The real cause of climate change over the last millennium

Posted: July 9, 2017 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, modelling, Ocean dynamics, solar system dynamics
lgl-steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp

Fig 1. Integration of solar data departing from long term average as a proxy for OHC

OK, this the last post before I go. This is a comment I made this morning over at Pierre Gosselin’s place.

To understand the effect of solar variation on a large heat capacity mass like Earth’s oceans, you have to integrate the solar data to get a reasonable proxy for ocean heat content. If you look at empirical comparisons of average sunspot number during periods when the ocean temperature is steady, you can derive a value of approximately 40 sunspots per month. This also happens to be the average sunspot number over the period of record from 1749 to today. Integrating the sunspot numbers as a running total departing from this average produces a reasonable proxy for OHC.

Calibrating the Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction based on 10Be to the same baseline, we obtain a reconstruction which compares well to the Mann et al 2008 millennial temperature reconstruction, as seen in Fig1.

Adding in the detrended AMO and PDO oceanic oscillations and a CO2 value giving around 0.4C per doubling as per Richard Lindzen’s estimate, we obtain a curve which reproduces HADSSTv3 to an R^2 of 0.9 for monthly values since 1870 in Fig 2.

sst-model

Fig 2. Combining the solar integral with detrended AMO, PDO, and CO2 at 0.4C/doubling to replicate HASsst3 (lower panel)

The continuation of the model in blue in the lower panel is based on our planetary solar model plus a replication of the AMO from the C20th. It shows a moderate drop in global SST to 2050.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Depending on who you believe for the magnitude of solar variability over the last several hundred years (Estimates vary by several W/M^2), the most likely ‘amplification’ of TSI variation comes from the effect of solar magnetic variation on low level cloud cover, whether that works through the ‘Svensmark effect’ or some other mechanism. See Nir Shaviv’s paper ‘using the oceans as a calorimeter’ for details.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Should also consider the frequency variations in UV band.

  3. Why not speak to Leif Svalgaard.

    [Reply] Oh I did. He averts his eyes from the millennial plot and refuses to discuss it. Then he tries to say the integration is not valid because it uses the long term average SSN. First time he’s ever tried to refute the idea there’s no long term trend in solar activity 🙂

    Solar variability causes less than 1C change

    [Reply] +/-0.7C is about what solar variability supplies. Look at the Y-axis scale

    Why not speak to Willis Eschenbach there is no detectable effect of solar variability in the temperature record

    [Reply] Lol. We debunked the cowboy’s solar ‘analysis’ in this post. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/blam-blam-willis-eschenbach-takes-a-scattergun-to-solar-temperature-datasets/

    I thought the osmic ray influec had been disproven by experiment?

    [Reply] Far from it. Josh Kirby at CERN has been making good progress with the experimental work.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    Tallbloke, thanks for that analysis. It is consistent with a similar analysis by Dan Pangburn that I summarized in a post:

    Figure 10: 5-year running average of measured temperatures with calculated prior and future trends (Data Set 1) using 34 as the average daily sunspot number and with V1 SSN. R2 = 0.978887

    Projections until 2020 use the expected sunspot number trend for the remainder of solar cycle 24 as provided [6] by NASA. After 2020 the ‘limiting cases’ are either assuming sunspots like from 1924 to 1940 or for the case of no sunspots which is similar to the Maunder Minimum.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/quantifying-natural-climate-change/

  5. Solar up to 2005 despite it becoming lower since mid last century was still high and it should have caused warming which is what happened. Only since 2005 has solar activity been in an inactive mode which will promote global cooling.

    I expect global cooling to begin (I think it has ) this year not 5 years from now.

    Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another. This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.

    TERRESTRIAL ITEMS

    global cloud cover global

    snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation

    LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING

    SOLAR FLUX SUB 90 IS IN PLACE

    SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC GETTING TOWARD THIS

    COSMIC RAY COUNTS 6500 UNITS + IS IN PLACE

    AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER COMING DOWN OF LATE

    EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN

    IMF 4.2 NT NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.

    SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.

    All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

    My solar /climatic play is very low sustained solar activity will result in an increase in the earth’s albedo ,while at the same time lowering sea surface temperatures the result is global cooling.

  6. Leif is an agenda driven person whose opinions to me are worth zero when it comes to the climate and why/how it changes the same for Eschebach.

    Anthony will not allow me to post on his site because I was to tough on Leif. lol

  7. tallbloke says:

    Good analysis Salvatore.
    And I don’t post at WUWT any more either. As you say, driven by an agenda, not by a passion for scientific discovery.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    We determined years ago that Svalgaard, Mosher, Eschenbach, and a few others are part of a “control the opposition” campaign. Then we moved on.

