THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.
The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.
The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.
Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.
What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
I think this is more likely than the Svensmark hypothesis but we shall see:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
Typo alert. In the section Global cooling during other sunspot minima: “and succeeded by the Daltong Minimum”
“Daltong” should be “Dalton”
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
It is cold enough in Sydney, as it is!
Brrrrrrrr ….
One of the arguments that the warmists will use is that any cooling effect is temporary; “the heat is in the pipeline”. What I have been unable to find is any authorative timeline between the onset of a Maunder type solar magnetic minimum and global temperatyures. Supposing a new minimum is coming, when dio we expect to see a significant drop in temperatures? I have been unable to find any sort of data on this issue that I find convincing.
Good solid research, and time to buy a fur coat methinks. Naturally the alarmists have begun their spin saying this will only mask the warming, perhaps as millions die of the cold governments will stop building windmills and think about actual power stations.
(( John Marshall says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:16 am
The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists. ))
John. Have you ever tried to engage in a rational debate with an irrational person.??
By the time GISS has “improved” the data even a LIA will be warmer than 1998. Guaranteed….
regards
Something tells me this will be a busy thread 😉 better cook up some popcorn.
The only thing I would add is perhaps this …
ATTENTION MODS: part of the article is duplicated, and note that the 2nd is less formatted.
[Reply: Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
Gentlemen, THIS is it. The next 20-40 years should absolutely confirm or deny the power of CO2 to control the climate. If we lose all sunspots like the Maunder for decades and don’t cool off, then…..
John Marshall says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:16 am
The sensible outlook from a Geologist.
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
They will just automatically reject it, as it threatens their Belief system. Their only hope for return to rationality is some type of deprogramming, or “exit counseling” as it’s called today.
Slight tidy up needed to remove duplication.
[Done, thanx. ~dbs]
I read the “Solar predictions bring heat and light ” article by Richard Black on the BBC today. I was glad to see that he acceepts that sometimes “settled” theories are proved wrong. However, he shows a continuing confidence in his wide knowledge and in the majority of “warmist” views which he clearly supports. I see a problem here in that the “Warmists” have been handed a big “get out of jail free” card because the fact that the climate cools is linked strongly to sunspots, but their “AGW” problem still exists so that when the climate recovers, all that extra CO2 will make us heat up again rather quickly, and fry!
The argument will probably shift so that the immediate danger is past, but still say that we must not let the planet be destroyed once the suspots return. The bogus science will still keep rolling.
[snip. d-word violation.]
John Marshall:
It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!
In figure 3. what do WSN and GSN stand for?
Something to keep in mind while discussing this issue…
I keep seeing critiques of the “cooling” idea that hinge on “well, the Sun may have cycles, and it may be cooling, but it won’t counteract the 3 – 5 C heating that’s being predicted.” What they leave out is that the heating we’ve seen over the last 30-40 years mostly came from solar variability, too. If you admit that there could be a cooling cycle, you have to include the heating cycle that led up to the cooling – and the AGW theory promoters still won’t admit that into their world view.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:49 am
“Alarmists” won’t have the slightest clue until their cereal bowl is empty and there’s nothing to grill. Even then, they’ll cook up some excuse that it’s all a comspiracy to force some wingnut explanation on them.
“Correlation is not causation.” I don’t know how many times I have come across that phrase on this site, but it’s a lot.
Granted that Henrik Svensmark has put forward a plausible hypothesis for a quiet sun affecting Earth’s climate. Granted that Stephen Wilde suggests an interesting alternative hypothesis. Until either can be verified experimentally or by observation then hypotheses they will remain.
“Wait and see” is sound advice when it comes to climate matters. It always was.
For all warm-blooded creatures there is an optimum operating temperature which will seem heaven-like to us humans when the earth cools, as it inevitably will. Reading accounts in diaries from English villages written during the LIA is literally chilling.
Excellent article.
Can I suggest you make this a ‘sticky’ and place it at the top of the list for a few days?
I’m as wary as always about predictions of future climate as I have always been.
Nevertheless there is a clear asymmetry in possible outcomes, since (before Hansen) cooling was seen to be much more dangerous to humans and the rest of the biosphere than warming. If climate does cool, we should expect to see greater storminess (as the temperature gradient increases between tropics and poles), and drier conditions at mid latitudes leading to droughts and increased desertification. The Sahara desert, for example, which has shrunk in recent decades, may well start to expand and the tropical rain forests decline latitudinally and altutudinally.
I do not wish cooling upon the Earth simply to falsify the Greenhouse hypothesis. The stakes are much higher than the egos of a pampered, delusional few.
I am a bit puzzled by Professor Easterbrook’s graph in Fig 5.
Does anyone know what data Don was using for the temperature plot (black line). It appears to show the post-2000 period cooler than the 1990s. Whichever dataset you use (Hadley, UAH …take your pick) temperatures during the 2001-2010 decade were ~0.2 deg warmer than during the 1991-2000 decade. Only 1998 was warmer than the post-2001 years (although according to HadCrut, 2008 was slightly cooler than 1997).
Does anyone have an explanation?
“BargHumer says:
I see a problem here in that the “Warmists” have been handed a big “get out of jail free” card because the fact that the climate cools is linked strongly to sunspots, but their “AGW” problem still exists so that when the climate recovers, all that extra CO2 will make us heat up again rather quickly, and fry!”
I get your point here, however if the climate does cool significantly it will clearly demonstrate that the Sun is in the driving seat and not CO2. This in the eyes of the public will completely destroy their credibility (much like Gordon Brown’s economic credibility was destroyed when he pronounced “No more boom and bust” and then 2008 occurred).
Even though they have been peddling “Climate Change” for a few years, no-one forgets that the original claim has been “Global Warming”, if it gets very cold (“if” being an important word here) then people will notice this and a clear link can then be shown that this is due to the Sun’s activity. If it does not get colder well then maybe the Sun is not in the driving seat (this is a big experiment and we are testing a hypothesis or two, whether we like it or not).
My personal view is that the large thermo nuclear reaction in the sky will have an effect given past behaviour, however these could be like the chinese curse “Interesting times” and given what history tells us about previous cold periods we may see many upheavals that we would prefer not to be in the middle of 😮
The real question is how quickly it could happen.
If we are now able to predict a solar sunspot minimum in advance of its occurrence, perhaps we should also be allowed to name it in advance of its arrival. Not withstanding the rights of the scientists who proposed its existence to name it, I propose that the readers of WUWT may wish to make a few suggestions.
My contribution is “The Climate Stupidity Minimum”
“I keep seeing critiques of the “cooling” idea that hinge on “well, the Sun may have cycles, and it may be cooling, but it won’t counteract the 3 – 5 C heating that’s being predicted.” What they leave out is that the heating we’ve seen over the last 30-40 years mostly came from solar variability, too. If you admit that there could be a cooling cycle, you have to include the heating cycle that led up to the cooling – and the AGW theory promoters still won’t admit that into their world view.”
Yes and obviously the greater temperatures are seen to cool as the minimum unfolds, the greater must be assumed the solar impact on the original warming (and implicitly the lower the CO2 effect)
The pathetic predictions of another Maunder Minimum by Hill show how little the so called experts know about the Sun, his partner in crime Howe wrote to me a couple of years ago expecting a very big SC24. The Landscheidt Minimum will be weaker than the Dalton Minimum which will most likely see a -2C drop over global temps with the NH experiencing the brunt of the brutal winters over the next 30 years. The evidence for this is written in the AM graph.
The coupling of the neg PDO with low solar is the reason for the cooling, but this is no coincidence.
I am also wary of these kind of predictions ….. I agree its possible, but I am not sure there is any clear evidence of global cooling yet. Sure, the predictions of the IPCC are not coming true, but it can hardly be said to have cooled either. Looking at the UAH data …. pretty ambiguous. And the Arctic continues to mystify.
Figure 5 looks very fishy to me. According to it, the 2000s must have been cooler than the 1990s and we know the reverse is true. And in reality the year 2010 tied with 1998 for record high temperature. Sure, it would be great if it got cooler a bit before all the Arctic sea ice melts. (Btw., I wonder when the next sea ice news is due.) However, even if the sun was to enter a Maunder like scenario, this would take no more than 0.1° to 0.3 ° off of a projected warming of 4°C until 2100.
Mike Davis says @ June 17, 2011 at 4:13 am “It has not yet and has been known by many since the seventies when they were talking about the global cooling trend!”
I am not sure that is correct Mike;
“An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.”
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Thomas C. Peterson*
NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey
Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
All of a sudden, property in Mississippi/Texas ain’t lookin’ so bad 😉
We’re already looking property up in Maine that has a good wood stock on it, since heating oil/electricity is already going through the roof.
I can’t think of a more interesting hobby in my “Golden Years”, or “the back nine”, as I like to call it, than getting off the grid and watching the idiots try to understand what went wrong with their Warminista Religion. 🙂
Cheers to all,
JimB
Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:33 am
One of the arguments that the warmists will use is that any cooling effect is temporary; “the heat is in the pipeline”. What I have been unable to find is any authorative timeline between the onset of a Maunder type solar magnetic minimum and global temperatyures. Supposing a new minimum is coming, when dio we expect to see a significant drop in temperatures? I have been unable to find any sort of data on this issue that I find convincing.
The numerical model I created to link solar irradiance with ocean heat content indicates that cooling would be fairly slow at first, accelerating more the longer the Sun stays quiet. If we get a Dalton type minimum, maybe an SST drop of 0.3C worldwide in the first 20 years of the slowdown, from 2003. Of course, that means a bigger drop in the northern hemisphere SST, with much colder winter air temperatures.
I’ve recently been re-reading “The Black Swan” by Taleb. If his ideas about narrative effecting people’s thinking are correct this will be ignored by most and actively denied by those propagating the AGW narrative until it becomes undeniable.
RR Kampen
For a people that believes the science is settled your ilk certainly does spend a lot of time acting like it is not.
We would take care not be so alarmist as the warmists. Maybe the future scenario presented by Easterbroke is a little bit extreme (famine, etc etc).
And probably the warmists will continue putting pressure over the CO2 emission control, but there predicate will have much less impact on the population. Politicians will forget about this question that only some radicals will follow. Or, where is Nuclear Winter in the governments agendas?
Guigue
I estimate about .3C of global average temp can be attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, and we can probably expect about .3C more over the next 30 years. A better description of is a decrease in cooling that will result in higher average temperature over long time periods (by reducing low point of downward fluctuation).
Since cooling related to solar activity is believe to be due to a decrease in SW radiation absorbed at the surface and in the atmosphere, a better perspective is to see it as a decrease in heating that can result in a temperature drop.
Assuming the mass of the atmosphere is pretty evenly distributed GHGs are generally well mixed, about 50% of ghg heat retention will happen in the mid-high latitudes where the larger surface temperature drop would be expected. This should mute the temperature decline in the region about .25C (.5x(.3C realized ghg heat retention + .2C expected future ghg heat retention in 20 years)).
If mid-low latitude temps remain about the same, using Eaterbrook’s temp drop estimate global average temps should drop up to 1.75C (2C-.25C). Rather than a max temp difference of 4C between mid-high latitudes and mid-low latitude, the max difference should be about 3.75C. This should reduce some catastrophic weather, though it ma not change effects on food production because they may happen due to decreased light for crops more than surface atmospheric conditions.
So what can we learn from the Maunder?
==========================================
Not much, mostly because we don’t have a clue what this means.
Easterbrook, please make a Widget counting down to the ice age! Would be a cool thing to have on a blog.
John Marshall/
“The sensible outlook from a Geologist. This might knock some sense into the alarmists.”
You must be Easterbrooks most loyal fan.
The Blackfeet Indians predict the return of ‘many glaciers’ to Glacier Park
………Yellow Bear said that the glaciers in the park nearly ‘vanished’ 1,000 years ago during an extremely warm period with very little snow. The ‘peak’ of the number and size of the glaciers occurred during the 40-year period from 1710-1750 towards the end of the last ‘Maunder Minimum’ global cycle of cooling, a 70-year span almost completely devoid of sunspot activity that occurred from 1645 to 1715…….
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/BlackfeetIndians.htm
Mark Nutley says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:36 am
“Good solid research, and time to buy a fur coat methinks. Naturally the alarmists have begun their spin saying this will only mask the warming, perhaps as millions die of the cold governments will stop building windmills and think about actual power stations.”
So, the Warmista find themselves making the absurd claim that CO2 could have defeated the ice ages. If they would just think for a minute, they would see that we do not have so much as a correlation between CO2 and climate change – except in their benighted Gaia Models. At least Professor Easterbrook appears to have discovered a correlation between sun spots and Earth’s climate.
It bears repeating that the evidence for manmade global warming is no stronger than the evidence for a coming Ice Age. The Warmista just are not physical scientists.
Barg Humer,
I’m in complete agreement with you and other poster here:
I’m convinced the warmists will just use the “it’s masked the warming/won’t make much difference” excuse as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Joe Romm has already started spinning this kind of line over at his site:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/246202/sun-hibernation-deniers/#more-246202
Let’s be careful people…
This appears to be better science than the determined wrong headedness from the IPCC which seems to depend largely on the improbable assumption that ALL past climate change was caused by CO2 and on proof by repeated assertion. But still, the climate of the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been dramatically awful or Europeans would not have colonized New England and the Hudson River valley. Further, a lot of it depends on paleo proxies. My opinion at this stage. All paleo proxies for anything suck. They should be treated with considerable skepticism.
That said, Easterbrook looks to have a theory that deserves attention. If the sunspots actually go away, I reckon that we will learn a lot about climate in the next 40 years or so.
“when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, ”
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Bear in mind that the key to Svensmark’s proposed mechanism for cooling is increased clouds, not decreased insolation. Cool, rainy, floody.
Yeah, Chief Easterbrook and the Blackfeets. Sounds like a ’60s psychedelic rock band. I for one can’t wait for the Ice Age to begin. I hate hot summers in the city.
David Wright says:
“Wait and see” is sound advice . . .
I fancy it won’t seem such sound advice if it DOES cool, with our current energy policies in place. One prolonged cold winter with erratic/non-existent renewable power etc. should wipe out a good many folk to start with.
Maybe the older power stations should be mothballed instead of decommissioned, until we can see clearly what is happening.
The AGW believers may yet get to see their 50m climate refugees, as the survivors head towards the equator; this could be good news for Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. as large chunks of money pour into their financially stricken economies. 8- )
I hope Easterbrook and the Blackfeet Indians are correct. I can’t wait for the Ice Age to begin and I hate hot summers in the city. I wouldn’t bet my money on it, though.
Keep an eye on the SST’s (sea surface: AMSU satellite) probably best gauge of this theory and effect of solar activity on average global temperatures. So far 100% on route, its still going down when La Nina has gone (should normally star to rise)
Over several years, this issue has been discussed on solarham.com under the heading of Global Warming. A gentleman who uses the pseudonym glc, argues very cogently, that the data supporting the cold temperatures during past solar magnetic minima is practically non-existent. At the time, I tried to find more than anecdotal information on global temperatures during, for example, the Maunder minimum and failed. I could not prove glc was wrong, and I have a sneaking suspicion that he may be right. I am sure the graphs that are used, giving temperarure data, can be found under many references, but if you try and find where the actual data comes from, I suspect it is non-existent.
It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Daeah was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
So I suggest that we do not take as gospel the graphs in this paper. If you go back far enough, I am sure you will find that the data on which they are based is almost non-existent.
Congratulations and deep gratitude to Don Easterbrook and all those other geologists who continue to read the data provided by Earth. Congratualtions for keeping your university position and deep gratitude for remaining faithful to the scientific method.
I believe we are in a “titanic battle” of financial forces/individuals: those who are willing — and are smart enough — to compete in the market place (includes the essential engine of natural energy resources and requires “the scientific method” — truth in observation and data gathering) vs those who have developed using the favors of any government — or religious establishment — for their “profit” (e.g., the entire UN-IPCC boondoggle). Two examples:
1. Previously Anthony has posted on Google’s owners’ skewing their search engine. Take a look at Justin Danhof’s post, “Google Leaves Shareholders in the Dark About Green Investments”: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/google-leaves-shareholders-in-dark-about-green-investments/?singlepage=true. Not only does Google have many “green investments” but a shareholder and member of their board, major venture capitalist John Doerr, does as well. Furthermore, one of Danhof’s main points is that Doerr and Google have many of the same investments, but no one can find out about them. (Read further about John Doerr and his part — and that of government regulations permitting raiding the wealth of established companies — in the earlier high tech bubble.) For what it is worth (not much, I think), I have been using Bing for quite a while, but I am not sure Microsoft is much, if any, better. At least I can support a competitor.
2. The University of California was, I think, the second highest contributor to the Obama campaign, and therefore, hoping to profit from all the “green.energy” investments in their endowment portfolio. How can those “investment funds” keep growing by 8% (or more) per year, enriching administrators first and faculty second without continued government favors? Next, of course, comes the back-scratching science grants and fellowships with their 80% “general operating expenses” margin for the university.
I understand that investigative journalism that explores the economic/financial backing of AGW is not the purpose of WUWT, and much has been made of Al Gore’s “green” financial empire and Cap-and-Trade schemes here, but I hope everyone understands that each time someone comments on “the corruption of science”, they are also commenting on those who intend to take our wealth. The only tactic is transfer of wealth — to the extent we still have any — rather than the production of wealth themselves, thereby enabling us to have the affluence to adapt to (natural) climate change — including perhaps the coming severe Eddy/Landschiedt Minimum — and to minimize the “pollution” caused by our industrious efforts.
This is like the whole of the AGW debate; quite simply there is a lack of quality data. It is imprudent to read too much into one or two examples and one must always bear in mind that correlation does not mean causation.
I find all of this interesting. If I had to bet my house, I would sooner place it on a bet that the sun is the main driver of climate and much more important than GHGs (I do not rule these out from having some effect but I am dubious that their effect is anything like the claimed 33 degC of warming). The role of the oceans (which are huge solar reservoirs and have stored so much energy over thousands and thousands of years) will no doubt play a significant role in future events.
Whilst we are better equipped (with modern technologies than we were in the late 1600s/1700s) I for one would not like to see a new LIA. I have no doubt that cold is bad and warm is good. A global drop of 1 degC is likely far more harmful than a global rise of 3 degC.
Given the general lack of understanding of how Earth’s climate works and is driven and since we can do nothing about the sun, we shall have to wait and see how this all pans out.
How does Svensmark move from the simple assertion that cloudiness increases when the sun is quiet to the observed changes in surface pressure distribution and changes in jetstream behaviour ?
His concept is curiously incomplete in my humble opinion.
Steeptown says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am
“The real question is how quickly it could happen.”
In my humble opinion, it has been happening for a few years. St. Louis has suffered some horrendously bitter winters in recent years, reminiscent of 1976-1979. Their temperatures remain below “normal.” Arguments from Global Average Temperature are arguments from fictional premisses.
Don K says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:41 am
“But still, the climate of the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been dramatically awful or Europeans would not have colonized New England and the Hudson River valley.”
Interesting observation but a tad subjective. Have you visited Toronto in February? Seems to me that no rational people would colonize it today.
Don
I found your article very interesting and I am concerned by what appears to be a slumbering sun. That said, I do not understand how people are prepared to make such far reaching statements with such certainty attached to those statements when neither cause nor effect is (well) known or understood.
For example, you correctly note that “The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD” Given that statement, it is difficult to see how you can make such a bold statement as “So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists.”
Does it definitely exist? How many examples would one wish to see between a quiet sun and low temperatures on Earth before one would say that there is a correlation and this correlation is significant? I agree that presently the cause of any relationship (if there is truely a relationship) is not understood and that being the case all one can say is that a relationship may exist.
I am not saying that there is not a correlation between these two event or that a quiet sun will not lead to cooler temperatures on Earth. It is just that I am uncertain and being sceptical of the AGW theorem, I am also sceptical of bold pronouncements such as those set out in your Article (other than I fully agree that cold is bad and that cold is much more of a concern to mankind). .
One challenge here, as much as I support the general concept……
Solar cycle 19, which peaked in 1957-58, was the highest in modern records.
“BargHumer says:
I see a problem here in that the “Warmists” have been handed a big “get out of jail free” card because the fact that the climate cools is linked strongly to sunspots, but their “AGW” problem still exists so that when the climate recovers, all that extra CO2 will make us heat up again rather quickly, and fry!”
No, this is not true, see my previous comment. GHGs retain heat, heating will not accelerate faster because of them once SW absorption picks back up.
The cooling would hide the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn’t turned off and the turned back on.
In 2002 Micheal E. Mann also wrote about the little ice age. If you google “Little Ice Age Michael E. Mann” you can find the pdf. In it he talks about increased variability of climate for example “A severe winter preceded the hot summer that precipitated the great fire of London in 1666”. He has in interesting chart showing that “peak maximun cooling occurred at quite different times throughout the Northern Hemisphere”. At the end he of course has to add “This unusual period in climate history occurred before the likely influence of human activity (e.g,. the burning of fossil fuels associated with the industrial revolution).” No matter what you think of him, it’s an interesting read.
A torturous cause and effect should be avoided if a simple, clear, and strong cause and effect is at hand. Earth is a highly variable planet in its own right and has the energy chops to make global warming and cooling occur without need of a varying Sun or varying CO2 equation. And even then, the potential driving force of a varying Sun or varying CO2 is much smaller than the very noisy planet we live on.
Here in the Northwest, USA, we are having record cold temps. And the driving force is clearly the cold pool of water off our coastline, compliments of La Nina’s fickle and long appearance, driven to this state by the oscillating trade winds.
With regards to the relationship between climate and solar activity – is it possible that the sun’s influence on drastic cooling and warming are not equal. I see a lot of effort from the AGW side to illustrate a lack of solar influence on warming, and on this side the fairly evidence of the sun’s role in the drastic cooling of the LIA.
C Porter says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:07 am
If we are now able to predict a solar sunspot minimum in advance of its occurrence, perhaps we should also be allowed to name it in advance of its arrival. Not withstanding the rights of the scientists who proposed its existence to name it, I propose that the readers of WUWT may wish to make a few suggestions.
My contribution is “The Climate Stupidity Minimum”
How about Jim Hansen’s Folly??
This might knock some sense into the alarmists.
No. It won’t.
Their fanatical belief will not be upset by a few “crackpot theories.”
Tallbloke writes “The numerical model I created”
How did you validated your model? Have you used it to predict the future, and then compared the predicted results with what actually happend? If you have done this, do your predicted results agree tihe the observed data? And have you done this a sufficient number of times so that the agreement could not be coincidental, at the 5 sd level? If you have not, then I suspect what you model predicts is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.
“Interesting observation but a tad subjective. Have you visited Toronto in February? Seems to me that no rational people would colonize it today.”
I live in one of the colder parts of New England — about 80 km SSE of Montreal. Toronto is kind of warm by comparison. People managed to grow crops here and North of here in Lower Canada in the 18th Century. Quebec City was founded in 1608, so farming there must have been practical even in the early 17th Century. What held up settlement in this part of the US wasn’t the climate — dreadful though it was and is. It was the fact that the area was a no-mans land between the French in the St Lawrence Valley and the British in the Connecticut and Hudson valleys — not to mention the Iroquois Confederation and the Algonquin who did not live together in harmony.
David Wright says:
June 17, 2011 at 4:50 am
“Correlation is not causation.” I don’t know how many times I have come across that phrase on this site, but it’s a lot.
+1 and it rubs both ways, we have 2 competing or mutally opposite theories, only hard evidence will show if only one or both are true. If temps drop its the sun, if thay rise then its CO2, if temps flatline then both are true.
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:19 am
Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?
Why would these people say in the same report say we were returning to the climate of 400 years ago?
Even the NAS and NOAA in a 1975 Newsweek article point out a drop in temperature. It was not a myth.
Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:02 am
jim,
you are right about caution. anything we think and say will probably wrong, in the light of better data and models in the future.
Me thinks that applies to CAGW as well. and politicians making pricipitous action based on this half baked CAGW theory with unknown amount of faked data could be the real catastrophe
As you read through the predictions of colder years ahead keep in mind that Florida has no state income tax and real estate is VERY cheap right now.
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated.”
Steve McIntyre, http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/ .
But a return to warming may also be down to the Sun? They dismiss the Sun when warming but are happy to embrace it should we enter another Little Ice Age. Having your cake and eating it.
Few people have the training or the inclination to think about time and climate on a geologic scale. Many AGW proponents remind us of this fact daily–as their discussion focusses on the here and now, and what their models predict for the future. For them, the past is an inconvenience (but nothing that a liberal sprinkling of AGW pixie dust can’t clear up).
IF the solar bubbas are right, and we’re in for a prolonged (by our scale) sun slumber, and IF Professor Easterbrook and others are correct in what that might mean in consequences, then the post-LIA warming may come to be regarded as an anomaly–a slight, temporary, uptick on some future climatologist’s graph.
Don J. Easterbrook wrote: “The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.”
Since the PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific, your prediction is flawed. The following is a graph of North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N, which is the area from which the PDO (the 1st Principle Component of the detrended SST anomalies of that area) is derived. There’s no flip “from warm to cool in 1999”. In reality, SST anomalies there appear to have peaked in 2004:
http://i54.tinypic.com/4uyn4j.jpg
And here’s a graph of the SST anomalies for the North Pacific north of the equator. There’s no flip from “warm to cool in 1999” there either. Like the subset above, the SST anomalies of the North Pacific may have peaked in 2004:
http://i52.tinypic.com/23kaws2.jpg
Also, how did you create the unusual global temperature graph in Figure 5? It appears that the data before the 1997/98 El Niño has been smoothed with a multiyear filter, and after that, you’ve spliced on some unknown data smoothed with a 12-month filter. It really appears contrived, especially the significant response to the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña . Global temperatures did NOT drop back that far. Here’s a comparison of the IPCC multi-model mean for global surface temperatures and Global HADCRUT surface temperature anomaly data. I’ve used HADCRUT because it has the lowest trend of the surface temperature datasets after the 1997/98 El Niño. Both of the datasets are readily available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://i52.tinypic.com/14dk2yr.jpg
The actual dip in global surface temperatures after the 1997/98 El Niño is nowhere close to as deep as the one you’ve shown in your graph.
Last, why would surface temperatures drop as you’ve shown in Figure 5? We’re pretty close to minimum now. Are you expecting TSI to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? If so, on what are you basing that expectation?
Roald says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:14 am
Figure 5 looks very fishy to me. According to it, the 2000s must have been cooler than the 1990s and we know the reverse is true. And in reality the year 2010 tied with 1998 for record high temperature. ..
Yep – I made this point in an earlier post, but I think Easterbrook might be using US temperatures (I’m not sure, though). They clearly fit his 2001 projection better than the global record.
I’m not convinced by a lot of what he’s written. For example
Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes.
Which 20 year period? I would like to see the evidence for this.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then.
According to UAH, 2010 was virtually indistinguishable from the highly anomalous 1998. There has been no statistically significant cooling in any record – and no cooling of any description in some.
I’m also dubious about the solar reconstructions. I can see that this post is appealing to many readers of this blog, but we are already ~5 years in to this minimum (it didn’t start with the AAS announcement) and there’s precious little evidence of a significant downturn in temperatures (and whatever you do – don’t mention the ice).
Roald:
“Blackfoots”, maybe. “Blackfeet”, could be, I dunno. But “Blackfeets”? You been watching too much Tom and Jerry! (ref: “meeces”) : > )
Whatever marginal temperature rise we get from 100ppm of anthropogenic CO2 is going to become a small blessing in disguise if and when there’s a natural shift to a cooler climate. I’m afraid it won’t be nearly enough to halt the large negative effects of a repeat of the Little Ice Age but something is better than nothing.
The Inconvenient Minimum.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:07 am
Thanks Bob, one has to be sceptical about some sceptics’ predictions too.
Wikipedia and his personal home page describes Don Easterbrook as Professor Emeritus. This should probably be corrected here, no?
REPLY: The title is as he wrote it – I’ll leave it to him as to how he wishes to describe himself – Anthony
Interesting correlation and hypothesis. Remember: “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future” (attribution contested: http://www.larry.denenberg.com/predictions.html )
GISS global temp. anomaly for May is 42 (down from 55 in April, a much sharper drop than UAH).
It is just weather.
http://www.arapahoebasin.com/ABasin/snow-conditions/web-cams.aspx
John A says:
I do not wish cooling upon the Earth simply to falsify the Greenhouse hypothesis. The stakes are much higher than the egos of a pampered, delusional few.
Don’t sweat it, 1] whatever cooling happens was going to happen anyway, and we can’t control it except to use our inherent rationality along with its creative, truly scientific process to anticipate it and adjust asap – in spite of the retardant actions of the various “pampered egos” operating directly against these functions; 2] we’re also due for a full-blown glaciation, so any smaller cool down will be a fortunate alert showing everyone else the enlightened way to proceed via real human progress based upon the action of creative, optimistic minds who actually love life and practical actions to support it; and 3] the pampered-ego “throwbacks”, who essentially worship the death and destruction of others as a way to enrich or otherwise gratify themselves in some way, will not be very easily dissuaded from continuing upon their existing course to produce their very own CO2 = CAGW Totalitarian shut down of Humanity, probably easily rivaling the ill-effects of any natural cause, as based upon their own “unnaturally” low lying and low functioning brains.
