The Quiet Sun - Climatic Consequences

[VillagePlank]

VP, spatial aggregates of averages? that,s a bit too deep for me.

I'll agree with you about me being irrational (I suppose) and I will take on board everything you say, for now.

Nah - it's just it's name. Like most things, industries, expertise, etc, they all have their own names and acronyms.

Effectively, it means this: you have an average temperature for London, and for Paris. They are not the same, but you aggregate your data (ie sum it, or add it together in this context) and divide by two.

The problem is, especially for proxy data-sets, are the locations representative? The answer is - we'll never know; the average temperature for London and Paris is not representative of the wine growing regions of Yorkshire, say, or the bitterly cold winters in southern France.

Averages only tell us so much, and once you start to average over space (as well as time - remember that the x-axis on all these graphs is about an average over time, but little is seen about an average over space) it becomes much harder to deduce useful conclusions.

[Gray-Wolf]

Grapes in Greenland? Are we not confusing ourselves with the Viking expedition from Greenland to the NE coast of the USA (Vineland) and the Saga that recounts seeing 'vines' on the shoreline?

Edited October 19, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Gowon]

Nah - it's just it's name. Like most things, industries, expertise, etc, they all have their own names and acronyms.

Effectively, it means this: you have an average temperature for London, and for Paris. They are not the same, but you aggregate your data (ie sum it, or add it together in this context) and divide by two.

The problem is, especially for proxy data-sets, are the locations representative? The answer is - we'll never know; the average temperature for London and Paris is not representative of the wine growing regions of Yorkshire, say, or the bitterly cold winters in southern France.

Averages only tell us so much, and once you start to average over space (as well as time - remember that the x-axis on all these graphs is about an average over time, but little is seen about an average over space) it becomes much harder to deduce useful conclusions.

Thanks for the explanation, I get it now (kinda)

If you don't ask me asking VP, what is your profession?

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for the explanation, I get it now (kinda)

If you don't ask me asking VP, what is your profession?

Head of IT.

[MR EXTREMES]

Grapes in Greenland? Are we not confusing ourselves with the Viking expedition from Greenland to the NW coast of the USA (Vineland) and the Saga that recounts seeing 'vines' on the shoreline?

no i dont think grapes where grown in greenland,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=where+there+grape+vines+in+greenland%3F&source=bl&ots=vZgQF5oLXJ&sig=tiuobw3gTUMRiXIanSLY4Fpt0NE&hl=en&ei=pyXcSqKdOMaD4Qb1juX4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=where%20there%20grape%20vines%20in%20greenland%3F&f=false

but gray wolf it wernt called greenland for nothing and evidence clearly see there have been close to or warmer periods in history.

its important that things are not blown out of porportion.

now as for the suns impact on our planet its clearly the biggest contributer of our climate system in many aspects and the nature will soon show its royal flush.

Edited October 19, 2009 by badboy657

[Gowon]

Head of IT.

Wow! Then you must have a very busy role.

GW, yes, i got my information muddled up, I was meant to type Scotland.

[jethro]

Here are a few links that some may find interesting, they're a few years old but still valid and as far as I'm aware, haven't been super-ceded by newer information.

For me, the interesting information contained in them relates to how small changes in Solar activity can impact climate, TSI isn't the sole component involved and the changes seen in micro climate has little to do with radiative budget. The really interesting information (IMO) are the details of how the impacts are felt, localised changes not necessarily registering for quite an extended time on a global scale - watching and dissecting global temperatures in order to say yea or nay on whether the decline in Solar activity is having an affect, risks missing some important clues.

Those weather records of seemingly isolated, irrelevant "it's only weather" posts could be more important than they've been given credit for.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

[MR EXTREMES]

Here are a few links that some may find interesting, they're a few years old but still valid and as far as I'm aware, haven't been super-ceded by newer information.

For me, the interesting information contained in them relates to how small changes in Solar activity can impact climate, TSI isn't the sole component involved and the changes seen in micro climate has little to do with radiative budget. The really interesting information (IMO) are the details of how the impacts are felt, localised changes not necessarily registering for quite an extended time on a global scale - watching and dissecting global temperatures in order to say yea or nay on whether the decline in Solar activity is having an affect, risks missing some important clues.