  9. edhoskins says:

    It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis climate scientists are examining the temperature record at altogether too fine a scale, month by month, year by year.

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to recent technology.

    Viewing the Holocene interglacial at a broader scale is much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial.

    Each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    In the ice core record, for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point known as the “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .

    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    But the slight beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.

    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.

    As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming.

    Warmer times are times of success and prosperity both for man-kind and the biosphere. For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire .

    According to the Ice Core records, each of these successive Holocene warm periods have been cooler than the one previously and a tipping point towards accelerated global cooling occurred at about 1000BC.

    The coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will in due course again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere.

    As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is almost overdue and would be the real climate catastrophe.

    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon later this century.

    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.

    This point is more fully illustrated here:
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB: CO2 explains 0% of the variance. Rip it out and take a cleansing walk in the hills.

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pareto Principle: naturally divine division of uniformity

    Consider the limiting hypotenuse of the pyramidal face isosceles right-bisector:

    Inscribed in the design are angles encoded as lengths — more specifically angles inversely encoded in a pair of quadratic integer rings (“2 circles”) as complementary lengths. Since the Pareto Principle is ubiquitous in nature, the engineers may have been inspired to construction by anything. The notion that it had to be the solar system (“celes”) or whatever is just a selective provocation. It could have been simple structure noticed in vegetation (or anything else) during an inspiring nature walk. The Pareto Principle is universal. It subsumes statistical mechanics and everything we’ve explored about phi.

  12. Bob Weber says:

    The v1 SSN average since 1749 is 52, not 40, and v2 is 82.

    AMO & PDO are records of prior TSI impact, as it’s adding former TSI influence to the present TSI influence, ie, making the TSI effect on SST time-dependent and layered.

    ***

    Salvatore there are times when your general opinion is on the mark, but the continual use of all these thresholds without understanding the real variation in the main important variable, TSI, is bad for us who do understand. You are giving everyone the wrong impressions and expectations of TSI and what the sun is doing and will do:

    “SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet. ” …. is a vacuous statement.

    SORCE TSI maximum daily is 1362.2561, so the “off by 0.15%” yields 1360.2127.

    The maximum monthly SORCE value was 1361.8859, for an “off by 0.15%” of 1359.8431.

    Neither of these low-ish TSI levels in reality actually lasts longer than the passage of large area sunspot group(s) that occur at the top of the sunspot cycle, when TSI is generally high. Also, these low levels have yet to be reached in any TSI dataset during the several solar minimums since TSI measurements began, Therefore this threshold as stated is unrealistic, too low.

    The present solar cooling will last for only a few more years until SC25 starts. If you’re lucky, by 2020 there will have been a very minor cooling for the decade 2010-20. Just think of all the people who now have the wrong idea of what the sun does, and all the resistance to the real solar influence that this wrong thinking generated after years of carpet bombing the internet with your unsupported thresholds. Please stop.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    Length of face edges =+2*sin(2*pi()/5)
    Shortest slide down face of pyramid =+1/(2*cos(2*pi()/5))
    Height of pyramid =+sqrt(1/(2*cos(2*pi()/5)))
    Area of each face of pyramid =+1/(2*cos(2*pi()/5))
    Area of base of pyramid =+((2*sin(2*PI()/5))^2)+((2*cos(2*PI()/5))^2)

    2*pi()/5 radians = 1/5 cycles

    Pyramid design materially illustrates:
    Divinity (divine stability) based on Pareto Principle division.

    They were thinking in squares.
    The Conway Triangle in the Pinwheel Tiling is the simplest geometric expression of the Pareto Principle. Take the square roots of Pareto Principle pieces (1/5 & 4/5) and by the Pythagorean Theorem you have a Conway Triangle plus Pinwheel Tiling.

    An internet search for Pareto Principle only turned up 1 triangular representation, so maybe society has been a little slow to recognize how Pinwheel Tiling, the Conway Triangle, and the golden mean all derive from the Pareto Principle.

    A superior illustration would represent the fractal properties of the Pareto Principle with scaling. (The triangular image turned up in the internet search (above) fails to represent the fractal scaling.)

    How’s it possible that such extreme simplicity was overlooked? It’s difficult to imagine — just as difficult as it is to believe Pinwheel Tiling was only discovered 22 years ago. I don’t think it was overlooked. More likely it has been rediscovered independently and repeatedly by countless individuals. It’s easy enough to imagine that recorded history is a laughable model of what really happened, based on comically biased samples.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Red, white, and blue are similar Conway Triangles stably proportioned according to the Pareto Principle:

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    ENSO accounts for 100*((1/(φ+Φ))^2)% of variance.

