Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An international team of scientists, including Dr. Willie Soon, has produced a solar model which does a skilful job of reproducing past climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
The abstract of the study;
Role of the Radiation Factor in Global Climatic Events of the Late Holocene
V. M. Fedorov 📧, D. M. Frolov 📧 Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
V. M. N. Velasco Herrera 📧 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, 04510 México
W. W.-H. Soon 📧 Harvard and Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Division of Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, 02138 USA d Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Sopron, 9400 Hungary
R. G. Cionco 📧 Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Buenos Aires, 2900 ArgentinaReceived April 30, 2021; revised July 16, 2021; accepted July 19, 2021
Abstract—On the basis of calculations of insolation and insolation characteristics, taking into account changes in solar activity, the causes of global climatic events in the late Holocene have been determined. The main reasons for the Little Ice Age (LIA) are the long and deep minimum of summer insolation and insolation seasonality (IS) in the Northern Hemisphere. The values of the minimums are fixed in the range of approximately 1400–1750. The depth of the minimum over the past 5000 years, taking into account the change in solar activity, is about 8.0 W/m2 for summer insolation and about 13.3 W/m2 for IS in the Northern Hemisphere. The medieval climatic optimum is associated with the winter maximum of insolation contrast (IC) in the Northern Hemisphere, reflecting an increase in the meridional heat transfer in the winter half of the year from the equatorial region to the polar regions, as well as with a maximum of interhemispheric heat transfer. The increase in winter IC at maximum (1118) relative to 3000 BC is 28.4 W/m2. The difference between the hemispheric radiative heat transfer at the maximums (881, 940, and 976) increases by 5.0 W/m2 relative to 3000 BC. Thus, global events of the late Holocene are associated with extremes of insolation characteristics (incoming radiation, IC, and IS of the Earth), but the temporal structure of the extrema themselves is determined by variations in solar activity. It follows from the above that, when reconstructing and predicting global climatic events, it is important to take into account not only variations in the incoming radiation, but also the associated changes in insolation characteristics (IC and IS of the Earth), reflecting the mechanisms of heat transfer. The IC regulates the meridional transfer of radiation heat; its cause is a change in the tilt of the axis and precession. The IS of the Earth determines the intensity of interhemispheric heat transfer. The noted characteristics of insolation, reflecting not only variations in the arrival of solar radiation, but also variations in the mechanisms of heat transfer, are not taken into account in the general astronomical theory of climate. Taking these indicators into account will help obtain more complete information about climate changes in past eras and will allow the more accurate forecasting of the future climate.
Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433821100030
It will be fascinating to see how this new paper is received.
In a normal field of science, a model which works would generate a lot of excitement. But as Willis recently pointed out, there seems to be a shocking level of complacency amongst many climate scientists when it comes to model quality.
Well, what a surprise !!!
Century? What about Millennia?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/03/04/the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
“I see nothing. I hear nothing, I know nothing.”
The climate modelers creed. With emphasis on the last trait.
If they came, saw and conquered, they likely would lose study grants, for failure to spout the GW line, no matter the contrary evidence.
Good. They all need to starve, and their parents need to be punished, too.
In North Korea they add the children (and grand-parents if still alive)
In Canada we grab their bank accounts and distribute the funds to more acceptable causes.
Haven’t prominent Team modelers come to the conclusion of late that their models are “running a way too hot”? (+300% against observations is, indeed, too hot!). As the effect CO2 drops as an important as factor in warming, then climate science more and more becomes the problem of redistribution of sun’s energy.
Climate Science more and more becomes the problems of redistribution of wealth.
That’s the dominant intra-red spectrum hotting up.
Climate Science more and more becomes the problem of the redistribution of grants.
It’s a bun fight out there.
INCREASING COLD EXTREMES WORLDWIDE: IS GLOBAL COOLING ON THE WAY?
by Madhav Khandekar, Ray Garnett February 11, 2022
___________________________
Told you so – two decades ago. People will die from the cold and the green energy disaster.
“SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT”
by Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 20, 2021, Update Nov. 8, 2021
https://correctpredictions.ca/
“I see nothing. I hear nothing, I know nothing. Is my big fat cheque in the post?”
There, that’s more like it!!! I do like your comment, very accurate me thinks!!!
I used the link to read the abstract. Rest is paywalled. But from the abstract, I am doubtful this ‘skill’ isn’t mostly contrived. There are four reasons:
A copy is available on ResearchGate
I don’t use it out of principle. About half the papers posted there are unlawful copyright violations, and I am a licensed lawyer in good standing.
I guess I’m unprincipled.
And I can’t read Russian….
Try Willie Soon email. Many papers are available in English versions. English is the de facto language of science these days. If you want the paper read by as many people as possible, then you publish it in English. When I was in a university in China, I was asked to correct papers for publication in journals.
Probably not. Rud pointed something out that I didn’t know. I assume you didn’t either.
I find it hard to believe. Researchgate has a large presence and I would think they would be cautious about copyright. They also charge like wounded bulls for most of their papers. I am surprised on rare occasions when there is a full paper for free. Some papers may be in the public domain. I’m not going to argue the point. Rud may be privy to information I don’t have.
Rud,
As a user of Research Gate I find your comment to be disturbing.
My publications on Research Gate are all legitimate.
Now if on the other hand you where talking about Sci-Hub then I would concede that you had a legitimate point to make.
There are email links in the post. Most people will be happy to give you a copy of the paper, they are allowed to and it’s quite legal. My wife was getting copies from authors for free when she was studying.