Those weather records of seemingly isolated, irrelevant "it's only weather" posts could be more important than they've been given credit for.

http://www.gsfc.nasa...1207iceage.html

http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=7122

http://www.giss.nasa...fs/shindell_06/

intresting part in the first link about the nao has our nao changed since the minimum?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think it would be a very foolish person indeed to make absolute predictions about anything in the field of climate, if the METO have left "wiggle room", I'd say it's not only wise but the most professional stance to take.

When it comes to possible privatisation of the METO, privatisation of anything usually results in cut-backs; more research would need more financial input, not less. To be honest, I struggle to see what feedbacks they haven't considered, yes it could be argued that cloud feedbacks and water vapour in general (and to an extent Solar too) are lacking in the models and predictions from all official sources but that's not an effort to conceal anything, it's just lack of knowledge. More research is being done all the time, as the results become available they will be fed into the models, that's how all science progresses.

Greenland being warmer in the past... without a crystal ball or time machine, frankly we'll never know for certain. There's so much hoohar about proxies, I doubt we'll ever know for certain with any degree of accuracy. History indicates it was warmer than today but by how much, for how long and exactly where is difficult to get an absolute answer. One thing I would say is taking information from one species of plant is not an accurate measure, especially if it is an introduced species; indigenous species and their flowering/cropping dates give a clearer picture, as do yields from staple foodstuffs.

Can't say whether folk adopt the IPCC stance out of ease or not, I can only speak for myself; the misgivings I had about their findings in the last report, I still have - there are holes in their projections for the future.

I disagree.

They have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast imo, and I don't think they could have been more specific in terms of their multi decadal outlook than they have already been! Especially with regard to the stark climatic warnings they have given in assocaition with AGW. And also coming in tandem with the ever increasing political pressures behind the issue. Yet, as I said there is plenty of room to change those pretty absolute predictions. Best of both worlds I would say - yes on the face of it, having wiggle room is a wise option to take, but the stakes beome higher in terms of any backtrack the more emphatically one makes one's prediction pitch.

I would suggest that privatisation actually means cut backs in expensive bureaucratic layers and saves money, which through the obvious incentivisation of the new privitised company in terms of the need to make a profit in order to sustain its operations, can be used to target research more quickly and efficienctly.

I again differ in that it is all well and good assuming that more and more information will keep being fed into the climate models as more research uncovers new scientific inforamtion and data, but that very much depends on the priorities assumed in that research as to how broad a spectrum of data that is. And as I say, I'm not sure that the potential negative feedbacks in association with solar minimum are being accounted for enough, or are being taken as seriously in terms of their possible influence, in the same way that the assumed number of positive feedbacks are being factored in within the hypothesis of man made global warming.

None of the science is certain, but in terms of broad spectrum uncertainties, then it is wise to apportion those uncertainties more equally than is the case in terms of all forcings and feedbacks concerned.

Edited October 19, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

but gray wolf it wernt called greenland for nothing and evidence clearly see there have been close to or warmer periods in history.

If you go to the islands off the north coast of Greenland (Ellesmere island) you'll find crocodile fossils from 55 million years ago during the last period that the planet saw CO2 levels at 400ppm and an ice free pole.

I don't think Eric would have had many takers if he'd named his new 'fifedom'

"frozen interior with a thin strip of coastal impoverished soils and the odd dwarf Birch blasted by the Atlantic oceans worst gales....land"

would he? The name was (and is generaly accepted as) a bit of P.R. on his part to help entice folk out there.

Once there few were allowed return passage.

[jethro]

I disagree.

They have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast imo, and I don't think they could have been more specific in terms of their multi decadal outlook than they have already been! Especially with regard to the stark climatic warnings they have given in assocaition with AGW. And also coming in tandem with the ever increasing political pressures behind the issue. Yet, as I said there is plenty of room to change those pretty absolute predictions. Best of both worlds I would say - yes on the face of it, having wiggle room is a wise option to take, but the stakes beome higher in terms of any backtrack the more emphatically one makes one's prediction pitch.

