Paul Hudson of the BBC writes:
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
His article is, ahem, illuminating:
For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.
In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.
Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.
Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.
Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun’s changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.
The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.
But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.
If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.
He had me until he contradicted himself……………..
About time indeed.
But from a BBC correspondent. That’s a shock. Richard Black is going to be squirming.
About time.
Isn’t this the same Paul Hudson who sat on the Climategate files for several weeks before they became public?
This statement is not credible:
“If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
1. The general consensus amongst most scientists is…. The paper is new. Not only has there been insufficient time for ‘most scientists’ to study it’s implications, but there has absolutely been not time to survey sufficient scientists to dertermine what is the consensus amongst ‘most’ of them.
2. The numbers in relation to this mechanism, as for most of the postulated solar mechanisms, are not well enough known to allow comparisons with other mechanisms – e.g. AGW
3. The range of possibilities for warming due to man is also too wide to allow the sort of comparison implied by the statement.
Even a cursory reading shows that this is blather.
“global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
I lol’d.
According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
Perhaps somewhat simplistic, but science is starting to catch onto the changes in pressure patterns and jet streams during low EUV.
I have writing about this for sometime.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/128
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
By who? There has never been a time when there have not been papers published which investigate solar influences on climate. See eg the rather well known works by Solanki and collaborators.
Hmmm…considering research and scholarly articles about the connection between the sun and earth’s climate have been produced in abundance every year for many decades (including even by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc.), I don’t see how anyone can honestly say there was a taboo against the subject. It certainly has seen peaks and valleys in terms of being a hot topic, but its never been “taboo”. I think now, with some of the EUV data actually being assimilated into climate models, there should be some renewed interest in solar effects.
What is fascinating to me though is how some will go to the extreme and suddenly think that newly integrated and quantifiable solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2, and large percentage increases in other greenhouse gases we’ve seen over the past few centuries.
But in 20 or possible 30 years, (assuming we get a Dalton or even Maunder type minimum), we’ll be able to judge the relative climate forcing caused by a quiet sun versus these increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, should we get a large volcanic eruption or several (as we did during the LIA), then we’ll have even more data to integrate. What an exciting time to follow the workings of Earth’s climate!
One is in awe of the sheer denseness of these so called climate scientists. 11 year cycle. Hmmmm. Where have we heard of those before. /
I suspect that the climatologist are getting concerned that they have lost the field to real scientists.
is this hedge betting by Mr Hudson? a grdaual ‘softening’ or ‘warning’ approach by the met office?
I dunno – just smacks of a back-tracking to me…….
Latitude says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:06 pm
“He had me until he contradicted himself……………..”
True enough. But it is progress in the right direction to even dare write something contradicting the “general consensus” – though Hudson sucked extra hard to come up with that “dwarfed” line.
I imagine the pro-AGW peer pressure at the BBC must be rather heavy.
The statement contains plenty of CAGW religion weasel words (requisite for a BBC journalist wanting to keep their job) but if you read between the lines it is indeed, as Anthony’s pun goes, “illuminating” – especially the admission that it is taboo to discuss anything as influencing our climate other than man-made CO2.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
But in 20 or possible 30 years, (assuming we get a Dalton or even Maunder type minimum), we’ll be able to judge the relative climate forcing caused by a quiet sun versus these increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, should we get a large volcanic eruption or several (as we did during the LIA), then we’ll have even more data to integrate. What an exciting time to follow the workings of Earth’s climate!
Whoa dude, just where did you get your shopping list from:-)? Santa or Santer?
Who knew the solar variability played a part in the climate? Next, they’ll be saying that the moon has a part to play as well!
(http://www.predictweather.com/)
“R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Hmmm…considering research and scholarly articles about the connection between the sun and earth’s climate have been produced in abundance every year for many decades (including even by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, etc.), I don’t see how anyone can honestly say there was a taboo against the subject. ”
You Sir are bring totally disingenuous.
It is well known that the IPCC has consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. There is also plenty of evidence that scientists who have proposed alternate theories have all had difficulty getting their papers published, as well as faced attacks. Dr. Svensmark, Dr. Shaviv, Dr. Friis- Christensen – just to name a few. Svensmark was derided by the former Head of the Met office during a presentation (captured on camera).
In the last 30 years, it is patently obvious that papers which speculate about the strong impact of man-made CO2 have been welcomed by science, media and politicians. Meanwhile any papers that speculate that natural factors could be just as important (or dare one suggest possibly even more important) have been treated like the plague and derided.
This is absolutely obvious to anyone who does not live in a propaganda infested cloud cuckoo land.
” thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been
largely overlookedcovered up”FTFY.
History re-write. The AGWSF claim was that the Sun was insignificant in the changes of the ‘recent’ rise in warming which is all the fault of carbon [dioxide the toxic] and man’s fault for making more of accumulate in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years causing run-away global warming.
It’s because there has been so much contradicting this meme about insignificant Sun, that they given up trying to claim any different.
I remember when first investigating the arguments that ‘insignificant’ sun was always claimed – because the minute differences of the Sun had no noticeable effect – even while being told that the minute amounts of CO2 were highly significant and given examples of it only takes minute amounts of poison to affect a whole body..
Don’t expect logical consistency and you won’t be disappointed.
R.Gates: “…solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2…”
The CO2 increase of 40% represents an increase of between 1.5% to 0.4% of ‘greenhouse’ gases. Water vapour being the dominant IR-active (‘greenhouse’) gas and which is about 25 to100 times more prevalent than CO2. Water also covers up to two thirds of the earth’s surface and into depths of 10,000m.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
the effect of a 40% increase in CO2
======================================
There you go again……
…a 40% increase in nothing, is still nothing
The question is, why did CO2 levels drop so low?
“The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.
When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.”
And this fellow is a meteorologist? What is the density of the air in the stratosphere? A fraction of the density of cold air in the troposphere is, and yet Mr Hudson brings it down and make it move denser air. As noticed before, the Ineson paper never points to a process at a synptic scale, only to a vague correlation to indexes that are themselves defined as mean pressures, i.e staistical entities. Finally Paul Hudson has obviously never observed the true patterns of circulation during cold winters over Europe such as on December 02, 2010 during a cold spell over much Western Europe and the UK… no easterly winds there but a beautiful southward bound 1025hPa MPH that descended from Scandinavia!
Regarding the comment about the “general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”, that is straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation:
“However, changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.” This was the standard IPCC position from years ago.
It would be interesting to see if this has changed lately since 2011 is only the 11th warmest year so far despite huge increases in CO2 since 1998. There appears to be no way that 2011 can even make it to the top 10 according to HADCRUT3 by the end of the year.
erl happ says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:07 pm
About time.
======
Vindication, is a start.
Annihilation is the goal.
I can’t help thinking that Paul Hudson would not have written his rather shallow piece had Dr David Whitehouse had not published this detailed analysis a few days beforehand.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4063-the-sun-and-the-winter-of-2011.html
R. Gates is correct.
There was never a taboo about discussing climate as being cyclical and closely related to the 11 year and 22 year sunspot cycles that so heavily influence UV levels.
I think the correct word was “forbidden”.
I had a meteorologist tell me once, ” If you don’t think the SUN has anything to do with the weather just flip the switch and see what happens.” Simplistic and to the point. In several conversations with him it didn’t take me long to discover his total disgust with the whole CAGW thing.
This can’t be right.
Mere days ago, the Holy Father himself issued a Papal “Bull” which said this is
“BULLS**T!!”
I condemn this as heresy until His Holiness pronounces it otherwise.
It would be especially interesting to know exactly WHO has changed the commands so that a journalist like Hudson now feels able to mention a fact for the first time ever.
We know it’s not a change in science, as Hudson implies; the real science of solar influence has been perfectly available and perfectly obvious for 70 years. It has to be a change in official orders.
Perhaps taboo at the BBC and IPCC and other like-minded (i.e. closed) institutions.
Young Spokesperson: “Look, I can’t just keep insisting to them that the sun has no impact on the earth’s temperature. For one thing, it’s completely counterintuitive – when you get hot, you look for shade, right? And now, with all of the new studies being talked around, it’s just not holding water. They’re starting to laugh at me!”
