Everyone makes assumptions. Those who realize this can make adjustments for them. Those who don’t, have to wait for others to make the adjustments for them.

48. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

>> flare area was a VERY, VERY small fraction of the solar disk

You seem to be focusing on the sun as a whole, rather than it’s effect on the earth. Maybe this is why you conclude the sun is rather constant. When one includes the solar output facing all directions away from earth, the variation of the sun as a whole is small.

In other words, the solar climate is very constant, but the earth is subject to the variation at a single point, ie solar weather. TSI variation alone can account for the temperature variation we are currently experiencing, especially when combined with iris feedback effects.

49. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

131: that is why I said any ‘special’ assumptions. Everyone makes the usual assumptions, e.g. that what we observe at Earth to be coming straight from the Sun actually does come from the Sun, and if we observe a big flare on the Sun and a magnetic storm at Earth one day later, that the storm was caused by the flare, etc. This is standard stuff and needs no further elaboration. The assumptions to watch out for are the ones where the intended result feeds into the data or the analysis. An example of this is the rejection of ‘outliers’ because ‘they don’t fit’, the use of Bayesian analysis where the choice of ‘priors’ is important, etc. Alexander von Humboldt warned against the “intoxication from pretended conquest”, a warning that seems very pertinent to the current debate. As I said, I’m not aware of any ‘special’ assumptions of mine, but will gladly consider any specific such which is brought to my attention. Vague generalities don’t cut the mustard, IMHO.

50. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

133: The ‘T’ in TSO comes from ‘Total’, i.e. it is the total irradiance from the whole disk [granted that is only half of the Sun :-) ]. And don’t conflate ‘climate’ and ‘weather’. Climate is a TIME average of WEATHER, not a spatial average. You can talk about climate at any specific location, e.g. my backyard.

51. David Archibald
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

Dr Svalgaard,

While you are here, please explain what causes the convection zone of the Sun to rotate faster than the radiative zone, and thus where the energy for the frictional losses between them is coming from. I have lost much sleep over this, needlessly perhaps. Do you also have an estimate for the month of solar minimum, and why?

52. Edward
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

From Timo Niroma:http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

A speculative hypothesis to explain the Jupiter effect

If we ignore the elliptical orbit of Jupiter around the Sun and replace it with a more easily grasped model, we can imagine Jupiter as approaching the Sun 5.93 years and then suddenly reverse the approach to escape for the next 5.93 years at the moment Jupiter is at its heliocentric perihelion. Now we see that we can imagine Jupiter’s magnetosphere as approaching the Sun, intruding into it, warping it and finally intertwin with it, when Jupiter approaches the Sun. During the perihelion the direction and effect are suddenly reversed. As you see later, the statistical measurements show that sunspots in average get more scarce when Jupiter nears the Sun. At the perihelion the smoothed value has never exceeded 100 Wolfs since we have the monthly values from 1749.

Besides during the perihelion, at the moment of the reverse, the solar wind ceases for a day or two, causing the magnetosphere of Jupiter to expand enormously. Also the Earth’s magnetosphere does that causing a temporary drop in the temperature of Earth for a week or so. If the Jupiter’s reverse happens during the rise period of Sun’s activity, it dampens the rise, causes the maximum of the ongoing cycle to be low or moderate and lengthens the cycle period.

The question if the other planets have noticeable effect on the Sun, remains open. There are hints that they may have. I have however not studied them irrespective of Jupiter, but the Jupiter effect noticed does not deny that other planets could have some effect, albeit smaller than Jupiter.

Still, the prevailing theory, the agreed-upon consensus amongst the astronomers seems to be against the idea that any planet could regulate the sunspot behaviour. This is a general phenomenon in the physical sciences: if you don’t understand something, forget it. But all in all, you must remember, that this is a statistical theory.

53. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:22 AM | Permalink

they come fast and furious now, eh?
136: The convection zone (CZ) as a whole does not rotate faster than the radiative core. At latitude 30 degrees (or so) they rotate at the same speed, at latitudes lower than 30, the CZ rotates faster, at latitudes above 30, the CZ rotates slower. This kind of behavior is quite common. The Earth has the westerly and easterly winds which can be viewed as air rotating faster and slower than the surface. Jupiter and Saturn has belts with different rotation rates. There is enough energy in the Sun to go around for almost anything.
137: The formation of a magnetosphere around Jupiter is largely caused by the Sun in the first place. The solar wind does not go away for a day or two synchronized with movements of the planets. The best argument against planetary influences is the following: The planets move in VERY predictable orbits. If the planets caused or modulated solar activity, such activity would be very predictable as well [unless we introduce unpredictable time lags and other ad-hoc mechanisms to prevent predictability – but then we have kinda shot ourselves in the foot, eh?]. If so, proponents of planetary influence should be able to predict solar activity accurately. There is an enormous amount of money in ACCURATE prediction [billions]. Nobody has gotten rich predicting solar activity in spite of this large incentive, so I conclude that nobody knows how to. The viability of any scientific theory rests on its ability to predict, so I conclude that the planetary theory is not viable. Now, with reference to MarkW, there are assumptions here: maybe somebody has, but is not telling,maybe there is a Government cover up, maybe this, maybe that, but none of these are compelling for me.

54. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

137: forgot the solar minimum. See:
When is Minimum.pdf

55. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

139: why is this so hard :-) try this one:

When is Minimum.pdf

56. kim
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

Wouldn’t the planetary influences have so many expressions that the influence would be difficult to find, except on the scale at which the planets repeat their alignment?
=============================================================

57. yorick
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

But to be proactive yall might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.

–Lief Svalgaard

I will certainly need to do a lot of reading to understand what was written in the referenced post, but statements like the above seem political. We know how politicized NASA has become on the issue of climate change, with pronouncements all but comparing CO2 to Zyklon B by Hansen himself. Fortunately, we can wait ten years, it is going to go by anyway, and see the hypothosis tested. we are not going to convince China to stop burning coal, nor Inda either. We are not going to have to wait for Solanki and Svensmark to die to see a new consensus emerge if the predicted drops in solar activity have zero effect on climate. Just as I assmume that you would retract your position if a cooling trend emerged and cosmic ray flux increased and the CERN experiment finds a physical mechanism.

58. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

141: There are only so many planets and we have very good statistical methods and powerful computers so I wouldn’t see a problem there. If the influence is lost in the noise, it might as well not be there in the first place. Anyway, if you have a theory make a prediction.

Steve: maybe you should discourage the ‘planetary influence’ discussions; they don’t bring anything to the table. Flogging this dead horse doesn’t seem worthwhile. [IMHO, of course – as everything I say is].

59. kim
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

If it’s through cosmic rays and water vapor, the signal may be yet unfound. Now I’ll shuddup.
=========================================================

60. kim
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

Oh, just one more thing. What if water vapor can be a negative OR positive feedback, depending upon need?
==================================================================

61. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

142: quting me: “But to be proactive yall might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.”

Leif Svalgaard

then Yorick said: “statements like the above seem political.”
It certainly was not meant to be. I have just noticed that a lot of people use the solar connection as basis for some of their stance, and I just point out that if the solar part of the equation changes, the outcome might need to be adjusted accordingly.

and then: “see a new consensus emerge if the predicted drops in solar activity have zero effect on climate. Just as I assume that you would retract your position if a cooling trend emerged and cosmic ray flux increased and the CERN experiment finds a physical mechanism.”

I don’t have a position on this. So nothing to retract. What I’m saying is that to me the sun seems to be a lot more constant than generally believed and that therefore people that DO have a position based on solar activity might begin to think about what THEY might want to retract. Of course, we all know what many people [even on this blog – you know who you are :-) ] would say if solar activity drops but the warming continues or no cooling is forthcoming. Now if the climate really cooled, then a lot of people should begin to think about how to CYA [maybe reclaim some Nobel prizes], but we could not really blame it on the Sun unless we ascribe a much larger sensitivity of the climate to the sun than we do now. And I don’t see the physics behind such a change. The cosmic rays change but little [a few percent] so what they should do in the CERN experiment is to work with a certain flux of charged particles, then change the flux by only a few percent and see the difference, if any. I don’t know if they are doing that.

In my post I was referring to PAST solar behavior, so what happens in cycle 24 has no bearing on that. Can’t retract past behavior.

62. kim
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

Change the flux through what? That is the difficulty. Isn’t CERN observing?
=================================================

63. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

144: “If its through cosmic rays and water vapor, the signal may be yet unfound. Now Ill shuddup.”
quoting TwiddleeDum and TwiddleeDee: “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isnt, it aint”.

64. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

147: as I understand it, they have built a special ‘cloud chamber” just for this. So flux through that, I presume.

65. Bruce
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

Leif

What Im saying is that to me the sun seems to be a lot more constant than generally believed and that therefore people that DO have a position based on solar activity might begin to think about what THEY might want to retract.

I thought your paper argued their was a floor for solar activity.

Are you implying their is a ceiling as well? I didn’t see that anywhere in your paper.

Is that a teleconnection I missed?

66. Francois Ouellette
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

Leif,

Generally: Im not in the debate over how GW is forced or if we should [or even could] do anything. All I want to point out is that any argument based on the notion that solar activity has increased steadily since the 1700s should be re-examined with the possibility in mind that the variation might have been a lot less than preciously assumed or not happened at all. This applies in particular to the Scafetta paper that started this thread.

Fair enough. Obviously, S&W used previously published data. I think your findings are interesting, but I really don’t know enough about the field to comment. I’ll repeat that what I find interesting is the S&W phenomenological methodology. That you shouldn’t presume that so many W/m2 of TSI is just so many W/m2 of forcing. There may be indirect amplifying mechanisms that we don’t (yet) know about. We could wait so many years until we know everyting about the physics (that’s what Lubos Motl would want, I guess), or we could use methods like S&W as a shortcut, with all the possible pitfalls. We have clearly not seen the end of our attempts to reconstruct past climate and past solar activity.

Personnally, I think it’s important that there be a true scientific debate, as much as possible free of ideological interference. Maybe a couple of years ago, S&W would have been dragged in the mud for publishing something like this. They still are, on RC, for example. My guess is you’ll see their name appear on the dreaded “exxonsecret” list. Maybe, as JEG likes to point out, they, too, have a “murky past in the energy or mining industry”. Isn’t all this ridiculous? I would hope that climate scientists stop thinking that they’ll save the planet, and just do the best science they can.

67. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

150: since 1600 we have only had TWO 179-year periods so
statistical test on syncronization points are meaningless.
His prediction of 2011.8 for a maximum of a low cycle is already dead. Rmax=75 would peak in 2013.0, possibly later. Now, if we allow a couple of years slack either way, any scheme will work.

151: an almost constant sun implies both a floor and a ceiling, the variation being small within a narrow range. Now, if I say that the sun was not any lower 150 years ago [the floor] doesn’t that imply that it is not any higher now [the ceiling]? anyway, people see what they want to see. The term ‘teleconnection’ has a very precise meaning in climatology, but I don’t know what it means in connection with what we have been discussing. Preciseness of terminology is often a prerequisite to good communication.

68. yorick
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

OK, I will admit that my doubts about the magnitude of AGW are partially based on sunspot cyles and cosmic ray correlations that may or may mot be causation. If sunspots are cut in half and SST start rising again (they did flatten, you know) and troposphere temps as measure by satellitstarts rising again, the ones that have been essentially flat since the early nineties, I will park my SUV in the woods to rust and buy a Prius. And spend the rest of my days beating up on “deniers” on blogs.

I also promise to understand your work before making another comment on it.

69. Edward
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

Leif

I missed this:

As we have not yet reached solar minimum, and no high latitude cycle 24 spots have yet appeared, we may still be 12 to 18 months from minimum if recent cycles are anything to go by, and I venture a speculation that if no cycle 24 spots appear in the very near future then perhaps Dr Landscheidt should have also mentioned the other possible date of the upcoming solar max using his methods, 2013.6 (see details of his methods in the paper), which if it turns out to be true means a very long cycle which could indicate a very low sunspot max.

70. Larry
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

Yorick, not so fast. The possibility of heliostasis doesn’t mean all global warming is anthropogenic; in fact it makes it rather difficult to explain the pattern in the 20th century. The reason why I never got too invested in the solar theories is that there’s a logical fallacy in saying that if it’s not the sun, it’s GHGs, or vice-versa. The truth is, we can’t use the process of elimination until we are sure we’ve enumerated all of the forcings, and there’s no way to know that we have. If the sun’s output has been constant, then obviously there’s at least one other significant factor out there that we haven’t put our fingers on.

People have a hard time admitting that they don’t know. They’re rather do something dumb than admit ignorance.

71. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

151: “That you shouldnt presume that so many W/m2 of TSI is just so many W/m2 of forcing.”

But I don’t, I’m not in that game. All I’m saying is that people basing THEIR estimates on the current dogma regarding solar activity may have to think again, should I be correct [which I, of course – think I am] that solar activity is not, and was not during the 20th century, at an all-time high and that its variability in the recent past has been a lot smaller than the current wisdom prescribed.

72. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

>> The T in TSO comes from Total, i.e. it is the total irradiance from the whole disk [granted that is only half of the Sun]

The whole disk, as seen from Earth! The earth is only one single point from the sun’s perspective.

>> flare area was a VERY, VERY small fraction of the solar disk

This seems misleading, since although true, the earth is an even smaller fraction of the solar disk. One cannot properly judge the energy in a CME by comparing it to the total solar output, or by calculating the energy in the resulting magnetic storm, which is only a minor consequence.

>> The energy is about what is released in a magnitude 6 earthquake .. that is not devastating on a global scale

I also understand that the total amount of energy released by a flare (heating and accelerating matter) was estimated by NASA scientists to be 2 x 10^23 Joules. That’s about the same order of magnitude as the solar energy impacting the US daily, which is about 8.64 x 10^23 Joules, the solar flare is 23% of that. My numbers may be off, and I’m not saying that the whole flare impacts the earth, but it would seem to be a lot of energy.

I believe that a large solar flare has the energy of about 100 hurricanes. Releasing the energy of 100 hurricanes in hours, instead of days, would not seem insignificant.

73. Steve McIntyre
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

#157. If your hypothesis can be demonstrated, I agree that the implications are important. I am personally not familiar enough with the issues to respond or comment – so don’t take my lack of participation in this thread as evidencing anything more than that. I’ll try to take a look at the materials but it will be at least a month or two before I have time.

74. yorick
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

Larry, What you say is true, as usual. But I would be more than shocked to find out that there has been no change in solar output since the “little ice age”, I would be shocked to find out that the Thames river froze then, and doesn’t freeze now because of bridges, as I have heard argued. I just have a problem with that because I have worked in the UK, and been there in winter, and don’t recall seeing any kids playing pond hockey, for example, or even seeing any ponds or lakes frozen over.

But at some point one has to follow the advice, “if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” If the solar and associated cosmic ray arguments do not pan out, one must bow to prudence until some utterly convincing third explanation comes forward. One must admit that the stakes are very high.

75. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

158: Gunnar, your post reminds me of a poem by the Danish poet Piet Hein:

PRAYER
to the sun above the clouds.
Sun that givest all things birth,
shine on everything on earth!
If that’s too much to demand,
shine at least on this our land.
If even that’s too much for thee,
shine at any rate on me.

—–

The flare energy (or the TSI] is not all concentrated on the US, but is spread out through half the solar system. And spreading a 100 hurricanes through half the solar system gives you a pretty thin effect at any one place.

Steve: I never ‘have’ time, I ‘make’ time. Only way to get anything done. But it will also take me a couple of months [at least] to get some of this stuff into the literature, and another solar cycle to get it generally accepted.

Steve: So do I, but I have to prepare some things for AGU right now that are badly behind schedule.

76. Mark T.
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

The flare energy (or the TSI] is not all concentrated on the US, but is spread out through half the solar system.

Actually, Gunnar made that point quite clearly. First, TSI is referred to as the amount seen from the earth. He then noted that a) the earth is only a small fraction of the region covered by the sun’s total irradiance and b) not all of the flare made it to the earth.

Mark

77. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

If Leif is correct – climate isn’t driven by the sun, and if it isn’t driven by CO2 either, what does that leave? The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation? Tsonis et al:

http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

78. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

Larry says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am

If the suns output has been constant,[…].

Leif was not saying  the suns output has been constant. He’s saying what little variability there has been in the data since the 19th Century has been relatively constant with respect to the floor during minima. Implicit, however, is the inexorable growth of the Sun’s energy output and size as it expands towards gianthood like any other main sequence star. What remains to be discovered is the extent to which there is a degree of change in solar variability, large or small, during the decadal, centennial, and millenial timescales.

79. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

Paul Biggs says:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:22 am
If Leif is correct – climate isnt driven by the sun[….]

Leif’s commented on how sensitive the climate is to changes in the Sun’s activity, rather than saying “climate isnt driven by the sun….” The Sun and gravity energizes the Earth’s climates, and other phenomena modulate the ways in which those energies change climates.

80. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

164: The TSI comes from every point of the solar disk; is thus a [half-]global average and is not just controlled by the part of the Sun that is the intersection of the surface with lines from the center to the Earth. But I’m somewhat at a loss as to what Gunnar’s point is. My point is that individual flares and CMEs are but teeny tiny perturbations and even when they hit the Earth their direct effect is minuscule compared to the energy in ordinary sunlight, so their impact on weather and climate is minuscule [and unmeasurable]. Whether they have an accumulated effect has been debated for almost four hundred years and not demonstrated to my satisfaction [although the claims are legion].

81. Bruce
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

Leif

Now, if I say that the sun was not any lower 150 years ago [the floor] doesnt that imply that it is not any higher now [the ceiling]?

No. It doesn’t. Not in the real world.

82. mccall
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

Sorry — just getting back to this… re:97
“I presume you dont mean virtually unchanged from then to now (end points)”
Ignores (or treats as immaterial) measured fluctuations of incident solar energy between the period end points?

or

“… but year-to-year, from then to present?”
claims narrow fluctuations of incident solar energy throughout the entire ~150 year period (not just end points)!

Your’s (“floor” and “ceiling”) and Gunnar’s subsequent comments answered this for me.

=====

re:“And the weak SC24 and especially SC25 predictions are not energy deterministic?
This gets to the question of whether SC24 and SC25 projections are still being within the “floor” to “ceiling” range w.r.t. incident solar energy over the ~150 year period? If these are merely at the low-end of a narrow range, will there be an observable cooling of average anomalies due to whatever natural solar component there is (or is it lost in the noise)?

=====

NOTE: I know this is a bit off topic, but speaking of CYA. This whole line of questioning for me is of interest w.r.t. the recent (CYA initiated?) comments of a certain AGW-dominant climate scientist who claimed that (paraphrasing), “natural reductions in GAT, will rule over the next few years; AGW dominance will reassert in (such-in-such) year 201X?” One speculates whether this “natural reduction CYA” is based on low solar cycle predictions, cooler Pacific and Atlantic Oscillation predictions or other? We should get more hints when the (bravado) record 2007 temp’s prediction formally fails in a few weeks… LUCY … you got some s’plaining to do!

83. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

166,167: actually what I’m saying is that IF the Sun affects the climate THEN the sensitivity must be greater. It does NOT follow that the Sun DOES influence the climate. Whether or not it does and how, are research issues and may not be resolved for a long time as there are undoubtedly other influencing factors and we don’t know yet how to separate them from each other. The situation is somewhat analogous to the problem of geomagnetic activity. When it was discovered ca. 1850 that the sunspots were cyclic, several people noted that the ‘wiggliness’ of the ‘magnetic needle’ seemed to follow the number of spots. This was actually surmised on the basis of only 5 years of data [half a cycle!] so was certainly not statistically significant, and the correlation was disputed for the following half-century. People also found that various other geomagnetic phenomena seemed connected somewhat (or at least correlated) with the sun. To mention some:

1) there is a daily variation
2) there is a 27-day variation
3) there is a semiannual variation
4) there is an annual variation
5) there is an 11-year variation
6) there are random ‘storms’

It was not until the 1890s that the cause of 1) was becoming clear [thermal and tidal currents in the ionosphere]. 2) was only really figured out in the 1970s [coronal holes]. 3) is still unknown. 4) not everyone is so sure about what cause this one [the magnetospheric tail bobbing up and down]. 5) is a complex interplay between flares, CMEs, coronal holes, which is still being worked out. 6) are clearly related to ‘blast waves’ caused by flares and CMEs although what physics is responsible is only now becoming clear.

The moral is that even after 150 years we are only now beginning to understand all these influences and to keep them apart and tell what is doing what. And at many points along the way there were ‘deniers’ [Lord Kelvin was one] and ‘proponents’ and at many points people thought they knew what was going on, only to find later that things were more complicated than they thought.

84. yorick
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Someone would have to explain to me how the oceanic oscillations could continue without some kind of perturbation. If solar and GHG were constant. I just don’t get it. Some kind of harmonic of glacial cycles? Is the energy robbed from the Earth’s rotation? What would it be?

85. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

172 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
166,167: actually what Im saying is that IF the Sun affects the climate THEN the sensitivity must be greater. It does NOT follow that the Sun DOES influence the climate.

Leif, are you sure that is what you meant to say? How can you propose to say the Earth’s principal source of energy imput does not influence the climates on the Earth, whether or not the energy inputs are constant or variable? Even If you meant that the differences in the Sun’s contributions to the Earth’s energy budget are too small to have a significant effect upon the changes observed in the Earth’s climates, it cannot be denied that the Sun’s energy inputs influence the Earth’s climates simply by existing at any level of change or lack thereof and keeping the Earth from freezing and descending towards entropy.

86. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

171: of course not just end-points [which depends on what years you pick]. There are many ways to quantify this in a better way. A simple one is a running mean over some suitable interval, say over 11 years. Then you may find that there are longer periods, for solar activity there seems to an ~100 year ‘period’ [the Gleissberg cycle]. The amplitude of this longer wave is much smaller than the amplitude of the 11-year wave, justifying the ‘near-constancy’. Then there may be even longer waves, 200 years, 1500 years, 2300 years, etc, but you soon run into pure speculation; what Ken Schatten calls ‘cyclomania’.
This talk summarizes much of the evidence:
The Open Flux Has Been Constant Since 1840s (SHINE2007).pdf (Invited talk SHINE 2007)

87. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

>> The flare energy (or the TSI] is not all concentrated on the US, but is spread out through half the solar system. And spreading a 100 hurricanes through half the solar system gives you a pretty thin effect at any one place.

I have learned that if I’m not understood, I may as well give up, since if I try to explain, I’ll just be called “slow and mostly wrong”. I don’t know why only the Marks understand me. However, I’ll try once more and then give up.

TSI is a measure of power per sq meter. It’s a measure of what earth is receiving, not of what the sun is sending out in every direction, including half the solar system. If one compares a single flare to the total solar output in all directions, it makes the amount seem artificially small.

Even if one considers only this TSI measurement, one sees dramatic variability, which alone is enough to explain the temperature variability seen so far. Therefore, there is nothing to justify searching desperately for another explanation, especially one that is thermodynamically impossible, like hot C02.

However, flares occasionally are aimed directly at earth. In such a case, a significant amount of this energy impacts earth. This amount of energy seems to be on the same order of magnitude as the daily solar energy input to the US. Therefore, when such an event occurs, it’s a significant addition of energy, as D. Patterson said. Now, it’s only one day, and it’s mostly absorbed by the oceans, but it’s effect is not limited to a magnetic storm at the poles.

They can’t be predicted, and until very recent monitoring, past events are forever unknown to us. Therefore, past reconstructions are unlikely. We can’t know from past sunspot records whether a direct hit occurred or not. Therefore, how can we know if the solar energy input of this last cycle is the same as one from some pre-measurement cycle?

For an example of the variability: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m_tn.jpg

Note the minimum between cycle 23 and 24 is very high. We don’t have to look any further to explain 1998.

88. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

164: The TSI comes from every point of the solar disk; is thus a [half-]global average and is not just controlled by the part of the Sun that is the intersection of the surface with lines from the center to the Earth. But Im somewhat at a loss as to what Gunnars point is. My point is that individual flares and CMEs are but teeny tiny perturbations and even when they hit the Earth their direct effect is minuscule compared to the energy in ordinary sunlight, so their impact on weather and climate is minuscule [and unmeasurable]. Whether they have an accumulated effect has been debated for almost four hundred years and not demonstrated to my satisfaction [although the claims are legion].

Wait a minute, I was with you at least partially until here. While your statement is correct in terms of the total radiative output of the sun it is not correct on the impact to the Earth. Flares and CME’s have been shown uncounted times to have a direct impact on the Earth. When there are large flares and or CME’s terawatts of energy are dumped into the Earth’s crust through an inductive effect on the Earth’s magnetic field. This is why the power outages in Canada that sits on the Canadian Shield, which is a billions of year old high iron context continental plate. In 1859 there was a flare/CME so large that it set fire to Morse code stations in the United States. It has been calculated that should that flare happen today it would wipe out about 90% of our entire semiconductor based infrastructure. How many terawatts of power was in that blast?

There is so much that we do not know about the solar/terrestrial magnetic electrical circuit and radiation in the 2-0.2 micron bands does not constitute the entire coupling of energy between the Earth and Sun. This carries over to couplings between the ionosphere and tropospheric weather systems. It was only in the mid 1990’s when a NASA guy I know, (Otha H. Vaughn) funded the research that discovered the electromagnetic coupling between the ionosphere and the troposphere through the phenomenon of “Vertical Lighting”. This lightning between the tops of clouds and the ionosphere is so powerful that the NASA Gamma Ray Observatory recorded the flashes in the gamma energy band! X ray spacecraft have also picked up these flashes. This is a LOT of energy and how does that energy input effect weather as well as climate?

We don’t know because we have not studied the phenomenon to ANY level of detail.

To say that we understand the solar/terrestrial energy linkages today to the level of detail to enable us to make definitive statements about solar input to climate reveals more about our ignorance than our state of knowledge.

89. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

174: as I said myself one must be precise [although for ease of communication one can be loose if understood by all], so let me try again: what I meant was that IF there are variations in the Sun’s output and IF these variations are large enough (in magnitude and duration) and IF the Earth’s climate sensitivity to such changes is high enough, THEN ….

176: Now, Gunnar, What we measure at earth would come from every point of the Sun’s visible surface. If we had a whole bunch of satellites at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, but otherwise scattered at all helio-latitudes and helio-longitudes, then each of these would measure the precise same TSI as we do at the Earth [assuming there were no sunspots as right now] because the radiation from the visible surface does in fact fill half of the solar system. If I try to quantify how much radiation I measured I would have to either specify how large my collecting area was, or divide by the collecting area to get a result that did not depend on my instrument. When I was young, the TSI was 2 calories per minute per square centimeter. This did not mean that the solar output was 700 times smaller than the 1365 Watt [Joules per second] per square meter we now use, just that the units are different. The people that measure the TSI could as well have chosen to quote the value as 191,944,964,090,880,000,000,000,000 Watts, because that is what it is. If they had, we might not have had this discussion, and we can all appreciate why they did not like to have a large number floating around.

90. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

#176 Gunnar:
I was with you until this statement (emphasis added):

However, flares occasionally are aimed directly at earth. In such a case, a significant amount of this energy impacts earth.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. It sounds like you are suggesting that the solar radiation that reaches earth emanates from a small spot on the solar surface, rather than the whole hemisphere that faces earth.

*If* that’s what you’re saying, it’s competely wrong. Radiation from the entire surface travels in every direction. This includes the radiation from a solar flare that is “aimed directly at earth”. If earth received radiation only from a small spot, then only that small spot would be visible from earth.

If that’s *not* what you’re saying then never mind. :)

91. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

#177, Well said Dennis.

92. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

177: One terawatt spread over the surface of the Earth is 0.002 W/m^2. Compare that to the well-known number 1365 W/m^2. The reason that CMEs can have large localized effects (transformers, telegraph wires, etc) is not that they carry a lot of thermal energy, but that they can cause strong electric currents which have no practical upper limit. Think of a thick wire carrying a strong current. Now draw the wire out so it becomes thinner and thinner. The resistance in the wire would go up and up and up without limit until the wire burns up or explodes. These things are well understood and have been studied to quite a considerable level of detail. Power companies are quite keen on this [in their own interest].

93. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

#98:

Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the Magnetic Needle, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earths main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a floor in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.

An increase in ionospheric conductance? Interesting…

Also, it is well known (your comment on satellites), that the Earth’s atmosphere increases in altitude in direct relationship to the solar cycle. That is why at this time for example the International Space Station is able to fly at a lower altitude than at solar max. The density variation is actually relatively quite dramatic, enough to change the reentry date by years (early calculations showed Hubble reentering in 2010 and now it is out to beyond 2020 based on low solar cycle estimates).

I cannot imagine that a sustained lowering of solar cycle would not have some effects on the climate and weather.

My point is that we don’t know enough about the solar/terrestrial connection (FYI I used to work for Dr. S.T. Wu from the University of Alabama in Huntsville) to make conclusive, definitive statements about the sun/earth climate relationship.

94. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

181

177: One terawatt spread over the surface of the Earth is 0.002 W/m^2. Compare that to the well-known number 1365 W/m^2. The reason that CMEs can have large localized effects (transformers, telegraph wires, etc) is not that they carry a lot of thermal energy, but that they can cause strong electric currents which have no practical upper limit. Think of a thick wire carrying a strong current. Now draw the wire out so it becomes thinner and thinner. The resistance in the wire would go up and up and up without limit until the wire burns up or explodes. These things are well understood and have been studied to quite a considerable level of detail. Power companies are quite keen on this [in their own interest].

Yes I understand this but that is not what I am saying. The Canadian Shield is a VERY big conductor with an assumed resistance of some number. It has been shown that the same currents that are induced in power wires are also induced into the surface of the Earth in these higher conductivity layers. Ground currents are what Tesla measured in making the first estimation of what is now known as Schauman resonances between the Earth and Ionosophere. These currents are thermal currents not radiative energy currents and therefore obeys different laws than blackbody absorption.

Also, with the discovery of the high currents in the ionosphere/troposphere path that have not been investigated in any detail but are known to materially effect nimbostratus formation (the water vapor column lowers the dielectric constant between the ionosphere/troposphere resulting in a greater path for electrical conduction) then it follows that the current charge state of the ionosphere can materially effect storms. If as you say the ionospheric conduction has increased in the past 150 years due to the relative decline of the main magnetic field, then there is another plausible and measurable interaction between the sun and the earth’s weather.

I know for a fact that there has been little money put into this field of research as I know most of the players in the field.

95. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

>> It sounds like you are suggesting that the solar radiation that reaches earth emanates from a small spot on the solar surface, rather than the whole hemisphere that faces earth.

Ok, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the sun is radiating energy in all directions, 360 degrees by 360 degrees. Of that total output, earth only receives a tiny fraction. Earth does not get half of the total solar output, just because we can see half the sun.

This whole side tangent is about making things seem constant by comparing the variation inappropriately. I’m not saying Leif was doing that, but I just want to make sure. To illustrate by extreme example, the solar variation compared to the total galactic energy output is so small, therefore, the sun is not controlling earth’s climate.

Another example, 100 year cycles are similar, therefore, same conclusion. This is a straw man, since we don’t have a 200 year steady trend that needs explaining. We have long term stability, with a few episodes of significant increases (step function). So, we should not be looking for long term solar trends, we should be looking for isolated events of higher energy input. We don’t have to look, because we already have an obvious explanation.

Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

RE: #173 – In a crystal oscillator, all that’s needed is innate low level noise that is found in every circuit. Why wouldn’t the climate system (including oceans) be similar?

97. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

182: True that we don’t know enough about solar/terrestrial coupling, but we do know something. The thermosphere that is so sensitive to solar activity is higher up than the 100 km where the Sq-current flows. Now, the conductance of the ionosphere [actually only of the narrow layer where the current flows is important] depends on several factors. The most important is simply the strength of the Earth main magnetic field. The conductance depends on the ‘mobility’ of the ions. Charged particles spiral around magnetic field lines and in doing so bump into neutral particles which slow them down. The spiral period depends on the magnetic field strength. A stronger field makes the spiraling faster and you get more collisions, i.e. less mobility, thus less conductance. A weaker field gives you then more conductance. These two quantities are inversely related. Things are a bit more complicated because the medium is anisotropic [properties vary differently along and across field lines], but the basic remains. Now, over the past 165 years, the Earth’s main magnetic field has decreased by 10%, so we expect to see an increase in conductance by 10%, thus an increase of that size in the current, and of its magnetic effect, just as observed. Of course, this is a lot more complicated: there are issues with the height of the layers, trace constituents, feedbacks, and the like, but these are all second order effects; interesting but not dominant – but, of course, a fertile ground for people wanted to find problems with the analysis.

98. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

184: Gunnar, the TSI is NOT a measure of what the Earth receives, but of what the Sun puts out in TOTAL [or half to be honest, because we can’t see the other half]. Come on now, don’t be difficult.

99. EW
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

#162

JohnV, this reminds me when I tried to locate some of the Jones’ Russian stations according to their GHCN coordinates or rough coordinates derived from a map in his paper. Somewhere there were three candidates… even among my own Czech (Central Europe!) stations the GHCN names and coordinates just didn’t match and I had to search a lot to find out about the station renaming, transfers etc., etc…

100. Larry
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

184, [pedantic mode on], the surface of a sphere is 360 degrees by 180 degrees. 360×360 covers the area twice. [pedantic mode off]

101. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

>> One terawatt spread over the surface of the Earth is 0.002 W/m^2

Leif, first of all, only half of earth would be exposed, so it would be .004. However, that terawatt was only for illustrative purposes. It’s more like zetta-joule and exawatt. I indicated 2 x 10^23 Joules, and if only one hundredth of that is delivered to earth over 1 hour (too long):

2 x 10^21 J / 3600 sec = 5.5 x 10^17 Watts. Divide that by half Earth surface area 2.55 x 10^14 = 2,178 W/m2

Someone, please check my math, but if correct, that’s a big increase over 1366. Lucky for us, the water in the atmosphere takes the brunt of this and prevents us from frying, but then that energy is in the system. That’s why astronauts are in grave danger.

102. Jan Pompe
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

184: Gunnar, the TSI is NOT a measure of what the Earth receives, but of what the Sun puts out in TOTAL [or half to be honest, because we cant see the other half]. Come on now, dont be difficult.

I’m not trying to be difficult but I think that a number of us laymen would think of ‘Irradiance’ as incident light i.e received and ‘radiance’ as output. Have we been wrong?

103. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

190: First, TeraWatt is correct for a BIG storm; for a moderate storm (Kp index = 5) you can see here that the power input is Power input to atmosphere , so 1 TeraWatt is a good number for a really big storm.
Second: a magnetic storm is global, thus not only on the sun-ward side, thus no doubling to 0.004.

So we are still faced with 0.002 vs. 1365

This is not hard. No need to squirm so much. Just go with the facts as you learn them. What most people do when they are faced with this undeniable energy mis-match is to invoke some kind of trigger effect. Like to release the power of the Hiroshima atom bomb, all it took was a gentle push with one finger on the button that opened the bomb door and let go the bomb. You just can’t go the energy route. The energy ain’t there.

104. steve mosher
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

He asked Gunnar not to be difficult.

105. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

#189, good point.

Leif, your #187 does not answer my #184. I’m not going to get into another obtuse discussion, but…

The sun is emanating energy in all directions, 360 by 180. TSI is in W/m2, not Joules. At every earth size point in that 360 by 180, there is 1366 W/m2. That’s a lot of energy. Earth is only receiving a tiny fraction of that. The sun emits about 2 billion times the amount of radiation that is caught by Earth, or about 3.86×1026 watts

>> The T in TSI comes from Total, i.e. it is the total irradiance from the whole disk [granted that is only half of the Sun]
>> Gunnar, the TSI is NOT a measure of what the Earth receives, but of what the Sun puts out in TOTAL [or half to be honest, because we cant see the other half]. Come on now, dont be difficult

I’m a bit shocked that you say this, since the T in TSI refers to wavelengths, not total disk or total energy. Total solar irradiance means that the solar flux has been integrated over all wavelengths to include the contributions from ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation.

106. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

>> So we are still faced with 0.002 vs. 1365

#192, Leif, a magnetic storm is just one minor consequence of a flare. A straw man. I got the 2 x 10 ^23 from a NASA estimate. It’s ridiculous to think that astronauts would be in danger from a .002 increase in TSI.

107. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

191: Technically you are correct, of course, but the context – at least as I understood it – showed that the problem was with the emission, that Gunnar thought that the energy we measure as the TSI was directed towards the Earth from the subsolar point rather than being integrated over the whole disk. What we have is a sphere around the sun and we think of the energy passing out through that sphere per unit area of the sphere. The energy passing through the sphere is, of course, constant, independent of distance.

This shows again the danger of loose talk, if not everybody is on the same plane. We often see TSI and solar activity being used as the same thing. Nobody would complain if I said “solar activity increases from sunspot minimum to maximum” or “TSI increases from sunspot minimum to maximum”. That is why the number you always see thrown around is the TSI reduced to 1 A.U. not the actual TSI that varies 7% through the year. We take TSI as a measure of solar activity when assessing the impact on climate.

108. Gunnar
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

#196, Leif, now don’t be difficult, I explained that this wasn’t the case in 184. It was just your misunderstanding all along, since I never said otherwise, as Mark T explained in 164. That’s 30 messages ago.

109. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

193 steve mosher says:

November 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
He asked Gunnar not to be difficult.

Into every life a little irradiance must fall?

110. reid simpson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

Leif: I am way out of my league in this, but please bear with a question from a layman. If there is indeed a “floor,” do you have an opinion as to what could have caused the temperature minimums in geologic time?

111. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

194: and you are, of course, correct that the term refers to all wavelengths. We are kinda going around in circles. The original point was an energy comparison between a flare/CME and the total energy output of the sun. TSI x area if sphere is a measure of the latter. Flares and CME also spread out to cover a large fraction of the volume and are not directed pencil-like towards the Earth [the ones that hit, of course]. That was the issue, and my point was and is that there is an enormous difference in energy and that any effects of the flare/CME are not mediated by their energy as such. The 10^23 Joules that you quote are still spread over half the solar system rather than over an area only 100 times bigger than the Earth. The danger to the astronauts is due to the number of particles exceeding, say, 10 MeV. Quite a different thing, very penetrating and dangerous, but total energy in W/m^2 negligible.

112. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

Gunnar, maybe we both stop being difficult :-)

113. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

199: back to science :-)
Not sure what you mean by ‘geologic time’. Billions of years ago the Earth was very hot, much hotter than today. During the time of the dinosaurs the climate was perhaps 10 degrees (Centigrade) warmer than now. The last few million years we have been in a period of multiple ice ages and the temperature had fallen to 5 degrees lower than now every ice age. Assuming to mean those minima, the generally accepted opinion is that they were caused by changes in the orbit and tilt of the axis of the Earth. These things are cyclic (Milankovic cycles) and occur every 19,000 & 40,000 & 100,000 years. We are headed for another such minimum some thousand years from now.

114. reid simpaon
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

Leif: Thank you. That is what I was talking about and is also my understanding pertaining to the ice ages. Perhaps you would indulge me further in helping me to understand what might have caused the LIA if not solar fluctuations?

115. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

RE: Rasmus “I dont have time to follow or summarize the debate unfortunately.” “I wouldnt dare even try re-writing a Real Climate post right now.” If I understood what the heck they were talking about over there about the paper, I might go over and try, except for the fact it’s far too annoying and confrontational. And I don’t know this well enough to distill whatever it is he’s trying to say. Bueller? Forget that, it doesn’t matter. Continue reading.

windansea, you’re missing my point. Solar being different or not doesn’t mean there is or isn’t something reducing or increasing its effects. It might be a wash on the feedback/forcing average, not just for solar, but for any single component of the system. Regardless of how well we understand that component (or not) on its own.

gunnar, more generically, yes, “X may or may not cause a significant temperature change of Earths atmosphere, therefore, what else might be causing thermal variations?” But please don’t confuse the total output of the sun with the total amount of energy the Earth receives from it, and don’t mix your unit of measure.

Leif, I like your comment in #108. I’d rephrase that as “Any argument based upon any notion that X has increased or decreased since year Y should be examined with the possibility in mind that it may be less, more or the same as previously assumed.” And you are correct, climate is a temporal average, but please don’t get gunnar started on that one again.

Larry, no, there’s 360 around both directions on a globe. The Earth on its “side” is still a circle. Test; start at the equator walking E or W and you go 360 by the time you get back. Start at the North pole going S, when you get to the South pole start going North and you go 360 also. Unless you’re talking about only the side looking at the sun and I’m mistaking you. :)

Okay, a general point. Here’s some of the factors to consider if we ignore both the Sun and GHG. Cosmic rays. Magnetic field. Temperature of the core. Volume of the core. Tilt of the Earth. The Earth’s orbit. The Earth’s orbit around the sun. Wind. Rain. Snow. Particulates. Clouds. Temperature of the ocean at depth X. Flow of water in the ocean at depth X. Amount of particulates on snow. Degree of cover and amount of water on a type of surface.
Make up more of your own.

116. mccall
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

re: 171, part 3

Now when will the natural variability is overwhelming AGW discussions resume… when the Atlantic flips (Pacific looks like it already has?), or when a less intense SC24 (one of 2 predictions) is confirmed, or will it take until confirmation of a less intense SC25? And from #171 part2, “will there be an observable cooling of average anomalies due to whatever natural solar component?”

117. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

202 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
199: back to science
Not sure what you mean by geologic time. Billions of years ago the Earth was very hot, much hotter than today. During the time of the dinosaurs the climate was perhaps 10 degrees (Centigrade) warmer than now. The last few million years we have been in a period of multiple ice ages and the temperature had fallen to 5 degrees lower than now every ice age. Assuming to mean those minima, the generally accepted opinion is that they were caused by changes in the orbit and tilt of the axis of the Earth. These things are cyclic (Milankovic cycles) and occur every 19,000 & 40,000 & 100,000 years. We are headed for another such minimum some thousand years from now.

The Earth’s global climate has typically been far warmer than it is now despite substantially less enrgy inputs from the Sun, with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 normally ranging between 1,000 to 7,000 ppm, with the CO concentrations going up, with CO2 concentrations going down to 300 ppm, and despite all of the orbital mechanics and Milankovic Cycles. These dramatic changes in global climate have occurred as a consequence of the changes in planetary chemistries wrought by the biosphere as it adapted to changes in planetary environments and modified planetary environments. The substantial oxygen component of the atmosphere and the ozonesphere were created and maintained by the biosphere. Consequently, the biosphere is not a passive component of the Earth’s climatic processes, especially in regard to energy inputs received from the Sun.

118. Larry
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

204, thought experiment: Take a circle, and rotate it 180 degrees around any axis that bisects it. What do you get?

A: a complete sphere.

Why? Because both halves rotate. You get a double sweep.

This is why when you describe a point in 3-d polar coordinates, the coordinates are r, theta, and phi. Theta goes from 0-360, and phi goes from 0-180.

119. mccall
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Sorry; t’was my fault the 205 quote got chopped…
… will there be an observable cooling of average anomalies due to whatever natural solar component there is (or is it lost in the noise)?

120. Pat Keating
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

you are correct, climate is a temporal average, but please dont get gunnar started on that one again.

LOL! I got caught going round in circles with him on that one when I first came to this site, and it’s kinda funny to see another guy going around the maypole…..I’ll bet you were all laughing when I did my pasos dobles.

121. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

203: I have no clue to what might have caused the LIA nor the MWP.
204: Sam, I have learned my lesson with Gunnar. We are done. Don’t worry.
On your long list of causes: Cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity and I might remove those from the list.

One thing that is a real puzzle to me is the large variation from year to year [factors of two or more] in the amount of CO2 actually added to the atmosphere. Since human activity is the sum of millions [or billions] of emitters, E, the resulting output cannot vary by a factor of two [relative variability should be of the order of sqrt(E)/E which for E in the millions [billions] is teeny tiny]. So what causes the large variation? What other factors are involved? Bio-factors? That we do not know [or even worry about it – I did not find any analysis of this in AR4] the reason for this variability shows me that we are missing something important, but what?

122. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

209: Hey, be nice to Gunnar. We can all pitch in to improve the tone of the blog. Gunnar: I think we got the matter cleared up,
right?

123. Philip_B
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

reid, it’s clearer how we get into ice ages than how we get out of them, because snow is a positive cooling feedback – high albedo. So increasing ice and snow cools the earth resulting in more ice and snow. Previous ice ages may well have result in an almost ice covered Earth. See Cryogenia. There is no obvious ‘floor’ to this process and we don’t know why the Earth doesn’t become completely ice covered. Although, solar isolation in the tropics may be the limiting factor to the ice extent. Nor do we know why earlier ice ages extended ice to the tropics, while the current one hasn’t.

Otherwise, I agree with Leif that solar cycles probably start and end interglacials. What starts and ends the ice ages themselves? No one really knows. The current ice age started 40 million years ago and the drift of Antarctica toward the south pole has been blamed. All I can say is continental drift operates on about the right timescale to be the cause of ice ages and their end. In a few 10 of millions of years Antarctica will drift away from the south pole and perhaps end the current ice age.

124. bender
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

#209
Been there too.

125. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

Larry, a physical globe isn’t a coordinate system. 90S to 0S/N to 90N is only half your travels to get back to 90S. Physical experiment. Grab a golf ball with two fingers in any direction to circle the golf ball. Your fingers will form a circle. I think we’re thinking of this from two different angles. (Or varying degrees, lol)

Pat, nah, gunnar is okay, I like him. He just (like I and others often do) gets caught in circular arguments (no pun intended) where people aren’t really talking about the same thing. Plenty of folks do; we just need to think about what our point really is, and that we’re not comparing cherrys to apples…. :D Nothing funny about it, it just happens. It’s good, we learn things about the discussion on this subject and how to make the discussion more productive.

Leif, I don’t know how much time you’ve spent on Real Climate or Rabett Run or Open Mind or talk pages at wiki on CC/AGW/GW/AGHG/GHG/GE, et al, but this is mild. We all just need to discuss things from a common reference point rather than from two different directions (science versus engineering? statistics vs climate science?) :) I don’t mind watching it, but it gets to be a little much! I’m just saying let’s clarify what it is we’re discussing at first chance we get if it starts going South… (And BTW, thanks for joining us here!)

As far as cosmic rays, yes, but the magnetic shield is at least somewhat involved; hence another variable to consider (meaningless or not; I’m just bringing it up not making a judgement on what it means) As far as CO2 is concerned, what we’re missing (as far as I’m concerned) is that it ignores the other GHG, the relation to water vapor, particulates, clouds, etc etc etc We have yet to see how 2x CO2 = 2.5 C in a real forumula (You could SWAG it at 2.8 C for going from 400 to 800 based upon a .7 trend for each 100 I suppose). But I doubt that 100 ppmv = .7 C so there you are. (I also question the validity of a “global mean temperature anomaly” but that’s another issue.)

Consider this
The thing you have to remember about this graphic is that what it shows is the estimated forcings of each item as if it’s the only one in the system. Also, if you look at the ranges of estimations, take ozone for example, if you go low range positive forcing and high range negative forcing, it cancels out. (Not even considering how silly it is to think how it acts on its own is how acts in the system…)

I believe that land use change and pollution have a much greater effect than GHG (or Anthro-GHG actually) do; they’re just one piece of of the puzzle.

You won’t find anything on this (the large CO2 variation) I don’t think, take a look at this post on my opinion of why: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2448#comment-168366

YMMV

126. Francois Ouellette
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

Leif,

Just curious. There are proxies for CR’s arent’t there? How do these correlate with other solar proxies, and how does that all fit in with your recent discovery?

127. Francois Ouellette
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

In a previous post, I was referring to a paper where the explore possible complex feedback mechanisms between the biosphere and the Earth’s climate. The paper (found at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000214) is by Pekka Janhunen et al. ” Biological feedbacks as cause and demise of Neoproterozoic icehouse: astrobiological prospects for faster evolution and importance of cold conditions”, in PLOS-One. The abstract reads:

Several severe glaciations occurred during the Neoproterozoic eon, and especially near its end in the Cryogenian period (630850 Ma). While the glacial periods themselves were probably related to the continental positions being appropriate for glaciation, the general coldness of the Neoproterozoic and Cryogenian as a whole lacks specific explanation. The Cryogenian was immediately followed by the Ediacaran biota and Cambrian Metazoan, thus understanding the climate-biosphere interactions around the Cryogenian period is central to understanding the development of complex multicellular life in general. Here we present a feedback mechanism between growth of eukaryotic algal phytoplankton and climate which explains how the Earth system gradually entered the Cryogenian icehouse from the warm Mesoproterozoic greenhouse. The more abrupt termination of the Cryogenian is explained by the increase in gaseous carbon release caused by the more complex planktonic and benthic foodwebs and enhanced by a diversification of metazoan zooplankton and benthic animals. The increased ecosystem complexity caused a decrease in organic carbon burial rate, breaking the algal-climatic feedback loop of the earlier Neoproterozoic eon. Prior to the Neoproterozoic eon, eukaryotic evolution took place in a slow timescale regulated by interior cooling of the Earth and solar brightening. Evolution could have proceeded faster had these geophysical processes been faster. Thus, complex life could theoretically also be found around stars that are more massive than the Sun and have main sequence life shorter than 10 Ga. We also suggest that snow and glaciers are, in a statistical sense, important markers for conditions that may possibly promote the development of complex life on extrasolar planets.

Jahnunen is pretty much a solar scientist. Leif, do you know him (her? I’m not too good at differentiating finnish first names…)?

This is rather off-topic (but what is this trend’s topic again?…)

128. Bruce
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

#202

Leif

Assuming to mean those minima, the generally accepted opinion is that they were caused by changes in the orbit and tilt of the axis of the Earth. These things are cyclic (Milankovic cycles) and occur every 19,000 & 40,000 & 100,000 years. We are headed for another such minimum some thousand years from now.

1) We are near a Milankovic maximum now

Left side. Hot. Now.

2) “… changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth.”

So much for your “floor” and “ceiling”.

129. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

This is a very interesting discussion on several blogs. If I am not mistaken, the results of the S and W paper are based on the comparisons of temperature and TSI reconstructions developed by others. Mann et al versus the solar reconstructions indicated less solar and Moberg versus the solar reconstructions indicated more solar influence.

Lief has challenged the accuracy of the solar reconstructions and CA in general challenges the temperature reconstructions. That all typical BS, but what about the concept of the S and W paper? Is the math they use reasonable to compare reconstructions to determine validity?

130. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

214: Sam, I’ve been on Open Mind, but quit because the blog generated more heat than light. As you say, this one here (CA) is mild. And rabid Rabett was too much, too. By ‘magnetic shield’ which one do you mean? the Earth’s field or the Sun’s field (in interplanetary space dragged out by the solar wind)? If the latter we are back to solar activity, so that is out. The Earth’s field is rapidly decreasing and might completely disappear [or at least become very small and disorganized] before changing polarity perhaps a few hundred years from now [estimates vary].
215: Francois. Radioactive isotopes, Beryllium 10 [10Be] and Carbon 14 [14C], are found in ice cores and tree rings, respectively, and do work as CR proxies going back thousands of years. The problem is with calibrating them correctly. And there are various problems with circularities [10Be is washed out of the air by rain and snow and the so depends a bit on the climate to begin with], but by and large they work reasonably well. My talk The Open Flux Has Been Constant Since 1840s (SHINE2007).pdf (Invited talk SHINE 2007) has more on these. One can also try to infer the strength of the Heliomagnetic field from the cosmic ray intensity [or rather the modulation of the intensity by solar activity]. My good friend Ken McCracken has tried to do this [unsuccessfully, in our opinion]. We have a paper coming out in JGR showing where we think he goes wrong, but this is very new. In fact, we just [10 minutes ago] got word from the Editor of JGR that he has reached a decision on our paper, but we don’t know yet what it is [good we hope].

131. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

218:
1) We are near a Milankovic maximum now Left side. Hot. Now.

===> so, as I said, we are heading for a minimum thousands of years in the future. Glad to see that you agree with me on this.

2) changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth.

So much for your floor and ceiling.

===> you are confusing changes on the Sun with changes of the Earth’s orbit. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other [here I discount the planetary influences theory]. The Milankovic influence changes so slowly that over the past [and future] several hundred years they can be regarded as constant, so the only changes in TSI would be the ones originating in the Sun proper. That is where the “floor” and “ceiling” reside.

132. Andrey Levin
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

Leif Svaalqaard:

I am a little bit confused.

I acknowledge your assessment of magnitude of TSI fluctuations in last 160+ years.

However, there is very strong correlation between sunspot numbers (not just TSI reconstructed from these numbers) and global temperatures, and by numerous temperature reconstructions and sunspot count sources. In this particular case correlation does mean causation.

If it is not causation directly by TSI, it should be something else (Svensmark hypothesis, etc.). This is exactly the underlying assumption of S&W paper.

What is your take on this?

133. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

222 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Going back to some fundamentals you are working with, first:

How much energy is the Sun outputting to space, the Heliosphere, or best definition?

134. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

223: again,
If you remove the background upward trend of the TSI all that is left is just the sunspot curve, that now no longer has any upward trend. Since the temperature curve has an upward trend, there is no longer any correlation between the two curves. The previous correlation was just between the trends, as there is no 11-year signal in the temperature curve [at least that I can see]. Remove one trend and you remove the correlation.

135. Bruce
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

Leif, I’m not confused about the changes in the sun vs. changes in earths orbit.

I’m pointing out a couple of things.

1) Solar energy hitting the earth can change because of the orbit and because of changes of cloud cover etc. Those changes in themselves may be enough to account for the MWP, the LIA and the small amount of warming over the last 100 years.

2) To dismiss solar influence on climate because you claim there is a floor is very silly. The sun spends very little time at your claimed “floor”. The last time it did for a long period of time it caused the little ice age.

In my opinion, the important questions are:

1) Is there an equilibrium point at which the sun will not change the temperature up or down much?

2) Are above or below it?

In light of Solankis paper showing we are at a unique high in terms of energy and length of time at that level, I believe we are above the equilibrium point, and have been since the early 1900’s. And probably even since the LIA.

136. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:01 PM | Permalink

226: no, no. I’m not talking about the annual variation within each year. That is clearly a biological signal, but the difference from year to year. Here is a table from NOAA that shows the growth of CO2 per year. The growth rate should only change very gently with time because there are millions of emitters, yet it fluctuates wildly. Why?

year ppm/yr
1959 0.94
1960 0.50
1961 0.98
1962 0.62
1963 0.73
1964 0.25
1965 1.02
1966 1.25
1967 0.70
1968 1.06
1969 1.34
1970 0.98
1971 0.88
1972 1.72
1973 1.17
1974 0.82
1975 1.10
1976 0.90
1977 2.08
1978 1.33
1979 1.61
1980 1.84
1981 1.41
1982 0.71
1983 2.18
1984 1.39
1985 1.23
1986 1.51
1987 2.30
1988 2.14
1989 1.24
1990 1.32
1991 1.00
1992 0.49
1993 1.26
1994 1.96
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.93
1998 3.00
1999 0.88
2000 1.73
2001 1.63
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.58
2005 2.54
2006 1.72

137. Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

228: said:
1) Solar energy hitting the earth can change because of the orbit and because of changes of cloud cover etc. Those changes in themselves may be enough to account for the MWP, the LIA and the small amount of warming over the last 100 years.

===> the orbit has not changed the last few hundred years, so the changes that account for MWP and LIA are then due to “cloud cover etc”. I’ll buy the “etc” part.

2) To dismiss solar influence on climate because you claim there is a floor is very silly. The sun spends very little time at your claimed floor. The last time it did for a long period of time it caused the little ice age.

===> the Sun and TSI return to the floor at every sunspot minimum, therefore the TSI does not ride on top of an upward trending background as all the reconstructions have it. “Silly” is normally not a word used in serious discourse, so go wash your mouth out with soap :-) If you remove the upward background trend then you are left with a TSI that just goes up and down 1 W/m^2 in every cycle. If the response time is of the order of 10 years even that change would wash out and there would be no solar forcing at all. The significance of the floor is the removal of the upward background trend. See #227.

Now, Bruce, tell me, what is your problem?

138. kim
Posted Nov 28, 2007 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

With one eye I see up with higher temperature, 1998, and with the other I see down post volcanic eruption, 1992, possibly biological, but that’s not nearly enough eyes.
==========================================

139. Andrey Levin
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 12:26 AM | Permalink

Re#227, Leif:

Hmm

If you remove the background upward trend of the TSI

So, my speculation in #76:

20 century temperature history could be almost perfectly explained by combination of two factors: underlying solar warming trend and superimposed 30-years cycle of PDO/AMO oscillations.

Still holds?

140. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 1:11 AM | Permalink

225 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
224: 386 billion billion megawatt is one way of expressing it.

Let’s see, is that perhaps something like 386YW (yottawatts) or 386 Septillion Watts? (smile)

Second, how many of these Watts of energy from the Sun are inputs to the Earth’s environment? How many many of these Watts of energy from the Sun are inputs to the Earth’s environment and the Earth’s magnetosphere altogether?

141. MarkW
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

227: Why would you want to remove the upward trend in TSI? Isn’t that the signal that we are looking for?

142. MarkW
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

231: You write “the Sun and TSI return to the floor at every sunspot minimum, therefore the TSI does not ride on top of an upward trending background as all the reconstructions have it.”

This makes no sense. The total output of the sun over a cycle is not determined by just the lowest point in that cycle. It is determined by an averaging of the total energy output at all points during the cycle. Saying that the bottom of each cycle is the same, does nothing to prove that the top of the cycle or even the sahpe of the curve has stayed the same.

For example, during the little ice age, the sun stayed at the bottom of the cycle for decades.

143. Edward
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

Leif

You will just love this.

Please give up this quest you have to prove the sun has no affect on climate. It’s absurd. I can not buy into only internal affects on climate or the hockey stick (no climate variability), the historical record proves without a doubt that the climate has varied and without CO2. There has to be an external mechanism. I buy into the sun/cosmic ray link.

Dr. Landscheidt has already shown a major sun link to climate and weather by his numerious correct forecasts of climate/weather that validate his theroies. Stop concentrating on TSI so much and concentrate on planatary links and sun/cosmic ray links.

144. Boris
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:18 AM | Permalink

Given the strong correlation with temperature, it looks to me like the variation in the growth rate is a demonstration of CO2 feedback from the ocean.

I think this is right. Look at 1998, the strongest el Nino year.

145. Gunnar
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

>> Since the temperature curve has an upward trend

No, it is stable, with a few isolated step changes. A trend is an arbitrary artifact of the trend maker.

>> as there is no 11-year signal in the temperature curve [at least that I can see].

I see it quite clearly in the satellite data.

>> left with a TSI that just goes up and down 1 W/m^2 in every cycle. If the response time is of the order of 10 years even that change would wash out and there would be no solar forcing at all.

Actually, max – min = ~ 4 W. All we have is a temp record that just goes up and down proportionally. My link in #176 proves that not all minimum are equal.

>> And why does nobody else ask this?

First, our host doesn’t want C02 discussion. Your question is answered very well in #328. I would add that Seglastad shows that human input to C02 flux is very small. Measurement at Mauna Loa is dependent on weather conditions affecting wind direction from either hot equatorial out-gassing water or cooler water. The raw data is never published, and is “adjusted” by people of the same mindset as those that adjust temp records.

#241 >> Ive seen an amusing graph of CO2 and associated temperature during WWII which shows CO2 dropping (not rate of increase falling off, an actual drop) while temperatures soar. Now what is that about?

Why amusing? These are actual measurements. It’s about the fact that the two are basically decoupled.

#247 >> Saying that the bottom of each cycle is the same

Mark, you’re absolutely right. Especially since neither the maximums nor the minumums are constant. my link in #176 clearly shows this.

146. Edward
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

Gunnar # 242

Good Job

147. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

I’m confused, when has Leif said the sun has no effect upon climate? How can anyone parse that out of saying that solar activity is not at an all-time high and the variability recently has been smaller than the current wisdom?

What I get out of this is that whatever normal affects the sun has, abnormal variability (versus the inherent variability) is a small thing compared to that (whatever consititues what normal or abnormal is). Hardly a quest to prove anything. Come on.

Is anyone seriously arguing that forcing x or feedback y can be removed from the system or that it’s wrong to consider the possibility the forcing/feedback isn’t stronger/weaker than we now think it is and investigate it?

Again, I say: Any argument based upon any notion that X has increased or decreased since year Y should be examined with the possibility in mind that it may be less, more or the same as previously assumed.

148. Larry
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

Based on some other statements he’s made, I think we’re having a semantic disconnect.

149. Gunnar
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

#244,

Did you miss #172, #231? Also, when people challenged him on that, he did not say “wait, I didn’t mean that”.

What I’m more interested in is: Leif, do you pronounce your name with the same vowel sound as in “sleigh”, or as in “Life”, ie Læif?

150. Bruce
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

Leif

ACRIM claims the TSI can go up by .15% and down by .3% just over the last 7 years.

I believe thats a range from top to bottom of 8 watts / m^2. Not the 1 you claim.

151. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

He’s made it quite clear that he believes the sun isn’t as large a driver of abnormal climate change as is currently believed. It might not be. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Define abnormal.

I think D. Patterson said it well:

Leifs commented on how sensitive the climate is to changes in the Suns activity, rather than saying climate isnt driven by the sun. The Sun and gravity energizes the Earths climates, and other phenomena modulate the ways in which those energies change climates.

Anyway, arguing about the details is boring. So back to a more rational discussion, one that’s related to the actual conversation.

Leif, I mean the Earth’s magnetic shield (and related matters) and non-solar cosmic “rays” as some of the things to consider. I was just thinking up things to consider other than CO2 or Solar. Doesn’t mean they’re all valid. Or that they don’t overlap.

Some of the issues related to aspects of the magnetic field et al are how much of the core’s thermal energy is transported by Mantle plumes, and are what the resulting flood basalts and hotspots doing in the system in relation to the other issues (Not the magnetic field, but the source of it and what it’s doing to climate)? What is the magnetic field doing from how the core and the dynamo creating the field, the field deflecting the solar wind (how much is there) at the bow shock (how much is deflected) and what amount of plasma is getting into the atmosphere. Then there’s the issue of the extra-solar (and other non-solar) cosmic rays vs solar, and what’s going on with the air showers in relation to everything in the atmosphere combined? What effects does that all have? What happens when a 50 J particle hits something? The question about what the interaction is between all these things (is the core at 7000 K or 6000 or 8000? for example) If cosmic rays keep the level of carbon-14 constant, are they also helping to keep other things at some other level?

I’m just saying there’s lots of things to think of. Not really wanting to discuss specific aspects of it, especially given how much is unknown singly, much less as a system.

Yeah, the magnetic field reversal, haven’t had one of those for about 700K years, we’re due one I guess (shortest estimate I’ve seen; 5 years)

Interested folks can check here for some of these types of things:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/lectures.html Introduction to plasma physics
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wstart.html Introduction to the Earth’s magnetosphere
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/dick/cos_encyc.html Cosmic ray basics
http://royalsociety.metapress.com/content/3163g817166673g7/fulltext.html Svensmark et al

152. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

ACRIM claims it, oh, okay. It must be true then.

153. Pat Keating
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:47 PM | Permalink

247 Bruce

The 8 watts/m^2 may be a good number for the irradiance above the Earth’s atmosphere (tho’ I didn’t check it), but that is cut to about 1/3 of that when albedo (incl. ice, clouds) is taken into account, I believe.

154. David Archibald
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s reply to Lockwood and Frolich provides a 50 year tropospheric temperature profile with El Ninos, volcanoes etc removed. From that, it appears that in the absence of the upswing in solar activity going to solar maximum, the atmosphere tends to lose temperature at the rate of 0.12 degrees per annum. A weak solar cycle 24 will be like being in extended solar minimum. That is that tropospheric temperature will continue falling on the upswing of the cycle. The Dalton Minimum temperature profiles look like this.

155. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

One thing I have noticed is that Leif claims the Sun returns to his ‘floor’ TSI level at solar minimum.

Now, reading through some of his papers, this claim appears in part to be based on the PMOD TSI reconstruction – Leif can correct me if I have misunderstood this.

The PMOD TSI reconstruction does show consecutive minimums being about equal, however on closer examination, the PMOD reconstruction is suspect for two reasons:

1) It is in part based on a mathematical model developed by Judith Lean that may or may not be accurate.

2) It requires that physical degradation of radiometers on satellites due to erosion by particle collisions has no effect on the sensitivity on the instrument.

The second of these is problematic, as I am unaware of any physical sensor that does not decrease in sensitivity as it deteriorates.

To quote Dr. Richard C. Willson of ACRIM  July 17, 2007:

Lockwood & Frohlichs thesis depends entirely on the PMOD TSI composite time series and its lack of a significant TSI trend during solar cycles 21-24. The PMOD composite was constructed to agree with the linear regression solar proxy model of Judith Lean and took considerable liberties with the satellite TSI database to accomplish it.

Frohlich and lean modified the results of the Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 experiments published by their science teams to agree better with Leans model. To construct a multidecadal composite it is necessary to relate the ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results across the two year gap between them. There are two choices to do this and they give quite different results. The best ACRIM gap comparative database is the Nimbus7/ERB which produces a composite demonstrating significant TSI upward trending during solar cycles 21 – 23, then a return to cycle 21 values in cycle 24. The other gap database, the ERBS/ERBE, clearly inferior to the Nimbus7/ERB in calibration, precision and sample rate, produces no significant trend. The difference between Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS/ERBE results during the gap are readily shown to be uncorrected degradation of the ERBS/ERBE data. Nevertheless Frohlich and Lean chose the ERBS/ERBE connection to relate the ACRIM experiments and the resulting PMOD composite shows no significant trend. This facilitates their conclusions about solar trending and climate change but does not represent the most objective use of the extant TSI satellite database.

Had these authors compared the effects of using the PMOD and ACRIM composites (ACRIM uses published results and the Nimbus7/ERB connection across the gap) their paper would have yielded different conclusions. It would also have less of the flavor of a public relation effort in support of the IPCCs anthropogenic global warming scenario.

If it turns out that the ACRIM reconstruction is indeed a more valid reconstruction than PMOD, then Lief’s ‘TSI floor’ claim is standing on shakey ground and the S&W paper stands to await further examination.

156. Bruce
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

#249

TIM on SORCE only goes back 4 years.

It suggests a 5 watt/m^2 swing is possible.

#247

But Pat, would not the whole 1361 w/m^2 also be cut to 1/3 or are you suggesting only the variance from 1361 is affected by albedo?

Speaking of SORCE:

“Also, Earths orbit about the Sun is an ellipse, and not a precise circle, with the Earth slightly closer in early January than it is in July. This results in about 7% more sunlight reaching the Earth in January than in July.”

If a 7% swing (95w/m^2) can cause summer/winter swings … what about an 8w/m^2 swing (observed by ACRIM in only last 7 years).

If a 95w/m^2 swing can cause 40C-50C swing between summer and winter, what could a few w/m^2 cause?

157. Bruce
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

Ooops. Bad math above. I was temporarily forgetting about the axial tilt.

But still …

158. Pat Keating
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

253 Bruce

But Pat, would not the whole 1361 w/m^2 also be cut to 1/3 or are you suggesting only the variance from 1361 is affected by albedo?

The whole 1361 is cut, of course. That’s where I got the 1/3 estimate from, the equatorial average is around 450 w/m^2 at the surface. Of course, it drops off further as latitude increases.

159. Pat Keating
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

Sorry, excuse the dyslexia, that’s 253, not 235.

160. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

As it turns out that many people’s hrair-limit on this blog is somewhere below three (for the unwashed masses: After you hit your hrair limit, not only can you will you be overwhelmed by any novel information, you will also lose the ability to understand the information you were already juggling – try to google it) I’ll explain one more time. The better reconstructions of TSI (such as Wang’s) basically combines two elements, 1) the sunspot number to give the 11-yr period, and 2) calculations of something called the “open magnetic flux” to give the long-term variation of TSI. We are not able to calculate the open flux from first principles so people fit their models [or tune the parameters] to a purported “doubling of the solar open flux” in the 20th century. This notion was first proposed by me back in 1977-1978 and again taken up in 1999 by Lockwood et al. in a famous paper in Nature. It is basically that “doubling” that gives the upward trend of TSI since 1900 that seems to correlate so well with the temperature.

In about 2002, I revisited the idea [more data and especially understanding had accumulated] and realized that there was no doubling, after all, of the ‘background’ solar magnetic field. There was, of course, still a solar cycle effect [and a larger one for larger cycles], but there was no general trend on which the solar cycle modulation rode. I have given this link before, but here is again a link to a talk I gave this Summer’s SHINE meeting: The Open Flux Has Been Constant Since 1840s (SHINE2007).pdf . Look at page two to see Lockwood’s famous Figure.

The upward trend found by Lockwood was due to a combination of three problems: a) the geomagnetic activity index ‘aa’ turned out to be in error before 1957 [too low], the method Lockwood et all used to infer the solar wind speed [using something called the Sargent Recurrence Index] turned out not to be as reliable as thought, and finally, the functional form for the relationship between solar wind parameters and geomagnetic activity was not useful outside of the range on which it was defined [the last three solar cycles].
Anyway, Lockwood et al. have now realized that and published a new series of IMF strengths that is very close to our values. The rest of the world has not caught up yet. For several reasons [that I have repeatedly given] it seems likely that several solar parameters [spots, F10.7, FUV, IMF, TSI] all return to the same values at every solar minimum [within a small residual noise that you’ll always have], and hence also the Grand Minima, such as the M.M.: the “floors”, I have been ranting about.

If this is so, then the long-term variation of both the IMF [for you cosmic ray fanatics out there] and the TSI [for the rest] look quite different than usually assumed, e.g. by Scafetta and West. In this Figure: TSI-LEIF.pdf I have overplotted my reconstruction on Figure 2 of Scafetta & West (2007) that we are all concerned with. It looks to me that if my reconstruction is correct that the conclusions of Scafetta & West should be suitably modified.

In closing: get your numbers right! 8W/m^2 ! 2000 W/m^2 flare effect! and on and on and on.

161. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

246: Gunnar asked: What Im more interested in is: Leif, do you pronounce your name with the same vowel sound as in sleigh, or as in Life, ie Læif?

sleigh is Norwegian, life is Danish, so ‘life’. And for the rest of you: not ‘Lief’.

162. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

258: hmmm, did I get the link wrong? trying again:
TSI-LEIF

163. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

252: Carl says: One thing I have noticed is that Leif claims the Sun returns to his floor TSI level at solar minimum. Now, reading through some of his papers, this claim appears in part to be based on the PMOD TSI reconstruction – Leif can correct me if I have misunderstood this.

===> Carl, I have approached this from the ‘physics’ end rather than trying to fit data. Conventional wisdom has it that the Sun’s magnetic field is instrumental in controlling the TSI. The Sun’s magnetic field is dragged out to the Earth by the solar wind and causes ‘wiggles’ in the Earth’s magnetic field. These wiggles have been observed for almost two centuries and it has been possible to model the process: if we know the IMF and the solar wind speed, we can compute the geomagnetic response accurately. Conversely, from the geomagnetic response we can get the IMF and the solar wind speed as well. It is this magnetic field (the IMF) that has a floor, and from that we surmise that the TSI also has a floor. What would prevent it from having that? [and I don’t need a response a la: “but there are many things we don’t know, so how you can say that?”].

164. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

260 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Are you implying at all there may be no increase or decrease in strength of the IMF during time intervals of millions of years?

165. Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 11:35 PM | Permalink

261: possibly, but we only have data for a few hundred years [or thousands if we look at the cosmic rays]. Beyond that we don’t know.

166. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 29, 2007 at 11:49 PM | Permalink

Carl #252

I read a similar paper by Frolich where he was comparing the SOHO data with ACRIM and again came to the same conclusion as your reference. I looked and found out that the calibration for the SOHO instrument was broken and therefore there was no way to verify any of the readings. I was surprised to find this. I need to dig that paper back up again.

167. Curt
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

While I have been enjoying this discussion, and I thank Dr. Svalgaard for his participation (and patience) here, I want to bring up something regarding a point in Steve’s original post that has not yet been discussed in the comments. Steve said,

One of the fundamental assumptions of modern models (as I understand it) is that all forcings are equal. Forcings is a useful metaphor but what if, for some reason, all forcings are not the same. For example, it doesnt seem inconceivable to me that 1 wm-2 of solar forcing (visible wave length, high energy photons, low entropy) could have a different effect than 1 wm-2 of GHG forcing (infrared, low energy, high entropy).

Last year, Willis Eschenbach presented a very simple, elegant argument as to why “solar forcings” would be magnified more than “GHG forcings”. You can find it here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=593#comment-20676

While I quibble with some of his wording (such as using “temperature” when describing radiative power flux density in W/m^2, I cannot find fault with his fundamental argument. To me, it is a classic problem for an introductory thermodynamics class. If I were teaching such a class, I would be using it now. In his argument, the difference comes not from any of the issues Steve mentions above, but in the location of the additional power flux density (external vs. internal).

Reading through the reactions, it seems that his argument was non-intuitive to many — at least those who do not have experience in these type of thermodynamic problems of carefully defining your subsystems and finding the power/energy transfers between them. The whole exchange is worth reading through, including the comment stream before the point I linked.

168. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:13 AM | Permalink

257 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

[…]it seems likely that several solar parameters [spots, F10.7, FUV, IMF, TSI] all return to the same values at every solar minimum[….]

Leif, are you inferring that TSI cannot have been on a general increase since the 19th Century, because you are assuming TSI cannot increase without a correlative increase in IMF and have found no such increase in IMF?

169. Andrey Levin
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/uncertain-sensitivity/

and it helped.

One funny thing remains. If you fit your TSI reconstruction from your picture in #259 to Fig.6 of S&W paper, quite striking visual correlation with temperature curve still remains.

Teleconnection? LOL

170. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

265: see #98.
Short answer is “yes”, but that is not the only line of evidence.
And it is at this point only a ‘suggestion’ of mine. For others to consider or reject as they see fit.

171. Edward
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink

Don’t forget that Leif’s analysis does not include planitary affects on solar activity.

172. kim
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

Curt, #264, yes there are classic threads. A listing of them on 101 would be useful.

Planetary influences, almost by definition a subtle signal, amplified physically and biologically in the biosphere, cannot yet be excluded, and certainly may have the power.

Surely, something varies climate.
==================

173. kim
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

And yet, it moves.
===========

174. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

Leif 260 says:

===> Carl, I have approached this from the physics end rather than trying to fit data. Conventional wisdom has it that the Suns magnetic field is instrumental in controlling the TSI. The Suns magnetic field is dragged out to the Earth by the solar wind and causes wiggles in the Earths magnetic field. These wiggles have been observed for almost two centuries and it has been possible to model the process: if we know the IMF and the solar wind speed, we can compute the geomagnetic response accurately. Conversely, from the geomagnetic response we can get the IMF and the solar wind speed as well.

So far, so good – but I noticed you dodged the PMOD vs ACRIM issue.

It is this magnetic field (the IMF) that has a floor, and from that we surmise that the TSI also has a floor.

I do not think that you have actually established that the IMF has a floor, but instead have shown that it may have a floor if certain assumptions are made.

What would prevent it from having that?.

There are many open questions that deserve answers before drawing conclusions:

Do a series of smaller or larger solar cycles following each other (Grand Minima or Maxima) effect the size and shape of the heliosheath and the base field density of the IMF over multi-decadal scales?

Do heliosheath interactions with Galactic Magnetic Field and Galactic Wind flux changes effect the size and shape of the heliosheath and the base field density of the IMF over multi-decadal scales?

We may get see if your IMF (or TSI) floor theory has predictive power over the next few solar minimums – especially if as I suspect we are entering another Grand Solar Minima of 4 or 5 weak (R < 80) solar cycles [prediction: cycle 24 max July 2013 +-2 months].

[and I dont need a response a la: but there are many things we dont know, so how you can say that?].

… but there are many things we dont know, so how can you say that? :)

175. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

271: Carl sez:
“So far, so good – but I noticed you dodged the PMOD vs ACRIM issue.”

===> I don’t have an issue here. Back at #98, I outlined the reasons for the floor. PMOD and ACRIM don’t enter into those.

“I do not think that you have actually established that the IMF has a floor, but instead have shown that it may have a floor if certain assumptions are made.”

===>We have observed the floor since the 1840s. There are the usual assumptions [that I don’t have a problem with]: that the law of Nature works the same now as then, that the response of the magnetosphere to the solar wind [possibly corrected, as far as possible, for any local changes in the Earth’s environment; e.g. the decreasing main magnetic field] is the same now as then, and the like. Unless you identify a specific assumption that I have made and that you think may not be warranted [and give your specific reasons for such belief] I can’t respond in a meaningful way.

“There are many open questions that deserve answers before drawing conclusions:

Do a series of smaller or larger solar cycles following each other (Grand Minima or Maxima) effect the size and shape of the heliosheath and the base field density of the IMF over multi-decadal scales?

Do heliosheath interactions with Galactic Magnetic Field and Galactic Wind flux changes effect the size and shape of the heliosheath and the base field density of the IMF over multi-decadal scales?”

First, since the solar wind is supersonic, what happens out at or beyond the termination shock has very little influence over what happens at the base, so I don’t think we need to consider this. Furthermore, we don’t know enough about what happens out there to incorporate such effects into our thinking.

“We may get see if your IMF (or TSI) floor theory has predictive power over the next few solar minimums – especially if as I suspect we are entering another Grand Solar Minima of 4 or 5 weak (R

176. Gunnar
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

Leif and Carl,

Please excuse a stupid question from an old EE, but I’m not getting your non response to:

For an example of the variability: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m_tn.jpg Note the minimum between cycle 23 and 24 is very high. We dont have to look any further to explain 1998.

Even if you’re right that there is a floor for IMF, and therefore TSI. It doesn’t logically follow that it always goes down to the floor. A floor does not imply non-variability. The data shows variability in the minimums and maximums. As such, as surely as the day warms up, these variations still must affect earth’s climate, as we saw in the 98-02 timeframe.

It might seem to preclude a long term solar trend, but we don’t need that to explain anything. The temp data shows one or two recent step changes. Solar min and max variability explains that.

177. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

271: hmmm, the last paragraph of my post was cut off…
So here it is again:

Carl said: “We may get see if your IMF (or TSI) floor theory has predictive power over the next few solar minimums – especially if as I suspect we are entering another Grand Solar Minima of 4 or 5 weak (R Indeed, as in all science, a theory or claim stands and falls with its predictions. But that does not mean that we need to wait half a century before drawing any conclusions [which are temporary anyway]. Progress in science is made by making such temporary statements, as long as they are based on sound analysis and reasonable data [no temperature measurements in hot parking lots…]. Then time will tell if they were useful or advanced the field, like my 1978 claim that the sun’s open magnetic field had doubled in the 20th century. That was clearly wrong, but that is ok because it looked good at the time. Science is self-correcting. What we must avoid are statements that are not even wrong .

178. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

As I have said many times before, something is causing the high frequency “noise” that we see in every proxy analysis of historical climate. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, something is causing this “noise” that obvious to anyone that looks at the raw data.

These are actual measurements, and to ignore something this important as just random “noise” is something that I can not understand.

Now, what can be causing these rapid fluctuations in the historical climate records?

Anyone that performs a frequency analysis of the proxy data will soon realize that there is a very strong Solar influence. We may not understand how or why, but that Solar influence is very real.

One way to directly measure the albeto of the Earth, is to measure the EarthShine being reflected back from the Moon. Some people have understood what I and Anthony Watts were talking about, and how such a simple measurement can be obtain.

Nobody understands how such minor fluctuations from the Sun can influence the weather on the Earth, but something is happening and they are linked.

The only way that this can be figured out, is by people being honest and measuring the raw data.

179. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard:

I have studied your theories for a long time now, and agree that you have identified something rather important.

Something rather simple, but often ignored, lets me know if research is following the correct path.

Why is the 22 year frequency stronger than the 11 year, when the high resolution data is studied?

We may not know why, but something is modulating the Earth’s climate that is polarity related.

180. Tom C
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

#121 –

…the reason for this variability shows me that we are missing something important, but what?

It’s probably due to change in mass transfer efficiency from the atmosphere to the oceans due to changes in currents and temperatures.

181. PaulM
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Leif, you seem to be assuming, in your original post and in #160, that solar output during grand minima such as the Maunder is the same as at local minima in the 11 year cycle. There is no justification for this at all. At the risk of stating the obvious, there must be something very different in the Suns internal structure and/or internal magnetic field between local and grand minima – something to set up the next maximum.

Also, in 160 you say ‘get your numbers right’. Well some of your own numbers dont add up. You say the sun is 1km bigger at maximum. That’s about 1 part in 10^6. So this cannot explain the variation in irradiance which is about one part in 10^3 over a cycle.

182. Tom Vonk
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

I can’t comment much on this issue but I read everything and the implications are interesting .

So if there is no sun effect , no GHG effect and no albedo effect on scales of centuries then :
a) the average temperature (surface integral on an arbitrary sphere , f.ex ground) is very closely periodical in time and the time average is very nearly constant .
b) or if it is not then everything is internal variability

I have never been much interested in the sun effects (due to the sun’s own way to function) because I always was convinced that most of the variation of time averages (temperature , humidity , precipitation) of the climate were due to fluctuations of the internal variability .
After all any sufficiently complex system even fed by constant energy rate and dissipating constant energy has a lot of room for internal variability (f.ex through interacting multidecadal events) to defeat simple theories using only energy and momentum conservation .

In any case thanks Leif for your posts – I wish you were wrong because it would make the understanding of the climate simpler , but
well if you are right , there will be much more hard work for the “climatologists” and Mr Mann .

183. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Tom C:

Convection does not change the temperature of the Earth. Convection can only move a fluid from one area to another, but the global temberature will remain the same.

Something is modulating the Earth’s global temperate at a rather high frequency. ENSO (El Nino) or other convective oscillations can not explain what is happening, since they are not global.

Although Steve McIntyre’s own tree ring data is local in origin, it has the same high frequency modulations that can be found in other proxy data. Why?

The Earth is a large object with a thermal mass that can only be altered very slowly.

Something, other than convection, is altering the Earth’s climate at a rather high frequency. We may not know how or why yet, but something is doing it.

184. Bill F
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

Leif, I have been following your discussions over at solarcycle24.com and i am happy to see you here as well. Thanks for taking the time to discuss the science of the sun with us.

With that said, I have a couple of questions:

1) With regard to the UV flux you say

There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earths main field.

Removing that trend when you are trying to evaluate whether there have been changes in the output of the sun, which is what you were doing. But when determining the effect of the UV flux on the earth’s climate, that 10% trend may indeed be very important and should not be removed. I think this goes back to what others said regarding the fact that most of your discussion is regarding changes on the sun, not changes on the earth. You may indeed be correct that there is no trend in UV flux coming from the sun, but the change in the strength of the earth’s field DOES mean there has been a trend in the UV flux reaching the earth.

2) While the solar wind may also show a flat trend, I have not seen you or anybody else discuss the effect of the polarity IMF on the amount of energy reaching the earth. A solar wind of 600km/s with a 10nT north Bz has a very different effect on earth’s atmosphere than the same wind speed with a 10nT south Bz. Noting that there is no trend in the solar wind strength or the IMF strength is again consistent with your discussion of the output of the sun itself. However, unless you also can say that the IMF-Bz has maintained a stable polarity over the same period, then you cannot extrapolate your statements about the trend in the solar wind and the IMF relative to the earth. In fact, Keating and Jager in GRL http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021110.shtml show long periods of time (years/decades) where one polarity dominates over the other, which would distinctly change the impact of the solar wind and IMF on the earth even if both had a stable trend in their output from the sun.

3) What I think Bruce was trying to get at earlier in the thread is the boiling pot principle. If you put a pot of cold water on a stove, you have to add heat to make it get warmer. As long as the heat is maintained, the water will continue rising until it reaches equilibrium. The same could be said for earth’s energy balance. Just because the solar output at minimum is the same today as it was 165 years ago doesn’t mean that the earth was in thermal equilibrium 165 years ago. 165 years ago, the earth was still coming out of the little ice age, and nobody has ever claimed an anthropogenic cause for that warming. Therefore, if the solar activity 165 year ago was enough to cause the temperature of the earth to rise, why should we automatically assume that similar solar output is not still enough to cause temperature to rise today?

I don’t think any of what I have said above contradicts what you have said regarding the low variability of the sun’s output over long time scales, but I think what you have said may have caused some to assume that a lack of trend in solar output equals a lack of trend in solar energy reaching the earth’s surface. The latter has not been established by the research you have cited.

Finally, a question…given the research showing positive effects on cloud formation from Forbush events, wouldn’t changes in cloud cover in response to elevated CME/flare activity be a logical mechanism to amplify the small observed trend to create a larger temperature response to more active sunspot cycles?

185. MPaul
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

SteveH, I think you are approaching the question correctly. In particular, if the oceans are warming (and the jury is out on this question) then one must ask what possible heat transfer mechanisms could account for this. Convective and Conductive heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans can not possibly warm the ocean over some short duration. The mass ratio and delta t are too small. This means the greenhouse effect can not be the major contributor. That leaves…radiation. (Or possibly some nuclear or other thermal effect coming from the earth’s core).

186. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

170 Leif Svalgaard says:
November 30th, 2007 at 6:17 am
265: see #98.
Short answer is yes, but that is not the only line of evidence.
And it is at this point only a suggestion of mine. For others to consider or reject as they see fit.

Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

It appears as though your hypothesis that IMF, TSI, and Solar luminosity are correlated and virtually unchanging through the prior “time steps of solar evolution” is contrary to and in conflict with prior determinations of about a 41 percent increase in Solar luminosity since ZAM (zero age Main Sequence) and the theories of Main Sequence stellar evolution of solar mass stars. Is this a generally correct understanding of your hypothesis?

187. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

Steve is to be congratulated for handing a blog thread over to a scientist who has a particular point of view “yall might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.” and refers to fellow scientists who disagree with him as “holdouts.”

We should look at Leif as we would look at any other scientific protagonist of a particular viewpoint.

I cannot see realclimate.org giving this type of exposure to Scafetta, for example. Congratulations again to Steve for offering this type of open forum.

188. UK John
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

All Global Climate Models depend for their predictions/forecasts on “forcing factors”.

The most obvious and powerful, and direct, climate forcing factor is the SUN, it causes the seasons, the difference between night and day, the ice to form and melt. This does not have to be proved by any clever scientific analysis, it is self evident

Any change in the Sun is therefore more likely to change our climate than anything else, but we still wish/must find something that we are doing is changing the climate, and will study and analyse almost anything to prove we are!

What a curious, wonderful animal we are!

189. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

MPaul:

“Convective and Conductive heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans can not possibly warm the ocean over some short duration.”

I know that Steve McIntire gets rather upset with me at times, but not matter how well the math is done, simple physics can not be ignored.

What is causing the high frequency variations in the climate history?

190. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

Paul M (181):

“Leif, you seem to be assuming, in your original post and in #160, that solar output during grand minima such as the Maunder is the same as at local minima in the 11 year cycle. There is no justification for this at all. At the risk of stating the obvious, there must be something very different in the Suns internal structure and/or internal magnetic field between local and grand minima – something to set up the next maximum.

Also, in 160 you say get your numbers right. Well some of your own numbers dont add up. You say the sun is 1km bigger at maximum. Thats about 1 part in 10^6. So this cannot explain the variation in irradiance which is about one part in 10^3 over a cycle.”

To the first point, read my 6 lines of evidence [you must have because of the radius bit] again. I’ll repeat only line 2:

Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the suns surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called modes) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didnt change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.

The 1 km is a good point. I uncritically just quoted Goode’s number. Should have thought more about it and checked what that number meant. To even observe the corrugations they must be several hundred kilometers high.

191. D. F. Linton
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

And congratulation to Leif for the maintenance of civility this deep into a thread!

192. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

Lief Svalgaard:

“The 1 km is a good point. I uncritically just quoted Goodes number. Should have thought more about it and checked what that number meant. To even observe the corrugations they must be several hundred kilometers high.”

I understand the frustration. You assumed that your sources of scientific data were accurate also.

Can we have honest scientists?

193. Tom C
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

#183 Steve H

My post was in response to Leif’s question reagarding the variability of CO2 increases from year to year (and therefore the variability of CO2 uptake from year to year). My opinion is that convective mass transfer effects vary tremendously as a function of ocean current patterns and temperatures. I wasn’t making any statement about chnages to the Earth’s temperature.

194. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

190 Leif Svalgaard says:

November 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Paul M (181):

The 1 km is a good point. I uncritically just quoted Goodes number. Should have thought more about it and checked what that number meant. To even observe the corrugations they must be several hundred kilometers high.

Hills 100 meters in height and 90,000 Km apart have been observed and reported on the Sun in the form of Rossby waves.

195. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

The quotation didn’t work right. I’ll try it again to get it right.

190 Leif Svalgaard says:

November 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Paul M (181):

The 1 km is a good point. I uncritically just quoted Goodes number. Should have thought more about it and checked what that number meant. To even observe the corrugations they must be several hundred kilometers high.

Hills 100 meters in height and 90,000 Km apart have been observed and reported on the Sun in the form of Rossby waves.

196. See - owe to Rich
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

Bill F #184

Fantastic, after reading this long thread, to see someone making the points that were slowly troubling me. Kudos again to CA for the whole thread.

I do have a comment on Steve H and others’ doubts on heat transfer. I agree that overall the atmosphere cannot heat the totality of ocean very fast, because it is so deep. But we do not measure the temperature of the totality of the ocean, only of its surface. Therefore heat exchanges, due to various currents and the oceanic “oscillations”, can surely transfer warmth (or less coolth) from the depths, and then we get to measure that. (Just hope I wasn’t misunderstanding the point here.)

Rich.

197. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

“Therefore heat exchanges, due to various currents and the oceanic oscillations, can surely transfer warmth (or less coolth) from the depths, and then we get to measure that.”

Agreed!

At the same time, there should be an increase of warmth at ocean depths. You can not have it both ways.

Does the proxy data show this ballanced temperature that would be expected from convection?

Guys, I am just a simple scientist that gets rather upset [snip[

Sometimes, there is a very valid reason why I ask some simple questions, because they are based upon basic physics and astronomy.

If we were talking about the surface temperature of an asteroid, I would be asking the exact same questions and for the same reasons.

Thermal Inertia!

198. Gunnar
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

Steve H, your questions are excellent. I’m also wondering the same things. I’m sure by this you are not referring to our esteemed danish friend. I know you refer to certain AGW proponents who advance a speculative idea without support from the scientific method.

>> Thermal Inertia!

Amen!

199. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

re 186: “time steps of solar evolution”. Again, I was just quoting people, but what they meant was “on time scales short compared to solar evolution”, I agree that it could be read the other way.

re 187: (Al Fin)
“Steve is to be congratulated for handing a blog thread over to a scientist who has a particular point of view yall might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago. and refers to fellow scientists who disagree with him as holdouts.

We should look at Leif as we would look at any other scientific protagonist of a particular viewpoint.”

I am not a protagonist of a particular viewpoint. To qualify for this, my research should be driven by that viewpoint, trying to confirm it. That is: the viewpoint is the primary and the science is just in service of the viewpoint. On the contrary, the science is forcing me to view things differently than I did before [remember, I was an “open field doubling” guy before]. About ‘holdouts’: there is a consensus emerging that possibly the sun changes less than thought. As always, there are early adopters and ‘holdouts’. The latter have either not followed the latest developments [the day only has 24 hours] or are of a more cautious nature that just take longer to turn around. Nothing derogatory or political about my wording, or at least my intended meaning. But, anyway, Steve M is doing a useful service here.

re 188:
“The most obvious and powerful, and direct, climate forcing factor is the SUN, it causes the seasons, the difference between night and day, …”

No, those changes are caused by the Earth, by having a tilt of its axis, by rotating, …

200. Tim Ball
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

I am very perplexed by the discussion here and some of the responses. There seems to be a confusion between solar irradiance and what was formerly known as corpuscular radiation now called the solar wind. I believe they are two distinct solar activities that affect the energy received at the earth’s surface in different ways. Cloud cover created by irradiance creating evaporation is different than the cloud cover created by cosmic radiation acting as condensation nuclei, although both determine the variation in the amount of irradiance available to heat the atmosphere.
The issue seems to suggest that irradiance level changes are essentially insignificant or at least overstated. I understand variations in irradiance over the short periods of record are low. As I recall for 14 years of Skylab data it was about 0.14%. I also recall years ago discussion about how you could ‘explain’ all the known temperature variation in the earth’s history simply by varying irradiance by 6%. The assumption in this discussion seems to be that since irradiance variation is a very small figure (as a part of 100%) it cannot be significant. If 6% is even a crude approximation then it suggests a very small variance may be quite significant.

The position appears to be that temperature increases for the last 150 years don’t match the variation in solar irradiance. The problem is what is the temperature variance in that time? The most authoritative figure we have is the 0.6°C change in the last 130 years produced by P.D.Jones. The problem is this is with an error factor of ±0.2°C. In addition there are very few stations more than 100 years in record length an d virtually none of 130 years length. We also don’t knowhow these records are affected by the urban heat island. It is likely the older ones are affected the most because they were in or near large cities from the start. If the temperature has varied from year to year or even decade to decade but not changed trend much in the 150 years then it would not be surprising the solar irradiance appears to ‘over-estimate’ the effect.

I am surprised by the comment in #137 that the the orbit has not changed for the last few hundred years. The major causing of orbital eccentricity is the gravitational pull of Jupiter. Other planets have an impact but I understand they are not included as being minor compared to Jupiter. How variable is the gravitational pull of Jupiter? There is comment elsewhere that the variation in energy received about the annual average because of the current eccentricity is 7% (±3.5% perihelion to aphelion). I understand the difference was 17% (±8.5%) just 22,000 years ago. The full Milankovitch Effect (ME) should also include tilt and precession of the Equinox, but then having said that I guess it doesn’t matter because I am told by an IPCC participant that the M.E. is not included in the computer models used for their studies and prognostications.

201. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

200: (Tim Ball)
The orbital changes (incl. any effect from Jupiter) take place over thousands of years, not over a few hundred years.

202. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

Leif, one of the quirks of this blog is that the text character “<” needs to be typed in HTML escaped form as the 4 characters “&lt;” to avoid the post being chopped off at that point.

203. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

How are extra-solar planets being discovered by astronomers today?

By measuring the very tiny wobbles in a star’s position.

Very tiny changes in a star’s light, is now good enough to locate and identify new planets.

Somehow, known changes in our Sun’s illumination is absolutly ignored. Why?

I view the Earth as just another object that should be studied by astronomers. I do not care if human created CO2 is warming or cooling the Earth.

What I do worry about, is that scientists be honest and follow where the raw data leads them.

Convection is something that will happen on any planet. There is nothing special about the Earth. If convection makes one part of the planet cooler, then another area will get warmer.

204. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

January 5th, is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. Any historical climate data that tells me that the “global” temperature is warmer in July or August, is simply false. It is simply impossible!

I have viewed the Earth as just another object that astronomers should study.

Steve McIntire has done an absolutly fantastic job with keeping scientists honest. That is why I will always support everything that he has done.

When people tell me that convection will no longer happen on Earth because of “Global Warming”, I must call them what they are: Liars!

205. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

Leif

Two things so far

we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum

To me this is an assumption that is not yet backed up with a lot of data. From some plots that you have made (I really enjoyed perusing your site by the way), in every cycle that we have measured so far the smoothed sunspot number does not decline below a certain value as the new cycle spots start before the end of the cycle and their rise keeps the smoothed numbers (and resulting solar activity), from reaching a minimal value.

Now I know that our data is very sparse but from what I have been able to find in the literature, the entry into the Maunder minimum was abrupt as the previous cycle “died” and the new cycle did not pick up to keep solar activity to fall to a more minimum number. Now if cycle 24 spots continue to elude us, we may hit a real minimum number some time in the next few months. This would give us a truer view at a minimum, especially since the last very low cycles were well before our instrumental records.

Question

Are you seeing any differences in this minimum compared to the last several minimums?

I don’t buy Frolich by the way as he was comparing a calibrated instrument to an uncalibrated one in his paper on the subject to get his “no TSI” increase that he was disputing with Wilson on.

206. Steve H
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

January 5th, is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. Any historical climate data that tells me that the “global” temperature is warmer in July or August, is simply false.

That is simply impossible!

I have viewed the Earth as just another object that astronomers should study.

Steve McIntire has done an absolutly fantastic job with keeping scientists honest. That is why I will always support everything that he has done.

When people tell me that convection will no longer happen on Earth because of “Global Warming”, I must call them what they are: Liars!

207. yorick
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

I don’t know.

Solanki Model Predictions – Red
Lockwood Geomagnetic Reconstructions – Green
Beer et al Ice Core BE – Dotted

Harold Jeffries Lecture Sami K Solanki

I am sure it could be randon chance. It is probably also randon chance how well this lines up with the GRIP and DYe-3 Ice cores, which are completely based on thermodynamics, presumably independent. I had a nice link to the ice core bore hole data, which I have been using for years, but as soon as I linked to it from this site, they seem to have taken it down..

208. Gunnar
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

Leif, Carl, or Tim Ball,

209. Gary Gulrud
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

I’m only a humble computer engineer but I don’t find Svalgaard & Cliver’s argument persuasive or of interest to other ‘heliophysicists’. They provide no mapping (or foundation of same) for the improvement of SS numbers from contemporary geomagnetic data. The argument that even Wolf improved the data is disingenuous, the statistic needed input missing from missing cloudy days and weeks. Even a cursory examination of SEC data for the Sept. 96 minimum and today’s solar outputs makes any historic correlation between these values untenable. The SS number is not differentiable , are the geomagmetic indicies? While we may take a correlation of 1 to indicate that two formula are co-linear why would we grant a correlation over a quarter century must hold between solar dynamo effects for two centuries or more? All I can allow is that a common cause is involved between the data sets. This discussion is a waste.

210. Bruce
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

Bill F

3) What I think Bruce was trying to get at earlier in the thread is the boiling pot principle. If you put a pot of cold water on a stove, you have to add heat to make it get warmer. As long as the heat is maintained, the water will continue rising until it reaches equilibrium. The same could be said for earths energy balance. Just because the solar output at minimum is the same today as it was 165 years ago doesnt mean that the earth was in thermal equilibrium 165 years ago. 165 years ago, the earth was still coming out of the little ice age, and nobody has ever claimed an anthropogenic cause for that warming. Therefore, if the solar activity 165 year ago was enough to cause the temperature of the earth to rise, why should we automatically assume that similar solar output is not still enough to cause temperature to rise today?

Thanks. That is what I was trying to say.

211. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

“Even more important than the problem of the cause of sun-spot periodicity, is the question whether this periodicity produces any notable effects upon the earth, and, if so, what? In regard to this question the astronomical world is divided into two almost hostile camps, so decided is the difference of opinion, and so sharp the discussion. One party holds that the state of the sun’s surface is a determining factor in our terrestrial meteorology, making itself felt in our temperature, barometric pressure, rainfall, cyclones, crops, and even our financial condition, and that, therefore, the most careful watch should be kept upon the sun for economic as well as scientific reasons.

The other party contends that there is, and can be, no sensible influence upon the earth produced by such slight variations in the solar light and heat, though, of course, they all admit the connection between sun-spots and the condition of the earth’s magnetic elements. It seems pretty clear that we are not in a position yet to decide the question either way ; it will take a much longer period of observation, and observations conducted with special reference to the subject of inquiry, to settle it. at any rate, from the data now in our possession, men of great ability and laborious industry draw opposite conclusions.
It certainly is not so plain that the sun-spots have not the influence which their worshippers, I had almost called them claim for them, as to absolve us from the duty of investigating the matter in the most thorough manner. On the other hand, it is also by no means certain that we shall find the labor of investigation fruitful in precisely the manner and degree desired.”

C.A.Young, “The Sun”, 1896, p.161.

It seems that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

212. David Archibald
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

Dr Svalgaard’s attempts to flatten out the aa Index, and say that the sun was invariate over the last 160 years, reminded me of Mann’s fiddling to get rid of the MWP. Luckily, we still have Be 10. If you go to beryllium on Wikipedia, there is a cute little graph showing that the Sun is twice as active now, in terms of Be 10, than it was 400 years ago. The Be 10 record is incontrovertible, and through the correlation with sunspots, and the aa Index, the whole lot can be intercorrelated. There is a New Scientist article of 18th September, 2006 which shows the lie of the land: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

Dr Svalgaard is quoted as saying “He too expects a crash. The sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the early 1950s, and to Svalgaard, the latest figures indicate that the sun’s activity will be weaker during the next decade than it has been for more than 100 years. “Sunspot numbers are well on the way down in the next decade,” he predicts. He expects fewer than six new sunspots per month, less than half the average number seen over the past decade.

This is hardly the sunspot crash that observations from 1645 to 1715 suggest. Back then, the appearance of even a single sunspot was major astronomical news, sparking hurriedly penned communications from one observatory to another. Nevertheless, it’s a sign of things to come. “Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard,” says Svaalgard.

So, solar activity is going to fall out of bed. So far so good. In the end, he outs himself as quite an alarmist warmer: “There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, making matters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”

Dr Svalgaard, I think you are placing too much faith in your feeble gas. It runs out of puff at 20 ppm.

213. UK John
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

#199

Lief, Thanks for reminding me what causes the seasons.

All our energy comes from the Sun.

I only offer one simple statistic of what I mean, it is a fairly restricted, and open to arguement, but important piece of data. In UK the observed bright sunshine hours recorded are at record levels and so is Mean and Max Temperature. The Trends match with a correlation of .85

I have my forcing factor. I have my answer.

214. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

#211

Leif

It is a matter of fact that the Earth’s atmospheric density varies by a factor of 2x or more over the solar cycle. This goes straight to the heart of spacecraft lifetime estimates that we do. Strong cycles such as cycle 21 had a dramatic effect on low earth orbiting spacecraft, including bringing down Skylab years early and conversely the International Space Station is burning much less propellant and is drifting to a much lower altitude at this time due to the dramatically lowered drag at this solar minimum, therefore there is a “sensible, measurable” influence on the atmosphere.

As for how sunspots effect climate, you know as well as everyone else, that the 11 year and many of the longer cycles have been detected by various proxies for periods extending back over a billion years, therefore there is a sensible impact on the terrestrial climate that is measurable (I am saying nothing about the magnitude of that impact, only that it is measurable, has been measured, and is therefore sensible).

Without appealing to solar activity there is no other plausible explanation for the Little Ice Age (lets leave the MWP out for a second), therefore there is at least a strong implied connection between climate and solar variability, therefore a sensible and notable effect upon the earth.