With apologies, the Universe acts in mysterious but miraculous ways.
Thought it was going to be rabid climate modeller Steve Easterbrook (*) which will undoubtedly have already written a new program to show that if the sun cools down a bit we will fry even faster and that is Much Worse Than We Thought.
* My favourite S Easterbrook quote – made to me directly : ‘Nobody without a PhD in Radiative Physics is even entitled to have an opinion about Climate Change’. The guy’s modesty overwhelms me…….
From many of the proxies I’ve seen the climate has become more variable over the last 2000 years. Some of it appears to be tied to variations in sunspots. Since we are due(?) for another glaciation it begs the question of whether this variation in the Sun may be related to glaciation. I realize the *consensus* gives Milankovitch cycles the honor of producing glaciation, but is it possible a quieter Sun may be a contributing factor?
Do we have any information on sunspot activity during glaciation events? Could it be possible that the combination of the reduced sunspots and axis tilt sets the Earth’s climate up for a jump from one chaotic attractor (interglacial) to another (glaciation)? Lot’s of questions for an enterprising young paleoclimatologist …
See Svensmarks:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Svensmark.pdf
Svensmark says that this: J. R. Herman and R. A. Goldberg in. Sun, Weather and Climate [ Dover Publications, 1985,. 360 pp., originally published as NASA SP-426, GPO, influenced his work. I found it once on a NASA site to download, can’t find it again.
There has been scarfy, intellectually dishonest, whining critics on the AWG side…whose arguements against Svensmark’s work in particular don’t hold up!
Max
Juanslayton, the tribe is called Blackfoot in Canada and Blackfeet in the US.
Mods – this is the corrected post. TNX (if possible, delete this header)
Hmmm … have we here a ‘wolf’ in sheep’s dress? (Hoping to make someone perhaps ‘look bad’, sow seeds of dissent all the while dissembling?)
Been there; see “
Time Magazine and Global Warming” for some fun with the subject plus some serious links in the comments section addressing your ‘debunking’ effort.
Thomas C. Peterson – the infamous “talking points memo” writing Peterson?
As detailed here:
NCDC writes ghost “talking points” rebuttal to surfacestations project
Posted on June 24, 2009 by Anthony Watts
UPDATE: The “ghost author” has been identified, see the end of the article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
A ‘credible’ source to be sure (wink wink).
Another familiar name … let me see, would this be the infamous RC and climate-wikipedia-editing Connelly?
Or another Connolley, wolf?
.
Hi,
My main problem is that he is using a TSI reconstruction that is way out of date and most agree now that TSI does not vary that much. Also the coldest part of the LIA was in the 1815 Tambora eruption. His PDO does not match up. Do get me wrong I think the sun does influence the climate but it looks like he is trying to blame it all on the sun. My two cents.
Jim Arndt
If we are going to name this solar minimum in advance (asuming it is going to continue), my vote is for calling it the VP Al Gore Solar Minimum. That way, everyone is reminded how wrong Gore and all the climate alarmists were about the AGW Theory whenever the Mimimum is mentioned.
“…Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production…”
Not necessarily. Those countries are used to getting by in hard times. “Hardest hit” will be the countries that rely on the the “just in time” supply chain. For the most part they have no alternative method of subsistence since that part of the food infrastructure has long vanished or has been outlawed due to government regulation.
With a population that far exceeds the production ability of the locally generated food system, those regions are the people who will be hardest hit.
Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
John Finn, good scepticism. Do you ever apply it to the IPCC, Jones, and Mann mythology?
Oh wow…
I’m sitting here pondering my last post and it just hit me.
Squirrels and other woodland critters will put on a layer of fat prior to very harsh winters. Is it possible that this instinct is connected… maybe on a subconscious level, to the obesity problems of some western cultures?
(Just a thought)
RR Kampen says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:04 am
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated.”
Steve McIntyre, http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/ .
I agree completely with Steve Mc. I would have terminated their employment the minute I realised they were not worth their salt and their output was, at the very least, not fit for purpose.
If there is some lag in the system (if, indeed there is a system;-) then: 179×2=358 and 2003-1645=358. Just sayin’.
Professor Easterbrook,
I was happy to see your post here at WUWT.
I found your post evocative of cooling concernism, to say the least.
After reading your above post I went back and reviewed your presentation at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC4), May 2010, Chicago, IL [ http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4 ].
I see that in ICCC4 you used 3 of the 5 figures you just used in this current post. Notably you also used your current post’s figure 5 in Chicago. Question: Can you explain the source of your black line (surface temp variation) in figure 5? Particularly, can you explain the source of your surface temp variation data for the period ~1990 to present? NOTE: I noticed that several other commenters here at WUWT have already questioned that part of your figure 5.
Also, another question: The MM causation of the LIA that you explicitly suggest does not appear to be consistent with the time correlation. How do you account for that discrepancy?
Finally, given that you endorse the correlation between the low solar activity and earth cooling, then how do you explain in your ICCC4 presentation (link above) your figure entitled “25 yr warm/cool cycles from 18O isotopes in the Greenland ice core”. The figure I am pointing out occurs about at 09:45 min into your video presentation. That figure appears to me to show some cooling and warm periods do have approximate correlation to solar activity lows and highs respectively BUT it shows to me that some cooling and warm periods do not have correlation to solar activity lows and highs respectively. So it appears to be a wash; therefore I find it difficult to understand when you say there is good correlation between cool periods and low solar activity and likewise I find it difficult to understand when you say there is good correlation between warm periods and high solar activity.
John
Sadly I see a lot of apparent errors/inconsistentcies in Don’s work here. (assessment of changes in PDO, the 20th century sunspot record, temperature record reported in Europe during Maunder, and the instrumental temperature record in figure 5 to name a few). These are inconsistent with the findings of Eddy. Perhaps he could list his specific supporting source documents for these so we could all see where this data is coming from. I too believe we are headed for a break in the 20th century warming but clear verifiable evidence is required on both sides of the AGW question.
kuhnkat says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:19 am
Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
John Finn, good scepticism. Do you ever apply it to the IPCC, Jones, and Mann mythology?
Yes.
On the projected changes chart, the Maunder is not even shown, the worst case scenario is the Dalton. Imagine the depth of the Maunder, it would literally be off that chart.
On that note, after yesterday’s dry cold front passage, we got a good Arctic blast. Lows here in the southern part of coastal Norcal were in the 40s this AM. Used the heat for a short while. Anyone long on JUNE heating degree days for the NW US?
Final note about dry cold fronts. They are more generally associated with early fall, in this area, than they are with spring. I do note some of the more sensitive deciduous trees in my area are just starting to turn.
Please stay away from the Koolaid! Warming or cooling.
Stay skeptical. Alarmist is alarmist no matter the trend.
If it cools, the Greens will shift gears and try to push a UN based world government based on catastrophic cooling rather than warming. Stay objective and skeptical with an open mind.
Stop the hand waving and let’s get back to Science.
RE: JohnA – I do not wish cooling upon the Earth simply to falsify the Greenhouse hypothesis. The stakes are much higher than the egos of a pampered, delusional few.
============================
At stake is the efficacy of Civilization itself.
The “myth” of the global cooling of the ’70s? How old are you? Had you been an adult during that time, I can assure you – you would have heard, seen and read stories warning of the coming ice age. It’s not a “myth”.
“WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” From Orwell’s 1984
“Cold is hot” From the warmers during the next cool period
Jim Cripwell says: “…It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Daeah was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola….”
Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.
The University of California was, I think, the second highest contributor to the Obama campaign, and therefore, hoping to profit from all the “green.energy” investments in their endowment portfolio.
=========================
As a student I was a sort of anarcho conspiracy theorist. I was obsessed with the seeming close relationship between the UC Regents and Hollywood money / the MSM. Maybe there was something to that.
mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am “Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?”
The CIA may be a lot of things, but I am not sure many people would consider them climate science experts. Offering up the CIA as refutation of climate science isn’t a terribly convincing argument, and many would consider it a straw man, but let us not go there.
mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am said “Even the NAS and NOAA in a 1975 Newsweek article point out a drop in temperature. It was not a myth.”
There is no citation here so who knows what was actually said and the full context, but in any given short time period temperatures will rise and temperatures will fall. That NAS and.or NOAA reported that is to be expected, but that doesn’t not support a leap that body of work embodied in the climate science field had it wrong. Nor does it refute the citation I provided above. Many would consider your line of argument a straw man, but let us not go there.
While the LIA started around 1300 and the MM didn’t start until 1645, we can’t say with any certainty that the sun played no role in the cooling from 1300 to 1645. Observations of sun spots did not start until 1610, and by then the number of sun spots had already dropped very low. Much lower than we see today.
Was the period from 1300 to 1610 “normal”, or was it low? We don’t know. Therein lies the problem.
check TSI in figure 2 versus TSI in figure 4.
I suggest that we name this minimum The Obama Minimum.
Another potential name would be The Greenpeace Minimum.
If we wanted to get technical we could call it The Mann Minimum.
Other suggestions?
Josh, do you want to play with this?
Constructive criticism;
You guys need to label the graphs better:
Figure 3 apparently shows both sunspot numbers and temperatures, but no temperature scale is shown.
Also what are GSN and WSN?
Figure 4 -which curve is temperature and which is watts per square meter ?
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
William M. Connolley
The name says it all. Hands up those of us that were actually alive in the 1960’s and 1970’s and remember the hype over global cooling! I was in schools in the 60’s and remember us discussing it at the time.
The problem is that most of the people alive today were born after the 60’s and 70’s, so they fall victim to people like Connolley et al., who doctor Wikipedia and rewrite history to suit their own view of the world. This is nothing new. Stalin rewrote the history of the Soviet Union to suit his purposes. The Church has rewritten history in an effort to clean up its own image. Mann and the IPCC rewrote history with the hockey stick to eliminate the LIA and MVP. Hansen and GISS continue to rewrite history, altering the historical temperature records to “improve” them.
History is not a fine wine. Records do not improve with age. Back in the 70’s science was not nearly as politicized as it is now. Scientists actually understood that there was no significance in scientific consensus. That more often than not, it ends up that 10,000 scientists were wrong and only 1 was right.
Why does climate science use the term “denier”? Stop for a minute and consider the underlying premise behind AGW, the IPCC and climate science. It has nothing to do with climate. The driving force is fear. Fear that: “industrial pollution must be stopped before it kills us”.
Like Lord Voldemort, the name that may not be mentioned, it is this fear of death from industrial pollution that is driving the language. “Denier” is not a reference to climate change, except at a superficial level. Deep down, at a gut level no one talks about, denier is meant in the same context as a holocaust denier. That you are denying the deaths caused by industrial pollution.
It really has very little to do with climate change or sea level rise of ocean acidification, that is simply polite speech for “he who cannot be mentioned”. Fear is driving the crowds, and the predators are taking advantage. Be it through taxes, or subsidies or grants. Like wolves surrounding a herd of sheep, the Al Gores of the world are purposely whipping up the crowd to incite panic, knowing that in the panic it will be much easier to pick of the strays and feast on the spoils.
I think we can survive another little ice age… I think it is just a matter of us making sure that earth will not get “too white” (no racist pun intended). We can do that in the same way as they are removing snow in the nordic countries (salt) or employiing more and better laser beam technology directed to melt snow layers in areas where there are largely thin layers of snow (by using aeroplanes)
kuhnkat
June 17, 2011 at 8:19 am
Dang Bob, you are such a party pooper.
###
He’s just trying to confuse and distract as alarmists are want to do, using the techniques they learned from their Marxist propagandist teachers.
@ aaron
“GHGs retain heat, heating will not accelerate faster because of them once SW absorption picks back up.”
Ok, this Gieco caveman is wondering how you explain this, as the “greenhouse” effect is present regardless of the levels of atmospheric CO2 (natural or man “made”). What puzzles me this most is that “GHG’s retain heat” remark….dazzle me with your insight.
Michael Mann claims increased volcanic activity, not reduced solar activity, caused the cooler temperatures during the Little Ice Age.
Is that right?
Looking for some help from community here – is there a proven correlation between solar activity and recent changes in the earth’s temperature? (seems like there would be)
If volcanic activity did cause the LIA, what explains the cooler temperatures during the Dalton Minimum? If anyone can point me toward some research I would very much appreciate it!!
Thanks
Matt
Ref- Mann cites volcanoes as the cause of the Little Ice Age – http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/
LOL. Don’t worry, I won’t mention that the Arctic sea ice is running at or close to record low levels according to all major research institutes despite the alleged global cooling.
John Finn says: “I’m also dubious about the solar reconstructions.”
Yup. Figure 4 uses the outdated TSI reconstruction of Hoyt and Schatten. I added that to the comments I just published on this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/
Interesting post, but of course purely based on speculation of 2 different levels of what “might” happen.
1) Will we indeed see a Maunder type minimum over then next few decades? Still quite unknown and speculation we might, is just that, speculation that we “might”.
2) If we do see a Maunder type minimum in sunspots, will this necessarily lead to cooler temps? Again, pure speculation not based on any quantifiable effects.
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap. How this will mitigate the effects of any diminished solar activity is also not known.
Finally, I think the temperature graphs used in Dr. Don Easterbrook’s post are a bit skewed in the sense that they don’t give a true picture of the global warming we’ve seen over the last few decades, and don’t accurate portray the fact that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record and it certainly occurred after 1998, which he seems to want to suggest was the high water mark and a “gradually deepening cooling since then” (his words exactly). Well Dr. Easterbrook, how can the decade of 2000-2009 be the warmest on record with a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998? Doesn’t seem to make much sense. One alternative to Dr. Easterbrook’s temperature graph would be this one from NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201105.gif
Which of course, doesn’t show Dr. Easterbrook’s “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998.
And interesting post by Dr. Easterbrook, but one that has a lot of “what if’s” related to the sun, and seems to get neglect that fact that, at least according to the data, we have not seen a gradually deepening cooling since 1998.
DesertYote says: “He’s just trying to confuse and distract as alarmists are want to do, using the techniques they learned from their Marxist propagandist teachers.”
I assume the “He” in that sentence is me. I’m a lukewarmer, not an alarminst or marxist propagandist. Your comment made me laugh, by the way. If you’re not aware, Anthony regularly cross posts my posts here at WUWT. An alarmist would not have ended a post about this…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/comments-on-easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/
…with:
Arguments about anthropogenic global warming cannot be won by misrepresenting the PDO, or by using outdated TSI data, or by creating unusual global temperature anomaly graphs that are obviously wrong to anyone familiar with the instrument temperature record.
Have a good day.
RE: Steven Mosher
“check TSI in figure 2 versus TSI in figure 4.”
Another biggie. Wow! Good catch Mosh. Was this a test to see if anyone would notice?
Roald says:
“…Arctic sea ice is running at or close to record low levels…”
What “record” are you referring to? The sattelite record since 1979?
Dr Easterbrook shows the temperature record back to the MWP. And the Holocene had much warmer periods than today. Any thinking person would conclude that during those climate optimums the Arctic had less ice than today. It may have been completely ice-free. Thus, your extremely short ‘record’ is meaningless.
The current Arctic climate is completely normal. There is zero evidence that CO2 is causing the ice to decline. It is simply natural variability. Because CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, the Antarctic would be declining like the Arctic if CO2 was the cause. But the Antarctic is not losing ice like the Arctic, which is losing ice because of ocean currents.
I believe Easterbrook is onto to something significant. I’m stunned more “scientists” don’t put more weight on the sun. For instance, one need only look at the solar system itself to understand the power of the sun and its effect or lack of effect on the planets. Having said that however, I’ve long been a proponent of the historical earth and its many ice ages and indeed the warm periods in between. Periods no one understands while seemingly ignoring the triggers that caused both effects (ice and warm) on the planet in their original timelines. Which says to me we as humans don’t understand the forces that shape out system well enough to make claims such as the AGW side do constantly. Easterbrook on the other hand, actually talks about the historical earth, its effect on both the planet itself and the humans in that time frame. Hard won history – history on a human scale our ancestors survived through – a history Easterbrook warms us all is indeed possible.
Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gasses cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C. So what’s all this talk from the AGW side about CO2 mitigating cooling? And the CO2 talk here? I though folks here understood CO2 isn’t the driving force claimed by the warmest fanatics. Am I wrong? If so where?
The globe experienced the 10th warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, as the climate phenomenon La Niña ended its 2011 cycle. The Arctic sea ice extent was the third smallest extent for May on record.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110615_globalstats.html
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:29 am
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap.
=================================================
Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/11/illustration-of-mans-co2-contribution/
TomB says @ June 17, 2011 at 8:50 am “The “myth” of the global cooling of the ’70s? How old are you? Had you been an adult during that time, I can assure you – you would have heard, seen and read stories warning of the coming ice age. It’s not a “myth”.”
Hi Tom – I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling. That is a BIG difference.
I think we’d both agree the MSM isn’t wonderfully reliable in their reporting.
Anyway – thanks for the note back.
Enough with this frivolity that I started on this blog of naming the next minimum.
There are many fine scientists living or now gone who would thoroughly deserve attribution, such as Landscheidt who has been mentioned a couple of times, or even Svenmark whose work may ultimately prove the connection between the sun’s quiescent state as measured by sunspot count and climate.
So apologise to these great men for the nonsense that I started.
Henry Galt:
“If there is some lag in the system (if, indeed there is a system;-) then: 179×2=358 and 2003-1645=358. Just sayin’.”
We could call that the “Fairbridge” lag then?
jorgekafkazar states
“Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.”
Of course. That is the whole point. Does the anecdotal data, and a little bit of quantitative data, support the idea that the Black Death was cause by bubonic plague, or an Ebola type virus? Modern evidence suggest that what little data is available supports the idea that it is extremely unlikely that bubonic plague was the cause; a more likely explanation is that Black Death was caused by an Ebola type virus.
I just want to throw my two cents in about the 70s also. I was in college during that time and interviewed a dozen or so climate experts for a research paper and every one of them said the earth was cooling and we were headed for massive trouble. Back then we didn’t have the internet and easy communications to form real or fake “consensus” claims but it sure seems alot of people now are going out of the way to try to disprove the obvious (to those of us who were there) that there was not a global cooling consensus (or a mini-consensus at least).
richardM,
The greenhouse effect acts on LW radiation which is emitted from the earth, and which is much more stable than the amount of SW radiation reaching the surface. LW radiation from the surface should not fall and LW radiation in the atmosphere will fall negligably (the atmosphere isn’t very big relative to the mass of the earth, so the temp change will not reduce LW radiation much).
I think you mis-undertood what I wrote. I assumed we’d see about the same warming over the next 20 years for simplicity. It’s most certainly is an over estimate as we seem to be approaching a limit on emissions growth, concentrations have been increasing almost linearly (actually at a declining rate), and as concentrations increase the effect of additional CO2 on temp decreases. I wouldn’t totally rule out the possibility that emissions growth may increase (perhaps there is a lot more oil, coal, and gas to be discovered than we think), but it doesn’t seem likely in the near term.
Wil
Good comment. The notion that the scientific community understands climate in any real sense is grossly complacent at best and fraudulent at worst. The history of ice ages (real, not “mini”) in the last million years or so is very complex, with some intermittent correlation with Croll-Milankovich orbital cycles (eccentricity in particular) but many departures from regular frequency and huge variation to the point that a repeating cycle of glacial / interglacial is barely discernible above noise. Despite this, there is a childishly simple and complacent idea being promoted that the current interglacial will – bizzarely – continue for 50,000 yrs, based on a simplistic monofactorial interpretation of the current node of minimal eccentricity amplitude. This assumes that this parameter can accurately predict the start and end of all recent interglacials which is patently nonsense.
But it is convenient to suppress discussion of the only real climate catastrophe scenario – the abrupt fall in temps of 3-4 c that occurs at the start of each slide from interglacial to full on ice age.
However it is a real possibility that cooling from the impending dropout of two or more solar cycles, which is now practically certain, could end the current interglacial. There is no good reason to be shy of discussing this.
“Stop the hand waving and let’s get back to Science.”
Have you ever noticed that one side rants and raves and calls for ignoring tangible evidence contrary to their position, that when presented with a large, hard to ignore problem that shoots a hole in their position, that instantly they call for civility or something similar to the above quote?
ferd berple says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:01 am
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
William M. Connolley
The name says it all. Hands up those of us that were actually alive in the 1960′s and 1970′s and remember the hype over global cooling! I was in schools in the 60′s and remember us discussing it at the time.
I remember the BBC documentary (thats an embarassment they prefer to forget 😉 ) and the mention of it in science lessons. It was no myth and considering the last 100K years temp history its still the long term threat even if it takes another 10K years before an Ice age returns.
Latitude says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:59 am
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:29 am
On top of all this of course is the fact that we have 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last time the sun took a little nap.
=================================================
Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL
________
How is stating a fact, a scare tactic? I think it is important to note all the differences between now and the last time we had a Maunder Minimum (assuming of course, that we do have a Maunder type minimum). A sleepy sun could be a huge opportunity to test many theories and measure quantifiable effects from changes in solar output GCR/cloud interactions, etc., and it is also vital to note other differences between now and the last time such a sleepy sun presented itself.
Latitude says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:59 am
“Gates, you say that on almost every post you make……
….is that some sort of scare tactic? LOL”
It the most favorite of the Gatesisms.
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:53 am
mkelly says @ June 17, 2011 at 6:58 am “Then why did the CIA write a report in 1974 saying that “The western world’s leading climatologist’s have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change.” ie cooling if it was not true?”
The CIA may be a lot of things, but I am not sure many people would consider them climate science experts.
MR, do you even bother reading the posts before you respond to them?
Nobody claimed the CIA has expertese in climate.
Even the CIA isn’t claiming any expertese in climate.
What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:40 am
“The current Arctic climate is completely normal.”
_____
Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June. So I guess it’s normal in the fact that it’s continuing the long-term decline that we’ve seen over the past few decades. Yes, you’re right, the record low sea ice for this date that continues the long-term pattern of declining sea ice is normal.
It is invigorating that WUWT can present an excellent research paper from one field and provide the opportunity for researchers from that one and others to critique it. This openness can make it difficult for presenters, but it also offers the possibility for better research in each field. I imagine Anthony will provide Don Easterbrook the opportunity to answer objections regarding TSI reconstructions, relating TSI to temperature reconstructions, use of PDO for SeaSurfaceTempature, and a number of others. The science in the different fields — I am partial to geology — can only improve as it fits and “collides” with that in others. (I am not commenting on the trolls that appear, but on those commenters who have done their due diligence and want accuracy from their perspective.) Thanks to all.
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing. They do nothing to Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and climate. PDO peak in 2004 instead of 1999 – right, but so what, the cooling after 1908 equal 0.3 degrees rather than 0.5 degrees, right – but so what ,we are still slipping into a cooling. . If we consider the LIA as starting near 1300, and if my guess at phasing is correct, we were 1/2 way from peak to valley of the ca 1000 year cycle, at the bottom of 60 year and Jose cycles and had the Wolf shallow grand minimum very nearly coincident, so clearly a cool period. Now we are farther from the bottom of the ca 1000 year cycle, but have a deep grand minimum, so cooler than the 1300 cooling but not as cool as the Maunder. I expect that the crop line is going to move a long way south though, – already happening in Canada.
Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
Iben Browning was predicting a coming cool down back in the 80’s but his was based more upon solar system obital alignments and their grvitational effects upon Earth’s magma and susequent volcanic eruptions which would lead to less TSI reaching the planet. I attended a few of his presentations and though not so much believable, they were very well done and entertaining. Looks like he was possibly on the right track but for the wrong reasons. His bottom line was solar radiance even though he figured the reduction would be due to SO2 and particulate matter.
The IPCC projection in the last chart is also dubious, also tagging it to 1998 is just plan wrong.
The outdated and INCONSISTENT TSI figures and the dubious last chart… I’d consign this post to the trash bin
While weeding in my garden I was explaining to a turnip that it was lucky humans obeyed their Creator and were fruitful and multiplied, because in the process they had created extra CO2 which not only made turnips grow faster, but also might lessen the amount temperatures would drop due to the quiet sun.
The turnip replied that what was good for turnips was also good for weeds.
I had to admit the turnip had a point, but I didn’t like its tone, so I ate it.
One little error. The Vikings in Greenland is mentioned in a paragraph which refers to the Maunder Minimum. While the Little Ice Age affected the Vikings, the Maunder Minimum was after the 1400s.
I agree with Gates that CO2 has risen by ≈40% over the past century and a half. But that rise doesn’t show what Gates thinks it does. What it clearly shows is that CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature.
After a substantial two-fifths rise in CO2, according to the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW conjecture temperatures should be in an accelerating rise. In fact, just the opposite is occurring. The mildly rising temperature trend line from the 1600’s [the LIA] is not accelerating [note the comment in red font below the chart].
Rational folks will see that CO2 is not causing the trend line to rise, thus the demonization of harmless, beneficial “carbon” is a scam. Gates can’t see why his CO2 scare is debunked by this fact. But others can see.
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 10:42 am “What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.”
It does? That would be interesting to read, but since there is no reference it is hard to do. Which leaves several open questions on your assertion.
What experts?
How many experts?
What confidence level?
Was it the consensus of all the best available information?
What duration of cooling was projected?
Etc…
Thanks for the note back and enjoy your Friday (or what ever data and time it happens to be when you read this)
Murray says @ June 17, 2011 at 11:00 am “Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.”
Now that is an interesting thing to think about – is there a reference you can share which documents that the wind pattern is the only cause? i’d really enjoy learning more about that.
Glacier Bay, Alaska…
1794 – Entirely covered in ice up to 4,000 feet thick, extending more than 100 miles inland to the St. Elias mountains.
1879 – Open water 30 miles inland.
1924 – Open water 65 miles inland.
Timeline not a good correspondence with figure 2. Or with AGW – open water since 1924 has remained fairly constant. This isn’t an alpine glacier, but if all is Sol, would the Pacific Ocean have stayed warm in the Dalton?
Regarding sea ice: Check the “Sea Ice Page.” Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.
To me it seems it was already getting slushy, and was 40% open water, at this time in 2007, while it is more solid this year.
However the news about the sun seems far more interesting than news about the ice. You can only watch ice melt for so long, before you start to crave more stimulating subjects.
The people who have a financial interest in AGW (excuse me, climate change) are not going to take this sitting down. Expect the most vicious attacks imaginable and more over the next few weeks and months.
[quote]jorgekafkazar says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:51 am
Jim Cripwell says: “…It reminds me of how everyone “knows” that the Black Death was caused by bubonic plague. This was based on a guess at the end of the 19th century, when bubonic plague was found, and for the first time a possible reason for the Black Death was discovered. Most data is anecdotal. Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola….”
Utter nonsense. The symptoms of ebola and the Black Death are different, the period from onset to death is different.[/quote]
Not to mention that Ebola is a virus, Y. pestis is a bacterium.
But while we’re on the subject, the plague comes back to haunt us during cold periods. Examining the history of the cyclical nature of plague, it’s interesting to note that The Plague of Justinian struck during the 6th and 7th centuries. But from 750 AD to the onset of the Black Death in c. 1348, we don’t hear about it. Not once. What was going on then? Well, the Medieval Warm Period, of course.
After the Black Death, other major outbreaks of plague include:
London, 1603
Italian Plague, 1629-1631
Plague of Seville, 1647-1652
Plague of London. 1665-1666 (the only thing that stopped it was the Great Fire in September 1666)
Vienna, 1679
Marseilles, 1720-1722
Eastern Europe, 1738
Russia, 1770-1772
Then it quiets down until 1890 when it hits China, and again in 1903 when it comes to the US. All cold periods.
Crops began to fail due to bad weather even before the LIA. People were nourished and ill to begin with–easy prey for plague. Also, the rat population and/or the flea population must have exploded prior to that. What caused it? Well, the current thinking is that winter snowpack plays a role in summer soil moisture, which in turn affects the growth of fleas and the vegetation the rodents use for food. In other words, cold, wet ground is a breeding ground for fleas. In this case, warming decreases the flea population and decreases the chances of infecting rodents. See here:
http://www.ajtmh.org/content/61/5/814.full.pdf+html
Rats entering homes to stay warm is another means of transmission.
That there is a link between disease and climate is indisputable. There may well have been earlier outbreaks prior to Constantinople during Justinian’s time; we just don’t have enough evidence right now to show one way or the other that it was plague and not another newly virulent strain of virus or bacteria like measles.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:23 am
I agree with Gates that CO2 has risen by ≈40% over the past century and a half. But that rise doesn’t show what Gates thinks it does. What it clearly shows is that CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature.
===============================================================
But it’s so scary when you say increased 40%…….
……40% of nothing is still nothing…………………………0.039%
Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing.
Not so. Most of the data used to produce the graphs in the post is either suspect or, at best, outdated.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
The IPCC projection in the last chart is also dubious, also tagging it to 1998 is just plan wrong.