Dr. Grant: “Well, we have to head this new tactic off quickly, or the Deniers are going to develop a public meme with it. If we do talk about it, we can’t just say that we disagree with them. We can’t allow them to take the lead on this topic – we need to make it clear that they’re being deceptive to the public by ignoring the real science, and put them back on the defensive. It can’t just be “their idea versus our idea”. It has to be “science versus ignorant polluters.” But I don’t know how . . . . ”
Young Spokesperson: “How about this: I can start us off by talking about how, well, of COURSE the sun causes things to heat up, everyone has always known that, and we’re certainly not arguing that the sun isn’t hot, it’s just that the Deniers have been making up stories that make it sound that way to the public even though we’ve never said anything like that before at all, and so that way we don’t seem to be stuck on an idea that just sounds goofy and stubborn . . . ”
Dr. Grant: ” . . . hmmm . . . . go on . . . ”
Young Spokesperson: ” . . . and then I could continue on with the OBVIOUS point that we’ve certainly considered the idea and have reviewed the data and tested it all out and modeled it over and over, and we realized LONG ago that the impact of the sun on global warming was just miniscule, and so we’ve moved past the whole distraction, not ignored it like the Deniers have been trumpeting, and we’d rather not have to go and repeat all of those efforts just because these anti-science thugs never read all of the reports and papers on it from our original go-around – we ought to be concentrating our academic brilliance towards solutions, not on re-doing work because they don’t like the results we’ve already found – they have so much money to work with from industry and Big Oil and they know that our funding is finite and so they think they can maybe just trample over us in a spending war, but we’ve kept at it in spite of these attacks . . .
Dr. Grant: “Okay, I like it. Start with a newspaper article or something – make it sound like casual comments – nothing too specific – but something that allows our friends to start a new line about our having already considered all of this – “the long-discredited idea of sunshine causing our planet to overheat” – something catchy . . . Good work, son.”
It’s because new satellites are supplying data that they now cannot hide nor hand wave away.
We need more scientific hardware and less intellectual software….. I’m being polite…;-)
Who made the solar climate connection taboo? Not me!
Overlooked — synonyms [climate science]:
blocked, stifled, hidden, stomped, ridiculed, punished.
“Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.”
The occurrence of the phrase “natural processes” in the context of this article is a watershed event. It seems to me that this occurrence is the first time that the phrase has made it into mainstream commentary on climate science. Warmista have studiously ignored natural processes except for those discovered by Arrhenius. But all of climate science that goes beyond Arrhenius is in those natural processes.
That any scientific conjecture should be considered taboo shows how perverse and politicized climate science has become.
stevo says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
By who?
One notable solar scientist on this site has repeatedly said that solar activity is too constant to influence climate. However, what solar science has not considered is that while the intensity remains relatively constant, the frequency does not. Interestingly, the energy and momentum of a photon does not depend on its intensity, rather only upon its frequency.
Ya-hootie! I’m happy to see that scientists are looking at the effects of solar variability in wind and solar electromagnetic radiation. Although decreases during solar minima coincide, the effects of either probably are independent. A decrease in solar wind likely results in a “collapse” of the upper atmosphere, causing relatively high pressure at higher latitudes and increased polar jets. Reduced UV and EUV likely results in a reduced heating of the atmosphere and oceans (as I’ve said before, I’m unconvinced that our atmosphere is entirely “opaque” to UV).
Now it would be useful to relate these changes in wind and radiation to the corresponding seasonal positions of the Earth in its orbit to attempt to pinpoint the effects of the variations. I would think that decreased UV during SH Summer might produce a different result than decreased UV during NH Summer.
And it seems to me that the issue of systemic atmospheric pressure has been entirely neglected. If the upper atmosphere is buffeted and heated during times of increased solar wind, wouldn’t the entire atmospheric pressure decline somewhat? The converse would occur during periods of decreased solar wind, resulting in an increase in atmospheric pressure. An increase in pressure would result in a decrease in temperature, yes?
I think it’s wonderful that we’re looking at the many varied mechanisms that influence our climate. Perhaps soon we’ll be able to say with some certainty what the weather will be like next week.
R.Gates: “…solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2…”
The 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, is an increase in CO2 of 0.011 percent as a proportion of the entire atmosphere … that’s one hundredth of one percent … in my books that’s nearly nothing, at most insignificant, and readily negatable …
When global temperatures were rising, the “consensus” ruled that it had absolutely nothing to do with the sun – and everything to do with CO2. Some silly glib argument was offered about the sun cooling since the 1970 while global temps were still rising. (When I heard that I soon became a sceptic.)
Now global temperatures are showing signs of a fall, the sun’s effect is real again. The “consensus” picks and chooses when to include/exclude solar effects to suit their preconceptions. Very funny
Neil says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Who knew the solar variability played a part in the climate? Next, they’ll be saying that the moon has a part to play as well!
(http://www.predictweather.com/)
The 17 year drought cycle found in much of the world, which coincides with the 17 year locust cycle, also coincides with the 17 year lunar orbital cycle, as well as the 17 year stock market cycle. Who would have thought that locusts could affect both droughts and the orbit of the moon through shrewd investing in the market. I know it is true because I have a computer model.
“it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.”
It was taboo because the Sun had nothing to do with climate – it was solely caused by Anthropogenic CO2. But as climate is not quite sticking to the models… maybe the Sun has something to do with it.
Latitude says:
There you go again……
“…a 40% increase in nothing, is still nothing
The question is, why did CO2 levels drop so low?”
The question is, did it really get that low?
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels
give thanx mr. hudson…you do what u can to bring light to the CAGW narrative.
13 Oct: Daily Mail Charleston Blog: Don Surber: Europe gives up on global warming
My nomination for quote of the day comes from Eurocrat Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner of the environment. Europe generates only 11% of the world’s carbon emissions (the slackers) and the rest of the world doesn’t seem to want to rein in its carbon emissions, so Europe may throw in the towel on this whole global warming thing…
From Connie Hedegaard: “What’s the point of keeping something alive if you’re alone there? There must be more from the 89%.”
The lady has a point. If all your friends are not jumping off a bridge, why should you?
Once upon a time 16 years ago, when the world was young and gullible, Global Warming was the hottest thing in politics…
There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. What we do not know is whether the activity of man is causing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to rise — and to what extent such a man-caused change increases the temperature of the world — and finally, we have yet to determine if a warmer Earth is such a bad thing. Would not a de-iced Greenland and Antarctica help mankind and increase biodiversity? One can dream.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44325
Latitude says:
October 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm
drbob says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
==================================
More importantly, you forgot to remind him, ‘cos he easily forgets, that the effect is logarithmic too.
A 40% increase followed by no statistically significant measurable effects.
Some people are just incapable of interpreting data correctly.
Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.
I suspect (without evidence) that there is a very good reason that solar influence on weather was a taboo subject.
That is, people would study the sun, and the weather, and find patterns. They would then use these patterns to make predictions – which were usually abysmal. This happened enough times that everyone gave up on it – hence it became “taboo”.
With our greater ability to measure things, it is maybe time to revisit solar influences, particularly as they relate to regional weather.
ferd berple says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Interestingly, the energy and momentum of a photon does not depend on its intensity, rather only upon its frequency.
Not interesting at all. The effect of solar radiation depends on the number of photons, i.e. the intensity of the radiative flux.
I’m sorry but the season demands it:
“No pen can describe the turning of the leaves–the insurrection of the
tree-people against the waning year. A little maple began it, flaming
blood-red of a sudden where he stood against the dark green of a
pine-belt. Next morning there was an answering signal from the swamp
where the sumacs grow. Three days later, the hill-sides as far as the
eye could range were afire, and the roads paved, with crimson and gold.
Then a wet wind blew, and ruined all the uniforms of that gorgeous army;
and the oaks, who had held themselves in reserve, buckled on their dull
and bronzed cuirasses and stood it out stiffly to the last blown leaf,
till nothing remained but pencil-shading of bare boughs, and one could
see into the most private heart of the woods.”
(Kipling)
Jeremy says: (to R. Gates)
October 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm
You Sir are bring totally disingenuous.
It is well known that the IPCC has consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. There is also plenty of evidence that scientists who have proposed alternate theories have all had difficulty getting their papers published…
____
I have repeatedly posted links to published research by the much beloved Michael Mann and Phil Jones that spoke directly to the issue of the LIA, where the conclusion of the paper was that the LIA was most likely caused by solar influences. To state that the IPCC has “consistently refused to consider the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate”, is quite nonsensical. However, the issue of the whether or not the sun influences the climate isn’t the key issue. Solar activity and temperatures begin to diverge around 1980, as temperatures went up, while overall solar activity
has declined. As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate. The question is:has that point been crossed, and how sensitive will the climate be to these increasing greenhouse gases?