I do wonder if we are not missing something here, and it is probable that we have missed something in the solar/terrestrial dance. Going farther back in history there is the MWP, there is the cold period before that and then the Roman warm climate period. We know this from many societal records as well as from the proxy records, therefore, there must be some connection that we are missing that has periodic or aperodic nature for producing climate effects within the holocene that is not connected to our burning of fossil fuels.

I am also wondering if we are dismissing short term Milankovitch changes as immaterial. Over a thousand years or two thousand years the precession and even obliquity changes are at least an interesting input to any changes.

215. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

Tim Ball says:

November 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
[….]
The issue seems to suggest that irradiance level changes are essentially insignificant or at least overstated. I understand variations in irradiance over the short periods of record are low. As I recall for 14 years of Skylab data it was about 0.14%. I also recall years ago discussion about how you could explain all the known temperature variation in the earths history simply by varying irradiance by 6%. The assumption in this discussion seems to be that since irradiance variation is a very small figure (as a part of 100%) it cannot be significant. If 6% is even a crude approximation then it suggests a very small variance may be quite significant.

[….]

To contribute towards establishing some context, it should be noted that an approximate increase in Solar luminosity of 41 percent during the past 4.55 billion years on the Main Sequence of stellar evolution amounts to something in the neighborhood of a 9 nano-percent increase in mean Solar luminosity per century. Clearly, the short term observed variability of the Sun’s luminosity is vastly greater than the virtually imperceptible centennial increase in the Sun’s mean luminosity due to evolutionary growth. In other words, virtually all of the variability in Solar luminosity must be fluctuations around the mean evolutionary trend of Solar luminosity.

216. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

Leif; “for you cosmic ray fanatics out there” I hope you don’t mean me, I’m just listing variables!!!!! :) Seriously, I’m not a fanatic about anything, it’s just another data point in a data set.
But come on, thermometers in parking lots? Who’d be daft enough to do that?

Al Fin; the “holdouts thing” makes sense in the context of

Anyway, Lockwood et al. have now realized that and published a new series of IMF strengths that is very close to our values. The rest of the world has not caught up yet.

And you have to give him props for the “should I turn out to be correct” so I don’t think it’s fair to call him a protangonist.

Steve H; “You assumed that your sources…were accurate.” We can’t double check everything, that’s for sure. Also, check out my listing of various issues realated to ocean temps at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2469#comment-169448 As far as how close the Earth is to the Sun, it’s meaningless when the axial tilt reduces the strength of the Sun (I think they call that angle of incidence) in the NH in Jan.

Which brings up an interesting question; since it’s Summer in the SH during Jan, shouldn’t the 91 million miles plus angle warm up all that water a fair amount? Just thinkin’

Bill F; Let me kind of repeat that: If the sun 165 years ago was heating at rate X then if the level of the sun’s output hasn’t risen as much as previously thought * we are probably still heating at rate X minus the other variables that increase or decrease X (Whatever those are) So we’re simmering along and putting in more water to replace the evaporation.

* I think this is the key, rather than arguing about “the floor” and nit-picking about various aspects for a given hypothesis:

Progress in science is made by making such temporary statements, as long as they are based on sound analysis and reasonable data. Then time will tell if they were useful or advanced the field, like my 1978 claim that the suns open magnetic field had doubled in the 20th century. That was clearly wrong, but that is ok because it looked good at the time. Science is self-correcting.

217. Robinson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

Bill F; Let me kind of repeat that: If the sun 165 years ago was heating at rate X then if the level of the suns output hasnt risen as much as previously thought * we are probably still heating at rate X minus the other variables that increase or decrease X (Whatever those are) So were simmering along and putting in more water to replace the evaporation.

Well, I’m not an expert, just an interested reader, but that is the first thing that occurred to me when reading the OP.

218. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

213 UK John says:

November 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
#199

Lief, Thanks for reminding me what causes the seasons.

All our energy comes from the Sun.

No, the Sun supplies a major part of the Earth’s energy, but the gravity of the Earth and the Moon (Luna) also contribute substantial portions of the energies which energize and modulate the climates of the Earth. Gravity, in particular, energizes and facilitates the transfers of thermal energies by convection in the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

219. Anthony C
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

Like many lurkers on this site, I am educated in science (PhD, Chemistry) and somewhat undecided regarding the issue of AGW. I have spent a couple of hours reading the comments on this topic alone and I am amazed that at no point has the discussion degenerated into a deniers vs. alarmists bashing session. I haven’t encountered any other site where the level of civility and honest discussion has remained at such a high level.

220. Tim Ball
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

#200

I never said it was hundreds. I know it is thousands, although I have watched estimates of the length of the cycle vary and settle at a generally agreed 100,000 years. With your meaningless statement you have avoided answering my questions and made it appear I don’t know what I am talking about. I resent that. There has been debate over the length of full cycle that is from minimum to maximum and back to minimum eccentricity.

As far as I know the statement the orbit has remained unchanged for 150 years is simply wrong.

When I first started attending climate meetings people still objected to any inclusion of Milankovitch. Indeed it was into the 1980s before I heard a paper using Milankovitch presented without opposition. Of course, Milankovitch had presented his ideas in the 1950s but after initial acceptance was pushed aside because radiocarbon dating did not agree with the cycle. Like computer data it pushed aside ‘standard’ data because it was the new technology

I agree with #209 that this discussion is a waste. It appears to be another attempt to discredit solar data and thereby reinforce the CO2 story.

221. David Archibald
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

Editorial brevity in the New Scientist article gives the impression that Dr Svalgaard was solely responsible for developing the solar dynamo theory for sunspot cycle prediction. Coauthors of the 1978 paper were Schatten, Scherrer and Wilcox.

222. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

207:
First: The Lockwood reconstruction was flawed and has essentially been abandoned by Lockwood. He and Alexis Rouillard have an updated series [in 2007 paper] that agrees reasonably well with our reconstruction [although it is hard for him to admit it].

Second: The Solanki model was constructed and tuned to fit the now abandoned Lockwood curve [“the doubling”] and is thus not independent of it.

Third: The beryllium conversion to magnetic field strength depends on how something called the cosmic ray diffusion coefficient depends on the interplanetary field strength and its “correlation length” [basically how much it varies spatially]. These things are unknown and must be modeled, i.e. people assume a dependence and calculates what its effect will be, then compares that effect with what is observed, then pick other values and try again until a match is found. So the model was tuned to match the doubling of the IMF [that didn’t happen].

So, no wonder that the three curves agree. Now, this is a perfectly good way of doing science. Where the problem occurs, is what when the first premise [the doubling] is shown not to be factual, the rest of the edifice must be abandoned and redone. People don’t like to do this, so it takes some time to turn the boat around.

208: if can’t see what the question in #176 was. No question mark, just some statements of opinion.

209:
A detailed explanation for the general reader in given in

CAWSES – Sunspots.pdf (CAWSES Newsletter, vol 4, issue 1, 2007)

223. yorick
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

I am quite happy to wait a sunspot cycle to find out.

224. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

Robinson;

Yes, sure. My take is that you don’t have to be an expert (not specifically speaking about the Sun’s output remaining X and “X + 0 = X – ?” but in general) you just have to:

1) Be open to new ideas.
2) Parse what the other person says and think about if you’re understanding what they’re saying.
3) Make sure your own biases aren’t making you misinterpret what’s being said.
4) Realize you may not be particularly clear on your own point, especially in light of the above 3 factors.
5) Even with the same data, others may reach different conclusions than you have.
6) In matters of opinion (or temporary conclusions) not everyone is going to agree.
7) Keep it civil.

Why should “no extra heating” mean “no heating”? Or what other processing to the information from past papers needs to get done to a paper combining the results of those past papers?

225. yorick
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

Here is a paper that shows a climate response to small variations in solar irradiance:

High-resolution analyses of lake sediment from southwestern Alaska reveal cyclic variations in climate and ecosystems during the Holocene. These variations occurred with periodicities similar to those of solar activity and appear to be coherent with time series of the cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be as well as North Atlantic drift ice. Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments.

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic

226. DocMartyn
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

I don’t see how the sun can have constant output.
Now the planets and the sun all orbit around a constantly moving point of central mass. Sometimes this is long way out (when all the large plants are in a line) and sometimes within the sun radius (when the large planet are scattered about). Noe it is reasonable to suppose that the suns core is very hot and moves within the hot plasm of the middle layer of the sun. Sometimes it will be very much centrally located, at other times it will be nearer, and also further away, to the surface.
The way I imagined it was rather like the time I had to hold the fish tank on my lap when we were moving house, every now and again I got wet. There is an awlful lot of inertia involved in moving the core of the sun and it must move around the general sphere.

227. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

It seems to me that it’s rather obvious that whatever the answer is, we don’t have it yet, and that whatever the answer is, our Earth’s climate system regulates itself pretty well regardless.

Do we really need to know the details?

Note: This is a rhetorical question.

228. Goz
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

A clarification to what Tim Ball and few other said about Jupiter etc…

The Sun orbits the solar system’s centre of mass (the “barycenter”), which lies close to the centre of the Sun but is sometimes outside the area of the Sun (yes). The barycenter varies year to year based on the orbits of the planets (but mostly Jupiter) and it moves about quite a bit considering there are 8 planets with differnet orbits affecting it.

Earth orbits both the Sun and the barycentre (as it orbits the Sun), and so it’s motion, relative to open space, looks like a crazy wobbling elipse, but relative to the sun, just a plain elipse.

Great thread. I’m concerned though, that there’s been so little discussion about the affect of the 10% reduction in Earth’s magnetic field. I would have thought this would have great consequences on both solar energy & cosmic ray penetration.

229. Mike Davis
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

Leif:
Thank you for insites.

230. Sam Urbinto
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

That’s why I bring up the magnetic field, btw. It has a bearing. Where did you get the 10% figure though? And how was it derived?

231. Jan Pompe
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

Can any of you guys tell me how a simmerstat on on an electric stove works then compare that with the effect of varying irradiance of the earth (as opposed to solar radiance) due to varying solar sunspot cycle periods?

I for one don’t see that that Leif’s theory of a nearly constant TSO, is inconsistent with Judith Leans proxy model which is based on earth bound TSI proxies. PMOD vs ACRIM is irrelevant here.

232. Goz
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

Sam: Regarding the weaking magnetic field

233. Gunnar
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

>> 208: if cant see what the question in #176 was. No question mark, just some statements of opinion.

Here’s where I start to suspect that people act obtuse, just to avoid an unpleasant reality. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, being a fellow scandinavian, but I guess David A was right about you in #212. I pointed out that data and logic contradict your hypothesis, and you say “No question mark”.

234. Bruce
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

Sunspot number since 1750:

You know … when the maximum sunspot number in the last 50 years is 2x to 4x the maxmium for the Dalton and Maunder minimums, you just have to think.

235. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

212: (David A.) “In the end, he outs himself as quite an alarmist warmer: There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, making matters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the suns magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”

my next post will be a long one on 10Be, cosmic rays and aa, but let me deal with this here one first.

First, Stuart Clark [who wrote the article in NS] is not quoting me. The “dangerous flip etc” is entirely Stuart’s. My warning at the end was not quoted correctly by Stuart [that is the danger when you talk to the press]; he had asked me about the sun’s influence on climate [remember he had just gotten all that alarming stuff from Haigh and Solanki] and asked what the prospects were for the coming cycle. My answer was: “IF as many of the other people you have interviewed believe that solar cycle has a large influence, and IF the Earth cools during cycle 24 so that people say ‘hey, we are cool’, THEN when high cycles appear again, they will add to whatever we humans may have caused and we’ll really feel the heat.” That did not exactly fit the tone of his article so he left out most of my cautious qualifications.

219: (Tony) the bad-mouthed guys are just about to come out of the swamp :-) just check ahead a couple of posts.

220: (Tim) your statement “I never said it was hundreds. I know it is thousands, although I have watched estimates of the length of the cycle vary and settle at a generally agreed 100,000 years.”
seems somewhat at variance with your next statement:
“As far as I know the statement the orbit has remained unchanged for 150 years is simply wrong.”

222: (David) it is good to share the blame :-) but, in fact, it was my idea, proposed during a Friday afternoon beer bust [universities were less peevish in the 1970s]; my colleagues thought it had merit and the following Monday we fleshed it out and submitted the paper, with the authors [as you might note] in strict alphabetical order [which was common practice at the time].

229: (DocMartin) The Sun is in free fall around the barycenter of the solar system and feels no forces due to that motion, therefore no effects. Like an astronaut in orbit around the Earth also not feeling any forces. You got wet because of centrifugal forces acting on the water as you change directions abruptly facilitated by friction between the wheels and the road. No friction and you couldn’t change direction and you wouldn’t get wet. As the Sun is in free fall it feels no forces and there can thus be no friction and you don’t get wet.

236. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

Now that SteveM has split this discussion into a different thread, it should no longer be OT to discuss the issue of barycentric orbital effects on solar activity, as this issue may directly impact on the validity of Leif’s IMF-TSI floor model, and he dismissed it rather flippantly in what is now comment 46 of this thread:

128,129:
The Sun is in free fall in its orbit around the barycenter of the solar system, and [as a astronaut in free fall in orbit around the earth] does not feel any forces due to that movement. Both the Sun and the astronaut will feel tidal forces, but these are very weak (falls off as the cube of the distance) and are generally not thought to have any effect on the sun. Much has been made in the past of the closeness of Jupiters orbital period to the solar cycle, but the tidal forces from Venus are actually stronger than those from Jupiter. So, no serious astronomer [well, almost none] entertains any notions about planetary influences back on the Sun.

128: I dont think I have made any special assumptions about the Sun. Rather, I let the Sun speak for itself.

Leif’s comment about the Sun being in freefall around the barycentre of the solar system as being similar to an astrononaut being in freefall in earth orbit ignores some important facts about solar orbital motion.

The astronaut is tracing a neat low eccentricity ellipse around the earth, so there is little change in orbital speed in any part of the orbit for the astronaut to feel as an acceleration effect, so the astronaut will not notice the very smooth and subtle changes in speed throughout the orbit.

The situation is quite different regarding the orbit of the Sun around the barycentre, shown here as if the barycentre orbits around the Sun to give an idea of scale:

And shown again here as a plot of radial distance in solar radii over time:

If our astronaut was orbiting the Earth this way, he would (quite briefly) experience the effects, as on part of every orbit he would be trying to plough through it! :)

A principle of physics is that angular momentum is conserved. This means that if the angular momentum of an orbiting body changes, this energy MUST be transferred elsewhere within the system. As Solar mass is not going to change, it therefore translates as a change in velocity with associated torque effects.

Here is a plot of of the angular momentum of the Sun orbiting the Solar System Barycentre:

As you can see, the angular momentum of the Sun orbiting the Solar System Barycentre changes from around 4.5 x 10^47 to < 0 in it’s cycloid type motion around the barycentre! There is thus a huge transfer of energy within the system that must be accounted for in any examination of solar orbital dynamics and it’s potential to effect the Sun.

I look forward to Leif’s comments on this before proceeding further.

237. DocMartyn
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

#238
“229: (DocMartin) The Sun is in free fall around the barycenter of the solar system and feels no forces due to that motion, therefore no effects. Like an astronaut in orbit around the Earth also not feeling any forces. You got wet because of centrifugal forces acting on the water as you change directions abruptly facilitated by friction between the wheels and the road. No friction and you couldnt change direction and you wouldnt get wet. As the Sun is in free fall it feels no forces and there can thus be no friction and you dont get wet.”

I understand, but the barycenter is moving, and the sun is made up a layers of different density and viscosity. Surely the less dense and less viscus layers will respond more quickly to the “relative” movement of the barycenter. Indeed, like my fish tank I will make waves when I have sudden movement which dissipate with time.
I am sure it is the physical properties of the layers within the sun, responding to the alignment of the planets, which will cause standing waves and changes in the sun energy balance. The less spherical the sun, the less efficiently it will burn, but not necessary radiate.

238. DocMartyn
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

Carl Smith , could you please plot your angular momentum plot overlayed with the global temperature 1900-2006?
I had a go and it looks quite remarkable.

239. VG
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

Probably the most comprehensive up to date report of sun-climate

240. D. Patterson
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

238 Leif Svalgaard says:

November 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm

229: (DocMartin) The Sun is in free fall around the barycenter of the solar system and feels no forces due to that motion, therefore no effects. Like an astronaut in orbit around the Earth also not feeling any forces. You got wet because of centrifugal forces acting on the water as you change directions abruptly facilitated by friction between the wheels and the road. No friction and you couldnt change direction and you wouldnt get wet. As the Sun is in free fall it feels no forces and there can thus be no friction and you dont get wet.

The Solar planets do in fact exert a gravitational influence upon the Sun and its atmosphere in the form of tides. The tides at maximum on the Sun are reported to be something around 1 millimeter in height.

241. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

On barycenters: since I seem to be in charge of this topic I hereby ban discussions of effects of motions around barycenters :-)

I first violate the new rule by the following DEFINITIVE discussion. A barycenter is a completely arbitrary point. It is defined as the center-of-mass of the set of bodies that we CHOOSE to be part of the system under study. This choice is arbitrary. The Earth-Moon system has a barycenter. If I choose to consider a system consisting of the Sun and Sirius, its barycenter would be somewhere out there between the Sun and Sirius, many light-years away. I could also choose a system consisting of the Sun and Alpha Centaurus and consider the barycenter of that system, about halfway out to the star. The Sun is orbiting around billions of quadrillions (actually: zillions) of barycenters all at the same time, but feels no forces as a result as the orbiting is a free fall. The small tidal forces we shall ignore as they fall off as the cube of the distance and so dwindle to nothing. Actually, the tidal force due to Venus is as large as that due to Jupiter, but both are negligible.

One more time: a barycenter is an arbitrary point that depends on which bodies I want to consider. It has no physical meaning, but depends sole on my arbitrary choice of bodies to include in the set under consideration, and motion around this arbitrary point can therefore not have any physical effect on the Sun.

242. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

Leif wrote:

One more time: a barycenter is an arbitrary point that depends on which bodies I want to consider. It has no physical meaning, but depends sole on my arbitrary choice of bodies to include in the set under consideration, and motion around this arbitrary point can therefore not have any physical effect on the Sun.

I beg to differ.

If you were to plot the motion of the Sun through galactic space within a 3D grid of a suitable scale such that the Sun-barycentre distance was observable, the barycentre would make a near straight line through space while the Sun would be making a variable spiraling orbit about this line.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, this is having a physical effect on both the speed and direction of travel the Sun through time, therby imparting both acceleration and rotational torque effects to the Sun.

Ignoring it does not make it go away.

243. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

Leif

#244

I make no judgement about any effect but it is clear from our discovery of dozens of planets outside of our star system that the mass distribution of planets imparts a “wobble” in their orbit about the galactic center. It is this wobble that is detected (other than transits) to determine extra solar planets. The barycenter is not an arbitrary point but is the center of mass of the solar system. This is well established in the astronomy community Whether or not this has any effect on sunspots, I don’t know. There have been some interesting studies related to “Maunder Minimum conditions in other G type stars and from the literature that I have read these solar minimum conditions are common, along with long term brightness variations that we associate with the sunspot cycle.

244. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

I would dispute Carl’s graphic related to the magnitude of the CM change over time. Since the largest secondary mass in the solar system is Jupiter and it only masses 1% of the sun’s mass and all the other planets combined push this to no more than 1.5%, the calculations that I have seen only shift the system COM a few thousand miles, no where near the magnitude of what is shown in 239.

245. tetris
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

Re:211
SteveM
I must admit that from an intellectual point of view I find Leif Svalgaard’s arguments to be interesting [if not necessarily convincing].
That said, Svalgaard quoting C.A. Young’s quasi-faith-based lines of thought in 211 and closing with a “good n’solid” quote from Ecclesiastes 1:9 is a bit much.
I’m all for hearing a good argument about the sun not having anything whatsoever to do with weather/climate on planet Earth, but not on the basis of gospel.
Either pls snip or comment appropriately.

246. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

245: “Sun-barycentre distance was observable, the barycentre …”
Which barycenter? The one between the Sun and Sirius?

“acceleration and rotational torque effects to the Sun.”
That there are accelerations does not mean there are forces. If you jump off the Empire State Building, you are in free fall accelerating all the way until you hit the ground, but you will feel no forces during the fall. If you held an apple in your hand and let go, the apple would float beside you [and I don’t want to hear any nonsense about air resistance, this is a thought experiment …] as no force will try to separate you from the apple. Same thing with the plasma inside the Sun.

Hey, this is not productive. Without forces, you don’t get effects. So perhaps we have had enough. Maybe Steve M. could make a special forum just for barycenter discussions…

247. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

Leif

I ask you to look at 214 again. It is obvious that variations of solar output effect climate or it would not be detectable in the earthbound proxies (FYI the lunar soil is a major low pass filter with a time value of millions of years). Since it is detectable, there is an effect. Will you agree that we, at this time, do not know enough about the solar terrestrial connection to make a definitive statement about solar-terrestrial climate influence? I do like your work but you are being more definitive than the data allows.

248. Dennis Wingo
Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

I may be wrong in 247, I need to go back and check my old college notes and do the calculation myself but it looks exaggerated to me.

249. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

250: (Dennis) Why is this so hard? What I’m saying is that there is growing evidence that the Sun varies a lot less that thought and that IF the Sun has any influence on the climate, THEN the sensitivity of the climate to solar changes [I guess what people call the solar forcing, or maybe even radiative forcing] must be a lot larger than commonly thought and modeled. Remember, that the people running the models claim that they know what they are doing. So, the implicit thing I’m saying is that maybe they don’t.

Have I ever said that there is no solar signal? Have I ever said that there was no LIA or MWP?

and on 248: what religious interpretations? I just pointed out that the debate now does not seem different from what it was in 1896. And having said ‘nothing new under the sun’ I mused that even that phrase was thousands of years old. Religious, my ass! Your comment smacked of the same kind of sensitivities that got a poor teacher flogged in Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohamed, albeit with the opposite sign. Gimme a break.

250. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM | Permalink

248: now that I have cooled off a bit, I can ask with what justification you call Young’s comments ‘faith-based’?

251. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM | Permalink

Leif wrote:

45: Sun-barycentre distance was observable, the barycentre 
Which barycenter? The one between the Sun and Sirius?

The barycentre defined as “Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [500@0]” in the NASA-JPL Horizons Online Ephemeris: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

BTW, Dennis Wingo, point your browser at:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

Enter these settings:

Ephemeris Type [change] : VECTORS
Target Body [change] : Sun [Sol] [10]
Coordinate Origin [change] : Solar System Barycenter (SSB) [500@0]
Table Settings [change] : output units=KM-S; quantities code=1; object page=NO
Display/Output [change] : default (formatted HTML)

Click the ‘Generate Ephemeris’ button, wait a few moments while Horizons generates 50 years worth of data, and have a look at the resulting XYZ vectors in km.

Now back to Leif, who wrote:

acceleration and rotational torque effects to the Sun.
That there are accelerations does not mean there are forces. If you jump off the Empire State Building, you are in free fall accelerating all the way until you hit the ground, but you will feel no forces during the fall. If you held an apple in your hand and let go, the apple would float beside you [and I dont want to hear any nonsense about air resistance, this is a thought experiment ] as no force will try to separate you from the apple. Same thing with the plasma inside the Sun.

Hey, this is not productive. Without forces, you dont get effects. So perhaps we have had enough. Maybe Steve M. could make a special forum just for barycenter discussions

Any change in the rate of acceleration and/or direction is a force. The Sun’s orbit about the barycentre in it’s motion within the galaxy exhibits changes in both acceleration and direction, therefore forces have been applied, and effects can be expected.

Here is a plot by Dr. Landscheidt showing that changes in torque over time are a fact of life in the Sun’s orbital motion about the SS Barycentre – as a bonus it also has all the Grand Minima identified along the time line:

Original caption: Fig. 11: Time series of the unsmoothed extrema in the change of the suns orbital rotary force dT/dt for the years 1000  2250. Each time when the amplitude of a negative extremum goes below a low threshold, indicated by a dashed horizontal line, a period of exceptionally weak solar activity is observed. Two consecutive negative extrema transgressing the threshold indicate grand minima like the Maunder minimum (around 1670), the Spoerer minimum (around 1490), the Wolf minimum (around 1320), and the Norman minimum (around 1010), whereas a single extremum below the threshold goes along with events of the Dalton minimum type (around 1810 and 1170) not as severe as grand minima. So the Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2200 should be of the Maunder minimum type. As climate is closely linked to the suns activity, conditions around 2030 and 2200 should approach those of the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1670. As explained in the text, the IPCCs hypothesis of man-made global warming is not in the way of this forecast exclusively based on the suns eruptional activity. Outstanding positive extrema have a similar function as to exceptionally warm periods like the Medieval Optimum and the modern warm period.

252. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard wrote:

…IF the Sun has any influence on the climate, THEN the sensitivity of the climate to solar changes [I guess what people call the solar forcing, or maybe even radiative forcing] must be a lot larger than commonly thought and modeled.

Leif, it seems believable that CO2 forcings and solar forcings would share many feedback mechanisms. Have you (or anyone else) seen any reported evidence that CO2 would have strong positive feedback mechanisms while solar would not?

253. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM | Permalink

246: I thought that most of the extra-solar planets were discovered via transits that dim the star a little bit. For the others, we observe a wobble of the central star. But even the ones that we detect via transits also wobble, as any body in orbit about another one does. That is not the point. The Earth and the Sun both wobble around their barycenter, or rather the barycenter of the Earth and the Moon wobble around that other barycenter. But these movements, which are not in doubt, do not result in any forces and therefore no physical effects. We on the Earth don’t have to list a bit to the side when we are on one side of the barycenter and a bit to the other side when we are on the other side because the Earth is careening about the barycenter, and neither does the Sun. Can we get off the barycenter subtopic, please?

254. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:33 PM | Permalink

Leif, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, so can you please explain to me how a massive body undergoing wobbles is not experiencing forces or physical effects?

255. Posted Nov 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

254: (Carl) “The Suns orbit about the barycentre in its motion within the galaxy”. What has the Galaxy to do with this? Take away the Galaxy and the planets would still orbit the Sun the same way. Also Dennis in 246 mentioned the Galactic Center. Somehow this seems to be important. I fail to see why. Galaxy or no Galaxy, the planets would execute their merry dance unaffected.

Now, consider a binary star system with equal mass stars in circular orbits. These two stars circle the barycenter which is located halfway between them. They will circle for eternity. Their motion changes direction all the time because of acceleration due to the force of gravity which acts all the time, yet the stars are in free fall and feel no force. One can build an apparatus to measure force, it is called a weighing scale and could consist of two masses connected by a spring. Located on the stars such force-meters will show zero force all the time: the distance between the masses will not vary. Different parts of a body in free fall do not move with respect to one another, hence are not subjected to any force.

About the Figure: the Norman minimum in 1010 should just like the Maunder minimum [accepting for the argument that there is a solar signal in climate] have the same effect, but the Maunder Minimum was in the LIA and the Norman minimum was when Greenland was green. If one gets to cherry pick when it works and ignore when it don’t, it doesn’t do much for me.

255: I’m a solar physicist and know squat about the climate forcings :-) so no, I don’t know of any.

256. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:01 AM | Permalink

259: please see #252, and explain to me how you justify calling Young’s piece ‘faith-based’ and my having religious interpretations. I’m normally a mild-mannered man, but your statement is an outrage. Holocaust and all. Burning people at the stake. Now, you know how to make good, so please do.

257. tetris
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

Re:
Leif,
OT and I don’t really want to pursue this line any further. C.A. Young uses terminology such as “worshippers”. By definition to worship is to “love”, “adore”, “believe in without question”.
Old fashioned folks like me, who were brought up with and live by the fundamental tenet that scientific inquiry requires a skeptical attitude, as a matter of course in the context of any form of climate discussion are referred to as “deniers” [as in “Holocaust deniers”; a term which as a matter of on film record was coined by Mr Gore when filming AIT].
Let’s just stick to reasonably well formulated hypotheses, theories and above all, verifiable facts to confirm or falsify the argument.

258. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

257: (Carl) “please explain to me how a massive body undergoing wobbles is not experiencing forces or physical effects”

Think of Jupiter and its moons. You observe them and see the moons move back and forth. You don’t see Jupiter move because it is so massive that its movement is so much smaller. Now, think of the double star. They are equally massive so they both move back and forth. Now, slowly make on of the stars smaller and smaller. They still both move back and forth, but the little one moves more and the big one less, but still it moves. Now, at some point you can’t see the little one any longer, but you can still see the big move move a little bit, i.e. ‘wobble’. That is what goes on. At no point do inhabitants [if there could be any] on either star feel any forces. On the little one there might even be an astronomer [Coperniclaus] trying to convince people that the star was moving around the big one and having a really hard time about it, because nobody can feel any movement. Perhaps, he even fear being burned at the stake…

259. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM | Permalink

262: was it not clear that Young was mocking the fanatics a bit by calling them ‘worshippers’ by saying that maybe they should stick more to science fact rather than as worshippers be guided by their beliefs? Well, I guess not, judging from your reaction. But I can tell you that Young [from his other writings] did not in any way let faith interfere with doing science the correct way. Young was what we today would call a ‘bright’, namely a person who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. No faith there.

260. tetris
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM | Permalink

Re:263
Leif,
I can not argue with you on the astro physics: your turf.
What we do know [by way of his diaries] is that our good friend Nicholai C was very concerned indeed, about doing an rough impersonation of a candle because he chose to hold forth on facts he knew were verifable but which ran counter to the “consensus” [read R{oman} C{hurch}] of the of day.

261. Bill F
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

tetris,

I think you are reading too much into Leif’s post ending with the ecclesiastes quote. To me, I saw that whole post as a bit of tongue in cheek humor poking fun at solar physicists as much as anybody else. If the solar cycle 24 panel’s split prediction is any indication, the two camps of solar science are not much closer today than they were in 1896. The same goes for declaring a ban on barycentre discussions…I saw it as a joke on his part, as I have seen the topic argued to death elsewhere and know how tired he probably is of rehashing it everywhere.

Everywhere I have seen Leif post, he has been very cordial and accomodating of discussing various ideas, so perhaps you might reexamine his posts and see if you really think you want to get so vigorous in taking exception to what he has posted here. I personally don’t see it as warranted by what he has posted.

262. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 1:01 AM | Permalink

Here is graph of the torque resulting from the ever changing combined gravitational effects of planets as mapped via the SS Barycentre onto the Sun:

In other words, this is a plot of the force (i.e. change in angular momentum over time = torque) that Lief claims is not happening :)

If one was to do a similar plot for a binary star system such as proposed by Leif, what you would see is a straight line at 0 (circular orbits) or a small amplitude clean sinusoidal line oscillating about zero (elliptical orbits), so you can see the situation with the Sun and planets and the forces acting between them is for more complex and variable than Leif seems to want to admit.

263. Lely Kyriakopoulou
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM | Permalink

Ref. comment 74

It seems the Thames was shallower in the past and that is why it froze more. Subsequent embankments, channeling and so on have made it deeper and faster. I saw the reference in “Great Harry’s Navy” by Geoffrey Moorhouse, Phoenix Paperbacks, 2006, London, p. 48

264. Lely Kyriakopoulou
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 3:21 AM | Permalink

Geoffrey Moorhouse (Great Harry’s Navy, Phoenix Books, London, 2006, p.48) says that the Thames was wider (and shallower) in the Middle Ages and that’s why it used to freeze more easily.

265. Lely Kyriakopoulou
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 3:21 AM | Permalink

Ref. #74
Geoffrey Moorhouse (Great Harry’s Navy, Phoenix Books, London, 2006, p.48) says that the Thames was wider (and shallower) in the Middle Ages and that’s why it used to freeze more easily.

266. paul graham
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 3:49 AM | Permalink

True the thames was wider and shallower in the past; however, it froze over more often during the period 1500 – 1850 AD (mini ice age), when it was narrower and deeper. Also the old london bridge existed for hundreds of years with out causing the thames to freeze over.
The argument still stands.

267. Stephen Richards
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 4:12 AM | Permalink

Lief

Help an old fool here. Are you saying that if the sun remains at minimum for an extended period planet earth cools? Your work seems to infer this. ie there is a floor! If the sun stays at that floor?

268. David Archibald
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

Re #248, it is worse than Ecclesiastes. I think that at once stage Dr Svalgaard invoked Wittgenstein, though I can’t find the quote.

269. Andrey Levin
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 5:02 AM | Permalink

Congratulations, Leif, you managed to piss-off even Tim B.

First, while Earth and Moon are happily rotating around their barycenter, two times a day I witness two meter surge of Pacific waters. It is called tide. There also are solar tides, from way more distant Sun.

Second. Jupiter makes full rotation around Sun in 11.9 Earth years. Sounds the bell?

And what about paper of Charvatova 2000:

http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

270. Goz
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

Andrey Levin 274 writes: “Jupiter makes full rotation around Sun in 11.9 Earth years. Sounds the bell?”

11.9 years = solar cycle perisod. Thats either irrelevant or relevant?

Any studies looking at influence of Jupiters 11.9 year eliptical orbit and the solar cycle?

271. Ian Walsh
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

Hello I am a ‘fairly long time lurker’ to this great site… However this thread has irked me into posting at last.
I must say that I am no expert on solar physics, but I have as a long time amateur Astronomer read with interest the ‘goings on’ in field…. Now it seems to me that a real expert (Leif) has presented his opinion, and as an expert he can rightly expect to run rings around most (if not all) of the folk contributing here (inc.me) However there are other experts in the field of Solar physics,e.g.
The National Danish space centre,(whom surly cannot be described as less-than-expert themselves) who seem to have the view that the Sun does and can influence the climate on Earth over short and long periods. See here http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/ISAC_Final_Report.pdf
So how can there be two expert views 180 degrees apart ????

272. EW
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

#272
An uneducated guess: because of the sad and lamented fact, that solar science is not based on consensus and therefore settled?

273. Gunnar
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

>> an expert he can rightly expect to run rings around most (if not all) of the folk contributing here

Except that he didn’t know what the T in TSI referred to.

>> So how can there be two expert views 180 degrees apart ????

I think the mistake is in deciding a-priori that professors are “experts”. My experience, although anecdotal, is that only 2 out of several dozen professors I had were also really good at the “profession”. As an achievement, a Phd is not that significant. Only 2 years of work. Many people achieve far greater things during the course of their careers. That’s why people like Steve M can run rings around numerous PhDs.

And when money is funneled into science in the form of research grants, for the purpose of advancing an agenda, it attracts the wrong kind of people.

A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

274. Filippo Turturici
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

#272 and #273: “Danish” theory is more complex and deep, it does not involve just irradiance than energy output, even this is just a secondary thing to Earth’s climate: but it is based more on how Solar activity modulates the incoming flow of cosmic rays on the Earth, and then how such cosmic rays influence cloud cover (this will be proven in the next years at Geneve CERN).

275. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

272: Wittgenstein: “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen”.
(goes for you you David :-) )

273: “Congratulations, Leif, you managed to piss-off even Tim B.” ====> My pleasure…

About tides: they are not due to rotation or motion. Tides from other heavenly bodies on the Earth arise because the Earth has a finite diameter. If I expanded to Earth to a bigger size, the tides would get higher. No motion involved. Imagine that you have four balls lined up. Ball 1, 2, 3, and 4. The gravitational attraction of ball 4 on ball 1 is smaller than that on ball 2 [because 1 is further away than 2]. And that on ball 2 is smaller than that on ball 3 [for the same reason]. So the pull by 4 on 3 is larger than on 2, which is larger than the pull on 1. So ball 2 is pulled away from ball 1 and ball 3 is pulled away from ball 2, net result is that seen from ball 2, both ball 1 and ball 3 are moving [as a result of the pull] away. This is the tidal effect of ball 4 on the system of three balls 1, 2, and 3. Now, if ball 2 were rotating, an observer would once a day be under ball 1 and twelve hours later under ball 3, so the tidal effects would occur twice a day. If ball 4 now were in orbit around balls 1, 2, and 3, then during the day ball 4 would have moved a bit two, so the tidal effects on 1 and 3 seen from 2, would not occur precisely 12 hours apart but a little later, because ball 4 has moved a bit in its orbit in the meantime. But that movement [and the rotation of ball 2] does not cause the tides, only WHEN we are underneath the ‘tidal bulge’.

“Jupiter makes full rotation around Sun in 11.9 Earth years. Sounds the bell?”: the tides raised by Venus on the Sun are just as big as those raised by Jupiter [because Venus is closer to the Sun] and have a period of 225 days. I don’t hear the bell from that. Mercury and Earth raise about half the tides of Venus [and Jupiter], but I don’t hear them bells either.

271: “Are you saying that if the sun remains at minimum for an extended period planet earth cools?”. No, I’m saying precisely nothing about whether the Sun has an influence on the Earth’s climate. And I have absolutely no position on that or stake in this. I have said it now so many times that I’m beginning to wonder […]. One more time: Since solar activity seems to vary less than thought, THEN the people [other people, not me. Again: not me] claiming that solar activity has an influence on the Earth’s climate must accept that the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to solar activity must be much larger than what they are telling me that it is [remember, they model this and claim that they understand it, and draw far-reaching conclusions from that ‘understanding’].

276. Ian Walsh
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

Gunnar and Filippo

Indeed.
The point I am making is that even when you have… ‘experts’… when they are 180 Deg. apart ‘you’ still have to choose who is right. (…or less wrong) I can read a graph and it seems to me the old comment ‘yet is moves’ still applies under this circumstance, my view is that the Sun does affect climate, even if it is by an indirect means, as #275 says.

277. kim
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

The music of the spheres is playing a harmony you can’t sense, because you are blinded by the light.
=============================================================

278. kim
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

And yet, climate changes.
================

279. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

272,273,274: Science makes progress by experts at times being 180 degrees apart for stated reasons. Once you talk about “consensus” and “settled” it is no longer science. Nothing is ever settled in science.

274: about the T. It refers to two totals, 1) integrated over all wavelengths and 2) integrated of the the whole disk. Our discussion on this centered on 2), so that was why I emphasized that. And, you are correct, that it takes a long career to learn a subject. Mine spans forty years. And Gunnar, we all have to be vigilant in stopping ad-hom snide comments.

272: How many times shall I say that I never said that solar activity did not cause climate change. All I say is that since solar activity seems to vary less than previously thought [and even that is still being debated and my viewpoint is not (yet :-) ) generally accepted], THEN if there is a climate effect then the sensitivity of the climate system must be much bigger than the modelers assume [since they match a larger variability to the same climate]. This would not, in itself, be a problem in science, because science thrives on dissent [no dissent, no progress]. The problem arises when people and politicians think they know what is going on, and they don’t.

280. kim
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

It is not hard to see that the complexities that are the heat engine that is the Earth would allow for exquisite, and varying, climate sensitivities. Add in poorly understood tidal forces within the sun causing magnetic changes, and there is plenty of reason to suspect the sun as the prime driver of changes, and the manner in which it does, not understood yet.
=========================================

281. Ian Walsh
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

“272: How many times shall I say that I never said that solar activity did not cause climate change.”

Hello Leif.

Ok I accept that.

That’s what I get for ‘skimming’ all these posts to catch up… and lock on to what others may have said, you said, (grin) …

282. Douglas Hoyt
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard says:

Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].

Response:

1. The Wolf Sunspot Numbers (WSN) and Group Sunspot Numbers (GSN) are independently determined with only their means between 1876 and 1976 being forced to be equal. There is no discontinuity between WSN and GSN before 1945. If the solar diurnal variation disagrees with these two independent determinations of sunspot number, it suggests there is an inhomogeneity in the solar diurnal variation.

2. Similarly for 1895, another inhomogeneity in the solar diurnal variation must be occurring.

3. There are numerous overlapping observations of the sunspots starting around 1800 and continuing to the present. The overlaps are sufficient to get a homogeneous time series to better than 20% over this time interval.

4. The peak of solar activity can be predicted by making counts of the number of quiet days in the preceding minima (using the maximum number of days in a 1000 day window). This method works well for GSN and not so well for WSN. It suggests the GSN is the more homogeneous time series. The method predicted a peak of 120 for the last cycle.

5. Is Svalgaard suggesting that large scale variations in sunspot number such as the Dalton or Maunder Minima cannot occur? I think the evidence is strong for their occurrence.

In short, I think the evidence for the GSN numbers being homogeneous from 1800 to now is strong. Similarly, the WSN is homogeneous from 1880 to now. The solar diurnal variation does not appear to be homogeneous. Perhaps instrument changes or changes in the Earths field strength are affecting these measurements.

283. Gunnar
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

>> And Gunnar, we all have to be vigilant in stopping ad-hom snide comments.

Agreed. I take that back, I’m sorry.

I still think you should answer 176.

284. Reference
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

As sunspots are closely associated with the solar magnetic field, it would seem that the primary solar cycle is the 22 year one that corresponds to one complete field reversal cycle.

285. windansea
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

Im saying precisely nothing about whether the Sun has an influence on the Earths climate. And I have absolutely no position on that or stake in this. I have said it now so many times that Im beginning to wonder []. One more time: Since solar activity seems to vary less than thought, THEN the people [other people, not me. Again: not me] claiming that solar activity has an influence on the Earths climate must accept that the sensitivity of the Earths climate to solar activity must be much larger than what they are telling me that it is

this was quite clear to me several hundred comments ago

The problem arises when people and politicians think they know what is going on, and they dont.

you can say that again :)

286. Yorick
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

There are so many “just so” stories about things like the Thames being shallower, what is the excuse for why Paris was colder?

287. windansea
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

FYI I first saw Leif commenting at solarcycle24.com and thought it was pretty cool that a scientist of his stature would take the time to answer questions. Then he came to a Tamino thread on solar cycle 24 in which I was quoting him. He stayed for awhile but left after the usual suspects started attacking him and not the science.

He has obviously upset some apple carts, thats what good scientists do. I find his willingness to answer questions and explain his work quite laudable.

Also, the fact that Leif is a NASA solar panel member does not mean he is baking cookies with James Hansen etc.

He also has a good sense of humor and wields a very deft snark, much like our host. :)

288. a scientist
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

Thank you Douglas Hoyt for joining the discussion.

To round out the discussion, perhaps some kind geologist will point us to a recent survey of the full range of evidence for 11 year cycles preserved in the Earth. (If I read him correctly, Leif Svalgaard has suggested that such a post would be on topic.)

289. kim
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

I don’t think the signal will be that easy to find. Remember, it might only be on a time scale in which the orientation of the planets repeats itself.
=====================

290. a scientist
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

276
tides raised by Venus on the Sun are just as big as those raised by Jupiter [because Venus is closer to the Sun] and have a period of 225 days.

Might one then ask whether the Sun’s dynamics could resonate with a weak 11 year forcing cycle, while rejecting a forcing at 225 days of similar weakness?

291. UK John
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

Suns influence on Climate.

There are two places on the Planet where the Sun disappears, or shines constantly, The Artic and Antartic, all of the time at these places the rest of the Climate System, Ocean currents, Cyclones, Storms, Depressions, Anti Cyclones etc are affecting the Climate.

When the Sun goes away the sea freezes over much to the same extent each year, when the Sun returns the ice melts to different extents, depending on weather conditions and amounts of Bright Sunshine 24 hours a day.

This NH summer, there was record clear skies in the Artic and record sea ice melt, but the sea ice has now returned to where it usually is in December.

The SH had record maximum winter sea ice extent at the same time as the NH had record minimum, and I just cannot see how this occurred with the Ocean Temperature being higher than it has ever been due to AGW!

292. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

283 (Hoyt): The data shows that something changed. Either the sunspot counting (WSN or GSN, collectively SSN) or the response (rY) of the ionosphere to FUV. The third possibility, that the relation between SSN and FUV has changed, we count as less likely [why would that happen just when we start to look?]. At this point just by comparing SSN or rY, one cannot easily tell. Only by critically examining the data [and collecting more of it] can we make any headway. This is ongoing. The rY data is objective as there is no human element in the calibration. The only issue here is the quality of the old magnetograph data. This can be [and is being] checked. The SSN does have a human subjective element. If the SSN-rY change were the only issue, then we would not make the statements on TSI, but as I have repeatedly stated, there are ~6 lines of independent evidence pointing to a TSI which does not ride on top of a longer secular change.

293. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

283 (Hoyt): your point 5. Of course, Dalton and Maunder minima can occur. And WSN and GSN will tend to agree for such times. If the sunspot number is zero, multiplying it by a ‘correction factor’ will still leave it zero.

294. Stephen Richards
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

Note what Lief is trying to get across. He has made his measurements and has accepted that the instruments with which he made the measurements have limitations. Within those limitations he arrived at some very controversial, but never the less well considered, conclusions. The most controversial conclusion being that the TREND of irradiance (Lief please correct me if I’m being silly) has been close to zero for ~ 150years. Therefore, and this is the big issue, if the sun is a major facture in climate change then the climates sensitivity to the irradiance of our sun must be high, ie highly sensitive. Now that could be REALLY important because it would suggest that even a mimimal variation in solar irradiation could have a significant effect on all the planets, YES??

295. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

228 (Goz): “Earth orbits both the Sun and the barycentre (as it orbits the Sun)”.
No, the barycenter does not orbit the Sun, the Sun and the Earth both orbit the barycenter. But, please, enough of the barycenter stuff.

296. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

296: (Richard) is right on. Amazing that it has taken 300 posts to get that across [not to him, he got it]. And, the issue of the long-term trend is still being researched and debated, but consider this blog as a heads-up.

297. Larry
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

296, that doesn’t follow, unless you assume that the climate feedback for solar is way different from the feedback for greenhouse. Only with that, can you even attempt to explain the dog-leg GMT curve for the 20th century.

298. Stephen Richards
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

Larry

I’m Not being critical here but all of the temperature records against which we are making our judgements are somewhat suspect. Steve MC and Mr Pete have spent many hours investigating cups of Starbuck and BCPs in trying to come to some conclusions on proxy measures and we know from Anthony Watt’s work that the Land surface measuring stations are not of the highest quality, the Dr H work with his hockey team has totally distorted the temperature records for the last 30 years. Lief’s work is in it’s early stages, I suspect, but could actually end up shooting AGW down in flames or even the opposite. He has been totally open with us here and we need to examen his work, understand it as best we can by asking him searching questions. He is quite clearly prepared for an open debate so let’s use him and not abuse him. AND THAT IS NOT AIMED AT Larry.!!! :) :)

299. Anthony C
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

A couple of points.

1. re: 296 ‘Therefore, and this is the big issue, if the sun is a major facture in climate change then the climates sensitivity to the irradiance of our sun must be high, ie highly sensitive. Now that could be REALLY important because it would suggest that even a mimimal variation in solar irradiation could have a significant effect on all the planets, YES??’

This is what I understood from Leif’s original article. Presupposing that Leif’s conclusion from his research is correct, then this point is critical. Can anybody enlighten me as to what is the current state of understanding as to just how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to solar irradiance?

2. re: the following link, which has posted at least a couple of times:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/ISAC_Final_Report.pdf

The diagram on page 81 entitled ‘Radiative Forcing Components’ gives values for solar irradiance of 0.12 W/m2 and for carbon dioxide of 1.66 W/m2. What is the significance of these two values in terms of effects on global temperatures?

My apologies if these questions are either off-topic or answered comprehensively elsewhere.

300. Larry
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

300, all I’m doing is pointing out the obvious, which is that we have more puzzle pieces than places for them. If you assume that to a first approximation that solar output has been constant over the past 150 years, you don’t have a neat solar explanation for the surface record, but you don’t have a neat greenhouse explanation, either. You could concoct a convoluted theory about aerosols masking the greenhouse effect mid-century, but that doesn’t fit very well, either. The truth is, nothing fits very well, and something, probably several somethings, have to give. Which makes getting the surface data right all the more important, and makes the hockey stick all the more suspect.

I don’t think people like all of this ambiguity, and would rather have a neater-than-possible answer like the HS, but thats not what we’re going to get if we’re honest with ourselves.

301. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

300, 301: now we are beginning to make progress. I imagined that we would get to this point eventually. Didn’t know it would take 300 posts [I had estimated 30]. Thanks everybody.

302. Carl Wolk
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

Solar winds around the Earth block cosmic rays from entering the atmosphere.
The intensity of solar winds is closely tied to TSI (and even if it isn’t, my argument still holds true).
When cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they react and liberate electrons that go on to act as a catalyst for cloud formation. This is especially apparent in low altitude cloud-cover, creating a large forcing on the Earth that is still being investigated. See Henrik Svensmark’s work at: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
When cosmic rays react with the atmosphere, the atmosphere releases Carbon-14, and thus we can measure changes in cosmic ray flux into the atmosphere (and thus, the intensity of solar winds) using a proxy that does not require the understanding of various solar mechanisms:

So, at least the intensity of solar winds have changed, and because TSI’s direct warming effect on the Earth is so small, it is irrelevant, so long as we have this data that shows solar winds (the only part of Solar Irradiance that could have a significant impact on the temperature of the Earth) are the strongest they have been for a very long time.

303. Anthony C
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

Leif

I have never previously contributed to sites relating to this area and have been seriously put off from doing so by reading blogs such as ‘realclimate’ and ‘open mind’, which, amazingly, seem to be chock full of ‘scientists’ who are 100% sure the science is settled and that they know what the correct conclusions are and that any deviations from the truth suggests a close political alignment with the very worst characters from history. Please take it as a compliment when I say thank you for your willingness to discuss such matters with laymen like myself. I have no idea where you stand on the politics of this issue, nor do I think it is germane. All I would like is try to understand the science much more than my present state of ignorance. So, if anyone can help me with the points I posted in 301, I’d appreciate it!

304. windansea
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

If you assume that to a first approximation that solar output has been constant over the past 150 years, you dont have a neat solar explanation for the surface record, but you dont have a neat greenhouse explanation, either. You could concoct a convoluted theory about aerosols masking the greenhouse effect mid-century, but that doesnt fit very well, either. The truth is, nothing fits very well, and something, probably several somethings, have to give.

yep, at first I tried to fight off Leif’s theories, but now I think they are looking like a nice big monkey wrench about to be tossed into the climate science machine.

305. windansea
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

interesting, the thread on S&W at Real Climate

Those looking for a bit of fun might want to read the recent CA post on S+W 2007, beginning with Svalgaards first comment at about #65. The writhings of the solarphiles are a sight to behold. McIntyre doesnt sound too happy himself, which I suppose is understandable given that so much of his support base is composed of people who *know* that it just has to be the sun. Of course if Svalgaard is correct (and BTW he seems to have a lot of support from other solar physicists), there may be some unsalubrious implications for McIntyres own efforts to plump up the MWP and LIA.

Comment by Steve Bloom

yep, Stevie Mc is unhappy, that’s why he’s started 2 posts with quotes by Leif :)

Scafetta joins the fray at comment 103

306. Larry
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

306, what do you expect?

307. windansea
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

what do you expect?

I think AGW drones like Bloom have not thought this through, they think Leif’s work refutes any solar forcing of climate and makes the case for GHG theory stronger. Not necessarily the case.

308. Mike Rankin
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard,

First,I would like to thank you for appearing here and sharing your research. Secondly I commend you for your sticking on topic and not rushing off in a huff when your views are questioned/challenged. Thirdly, you have pointedly avoided opinions outside your speciality.

I have seen reports that other planets / moons may be showing signs of warming. Presumably this could be from their common source. Do have knowledge of this or care to share your thoughts?