The outdated and INCONSISTENT TSI figures and the dubious last chart… I’d consign this post to the trash bin
You beat me to it. The post is an embarrassment.
Moderate Republican says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count.
Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.
Why do I suspect that nomatter how far we go down this rabbit hole, you will always find one more irrelevant reason to dismiss the report.
Hi Tom – I am not saying it is a myth that the media talked a lot about it, but it appears that is it a myth that the body of scientific work at the time was focused on global cooling.
So it’s a myth that Hansen gave testimony in front of congress talking about the coming ice age? (Yes, the same Dr. Hansen that is now claiming the earth is about to boil away.)
Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.
40% CO2 may or may not be a scare tactic.
But this definitely is. Especially when you fail to mention that “ever” only includes the period since 1979.
It’s doubly a scare tactic when you fail to mention that the period included since 1979 only includes the warm phase of a single PDO cycle. Let’s wait at least until we finish a single full PDO cycle before we start declaring we know anything about sea ice extants.
Murray says: “Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing. They do nothing to Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and climate.”
Easterbrook’s main point about solar cycles and global temperature is also flawed. If you’re not aware of it, the TSI reconstruction data he used in Figure 4 is obsolete. The Hoyt and Schatten TSI dataset was created to reinforce the AGW proposition that global temperatures were governed by variations in TSI until the 1970s, and that after that, AGW caused global temperatures to rise. Somehow Easterbrook is now attempting to use that reconstruction to reinforce natural variability. Also, please let me know what global temperature reconstruction he presented in Figure 4. It’s not identified in the post. I could find no mention of a source in the references he provided. Without a source, it’s simply unjustified wiggles on a graph.
You continued, “PDO peak in 2004 instead of 1999 – right, but so what, the cooling after 1908 equal 0.3 degrees rather than 0.5 degrees, right…”
I did not write that the PDO peaked in 2004 instead of 1999. I provided graphs of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, not the PDO. The PDO does not represent the SST of the North Pacific. In fact, on a decadal basis, the PDO is inversely related to detrended North Pacific SST anomalies. That means, again over decadal time spans, if the PDO is rising, the detrended North Pacific SST anomalies are falling, lowering the impact of the North Pacific on global temperatures.
You continued, “but so what ,we are still slipping into a cooling.”
We are? Please identify which global surface temperature anomaly dataset you’re referring to.
phlogiston
May I say I find your comment very enlightening and satisfying indeed. While we must fight today’s AGW nonsense every step of the way this planet has a story to tell few of us even consider with due diligence. I am far from satisfied with us as a species knowing full well the volatile history of this planet and the fact of how little we understand or even allow into the conversation why and how ice ages and the inner-spaced warm periods triggered. If we don’t understand the historical facts how can we possible understand the present? This has confused me my entire life to this point in time. I am grateful to WUWT for allowing me to read some of the most informed people on this planet.
Caleb says @ June 17, 2011 at 11:37 am “Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.”
Wouldn’t the long term trend be the better measurement, since there can be substantial year to year variation? Ditto for looking at just one point or region?
Just seems like picking any year on year comparison or one geo location leaves open (which I am not saying you are doing) cherry picking of the data by either side of the debate.
Jim Arndt says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:05 am
My main problem is that he is using a TSI reconstruction that is way out of date and most agree now that TSI does not vary that much.
Indeed, the TSI constructions are obsolete. The old reconstructions all relied on a sharp increase in TSI during the first 3/4 of the 20th century. This increase did not happen. There are sevearl lines of evidence for that. Here is from a very recent analysis of the solar ‘network’ since 1915 [Peter Foukal, ApJ, 733:L38 (4pp), 2011 June 1]:
“Solar activity minima between 1914 and 1996 exhibit no significant secular increase in f (Foukal & Milano 2001). This argues against a secular increase of TSI due to increasing network area during the 20th century, as proposed in addition to 11 year TSI modulation by Lean et al. (1995) and by Lockwood & Stamper (1999). This finding from archival solar images is supported by the subsequent reconsideration of such additional secular solar brightening over the past century (Lean et al. 2002; see also Svalgaard & Cliver 2010).”
With this realization the rest of the article falls apart.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
_____
And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.
R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
Don’t be coy. We all know why you prefer the former. It sounds like such a much larger number.
Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:00 am
Smokey – low sea ice extent because the wind pattern has been compacting the ice, not because it is warm.
_____
Murray you are complete mistaken about this. That “wind compacting the ice” happens…but is not the reason the sea ice has been declining over the past few decades. Permafrost is also melting, and it’s a bit hard for the wind to get underground to do that. The arctic is warming Murray…all the data tell us that, and to believe different is to believe something that is in error.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:04 am
“How does Svensmark move from the simple assertion that cloudiness increases when the sun is quiet to the observed changes in surface pressure distribution and changes in jetstream behaviour ?”
“His concept is curiously incomplete in my humble opinion.”
The jetstream is the main source of convection and clouds on the planet away from the tropics. The planet is narrow at the poles and wide at the equator, so the position of jetstream to the north or South covers different areas of the surface. The further North the jet stream position the less area of the planet it covers. Therefore just positioning the jetstream further South increases cloud albedo because it covers a greater surface of the planet.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
“lowest… ever”?? What a preposterous statement. No credibility there.
I still find the worry about the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since x really funny.
1) It is only a data span of ~32 years.
2) If it was a weather staton these records would be broken regularly in a period of just ~32 years.
3) The lowest extent only comes up when the volume isn’t.
4) The lowest volume only comes up when the extent isn’t.
5) Any extent between September and March not including them, has little bearing on the start and end.
6) The September extent has little bearing on the extent after the following Winter.
7) There is scientific evidence of ice-free Arctic periods before and much warmer times.
8) A ice-free Arctic during Summer would be very short and refreeze quicker with more open water exposed to a rapid solar energy loss. (more heat loss from ocean)
9)It is a serious clutching at straws that an ice-free Arctic over a very short period during Summer would even be a problem. (only thing anyone concerned can think of is the polar bears, they can survive for months without food and swim hundreds of miles.)
10)The Ice would still refreeze to a great area by the end of Winter. (the rapid solar energy lost is too great)
The Arctic ice from just ~32 years has nothing to do with this incomparable period over 400 years. (topic of this thread)
Regarding Figure 5, he presents it as his 1999 idea of what would happen. It seems to have been wrong in the first ten years after that. This explains why it doesn’t show that the 2000’s were not warmer than the 90’s. I don’t know where the red IPCC line would come from. No IPCC line should have wiggles in the future. I think it is hand-drawn because some gradients look implausibly steep.
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is, as temp isn’t increasing over previous years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
Also, the Antarctic is riding just above average again. So, whatever’s going on in the Arctic seems confined to there.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
Whilst I can only assume that your reference to differing TSI values is supposed to be important – I can’t see that it’s relevant. I took the point of the graphs to be ‘graphical’ representations of the shapes and their correlation but maybe I’m not looking hard enough?
I do agree that Fig 5 seems to be a hocus pocus mix-up – but presumably, as an illustrative graph it does have some (limited) merit.
Speaking of solar variation vs variations on earth: Just today I noticed that stratospheric cooling actually happened in two steps after El Chichon and Pinatubo (this has of course been noticed before, but alarmists prefer to talk about a downward trend and give CO2 the blame). The reason is that the volcanoes depleted the stratosphere of ozone, so after an initial fast warming, the stratosphere cooled to a level a step below the level before the eruption. Could it be that the stratospheric cooling caused tropospheric warming, and not vice versa? I.e. that big eruptions actually warm the earth in the long run? Of course, if UV and its absorption
In the stratosphere is more crucial than previously thought, that may also mean that UV variations in sunlight may be driving climate changes as well.
Hi Mark – thanks for the response.
I think you are a touch confused here.
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 10:42 am “What the report does say is that the CIA talked to the people who are experts, and here’s what they had to say.”
and then said;
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 12:04 pm “First you complain that since the CIA aren’t climate experts, there opinion doesn’t count. Now you say that since the report doesn’t list the experts that it talked to, it’s opinion doesn’t count.”
I’m just responding to your assertion that it is revelant, so I’m responding to you. I’m just looking to learn from the report since you say it is relevant to the broader conversation here then I am assuming it is.
I haven’t seen the report since it isn’t cited, but expressing concerns that the CIA is generally not considered to be a primary source of climate expertise would seem to be a valid expression. Without seeing any evidence of where the supposed conclusion that the CIA reached was drawn from in the report harboring some skepticism (and skepticism is cool here, yes) would seem to be consistent, no?
Anyway, thanks for the response.
Dave Springer says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
R.Games
40% of next to nothing is still next to nothing.
Instead why don’t you say there is 0.01% more CO2 than there was during the last grand minimum? That’s a perfectly accurate thing to say.
______
Saying there is .01% more CO2 (as you suggest) now than during the last Grand Minimum would be completely wrong. Why would I want to say that? Not sure what data you’re using but it’s not accepted by…pretty much anyone, wherever it came from. We’ve got the highest CO2 levels in at least 800,000 years, and 40% more than we had during the last “Little Ice Age”. Now those two statements are accurate.
Leif: Glad you made an appearance. In my critique of this post at my blog I wrote, Don Easterbrook’s Figure 5 shows global temperatures dropping in the future. Why would they drop? We’re pretty close to solar minimum now. Is TSI expected to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? I’ve never seen this discussed in any paper presented about the current solar minimum. Therefore, where do these expectations of decreased TSI come from?
My question for you, Leif: are we expecting TSI to drop below its “normal” cycle minimum during the upcoming cycles?
I also want to know where he gets his 4 C cooler LIA from. This is the first time I have seen a figure for the LIA of this size, and it is probably a typo for 0.4 C. Most paleo proxies have been putting it at 0.5 C below average at most.
Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is,
_____
Not hard at all…the Arctic is, and has been for some time, warming even faster than the rest of the planet. This has affected everything from sea ice to permafrost. If you can try to disentangle your mind from your political beliefs, you might actually find the truth is quite enlightening.
See: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
“The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred.”
Some AGW proponent may suggest that all these event were compatible with a “Global Warming Scenario”. In fact since then the Earth has been warming. Thank God.
R Gates says:
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
Read the first paragraph [in red]: click The whole article is worthwhile.
The conclusion is worth reading, too. Gates will dismiss it because his mind is made up, but John Daly knew what he was talking about. Which is why Phil Jones practically stood up and cheered at the news of Daly’s passing.
Found the “starting treitise” which helped motivate Svensmark.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790012790_1979012790.pdf
Complete download of a 400 page book!
Good empirical work. What Svensmark has done is to:
1. Run his own experiments (“Sky” experiments, in the basement of his building in Denmark, using a modified “Wilson Cloud Chamber”…using water, not Ethanol)
2. Produced the elegant paper (Oct 2009 I believe) linking Forebush decreases in Cosmic rays (caused by massive solar flares, creating a temporary peak in solar wind), showing a clear correllation in decrease in cloud cover (by about 14%, HUGE!) with a 5 day lag time on the bottom of the Forebush decrease.
3. Stimulated the $40,000,000 CERN “Cloud” experiments, about which we only know THEY HAVE BEEN DONE, and we are eagerly awaiting the reports.
It is interesting that Wilson orginally invented the Cloud chamber, specifically to study the formation conditions for CLOUDS. When the world became aware of ionizing radiation from radioactive substances, Wilson wondered what they would do to the clouds in his cloud chamber. Turns out that they showed nice little trails of CONDENSATION of “saturated vapor” along the run of the ionizing species. Cloud chambers began to be used to monitor Cosmic rays. Prior to Crockoft and Watson’s development of the modern accelerator, clound chambers on the ground and in balloons were the first method of doing “high energy particle physics”. Wilson was given the Noble prize in Physics in 1927 for the Cloud Chamber.
So now we come FULL CIRCLE, matching the largest accellerators in the world, with the largest CLOUD chamber. Not for “particle physics”, but more the physics of particles. I.e., condensation particles. And the end result goes back to what Wilson originally was interested in: Formation of clouds!
Thank you Dr. Wilson. And thank you Dr. Svensmark.
The science behind the projected cooling is as flaky as the science behind AGW except for one thing. The PDO modes do coincide with rises and falls in apparent global temperatures and the Atlantic MO does appear to have a cycle but not very marked. IF the sun is a major contributor to climate change, and I’m prepared to think it might be, then one might argue that any drop in temperatures in the future should provide some indication of the significance of CO². Sadly it won’t because the ‘input parametres’ are never the same for each phase change in the climate drivers and as a result we will never be able to DEFINITIVELY say that CO² equals xx.x°C/ppm. Thus the alarmist corporations will be able to force their believe systems and taxes upon. In France, I have suggested that will wheel out the guillotine one more time starting in Brussels and working our way back to Paris.
By the way, this brand new study:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
Would seem to put yet one more kink in Dr. Eastbrook’s contention that we’ve seen a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998, as the last 5 years since 2005 have been the warmest in 2000 years in the Arctic. I’d love to hear his explanations as to why this would be if we’ve supposedly seen a “gradually deepening cooling” since 1998. Of course, a warming arctic is one of the early indicators of AGW, according to every global climate model.
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:40 am
How is stating a fact, a scare tactic?
======================================================================
No one’s falling for it………………………….
HenryP says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:02 am
I think we can survive another little ice age… I think it is just a matter of us making sure that earth will not get “too white” (no racist pun intended). We can do that in the same way as they are removing snow in the nordic countries (salt) or employiing more and better laser beam technology directed to melt snow layers in areas where there are largely thin layers of snow (by using aeroplanes)
==================================================
That would have very little impact on growing seasons or desertification. Those issues would still exist, millions if not billions would perish. We live in a very populated world with JIT supply chains. There is no buffer.
Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
If this is the case, it is not hard at all to understand why the sea ice would be running so low.
You said my mind is “made up”. This is absolutely not true. I will look at any scientific data I’m supplied. For example, I am anxiously awaiting the next paper related to the CLOUD experiments from CERN.
Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Considering Arctic temperatures are following right along the normal line, it’s hard to say why there is as much melting as there is, as temp isn’t increasing over previous years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png
=============================================================
Ged, my ‘guess’ would be water. Since most of the ice is under water. Very little to do with air temperature and a lot to do with the North Atlantic Current and wind.
Ya Smokey
here is also what Daly wrote
“Put simply, the ice area today is scarcely different to what it was in 1979. ”
yup. falsified, he is.
Kev-in-Uk
Don has used two different TSI datasets. After looking at 11 different versions over at Lucias ( helping with a programming issue) its clear to me that easterbrook is being very misleading in his selection of TSI.
I would expect to see Willis come into this thread and start to take it to pieces, bob tisdale beat him to it.
youre impressed by the “correlation” however that correlation is driven by the choice of a TSI data set.
It’s easterbrooks version of bristlecone pines.
R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think
Jim Cripwell says:
Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
Jim, I have never heard that before – can you point me to any of those studies?
I also like the way nobody questioned the temperature data that correlates so well with the wrong TSI data.
when somebody presents a temperature record that people here think is FULL of UHI, and correlates it with the wrong TSI data, Nobody, ( smokey? willis? ) calls that into question. Hey maybe sunspots are related to UHI?
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
—
Doesn’t work that way. You are the one claiming that current ice levels are the lowest ever. You need to back up your claim.
“The arctic is warming Murray…all the data tell us that, and to believe different is to believe something that is in error.”
—
The arctic warmed the last time the PDO was in it’s warm phase. Then the cold phase came along and it cooled back down.
If the sun does go into a prolonged period of no or very little sunspots, this I believe will be a great test to see who is right regarding sunspots, CO2, warming, climate, etc.
Leif or others would have caught it. The minute I read his first chart (modified from eddy) my BS meter was
tripped.. Modified? how. So that just made me on alert to check and compare graphs.
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
None of the icecore data shows recent decades warmer then any during the last 2000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
So that leaves the last 2000 years based on only tree rings and lake sediments.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html
None of the lake sediments based in the Arctic shows recent decades warmer than any during the last 2000 years.
So the leaves just tree rings. (say no more)
@R. Gates
I posted you a link to the actual temperatures. Where is this warming you are saying would be there? Furthermore, why the Arctic and not the Antarctic? The data is not showing a rapid warming, at least no data I see, it’s completely along the normal line. If there is actual data, please post it like I posted some, instead of telling me what the data disagrees with (and then making knocks against political beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs in any way, shape, or form)
As Latitude pointed out, water temp is the only thing that makes sense; and water temp will be controlled by circulation patterns of the oceans (since, again, AIR TEMP is holding along the normal average line, and thus cannot explain what we are seeing).
Thanks for the good work. I’ve now got a much better feel for the potential of another Maunder Minimum. As usual, if you listen to the idiots who call themselves “climate scientists”, all you get is platitudes and “trust us we’ve experts”.
I much prefer the estimates of effects based on analysis of real evidence.
But — can I just say, that global warming is beginning to look very attractive!
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Yes, I see your point after looking at Leifs reconstructions page. Hoyts data is wildly variable compared to many others.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls
but even Leif’s reconstruction reflects the lower TSI in the Dalton quite clearly for example – so surely, the general correlation is there?
I have not bothered to look research into TSI much – to be honest – just accepted the 0.1% stated TSI ‘variance’ as accepted – which funnily enough looks like its not much more than that in Leifs reconstruction!
I personally do not believe TSI variance is likely to be so restricted (to 0.1%) – but without long term modern data, it really is not possible to prove one way or the other in my opinion. However, accounting for previous large scale climatic variation (ignoring volcanoes, etc,) and taking a pragmatic view – it seems logical that the sun must have had some signifcant influence!!
Mosh, what’s the mass of the ice projected to melt? I’m just curious how much cooling that would cause.
Black death, etc. How correlated are major viral pandemics with cooling, solar activity?
I seem to recall reading recently (maybe here) that many important viruses spread best when water vapor content and temperature are low. If these diseases are high after high volcanic activity and possible solar cloud effects, it would suggest that there’s significant drying of the atmosphere in addition to cooling (beyond what would be expected from simple temperature decrease).
The time alloted to the last warm PDO seems a bit short. 20 years. I have discussed this with Joe Aleo before, and it is possible that it might be more like a few years ago, rather than 1999. If the PDO has just recently flipped, it will be a few more years until the Arctic regrows.
I do, however, agree that the Solar cycle downturns follow the climactic downturns much too close for cavalier dismissal. We shall see what we see.
The New York Times has an intersting piece on their June 16, 2011
Opinion page that goes into some detail as to what a “quite sun” means
to life pn earth as we currently know it.
They cite the dangers and benefits for radio communication, GPS equipment,
astronauts and satellites. They fo into cosmic rays in this reguard.
However there’s NO mention of ant possible effects of a what a quite sun
might mean for upper atmospheric, ground level, or ocean temperatures.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17baker.html? r=1
0.8 degrees of warming is not a huge scary increase in temperatures it is a very small increase in global average temperatures over a century,we have seen global temperatures rise and fall by this amount per century many times during the last 10000 years.This Solar minimum if it happens could for all I know drop global temperatures by 0.8 degrees this century.I refuse to make the assumptions that warmist insist that I make when looking at future temperature change that global temperatures remained stable for a thousand years and then erm shot up by a huge 0.8 degrees in the 20th century.We will have to wait until 2100 to see if global temperatures go up or down in this century,I will not be here to see that .So far as I can see Don Easterbrook makes some good points about the little ice age and if your estimates of global temperature variation don’t match these events then it just shows how worthless your global temperatures are.
Smokey, Glad you posted this again:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
…as I am still waiting for you to tell us all why a chart of 7 cities and Central England (picked how?) is better than this Northern Hemispheric chart for roughly the same period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_image/highlat.gif
Look at the whole of the NH and the trend is pretty darn clear.
Not sure why we even bother to present these facts. Since we can’t control the sun, we can’t control society with it. Our best bet is to convince or otherwise coerce the public into giving up their rights to abundant energy in the name of saving the earth (in reality, giving the elite control over our lives). From my favorite books: “People will believe what they want to be true, or what they are afraid might be true”
John B,
Glad you asked. The chart you posted is simply a copy of Mann’s debunked Hokey Stick chart. When I get back home I’ll show you how it’s been falsified. I’ll also provide some other charts showing that the noaa chart you posted is deliberately – and mendaciously – misleading.
don penman says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm
agreed – as you say, a solar minimum could and most likely would drop temps by a good amount! I was kinda taking this to be the underlying ‘point’ of Easterbrooks article – which, the way it was presented, shows the possible/likely effect of a quiet sun and the general references to past historical events.
I need to do some more reading on this subject (TSI) but it seems perfectly logical to me (and I believe reasonably widely accepted) that the suns output varies. Even basic physics determines that an object ‘burning up’ and throwing off buckets loads of energy must lose mass and therefore must have to adjust itself accordingly? So, yet again, we are only really concerned with actually ‘How much’ this variation is – and whether it is or is not significantly large enough to affect climate. The sunspot cycle has been well observed (though earlier years may be more qualitative than quantitative due to observational limitations) and this clearly shows that the sun goes through phases of activity. As far as I am aware, there is no argument against the fact that this happens. The warmist (and generally touted AGW point) argument seems to be that the sun does indeed affect climate – but not by much – and this is clearly at odds with the known (as in written!) historical lower temp events of the past! Again, on the logical assumption that 17th century Europeans were not driving SUV’s – it sure as eggs are eggs wasn’t anthropgenic in origin and therefore must have been natural – and on the further assumption that most other earthly things remained the ‘same’ or at least ‘similar’ (i.e. no nukes going off or whatever) – it can only be down to the sun as the external warmer of the planet!?
OK Smokey, but don’t get too obsessed with Mann. His hockey stick may have been the first, but there are lots of them now, all pointing the same way…
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.medium.gif
Are they ALL lying?
If we cannot learn from the lessons of past history, what can we learn from?
I name thee “the (climate) Frauder Minimum”
Warmist Persunal Regards,
Tesla
Distinct clones of Yersinia pestis caused the black death. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949072
There are clearly a number of other studies with similar results. Very likely that some of the plagues were not Yersinia, but the black death one does not appear to be in dispute.
Gates says:
“Except of course for the fact the we have the lowest arctic sea ice extent ever for this date in June.”
But see global sea ice, that is more important as the various oscillations tend to make regional climate move around more year to year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This will be interesting over the next few years if the sun does enter a prolonged minimum.
Other people suggest the “Gore Minimum”. I like to agree with them.
Think greenhouses & your own garden would be prudent for many… anyone know how many farmers are hooked up with WEATHERBELL so far?
Food prices to be ‘high and volatile’ until 2020 – FRANCE 24
http://www.france24.com/en/20110617-food-prices-be-high-volatile-until-2020#
…”Weather-related crop yield variations are expected to become an even more critical driver of price volatility in the future,” the report said…
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/9/1/160286219.html
…Ministers from the Group of 20 industrialized nations are expected to announce next week plans to create a global database on food production and stocks, to mirror existing schemes in oil markets.
The OECD and the FAO backed the need for improving transparency through better forecasting, but stopped short of arguing that financial investors were responsible for driving up food prices in the long term. “High levels of speculative activity in futures markets may amplify price movements in the short term although there is no conclusive evidence of longer term systemic effects on volatility,” they said…
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
Its those sediments again! We all know how variable proxy records can be.
One proxy dataset alone cant really be held up against the instrumental record.
Caleb says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:37 am
Regarding sea ice: Check the “Sea Ice Page.” Go to the comparison between 2007 and 2011. Look at the ice north of Siberia.
To me it seems it was already getting slushy, and was 40% open water, at this time in 2007, while it is more solid this year.
2011 sea ice does look fore solid than 2007 on Cryosphere today – at least it does today. But on other days it looks a lot more patchy and even worse than 2007. There seems to be a lot of day to day variability in the images, too much for it to be showing a real trend. Maybe the higher resolution data this year is more noisy (as it inevitably will be without a geometric increase in the strength of signal).
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm
R Gates says:
“And you can provide solid specific data (rather than conjecture) of when it’s been lower in recorded history? Please show me that data. I’d love to see it.”
Read the first paragraph [in red]: click The whole article is worthwhile.
So the “solid specific data” consists of a statement by the President of the Royal Society which was actually based on a single report by William Scoresby (Jnr). It’s very probable that Scoresby had simply come across one of any number of random straits which opened up during the summer months. There is certainly nothing in Scoresby’s accounts to suggest that ice extent across the arctic was anomalously low.
It is, though, interesting given that the President’s address was given in 1817 – just around the time of the deepest part of the Dalton Minimum and only 12 months after the “year without a summer”. Perhaps this “solar effect” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Leif: Glad you made an appearance. In my critique of this post at my blog I wrote, Don Easterbrook’s Figure 5 shows global temperatures dropping in the future. Why would they drop? We’re pretty close to solar minimum now.
Close to minimum now? I cant see how that can be. The reported research on the three lines of evidence for the no-show of cycle 25 (zonal flows, flare poleward migration and the L&P magnetic field decline) make it practically certain that there will be no cycle 25. So sunspot levels will bump along at a rate typical of the inter-cycle minimum for the whole of cycle 25. Who knows if cycle 26 will appear or not? We are currently nearing the peak of cycle 24, a weak cycle but still stronger than no cycle. So we are a long way short of any sort of minimum.
The Maunder minimum had two absent cycles (with weak cycles on either side). We are now committed to at least one absent cycle, possibly more.
@John Finn
Here’s some evidence:
Amundsen traversed the Northwest Passage in 1903-1906 (that’s right, it took him 3 years)
[snip – various folk in between, mainly in specialist ice vessels]
In 2009 sea ice conditions were such that at least nine small vessels and two cruise ships completed the transit of the Northwest Passage.
Cruise ships for Pete’s sake!
Wil says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm
phlogiston
May I say I find your comment very enlightening and satisfying indeed. While we must fight today’s AGW nonsense every step of the way this planet has a story to tell few of us even consider with due diligence. I am far from satisfied with us as a species knowing full well the volatile history of this planet and the fact of how little we understand or even allow into the conversation why and how ice ages and the inner-spaced warm periods triggered.
The planet indeed has a story to tell but many scientists have their agendas, so they like to pick “‘mini-stories” from selected parts of nature that support the agenda that their “research” is serving. An honest look at the palaeo record as a whole is anathema to AGW climate science.
Indeed with the complexity of the recent glacial record, unless a robust “theory of everything” exists explaining and predicting exactly the start and end of each glacial / interglacial (and it doesn’t), then we cant be complacent about when the current interglacial might end. In fact such is the raggedness of the glacial record from the Vostok and other ice cores that the term “interglacial” may even be oversimplistic. There have been warmer intervals of many different durations and “shapes”.
To use an analogy of the human body, climate science thinks it can count the hairs on its head, but in reality does not know its arse from its elbow.
TonyG writes “Jim Cripwell says:
Recent studines indicate that the Black Death was caused by a virus like Ebola.
Jim, I have never heard that before – can you point me to any of those studies?”
The BBC did a very good documentary on this issue, which I saw when I was visiting a couple of years ago. Other than that I cannot help too much.
TonyG. I did a quick search and found
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/new-theories-link-black-death-to-ebola-like-virus.html
John B says:
“Are they ALL lying?”
Affirmative. They are playing eye games with their chart by using a bogus zero reference line, when there is actually a clear upward trend from the LIA. This chart shows how they fool folks like John B: click The top two charts look alarming, don’t they? But when the natural trend line is used in the bottom chart… not so scary.
Next, let’s look at the divergence between rural and urban temps: click A large part of the temperature reconstructions are due to the localized UHI effect. And they are deliberately eliminating many rural stations: click [Blink gif animation].
Here you can see how Hansen diddled with the past record: click GISS routinely “adjusts” the past temperature record — which always results in a more alarming graph: click NOAA does the same thing. They continually reduce past temperatures, so as to falsely show an alarming recent increase: click [blink gif – loads slowly].
Next, look at what the USHCN does with the “raw” temps of different months: click Bob Tisdale provided this chart: click More of the same “adjustments”, eh?
Another GISS chart: click [another slow loading blink gif]. Notice that earlier temps have been artificially adjusted lower. That’s the same thing they did with the MWP to make it look like current temperatures are higher in John B’s link. Here is a chart based on peer reviewed data: click The MWP was significantly warmer than today’s mild cyclical uptick: click
Next, let’s look at CRUtemp: click Both the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere are lower… but global temps are higher! Explain how that works. Here’s another Bob Tisdale chart: click And another: click
More “adjusted” GISS data: click Looks like another bogus hokey stick. Here’s another GISS “adjustment”: click
Finally, here is a graphic showing the difference between raw temperatures, and “adjusted” temps: click
John B will look at these “adjusted” charts and conclude that they’re not lying to us or trying to alarm people. But other folks can make up their own minds.
And if John B likes, I can provide more charts like these.
Well after going through all 213 responses up to this time, I can only remember 2 that said “correlation does not prove causation”. Yes, it was cold when there were no sun spots. The temperature also went up with CO2 in the atmosphere from around 1978 to 1998. The best advice I’ve seen here is to wait and see. Whatever happens we won’t be endangering life on earth over the next 40 years if we do nothing but sit and watch.