I would suggest that privatisation actually means cut backs in expensive bureaucratic layers and saves money, which through the obvious incentivisation of the new privitised company in terms of the need to make a profit in order to sustain its operations, can be used to target research more quickly and efficienctly.

I again differ in that it is all well and good assuming that more and more information will keep being fed into the climate models as more research uncovers new scientific inforamtion and data, but that very much depends on the priorities assumed in that research as to how broad a spectrum of data that is. And as I say, I'm not sure that the potential negative feedbacks in association with solar minimum are being accounted for enough, or are being taken as seriously in terms of their possible influence, in the same way that the assumed number of positive feedbacks are being factored in within the hypothesis of man made global warming.

None of the science is certain, but in terms of broad spectrum uncertainties, then it is wise to apportion those uncertainties more equally than is the case in terms of all forcings and feedbacks concerned.

In regards to the proposed sale of the METO, there's now a dedicated thread here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/57212-tories-to-sell-off-met-office/ so it would be best to continue that discussion there.

When it comes to feedbacks being fed into the models, I agree there are things missing but that is more to do with missing data or lack of knowledge, than attempts to conceal or mislead.

Solar minimum and clouds are two examples, the first, not enough information, the latter an assumed positive feedback. Again, that's lack of information rather than deliberate exclusion.

The official IPCC stance at the time of the last report was that changes in TSI could not account for the warming in recent decades, there's nothing wrong with that science from a purely isolated perspective - TSI doesn't account for the warming. However, since that last report new studies have been made/are in the process/pipeline showing that TSI is only one part of the influence that Solar variance exhibits upon climate. Any new reports will surely include that extra data? We cannot presume otherwise without venturing down the road of "conspiracy theory" and personally, that's not a road I care to walk.

Cloud feedbacks and the assumption that they are positive, again more to do with lack of data. It's reasonable to assume that warmer atmosphere will warm the oceans, in turn leading to more evaporation, leading to less energy being radiated to space, thus more warming etc Where the problems are, is that newer more recent data shows this to be an incorrect assumption; the trouble is, so little is understood about clouds that it's nigh on impossible to enter any data into a model to accurately cover this vast topic. Hopefully at some point in the not too distant future, greater headway will be made in solving this puzzle, until such a time as that happens, it's border-line guess work.

There's so much focus upon climate change nowadays that the pressure to come up with something concrete to disseminate to all parties concerned must be immense; perhaps this leads to over-confidence in some of the statements being made? It would be incredibly difficult to spend years and vast amounts of public money only to be able to say "er, we don't really know". Those of us who spend our time reading all this stuff may prefer a bit more openness, a little less certainty where it's misplaced but we're not making public policy nor negotiating with world leaders and governments.

[MR EXTREMES]

If you go to the islands off the north coast of Greenland (Ellesmere island) you'll find crocodile fossils from 55 million years ago during the last period that the planet saw CO2 levels at 400ppm and an ice free pole.

I don't think Eric would have had many takers if he'd named his new 'fifedom'

"frozen interior with a thin strip of coastal impoverished soils and the odd dwarf Birch blasted by the Atlantic oceans worst gales....land"

would he? The name was (and is generaly accepted as) a bit of P.R. on his part to help entice folk out there.

Once there few were allowed return passage.

ok so what your saying now is co2 has been as high as it is today in the past and there where crocodile fossils near greenland,

ok so this tells us its been warm before up there,

and it also says that arctic ice may well of melted back then to record lows.

and ice has come back many time since that 55million years ago.

it also tells us if co2 was as high then as it is today and there was no human influence then.

so temps fell and so did co2.

CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

still below 400ppm

Edited October 19, 2009 by badboy657

[jethro]

I'm sorry but I've got to take issue with the idea that we had crocs and an ice free hothouse at the poles with a CO2 level of 400 ppm, that's just absurd with scaremongering over-tones. Makes it sound like the same scenario is just around the corner and it's emphatically not.

