Ah perhaps we're going to cool after all

[Devonian]

More on Dr.Tapping,Sorokhtin,solar (in)activity,cooldowns and the 'coming out' of several hundred previously pro AGW scientists to debunk AGW at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 2-4 in New York.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=265816

Laserguy, I post something actually quoting Dr Tapping, explaining how he was misquoted and what happens? You post another article bleeping well misquoting him :huh:

Your link is a misrepresentation of what he thinks - read what he actually thinks in the article I linked to.

Edited February 18, 2008 by Devonian

[laserguy]

I post something actually quoting Dr Tapping, explaining how he was misquoted and what happens? You post another article bleeping well misquoting him :huh:

Your link is a misrepresentation of what he think - read what he actually thinks in the article I linked to.

Whaaatt? Don't get so upset,he was only part of the article I posted,I merely mentioned his name! Never fear,I've read the stuff you posted earlier as I'm sure everyone else has, and thank you. March 2-4 should be fun,though precisely none of it will reach mainstream media. This scam will only be rumbled when there's twenty feet of snow all over the place,(except perhaps the UK,of course!)the way it's going. :o

[wysiwyg]

The article that the usatoday quoted for completeness.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

How far back do we have to go to get a piece of real, peer reviewed comment by Dr Tapping?

[High Altitude]

Out of interest what were the average temps and conditions in the summer months during the maunder minimum era?

[cheeky_monkey]

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/So..._NY_Mar2_08.pdf

This is a very worthwhile read. Please don't be put off by the 'i love my carbon dioxide' bit though! I'm well aware that'll raise a few groans!

To add my own twopenn'orth. Many have pointed out that the sun elevates our temperature from what would otherwise be pretty close to -273C (absolute zero) to the range we experience now. Of course,without the atmospheric blanket it would be subject to incredible extremes. The point being,how can anyone suggest that the sun's role is so insignificant,and how can anyone suggest that the sun is so incredibly stable that it's variance over decades or centuries can be mapped with any kind of accuracy? Every second,the sun converts,by nuclear fusion,around four million tonnes of hydrogen into helium. Or so we are told. Who am I to argue? I've no idea how much mass is continually being lost by this process,and I've no idea what becomes of the helium thus produced. Does it just 'stay there',waiting until all the hydrogen has been fused to helium before the helium itself begins to fuse into carbon? Or is the fusing of helium to carbon concurrent with the fusion of hydrogen?? Someone on nw will have the answers to my elementary question,but my point is simply to show that surely the sun cannot be 'that' stable,given the extraordinarily vast (by our reckoning) nuclear processes ongoing. There are things going on in the sun that the greatest minds ever to grace the planet will never be able to fathom,of that I am quite certain. I've pretty much dismissed the effects of anthro CO2 on climate (and took the flak for it!),but to blame an alleged 0.7C rise over 100 ish years almost solely on CO2 whilst largely ignoring the sun beggars belief.

strange how your man uses stats to suit his own ends?..eg 7.8c in 1696 to 10.0c in 1732 a rise of 2.2c in just 36 years..then compares this to 0.6c in the last 100 years!..well if you compare 8.4 in 1963 and 10.6 in 1990 i can do the same in just 27 years!..most of what he writes uses very carefully selected data to prove a point and ignores everything else, not very well balanced or presented!

However i do think there is some mileage in solar activity and global cooling how much though is another matter.

[eddie]

Out of interest what were the average temps and conditions in the summer months during the maunder minimum era?

According to wikipedia the Maunder minimum ran from 1645 to 1715.

The CET record only starts in 1659 but the average annual CET for the period 1645 to 1715 was 8.8C.

The average annual CET for the last 30 years is 9.9C.

As you can see from the following graph June, July and August during the Maunder minimum were cooler than modern day summers but the real difference can be seen in the rest of the year. Winters were a lot colder and lasted longer. The average January temperature was 2.7C!

Mr Data might have some more information on the synoptic conditions although I'm not sure what records were kept so far back.

Edited February 18, 2008 by eddie

[stewfox]

Which must be why last year was the 2nd warmest year globally ever according to NASA and NOAA.

What evidence is there in that article or anywhere else to suggest that the next cycle isn't going to happen? The cycles occur very regularly over 11 years, I don't see it should be any different this time.

Whats this mean ??? :huh: in the article ?