309. Bill F
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

Any bets on now many posts it takes before RC starts censoring Scafetta’s comments because they can’t come up with a response to his arguments?

310. Larry
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

308, again what do you expect? I think there were a few “solarphiles” who reacted viscerally, but the majority of the reaction was curiosity, and musing over the ramifications. And that “unhappiness” on Steve M’s part was completely imaginary.

And as you say, the fact that he may be stepping on his own crank by celebrating seemed to go right over his head.

311. Mhaze
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

Two questions:

1. If solar has been constant for 150 years, how did we manage to come out of a little ice age?

2. Lief has mentioned that climate sensitivity could be much higher than previously presumed. What relation if any does climate sensitivity used in the context of solar forcing have to do with climate sensitivity as used with Co2 doubling?

312. hengav
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

Too cold in Cowtown to go out and play today. Many a forecast calling for a brutally cold winter akin to 1996 when a -40C cloud hung over Saskatchewan. BRRH!

If I was to condense what I may have learned today from this thread:

The orbit of the earth and the baseline “output” of the sun are generally normal for the past 150 years, yet we have seen fluctuations in GMT over that time period.
The IPCC report is correct in the magnitude of baseline TSI but underestimates the sensitivity of the climate to small fluctuations.
Solar winds may play a role in cloud cover. We are currently in a period of low (no) sunspot activity.

If I am wrong or over simplifying please comment.

313. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

303
If this is true – changes in solar wind would effect the nucleation of water vapor. An increase in cosmic rays could increase the nucleation and hasten the return of water as precipitation, thus at a lower altitude, thus reducing the amount of heat pumped to the higher atmosphere. A decrease in cosmic rays would have the opposite effect and increase the loss of heat. I have no idea if this change is significant. My hunch is that the papers showing rainfall/river-flow changes related to sunspots may be driven by modulation of nucleation by cosmic rays?

The type and shape of ice crystal might also be effected by cosmic rays, and the type and shape might effect reflectivity.

I’ve wondered if solar storms may modulate the amount of solar dust that reaches the earth?

Is it possible that cosmic rays may vary significantly on their own over time?

314. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

#249

250: (Dennis) Why is this so hard? What Im saying is that there is growing evidence that the Sun varies a lot less that thought and that IF the Sun has any influence on the climate, THEN the sensitivity of the climate to solar changes [I guess what people call the solar forcing, or maybe even radiative forcing] must be a lot larger than commonly thought and modeled. Remember, that the people running the models claim that they know what they are doing. So, the implicit thing Im saying is that maybe they dont.

Ok, I just wanted to make absolutely sure what you were talking about.

A. I can take your word for it for now that the Sun varies less than what many assume and do my own research as time allows.

b. Also, that it follows that since there is definitive evidence that the smaller solar variation does have an impact on climate, that there are factors that indicate that there are solar/terrestrial climate linkages that we do not as of yet understand.

This is my opinion as well. I just don’t want folks on one side of the equation (as has been linked already from RC) to cite A from you without also including B as the logical follow on.

#276

About tides: they are not due to rotation or motion. Tides from other heavenly bodies on the Earth arise because the Earth has a finite diameter. If I expanded to Earth to a bigger size, the tides would get higher. No motion involved. Imagine that you have four balls lined up. Ball 1, 2, 3, and 4. The gravitational attraction of ball 4 on ball 1 is smaller than that on ball 2 [because 1 is further away than 2]. And that on ball 2 is smaller than that on ball 3 [for the same reason]. So the pull by 4 on 3 is larger than on 2, which is larger than the pull on 1. So ball 2 is pulled away from ball 1 and ball 3 is pulled away from ball 2, net result is that seen from ball 2, both ball 1 and ball 3 are moving [as a result of the pull] away. This is the tidal effect of ball 4 on the system of three balls 1, 2, and 3. Now, if ball 2 were rotating, an observer would once a day be under ball 1 and twelve hours later under ball 3, so the tidal effects would occur twice a day. If ball 4 now were in orbit around balls 1, 2, and 3, then during the day ball 4 would have moved a bit two, so the tidal effects on 1 and 3 seen from 2, would not occur precisely 12 hours apart but a little later, because ball 4 has moved a bit in its orbit in the meantime. But that movement [and the rotation of ball 2] does not cause the tides, only WHEN we are underneath the tidal bulge.

Now this one I am not in agreement on. The tides that originate from lunar and solar gravitational fields have nothing to do with the size of the earth but the magnitude of the gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun based upon their size. If the Moon had twice the mass the tides would be twice as strong as gravity works on the inverse square law. The magnitude of the change in the Earth/Moon total gravitational potential is measureable on the Earth’s surface. I have actually measured these forces as I have designed experiments that have flown on the Space Shuttle to measure the microgravity environment. These instruments that I built can measure gravitational changes as small as one microgee or 1 x 10-7g. The magnitude of the Moon’s gravitational pull at the Earth’s surface is roughtly 3 x 10-4 g (G being 1 Earth gravity equivalent). Our instruments can “track” the gravitational pull of the Moon around the Earth and as well the difference in the gravitational field of the Sun due to the differing distance between the Earth and Sun on a daily basis as well as throughout the year.

The tides are generated by this change in gravitational potential energy between the three bodies. This is also shown in our calibration of our microgravity experiments as the North American continent lifts by approximately 2 inches when the Moon passes over. These are forces and they are measurable and they do cause the ocean tides. A spring tide is when the solar and lunar gravitational fields are in sync and a neap tide when the Moon and Sun are at a 90 degree angle and partially canceling each other.

What I can see in the sun is that the tides caused by Jupiter and the other planets shift the convection currents deep in the zone where fusion actually takes place. Fusion does not happen in the center of the Sun anymore as after 4.5 billion years there is already a significant “ash” buildup of Helium and other elements. The energy generated by a fusion reaction takes somewhere around 5 million years to actually reach the surface of the star, through radiation and convection. I can see that the varying gravitational potential imposed on the sun will alter the convection currents. This variation probably is very small as the alignment for maximum effect is very short lived. Whether this drives the sunspot cycle or not I have no idea but it is not correct to assert that there are no net forces involved here.

If the Earth was bigger the tide would be bigger only in proportion to the Earth’s surface being physically closer to the Moon. The Earth would have to be much bigger for their to be much of an effect on tides.

These forces act on satellites as well and cause the precession of the orbit called the precession of the right ascension, which is the position where a spacecraft crosses the equator that moves west over time. Solar and Lunar gravitational torques are also what cause GEO spacecraft to need fuel to keep themselves in GEO orbit. The magnitude of these forces are pretty high causing a net force of tens of meters per second of velocity change per year.

You are playing in my ballpark now.

315. Carl Wolk
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

#314
My point is that c-14 can be used as a proxy for solar winds, and by extension probably TSI. Changes in C-14 levels have shown to be very extreme, and changes in low-alititude cloud-cover may account for (without the inclusion of albedo) a signifcant amount of warming that we have seen. According to Svensmark, “For a variation in cloud cover of 3 % during an average 11-year solar cycle a crude estimate of this effect is 0.8 to 1.7 W/m2. This is a very significant amount compared to the total radiative forcing of the increase in the concentration of CO2 since 1750 which is estimated to 1.5 W/m2 (IPCC, 1995).”
Therefore, at least the effect of fluctuations in the intensity of solar winds (and likely TSI) is dramatic.

316. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

313: the IPCC report has TSI too low by 0.5 W/m^2 before 1950.

317. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

The tides that originate from lunar and solar gravitational fields have nothing to do with the size of the earth but the magnitude of the gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun based upon their size.

I should have ended that sentence with the word mass, not size.

318. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

315 (Dennis): I’m in your ballpark now, so things should be familiar. If not, then instead of me typing in pages of explanation you can use that wonderful resource called Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

Anyway, I said that the tidal force, F, depends on the diameter of the Earth. The precise formula is F = GMmD/R^3 in more or less standard notation [well known in you ballpark], where D is the diameter of the Earth. Now, this is somewhat at variance with your statement that “The tides that originate from lunar and solar gravitational fields have nothing to do with the size of the earth”, but often people can be so expert in their field [ballpark] that they cannot see the forest for the trees. I had hoped that my example with the 4 balls was crystal clear, but unfortunately I was wrong. It is clear, but way too clear because it demands of you that you actually read and think about it, instead of what people just do 90% of the time, namely skim and roll their eyes if the text is more than three lines long. Of course, the tides also depend on the masses [M and m], but that was so obvious, that it should go without saying. The diameter thing, however, assumes that you have an intuitive feel for the physics [can see the forest], which [I admit] not even experts may always have.
Now, it is time to get off this tide/barycenter thing because it is not advancing the understanding of solar activity. Or, should I say, does not enhance my understanding. If other people feel that it helps them, good for them, but please don’t burden me with it, because it saps valuable time, that I don’t always have.

319. maksimovich
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

re 303

So, at least the intensity of solar winds have changed, and because TSIs direct warming effect on the Earth is so small, it is irrelevant, so long as we have this data that shows solar winds (the only part of Solar Irradiance that could have a significant impact on the temperature of the Earth) are the strongest they have been for a very long time.

This is indeed the “fly in the ointment”

Abstract. The cyclic evolution of the heliospheric plasma parameters is related to the time-dependent boundary conditions in the solar corona. “Minimal” coronal configurations correspond to the regular appearance
of the tenuous, but hot and fast plasma streams from the large polar
coronal holes. The denser, but cooler and slower solar wind is adjacent to
coronal streamers. Irregular dynamic manifestations are present in the corona and the solar wind everywhere and always. They follow the solar
activity cycle rather well. Because of this, the direct and indirect solar
wind measurements demonstrate clear variations in space and time
according to the minimal, intermediate and maximal conditions of the
cycles.
The average solar wind density, velocity and temperature measured at the Earth’s orbit show specific decadal variations and trends, which are of the order of the first tens per cent during the last three solar cycles.Statistical, spectral and correlation characteristics of the solar wind are reviewed with the emphasis on the cycles.

I. S. Veselovsky 2000

Solar cycles are clearly seen in the energy, momentum and mass fluxes of the solar wind. The Sun as a star emits by a factor of 1.52 more solar wind mass and energy during solar minima in comparison with solar maxima years. Moreover, the overall rising trend of the same order of magnitude during the past 30 years can be marked

Indeed as we see from Dr Svalgaards assumptions from a numerical analysis of the “long term trends” in EUV which imply a “steady state”(and he is correct if we use f10.7 as a proxy)this is of couuse all it tells us.

If we look at seasonal trends in EUV,or indeed the instantaneous response to anomalies say in the ionospheric e layer we see differentials with f10.7.

Abstract
The ionospheric electron concentration near E-layer maximum varies with solar activity presumably due to variations of EUV fluxes in the lines 97.7 and 102.6 nm and soft X-ray (0.110 nm) emission. The scale of variations of these fluxes during a solar activity cycle is different for EUV ( 2×) and X-ray ( 5×) emission. The relative contribution R = qx/qu of EUV and soft X-ray emission into an ionization rate q near the E-layer maximum varies with a season and a latitude: R 0.16 near the equator at all seasons, but in the middle ( 50°) latitudes it varies from R 0.08 in winter to R 0.32 in summer. It results in the fact, that a dependence of E-layer critical frequencies foE on the solar activity level is remarkably different for summer and winter in the middle latitudes, and also differs for low, mid and high latitudes. In linear approximation the slope in equation for foE dependence on F10.7 activity index may differ by 20% for summer and winter and for low and middle latitudes. Up to the present time this effect has not been taken into account in existing semi-empirical models. A simple analytical formula is proposed, which is in style of IRI model, with purpose to take into account this effect.

This of course does not change the overall trend as the e-layer agrees overall with f10.7 with the euv trend.

But that is not the qualitative analysis which is sought,What is sought is the atmospheric/climatic response to high energy fluxes at any time,and what proportion is attributable to natural variation,and what is the anthropogenic component.

This is overlooked by many commentators,(and I think Dr Svalgaard brings some objective arguments to the table)but what needs to be understood is our limitations due to the absence of suitable measurement and instrumentation over suitable time periods,and uncertainties and unknowns

320. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

Leif

#319

I am just trying to get to a position where we are at least talking about the same thing.

For a given (externally generated) gravitational field, the tidal acceleration at a point with respect to a body is obtained by vectorially subtracting the gravitational acceleration at the center of the body from the actual gravitational acceleration at the point. Correspondingly, the term tidal force is used to describe the forces due to tidal acceleration. Note that for these purposes the only gravitational field considered is the external one; the gravitational field of the body (as shown in the graphic) is not relevant.

It is the external gravitational field that is important.

If the earth was double the size that it is 12,756, rather than 6378 it would only be 6378 km closer to the Moon than the standard 385,000 km. That is only 2% closer.

The tide is dependent on the mass of the external body over the distance squared.

The statement that I did not like is that you said that there were no net forces due to the motion involved when that is absolutely not the case. The motion causes the force as it changes the gravitational potential over the point as it orbits above that point. It is the motion that changes the vector sum of the gravitational fields at the surface point being measured.

321. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

Not that I have not had a great deal of enjoyment from skimming over these posts, but think of this:

Pan. Stove burner. The flames create enough heat to keep the water at 212 F.

What is the rate of change in the water’s temperature? Does that mean the flame has no effect upon the water (indirectly, one hopes) or that the flame doesn’t vary? How much and in what ways?

But wait. What is the temperature of the environment? What is the humidity of the environment? What about the evaporation of the water in the pan related to the temperature and humidity of the environment? Consider that when the water evaporates, at whatever rate, do we put in more water that’s 212 F, 100 F, 35 F, or ?. How long does it take to reach an equilibrium of 212 F again, taking into account the addition of water to replenish it. What if we throw in ice to keep the water level from boiling away?

Ah, sorry. Forgot to mention the size of the pan. Does it hold 2 tablespoons or 137 trillion giga-gallons of water?

Doesn’t matter. I just picked up the pan and tossed the water into the sun.

322. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

321: (Dennis) The force is proportional to the mass over the distance cubed times the diameter. To spare me typing an explanation, I’m pasting in the Wiki stuff. For a better rendiation go to the page:

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that a particle of mass m a distance r from the center of a sphere of mass M feels a force of:

\vec F_g = – \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{M m}{r^2},

where \hat r is a unit vector pointing from the body M to the particle m.

Extending the description of m to a small body with spatial extent, suppose that R is the inter-object distance — the distance from the center of M to the center of m, and let ∆r be the radius of m in the direction pointing towards M. Hence the points on the surface of m are located at distance r = R \pm \Delta r from the centre of M. Using the above equation, and ignoring the small contribution due to m’s own mass, we have the gravitational force at these points as:

\vec F_g = – \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{M m}{(R \pm ∆r)^2}

Pulling out the R² term from the denominator gives:

\vec F_g = – \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{M m}{R^2} ~ \frac{1}{(1 \pm ∆r/ R)^2}

The Maclaurin series of 1/(1 + x)² is 1 – 2 x + 3 x² – …, which gives a series expansion of:

\vec F_g = – \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{M m}{R^2} \pm \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{2 M m }{R^2} ~ \frac{∆r}{R} \mp …

The first term is the traditional gravitational force; all other terms are tidal force terms. Generally, the first is much more significant than the other terms, giving:

\vec F_t \approx \hat r ~ G ~ \frac{2 M m }{R^2} ~ \frac{∆r}{R}

Why do you force me to do this? Why do you not just go to the page? [you did, but ignored the important stuff]. If the Earth were to double in size [∆r were to double, F would double, as per the above formula, and more importantly per the simple example of my four balls]. I think that it is not that you can’t see the forest for the trees, it is that you smacked your head into the nearest tree and you can’t see squat :-)

323. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

320 maksimovich

Thank you for posting these additional references.

324. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

Oh yes, right, thanks goz. The 10% magnetic field reduction in the last 150 years. Might be an issue, or might be just a bit of an excursion.

Instead, the weakening, measured since 1845, could represent little more than an “excursion,” or lull, which can last for hundreds of years, said John Tarduno of the University of Rochester.

So much to consider.

325. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

321 again: I thought that force causes motion, not that motion causes force. Anyway, the barycenter stuff is not about tides. Tidal forces are indeed forces, but are absolutely minute on the Sun, and each planet causes it own teeny-tiny tidal bulge on the Sun, all with different periods, and people looking for these periods in solar data don’t find them [to be statistically significant]. When this was first looked at in England in the 19th century a clear signal [at Jupiter’s period] was found and published with great fanfare. The fanfare was significantly smaller a bit later when they had to retract the paper, because as they delicately put it: “the person to whom the numerical work was entrusted did not deal candidly with the figures”. Cooking the data by zealots is apparently nothing new. And, I’ll not quote the Bible on this :-) [although I could…]

326. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

325 (Sam): and Tarduno, the weakening of the Earth’s field is not just since 1845, but started 2000 years ago at least, when the field was 35% stronger than today.

327. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

I’m not personally familiar with anything earlier than a few decades ago, so what was going on circa 1850 is quite beyond me.

As long as the sun doesn’t run out of fuel before we do, I’m perfectly content with whatever the specifics are.

328. hengav
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

#317

Thanks. Has this lower pre-1950 number acknowledged, argued, or altered in the world of solar physics since the IPCC report was released?

329. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

#323

I and you know what the equations say but you are not getting the visualization of what this means I don’t think. It is not really worth discussing in this context except for the statement that there the offset of the CM of the solar system does not have an impact on the interior of the Sun. It is clear on the earth that the motion of the Moon above the Earth does impart a gravitational acceleration, one that is measurable, and in the instance of the Earth, actually lifts the continent and lifts the water of the oceans in such a way as to create the tides. The same thing is true in the Sun but the consequence of the shift of the center of mass is different. Since convection is driven by gravity and heat transfer it is logical to posit that as the center of mass shifts the magnitude of the convection shifts in response. The magnitude of this shift? Heck if I know, and it would be an interesting study to calculate but we probably don’t have the base theory of convection of an electrically charged plasma to do anything but wild assed guesses. That being said, you cannot make the statement that it these forces cannot have any effect on the convection layer inside the Sun. Nor can anyone make any kind of definitive statements about how these forces effect the overall output of the sun.

An interesting study that we cannot do today but will be enabled within the next fifty years is to directly measure the sunspot cycles of nearby G class stars and then after we are able to optically determine the number of planets within that star system, correlate the mass shifts to the planets to their sunspot cycles. If there is a correlation of these other planetary systems then we can then say that the solar sunspot cycle is definitively linked to Jupiter.

Until then it is all argument.

330. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

329: it is being argued. There will be poster presentations at AGU in December, and it has been presented at a couple of conferences, but is very new and, as I have said, it will take at least a decade to turn the ship around. There have been other solar physicists coming to the same conclusion using helioseismological data. Search for “Goode” on this blog and you’ll find references.

331. Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

330 (Dennis said): “I and you know what the equations say”.
I think that your previous posts show clearly that you do NOT know what the equations say. F. ex. you said that a doubling of the Earth’s radius would only increase the tides by 2%, but the equations say 100%. So, you have some homework to do first. Come back to this topic when you have seen the light: that the tides depend on the diameter over the distance cubed [and the mass, of course]. And that forces cause motion, not that motion causes forces. Because if we cannot agree on this, there is no common basis for meaningful discussion…

332. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 1, 2007 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

I’ll be very very interested in what everyone has to say on February 12th 2013.

333. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

303 (Carl): Your graph of Carbon 14 is one that has been produced. Just like with the temperature proxies (Mann, Moberg, what-have-you), there are several reconstructions of the cosmic ray parameters. Here are my favorite 14C (Muescheler) and 10Be (Gonzales-Lopez) graphs:

Note how the maxima 200 and 400 years ago exceed the modern maximum contrary to on your graph. Moral: pick the graph you like and present that as the only “truth”.

I’ll be commenting on the graphs in a later post.

334. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:41 AM | Permalink

333 (Sam): apart from minor planet 482 Petrina being in Conjunction to the Sun on 13th Feb. 2013, what’s so special about that day?

335. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:43 AM | Permalink

335: grrrr.. Feb. 12th.

336. Reference
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

There are only two inputs of energy to the Earth’s climate system: Solar and Geothermal. The sources of these inputs are deep in their respective body cores so energy transmission is a slow process whereby photons random walk their way through immense quantities of mass, truly immense in the case of the Sun. The time for photons to diffuse from the core to the surface is of the order of millions of years, so this may explain why there is little short term variation in TSI. Regarding Geothermal energy, has any variation in heat flux been measured?

337. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:30 AM | Permalink

337 (Reference): while true that it takes a long time (250,000 years) for a photon to make its way from the solar core to the surface, the Sun has a more efficient way of getting the energy out: in the outer 25% or so of the Sun, energy transport is not by radiation, but by convection and that takes only a few months to get out, so if there are processes [e.g. electromagnetic induction, amplification of magnetic fields] that can vary the output on much shorter time scales.

338. Douglas Hoyt
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

As I recall, the solar diurnal variation was measured starting in the Maunder Minimum and continued through at least the ninenteenth century and it did not vary much or people would have commented on it. I don’t think the solar diurnal variation is a good proxy for sunspot number.

Also didn’t Solanki independently confirm that the group sunspot numbers are a better measure of secular solar changes than the Wolf sunspot numbers.

339. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

339 (Hoyt): The solar diurnal variation was discovered in 1722 [by Graham] and first measured accurately in the 1740s [by Hiorter, Celsius’ assistant and son-in-law, IIRC]. Accurate measurements continue to the present day. There is a little technical detail that is important: originally they measured the variation of the magnetic Declination, D, [how much the compass needle deviates from true North]. This is not the quantity that is determined by solar Far UltraViolet [FUV]. The correct quantity to use is the so-called ‘East component’, Y, of the horizontal force, which however can be calculated from the Declination according to Y = H sin(D), where H is the total horizontal component. Differentiating one gets dY = H cos(D) dD [as the variation of H is small]. The reason dY has anything to do with the Sun is that solar FUV creates and maintains the E-layer [at 110 km height] of the ionosphere. The ionization persists as long as the Sun shines over a given location, so is practically fixed in relation to the direction to the Sun. Thermal winds and tides move the ions across geomagnetic field lines and create by dynamo action two [electric] current vortices, one in each hemisphere. As the Earth rotates under this fixed-in-space current, a [very regular] magnetic perturbation [of order of 10 arc minutes; I call it rY for ‘range of Y during the day’] results which is easily measured by magnetometers on the ground [even in the 1720s]. There is a VERY good relationship between the size of this perturbation and the amount of FUV incident on the ionosphere. Now, granted that FUV is not the sunspot number, there is also a VERY good relationship between FUV and the SSN. It is this relation that allows us to estimate the SSN given rY. But, of course, what we really measure is FUV and you might contend [we hold it unlikely] that the physical relationship between FUV and SSN changes in lockstep with changes of observers of the SSN.
You can find more at http://www.leif.org/research (Look for “CAWSES”).
I think we have a very simple and direct physical link or process here that connects FUV (and thus SSN) with rY. What Solanki did was model-dependent. The FUV(SSN)-rY link is based on well-known ionospheric physics.

340. a scientist
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

334
Moral: pick the graph you like and present that as the only truth.

Many readers have been impressed by your focus on the science, and the fact that you generally do not impugn the motives of other contributors.

No one is perfect, but the statement above gets in the way of your message.

I for one will be very interested in your substantive comments on the C-14 data, and am hoping you will adhere to your earlier tone.

341. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

341: well, the graph in question was presented as something given and not as a discussion point. Had the poster shown the graph and asked for my comments on it, I would have reacted differently. But, in general, you are correct that the tone must be kept civil. You may, actually, assume that I did not intend to impugn on anybody’s ‘motive’, but just on the fact that there are several reconstructions and they are all open to criticism. But, I have again and again found how hypersensitive the folks are [‘tetris’ comes to mind] Maybe I should have put a smiley :-) next to my ‘moral: …’ blurb, but is is burdensome to constantly have to remind people that my posts are not meant as derogatory, demeaning, combative, moralizing, better-knowing, etc. Y’all can take that as a given from now on.

342. pochas
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

#340 Leif:

Has anyone tried to correlate rY with temperature, or any of the temperature proxies?

343. Steve McIntyre
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

#334. Leif, I’d be interested in a post on the solar proxies. I was surprised by the sensitivity of the C14 reconstruction to seemingly arbitrary smoothing decisions for example: see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=299 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=295 where I made quick looks, but have not examined the issues in detail.

344. Jim Clarke
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

Leif,

Thank you for your patience and good nature in explaining all of this.

In a parallel thread we are discussing the historical undercount of tropical cyclones. There are many good reasons why observers likely missed many of the smaller and more distant storms of the past, as well as the peak intensity of storms that were recorded. In your work, you indicate that observers missed up to 40% of the sun spots 112-165 years ago! Is there a reason why so many of the sunspots were missed? I was under the impression that observing and recording sunspots has been a fairly straightforward process for hundreds of years, (although I have never tried to do it myself).

The 2007 hurricane season has also reminded us that the number of tropical cyclones is not always a good indication of the overall energy of the season. While the number of named storms was well above average this year, the total energy of those storms was the lowest in 30 years! There is no one-to-one correspondence between the number of tropical cyclones and the overall intensity of the season. Do similar variables exist with sunspots? Is it possible that the missed sunspots of the past were generally smaller ones that would have a minimal impact in the sun/earth climate equation? Is it possible to get a lot of sunspots producing less of a flux in luminosity and solar wind then fewer, more potent sunspots? Should these things be considered when examining any possible links between the sun and climate changes?

345. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

334 (Steve Mc): maybe the solar stuff is not that different from the temperature stuff. It is all about people in the end. We also had an issue with Nature several years ago. Back in 2002 I discovered that Lockwood’s reconstruction was flawed and wrote a Letter to Nature pointing this out. After a long debate with the referee and Lockwood, Nature stuck us with the same nonsense that we should shorten the text to a Brief Comm. And of course, if you can’t get your point across in a Letter, you have even less chance with a Brief Comm. So in the end, they rejected the whole thing on the argument that we had not made our case. Lockwood managed to be a referee on several later papers that we submitted to other journals about the same thing, and only in 2007 [after a five-year struggle] did we get the result published [in JGR]. At that time, Lockwood and company had seen the light that the aa-index which they used were flawed and their ad-hoc use of the Sargent Recurrence Index didn’t work universally, and have superseded their reconstruction with a new one that is much closer to ours, but without given us credit for pointing out that aa and their old method was flawed; rather they quote one of their own [submitted in Feb. 2006 and not yet published] papers as the source of the discovery of the problem with aa. So, science is very much a human and social process with all the warts and pettiness of the human condition that everything else have. I have noted before that it takes a decade “to turn the ship around” so we just have to keep at it and endure the abuse. In the end, things will work themselves out and people will wonder why everybody was so hot under the collar.

I am going to post extensively on all of this, but I have some time constraints [AGU for one] and also have to deal with the tidal/barycenter crowd. Now, it has always been my policy in my life to be patient and straightforward and try my very best to explain the science to the best of my ability, no matter how difficult people are. This I take as a duty towards that society that supports my research. Ok, enough of this self-glorying stuff :-)

It is, in fact, useful for me to try the present my views to a hostile crowd [unfortunately not everyone is :-) ] as it helps me to sharpen my arguments and probe what people have problems with. So, in a sense, y’all are being used.

Steve, what would be best: one long 100 page post or 100 one page posts, or shouldn’t I even bother? Just referring to the literature is not helpful, because most of it people will have to pay for to read, and that is a bad thing, plus that the literature is often obtuse and arcane and mumbo-jumbo to the average reader.

346. Julian Droms
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

>
> Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal
> variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field
>

I read your paper and it’s intersting, but when you say something like, “The correlations are just that. They mostly rely on temperature rising the last 150 years and the presumed similar rise of solar activity, but it now seems that solar activity has not risen” I don’t agree.

For example, the Scarfetta analysis relies on solar variability and temperature data going back to 1600, a period which include the Maunder minimum. Your data, makes revisions to data only following 1820. This is just a guess, but my thoughts are that if you were to incorporate you data into the Scarfetta analysis somehow, the conclusions might not change much, as probaby the good chunk of estimates of climate sensitivity to TSI is based on thing happening during the Maunder minimum.

You can’t really say much until you actually do the analysis. It’s just as possible that the 1800’s will turn out to appear abnormaly cold rather than current temperatures being abnormally warm.

Your re-calibration of the sunspot numbers by the way, does still include many features which are yet compatible high climate sensitivity to solar activity, such as the low cycle 20 from the 1970’s.

Then there are all the possible inaccuracies in the intrument temperature record going back to the 1800’s as well.

Finally, what to make of the other solar activity proxies such as 10Be and 14C?

Intersting analysis though. It’s too bad we don’t have data going back further.

FYI would it be possible for you to make available the raw data and soures of raw you used to create your graphs? I’m sure many would be interested to ook into the details…

347. Reference
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

#338 Leif Svalgaard

Energy transport may only take a few months in the convection zone, however, no energy is created or destroyed in that zone. Energy is transfered from the deep radiative zone that extends all the way down to the core where all energy is produced. This is analogous to the Earth’s atmosphere in that it can only spatially shuffle the energy about. Earth will receive energy from approximately 1/3 of the surface area of the photosphere, any variations caused by local process should be small.

348. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

348: “no energy is created or destroyed in that zone”

Of course, energy cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed, so I take it that we are talking about ‘radiative’ energy. In the convection zone, some radiative energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of the moving matter [making it convect]. That kinetic energy can be used to induce electric currents and generate and amplify magnetic fields. Those magnetic fields can ‘reconnect’ and generate explosions [think solar flares] even inside the Sun. Those explosions issue heat and light, in certain places and at certain times, so we can get short-term variations (weeks, days, minutes – even) of the radiative flux that leave the Sun, i.e. TSI.

349. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

347: We have actually done the analysis (and all in good time). Here is the reconstructed TSI back to 1600:

beware of the ‘raw’ data, as it is gigabytes and gigabytes in complicated and different formats. You want ‘cooked’ data at some level. Possibly one level below the graphs… Then you can always ask for more in a structured manner.

350. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

350: I guess my real question is this: IF the TSI were as given by the red curve in 350, how would that change your assessment of the whole debate? One answer [that some people have given in other places] is that since that could wreak havoc with many of their cherished opinons, my analysis must be wrong, by definition. This is, of course, an invalid response [except in so far that it may have emotional appeal to some, and one should not discount the power of that].

I wouldn’t ask this question if I didn’t have [what I consider] good reasons to believe that there is a fair chance that I’m correct in my reconstruction of TSI. Since there are so many links in the chain and since they go across many narrow scientific fields, there is a long struggle ahead of me. That I recognize, but that is also what I do as a scientist. You can either go along for the ride or dismiss it out-of-hand [I have come across both kinds of people – and there are also fence-sitters].

351. kim
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

Both late Seventeenth and early Nineteenth Centuries hint at a signal.
==========================================

352. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

352: did I ever say that there weren’t any? the question is if that ‘hint’ matches what our best models say it should be? if not, then the models are suspect.

353. kim
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

Should I be suspicious yet?
=================

354. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

354: every person has to decide for him/her-self. You see, being a comedian doesn’t cut it with me.

355. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

Leif:

Thank you.

356. Edward
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

Leif

Line 6

Is this method replacing a direct measurement of the number of sunpots with a proxy method? Sounds bad to me.

357. DocMartyn
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

Leif, you have +/- 0.1% signal, measured over 400 years. Can you statistically defend such precision? If so, how?

358. Dan White
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

Leif:

Maybe I shouldn’t ask this, but Sunday afternoon seems to be a quiet time here and something was puzzling me regarding your favorite subject, barycenters. Now, I never even heard of a barycenter before this discussion, but I do understand SOME basic physics.

You used the analogy of a body falling from the Empire State Building, saying that no forces are felt by the body in free fall due to gravitational acceleration. But if the Earth’s center of mass shifted during the free fall so that the body landed 10 ft away from where it would have landed otherwise, then it seems a force must be felt by the body after the shift. Is this not the same kind of situation the sun experiences as the planets and other bodies continually change positions relative to each other and the sun?

I don’t intend to take your time up ‘splainin’ things to me, so if I am presenting a bad analogy, just leave it at that. :)

thanks.

359. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 3:38 PM | Permalink

357: Edward: the sunspot number is not a ‘direct measurement’. It [and even more so in the 19th century and before] was a subjective count of the number of spots seen by different observers with different size instruments and different ‘seeing’ [the quality of the observing weather]. Then from these different uncalibrated subjective counts, the compiler of the SSN series tries to fit it all together. A good analogy is that of having a dozen observers of terrestrial temperatures done with thermometers that you do not know which scale is used. Is it Centigrade, Fahrenheit, Reamur, or some other weird scale you have never heard of; and they are not telling. You have to figure it out from the measurements themselves.

358: how can any of the other reconstructions then defend theirs? The trick is that the part of the TSI that seems to vary is the short-wavelength part and that varies a lot more, factors of two or more.

359: not after the shift, but possibly ‘during’ the shift if nearly discontinuous [’cause then it would no longer be ‘free fall’], but if the change is smooth I don’t think he will feel the difference. One could try to make this more rigorous by a mathematical theory, but I don’t think I can convince the hard-core believers no matter what I say, to wit: they are still there 150 years after science gave up the idea. So, please, no more. Unless the theory makes a prediction that is not made by other theories. An example of one that doesn’t count is the maximum in 2013. Lots of other theories [even my own] predicts that, so no ‘crucial’ test is made by the prediction. Now, if the theory predicted a maximum of 200 in 2008 and it happened, then we’ll all jump on the bandwagon. Ain’t nothing like a winner! but until then it looks like a loser to me [of course, not to the proponents, but that is their problem, not mine]

360. Gunnar
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

>> energy cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed

What about E=mc^2? I thought that most of the solar energy output is associated with a solar loss of mass?

361. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

357: continued: and we are not ‘replacing’ the SSN [which is itself a proxy for solar activity] by another prosy. We use a well-understood and well-observed physical phenomenon to calibrate the SSN [the different thermometers in the analogy]. If we find from modern data that a certain increase of rY corresponds to a doubling of the SSN, then when we see the same increase in the past, we infer the same doubling of the SSN.

362. Bruce
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

#347

ARIM has measured a max fluctation of .45% of the TSI in 7 years, with a smoothed fluctuation of around .15%. which translates to ~6W/m^2 and ~2W/m^2.

Comparitively, the late 1950’s SN peak is 50% higher than then peak in 2000. This would imply to me that drop in the late 1950s would be ~3W/m^2 if ACRIM existed.

You never have the TSI changing by more than ~1.5m^2 from peak to bottom ever.

Why are you off by 100%?

363. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I guess my real question is this: IF the TSI were as given by the red curve in 350, how would that change your assessment of the whole debate?

i don’t know about others but for me the answer is not a lot. I have ever since i was a kid been fascinated by class D amplifiers where the floor and the ceiling of the voltage output remains constant but the time they are at each level varies. The ’11’ year cycle varies quite a bit from about 8 to 14 years IIRC this will give quite a bit of variation to the output if averaged over time as we experience with the oceans this however is more akin to the action of Pulse Density Modulation.

The 20 year period that I used for the running average was arbitrarily chosen longer than longest sunspot cycle period for illustrative purposes.

364. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

361: Gunnar: E=mc^2 … what Einstein showed was actually something else, namely m=E/c^2, meaning that when you put energy E into something, the mass of that something increased. Now, the proton consists of three quarks bound together. The mass of the proton is not the sum of the masses of the three quarks but includes the mass of the binding energy that keeps the quarks together. The strong force that does that is mediated by ‘gluons’ that are created and destroyed in an eternal dance. these gluons have mass too, and so on…. When four protons combine to form a Helium atom, the quarks are closer together and thus have less energy [it takes energy to separate them], therefore the Helium atom has less binding energy and thus less mass. But since energy cannot be destroyed or created, that difference in energy shows up as kinetic energy of the Helium atom [it is hotter] and as gamma rays [and neutrinos], thus the net result is that the interior has energy it can work with. The binding energy inside the atom you can’t use for anything as long as it inside the atom. Your question [or bitching, as one’s temperament might dictate] was actually rather deep, perhaps unintentionally, because the whole issue of quarks, their masses and what keeps the nucleus together is complicated and somewhat counterintuitive. Even this answer is not quite correct and only serves to give you some pointers. You can try to google ‘gluons’ ‘binding energy’ ‘nucleus’ and see what you get if you want to dig deeper.

365. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

364 Jan

Good, interesting point.

365 Leif

What Einstein showed was that Energy and Mass are equivalent physical quantities and can convert from one to the other under the right conditions. A little bit like kinetic and potential energy in classical mechanics.
The sum of E/c^2 and mass IS conserved, just as the sum of kinetic and potential energies is conserved in classical non-relativistic mechanics.

366. Larry
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

Four protons in a helium atom? Learn sumpin new every day.

367. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

363 (Bruce): you got your numbers swirling around a bit again. The maximum excursions in TSI [6 W/m^2 or 8 as someone else said] are caused by very large sunspots and only last for a few days. These have no effect on climate as they are few and far between. They might have an effect [possibly] if such monster spots occurred every month or so. If you look at the Figure in 350 you can compare my excursions from solar min to max with those of Wang and Lean [mine are larger, actually, on average, than theirs], and go ask them the same question. You’ll get the same answer.

364: I presume that you used the official SSN rather than the Group SSN [looks that way from your graph]. Part of our reconstruction has to do with us finding that the official SSN is too low by some 15% before 1945 and by some 35% before ~1895. So, if you had used our SSNs you would have found that the SSNs in the 19th century were not too different from those in the 20th century [look at 350 again, treating TSI as a proxy for SSN], therefore that any temperature difference [if you think there is one] between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun, unless we postulate an extremely large sensitivity of the climate to TSI or solar activity, whichever one you prefer being the culprit. Much larger than in the current attempts to model this. E.g. Scafetta’s that started this whole thread.

Now, you could say that our reconstruction is just bunk [e.g. because you don’t like it; I don’t know what you were thinking here, but judging from your ‘not a whole lot’ I guess that you prefer the SSNs on your plot; why would you otherwise show that plot? This is an implicit criticism of our series], but that is not the way it works. We have a coherent and detailed set of reasons for our reconstructions and you must show where along the way we go wrong. Just disagreeing is pointless and useless.

We will grant you that not all of our results are yet in the peer-reviewed literature [for whatever that is worth] so it is difficult to cross-check our finding, but that will come and in the meantime you can still ponder the [possible] implications, should we be correct.

368. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

366: this is becoming tedious. Einstein did not show that E=mc^2. This was introduced by Tolman (Tolman, R. C. (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.). And there are several ‘kinds’ of mass. E.g. the ‘rest mass’, ‘relativistic mass’, and so on. Again the wikipedia is a marvelous resource that saves me from a lot of explaining:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass#_note-RT34
We don’t need to be bogged down in fine points about what mass is, leading to discussions about the Higgs particle and its role in ‘creating’ mass. All this if OT.

367: Larry, I’m glad you picked up something. What did you think before? That the Helium atom formed from two protons and two neutrons? Well, there are no free neutrons in the Sun. Neutrons have a lifetime of 15 minutes.

Everybody: this blog is not a place to blabber about Einstein, four protons, and the like, but is about if solar activity is as large as thought and what implications [either way] that might have for the GW debate. Let’s keep that in mind.

369. pjm
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

If I understand correctly, we thought there is a correlation between what we thought the TSI was, and global temperature. Now we find the TSI may not be changing enough for there to be a correlation between the (real?) TSI and global T. Question: What is the reason for the previously discovered correlation? Coincidence? An artifact of the analysis? A physical mechanism?

BTW #359. The Sun ‘experiences’ a gravitational force, because it accelerates (a very little). It does not ‘feel’ any force – it has no way of ‘knowing’ whether gravity is acting on it or whether other parts of the Solar System are just behaving strangely. So the Sun is not affected by gravity, except for tides, which are caused when gravity on one side of the Sun is different from the other side. As previously explained, this is very small.

370. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

370 (pjm): “What is the reason for the previously discovered correlation? Coincidence? An artifact of the analysis? A physical mechanism?”

The previous reconstructions, reviewed in [Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (2004) Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron.. & Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273. Doi:10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.] and a new on by Wang [2005] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the ‘background’ TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. It is unlikely that all these people are correct because each group was peddling their own reason over the others. Our analysis shows that they more likely are all wrong. Several groups have used two different mechanisms: 1) the perceived steady increase in the SSN [‘the Sun is now the most active in 8000 years’ or is it 11,000? hard to know…] and/or 2) the perceived ‘doubling of the Sun’s open magnetic flux in the last 100 years’ [Lockwood & Co. and latched onto by Wang, Solanki, and others].
We have shown that 2) was spurious [and Lockwood has effectively abandoned his old 1999 analysis {although he will not admit it outright – this is hard for some people}] and that 1) the SSN should be increased before 1945. The net result is that the justification for a long-term ‘background’ increase in TSI [and solar activity as such] has effectively evaporated. As I have said many times, scientists [and I guess, most people, actually] are extremely conservative and would rather cling for a while to an old result that they are comfortable with, even though they know it is probably wrong.

371. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm

364: I presume that you used the official SSN rather than the Group SSN [looks that way from your graph]. Part of our reconstruction has to do with us finding that the official SSN is too low by some 15% before 1945 and by some 35% before ~1895. So, if you had used our SSNs you would have found that the SSNs in the 19th century were not too different from those in the 20th century [look at 350 again, treating TSI as a proxy for SSN], therefore that any temperature difference [if you think there is one] between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun, unless we postulate an extremely large sensitivity of the climate to TSI or solar activity, whichever one you prefer being the culprit. Much larger than in the current attempts to model this. E.g. Scafettas that started this whole thread.

I used the official SSN as a proxy for any old signal you’d care to name that has relatively short pulses compared to varying periods of relative quiet. It’s unlikely to make a big difference. I could run the data through a simulated Schmitt Trigger or comparator thereby setting all highs artificially identical and all the lows to zero and the results will be sufficiently similar that I doubt we could eyeball the difference.

372. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

372: OK, jan, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please explain it to me again?
Thanks.
Leif.

373. Edward
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

1. The primary cause of the solar modulation of cosmic rays is not the level of sunspot activity, but the varying strength of the solar wind. This supersonic outflow of plasma originates in the very hot corona of the sun and carries ionized particles and magnetic field lines from the sun. While it is expanding towards the boundary of the solar system, cosmic ray particles interacting with it lose energy. When the solar wind blows heavily, cosmic rays are weak, and when the solar wind is in a lull, cosmic rays become strong. The highest velocities in the solar wind are caused by energetic solar eruptions and coronal holes. Strong eruptions (flares and eruptive prominences) avoid sunspot maxima and even occur close to sunspot minima. So sunspots are not a good indicator of solar wind strength [65]. As cosmic rays, which have such a strong impact on cloud cover, are strongly modulated by eruptional features of the suns activity, the solar contribution to climate change can no longer be considered negligible.

2. The dynamics of the suns motion about the center of mass can be defined quantitatively by the change in its orbital angular momentum (Torque). The rate of change is usually measured by derivatives. In some respects the running variance yields more informative results. It applies the well-known smoothing of two, three, or more consecutive readings to variance, the square of the standard deviation. Consecutive values of the running variance draw attention to the variation in variability and accentuate dynamical processes [98]. Figure 8 displays the 9-year running variance of the orbital angular momentum for the years 730 to 1075. The 9-year running variance has been chosen because the narrow orbits with a stronger curvature have just this cycle length and yield interesting results. Surprisingly, the pattern in Figure 8 is shaped by a five-fold symmetry. For the sake of simplicity I call the features big hands and big fingers. They emerge in a similar way in past and future millenia. Their five-fold symmetry is not their only interesting quality. They are linked to cycles which play an important part in solar-terrestrial relations. The big hand cycle has a length of 178.8 years. P. D. Jose [41] has shown in his pioneering computer analysis of the suns motion that a cycle of this length appears in the sunspot data. The strongest cycle discovered by W. Dansgaard et al. [63] in the oxygen isotope profile in the Camp Century ice core has a length of 181 years, close to 178.8 years. This points to a relationship with climate. It is conspicuous that the Gleissberg cycle is just half as long as the big hand cycle. J. F. W. Negendank, A. Brauer, and B. Zolitschka [83] have found a cycle of 88 years in warves of the crater lake of Holzmaar which cover 13,000 years. The length of the cycle of a half big hand is 89.4 years. This points again to a connection with climate.

374. pjm
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

371
If people have found something that looked like irradiance variablity (it is what they thought it was), but isn’t (because you showed irradiance does not vary enough), what were they really looking at? And why does it correlate with global T?

Reading again, you said “postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales”, so perhaps the irradiance variablity was not measured after all. But I still wonder why the incorrect results correlated with T.

375. Bruce
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

#368

Leif, I was using the conservative 2W/m^2

ACRIM shows a 2/Wm^2 variation in average TSI in this solar cycle.

2002 is .1% above the 0 line, and now were are at -.05%. A swing of .15% is 2W/m^2.

Comparitively, the late 1950s SN peak is 50% higher than then peak in 2000. This would imply to me that drop in the late 1950s would be ~3W/m^2 if ACRIM existed.

You never have the TSI changing by more than ~1.5m^2 from peak to bottom ever.

Why are you off by 100%?

376. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

369 Leif

Einstein did not show that E=mc^2. This was introduced by Tolman (Tolman, R. C. (1934).

Come now, Leif, I’m sorry for your tedium, but Tolman was 29 years too late. I must refer you to the following, from wiki:

“The formula relating the total energy E and the rest mass m0 is

E = γ m0 c^2,

where γ is Lorentz Factor (unitless).

The formula was discovered by Albert Einstein, who arrived at it in 1905 in what is known as his Annus Mirabilis (“Wonderful Year”) Papers.”

As physicists, we both know that the product γ m0 is, of course, the relativistic mass m, so this equation is in fact E = m c^2, as I believe you will agree.

377. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

377: From the same Wiki:

Modern relativistic concepts

Like in Lorentz’s electron theory, in special relativity an object with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As such an object approaches the speed of light, a stationary observer will observe that the object’s energy and momentum are increasing toward infinity.

The velocity dependent mass of Lorentz and Abraham evolved into the concept of relativistic mass, an expression which was coined by Richard C. Tolman in 1912, who stated: the expression m0(1 – v2/c2)-1/2 is best suited for THE mass of a moving body.[11]

In 1934, Tolman also defined relativistic mass as[12]

M = \frac{E}{c^2}\!

which should work for all particles, including those moving at the speed of light. For example, this formula states that a photon (which moves at the speed of light) has relativistic mass.

For a slower than light particle (i.e. non-zero rest mass) the formula becomes

M = \gamma m \!

Tolman remarked on this relation that “We have, moreover, of course the experimental verification of the expression in the case of moving electrons to which we shall call attention in §29. We shall hence have no hesitation in accepting the expression as correct in general for the mass of a moving particle.”[12]

When the relative velocity is zero, γ is simply equal to 1, and the relativistic mass is reduced to the rest mass as one can see in the next two equations below. As the velocity increases toward the speed of light c, the denominator of the right side approaches zero, and consequently γ approaches infinity.

—–

now, can we get off this topic? Who cares what Einstein said? It is partly my fault by responding to Gunnar, but that I justify that account of him not being a physicist. But there is no reason for us to discuss those fine points here, or to comment on simplified explanations for the layman.

378. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM | Permalink

now, can we get off this topic?

Sure, no need to beat a dead horse once the point is made. No need to go into self-energy and renormalization, either ;>)

379. pete
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

Ist die Tragheit eines Korpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhangig?, in Annalen der Physik. 18:639, 1905

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

380. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm

372: OK, jan, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please explain it to me again?
Thanks.
Leif.

I’m not surprised – enough people have said the same to me so I’ll just assume it’s my writing style at fault, so I’ll try.

First of all I’m not disagreeing with you on the matter of too low sunspot numbers in the official data before 1945 and then more so before 1895 in fact it does not surprise me. I’ve always seen the sunspot series as a rectified sinusoid with the ‘crossover’ at the sunspot highs. Thus the highs will be comparitively short periods and the lows being the stationary points of the sinusoid comparitively long.

This leads us to a situation where the varying period of the sunspot cycles resembles a pulse density modulated signal where the modulating signal can be retrieved by simply filtering the modulated signal. This, I believe, is what happens with the energy received from the sun when it is ‘filtered’ by such energy stores as the ocean, land mass, atmospheric mass etc. all of them with different time constants designed to give us all a headache.

Now I have run the official data through a schmitt trigger algorithm (I haven’t rigourously tested it yet but is enough to get the idea) so amplitude data only consists of high and low with nothing in between. Then run this data through a simple running average algorithm and you will see averaged signal is similar to the one above.

381. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

Leif

382. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

323#

The point of that whole thing is to state that these forces are measurable and they do cause physical manifestations on the body effected, which I think is what you were saying did not happen. Since we are talking about gravity here, moving the center of mass should change how the convection currents in the convection zone circulate. How much this effects the sun we have no idea as we don’t understand how the interior of the sun and its plasma work well enough yet to calculate this. Again, as I stated before, it will take the direct observation of planetary systems external to our own, and their planets before we can draw any firm conclusions.

383. David Archibald
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

Re 350, Dr Svalgaard, your hammering flat of the TSI has made the case for GCR modulation of climate stronger. The Maunder, Dalton and 1970s cold periods are evident in your recontruction, and all had a solar origin. So if direct lack of heating didn’t cause them, some other solar-related factor did. Svensmark’s GCR theory is the best to date to explain that. We don’t need the CERN experiment to replicate what was done in the Danish lab. There is a big cloud cover/GCR experiment going on outside all the time.

384. Gunnar
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

Leif, thanks for the thoughtful and interesting answer.

>> Your question [or bitching, as ones temperament might dictate] was actually rather deep, perhaps unintentionally

Definitely a question. An Electrical Engineering Physics background does not delve into einstein at all, so I just wanted to learn. My understanding matches what Pat Keating says in #366, which is also the view stated by many other physicists. It’s also conventional wisdom that Einstein came up with it.

385. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

First Bruce 377: When you plot long-term trends you usually smooth the data and show something like yearly means; this reduces the variability. A good example is in the AR4 [which I assume that you are familiar with; if not go read it first] on page 190 in chapter 2 of the Scientific rationale. It is figure 2.17. It also shows the Wang (2005) reconstruction that is on my plot. Did you also complain to the IPCC, Scafetta+West [from whom I stole my Figure and put my own plot in red on top of theirs], Wang et al., Lean, Solanki, etc.? If you did, I applaud your tenacity, if not, don’t complain about my plot, please.

Then 375: It is very dangerous to look for correlations. If you have some variable X with some variation f(X) and you note that there is another variable Y with a similar variation g(Y), where f(X) looks like g(Y), and say that there is good correlation between X and Y, then you have committed a deadly sin, and the statistical significance you compute is meaningless. At this point most people will take note and say “hey, what nonsense is that? I do it all the time [hence it is not nonsense, by definition – right?] and it works for me; just look at this beautiful correlation…”.