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the link Smokey, really, I find Daly’s thinking very interesting, but it seems the facts would not be falling in line with what he was saying. The Arctic would seem to warmer over the past 5 years than any time in the past 2000:
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
If this is the case, it is not hard at all to understand why the sea ice would be running so low.
You said my mind is “made up”. This is absolutely not true. I will look at any scientific data I’m supplied. For example, I am anxiously awaiting the next paper related to the CLOUD experiments from CERN.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
One of the biggest problems with the AGW debate is that in truth we have no idea how accurate any of the proxies are that are used to reconstruuct past temperatures or for that matter past CO2 levels. In my opinion this is an incontrovertible fact and thus any reconstruction needs to be cautiously expressed and with caveats.
Whilst not quantative, past recorded historical events can provide useful insight. Whilst there is a debate as to the global extent of the MWP there can be no doubt that Greenland was colonised by the Vikings in areas which are today still ice covered or subject to permafrost. This is an incontovertiblke fact. As the Greenland glaciers/ice retreats we are finding new Viking settlements. Again, it is a fact that in these areas, the Vikings farmed. It is a fact that farming in these areas is not possible today. For farming to be possible in these areas, given that greenhouses were not then invented, the temperatures in these parts of Greenland must have been several degrees warmer than today. By how much, this is not clear but somewhere between 3 to 6 degC would seem to be necessary for farming on any scale (by which I mean of sufficient size and resource to sustain a settlement for many years). Accordingly, this archaelogical evidence provides firm and incontrovertible evidence that Greenland (or at any rate the coastal areas) was warmer than today by some 3 to 6 deg C (and may be even more). That being the case and given the close proximity of these areas of Greenland to the Artic, it is overwhelmingly likely that much of the Artic was considerably warmer than today and also overwhelmingly likely that at this time, there was less Artic ice.
The proxy evidence referred to by R Gates suggesting that the Artic has not been this warm in the past 2000 years would therefore seem to be highly dubious since it runs contrary to known and undisputable facts that we know about the colonisation of Greenland during the MWP/Viking warm period.
As Smokey said, John Daly knew a thing or two. I can remember reading as a young boy (one of the first books that I bought) the story of th Nautilus submarine journey under the Artic. This book had many pictures of the submarine having broken through thin ice and there is a plethora of Naval documentation (incliuding photographs of US and UK origin) showing the Artic to have less ice or at any rate thinner ice than the Artic possess today at various times in the 50s, 30s and going back to the second part of the 19th century. THe bold assertions by R Gates appear unstainable in the face of this evidence (lets call this recorded historical evidence human experience proxy evidence).
It seems to me that it would be useful for climate scientists to learn some history since this would show that many of their conclusions drawn from their research are flawed due to conflicting historical events/records.
phlogiston says: “Close to minimum now? I cant see how that can be.”
My mistake. Sunsposts this year have ranged from the 20s to the low 50s, according to the SIDC. I’ll remove that offending sentence from my post. The other portion of my question still stands.
@Smokey June 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm. Thanks. You can always be depended upon to keep the discussion truthful.
Smokey says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm
John B says:
“Are they ALL lying?”
Affirmative. They are playing eye games with their chart by using a bogus zero reference line, when there is actually a clear upward trend from the LIA. This chart shows how they fool folks like John B: click The top two charts look alarming, don’t they? But when the natural trend line is used in the bottom chart… not so scary.
So, they are all lying! Truly the paranoia is strong in you, Smokey.
But just look again at your first link. I honesty do not see how you think the bottom chart is any less “scary” than the two above it. And the zero line is not arbitrary, it is the mean (or maybe median) for the period being looked at. Or just take it away altogether, the rise is still there.
I think you mistake “scary” for “clear”.
Anyone else have an opinion?
And clicking another of your links, you have a temperature chart for Greenland (yes, just Greenland). Cherry picking, yet again. It’s called Global Warming for a reason, you know! The reason being that the globe, taken as a whole, is warming – not every single spot on its surface.
And “eliminating many rural stations”. What happened is that old weather stations were not designed for climate recording, so a reduced set of stations that are actually up to the job was settled on. That is well documented. If there is a bias from that process, BEST will find it, right? You know, the study that Anthony and others said they would accept, no matter what its findings.
Do you really believe the conspiracy runs so deep? As Naomi Orekses said, “liberals should be so organized!”
@Smokey
Do you really think the bottom chart on your first link is less scary than gthre two above it? I really can’t see that. Anyone else?
And most of your other links – cherry picking, pure and simple. Sometimes you cherry pick the time frame, sometimes the location, sometimes the study, sometimes the y-axis, but it’s all cherry picking. Climate science, like any other science, is about the weight of evidence. And you, my friend, do not have it on your side.
Murray says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:59 am
Tisdale’s caveats seem more like nitpicking than contributing.
I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term. We need to look into whether both data series are connected over the longer term.
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes. Perhaps some of the TSI brigade should acquaint themselves with some of the new research in this area especially concentrating on the polar vortex changes during extended solar minimums. The last three very cold winters provide ample data for those wanting to dig deeper.
Easterbrook uses the standard PDO values (http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest) as far as I can see. I cant see why it is necessary to compare with other pacific indexes.
Thank you Dr. Easterbrook.
Mark Wilson says @ June 17, 2011 at 2:13 pm “Doesn’t work that way. You are the one claiming that current ice levels are the lowest ever. You need to back up your claim.”
Mark Wilson says: @ June 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm “The arctic warmed the last time the PDO was in it’s warm phase. Then the cold phase came along and it cooled back down.”
Is there a citation / or citations that empirically review how the PDO in warm/cold phase impacted the ice that you can share?
Looking forward to reading those. Thanks.
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think
_____
Could be….I’d give it a better than 50/50 chance at the present moment. Weather will play a big role, but the large expanses of open water right now in the Kara. Laptev, and Barrents sea means lots of warm water going into the heart of the melt season in July and August,
Old Engineer says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The link to the distant past in terms of Grand Solar Minimums and climate downturns exists mostly in Literature from the times in question. Science as we know it either did not exist or was in its infancy. I.E. – not enough was looked at to pin down a causation for the correlation, nor is there enough knowledge to determine a mechanism for the big chills. We just know that in space-time, they co-exist.
Even larger questions loom:
What specific phenomena on the Sun (that we now see) do what things to the climate, both in Grand Minima and Grand Maxima?
Are the proxies that are available for the unobserved periods of Solar Activity accurate and without contamination?
Do the various Grand Minima always exhibit the same set of phenomena, or are they unique combinations?
R. Gates says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm
steven mosher says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.
whadda u think
_____
Could be….I’d give it a better than 50/50 chance at the present moment. Weather will play a big role, but the large expanses of open water right now in the Kara. Laptev, and Barrents sea means lots of warm water going into the heart of the melt season in July and August.
========================
Why don’t you guys take your off-thread to one that discusses sea ice….as opposed to a discussion on the sunspot issue.
Or….better yet….why don’t you just email each other.
Typical R Gates blog-o-terrorist hi-jack….but this thread has NOTHING to do with sea ice discussion.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
John B says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Certainly it “looks” like a conspiracy, yet it really doesn’t qualify as one because it’s there for everybody to see: The UN’s Agenda 21. Everything is explained in black and white, and please don’t count yourself as uninformed as Naomi Orekses because she’s clueless (the left has a huge gaggle of useful tools).
Henry@ R.Gates
Note that the Co2 content has increased from 0.03% to about 0.04% in the last 4 or 5 decades.
That is a difference of 0.01%. Referring to that as a 30 or 40% increase is clearly a bit misleading.
There has been no exact scientifc proof that a net increase in the CO2 causes warming. Namely it also causes cooling by deflecting sunlight and by taking part in the life cycle. Plants & trees need energy and CO2 to grow, it is an endothermic reaction.
There is also clear evidence of earth has become greener in the past 3 or 4 decades as reported here recently on WUWT. For more on this I suggest you read my blog:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I find that the warming observed on earth in the past 4 decades was caused by an increase in maxima. Maxima were find rising in a ratio of 4 for Maxima to 2 for mean average temperature to 1 for minima.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I therefore find that the warming was natural and was not caused by an increase in GHG’s. If the ratio found was the other way around I would have agreed with you that an increase in GHG’s had caused the warming.
Note that the SH did not show any warming, most of it happened on the NH.
So you can all stand on your heads now and cry over spilled ice:
but there is nothing you or I could have done about it.
Unless you can stop the sun from shining and/ or make clouds appear?
Then you must be God.
I say more carbon dioxide is better for the environment as I can see it works like fertiliser and stimulates growth.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 17, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Is TSI expected to drop below the minimums of the last few solar cycles? I’ve never seen this discussed in any paper presented about the current solar minimum.
No, there is no reason to expect that.
Therefore, where do these expectations of decreased TSI come from?
From the degradation of the widely used PMOD TSI composite: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png and http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
My question for you, Leif: are we expecting TSI to drop below its “normal” cycle minimum during the upcoming cycles?
No, there is no evidence to support such an expectation, on the contrary http://www.leif.org/EOS/Foukal-Dimming.pdf :
“Solar activity minima between 1914 and 1996 exhibit no significant secular increase in f (Foukal & Milano 2001). This argues against a secular increase of TSI due to increasing network area during the 20th century, as proposed in addition to 11 year TSI modulation by Lean et al. (1995) and by Lockwood & Stamper (1999). This finding from archival solar images is supported by the subsequent reconsideration of such additional secular solar brightening over the past century (Lean et al. 2002; see also Svalgaard & Cliver 2010).”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes.
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].
ROTFLMAO! Clearly the winner! If there are any prizes to hand out, Anthony should immediately reward Roger Knights for coining the term of the decade and perhaps the next few solar periods.
Right. And Obama is not a socialist because ivory tower academics have not pronounced him thus. Some things are self-evident, and prominent among them is the fact that a cooling phase peaked in the late-1970’s and a warming phase began circa the mid-1980’s. You are correct by accident with respect to the weasel words “body of scientific work”, because at least one actual scientist was on the right track, see here and here. Goddard has been collecting the media reports for quite a while and many have appeared here.
Here is the truth: The pop-scientists of the 1970’s were busy doing then, what the AGW pop-scientists are doing today. They are *not* promoting an ice-age or CAGW Earth per se, but, they are trapped only thinking inside-the-box. To be exact, they were (and are) extrapolating their current climate forwards without even considering that it will once again turn-around naturally.
Catastrophic Thinking in a nutshell …
1970’s cool phase —-> coming ice-age
1990’s warm phase —-> coming scorched Earth
And yes, that can be stretched back into the previous cycles of warm/cold with the exact same result.
The rational thinkers of each period did not sweat this, they knew (we know) that these micro-cycles (of admittedly variable duration) will once again change.
The irrational thinkers of each period pressed forward, citing future catastrophe culminating today in the absurd precautionary principle of ‘de-industrialize or die‘.
When you try to erase something the size of the ice-age hype, well, I’m afraid not even a red pill will help you escape from the AGW Matrix. But I encourage you to continue to try because nothing rallies the troops better than an insult to their very intelligence.
Has Hell has frozen over? Steve Mosher tied himself to a concrete prediction? It is not particularly courageous to jump in *now*, as we are but a few days from the NH Summer Solstice. Joe Bastardi went early in right here at WUWT in November 2010 (as did Foster Grant Tamino from what I have been told).
But since Mosher is a very careful scientist, he must know that even though Ice Extent has increased since 2007, it has been exposed as a practically useless metric due to the skewing factors of wind and compaction.
The point is this: if we skeptics were as devious and hypocritical as he constantly portrays us, we would be pressing this issue even more today than in 2008, 2009, 2010. But we are not because most realize it is a game of ice-cube roulette. I am left wondering why someone as careful as Steve would even jump into this now? What is the motive?
rbateman says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:01 pm
What specific phenomena on the Sun (that we now see) do what things to the climate, both in Grand Minima and Grand Maxima?
TSI and things that tag along [e.g. UV]
Are the proxies that are available for the unobserved periods of Solar Activity accurate and without contamination?
Not perfect, but rapidly improving.
Do the various Grand Minima always exhibit the same set of phenomena, or are they unique combinations?
We have really only observed one [the Maunder], so it is hard to tell.
from SORCE website :
Precise space measurements obtained during the past 20 years imply that TSI varies on the order of 0.1% over the solar cycle (see Figure 1), but with greater variations on a short-term basis. For example, the passage of sunspots over the disk produces 2-4 times that amount. The variation apparently occurs over most time scales, from day-to-day variations up to and including variations over the 11-year solar cycle. How TSI variations are distributed in wavelength is still poorly understood. The largest relative solar variations are factors of two or more at ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths, but the greater total energy available at visible and longer wavelengths makes their small variations of potential importance.
I do hope Dr. E responds. Jumping all over his article w.r.t. TSI is somewhat vacuous based upon the explanation given above.
Also, re Mr. Bob Tisdale’s
Fig 2. I note that there is a rather sharp, in magnitude, drop between mid 1998 and late 1999 – perhaps a poor choice of words by Dr. E ?, but still, what Dr. E was trying to say ?
regardless of the criticism, and I understand it is good that there is criticism, to relegate this article to the trash is to offer a rather shallow and short sided opinion.
Lets see what develops.
Leif,
thank you for the paper. Unfortunately I would have to describe it as pearls before swine. I think it was rather poor, but, that is probably my own ignorance.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].
This statement is simply incorrect. EUV can vary by at least 16% over a cycle. Furthermore modern EUV records display a reluctance to follow a baseline ie the current levels even after a ramp up of SC24 are just above the bottom of the SC22/23 minimum (maybe lower on the next update). So levels can be lower during a prolonged solar grand minimum. We are also seeing the lowest thermosphere height in the satellite era which is a direct result of lower EUV and solar wind. It’s time to come clean on this topic and stop ignoring the facts.
I always wonder why the TSI proxy records never show a common baseline?
Ged says:
June 17, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@R. Gates
I posted you a link to the actual temperatures. Where is this warming you are saying would be there? Furthermore, why the Arctic and not the Antarctic? The data is not showing a rapid warming, at least no data I see, it’s completely along the normal line. If there is actual data, please post it like I posted some, instead of telling me what the data disagrees with (and then making knocks against political beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs in any way, shape, or form)
As Latitude pointed out, water temp is the only thing that makes sense; and water temp will be controlled by circulation patterns of the oceans (since, again, AIR TEMP is holding along the normal average line, and thus cannot explain what we are seeing).
————
A short term temperature reading over a very narrow region of the arctic means very nothing in terms of the climate or measuring climate change being seen in the arctic. If you really want to understand the truth of what’s going on, you can start with real scientific research as found at sites like this:
http://amap.no/swipa/
Geoff Sharp says: “I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term.”
It can’t be challenged? Why’s that? The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?
While it certainly is begining to look as though the “Gore Effect” is more significant than first thought I suggest that the developing minimum should not be named for political reasons but after Landscheidt and his work on solar torque cycles who predicted the developing state of affairs.
After the current solar cycle 24 maximum in 2013-2015(?) its going to be downhill all the way. I’m buying coal mining stocks in the UK, snow shoes and spears for mammoth hunting. As the geomagnetic field collapses the developing Landscheidt Minimum could well trigger a full blown 100,000 year glaciation.
steptoe fan says: “Also, re Mr. Bob Tisdale’s Fig 2. I note that there is a rather sharp, in magnitude, drop between mid 1998 and late 1999…”
That’s simply the response of the North Pacific SST anomalies to the initial phase of the 1998/99/00/01 La Nina. The 1997/98 El Nino was massive and it was followed by a rather long La Nina.
Steve Goddard has been turning up story after story about warming and cooling fears throughout the years.
This one is a gem by a scientist who got it right and it ties in directly to the current projected down-sizing of solar activity …
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/1951-mit-scientist-correctly-predicted-global-cooling-based-on-sunspots/
Of course that is more than offset by the endless stories of coming catastrophe. These are titles only (go there for links) and were just posted in the past few hours …
1950 : Record Rain In Queensland
1950 Consensus : Earth Warming And Glaciers Melting
1950 : Rapid Warming In Greenland
1941 : Terrible Droughts Forecast Until 1990
1912 Plan To Warm Up The Arctic And Improve The Climate
1911 : Climate Experts Said That Wireless Communications Are Destroying The Climate Of Southern California
1923 : Remarkable Warming In The Arctic
1914 : Rapid Ice Loss At Both Poles
1923 : Exceptional Thawing In The Arctic
1934 : World Wide Drought – Glaciers Receding
1947 : “Catastrophic Arctic Warming”
There must be a thousand of these over there already, and there is no end in sight.
Leif Svalgaard (June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm): Thanks, Leif.
Climate Nature did NOT cooperate. It never does, and it never makes straight lines for long.
I am glad that it did not, for now there is healthy competiton in the climate business once more.
The Sun is no exception, making unexpected twists and turns.
The behavior of the Sun during SC24 has remained remarkably consistent. At some point during the cycle change to before SC24, that behavior departed from the cycles before it. We don’t know why it did that, but we do know that it did change.
Murphy’s Law gets into this act, since we don’t know for certain how long the current Solar behavior will last, the record indicating various degrees of Minimum. The data set is poor. Man’s aptitude for choosing wisely is not in high regard.
AGW has been caught crying wolf, poisoning the well of choice by going overboard with exaggeration.
Man does not need any help displaying the knack of making bad choices at the real junctures of critical importance.
Ah, but there is still hope: Perhaps the shock of almost getting shoved into hasty reaction will force a bit of maturity.
It could also be the Sun, 93 million miles away, that nothing new takes place under, which finally forces some much needed sobriety.
RockyRoad said:
“please don’t count yourself as uninformed as Naomi Orekses because she’s clueless (the left has a huge gaggle of useful tools).”
I am intrigued as to why you think she is clueless. I have not read her book, but I have seen her presentations and read articles by and about her. She is a science historian, not a scientist. She makes what looks to me like a solid argument that the climate sceptic movement can be traced back directly to anti-regulation and anti-communist groups like the George C Marshall Institute, via names like Singer and Seitz, and other conservative think tanks like Cato. I am sure you know the story. She doesn’t say all sceptics are in that vein, but she contends that those are the origins of climate scepticism. She also finds that the tactic of “doubt is our product” is shared with tobacco, acid rain, CFC and other sceptical movements.
According to wikipedia:
“The Marshall Institute has been critical of the book, but most other reviewers received it favorably.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Institute
Which of this do you doubt? No name calling, please, I would really like to know.
Blade says:
June 18, 2011 at 1:33 am
And to that I add this:
Real change comes too widely separated in time for a species short on memory.
” I am intrigued as to why you think she is clueless.”
Oreskes is clueless because she denies the ability of well educated thoughtful individuals to weigh up evidence for themselves independently.
Whenever such people reach conclusions that differs from hers she tries to rationalise it with paranoid constructs about right wing think tanks, tobacco and oil companies et al.
Jim Cripwell says:
June 17, 2011 at 6:49 am (Edit)
Tallbloke writes “The numerical model I created”
How did you validated your model? Have you used it to predict the future, and then compared the predicted results with what actually happend? If you have done this, do your predicted results agree tihe the observed data? And have you done this a sufficient number of times so that the agreement could not be coincidental, at the 5 sd level? If you have not, then I suspect what you model predicts is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.
Easy now Jim. I only created it two years ago, and it pretty obvious we are at the peak of the warming curve, so it’s not possible to validate it against observations in such a short time. My model doesn’t produce different answers each time I run it, because it is based on the motion of the planets and Earth’s spin rate, which are predictable. It doesn’t predict individual El Nino events effect on the surface temperature record, so it will take a decade or more to validate it against observations.
On the plus side, it hindcasts well, back to 1825.
http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1921104/arctic-ice-melting-faster-than.html
Further problems with this paper is how they measure Summer temperatures from ice cores and lake sediments. The resolution is generally just a few years at best, yearly at best with sediments, but no resolution seperating seasons. Tree rings are the only ones that determine growing seasons, but Summer can’t be distinguished between the growing season in Spring or Autumn. (only if trees grow during Summer) Also most of the Arctic doesn’t have any trees (even if it was just land, too cold in Summer) and the tree-line is only around the sub-Arctic. Therefore the sub-Artic doesn’t say much about most of the Arctic itself, even if tree rings were good proxies for temperatures. The sub-Arctic temperatures observed using modern instruments vary much greater than what happens in the Arctic circle during all seasons. Tree rings are a good proxy for rainfall during the growing season, but that is all.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm
The TSI argument is just a strawman used by the warmista’s, there are much bigger fluctuations in UV and EUV that can account for a larger solar contribution to global temp changes.
UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].
People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.
Large changes in UV and EUV seem to have large effects on upper atmosphere inorganic chemistry and sea surface organic chemistry. However, these effects are at a poor level of scientific understanding, and the question of how much they matter to the way climate changes is therefore highly uncertain.
“steven mosher [June 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm] says:
“R. Gates. I bet we go lower than 2007 with ice this year.”
Perfectly possible and no cause for alarm.
I’d expect the increase in meridionality to speed up Arctic ice melt at the fringes due to more incoming warm air flows.
In the background the temperature of the water flowing under the Arctic ice will slowly decline as the oceans cool.
At the moment we still have incoming warm ocean water plus incoming warm air supplementing one another.
The turn in the ice trends will come when the cooling of the ocean waters starts to more than offset the effect of inflowing warm air.
Incoming warm ocean waters affect most the thickness in the centre. Incoming warm air affects most the extent at the fringes.
Didn’t I see some data that suggested increase in thickness in the centre ?
Bob Tisdale said:
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?
Response:
The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation.
Both the PDO and the ENSO are signatures of the response of the Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere system to long term variations in the Lunar/Solar Tides. The reason that they appear to be related is the fact that they both have the same underlying cause. The PDO is a long term response while the ENSO is a short term response.
I have to assume that you are completely unaware of the work of Claire Perigaud in the United States
on the ENSO, otherwise you would not be making such seriously flawed claims. I am more than willing to send you her work if you are interested, note, however, that her point presentation is very large.
John B says:
[Oreskes] “makes what looks to me like a solid argument that the climate sceptic movement can be traced back directly to anti-regulation and anti-communist groups like the George C Marshall Institute, via names like Singer and Seitz, and other conservative think tanks like Cato. ”
John B insists on making scientific skepticism political. It is not. Skepticism is required by the scientific method, which is universally ignored by the purveyors of the runaway global warming scare. There are plenty of Leftists who comment here, and who are disgusted with the perversion of science by the corrupt “Team”.
Next, here is a chart by NikFromNYC that shows an interesting correlation with the AMO. [Note that the slowly rising temperature trend line from the LIA is not accelerating, which would be the case if CO2 caused global warming. In fact, the trend has been moderating over the past decade.]
And exactly as predicted, John B refused to accept the obvious fact that the charts posted in my comment [at 6:16 pm above] demonstrate the outright dishonesty of those promoting climate alarmism. AGW may exist [or not], but there is no testable, real world evidence supporting it. Even if it does have a minor effect, that effect is so negligible that it is unmeasurable, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The human addition of one molecule of CO2 for every 62,500 molecules of the atmosphere over a century and a half is presumed by true believers in the alarmist cult to have magical qualities. But as the more rational readers here know, that CO2 juju has not been sufficient to provide any warming trend over the past decade+.
The AGW hypothesis is based entirely on computer models, not on any real world evidence. Those models are programmed to acheive a specific result, but they can only come close after endless tweaking. Not one of them can make accurate predictions; they can’t even hindcast accurately. In any other branch of the hard sciences the universal failure of computer climate models would be the source of much amusement and endless ridicule. But in the realpolitik world of government grants, the always-wrong models still serve their intended purpose: the generation of public funds to feed the “carbon” scam, and thus provide employment and job security for self-serving scoundrels and charlatans, and a religious experience for folks like John B.
To add to last post.
Thought I had read something like this before, it seems to be just a recycled report from 2009.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/04-3
Therefore it has not resolved the issues that I had mentioned.
@Smokey
I don’t think you would recognize true scientific skepticism if it bit you on the butt.
Another cherry, anyone?
But it doesn’t matter any more, since you are all clamouring that the Sun is going to bring about a new ice age. Mainstream science says it will not. We will know soon enough. What do you say, Smokey?
John B’s impotent blustering is a lame response to the exposé of the mendacious manipulation of alarmist climate charts. Skepticism is a basic requirement of the scientific method — a logical method that a true believer like JB avoids like Dracula avoids the dawn.
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are simply bogus climate propaganda intended to deceive the public. And John B’s psychological projection, calling the posting of more than a half dozen charts from different sources “cherry picking” is a failed tactic that can be applied to any chart. That is why I post so many different charts; so people can make up their minds based on plenty of evidence. John B has zero testable, measureable evidence to support his belief system, so we get rhetoric instead.
Moderate Republican and others
None other than Kevin Trenberth has noted that El Ninos bring warmth to the arctic trough the Bering Strait. Also from NSIDC acknowledged in the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007 the importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
Also see http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/arctic_temperatures_and_ice_natural_variability/
Jim Cripwell says:
TonyG. I did a quick search and found
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/new-theories-link-black-death-to-ebola-like-virus.html
Jim, thanks for the effort, but at this point, I’m finding it very hard to buy that story. Especially in light of the previously posted link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20949072, which is from a more reliable source and post-dates the NYT article by 9 years. Additional confirmation comes from here: http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001134
Wikipedia mentions the idea that an ebola-like virus caused the Black Death was floated in 2001, but indicates that subsequent DNA testing has shown that it was, indeed, Y. Pestis. Most recent info I can find appears to be around the end of 2010.
Happy to entertain the idea again should you have something more recent to share.
Old Engineer says:
Well after going through all 213 responses up to this time, I can only remember 2 that said “correlation does not prove causation”. Yes, it was cold when there were no sun spots.
I generally agree with the “Wait and see” – we don’t know that the low solar activity WILL cause lower temperatures. However, that particular causality is much more likely than low temperatures on earth causing lower solar activity 🙂
(seriously – there may be a hidden causation for both that we don’t know, but it’s hard to imagine what it might be)
Ninderthana says: “The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation. “
The PDO only represents the pattern (the appearance) of the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N. Nothing more, nothing less. A positive PDO pattern is characterized by higher SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific and lower anomalies in the central and western North Pacific. Here’s a nice simple explanation of the process that causes the PDO pattern. A positive PDO pattern is created by the response of the North Pacific to an El Niño event. During an El Niño event, coastally trapped Rossby waves along the west coast of North America and changes in atmospheric pressure resulting from the El Niño cause an increase in the SST anomalies in the eastern North Pacific. Since the El Niño causes a reversal of trade winds in the western tropical Pacific, less warm water than normal is spun up into the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE), and SST anomalies of the western and central North Pacific drop. The reverse holds true during a La Niña in the Eastern North Pacific. For the western and central North Pacific during a La Niña, the leftover warm water from the El Niño also gets spun up into the KOE, adding the warm waters being brought there by the increased strength of the trade winds. There are differences between the PDO and an ENSO proxy such as NINO3.4 SST anomalies from time to time, and the difference results from how changes in North Pacific Sea Level Pressure impact the way the North Pacific responds to ENSO events. Again, the PDO pattern is an aftereffect of ENSO.
Regardless of the findings of Claire Perigaud, that’s how that process works. Feel free to provide a link to her papers if you’d like me to read them.
Smokey says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:10 am
Attempting to re-frame the argument away from the devious alarmist charts posted @6:16 pm above, to a comment about the sun and ice ages, is done by JB simply to avoid the fact that those alarmist charts are bogus climate propaganda.
While this may be true, I don’t think people should be discouraged from posting on-topic. 😉
kuhnkat says:
June 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm
that is probably my own ignorance.
Know thyself
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
This statement is simply incorrect.
I don’t make statements that are ‘simply incorrect’. I didn’t say that the fluctuations have the same amplitude, but that if in one cycle TSI varies by x percent, the UV varies by a percentage proportional to x, following TSI.
Furthermore modern EUV records display a reluctance to follow a baseline
The uncertainty in the calibration is large enough to explain the difference.
We are also seeing the lowest thermosphere height in the satellite era which is a direct result of lower EUV and solar wind.
Because the solar magnetic field in 2008-2009 was as low as it was a century ago. We are just returning to those same conditions. Solar images taken in nearly UV light [Ca II K-line] over the past century show that there has been no change over the past 100 years in the ‘baseline’ value at solar minimum.
It’s time to come clean on this topic and stop ignoring the facts.
I suggest you learn more about what the facts are, before shooting your mouth off
I always wonder why the TSI proxy records never show a common baseline?
Because the older TSI records are wrong. Here is a better one [also showing many wrong ones]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
tallbloke says:
June 18, 2011 at 3:54 am
“UV and EUV fluctuations follow those in TSI because they are due to the same cause [magnetic field].”
People could be misled by this statement. UV and EUV fluctuations follow TSI in terms of the timing of the solar cycle, but the fluctuations are of much bigger amplitude than overall TSI and less regular on a cycle to cycle basis.