The literature for that era is littered with ifs buts and maybes, no one really understands what, why or how there were croc like creatures up there but what they do all agree upon is that CO2 levels were considerably higher than 400 ppm. Estimates range between 8 times pre-industrial levels through to 16 times pre-industrial levels - no where near 400 ppm.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611.200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic.html?page=1

[VillagePlank]

I'm sorry but I've got to take issue with the idea that we had crocs and an ice free hothouse at the poles with a CO2 level of 400 ppm, that's just absurd with scaremongering over-tones. Makes it sound like the same scenario is just around the corner and it's emphatically not.

But that can only be true if you equate CO2 with temperature or vice versa. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the geometry of the Earth and it's solar orbit may have shifted over time therefore that climatic regions have moved.

Indeed, that's what Milankovitch cycles are all about - albeit on a smaller scale. The current (best) theories about where the moon came from involve a catastrophic collision with the Earth, which could easily nudge it this way or that - as well as the popular assumption that the magnetic poles are always top and botton, and therefore the coldest sea-level regions on the planet for all time - where did that idea come from?

There's always something ... huh?

Edited October 19, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

But that can only be true if you equate CO2 with temperature or vice versa. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the geometry of the Earth and it's solar orbit may have shifted over time therefore that climatic regions have moved.

Indeed, that's what Milankovitch cycles are all about - albeit on a smaller scale. The current (best) theories about where the moon came from involve a catastrophic collision with the Earth, which could easily nudge it this way or that - as well as the popular assumption that the magnetic poles are always top and botton, and therefore the coldest sea-level regions on the planet for all time - where did that idea come from?

There's always something ... huh?

All true, but I was replying to a previous conversation where the implication was that higher CO2 levels had created a tropical environment in the Arctic.

Endless questions with oodles of possible answers, don't think I'll live long enough to see them all categorically answered.

[MR EXTREMES]

All true, but I was replying to a previous conversation where the implication was that higher CO2 levels had created a tropical environment in the Arctic.

Endless questions with oodles of possible answers, don't think I'll live long enough to see them all categorically answered.

well i was just remarking on gray wolfs post i did not suggest any of it.

apart from adding the current co2 levels which may have risen or declined since 2006 which was when that data was produced.

i feel wether crocodiles where there or not it makes no difference in my opion,

the earth has naturaly cooled and warmed for millions of years and will continue to do so whether co2 rises futher or not,

sun increases activity planet increase activity,

sun declines in activity and so on,

each change global climate patterns.

and thats what we are seeing right now if im wrong i hold my hands up and except it.

its a case of wait and see.

and jethro you might not see them all but you might see one:D

Edited October 19, 2009 by badboy657

[jethro]

It's ok bb, I know you were replying to GW too.

If I only get to see one, can I choose which.....can I please have a maunder type minimum and watch lots of answers unfolding about Solar influence.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

My words in respect of getting close to the truth have always been about research priorities and the apparent putting of some areas higher up the list than the others, leading to potential underestimations (solar as in this discussion for eg) and over estimations (AGW) in respect of the various forcings and feedbacks. That doesn't have to be anything to do with concealment, it could easily be down to a simple matter of what is considered assumed to be most important and influential.

I'm not sure that I have, actually, ever said anything about deliberate attempts to conceal. I might have my own opinions and concerns about the apparent narrowly focused priorities and over extending beliefs of the METO for eg, but despite this, I have never suggested that they are deliberately attempting to conceal data or anything else (although the recent data issue request wasn't helpful in the way the whole thing appeared to be handled) even if it was very most probably completely innocent.

The 'winky' smilie in reply to GW previously, was in relation to these priority issues and was also supposed to be at least semi tongue in cheek by dint of the use of the smilie, and not a derivative of some subtle broadside hinting at any conspiracy theory..

As long as the sun stays quiet like this and the portents for an ever sudued C24 maxima (which is the critical issue) are growing as the days, weeks and months keep going by, then the longer term decadal projections require ever greater scrutiny and consideration without being overly progressive in any one direction. Not only that but the implications for C25 are even greater, an that takes us through the next twenty years and more at least.

Hence it is just as well that there is plenty of wiggle room for adjusting priorities and expectations ...for everybody.

Edited October 19, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

I do wish that someone would actually quantify all of these (presumed to be?) 'under-'/'over-' estimated feedbacks...What are they? Where are they? What do they do? How do you know that the calculations are wrong?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would suggest that privatisation actually means cut backs in expensive bureaucratic layers and saves money, which through the obvious incentivisation of the new privitised company in terms of the need to make a profit in order to sustain its operations, can be used to target research more quickly and efficienctly.

It depends on the specific circumstances, and a key factor is competition. The main theory behind privatisation is that in most cases it increases competition, and hopefully results in companies striving to provide the best possible service to customers, on the grounds that if they provide a sub-optimal service some other company may provide a better service and therefore get more users and more profits.

But in practice, particularly in the public services sector where providing a top quality service often requires a lot of short term investment for uncertain gain, there's a tendency for all companies to follow the line of "minimum service for maximum profit", and reluctance to break free from that mould because it is not deemed cost-effective in the short term (i.e. the increased custom is more than offset by the increased short-term expenditure). In contrast when there is some element of state ownership, reliability of state funding can make the companies more willing to take a few financial risks for the sake of improving services, e.g. some of the Met Office's expensive supercomputers.

Also, privatising the Met Office would not necessarily help competition as the Met Office already allows a fair amount of competition, and indeed helps some of its competitors in return for fees (e.g. providing raw 5-minute radar data for N-W Extra Radar).

There is a significant likelihood that privatising the Met Office could cut the amount of bureauocracy, but there's a serious risk that they could move towards the "minimum service for maximum profit" philosophy in that case, resulting in downgraded services as well. Look at what happened with the privatisation of public transport for example.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Nights King]

It depends on the specific circumstances, and a key factor is competition. The main theory behind privatisation is that in most cases it increases competition, and hopefully results in companies striving to provide the best possible service to customers, on the grounds that if they provide a sub-optimal service some other company may provide a better service and therefore get more users and more profits.

But in practice, particularly in the public services sector where providing a top quality service often requires a lot of short term investment for uncertain gain, there's a tendency for all companies to follow the line of "minimum service for maximum profit", and reluctance to break free from that mould because it is not deemed cost-effective in the short term (i.e. the increased custom is more than offset by the increased short-term expenditure). In contrast when there is some element of state ownership, reliability of state funding can make the companies more willing to take a few financial risks for the sake of improving services, e.g. some of the Met Office's expensive supercomputers.

Also, privatising the Met Office would not necessarily help competition as the Met Office already allows a fair amount of competition, and indeed helps some of its competitors in return for fees (e.g. providing raw 5-minute radar data for N-W Extra Radar).

There is a significant likelihood that privatising the Met Office could cut the amount of bureauocracy, but there's a serious risk that they could move towards the "minimum service for maximum profit" philosophy in that case, resulting in downgraded services as well. Look at what happened with the privatisation of public transport for example.

How does this have anything to do with a quiet sun? im confused have i got the wrong thread?

[jethro]

My words in respect of getting close to the truth have always been about research priorities and the apparent putting of some areas higher up the list than the others, leading to potential underestimations (solar as in this discussion for eg) and over estimations (AGW) in respect of the various forcings and feedbacks. That doesn't have to be anything to do with concealment, it could easily be down to a simple matter of what is considered assumed to be most important and influential.

Everything and everyone has to start some where. It makes sense to start with what we do have a reasonable understanding of, make a decision based upon that knowledge with the acknowledgement that more understanding is needed in other areas.

That's all that the IPCC, the METO and every other organisation has done. Admittedly many have been reluctant to publicise their uncertainties or elaborate upon the size of the gaps in their knowledge, resulting in an (IMO) over confident prognosis. However, I still maintain, that's as a result of immense pressure from all directions to come up with not only answers but a workable blue print for where world leaders go from here, to ensure we begin to live a more sustainable lifestyle.