I once worked with the late JW who was a firm believer in Sun-Weather relationships, and wanted badly to find evidence to substantiate what for him was such an obvious cause-effect chain. So he took some interplanetary parameter [the passage of a so-called sector boundary, i.e. a polarity change of the IMF] and correlated that with anything he could find: atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, forecast skill, vorticity, height of 10-mb level, 20 mb, 50, 100, …, drought index, rainfall in Egypt, in India, China, water level in Lake Victoria, Lake Baikal, Eire, … and on and on. He had more than a hundred such variables. And he was happy to find two correlations that he calculated were significant at the 95% level. And could [or would] not understand that I was surprised that he didn’t find 5 such correlations. You see, I would expect ~5 just by pure chance. Now, if you have a physical reason or mechanism [other than “but it is obvious”] and you find even a somewhat mediocre correlation, you are on firm ground. So, one explanation for the TSI-T correlation could be that it is a JW-type correlation. I don’t know. But I have seen so many of that type come and go, that I wouldn’t be surprised.

Edward 374: 1st point about cosmic rays is mostly wrong or oversimplified, while the 2nd point about planetary influence is not even wrong.

Let’s look at 1 in detail:
“1. The primary cause of the solar modulation of cosmic rays is not the level of sunspot activity, but the varying strength of the solar wind.
==> what is “the strength of the solar wind”? The speed? density? magnetic field? turbulence? The solar wind moves generally outwards so exerts a pressure on what it hits. Let us define its strength as that pressure. It is (nV)V, namely the momentum (nV; n=density, V=speed) flux (times V) or nV^2. Plotting cosmic ray intensity against nV^2, one finds a very poor, almost none, correlation. This was quite a shock to the ‘cosmic ray experts’, because ‘obviously, the stronger solar wind would influence the cosmic rays’.

“While it is expanding towards the boundary of the solar system, cosmic ray particles interacting with it lose energy. When the solar wind blows heavily, cosmic rays are weak, and when the solar wind is in a lull, cosmic rays become strong.

===> that is not what happens because the nV^2 should then have been (anti-)correlated with the CR-intensity, which it ain’t. The real explanation is much more wonderful. The root cause of CR-modulation is solar rotation. At this point most people would object [without really knowing why] simply because this claim sounds ridiculous or because they have never heard that before. But that is where the wonder starts. Here is how it works: some places in the corona are hotter than others or have a stronger magnetic field and the outward expansion of the solar wind is therefore faster there than elsewhere [we actually don’t really know how this works]. So solar wind ‘parcels’ of different speeds are emitted [speed can vary from 260 km/s to 750 km/s – here we do not yet include the strongest flares and eruption, see later] in different directions. Because the Sun is rotating [and this is the surprising part] solar wind parcels of different speeds end up being emitted in the same direction, say towards the star Sirius. So we have all these parcels marching out towards Sirius. Because they have different speeds, the faster ones will catch up with the slower ones and run into them and we end up with a ‘bump’ in particles and momentum and magnetic fields, the faster wind ‘sweeping up’ the slower wind and compressing the parcels forming what is called a ‘corotating interaction region’. In those, the solar wind is compressed, turbulent, and generally messed up. This gets worse and worse as time goes by as interaction regions catch up with each other and merge: shock waves form and in the outer solar system the solar wind degenerates into a series of compressed, messed up, turbulent “shells” surrounding the sun. These are called ‘diffusive barriers’ because when a cosmic ray comes in from outer space it will be encounter those barriers and might be reflected or scattered right back out of the solar system because of the tangled magnetic fields in the barriers. The net result is that the more barriers we have, the fewer CRs make it into the inner solar system where we are sitting. Of course, solar flares and eruptions create their own barriers adding a bit to the mess. This is the wonderful mechanism of CR modulation. But wait, there is more, because where does the solar cycle variation of the modulation come from?

“Strong eruptions (flares and eruptive prominences) avoid sunspot maxima and even occur close to sunspot minima. So sunspots are not a good indicator of solar wind strength…”

===> Well, flares generally occur near sunspots and do, in fact, not avoid solar maxima, but are more common at maximum. So are CMEs [erupting prominences, Coronal Mass Ejections]. But they only add a little bit of modulation, so where does the rest come from? and the wonders didn’t stop with solar rotation being the real cause of the diffusive barriers and hence of CR modulation. So here is another wonderment: the Ulysses spacecraft was sent out to boldly go where no spacecraft have gone before, namely over the poles of the Sun. This is very difficult to do [requires a lot of energy] so we asked Jupiter for help and sent Ulysses first out to Jupiter, then in tight orbit close around Jupiter extracting energy from Jupiter’s large gravitational field and flinging Ulysses back in towards the Sun twisting the orbit so that now goes over the poles. First the South pole, then crossing the equator, then over the North pole and back out to Jupiter’s orbit [Jupiter has by now moved out of the way] to begin another fall in towards the Sun over the poles and on and on. Ulysses has now made three such passes and discovered what some of us already long surmised namely that the solar wind has a definite and time-varying 3D-structure. At solar maximum, the corona is very messed up and areas with different speed occur all over the sun and diffusive barriers form at all latitudes and basically fill up the whole solar system, thus keeping away the largest number of CRs. But, at solar minimum, the solar wind over the poles and generally outside of the sunspot latitudes blows very steadily (speed almost constant at 800 km/s) with very little variation with location and time, thus not giving solar rotation the chance to generate corotating interaction regions and diffusive barriers because no longer are parcels with different speeds [they are all the same 800 km/s] emitted in the same direction. So we have fewer barriers and hence more CRs during sunspot minimum. The boundary between slow and variable solar wind near the sunspot zones and the fast and uniform solar wind over the poles move systematically in latitude over the cycle, controlling what fraction of the solar system is filled with diffusive barriers. This mechanism was first proposed by me and colleagues in a paper in Nature back in 1976, but it took about 30 years for that boat to be turned around. So, you see, Mother Nature works in wonderful ways, at the same time much more complicated than we thought and still following a grand scheme that is easy to understand. Now, compare what you have just learned with the text in 374 and marvel at the half-truths and oversimplifications espoused there [or rather where Edward found this text] compared to the clarity of the correct solution to the problem of cosmic rays modulation.

Now, what have the magnetic field strength to do with cosmic ray modulation as just explained? It is this: the ‘reflectivity’ of the diffusive barrier depends on the magnetic field in it, because it is the magnetic field that scatter the CRs. The solar wind is so tenuous that almost no CRs ever actually collide with a solar wind particle, so it is the long-range action of the magnetic field that bends the orbit of the electrically charged CRs. So, there is a relationship between IMF field strength and the modulation of cosmic rays. Knowing one, we can calculate the other [making some assumptions, models, etc.] and that is why all these solar parameters are closer ‘related’ than at first sight. It all hangs together.

In a later post, I’ll describe how to get a Nobel prize.

So

386. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

364: I presume that you used the official SSN rather than the Group SSN [looks that way from your graph]. Part of our reconstruction has to do with us finding that the official SSN is too low by some 15% before 1945 and by some 35% before ~1895. So, if you had used our SSNs you would have found that the SSNs in the 19th century were not too different from those in the 20th century [look at 350 again, treating TSI as a proxy for SSN], therefore that any temperature difference [if you think there is one] between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun, unless we postulate an extremely large sensitivity of the climate to TSI or solar activity, whichever one you prefer being the culprit. Much larger than in the current attempts to model this. E.g. Scafettas that started this whole thread.

Now you are changing your tune.

Question. With it very clear from almost all proxy records that indicate terrestrial effects of the sun on climate, are you now saying that the Sun cannot be the cause of any climate effectrs? To draw the conclusion that you have, means that you have to find some other way to explain the mideveal warm period and the LIA. Are you stating now, and for the record that the Maunder minimum could not have caused the LIA? This seems to be what you are saying.

If your conclusion above is correct, do you have the confidence to state, for the record, that if solar cycle 24 is small and cycle 25 is smaller still, that this will not have an effect on climate?, Furthermore that it will not result in a decrease, or at least a moderation of increase in temperature over the next 22 years?

387. kim
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

Do you think the earth’s magnetic field has little to do with cosmic ray deflection?
=================================================

388. Bruce
Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

#386

Leif,

Try a less snotty and more informative answer. One that accounts for your mistake in claiming the TSI only varies by 1.5W/m^2 when the satellite record directly contradicts you.

I find the chance of your historical reconstruction of the TSI being right now hovers close to the floor of … zero.

389. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 11:28 PM | Permalink

389: Would you go to the trouble to look at the AR4 where I pointed to? page 190? Would you look at Scafetta’s paper? would you look at Wang, or Lean? The figure I showed also show Wang’s and Lean’s reconstruction and for the past four cycles my red curve matches their [black] curves very nicely. If my red curve had not matched during the recent years, wouldn’t people point out that my curve is obviously wrong? So, I have to match and we all agree on a variation through a cycle of less than or about equal to 1 W/m^2. I don’t think my answer was snotty [it was not meant to be]. I just implore you to go look at the places I indicated, to save me the trouble to reproduce even more of these sources than my figure already shows. The difference comes in because we all plot the equivalent of monthly mean temperatures and you look at the absolute extremes, so were I live the temperature over a year [as far as monthly means go] varies between 60 and 90, but the extremes vary between 10 and 110. So you see that variation as 100 degrees and I see it as 30 degrees, but when I want to compare my TSI with others I have to plot it with the same degree of smoothing as they use, is all.

390. Posted Dec 2, 2007 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

387: “Now you are changing your tune.” I don’t know how many more times I have to say this: If there is a solar signal [and I don’t take a position either way] then the climate system knows how to magnify the tiny tiny tiny solar input variation into an observable climate effect. With the solar forcing used by the experts that won’t work. They have to use a much bigger forcing. Where do I change my tune? What was my tune before and what is it know? since you say that it has changed, you should be able to tell me what its was and now is. I would like to know, please.

About your question: other people assume that there is an effect. They calculate or assume a certain forcing. Using their forcing there would not be an effect because the solar change is so small. If they bump up their forcing to compensate for the smaller solar change, then they can recover their effect. What has that to do with me? I’m not in that game.

388: (kim) yes the Earth’s magnetic field has a very large effect on cosmic rays, but that is all well known and compensated for, so is basically taken out of the equation.

391. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:02 AM | Permalink

387: Now you are changing your tune. I dont know how many more times I have to say this: If there is a solar signal [and I dont take a position either way] then the climate system knows how to magnify the tiny tiny tiny solar input variation into an observable climate effect. With the solar forcing used by the experts that wont work. They have to use a much bigger forcing. Where do I change my tune? What was my tune before and what is it know? since you say that it has changed, you should be able to tell me what its was and now is. I would like to know, please.

This is what you said earlier in 364

So, if you had used our SSNs you would have found that the SSNs in the 19th century were not too different from those in the 20th century [look at 350 again, treating TSI as a proxy for SSN], therefore that any temperature difference [if you think there is one] between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun, unless we postulate an extremely large sensitivity of the climate to TSI or solar activity, whichever one you prefer being the culprit. Much larger than in the current attempts to model this. E.g. Scafettas that started this whole thread.

You use the word cannot which means that you are saying as you are quoted that any temperature difference between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun.

My question is, if this is the case, then do you also believe that the Maunder minimum did not cause the LIA? You stated that the difference between Maunder minimum conditions and today’s Sun are very slight and that the 1-2 w/m2 is trivial and cannot be a driver of climate.

Is this what you are saying? If the base solar magnetic fields are at their minimum now, as we are at solar min conditions, is it your position that solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25, if the predictions of small cycles is correct (your predictions as well as a couple of others) will not result in a reduction in average temperature or a moderation of temperature increase?

I am not asking about what other people assume, I am asking what your professional opinion is, based upon the statements that you have made in this thread. You cannot say that you have not taken a position as in the quoted text above in 364 you have taken a position and in other writings here you have as well.

392. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:07 AM | Permalink

Your well reasoned presentation that in prior decades and centuries that TSI and solar activity have been understated makes a powerful argument. If this is the case, and if your prediction about cycle 24 and cycle 25 are correct (which I agree with and so are many others as the cycle 24 spots are delayed), then does this mean that C24/25 will be the first real reduction in solar output in the last two centuries? If this is your position, then do you hazard any predictions relative to the implications of that reduction in solar output relative to terrestrial climate?

393. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:11 AM | Permalink

392 (Dennis): I have found that people on these blogs tend to quote selectively and often out of context. Now you too :-( .
I said in full: “any temperature difference [if you think there is one] between the 19th and 20th centuries cannot be due to the Sun, unless we postulate an extremely large sensitivity of the climate to TSI or solar activity”

With the word ‘unless’ your questions become moot.

394. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

392: and just to make it even more clear: IF you think there is difference between the 19th and 20th, THEN you will have to postulate an extremely large sensitivity. But, if you then DO postulate that you are OK, you have recovered your difference as being due to the Sun. If you do NOT want to postulate that, THEN you cannot ascribe it to the Sun. Take your pick. Not my game as I said repeatedly.

395. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

392: now, you did ask what my professional opinion was. To this I can only say: take my TSI or IMF, correlate them with whichever temperature curve you prefer, and then CONVINCE me that there is a solar cycle effect or some other solar effect and that the temperature curve is legit as well. I have not done a careful analysis of any connection TEMPTSI or IMF because just by looking [which is not a careful analysis] it doesn’t look too good, but if you think there is a signal, convince me. I’m willing to listen, but every time in the past people have found such connections, they have always failed when new data became available, so the track record is not too good, but convince me if you think it is worth the effort to have me believe this. Personally, I don’t really care. For me the question is not what causes climate change, but how we can adapt to and cope with it.

396. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:38 AM | Permalink

393: about C24/25: the TSI and IMF at minimum will not fall under what it currently is, but the maximum values will be a bit smaller, than during C23 maximum. The cycle-average change will be small, perhaps 0.25 W/m^2 or less. Whether this will cool the Earth, I don’t know, as I don’t know what the forcing is. If it is what people have believed up to now, then the effect will be minuscule. But maybe they are wrong and the forcing is enormous. So the question is: can the experts live with a very large forcing? For them to answer. I do not have a clue, but I have a feeling from some of the vehemence that I see, that they are not comfortable with a very large forcing. But, I don’t know. As I have said, part of the purpose of me spending my time and sleep here is to inspire people to think about what a large forcing would mean [if there is one].

397. VG
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:49 AM | Permalink

Leif:
You would have obviously seen the ISAC final report. Would you agree with the conclusions (the sun) and (Correlations). If you have the time to comment do the methods and statistics justify the conclusions? If you don’t (as it is a big ask), don’t worry about it.

398. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

398 (VG): I have looked but not read carefully. Will report later what I find [if anything].

399. Andrey Levin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 3:02 AM | Permalink

From #368, by Leif Svalgaard:

Part of our reconstruction has to do with us finding that the official SSN is too low by some 15% before 1945 and by some 35% before ~1895.

Another Bucket and engine inlet adjustments

400. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

400: Andrey, you cannot make such a blanket statement without having even looked at the evidence:

CAWSES – Sunspots.pdf
(CAWSES Newsletter, vol 4, issue 1, 2007)

401. Andrey Levin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 3:57 AM | Permalink

Re#401

Call me conservative.
Sunspot number count correction (especially substantial and steep) is the last thing I am ready to accept.

I am extremely skeptical about new theories, which are based on alterations of numerous independent data sets, do not offer answers to long-standing questions, and are, generally speaking, dead ends.

Spirited bull rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric does not help the cause either.

402. Phil
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 4:20 AM | Permalink

One question some of the comments here provoke.

Is it known how quickly or slowly global temperature responds to solar changes? If the sun’s output increased, how long would the Earth take to before a new equilibrium was reached? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? If the latter (as some here seem to be asserting) then would that not put us in the situation of a man in a room with an electric fire, noting that the room is getting warmer but seeing no change in the output of the fire assuming that the warming must be due to other effects?

403. a scientist
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

395 (Leif)

IF you think there is difference between the 19th and 20th, THEN you will have to postulate an extremely large sensitivity.

Would you agree that one may add “OR there is some as yet unconfirmed mechanism by which solar variability influences climate on Earth”?

My own understanding is that the sensitivity of climate to TSI was acknowledged some time ago to be so small that the door is closed for attributing to it a major influence on climate. Now your are giving me a heads up that there may also be a deadbolt and padlock on that already closed door.

The reason this does not alter my view of the probable role of solar variability on Earth’s climate is the following: the geological evidence for an 11 year cycle is so wide and deep that many geologists consider it a slam dunk, and are waiting for the community of meteorologists and climate modelers to recognize and agree on the as yet unconfirmed mechanism.

I personally prefer a mountain of empirical evidence over a theorist’s claim that he can see no mechanism. However, it’s not my game.

And if there is no such mechanism, and the geologists have been fooling themselves, there is still much evidence that natural variability in Earth’s climate (on decadal, century, and millenial time scales) is much too large to permit tagging the last century of climate behavior as primarily the work of man.

404. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

402: did you read the CAWSES blurp? Which points of that do you have problems with? We got a similar reaction from many people when we suggested that the aa-index was incorrectly calibrated. Now the community is coming around to accept this. To label somebody’s hard work as “bulk rhetoric” is the kind of thing that would make me feel ashamed of my self, had I made it, but I guess, some people have different stripes.

405. Jack Linard
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

I am a long time lurker and would like to express my appreciation to Lief for his presentation and patience.

I do, however, notice a careful avoidance of response to questions regarding Svensmark’s work.

406. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

To several: we CAN adapt and more importantly MUST, but that is politics and I’m going there.

Folks, I’ll be off the air for a couple of days. So hold the mud until I return.

407. kim
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

Obviously, we have adapted and probably will continue to do so. The question really is of cultural sensitivity to climate change, and we may not be so quick as we once were. The more homogeneous herd can go massively, tragically, wrong, also with greater likelihood. Where’s Susann when we need her?
==========================================

408. Gunnar
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

#403 >> Is it known how quickly or slowly global temperature responds to solar changes? If the suns output increased, how long would the Earth take to before a new equilibrium was reached? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?

From the fact that a TSI change from pre-dawn to noon results in a strong increase in temperature, we can very easily calculate that the atmospheric time lag to solar changes is very short. This is also confirmed by seasonal changes. It’s in the minutes, not years.

409. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

408: quick.
No ‘careful’ avoidance. Just that I have been so busy with the tidal theories and “bull rhetoric” that I have come around to all issues yet. For now, just let me say that I’m not impressed. I know all of these people. I have worked there. Lassen from “F+L” was my thesis advisor and Friis-Christensen was a fellow student.
But a good answer [as their work deserves, Andrey take note] will be for a bit down the road. And now I’m off.

410. MarkW
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

That was the shortest couple of days I’ve ever seen.
Welcome back Leif.

411. Gunnar
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

>> One that accounts for your mistake in claiming the TSI only varies by 1.5W/m^2 when the satellite record directly contradicts you.

Which is what I was pointing out in #176. First, we had the C02 hockey stick. Second, we had the temperature hockey stick. Now, we have the solar hockey stick, with the blade facing down, yet contradicted by recent accurate measurements.

412. Ulric
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

Hi, if sunspot counts were down by 35% on actual figures, surely the difference between the 1779 maximum
of 230, and the 1804 maximum of 60 will be correspondingly larger, ie, 230 + 35% = 322, and 60 + 35% = 84.
A difference now of 238! How can the telescopic record of spots be that far out anyway?
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-he-sun-come-to-our-rescue.htmlglobal-warming-will-t
Also, please comment on this work:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/

413. Ulric
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

Sorry, that is about 311 and 81, a diff. of 230.

414. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

385 Gunnar
Re Einstein — You might also see 377-379, where the point is conceded in 378(but not without a shower of B*S as a smoke screen). BTW, over the years, I’ve found that the best physicists are polite and clear, without trying to “baffle with bull-feathers”.

414 Gunnar
You are right regarding the atmospheric response time. However, Schwartz has determined a response time of about 5 years for the upper layer of the oceans, while the response time of the land is somewhere in between, probably months. There is surely also a much longer response time for the deeper levels of the ocean.
I don’t think the Earth is ever in equilibrium.

415. Gunnar
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

#417, Pat, agreed. I’m assuming he conceded to your view of the meaning of E=mc2, since I’ve confirmed it at other physicists sites? If so, then it’s not correct to say the energy of the universe is constant. Even if that statement doesn’t hold, this still does not violate first law.

>> Schwartz has determined a response time of about 5 years for the upper layer of the oceans

But even deep ocean thermetrics show the temperatures rising and falling with the seasons.

>> I dont think the Earth is ever in equilibrium.

Right, it’s always chasing it.

416. Tom Vonk
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

Anything that has energy, such as a photon, also has mass and everything that has mass also has energy.

Only for the record and despite a slight OT , the above is wrong .
For a photon it is E = h.nu because , precisely … its mass is zero :)

417. Douglas Hoyt
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

It is hard to believe that the Royal Greenwich Observatory missed sunspot groups between 1876 and 1945. They could observe sunspots as small as one millionth of the solar hemisphere.

It even harder to believe that all other sunspot observers missed counting sunspots in exactly the same manner as RGO from 1876 to 1945.

Is there a correction to rY for changes in the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field? That is, polar wandering.

418. Larry
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

420, right. Its mass is zero and its speed is light, so it’s energy is zero times infinity, which is finite.

419. Edouard
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

Hello to all,

I’ve read the thread, the critics of Mr Svalgaard on Co2-measurments and why he thinks that Co2 has prvented the earth from enterin a new iceage after 1900.

I’ve read Muscheler 2004 an the critic of Solanki form the MPI in germany:

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/sola_nature05.pdf

“We conclude that by basing their normalization
procedure on inappropriate data,
Muscheler et al. have heavily overestimated
the solar modulation parameter before
AD 1950, which was further exaggerated by the
nonlinear relation between Qand .
S. K. Solanki*, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer,
M. Schüssler*, J. Beer§
*Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung,”

Muscheler seems to be wrong. How, the hell could Svalgaard be right? This sounds absurd to me.

Regards

Edouard

420. kim
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

It is in the climate sensitivities to the elegant manipulations of Old Sol, E; I suspect CERN is drawing aces, or at least, jokers wild.
========================================================

421. Ulric
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

Re. #136. Study of global yearly temperatures show a very interesting correlation to variations in yearly
CO2 growth.

422. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

#394

Leif: What I am trying to do here is to get clarity on what you are saying. This is why I ask the questions in the way that I do so that you can put definitive statements out. I do this as folks at RC and other places will now take your data and some of the things that you have said here and say “see see, this eminent scientist is saying that there has been no solar variability and therefore CO2 is the only possible mechanism for warming”. We all have to be careful in how we make statements that can later be taken out of context by rabid partisans. I can tell that you are dancing around the subject now but that is ok.

What I believe, and this is based upon my study of CO2 is that it as a forcing for climate, in the way that it is currently promoted, in the concentration level that it currently is at in the atmosphere, is balderdash to use an old word. If this is the case, then what has been driving the known variations in climate over the past 2000 years. Again, it is my personal opinion that it is solar related, based more than anything on the value of the proxies (sediment, ice cores).

I do have direct knowledge of how the sun influences near earth space just over the solar cycle as this has to be taken into account when calculating the fuel needed to reboost low earth orbiting satellites, including the International Space Station. These influences are enough to expand the exosphere enough to more than triple the drag coefficient on low earth orbiting spacecraft.

What I also know is that I have to vary the design of spacecraft electronics in order to compensate depending on how long the system will operate in orbit, that the cosmic ray and high energy particle fluence varies quite dramatically over the course of the solar cycle. If cosmic ray flux (relativistic iron nuclei smashing into the lower atmosphere creating ions makes a lot of sense as on spacecraft this is called bremstrallung (sp) radiation which is a veritable shower of particles) does modulate cloud formation, then I know for a fact that this flux varies fairly broadly over the solar cycle enough to cause much higher probability of the destructive latch up of integrated circuits due to the induced currents in the semiconductor junctions. If it can induce currents across junctions in semiconductors it is no big stretch to think that it also knocks ions loose or even transmutes elements (this is where the Be10 comes from in the atmosphere!) in such a way as to influence cloud formation.

Additionally, and this is not commented on anywhere that I know of, that there is an ionosphere-troposphere connection through the phenomenon called “vertical lightning”. Vertical lightning is strong enough to create hard x rays and soft gamma rays in the upper atmosphere so this is some pretty damn energetic and common phenomenon that has a direct electrical influence on weather and thus climate, that is modulated over the solar cycle. We know extremely little about this phenomenon as it was only “discovered” in the 1990’s by NASA and very little research has gone into the wider implications of what this means relative to the influence of the sun on climate.

Also, TSI is a misnomer in that we don’t monitor the Sun’s output across all wavelengths. There are no near/mid/longwave IR sensors looking at the sun, either on the Earth or in space other than what they can see through the windows that are not absorbed by CO2, CH4, N2O, and H2O. We only cover certain portions of the X-Ray and Gamma ray spectrum and there is very little in regards to ultraviolet in the bandpasses between Hubble, SOHO, TRACE and the others and NASA’s X ray birds. Therefore we cannot say definitively what the TSI actually is on an ongoing basis, when TSI is defined as Total Solar Irradiance.

If solar variation is not the prime driver of climate then there is a lot of explaining to do relative to known variations in climate over the past 2000 years. I have stated what I know and also what I believe on this subject. I will hazard a guess, and this is a guess, that if C24 and C25 are as weak as you and others predict, then there will be an effect on climate and it will give credence to solar variability. Hopefully this will spur a renewed effort to understand the sun beyond what is done today.

This is why I try and pin you down on what you are saying. You do draw conclusions (see #364) and then you turn around and say that you have not drawn any conclusions. In ambiguity there is a lot of room for people to take what you say and use it to push their own agendas. This is why it is important to be clear on what you say and how you say it.

I hope that this has come across as respectfully and as clearly as I have intended it to be.

423. kim
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

If vulcanism releases CO2, why does the rate of CO2 rise be smallest with the cooling from the aerosol, witness Pinatubo and ’92?
===============================================

424. Bruce
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

#390

Leif: “and you look at the absolute extremes”

I’m not looking at the extremes.

I’m claiming that the .1% above zero in early 2002 to todays -.05% is a swing of .15% and that is a very reasonable reading of the data. The .1% in early 2002 was exceeded dozens of times. .1% above the 0 is a reasonable claim about where the average peak was.

Thats 2W/m^2.

I am not using the outliers of .15% and -.3%.

And the late 1950’s peak of SN was 50% higher than the 2002 peak.

Implying a 3W/m^2 swing. Double your claimed swing of only 1.5W/m^2.

I am not using the outliers on the ACRIM graph.

425. kim
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Nice test, really; volcanic perturbations presumed to irritate and derange the signal from the usual solar sensitivities.
==========================================================

426. MarkW
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

I thought the experiment which showed that photons could be bent by a gravity field proved that they had mass.

427. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

422 Ulric

Could you elaborate on your post?

428. Ulric
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

Pat (429#), a dominant 179yr period is the return cycle of Saturn/Jupiter/Earth/Venus, the cycle of Uranus/Saturn/Jupiter also returns close to this, but slips slightly and is sometimes 140yr to the next
tightest heliocentric conjunction. The Jupiter/Mars/Earth/Venus cycle of 44.75yrs shows up well in sunspot
and temperature records, but Mars has a large slip, and takes about 895yrs to return full circle back with the other three. Oppositions and conjunctions of Jupiter with the other three Jovian planets (a 2404 year return period for all 4 Jovian Planets) clearly fit with the main features on the Holocene temperature record, but the relationship of Earth/Venus syzygies to these alignments is critical in how intense, and even which direction the temperature change will be. Wolf and LIA minimums, and any other historical low, can be all
shown to be suffering the same condition. Recent work I have been doing on typhoons and hurricanes shows very particular trigger syzygies, and different slower moving alignments that rule weaker and stronger years.

429. Lance
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

Mark,

Not to go even further of topic with this but, General Relativity theorizes that the gravity from massive objects warp space time. Thus a massless photon, say from a distant star, is not attracted by gratitional attraction to the sun, but is following the shortest “straight line” distance thru the space curved by the gravity of the sun.

430. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

Ulric, thanks for the elaboration, it is appreciated. However, I was most interested in the yearly T correlation to CO2 you mentioned in 422.

431. D. Patterson
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

427 MarkW says:

December 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
I thought the experiment which showed that photons could be bent by a gravity field proved that they had mass.

The short answer is: no, the changes in vector and speed of light in a gravitational field is included within any of the descriptions of light as a massless classical wave, particles with or without relativistic rest mass, or dual wave-particles. The question of whether or not photons are massless is an ongoing subject of controversy and experiment. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to conduct an experiment in which the measurement of the upper rest mass of photons was attempted.

432. Ian Walsh
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

Mark #427 Photons follow curved space…that is space ‘bent’ by a gravitational field, the photon ‘thinks’ it is following a straight line.

433. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

Sorry to be late in putting in my oar. I hope I am not too late. Have been away from my computer for some days, so had to spend much of yesterday catching up with this thread, getting to post #380 near midnight last night. Then I had to go back and review the lead in paragraphs by Dr, Svalgaard in more detail this morning, to try to understand what is being said. Note Dr. S emphasizes a couple of times in this thread the need to be precise in expressing terms so that meanings will not be misunderstood. On that basis I am left with a number of questions. I would like to summarize mainly the conclusive statements of the opening paras, mostly restated for brevity, with comments or queries interspersed in italics. Damn, the italics don’t copy. I hope my comments/queries are not too hard to distinguish. Oops, I can italicize them again here. What a pain!

The Scafetta & West paper(s) assume that there is some solar variability. There are indications that such variability is significantly smaller than even recent reconstructions.

Line 1) TSI results mainly from temperature in the photosphere (Now I have to look up solar photosphere). Photospheric Temp. is constant over cycles 21, 22, 23. em>Does this mean that it is constant over a cycle, or that the average of each cycle is the same?So we have an unconnected set of terms like TSI, temperature, magnetism, atmosphere, photosphere.

Line 2 Some comments on the speed of sound waves on the solar surface and the possible relationship of sound wave speed change to magnetic pressure change So?
Sun is coolest at activity minimum (sun spot minimum?), when it is most irradiant (brightest?). There is rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity. At activity min. sun is cooler, larger and more radiant. Shape asymmetry coefficients are near zero at activity min. and increase directly with increasing activity. Sun has never been dimmer than at current activity min. Seems to be one non-sequuitor followed by contradictory statements. I have read it several times, and this is what I get out of it.

Line 3 The suns chromosphere magnetic network is unchanged in a century. Would have been different if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field. (what magnetic field? HMF or IMF? Open or closed? Does it matter?)

Line 4 Interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) has a floor that it approaches at each 11 year solar minimum. (sunspot minimum? Radiance maximum? See Line 2) Solar cycle variations in IMF ride on top of the floor. (Do these variation also change the magnetic network of Line 3 above? Is the network only unchanged at the floor? Can I infer that the IMF in a given cycle can have a min somewhere above the floor?)

Line 5 There is no secular change in EUV (FUV) flux in 165 years as derived from geomagnetic evidence. Could you describe briefly what evidence and how the earths magnetic field is related to FUV?

Line 6 Solar diurnal variation of East component of geomagnetic field (back to 1820) gives independent measure of FUV (and hence the sunspot number). (Daily variation is greater when FUV is higher? Daily variation has been measured and recorded accurately since 1820, or is there a proxy? Nothing above relates FUV to sunspot number, except, maybe, Line 2)

Wolf number before ca 1945 should be increased 20% (its about 17% low?) and before ca 1895 by another 20%. (To 140% or to 144%?) 15% and 35% mentioned farther down the thread. Group sunspot number in 1840s is 40% too low based on official wolf number. (It should be raised 67%?)
Wolf number is stated (google wolf sunspots) as being the count of the sunspots plus 10x the number of group sunspots. So wolf individual sunspots plus 10x(1.67xgroup sunspots) equals 140% of official wolf number equals revised sunspot number?

Unnumbered  Direct measurement of TSI increases with solar activity. Line 2 says that sun is brightest at solar minimum.

Here we show that Wolfs SSNs were not based solely on reports of sunspots but were calibrated by reference to geomagnetic range observations which closely track the sunspot number. Nor were these corrections small; for example Wolf multiplied the long series (1749-1796) of sunspot counts obtained by Staudacher by factors of 2.0 and 1.25, in turn, to obtain the numbers in use today. It is not surprising then that a competing SSN series obtained by Hoyt and Schatten based on group sunspot numbers is different, generally lower than that of Wolf. Comparison of the International number with current magnetic range observations indicates that, as Wolf found, the magnetic range (specifically, the average annual Y-component of mid-latitude stations) can be used as an independent check on the validity and stability of the SSN series. Moreover, the geomagnetic range series, which in itself is a long-term proxy of solar EUV emission, can be used to resolve discrepancies between the Wolf and Group SSN series during the 19th century
Wolf calibrated to geomagnetic range. If Wolf calibrated to geomagnetic range, and your revision is based on diurnal geomagnetic variation, what is the difference been your and Wolfs adjustment. Are you adjusting an adjusted number? Should your adjustment be applied to the unadjusted number of Wolf?

You seem (to me) to use solar activity, sunspot number TSI, irradiance, brightness more or less interchangeably I have seen other information that solar flares and CMEs can be greatest (in intensity if not in quantity) at sunspot minimum eg 2005. Shouldnt they be part of solar activity?

Svensmark and Christianssen correlated sunspot cycle length to temperature, (with an apparent failure of correlation after ca 1980), rather than sunspot number or TSI. Perhaps cycle length is a better proxy for solar activity than other measures. In the 19th century sunspot cycle lengths tended to be longer than the 11.1 year average, and in the 20th century shorter, with enough difference to add one+ cycle in the 20th century relative to the 19th. This would seem to indicate that the sun was between 10 and 15% more active in the 20th century, regardless of irradiance.

If faculae and sunspots increase proportionally, then solar activity defined by sunspot peak could increase or decrease substantially without any change in brightness, and only the FUV portion of TSI being affected.

You seem to be saying that there is a floor for TSI that does not show secular variance over at least 150 years. No real surprise there. However that leaves the possibility that the min TSI of any cycle can be above the floor, and that max and mean TSI can vary significantly both cycle to cycle and secularly.

You note that multiplying zero by a correction factor still leaves zero. That would say that there is no correction effect for much of the Maunder Minimum, and that this min. should then be the floor. Then in post 350 your correction raises the TSI floor of the MM. Can you explain why?

It seems to me that a secularly invariate floor for TSI is both logical and pretty meaningless, especially in terms of solar forcing of earth climate, so why the conclusion that sensitivity must be much higher than heretofore assumed if there is to be measurable solar forcing. Its not the floor that determines solar variability.

Going to the forbidden topic of barycenter!!
Your examples are for symmetrical 2 body systems with the system barycenter (bc) outside the larger body and constant angular momentum so simple free-fall is the only effect In such a system the planet would indeed have no effect on the star. If the barycenter were within the larger body, the larger body would wobble which would affect a non solid interior.
However we have an asymmetrical system where the sun cannot simply orbit around the system barycenter. See post 236. Even with just a Sun-Jupiter system, the barycenter would be outside the solar circumference. With a multi-planet system, and the planets having very different masses and orbital speeds the bc will be found deep within the sun at oppositions, and far outside the sun at sizigies, as illustrated in 236. The barycenter is by definition a point at which the total mass of the system will act, and in a simple system will correspond to the center of gravity. In a complex, highly assymetrical system it will still be pretty close to the center of gravity, and its location will exert a force. For the sake of simplifying visualization, think of the bc as moving wrt the sun for a moment. With the bc moving from deep within the sun, to well poutside the sun, and describing loops within the sun, it does not make sense to talk about simple free-fall. Also consider the sun’s rotation. Sometimes the angular momentum of the bc is accelerating and sometimes decelerating the rotation. All of this motion must necessarily stir and agitate the solar plasma, and indeed the planetary alignments do correlate with eg the 22 year solar magnetic cycle. See http://pagesperso-orange.fr/jpdesm/sunspots/ quote Sunspots cycles (11 years period) and the magnetic oscillation of the Sun’s core (22 years period) could be linked, by gravitational effect, to an external excitation process. Tidal waves on the Sun culminate during syzygies of the tidal planets. Heliocentric syzygies and oppositions of Jupiter, Earth and Venus occur in bursts, and plotting these bursts shows a regular signal, with a 22 years period, in phase with the sunspot cycles for three centuries. Phase shifts of the “signed sunspots numbers curve” regarding to this excitation signal induce to think that the solar oscillator is a nearly unstable non linear system, which could be forced out of resonance for decades by an overshoot, like for example during the Maunder minimum of the 17 th century. End quote.
I dont think you can reject the bc with some handwaving about free-fall.
Sorry for the length of this. I hope you will respond in detail Murray

434. Chris Harrison
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

My original comment seems to have been deleted but photons do have mass. They have a rest mass of zero but there mass is given by E/c2. Since General Relitivity has been mentioned, this mass/energy equivalence is inherent in the stress energy tensor that is part of the fundamental equation of GR, G = T.

435. Gunnar
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

>> However that leaves the possibility that the min TSI of any cycle can be above the floor, and that max and mean TSI can vary significantly both cycle to cycle and secularly.

Thank you ! This is what I asked in #176, but Leif avoided answering.

436. Ulric
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

#432 Yes Pat, just compare them for yourself..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
There seems to be a very good match between high CO2 growth and
higher global T yearly, with a 1yr lag some years by the look.
The range of CO2 growth seems very large, could this be biological
or warmer oceons giving up more CO2?

437. kim
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

Correlated, how caused? I’m guessing outgassing. If we’re cooling, CO2 may drop also. Short Carbon Credits.
===================================================================

438. PhilA
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

One very basic question, looking at some of the ideas suggested here. How long does the Earth take to get to a new equilibrium temperature following a significant change in solar output? 6 months? A year? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Do we know? Approximately?

Becasue if this time is long enough then not blaming the Sun for warming because we see no recent changes is like a man being in a room with an electric fire, noting the temperature is rising but assuming it can’t be the fire as that has a steady output. (On the other hand if the period is nice and short then forget it!) :)

439. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

Dr. Svalgaard, I have now studied your paper at CAWSES – Sunspots.pdf (CAWSES Newsletter, vol 4, issue 1, 2007). Some observations:
It seems to me that prior to 1947 the Y component is inferred from the declination.. You have stated that the diurnal range varies by less than factor 2 from one measuring site to another. How much less? How much does SSN vary among measuring sites?
You seem to have arrived at the final value for the Y component by simply averaging the measurements available. Is that a valid approach? Are there time of day biases or instrument biases that should be accounted for?
See Arago. How easily declimation can be varied! There were lots of iron stoves in the 19th century. With such a large change would the diurnal range be affected?
It seems that you measure nT directly only from 1947 on. Have you controlled direct nT measurement against Y component inferred from declination for any period?
Please count total adjusted SSN from 1840 to 1900 and from 1940 to 2000. There may be no secular trend in the floor, but there is a very significant long term increase in total SSN, and thus, by inference in solar activity.
I would share a couple of the observations above regarding SSN accuracy after ca 1890, and adjusting past measures to fit current theory, especially when the Y component number is probably at least as suspect as the SSN, but I dont see what difference it makes really. You have diminished the secular increase in solar activity over the 150 years in question, but not enough to render it insignificant, and maybe not enough to require much change in solar forcing sensitivity.
I guess Im missing something here, but I dont see how you get to your main conclusion. Murray

440. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

From my 434

Line 5 There is no secular change in EUV (FUV) flux in 165 years as derived from geomagnetic evidence. Could you describe briefly what evidence and how the earths magnetic field is related to FUV?

Based on observations from your paper referenced in 440 above, that statement is clearly false. Murray

441. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

PhilA, nobody knows the answers to those questions. I’d be surprised if the case couldn’t be made both ways at the same time (depending on the data sources and the assumptions).

Leif, that’s interesting, I didn’t know I picked a day when 482 Petrina would be in conjunction. No, there’s nothing special about that day specifically, just that it’s after 2012 ends.

Speaking of relativity, too bad there are things that travel faster than light.

Anyway, here’s my analogy. You put water into a pan, and apply enough heat to make the water boil at that altitude (let’s call it 210F will make the water boil). Even though you never increase the heat, there’s enough there to eventually empty out the pan, and the humidity and temperature of the surrounding environment both go up. If you leave the heat going, again, with no increase in the rate, the pan will start to glow red and heat up the area from the metal, but no humidity increase. If you throw in enough ice to fill the pan, some of it will superheat (and warp the metal no doubt, depending on thickness) and the humidty will go up. Same thing if you toss in water that’s 34F or 50F or 100F or 209F But the amount of water that comes out as steam will vary (as will how the pan warps). Still no change in the rate of flame or heat output.

And there you have it.

442. Julian Droms
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

>
> We have actually done the analysis (and all in good time).
> Here is the reconstructed TSI back to 1600:
>
> TSI-LEIF
> …
>
> I guess my real question is this: IF the TSI were as given
> by the red curve in 350, how would that change your
> assessment of the whole debate?
>

If, that depends on how I would choose to interpret the implications of the data. So for example, if one were to go by a Scafetta -type analysis by taking on an assumption that warming in periods prior to industrialization is primarily due to changes in TSI, given comparison to the same temperature history, wouldn’t you expect to find a *higher* climate sensitivity to TSI in case of LEIF 2007, as compared to WANG 2005 and LEAN 2000? I think you said so yourself. Granted, it’s hard to say how this comes out in the balance without actually doing Scafetta’s analysis on your data. Notably, performing Safetta’s phenomenological reconstruction using the WANG 2005 data resulted in a greater contribution of solar effects to recent global warming in comparison to the LEAN 2000 data. I would guess that a lot of this has to do with the fact that using WANG 2007, the smaller changes in TSI result in a phenomenological reconstruction of a higher climate sensitivity to TSI. LEIF 2007 looks more like WANG 2005 than LEAN 2000. So what to conclude? Can’t really tell at this point.

And Scafetta’s way of looking at the data is the only way to do it.

Honesty, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of informed people don’t know what to think abou the whole debate, myself included. And to quote what you quoted from Wittgenstein… of that which we dont know we should be silent.” Except of course as to raise interesting conjectures as we are her.

But to discuss further, I think your paper is well-reasoned and interesting.

Of course, can you explain a couple things to me (and anyone else who might read and not know)?

(1) Your paper doesn’t include any references to the table in post # 350, so I don’t know as yet how you arrive at that. I would guess that you have incorporated into this reconstruction an assumption that the nadir of the solar cycle TSI is constant over the last 400 years, based 160 years of analysis of the IMF? I assume this requires recalibration of the other solar activity proxies extending past 1840 beyond which you have no IMF data to make the calibration. How is that done? I can think of a couple different ways this could possiby be done, but which one gives the correct result and based on what principles or evidence?

(2) Forgive my ignorance. I’ve tried reading the Wang 2005 paper, which also presents data about TSI over the same period with different results, and frankly, it’s far to complicated for me to comprehend without reading it for a week. It seems like most of the data is based on analysis of sunspot number. But then, they mention “comparing the calculated open flux with with geomagnetic and cosmogenic isotope record.” Looking at figure 10, they make a comparison with their open flux results and the geomagnetic aa index over the period 1860-2000 and find good correlation. What exactly is the geomagnetic aa index, how is it different from the diurna eastward component of the geomagnetic field (what you use)? Are these two the same?

(3) We have good evidence that solar activity as measured by sunspot number or changes in IMF above the “floor” correlate with excursions in TSI upward from the “floor.” But how do we know that the value of IMF at the “floor” correlates in any way with TSI at “floor”? e.g. you have presented good evidence based on 160 years of data that there is a floor in the IMF. Does this necessarily mean that there has been is a floor in TSI over the last 160 years? Is the increase in IMF during high points in the solar cycle even generated by the same mechanism as IMF at the floor? I thought increases in IMF during high points in the solar cycle could be attributed in large part to events such as solar flares? If in the low points in the solar cycle (and during the Maraunder Minimum), there are few or no solar flares, how do we know there is strict correlation between IMF and TSI? Aren’t there other proxies for solar activity such as 10Be and 14C that have to be accounted for as well? Not really sure about this, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.

(4) It is apparent from your data that there is a floor in IMF extending back at least 160 years. What is the rationale that this floor extends beyong 160 years? Am I correct in understanding that this is based on a theory about the sun shrinking and having a lower surface area, even when it may be increasing in temperature. Looking at your graph in #350, there is clearly something different about the sun’s behavior in the time period from 1650 – 1700. How do we know that something hasn’t changed in such a way that the floor in the IMF changes as well? What if the sun shrinks, becomes less corrugated, but doesn’t gett any hotter, or maybe gets a little colder over some longer time period that we have meaasures over the last 160 years? Should we assume that it doesn’t, or instead look to other proxies such as the isotope record?

>
> beware of the raw data, as it is gigabytes and gigabytes
> in complicated and different formats.
>

Not for me, but I’m sure there are plenty of people who read this group who would love to see the raw data if you were to put it up on a server. I’m not a real climate scientist but I think that’s what many of the people on this group do – try to recustruct and verify results of people’s publications by looking to the original data.

443. Julian Droms
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

Sorry!

“And Scafettas way of looking at the data is the only way to do it.” Should have read… “And Scafettas way of looking at the data is the NOT only way to do it.”

444. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

Folks, I’m on the road for a few days, so be patient. I’ll answer things ASAP. And Gunnar, I never ‘avoid’ anything. To say that I do is not very nice, and we should try to keep the tone nice, right?. As for for #176, I simply did not understand what the question was. I didn’t see any question marks (you know, them little ?s). So, if I understand correctly, you asked if Tmax and Tmean can vary. Of course, they can as you can see just by looking at the red curve on the graph. The tops of the curve are Tmax and clearly vary, and Tmean would be somewhere near halfway between Tmin and Tmax, so as Tmax varies, then Tmean varies too, but only about half as much. All this is so obvious than I cannot really believe you meant to ask about that and use bandwidth [of people, not machines], so, obviously, I’m missing some subtle point…

Murray, your long queries deserve a long and detailed answer. and thanks for actually looking at the stuff. It seems that many others don’t bother, while, nevertheless making statements about the contents. One might be allowed to refer to Wittgenstein again?

445. windansea
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM | Permalink

And Scafettas way of looking at the data is the NOT only way to do it.

whew! glad to see the correction

446. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

Just for fun, here’s some digging I did on solar cycle length, assuming rate of change is the real important factor.

May 2007 Updated 3 Dec. 2007

The theory of solar modulation of cosmic rays to affect cloud cover, and therefore surface average temperature is based on the rate of change of sunspot intensity, rather than the absolute peak sunspot activity. Cycle 23 had a smoothed peak activity of about 125 with a transition from min of 45 months, for a rate of change on the upside of 2.44. Cycles 20 and 21 were nearer 5. These three covered the period from 1976 through 2007, the period of greatest warming of the last century. Cycle 23 is bottoming about 6 months later than previously expected, considerably reducing the rate of change on the downside. Consistent with the slower rate of change we have seen a shift from warming to no warming during this downside. Temp has been about flat from mid 1997 through mid 2007, with peaks at 1998 and 2005. (In spite of continuously increasing CO2 concentration)
The average sunspot cycle is 11+-2 years. During the 20th century we have seen a series of high peaks and short cycles, giving a high rate of change. Cycle 21 valley to valley was 119 months, cycle 22  115 months, cycle 23  139 months?. We now have 2 forecasts for cycle 24 (now starting) of 136 and 146 months. We could split the difference at 141 months, but given the big stretch out on the downside of 23, and the known slowing of the solar conveyor, the 146 months seems more credible. The upside cycle length seems to vary recently between 32 and 35% of the total cycle. If we take 34% of 146 months we have 49 months. We have 2 forecasts of peak sun spot intensity of 90 and 140. If we assume a peak at 115, from a bottom of 10, the upside rate of change would be 2.14, 88% of cycle 23, or 45% of cycles 21 and 22.
If the solar modulation theory is correct, we are in for a big increase in average low cloud cover, and a measurable global cooling going forward. I wonder if the rate of change has to drop below some threshold before cooling is really felt, and what the lag time is.

3 Dec. 2007 We are now at 133 or maybe 136 months (using the smoothed curve) for SC23 and counting. The smoothed upside was 110 change in SSN in 45 months for a rate of change of 2.44, about ½ of cycles 21 and 22. Cycle 24 should be lower. That should be below any reasonable threshold. 2007 is shaping up to be cooler than 2005/6.
There is a fairly good forecast here
http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2007/11/20/place-your-bets-for-sc24/ with an upside of about 75 in 55 months for a rate of change of 1.4, only 57% of cycle 23. Its going to get cold.

447. Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

I have been sitting back watching this discussion unfold for a bit since my last comment, and appreciate the time Leif is taking to answer questions and explain things (some other scientists could learn by his example).

I’ve learned a bit in the process, such as the GCR flux modulation mechanism described by Leif in #386, which can in part be seen in these images of the solar corona at max and min – I have colour enhanced them to show coronal detail better, and added lines for my ‘best guess’ as to the orientation of the solar equator from examining the polar flux tubes in a higher resolution version:

What it shows is that in both images the brightest coronal areas and hence the most intense disturbances are concentrated around the solar equator – however near solar max there is much more activity happening closer to the poles than at solar min, thus indicating that the relatively undisturbed ‘polar cones’ where GCR’s are more able to enter the solar system are quite narrow or ‘nearly closed’ near solar max, and quite broad or ‘wide open’ near solar min – in some ways these two ‘adjustable polar cones’ could each be considered as being a bit like a camera iris that instead of controlling the amount of light entering lets in more or less GCR’s.

***************************

BTW, Leif has still not explained – beyond trying to handwave it away with a circular orbit example where angular momemtum (AM) is constant – why there is no force transferred between the Sun and planets during the solar barycentric cycloid orbit.

Changes in orbital AM (torque) require that there is a transfer of force between the planets and the Sun or consevation of AM is violated – and the most likely place to find the ‘missing’ AM is in changes of solar spin momemtum (axial rotation rate) via some form of spin-orbit coupling (the same explanation is invoked in the accretion disk theory of solar system formation), and changes in solar spin momemtum may in turn be part of the cause of solar activity cycles.

I know what I’ve speculated about above is a hard ask to attempt to quantify, as there is differential solar rotation both by latitude and by depth to perhaps 0.67rSun, and the dynamics of this are not well understood, with the models used to study solar dynamics being little more than ‘best guesses’ at this time (but keep up the good work of improving them!).

It would be an interesting exercise for someone that has access to detailed solar rotation data over time to see if there is an anti-correlation to Sun-SSB orbital AM.

448. David Archibald
Posted Dec 3, 2007 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

On reflection, it seems rediculous that CERN would take years to replicate what the Danes did in a basement on a shoestring budget. My guess is that the Europeans are stringing it out, and in the end will “non-confirm” the Danish experiment. Surely there is a lot of suitable equipment lying about in labs in the US. Just boot up a quick programme and publish before CERN. Apart from serving US national interests against the perfidious Europeans, there is a bigger prize for empire-building academics. For years, the solar physics community has looked on with envy at the budget going to climate science. There is plenty to do in solar physics. Even the eminent Dr Svalgaard doesn’t know what causes the convection zone to rotate faster than the radiation zone. Surely this is a basic, basic, basic thing to know about the Sun. The ongoing failure of the Earth to warm with increasing CO2 and the cooling associated with solar cycle 24 will cause a big shift in funding. My advice is to anticipate the shift and create momentum. Replicating the Danish experiment will be an easy first step.

449. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

Leif,

I came in a bit late, but I would like to ask the percentage of variation in the TSI curves in #350 – is it around 1/1000 ~ .1 %?

What is the accuracy of the instrument making the measurements?

And as far as MHD models of the Sun, one must know the inflow and outflow boundary information at a vertical level in order to compute the flow above that level. I seriously doubt that this info is known ( e.g. the heating mechanism of the coronosphere is still not well understood) or that the faculae are resolved by any model (from your statements they are an important component of TSI).