That they have larger amplitude is not important as to ‘the following TSI’ bit. The energy in those ‘much bigger amplitudes’ is minute to those in TSI.
The Far Ultraviolet [between EUV and UV] creates and maintains the ionosphere and solar tides move the ions during the day and night cycle giving rise to an varying electric current whose effect we can easily measure on the ground [it was discovered in 1722]. This effect is a very good measure of the FUV flux and follows the solar cycle very closely, e.g. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf , and shows no long-term drift of change.
Smokey, I don’t think your assertion that warming should be accelerating is correct. CO2 concentration growth has been steady/declining for awhile. Warming should be decelerating.
aaron,
It doesn’t appear that CO2 growth is declining: click
Harmless, beneficial CO2 is still rising, while global temperature is declining @ 9.3°F per century: click
Could anyone point me in the right direction where I could find the atmospheric pressure data files for each of two NAO stations Ponta Delgada in Azores and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik in Iceland.
Thank you.
@R.Gates
Can I take your “no answer” that you now agree that the ice melt in the arctic was not man made?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#comment-683524
@Stephen Wilde
Stephen you helped me in the past and perhaps you also have an answer to my latest question.
I have looked at a number of terrestial weather stations (quite randomly, but I started in the SH because I live in the SH) where there are reliable daily records. In each case I determined the exact degrees C increase or decrease per annum noted over time. No projections or hypothesis. This is pure measurement of what exactly happened over the past 4 decades with the temperatures at those 12-odd weather stations.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
What I am finding now that if you look at the part of my table where I report the means (average temps), all the stations in the SH (the first five stations) show virtually no warming. The actual “global” warming appears to be mainly happening in the NH.
Do you perhaps have an expanation for that? Any idea?
HenryP – it appears your “pool table” only looks at “terrestial” weather stations. Do you believe that only “terrestial” weather stations should be used for drawing conclusions?
henry@fabron
For the icelandic station, try this
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Stykkisholmur/40130.htm
Under what country falls ponta delgado?
Moderate Republican,
Give us a list of non-terrestrial temperature stations.
Fair point Smokey – that was really poorly phrased on my part. Duh! Time for a lunch break.
How about this?
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather stations should be used for drawing conclusions?
What do you think Smokey?
Hi, Henry.
The southern oceans have a much greater moderating effect than the northern oceans due to the concentration of land masses north of the equator.
That is why it has been harder to distinguish climate signals of the MWP and LIA in the southern hemisphere.
Nonetheless I am quite sure that the surface pressure distribution responds similarly in both hemispheres under oceanic and/or solar forcing.
That raises the interesting possiblity that so called global warming and cooling is primarily an artifact derived from surface temperature measuring site distribution which is heavily biased towards the very regions that see the largest climate changes namely the northern mid latitudes.
If my contentions are correct then the regional system responses to solar and oceanic variability mostly prevent significant system temperature changes at the global level.
Instead we see surface pressure redistribution giving noticeable regional effects and those regional effects at the surface are a manifestation of the negative system responses maintaining system temperature equilibrium despite the forcing pressures thrown at the system.
Instead of the system equilibrium temperature changing we see instead a change in the speed of transmission of energy through the system.
Try this article for more detail:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
Henry@moderaterepublican
In this game, who will always win in the end?
The truth or the lies?
You have not got a clue as to how many thousands of figures went in front of me for those 12 stations
but even if I did 10 times what I did now
(and maybe I will)
you will still not believe the end result.
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:51 am
The Far Ultraviolet [between EUV and UV] creates and maintains the ionosphere and solar tides move the ions during the day and night cycle giving rise to an varying electric current whose effect we can easily measure on the ground [it was discovered in 1722]. This effect is a very good measure of the FUV flux and follows the solar cycle very closely, e.g. slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf , and shows no long-term drift of change.
Claus Froehlich notes: “The Ca II K index from Mt. Wilson observatory shows no secular trend of the minima since the start of these observations (Foukal et al., 2009; Bertello et al., 2010). This confirms also the result of a recent study of the long-term behaviour of solar like stars by Judge & Saar (2007), which shows that non-cycling stars have a HK index similar to the one observed on the sun during recent minima.” So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.
Moderate Republican,
There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations. The ones being phased out tend to be the rural stations, which show little to no warming, leaving mostly stations in urban environments. By doing this, artificial warming will be shown: click
Smokey said:
And John B’s psychological projection, calling the posting of more than a half dozen charts from different sources “cherry picking” is a failed tactic that can be applied to any chart. That is why I post so many different charts; so people can make up their minds based on plenty of evidence.
Just because you have a large bowl of cherries to pick from does not stop them being cherries. You post 7 cities, I post the Northern Hemisphere. You post 8 years, I post 1000. See the difference? So, then you start saying that everything I posted was “lying”. Only I didn’t get them from my only personal bowl of cherries, they all came straight from their respective sources.
And then, having happily claiming significance for a chart showing about 200 days (for Pete’s sake), you say that the satellite record of Arctic ice extent from 1979 to 2011 is not enough to show a trend. I quote you, “Thus, your extremely short ‘record’ is meaningless.” Amazing!
And you never actually said what was wrong with this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_image/highlat.gif
You muttered something about Mann, but what is actually wrong with the chart? It shows a 50-year running average, which is a lot more honest than your poorly fitted linear trend. Or does it only look that way to me because I am a “true believer”?
I am confused. Are you ideologically driven to convince yourself and others that the science is flawed because you don’t like the perceived political outcomes, or do you really believe what you are saying?
“So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.”
I note the word ‘significantly’ which rather neatly avoids the issue.
All that is neceesary is to shift the net balance of ozone creation/destruction above 45 Km so as to raise or lower the atmospheric heights. Such a raising or lowering alters the surface pressure distribution, cloudiness and albedo.
I see no assessments as to what would be ‘significant’ in such a scenario.
We are here dealing with a set of finely balanced chemical processes and NOT radiative physics.
Smokey says
“There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations”
I also picked up something strange as well.
There is no way the Gibraltar (UK) results that I got can be correct if you carefully compare it to the results of two neighbouring Spanish weather stations and the Moroccan station opposite the strait.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
The Gibraltar station shows no incease in maxima whereas the other three stations show an average increase of 0.04 degrees C/ annum in the maximum tempratures.
I cannot come to no other conclusion but that the data from Gibraltar must have been manipulated.
Henry@Stephen
thx for your prompt reply!
I have printed your article. Give me some time on that.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:15 am
“So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.”
I note the word ‘significantly’ which rather neatly avoids the issue.
It means that there is no significant difference, and we therefore can’t even say if it is lower or higher. It could even be a tad higher during the MM [e.g. with no sunspots to take a bite out of TSI].
I see no assessments as to what would be ‘significant’ in such a scenario.
If TSI and UV were higher during MM, what would that do to your model?
HenryP says @ June 18, 2011 at 8:54 am “In this game, who will always win in the end? The truth or the lies?”
Sorry – but I do not understand how that answers the question. Maybe the question wasn’t clear – just in case here it is again.
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather stations should be used for drawing conclusions?
What do you think Smokey?
Smokey says @ June 18, 2011 at 9:11 am “There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations”
Wow – that sounds like really unscientific plan. I’d like to read more about that. Maybe we can start with your citation of the NOAA plan that maps out their stated policy to “eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations”.
Thanks in advance for the citation, should be an interesting read.
Henry@moderaterepuclan
I think I would also (desperately) want to look at the places that record the temps of the oceans at the same place and depth every day (going back 40 years in time) . Can you help as to where to find these records?? Anyone?
John B says:
“I am confused.”
Truly. The hokey stick chart John B posted is simply wrong. Here is the radiosonde record. And monthly global temperatures are not changing. Further, the recent trend is down.
John B also complained that the charts I posted were more recent – forgetting that those charts come from alarmist sources. So he’s complaining about people who believe what he believes.
Since John B wants charts with a longer time line, he should study these:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
As the last chart shows, there is nothing unusual about the current global temperature. A mild rise of 0.7°C over a century and a half is well within the parameters of normal climate variability. The coincidental rise of CO2 has been seized upon by vested interests to claim that CO2 is the cause. But that spurious relationship has consistently broken down, as the past decade’s falling temperatures make clear.
Finally, JB’s linked version of Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart is simply a copy of the chart that the IPCC can no longer use, because McIntyre and McKittrick have effectively falsified it – to the the extent that Nature was forced to issue a correction.
Of course, John B will accept none of this because his mind is clouded by the cognitive dissonance of a true believer. But others can look at these charts from various sources and make up their own minds.
“If TSI and UV were higher during MM, what would that do to your model?”
That depends on HOW the solar changes alter the chemical balances.
The limited evidence currently available suggests that a more active sun depletes ozone above 45Km and a less active sun allows it to recover.
The actual balance and mix of wavelengths and particles required to achieve that outcome is currently not known.
So if one accepts ANY difference in the mix between MM and now then that difference can account for the differing vertical atmospheric temperature profiles.
HenryP says @ June 18, 2011 at 9:56 am “I think I would also (desperately) want to look at the places that record the temps of the oceans at the same place and depth every day (going back 40 years in time) . Can you help as to where to find these records?? Anyone?”
Wow – my keyboard must be showing very different words that what you are seeing because your response looks to be avoiding answering a simple question. Hopefully the words I am typing here will read more clearly this time.
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Moderate Republican,
Do your own homework, I don’t accept assignments from people whose minds are made up and closed tight. I gave you solid evidence that temperature stations are being rapidly eliminated, leaving most stations in UHI environments. That is more than enough evidence of a deliberate plan for normal folks.
Smokey says @ June 18, 2011 at 10:16 am ” I gave you solid evidence that temperature stations are being rapidly eliminated, leaving most stations in UHI environments. That is more than enough evidence of a deliberate plan for normal folks.”
Sorry Smokey – I must be missing a couple things here. Supporting assertions made here wouldn’t see to be an assignment would it? I mean when you ask for evidence from people you cannot be making an assignment to them right, otherwise you would be behaving in a totally hypocritical way an goodness knows that would not be something you do.
Given your no doubt studied conclusion there had to be multiple plans including that from NOAA that documents their stated policy to “eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations.
Given your conclusion, which clearly had to be based on facts, surely you have citations handy, no? I am sure you are very busy so why not start with just NOAA as part of the international effort to do this.
Thanks again for sending those along, they should be interesting reading and help inform the discussion here,
Moderate Republican says:
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Can I ask you first
What conclusion(question) do you want (answered)?
Stephen Wilde says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:01 am
That depends on HOW the solar changes alter the chemical balances.
The actual balance and mix of wavelengths and particles required to achieve that outcome is currently not known.
So, your model does not know what the outcome will be.
So if one accepts ANY difference in the mix between MM and now then that difference can account for the differing vertical atmospheric temperature profiles.
ANY? how about an increase during MM of UV of 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 %?
Moderate Republican,
I post what I want, not for you – you are a crank – but for others who are easily convinced by relevant facts.
The issue of declining temperature stations has been thoroughly discussed here at WUWT. It is not my job to bring you up to speed on the subject. There is an archive search feature for that. Do your own homework.
“So, your model does not know what the outcome will be.”
On the limited data available the outcome is less ozone above 45Km when the sun is active and more when the sun is inactive. The bit that is not known is the combination of circumnstances (beyond the simple level of activity) from which that outcome is derived.
“ANY? how about an increase during MM of UV of 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 %?”
If that is all it takes then so be it. However I think you have chosen a daft figure just to serve up a meaningless debating point.
@Smokey
I looked at your 10 charts. Here is my assessment:
click1 – unlabeled, can’t comment
click2 – unlabeled, can’t cpmment
click3 – ~10 years (cherry-pick)
click4 – USA only (cherry-pick)
click5 – ~10 years (cherry-pick)
click6 – at best cherry-picked, at worst manipulated (2010 was a statistical tie with 2005 in HadCRUT)
click7 – USA only (cherry-pick)
click8 – actually does show the trend, though the cock-eyed y-axis tries to hide it
click9 – actually shows the trend quite well
click10 – shows that the shaft of the hockey stick is pretty flat (as every hockey stick shows), but does not address the period of the instrumental record, i.e. the blade
Apologies in advance if I am “off by one” or anything, but you get the idea.
And on Mann vs. M&M, read the literature. The “correction” they offered was to expand ther methodological details, to stop M&M incorrectly reworking their analysis. And, as it says in the Heartland Institute article you link to (no politics there, then), “None of these errors affect our previously published results.” Of course, M&M contested that, but my question is to you is, why are you not skeptical of M&M?
Like I said before, if you don’t like Mann, look at another hockey stick. I would be more skeptical of Mann if there weren’t plenty of other studies saying the same thing. But they all do say the same thing. What does that tell you?
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mann-graph.jpg?w=762&h=708
(wish I could find my original link, this one is to a contrarian blog, but the image is the same)
And so what if your charts “come from alarmist sources”? A cherry picked from your neighbours garden is still a cherry.
Smokey says @ June 18, 2011 at 10:55 am “I post what I want, not for you – you are a crank – but for others who are easily convinced by relevant facts.”
I must be missing something, because this kinda looks like you don’t actually have the citations from NOAA and others that there is a deliberate plan “eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations.” And without citations it is kinda just an unsupported assertion.
All I am asking for is the relevant facts – not sure why that makes anyone simply asking for a citation a crank.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 18, 2011 at 10:55 am
“So, your model does not know what the outcome will be.”
On the limited data available the outcome is less ozone above 45Km when the sun is active and more when the sun is inactive. The bit that is not known is the combination of circumnstances (beyond the simple level of activity) from which that outcome is derived.
The more important thing that is not known is a quantification of your ‘model’. It is not known [you don’t now] how big the effect [a number] will be for active [a number] or inactive [a number] sun and how much less or more ozone is required. So you do not know whether the MM would be any different from today and how much.
If that is all it takes then so be it.
No, because you are assuming that the MUST be an effect no matter how small the stimulus is [your ANY]. I’m saying that below a certain stimulus there will be no observable [i.e. significant] effect.
Just to come back to the sun though
(thank God for WUWT where we are allowed to stray a bit!!!!)
HenryP says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:02 am
I think we can survive another little ice age… I think it is just a matter of us making sure that earth will not get “too white” (no racist pun intended). We can do that in the same way as they are removing snow in the nordic countries (salt) or employiing more and better laser beam technology directed to melt snow layers in areas where there are largely thin layers of snow (by using aeroplanes)
==================================================
Somebody (difficult name) answered :
That would have very little impact on growing seasons or desertification. Those issues would still exist, millions if not billions would perish. We live in a very populated world with JIT supply chains. There is no buffer.
—————————————————————————————-
My point here was that the “ice age trap” is simply that too much light is reflected off from earth because of there being too much snow (and white ice) present which in turn makes it even cooler still. It becomes a circle of being caught in snow and ice because the fainter sun has initially produced more snow and ice. That being the case, I think modern man can think of preventative measures to ensure that earth does not fall back into that trap of an ice age.Just don’t let it get too white. Let’s keep it blue and green, shall we?
Am I crazy or what?
HenryP says @ June 18, 2011 at 10:32 am “Can I ask you first What conclusion(question) do you want (answered)?”
No conclusion in mind obviously, since having a conclusion in mind and then backing into that via selective data is a huge no-no, isn’t it?
So here is the question again since it seems to not be showing clearly on your screen. (which is just weird).
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions? Yes or no?
@Mod Rep and Smokey:
I think this explains it…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/programoverview.html
Sorry MR
I don’t have time for playing games. I am going to bed.
If you don’t know what you want I cannot help you.
If you want to know as to how my investigations progessed (and are still progressing) after watching Al Gore’s movie “An inconvenient truth” and deciding to check it out,
just go ahead and read it all here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I am sure there is something that you can learn.
If you have still have questions after that, I am sure you can leave it there.
Moderate Republican,
I note that you consistently ignored my repeated requests to produce testable, measurable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, showing global harm due specifically to CO2. And after ignoring those requests, you then demand that I must produce for your edification what is in the WUWT archives. Projection, much? The fact is that you can not produce real world evidence of global damage from CO2, because there is no such evidence.
And since there is no evidence of global harm from CO2, then reasonable people will conclude that CO2 is harmless. But you cannot admit that fact, because your entire belief system is based on the nonsense that CO2 is harmful. Without “carbon” to demonize, the whole CO2=CAGW conjecture comes apart at the seams, and your religion has lost it’s demon. And with nothing to hate and fear, your CAGW religion is rapidly losing converts.
# # #
John B:
You post one link to a chart — and then you label my dozens of charts, from numerous sources in multiple posts, covering numerous different time frames — as cherry picking??? If it wasn’t for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. You are just like another poster who argued that some charts I linked to were not convincing. So I posted FIFTY charts, mostly peer reviewed and all showing the same thing. He responded just like you: he found fault with all 50 charts. Your mind is hopelessly closed to any facts which contradict your belief system. The planet could plunge into the next great Ice Age, with glaciers moving south of the Great Lakes, and you would still be trying to convince us that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
And MBH98 has been completely debunked. Whining about the Nature Correction being reported by Heartland is merely an ad hominem avoidance of the fact. The UN/IPCC can no longer use Mann’s chart. So they use very similar charts fabricated on the same bad data, which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP. I have posted several charts based on peer reviewed data showing that the MWP was warmer than today. The chart you posted was an outright fabrication; a lie. And of course they don’t dare show the prior Holocene warming episodes, which were even warmer than the MWP. Really, if you believe the crap you posted, you will believe anything.
Smokey said:
“You post one link to a chart — and then you label my dozens of charts, from numerous sources in multiple posts, covering numerous different time frames — as cherry picking??? If it wasn’t for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. You are just like another poster who argued that some charts I linked to were not convincing. So I posted FIFTY charts, mostly peer reviewed and all showing the same thing. He responded just like you: he found fault with all 50 charts. Your mind is hopelessly closed to any facts which contradict your belief system. The planet could plunge into the next great Ice Age, with glaciers moving south of the Great Lakes, and you would still be trying to convince us that runaway global warming is right around the corner.”
YES, you picked and posted lots of cherries, but they are still all cherries, for the reasons I gave. If there are faults with your charts, as I believe I showed, then it doesn’t matter how many of them you post. I’m sure your previous sparring partner felt the same way.
As to plunging into an ice age, if it happens, I will eat my AGW hat, with pleasure, but there is zero evidence of things going that way. What would make you change your mind?
And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England. Anecdotes of local events. But your anecdotes outweigh any amount of carefully analysed temperature proxy data. Why? Because you need an MWP and LIA to support your desired view of history.
Some of you are familiar with this research paper on the connection between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.full.pdf) and some may not, but I post it here for discussion. The authors of this article, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, et. al. are certainly known to most everyone here, the conclusion of this research however, may surprise some of you. They write:
“These results provide evidence that relatively
small solar forcing may play a significant
role in century-scale NH winter climate
change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures
over the NH continents during portions
of the 15th through the 17th centuries
(sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and
warmer temperatures during the 12th through
14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm
Period) may have been influenced by long term
solar variations.”
Additionally, I think this research, done by the late Gerard Bond et. al. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130) discusses the fluctuations of the solar cycle and related Bond events stretching back into Holocene.
Reading these two research papers back to back is can be most illuminating.
Once more, I eagerly await the next paper on the results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN, but as enticing as the GCR/Cloud formation relationship is to consider, we must not forget about the relationship between UV radiation, ozone, and atmospheric circulations patterns…
John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“As to plunging into an ice age, if it happens, I will eat my AGW hat,”
____
To be precise, we already are in an ice age, but, should this interglacial actually come to an end in our lifetimes, your hat may indeed be one of the best meals you’ll have left. I suggest a bit of salt and pepper with the hat if you can chisel the salt and pepper shakers out of the ice. 🙂
A Little Ice Age, on the other hand, even on the order of what we had during the Maunder minimum, while cold, is certainly quite survivable, and you won’t have to eat your hat, but probably wear it a bit more frequently, especially if you live in Europe.
Smokey, the concentration increase is not quite declining, but it’s not increasing, which would be necessary for warming to increase.
Ninderthana says: “The PDO is aftereffect of the ENSO?! I cannot believe that you are still pushing this falsehood. It is a [sad] blemish on a what I see is an outstanding record of research and investigation. “
Bob Tisdale says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:46 am
Regardless of the findings of Claire Perigaud, that’s how that process works. Feel free to provide a link to her papers if you’d like me to read them.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2009/poster/Perigaudabstract.pdf
http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESSSProject/NewLessons/hydrosphere/ENSO/Team05/perigaud.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4060.1
I recently read the book “slaying the sky dragon” – very interesting but doesn’t do what it says in the title. Perhaps it shows that the name “greenhouse gas” is wrong, and the whole IR reflection theory incorrect, but I think most people think of the “greenhouse effect” as one of insulation, keeping the heat in rather than letting it escape through convection. If the planet does work like this, then the role of the so called GHGs is merely to effectively increase the thickness of the insulation, less heat can get out during any given period of time, thus making the average temperature slightly higher. The net energy into the planet must equal the energy out when all is in equilibrium, but whilst the insulation thickness is changing, true equilibrium cannot exist.
This being said, such insulation can provide a benefit during any coming LIA, but once the “normal” climate returns, the same insulation will have increased further (assuming more CO2) so the maximum global temperatures could be a lot higher than today’s “normal”.
I put this forward only because I expect this to be the way the AGWers will present the situation, and since I don’t see any good arguments against the “insulation” mechanism (ignoring feedbacks) then I think the argument will work. The simple explanations tend to work best, and are more easily believable andconvincing, and everyone knows what insulation is and what difference it makes.
HenryP says:
June 18, 2011 at 8:33 am
Thanks Henry.
Azores, found the data .
Don Easterbrook–
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?
John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England.”
Yeah, Greenland PR spin, sure… you and your fellow warmists will have to purge the Internet and history books from Vinland as well… a place in Newfoundland where Ericson met natives who grew… grapes.
http://www.answers.com/topic/leif-ericson
Quick, hurry, there’s a lot of history to be rewritten, Winston…
Oops, premature something or other… [mod, can you remove my immediately prior omment]
@Smokey
I googled “ipcc no longer use mann chart” and guess what comes up top:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/
A posting on this very blog! And who was a prominent commentator? Yes, you were!
So I read the thread, to learn this: IPCC no longer uses Mann’s original chart, because it uses a chart that contains Mann’s line amongst a whole bunch of more recent, but broadly similar hockey sticks. Now why would they do that? Maybe to show consensus? If, as you claim, it is because “IPCC can no longer use [it], because McIntyre and McKittrick have effectively falsified it”, surely they couldn’t put his line on the chart amongst the others.
The hockey stick was cherry picked and all replicas verified used the same offenders mentioned here for the upturn of the stick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Also none of the ice cores or lake and bog sediments support a hockey stick.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleolim/paleolim_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/
@DirkH
My point is that your evidence of MWP/LIA is anecdotal. And what makes it even weaker is that the anecdotes don’t even line up. For example, the artilce you quote says:
“Grapes grew wild in quantity in Newfoundland until as late as the middle of the 17th century, because the climate then was much more benign than it is today”
But the LIA, “is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,” – wikipedia, citing Lamb (1972)
So, was the 17th century warm or cold? Probably depends where you were.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Smokey, the concentration increase is not quite declining (significantly, not yet), but it’s not increasing, which would be necessary for warming to increase.
An increasing rate of concentration growth would be necessary to overcome the decreasing impact of additional GHGs as concentration rise.
aaron,
Note the World Climate widget on the right sidebar. See the CO2 trend line?
HenryP says @ June 18, 2011 at 11:58 am “Sorry MR I don’t have time for playing games.”
Maybe the locak dialect where you are from defines “games” very differently than those of us who speak “American” , but what I see where is a question;
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions? Yes or no?
A game would be more table tennis or something like fun like that were it is easy to work an excuse to have a pint and much back slapping into it. Fun and stuff like that. And involving pints. Did I mention the pints?
Anyway, what I’ve written above seems more like a simple question about a topic you claim to know quite a bit about, so surely that and a couple others would be easily answered. No?
Richard Holle: Thanks for the links. What I found curious was that PDO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation did not appear in any of the papers and articles. Yet Ninderthana had criticized me (mistakenly) me for stating the PDO was an aftereffect of ENSO, while using the work of Claire Perigaud as a reference for my supposed error.
Smokey says @ June 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm “And since there is no evidence of global harm from CO2, then reasonable people will conclude that CO2 is harmless. But you cannot admit that fact, because your entire belief system is based on the nonsense that CO2 is harmful. Without “carbon” to demonize, the whole CO2=CAGW conjecture comes apart at the seams, and your religion has lost it’s demon. And with nothing to hate and fear, your CAGW religion is rapidly losing converts.”
I am not quite sure what the response above has to do for a simple request for a citation, but anyway…
John B – thank you for the citation. I hope that wasn’t too strenuous, but we know how taxing Ctrl V can be.
I didn’t see anything there about a plan to focus on cooking (get it – urban heat – oh man that is funny) the site locations to bias the data. Maybe I just missed it.
What amazes me is Gavin’s lack of curiosity over the relationship with solar cycles and volcanic activity.
Smokey, the second derivative seems to be approaching zero.
Unfortunately I can’t click the the link, but I don’t exactly need to. I familiar with the data.
Nandie says:
June 17, 2011 at 4:25 am
“In figure 3. what do WSN and GSN stand for?”
I second that question.
And in Fig 4, which line is Solar Irradiance and which is Temperature? The red line is predominatly in the lead, so it is obviously TSI. But the blue patches representing minima are filled to the red line, so it must be Temperature. Very confusing.
Bob Tisdale,
Since the beginning of the 1700’s, the PDO has flipped sign roughly once every 30 years. At the time when the change in phase is from negative to positive, the average strength of El Nino (measured on a scale of 0 to 5) is weak. As the positive PDO phase continues, the average strength of El Ninos increases. The PDO then switches phase from positive to negative. As soon as this happens, the average strength of the El Ninos starts to decrease . The El Nino strength continues to decrease right throughout the negative phase. And so on, as the PDO cycles back and forth.
[Note the above talks about the average strength of the El Ninos and not their frequency compared to La Ninas]
These observational facts raise a number of very important points, however one provides indisputable proof that Bob’s model is incorrect:
When the PDO flips from positive to negative, the average strength of the El Ninos has reached a maximum. after the PDO flip has occurred {i.e. the PDO is now negative), the average strength of the El Ninos is still
VERY STRONG [my emphasis], only decreasing slowly in strength over the next 30 years.
Bob, could you please explain how your model will have a complete flip of the North Pacific seas surface temperature pattern, while there is almost NO CHANGE in the elevated average strength of the El Ninos.
If, as your model proposes, the PDO strength is the Nth Pacific’s long term response to repeated El Ninos, why is it that:
PDO phases changes from positive to negative while their is almost no change in the average strength of El ninos. What does change when the PDO flips in phase is the rate of increase or decrease in the strength
of El Ninos.
I have given up trying to use logic and reason with you Bob. I think I will let you find out about Claire Perigaud’s and my work when it is eventually published. That way you will not be embarrassed in public.
Even Mike Lockwood connects the brutal winters in Europe over the past few years with the recent decline of solar activity:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627564.800-quiet-sun-puts-europe-on-ice.html
I too think it not just a coincidence.
Climate is a mathematical abstraction that does not exist, in the much same way that “average global temperature” is a mathematical abstraction that does not exist. The climate abstraction has been with us for thousands of years, since it was once useful for predicting what kind of animals and plants might do well in a given area. This utility can not be found in the modern abstractions.
Weather, on the other hand, is very real.
Records of aggregate weather define the little ice age, not graphs, satellite imagery, nor computations of “average global temperature.” For some insight into the consequences of little ice age weather, scan the Malleus Mallificarum for references to the word “tempest”:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/pdf/5533.pdf
e.g.:“They stir up and confound the elements by the aid of the devil, and arouse terrible hailstorms and tempests.”
I prefer to keep an eye on aggregate weather as it unfurls in the real world for evidence of a trend, ignoring the charts produced by the witch-hunting industry.
John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
And I have to pick you up on this: “which show almost no LIA, and an artificially reduced MWP.” Maybe they didn’t happen, or more likely, maybe they were only local. What evidence do you have? Oh yeah, GREENland (possibly a PR spin by Erik the Red), and they made wine in Northern England. Anecdotes of local events. But your anecdotes outweigh any amount of carefully analysed temperature proxy data. Why? Because you need an MWP and LIA to support your desired view of history.
To satisfy your affected appetite for links (as if real world data really mattered to you) here is a site, CO2 science, that has archived several hundred published articles – the majority proxy reconstructions, that demonstrate the inescapable reality of the MWP on all the world’s continents.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
If you need this evidence to be anecdotal to support your AGW party line, then, for you, it can be anectodal, in the same sense that the entire human scientific published record is anecdotal.