--------------------

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

--------------------

[Admiral_Bobski]

Which must be why last year was the 2nd warmest year globally ever according to NASA and NOAA.

What evidence is there in that article or anywhere else to suggest that the next cycle isn't going to happen? The cycles occur very regularly over 11 years, I don't see it should be any different this time.

Hi Magpie,

The sunspot cycle has a periodicity of about 11 years, though it can be as long as 12 or as short as 10. The process that drives the cycle is not well understood. Having said that, there's a pretty good chance that the new cycle has already begun but - if that's the case - it's already shaping up to be a darned quiet one. A little over a month ago there was a sunspot that (so we believe) heralded the arrival of Solar Cycle 24. Since then have been few, if any, sunspots visible which is certainly unusual.

Out of interest, with reference to Persian Paladin's comment earlier about more sunspots meaning less radiation, in fact there is more radiation when there are more sunspots (hence the suggestion that periods of low sunspot activity correlate with cooler periods on Earth). Although the sunspots themselves are darker (and therefore cooler, by over 1000K generally), the surrounding area is brighter than usual, and the intense activity around the sunspot actually more than compensates for the coolness of the spot itself.

CB

[wysiwyg]

Out of interest, with reference to Persian Paladin's comment earlier about more sunspots meaning less radiation, in fact there is more radiation when there are more sunspots (hence the suggestion that periods of low sunspot activity correlate with cooler periods on Earth). Although the sunspots themselves are darker (and therefore cooler, by over 1000K generally), the surrounding area is brighter than usual, and the intense activity around the sunspot actually more than compensates for the coolness of the spot itself.

We also know that sunspots are directly associated with the sun's complex magnetic field. It has complex (magnetic) poles that are constantly shifting around as a result of the extreme thermal activity and also the fact that the chromosphere of the sun flows around its globe at variable rates (i.e. much faster at the equator).

The key to the cooling scenario is now thought to be due to high activity and distortions in the sun's magnetosphere shielding the earth from high incidences of solar and near solar-system background cosmic radiation of a specific energy and wavelength.

Low sunspot activity = inactive solar magnetic field = higher incidence of cosmic rays on earth -> increase in clouds -> decrease in heat received at the earth's surface.

A complex mechanism that I am not personally fully convinced by just yet - but I believe it warrants further investigation.

Wysi

[Bobby]

Hi Magpie,

The sunspot cycle has a periodicity of about 11 years, though it can be as long as 12 or as short as 10. The process that drives the cycle is not well understood. Having said that, there's a pretty good chance that the new cycle has already begun but - if that's the case - it's already shaping up to be a darned quiet one. A little over a month ago there was a sunspot that (so we believe) heralded the arrival of Solar Cycle 24. Since then have been few, if any, sunspots visible which is certainly unusual.

CB

Well, it is telling I think that even though we're at the bottom of the solar cycle now last year was still the 2nd warmest ever (say NASA and NOAA). Looking at past global temperatures there defintiely seems to be some kind of correlation with a quieter sun and cooler global temperatures, but we're not seeing it this time. Not even with a La Nina. It might suggest the warming effect of GHG's is accelerating to such a degree that it's overpowering the sun's cooling effect, which could mean that even if the sun is unsually quiet in the near future it still won't be enough to send global temperatures down.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Well, it is telling I think that even though we're at the bottom of the solar cycle now last year was still the 2nd warmest ever (say NASA and NOAA). Looking at past global temperatures there defintiely seems to be some kind of correlation with a quieter sun and cooler global temperatures, but we're not seeing it this time. Not even with a La Nina. It might suggest the warming effect of GHG's is accelerating to such a degree that it's overpowering the sun's cooling effect, which could mean that even if the sun is unsually quiet in the near future it still won't be enough to send global temperatures down.

Magpie

We are only in the 11 year [approx] cycle minimum which is of little consequence on its own. There are other cycles 22 year [Hale], 87 year [Gleissberg, Wolf etc] and a 210 year cycle. We are not in a minima as measured in the past ie Maunder, Wolf, Dalton etc where colder climes were experinced. The 11 year cycle exists within these cycles and at present or certainly late 20th century the sunspot activity was very high so even at the low point activity was still high. The projected minima is coming within the Gleissberg cycle and even in the bigger one [Maunder, Sporer], so lets see what happens from here and January has certainly started quite cold for the NH.