When it comes to prioritising research, I'm sure if twenty people were asked to draw up a short list of ten areas, we'd get twenty different answers and everyone could and would argue for their ideas being the best. How do we decide, how does anyone decide? I suspect the bottom line when making that decision would be, is it possible, do we have the technology, can we afford it?

[acbrixton]

Here's some info from Abdussamatov, Head of the Russian Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

Jethro, thanks for the link.

A few thoughts:

1. The complete dismissal of alternative hypotheses and absolute confidence in TSI theory does not indicate an open or enquiring mind;

2. The certainty of the forecasts for global temperatures over the next 30 years or so is astonishing: we will know soon enough if there is anything to their hypothesis;

3. To use one small piece of data on arctic ice minimas comparing 2007 to 2008 as evidence of global cooling/stabilisation is dubious science;

4. Even if temperature trends on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto could be properly used as supporting evidence (which I very much doubt) 6 years of observations would be scarcely enough to establish such supporting evidence;

5. If, as the authors state, ACW/Co2 theory is utterly irrelevant then why on earth do they suggest that Kyoto be "put off for at least 150 years"? If AGW theory is wholly irrelevent then it must follow that Kyoto is pointless now and in the future?

6. The assertion that the Renaissance was possible because of the MWP is grotesquely simplistic determinism. It is apparent that the Maunder Minimum did little to stop European scientific advances e.g. Pascal, Newton, Leeuwenhoek, Darby, Leibnitz etc.(to say nothing of philosophical and artistic developments);

7. To assert that the 'existence' of Scottish vineyards in the 10th-13th centuries shows that the MWP was warmer than now is absurd:

7.1 Whilst Selley in 'Winelands of Britain' claims that there was one Scottish vineyard in the 12c this seems highly unlikely as the survey of English vineyards in the 11thc 'Domesday Book' records no vineyards north of a line from Ely to Gloucstershire and Lamb mentions only 2 (later) vineyards to the north of that line: Lincoln and Leeds;

7.2 In any event viticulture cannot be used as a simple proxy for average annual temperatures: average temperatures during the growing season, seasonal sunshine/rainfall patterns, the risk of late frosts are relevant;

7.3 There is ample evidence that both the production and use of wine was wholly different in medieval and earlier times: Pliny the elder records the use of both honey and boiling grape juice to sweeten and fortify wine and medieval records apparently show that this continued in later centuries along with the addition of honey and spices when serving wine. The implications of this are that it would have been possible to produce wine (as then understood) in cooler and wetter conditions than would be possible for what we now understand by 'wine';

7.4 As Jethro points out the decline of the medieval wine industry to be considered without , for example, reference to changing trade patterns (i.e. the importation of superior wines from Acquitaine under the Plantagenet dynasty) and the dissolution of the monasteries in 1536;

7.5 Selley notes in any event that there was a brief renaissance in English wine production in the 17th and 18th centuries (i.e. at the time of the Maunder Minimum).

regards

ACB

[VillagePlank]

As long as the sun stays quiet like this and the portents for an ever sudued C24 maxima

Yes

With all systems, especially dynamical ones, it is always useful to study both the maximum and the minimum; it can, generally, tell us a lot more about what a system is doing than, say, the arithmetic mean ...

[jethro]

Thanks for that ACB, agreed there are problems with it, not least the rather tunnel vision but I suppose that's to be expected, given it's source.

I think the idea to delay Kyoto (and successors) is to allow for time to see if CO2 over-rides the Solar signal; if the world cools significantly we'll need all the energy supplies we can get. Russia will face greater consequences from an advancing ice cap and cooler temperatures than we will, carbon capping could compromise their future in a colder world.

The references to Jupiter, Mars etc, I can't comment upon, I don't know enough to say anything meaningful.

Vineyards....fashions, trade, a favourable few years, disease, different hybrids than modern varieties; there's an endless list of problems when using wine making as climate proxies, just about as unreliable as it's possible to get. Indigenous species and wheat yields are far, far more reliable.

They've provided temperature projections, it'll be interesting to watch those.