If you really need to “lost the MWP” (and you do) then please provide us a reasoned rebuttal of every one of the several hundred MWP papers archived and presented at the CO2 science site.
correction – “lose the MWP”
(great quote – up there with “hide the decline”)
Ninderthana says: “Since the beginning of the 1700′s, the PDO has flipped sign roughly once every 30 years. At the time when the change in phase is from negative to positive, the average strength of El Nino (measured on a scale of 0 to 5) is weak.”
Which PDO Reconstruction are you referring to Biondi et al. 2001, D’Arrigo and Wilson 2006, MacDonald and Case 2005, or Shen et al. 2006? And why did you select it? Same questions for whatever ENSO reconstruction you selected out of the half dozen or so that are available. There are significant differences between the reconstructions, and they all don’t agree with your assessment later in your reply.
You wrote, “…the average strength of the El Ninos is still VERY STRONG [my emphasis], only decreasing slowly in strength over the next 30 years.”
In reality, referring to HADISST-base NINO3.4 SST anomalies, the strength of the El Nino events during the 2000s is less that the El Nino events in the 1950s and 1960s.
http://i53.tinypic.com/10gjr5s.jpg
Also, note the decrease in NINO3.4 SST anomalies since the 1982/83 El Nino. Maybe the 30-year decrease in strength you’re referring to has already taken place.
http://i53.tinypic.com/xqewat.jpg
@phlogiston
OK, here’s the problem with your data, which also shows neatly why the MWP does not appear strongly in the hemisphere-wide reconstructions:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
shows an MWP from 1200 to 1600
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_laihalampi.php
says; “200-year period stretching from AD 1000 to 1200 — which we will designate the Medieval Warm Period — was approximately 0.8°C warmer”
So, I will grant you, you have some non-anecdotal evidence, but it still doesn’t show a consistent, global MWP, as it is not even talking about the same period.
You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.
John
John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Neither Wikipedia nor Charles Lamb were around to witness the warmer times of the MWP, nor were they around during the LIA period. Not even the RWP or the Dark Ages.
The people who lived in those time were, and some of them actually wrote down what was going on.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 1:53 am
http://i53.tinypic.com/10gjr5s.jpg
Have you noticed throughout this data a cumulative delay between the ENSO and global temperatures by about a decade later?
For example, for each batch of frequent El Nino’s or frequent La Nina’s/neutral ENSO there is a decade delay in the peak or trough in global temperatures from this period. If this continues global temperatures should have already reached there peak recently and the next batch of frequent La Nina’s should drive global temperatures down for the next 25/30 years if this repeats.
Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mann-graph.jpg?w=762&h=708
These do show a MWP and LIA.
John B says: June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
[…]
You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.
Wrong. The recent paleoclimate reconstructions ignore most everything I have read over the past 50 years. They ignore all previous work, history, geology and invent some obscure, barely detectible effect, and claim impending disaster from a minor natural variation in temperature. Oh and that magical CO2, it is about 16% of ‘normal’ for this planet. It has such a big effect on the flora because they are starved for the levels they evolved in. You need to take off your peer-reviewed fantasy glasses.
Since Bob and Leif post with their full, real names, lead public lives, and publish frequently… no.
Matt G said:
These do show a MWP and LIA.”
Yes, indeed they do, and I accept that, but…
1. Only one proxy shows MWP over the claimed range of 1000-1200 (EIV with uncertanties)
2. Even that one does not show the MWP as being as warm as present day
3. The LIA is not as debatable as the MWP and does indeed appear, but again it is not that strong (compare, say, 1600 with 500 or 200) . You can’t have it all ways, either the MWP was a positive blip, the LIA was a negative blip, or they were both rather small blips.
I am glad you are using a peer-reviewed source. It say what it says, though I am sure others will find ways to dispute it, e.g. rbateman , “Neither Wikipedia nor Charles Lamb were around to witness the warmer times of the MWP” he would clearly rather go with anecdotes. This, of course, means he also discounts all of phlogiston’s lake sediment data, as he wasn’t there either.
If we accept that chart, as you appear to, we can then start to talk about whether late 20th century warming is attributable to “natural variability”…
Moderate Republican said:
“John B – thank you for the citation. I hope that wasn’t too strenuous, but we know how taxing Ctrl V can be.
I didn’t see anything there about a plan to focus on cooking (get it – urban heat – oh man that is funny) the site locations to bias the data. Maybe I just missed it.”
You’re welcome Mod Rep. But you didn’t miss anything. You see, it’s a secretplan.
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“Which is exactly what the
peerpal-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”Fixed that for ya.
HenryP said:
“What I am finding now that if you look at the part of my table where I report the means (average temps), all the stations in the SH (the first five stations) show virtually no warming. The actual “global” warming appears to be mainly happening in the NH.
Do you perhaps have an expanation for that? Any idea?”
Congratulations, Henry. You have replicated one of the testable predictions of AGW, that warming will be more pronounced in the NH than the SH due to the greater land mass in the NH.
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Matt G says: “Have you noticed throughout this data a cumulative delay between the ENSO and global temperatures by about a decade later?”
Please find a comparison graph of global temperatures vs scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies and mark it up, throw some notes on it.
Henry@Stephen Wilde
this article was interesting!
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
I think you adequately explained how the earth can be 15 degrees C warmer without resorting to any green house gas effect. However, just where you jump to the CO2, I lost you a bit (from page 5 to 6) even though I think I know what you mean. Perhaps you should explain more fully the differences in concentration and physical properties between CO2 and water –
i.e. that the CO2 cannot condense and vaporize like water causing any buffering effect like the one you propose.
Your theory does explain to me why I don’t see anything of ‘modern” warming happening in the SH. There is very little landmass in the SH and therefore the buffering effect of the oceans on temperature swings becomes much more pronounced then in the NH.
Henry@John B
John B you can also take note of this: there is virtually no modern warming taking place in the SH.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
(see: in the Means portion of the table first 5 stations compared to the rest in the table.)
So, that is also exactly why you would not have seen any evidence of a of a MWP or RWP in the SH. It will not show because it will not happen. There is just too little landmass in the SH. It is exactly that theory for the buffering effect of the interaction between oceans and atmoshpere that Stephen is proposing that keeps the temps. completely constant. In fact during the winter months in Pretoria, (that is now), I saw maxima rising by as much as 0.1 degree C per annum over the past 35 years. (3.5 degrees in total). Yet the means i.e. that is the average temp., stayed exactly the same.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
John B says
Congratulations, Henry. You have replicated one of the testable predictions of AGW, that warming will be more pronounced in the NH than the SH due to the greater land mass in the NH.
John B: I explained this before.
The ratio of the observed warming is maxima: means: minima := 4:2:1
So it is the maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temperature.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
If it had been the other way around, i.e entrapment of heat due to increased GHG’s, namely the minima (that happened during the night) pushing up the average temps., I would have agreed with you that the warming was not natural but man made.
Dave Springer says:
June 19, 2011 at 5:28 am
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“Which is exactly what the peerpal-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”
Fixed that for ya.”
Thanks for that Dave, but I’ll bet you are happy to quote them whenever they produce a cherry you like the look of 😉
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:31 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.
If not the same, perhaps the same mold.
Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)
Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.
Both elusive when cornered with hard evidence.
Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
HenryP says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:14 am
John B: I explained this before.
The ratio of the observed warming is maxima: means: minima := 4:2:1
So it is the maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temperature.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
If it had been the other way around, i.e entrapment of heat due to increased GHG’s, namely the minima (that happened during the night) pushing up the average temps., I would have agreed with you that the warming was not natural but man made.
Yes, AGW also predicts more warming at night. Other studies have found that to be the case. Not sure why you haven’t seen that, but I do note that you are only looking at 12 stations.
Take a look here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3-figure-1.html
To summarise it:
cold nights decreasing, cold days also decreasing but not so much
hot nights increasing, hot days also increasing but not so much
I realise this is looking at number of anomalous days, rather than actual temps, but I assume it correlates. If you, or anyone else, doesn’t agree, you are free to look deeper.
The original research was done by Alexander (2006)
Disclaimer: I do not present this as FACT, or claim it PROVES anything, as that is not the way science works
John b says
Yes, AGW also predicts more warming at night
Also?
And then refer me to the IPCC?
Sorry, John, but after this here:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
and a couple of other issues that I encountered, during the course of my investigations, after deciding to check out Al Gore’s story,
I have become very sceptical of any information coming from anywhere where people’s industries, jobs, grants, etc are totally dependent on man made global warming (now: climate change) being true.
I will certainly visit more stations. It is a work in progress. I have only just now discovered that the number of stations SH and NH must be equal to get the right balance on my table.
But I will stay as I am: an independant hobbyist.
Anyways, John, how is the weather in your area? Don’t you feel like helping me to get more stations on my table?
I do feel sorry for all of you. I cannot help you.
The reading in church today was from Psalm 29, note verse 3. I think I did figure out today why there is no warming in the SH.
HenryP said (in his link): “In the light of the above mentioned, I feel justified in removing these results from Gibraltar from my pool table. I will also do a re-think on the choice of my weather stations. I wonder if it is wise to carry on assessing weather stations from countries whose governments and institutes may have a direct benefit (jobs, grants, industry, etc) if man-made global warming were true.”
So that would be most of them, then. Come on, if you believe everyone is lying, you may as well just give up.
Seriously though: Yes there are zealots in the AGW camp, yes there are those who would exaggerate to get a point across, yes there are even those who would lie to make money (e.g. vendors of home wind turbines). But… Have you ever met a real scientist? Do you know what they get paid? Do you know how much the average climate scientists stands to make if AGW is or is not true? Answer: it ain’t much! I have a chemistry degree and a Master’s in bioinformatics, but I have spent my entire career in the commercial software industry because SCIENTISTS DON’T MAKE ANY MONEY. That’s not why they do it. And I can tell you, if a scientist had some real data or a plausible theory against AGW, he or she would be screaming it from the rooftops (OK, actually through a peer-reviewed journal). A Nobel prize would beckon (actually that is one way to make money, but there are far more lottery winners than Nobel prize winners). At the science level, there is no conspiracy.
Well, UK is out with me. Australia now as well. (Somebody at Sceptical Science noticed a small difference between one of my data and that now reported by BOM, so now I know that somebody is or has been fiddling with the data there as well). I think USA is dicy as well, I am not yet sure. If anyone has tinker free data for me there, I will be very happy. It seems to me most of the anglo saxon countries then that I would try to avoid.. that still leaves a lot of other countries left for me.
John, I just want to know the truth. In that process of finding it I am still learning a lot of new things, like today, this theory from Stephen Wilde on how the temp. on earth is being kept constant in order for life to be able to exist at all….I also would like people like Al Gore and Hansen to publicly apologise for the mess they caused.
As far as peer review is concerned, let me enter this quote from Craig Goodrich that he made one day here at WUWT. I think it is a classic. I am sure he won’t mind if I repeat it again here for you:
“I am sick to death of their rote yapping about “peer review,” when they have perhaps irremediably corrupted the process, and when the point of science was never “peer review” per se but complete openness as to methods and data — which they have steadfastly, almost neurotically, refused to allow. I am nauseated when I hear their “oil funding” chorus, when Greenpeace and the WWF have each received more than two orders of magnitude more funding from corporations than all the free-market think tanks combined — let alone the skeptical science community.
But what makes me really sick is the realization that the $100 billion or so wasted on “climate science” — not quite yet an oxymoron, thanks only to Lindzen, Christy, our own Willis, and a small brave band of real scientists — could have bought an insecticide-impregnated mosquito net for every bed in Africa and South Asia, plus enough DDT to control mosquitoes in swamps near populated areas, with enough left over to keep NASA’s Mars program viable.
But instead of eliminating malaria and keeping mankind’s restless ambition alive, thanks to the warm-mongers we spent the money gazing at our global navel hoping to find the Global Warming Fairy, while at the same time utterly devastating millions of acres of wildlife habitat and peaceful countryside with useless industrial wind turbine phalanxes — which generate no actual power but lots of tax breaks and subsidies — in the quest for some delusional “renewable energy,” clearcutting rainforests for palm oil and fraudulent “carbon sinks,” and doubling world food prices by supporting ethanol production.
So having worked as hard as ever they can to destroy what natural environment remains in the developed world, and to murder as many as possible through starvation and disease in the undeveloped world, these wonderful people preen themselves and vaunt their moral superiority as “humanitarians” and “environmentalists.”
—
Sorry, I had to go get my barf bag.
—
I realize that WUWT, CA, and the rest of the climate realist blogosphere attempt to maintain a civilized level of objective scientific discourse, free from the diatribes that pervade warmist rhetoric. But sometimes it is necessary to vent, and my infrared iris opens up…….”
Have a good week you all!!!
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
@phlogiston
OK, here’s the problem with your data, which also shows neatly why the MWP does not appear strongly in the hemisphere-wide reconstructions:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
shows an MWP from 1200 to 1600
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_laihalampi.php
says; “200-year period stretching from AD 1000 to 1200 — which we will designate the Medieval Warm Period — was approximately 0.8°C warmer”
OK 2 down, several hundred to go. But take heart – as the old Chinese saying goes “a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step”.
Reconstructing palaeo temperature is not straightforward, if you’re determined you can always find technical criticisms if you apply the standards of controlled laboratory testing. And use this as an excuse to ignore overwhelming palaeo evidence contrary to CAGW. This is the approach used by 6-day creationists to discount palaeo evidence for evolution. Praise the L-AGW_d!
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:43 am
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:31 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.
…
Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
‘Members of the warmista club” – are you crazy? Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO? (As for Leif, thats not quite so clear…)
Phlogiston said:
“Reconstructing palaeo temperature is not straightforward, if you’re determined you can always find technical criticisms if you apply the standards of controlled laboratory testing. And use this as an excuse to ignore overwhelming palaeo evidence contrary to CAGW. This is the approach used by 6-day creationists to discount palaeo evidence for evolution. Praise the L-AGW_d!”
Sorry if my post was miseading. I agree that paleo reconstruction is difficult and would not dream of using creationist tactics to discount your work. I repeat what I said, “You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges.” Do that, and you will be taken seriously. Provide a long list of separate data, anecdotes, charts and it will look like you have nothing coherent, even if underneath it all, you do.
I wish you well.
“Both (Bob Tisdale and Leif Svalgaard) dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
‘Members of the warmista club” – are you crazy? Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO? (As for Leif, thats not quite so clear…)
There’s no way that either of them are part of the Warmista group. However they are both tenacious defenders of their own territory which is fine, that’s just part of the game and entirely legitimate.
Leif cannot accept a top down solar effect on the atmosphere from solar variability and as regards radiative effects he is probably right. However effects derived from atmospheric chemistry are a different matter altogether and I think he is not as open minded as he should be about that.
Bob cannot accept that there is an external solar induced forcing component affecting ENSO (and thereby PDO)over multidecadal and centennial timescales so as to allow tropospheric temperature changes such as those from MWP to LIA to date.
Personally I think they are both wrong and as soon as one does accept a dominant role for atmospheric chemistry together with a subsequent cloudiness/albedo effect on the energy input to the oceans altering ENSO and PDO characteristics then the whole thing falls into place as per my proposed new climate model.
geo says:
June 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm (Edit)
Don Easterbrook–
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?
Have you noticed how many more big eruptions there have been since the sun went quiet?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:48 am
“So, there is good evidence that the UV and TSI was not significantly lower during the Maunder Minimum.”
It means that there is no significant difference, and we therefore can’t even say if it is lower or higher. It could even be a tad higher during the MM [e.g. with no sunspots to take a bite out of TSI].
I thought you said that the bright faculae around sunspots more than made up for the ‘bite that sunspots take out of TSI’
Therefore, no sunspots>no bright faculae> less TSI. QED
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Therefore, no sunspots>no bright faculae> less TSI. QED
Geez, how simplistic can one get?
Faculae develop long before a sunspot becomes visible and stay around long after. There doesn’t even ever need to be any sunspot in a facula area
Geoff Sharp says: “Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.”
We both lived in Houston. So maybe there’s a photo of us together somewhere. Not likely, though, since a gazillion people live in Houston and, if memory serves me well, Houston covers an area as large as the State of Rhode Island.
You continued, “Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)”
I thought I did a reasonable job with the post that Anthony linked.
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
Incorrect. I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.
http://i56.tinypic.com/wnxa9.jpg
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/can-most-of-the-rise-in-the-satellite-era-surface-temperatures-be-explained-without-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gases/
There’s even a comparison of the residual and Sunspot Numbers in that post.
You continued, “Both elusive when cornered with hard evidence.”
There hasn’t been any hard evidence presented on this thread that contradicts what I’ve written here or in the post that Anthony linked.
You continued, “Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.”
Nope. Just skeptical if those ideas contradict, or are not supported by, data.
You ended with, “Both members of the Warmista group.”
Actually, I’m a lukewarmer. I understand global surface temperatures have risen, and I understand how AGW is supposed to impact land surface temperatures. But a warmista wouldn’t publish a post showing how natural ocean oscillations are responsible for 85% of the global warming. (And it was always my understanding that Leif was also a lukewarmer. )
geo says:
June 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm
How do you respond to the Gavin Schmidt-like analysis that volcanic activity likely was more responsible for the Maunder period cooling than the quiet sun?
There is some evidence that the cosmic ray record we have may be contaminated by volcanic eruptions.http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf and
Paragraph 28 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
The climate record surely is.
Stephen Wilde says: “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
It was the AMO:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/comments-on-tamino%e2%80%99s-amo-post/
You wrote, “Bob cannot accept that there is an external solar induced forcing component affecting ENSO (and thereby PDO)over multidecadal and centennial timescales so as to allow tropospheric temperature changes such as those from MWP to LIA to date.”
Show me the multidecadal and centennial timescale data that supports your hypothesis if you’d like me to accept it.
You concluded, “Personally I think they are both wrong and as soon as one does accept a dominant role for atmospheric chemistry together with a subsequent cloudiness/albedo effect on the energy input to the oceans altering ENSO and PDO characteristics then the whole thing falls into place as per my proposed new climate model.”
A new model? You haven’t documented or provided the equations and data that support your old one. (Same old argument from Bob.)
Regards
Stephen Wilde: Oops. I now see it was phlogiston who said, “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
No probs, Bob, we can agree to disagree.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Faculae develop long before a sunspot becomes visible and stay around long after. There doesn’t even ever need to be any sunspot in a facula area:
You have told us in the past that the dark sunspots don’t ‘take a bite out of TSI’ because of the bright faculae around them compensating. Now you are saying that there could be as many faculae even with no sunspots.
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
So which is it?
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Stephen Wilde [phlogiston] says: “Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO?”
It was the AMO:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/comments-on-tamino%e2%80%99s-amo-post/
So I cant even get a one-liner factually correct!
John B says:
June 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“In 2009 sea ice conditions were such that at least nine small vessels and two cruise ships completed the transit of the Northwest Passage.
Cruise ships for Pete’s sake!”
And a whale! Don’t forget the whale. He did it without GPS.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Geoff Sharp says: “Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.”
True to form, when Geoff can’t argue the science he goes after the person. I say we simply ignore him from now on.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time: TSI = Base TSI [due to non-magnetic sun] + dTSI [faculae] – dTSI (spots). In general dTSI[Faculae] > dTSI[spots]. If dTSI [spots] is zero, but dTSI[faculae] is not, TSI goes up…
Now we don’t know how many faculae there were during the Maunder Minimum, but we know that there must a magnetic field still, as the cosmic ray modulation was significant, and also because the spicules were observed at eclipses [albeit at the tail end of the MM]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
—————————————-
Incorrect. I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.
That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.
Your statements earlier on the PDO are more my point :
Geoff Sharp says: “I agree, the thrust of the Easterbrook presentation is correct. The world temps follow a combination of PDO and solar output fluctuations that cannot be challenged over the short term.”
—————————–
It can’t be challenged? Why’s that? The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. The PDO does not represent the Sea Surface Temperature of the North Pacific. The PDO is actually inversely related to the detrended SST anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal time scales and the PDO lags them. Taking all that into consideration, through what mechanism would the PDO impact global temperatures?
I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd). If you add a smaller solar influence to the PDO almost all temperature fluctuations can be accounted for. What we havent seen yet is a stronger influence from a Sun during a grand minimum (which is showing lower levels than normal cycle minima, if we look beyond TSI). We are certainly recording some strange events, these events might pan out to be larger than expected in the coming decades. But you question the mechanism required for a PDO/climate link?
I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO, so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections. You may be right but suspect you might be waiting for a mechanism longer than I, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter what drives what, the ENSO pattern and the multiple solar climate effects rule our world.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
~
Slightly off topic question for you Geoff, if you can.
How would historical ‘small scale’ changes in planetary eccentricities change the integrity of the ephemeris in time?
Something about solar rotation and a follow the leader thing has been bothering me lately.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time: TSI = Base TSI [due to non-magnetic sun] + dTSI [faculae] – dTSI (spots). In general dTSI[Faculae] > dTSI[spots], so you get a solar cycle variation in TSI. You can see the combined effect on slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Carla says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
~
Slightly off topic question for you Geoff, if you can.
How would historical ‘small scale’ changes in planetary eccentricities change the integrity of the ephemeris in time?
To my knowledge planetary perturbations are allowed for via a separate perturbation module that is part of the modern JPL ephemeris. I am very confident in the accuracy of the JPL data with perhaps a small doubt in the absolute accuracy of Neptune. Some of this was covered in detail in my debunking of Fred Bailey’s “solar chord theory”
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2011 at 9:13 pm
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
This doesn’t make sense. If that were the case, then the dark sunspot areas would take a bite out of TSI.
They do. Whether it makes sense to you is not important in the end [I only try N number of times, after that …]. One last time:..
You have snipped what I said in order to twist the meaning of my words. It is unacceptable behaviour.
The recent solar minimum ‘baseline’ TSI fell well below the last few cycles at minimum. But of course when the data doesn’t fit your pet unvarying sun hypothesis, the data are wrong and Claus has outlived his usefulness to you.
TSI is lower now while there are less spots than it was when there were more spots in cycle 23. Not many bright faculae around. I’ll stick with real observations and you can keep your ever changing F10.7-sunspot ratio and your idle speculation about TSI levels in the Maunder Minimum where they belong.
Moderate Republican says:
June 18, 2011 at 9:56 am
Smokey says @ June 18, 2011 at 9:11 am “There is a deliberate international plan to eliminate most of the terrestrial temperature recording stations”
“Wow – that sounds like really unscientific plan. I’d like to read more about that.”
Well then, I invite you to read Part 2 of our presentation at endtimeclimate which is devoted to that very subject, complete with refs, citations, & links. Enjoy.
Global_Warming_and_Corruption_of_Science_part2.html
Geoff Sharp says: “That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.”
I do not understand how you can provide that reply to my statement, “I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.”
You continued, “I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd).”
The link you provided…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
…is a time-series of the PDO. It does not describe or illustrate the “PDO pattern”. Refer to description of the PDO pattern at the top of the JISAO webpage:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
They’re using “pattern” in the same sense as plaid and argyle are fabric patterns.
Your parenthetical statement “(unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd)” is odd since the PDO data you illustrated is statistically derived from two obsolete and one current sea surface temperature datasets “produced by the AGW crowd”.
You wrote, “I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO…”
It’s not my theory. I just try to describe the findings of Newman et al (2004)…
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/newman2003.pdf
…and Evans et al (2001)…
http://iceman2.umd.edu/www/preprints/pdv.pdf
and Shakun and Shaman (2009)…
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0919/2009GL040313/2009GL040313.xml
…into easier-to-understand terms.
And you continued, “so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections.”
I believe once you accept that “pattern” is not being used to describe periodicity the rest of what I’ve written will fall into place.
Stephen Wilde says:
All that is neceesary is to shift the net balance of ozone creation/destruction above 45 Km so as to raise or lower the atmospheric heights. Such a raising or lowering alters the surface pressure distribution, cloudiness and albedo.
I see no assessments as to what would be ‘significant’ in such a scenario.
But wouldn’t very small changes caused by changes in UV from the sun be dwarfed by the massive alteration of stratospheric ozone and temperature that the large volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and PInatubo caused? (See my previous post).
Bob Tisdale says:
June 20, 2011 at 3:01 am
Geoff Sharp says: “That is a bit like saying there may be some isolated cooling but lookout when this abates as the GHG monster will be back in full force to cook us all.”
——————————————
I do not understand how you can provide that reply to my statement, “I’ve actually shown that the AMO and the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO could be responsible for 85% of the global (60S-60N) warming since 1982.”
I was referring to a similar statement made in the past by your luke warmer friend. Basically it’s a cop out statement, 85% of warming on 40 % of the planet? Not exactly decisive.
Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years and above average ice extent for most of that period.
You continued, “I think it is pretty clear that the recognized PDO pattern follows the temperature trend (unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd).”
The link you provided…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg
…is a time-series of the PDO. It does not describe or illustrate the “PDO pattern”. Refer to description of the PDO pattern at the top of the JISAO webpage:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
They’re using “pattern” in the same sense as plaid and argyle are fabric patterns.
Your parenthetical statement “(unless you subscribe to one of the adulterated temp sets produced by the AGW crowd)” is odd since the PDO data you illustrated is statistically derived from two obsolete and one current sea surface temperature datasets “produced by the AGW crowd”.
“Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)”
You wrote, “I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO…”
It’s not my theory. I just try to describe the findings of Newman et al (2004)…
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/newman2003.pdf
…and Evans et al (2001)…
http://iceman2.umd.edu/www/preprints/pdv.pdf
and Shakun and Shaman (2009)…
http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0919/2009GL040313/2009GL040313.xml
…into easier-to-understand terms.
Nitpicking and hair splitting like someone else I know. Your theory or what you subscribe to, is of little difference in this argument.
And you continued, “so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections.”
I believe once you accept that “pattern” is not being used to describe periodicity the rest of what I’ve written will fall into place.
There is an ENSO cycle in place, the PDO record over long periods shows a regular pattern. Or do you think it is more like a random number generator like some from other areas of science?
Interesting that you have no solid argument against the PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend.
Volcanic eruptions cause large short term changes. After about 4 years the effect dissipates.
Solar changes appear to be spread over a 500 year period such as MWP to LIA to date and accumulate their energy budget effects until the process goes into reverse once more.
Geoff Sharp says:
Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years and above average ice extent for most of that period.
Henry@Geoff
Do you perhaps have original data on temps. (maxima, means & minima) in the antarctic for the past 4 or 5 decades or do you know know where I can get it? Like from a weather station? All historical data I could find seems rather incomplete.
It is for my pool table:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Stephen Wilde says:
Volcanic eruptions cause large short term changes. After about 4 years the effect dissipates.
The El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions caused a short-term stratospheric warming, but after that each eruption caused a long-term stratospheric cooling. The cooling step change from each eruption is so glaringly obvious in the satellite stratospheric temperature records that IMHO it’s really amazing that the AGW crowd dares to talk about a “downward trend” and take the stratospheric cooling as a proof of AGW theory.
See e.g. the TLS graph on the RSS page: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Geoff Sharp says: “I was referring to a similar statement made in the past by your luke warmer friend. Basically it’s a cop out statement, 85% of warming on 40 % of the planet? Not exactly decisive.”
Your argument has no basis in reality. The latitudes of 60S-60N represent about 88% of the surface area of the globe, not 40%. And there are two reasons I excluded the poles in my post. First, there’s little to no surface temperature sampling in the Arctic. Second, I was using GISS data as my referenced surface temperature dataset and GISS deletes SST data in areas with sea ice and extends land surface temperature data out over the oceans.
Geoff Sharp says: “Nitpicking and hair splitting like someone else I know. Your theory or what you subscribe to, is of little difference in this argument.”
I provided you with references that support my descriptions. Your reply is nonsensical.
Geoff Sharp says: “Interesting that you have no solid argument against the PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend.”
Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend” I have no need to argue against it.
Let me ask you this very simple, basic question: Since the PDO does NOT represent the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, through what process does the PDO cause global temperatures to rise and fall?
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
You have snipped what I said in order to twist the meaning of my words. It is unacceptable behaviour.
It is unacceptable to accuse anybody of trying to twist the meaning.There was no coherent meaning I could see, perhaps that is part of the explanation.
The recent solar minimum ‘baseline’ TSI fell well below the last few cycles at minimum. But of course when the data doesn’t fit your pet unvarying sun hypothesis, the data are wrong and Claus has outlived his usefulness to you.
Again, you are not cognizant of the data. The PMOD data has sever problems. The instrument is rapidly degrading more than is corrected for by Claus, as I show in http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf In addition there are other systematic errors, such as the pikes at times when SOHO is in a keyhole. The principal investigator on SORCE/TIM Greg Kopp agrees with me [quote on slide 5] that “Sadly, this probably does mean we don’t have good knowledge of how this current minimum relates to the prior one” [Greg Kopp]. Here is another view of the degradation of the PMOD series: http://www.leif.org/research/Degradation-of-PMOD.png . The PMOD curve has been shifted down 4.51 W/m2 to match SORCE in 2004. Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
TSI is lower now while there are less spots than it was when there were more spots in cycle 23.
Of course, because TSI is larger when there are more spots and associated faculae.