BFTP

Edited February 19, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[wysiwyg]

Magpie

We are only in the 11 year [approx] cycle minimum which is of little consequence on its own. There are other cycles 22 year [Hale], 87 year [Gleissberg, Wolf etc] and a 210 year cycle. We are not in a minima as measured in the past ie Maunder, Wolf, Dalton etc where colder climes were experinced. The 11 year cycle exists within these cycles and at present or certainly late 20th century the sunspot activity was very high so even at the low point activity was still high. The projected minima is coming within the Gleissberg cycle and even in the bigger one [Maunder, Sporer], so lets see what happens from here and January has certainly started quite cold for the NH.

BFTP

There is also a potential 'lag' factor to take into account - I have seen various estimates of one and five years lag between solar minima and global average temperatures but I admit that I can't find any authoritative, peer-reviewed evidence quantifying this lag.

We are, as BFTP says, at the 11 year minimum (give or take) but the forecasts are for a much calmer cycle 24 based on the potential longer cycles being currently in decline. I think the 11 year cycle per se is insignificant in terms of long term climate but the overriding longer cycles are significant in terms of global temperature effects.

[VillagePlank]

If anyone can provide a link to actual sunspot values, I'll run a FFT against it and publish the results here ...

[wysiwyg]

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I think the 11 year cycle per se is insignificant in terms of long term climate but the overriding longer cycles are significant in terms of global temperature effects.

Indeed, that is the basis of the projected global cooling possibilty.

BFTP

[Chris Knight]

If anyone can provide a link to actual sunspot values, I'll run a FFT against it and publish the results here ...

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php

goes all the way back to 1818 up to the present day.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Chris Knight

[eddie]

If anyone can provide a link to actual sunspot values, I'll run a FFT against it and publish the results here ...

Looking forward to seeing the results of this. Will be interesting to see what comes out other than the obvious 11 year cycle.

[Lettucing Gutted]

Low sunspot activity = inactive solar magnetic field = higher incidence of cosmic rays on earth -> increase in clouds -> decrease in heat received at the earth's surface.

A complex mechanism that I am not personally fully convinced by just yet - but I believe it warrants further investigation.

Wysi

Yeah complex is a great way of describing the process, especially the part about clouds. We must remember that whilst clouds cool daytime temperatures they have a strong warming effect on nighttime temperatures.

[noggin]

If anyone can provide a link to actual sunspot values, I'll run a FFT against it and publish the results here ...

What is an FFT?

PS I've just clicked on the FFT link and still have to ask the same question! Could someone put it in plain English, please?!

Edited February 20, 2008 by noggin

[wysiwyg]

What is an FFT?

PS I've just clicked on the FFT link and still have to ask the same question! Could someone put it in plain English, please?!

FFT = Fast Fourier Transform. In simplest terms it is a mathematical method of converting time series data into a frequency 'spectrum'.

An FFT of recent sunspot data plotted as intensity on the y axis versus frequency on the x axis will likely show a large peak at around 11 years with low data either side of it i.e.

Raw Data ==>

FFT with x axis = inverse of cycles per year

Power is an arbitrary representation of sunspot activity on the y axis in this graph

hope this helps

[VillagePlank]

Wysiwyg got there first

I'd like to offer a little more explanation ...

Some guy, called, Jean Baptiste Jospeh Fourier, figured out that any continuous periodic signal could be represented as the aggregate of properly chosen sinusoidal waves. That is you can decompose a signal into it's constiuent sine and cosine signatures.

In this case, the sunspot data constitutes what is known as the time domain - it's a signal where it is represented as time flowing on the x axis. Fourier realised that he could transform this, fairly simply, into it's frequency domain, which shows the aggregate amplitude of the sinusoidals against the frequency at which they occur. Wysiwygs second graph shows the cumulative amplitude of the sinusoids at given frequency periods - it's most obvious one is the 11 year frequency where, one presumes, a rather large amount of the sinusoids combine to create a large spike.

Unfortunately, much work has been done on making, what is a horrendously slow algorithm, the discrete fourier transform (DFT), into what is known as a fast fourier transform (FFT) which means you can find loads of resources all over the web, but none (at a quick glance) seem to be great for a pure beginner - and most of it is geared towards computer science, rather than atomospheric analysis.