    Start with any real number.
    Add 1.
    Take the reciprocal.
    Add 1.
    Take the reciprocal.
    Add 1.
    Take the reciprocal.
    Etc.

    Stability’s simpler than your imagination.

  16. stpaulchuck says:

    wait! now you’re trying to tell me the sun has a lot to do with the planet’s temperature? How can that be? I mean it’s 94 million miles away. Manbearpig and Mann tell me it has no effect. Their computer models tell them that. How could a computer be wrong?

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stability’s natural with a Pareto-principled division of unity.

    Consider further the example introduced above (The Pyramids):

    Pole Square:
    1/Φ = 1/2cos(2π/5) = √(φ+1) = φ = 1.618033989

    Face Square
    (1/2cos(2π/5))^2 = φ+1 = φ^2 = φ/Φ = 2.618033989

    Edge Square:
    (2sin(2π/5))^2 = (φ^2)+1 = φ+2 = φ√5 = 3.618033989

    Specific instance:

    (29.44749847)*(11.86261515) / (29.44749847 – 11.86261515) = 19.86503609 = Bi-Decadal Oscillation = BDO

    (29.44749847)*(11.86261515) / (29.44749847 + 11.86261515) = 8.456145746
    (2.618033989)*(8.456145746) = 22.13847698 = Hale cycle = Jupiter-Earth-Venus (JEV) cycle
    22.13847698 / 2 = 11.06923849 = Schwabe cycle

    (19.86503609)*(3.618033989) / (19.86503609 – 3.618033989) = 4.423731549
    2 * 4.423731549 = 8.847463097 = Lunar Apse Cycle = LAC

    (4.423731549)*(1.618033989) / (4.423731549 + 1.618033989) = 1.184711316 = Chandler Wobble = CW

    (4.423731549)*(1.618033989) / ( (4.423731549 + 1.618033989) / 2 ) = 2.369422633 = Quasi-Biennial Oscillation = QBO

    Earth-Moon (immediate) & Earth-Venus (intermediate) are hierarchically rooted couples.
    Jupiter & Saturn (distal origin) shape Earth’s wind field — including QBO & Milankovitch.

    Massive Jupiter & Saturn shepherd the Earth-Venus & Earth-Moon couples.

    The major western fault (only superficially stable) is based on unstable proportions. In contrast, the Pentagon and 5-point stars on far-eastern flags symbolize the natural key to stability.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Study: ‘monitoring sunspots is not an adequate means for predicting EUV irradiance—more measurements and study are required to better understand the factors at play.’

    http://phys.org/news/2017-07-nasa-solar-dynamics-observatory-clues.html

    Abstract: ‘Solar EUV irradiance cannot be predicted accurately by sunspot index alone’

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602056
    – – –
    Note the title: ‘Global conditions in the solar corona from 2010 to 2017’

    They are monitoring solar conditions at a time of historically very low sunspot activity.

    Full text: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602056.full

    ‘To our knowledge, this is the first report of its kind that presents global long-term values of coronal conditions over most of a solar activity cycle. This paper is an overview of the main results’

    ‘Although the total solar irradiance at Earth varies very little, the relative variance in the EUV is as large as the mean irradiance (21). This EUV light interacts with Earth’s thermosphere and stratosphere and may affect climate in a “top-down” process in regions such as northern Europe’ — [bold added]

  19. oldbrew says:

    PV: the ratio of the average lunar apogee-perigee time to the lunar nodal cycle period is very close to 21:5 (Fibonacci) which is of course by definition a whole number equivalent ratio to Phi³:1.
    – – –
    Phi and the Great Pyramid of Khufu
    Posted: November 19, 2015
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/phi-and-the-great-pyramid-of-khufu/

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    BDO review

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Wind Volatility Review

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    The Fair Far Eastern Star

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pinwheel Tiling is based on the Conway Triangle
    …and the Conway Triangle is based on The Pareto Principle.

    Natural stability is simpler than we imagined.

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    100*((2/(φ+Φ))^2)% of stability is naturally rooted in harmony with the golden star.

  25. Lit says:

    @Paul Vaughan
    Very nice Posts. “Simpler than we thought”, that is spot on. I would even say: the most simple solution possible is what the universe uses. So let’s go back to the laws of thermodynamics and geometry, we already havet the solutions for everything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s