Let me be legally precise. The new ‘get around’ is to prepublish without published corrections.That avoids the legal technical, but not the intended publisher copyrights. Is only possible in the preprint internet world. in my opinion, that is simply dishonest from those that seek ultimate publication in a reputable journal.
I get what you are saying. I’m one of those weird people that thinks knowledge should be free. We have moved from the age where a monk laboriously copied books. We are now in the digital age where the greatest cost to a reader would be the print paper and toner for a document if they wanted a hard copy.
We could probably argue for hours about these things, but I choose not to. We have our own ideas about things.
I’m gonna do what I do and you are going to do what you do.
No hard feelings.
So much for intellectual property rights.
Knowledge has become property now?
Don’t even begin to mention Wisdom.
Lol. Wisdom can’t be given away.
You forgot the /s. More to the point, when hasn’t it been.
People pay for college. If someone knows something that you also want to know, you are at the whim of that knowledge “owner”.
If I were asked to provide my knowledge for free I would simply say “How does it feel to want?”.
Most countries have free education to a certain level. Many European countries have free Universities.
If someone was forcing me to impart my knowledge to them, I would be ‘very cross’.
There is a lot of free information/education online. Journals are a business and good luck to them. There is a reason Sci-hub exists. There is a whole area of discussion about Universities having to pay big bucks for this ‘knowledge distribution’.
This post is not about that. That’s why I made a simple comment .
I’m not interested in hijacking the thread.
Sorry, I may be wrong, but,
the intellectual property rights you mention, does not consist as a means of prohibiting access to knowledge, either partially or in full.
Actually it consist as with a basic initial requirement of accommodation for an intellectual property knowledge to be fully disclosed publicly in the most complete, clear and detailed manner, completely free of charge to the public or any other interested parties, through a validating and a legal protective scheme…
for the intellectual property to be able to enjoy legal rights and legal protections.
cheers
There is a real problem with top “reputable” journals when a researcher has to pay them for having an article published and does not get a dime for his or her efforts. These same journals have a captive market in the universities around the world and make money from their publications. To make matters worse they way they often treat those submitting papers lacks courtesy and appreciation for the huge effort put into preparing a paper. I will not even go into their lack of transparency in the peer review process.
Peer review is gate keeping and as such is a political process and not a scientific one.
All climate variations claimed over the past few hundreds of years are just noise.
Resurrect me when something of note happens in a few thousand years time.
To 2.
These cyclical changes aren’t detectable global but local, there seem to be a lot of paper describing local changes.
Problem with local is, the warming is supposed to be global, lots of local variations will always sync with something, simply because they are local.
28.4 Watts contrast….paywalled…hmmm….that’s an extreme number….“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Hopefully, Willy can come up with it.
Given that the radiation imbalance that’s supposed to be causing global warming is on the order of 1 W/m^2, Soon’s numbers are interesting.
As far as I can tell, the distribution of heat over the Earth’s surface makes a big difference to the average temperature. Also, as far as I can tell, it is widely ignored. It could mean that the greenhouse effect is overstated.
You hit the nail. Averages don’t really work. It they did the Arctic would get the same average as Latin America. That just doesn’t happen. Considering that radiation is based on a quite large exponential factor of temperature, averages just won’t cut it.
I’ve been playing with this.
Suppose that you have a system which is in equilibrium and adds and loses heat only by radiation. Ignoring the greenhouse effect, there will be a maximum possible average temperature. The closer the average temperature is to the maximum, the more uniformly distributed is the heat.
I strongly suspect that the average temperature doesn’t mean what most people have been led to believe it means.
What I can say is that the Earth could have a wide range of possible average temperatures and still be in equilibrium. ie. The heat absorbed would equal the heat radiated.
It gets really complicated really quickly. Planck’s theories on radiation always assumed homogeneous and isotropic. Stefan-Boltzmann’s law assumes a black body (pretty much homogeneous) and a unit surface at a constant temperature. The earth meets none of these assumptions. That’s why simple arithmetic averages are a simpleton’s solution to a complex problem.
Actually, SB has a variable for emissivity so it happily handles grey bodies.
Yes it can be used with “ε” to emulate a grey body. However, when considering earth, “ε” is also a constantly changing variable that would need a complicated integral to adequately address changing conditions at the surface. Again, simple averages can not deal with these variations and end up with wrong answers. I’m sure Dr. Spencer could address this as he has to deal with it in the UAH calculations.
Bearing in mind the attention span of most readers, alarmist or sceptical, and the mental midgetry of many of them (I’m thinking politicians), the advantage of a single number – the global average, outweighs its uselessness as a conveyor of information.
Especially because the average derived from weather records can be manipulated by the way they do gridding, which is to allocate values to every grid cell, whether there is data in it or not. All they have to do is tweak the parameters they use in the gridding software. I’m assuming that they use kriging. We do this in geology and geophysics to get a grid that “looks right”. But then we’re not planning to upend the economies of the western world in a wild goose chase.
Satellite-based global average temperatures are a bit more meaningful because they do at least have data in every grid cell, so the gridding process just smooths it out.
When you do it in geology, you are dealing with mostly unchanging phenomena. Oil/gas reservoirs, mineral deposits, etc. don’t move from one geographical location to another overnight like a frontal system. No rising/setting of the sun, no seasons, no ocean currents, etc. These are all time varying phenomena that shouldn’t be averaged.
“When you do it in geology, you are dealing with mostly unchanging phenomena.”
So, no depletion? No flood front advancement? No imbibition? No free gas formation/production? No sand face pressure reduction from lift or choke changes? No compositional changes?. No permeability alterations from production/injection? No wettability changes?