Incidentally, one for those who hark on about peer-reviewed papers ... Fourier presented his paper, in 1807, but it was blackballed by the Institut de France, on the basis of the reputation and prestige of a dissenter Lagrange - he simply didn't believe that it was possible in all cases (particularly cases where signals had corners - which is theoretically true, but you get very very close so that it doesn't matter - so close that the signal representation and transform difference would represent zero energy) When Lagrange died, some fifteen years later, the paper was published, and we all, now, reap the benefits, of what, at the time, was a work of genius.

Here's some (untested) VB6 source-code:

Public Sub DFT()

	' Discrete Fourier Transform
	' The frequency domain signals, are calculated from the time domain signals

	On Error GoTo ERR_DFT

	Dim TD() As Double
	Dim FD_IMG() As Double
	Dim FD_REA() As Double
	Dim n As Long
	Dim m As Long
	Dim i As Long
	Dim j As Long

	TD = LoadTD
	m = UBound(TD)
	n = (m \ 2)
	ReDim FD_IMG(n)
	ReDim FD_REA(n)

	For i = 0 To n
		For j = 0 To m
			FD_REA(i) = FD_REA(i) + TD(j) * Cos(PI2 * i * j / m)
			FD_IMG(i) = FD_REA(i) - TD(j) * Sin(PI2 * i * j / m)
		Next
	Next

	Exit Sub

ERR_DFT:
	Err.Raise Err.Number, Err.Source, Err.Description, Err.HelpFile, Err.HelpContext
End Sub

Derived from this:

EDIT: It should be noted that the spike at around 11 years DOES NOT indicate an 11 year cycle, rather it indicates the cumulation, of hitherto unknown quantity of cycles, that coincide at 11 years.

Edited February 20, 2008 by VillagePlank

[wysiwyg]

EDIT: It should be noted that the spike at around 11 years DOES NOT indicate an 11 year cycle, rather it indicates the cumulation, of hitherto unknown quantity of cycles, that coincide at 11 years.

(Teal'c ON)

Indeed!

(Teal'c OFF)

Didn't want to complicate my simplified explaination with your correct interpretation of the results.

FFT analysis also has some limitations in dealing with non-stationary data. (stationary data is (loosely by me) defined as data in which the mean and variance do not change over time)

easiest to explain by example

A stationary signal might be typified by a speaker emitting a continuous tone, whereas

A non-stationary signal might be typified by morse-code being emitted by the same speaker (Electrocardiogram data is also a classic example of non-stationary time based data)

To cut a long story short - the sunspot data sets, whilst displaying a fairly periodic 11 year frequency have longer 'potential cycles' that are likely to infer that the data is actually quite non-stationary, further indicating that a straightforward FFT is probably not the best method of showing up these longer cycles.

Indeed this is the case for many phenomenon in the Earth's climate system. An 'extension' of the FFT known as wavelet analysis (don't ask ) is more commonly used in recent years to analyse sunspot, ENSO, tree ring data, etc etc - The key is that wavelet analysis can detect and represent (more robustly than FFT) non-stationary data by allowing frequency variations to be 'mapped' back onto the time series.

The bottom line is that there is reasonable evidence to suggest the possible cycles of the sun in short term (~11 year cycles) and much longer term cycles as quoted by BFTP.

OK the very bottom line is that this, and the previous few posts only try to establish the existence of solar cycles - there is a long way to go imo before we can nail the link between them and the climate

[Bobby]

Magpie

We are only in the 11 year [approx] cycle minimum which is of little consequence on its own. There are other cycles 22 year [Hale], 87 year [Gleissberg, Wolf etc] and a 210 year cycle. We are not in a minima as measured in the past ie Maunder, Wolf, Dalton etc where colder climes were experinced. The 11 year cycle exists within these cycles and at present or certainly late 20th century the sunspot activity was very high so even at the low point activity was still high. The projected minima is coming within the Gleissberg cycle and even in the bigger one [Maunder, Sporer], so lets see what happens from here and January has certainly started quite cold for the NH.

BFTP

I'm aware of that but the unexpected warmth lately even while at solar minimum perhaps suggests the AGW effect is now so strong changes in the sun's output may not be enough to bring cooling or even a plateauing, maybe only slow the upward trend.

[Devonian]

This an article explaining wavelets and Fourier whatsit. Can say I understand it all, but it's a good start point for anyone interested I think.

[wysiwyg]

This an article explaining wavelets and Fourier whatsit. Can say I understand it all, but it's a good start point for anyone interested I think.

Great link - thanks Dev. I should have found that instead of posting all that clap-trap above :lol: