“Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.”

Exactly.

“Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.”

Exactly.

“He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it? ”

Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.

“He can hardly argue it is irrelevant. Is Svalgaard saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Is Nick Stokes saying the Dalton Minimum was an illusion? Or if the Dalton Minimum was not a result of a minimum in TSI yet still existed, what caused it? ”

Well, the current cooling certainly is not an illusion, and we have no volcanoes to blame. What is causing it? Is it just coincidental that the sun is at a minimum for a long time? I doubt it.

Down

Going down

Ground floor

Basement

Sub basement

Mantle

Core
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list1

Down

Going down

Ground floor

Basement

Sub basement

Mantle

Core
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list1

(1) There is no evidence of significant variation in 11 year running mean of TSI going back at least as far as 1700 and hence this includes the Dalton Minimum and arguably part of the Maunder Minimum (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2008).

(2) There is no significant evidence of significant change in the 11 year running mean of Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength (HMF) going back at least as far as 1875 (Svalgaard and Cliver IDV07; Rouillard et al. 2007; LeSager and Svalgaard, 2004).

(3) Consequently all the proxy work by people like McCracken (2007), McCracken and Beer (2007); Lockwood et al. 1999; Krivova et al., 2007, Solanki et al. 2000 etc is erroneous.

(4) Svalgaard points to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mayon/Tambora and Hekla as likely causes of major ‘errors’ in 10Be proxy derivations of HMF. In a way he seem to be implying that Mayon/Tambora caused the Dalton Minimum and Krakatoa caued the cool speel around 1890. It is a bit hard to discern if he is implying Hekla caused the Maunder Minimum – but I’d say probably yes as Hekla had a major eruption in 1693.

It’s a fairly radical reinterpretation of the Sun’s behaviour and would in effect mean there is no evidence from the ‘likely true’ record of BOTH TSI and HMF (the latter via 10Be and 14 C proxies) for a solar irradiance or even a solar modulation of CRF being the cause of of the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.

A possible problem with Svalgaard’s position is that he may not be across all the careful work that has been done on ice core proxies. He is possibly unaware that most cores show somewhere between about 5 and 10 volcanic 10Be spikes per millenium and there is a host of other sensitive proxy parameters for confirming those which have been employed for a decade or more.

In any case it is worth looking at:

http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf

just to get some idea of how intense this stuff is. Odds are Nick has been off chatting to Ken McCracken about all this. I sure hope he reports back.

(1) There is no evidence of significant variation in 11 year running mean of TSI going back at least as far as 1700 and hence this includes the Dalton Minimum and arguably part of the Maunder Minimum (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2008).

(2) There is no significant evidence of significant change in the 11 year running mean of Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength (HMF) going back at least as far as 1875 (Svalgaard and Cliver IDV07; Rouillard et al. 2007; LeSager and Svalgaard, 2004).

(3) Consequently all the proxy work by people like McCracken (2007), McCracken and Beer (2007); Lockwood et al. 1999; Krivova et al., 2007, Solanki et al. 2000 etc is erroneous.

(4) Svalgaard points to volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mayon/Tambora and Hekla as likely causes of major ‘errors’ in 10Be proxy derivations of HMF. In a way he seem to be implying that Mayon/Tambora caused the Dalton Minimum and Krakatoa caued the cool speel around 1890. It is a bit hard to discern if he is implying Hekla caused the Maunder Minimum – but I’d say probably yes as Hekla had a major eruption in 1693.

It’s a fairly radical reinterpretation of the Sun’s behaviour and would in effect mean there is no evidence from the ‘likely true’ record of BOTH TSI and HMF (the latter via 10Be and 14 C proxies) for a solar irradiance or even a solar modulation of CRF being the cause of of the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.

A possible problem with Svalgaard’s position is that he may not be across all the careful work that has been done on ice core proxies. He is possibly unaware that most cores show somewhere between about 5 and 10 volcanic 10Be spikes per millenium and there is a host of other sensitive proxy parameters for confirming those which have been employed for a decade or more.

In any case it is worth looking at:

http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf

just to get some idea of how intense this stuff is. Odds are Nick has been off chatting to Ken McCracken about all this. I sure hope he reports back.