I’d advise you stick with what you know, but…..
How many of these vary minute by minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, month by month. Do they change when the sun comes up and goes down? Do they change as the earth orbits the sun? How about when clouds appear and disappear.?
Do compositions change throughout a day? Is depletion affected by a multitude of variables and change second by second like humidity or temperature? Does humidity in the atmosphere affect the viscosity of an oil resovior at 900 ft down?
You are trying to compare a relatively static environment to a very dynamic one. It doesn’t work.
They change with depletion and changing reservoir management strategies. The time frame makes nada difference between the faux barriers to evaluation that you conveniently mention.
Bull Pucky.
Neither of these are short time based periodic functions controlled by multivariable natural variation.
Neither the periodicity nor the time period negates the applicability of normal spatial interpolations and the statistical evaluation of it’s trends, over multiple periods. Even the “skeptical” sometimes featured here understand that. Your have no technical backup for your bogus carousel of arguments against using methods understood for many decades for such analyses.
I think my fav is your invocation of “BBBuutt, DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS!!!”. When repeatedly schooled on the sillinesss of that, you then switch thumbs to nonsense about short time periods and our inability to do multivariable evaluation. Unfortunately for you, this method is even used by the “skeptics” to try and minimize AGW forcings..
Bearing in mind the attention span of most readers, alarmist or sceptical, and the mental midgetry of many of them (I’m thinking politicians), the advantage of a single number – the global average, outweighs its uselessness as a conveyor of information.
I’m sad because I understood this.
Rud Istvan, I think that if you broadened your perspective you might better appreciate the authors’ skill.
Re: 2
Re: 2 & 4
So there are several identified mechanisms and data that show that the solar cycle significantly affects climate, both independent of and in conjunction with ENSO, and at time scales that are often beyond a single (or double) solar cycle.
Now for something completely different.
Wavelength, nm, can be converted to joules w h & c.
The joules contained between 3,000 nm and 50,000 nm, i.e. IR is about 8% of the joules between 200 & 50,000 nm.
In other words IR does not provide the bulk of terrestrial heating, 200 thru 3,000 does.
But IR from CO2 is very powerful. In fact, it can heat up an entire planet.
All of the energy that leaves the planet and is not simply reflected, is radiated at IR wavelengths.
I have often wondered which frequencies CO2 emits at, since it absorbs at known frequencies, it must emit at related frequency bands, the differences being related to the change in entropy of the vibrating molecules. The very narrow absorption bands of CO2 (plus the ludicrous narrow band of CH4) have always been, for me, the indicator that Carbon based anthropologic global warming// climate change// is a thoroughly made up religion using the dressing of science.
Absorption and emission wavelengths are the same for gasses.
My observation is that this largely repeats what was published back in 2008 in a book by S. Frederick Singer and Dennis T. Avery with the title “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years”. Personally, I have found the book to be very believable after looking at the data myself, with the understanding that the “1,500 years” time period is somewhat of an approximation, and 1,500 plus or minus 500 years could be more appropriate. The historical evidence tends to confirm what is in the book, and the reasoning is thoroughly explained and justified with data. I have kept a copy of the book in my personal library and have closely followed the long-term (ca. 1500 year) solar cycles myself with continued interest. I also have some books which discuss past climate changes, also tending to confirm what I read. By the way, I have a B.S. in physics, and graduated in the top quarter of my college class overall back in 1959, without ever planning to become a physicist.
Rud,
By solar cycles, are they referring to the D-O and Heinrich cycles that apparently correspond with cosmic ray impacts on cloud cover a la Svensmark or the 22-year cycle you point out has little variability?
Re. the former per Wikipedia:
“Dansgaard–Oeschger events (often abbreviated D–O events), named after palaeoclimatologists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger, are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists say that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events.”
The solar signal is detectable in the temperature data.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931
Right now it takes 5 days less for Earth to orbit from equinox to equinox when the sun is pointing at the Southern Hemisphere, which is mostly ocean. That means the SH gets higher intensity sunlight. In 9,000 years it will be almost the op[osite with the NH getting sunlight for 4 days less with corresponding higher intensity.
The work will be based on distribution of water and land across the hemispheres. Evaporation of water from oceans is a massive store of energy that reduces the heat loss from land.
The SH has been losing sunlight since the 1500s and the NH gaining. The change is now accelerating as perihelion moves away from the austral summer solstice and closer to the boreal summer solstice.
The insolation differences over solar cycles are quite small at all frequencies.
Agree, solar energy input is relatively constant over centuries even millennia.
What sun does is: it triggers redistribution of energy between equatorial and subtropical regions and higher latitudes.
Most of our historic and accurate climate data is from the N. Hemisphere with large continental masses, with significantly lower thermal energy reserves than it is found in equatorial ocean regions.
Add into the equation available area factor it can be seen that even small energy transfer from low latitudes would equate in the much larger temperature rise in the higher latitudes.
The deficit in the equatorial reserves would be replenished from the solar input, regardless of the level of activity at the time.
The excess energy shifted to the North would be eventually lost to the space.
Hence, the centenary scale climate change is a ‘seesaw’ of the energy amount shifted across the hemisphere.
Question is how does the sun triggers these changes?
As I see it, it is done through increase and reduction in frequency of more powerful but very short events as CMEs and flairs. Effect of these is mostly felt in the upper regions of polar atmosphere where polar vortex operates. acting as the control knob of the polar jet stream.
The rest is well known.