I’ll stick with real observations
SORCE makes real observations. The other TSI instrument on SOHO, DIARAD also does not show that the recent minimum was lower than the previous one: http://remotesensing.oma.be/en/2619553-TSI.html This is real data.
and you can keep your ever changing F10.7-sunspot ratio
That is an observational fact as well, so can’t do much about that.
and your idle speculation about TSI levels in the Maunder Minimum where they belong.
This is, indeed, speculation [and was clearly labeled as such] and [just] might come to pass. Such speculation is often useful in suggesting new pathways. Idle? [you have slipped into insult mode again].
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I’ll stick with real observations
The real observations from RMIB as they incorporate them into their composite look like this:
http://www.leif.org/research/DIARAD-RMIB-TSI-Composite.png
They even suggest a small increase from minimum to minimum [perhaps in line with my ‘idle’ speculation], but I think it just shows that there is not good evidence for TSI being any lower this minimum.
“Give us a list of non-terrestrial temperature stations.”
Assuming you mean sea surface readings, and not Martian readings.
The SST record has even more quality control issues than do land based readings.
Things like shipping lanes shifting over time, different methods for gathering data.
HenryP says:
June 20, 2011 at 7:56 am
Henry@Geoff
Do you perhaps have original data on temps. (maxima, means & minima) in the antarctic for the past 4 or 5 decades or do you know know where I can get it? Like from a weather station? All historical data I could find seems rather incomplete.
It is for my pool table:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Hi Henry, the GISS surface station page will give you want you need. Just click on the map and a list of Antarctic stations are made available. You will notice most of the stations showing a flat or declining trend over the long term.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:11 am
Your argument has no basis in reality. The latitudes of 60S-60N represent about 88% of the surface area of the globe, not 40%. And there are two reasons I excluded the poles in my post. First, there’s little to no surface temperature sampling in the Arctic. Second, I was using GISS data as my referenced surface temperature dataset and GISS deletes SST data in areas with sea ice and extends land surface temperature data out over the oceans.
Ok so you meant inclusive rather than exclusive….thanks for clearing that up. So now its 85% of 88%.
Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend” I have no need to argue against it.
Yes you have, but perhaps a little imagination on your part is required. Study the PDO graph supplied earlier and then add solar variability using SSN. The PDO providing the major influence but augmented by solar. When the PDO is neg and solar low, pressure pattern changes at the poles being a solid influence.
Let me ask you this very simple, basic question: Since the PDO does NOT represent the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, through what process does the PDO cause global temperatures to rise and fall?
Let me respond by asking a simpler question. Does the ENSO pattern follow the standard PDO pattern? Your statement is a bit confusing when reading the PDO guidelines.
PDO INDEX
Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the
leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean,
poleward of 20N.
I think we need to see that photo.
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Dear MR, clearly you are sitting with a problem that is bothering you. Why don’t you tell me what you would like to know? My initial investigation was to establish whether your carbon foot print is good or bad for you.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
First of all, why don’t you read all of that until you come to understand how I reached the point in my searches where I started my pool table.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I am not saying that the table is finished, I will still add more stations, and, as I only recently established, my table needs to be balanced NH and SH, perhaps even a balancing by latitude as well. Just like a real pool table. It seems I also have to try and avoid those people and institutes that want to hide the truth because the truth does not suit them. (as if I would not find out eventually what the truth is)
So far, on my table, it looks that it was maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temp on earth and not the minima. That means that the global warming and resulting climate change observed over the past 3 or 4 decades was natural. Nobody could have done anything about it. You can cry over spilt ice, but unfortunately I am afraid that less CO2 will not bring it back. Unfortunately, pumping in more CO2 in the atmosphere once a cooler period sets in, will also not do the trick of keeping earth warm. Further, it appears from my table that precipitation remained largely unchanged but RH went down a bit. (Less humidity tries to ring a bell with me, but I cannot remember what it was)
if, after doubling the size of my table, I still find that the trends on my pool table is the same, then I imagine that one day I will be challenged to determine what caused the (natural) global warming and resulting climate change.
If you know of a weather station on the moon or on mars that was left there 3 or 4 decades ago we could find this out together. Obviously I need the data for maxima, means and minima. The question seems simple enough for me to find out: either it was the sun that was shining a bit hotter or it was that there were less clouds, allowing more sunshine in. I am not sure if there can be any other causes for natural global warming?
So, having outlined in detail what I am doing, let me ask you: how can you help me?
Henry@Geoff
You are funny. The link you gave me is taking me to my own pool table.
Geoff Sharp says: I stated, “Since I haven’t seen your argument FOR the ‘PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend’ I have no need to argue against it.”
You replied, “Yes you have, but perhaps a little imagination on your part is required…”
That indicates to me that you have no argument FOR the “PDO/solar matchup to the temperature trend”, which means you’ve wasted my time.
I asked you, “Since the PDO does NOT represent the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, through what process does the PDO cause global temperatures to rise and fall?”
Your failure to answer that simple question indicates that you know of no process through which the PDO could cause global temperatures to rise and fall, which also means you’ve wasted my time. You’ve also included a copy of the PDO description from the JISAO website, so you understand that the PDO does not represent the SST anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N, which means, in turn, that you’ve wasted my time once again.
Bye, Geoff. Thanks for wasting my time.
HenryP says:
June 20, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Henry@Geoff
Not sure what happened….trying again here.
Henry@Geoff
Whatever I do, I don’t get to see the original data sets comprising the (daily) maxima, means and minima from any weather station on that site GISS (NASA). I do get to see the monthly means, which sometimes look funny . (Temps. of 999.9? like the from first Amundsen Scott weather station). Can you help me? That must be a Hansen trick again, to hide the maxima and minima from us.
Geoff Sharp: I just noticed the typo in the opening of my June 21, 2011 at 12:17 am reply to you. It reads, “Geoff Sharp says: I stated, ‘Since…”
It should read, “Geoff Sharp: I stated, ‘Since…”
Now, in your June 20, 2011 at 6:14 am reply to me, you said, “Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years and above average ice extent for most of that period.” You later replied to HenryP, “Hi Henry, the GISS surface station page will give you want you need. Just click on the map and a list of Antarctic stations are made available. You will notice most of the stations showing a flat or declining trend over the long term.” So your statement that the “Antarctica that has shown no warming” is based on GISS land surface temperature data.
I knew your comment was wrong when you posted it yesterday, but I didn’t have the time to clean up and post the following graphs to show you that you’re wrong. The GISS land surface temperature data with 250km smoothing for the Antarctic (90S-60S) shows a significant positive trend of 0.066 deg C per decade since 1960 (the last 50 years):
http://i55.tinypic.com/2445pbn.jpg
And to confirm there’s a significant trend in Antarctic land surface temperatures for the past 60 years, I also checked the GHCN/CAMS land surface data. It shows a positive trend of 0.058 deg C per decade:
http://i55.tinypic.com/4retfc.jpg
HenryP: The GHCN/CAMS land surface temperature dataset that’s available through the KNMI Climate Explorer is available in absolute temperatures. Not sure if that would be what you’re looking for since the data is available on gridded basis. But if you were looking for absolute land surface temperatures for Antarctica for example, you can create that data there:
http://i54.tinypic.com/29d7434.jpg
Link to KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Bob Tisdale says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:23 am
Surprised to see you back Bob…thought you had thrown in the towel. Your analysis is amazing, 0.066 deg C per decade. At that rate we will be toast in 10,000 years. The ice extent tells us a different story.
There are many stations with very short records in Antarctica. The trick is to only select those with long term records or otherwise risk a faulty dataset as you have just shown.
Henry@Geoff
No comment on the absence of max & minima on GISS?
Henry@Bob
Absolute is not the problem.
(seeing that degrees K is the same distance in temp. as degrees C)
I just need the monthly average of the daily data as reported on my pooltable
(maxima, means, minima, humidity & precipiation)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
for one station in the antarctic (anyone), going back 35 – 40 years.
I think it does not exist going back that far?
HenryP – Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Why is it that hard to answer what is a simply question?
How about this question as well;
Do you believe that your data points are statistically valid selections to draw your global conclusions?
MR
I will see your question and raise your mine!
(I am assuming you read everything)
We are looking at the ratio maxima, means and minima
which would prove either way if the warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (in the atmosphere)
So if you have any data that disproves that it is according to the ratio
as predicted by me, i.e. 4 : 2 : 1
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
which proves that the global warming and resulting climate change was natural,
Why don’t you bring it here?
Sorry, that last post should read:
MR
I will see your question and raise you mine!
(I am assuming you read everything)
We are looking specifically at the ratio of the rate of increase in maxima, means and minima (over the past 3- 4 decades) which would prove either way if the warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (in the atmosphere)
So if you have any data that disproves that it is as predicted by me, i.e. 4 : 2 : 1
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
which proves that the global warming and resulting climate change was natural,
Why don’t you bring it here?
HenryP – why do you refuse to answer simple questions that speak to your claims that you have personally proven that warming is natural? If your analysis is accurate this is important work and one would imagine you would be keen to share and discuss your work. No?
Do you believe that only land based weather data should be used for drawing conclusions?
Yes or no?
Do you believe that your data points are statistically valid selections to draw your global conclusions?
Yes or no?
HenryP says: “I do get to see the monthly means, which sometimes look funny . (Temps. of 999.9? like the from first Amundsen Scott weather station). Can you help me? That must be a Hansen trick again, to hide the maxima and minima from us.”
Values totally outside of the range of normal variability like 999.9 are commonly used to illustrate no data or incomplete data, etc. There’s no trick.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:17 am
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:45 pm
… Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
phlogiston says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum”
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
Because we compare it with SORCE/TIM and DIARAD that do not show sharp degradation, therefore we can say the PMOD is the one degrading, and can actually correct for that if we want to.
phlogiston says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2011 at 9:17 am
… Since then the degradation has been 0.023 W/m2/yr. Assuming that the degradation did not start just when SORCE was launched, but is ongoing [which we know it is], that means that in the 12 years between the minima in 1996 and 2008, PMOD has drifted dwon by 0.27 W/m2 which is just what Froelich claims the recent minimum is lower than the previous. The conclusion is clear: There has been no decrease in TSI from minimum to minimum
How can there be any clear conclusion from a sharply degrading sensor?
Frohlich is fond of adjustments, as we know from the ACRIM debacle. If the sensor was degrading at a known rate, he would have adjusted for it. Something else is going on. Maybe Frohlich has jumped the reservation fence.
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Frohlich is fond of adjustments, as we know from the ACRIM debacle. If the sensor was degrading at a known rate, he would have adjusted for it. Something else is going on. Maybe Frohlich has jumped the reservation fence.
He knows about it. I have told him many times, and he acknowledges that he has degradation, but still doesn’t do anything about it. I’ve been gentle with him. I told him about the degradation years ago. Here is an old plot of that: http://www.leif.org/research/DiffTSI(PMOD-SORCE).png
Bottom line: there is no evidence that TSI was any lower in 2008-2009 than at any other minimum in the past.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You continued, “Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.”
…
I do not agree with your theory of ENSO ruling the PDO, so it is not difficult to see a PDO influence on the ENSO pattern and the associated climate connections. You may be right but suspect you might be waiting for a mechanism longer than I, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter what drives what, the ENSO pattern and the multiple solar climate effects rule our world.
If you see the ENSO as a nonlinear oscillator – an argument that I presented in a post some months ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/25/is-the-enso-a-nonlinear-oscillator-of-the-belousov-zhabotinsky-reaction-type/
Then the ENSO and PDO emerge as different time-scales of the same fractal-type oscillation with long term pattern. Basically in the ENSO oscillation the el Nino is the “above the line” wave and the La Nina the “below the line” waveform. However rather than a monotonous sine wave you have a complex oscillation with oscillating phases. In some phases there are more up than down waves, i.e. el Nino predominates statistically. In the opposite phases the opposite happens, La Nina below-the-line waves predominate. Bob Tisdale has described the PDO as precisely this – alternating periods of el Nino and La Nina dominance.
However which causes which? In Bob’s PDO /AMO primer part 3
he makes an interesting comment:
There are posts and comments around the blogosphere that state something to the effect of “when the PDO is positive, El Niño events are more frequent, and the PDO is negative, there are more La Niña events.” The authors of those comments have cause and effect reversed.
However if you see the system as a nonlinear oscillator under the control of an attractor (e.g. Lorenz, Roessler as discussed in the above link) then the “chicken and egg” issue of which comes first (or is causative) the ENSO or the PDO, goes away. Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales. That means it is fractal, a further signature and clue (if such were needed) of the nonlinear / nonequilibrium dynamics behind the whole system.
So what about poor old sol – does he get left out? Well no – nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agreee it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean. However this forcing is probably weak, thus the relation between solar forcing timescales and the forced climate oscillations is complex and statistically elusive. That just makes it more fun to argue about endlessly.
Leif said:
“He knows about it. I have told him many times, and he acknowledges that he has degradation, but still doesn’t do anything about it. I’ve been gentle with him. I told him about the degradation years ago.”
LOL.
Hey, Leif, nice to see that you are as robust with your colleagues as you are with the rest of us 🙂
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
phlogiston says: “However if you see the system as a nonlinear oscillator under the control of an attractor (e.g. Lorenz, Roessler as discussed in the above link) then the “chicken and egg” issue of which comes first (or is causative) the ENSO or the PDO, goes away.”
There is no chicken and egg issue. I explained the process through which ENSO creates the PDO pattern earlier on this thread. Refer to:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#comment-683730
Regards
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Chemical processes brought about by radiation. Solar wind particles have usually nothing to do with chemical reactions. Only during rare ‘super storms’ where solar energetic particles can penetrate deep into the atmosphere is the some transitory effect. But that you know already as I have told you that so many times 🙂
And TSI is, at any rate, a proxy for all the other bad stuff that comes our way.
phlogiston said:
“Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales”
Halleluja.
I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not. Pending further consideration that is a nice solution.
and then phlogiston said:
“nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agree it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean.”
Which I thoroughly agree with.
So what we have here is variable solar input to the Earth system acting via atmospheric chemistry (not radiative physics) to alter surface air pressure distribution via changes in cloudiness, albedo and solar shortwave input to the oceans. That affects the equilibrium temperature of the oceans until the level of solar input to the Earth system changes once more and in the meantime the equilibrium temperature of the oceans feeds back to modulate the surface air pressure distribution initiated by the level of solar input.
Thus solar top down effects are constantly modulated by the oceanic bottom up response and on top of that the internal ocean mechanics can either be in or out of phase with the solar top down effects.
That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.
The whole thing boils down to latitudinal positional variations and changes in the size and intensity of the various climate zones which have always been a permanent feature of the planet. Changes in the latitudinal position of the ITCZ, the Hadley and Farrel cells plus the changing characteristics of the polar vortices account for everything we observe.
Climate change is then reduced to a perceived shift of the climate zones over the areas where measurements are taken.
Leif needs to accept that the Earth system response to solar variations is chemically and not radiatively driven.
Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.
Everyone else needs to accept that climate change (short of a change from glaciation to interglacial and vice versa) is just a redistribution of surface air pressure and not necessarily a significant alteration of the global equilibrium temperature which is actually set by the oceanic response to solar shortwave input.
Needless to say the greenhouse gases play an insignificant part in the natural process.
Tyndall, Arrhenius et al got it wrong. The oceans set the global equilibrium temperature and not the greenhouse gases in the air.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Surprised to see you back Bob…thought you had thrown in the towel.”
There’s no reason for me to throw in the towel. I’m not the one in this discussion making unfounded statements. Disproving your comments just isn’t a high priority for me. I have other things to do. In reality, I do NOT find disproving your statements to be entertaining. It’s actually kind of sad. Your credibility with me is shot, yet you continue to fabricate and spin.
You wrote, “Your analysis is amazing, 0.066 deg C per decade. At that rate we will be toast in 10,000 years. The ice extent tells us a different story.”
This is becoming a habit with you. When the data contradicts your unfounded statement, you attempt to downplay the data and redirect the discussion. Are you aware, Geoff, that all of the AGW nonsense is based on a global surface temperature linear trend of only 0.137 deg C per decade (using your selected GISTEMP LOTI) for the past 50 years? That’s the period aand dataset you chose, not me. That global trend is a little more than twice the Antarctic linear trend of 0.066 deg C per decade. But you claimed there was NO Antarctic warming. Recall that you wrote, “Also not sure how that would apply to Antarctica that has shown no warming in the last 50 years…”
You wrote, “There are many stations with very short records in Antarctica. The trick is to only select those with long term records or otherwise risk a faulty dataset as you have just shown.”
Another fabrication on your part, Geoff? Do you recall the debacle last year about Steig et al (2009) versus O’Donnell et al (2010)? If you’re not aware of it, the debate wasn’t about whether or not the Antarctic surface temperatures had warmed over 50 year; it was about the statistical methods that showed where the warming had occurred.
And a quick visit to the KNMI Climate Explorer disproves your statement that, “There are many stations with very short records in Antarctica.” Using this webpage…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/click_s.cgi?someone@somewhere?monthly?199,199
…I asked for a listing of 10 GHCN stations (all), mean temperature, near to 89S-0E. Here’s the list stations and the number of years with data for those stations:
1. AMUNDSEN-SCOT (ANTARCTICA): Found 55 years with data in 1957-2011
2. BYRD STATION (ANTARCTICA): Found 25 years with data in 1957-1987
3. VOSTOK (ANTARCTICA): Found 53 years with data in 1958-2011
4. BELGRANO (ANTARCTICA): Found 25 years with data in 1955-1979
5. BASE BELGRANO (ANTARCTICA): Found 32 years with data in 1980-2011
6. MCMURDO (ANTARCTICA): Found 37 years with data in 1956-1992
7. SCOTT BASE (ANTARCTICA): Found 31 years with data in 1957-1987
8. HALLEY (ANTARCTICA): Found 56 years with data in 1956-2011
9. NOVOLAZAREVSK (ANTARCTICA): Found 51 years with data in 1961-2011
10. MIZUHO (ANTARCTICA): Found 15 years with data in 1972-1986
The MIZUHO station is the shortest with only 15 years with data. The average term of the “years with data” of the other stations was 40 years. I don’t consider those to be “very short records.”
There’s really no reason for you to reply. As noted earlier, you’ve lost any credibility you may have had with me based on your comments on this thread.
Have a nice day.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Leif needs to accept that the Earth system response to solar variations is chemically and not radiatively driven.
No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that [and by just repeating old, tired arguments, won’t].
Stephen Wilde says: “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. I have yet to see credible evidence that a “separate (solar) factor” drives ENSO. There are many hypotheses to that effect based in statistical evidence but nothing firm based on processes.
You wrote, “I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not.”
The PDO results from the process of ENSO, not a statistical outcome of ENSO variability. The reason it matters is that there continue to be many people who believe the PDO somehow drives global temperatures, when it does not.
Leif Svalgaard said a couple of daya ago: “True to form, when Geoff can’t argue the science he goes after the person. I say we simply ignore him from now on.”
I should have taken your advice. My discussions with him since then have not been entertaining or educational for me. Dealing with fabrications, misdirection, and spin is very frustrating.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Still, I think you are missing a trick by focusing on TSI and radiative physics rather than chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
..The whole thing boils down to latitudinal positional variations and changes in the size and intensity of the various climate zones which have always been a permanent feature of the planet. Changes in the latitudinal position of the ITCZ, the Hadley and Farrel cells plus the changing characteristics of the polar vortices account for everything we observe.
Climate change is then reduced to a perceived shift of the climate zones over the areas where measurements are taken.
~
You make some good points there Stephen..
Rain today, tommorrow and the next day..density fluctuations becoming more and more apparent..now what could be responsible for an overall increase in our atmospheres density levels?
My cranky is creeping out again..
Leif Svalgaard said:
“No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that ”
I’m addressing the general audience who can make their own minds up in the light of ongoing observations and the evidence from a number of other scientists who do accept a top down solar effect on the atmosphere and the surface pressure distribution. That includes Michael Mann et al from a paper in 2001. The recent ‘coincidence’ of a deep solar minimum at about the same time as a record negative AO is helpful too.
Bob Tisdale said:
“The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. I have yet to see credible evidence that a “separate (solar) factor” drives ENSO. There are many hypotheses to that effect based in statistical evidence but nothing firm based on processes. ”
Well it depends what you accept as ‘evidence’.
I have proposed that internal ocean processes set up ENSO and through ENSO the 30 year PDO switching from warm to cool phases and back again but in the longer term the relative strengths of El Ninos and La Ninas across succeeding 60 year cycles are affected by slow changes in solar variability across multiple solar cycles.
The evidence I see is the ‘coincidence’ of solar and air surface pressure distribution changes from MWP to LIA to date.
The process is changing cloudiness and albedo from solar and ocean induced changes to the surface air pressure distribution.
The oceans have to be the link between solar and surface air pressure phenomena because of the fact that solar shortwave by passes the atmosphere to go straight into the oceans and then there is the influence of sea surface temperatures on the air circulation systems above.
Thus do both Leif and Bob in my humble opinion fail to give due weight to what we actually see going on in the atmosphere which serves as a link between their two areas of undoubted expertise.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
The oceans have to be the link between solar and surface air pressure phenomena because of the fact that solar shortwave bypasses the atmosphere to go straight into the oceans and then there is the influence of sea surface temperatures on the air circulation systems above.
I thought you were peddling the idea that it is not radiative processes that are at work [whatever that means – even my spell-checker flags ‘radiative’]. But I don’t need another incomprehensible diatribe right now.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm
There’s no reason for me to throw in the towel.
Lets get a couple of points straight Bob. I am not looking for your acceptance of my credibility nor do I need to be told whether to comment or not. You have made a big statement against Dr. Easterbrook that is unfounded. Sure he could of used different data sets but the thrust of his message is right. The PDO or ENSO cycle very closely matches the temperature trend and the associated drop off in solar activity is very likely to affect world temperatures in a downward direction. This is already seen in the past 3 NH winters. I went out on a limb using my knowledge last July and predicted the NH would experience winter conditions like the LIA. I was right and receive much feedback and interest from the general public and media. Its happening out there but you can choose to close your eyes. Your challenge is to envisage two datasets together that normally cant be plotted and have the intelligence to accept there is a solid case. World temps follow the PDO/ENSO cycle plus associated solar outputs.
Whatever drives the PDO or ENSO is interesting but not important to the discussion but can I suggest you do some research into Scafetta and Wilson who are linking the Sun as a very likely candidate. I agree the science is not rock solid yet, but its a beginning of a good line of research and there is not much else on the table.
I dont know why you are bothering to argue with me re the Antarctica GISS record. Is it some kind of point scoring exercise? If you look at the long term records from the 50’s to now there is no apparent shift in temperature. Your mistake is to include records that finish around the 80’s or 90’s.
Looking at the long term records of several stations the true picture is observed.
Vostok, Admundsen-Scot, Scott Base, Casey, Mirnyj, Davis.
I am not sure if the individual GISS station records have been tampered with but even so the entire SH is not showing a lot of temperature rise. I recently did a Melbourne UHI analysis that may be of interest to some showing how little the temperature has changed over the last 50 years or so.
Your grandstanding/handwaving and so called rebuttal to Dr. Easterbrook is uncalled for. Take the message instead of nitpicking the detail.
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“No, I don’t need to accept anything. You have to show and convince me of what you say, and you have not been able to do that ”
I’m addressing the general audience who can make their own minds
Then you should have said: “The general audience needs to accept that the Earth system response…”
Hi Geoff
i checked your Melbourne analysis compared to inland.
I liked it, it just a pity that you only focused on the average (means) and that you did not include an analysis of maxima and minima.
If we are looking at man made global warming, we should be looking specifically at the ratio of the rate of increase of the maxima, means and minima (over the past 3- 4 decades) which would prove either way if the warming is caused by an increase in GHG’s (in the atmosphere).
Minima (that happen during the night) rising faster than means and maxima would prove that the global warming, if any, is man made. Maxima (that happen during the day) rising faster than means and minima means that the warming, if any, occurred natural.
Did you get that??
Stephen Wilde says:
June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
phlogiston said:
“Neither are causative, both are driven by the attractor. The ENSO is what you see at short time scales, the PDO at longer scales”
Halleluja.
I’ve long accepted Bob’s point that PDO is simply a statistical outcome of ENSO variability but have struggled to explain why that matters not. Pending further consideration that is a nice solution.
and then phlogiston said:
“nonlinear oscillators with complex attractors can be driven or forced by outside oscillating influences – such as solar oscillations. Thus I agree it is likely that solar variations on various timescales force nonlinear oscillation in climate and ocean.”
Which I thoroughly agree with.
So what we have here is variable solar input to the Earth system acting via atmospheric chemistry (not radiative physics) to alter surface air pressure distribution via changes in cloudiness, albedo and solar shortwave input to the oceans. That affects the equilibrium temperature of the oceans until the level of solar input to the Earth system changes once more and in the meantime the equilibrium temperature of the oceans feeds back to modulate the surface air pressure distribution initiated by the level of solar input.
Thus solar top down effects are constantly modulated by the oceanic bottom up response and on top of that the internal ocean mechanics can either be in or out of phase with the solar top down effects.
That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.
I agree in that by “solar effects” I refer in general to a number of possible phenomena including gravitational and center of mass oscillations. Also the chain of atmospheric phenomena linked to solar output. Thus focusing the solar debate on TSI only is something of a straw man.
HenryP says:
June 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Your analysis is useful and another method of comparison when looking at temperature trends. But generally speaking the extra level of detail is not always forthcoming. Perhaps you could contact the GISS organisation re your requirements for the Antarctic continent.
An interesting paper published May this year showing TSI measurements and UV measurements varying a high degree (26.6%) from Maunder minimum to modern solar minimumns (excluding SC24).
Some caveats but the outcome putting pressure on those prescribing a flat solar floor thru the Holocene.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Geoff Sharpe says: “Lets get a couple of points straight Bob. I am not looking for your acceptance of my credibility nor do I need to be told whether to comment or not. You have made a big statement against Dr. Easterbrook that is unfounded.”
If you feel it’s unfounded, you did not understand it or you failed to accept it for other reasons.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Sure he could of used different data sets but the thrust of his message is right.”
If the wrong dataset is used, the message is wrong.
Geoff Sharpe says: “The PDO or ENSO cycle very closely matches the temperature trend and the associated drop off in solar activity is very likely to affect world temperatures in a downward direction.”
The mechanism and processes exist for this to be true of ENSO. They do not exist for the PDO. And I have never said that solar activity does not impact global temperatures. The global temperature response to the variation in the typical solar cycle should be in the neighborhood of 0.07 to 0.1 deg C as the sun varies from solar max to solar min. I have also not said that ENSO does not impact global temperatures. In fact, I have illustrated the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO in numerous posts at my blog and here at WUWT.
Geoff Sharpe says: “This is already seen in the past 3 NH winters. I went out on a limb using my knowledge last July and predicted the NH would experience winter conditions like the LIA. I was right and receive much feedback and interest from the general public and media.”
You have? I would think if this was the case you would have linked all of the media stories about your prediction and the feedback. Please do so. WUWT is the most visited climate blog in the world, but I do not recall seeing any posts about your predictions.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Your challenge is to envisage two datasets together that normally cant be plotted and have the intelligence to accept there is a solid case. World temps follow the PDO/ENSO cycle plus associated solar outputs.”
Why can’t the PDO and Sunspots be plotted together? I’ve done it. All one needs to do is scale the sunspot data. If your proof is in the data, please provide evidence of it.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Whatever drives the PDO or ENSO is interesting but not important to the discussion…”
The facts that there is no mechanism for the PDO to drive global temperatures and that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO are important to this Easterbrook post.
Geoff Sharpe says: “I dont know why you are bothering to argue with me re the Antarctica GISS record.”
Why would I continue to argue with you? That’s rather obvious. You’re wrong. You stated that Antarctic Surface Temperatures have not risen in 50 years and I showed you that they had, using GISS land surface temperature data. I provided a second (GHCN/CAMS) dataset to confirm it.
Why would I continue to argue with you? You proved yourself that you’re wrong. You linked your evidence, but your evidence contradicts your statement. Apparently, you’re not aware of that. Five of the six Antarctic surface station temperature records you linked show significant linear trends. They actually exceed the linear trend for Antarctica that I illustrated earlier. Before documenting that, let me address something else.
Geoff Sharpe says: “I am not sure if the individual GISS station records have been tampered with…”
It is well known that GISS adjusts the land surface temperature data. In fact, GISS provides visitors with the opportunity to determine those adjustments. If you’re not aware of it, on the Surface Station webpage that you linked earlier for HenryP…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
..there is a drop-down menu identified as “Select a specific data set from the pull-down menu below”. It allows visitors to plot and download the raw GHCN data and two GISS-adjusted datasets for the stations. So anyone can document the GISS adjustments to the GHCN data for the Antarctic.
Geoff Sharpe says: “Looking at the long term records of several stations the true picture is observed.” Okay, the true picture. True is the operative word in your sentence. And you provided links to the Vostok, Admundsen-Scot, Scott Base, Casey, Mirnyj, and Davis surface station data at the GISS website.