Meanwhile Piers Corbyn grins like the proverbial Cheshire Cat as the Beeboids frantically respin their AGW creed…
😀
But, of course, IF the Sun is “doing it,” the CO2 is not (or not as much?). Surely the CO2 is not causing the present COOLING, if all the “experts” on both sides of the debate are correct about the ability of CO2 to warm the Earth via some “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” That would be impossible heresy!
So, I ask all the resident experts out there: just how can you support the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” these days, eh?
Anthony – Now that it is allowed to discuss the blindingly obvious (except to the IPCC gang) notion that the sun is the main climate driver you and interested readers might like to see where the Solar Physics scientists are with regard to the possible arrival of a Grand Minima, and the sun -earth climate connection via the solar wind, CMEs ,GCRs EUV etc. It is very thought provoking to scan thru the abstracts of a recent conference in Argentina:
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/abstracts-IAUS286.pdf
Also since Taboos are falling you might reconsider your taboo on barycenter discussions
see pages 96 and 97 of the link.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:31 pm
As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate. The question is:has that point been crossed, and how sensitive will the climate be to these increasing greenhouse gases?
============================
Who is “you”? Your “AGW” models?
Also: “…you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate…”
Uh huh.
With paleo records to refute your assent of your false paradigm, are you sure you want to hijack this thread, too, for the umpteenth zillionth time?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Norman Page says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:47 pm
It is very thought provoking to scan thru the abstracts of a recent conference in Argentina:
I attended three consecutive conferences:
http://shinecon.org/Current%20Meeting.htm
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/
It would be O/T to comment in detail, but my take aways were
1) The PMOD TSI team has now admitted [as I have told them years ago] that their instrument has uncompensated degradation and that there now is no evidence that TSI this past minimum was any lower than at previous minima
2) There is growing acceptance of the observation that the sunspot number underwent artificial inflation around 1945, basically scuttling the notion of a Modern Grand Maximum
3) That there is a distinct possibility of significantly lower solar activity in the coming years, but probably not a new Grand Minimum [unless Livingston & Penn are correct].
4) A rich lode of stellar cycles are being discovered with as yet unrealized potential for application to the sun.
drbob says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
R.Gates: “…solar EUV effects somehow negate the effect of a 40% increase in CO2…”
The 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, is an increase in CO2 of 0.011 percent as a proportion of the entire atmosphere…
____
Don’t know what you’re a doctor of, but giving a percentage of the overall atmosphere that CO2 represents is misleading, and you should know that. Really most important is the part of the LW spectrum that CO2 absorbs (around 15 microns), and as it is right at the peak where the majority of LW is coming from the ground, it turns out that CO2 has a disproportionate greenhouse activity. But your notion of giving the percentage of the total atmosphere that CO2 represents as some measurement of its effectiveness and overall activity as a greenhouse gas is nonsense. For those who really want the real scientific details on this, i highly recommend you start here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
And read all 8 parts (it will take you a while). Otherwise, just keep spouting nonsense and giving the percentage of the overall atmosphere that CO2 represents as a way to justify you incorrect perceptions of the effectiveness of this critical greenhouse gas.
“R. Gates: As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate.”
You are not simply wrong but totally delusional. As you increase greenhouse gas, the effects are diminishing returns. In the case of CO2, a trace green house gas, whose effect is totally dwarfed by H2O, after about 200 PPM then the majority of the effect is gone. Incremental CO2 then simply changes the height within the atmosphere that all CO2 infra red band absorption has occurred (optical depth if you will)
ich99cat says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:10 pm
“R. Gates: As greenhouse gases increase, you would expect at some point that their effects would take the leading role of driving the climate.”
You are not simply wrong but totally delusional. As you increase greenhouse gas, the effects are diminishing returns. In the case of CO2, a trace green house gas, whose effect is totally dwarfed by H2O, after about 200 PPM then the majority of the effect is gone. Incremental CO2 then simply changes the height within the atmosphere that all CO2 infra red band absorption has occurred (optical depth if you will)
______
Rather than spout the traditional talking points of skeptics, you might do well to learn a bit of the science. Suggest you start here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
Read all 8 or so parts, and then we can have a discussion.
Before you all get excited about a possible general acceptance of the sun’s role in climate change – how are they going to tax the sun?
“If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
Dwarfed by a DWARF?!?!! Too funny!!!
savethesharks says (to R. Gates):
October 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm
With paleo records to refute your assent of your false paradigm, are you sure you want to hijack this thread, too, for the umpteenth zillionth time?
_____
There is no hijack here Chris. The essential issue is this: which effect NOW is greater on earth’s climate: solar fluctuations or the 40% increase in CO2 beyond the levels the Earth has seen in at least 800,000 years. In terms of the paleo-records…well, we probably now need to go back to somewhere in the mid-pliocene a few million years ago to see where we’re likely headed. With a doubling of CO2…guess what…about a 3C increase in temps or so. All because of CO2…that insignificant greenhouse gas.
Pat said:
“What we do not know is whether the activity of man is causing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to rise…”
_____
Really Pat? Don’t we? C’mon.
As usual this thread is a one-man show on the part of Mr. R. Gates?
I think we must be prepared for the massaging of this ’11 year cycle’ business now that it is going to be de rigeur to discuss the sun. I expect it can be shown that (remember that can be very large values of 11) the cycle length can be extended by reinterpretation and averaging of multiple values of 11 to the point that CO2 overwhelms all natural variation. Bob’s your uncle! It’s worse that we thought.
I see R Gates popped up again with his ‘40% increase in CO2’. Hey RG, did you see the post showing the logarithmic effect of increasing the CO2 by 180 ppm at a time? What a hoot! Your 40% will become 300% and the effect on temperature will negligible to the point that it will not be possible to measure any effect at all. Did you see my post on the bare fact that it is not possible to get the CO2 up to 550 ppm at all because there is not enough carbon-based fuel on the planet to get that high? Thanks for stopping by to beat your drum. We always want to hear it…again, dribbled neatly with CAGW lite. Next time show is your skeptical side.
@drbob
You are wasting your time debating RGates on the % v.s. ppm(v) issue. The really important gases are water vapour followed by ozone both of which are really effective at absorbing radiation. What matters with respect to CO2 is its logarithmic drop-off in temperature effect with increasing concentration. RG never admits to this physical reality because the math involved would show that it rapidly becomes irrelevant above 700 ppm. Even at 500 you can hardly measure it with current weather thermometers. It has a really big effect from 0 to 50 ppm – sort of the numbers that are incorrectly cited for a doubling from the present concentration.
R. Gates says:
There is no hijack here Chris. With a doubling of CO2…guess what…about a 3C increase in temps or so. All because of CO2…that insignificant greenhouse gas.
==============================================
Prove the cause and effect. You can’t do it. Hijack or not
Prove the cause and effect with peer reviewed honest attempts.
You can not do it.
A waste of time.
You are conflating and confusing the idea of “CO2 pollution” with the more plausible and realistic observation of man-made pollution.
Do you not see the difference and if you do can you begin to recognize the source of the real problem??
It is not as your Lisa Jackson and her czars “regulate.”
They are mistaken.
Do you get it yet….or do you need more flash cards??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Quick question please!
What data sets for temperature, CO2, and Total Solar Radiation are considered reliable? And possibly a site that I could access the data?
Thanks
“Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm
ferd berple says:
October 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Interestingly, the energy and momentum of a photon does not depend on its intensity, rather only upon its frequency.”
“Not interesting at all. The effect of solar radiation depends on the number of photons, i.e. the intensity of the radiative flux.”
Perhaps we need to be very specific as to what effects we are talking about. The energy of a photon is given by E = hf. The momentum is given by p = h/wavelength. So I have to agree with ferd here. The photoelectric effect for example needs a high enough frequency photon to knock an electron loose. A single photon just above the threshold frequency will knock an electron loose. However a million photons just below the threshold frequency will NOT knock an electron loose, even though the total energy of the million lower frequency photons could be much higher than the single higher frequency photon.
We may not have the photoelectric effect working in the atmosphere, but oxygen reacts with UV photons in ways that lower energy photons do not, regardless of the number of photons.
From http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/applychem/ozone.html
this sentence appears: “The visible region range from 300 nm to 700 nm, and radiation with a wavelength of 240 nm is in the ultraviolet region. Visible light cannot break the O=O bond, and UV light has enough energy to break the O=O bond.”
Werner Brozek (retired physics teacher)
It was noted in 1997 “The Role of the Sun In Climate Change” that William Herschel in 1801 found a relationship between climate and the level of solar activity. He found that when sunspots were few the price of wheat went up, thus the sun emitted less light and heat which reduced the amount of wheat harvested and drove the price up. It is nice that they are now noticing this sort of thing.
philincalifornia says:
October 13, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.