The abstract says, The IC regulates the meridional transfer of radiation heat; its cause is a change in the tilt of the axis and precession.” So it’s not just about solar cycles. Too bad the paper is written in Russian.
Rud:
“If solar cycles affected climate, we would see that reflected (even slightly) in some roughly 22 year cyclicality in temperature, rainfall, and such. We don’t.”
There are strong metonic weather cycles that are modulated by the solar ones. I think your conclusion is hasty. Southern Africa for example has a clear lunar-rooted cycle in the summer rainfall area allowing droughts to be predicted decades in advance. It is essentially a sine wave, but there is a different component as well which alters it. In the winter rainfall area (Cape Town) it is very close to a solar cycle in length, ~10 years. I have seen a times series analysis of 400 years of rainfall data (from 1608) and it is a sine wave. If a 0.1% change in the solar output creates a 2.5% difference in cloud cover it explains all weather variation for the past 8000 years when combined with volcanic data. Prof Lu from U Waterloo in Canada has several papers explaining how that might work, with UV controlling the chemistry over Antarctica. He replicated the chemistry in his lab validating the pathways and mechanisms.
I hope I am conveying the ideas adequately.
The Milankovitch mechanism is hardly in doubt [and not by me], but the rest of the paper is invalidated by using outdated [twenty year old] reconstructions of intrinsic solar activity variation.
I seem to recall that even in the latest reconstruction the same ups and downs show up but of smaller magnitude. All one needs is an amplification factor such as solar induced changes in global cloudiness.
In any case one should not use an outdated solar activity record.
Hi Leif. Can you provide a link to the two solar activity records?
That’s what I like about Leif. The science is never settled.
However, it was my grandmother that said one should not use potato salad that has been outdated by solar activity.
Yes, Milankovic cycles are the only factor that reduces or increases the hemispherical significant energy input, but globally it is still near constant. Intensity of the glacial periods are in large due to the thermal capacity in the North being far smaller than in the South.
Interglacial climate change is due to the thermal energy shift from low to high latitudes and it it is that its intensity is partially initiated by by the solar activity, as I’ve described in the above comment (Reply to Rud Istvan)
Vuk
Put as simple as it could be. (Hopefully🧐🙂)
Seasons (yearly) as do stand, are a result of a periodical hemispheeical dimming and brightening which consists as Earth’s factor and not the Sun”s.
The main base stand of/for the Milankovitch Cycles theory of climate.
Yes, as you say, thus far up to this point, it could be considered as globally constant, like with no any global dimming or global cooling, or vice versa to be considered.
The theory mainly explains, or attempts to do so, in consideration of global cooling periods, the long ones we call glacial periods.
When and where is bound to the proposition that global brightening is due to global warming, firmly a result of it, which ever way to be considered or approached
Simply put, Milankovich Cycles theory of climate stands for and as an explanation of a global climatic cooling,
as a radiative climatic global cooling, where climatic global warming consist and is bound to be a given, which,
either as in the case of a thermal internal system response or as a given climatic base state, still consisting as
non radiative driven.
Under the hospice of the M. Cycles theory,
global climatic dimming-cooling is radiative in nature,
but the global climatic warming-brightening consisting as non radiative in nature.
The theory does not at all take in account or cares about the Sun’s dimming,
and is completely non compatible or completely incompatible with Sun’s brightening.
cheers
Wondrous the coincidences of time and temperature despite the solar record being less than ideal.
How is it that running with the better record would wreck a lot of the coincidence.
How is it come?
===============
How can the sun POSSIBLY influence the temperature? Thats a right wing conspiracy.
Yeah, I know. IF the sun were of any influence it would be colder at night than during the day.
Who remembers “It’s the sun. Stupid!”? I mean, I’m not a climate scientist(happily), but I can read, I can think. I understand what .04% means, in any metric. Just drop it, it’s all about to fall apart anyway! I give it less than 12 months, then reality returns, along with sanity, and real democracy.
Beware of the fallacy of the single cause: “when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes” (Wiki).
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” is possibly the truest statement the IPCC has ever delivered.
“I’m not a climate scientist(happily)”
You’re happy you know less about climate science than climate scientists do and because of that you’re going to rub there noses in it. Mmm, falling apart.
Lol…Loydo you have always been a human 💩
I support your sentiments whole heartedly, I just doubt that sanity & real democracy will return anytime soon, sadly, the political left can smell a victory of some sort, & won’t let it go that easily, Socialism/Communism wants a global guvment but naturally not a democratically elected one, that would never do, what’s the point of global domination whereby the “people” can challenge & question everything that guvment says & does!!! I don’t expect you to read Agenda 21 in full, unless of course you’re an extreme insomniac, but read a few pages & the lights come on pretty quickly followed by loud alarm bells!!! Islam seeks a similar global position which, in my humble opinion, explains why the political left & Islam work so well together, they share the same objectives!!!
Hi Leif.
Regards.
Bob
DUH!!!!! What f**king moron does not know the big, flaming ball of hydrogen is the primary driver of climactic change effecting all the bodies orbiting it?
With respect, that view is way too simplified. For about the past 2.5 million years, the Earth has undergone periodic ice ages. Speculation is this resulted from closure of the Panama Isthmus due to plate tectonics. For for about the first half of the time, the periodicy was on the order of 45k years. For the second half itbis on the order of 110 years (Eemian highstand was about 120kya, and the Holocene highstand was about 8kya, for example).
NONE of that has anything to do with the Sun or its 22 year from min to max to min sunspot cycles. See my comment reasoning above. And Leif’s.
