This thread is started to record global temperature changes March 2008 to March 2009 and significant climatic change observations in the same period.

Based on the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize, the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009, if the change matches the largest estimate of the cloud forcing function (Svensmark’s) and if the solar magnetic cycle moves to a Dalton minimum. (Based on the slope of past abrupt climate changes and assuming past abrupt climate changes were driven by solar magnetic field changes. See comments, for caveat. The solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds hypothesis is still being evaluated, by the scientific community.)

The following is a graph that shows how global temperature has increased in the 20th century. Also included is a monthly global temperature deviation table that shows the first indication of global cooling (2008 February, cooling of about 0.35C to about 0.12C.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/graphs/Fig.C.txt

The Baud thread “solar cycle 24” outlines how changes to the solar magnetic field are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover. The paleoclimatic data shows that there are periodic abrupt drops in planetary temperature which correlate with solar magnetic field changes, but there has not been until the 21th century a hypothesized mechanism as to how solar magnetic cycle changes could possibly affect the earth’s temperature.

As noted in the Baud solar cycle 24 thread there are also a minority of solar physics that are predicting that cycle 24 will be move to a Dalton minimum (period of low solar magnetic cycle activity.) As noted in the same thread, there is observational evidence that supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.

There are a minority of scientists (Svensmark, Shiva, and so forth) who have stated that a significant portion of the 20th century warming is due to solar magnetic field changes that increase or decrease the total amount of planetary cloud cover. (A link to Svensmark’s paper is provided below. See comments, for caveat.)

The following is Svensmark’s paper “Cosmoclimatology”. (The Baud thread solar cycle 24 is a better summary.)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...k)&cookieSet=1

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...4.2007.48118.x

Comments:
1) Although papers have been written to support the solar magnetic modulation of cloud hypothesis and there is data to support that hypothesis, this subject is not resolved and there have been critical papers written that challenge the solar cloud modulation papers.

2) There are historic observations from the turn of the 19th century that can be used to predict how the climate in different regions would change if the planetary temperatures drop to 1880 levels by March 2009.

You are suggesting using the GISS NASA Land/Ocean chart to compare to. Do you have any idea how cold it would have to get to change the earth’s land/ocean temperature by .8 C (the amount to get the temp. back to 1880’s) in one year? The land/ocean chart was used to get rid of most of the yearly land temperature variation, it's sort of like double averaging the data.

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

Jim

In reply to orionjim's comment:

Your above comment makes sense, there does, however, seem to be a larger than expected drop in land + ocean temperature, already. This is a summary of the by month land+ocean temperature anomalies. Has the land + ocean temperature anomaly dropped 0.35C?

Monthly Mean Surface Vs Surface & Ocean Temperature Anomaly (C)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Here are some thoughts, as to why the drop in planetary temperature, might be faster than expected.

1) Tinsley and Yu's cloud modulation mechanism (In response to changes in electroscavenging and GCR) is greatest over the ocean (as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor) and over specific regions of the ocean (40 degree to 60 degree latitude). The forcing function is therefore not linear over the entire planet. (i.e. There will more relative cooling, faster relative cooling over specific latitudes of the ocean.)

2) Svensmark stated in his book that to explain past abrupt climate changes that slightly less than 0.6C of the 0.7C 20th century warming would need to be due to solar changes. Using that assumption then roughly 0.6C of the 20th century warming would be due to electroscavenging. The cooling is then 0.6C + 1.2C = 1.8C. Where the 1.2C is due to increased GCR (reduced solar large scale magnetic field and reduced number of sunspots, Dalton like minimum.) and the 0.6C is due to less electroscavenging (reduced solar wind bursts from solar magnetic storms).

The following is my back of the envelope calculation using an assumed cooling of 1.8C with an assumed e folding time for the solar magnetic field of 4 years and an assumed cooling of the top 50m of the ocean of also 4 years. Based on this calculation the ocean land temperature would take until 2011 to drop to 1880 levels. As the ocean + land temperature drop is possibly already -0.35 (A drop of -0.35C should not have occurred until 2009 based on this calculation) this calculation might be too conservative. The prediction of a drop in temperature of -0.8C by 2009 March, might therefore be possible.

Table 2, (Assume -1.8C total change)
2007 0
2009 -0.32
2010 -0.60
2011 -0.84
2012 -1.03
2013 -1.19
2014 -1.32
2015 -1.42

In reply to orionjim's comment:

The following is the calculation you suggested using land + ocean. Does the planet appears to be cooling? Is the ocean temperature anomaly now negative?

January, 2008 Land + Ocean Temperature Anomaly is 0.12C compared to 0.56C Average 2003 to Jan. 2008. Standard deviation for that period is 0.118. 0.12C is 3.6 sigma.

Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)
--------------------------------------------
Year+Month Station Land+Ocean
2006.04 .56 .44
2006.12 .76 .57
2006.21 .65 .55
2006.29 .62 .47
2006.38 .40 .43
2006.46 .64 .53
2006.54 .57 .43
2006.62 .70 .58
2006.71 .66 .55
2006.79 .76 .60
2006.88 .74 .62
2006.96 .81 .69
2007.04 1.09 .87
2007.12 .82 .63
2007.21 .72 .59
2007.29 .78 .66
2007.38 .72 .55
2007.46 .53 .53
2007.54 .62 .51
2007.62 .78 .56
2007.71 .72 .50
2007.79 .77 .55
2007.88 .66 .49
2007.96 .60 .40
2008.04 .31 .12

Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55
Standard Deviation Same Period = 0.118
2008 Jan, 2008 = 0.12 (3.6 Sigma)

Data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

There might be a better question to ask. Is the global cooling effect resulting from the downturn of the sun's magnetic field already underway?
http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1312291.html
This January was the coldest worldwide since January 1989.

Last years news articles talked about the unusual loss of Arctic ice as evidence that man-made global warming was underway. A recent NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/g.../19/73798.html
In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. Cold weather in Vietnam killed nearly 60,000 cattle. This winter is the coldest on record in Afghanistan. The death toll of people killed by unusually severe cold weather in Afghanistan since December last year has risen to 926. It also killed 100,000 cattle in Afghanistan. Many cold records are falling this winter especially in Asia.

All of this is happening at a time when the strength of the sun's magnetic field (as evidenced by the effects of the solar winds on perturbing the Earth's magnetic field - Ap index, AA index) are at unusual lows.

I have looked through the Ae index given here and I do not see anything unusual about it. So, magnetospherically there is nothing different. Also, IMHO, Ap and AA indices are not really very useful in describing the disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere. In my 8 years or Earth magnetospheric work I have not used these indices in any of my papers.

Also, the solar wind magnetic field remains at its usual value, varying between 0.2 and 80 nT, with a normal value of about 6 nT.

Interestingly, I found the following comments on geomagnetic activity and solar cycle:

So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low."

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

tusenfem writes "So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low.""

This article discusses the low and also contains a graph (1991-2008) of the Ap index.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...sunspots-gone/

There is also some discussion here about solar cycle 24 & 25.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

"AA Index" is not the most precise indicator but it has the advantage of a monthly data timeline going back to 1868. Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data timeline goes back to 1880. Therefore "AA Index" permits a long term analysis against ocean temperature. "Ap Index" is a better parameter but has a shorter data history. Other parameters such as solar wind speed and density may be even a better parameter but are only a recent data series. Therefore when looking at a link between long-term temperature trends and the intensity of the magnetic field within the solar winds, the "AA Index" is a rough order approximation.

In reply to tusenfem:

Look at figure 12 in the attached which shows the number of solar magnetic storms per year, from 1865 to present and the corresponding number of sunspots. There is a roughly 20 times increase in the number of magnetic storms at the end of the solar cycles, when comparing the 20th century to the 19th century.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075558

Background:
Mechanism:
The paleo record shows both a period of warming similar to the 20th century and cooling. The warming is hypothesized to be caused by electroscavenging were solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The second mechanism is solar modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR). More GCR more clouds (cooler planet) and less GCR less clouds (warmer planet). This paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” outlines the two mechanisms.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf


Paleo Record
The paleoclimatic record indicates that in the past there have been a series of abrupt climatic changes, at which time there is concurrent solar magnetic field changes. The abrupt climatic changes were confirmed as they are found in multiple independent proxy sources. (Ocean floor sediment, ice core data, and so forth.) There is smoking gun evidence that changes in the sun are causing abrupt climate change on the earth.

The question is: What is the mechanism? TSI changes are not enough to cause the temperature changes observed. Kaplan’s recent paper 2006 indicates that the abrupt climate changes are global, affecting both hemispheres simultaneously, which rules out orbital changes of insolation as the driver, as orbital changes in insolation affect each hemisphere roughly 90 degrees out of phase.

This paper for example, discusses the Younger Dryas abrupt temperature change. The largest solar change in the last 20 kyrs is noted to occur at the same time the planet abrupt changes from interglacial back to glacial.

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas? By Hans Renssen et al.

http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf

From the Younger Dryas paper:

So, basically that says that there is no unusual low as stated by Tunga, or what do you want to say?

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

I do not understand your question. Is it is there evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or that an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle will result in global cooling?