===================
I rest my case
Leif, with great respect for your acclaimed expertise: Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations. Indeed, the more I hear about this approach, the more re-interpretation and adjustments it seems to involve over multiple centuries.
Am I missing something?
Werner Brozek says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Perhaps we need to be very specific as to what effects we are talking about.
Presumably the effect of solar radiation on the climate. Here the total number of photons of all wave lengths is the determining factor for all the energy impinging on the Earth.
The fact that so many people subscribe to catastrophic climate global change warming is that stupid people need to feel like they are cool. It is kind of like the ignorant souls demonstrating against the devils on Wall Street. They don’t have a clue, but they feel like they are cool because they are doing something, even though it is something they don’t understand.
Same thing with the CAGW folks. They don’t have a clue, but they want to belong to a popular group and feel like they are cool, too. It is not about the science. It is a social thing.
RGates:
If, as you say, temperatures kept rising even as solar activity decreased supports the CO2 caused the warming hypothesis; (besides that is ignoring lags in the system) then why does the lack of warming NOW and the lack of increase in ocean heat content NOW while CO2 is increasing not support the notion that CO2 is not driving the temperatures? Has solar activity (or lack thereof) overwhelmed the effect of CO2? Or perhaps it’s dust, or clouds, or thermostats, or China that’s overwhelming the MOST IMPORTANT GHG, the regulator of Earth’s temperature for millions if not billions of years?
If the CO2 driven “extra” heat is being somehow transferred into the deep ocean (as being discussed on RC) then exactly what could be the detrimental effects? Basically, what is the heat capacity of the deep ocean? How many centuries of “extra” heat could the deep ocean absorb without an appreciable change in temperature?
Maybe the moon also influence on the climate?
You may take a look at this – on naturat climate variability
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457
philincalifornia says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:31 pm
“Cue some more garbage from R. Gates explaining how he’s not one of them.”
____
One of who, phil? This “us” versus “them” mentality is so tiresome.
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
______
I would expect that in the case of EUV, for extremely low periods of solar activity such as the Maunder minimum, the total effect is possibly more than 0.1C and could be as much as 0.3C globally, with larger regional impacts in areas such as Europe. I think Mann and Jones 2001 study found a high probability of the correlation of the LIA and solar influences, though at the time they did not know exactly the quantifiable EUV effects on the stratosphere. We are stuck with explaining the Bond Events, such as the 8.2ky event, in which we saw a much larger cooling, though with similar THC effects. If you can believe that it is likely that the 8.2 ky event (-5 C global temp decline!) was solar related, then there may indeed be longer-term solar cycles that take the sun into even longer term lower EUV output than seen during the Maunder. This EUV link could be the key to the Bond Event puzzle in general, as I tend to agree with his assessment that they were solar in origin and could explain the regular 1470 year or so fluctuations going back well into the last glacial period. (the DO events) In short, there may be a 1470 year solar cycle that takes the sun to EUV and TSI levels even lower for longer periods than the Maunder.
R. Gates
RE Co2 and Logarithm Rules
Which is warmer under a 100w bulb, a tone of Co2 or 100 tones of Co2?
Climate is “quite different” now, compared to what it was 108 years ago, says Leif Svalgaard.
And this is his argument against the solar influence on the climate, because, he says, “solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago.”
Really. How “quite” the climate was different in 1803, Leif?
Am I the only one not “quite” impressed by this pathetic reasoning?
R. Gates
RE Co2 and Logarithm Rules
Part 2
Then add that 100w bulb to a dimmer switch, then turn it up and down, which is warmer Now. /jk
So, changes in solar output are now admitted to having some influence on climate, even if it’s “dwarfed” by man-made CO2 output?
Kinda feeble, but at least it’s baby step in the right direction.
I think what’s happening is those involved with the entire global warming enterprise are beginning to realize they have painted themselves into a corner. Global warming ended last century and temperatures have fallen ever since.
The more enterprising advocates who aren’t committed diehard zealots don’t wish to go down with the sinking HMS Global Warming. They are beginning to seek an exit because they have a future careers to attend to.
Rats have a strong sense of self-preservation. Watch what they do. They will tell you what’s worth staying with and what has to be abandoned.
Re: Leif Svalgaard is wrong again
Make it 1903, not 1803, to correct my typo. It doesn’t change anything, though. Local weather patterns may have been a bit different in 1903 — but they always change anyway. Weather is not climate.
12th century or 17th century climate could have been quite different from what it is now — while the solar patterns were quite different then.
To make any meaningful comparison, Leif, you need to find a similar solar cycle as a whole; picking one particular year wouldn’t make any sense even if you were correct, which you are not.
Chris F said: “Isn’t this the same Paul Hudson who sat on the Climategate files for several weeks before they became public?”
IIRC, no. Hudson was forwarded a chain of emails about himself some time before the emails escaped. When the emails got into the wild he then confirmed that the email chain he had received was the same as the one in the lump.
So if the sun is giving off less heat to reach us pitiful humans(by whatever means)then it may cool? Damn. And here I thought turning my furnace down would produce more,if that less heat could get through my saturated CO2 living room!
I hope I don’t need the /sarc??
Correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m sure you will, am I to understand that a gas, that is not even 1% of the total atmosphere, with a maximum absorption spectrum of 2 microns (long wave) is so powerful that it can produce a temperature above the temperature achieved by the absorption abilities of the earth. If this is the case, does that mean that short wave radiation absorbed by the surface has less energy and therefore produces less heat (lower temperature) than long wave absorbed by CO2?
R.Gates seems totally incapable of responding to the many holes identified in his wooley logic. This seems to happen with tremendous regularity on WUWT threads.
I wonder if we are dealing with an adult with a minimum of science background or a 14 year old high school student? Whatever, the cause, it is embarrassing to watch such blundering scientific ineptitude from a poster who displays so much conviction and condescension.
Another Gareth –
Chris F is right to say Paul Hudson (and the BBC for that matter) sat on “Climategate emails”. that is all that is known. everthing else is speculation. Hudson was gagged and neither he nor the BBC was ever called to appear at any Climategate Inquiry to explain or provide the evidence.
whatever Hudson received in October 2009, after writing his article, “Whatever happened to global warming” has never been revealed by the BBC.
Hudson linked to the entire Climategate cache when he initially authenticated them, so it is possible he received the full Climategate cache minus the few emails dated later than the October date when he says he received whatever he did receive.
it is also possible the “leaker”, finding no satisfaction at the BBC, added a few later emails and eventually – with the help of the wonderful sceptics – brought us Climategate.
“solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago”
Is this observation static (a moment captured in time like photograph) or is there an associated trend line leading one to believe solar activity will be less in the future, perhaps even like it was 350 years ago?
As a layman, my understanding at the present rate sunspots may disappear within a few decades, an event not seen since Newton wrote the Principia Mathematica.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
David Corcoran says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Discounting ANY effect of solar variations on climate seems to involve reinterpreting and correcting many past historical observations.
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
REALLY?
———————————————————————————————————-
Dr. SValgaard as a fellow physicist I do admire your hardheadness and belief in that observation and precise calculation trumps speculation every time.
After all some very strange ideas do float about on this blog from the influence of Venus on the music of the spheres to wonderful ideas about photons and I do not what else: all of which you robustly resist. Indeed so. I could not agree more.
Nevertheless when it come to observations, such as they are, about regional climates let alone whether the globe is warming or cooling you must be aware how hopelessly defective these supposed measurements are.
Mere statistical artifacts which purport to be based on measurements of so called global temperature: many of which appear to have been manipulated or forged, to show something or another. Usually warming. You believe in these? as being accurate observation ?
Or are they merely the invention and fabrication of those who believe in little green fairies at the bottom of the garden? For their own ends whatever they may be.
As you observed not much has happened with old Sol in the last hundred years or so, but then as best we can tell from genuine accurate observation not much has happened to the climates around the world over the last hundred years either.
Of course a hundred years or two of observations do not mean much given the timescales of planets and stars.
But in time we shall learn more and free ourselves from superstitions whether those are that our sins produce bad weather or that there are mystical Gods in the heavens who vent their wrath upon us.
Whichever our ever advancing technology will cope with any such eventuality.
Kindest Regards
It starts to look like 1945.
No no no! I was with the Resistance!
I’m a word watcher.
No longer ‘taboo’ for climate scientists to acknowledge solar infulence
The word Taboo comes from religion magic anthropology.
Science shouldn’t countenance the existence of Taboo let alone be governed by it.