Jerry

450. paul graham
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

To David Archibald: There is a simple reason with CERN has such long queues; its not operated on a shoe string; and is incredible popular.[snip]

Form a european and a AGW skeptic.

451. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 7:02 AM | Permalink

Assuming that the sunspot cycle is caused by syzygies of Jupiter/Earth/Venus, the default center of cycle 24, astronomically, taking no account of rise time, is January 2014. With regard to my own studies mentioned briefly in #429,
I am looking at C24 rising strongly from late September 2009, with peaks of 150 to 200 in the middle years, all the way through to January 2016, this would tend to give an absolute center of mid 2013.

452. Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

450: yes, 0.1%. Instruments are good, to better than 1/1000,000 for relative variations, but only 1/100 for absolute numbers. So, we can measure the difference between 1360.555 and 1360.556, but don’t know if 1360 is really 1360 and not 1365, or 1350, or 1370.

452: so, if the cycle does not peak at 175+/-25, you will drop the barycenter idea? That is how science works [or is supposed to, at any rate].

Back to the road now [leaving Ozona, TX; quite an appropriate name …]

453. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

Re:448
There is probably a lot we will never know. The “stirring” of the AM may at times tend to cause something close to laminar flows in the plasma, and then fairly quickly interrupt those flows. This is complicated by the bc being at different depths when it shifts from accelerating to decelerating or to crosswise AM effect. All of these impacts will be modulated by momentum, viscosity, resonance, turbulence and explosive characteristics of the sun’s interior. It is very likely that the sun never reacts the same way twice to the same sequences of bc relative motion. We can plot the various “impulses” of the planets (both gravity and momentum effects), and build up the resultant complex waveforms, and will (do) find correlations with solar phenomena over extended time periods, but the periodicities are never constant (eg 11.1 +- ca 2 yrs)and sometimes breakdown completely eg the Maunder Minimum. Ie, we can largely compute the exterior forcings, but will probably never understand the interior structures, characteristics and reactions of the sun.

454. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

Thanks Lief, I have looked at when at Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter, were most recently in the same positions as this coming
maxima, and that is around 1650 and 1830, both maximas on these dates have Earth and Venus square to the other three.
in my book, that means low spot count, and cold, which it was. The coming maxima has Earth/Venus syzygies more in line with the other three, which according to what I am looking at, is higher levels of spots. So we will have to just wait and see what occurs.

455. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

The reason that sunspot maximas drift as much as 3.5 years either side of tighter Jupiter/Earth/Venus alignments is due to their intensity. One can easily check the center of each maxima against the dates of the tightest J/E/V alignments and
see that less intense maximas rise slower and peak after the default center, more so with a series of low maximas, and
intense maximas rise faster, and center before the tightest J/E/V alignments. The variation in intensity of each maxima,
is dominated by how Jupiter sits in relation to Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. From purely correlative studies, Mars has a notable effect too, which is a brain teaser considering its apparent small influence on solar surface tide and barycenters.

456. Edward
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

Ulric it does not look good from a cycle length perspective to have a high sunspot count. Lanscheidt, Timo Niroma, others have forcasted a low sunspot count for cycle 24 using planitary affects on the sun. Additionally, those using sun cycle methods (Mark A. Clilverd for example) also come up with a low sunspot count. Lanscheidt methods show similiar cycles as the solar cycle crowd (22, 53, 88 (also 2X), 106, 213, and 420 years)uses in their analysis.

457. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

Edward, unless any of these methods can account for EVERY low maxima, and EVERY notable change in global temperature,
such as 1998, 1940, 1990, 1881, and have a sound explanation for the Daulton, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf minimums, I would not trust them.

458. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

Typo.. 1900 not 1990

459. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

Edward, using the methods I have loosely outlined above, it is easy to account for events like these;
“Then in 608 AD Euphrates froze. After the warm 700’s, in 829 AD Nile froze“(from the Timo Niroma site)

460. Edward
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

Ulric:

Some of the issues I have with a strong cycle 24:

The Polar magnetic field theory would be invalid

The sum of the Toroidal and Polordal fields have been decreasing since the early 1990’s and there may not be fields strong enough to support sunspots by early/mid 2010’s if trend continues

Solar cycle length to cycle strength relationship would be invalid

Jupiter’s affect on the sun can be modulated by the other planets but not completely reverse relationship. Other planet effects are supposed to be small. Niroma has a weak solar cycle 24.

461. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

Leif (re #450, #453),

So one of the first questions that needs to be answered is can a variation of TSI on the order of epsilon^3=[10^(-1)]^3 be seen in climate change over a solar cycle or longer period of time. I believe the answer to this question is yes based on mathematical theory described on another thread.

You did not respond to my question about boundary conditions at a particular fixed radius above the center of the sun or resolution of solar features of importance for any solar numerical model. These issues are key if any numerical model has a chance of providing answers to solar dynamics.

Jerry

462. ulric
Posted Dec 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

Edward, the main rules of thumb that my studies show me is that 1) the more bodies there are in an alignment, the stronger the effect will be on solar activity and hence temperature, 2) that there is a distinct polarity effect
decided by the relative positions of the bodies, possibly due to tidal cancellation. Jupiter perigee may show up
as a trend but not always reliably, and cannot account the range of variation. If you look at a monthly smoothed
graph of the sunspot record (google; sunspot plotter ), a clear relationship can be seen between planetary alignments
and sunspot creation. This shows that it takes more than one body to actually do something, ie. it is all about synthesis
and no one body does much at all on its own, however dominant. Regarding the Solar cycle length to cycle strength relationship, it could go something like the 1860 to 1872 maximas (ref 23 to 24).

463. ulric
Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

Leif, on closer inspection, I would put my guesstimate of C24 at 130 to 160, that is as much, or more than C23.

464. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM | Permalink

Re:401
Lief, reviewing your paper again, it is clear from Fig 2 that there can be substantial variation in rY depending on season and time of day of readings, so these have to be considered in averaging. If eg declination historic measurements were more frequent in summer than in winter, you could have a upward bias. Also, based on the equinox xurve, there are more months of low readings than of high readings, so if the impact of nT is duration dependant low readings should be given slightly more weight, and a simple average could provide a slight upward bias also.
Further, from fig 3, the area under the curve of the 5 largest cycles from 1940 to 2000 is larger than for 1840 to 1900, and more importantly there are about 5.25 cycles in the 19th century period and 6.5 cycles in the 20th century period, suggesting the possibility of >60% more effect in the 20th century from some form of energy.
A little digging also suggests that larger SS are more energetic than smaller, and that SS are more energetic at SSN peak. Since late 20th century peaks are on average somewhat higher than even your corrected 19th century peaks there is another reason to expect higher energy in the 20th century period. Possibly 20th century SS are on average more energy intensive for equivalent counts. There may be no way to check that, but it raises a further question about your historic adjustments.
I just reread the bit about Arago, and note that I misread it before. It was the range of declination, equivalent to rY, that increased due to the iron stove (not simply the declination as I first read). It seems likely then, that past externally caused biases were more likely to be high rather than low.
Also the comment in one of the posts above that TSI does not include the IR raises a large question about its significance. Another point that needs to be addressed.
All of these points make me more inclined to ask you to review your work for upward biases in your historic adjustment, and to reevaluate your conclusions. How about if you pretend that your original work was right, that someone other than you is presenting the present analysis, and you want to keenly defend your original work, and then go back and rip into your present work every way you can?
I just came across another recent paper at http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf with very strong evidence of SSN correlation to terrestrial climate with a reasonable link to bc, here called SSCM for solar system center of mass. The acceleration/deceleration of solar speed along its galactic path is another interesting suggestion. Note also the tie to solar magnetic pole reversals. The polarity of the solar magnetic field should strengthen/weaken the effective geomagnetic field, which should be evident in the declination and nT records. Do you observe any such changes?

465. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 1:46 PM | Permalink

Correction – “possibility of >25%”. sorry

466. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

Re: 460/673/64
Ulric, do you have a website or blog with your work accessable? I am very interested in this subject, but lack the computer and math skills to do it myself. One effect that seems to be apparent is the rate of change. It may be more important than absolute # of bodies in alignment. Also, obviously, alignment in opposition will offset alignmant in conjunction. I mention this obvious point because a planet moving into opposition can reduce the rate of change for two planets moving into conjunction. Clearly rate of change will vary with which planets are involved, their orbital speeds and their relative leads and lags also.
Even for the same peak sunspots, a shorter cycle seems to have more effect on earth climate than a longer cycle, which implies more energetic sunspots. However, and more importantly, slower rise time cycles seem to be associated with lower peak SSN, and seem to follow slower fall time in the previous cycle. In addition there is the issue of the solar conveyor. Dikpati and Hathaway seem to think that solar magnetic “knots”, visible as sunspots, get swept into the deep sun by the conveyer, to be reenergized and reappear about 2 cycles later. Seems unlikely to me, and since we are all guessing my guess is probably as good as theirs. I would conjecture that the rate of change issue invalidates their idea. Just as a stream flowing slowly past an obstruction is less turbulent that a fast moving stream, it seems to me that a slowing conveyor is more likely to unkink the knots and result in lower SSN in the next cycle.

467. Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

465: (Quick) Yes there are seasonal variations etc, and all that is, of course, taken into account. You can assume that there are no (simple) things that have been overlooked. This is the result of years of work, so be assured that there are no known sources of errors that have not been addressed. For example, the seasonal variation is nullified by averaging over the whole year and the geomagnetic reading were taken every hour throughout the year [except on Sundays in the early years, but since they are spaced apart the same amount of time throughout, no bias is introduced]. The ‘iron stove’ problem is dealt with by comparing stations when they overlap in time. This has to be done anyway because each station has a different ‘iron stove’ simply in its environment: the earth itself and sea water too are conductors and modify rY, but all that is well known and can be securely corrected for. BTW, rY is almost never measured [even today]. It is calculated from the declination: Y = H sin(D) so rY = H cos(D) rD, where H is the Horizontal component and D the declination [and no comments from the comedians about rH will be accepted because rH/H is very small]. So, no need to worry about the difference between rD and rY. When I’m back from my trip, I’ll respond in more detail.

468. Fr M Kirby
Posted Dec 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

Leif,

Regarding your comments on GCR proxies, and the fact that your work would necessitate modifying them as well, I have a question. Are you saying the Be and C-14 proxies are effectively bootstrapped from other time-varying solar data, so that even their “shape” is dependent upon reconstructions of solar variables? Or are the necessary modifications only relevant to the amplitude of the temporal variations once they are converted into a supposed measure of GCR?

If the former, then they were never independent proxies to begin with, it would seem. If the latter, then strong correlations between these 2 proxies and global temperature, where all are non-monotonic and complex, would leave GCR-dominant models little affected. All that would be required was decreasing the amplitude of the GCR fluctuations and increasing the “sensitivities”, as you yourself have indicated. Since the sensitivities are dependent on cloud processes still not understood, this would not appear to be much of a problem for theories that place most of the solar influence on GCR modulation and NOT TSI.

Any Shaviv “fans”,

It has been a while since I read the Shaviv papers. I cannot remember whether the quantification of sensitivity (GCR -> temp) was done from first principles, or by assuming the connection based on correlation, then tuning the sensitivity to match GCR variations to temperature. Obviously the latter would mean Shaviv’s theory was unaffected by all of this. The former would present greater problems, as he would have no justification for simply increasing the sensitivities without suceesfully disputing this latest information or giving new, relevant data on cloud formation physics.

Hope the above makes sense. This is my first comment, coming after a long period of simply reading with great interest.

469. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 2:50 AM | Permalink

Thank you Steve for enabling this exchange of ideas and Leif Svaalgard for your stimulating presence, and humour. Just great.

Re Leif’s invitation in the following words:

if you think there is a signal, convince me. I’m willing to listen, but every time in the past people have found such connections, they have always failed when new data became available, so the track record is not too good, but convince me if you think it is worth the effort to have me believe this. Personally, I don’t really care. For me the question is not what causes climate change, but how we can adapt to and cope with it.

OK I am going to have a crack at it. It is important because the carbon argument is going to distort human affairs in a big way. I want to talk about manifestations, mechanisms and projections.

Forget about sunspots, total irradiance, sunspot cycle length and cosmic rays. Clear your mind of all preconceptions. Come back to Earth.

I start my observations with what I see happening with the seasons.

I am a vigneron. I observe big swings in temperature from year to year. My vines respond in terms of budburst time (mean air temperature 10°C) and harvest time, mainly a function of the time it takes to get a full suit of leaves in spring. When my vines try to set a crop with insufficient leaf area, due to a cool start to the season, seeds do not form properly and the crop is diminished. Generally midsummer is not limiting so far as temperature is concerned. At harvest time in autumn I like cool conditions to conserve flavour and dry to avoid disease. Often I am disappointed. Temperature is the thing that drives this summer growing plant. It grows in Mediterranean climates without summer rain and survives on a whiff of moisture in the soil.

The climate swings are related to sea surface temperature anomalies. The next two paragraphs are controversial. Hold on to your seats. Meteorologists will get excited about what I am about to say because it contradicts Kevin Trenberth.

Wikipedia has this statement under ENSO:
ENSO is a set of specific interacting parts of a single global system of coupled ocean-atmosphere climate fluctuations that come about as a consequence of oceanic and atmospheric circulation.

My version: There is a big swing in radiation interception at the surface of the Earth. It is modulated by changes in the extent of the cloud free zone of the tropics. The zone that gets a near full dose of solar radiation varies in area. Where there are clouds, radiation intensity can be one third of the full dose or less. Look at http://www.die.net/earth/ Imagine that cloud free zone expanding and contracting and you have a good idea of the mechanism involved.

We notice the see-saw in sea surface temperatures most particularly in the Pacific; call it the ENSO effect but it exists in the Indian and Atlantic oceans as well. Plot the SOI (with reversed sign) against GISS temperatures for the low latitude band and you see that the two are almost identical. One is de-trended, the other has an upward trend and if you could eliminate that trend, the two sit together the SOI leading slightly. This is not ‘an internal oscillation of the climate system’, or ‘a coupled interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean’ and nor is it due to fairies in the bottom of the garden. It represents swings in energy reception at low latitudes. Want to boil the kettle? Put it on the fire.

What lies behind this see saw in temperature and energy flow across the tropical oceans where most of the energy that is absorbed by planet Earth is gathered? If one plots the Southern Oscillation index against the aa index of geomagnetic activity upward jerks in the aa index are clearly associated with El Nino heating and downward jerks are associated with La Nina cooling.

I am quite sure that when the satellites experience extra drag due to the inflation of the ionosphere we have an El Nino heating episode. Inflation of the ionosphere is associated with a displacement of the stratospheric and mesospheric neutral atmosphere over the tropics. A small stimulus acting from above the tropopause leads to a cascade of changes below it. These changes have not been observed. They are inferred from the fluctuation in sea surface temperatures.

The increase in radiation in the cloud free zone of the troposphere is therefore due to changes above the tropopause. However the effect is amplified by 1) Increase in the volume of air and the speed of circulation within the Hadley cell increasing the size of the subtropical high pressure cells and expanding the cloud free zone. 2) Increase in the height of the tropopause, with the consequent drop in temperature reducing humidity and upper atmosphere cloud. 3) Atmospheric thinning, due to increase in kinetic energy within the system, allowing the passage of more ionising ultraviolet radiation imparting more energy to the atmosphere. 4) Humidifying the stratosphere via overshoot phenomena at the ITC, reducing stratospheric particulate and ozone content, allowing more solar radiation to flow through. Stratospheric temperature status relates to energy interception within the stratosphere itself. Ozone is highly soluble in water and the upper stratosphere has a temperature of plus 20°C over the tropics in summer. Ozone itself exists in ppm concentration, like CO2 and is a negligible influence, more an indicator of process status, but particulate matter could be far more important. What happens in the stratosphere is the reverse of the volcano effect.

The intensity of the solar wind must change over time because the last three solar cycles have been strongly El Nino dominant. That’s 1976 through to present. The previous three cycles from 1945 to 1976 were heavily La Nina dominant. Both the SOI and the aa index go back to the 1880’s so we have a decent period to observe the pattern of change and a cycle is observable throughout, with length and amplitude increasing over time. From 2007 we enter positive territory again (positive SOI = cooling earth). Check this for yourself by aggregating the monthly values of the SOI across each solar cycle.

The tropics show a response in air temperature to the extra area of solar radiation gathered in the trade wind zone. This response, evident within a year, is larger than the supposed increase in global temperature over the last 100 years. But it is not expressed so much as increased temperatures except over the land, in places like Australia and the Sahara. The temperature response over the sea and well watered areas is diminished by the cooling power of evaporation. Evaporative heat transfer drives the circulation in the Hadley cell via the release of latent heat of condensation reinforcing convective processes. The troposphere is the turning mixing sphere where heat exchange is via physical movement. Radiation takes over when air density becomes sufficiently low to allow the escape of infrared energy without interception by excitable molecules, water vapour in the main. The global warmers obviously don’t realise this. If they did they would not be talking about 0.38% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a big issue.

The trade winds drive the warmed waters east wards. Diverted north by the continents the warm waters deliver their heat to mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. That is where the big swings in temperature occur over the space of several solar cycles. Western Europe is particularly affected. If you like European wines buy now because the run of good vintages has already finished. Good vintages are still to come but they will be less frequent.

La Nina activity has occurred at the end of nine of the last 12 solar cycles. Consistency is related to the fall off in aa activity at that time. A big El Nino cuts in as soon as the aa index begins to rise. A fall in the aa index at solar maximum is associated with La Nina but a fall in aa at that time occurs only about half of the occasions observed. Big swings in the aa index occur in the slow process of sunspot decline. You can see why there is a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature in some places at some times and not at others, particularly if you choose your years carefully about the time of solar minimum.

Whatever drives the aa index, and I presume it is the solar wind, interchanges with sunspot activity and this can be seen by comparing the ratio between the two across solar cycles. The ratio of aa activity to sunspots climbs as sunspot activity falls. Hence the swings in Earthly temperature are more severe as sunspot numbers fall away.

The lack of high latitude sunspots as precursor to sunspot cycle 24 to date suggests that cycle 23 may be with us for another year or more. Expect strengthening La Nina activity within this interval.

Here it is 4th December in Margaret River Western Australia and it is raining and very cold. The Eastern States of Australia are getting the rain that the global warmers have been suggesting would never come again. Cyclones are dumping on the Philippines. The Caribbean has been deluged. Snow and Ice manifest over the Prairies. Vancouver and Toronto are being warned to expect a big chill. ENSO index of sea surface temperature in mid Pacific has not been as low as it is currently since the mid 1980s. Welcome La Nina.

This is the sun in action via the solar wind with the atmosphere and cloud cover ringing the changes. The whole Earth is getting cold. The tropical atmosphere is not turning over so fast, the high pressure cells of the horse latitudes are puny, the moisture laden tropical air is just hanging waiting for the first sign of convection and bingo…it rains plenty. Added to that, the frontal systems that bring rain to the Mediterranean west coast climates are travelling closer to the equator and lifting that moisture laden tropical air. Rainfall here has hit the long term average. My mother who is 89 tells me that in the old days it used to rain till Xmas. This year it looks like it is going to happen.

Maksimovich 320 and Dennis Wingo 394 are on the right track.

For some observational confirmation of the expansion of the ‘tropics’ that has occurred in recent times see: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVt8OJpDJHnhfffYu4MiW_hp6NkwD8T9FBM80 and also http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071203_tropicalbelt.html

Look for El Nino and the Sun, parts one and two at the bottom of the page underneath all the stuff that relates to grapes. Part two covers the solar connection.

Warning: Sometimes I say La Nina when I mean El Nino. Just a bit spastic and at 64 I am not quite as smart as I might be.

In Bali the climate conference will presumably increase the pressure on politicians to control greenhouse gas emissions. There is no time like the present to clearly enunciate an alternative viewpoint. As Leif suggests it could take ten years to turn this around.

470. Edward
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 5:52 AM | Permalink

Leif:

Too many funky adjustments to trust rY as a proxy for cycle strength. Sounds like the reasoning used by Jones, etc for their temperature reconstructions (everything cancels out). I say use the observed # of sunspots and rY values to come up with a relationship between # of spots and rY rather than change # of spots. Seems to me # of observed spots and cycle length are more reliable than your proxy method.

471. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 6:47 AM | Permalink

470 Erl

Thanks for a fine exposition on you view of the issue, Erl. It is obvious that you have though hard and well.

472. jae
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

479, Erl. I agree with Pat. Great post.

The global warmers obviously don’t realise this. If they did they would not be talking about 0.38% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a big issue.

I think you mean 0.038 percent CO2.

473. ilya usoskin
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

Re. Comment #471 by Edward.

100% agree. If there is a real difference between sunspot # anf rY, one should study the nature of the difference between solar and geomagnetic indices, rather than try simply correcting one or another. The relation can be essentially non-linear and even with some memory effects… I am studying sunspots for decade, and believe me, sunspot # CANNOT be wrong by 30% in late 19-th century – there are routine photographies of the solar disc since 1874.

474. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

Re: 474
Ilya, thanks for weighing in. It is great to have another expert. I tend to agree re relative accuracy. Given that any biases in declination will tend to be upwards, and given that early SS counts were alr4ady adjusted dramatically upwards, adding further adjustments now seems questionable. One question though that you might address. Since the SSN is computed as individual SS count plus 10x group SS count, and that the 10 multiplier has been used for about 150 years, is it possible that the multiplier should be adjusted? Do SS always average out at 10 per group. Would a “more active” sun produce groups with higher average SS counts?

Re:470 Very interesting exposition Erl. Thanks muchly.

475. Gunnar
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

#470, Erl, very profound explanation. That answers a big question in my mind.

476. welikerocks
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 9:05 AM | Permalink

I just read this whole thing this morning.
I can help but notice, and maybe its just me; but I sense a subtle need to minimize the sun’s effects on behalf of the A in AGW more then anything with the research here;or at least the way its being spun (ie: The comment I read by Leif: The Sun doesn’t create the seasons; the Earth’s orbit creates the seasons. (or something similar; not exact words I can’t find the comment#) Which to say I wanna ask in the least…Oh yeah, the Sun has no gravity worth talking about? And gee, where would the “Solar” system be without it? ;)

#347 said “Interesting analysis though. Its too bad we dont have data going back further.”
We do; I think? As suggested in “scientist’s” post about geology, and geologists waiting for the climate scientists to catch up. I just googled and found: apparently the Variation of solar cyclicity during the Spoerer Minimum is known (it has a name) and here’s one paper: We investigate the 11-year solar cycle during the Spoerer Minimum (14151534 A.D.)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JA011016.shtml

Also:
SOLAR VARIABILITY OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MILLENNIA”
Beer et al
Abstract. The Sun is the most important energy source for the Earth. Since the incoming solar
radiation is not equally distributed and peaks at low latitudes the climate system is continuously transporting energy towards the polar regions. Any variability in the Sun-Earth system may ultimately cause a climate change…

A variety of observational proxies reflecting different aspects of
solar activity show similar features regarding periodic variability, trends and periods of very low solar activity (so-called grand minima) which seem to be positively correlated with the emitted energy from
the Sun, the total and the spectral solar irradiance…

The first step, the extension of solar variability, can be achieved by using cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10 Be in ice cores. After removing the effect of the changing geomagnetic field on the 10Be production rate, a 9000-year long record of solar modulation was obtained. Comparison with paleoclimatic data provides strong evidence for a causal relationship between solar variability
and climate change…

477. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

Thanks Pat, Jae, Murray and Gunnar for the compliments, Much appreciated.
Sorry about the CO2 slip. Given the dominance of convective process of heat transfer in the troposphere and its thin-ness, just 11 kilometres deep over the 3340 kilometres either side of the equator (that represents the Hadley cell) even 10 times the current level of CO2 would make no difference to the temperature at the surface. The reality is that radiative heat transfer is a minor phenomenon in the troposphere. Conduction is more important than radiation and evaporation is more important than conduction. Physical transport is more than capable of removing that heat in short order. Evaporative removal and transfer absorbs energy at the surface and pops it out at the cloud level at one to five kilometres above the surface. The reduction in density with elevation is a critical feature of the troposphere accounting for the temperature at the tropopause (loss of kinetic energy via simple expansion) and the increasing ease of radiative transfer as the density diminishes. Without that loss of density radiative transfer would be much more difficult. It is also vital to convective processes. The troposphere should be described as a heat scrubber for the surface of the Earth.

The Hadley cell spreads to about 30° of latitude either side of the Equator. If one draws a line 100 millimetres long to represent the 3340 kilometres and represents the troposphere above it then at the equatorial end of the Hadley cell the tropopause (16 km) is just half a millimetre above it. Not much room for sideways dispersion of energy there. It’s a question of the ratio between speed of upward displacement and speed of lateral movement. Hence the well defined boundaries that one sees in the distribution of outgoing infrared radiation with little radiation from the cloudy areas and a hell of a lot from the cloud free areas.

As I read it once you are at the level of the tropopause there is no barrier to radiative transport of energy at all. If there were, it would cause convection.

I guess the cloudy areas release energy at a slower rate, on the nightside as well as the dayside. Then of course light energy is simply reflected, so reducing the total to be emitted as infrared. Just thinking. Must to bed.

478. Tom Vonk
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

#470

The troposphere is the turning mixing sphere where heat exchange is via physical movement. Radiation takes over when air density becomes sufficiently low to allow the escape of infrared energy without interception by excitable molecules, water vapour in the main. The global warmers obviously don’t realise this. If they did they would not be talking about 0.38% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a big issue.

That is not correctly expressed but the right idea is there .
Actually radiation is active all over the atmosphere . The difference between down and up is in the process .
Down is dominated by collision processes so even if whatever IR can be absorbed is absorbed , the energy is given away by collisions mostly . So yes it is a kind of mixing sphere .
Up is dominated by radiation processes so whatever is absorbed is reemitted (at the same wave length) but as there is less molecules , it counts not so much .
I think everybody (even warmers) is aware of that .

However this distinction doesn’t imply that a small number of molecules has a small effect .
In the lower atmosphere consider the following analogy :
You have a pool and a hand operated pump .
The level of the pool is the temperature of the atmosphere , the volume of the pump divided by the volume of the pool is the concentration of IR absorbing gaz and your pumping hand is the IR photons .
You can have a very small pump but if you pump very fast , you’ll fill up your pool rather fast – whatever the size of the pump , it will always raise the water level .
Now if you make your pool leak , you’ll get a rather correct analogy of what’s happening in the low atmosphere as far as radiation is concerned .

Regardless this small point , your post is very good and very physical . I am convinced that in broad lines that’s indeed what’s happening with the climate at decadal scales where things like orbital parameters or ice/water/air interactions on the poles don’t perturbate much the movie .

479. ilya usoskin
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

Re #475.

The formula for SSN is fixed by Rudolf Wolf. i agree, it can be not very strict (e.g., a single spot results in Rz=1+10*1=11, which sounds like nonsense), but just keep in mind that sunspot # is a synthetic, not physical index, and its physical interpretation is not clear (in contrast, e.g., to sunspot area index). However, it was a great invention in mid-19-century to introduce a quantitative measure of solar activity, which is easy to compute, easy to handle and easy to understand (even though the understanding is not rigorous, as the sunspot number is not equal to the number of spots). Regarding factor 10, Wolf was a genius, as later studies showed that if we wanted to make this index now to be most consistent with sunspot area, we would employ something like 10.5. Adjusting the coefficient has no sense as it will produce another synthetic solar index. Wolf sunspot # has a great advantahe of being the same for centuries. BTW, correction, suggested by Leif would also destroy the Wolf sunspot series, leading to another Svalgaard series. Once again, sunspot # has no clear physical meaning but is a synthetic index.
There is another SSN series, group sunspot number by Hoyt & Schatten (1998), which uses only sunspot groups and not info on individual spots. It is more robust, but is also generic.

PS. i cannot be a permanent resident here, but today is a holiday in Finland :)

480. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

478 Erl

Conduction is more important than radiation

Did you mean “convection”?

Not much room for sideways dispersion of energy there.

I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to say, here, but you may not be on firm ground. There is a great deal of horizontal heat transfer from the tropics to the temperate and polar regions.

Finally, thunderstorms go well above 5 km, of course, and transfer huge amounts of energy toward (and sometimes through) the tropopause when active. Of course, they are absent most of the time at any one location.

481. Ulric
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

El Nino events are produced by the closer heliocentric grouping of Jupiter/Mars/Earth/Venus. If Mercury is
present in the group, a major El Nino will occur, such as 1790/3, 1828, 1876/8, 1891, 1925/6, 1982/3. Looser groupings of the first four show up as a rise in ocean temperatures without a full EN occurring.
Murray Duffin, sorry I do not have my work available. but would be very pleased to discuss it with you,
ulriclyons gmail. and what brill work from Erl Happ, it was an interest in good years for wine that inspired
my initial research into temperature change. Thanks Erl.

482. jae
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

Given the dominance of convective process of heat transfer in the troposphere and its thin-ness, just 11 kilometres deep over the 3340 kilometres either side of the equator (that represents the Hadley cell) even 10 times the current level of CO2 would make no difference to the temperature at the surface. The reality is that radiative heat transfer is a minor phenomenon in the troposphere. Conduction is more important than radiation and evaporation is more important than conduction. Physical transport is more than capable of removing that heat in short order. Evaporative removal and transfer absorbs energy at the surface and pops it out at the cloud level at one to five kilometres above the surface. The reduction in density with elevation is a critical feature of the troposphere accounting for the temperature at the tropopause (loss of kinetic energy via simple expansion) and the increasing ease of radiative transfer as the density diminishes. Without that loss of density radiative transfer would be much more difficult. It is also vital to convective processes. The troposphere should be described as a heat scrubber for the surface of the Earth.

Boy, do I agree with this, except like Pat, I think you mean convection, not conduction.

483. John F. Pittman
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

#470 Erl

On another thread, I read of the “iris” effect. I was wondering if this is an explanation of the effect, a hypothesis of the “iris” effect’s sequence, or a corollary agreement with the “iris” effect?

484. Edward
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

Erl or anyone:

Does high geomagnetic activity (aa index) cause the ionosphere to expand by heating it by what sort of energy transfer (mechanically, electrically, magneticly, etc)? If not how does it expand?

485. kim
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

Bellow louder, Earl; maybe they’ll hear you in Bali.
==============================

486. Ulric
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

Erl, with reference to the ocean temperature graphs, in your El Nino and the Sun part 1 pp11+12, both monthly
and yearly variations in sea temp. can be seen to be occurring in total coincidence with the heliocentric positions of the planets. My understanding of which alignments do what is still expanding, particularly since
using US landfall hurricanes as a data set to investigate rather than temperature or sunspot records.

487. kim
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

Sorry, Erl. It won’t Happ’n ag’in.
====================

488. Reference
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

The Sun is Bristling with X-ray Jets

Astronomers using Japan’s Hinode spacecraft have discovered that the sun is bristling with powerful “X-ray jets.” They spray out of the sun’s surface hundreds of times a day, launching blobs of hot gas as wide as North America at a top speed of two million miles per hour. These jets add significant mass to the solar wind and they may help explain a long-standing mystery of astrophysics: the superheating of the sun’s corona.

489. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

Erl, just finished your parts 1 &2. This is the most cogent explanation of climate change that I have seen yet, and I have been following the subject closely since 1994. You have accomplished more at one shot than the whole IPCC. Your description of the growth and retreat of the low latitude clouds seems very similar to Lindzen’s “Iris”, though I haven’t reread Lindzen for some time. There is one observation over a limited area of the Pacific for a short time that is consistent with the Iris idea, but is too short a time to constitute confirmation. Interestingly, the opening of the Iris corresponds with increase in solar activity, and may be significant as the TSI amplifier needed to give TSI more weight. Very interesting is your observation that southern hemisphere surface warming moves north and while northern high latitudes are warming southern high latitudes are cooling. At least the Atlantic conveyor moves north at the surface and south at depth. Could current southern cooling reflect the 1945 to 1975 mainly NH temp. decline, or is the cycle time so long that it reflects the LIA?
Now we need a “solar physicist” to work on the whole solar barycentric variation, with all of its subtleties, and come up with a unified theory of solar driven climate change, starting with your link to Fairbridge and Shirley.. The evidence is rather overwhelming for those who are willing to look with an open mind. Maybe this is what Ulric is working on. Murray

490. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Re 452:
Ulric see http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/hathadh/HathawayWilsonReichmann2002.pdf for 5 ways of forecasting peak SSN. Your end date for cycle 23 would give a cycle 23 length outside of reason, but a rise time for cycle 24 that would give an expected number near 100. My estimates give an average for the first 3 methods of 90 and for the first 4 of 93. with 90 or so, we would be outside the lower trend line for method 5, but it would raise such outliers to 25% of the total cycles, so is not far fetched. The experts lower estimate of 90 looks real good to me.

Lief, re no trend in the floor. See fig 12 of the above reference. You would have to more than double the early numbers to eliminate the trend. I don’t think so.
Murray

491. Ulric
Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

Murray, the method I am using here, is as follows, a main feature of the coming maxima is centered on an opposition of Saturn with Jupiter/Uranus. Looking at many such alignments, it becomes clear that when
Earth/Venus conjunctions are square to the S/J/U line, solar activity and global temp. is low. The reverse
of this happens with E/V conjunct inline with the Jovian opposition. Then by checking previous S/J/U scenes
179 or 317.88 yr back (with similar E/V angles) against SSN and other proxies, I can get an idea of temp/solar activity. Interestingly, the freezing of the Euphrates 608AD and the Nile 829AD, both have Uranus
opposite Jupiter/Saturn, with the E/V conjunct very square to the Jovian line. So as you can see, I am working at the cause of the variation, rather than mathematical analysis of patterns in the records. I feel the more correlative work done, will make it easier to know in which direction to look for the actual physics
at play.

492. Posted Dec 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

485: geomagnetic activity is the RESULT of electric currents in the ionosphere, along magnetic fied lines, and from more distant currents in the magnetosphere, When you run a current through a conductor, the conductor heats up.

493. Edouard
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:49 AM | Permalink

@480

For me the opinion of Mr Usoskin about Mr Svalgaards Ideas is very important. Are You the real Usoskin from “Solanki and Usoskin”?

I’m impressed. But, what do YOU think about this new paper. And what does Mr Solanki think about it? What do we really know about the sun? What do we know about the influence of the sun on the weather? One might think that a long period of high activity must change the climate more than just a short period of some years. If the atmosphere would get warmer over a long time period, the warming must become more intense?! The sea needs a long time to find a new maximum level of heat?

If, after a long period of “heating”, the activity of the sun drops, will the whole biosphere immediately get colder? Or is it even possible, that the atmosphere still warms naturally for some years?

Best regards

Edouard

494. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 6:52 AM | Permalink

RE: Tom Vonk 479 radiation is active all over the atmosphere

Pat 481:
 Did you mean convection? (rather than conduction)
 There is a great deal of horizontal heat transfer from the tropics to the temperate and polar regions.
 thunderstorms go well above 5 km, of course, and transfer huge amounts of energy toward (and sometimes through) the tropopause when active

Jae 483 I think you mean convection, not conduction.

Answer: Let us imagine that we were redesigning the Earth to make it a little warmer. Parameter that can be manipulated is the atmosphere. Restrictions are that the absolute volume of the atmosphere can not be changed but you can change its composition. The greenhouse effect depends upon the proposition that the atmosphere has the property of retaining a certain amount of heat in transit to Space.

The first and most immediate process is heat transfer by direct contact (conduction). In the absence of water vapour this is pre-eminent. When the air is still, or the surface is extensive, the temperature of the air close to the surface is usually very similar to the temperature of the surface itself. Air over warm seawater at high latitudes is warm.

The Earth is spherical. It faces the sun for part of the time and away for another part. Angular effects and the amount of cloud over latitudes above about 30° mean that radiation will be deficient over much of the surface of the globe. As soon as heat is accepted by the atmospheric medium and regardless of the heat transfer process, we get convection. Remember that at walking pace you get to the top of the troposphere in two hours (11 kilometres). Birds depend upon local convection to rest their wings. Lateral movement at average wind speed might cover multiples of this distance but there is a solid upward trajectory. This limits the scope for lateral transfer of energy via the atmosphere. Of course it happens when you get wholesale movement of air that is relatively homogeneous in temperature reacting to the presence of very large high and low pressure cells or the heating of a large land mass in summer time (Monsoons). This will provoke swings in temperature that last as long as it takes for a pressure cell to pass the observer. This is about ten days at mid latitudes for the travelling low and high pressure cells and seasonal so far as the monsoonal effects are concerned.

For the sake of argument consider a smaller body of air, perhaps sitting over an island. Within a body of air that has accepted energy from the surface there will be local temperature differences at the molecular level. Radiation acceptors like water vapour, carbon dioxide etc are excited by some wave lengths within the infrared spectrum. Most of the wave lengths of outgoing infrared are uninhibited in this way. Let us presume for the sake of argument that there is sufficient water vapour etc to absorb the totality of radiation at these discrete wave lengths. Or we can assume that these acceptors are offloading just as fast as they are accepting and that is probably accurate. These radiation acceptors offload by contact with adjacent molecules of mainly nitrogen and oxygen and emission to space. Emission to space is successful if the wave length is appropriate. But, and this is the glorious part, the whole lot is moving as a parcel. If condensation occurs within this parcel of moving air, heat is released, kinetic energy gained, density falls and convection is accelerated.

How important has radiation been so far? Not much at all. So, if we were to double the greenhouse gas content would it make a difference to the transit time of that parcel of hot air to the top of the troposphere and the temperature differential at the surface? The material effect will be to load the radiation receptors that will in turn load up the rest. It depends upon the potential of the radiation receptors for converting inappropriate wave lengths to appropriate wave lengths and the degree of acceleration in convection.

The whole parcel is radiating all the time and the loss of radiative energy to space depends upon atmospheric density and getting the wave length right. As atmospheric density diminishes, radiation to space is increasingly successful whatever the wave length. At some point it is so successful that the body of air can not retain kinetic energy sufficient to support convection. That point is the tropopause.

Consider that the great bulk of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and the radiating molecules is of such a wave length that it travels through the atmosphere as readily as have most wave lengths of the infrared portion of incoming energy.

Consider that we have ignored entirely any heat shield effect of increasing the proportion of excitable molecules. We know how effective clouds are in reducing the incidence of radiation at the surface. Can we be sure that we will not actually cool the Earth if we increase the proportion of excitable molecules? More CO2 might have the same effect as clouds.

My gut feeling is that a tiny increase in trace constituents is not going to make much difference and it is just as likely to heat the Earth as cool it.

If we were redesigning Earth we would probably opt for better heat retention at latitudes greater than 30° than we currently have. It is doubtful that we would get the desired heat retention by mucking around with the composition of the atmosphere so long as we have this dramatic reduction of density between the surface and the tropopause and while the tropopause is as close and as cold as it is.

At latitudes less than 30° where we have this great surplus of incident radiation we have so much water at the surface that daytime temperature rarely rise above 32° C. Whoever did the design got that bit right. We have to run a big surplus here to get enough energy into the oceans so as to transfer energy to high latitudes. If we make the mistake of putting most of the land in one hemisphere, that will accentuate the problem. It does so because land gets very cold in winter. It is best if that land loaded hemisphere gets most of the benefit of the transfer of warmth via the ocean. It looks as if the designer got that one right too. It is best not to have land at the pole in the land loaded hemisphere so that the ice does not build up too much and cause very cold temperatures in winter due to downdraft effects and cause persistent chill in spring due to the melting of the winter ice build up. Got that one right too.

One thing the designer did not get right was to allow the heat gain in the tropics to fluctuate so much.

Upshot is that greenhouse effects are slight and can be dismissed as a hypothesis for the warming that has been experienced.

We perceive large fluctuations in temperature at the surface of the Earth over short time intervals. These swings are like the ocean chop that sits on top of the swell. The same thing that causes the chop is probably causing the swell. Neither relate to carbon dioxide because the level of that gas rises slowly and steadily. The agent that we are looking for is causing wave action. Little waves and swells. It has to be a form of wind. It is the thing that causes big swings in the amount of energy absorbed in the tropics. Could be a solar wind!

John F Pittman 484 The iris effect

Yes John, you could call it an iris effect. Both posts attempt to describe the solar link to Earthly temperature.
485 Edward
Does high geomagnetic activity (aa index) cause the ionosphere to expand by heating it by what sort of energy transfer (mechanically, electrically, magneticly, etc)? If not how does it expand?
Answer: The solar wind, the ionosphere and the neutral atmosphere interact according to the little known laws of plasma physics. It has to do with magnetism and electrical charges and it causes the same sorts of energy flows that drive electric motors and do work. Low density environment, no friction, and accelerative force moves particles with great rapidity while setting up attractive and repulsive fields that last for long periods of time.ie, months to years.

495. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:28 AM | Permalink

Edouard @490 The sea needs a long time to find a new maximum level of heat?

My impression is that the bulk of the sea at depth is extremely cold and does not change much in temperature except perhaps in relation to the seasonal shedding of the ice on the margins of Antarctica. The loss of heat in the surface layers of the ocean is fast due to evaporation. If one graphs the movement in tropical temperatures against the Southern Oscillation index there is much more volatility in both on a year by year basis than in global temperatures. Tropical surface temperatures just reflect sea surface temperatures and these plunge quickly when the heat stimulus is removed as it is during a La Nina event.

My impression is that the Earths temperature status is a direct reflection of the current level of geo-effective energy from the sun. Only about 50% of incident energy is geo-effective. However the ratio fluctuates in the short and the long term depending upon the response of the atmosphere to magnetic and electrical emanations from the sun that have the effect of expanding and contracting the zone in the tropics where the free inflow of solar energy is relatively uninhibited by atmospheric moisture and cloud.

Mind you, the sea stores energy much more effectively than the atmosphere. Time lag for energy loss by the atmosphere is less than 12 hours as we all observe.

496. kim
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

A year or so ago I said we needed John Harrison to figure out a climate model. So, now, turn him(Erl) loose with a big prize. We could call it the Bali Challenge.
============================================================

497. D. Patterson
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

Erl Happ says:

December 7th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Edouard @490 The sea needs a long time to find a new maximum level of heat?

My impression is that the bulk of the sea at depth is extremely cold and does not change much in temperature except perhaps in relation to the seasonal shedding of the ice on the margins of Antarctica.

Your impressions are quite wrong. The bulk of the bottomwaters of the world’s oceans are subject to substantial changes in convection, circulation, ventilation, and temperature.

498. Edward
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

493

Thanks Leif

499. Tom Vonk
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

Consider that the great bulk of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and the radiating molecules is of such a wave length that it travels through the atmosphere as readily as have most wave lengths of the infrared portion of incoming energy.

Consider that we have ignored entirely any heat shield effect of increasing the proportion of excitable molecules. We know how effective clouds are in reducing the incidence of radiation at the surface. Can we be sure that we will not actually cool the Earth if we increase the proportion of excitable molecules? More CO2 might have the same effect as clouds.

My gut feeling is that a tiny increase in trace constituents is not going to make much difference and it is just as likely to heat the Earth as cool it.

Then here a bit more than a gut feeling .
The surface is emitting like a black body at the local temperature .
For the usual temperatures f.ex 290 K , it’s in infrared and some 350 W/m² .
It happens that most of the frequencies emitted are also absorption frequencies of water and marginally other IR absorbing species .
Follows that the atmosphere is rather opaque to IR .
Once the IR absorbed , it is immediately transferred by collisions to the most frequent species N2 and O2 .
Those processes happen at the ns/µs scale so any movements of the atmosphere are irrelevant for radiation purposes .
The lower atmosphere can be considered locally at matter/radiation equilibrium whatever the atmospheric movements may be .
From the above follows that the presence of IR absorbing molecules necessarily raises the temperature in their neighbourhood .
They behave like an efficient instantaneous transmitter of a part of those 350 W/m² to their surrounding .
The equilibrium is obtained when the energy states are in a thermal distribution .
Now if you increase the number of IR absorbing molecules , this distribution is not modified therefore you increase both absorption and temperature .
I already explained that the absorption due to a “small” concentration of IR absorbing species is not necessarily small .

I’ll do it again in a very simple way .
Let’s take a gaz f.ex CO2 at 0,1 % concentration absorbing in a band around 10 µ . That makes 3.10^22 molecules in a m3 .
Now let’s suppose that 10 % of the above mentioned 350 W/m² are in the same band centered on 10 µ so 35 W/m² .
The energy of the IR photons in this band is E = h.nu so in the 35 W/m² , you emit some 2.10^21 photons /s .
Now as exposed above the absorption and collision processes happen some 1 million times /s .
Then you see that the first m3 of air can easily absorb all of those 2.10^21 photons in the first millionth of a second and have ample time to go to drink a coffee and wait for the next delivery during the remaining 999 999 millionth of a second .
It’s an optical illusion – if 0,1 % seems small , 10^22 molecules is already rather big and 35 W/m² heating is quite a figure .
Now of course all that is not accurate but the orders of magnitude are right within a factor 10 – it’s only to give an idea that radiation processes are important even for extremely low concentrations .
On the other hand one also sees that as the IR absorbing species are IR idle most of the time so varying their numbers doesn’t change the picture much .

500. jae
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

500: Tom, nice description of the radiation exchange process, but

Those processes happen at the ns/µs scale so any movements of the atmosphere are irrelevant for radiation purposes .

I question this part. Indeed, it’s true for the first few exchanges of radiation, but the excited molecules are drifting upwards quickly. I think convection completely overwhelms all this on the large scale. The processes you outline work in a bottle, but not in the atmosphere, which I think is just one big heat storage machine.

501. jae
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

495, Erl:

The greenhouse effect depends upon the proposition that the atmosphere has the property of retaining a certain amount of heat in transit to Space.

It is really great that there is someone out there that also thinks this way! The greenhouse effect is simply the ability of our atmosphere to store heat for awhile.

502. jae
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

Also 595:

At latitudes less than 30° where we have this great surplus of incident radiation we have so much water at the surface that daytime temperature rarely rise above 32° C.

Yes, whereas, in the deserts, the temperatures can exceed 50 C. The water provides a negative feedback, as shown here.

503. Tom Vonk
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

I question this part. Indeed, its true for the first few exchanges of radiation, but the excited molecules are drifting upwards quickly. I think convection completely overwhelms all this on the large scale. The processes you outline work in a bottle, but not in the atmosphere, which I think is just one big heat storage machine.

To be more exact those processes work in a gas . Both in a bottle or in the atmosphere . It’s exactly the same .
Now I suspect that you misunderstood something without clearly seeing what .
I didn’t say that convection (or conduction for that matter) were irrelevant per se .
I said that if you look at radiation processes in a gas with the appropriate time scale you see molecules zipping here and there at hundreds of m/s with photons racing among them at light speed but you don’t detect any significant global movement at bigger space scales because it is too slow .
That’s precisely the reason why the gas can be in local radiative equilibrium because it is tremendously fast to establish while it is not in equilibrium at bigger scales and times because it indeed moves .
So you can look at radiation alone by neglecting convection movements and get the right conclusions for the radiation .
You can’t look at convection alone without considering radiation but you can simplify for a local case by saying that radiation is just a constant heater and get the right figure from the radiation alone approach .
Last but not least , when you want to look at very big spatial and temporal scales then you must consider radiation
coupled to convection because , I never could insist enough , the L in LTE is Local so when you are less and less local , you must integrate and integration means that your “heaters” are no more constant but depend on x,y,z and possibly some other things like concentrations .
Radiation works with hundreds of W/m2 as does the convection – so neither overwhelms really the other .
Both must be considered and as they are coupled in a very unpleasant extremely non linear way , it is not easy .

504. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

500 Tom

in the 35 W/m² , you emit some 2.10^21 photons /s

Interesting exposition. I assume, though, that the units for this should be photons/m^2/sec

505. Gunnar
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

>> The greenhouse effect is simply the ability of our atmosphere to store heat for awhile.

If the “for awhile” part is true, it means that the average temp would not be affected by the GHE. Perhaps, the 33 degrees attributed to the GHE effect is actually the result of gravity. Similarly, even with 97% C02, Venus temps may also be the result of gravity.

506. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

500 Tom

Then you see that the first m3 of air can easily absorb all of those 2.10^21 photons in the first millionth of a second

You have assumed a pretty large cross-section for absorption of a photon by a CO2 molecule. I’m not sure it makes a real difference to your argument, but it might be a good idea to include realistic photon absorption probabilities.

507. Tom Vonk
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

Interesting exposition. I assume, though, that the units for this should be photons/m^2/sec

They correspond to the 35 W which are emitted by 1 m² .
So , yes (I thought about it but was to lazy to type a bit more characters . But people here have often a sharp eye and now I type a whole new message . Yet my mother told me not to be lazy . Well , sigh :))

508. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

508

Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I guess I’m lazy, too (ask my wife).

An old boss of mine used to complain that “there’s never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.”

509. Larry
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

No, the greenhouse effect has absolutely zero to do with heat storage. It affects the steady-state balance.

510. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

Leif; Ah, magnetic field lines and electricity and current flow.

It’s all about the PIE ! :D

511. UK John
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

Lief et al>

Came back to this after quite a few days away, stayed away because I didn’t understand.

However its amazing how your brain works, because now I read it and understand a lot more of it, now that is strange, because I haven’t been conciously thinking about you all.

512. Bill F
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

425 Bruce,

I think you are really misunderatnding Leif’s comments on smoothing. He was trying to compare his reconstruction to two others. I am assuming that the others used a multi-year smoothing to tease out a signal over the course of an entire solar cycle. In order to be able to compare his reconstruction with the other two, Leif had to do the same with his graph. The result of that is that the smoothed value will have significantly less movement than the actual values themselves. The graph you are looking at with ACRIM data appears to be smoothed monthly (or possibly even weekly) values for TSI. I would be willing to bet that if you took the ACRIM data and smoothed it over a multi year period that you would see a variability that is very similar to Leif’s. The period of +0.10 values that you cite as a high point lasts less than a year, and would not likely make a big dent if that graph were smoothed over an 11 year period.

513. Bill F
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

Leif,

I have tried to keep up as well as I could here, but the sheer volume on this post is really getting out of hand. I appreciate your willingness to continue to engage in the discussion here and thank you for helping me learn more than I knew before I started reading.

With that said, I can’t help but wonder if your recent reconstruction isn’t just one of several papers that have come out recently or are in review that will end up being the metaphorical version of the AGW ship’s rudder being thrown hard to starboard as we prepare to bring the ship about. I am trying to look at the big picture, and it seems like we have three relatively new pieces of research coming together at the same time that are interesting by themselves, but when put together in the big picture they may be the basis of a new line of GW theories.

First to consider is your recent reconstruction suggesting that solar variation is lower than previously thought. What are the practical implications of this on historical climate? Well it should mean that if the solar variation over time is smaller than we thought, then it didn’t take large changes in solar output to trigger signficant climate change during times when we are certain that there is no anthropogenic signal. That by itself makes a strong argument for a strong amplification of solar variation as a climate forcing.

Next we have the S&W paper. They make that same argument through a different angle of approach, but the bottom line is that they find that climate responds more strongly to solar changes than we previously believed.