I have provided observational data and logic to support the assertion that the solar magnetic field has been interrupted. In the Baud thread "sun cycle 24" there are three papers referenced that predict an imminent, solar magnetic cycle minimum based three different logical premises: 1) solar physical model, 2) An analysis of the paleo record of past solar magnetic cycle changes, and a third based on solar barycentric motion that matches the paleo record.

In the Baud thread "solar cycle 24", there are multiple papers that provide paleoclimatic evidence of semi periodic abrupt climate change that correlation with past solar magnetic field changes. There is satellite data and analysis of the earth's albedo, provided in the Baud thread "solar cycle 24" that supports the assertion that there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover which would have caused a portion of the planetary warming during the 20th century.

Based on the paleoclimatic record the planet should if that line of reasoning is correct, abruptly cool, due to solar magnetic field changes which will increase planetary cloud cover. So far the planetary temperature data does indicate abrupt cooling.

This is for example, only one of a large group of papers all of which note past abrupt climate changes correlated with solar magnetic field changes. The problem was how did a solar change if it was not a change in TSI, affect planetary temperature.

Link: Role of solar forcing upon climate change

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...ng/VanGeel.pdf

Last 40 kyrs
Recent Solar Event
Periodicity

Well, you came up with this reference, replying to a comment I made to a post by Tunga. I just point out that what you write and what is in the paper is inconsistent with what Tunga claimed that magnetospheric activity was at an "unusual low".

I have not even considered the warming/cooling by magnetospheric activity.

And by the way, this forum is called BAUT with a T not a D.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Based on how the cloud modulation mechanism “electroscavenging” works (see comment) the geomagnetic index to measure to determine if there is correlation is Ak rather than AA.

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..969G.pdf

From that above paper:

Comment
1) The electroscavenging mechanism is controlled by changes in the ionosphere space charge which changes the global electric current. According to Tinsley an increase in the global electric current, results in the removal of cloud forming ions. Palle's satellite research data and analysis supports Tinsley's assertion.
2) Average land + ocean temperature appears to have dropped 0.5C, March, 2007 March to Feb. 2008.
3)The largest drop in temperature (March,2007 to Feb.,2008) has been in ocean surface temperature which supports the assertion that the change in planetary temperature is caused by a sudden increase in low level clouds, due to an abrupt drop in electroscavenging (electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions) and an abrupt increase in GCR (GCR creates cloud forming ions), as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor.

Regional meteorological observations, in 2007 and 2008 show the first indication of abrupt cooling?

Southern Hemisphere had record cold winter, 2007

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Frig...ere_Winter.pdf

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ra...frica_999.html

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ter-in-decades

Europe
Middle East
Antarctic
Arctic Ice

This is a link to a summary and pictures (I was surprised by the pictures which compare their 2007 winter to past events.) that a South American meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart has written concerning South America’s 2007 record cold winter. I would expect based on the solar modulation of cloud mechanisms that the next South American winter (starting May, 2008 will be more extreme.)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res...q-g-18_pvGNBZQ

Comment:
Eugenio Hackbart is the Chief Meteorologist for MetSul Weather Center, a private weather center located in Sao Leopoldo, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. His opinions are published in Portuguese at the site: www.metsul.com

Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System to a step change

Background
There is evidence of a recent abrupt drop in planetary temperature based on the NASA data. (See below comment and above comments for details.) Although regional meteorological observations (in both hemispheres), supports a drop in planetary temperature, additional data is required to confirm the change is real.

When there is more data, it should be possible to determine the magnitude of the forcing function change which appears to be related to the recent solar magnetic cycle changes and to determine the final equilibrium temperature (assuming a long term solar magnetic cycle change.)

This paper is a good overview of the science and technical issues, concerning the planet’s response to a step change in forcing. It examines planetary temperature changes to step changes in forcing from volcanic eruptions, to estimate the planetary time constant to be 5 years +/- 1 yr. In addition, it finds evidence for a planetary response to a forcing change of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2).

The current evidence of an abrupt change in planetary temperature supports a short time constant. (See the paper for details as to why the planet has a short time constant. The reason is that the layers of the earth's ocean do not mix due to density differences. This paper's findings is consistent with paleoclimatic evidence of abrupt climate changes. It is also consistent with a basic text book I have on Atmospheric Science.)


Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System, S. E. Schwartz

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Comments:
Based on the NASA Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55C (Above deemed normal.)
Temperature Jan, 2008 = 0.12C (Above deemed normal, 3.6 Sigma significant.)

Change in planetary temperature over about a year = -0.43C

This is a link to University of Oulu’s Cosmic Ray data site. This site provides long term trend data of neutron counts which are proportional to galactic cosmic rays (GCR). This is a link to a request for data from Jan. 1, 2001 to March 10, 2008. The neutron counts, as shown in the plot of the data, have increased roughly 12% in the last two years, which is due to the reduction in the solar heliosphere.