Very revealing.
Here in Australia CO2 and AGW is not considered to be a problem. Our ‘great’ challenge evidently is carbon pollution and climate change. Very taxing on the mind and soon to be taxing on the pocket.
It’s quite possible that Mr Hudson’s original article was even more emphatic before the BBC subs got to it.
Compare the article title:
Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climate
with the URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml
Maybe the title was shortened for reasons of space on the page, maybe not. it’s very easy to imagine double-dealing when considering the BBC and GW stories.
dave Harrison says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Before you all get excited about a possible general acceptance of the sun’s role in climate change – how are they going to tax the sun?
Quite easily, just have a sun tax addition to all the other taxes we pay.
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
I agree with Kohl’s comment, sounds good, but this is early days and from the BBC, watch your backs!
Dear Paul,
Talking about no longer climate changes TABOO is like CHOCOLATE for a baby.
Based on the principal of Matter & Energy Duration, CO2-O2 action-reaction means Global Warming plus the destructive effects of CO2 on climate. What have we done through years by now to stop the bad results against the EARTH?
I invite you to have a visit here:
http://acckkii.tumblr.com
Perhaps I am mistaken but I cannot recall R.Gates clarifying his/her gender. Therefore I think assuming male is sexist 🙂
I have long assumed R.Gates is female, or at least one of the people using the R.Gates sock-puppet is.
The TSI has never been constant. As the Earth moves in its orbit, it gets closer to the Sun in January and farther away in July. The TSI goes from a high of about 1407 W/m² to a low of about 1316 W/m². The average is around 1361 W/m² with a +47 W/m² and -44 W/m² range. This plot shows the changes during the year. This plot shows the TSI corrected to 1 astronomical unit. The satellite data starts in 2003 and shows the Sun cooling slightly till 2009 and then warming again.
Jim
This paper shows that the relationship between solar EUV flux and the F10.7 index during the extended solar minimum (Smin) of 2007–2009 is different from that in the previous Smin. This difference is also seen in the relationship between foF2 and F10.7. We collected SOHO/SEM EUV observations and the F10.7 index, through June 2010, to investigate solar irradiance in the recent Smin. We find that, owing to F10.7 and solar EUV flux decreased from the last Smin to the recent one with different amplitudes (larger in EUV flux), EUV flux is significantly lower in the recent Smin than in the last one for the same F10.7. Namely, F10.7 does not describe solar EUV irradiance in the recent Smin as it did in the last Smin. That caused remarkable responses in ionospheric foF2. For the same F10.7, foF2 in the recent Smin is lower than that in the last one; further, it is also lower than that in other previous Smins. Therefore, F10.7 is not an ideal indicator of foF2 during the recent Smin, which implies that F10.7 is not an ideal proxy for solar EUV irradiance during this period, although it has been adequate during previous Smins. Solar irradiance models and ionospheric models will need to take this into account for solar cycle investigations.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016301.shtml
dave Harrison says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Before you all get excited about a possible general acceptance of the sun’s role in climate change – how are they going to tax the sun?
————-
Its been done before, a window tax, see here
http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/window_tax.html
Just for a bit of clarification – Paul Hudson works for a regional BBC studio (BBC North, based in Leeds). He’s not a big player in the hierarchy of BBC journalists but is a trained meteorolgist. I’m not sure whether he is strictly a BBC employee or a Met Office employee seconded to the Beeb (as are the national weather presenters). Of course it should also be noted that most of the BBCs environment correspondents (as opposed to the weather men) have absolutely no science background and are writers first and foremost.
He was not recipient of the Climategate leak several weeks before the ‘miracle happened’, but was the subject of a small sub-set of the e-mails (iirc between CRU and Richard Black, regarding an ‘off reservation’ web article). All he stated with regard to Climategate was that the e-mails relating to this string of communications appeared to be genuine and unedited. His choice of language was slightly ambiguous and has led to some confusion by those with an axe to grind against the BBC.
As for the phrasing on the blog (the bit about the consensus), looks like typical weasel words that can quite easily be read as ‘the author doesn’t believe this, but the editor wants it put in’.
Great argument until the last comment
“although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
Show some balls or rather a vagina. Do not add a negative at the end of a pretty good post.
(For those who do not know the reference check the net)
“Solar forcing of climate is a subject that gets far more attention than any new observations or improved understanding would warrant.”
Gavin Schmidt/Michael Mann 2006.
Alexander Feht says:
October 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm
you need to find a similar solar cycle as a whole; picking one particular year wouldn’t make any sense even if you were correct, which you are not.
I didn’t think anybody could be so dumb as to assume that I picked just a particular year [but I was clearly wrong in that assumption]. It should have been obvious that what was meant was the situation as a whole. Solar cycle 24 being quite like cycle 14.
Mariss says:
October 13, 2011 at 11:28 pm
“solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago”
Is this observation static (a moment captured in time like photograph) or is there an associated trend line leading one to believe solar activity will be less in the future, perhaps even like it was 350 years ago?
This observation pertains to the general level of activity. There is, indeed, a strong possibility that activity will be less in the future. Although it is not given that we may reach Grand Minimum levels.
Dear Paul,
We know that our EARTH is like a bottle. It can be filled up with certain quantity of water. We are using and consuming all the elements with limited volumes in this continent , better to say, changing their quality to whatever we like, but not eliminating the quantities. In wide variety of changes, we need to keep some vital elements or all of those effective ones to our lives. Our atmosphere is not a thick layer so we are living in an ocean that is not too deep, we have to breath. Fossil Based Fuels (FBF), with all its positive aspects are going to be a big problem for all the creatures living on the EARTH.
CO2 is only one side of a coin. O2 as a silent partner in Energy Convergence (Carbon+O2=Co2+Energy almost heat) is the other side of our coin as example.
I would be grateful to visit http://acckkii.tumblr.com .
We have a long way to get rid of the TABOO as you specified. Injecting daily huge amounts of OIL into our limited OXYGEN resource around us as ATMOSPHERE is a big threat. We have to enrich atmosphere with O2 that can no longer be Free!
Forests, Jungles, Green Zones as effective recycle plants with our destructive behavior against our beautiful EARTH are under pressure. I want to remind you “WHAT ABOUT US” by Micheal Jackson.
Regards,
ACCKKII
Durr says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.”
Well, several years ago when the Met Office delivered their seasonal forecast for winter, during the height of global warming ideology (2009) they predicted “the period of mild winters continues…” and so we were expecting another mild/warm winter, which turned out to be the coldest for 50 years or so when the averages were calculated at the beginning of March. The statement from the Met Office was that “Yes it would have been even colder had it not been for global warming”. Somehow they think that sort of comment mitigates the ideology, which insures against every possibility.
Its like saying “My dinner is cold” and someone confirming that in fact that it was hot, then my saying “Yes but it would have been cold if it were not heated”
For years the dogma was that the sun was a steady star. I was taught this at university. This was how C-14 studies became established for dating historical artefacts. Until they kept finding Egyptian pharaohs being born before their grandfathers. At that point the game was up. Since then isotopic studies have demonstrated that the sun has a variable output. Meteorologists were a little behind the curve on this but they are now catching up
“The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.”
I don’t care for the cold and I sure hope that that stratospheric air will stay in Europe, and is not going to come blasting down on me. I can’t quite figure out how it could but then I’m not a meteorologist.
There is the inevitable reference to ‘most scientists’. ‘Most’ as in ‘most of those who’ve been asked’? Or as in ‘most cats prefer Kat-O-Meat’, perhaps.
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 8:17 pm
______
Rather than spout the traditional talking points of skeptics, you might do well to learn a bit of the science. Suggest you start here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
Read all 8 or so parts, and then we can have a discussion.
Part 1 is ignorant blather. Are any of the others not?
For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now no longer taboo.
The simple fact is that no one of these believers of Geocentric Climate Ideology ever could explain the terrestrial climate pattern satisfactory.
I cannot see any climate science. I can see a lot of poetical marginalia. Science ever has a basis. Climate has no scientific basis. Climate science is a Phantom.
Solar physics can be a part of a Heliocentric Climate Ideology, but the processes on the Sun cannot be observed without the planets and its motion.
The simple fact is that the well known global terrestrial temperature spectra for the last three or five millennia easy can be calculated from the synodic motions of the planets in the solar system. Moreover, because the motion of the planets can be precisely calculated for the next 1000 years, the global terrestrial temperature spectra for this time interval can be simulated for frequencies up to some 1/month.
The climate code is solved
Taboo? Science and Taboo is incompatible. There is no taboo in science.