That is correct, as far as it goes, and neither does human activity, so the point stands. Climate does what it does, as it always has, and we can’t stop it nor are we causing it. The vast amount of manhours and capital pissed away on this is appalling. Both could be far better spent on something useful
Lots of studies about the tail wagging and no one has a clue about the dog or if it actually is a dog.
Cows “wag” tail quite effectively, milk a few times and you learn that pretty quickly. All these “studies” are aimed at one goal, garnering grant/tax dollars and nothing else. Force these asswipes to get real jobs in order to feed themselves and all this sh*t goes away overnight.
They work very hard to get grants. Don’t diminish their efforts.
My dog works hard to squeeze out a turd and that effort is far more relevant to the world than anything these greentards do. 😉
Getting grants is NOT work for “primary researchers.” There are highly paid specialists for that. This is their theme song:
https://youtu.be/V83JR2IoI8k
I like your extension of the old anecdote.
I try my best. Words and images that are already in peoples minds. It takes little effort to modify to my point of view.
Are you suggesting that there is no possible connection between Solar activity, coupled with a variety of as yet unknown causal effects via the Milankovitch Cycles?As a young structural engineer (now retired-thankfully) I was always trained to “never” rule anything in or out when assessing the condition of various existing properties, & people just don’t believe that tree/shrub roots & ground water (regardless of source) can cause buildings to subside, it rarely being the natural sub-soil conditions!!! Never rule anything out until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not to be a contributing factor!!!
Err, Rud, time from min to max to min sunspot cycles is 11.4 years average. The 22-yr Hale cycle is the average time it takes the polarity of the solar magnetic field to go back to its same position.
A climatic effect of the Hale cycle has been found multiple times. Andrew Douglass, an astronomer that was fired by Percival Lowell for doubting the artificial nature of the martian canals, noticed the solar cycle in tree-ring widths in Arizona in 1904 (they displayed and still display a 22-yr periodicity), and convinced of a solar effect on climate went on to single-handed develop the entire sub-field of dendrochronology, that was the only method available at the time to date ancient structures, and constituted the basis for radiocarbon dating developed decades later by Willard Libby.
Some of the most distinguished and best climate scientists of the past examined the evidence and found it clearly supported a solar effect on climate. Wladimir Köppen, the best climate scientist of the late 19th-early 20th century that developed a climate clasification still in use, was well aware of climatic changes and absolutely convinced of a solar cycle effect on climate. His support was crucial for the acceptance of Milankovitch theory in Europe in the 1920s.
Your skepticism of a solar effect on climate is not based on a sufficient knowledge of the issue. As it happened with Alfred Wegener, when the evidence was clear that the continents had moved, but a mechanism was lacking, the refusal of geology consensus to accept the evidence delayed geology four decades. With solar effect on climate it is the same. The evidence is clear, yet the mechanism is lacking. To disbelief in something that has sufficient evidence is akin to belief in something that does not. When in doubt go with the evidence. That’s what Willie Soon is doing.
If the Earth was continuously shrouded in atmospheric clouds due you think its climate might be different from what we have now with Earth’s average albedo? . . . and can you see that this difference would exist independently of what that “big, flaming ball of hydrogen” was doing?
In the immortal words of Vinegar Joe, “If wishes were horses we would all be eating steak.” “If” is what the whole “humans are destroying the climate/environment” religion has been based on from its inception.
Thanks (not so much) for the non-answer answer to my question to you.
Question answered. That you refuse delivery is not my fault. Not my circus and not my monkeys. You feel that humans are destroying the environment and causing climate change? That is on you. Feelings do not affect reality.
2hotel9 posted “You feel that humans are destroying the environment and causing climate change?”
Non sequitur . . . but still enjoyable for its wide miss.
Still hanging the entire premise on if. If is a shaky foundation on which to build anything.
It is way more complicated than that. Over the last 600 million years the Sun has brightened about 5% equivalent to a radiative force of +12 W/m2 yet the planet experienced a secular decline in temperature with numerous large swings embedded in that trend.
The latest Ice Age on Earth, the Quarternary, the one we are currently in, began about 2.6 million years ago. Prior to that there was the late Paleozoic (aka Karoo) Ice Age that occurred 360 to 260 million years ago. And prior to that there was the Andean-Saharan Ice Age that occurred from 460 to 420 million years ago.
Each of these Ice Ages, in turn, experienced glacial/interglacial intervals with periods varying from 40,000 years to (most recently)100,000 years.
Any brightening of the Sun that occurred over the last 600 million years apparently had insignificant effect of the formation and termination of Ice Ages and on their interleaved cycles of glacials/interglacials.
Exactly. For these reasons I think we can eliminate the Sun as the primary driver of all climatic change events.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope you had a very serious expression on your face when you typed that. So precious.
Yep! You be right! The big, flaming ball has absolutely no effect on climate of the planets. Glad you pointed that out!
I didn’t say it has no effect. What I said is that over the last 600 million years the Sun has brightened about 5% equivalent to a radiative force of +12 W/m2 yet the planet experienced a secular decline in temperature with numerous large swings embedded in that trend. It definitely has an effect. +12 W/m2 is a substantial increase. It’s just that the Sun alone cannot explain the climatic changes that have occurred over this period because the changes have not occurred simultaneous with the Sun. In fact, over time scales of millions of years the changes have been opposite of the Sun.
A flame is the result of a chemical reaction. The sun blazes due to a chain of nuclear reactions.
I guess that needs to be pointed out to you.