Then we have M&M (JGR 2007) which strongly supports the contention that our current temperature dataset is heavily contaminated with urban heat island influence compared to earlier data. With the IPCC (mainly the modelers) maintaining that the reason the post 1980 rise in temperature HAS to be anthropogenic is because it doesn’t correlate with natural forcings the way it did pre-1980, and Ross shooting holes in their data, it would appear that there is fertile ground for a reexamination of the relationships between the various forcings.

What if the solar variability really is low? What if the response of climate to solar variability really is higher than we thought? What if there isn’t as much warming that is “unexplained” by non-anthropogenic forcings? Are we seeing the AGW ship begin to turn to starboard on its way to reversing course? Hopefully it will happen in less than 10 years, because I think the folks meeting in Bali are going to be finished cleaning out our pockets in less than 10 years if the ship doesn’t have quick and responsive steering…

514. John Lang
Posted Dec 7, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

Just noting that the first big sunspot system in about 7 months hit the sun today.

Solar flux has started rising after months of being stable at the lowest level.

Solar cycle 24 may be about to start after cycle 23 became one of the longest cycles on record (11 years 7 months.) (The record is 13 years 7 months but few cycles made it to 11 years 7 months.)

We can’t declare cycle 24 has started until we see a large sunspot system lower down on the sun’s face (below 30 degrees latitude) and this system is not so we’ll just have to watch and see.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

515. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

D Patterson 498
I am happy to be educated but at http://www.fathom.com/course/10701050/session1.html
I see this:

The surface temperatures of the oceans range from 40°Celsius or so in shallow tropical lagoons to -1.9°C, the typical freezing point for sea water, in polar regions. Most of the water in the deeper layers is very cold. On the whole, any warm water in the open ocean is restricted to a shallow, near-surface band. No matter how warm the surface layers are, between 300 and 1,000m beneath the surface the temperature falls to about 5°C and then continues to fall slowly with increasing depth. As a result, even beneath the hottest tropical regions the water at a depth of 2,000-3,000m almost never rises above 4°C–with one dramatic exception. In some places along the oceanic ridge systems, extremely hot sea water gushes out of fissures in the underlying rocks. The water from these hydrothermal vents emerges at incredibly high temperatures–up to 300-400°C but, because of the vast mass of surrounding cold water, the temperature drops to the normal 3-4°C within a metre or so of the vent opening.

Murray Duffin 490 Your comment: Interestingly, the opening of the Iris corresponds with increase in solar activity, and may be significant as the TSI amplifier needed to give TSI more weight.

Ans: Murray, I think that the low latitude temperature swings are evidence of big swings in the reception of solar radiation at the surface at time periods shorter than 11 years. There is a correlation between short term warming events and aspects of the suns activity but it is not with sunspots or total solar irradiance. Hence, I think the TSI effect will be swamped. TSI is undoubtedly a factor that will affect temperature on Earth and it will be expressed with a frequency of eleven years and perhaps over much longer periods as well. However, other factors are causing swings with large amplitude both in the short and long term. These factors also seem to be associated with the changing balance between heating and cooling over groups of solar cycles. Perhaps this is related to waves in the interplanetary magnetic field that mediate the Bz component of the solar wind. Thats where people with a much better understanding of the sun than I, need to contribute. What I have tried to do is to point towards the Earths atmosphere as a mediator of energy flows. I see this as the part of the interaction between Sun and Earth that has been ignored. In all the work that tries to establish correlations there has been little effort to explain a plausible mechanism. I think that the change in the heat shield effect is a plausible mechanism because it can work at intervals that correspond with the fluctuations in sea surface temperatures that we observe.

Of course, the critical thing is to have people accept that these short term fluctuations are generalised across all low latitudes and secondly that they are linked to some aspect of solar activity rather than unexplainable aberrations, chaos in the universe, internal interactions in the climate system or some other mumbo jumbo. I am pointing the finger at the meteorological community here. However, they cant do it all on their own. They need help from the people who understand the plasma physics of the interaction of the solar wind with the ionosphere.

Re: Could current southern cooling reflect the 1945 to 1975 mainly NH temp. decline, or is the cycle time so long that it reflects the LIA?

Query: Whats the LIA?
Ans: Pertinent to the question perhaps: The US base at the South Pole has been cooling since 1957. Antarctic temperatures are driven by downdraft phenomena reacting to strength of updraft elsewhere. The coldest densest air does most of the settling. The atmosphere is after all one big bathtub.

Antarctica will currently be warming with the collapse of updraft in the tropics associated with La Nina cooling.

I suspect Antarctica has seen a net cooling over the entire period of warming elsewhere. But that cant last for ever. There has been warming in the Peninsula area. Even during the decline in temperature in the northern hemisphere between 1945 and 1976 with La Nina dominant in the tropics the underlying trend over the globe except for period of Solar Cycle 20, was gradual warming. This is I believe related to the Earths atmosphere reacting to long term changes in the parameters of the solar wind.

Re: Barycentric variation. Fairbridge was a very smart cookie. Landscheidt had success in predicting weather using his somewhat more esoteric methods. Sunspots appear in a cycle. To my simple mind, gravitational effects bind the solar system together and they influence the wash of the oceans and the atmosphere on Earth. Could be they also affect the thermonuclear reactions of the sun. Timo Noruma seems to have the numbers. I doubt we will ever understand the mechanism till we can build a reactor like the sun. Meanwhile good correlations will enable projections that could be useful. So I am delighted to see others who understand the physics of planetary interaction and the tides try and work this out.

Re Ulric 492 feel the more correlative work done, will make it easier to know in which direction to look for the actual physics at play.

Agree entirely.

Re Tom Vonk 500
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect a diagram headed Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere shows a big window for direct emission of long wave radiation right in the peak bands of the radiation emitted. Neither water vapour nor CO2 are active for these bands. As I read it the radiation gets out through this window or else it gets out as a nonconforming wave length when there is nothing in the way to absorb it. Reduction in atmospheric density with altitude is steep.

The operative bit of your argument seems to be as the IR absorbing species are IR idle most of the time so varying their numbers doesnt change the picture much. In other words they offload to other gaseous species as quickly as they acquire energy. Net effect is to increase the kinetic energy loading of the atmosphere and accelerate convection and the rate of local IR emission by all species. Without convection there will be a reduction in the temperature differential between the surface and any point in the lower atmosphere unless increased convection accelerates the rate of heat removal to the point where the temperature differential remains unchanged. My argument is that this is largely the case and it depends upon the dramatic reduction of atmospheric density with elevation. There is also another consideration and that is this..radiation is intermittent and the whole lot is dropped overnight anyway.

In calculating the result one can not ignore the absorption of incoming radiation by greenhouse species. In this case they are acting as heat shield species. In the Wikipedia diagram it is very plain that this is also a factor to consider. If you add IR absorbers to the atmosphere and you cut the flows in both directions. You would have to be a very clever modeller to take into account all the factors involved.

516. D. Patterson
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 2:27 AM | Permalink

516 Erl Happ says:

December 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
D Patterson 498
I am happy to be educated but at http://www.fathom.com/course/10701050/session1.html
I see this:

The surface temperatures of the oceans range from 40°Celsius or so in shallow tropical lagoons to -1.9°C, the typical freezing point for sea water, in polar regions. Most of the water in the deeper layers is very cold. On the whole, any warm water in the open ocean is restricted to a shallow, near-surface band. No matter how warm the surface layers are, between 300 and 1,000m beneath the surface the temperature falls to about 5°C and then continues to fall slowly with increasing depth. As a result, even beneath the hottest tropical regions the water at a depth of 2,000-3,000m almost never rises above 4°Cwith one dramatic exception. In some places along the oceanic ridge systems, extremely hot sea water gushes out of fissures in the underlying rocks. The water from these hydrothermal vents emerges at incredibly high temperaturesup to 300-400°C but, because of the vast mass of surrounding cold water, the temperature drops to the normal 3-4°C within a metre or so of the vent opening.

Yes, you have selected a quotation which focuses on the issue of the temperatures in ocean waters, so you seem to have entirely missed the true subject of my objection to your full comment.

496 Erl Happ says:

December 7th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Edouard @490 The sea needs a long time to find a new maximum level of heat?

My impression is that the bulk of the sea at depth is extremely cold and does not change much in temperature except perhaps in relation to the seasonal shedding of the ice on the margins of Antarctica. The loss of heat in the surface layers of the ocean is fast due to evaporation. If one graphs the movement in tropical temperatures against the Southern Oscillation index there is much more volatility in both on a year by year basis than in global temperatures. Tropical surface temperatures just reflect sea surface temperatures and these plunge quickly when the heat stimulus is removed as it is during a La Nina event.

My impression is that the Earths temperature status is a direct reflection of the current level of geo-effective energy from the sun. Only about 50% of incident energy is geo-effective. However the ratio fluctuates in the short and the long term depending upon the response of the atmosphere to magnetic and electrical emanations from the sun that have the effect of expanding and contracting the zone in the tropics where the free inflow of solar energy is relatively uninhibited by atmospheric moisture and cloud.

Mind you, the sea stores energy much more effectively than the atmosphere. Time lag for energy loss by the atmosphere is less than 12 hours as we all observe.

In particular, note the part in which you wrote:

My impression is that the bulk of the sea at depth is extremely cold and does not change much in temperature except perhaps in relation to the seasonal shedding of the ice on the margins of Antarctica.

Yes, your statement  that the bulk of the sea at depth is extremely cold is quite true by itself. Your statement that the bulk of the sea at depth […] does not change much in temperature[…] is true insofar as you do not consider the quantitative changes in thermal energy by total mass. Unfortunately, you added an additional phrase, except perhaps in relation to the seasonal shedding of the ice on the margins of Antarctica; which further implied small changes in absolute temperature of the bulk of the sea at depth was also indicative of small changes in the total quantity of thermal energy in the bulk of the sea at depth and the oceans altogether. It must be noted that the wider range of temperature variations you observed in the upper levels of the oceans do not represent anything greater than a small fraction of the total thermal energy content of the world’s oceans. The vast bulk of the sea in terms of volume and mass are below the uppermost stratified levels of ocean waters with widely changing temperature variations and above the bottom waters of the lowermost ocean depths where temperature change ranges are small. Consequently even small changes in temperature of one degree Celsius or a fraction of a degree in the far more voluminous, dense, and massive ocean waters at the lowermost and intermediate ocean depths have an overall thermal capacity much greater than the thermal capacity of the uppermost ocean waters subject to such greater temperature range variations. In other words, what matters is the overall quantitative change in thermal energy in the oceans rather than only the scale of change of temperatures in a non-representative and fractional part of the ocean.

It is also important to note that the convection, circulation, and ventilation of the bottom waters contributes to maintaining low temperature gradients in the oceanic bottom water by transporting thermal energy between the other oceanic water masses in the equatorial regions and the polar regions of the hydrosphere, cryosphere, and atmosphere, where exchanges of thermal energy facilitate radiation into space. The bottom waters remain cold in part because they are dynamic participants in the exchanges of thermal energy and not because they are static non-participants in such thermal exchanges.

517. Ulric
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

Dear Erl and Murray, what I am doing is much like reading the hands on a clock to see when dawn and dusk are,
without any need to know how the clock is working. The clock in this case is the big one in the sky, and I am reading it for cold/tepid/warm. I will map some more factors out, planet names are abbreviated, * for the Sun
and MZ for Mars. The most extreme conditions I have noted, leaving out MZ and M for now are; J/E/V/*/S/U/N, this is the hottest, and */E/V/J/S/U/N being the coldest. If V and E are in opposition, they will be square to the JovianLine, for the same result. Now if an E/V conjunction is square to a J/*/S/U/N line, this will be cold, and if an E/V conjunct is square to a */J/S/U/N line, this will be warm. These conditions can be mapped against the most extreme temperatures in the Holocene record, and clearly be seen to
be occurring at every minima, LIA or otherwise. Lesser Jovian conjunctions and oppositions as I call them, such as J/*/S. */S/J/, J/*/S/U and */J/S/U, can be seen occurring at every other notable rise or fall in global temp, and are the main reason for diminished or augmented sunspot cycle maxima. The primary components for SS cycle are J/E/V, and for the El Nino cycle J/MZ/E/V, J/MZ/E/V/M/* in 2031 should produce a Major El Nino. Looking at the J/MZ/E/V factors alone, J/MZ/E/V/* equates to warm, while J/E/V/*/MZ is
cool. Conversely, J/*V/E/MZ is cool while J/MZ/*/V/E is warm, very curious!!
A J/*/V/E/MZ condition occurred mid this November, and relates to Feb. 1963, 44.75yr ago, and I would have been very dismayed if there had not been some record lows in temp. where seasonally appropriate globally.
On the basis of the major synthesis of V,E,J,S,U, and Neptune, I am seeing 2020-2025 as being very cold, but much more importantly, 2060 all the way to 2120 is cold cold cold. Did anyone in the last bit of warmth
in Bali care to think about the seriousness of Global cooling??

518. cba
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

Greetings all! After perusing the thread for some time, I’m still only partially finished (nearing the 1/2 mark) however there was an interesting comment mentioned by Curt at 169 quoted from Steve. That is about when is a W/m^2 not the same as a W/m^2, depending on source. There is also a reference to another thread concerning a thought experiment.

I’ve been playing around with radiative transfer for a while and have come to realize (understand a bit of)the nature of the radiative transfer. I think the thought experiment is basically correct and that there is a serious difference in the effect of solar insolation changes versus a change in GHG concentrations. This occurs because the absorption effect of GHGs in the atmosphere is a function of an absorption coefficient and is a function of wavelength. Also, for a gas, emissions, unlike solids, are a function depend upon both planck’s law and upon the emission coefficient which is equal to the absorption coefficient in most cases such as the vast majority of the atmosphere where there is LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium – a requirement which is necessary for there to exist the concept of a temperature). Planck’s law integrated over wavelength and solid angles is the derivation for stefan’s law.

What this means is that if GHG concentrations in a shell of atmosphere increase so that IR absorption at wavelength x increases, so does the ability of that shell to radiate energy at that wavelength so more energy will radiate outward from that shell at that wavelength x. Think of stefan’s law as merely a simplification for planck’s law so that the absorption increase is the same as emissivity(wavelength) increases so that not all balance must be done through the T^4 temperature variation. Now, if there is an increase in net incoming power (solar variation), this must be dealt with totally through changes in T^4 changes as emissivity isn’t changing for this case. Hence the outcome indicates a difference in Temperature change due to similar power changes from different sources.

Note too that this emissivity/absorption factor (classically referred to as kirchoff’s law)is the einstein absorption / spontaneous emission coefficients in the modern qm world.

Another thought here is that while one can accept the total solar output as being very consistant despite being slightly variable over all time frames. After all the sun cannot be nor become a Mira variable – not being a red giant nor having a white dwarf or main sequence companion just out past pluto. However, that doesn’t mean the TSI doesn’t vary in effect much greater than the total variation. A 0.1% variation of TOTAL flux doesn’t mean the uV variation cannot change by several percent. Also, long uV can make its way all the way down into the ocean well below the surface and provide energy well below the top few cm. On the otherhand, What little energy out past 2 or 4 microns coming in that makes it to the ocean surface isn’t going through the first cm of ocean water. Hence, it’s not necessarily the absolute total but the effects of the various segments of the spectrum and how they might cvhange which can have the significant effects large enough to be of importance. And, it’s also just been pointed out that these effects will likely be stronger than the forcing concept for GHGs (w/m^2) that assume uniformity between various causes.

519. Bruce
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

#513 Bill F

Bill, Leif graph has 5 peaks from 1950 to 2000. There were 5 sunspot number peaks from 1950 to 2000.

It isn’t smoothing thats the problem. The problem is that the fluctuation he claims in the TSI is about half of what I would expect extrapolating ACRIM back to the peak in the late 1950’s.

I just plain think he is wrong about the magnitude.

520. cba
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

Jan,

What does an FFT of your data look like? Freq. components & phase?

521. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

re #519
cba, you are way over my head, but you seem to be a physicist. Care to comment on http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf . Thanks Murray

522. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

Ulric, tried to send you an e-mail, but didn’t have enough info. Is gmail dot com dot fr or ?? Murray

523. cba
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Murray,

not sure how to answer that anymore. I have a foot in that camp now but spent virtually a whole career doing mostly other things. If you consider trends, it’s a direction I’m headed back towards. Consequently, I’m on a relearning curve getting back into the fold for now – origionally for my own interests but sometimes life throws a suprise or two here and there and sometimes it’s hard to tell just where that might lead.

You reference the Gerlich paper. I’ve not had time to do anything but run a bare spotcheck few minutes over it and that was probably around v1. I think Gerlich is writing with a vengeance or an axe to grind which can open one up to making errors. I also find his presentation hard to deal with as he waits until the last moment to provide correct information on what was presented as something appearing less than correct initially. I think too he is perhaps more a mathematician than a physicist which in my mind can be troublesome.

All in all, he may well be right on most of his presentation but as I have yet to be able to spend much time reviewing it, I can only state what I’ve just stated. I didn’t find him wrong but I haven’t gone through all of it either to verify or conclude it is mostly or totally right.

My own little ‘hobby’ efforts, unfunded by any source, are in an area somewhat outside my formal education (although I do have graduate education in thermodynamics/statistical physics as I recall – lots of h2o under the overpass). I don’t think Gerlich is right in saying nontime based models are worthless (if I recall his stating that correctly). What I’ve done so far indicates some of the complexity of the grossly simplified problem involved and I currently have the view that there is a difference in the effect of forcings from different causes and that the GHG sensitivity is vastly overblown and that solar variation per W/m^2 should have a greater influence on T – per my previous post.

I am having problems with Leif’s ideas because it looks like he’s stamped out longer term variations – such as appear to be present in the little filtered chart Jan presented above.

I do think that solar in some fashion or another is responsible for most of the warming observed (presuming we’ve had any) and suspect that there must be a serious self regulating system composed of clouds/albedo effects creating the iris effect and that cosmic ray/cloudformation/magnetic field activity effects play a significant role in this drama a la Svensmark, Lindsbeck(?), and Shaviv.

524. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 8, 2007 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

Folks, after some time on the road, I’m back, and see to my horror that this huumble thread has grown to be a monster, much of it off topic [barycenter, tidal, ocen heating, …]. But I’ll try to soldier on.

Almost all reconstructions of solar activity or TSI or open flux, etc rely in some way on the sunspot number, either the Wolf number or the Group number, so it is important that we have the variation of that number nailed down. The fact that we have TWO series ought to give pause in itself. What I purport to have shown is that we do NOT have the correct sunspot number series [if so, then all the other stuff relying on the sunspot number ain’t right either], so it comes down to this: is the Wolf number correct? and/or is the Group number correct? First of all, they can’t both be right. And possibly they are BOTH wrong [which is my contention]. I realize that much rides on this and that people don’t like to give up long-cherished beliefs, so am prepared to be in for a long struggle. Various experts have weighed in on this, some with arguments that they know are incorrect or irrelevant. For example, we have 474 where Ilya Usoskin states that the sunspot number CANNOT be 30% wrong because we have photographs of the Sun back to 1874. Ilya knows quite well [or should know] that these photographs are NOT used in determining the sunspot number. The photographs were obtained by the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) between 1874 and 1975. From the photographs, the daily sunspot area was determined. By comparing the sunspot areas and the sunspot numbers [which are closely related] one can test the homogeneity of the series. We have done that and the result can be found at http://www.leif.org/research in the file De maculis in Sole observatis.pdf

Our conclusion was that “From analysis of the RGO Sunspot Areas compared to the Zürich Sunspot Numbers, it emerges that there is a discontinuity of a factor of 1.175 when Waldmeier took over the production of Rz. Analysis [Svalgaard, 2007] of the geomagnetic data (daily range of East-component) yielded a factor of 1.23, in good agreement with the result obtained here from the sunspot areas. We take this as an indication that the geomagnetic calibration method is reliable (or at least gives nearly the same result as comparisons with the photographically obtained sunspot areas).”

There were such junps in the 20th and in the 19th centuries, together leading to the conclusion that the sunspot number is up to 50% wrong early on, compared to our modern values. There are many steps in this line of argument, so we need to take them one at a time and become convinced [or reject] about the validity of each step, from which then the combined conclusion will follow. Such debate need to be specific, that is: statements like “X is silly” or “X does not sound right” are not helpful. Rather, one has to state the reasons for such statements, etc. Also, one has to actually READ the links provided.

So, the purpose of the link given is to show that the ~20% jump in the sunspot number in 1945 that is deduced from the geomagnetic data is also seen in the sunspot area data [from those photographs that Usoskin was trying to snow you with]. Once we have absorbed that, we can move on to the next step, but apparently not before.

525. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

525: “So, the purpose of the link given is to show that the ~20% jump in the sunspot number in 1945 that is deduced from the geomagnetic data is also seen in the sunspot area data [from those photographs that Usoskin was trying to snow you with].”
should have been:
“So, the purpose of the link given is to show that the ~20% jump in the sunspot number in 1945 that is deduced from the geomagnetic data can also be deduced from the sunspot area data [from those photographs that Usoskin was trying to snow you with].”

526. maksimovich
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 12:32 AM | Permalink

Phil Goode on the Suns role in climate

Implications of Limit
– Earth is responding to more subtle changes in Sun, which imprint the solar cycle and longer term wanderings of solar activity (confirm Foukal, North and Wigley, Science, 2004)
– Changes in solar wind induces some unknown changes at the Earth
– A new burden on the climate models

Confidence in our results based on:

94-95 earthshine data agreement
– Positive/negative phases are similar
– Scrambling the data in mock reconstructions time/space support the trend
– Variation is large
– Albedo change is 6 W/m2 ; GHG until now is 2.4 W/m2
– Equivalent to 2% increase in solar irradiance, a factor 20
more than typical maxima to minima variations
– Reversibility suggests natural variations.
– GCM do not show such variations
– What is the climatic impact? Recent warming acceleration?

Earthshine and other results point to an increasing reflectance over the past five years,which reverses a fifteen year trend of decline

– Taken in isolation, less sunlight would imply a reversal of global warming
– Recently updated ISCCP data reveal a change in clouds, so both reduced sunlight and increased global warming are possible
– Results also confirm earlier Earthshine results of an increasing Earth albedo

There is a paradoz in the last section where we can see the biospheric response.

527. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 12:57 AM | Permalink

On rY and SSN: We find for modern times (1947-2007) a very good relationship between rY and SSN: SSN = 6 (rY – 30). Let us now assume that for, say 1840 we measure rY = 50 nT. According to our modern formula we would then expect a SSN of 6*(50-30) = 120. But what if the SSN series say 60 for 1840. Then we can go two ways:

1) either the SSN is wrong and must be corrected up to 120, or
2) the formula is not valid for 1840 because the ionosphere/earth/sun system has changed since then in an unknown way

Both ways are legit. What makes us go for choice 1 are the facts that these changes are synchronized with the changes of observers, and we do not believe that the system knows about that, and that we also find that SSN has jumps when we analyze the sunspot area data. A third possibility, that the data on rY are no good can be dismissed out of hand as rY is computed from the Declination which was easy to measure even back then.

528. Ulric
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 2:18 AM | Permalink

ulriclyons@gmail.com Murray.

529. ulric
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

Lief, I am not saying that this has to be barycenter issue, but I do regard it as a master key for quantifying: 1. the timing and intensity of any given sunspot maxima, 2. the timing and intensity of any El Nino, 3. global temperature change, per decade, year, or even week, 4. triggers times for hurricanes and typhoons, as well as weak or strong years for such events, 5. likely times for serious solar storms that threaten satellites, power grids and ground based communications. 6. critical times for earthquakes and volcanos. Any of these claims can be verified repeatedly. Gravity has not been qualified, but we can quantify it and successfully take account of it without knowing its full nature.

530. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

527: this is also precisely what I said, namely if the sun varies less, the sensitivity of the climate system must be greater if we want to maintain that the sun is a driver of climate change. Glad to see that you support me in this.

530: I cannot follow you here. Those are extraordinary claims and as such require extraordinary evidence, which I have not seen, but I consider ‘gravity’ to be off topic. Petition Steve Mc to have a special thread for that.

531. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

Leif, I wonder if you could restate your conclusions. It seems to me that you are saying:
1) that historic declination data is a more reliable source than SS counts, and that geomagnetc field strength variations in nT can be accurately reconstructed from declination and SS activity can be safely inferred from geomagnetic field strength.
2)that historic sunspot numbers prior to ca 1945 need to be revised upwards by 20% average back to ca 1895 and from little to near 50% pre 1895, depending on the cycle, as determined from declination.
3) that there is a floor to solar activity and that there is no secular upward trend in this floor for the last 150 years, and therefore probably not back to at least the Maunder minimum.
Somehow I seem to have inferred that you are suggesting that there is no secular change in solar activity, and that your prior work saying that solar wind/magnetic field strength had increased >100% in the 20th century was wrong. I am not quite unsure about this last bit.
If 3) above is right, I don’t understand the significance.

532. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

#532 correction “I am quite unsure”

533. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

532: (Murray) “Leif, I wonder if you could restate your conclusions. It seems to me that you are saying:”

1) that historic declination data is a more reliable source than SS counts, and that geomagnetc field strength variations in nT can be accurately reconstructed from declination and SS activity can be safely inferred from geomagnetic field strength.

the short answer is simply: “yes”. The reason being that SS counts are subjective and depends on many things we don’t know about the obervers, such as telescope used, local “seeing”, his eyesight, his definition of group, and even of spot [some didn’t count small, shortlived spots] etc. So, one observer has to be calibrated against the “master observer” [Wolf]. And it is that calibration that is uncertain.

2) that historic sunspot numbers prior to ca 1945 need to be revised upwards by 20% average back to ca 1895 and from little to near 50% pre 1895, depending on the cycle, as determined from declination.

yes, that is correct.

3) that there is a floor to solar activity and that there is no secular upward trend in this floor for the last 150 years, and therefore probably not back to at least the Maunder minimum.

Again, correct, although imprecise. A better statement would be that the interplanetary magnetic field [which depends on the overall solar magnetic field] and the FUV flux reach the same values [the ‘floors’] at each solar minimum and that there is no long-term trend in those minimum values, i.e. in the ‘background’ activity. There is still a solar cycle, and my statement about that is that the maximum values do not seem to have a long-term trend either [although, individual cycles may vary]. This is at variance with the ‘offical’ sunspot numbers that show modern cycles to on average about twice as active compared to the past few hundred years.

Somehow I seem to have inferred that you are suggesting that there is no secular change in solar activity, and that your prior work saying that solar wind/magnetic field strength had increased >100% in the 20th century was wrong. I am not quite sure about this last bit.

This is correct, but the ‘last’ bit is a bit more complicated. I suggested that 30 years ago, but nobody payed any attention to that, until Mike Lockwood brought it up again in his 1999 Nature paper, and it has since become a “cornerstone” in the ‘background’ debate.

If 3) above is right, I dont understand the significance.

I don’t know what you mean. My result is that there very likely is no long-term trend in the background. Maybe this link will be helpful:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LEA/presentations/thurs_am/Goode_Lunar_Workshop.pdf
go to page 5. Compare the blue curve [no background], and the red curve [with as Goode says a “purported” long-term variation]. The blue curve is where I want it. Now look at the maxima of the blue curve, the last five or so reach up to the yellow line, while the ones to the left [earlier] only reach about halfway up to the yellow line. What I argue is that these early peaks should be increased to also reach up to the yellow curve and be no different from the modern peaks. This means that the sunspot numbers [which the blue curve is constructed from] must be similarly increased. And our work with the geomagnetic data and the sunspot area data supports this; in fact, lead us to this conclusion.

534. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

Again, correct, although imprecise. A better statement would be that the interplanetary magnetic field [which depends on the overall solar magnetic field] and the FUV flux reach the same values [the floors] at each solar minimum and that there is no long-term trend in those minimum values, i.e. in the background activity. There is still a solar cycle, and my statement about that is that the maximum values do not seem to have a long-term trend either [although, individual cycles may vary]. This is at variance with the offical sunspot numbers that show modern cycles to on average about twice as active compared to the past few hundred years.

I don’t quite understand how this statement can be made considering your own really nice graphics regarding the decay of an old cycle and the pickup of a new one. This paper of yours here:http://www.leif.org/research/When%20is%20Minimum.pdf has a minimum value related to solar cycles since 1947 (which I am assuming is the time period, based on previous posts, that you trust the most). Couple this to your other paper that you did with the nice graphics showing the decline of one cycle and the rise in the next one (I can’t find it on your site right now) and I have the following question:

It seems that for all of the cycles that we have good data (160 years?) that the cycles have been “normal” in that the decline in the previous cycle is overlapped at a certain point by the rise in the new cycle, producing a “floor” in the smoothed data. You seem to indicate that the minimum values that happen at that time represent the floor during the Maunder minimum as well. What do you base this statement on? I have read your paper on the subject but it seems to rely on the data from recent minimums to make the backward prediction. Do you feel that the entry into the MM is that similar to the minimum of “standard” cycles and what do you base that on?

535. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

535 (Dennis): on my website look at the ApJL-paper “A floor…”.
The chain of evidence is this:
Geomagnetic evidence allows us to determine the IMF strength back to the 1830s, and we find that the IMF approaches a constant value ~4.5 nT in each minimum. Also that IMF depends on the sqrt of the sunspot number. Since at most minima there is still a small residual number of spots, there will be a small residual sunspot-related part added to the floor’s 4.5 nT, but SMALL. The spacecraft-era data only serves to calibrate the geomagnetic data in term of nT. Cosmic ray data provides the M.M. values [or at least a check on it] but go to that ApJL paper, it answers your questions.

536. windansea
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

Leif

I assume you have seen the latest Danish Solar report?

any thoughts?

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/ISAC_Final_Report.pdf

537. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

Since at most minima there is still a small residual number of spots, there will be a small residual sunspot-related part added to the floors 4.5 nT, but SMALL. The spacecraft-era data only serves to calibrate the geomagnetic data in term of nT. Cosmic ray data provides the M.M. values [or at least a check on it] but go to that ApJL paper, it answers your questions.

From that paper:

Various lines of evidence indicate that the solar wind magnetic field has a floor or baseline state to which it falls when the sunspot number goes to zero for extended intervals (several rotations).

It is my understanding from a link that you provided to the folks at http://www.solarcycle24.com that the longest period without sunspots in recent history was 83 days. Is this correct? A little over 3 solar rotations.

Do you see this as the absolute floor and that during the MM period that the numbers would go no lower when the sunspot number was zero for months or years at a time?

A related question is what do you think of the studies of nearby G class stars and the frequency of MM events in these class of stars?

538. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

537: somewhat shoddy and unconvincing

538: the 83 days is correct, although not that further back there were no spots at all for ~400 days [in 1810]. And yes, during the M.M. that floor was probably close to what it is right now. Now, there are longer cycles [~100 years and others] and it is not known what causes them and if there could not be a slight variation of the floor caused by these longer cycles, but I think that large changes in the floor can be ruled out [IMHO]. The idea that a third of all solar-like stars are in a M.M. is probably dead, as the original studies on this were based on stars that later on turned out not to be sun-like after all. It is actually very hard to find a sun-like star. As far as I know only one or two have been identified.

539. Jim Clarke
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

Leif,

Your argument for increasing the historial sunspot count sounds reasonable to this solar layman, but your explanation as to why the record before the modern era is so far off, does not. You state:

The reason being that SS counts are subjective and depends on many things we dont know about the obervers, such as telescope used, local seeing, his eyesight, his definition of group, and even of spot [some didnt count small, shortlived spots] etc. So, one observer has to be calibrated against the master observer [Wolf]. And it is that calibration that is uncertain.

This would explain a wide variety of results, but it does not explain how the majority of observers missed almost half of all the sunspots for the better part of a century! We are talking about a very large undercount here, not ‘uncertainty’ in the count. Are you suggesting that many observers had much better numbers but were simply dismissed because they did not agree with the ‘scientific authority’ of the time (Wolf)? Perhaps you can site the technological and methodology advances that occurred in the science that would account for the huge undercount in the past as opposed to the reliable count of the 20th Century.

Without a more detailed explanation, it appears that you are arguing that your theory is right, therefore the observations must be wrong, then speculating that past observers were either blind or ignorant. This is the type of argument that makes many AGW crisis skeptic’s skin crawl.

540. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

540 (Jim): There were indeed observers that had higher counts than Wolf would accept [e.g. in the early 1800s], these were adjusted downwards while others were adjusted upwards by Wolf. And there was a progressive improvements in technology: better telescopes, etc, and in understanding of what constituted a group. But the main problem is in how to decide whether to count the spot at all. Some (e.g. Wolf himself) did not count the smallest spots, or spots that only persisted for a few hours [and most spots are indeed small and shortlived]. Different counting methods results in sunspot numbers that can differ by a factor of two. Even in the 20th century the sunspot numbers jumped artificially by ~20% when Max Waldmeier became director of the Zurich Observatory [see De maculis in Sole observatis.pdf ]. It does not take many 20% jumps to make a difference; there was another one in the 1890s after Wolf’s death, and one in 1849 when Wolf started his own observations.

it appears that you are arguing that your theory is right, therefore the observations must be wrong, then speculating that past observers were either blind or ignorant. This is the type of argument that makes many AGW crisis skeptic’s skin crawl.

That sort of statement makes my skin crawl. First, my findings are not a ‘theory’ as normally understood, but the result of other observations of a objective nature that does not require calibration to agree with a master list, and second, your statement is offensive in implying that I do not know how to do science. But I’ll assume that you have been corrupted by the company you keep in the AGW [skeptics or not – they are equally fanatic :-) ] camp and let it go at that.

541. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

Re the solar influence on climate:
Here is an exercise in logic and observation. I am sure that if there are faults in either I can rely upon you guys to let me know.

 The fluctuation in temperature of the Earth that we observe over short periods of time is greater than we see over centuries.
 Total solar irradiance (or sunspots) can not be the cause of the fluctuation in temperature that we observe over short periods of time because the amplitude is too small and the period inappropriate. Forget it. Its a red herring. The warmers will lead you a merry dance on this one.
 Greenhouse gas can not be the cause of these short term temperature swings because the pattern of change has no cycle except that related to the increase in photosynthetic activity in the northern hemisphere warm season.
 Currently we are witnessing a fall in sea surface temperatures across the globe. In the month of October the temperature anomaly exhibited in the 10°N to 10°S band became negative with respect to base period. Anomalies are departures from the 1971-2000 adjusted OI climatology (Smith and Reynolds 1998, J. Climate, 11,3320-3323). This data can be sourced here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/table2.shtml
 To see how this relates to sea surface temperatures elsewhere have a look at: http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=sstag As this trend continues we will see global temperature take a dive and the Northern Hemisphere dive further. The northern hemisphere very much depends upon warmth gathered in the tropics for the maintenance of temperatures at high latitudes. You will no doubt have observed the marked, unexpected fall in temperatures in Canada. See http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/index_e.html
 In the past these oscillations in tropical temperatures have manifested over periods of one to three years.
 The cause of this fluctuation in sea surface temperatures must be a variation in the amount of incident solar energy, particularly in that part of the Earth that receives most of the solar radiation gathered by the planet, the zone between 30°South and 30°North latitude.
 The only solar variable that fluctuates with this sort of period is the solar wind where a 1.3 year and 2.6 year oscillation has been observed.
 The southern Oscillation index is a good proxy for low latitude temperatures. ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/sco/soi/soiplaintext.html is the source I use and if you multiply it by minus 0.1 it will follow the anomaly figure very well. Alternatively simply reverse the sign and employ both axes. Because it depends upon air pressure it is free of the surface affects that can bedevil the temperature record. In any case we simply do not have a good enough temperature record for the tropics. The SOI goes back to the 1880s, a much longer period than the surface record.
 If we are to solve this riddle we need to relate temperatures on Earth to a solar driver.
 Over the last twelve solar cycles we have seen cooling in the tropics as the aa index of geomagnetic activity has collapsed at solar minimum and warming as the aa index re-ignites on nine occasions. This, surely, represents a connection worth pursuing.
 The last three solar cycles have been heavily SOI negative and the three prior were heavily SOI positive. This multi solar cycle oscillation goes back to the 1880s and it matches the movement in the surface temperature record for high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.
 The base of aa activity has increased strongly over the period of record and is now in decline.

Perhaps someone can help me out with a data series on the solar wind or perhaps the changing distance between the Earth and the magnetopause.

And this is a most heartfelt plea. Can someone please give me a tutorial on how to get a graph into this blog?

542. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

542 (Erl): Solar wind data at http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
I have shown the aa-index is systematic in error before 1957, it is too low by 3 nT [in yearly averages] but the real problem is faulty calibration, so be careful with drawing too strong conclusions from aa.
To get a picture into the blog use the “img” tag. You must have the picture as a URL, then refer to it with the image tag. E.g. {img src=”http://www.yourstuff.org/picture.gif” height=”200″ width=”300″> where I have replaced the leading “less than symbol” by “{” so not to trigger going after the image.
BTW: I don’t see any significant 1.3 and 2.6 year periods in the solar wind. The solar wind comes in “episodes” of 1-2 years duration and there is not clear single period.

543. Jim Clarke
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

Leif,

Your explanation in #541 was much more thorough and informative than previously given. I did not mean to imply that you do not know how to do science, only that the explanation you had given to us so far was not very scientific. I do not believe it is a sign of corruption or fanaticism to question an explanation that seemed to be based more on speculation than evidence. I appreciate your more specific response and your link to more information.

This than begs the question, why does the majority of the published work on solar variability accept the traditional sunspot count without any caveats? I have never seen a footnote or reference indicating that the traditional count was so questionable until your paper. Believe me, I have no problem believing that the ‘consensus view’ can be incorrect, but it is still important to understand why it is incorrect.

544. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

544 (Jim):

This than begs the question, why does the majority of the published work on solar variability accept the traditional sunspot count without any caveats? I have never seen a footnote or reference indicating that the traditional count was so questionable until your paper. Believe me, I have no problem believing that the ‘consensus view’ can be incorrect, but it is still important to understand why it is incorrect.

There are, in fact, TWO sunspot series in use [actually THREE, but the American Sunspot Number is not much used] the Wolf number and the Group number and they differ by a factor of two early on whike agreeing in modern times, so the one with the largest long-term trend is the Group series. People tend to cherrypick the one that fits their pet theoty the best. In climate studies that is most often the Group number. The fact that we have two diverging series is a problem in itself. There should only be one. My recalibartion of the sunspot number is very new; you are watching science in the making. hopefully, you’ll hear a lot more in the coming months and years about the resolution of thie problem of sunspot number calibration.

545. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

The idea that a third of all solar-like stars are in a M.M. is probably dead, as the original studies on this were based on stars that later on turned out not to be sun-like after all. It is actually very hard to find a sun-like star. As far as I know only one or two have been identified.

Huh? The Sun is spectral class G2V which is a very common class of star in our galaxy. There are twelve stars close to the Sun in mass and age within 50 light years, including one of our closest neighbors, Alpha Centauri A. (it is part of a triple star group but in terms of age & luminosity it is the Sun’s near twin.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Sunlikestars.html

546. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:20 AM | Permalink

546 (Dennis): I should have said a ‘really close’ sun-like star. The only one I know of is 18 Scorpii. Near twin is not quite good enough. At any rate, to study star-cycles one must have a long series of observations and the Mt. Wilson project that gave us 30+ years of chromospheric measurements of star-activity didn’t really have any truly sun-like stars in its survay. The ones that one thought were sun-like turned out to have evolved a bit away from the main sequence. Hey, don’t complain so much, the important thing is that we have only studied one truly sunlike star and therefore really can’t tell how common Grand Minima are.

547. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:30 AM | Permalink

leif,

I have several questions about helioseismology.

1) Are the normal modes determined by a linearization of the full MHD
equations? If so, about what state are the equations linearized?

2) What boundary conditions are used?

I ask these two questions for the following reason. In the earth’s atmosphere the normal modes were computed by linearizing about a state of
rest. The modes provided useful initialization info for large-scale
midlatitude motions where total atmospheric heating is not dominant, but were completely in error for smaller scale midlatitude motions and near the equator where the total atmospheric heating becomes dominant. Thus, in general, one must be quite careful in the use of normal modes and I would like to know more about the technical details of the actual approach used for the sun.

How long was the floor value maintained during the Maunder Minimum?

Jerry

548. conard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

I just skimmed Jason Wright’s paper to see how many stars were studied for Manunder-like behavior assuming that the number > 12. He appears to have started with a catalog of ~2800 stars which was pared down to few hundred candidates (eyeballed from the graphs).

It was also interesting to note that the Darling reference did not include Apha Centauri A (unless it goes by another name)

Lief, Wright, and Darling must not be using the same definition of sun-like.

549. conard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

Sorry Leif. I walked away from the computer for a while and did not refresh before posting. Lesson learned.

550. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

547 (Jerry):

The waves are acoustic waves and MHD doesn’t enter into the picture. Maybe the best I can do is to direct you to the specialized literature:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/311203
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 495:L27–L30, 1998 March 1
DOI: 10.1086/311203
On the Origin of Solar Oscillations
Philip R. Goode, Louis H. Strous, Thomas R. Rimmele, and Robin T. Stebbins.

“how long was the floor maintained during M.M.?”
We think throughout.

551. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:39 AM | Permalink

543 Leif,
Thanks for that. Very helpful. What particular aspects of the solar wind do you think are likely to have the most impact on that part of the neutral atmosphere that occupies the same space as the ionosphere? Can you envision a mechanism whereby the solar wind displaces or thins the neutral atmosphere in such a way as to allow the rays of the sun to penetrate more readily to the surface within tropical latitudes? The equatorial fountain effect? Enhancement of the ring current or whatever? Have you ever set out to examine any parallels between surface temperature in the tropics or the SOI and aspects of the solar wind? I will be away till next week but hope to return with some results in due course. First up perhaps I will look at the Bz component.

552. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:53 AM | Permalink

549: sun-like also includes a star-cycle length similar to that of the sun, and a rotation period also similar to that of the sun. There is no dount that we will find several candiates as time goes by. My main point was that the stars we have looked at for decades turned out not to be sun-like.

552: Brian Tinsley has looked at this. And even I was co-author on several papers on solar wind influence on the weather some three solar cycles back. Google “vorticity area index”.

553. Lennart
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

Leif!

I will always remember the nights in May 1999 when the night-sky was flaming of auroras in Stockholm.

I have learned that the solar wind were “switched off” during these days! Why? What happened? Who pushed the button?

How is it possible for the solar wind to be switched off for for just the short time of two days?

Does this give any new information of the true origin of the solar wind and, if so, may this knowledge give any implication on how the solar wind affects earths climate?

Lennart

554. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

554 (Lennart): “The day the solar wind disappered” was on May 11, 1999. Actually it didn’t really go away. We just entered a “hole” where the density was very low [like 1% of normal]. The magnetic field was normal. Such holes are rare but occur from time to time. The Earth’s magnetosphere expanded to five times its usual size, but nothing else really happened. We don’t know what causes the holes, and didn’t learn that on that day, either.

555. conard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

Leif, A quick OT question.

I am not sure what goals you had in mind when you started posting here or what direction you thought the discussion would go and am wondering if, when time permits, you might say something about this.

For me the value of your post is high since it is unlikely that I would have otherwise read your paper. OTOH my reading of your paper will have zero effect on the world at large ;-). What are you getting out the the exchanges and will it help your work? Has the blogging been worthwhile?

tak

556. Douglas Hoyt
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

For example, we have 474 where Ilya Usoskin states that the sunspot number CANNOT be 30% wrong because we have photographs of the Sun back to 1874. Ilya knows quite well [or should know] that these photographs are NOT used in determining the sunspot number. The photographs were obtained by the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) between 1874 and 1975. From the photographs, the daily sunspot area was determined.

The above statement is not true for the GSN. These photographs were used to determine the number of groups.

For the WSN, the number of groups were primarily determined from the Zurich Observatory observations. Both methods give a time series for SNs that are consistent from 1880 onwards.

557. ulric
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

I can do a projection of the topography of sunspot cycle 24. I have looked in detail at every cycle back to 1750, and all the peaks and troughs in SSN are thoroughly in time with heliocentric alignments. There is no other way to explain these
rapid variations in SSN, and every other variation in solar wind speed, magnetic effects, X-rays etc.

558. Edouard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

@541

Counting tropical cyclones of Chris Landsea has been criticized. In my opinion he’s right.

Counting sunspot numbers must not be very difficult. You need no ship, no wind etc….

The sunspot minima correlate highly with climateshifts around the world. If there was no difference between minima and maxima, how could one explain those correlations? Do we really understand the sun to such an extend? How would we explain the Dansgaard Oeschger climateshifts?

This looks very strange to me…. I’m no expert at all, but I would like to hear the opinion of those people. Wgere are the peer reviews. Where are Solanki and Usoskin?

best regards

559. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

It was also interesting to note that the Darling reference did not include Apha Centauri A (unless it goes by another name)

Probably because the Centauri system is a non single star. However, that brings up an interesting check of the barycentric model. Alpha Centauri A masses 1.09 the mass of the sun and Centauri B masses 0.9 solar masses, so spectrally they are

The distance separating Alpha Centauri A from its companion star B averages 23.7 AUs (of a semi-major axis), but swings between 11.4 and 36.0 AUs away in a highly elliptical orbit

Centauri A is exactly the same spectral type as our Sol (G2V) while Centauri B is spectral type K1V.

Since Centauri B is so much larger than Jupiter and has a much more eccentric orbit, if the barycenter effect on solar output is real then Centauri B should have far more effect on the solar cycles of Centauri A than Jupiter/Venus/Earth has on Sol. Is this data available? Do we have a long term observational record of Centauri A and or B?

Interesting study.

Also, Leif, I wonder if the “sunllke” designation (as there are many stars of the same spectral class nearby) pertains to their having a solar cycle similar to the Sun or not.

http://www.solstation.com/orbits/ac-absys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

560. Edouard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

@560

Counting Alpha Centauri Sunspots could have been more difficult for the monks of the iceage (little) ;-)

561. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Leif (#551),

Thanks for the reference. I have obtained a copy and will get back to you with more questions after reading it in detail.

What I have been asserting mathematically is that it is the length of time that the floor is maintained, not the small variation (.1%) that can cause significant changes. Over a period of time even changes this small can have a significant impact on the weather and climate (see the ITCZ thread).

Jerry

Jerry

562. MarkW
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

Leif,

Just how “sun like” does another star have to be, in order to qualify? If you cut your graduations fine enough, I’m sure that it is possible to declare that there is no star in this galaxy that is “exactly” like our sun.

Different ages. Does a million years or two matter?
If they formed in a different part of the galaxy, their chemical make up will be different.
How close does the mass have to be? A percent or two, small fractions of a percent?

For that matter, assuming ulrich is right and the presence of planets make a difference, does the star need to have the same mix of planets that ours does?

563. Edouard
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

@562

If there was a strong correlation between the flight of a butterfly and the climate, would you believe that the butterfly is super(hyper-mega)man?

If the sun never changes any more, than between 1950 and 2007, the sun is just a butterfly. European climate during the little ice age and its correlation with the sun minima would be a real statistical miracle. I dont believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman ;-)))

Looks like a new kind of hockeystick to me. Please forgive me and my heretic sceptical beliefs…. ;-) I’m just e european idiot ;-)

I wish you a merry christmas and peace on earth

Best regards

564. Ulric
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

Erl, I asked a wine buff which were the best vintage years for European wine, it turns out they were all on the rising side of a sunspot maxima, about a year or two before the center.

565. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

Leif, from #534

There is still a solar cycle, and my statement about that is that the maximum values do not seem to have a long-term trend either [although, individual cycles may vary]. This is at variance with the offical sunspot numbers that show modern cycles to on average about twice as active compared to the past few hundred years.

Going to:
http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20IMF,%20EUV,%20TSI.pdf Figure 1. Near-Earth IMF B inferred from the IDV-index [4] (13-rotation average black curve) and observed by spacecraft (red curve).The green curve is a 4th-order polynomial fit showing the long-term trend of solar cycle averages.
The green curve varies 30% trough to peak over 60 odd years, and there is an approx. 60 year cycle that has been observed in other phenomena, eg surface temp.

http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf Figure 7. Calculated (blue curve) of yearly average RI from rY since 1841. Observedyearly averages of RI, or RZ (red) and RG (grey) are shown for comparison. Each cycle is marked with the number of the cycle. Note the overlap between panels
Cycle 19 appears to be the recent max. in this time period, with no other cycle reaching above 80% of its peak, and cycle 14, as adjusted, reaching less than 45%.
See http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
I guess you are saying that the cycle from ca 1776 to 1786 (cycle 11?) would reach the same ceiling as cycle 19, if adjusted. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg . There clearly seem to be a long (approx 1000 year) cycle. If you are saying that the peaks of such prior cycles are at the current (cycle19) ceiling, I have no problem with that. However that clearly supports a secular long trend since ca 1600.
If all in between peaks (eg cycles 3, 4, 8, 9) have to be adjusted up to the ceiling we then have something like a discontinuity for the Maunder Minimum, and that seems less likely than a long term trend.
All of the above is by way of asking you to clarify the ceiling, the meaning of secular, and the significance of shorter term undulations in the peaks.

566. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

Just stumbled across this:
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

Much later, Maunder (1922) found a note by Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, describing a sunspot seen at Greenwich in 1684, in which Flamsteed says that it is the first he had seen since 1674

The spacing in time suggests to me that these spots were the max. peaks of 2 of the 4 or 5 missing cycles during the MM, with very low maximums both before and after, again seeming to indicate a secular cycle in the peaks.

567. Bob B
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

Leif, have we had our 1st sunspot cycle 24 today 12/10?

568. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

565 Ulrich you ask: Erl, I asked a wine buff which were the best vintage years for European wine, it turns out they were all on the rising side of a sunspot maxima, about a year or two before the center.
Answer: The El Nino that coincides with the recovery of the aa index commonly lasts about two years and commences soon after sunspots begin to appear for each new solar cycle. Solar maximum occurs about 3.7 years into the cycle. After two years of El Nino warming across the tropics there is a substantial body of anomalously warm water off Northern Europe. This tends to produce longer growing seasons. Full leaf is achieved earlier and the vine has the capacity to accumulate the sugar necessary to mature a crop properly at an earlier stage in autumn. Without a relatively warm spring establishment of full leaf is later and there is competition between vegetative and fruiting sinks for the carbohydrate substrate that supports these activities. Insufficient sugar accumulation gives rise to the practice of chaptalisation, the adding of sugar to the must in poor years.
The El Nino that occurs at the early stage of increased sunspot activity was absent in cycles 17, 18 and 19 but strongly present in all other cycles from cycle 13. It is the most predictable of all El Nino events. This alone establishes the solar connection with climate on Earth.
El Nino warming is equally an Atlantic as a Pacific phenomenon. It has puzzled me why it is that the equatorial Pacific should lead the way in cooling during La Nina. Perhaps the relative slackness at the intertropical convergence and the fall in the volume of air in the Hadley cell allows the westerlies in the roaring 40s to move north and push a greater volume of cool Antarctic water against South America intensifying the Humboldt current accounting for the supposed up-welling of cold waters and the improvement in the fishery at that time.
The movement of the Roaring 40s north is accompanied by surges of cold air entering the subtropics and an increase in rainfall of frontal origin on the west coast. This is what we are currently experiencing in my part of the world.

569. Erl Happ
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

Leif,
Would I get a fair index of the likely impact of the solar wind on the ionosphere from the product of Bz, GSE, nT and Proton Density, n/cc
Thanks for the reference to Tinsleys work.

570. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

Edouard

I think you may be saying something important, but your irony and brevity make it difficult for me to understand your point. Could you elaborate for one of the slower folks here?

571. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

Leif, have we had our 1st sunspot cycle 24 today 12/10?

Bob

That sunspot, (10978), while impressive for a late cycle spot, is near the solar equator and so by definition is not a new cycle 24 spot.

572. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

Leif (#551, #562),

I read the very brief (4 page) manuscript you suggested and there is not a single equation in the entire manuscript, i.e. the essential details are missing. Also there is considerable handwaving and some questionable assumptions (like the isothermal assumption). Is there another reference
that contains a more precise mathematical treatment so I can delve into the assumptions and equations in more detail??

How much energy is there in the sound waves versus one of the granules (convective cells)?

Is corrugation the same as increased faculae activity?

Jerry

573. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

562 Jerry

it is the length of time that the floor is maintained, not the small variation (.1%) that can cause significant changes

Kind of like pulse-width modulation v. amplitude modulation, I guess.

574. kim
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

Flit a bit, sip a wit.
The butterfly is still
On Occam’s Edge.
==============

575. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 11:17 PM | Permalink

Here is an interesting Milankovitch related paper on how very small variations in insolation shifted the ice age length from the obliquity cycle to the eccentricty cycle.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6808/full/408072a0.html

576. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

Pat (#574).

If you look at the ITCZ thread and associated references, you see that any change in the total heating near the equator has a direct impact on the vertical component of velocity (w) and thus on the ITCZ. (The interesting thing is that I recently read a manuscript that claimed that the ITCZ had moved a bit northward from its normal position.) A small perturbation could easily impact the climate over time for the following reasons:

1) The two large terms in the entropy (or potential temperature) equation
must cancel out to 2 or 3 digits for slowly evolving in time solutions in the atmosphere, i.e. w ~ H + O(epsilon^2) where epsilon = .1

2) Although at any instant, a climate model probably doesn’t have a prayer of accurately computing the impact of such a small perturbation because of the large errors from continuum approximations, parameterization errors, and inappropriate large dissipation, the mathematics states very clearly that the forcing could be seen over a period of time because it behaves like an integral of the solution operator times the forcing perturbation.
Thus, initially we would not expect theforcing perturbation to be seen, but over a period of a solar cycle or the Maunder Minimum, it is very likely that it would have an impact.

I would be happy to quantify these remarks with mathematical equations.

Jerry

577. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:04 AM | Permalink

Edouard (#564),

Is there any mathematics in your rant? I am willing to back up my statements with rigorous mathematics.

Jerry

578. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM | Permalink

556 (conard): I didn’t plan on having my “own” little mini-blog within the umbrella of Steve’s, but Steve must have thought it a good idea to separate me out from the rest. I have got many encouraging posts from people that have gotten something out of my musings, and also, of course, the crap that is standard in the AGW debate: nitpicking, irony, sarcasm, nonsense, and all the rest {I’ll not mention names, they know who they are :-) }. I have learned from the positive comments where my arguments needed sharpening up and where people had problems. This has helped in my work.

557 (Hoyt): since the GSN and the WSN essentially agree after 1880 the issue where the numbers come from is less important. And the photographs were only one of the several sources for the GSN, so their impact were small.

559 (eduard): “if there is no difference between minima and maxima” is not what I’m saying.

Sun-like stars: This is not what I do, so I don’t really have an opinion here. Just my friends that do this are telling me they have had a hard time finding what they consider to be sun-like stars, so I tell you that, but I don’t wnat to get into any nit-picking about this.

566 (Murray): there does seem to be a weak ~100 years cycle in the floor. Not 30%, but about half that. There is a fundamental problem with how people compute percentages, and some things cannot be computed as a percentage. For example, as the solar cycle goes from Rz=0 at minimum to Rz=150 at maximum, how big a percentage change is that? The ‘correct’ way is to calculate the variation as a percentage of the average value, if you must do percentages, and again here you can’t always do this, e.g. if some values can be negative.

I don’t think the Maunder minimum is part of a long cycle, rather that it started abruptly and ended abruptly. And, for millionth time, I’m not saying that there are no changes, just that they are smaller than previously thought. And the details about the Maunder Minimum are not really the point. The reconstructions of TSI don’t really use the M.M. for anything, but take their starting point in the difference between the 19th and 20th centuries and THAT is where we have real data and says something definite. BTW, I gave my paper at AGU today and it had a lot friendlier reception than it got from the folks here. The paper can be found at SH13A-1109

570: About the solar wind drivers: the definitive paper on that subject can be found at my website as the paper Geomagnetic Activity: Dependence on Solar Wind Parameters.pdf . Basically it is this a ~ Bz V (nV2)^(1/3).

573: Try to google Goode and solar oscillations. The corrugations are the faculae, yes.
—-

The sunspot is an old-cyle spot, BUT there is one on the backside about ready to rotate into view, that might be a cycle-24 spot; it is at the right latitude for that.

579. bender
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

re #577 Jerry says:

the mathematics states very clearly that the forcing could be seen over a period of time because it behaves like an integral of the solution operator times the forcing perturbation.
Thus, initially we would not expect the forcing perturbation to be seen, but over a period of a solar cycle or the Maunder Minimum, it is very likely that it would have an impact.

This seems like a very important statement. I want to know more – decoded into layman’s terms if possible. Is this assertion something that is widely accepted in the climatology literature? Given that we are in a “solar” thread and that you are mentioning ITCZ, can I suggest that you are drawing a link between these things, suggesting moreover that there is a long lag in the response? I do NOT want to put words in your mouth; but I’m willing to risk trying!

580. Bob B
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 5:19 AM | Permalink

Leif, Yes thank you. The sunspot in question from the stereo behind image was 1st raised as a possible cycle 24 sunspot on 12/10 from the website solarcycle24.com.

Does this have any impact on you theory that solar cycle 24 will be smaller then 23?

Bob

581. John Lang
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

There is a high latitude solar prominence (approximately 40 degrees North) that will rotate into view in the next 24 hours. Could be solar cycle 24 starting.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_171/512/

582. Bob B
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

John, the image I was referring to is from the below web site in the image STEREO behind EUVI195:

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/browse/2007/12/11/

583. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

Re: 579

566 (Murray): there does seem to be a weak ~100 years cycle in the floor. Not 30%, but about half that. There is a fundamental problem with how people compute percentages, and some things cannot be computed as a percentage. For example, as the solar cycle goes from Rz=0 at minimum to Rz=150 at maximum, how big a percentage change is that? The correct way is to calculate the variation as a percentage of the average value, if you must do percentages, and again here you cant always do this, e.g. if some values can be negative.

Leif I took the variation from min to max of your green curve, as a % of min. If you are saying that the variation is plus/minus 15% around the average, we are largely in agreement.
The MM seems to be very much to the point when you raise it’s floor very significantly compared to what other have done. Murray

584. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

584 (Murray): Our IDV paper clearly states +/-10%. Maunder minimum: most of the rise of other peopl’s reconstruction of TSI takes place in the 100 years before 1950.

585. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

There are a lot of things we don’t know about the solar wind:

586. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

Sorry, try it again.
There are a lot of things we don’t know about the solar wind:
Voyager2

587. GW
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

Leif,

During the conference, were you able to find Dr. Steven Schwartz to discuss his paper on CO2 I emailed you, as you had said you might ? I’m wondering if you still think his work is valid, in which case, if you are correct that the Sun is not responsible for causing & subsequently ending the LIA as well as the 20th century warming, AND CO2 is not to blame either (per Schwartz) what is going on ? Do we even have a “global warming” problem at all outside the minds of lefty politicians and enviro-radicals ?

Incidentally, the folks at SS24 are eagerly awaiting your evaluation of the newest high-lat spot.

588. GW
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

Leif,

During the conference, were you able to find Dr. Steven Schwartz to discuss his paper on CO2 I emailed you, as you had said you might ? I’m wondering if you still think his work is valid, in which case, if you are correct that the Sun is not responsible for causing & subsequently ending the LIA as well as the 20th century warming, AND CO2 is not to blame either (per Schwartz) what is going on ? Do we even have a “global warming” problem at all outside the minds of lefty politicians and enviro-radicals ?

Incidentally, the folks at SS24 are eagerly awaiting your evaluation of the newest high-lat spot.

Thanks,

GW

589. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

bender (#580),

Note that Steve M. felt there could be a connection between previous climate change, the sun, and the ITCZ. That is why I asked Steve M. to start the ITCZ thread.

There would be a lag of several years because it would take that long for the integral of a small forcing perturbation term to have an impact O(1) in terms of mathematical bounds.
Even though the forcing term is small, it has a larger than expected impact near the equator because it is multiplied by a large coefficient in the entropy equation. The combination of the large coefficient and the longer time period could easily lead to an impact. Also do not expect a meteorologist to understand these arguments. They are based on Heinz and my previous work and the theory of hyperbolic equations. Also note that as I have stated before, the meteorologists still do not comprehend the serious problems associated with their wether or climate models.

Jerry

590. Edouard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

@578

There are no methematics:

1) The changes in solar activity are very small an the direct effect on climate is very small.

2) Leif Svaalgard explains that they are even smaller. If there is a real correlation between solar activity and temperatures, the effect of the changes in solar activity on climate get bigger, if the changes get smaller, until the moment, when this effect becomes simply irrealistic.

I don’t think this world is irreal!

3) The correlation between solar minimum and the growth of alpine glaciers is so clear and strong that there is no doubt about what caused what. My conclusion is, that Mr Svalgaard must be wrong.

Best regards

591. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

Edouard,

You can stop the hot air now. I am waiting for some quantitative substance
in any of your statements. What is your background (field of expertise)
and source of funding. Without this info there is no reason to respond to you.

Jerry

592. Edouard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

@579

“559 (eduard): if there is no difference between minima and maxima is not what Im saying.”

Ok, you say that the difference is as small as the one from the 1950Maximum to the 2007Minimum, 0,02 W/m2?

This means that changes in solar activity are real Superman-butterflies causing big climateshifts, or there is no sun-climatelink at all?!

As I explained before, the correlation Maunderminimum – glacier growth in the alps would be a real miracle, having no cause, only a correlation! Is that maths? I call it logic!

Or do you really think a climate-tipping-point (realclimate-style) could work like a light switch? Always the same way? Small decrease in sun activity -> big growth of glaciers, small increase -> glaciers melt ….

Can you heat the empire state building with a candle? I dont think so!

Best regards

593. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

Leif (#579),

I found an earlier manuscript by Goode et al. (1992) that seems more complete. Is that the article you thought might be more complete?
I will read it thru for details.

Jerry

594. Gunnar
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

>> What is your background (field of expertise) and source of funding. Without this info there is no reason to respond to you.

Jerry, these kind of sudden arrogant demands for credentials is really undermining your credibility.

595. Edouard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

Noone has to answer my questions. Thought laymen could post here. Sorry if I’m wrong.

I understand how the weather changes. The very small changes of the activity of the sun would have no influence at all on the climate, unless there is a still unknown mechanism. But if these changes were even smaller (theory of Mr. Svaalgard) the sun could NEVER change the climate.(unless you admit something really incredibly fantastic)

But it seems it does.

I’m sorry to steal your precious time. The answers on the mad scientist website are much friendlier!

596. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

Gunnar (#595) ,

You mean because you also posted nonsense and I wouldn’t respond to you?

I will respond to legitimate questions (see my response to bender) and quantitative arguments, not verbiage. I also read references when provided so I can argue the topic in an intelligent manner. Leif has provided
2 references on helioseismology and you might want to do some homework.

Jerry

Jerry

597. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

Edouard (#596)

It is one thing to ask reasonable questions. It is quite another to make unreasonable statements, especially given that you are a layperson.

The Sun is the only source of heat for the earth and “not a candle.”

It is very hard to distinguish between a scientist with a vested interest and a lay person making naive statements, and considerable time can be lost in the meantime. I have decided to reduce that time by asking early on for any credentials. Note that Jimy Dudhia hid behind a pseudo name (Jim D) until I managed to guess his identity. Only then did he admit to his true identity and his vested interests. I do not want to repeat that experience.

Jerry

598. Gunnar
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

>> You mean because you also posted nonsense and I wouldnt respond to you?

nonsense? me: reference to satellite data Jerry: I demand that you perform the following 5 mathematical operations, or you are not entitled to refer to satellite data. Me: hey, if you think the data is invalid, you publish a paper, convince the U of A folks. I’m not your grad student.

me: proposing a more concise concept for climate consistent with how people are using the term Jerry: I demand your credentials. Jerry: I demand that you give me a mathematical definition of climate, or shut up. Me: If everything has a mathematical definition, then why do you use words at all?

And now here you are demanding credentials from Eduardo, making him feel unwelcome, and trying to assign me homework.

Nonsense? It’s only nonsense to you, because you don’t seem to understand the conceptual meaning in the “verbiage”. Math is a useful tool, but not as useful as critical thinking skills.

You seem to see the world through a somebody-nobody prism, with a distinct important-professor & lowly-student obsession.

599. Gunnar
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

Jerry, I guess Newton was a nobody, since he was a layperson, as was Benjamin Franklin.

Eduardo, your point in #564 makes perfect sense. What’s the expression, irony is lost on americans? Even more so with Jerry/Gerald.

600. Murray Duffin
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

Re: comments on sensitivity to solar forcing. To backcast the LIA, modellers have had to introduce aerosols, because sensitivity to insolation changes as assumed for models is insufficient. However there were no sources of aerosols that were large enough, frequent enough or lasting long enough to have forced the LIA. Similarly, to backcast the ca 1945-1975 cooling, the modellers have invoked aerosols, again without identifying/quantifying the source(s). In the following papers we see estimates of solar irradiance changes associated with the LIA, and measurements of irradiance changes in the last decades, that are similar in magnitude. If we assume that sensitivity really is higher, as Leif posits, then the insolation change we have seen recently could cause the warming we have experienced, even as similsr magnitude changes seem to have caused the LIA. The problem seems to be with tha assumed sensitivity, not with irradiance changes per se. Increase the sensitivity and we have consistent and plausible explanations for both the LIA and 20th century temperature changes.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0201/0201025v1.pdf MM irradiance reduction confirmed by ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt Now see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html If an average decline over 70 years as the MM could cause such cooling, an increase of this magnitude over several decades would surely cause the present warming. Then http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5334/1963 irradiance going up at a rate of 0.36%/century for 2 virtually identical solar cycles, similar to the estimated decline for the MM hmm Modelled forcing sensitivity must be wrong.

601. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

Gunnar (#600),

Exactly what I would expect from you.

Jerry

602. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

Edouard; It depends on what you’re asking and who you’re asking. Layman’s questions are fine. Just stating there’s no math involved or that nothing makes sense aren’t questions. I think Jerry was very clear the subject he was willing to discuss: “I am willing to back up my statements with rigorous mathematics.”

So, let me answer what I think you’re asking based upon your comments about the matter. If the output of the sun remains constant, but after taking everything into account that’s related (both on and off Earth) there is more energy than is required for equilibrium, that output can remain constant and heat the Earth at some rate over the heat equilibrium amount.

Turn on a heat lamp in a room some time. It won’t keep getting hotter, but the room will as long as the output of the lamp is higher than what the walls/floor/ceiling would absorb/transmit.

603. Gunnar
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

Here’s what I think happened: Jerry made a very good point in #562. Then, Eduardo made a good point in #564. But since Eduardo started his post with “@562”, Jerry presumes without thinking that Eduardo is disagreeing with this 562, and proceeds to demand credentials from Eduardo. He simply fails, because he can’t or won’t understand “verbiage”.

604. Edouard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

Hello,

Sorry for my bad english! :-(

I’m a lay person from Luxemburg-Europe and very sceptical about climate science. I think, that Mr Svaalgard wants to tell us clearly that the sun didn’t cause the warming of the last 30 years, and probably not even the warming of the last 100 years. This looks like the missing link to the mannian hockeystick (to me). That makes me even more sceptical.

And that is why I apologize to Mr. Svaalgard. He knows so much more than me. But Mr Mann knows so much more to ;-)

Best regards an sorry again

605. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

Did we really have to spend all these posts and time on this?

Lief 541: Some comments on sunspot observations, and then some comments on his findings.
Edouard 559: Landsea is right, counting sunspots must be easy; (followed by various questions I didn’t really understand the point of, about 5)
Dennis 560: Observations on Centuri, mention of sunspots.
Edouard 561: Hard for monks to count centuri sunspots Dennis.
Jerry 562: Thanks Lief, got the paper on solar oscillations.
Edouard 564: Jerry, about the solar oscillations comment, if the sun hasn’t changed it can’t affect the Earth. Looks like a hockeystick.
Pat 571: Edouard, uh, what is it you’re saying? It’s not clear.
Jerry 578: I don’t understand what you want, what is it you want me to prove with math about how this works?
Lief 579: Edouard, 2 of your questions. I’m not saying there’s no difference between minima and maxima and I don’t do sun-like star stuff, no opinion.
Edouard 591: There’s no math involved Jerry, and Lief’s therory is wrong, the world’s real and when the sun is at minimum glaciers grow.
Jerry 592: Dude, if you want to ask some questions, do it. I’m not going to talk to you about nonsense if I don’t know who you are, unless you’re asking something and not just babbling randomly (or whatever it is you’re doing)
Edouard 593: Lief, something something and glaciers growing would be a miracle, that’s logic not math! Candles can’t heat a big building!
Gunnar 595: What you said is arrogent and undermines your credibility.
Edouard 596: Nobody has to answer my questions, but if Lief is right the sun can’t change climate but it does. Snide comment about time.
Jerry 597: Gunnar, I will answer quantitative arguments and read references. That’s it.
Jerry 598: Edouard, if you are a layperson, why all the unreasonable statatements instead of reasonable questions? The sun is not a candle, the analogy is a bad one. An experience with a scientist with a vested interest rather than naive statements by a non scientist; I will not do again.
Gunnar 599: Jerry, [confrontational statements of past arguments with Jerry from Gunnar’s POV] and you are an elitist.
Gunnar 600: More proof of elitism, Jerry. And Edouard, your point on butterflys being superbeings is like the sun doing things it can’t makes sense.
Jerry 601: *sigh* re: my elitism Gunnar.
Me 602: Eduardo, if this is what you’re asking there’s more energy overall than equilibrium building.
Gunnar 603: Confusing paraphrase of 562 and 564 interaction.
Edouard 604: Gee guys, sorry. I think Lief’s ideas are trying to prove it can’t be the sun, so I’m as skeptical of him as I am in Mann trying to prove the temperature has risen a lot with his paper and graph.

606. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

Hey Leif

Here is Hathaway, et al’s latest prediction.

Sam

The post about about the solar cycle of Alpha Centauri is relevant. No matter what Leif’s friends say, Alpha Centauri A is a near twin of the sun (as would be expected as they probably formed at the same time from the collapse of the same interstellar cloud) and it is legitimate to ask questions related to how similar or how different it is and how the differences or similarities influence things like Total Solar Irradiance. This is especially true when considering various theories about the source of our 11 year solar cycle.

607. Gunnar
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

>> Lief

FYI: HIS name is spelled Leif!

(sudden emotion at yet another scandinavian name spelled wrong)

608. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

I messed one up in my summary: Gunnar 595: Jerry, what you said is arrogent and undermines your credibility.

Sure Dennis, not saying anything about what you said. (Maybe not clear; my only point is one the question of how no increase in something already intense enough to cause an imbalance higher isn’t needed; that thing doesn’t need to increase in intensity to create a higher imbalance if it’s already there. Is it? I don’t know.)
I only mentioned your post because it was responded to during the exchange. I have no specific opinion on the exact effects (or overall effect) of the sun, sunspots, magnetic fields, cosmic rays or suns other than ours, except that eventually they lead to some effect. From the contention in the issue, that doesn’t seem provable even if quantifiable in the first place.

609. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

Sorry, Gunnar, not paying enough attention.

Sorry, Leif, not paying enough attention.

610. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

587: (pat) and there are lots of things we DO know about the solar wind.

588: (GW) no I have not connected yet with Schwartz. Maybe after my poster tomorrow. And for the zillionth time: I’m not saus that the Sun did not cause this or that. I’m saying that if it did [like O.J.] then the sensitivity of the climate system is much higher than commonly assumed and used in the experts’ models. I have no idea or clue as to whether the Sun influences the climate on centennial or shorter timescale.

The sunspot just over the East limb is very likely the first new spot in cycle 24. It is a bit too low in latitude for my money, but seems to have the correct new polarity. We can only see the leading plage so far, but it looks negative, while C23 spots have positive leading polarity, so, this new spot is very likely cycle 24.

591: (eduard) correlation is not causation. There is also a strong correlation between shoe size and reading ability [larger shoes -> better readers]

592-602: please be civil. keep the tone at a level that does you and all of us a service rather than exposing us to the darker side of human discourse.

605: (eduard) accepted !

607: Hathaway’s prediction is already a year old and is based on an application of a method that I do not consider valid, so I disagree with him. The Sun will soon tell us. Disagreement is sound science, that is how progress is made. The science is only dead if it is ‘settled’ [like GW seems to be for some people].

611. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

About counting sunspots: how many spots are there on this image?[only valid today the 11th Dec. 2007)

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html

was that easy or hard?

612. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

611

587: (pat) and there are lots of things we DO know about the solar wind.

Yes, it was my way of introducing the story in the link — but I screwed up the link somehow. I was trying to introduce the new story from Voyager2 about the stronger wind blowing back our solar wind.

613. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

607: Hathaways prediction is already a year old and is based on an application of a method that I do not consider valid, so I disagree with him. The Sun will soon tell us. Disagreement is sound science, that is how progress is made. The science is only dead if it is settled [like GW seems to be for some people].

Leif

Yea I agree with you but that link shows this as Hathaway’s update as of December 7, 2007 and has the latest data included. I think that it is interesting that he completely skews cycle 24 to keep his prediction intact.

614. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

612: I count 30 spots. Now count on this image:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

I count 22 spots. This illustrates how people with diffent telescopes (and eyesight) can reach different counts and why one has to “calibrate” one against the other. And that is where the difficulty is.

So the sunspot number (and I’m ignoring the new high-latitude cycle 24 spot in the upper left quadrant) then becomes WSN = 10 * groups + spots = 10*1 + 30 = 40 for the first image and 10*1 + 22 = 32 for the second image. The group sunspot number is GSN = 13 * groups = 13*1 = 13.

615. windansea
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

No matter what Leifs friends say

if the friends are solar physicists like Leif you might want to listen

I have no idea or clue as to whether the Sun influences the climate on centennial or shorter timescale.

refreshing…a scientist without agenda YAY!!

was that easy or hard?

616. jae
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

615

I count 22 spots. This illustrates how people with diffent telescopes (and eyesight) can reach different counts and why one has to calibrate one against the other. And that is where the difficulty is.

So, how is this problem resolved? Have we no relative certainty about the number of sunspots?(apologies if this was explained earlier).

617. windansea
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:34 PM | Permalink

612: I count 30 spots.

wow, way more than I thought, the smaller ones look like they are connected to the same disturbance of the more definite “black” ones

618. steve mosher
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

re 612. I count 25. err 26

619. jae
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

I count one really big one and a bunch of “siblings.”

620. Phil.
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

RE#615

I make it 39! I guess I’m counting some things that aren’t separate spots?

621. bender
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

30 & 28. Easy. But it seems a bit absurd counting the output of what is surely a continuous, not a discrete, process? There is one “spot” with many “spotlets”, even more sub-spotlets, and so on. Counting also ignores spatial structure, which seems inadvisable, as the clustering of spots surely has some kind of meaning?

622. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

616-620: Now you see that counting spots ain’t easy. If two people count spots over an extended time and some of that time overlaps one can correlate one with the other and “normalize” the count to one of them. For very early counts that becomes hard as there may not be any overlap or the correlation may not be good. So, conunting and calibrating sunspots are hard and that is why we are having a debate about it.

623. bender
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

Rather than perform a subjective count, should you not be using an objective algorithmic approach to ensure no between-year or between-observer bias? Sort of what’s done in medicine for analyzing tumor images?? The efficacy of a counting method could also vary as a function of the sun’s behavior over time. How far back do these solar images exist?

624. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

624: “how far back do these solar images exist?”
Here is one from 1128: and many more at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/resource1.html

625. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

Re: Pat Keating says:
December 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm

562 Jerry

it is the length of time that the floor is maintained, not the small variation (.1%) that can cause significant changes

Kind of like pulse-width modulation v. amplitude modulation, I guess.

Since the highs are relatively brief and of almost the same period I think it’s more acurately described as Pulse Density Modulation. Sorry to be pedantic but mathematical description is different from Pulse Width Modulation and may produce better results in any analysis should we wish to go down that road.

626. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

No matter what Leifs friends say

if the friends are solar physicists like Leif you might want to listen

Windsea

If you actually look at what I posted, you will see that our sun is a G2V class star. So is Alpha Centauri A. Alpha Centauri is part of a triple star system, which makes it different in some ways and it would be valuable to study, whether or not it acts exactly like the sun as they should be pretty darn close as they are the same age, size, (within a few percent), temperature, and spectral class.

That was the point. I have a physics degree as well. I defer to Leif on advanced solar theory as he is one of the rocks today, but that does not invalidate the fact that Alpha Centauri A is a near twin of sol.

627. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

Sunspots – I make it 39. I also notice that the image is pixelated and that might be ‘adding’ to the number I would like to guarantee it isn’t.

628. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:06 PM | Permalink

627 (Dennis): come off it. What is important is that it was not studied (AFAIK) for some reason described as ‘not sun-like enough’, so no matter how many G2V stars there are, only one [besides the Sun]has been studied for various reasons.

628: and how many on the smaller image?

629. Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

Hmmm … it seems some scientists have discovered that there are plasma ‘ropes’ (think electric cables) connecting the upper atmosphere directly to the Sun – with “five hundred thousand billion Joules” zapped into the Earth system in just two hours:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

How often does this happen?

How much extra heating could this kind of event produce and where?

630. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

627 (Dennis): come off it. What is important is that it was not studied (AFAIK) for some reason described as not sun-like enough, so no matter how many G2V stars there are, only one [besides the Sun]has been studied for various reasons.

Actually our nearest neighbor has been studied in sufficient detail to determine its helioseismographic frequency, by the the European Southern Observatory. The nice part about the study is that this is the most precise study of a sunlike star. They have made very precise measurements of all three stars in the star system. It is a very cool study.

Here is a reference to the ESO study.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11016

The Wikipedia information is out of date with this new information. If the helioseismographic frequency has been determined and in other parameters as close as it is to the sun, it is certainly worthy of study related to solar cycles. It will be very interesting thing to do when the 30 meter telescope is built, that was just funded.

631. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

631 (Dennis): I’m tired and I give up on this one. The issue was not if the star had been studied at all, but whether its activity as measured by the Ca-lines had been followed over the 20 or so years, that would be required to determine if a solar-like activity cycle was present, or if the star was in a Maunder Minimum state. That was the original question.

632. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

630 (Carl): “how often does this happen?”

It happens all the time with varying intensity. This press release is so typical of NASA purporting to have discovered something. But this is old hat. Kristian Birkeland argued this much [that electric currents from space travel down magnetic fieldlines to hit the atmosphere] a hundred years ago. Dungey argued in the 1960s that the southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) connected with the Earth’s magnetic field and I showed in 1968 that the East-West component of the IMF connected with the Earth’s magnetic field [known today as the Svalgaard-Mansurov Effect] allowing particles to flow directly from the Sun to the upper atmosphere of the Earth. This reconnection takes place almost all the time. The intensity of the process and the energy involved depends of the electric field in the solar wind as seen by the Earth, i.e. basically on the product of the magnetic field strength and the solar wind speed. What the NASA people have done is to confirm for the umpteenth time that this process is going on, and that is always nice to have, so some kudos to them.

633. MarkW
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 6:02 AM | Permalink

Leif,

I agree that counting sun spots without some kind of firm agreement on what constitutes a sunspot is difficult. However, I still fail to see how you can be so certain that all of the errors in prior centuries resulted in under counting of sun spots.

634. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

626 Jan

Yes, that thought ran through my head at the time I wrote it, also. The ‘pulse density’ modulation method is the way signal strength is transmitted down nerve fibers, of course.

635. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

634: undercount: As I have already said, there were both over and under counts in the past. Overcounts were adjusted down and undercounts adjusted up during the ‘calibration’ by the early observers. The net result happened to be an undercount. A very good principle to do science by is this (Leighton’s law) If it does happen, it can happen.

636. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

I was still wondering what Leif and Dennis were discussing at all, very confusing.

So the question is: Have the Ca-lines of A. Centuri been followed for the last 20 or so years to determine if a solar-like activity cycle is happening, or is it in Maunder Minimum.

windansea, I second that motion! “refreshinga scientist without agenda YAY!!”

For another sun related dealy, check out this!
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Spectrum_png

Info source
rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/
At standard atmosphere
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/space/model/atmos/us_standard.html

637. Robert Pangilinan
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

Already a cycle 24 sunspot? And here I was so excited about the possibility of a Dalton-Minimum-like sunspot cycle so we can test many climate hypothesis! Imagine, we would be able to check the AGW, Svensmark, Svaalgard, etc. hypotheses if only the Dalton Minimum returned!

638. Richard Sharpe
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

Over at the Solar Cycle 24 Website they say:

The tiny area that has rotated onto the eastern limb does appear to be a Cycle 24 spot. In the first images it did seem to have a tiny spot associated with it. The most recent image “as of this post” appears to be a plage area. In the new magnetogram it does however have the proper magnetic signature to classify it as Cycle 24.

639. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

637 (Sam): I was trying NOT to discuss this, as it was rather pointless. Alpha Cent. has not been observed long enough [or at all] (AFAIK) to say anything about what state it is in. I only kept it up because of my general attitude to be polite and respond to people, but Dennis got the best of me. I gave up and won’t discuss this anymore unless somebody has anything to say that will further the discussion instead of just going around in circles.

638 (Richard): don’t give up yet ! it was but a tiny spot and may not even qualify for a NOAA regions number. Also, it was at rather low latitude (for a new cycle spot). This is usually a sign of a weak cycle. The stronger the cycle the higher the latitude of the first spots. So, there is still hope.

640. Sam Urbinto
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

Sorry, I was just wondering. Maybe it’s just better sometimes to say at the start “We don’t know enough about X at this time.” and drop it. Sounds like a perfectly fine answer to me.

The null hypothesis is a perfectly valid one! :)

641. Alan Woods
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

Hi Leif,

I was wondering if you have an opinion on the theory that a small solar cycle was ‘lost’ in the ‘tail’ of solar cycle 4, just before the Dalton Minimum.
see:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2002GL015640.shtml

Cheers,

Alan

642. Richard Sharpe
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

Leif says:

638 (Richard): dont give up yet ! it was but a tiny spot and may not even qualify for a NOAA regions number. Also, it was at rather low latitude (for a new cycle spot). This is usually a sign of a weak cycle. The stronger the cycle the higher the latitude of the first spots. So, there is still hope.

While it was Robert who expressed (perhaps) dismay that Solar Cycle 24 might have started, and the chips will fall where they want, I am torn between dreading a Dalton Minimum (warmth is much better for all of us) and wanting more data to allow us to better understand the world around us.

643. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

642 (alan): the ‘lost’ cycle is an old idea. Already Faye in the 1870s was pushing that. In my opinion the data is against it. There was no lost cycle. By data, I mean the geomagnetic data. Gilpin in London and Cassini in Paris observed the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field between 1784 and 1805 and their data does not show any lost cycle.

644. Roger
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

Leif,

I have done som preliminary tests on your method of correcting sunspot numbers and I have some major concerns. Since I’m no solar expert I have no particular input to give on the quality of rY as a good proxy to use from the physical point of view, or whether its measurements are stable enough in the past to use as a ground truth for calibration.

However, I have some input on the actual method used for the calibration and the possible errors to expect from it. One important requirement to be fulfilled for the method to produce good results is that rY should show a constant relation to the F10.7 flux (since that is our “truth” here), without any systematic dependance on the intensity of the particular sunspot cycle. This is an apparent requirement since the calibration period used here for RI-rY calibration (1981-2005) is located in relatively high sunspot cycles and we therefore need to make sure the method is generalizable to low count cycles.

Furthermore, this constant relation must hold and be almost the same for each and every period of the length of a sunspot cycle, since the rY values are used for calibration of each sunspot cycle alone. Otherwise, we would never know if historical deviations from the calculated RI are from historical errors in the sunspot count or from deviations in rY relative to its calibration period.

So, therefore I decided to make a simple test, i.e. calculating repeated linear regressions between F10.7 and rY with interval length of approximately a sunspot cycle (12 observations each) over the whole period where F10.7 values are available. For each regression the slope and intercept values are saved and plotted against the year of the interval centres.

(Since I didn’t have the actual raw data for the rY values I backcalculated them from your plots and corresponding regression formulas given in the pdf-document. This was done both from RI and F10.7 estimate plots and a double check was made by comparing the values against each other. The difference between the two estimated rY-series was small and also a regression to the F10.7 showed very similar results to the one in the pdf (y = 5.9838-130.0054, R2=0.9742). Therefore I’m confident that my estimated rY-values are good enough for this analysis.)

Below are the plots of the regression slopes and intercepts for 11-year subperiods over the period from 1947-2005:

In these plots it can be seen that the relation between F10.7 and rY is not very constant over this time period, rather there is a very obvious minima in the slope estimate around 1970 corresponding to the period covering the relatively low sunspot cycle at that time. Moreover, the difference between the lowest and highest slope over the period (5.255 and 6.368) is around 20% so these are no minor deviations from the ideal result. Therefore, I do not find rY to be very reliable when used the way you use it for making individual corrections for each sunspot cycle from just over 10 observations each.

One could also argue that the deviation of F10.7/rY-slope compared with your reference interval (1981-2005) may be even larger for the much weaker sunspot cycles observed in the past, for which your method gives the largest adjustments. And if so, it is quite obvious that it will produce a similar bias when used for correcting sunspots as well.

I’ve noticed that this thread has been rather wild earlier, but I hope you find this criticism relevant rather than annoying and I’m looking forward to hear your view on these issues. Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to be sure to make it clear.

645. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

Jan Pompe (#626),

Based on the mathematical bound, it seems to me that there might be an impact even during a normal solar cycle if perturbation
forcing is of one sign for several years. But it seems that if the value is low (floor) for many years (e.g. Maunder Minimum), the impact should be much easier to analyze and confirm.

Jerry

646. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

645 (Roger): some of the posters here could learn from you !
Let me try to answer your concerns [and put them to rest, hopefully]. First, from a physical point of view, the ion moving up in the ionosphere does not know if it is in a high or low solar cycle, so the only real concern is whether the relation between rY and F10.7 is linear and stationary or not. It turns out that there might be a non-linearity, but that this is so small that if I was trying to convince you that it was non-linear, you could apply statistical test and show that it is barely significant. In such cases, the best bet is to make things as simple as possible and to check afterwards if any non-linearity has a noticable effect. One very stringent test is to divide the pairs (rY,F107) into two groups; one where rY is lower that average rY and one where it is higher. Then compute the regression for both groups. I find
F10.7 = 5.2828 rY – 103.27 for the low group, and
F10.7 = 6.2196 rY – 141.58 for the high group.
I can now compute F10.7 twice, using the “low” formula and using the “high” formula and compare with the observed values. The result is shown here:

I have ‘cheated’ and made cycle 23 really tiny so see what effect that would have, and as you can see the non-linearity is not serious for very small cycles, cycle 20 and ’23’ are represented quite well. The problem comes in with the large cycles. For those the ‘low’ formula, tend to pull the the curve down. This will bring the calculated values down closer to the reported values and is thus conservative in the sense that the correction will be less. So this analysis [which, of course, is part of the whole picture] shows that is anything the non-linearity underestimates the correction and is therefore conservative. You may assume that such care is always taken in anything I do [and most other scientists worth their salt do]. I hope that your major concerns have become degraded to, perhaps, minor concerns. There seems to be the notion among people in this debate that scientists always do shoddy work throughout their years of toil and that anybody can spot this in a few minutes. But thanks for taking the trouble to look at this and eventually become convinced through yout own work with the data. This is the only way to go.

647. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

Moreover, the difference between the lowest and highest slope over the period (5.255 and 6.368) is around 20% so these are no minor deviations from the ideal result.

but you forget that the change in the slope is taken up by the intercept. If you calculate F10.7 for a given value of rY, e.g. the average [which is 43.64] using your running slope and intercept you’ll find that the result does not vary 20%, but hardly varies at all. Try it and show us the graph of what you get.

648. John Lang
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

The new sunspot area appears to suggest cycle 24 has started/will start shortly. It is high latitude (above 30 degrees latitude) and solar flux and solar wind have risen sharply over the past two weeks.

The new sunspot region does not have reversed polarity however which would be the definite signal of cycle 24 starting.

It is a good thing that cycle 24 is starting because if cycle 23 continued on for several more months, that would have indicated we are heading into a time of reduced sun activity similar to the Little Ice Age.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

649. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

Gerald Browning says:
December 12th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Based on the mathematical bound, it seems to me that there might be an impact even during a normal solar cycle if perturbation
forcing is of one sign for several years. But it seems that if the value is low (floor) for many years (e.g. Maunder Minimum), the impact should be much easier to analyze and confirm.

I agree (I think). It would be nice if the sun would oblige with a short healthy spike in the middle of such a minimum just measure the impact and the relaxation rate. I do agree with your earlier statement.

What I have been asserting mathematically is that it is the length of time that the floor is maintained, not the small variation (.1%) that can cause significant changes.

It is precisely the point of my remark concerning the closer resemblance that the sunspot cycle has to pulse density modulation than to pulse width modulation. The impact of the amplitude and the length of time the output is high is not as great as the time the solar output is low, that is how pulse density modulation works and the magnitude of the impact depends almost entirely on the relaxation rate of the low pass filter. All it takes is that the the pulse amplitude is high enough to cause a positive energy balance and the lows are low enough for the balance to be negative it doesn’t have to be a big difference.

650. VG
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

Looks like 2007 will be the seventh warmest year on record (or coolest in last seven years lol)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL135212720071213
and now they are saying (WMO) that it is the hottest decade on record (and we haven’t reached it yet).
Then of course
2008 eight, 2009 ninth warmest ect..is what will probably happen and so on so, until they realize the enormous mistake which has been made. (In fact 2008-2009 could easily be the 20th-40th warmest!) The SST data is showing a strong cooling trend
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif and its hard to see how global temps are going to theoretically keep going up.. but we will see. BTW solar cycle 24 may have started but whether it becomes a weak or strong one cannot be determined for some time (transition period) (see Solar cycle 24 website). May tend towards weak because of the delay. Steve: if not appropiate location (there doesnt seem to be one for this) just snip or delete

651. Edward
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Leif:

Solving your two equations for an equal F10.7 gives:
rY=40.895
F10.7=112.77

If assume rY=40 in your two equations: F10.7 varies from 108.04, 107.20
107.20 is about a 5% error

How much does rY vary? If it does not vary much, what does that mean?

652. Edward
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

Leif:

That 5% error is with respect to 112.77 which is kind of meaningless. I guess I was trying to say if F10.7 and rY is near the values given above then the errors would be small. F10.7 varies only by .84 (>1%)for a rY=40; F10.7 varies by 45 (11%) for a rY of 30. What does this mean without knowing the numbers? What are the number ranges.

653. Edward
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

Leif:

Lets try again:

The closer rY=40.895 the closer the results for F10.7 will be. Maybe, so what. Sorry for the silliness.

654. Stephen Richards
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

Don’t get too excited about the current sunspot. It is neither the right polarity nor the right latitude. The spots on the farside appear to have faded.

655. Bill F
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

649,

The large rise in flux and sunspot number is coming mostly from a large low lattitude SC23 sunspot and not from the brand new and very tiny area are marginally high latitudes. The new area at higher latitudes may or may not actually be declared a spot, but its polarity does appear to be that of SC24. However, the time from the first spot of a new cycle to the actual minumum is likely to be 6-12 months based on previous cycles. Once the large SC23 spot rotates out of view, it is likely that the flux will go back to low levels unless we get more new spots.

656. MarkW
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

How can we tell what the spots on the farside are doing? Is somebody holding up a mirror???

657. John Lang
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

A new sunspot group formed today just below the high latitude one and this group does have reversed polarity.

So, there are both sunspot groups at a high enough latitude (30 degrees North IS high enough) and there are ones with reversed polarity as well.

658. Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

# 1

Leif Svalgaard,

Turn off the Sun and see what happens, hah! :)

659. Damek
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

RE: MarkW 657

Here is an explanation of the farside technique.

660. Dennis Wingo
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

Leif

631 (Dennis): Im tired and I give up on this one. The issue was not if the star had been studied at all, but whether its activity as measured by the Ca-lines had been followed over the 20 or so years, that would be required to determine if a solar-like activity cycle was present, or if the star was in a Maunder Minimum state. That was the original question.

Leif

I hate to beat this dead horse even more but it seems that both in the literature and current research that there have been fairly long term observations of sunlike stars (close to the G2V spectral class as well as open cluster star groups) from Mt Wilson (from the 1960’s) and therefore some statistics have begun to emerge regarding the duration of the solar cycle of these stars, with specific references to searching for Maunder Minimum type conditions. When you said that this had not happened it bothered me as this is one of the things that we did lab studies on when I was in college of the datasets along with developing code for determining solar cycle length in Mathematica. The Ca-lines were specifically studied to establish the solar cycle length so here is your data!

http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Maunder/

So this does open two doors. If the barycentric model has any validity it might be a means to determine through indirect means, the existence of closer orbit, smaller planets such as the Earth. This would be a hugely important method of discovering terrestrial type planets outside of our own system. Conversely, if we do a detailed study of the effect of our solar system’s terrestrial and giant planets on the solar cycle, it provides a check on the validity of the hypothesis.

In regards to your solar theory, there is at least one star referenced in the Mt. Wilson data that seems to be or has just entered Maunder Minimum conditions. Since we have no instrumental records of this for our sun, this seems to be something that should be hugely important to the solar physics community, but there seems to be a disconnect between the two communities. Question.

Since there is data out there that apparently shows a star going into MM conditions, is this data of any value to you in your own research regarding variations of TSI in MM and non MM conditions? The resolution of TSI data is definitely such as to show this relationship.

Second, a means to do an independent check on the barycentric theory related to solar cycle effect should be clearly evident in star systems with close orbiting planets/binary stars. Do you see any value in studying these types of star systems in order to provide an independent means of postulating the duration and strength of solar cycles?

Thanks for reading this but as I go back and read the literature on this it becomes even more interesting.

661. Roger
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

#647 Leif,

Thanks for the answer, but unfortunately I’m still not convinced that this is a negligible effect. However, I’m aware of what you are saying about the intercept, but since the differences between sunspot cycles (or F10.7 cycles for that matter) is mainly on the upside the role of the intercept to the most part will be to position the regression line at the correct values of the low part of the cycle and the high parts will mostly be fitted through adjustments of the slope (considering the deviations we are looking at).

Anyway, let me take an alternative approach to show the effects of what I’m talking about. First let’s compute the same analysis that you do in the pdf by calculating individual adjustment factors for sunspot cycles 19-23 (Rz and Rg) by using my estimated rY-values instead of yours as a reference (same constraint applied by forcing the regression line through 0).

This gives the following correction factors for cycles 19-23, respectively:

Rz : 0.902 0.963 0.984 0.949 1.030
Rg : 0.987 0.972 0.988 0.960

(No Rg correction factor for cycle 23, since I do not know what values you used for this calculation. Also there may be some small deviations in what years to include in the different sunspot cycles, overlap/no overlap etc. However, some minor changes here does not give very different results.)

It can be seen that these factors are reasonably similar to the ones you presented in the pdf. So, everything seems fine thus far. But now let us perform the same analysis by computing similar correction factors and calibrating the sunspot cycles from F10.7 instead of rY. First, establish a new calibration formula by regressing Ri on F10.7 for the period 1981-2005. This gives the following regression formula with even higher R2 than previously for rY:

Ri_calc = 0.9849 * F10.7 – 56.887

Next, compute correction factors the same way as above but use F10.7 and the above formula for the calculations. This leads us to the following correction factors for the sunspot cycles 19-23:

Rz : 0.915 0.893 0.928 0.951 1.061
Rg : 1.001 0.901 0.932 0.964

Obviously, these factors are not very similar to the ones from the rY-calibration. To study the differences, let’s calculate ratios between the rY-correction factors and the corresponding ones from the F10.7 calibration (to estimate over/under-corrections made by rY-calibration relative to F10.7). Finally, plot these ratios for all cycles along with the corresponding F10.7/rY-slopes calculated over the same sunspot cycle intervals (calculated the way as I did in my previous post). Below the ratio values and plots:

Rz : 0.986 1.078 1.060 0.998 0.971
Ry : 0.987 1.078 1.060 0.997

If we make the assumption that the F10.7-calibration is the correct one (which of course is a simplification), it is seen that there is an overestimate in the rY-calibration of almost 8% at the worst sunspot cycle. Also this cycle is the one with the largest slope deviation from earlier (cycle 20) and the patterns are quite similar (though mirrored). (I would not draw any large conclusions from the values of cycle 23 since we are not using the full cycle).

Even though these are a very limited number of cycles to draw conclusions from I don’t think i’m way out in the blue to be a bit skeptic about the method based on these findings. Especially since the F10.7 most likely must be considered a better proxy than the rY.

As a final remark it also feels very strange that when using the method to correct individual sunspot cycles within the calibration period itself (1981-2005), we get corrections of several percent to be applied to the sunspot data (regardless of using rY or F10.7). The very same data we assumed to be correct in the first place when creating our calibration regression formula. How should one take a stand on that? Either the original data must be ok for our formula to be meaningful (but then we must neglect the suggested corrections), or the corrections is ok but then our original formula must be wrong because it was created from uncorrected sunspot data.

662. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

Jan Pompe (#650),

I did my homework and now think I understand PDM better. In PDM there are only two values (0 and 1) corresponding to two states (low and high) whatever the states might be.
It is the distribution of the 0’s and 1’s that can be used to reconstruct an analog signal by using a low pass filter that keeps the low frequency part of a sequence of 0’1 and 1’s.

How accurately can the analog signal be recovered, i.e. is the recovery more accurate with a longer sequence of 0’s and 1’s corresponding to more than a single analog wave.

In the mathematical estimate, if the amplitude of the perturbation forcing was too small, then the estimate would indicate that the forcing would have little or no impact. However, because the small forcing is multiplied by a large coefficient, it can have an O(1) impact in a few years even without a spike during a solar cycle.

Are you an expert in signal processing?

Jerry

663. David Archibald
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

I consulted the good and the great about Dr Svalgaard’s rearranging of the TSI and aa Index, and they are unconcerned. Let’s see if there is a Be10 and C14 divergence problem. For what it is worth, my estimate of the month of 23/24 changeover is July, 2009, based on accumulated spotless days theory.

Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

Click on the embedded You Tube:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=146

David A, your description of the Dark Ages Cold Period in the slide deck is a masterpiece of euphemism! :lol:

665. Pat Keating
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

663

PDM is used by zoological nervous systems as the preferred method of sending analog amplitude information down neurons.

I don’t think that the recovery of an analog signal is super accurate unless either (i) the highest frequency to be recovered is well below the PRF, or (ii) a good notch filter, matched to the PRF, is used.

But it’s good enough for gross motor action (e.g., a punch). For fine motor action, like threading a needle,a control loop is employed to get precision.

666. Leif Svalgaard
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

648: Roger, you did not do what I suggested. Please do so.
649: John, it does have the correct polarity for 24, namely that of the other spot in the Southern Hemisphere. And the solar flux and solar wind upticks have nothing to do with cycle 24. They are due to the other (and big) spot group.
659: N.N.: How do I turn you off, is the question….
661 (Dennis): Oh, not again ! Ok, one more time: the original Mt. Wilson sample included many stars that were thought to be sun-like, but was later found to be more ‘evolved’ that the Sun, thus casring doubt on the finding that the Sun (and a sun-like star) spends a third of its time in Maunder Minimum conditions. That was the original thing I commented on. Now, it is, of course, of great interest to study this and after a large amount of work people have identified 300 starts that are ‘nearly’ sun-like and started looking at those, but we only have a few years worth of data so can’t say anything yet about how their cycles compare in length and how frequent Grand Minima are, but give it another 30 years and we’ll know more. So, can we now close that book? please.

About the barycenter: book is closed on that one too. No more, please. Start your own fan-club on this.

662 (Roger): You can get the ‘poor man’s group sunspot number’ in this way: go to Hathaway’s website http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml There is a long list of files with sunspot areas. The file sizes of these files is propotioanl to the group sunspot number [think about it, and you’ll understand]. Your newest musings are just preventing you from seeing the light and advance the field. You will find (and did) inconsistencies and disagreements due to noise and intrinsic variations, but they are minor (plus/minus 0.1 or less) compared to the corrections for the older data which have correction factors exceeding 1.5, and THAT is the important thing. When one challeges an important index like the sunspot number, one’s evidence better be good and no single analysis will convince many, so it is nice that we have more ammunition. One of the smaller changes was between cycles 17 and 18 when Waldmeier took over the Zurich operation. The rY-method suggests a change of ~23% [based on ratio between means of cycles before and after 1945]. A completely independent analysis of the sunspot areas used the photographs that Usoskin was talking about leads to a change of ~18% in 1945, consistent with the rY-method [see “De maculis in Sole observatis” on my website. And there is more as we have also an analysis of the difference between the sunspot number before and after Wolf’s entry into the fray in 1849. This new analysis is not written up yet, but will be shortly. In isolation, each of these analyses can be attacked or dismissed, but collectively they support each other. When we do correlations we try to use as many data points as possible to beat down the noise. Using only 11 points is borderline which means that none of the factors that we found after 1945 are statistically different. There is no difference between any of the numbers 0.902 0.963 0.984 0.949 1.030, they are all the same, namely 0.96+/-0.05.

664 (DA): see the description of this particular fallacy at fallacy of argument from authority

667. Jan Pompe
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

Gerald Browning says:
December 13th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Jerry, first of all I’d have to say I’m not an expert on signal processing though I have done a lot of it in the context of industrial control systems.

How accurately can the analog signal be recovered, i.e. is the recovery more accurate with a longer sequence of 0s and 1s corresponding to more than a single analog wave.

In my field we often used PDM especially before cheap opto-couplers became abundant because we used inductive coupling to isolate electrically it was easy to recover the signal with the low pass filter, this is a bit trickier with PWM. Of course if isolation was not necessary we’d use 4-20mA current loops I believe these are disappearing from the field. The point being is that in feed back control systems we are not usually looking at wave like signals since what we are after is a steady state in many cases the resolution was often much better than what the transducers could provide. If you want more rigour it will take me a little time and I’m certain that once you get a handle on it you will do a better job of it than I.

Pat #666 speak of the devil;-)

But its good enough for gross motor action (e.g., a punch). For fine motor action, like threading a needle,a control loop is employed to get precision.

Yes we move more slowly we don’t have any other way of transmitting position, speed, levels of pain to the brain as far as I am aware. I made a bit of a study of it when I was an RN (still am one) working in pain management this too was a while ago.

Of to work for me now.

668. Gerald Browning
Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 10:41 PM | Permalink

Pat Keating (#666),

Fascinating.

What is PRF, some kind of level of accuracy of the low pass filter?

Wikipedia claims that Sony is using PMD in one of its sound products. Thus I assume there must be some way to recover the signal fa