Volker
“….would be dwarfed by man-made global warming” – his opinion.
In the evening, with the sun about to set, even dwarfs give big shadows. Old wisdom. Lets wait a bit to see how man-made global warming finishes off all other weather events, patterns.
The story in itself is not very clear – maybe the confused BBC people had their hands on it.
‘dwarfed by man made global warming’
What a mighty creature is man! More powerful than the force of nature or the feeble sun!
King Canute knew this wasn’t true centuries ago.
Have to say, from a lay philosophical(?) point of view, whenever I follow a thread on the effect of the sun on weather/climate, I find it interesting that there are always those (they know who they are) who seem so CERTAIN that:
1. We even know all there is to measure about the sun.
2. That we are measuring those parameters accurately.
3. That we fully understand all the effects that changes to these parameters may have.
(I use ‘we’ to be kind)
Yet almost every day these days it seems to becomes clearer that things are anything but (ahem) clear…
Is it just me? Must be… too uneducated. Silly me for thinking that there is still vastly more to be discovered than we already know. And that any certainty is just a trifle premature….
R. Gates says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
One of who, phil? This “us” versus “them” mentality is so tiresome.
===========================================
One of the – “Some people are just incapable of interpreting data correctly.” …. actually.
…. and add to that – “selectively, incapable of interpreting posts correctly”.
Sun-Climate change link: not TSI, not UV, it is the outbursts of the magnetic storms.
Here is direct evidence in a daily record since beginning of the year; every geomagnetic storm changes the Earth’s magnetic field by another notch.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif
Link between the solar activity, Arctic’s geomagnetic field and climate is more than a coincidence:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MFc.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Scientists will only go by what is currently in vogue; if Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell or Tesla were around it would be a different story.
In decade or two it is all up to the sun, and it ain’t global warming:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 6:11 am
Sun-Climate change link: not TSI, not UV, it is the outbursts of the magnetic storms.
Here is direct evidence in a daily record since beginning of the year; every geomagnetic storm changes the Earth’s magnetic field by another notch.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The magnetic storms have no lasting effect on the Earth’s magnetic field which is generated at a depth of 4000 km in the molten iron core.
There is “no creditable experiment & data that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exists” Therefore the is no proof that Mann-made global warming exists! All the supposed data supporting Mann-made global warming exists is circumstational and most of it has been mannipulated.
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
How odd as this is in the IPCC AR4 from 2007:
The effects of galactic cosmic rays on the atmosphere (via cloud nucleation) and those due to shifts in the solar spectrum towards the ultraviolet (UV) range, at times of high solar activity, are largely unknown. The latter may produce changes in tropospheric circulation via changes in static stability resulting from the interaction of the increased UV radiation with stratospheric ozone. More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html
‘……..although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming’.
Such a good article until the above. Usual kow towing to the unproven claim that mankind makes significant or indeed measurable contribution to ‘global warming’ nee ‘climate change’, nee whatever other scare the environmentalists try to pin on mankind.
R Gates–doubling of CO2 leads to 3C increase—rubbish.
For the believers in positive cloud feedback
I wonder how long it will be before research looks at differing cloud cover correlating with solar output and whether that affects oceanic absorption of energy, thereby influencing longer periodic effects of oceanic energy exchange etc etc?
Chris F says:
October 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Isn’t this the same Paul Hudson who sat on the Climategate files for several weeks before they became public?
I doubt it. This Paul Hudson is pretty small potatoes on the BBC. He just presents the regional weather to audiences in the Yorkshire area – BBC North. He works primarily for the Met Office as a meteorologist, is completely unknown to national audiences, and would not be on anyone’s shortlist to send Climategate files to.
Easy.
The mooted proposals to put vast mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight are based on Monty Burns’ screen used to block out the Sun until the residents of Springfield pay him for his electricity. In the same way, tiny windows in the mirrors will be opened to allow sunlight to shine through, but only to those nations who have a punitive ‘carbon’ tax and/or an emissions trading scheme.
Hm, was about time to get closer to reality, but there is still way to go.
“Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. ” Good question:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-ipcc-relied-on-one-solar.html
Our sun is a variable star. Of course, its output varies over time – only a CO2 addicted ‘climate scientist’ would refuse to acknowledge this.
Here’s typical Leif Svalgaard for you, turning on a dime when cornered:
I didn’t think anybody could be so dumb as to assume that I picked just a particular year [but I was clearly wrong in that assumption]
You did pick just a particular year, sir. It’s not a matter of assumption, it is a matter of fact.
Now you have clearly shown yourself as a man of little culture, unable to admit the truth or to conduct a civil conversation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 6:31 am
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The magnetic storms have no lasting effect on the Earth’s magnetic field which is generated at a depth of 4000 km in the molten iron core.
And what is this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif
then ?
Pure coincidence, of course. Esoteric statistics clearly proves that such matches must maybe occur several times in the course of each megayear, so nothing should be inferred from it without many millennia of meticulous metrics.
/hyperbolic humo(u)r
Anthony Watts says:
“For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”
Do you have any evidence to corroborate this statement?
[REPLY: Read the article again. It was not Anthony making the statement. -REP]
We all know the sun’s infrared energy radiates heat, put who could have imagined the sun’s ultraviolet energy radiates cold — umm, like cold radiation? Is this a new wrinkle that can be subtracted from those doctored and highly-touted IPCC computer programs?
So, after spending millions and millions on climate research… we now know that the Sun appears to have an (unquantified) effect on Earth’s climate.
There are exciting times indeed.
/sarcasm
Latitude says on October 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm:
“The question is, why did CO2 levels drop so low?”
The answer is: Plants arrived on the planet and took a liking to the stuff.
Leif Svalgaard says: October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Nobody is discounting ANY effect. It is easy to show that there must be about a 0.1 C solar cycle effect and such is also claimed to be observed. What is not established is that the Sun is a major driver of climate. For example: solar activity [TSI, UV, magnetic field, etc] is now what it was 108 years ago, yet the climate is quite different.
When looking at the CET record, the dropping temperature slope does look quite similar.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Bob B says:
October 14, 2011 at 7:34 am
R Gates–doubling of CO2 leads to 3C increase—rubbish.
For the believers in positive cloud feedback
____
It’s pretty much what the paleo data from the mid-pliocene is telling us. But you can choose to believe whatever you want.
From the abstract that Hudson cravenly failed to link to:
“If the updated measurements of solar ultraviolet irradiance are correct, low solar activity, as observed during recent years, drives cold winters in northern Europe and the United States, and mild winters over southern Europe and Canada, with little direct change in globally averaged temperature.” — Ineson et. al in Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere — http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1282.html
How does Hudson get to his conclusions?
I think R Gates is male. The behaviour is masculine rather than feminine. IMHO. Has to win. Ignores arguments s/he cannot counter, and disses where s/he thinks it’s possible:
(1) saying the person to question whether the CO2 increase was manmade was a dumb idiot. R Gates has, it seems, never compared the size and fine patterning of natural CO2 cycles with the size and fine patterning of our emissions record. Natural cycles from both land and sea are huge and can easily swallow up all manmade CO2; and by way of proof, the fine patternings don’t fit. Oh, and pre-MLO CO2 measurements from Ice cores are not direct measurements, they are proxies which are highly suspect on many counts as too low.
(2) throwing eight pages of mathematical smoke in people’s faces, while ignoring the key issues of (a) logarithmic diminution of effect, and (b) geological evidence for governors / negative feedback / current variation well within natural limits, all of which which simply bypasses all those eight pages.
(3) the strawman argument that
because
Sorry mate. They didn’t diverge from 1980. What happened from that point was that UHI got noticeable, plus the bad thermometer record-keeping mushroomed, and both effects were hidden under the carpet of Jones and Wang’s paper that put ridiculously low values to UHI. I think the paper has been shown as “fraudulent”. Skeptics maintain the sun’s influence is as strong as ever – they actually maintain the IPCC has consistently refused to consider the divergence as UHI.
All this is covered by my “Primer”. Click my name. Shorter than your eight pages, far more comprehensive, and far more comprehensible.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 12:04 pm
The paleo data has been from many millions of years ago been showing a cooling planet, irrespective of CO2 levels. Down to the changing land masses and introduction of them closer to the poles. The mid-pliocene was 2-3c warmer than today, but we are already at similar global CO2 levels. Global albedo is higher today with the Antarctic, Greenland covering more polar regions now than millions of years ago. The Greenland glacier formed with the advancing north of this land mass and cut off of the South American canal. (~ 3 milli0n years ago) While we have a large continental land mass covering more of the pole, the Greenland glacier in a more northern position, this global albedo will change little and never reach similar values in the mid-pliocene. Hence, why with similar CO2 levels now we are 2c to 3c lower than back then.