I don’t care why it burns. Without the Sun there is no climate, or anything else, to discuss. Oh, and as you both point out climate changes constantly, always has and always will, humans are not causing it to change and cannot stop it from changing. The Sun, on that other hand, does cause it to change. You’re welcome.
The Sun does not burn.
Von Neumann’s elephant
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.3254017
Angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Pot; Kettle
“It will be fascinating to see how this new paper is received.”,
My guess is badly. It is appalling written to the extent that whole sentences are repeated. For instance on the bottom of page 1242 it states:
“Between 1780 and 1820, the air temperature in the North Atlantic was about 1–3°C lower than at present. It is known that forests in Central Europe, especially in mountainous areas, have been severely degraded since 1500.”
then in the middle of the next column on page 1243 the same sentence appears:
“Between 1780 and 1820, the air tem-perature in the North Atlantic was about 1–3°C colder than it is today. It is known that the forests in Central Europe, especially in the mountainous regions, have been severely degraded since 1500.”
If the authors can’t even be bothered to proof read their article why should anybody else bother reading it? It hardly inspires any confidence in their work.
Glass houses and stones?
Anything else, like a criticism of the science?
Well for starters they don’t even attempt to show a correlation between solar variations and the global temperature. There are 13 figures in the paper and none show the global temperature instead all look at different aspects of the solar radiation. All they claim is that “global events of the late Holocene are associated with extremes of solar characteristics”. Now what does “associated with” actually mean? And how would go about proving two events are associated.
But as I mentioned above nobody is going to bother reading a paper in detail when the authors themselves can’t be bothered to do so. Such an error should have been picked up by a component editor, reviewer or author.
You mean competent, not component.
Better proof reading required.
A determination of cause is stronger than a correlation. As is often heard here, correlation is not causation.
Why should they attempt that? Do you have any evidence that solar effect must act through a direct correlation with temperature, when we know that temperature responds to a lot of factors? Is it not possible that solar variations affect climate without showing a correlation to global temperatures?
That’s really funny, because the correlation of CO2 to global temperatures is just awful and that doesn’t seem to be a show stopper for CO2.
Scissor,
the whole paper reads like a textbook case of cherry picking. They start with a reconstruction of the total amount solar radiation between 3000BC and 2999AD (Fig. 1) which varies relatively rapidly by +/- 0.5 W/m^2. Since such small variations are not correlated to the climate they move onto finding more esoteric parameters. They do this by calculating: “360 orbital posi- tions of the Earth every 5999 years (from 3000 BC to AD 2999). That is, we had a time step of about 1 day. In space, the calculations did not refer to individual lines (parallels), but was performed for sites measuring 1° × 1° (in latitude and longitude), covering the entire surface of the Earth. ”
This gives them roughly 2.4 million different time series to play with (each 6000 years long). From these they then decide which ones to sum together and which ones to subtract to produce their “insulation seasonality” IS measure the minimum of which they claim is correlated with the little ice age. Fig. 4 shows the results and the IS varies by 0.2 W/m^2 between 1200 and 2000. And apparently that tiny number is what caused the little ice age.
Next they look at the “medieval climate optimum” when the temperature was higher. Since the IS values only apparently cause temperature decreases they find a new measure called IC which they don’t define but
do describe as
“IC calculations were performed taking into account the seasonal displacement of the source (0°–40°) and runoff (40°–90°) regions of heat for the winter (astronomical) half-year in the hemisphere, as well as areas of source (0°–60°) and sink (60°–90°) heat for the summer (astronomical) half-year in the hemisphere.”
and they find a change in IC of about 0.5 W/m^2 to be responsible for the warming (Fig. 11).
So to summarise the authors find one time series out of 2.4 million that is “associated with” the little ice age and a second completely different one that is “associated with” the medieval climatic optimum. Furthermore they do not find any other times series associated with any other climate period over the last 5000 years despite still having over 2.4 million left to choose from.
“If the authors can’t even be bothered to proof read their article why should anybody else bother reading it? It hardly inspires any confidence in their work.“
Geez, and that’s just one of the drawbacks of not being showered with grant money to parrot the government’s favored CAGW narrative. Probably had to type the thing themselves, too!
You have undergrads doing the typing.
Frank,
even somebody without grant money should be capable of reading through their own paper and noticing that several sentences are word for word identical less than one page apart. Professional pride if nothing else should stop such mistakes.
Damn! should have used more colons. Never mind, Izaak can fill the void of colons.
OMG – two sentences were repeated! That completely invalidates their research!
No of course it doesn’t. But appearances matter and nobody is likely to spend time reading an article published in an obscure journal that is so badly written. Furthermore it suggests that this work did not undergo peer review since any reviewer would have picked that up. If the authors wanted their research to get ignored then they have certainly gone about it the right way.
Looks more like an over-enthusiastic student got carried away with the cut & paste, a frequent criticism of papers written by college/university students. It is amazing just how many people do not read what they write!!! When doing her Nursing Degree my daughter & her fellow students were always instructed not to just cut & paste from Wikipidia, etc!!! They were told to thoroughly review their own work before submission!!!
Izaak, Did you find an english version of the paper? If so, can you provide a link?
Hi Thomas,
The link that Eric provided is in English.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433821100030
This assessment explains why Noam Chomsky thinks he knows something about economics.
.
At worst, this hypothesis leads us down another blind alley following models of anthropogenic carbon dioxide forced global warming that are plausible but inconsistent with recorded observations and climate changes.
You have clearly forgotten that, when observations don’t match puter models then it is obvious that the observations are wrong, puter models are infallible & perfect, don’t ya know!!!