Apparently, you didn’t bother to plot the data and let your spreadsheet software analyze the surface station data you linked. If you had, you would not have proclaimed they confirmed your “true picture” of no temperature rise in the Antarctic. The Admundsen-Scot data has a negative linear trend of -0.031 deg C per decade:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2gwamo7.jpg
You might accept that as proof that your statement is correct. I don’t.
-BECAUSE-
That negative trend is dwarfed by the positive linear trends of the five other surface stations that YOU stated provided the “true picture”. The Vostok data has a positive linear trend of +0.126 deg C per decade:
http://i54.tinypic.com/4l6ip2.jpg
The Scott Base data has a positive linear trend of +0.152 deg C per decade:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2jakzdf.jpg
The Casey data has a positive linear trend of +0.098 deg C per decade:
http://i53.tinypic.com/21475n9.jpg
The Mirnyj data has a positive linear trend of +0.072 deg C per decade:
http://i53.tinypic.com/1z6w5fs.jpg
And the Davis data has a positive linear trend of +0.094 deg C per decade:
http://i56.tinypic.com/122yakp.jpg
Keep in mind, Geoff, that YOU, not me, elected to continue this discussion and that YOU elected to make statements that were contradicted by the data YOU chose to use as reference.
Stephen Wilde says: “Well it depends what you accept as ‘evidence’.”
You then went on to describe your proposal, but you have not supported your proposal with data or calculations, so I would not accept it as ‘evidence’.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
Thanks bob for doing the analysis, but by your own figures the Antarctic trend is so close to flat it is not worthy of discussion.
BTW… the least you could do is spell my name right.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
An interesting paper published May this year showing TSI measurements and UV measurements varying a high degree (26.6%) from Maunder minimum to modern solar minimumns (excluding SC24).
Some caveats but the outcome putting pressure on those prescribing a flat solar floor thru the Holocene.
The paper relies on the Group Sunspot Number which even one of the inventors, Ken Schatten, now agrees is wrong [much too small early on], so suffers from the same malady as all papers doing that. Plus uses PMOD, in spite of PMOD having severe degradation. So, there is no pressure at all. Just shows how important it is that we get those datasets cleaned up.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:12 am
The mechanism and processes exist for this to be true of ENSO. They do not exist for the PDO. And I have never said that solar activity does not impact global temperatures. The global temperature response to the variation in the typical solar cycle should be in the neighborhood of 0.07 to 0.1 deg C as the sun varies from solar max to solar min
Your assesment of the temperature variation from cycle max to min follows the AGW limits subscribed to by your luke warmer friend. Hardly an endorsement of the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:17 am
Not a strong rebuttal Leif, I see that your mate Steinhilber is a very strong backer of this paper.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 6:37 am
Not a strong rebuttal Leif, I see that your mate Steinhilber is a very strong backer of this paper.
Wonder where you see that. There is no mention in the paper of that. And the reconstruction disagrees with Steinhilber’s own. Again you go after persons instead of the science.
Geoff Sharp says: “BTW… the least you could do is spell my name right.”
My apologies.
Geoff Sharp says: “Thanks bob for doing the analysis, but by your own figures the Antarctic trend is so close to flat it is not worthy of discussion.”
You’ve attempted that spin before on this thread, Geoff. It doesn’t work. Refer again to my June 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm comment in which I advised you of your error. There I wrote, in part: Are you aware, Geoff, that all of the AGW nonsense is based on a global surface temperature linear trend of only 0.137 deg C per decade (using your selected GISTEMP LOTI) for the past 50 years?
To illustrate that, here’s a graph of GISTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data from 1960 to present. Note that the linear trend of +0.137 deg C per decade for the global data is less than some of the linear trends of the Antarctic surface station datasets that I illustrated for you in my last reply to you. Yet you, Geoff, somehow continue to believe the Antarctic surface stations show no warming.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2eyw9w0.jpg
Geoff, those who are monitoring our discussion will now attempt to predict how you will attempt to spin this. Please do so, so they can see if they’ve guessed correctly.
In your next reply, Geoff, you wrote, “Your assesment of the temperature variation from cycle max to min follows the AGW limits subscribed to by your luke warmer friend.”
And who might my lukewarmer friend be, Geoff?
Geoff Sharp continued, “Hardly an endorsement of the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”
Please provide a link to the Global Surface Temperature data that you believe illustrates “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:18 am
Wonder where you see that. There is no mention in the paper of that.
“Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Friedhelm Steinhilber and J¨urg Beer for
useful discussions and help with data.”
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
It would be good if Anthony ran a separate story on this paper inviting others to comment.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
“Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Friedhelm Steinhilber and J¨urg Beer for
useful discussions and help with data.”
That hardly qualifies as ‘being a strong backer’ since their reconstruction model disagrees with Steinhilber’s own.
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
The data is what it is. The problem is how to calibrate the 10Be data to TSI, and for that the sunspot number is often used. Together with an estimate of ‘the open flux’ [mostly also derived from the sunspot number. So everything hangs on having the correct sunspot number, and they do not.
It would be good if Anthony ran a separate story on this paper inviting others to comment.
Possibly, although it would just bring to the surface [for the umpteenth time] discussions we have already had, plus entice the various peddlers of pseudo-science to crawl out of the woodwork for yet another round of fruitless grandstanding. But, if Anthony could wait a week or so [until our recent paper is out of ’embargoland’] that would be useful and allow a new analysis to be brought to bear.
Here is a comment on our paper from people at Locarno:
“What you show in your presentation is convincing! For sure the main goal of the former directors of the observatory in Zurich was to maintain the coherence and stability of the Wolf number, and changes in the method were not done just as fun. I can figure out that they gave a lot of importance to verify their method of counting. Nevertheless the decision to maintain “secret” the true way to count is for sure source of problems now!”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
Is typical for your style. This is my field!. Did you read it properly? Do you have any detailed understanding of how the reconstructions are done?
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:23 am
Half of a degree C in 50 plus years in my opinion is close enough to flat. If that floats your boat Bob then I think you are clutching at straws. The failing IPCC models predicting 6 dec C rise is where the warmista’s of the world are projecting their economic response. Time for a reality check?
I would have thought you would have been up to date on the movements of the temperature record over the Holocene and not need to challenge me on the Maunder to now values. A simple check of the AGW biased (so many bad authors) Wiki shows a range of temperatures with a far greater range than the 0.1 deg C value you subscribe to. Very difficult to believe you are serious on this point?
Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up,
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up
Still going after the people instead of the science. Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:14 am
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 7:40 am
If I am not mistaken the Steinhilber data is also used in the model. Did you read it properly?
———————
Is typical for your style. This is my field!. Did you read it properly? Do you have any detailed understanding of how the reconstructions are done?
No need to get upset. If Steinhilber is mentioned in the acknowledgements he obviously helped substantially with his input. It may be your field but it looks like you missed some of the critical detail.
I can see this paper is challenging your long term held views, why don’t you ask Anthony to post a separate review article so we can all debate it on its merit? We might even get some response from others in the scientific field that appose your ideas…this would be refreshing.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
If Steinhilber is mentioned in the acknowledgements he obviously helped substantially with his input. It may be your field but it looks like you missed some of the critical detail.
It is usual to acknowledge sources of data and explanations about it, but that is not ‘strong backing’. I miss none of the details [critical or in this case, not]. I know everybody involved.
I can see this paper is challenging your long term held views
I don’t have ‘views’. I present data and reason from them. and can change my view instantly if data shows I’m wrong, which they in this do not.
why don’t you ask Anthony to post a separate review article so we can all debate it on its merit? We might even get some response from others in the scientific field that oppose your ideas…this would be refreshing.
See my response upthread. I don’t have ‘ideas’. This is science, not ideology. In science one has an opinion, view, idea [whatever you want to call it] until one adopts another one as the data dictates.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:34 am
Still going after the people instead of the science. Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.
Do as you wish….looking for an escape clause in my book.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:47 am
Do as you wish….looking for an escape clause in my book.
Again people-oriented instead of science-oriented. There is no ‘escape’ in science. It all comes out in the end, and the wrong papers are quietly and blissfully ignored and forgotten.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 9:46 am
Dont go soft on me Leif…the challenge is in place, contact Anthony and make it happen.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 10:14 am
Dont go soft on me Leif…the challenge is in place, contact Anthony and make it happen.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
You cannot challenge anything as you bring nothing to the table. But it might in a couple of weeks be good to have an article on this. Perhaps, I’ll even write one.
REPLY: I don’t know what you two are going on about now, but let me make one thing clear Jeff, this is my blog, and you don’t get to dictate what I do and do not do. – Anthony
Where did I dictate what you do, I have offered a debate and asked Leif to do the same on a paper that might have some important merit in the climate debate. My name is Geoff BTW.
REPLY: “Contact Anthony and make it happen” Sure sounds like an order to me. Sorry about the name Geoff, I’m slow with hay fever today. – Anthony
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 10:36 am
I have offered a debate
To have a meaningful debate there are some minimum requirements re knowledge about the subject that you do not possess. A review and tutorial on this issue might be good at some time in the near future.
REPLY: “Contact Anthony and make it happen” Sure sounds like an order to me.
I can understand that. But Leif does seem to have influence from my point of view. This is a science blog that is very well respected, I am suggesting a new paper that might challenge the dogma of the warmista crew that is well worth debating in the hope of attracting some reasoned debate.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
a new paper that might challenge the dogma of the warmista crew that is well worth debating in the hope of attracting some reasoned debate.
A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:14 am
A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.
Good to see you are running this debate?
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2011 at 11:23 am
“A paper should be debated on its merits, not just because it is a challenge to AGW. Judging from the past, it is doubtful that any reasoned debate will ensue. But we might give it a try if vigorous moderation could be exercised.”
Good to see you are running this debate?
why the extraneous question mark? If I write the tutorial article, I could be seen as running the debate, at least initially. If you want to run it, you write the tutorial. But, let’s let Anthony and his crew be in charge with thoughtful and strong moderation to keep the name calling and innuendos at a minimum.
Geoff Sharp says: “Half of a degree C in 50 plus years in my opinion is close enough to flat. If that floats your boat Bob then I think you are clutching at straws. The failing IPCC models predicting 6 dec C rise is where the warmista’s of the world are projecting their economic response. Time for a reality check?”
For those following this thread who expected Geoff to downplay the actual rise in temperature and attempt to misdirect with an exaggerating comparison to IPCC projections, you’ve guessed correctly. Simply put, it was smoke and mirrors act gone bad.
And to answer your closing question on that part of your reply, yes, Geoff, you are due for a reality check. Your number games don’t work. You multiplied a decadal trend of 0.136 deg C by five and somehow came up with a 0.5 deg C rise in global temperatures in 50 years. Then you compared your bogus 0.5 deg C rise for 50 years to a high-end IPCC estimate of 6 deg C for 100 years. A grade school student could see through that poorly executed tactic, Geoff.
Let me put things in perspective for you, Geoff, but before I do, be advised that I am not promoting the accuracy of the IPCC models. I have written posts illustrating and describing the failings of the IPCC hindcasts and projections. I am presenting the following simply to illustrate the magnitude of the inaccuracies you have attempted to present to the readers here at WUWT.
Do you know what the global linear trend is for the IPCC Model Mean Hindcast/Projection for the last 50 years, Geoff? That’s the period you elected to discuss. It’s +0.169 deg C per decade for the period of January 1960 to May 2011, for their 20C3M hindcasts/SRES A1B projections. That’s not too far above the GISS LOTI linear trend for the same period of 0.136 deg C per decade, but it’s well below the 0.6 deg C per decade you attempted to use as a comparison number. What about the trend for IPCC’s Model Mean Hindcast/Projection for the Antarctic and Southern Ocean south of 60S, same period, Geoff? Do you have any idea what it is? It’s +0.155 deg C per decade. What a coincidence! That’s the almost exactly the same trend as the Scott Base Surface Station (+0.152 deg C per decade) that I illustrated for you above. But you continue to attempt to claim that the Antarctic has not warmed.
Geoff Sharp says: “I would have thought you would have been up to date on the movements of the temperature record over the Holocene and not need to challenge me on the Maunder to now values. A simple check of the AGW biased (so many bad authors) Wiki shows a range of temperatures with a far greater range than the 0.1 deg C value you subscribe to. Very difficult to believe you are serious on this point?”
This attempt to misdirect also failed. I did not ask you your opinion about my knowledge of temperatures during the Holocene, Geoff. I made a very simple request. It was: Please provide a link to the Global Surface Temperature data that you believe illustrates “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”
Everyone reading this thread now and in the future can add this to the long list of questions I have asked you, and requests for information that I have posed to you, for which you have failed to provide answers. Failing to answer questions and failing to furnish information when requested are blazingly strong indications of the weaknesses in your arguments, Geoff. In some instances on this thread, you’ve made claims and when asked to provide documentation to support them, you fail to answer. This is a strong indication that your claims are fabrications. You’re self destructing your own credibility on climate change, Geoff, and everyone reading this thread can see it. Except you. But you do what you have to do.
Geoff Sharp says, “Your luke warmer friend is Leif Svalgaard if you have not been keeping up,
Oh, I’ve been keeping up. I just wanted you to identify the person you’re discussing.
Geoff, your debate tactics broadcast the weaknesses in your arguments. They’re like yelling into a bullhorn and telling everyone how little you understand about the subjects at hand. It’s climate skeptics like you who give climate skeptics like me and others who frequent WUWT a bad name.
Leif Svalgaard says: “Perhaps it would be better for me and Bob not to feed the troll.”
I believe that’s a first, Leif. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll on a climate skeptic blog before.
REPLY: Actually, I have that honor, with Wil from spinonthat who kepts pushing his soda bottle -CO2 -heat lamp experiment as if it was actually science. – Anthony
I have come across an interesting phenomenon doing the rounds that somehow solar flares are related to increased tectonic activity. The suggestion appears to be that (perhaps) reduced solar spot activity, coupled with occasional flares has an impact on the earths magnetic field, which is linked physically to the molten parts of the Mantle and Core. Anyway, all just theory at the moment. However, I wonder if such increased tectonic activity might also lead to increased volcanism and by extension increased particulate matter in the atmosphere leading to cooling. Now I know that much has been made of recent volcanic activity impacting air flights, so it is a little difficult to distinguish if there is a real increase. However, if this were correct it might mean that the apparent lack of a link between solar output and global temperature during reduced sunspot activity might be that we are looking at this in a over-simplistic way.
Anthony Watts says: “Actually, I have that honor, with Wil from spinonthat who kepts pushing his soda bottle -CO2 -heat lamp experiment as if it was actually science.”
Then I must change my statement. How about…I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll by a distinguished solar physicist on a climate skeptic blog before?
Or is that too specific? Suggestions?
goldie says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm
I have come across an interesting phenomenon doing the rounds that somehow solar flares are related to increased tectonic activity.
This can be put to an experimental test. There is a scientific test called the ‘superposed epoch’ method that looks at activity [or a signal of any kind] around a large number of ‘key times’. Imagine you have a long list when of solar storms has been hitting the Earth over the last century. Then you can treat each day on the list as a key time and simply count how many earthquakes happened on all those days, and then how many happened on the day before and the day after, then two days before and two days after, etc. You can then make a graph of how many quakes happen as a function of the ‘lag’ from the triggering storm. Here is such a plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
It shows at the bottom how magnetic activity [with associated aurorae] behaves around such times. There is clearly a big spike at the key time, as we would expect because the presence of a storm was precisely why that day was picked as a key time.. There are about 3000 key times in an interval where we have good data [1868-2000]. The middle panel shows the number of strong earthquakes around those same key times for 1900-1993 [using two different earthquake data sets]. There is clearly no corresponding earthquake spike at the time of the magnetic storm, so we conclude that there is no good evidence for increased tectonic activity related to solar activity.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a climate skeptic being called a troll by a distinguished solar physicist on a climate skeptic blog before?
Or is that too specific? Suggestions?
I suggest we get off the personal stuff and return to the science. Perhaps this thread has petered out and should be left to die in peace.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This attempt to misdirect also failed. I did not ask you your opinion about my knowledge of temperatures during the Holocene, Geoff. I made a very simple request. It was: Please provide a link to the Global Surface Temperature data that you believe illustrates “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.”
Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?
There are many reconstructions but like so many proxy records its a matter of choosing the one that fits your argument. But a conservative estimate would be a 1 deg C rise since the Maunder Minimum. The Moberg reconstruction (red) seems to carry some weight which flies in the face of a flat solar floor. The new paper we are discussing agrees with the Moberg reconstruction. Temperature trends following solar output, definitely worth looking into I think. I am looking forward to Leif presenting his case through his tutorial.
Bob Tisdale says:
“It’s +0.169 deg C per decade for the period of January 1960 to May 2011, for their 20C3M hindcasts/SRES A1B projections”
That is 0.017 degrees C per annum which is not too far away from my estimate of the global average of 0.020 degrees C per annum on my pool table.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
However, on the SH, I only measure an average increase of 0.003 degrees C per annum so far….That is virtually nothing. I therefore predict that it cannot be more than 0,03 degree C per decade in the antarctic (for the past 4 decades). If it is not, then you have to prove that to me with original (daily) data
In fact, I cannot find the original daily data from any antarctic station comprising at least the means, maxima and minima, going back without interruprion for the last 4 decades…There are just too many interruprions.
I did find an airport in the south of Argentine that has good daily data, which I will use. I will try to balance my table by latitude as well as same amount stations NH and SH
Obviously, I hope you do realize that the IPCC made the worst mistake any scientist can make: they looked at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed they knew what the problem was (i.e. more GHG causing most of the observed warming) and started working from that end.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Let’s try and stay away from the bickering and biting here because it leaves an impression that we are still stumbling around in the darkness, which in fact, if I look at many comments here, is not true at all.
Geoff Sharp says: “Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?”
Thank you for identifying Moberg. That’s a start. But you missed the key word in my question. The key word was data. I did not ask you for a link to a Wikipedia graph. I asked for data. Surely you have a link to the data. Your research into the relationship between long-term solar reconstructions and temperature reconstructions relies on data.
Geoff Sharp: I found the Moberg data. Please confirm that this is the dataset you’re referring to:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
Bob Tisdale says:
June 23, 2011 at 12:55 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Were you so caught up in your rant that didnt see the link I provided or are you rejecting the link I provided?”
———————————
Thank you for identifying Moberg. That’s a start.
No the correct way to rectify your mistake is to apologize. The Moberg data is easily found in 2 minutes via a google search.
HenryP says: “I therefore predict that it cannot be more than 0,03 degree C per decade in the antarctic (for the past 4 decades). If it is not, then you have to prove that to me with original (daily) data.”
The trend from monthly mean data linked earlier disagrees with your trend prediction, which is based on your assumption and not on data. It is not my responsibility to prove that the trend from the mean is right. It is you responsibility to prove that your assumption is correct.
Sorry Bob, that is basic probability theory. if I randomly sample 13 weather stations from all over the world and in 5 of these I find that the actual rate of increase in the average temperature over the past 4 decades was flat, ie. 0.00 C degrees C/ annum and when I subsequently notice that all of these 5 stations where the means were flat were all situated in the SH, then what do you say are my chances that if I sample again in the SH that I will find it again flat 0.00 C/ annum?
(Interestingly, note that the rate of increase in maximum temps in the SH was not flat.!!)
So now, obviously if you still say that the warming in the antarctic was a lot more than my average of 0.003 degrees C or K per annum during the past 4 decades that I found for those 5 stations in the SH, which, in large part, could in fact also just be due to error or noise, then I would ask you again to prove that me by showing me the original (daily) data.
I think you will eventually agree with me that somebody has been at it again before us (to save their jobs)
Geoff Sharp says: “No the correct way to rectify your mistake is to apologize.”
I did not make a mistake. And as you will note, I found the Moberg et al data before your reply.
Have you plotted the Moberg et al Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction data, Geoff, and compared it to any of the instrument-based land surface temperature datasets? Apparently not. If you had, you would not have believed the Moberg et al data best represents, as you said earlier on this thread, “the true movement of global temperatures experienced since the Maunder Minimum.” Here’s a comparison graph of the Moberg et al data since 1700 and Northern Hemisphere CRUTEM3 (1850 to 2010), the longest running of the instrument-based land surface temperature datasets. Both datasets have been smoothed with a 31-year running-average filter and both have the base years of 1850 to 1979.
http://i51.tinypic.com/x3th6e.jpg
The Moberg et al data rises 20+ years before the instrument-based data at the beginning of the 20th Century. This means it would precede the rise in any outdated/obsolete solar dataset you elected to compare it to, like Hoyt and Schatten. A comparison graph of the Moberg temperature reconstruction to arbitrarily scaled Hoyt and Schatten TSI data also shows there is little agreement in the multidecadal variations of the two datasets:
http://i55.tinypic.com/taix6o.jpg
And the final problem you face: Then you have to explain the continued rise in global surface temperatures since the 1970s without AGW.
So, we know that Moberg et al (2005) doesn’t work. Here’s a link to the NOAA Paleoclimatology webpage. Maybe you’d like to try another reconstruction. I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for, but have at it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
I’m done here. I have learned nothing from my exchange with you, Geoff, other than YOU have the weakest arguments of any climate skeptic I have encountered to date.
See you on another thread, Leif.
Nice visiting with you, HenryP. Good luck with your pool table.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 23, 2011 at 5:33 am
I did not make a mistake. And as you will note, I found the Moberg et al data before your reply.
You did. You accused me of not supplying a link for the Maunder to now temperature data and then ranted on endlessly in an ad hominem fashion. If you are not man enough to recognize this I guess it sums up the man.
Your Moberg analysis is very confusing and I fail to see your point. I mentioned that the Easterbook graph Fig.4 showed a temperature reconstruction that looked like Mobergs, according to your graph it is not an exact match. I fail to see how Easterbrooks graph is a failure because it does not follow exactly the Moberg data, there are a lot of temperature reconstructions available as I mentioned.
I think you have dug yourself a hole with your criticism of Easterbrook and are now unable to retract. We might leave it there to reduce your suffering.
Once again, Geoff, your reply is nonsensical.
Geoff Sharp, one last note: I have no way to moderate comments here at WUWT, but I do have that ability at my blog. Your repeated baseless comments there will be deleted.
Have a nice day.
if I randomly sample … then what do you say are my chances that ….”
Wouldn’t that would depend on the nature of the data? Most statistical treatments of temperature appear to assume that temperature is independent of previous temperatures, which seems highly unlikely.
“For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes.”
For those of us old enough to remember from school, this was the same argument put forward to discredit Milankovitch in the 50’s and 60’s. It was only after deep ocean cores proved Milankovitch correct that his theories regained their current acceptance.
Solar scientists cannot explain the 100k year ice age cycle based on TSI, yet it is perhaps the strongest climate signals in the past 1 million years outside of the daily and annual cycles. To then turn around and apply the same failed logic to current climate change is to ignore the mistakes of the past.
Why does climate vary so strongly every 100k years, in spite of the 100k year forcing being quite small? This strongly suggests that forcings do not act in a linear fashion, which would invalidate the underlying assumption of all mainstream climate science.
Climate science assumes that forcings are linear for good reason. Non linear forcings cannot be solved in a practical sense by current mathematical theory. Thus, any climate models would have no skill at predicting future climate. Thus, to obtain funding for climate models, one must assume that forcings are linear, else the climate models are a huge waste of time and money.
ferd berple says:
June 23, 2011 at 8:46 am
For those of us old enough to remember from school, this was the same argument put forward to discredit Milankovitch in the 50′s and 60′s. […] Solar scientists cannot explain the 100k year ice age cycle based on TSI, yet it is perhaps the strongest climate signals in the past 1 million years outside of the daily and annual cycles.
It would be good if you had some sense of proportion here. The Milankovitch variations of solar insolation [what falls on the Northern Hemisphere] are about a hundred times larger that the intrinsic variations of solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out], so it is not the same argument, and the 100k cycles are not ‘based on TSI’.
ferd berple says
“Wouldn’t that would depend on the nature of the data? Most statistical treatments of temperature…. ”
I am not sure what you mean.
Statistics without good data from actual observations is a waste of time. If it is good reliable data it can help to predict the future or that what already happend elsewhere. I suggest you get the full picture if you find out exactly what I am busy with:
(as I progessed with my investigations, I started to love carbondixide – call me an idiot!)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
HenryP: You’re assuming that land surface temperature anomaly changes at high latitudes are the same they are at mid-to-low latitudes. You’re also assuming that portions of the Antarctic can’t have substantially different variability that the continent as a whole.
Bob Tisdale says:
You’re assuming that land surface temperature anomaly changes at high latitudes are the same they are at mid-to-low latitudes
Henry@Bob
I thought you left, whilst I was still wanting to ask you how the weather is in your area?
Unlike the IPCC, I never work on assumptions.I have to make dead sure.
I have recognised now the problems with differences in NH and SH and latitude which I will address.
I am going to split up all of my results up for NH and SH
and include the latitudes of each station on the table.
then I must chose the next round of weather stations in such a way that the + latitudes cancel out the -latitudes
(total added together must be close to zero)
OK?
Bob Tisdale says:
You’re also assuming that portions of the Antarctic can’t have substantially different variability that the continent as a whole.
Henry@Bob
Unlike from the NH, I don’t see a very high variabilty in my results coming from SH (-0.001 to 0.004 degree C /annum) which made me query your results from Antarctica.
I have now decided to leave Antarctica out because I am not sure of any of the data from there. I need to actually see the original daily data before I can progress with a statistical analysis.
I am sure the “wise” men that wanted to prove that (man-made) global warming is especially severe at the poles have hidden those original data from antarctica from us….
HenryP says: “I have now decided to leave Antarctica out because I am not sure of any of the data from there.”
Your analysis would then be comparable to HADCRUT and the NCDC’s land+sea surface datasets. They both exclude the Antarctic. So does the RSS MSU version of TLT data. So there’s really no loss.
Regards
I have some astonishing results from the south of Argentina
at latitude, -37,23 (height of station: 175 m)
namely
Maxima rising at 0,042 degrees C per annum since 1974
Mean average temperature decreasing at a speed of -0.066 per annum since 1974
Minima decreasing at -0.063 degrees C per annum
This one single changes the whole game on my whole pooltable….
It seems the further south I go on the SH I find cooling instead of warming.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “That leaves room for Length of Day variations and solar system gravitational dynamics to provide a further modulating effect on internal ocean variability.”
I see that this [ http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/ian-wilson-cause-of-length-of-day-lod-variation-and-the-climate-link/ ] continues to drive misconceptions.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
The key timescales are semi-annual to annual.
–
The quality of discussion has plummeted. Bob Tisdale should be commended for emphasizing observation.
[reply] A valid email address is required for posting at this site. Please supply one in future. TB-mod
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Everyone else needs to accept that climate change (short of a change from glaciation to interglacial and vice versa) is just a redistribution of surface air pressure […]”
And what about water distribution, state, & consequences? See Leroux & Sidorenkov.
For the solar specialists present here;
I definitely identified an interesting oscillation in the data from the winter months in the the south of Argentina (Tandil a/d)
at latitude, -37,23 (height of station: 175 m)
Temp. falling at a horrifc rate of ca. 0.08 degrees C per annum during the winters here (since 1974) but the deepest depths of the peaks were at 1984, 1995 and 2007
which seems to correspond with solar cycles?
in this way I can predict a very cold time coming in the winters of 2018 or 2019
Any comment? Does that correspond with what we expect is due to the fainter output from the sun around that time?
“And what about water distribution, state, & consequences? See Leroux & Sidorenkov.”
Yes indeed.
Changes in the water affect surface pressure distribution above. Obviously there is feedback from air to water but not so powerful. The Mobile Polar High concept of Leroux is a key component and there is some evidence that the MPH movements are affected primarily by the top down solar influence more that the bottom up oceanic influence. The latter seems to affect the subtropical highs instead so both types of high pressure cell then vie with each other for dominance. Hence the shifting jets.
Stephen Wilde (June 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm) “Bob needs to accept that there is a separate (solar) factor driving ENSO and PDO over longer timescales beyond internal system variability.”
Paul Vaughan replied:
“The key timescales are semi-annual to annual.”
I don’t think that is enough to explain climate changes from MWP to LIA to date. If the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina did not change on such timescales then the effect of ENSO/PDO would have been to suppress those phenomena due to the power of the oceans to influence the global air temperatures.
We do not have observational data that far back however so we have to use logic in the meantime whilst current observations accumulate over time.
At some point it would be interesting to see Ninderthana & Bob Tisdale work out their differences on PDO & ENSO.
you all might want to have a peak at my pool table that I have updated just now. It is quite interesting the way that the balls have fallen into their respective positions….
Especially NH versus SH….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I’d like to see L&P data sorted according to Latitude on the Sun over time.
Does the effect rise or stay level as one approaches the Solar Equator?
rbateman says:
July 4, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I’d like to see L&P data sorted according to Latitude on the Sun over time.
Does the effect rise or stay level as one approaches the Solar Equator?
The data follows where the sunspots go, so during SC23 would have approached the equator, but since 2008 have been seen in the higher latitude SC24 spots, so no dependence on latitude.