Mariss: “The more enterprising advocates who aren’t committed diehard zealots don’t wish to go down with the sinking HMS Global Warming. They are beginning to seek an exit because they have a future careers to attend to.”
No, that’s not happening. What has happened is that a sceptical commentator (Hudson) has placed a particular spin on some recent news about possible UV influence on northern hemisphere climate patterns.
Not much to do with global warming per se, so much as the distribution of energy.
There’s long been a tendency on WUWT, and climate sceptic blogs in general, to read the entrails of climate pronouncements with the aim of spotting a major turnaround in thinking among climate scientists about AGW.
This enterprise is doomed to failure. Any major turnaround in thinking would not occur “between the lines” of pronouncements on climate. It would occur either by the positing of a major new understanding of climate forcing (and that would be big news, no entrail reading necessary), or by a reversal of warming trends (and that would happen gradually, over a number of years).
GabrielHBay says:
… Is it just me?…
Nope, I think the same thing. Which is why I like reading Judith Curry’s site. The uncertainty monster can bite those that don’t pay attention to it.
Matt G says:
October 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“The mid-pliocene was 2-3c warmer than today, but we are already at similar global CO2 levels.”
____
Mid-Pliocene (around 3.3 to 3 million year ago) were the last time CO2 levels were sustained at current levels or higher, so rather than guessing what the climate sensitivity is to these higher level, this is direct examination of the results. As we’ve only been at these levels for a few decades, the feedbacks (slow and fast) have only begun. Looking at the mid-Pliocene warmth gives us a good look at where earth’s climate is headed:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072003/pdf/1755-1315_6_7_072003.pdf
And the Milankovitch cycles are not anywhere close to bringing on the next glaciation, so we ought not expect cooling from astronomical forcing. Little cooling bumps down along the way, like we saw during the LIA, are just that, little bumps. 3C of warming (when all fast and slow feedbacks are included) is a pretty good a and reasonable approximation of what to expect from our current trajectory of CO2 warming.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 14, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I think R Gates is male. The behaviour is masculine rather than feminine. IMHO. Has to win. Ignores arguments s/he cannot counter, and disses where s/he thinks it’s possible:
(1) saying the person to question whether the CO2 increase was manmade was a dumb idiot.
______
Lucy, it is not a question of winning or not, but moving on from what we are pretty certain of to cut to the chase, and get to the areas of we aren’t so certain of. The issue of whether or not humans have caused the current CO2 levels to go well beyond anything seen in the past 800,000 years is one of those things that we are pretty certain of. To keep discussing it is simply to never allow ourselves to get to the really important and truly uncertain issues.
Also, not only is the expression “dumb idiot” rather redundant, (have you ever met a smart idiot?), it is not something I have used here on WUWT, ever. If I question someone with a ??, it is not calling them stupid, but rather saying, “what’s the point of re-hashing this? Can’t we move on to the really uncertain things?” Said in another way, the issue of whether humans have caused the current levels of CO2 to be higher than we’ve seen during the past 800,000 is NOT part of the “uncertainty monster”, so why waste our time on it?
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm
That’s all well and good (model), but these feedbacks (short or long) are not demonstrated over these few decades on the real planet and counting. There is no sign of them occuring in the near future or long-term future. All step up in global temperatures covering these few decades have occurred exactly at the same time of strong El Nino’s. The global cloud feedback is opposite what it should be in this senario and has declined around ~5 percent until become stable. The main reason why global temperatures have been rising with strong El Nino’s because global cloud levels had been declining.
With this and the consideration of the last post I replied to you, this is by far the best scientific evidence of the situation available with nothing backing up the model. The fast feedbacks haven’t been demonstrated at all during this period and the slow (if have occurred) haven’t been enough to prevent the globe from becoming stable. In this senario a feedback of 3c will never be even closely reached with doubling of CO2. The most realistic senario is a rise between 0.5c and 1.2c for a doubling of CO2.
30 years is long enough to show any feedbacks of CO2.
“[REPLY: Read the article again. It was not Anthony making the statement. -REP]”
My apologies, I was thrown by the confusing formatting; the linked article was initially used indented italics, but I see now that this was dropped further into the OP. That said, my point still stands; if “For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision. can’t be corroborated, the BBC article is not so much “illuminating” as it is BS.
This is to Lucy:
1- You say:The issue of whether or not humans have caused the current CO2 levels to go well beyond anything seen in the past 800,000 years is one of those things that we are pretty certain of. To keep discussing it is simply to never allow ourselves to get to the really important and truly uncertain issues. THANK YOU, so clear. MAN-MADE CO2.
2- Thank you Paul Hudson that made everybody write 145 posts, whether you are right/wrong.
3- You are talking about uncertain things, from here on, we are free to followup our special goals, no need for more discussions. I feel free now man-made is man-made.
4- After this “Y” piece, you go to the oceans and find solutions for what we would face in the future because of warm/cold water/land and etc.
5- What is my goal? LESS O2 consumption, finding an economic solution to raise budget to make the world GREEN to recycle O2, because we want to breath.
6- I promise to you that if we get green, then at least you feel free of man-made CO2.
7- I promise to have the sun as an ever green resource to eternity.
Matt G says:
October 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“30 years is long enough to show any feedbacks of CO2.”
___
I am wondering what scientific basis you make this claim from, as there are no studies that I am aware of that come anywhere close to making such a claim. During the mid-Pliocene warm period, CO2 levels were at our current levels or higher for hundreds of thousands of years. The time frame of 30 years seems rather arbitrarily chosen on your part. The most recent science would show fast feedbacks (such as sea ice reduction and water vapor increases) occurring with increasing strength with CO2 levels at our present levels or higher, and slow feedbacks occurring over several centuries:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/09/introduction-to-feedbacks/
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0968v3
We’ve already seen some of the most obvious of fast feedbacks occurring, such as the long-term decline in year-to-year Arctic sea ice and the increase in global water vapor and the cooling of the statosphere.
Again, your choice of 30 years, is curious, but as we’ve seen some of the early fast feedbacks occurring, perhaps that is not important anyway.
R Gates: Lucy, it is not a question of winning or not, but moving on from what we are pretty certain of…
You’re not behaving like a scientist, you’re behaving like a bully. You have simply ignored what I actually said, both evidence and pointers to evidence and science, and are instead using a royal “we” to suggest that the current scientific consensus “authority” is so unquestionably correct that challenges can be ignored, dissed, sneered at. B******s. Your attitude exemplifies exactly what is dangerously corrupt in Science today – the betrayal of the Royal Society motto Nullius In Verba, with the replacement of Science by Belief (trusting peer-reviews), then Superstition (trusting models), then sheer rubbish (trusting Pachauri).
This is to R Gates:
Come down man.
I have reached to a good point with Lucy and you and that is man-made CO2.
Try to find a solution for your discussions, Paul is sitting somewhere laughing at 145 posts!
THE ENGLISH MAN!
sorry! just for fun, cool down please.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 14, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“Solar activity and temperatures begin to diverge around 1980…”
Sorry mate. They didn’t diverge from 1980. What happened from that point was that UHI got noticeable.
____
Lucy, the sun has been growing increasingly quiet since about 1980, and global temps have seen a steady increase during the same period, without need to even use ground based thermometers. Of course there are UHI effects, but even factoring these out, does not detract in any significant way from the late 20th century warming.
Prior to 1980 or sun, global temps and the sun marched pretty much in lock-step (when factoring out shorter-term effects such as Volcanoes, ENSO, etc.)
Now, here’s a promise: if someone can show me evidence that solar activity SINCE 1980 matches closely with global temps (using well established universal metrics), I’ll shift my vote in favor a being a skeptic to AGW. Why would I not, as prior to 1980 I believe it was mainly the sun as the driver of climate…so show me the evidence. I am not a “true believer” in AGW, as it is not a religion or matter of faith to me, but a matter of the sum total of evidence I’ve looked at over the past 30 years.
Severe UK winters are at least as common around solar cycle maxima as they are around minima. Including two of the three coldest on CET, 1684 and 1740.
ACCKKII says:
October 14, 2011 at 4:37 pm
This is to R Gates:
Come down man.
I have reached to a good point with Lucy and you and that is man-made CO2.
Try to find a solution for your discussions, Paul is sitting somewhere laughing at 145 posts!
THE ENGLISH MAN!
sorry! just for fun, cool down please.