What a worthless paper!
The MWP was warm because of a dearth of volcanic eruptions (only 31 in 300 years)
The temperature decreases of the LIA precisely match the SO2 aerosol injections into the stratosphere from known volcanic eruptions, with NO climatic effect from solar minimums.
The term ‘precisely’ is a bit of a stretch.
There does seem to have been more volcanic activity during the LIA but correlation is not causation. Repeated correlation is more useful and that seems to occur between solar activity and global temperatures.
The recent pause in warming and cooling since 2016 do correlate with the decline in solar activity during solar cycles 24 and 25 but there is no clear corresponding uptick in volcanic activity despite the Tonga eruption.
Yes,”precisely” is normally a bit of a stretch, but every temperature decrease on the graph matched up with a known volcanic eruption, except for several unknown (seafloor?) eruptions.
So “every” temperature decrease had a matching “known” volcanic eruption … if you exclude all of the temperature decreases that didn’t ???
Yes. There were 3/65 instances where there was a temperature decrease without a known eruption.
Are you suggesting that seafloor don’t exist?
”The MWP was warm because of a dearth of volcanic eruptions (only 31 in 300 years)”
Oh what a load of made-up bullshit.
Mike:
Made up?
Aren’t you aware that every VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption causes global temperatures to decrease? They cannot be ignored, as you seem to be doing.
So…
Warming (MWP) -> “dearth of” volcanic eruptions
Cooling (LIA) -> “known” volcanic eruptions
Hmmm.
The Little Ice Age, a series of longer than average duration centennial solar minima, each with periods of increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, bringing increased cold weather anomalies to e.g. northwest Europe. Interspersed by decades of warmer to hot weather in Europe, the latter like in the late 1300’s, the 1530’s and much of the 1610’s to mid 1660’s, accompanied by strong cooling in Greenland.
The Maunder minimum, an increase in El Nino conditions and a warmer AMO, but with increased Arctic air incursions to the mid latitude continents (negative AO/NAO). The warmers SST’s would actually reduce low cloud cover, increasing the shortwave forcing, so the global temperature should rise rather than fall.
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum:
“Modeled surface temperature changes show alternating warm oceans and cold continents at NH mid-latitudes”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11616609_Solar_Forcing_of_Regional_Climate_Change_During_the_Maunder_Minimum
The Dalton minimum, the bulk of the colder years in CET were 1807-1817, seven of those years had no aurora observations. Page 11:
SECULAR VARIATION OF THE AURORA FOR THE PAST 500 YEARS
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.641.5823&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and north of Iceland (top center).
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
“Based on climate modeling, we have proposed a solution to the apparent paradox of extreme cold with only a marginally dimmer Sun. In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds.”
“So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2002_shindell_06/
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_sh05100g.pdf
Ireneusz Palmowski
Your “reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet” was due to the increased volcanism during the LIA, which injected reflective (dimming) SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, and not some speculated variations in wind directions.
The Central England Instrumental temperatures Data Set, which covers the years 1659-present, shows that every temperature decrease coincided with a VEI4 or larger volcanic volcanic eruption. The only cool periods during the solar minimums were when there was a volcanic eruption, with temperatures recovering between eruptions.
“Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.”
“They determined that a dimmer Sun reduced the model’s westerly winds, cooling the continents during wintertime. Shindell’s model shows large regional climate changes, unlike other climate models that show relatively small temperature changes on an overall global scale. Other models did not assess regional changes.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
Ireneusz Palmowski:
Again:
Analysis of the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set shows NO evidence of any decrease in temperatures due to a dimmer sun. All temperature decreases were due to volcanic eruptions, whose .interfering SO2 aerosols reduced the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, giving the false impression that the sun had weakened.
Your citation is B.S.
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1064363
The current increase in the strength of the solar wind magnetic field is followed by an increase in the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex and the westerly circulation in the Atlantic.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The current increase in solar activity may also cause the Walker Circulation to strengthen.
I’ve been saying for the past 15 years that we’re heading into an extended cold phase, probably of Dalton Minimum intensity. I’m so confident of my prediction that I sold my house near Sacramento, CA and moved to a couple of acres in South Texas, a little west of San Antonio.
And I’m stocking up.
Do you have a backup generator, just in case?
You better contact Nick Stokes that he may not be able to afford his heating bill and may need a 2nd job.
Ken Mitchell:
Cold temperatures during the Dalton Minimum were caused by volcanic eruptions, and they will return only if volcanic eruptions increase.
Are you saying that you can predict volcanic eruptions 15 years in advance??
Here in the British Isles we already have evidence that over the last 1m years the islands have been occupied and abandoned at least nine times. During that million years the climate was ever changing as was weather, sea level, and nature as a whole at many different levels and in many different ways.
It would seem to be constructive to know why and how our historical climate moved from one extreme to another extreme if only to demonstrate that our ancestral responses were intelligent and based upon the experience and knowledge of the time, unlike the muddled and confused thinking we are currently observing among our so called expert ranks facing a couple of degrees of extra warming over a multiple centuries.
Getting ready for the tenth? Kind of funny after telling EU citizens they are no longer welcomed there.
Dunno what the model says. But the observational evidence for this is well known and best communicated by Prof Weiss to the Schiller Institute.
The work is well supported by the very close correlation of the detected frequencies in the proxy observations of temperature cycles with well defined frequenies at 1Ka, 500a, 200a and 60a.
On further research to seeka source of these frequencies in a natural causeme, the authors found the solar wind variability defined by the cosmogenic radionuclide formation rate on Earth, well studied nd reported by Steinholberm, Scafetta, etc, that solar wind cycles are havebeen shown to control.
The actual cloud nucleation effects of cosmic ray showers on are well discussed in the literature, well reported by the Svensmarks and Nir Shaviv, and the correlation too tight for comfort.
Having models whose assumptions better match reality is a good thing. Better than models with dodgy assumptions that are not supported by the physics and don’t predict the future. Because its assumptions are stuffed with unsupportable attribution errors and lack of any consideration of solar wind effects, geothermal effects, proper consideration of cloud feedback, as the GCM’s do.
It is important for anyone who is not clear on this to realise that the UN IPCC models depnd on the assumption that all change for the last 2,000 years in cased by humans, no change is natural. If that assumption is proven to be wrong, because most observed change is natural, there is no anomalous change for AGW to account for, and their guesses are self evidently wrong on the observations. Ludecke and Weiss showed this years ago now.
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
They found three key frequencies, well 4 including the well known 60 year cycle, in the proxy temperature records, and NO monotonic signals as would ov ccur with human change, always rising, so all natural cycles and no detectable AGW.
Re convolving the frequencies predicts cooling from around now on the compound effect of the detected cycles, as would also be natural on the observed time series record.. The frequencies found matched the cosmogenic isotope formation rate maximums almost perfectly. If there is anyone here who has not seen and read this fundamental work regarding short term millennial scale cycles, as well seen in the ice core record at both poles, better watch the 20 min master class, and read the supporting papers.
Models can be wrong, they are the product of the guesses of their creators. Evidence derived directly from the observations of nature much less so, they are the only test of any scientific theory. Even if some people prefer their beliefs and models, only observations are real. I this case it seems the authors have created a model which is much closer to the observations than the CMIP/GCM guesses. Because the guesses are founded in recent science, not 80’s GCM models programmed with political presumptions as to an AGW cause of observed change, not to determine what causes the observed change. Modern science knows better, and should respects the evidence of nature over the guesses of modellers. The problem is no longer what causes change, and how little of net observed change is human, which is certainly undetectable within error bands.
The problem remains as communicating the truth of observation based deterministic science to the people who are being deceived by the IPCC models for other reasons than saving the planet from natural climate change. Per theUN OPCC, to transfer wealth and prosperity from West to East, in the IPCC’s public statements of intent, and the objectives of Agenda 21.
Ludecke and Weiss covering paper is here. Enjoy some deterministic/empirical/natural reality. What we can see, not what people make up. Contains NO models.
DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
But its nice that models can be created by Soon et al to demonstrate a credible solar cause of the short term climate cycles of 1Ka period, 2 deg range and typical rate of change ((i.e. when changing) of 0.8 deg per century, as are self evident in the ice core records w/o all the fancy science………….. so again, there is nothing anomalous in the change of climate for AGW to account for. BUT note that the recent paper is concerned only with insolation effects of solar activity, as also reported by Steinhilber er al and referenced by the authors , but apparently chooses to ignore any effects of solar winds on cosmic rays hence cloud formation rates in their philosophy.
And finally,
A tIme series of 4 superimposed Interglacials by James Covington from the referenced sources. Spot the short term cycles in every event …… it’s really not hard to see the truth from the natural record we now have at decent resolution, and the GCM modellers didn’t but were exposed by it when it became known. so they now have to deny to make their claims, that are overtly wrong as a result. How long can they keep this up? While the money keeps comimg?
No kidding! The sun plays a role in the earth’s temperature – really?
While I have very high respect for Dr. Soon (I don’t know the history of the other co-authors of the scientific paper summarized above), I ran off the rails upon reading this statement in the above abstract:
The 2016 WUWT article available at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/29/earths-obliquity-and-temperature-over-the-last-20000-years/ presents a “cartoon” graphic by Javier demonstrating only a very week link of global temperature with obliquity and shows that in the last 5000 years, Earth’s obliquity has only changed by 0.58° due to precession of Earth’s spin axis (consistent with Laskar [1986] calculation).
The difference in the cosine of 24.00° versus the cosine of 23.42° is 0.45%. If this change is applied to a solar insolation value of 342 W/m^2 (averaged over Earth’s surface), I get a delta value of only 1.5 W/m^2 variation over the last 5000 years.
Thus the Earth’s variation in obliquity (Soon et.al.’s “IC”) must be a relatively small part of the total W/m^2 variations mentioned in the above abstract. That then means the “variation in solar activity” and the “insolation seasonality (IS) in the Northern Hemisphere” must be the predominate cause of century scale climate shifts. I will need to read the full paper to understand how this can be so.
This seems to be really useful new insight. But I did not understand the basis of the cycles. I can understand that seasonal (i.e. annual) insolation cycles could well interact with astronomical cycles such as precession. But the main precession cycle is 26 thousand years, and seasonal tilt cycles once every year (of course). Also there is obliquity (41 thousand years) and apsidal (112 thousand). What astronomical cycles have the right period to match the timescale of the medieval warm period and little ice age?
In five days, another wave of Arctic air will sweep over the western US.
I thought it was very Interesting paper, If anyone wants the pdf its here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D11lGGYOrHdlyGwDMO49SVxz4HnVTrp1/view?usp=sharing
Annual average surface temperature change (C) due to solar irradiance change between the Maunder Minimum (late 17th century) and a century later, when solar output had returned to relatively large values, in the climate model (top) and in the historical temperature reconstructions (bottom).
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2002_shindell_06/
Winter in North America is not going to end anytime soon. Look at the circulation.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5