——-
I am quite calm, but thanks for the reminder. My challenge is sincere– if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.
Hi Gates,
I’m following you 2 very carefully enjoying your discussions.
If I got you correctly, same as you, I don’t believe solar activities within 10-30 years that is nothing to our SUN, can change widely the way that Lucy is expecting.
Greater climate changes in the past had been due to other factors than the SUN. The problem occurs when an external factor make changes on the EARTH and because of reducing affects of the SUN light the EARTH gets problem.
I don’t want to say there are not some changes in the SUN, but suppose the ICELAND VOLCANO could be continued, such close factors somehow direct touching the EARTH are more important as a serious impact than what Lucy is looking for.
Gates!,
As you know we have four seasons in a year. The temp variation between the coldest and warmest day of a year about 50 degrees Celsius. This is some sort of climate change but it is regular.
We have 5 years-10 years-25 years, 50 years and 100 years flood forecasting. In DAM Construction this is very important issue. Now where is the year 1980?
So, high/low seasonal temp variations are under safety factor of the EARTH and all creatures living on it.
If you agree with what I am telling here, give me a strong OKAY, we would go on after this vote.
Gates & Lucy:
http://acckkii.tumblr.com
suppose you are visiting Disney Land.
thanks
@R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“..if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html
not forgetting UHI.
Gates says:
“…if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clip_image0045.jpg
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:47 am
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif then ?
A combination of two effects:
1) a general increase of 40-50 nT per year [secular increase] due to processes deep in the core.
2) transient increases for each magnetic storm. The horizontal ring current produces at its center [the Earth] a vertical perturbation that decays away in a few days. This has nothing to do with the first effect.
Alexander Feht says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
You did pick just a particular year, sir. It’s not a matter of assumption, it is a matter of fact.
Perhaps it would have been for you to understand if I had said ‘a century ago’ or ‘a little more than a century ago’. I tend to overestimate people, but will try my best to make an exception here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 13, 2011 at 9:58 pm
The Solar Activity is similar to 108 years ago, yes, but we don’t know the great details from then as we do now: we didn’t have any satellites. Also, the Solar and Terrestrial cycles that preceeded were quite different. Therefore, I would not expect today’s climate to match 108 years ago.
The PDO’s would match, and if the predictions of an extremely weak or vacant SC25 do occur, I would fully expect continued cooling.
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Also, the Solar and Terrestrial cycles that preceeded were quite different
On the contrary, they solar cycles were quite similar as you can see on slides 2 and 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
Smokey says:
October 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“…if someone can show me credible data that show me how global temps match solar activity for the late 20th century, I’ll shift over to being an AGW skeptic.”
http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clip_image0045.jpg
Except that solar activity lately is on par with what it was a century ago.
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect: (TSI versus Global Temps since 1980):
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
And if you include EUV, the two graphs diverge even more. Is this data incorrect? Who’s lying? Seriously…
ACCKKII says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“So, high/low seasonal temp variations are under safety factor of the EARTH and all creatures living on it.”
____
In general, the life support systems of the earth (which include of course biosphere, hydrosphere, and all levels of the atmosphere) are self regulating and adjust to external forcing to keep earth in a range of temperatures that are not too extreme for life. This range can be quite large, as life can be quite adaptable. However, when change strikes rapidly, or too intensely, the self-regulating processes of the planet don’t have time to react or adapt, and we get periods of mass extinctions on the planet, and the planet goes through a period of reorganization until new self-regulating systems can once more balance things out and a new mode is established, with much different biosphere than previously.
The key question arises: How sensitive will the biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere be to the (geologically speaking) rapid rise in CO2 beyond anything seen in at least 800,000 years? As a current “warmist” I think human CO2 emissions are having some effect, though I am still not convinced they will be catastrophic. However, it does appear that some changes going on in the oceans (hydrosphere) and specifically the biological ecosystems of the oceans might be indicating that the oceans are going through some rapid changes. This deserves close and intense study, for as the oceans go, so goes much of the rest of life on earth. The greatest mass extinction on earth was seen first as changes in the oceans.
ACCKKII:
BTW, you are a riot. You’d be a lot of fun to talk to– especially if I’d had a few beers or glasses of wine…
If you’re ever in Denver, let’s go have some beers…
Ulric Lyons says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Severe UK winters are at least as common around solar cycle maxima as they are around minima. Including two of the three coldest on CET, 1684 and 1740.
So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I see on slides 2 & 3 of your link that SSN was much greater with SC22-23 compared to SC 12-13.
When I look at spot area http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/PulkovoWhSp.PNG it looks even worse. Coming out of SC12-13, Solar Activity was on the upswing. Today, coming out of SC22-23, Solar Activity is on the downswing, and your slides show it.
Perhaps we are looking at two very different perspectives of scale here?
Tell you what: If someone manages to invent a workable time machine, let’s send a SOHO or SDO back in time.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect:
It is not incorrect or wrong. What may be wrong is to assume that the increase after 1980 is due to CO2 as similar increases have been seen in the past, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
Leif Svalgaard,
Perhaps you cannot express your thoughts in English in a way that allows others to understand you correctly. This is to be expected, taking into account the fact that English is not your native language. Being Russian, I always make an extra effort to make myself clear when posting messages. Perhaps, you should do the same.
In any case, your position regarding solar influence on the Earth’s climate is indefensible. In a long run it would be better for your scientific reputation to acknowledge your error, rather than trying to stick to your textbook beliefs by all means, including lying and insulting your opponents.
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I see on slides 2 & 3 of your link that SSN was much greater with SC22-23 compared to SC 12-13.
I would compare 23-24 with 13-14. Granted that SC12 was small, SC11 was large. Various people claim as 5-10 yr time scale for solar related changes. The point is as I say on slide 3:
Summary of How the Sun is Similar Now to a Century ago
• Sunspot Number at Minimum was as low
• Minimum lasted as long
• Solar Wind Speed was Similarly Small
• Heliospheric Magnetic Field was as small
• Mid-century Solar Activity was Similarly High
• Ca II Network was Similar to Today’s
• Cycle 24 is now Predicted to be Low [‘lowest in a hundred years…]
Coming out of SC12-13, Solar Activity was on the upswing.
No, cycle 14 was smaller than 13.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Explain why this is wrong or incorrect:
It is not incorrect or wrong. What may be wrong is to assume that the increase after 1980 is due to CO2 as similar increases have been seen in the past, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CETandCO2.pdf
_____
Thanks for the link. I shall study it closely. And what do you make of this Lockwood paper:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447.full
I am admittedly relatively weak on my knowledge of solar influences. but as GCM’s accurately reflect solar influences in climate when back-tested and even show the divergence in the early-1980’s, when CO2 increases and fast feedbacks are included (and even more so when the new EUV data is included!) it seems hard to need to look for other explanations. (we need more refinement, but the trend is clear from the models. These past 10 years, as global temps have leveled, when the drop off in TSI + increased aerosols + increased volcanlc activity are included, the leveling shows up in the GCM’s. This is hard to ignore, IMO.
And, probably the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the potential solar connection and a potential new Maunder-type Minimum and the effects it might have on global temps in the coming century can be found here:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Constructive comments from skeptics welcome on why this paper is crap…
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:47 am
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif
then ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm
horizontal ring current produces at its center [the Earth] a vertical perturbation that decays away in a few days.
……………………..
And what is this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
then?
rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm
So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?
they are all here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
…………………
Hi Gates
Not many solar scientists understand the CET, and I studied contribution from numerous authors.
The CET is under ‘immediate’ control, with no delay, from the NAO (and even fewer people understand that one) and the ‘indirect’ influence (with delay of some years) of the N. Atlantic SST (better known as its de-trended version called AMO, and almost nobody either in the solar or climate science or combined understands the AMO).
As the Gulf Stream moves warm waters to the north, from the west to the east coast of N. Atlantic, the CET responds. You could look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Relationship between the solar cycle, the NAO and AMO along the time scale is shown in the last graph of the above link.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Leif: SC12 and SC13 are less/lower than SC22 and SC23, even by your graphs. Solar Wind speed never seems to vary much despite other changes between SC23 and SC24. Your statement is about the current state of SC24 being much the same as the corresponding period of SC14, so why is the climate not the same. Ok. I say that SC14 arrived on the scene from a lesser preceeding 2 cycles than did SC24.
All I am doing is pointing out the obvious.
We don’t have direct EUV measurements from space for SC14, and who knows what else was different that we do not have direct observations for.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm
And what do you make of this Lockwood paper
Basically correct, although some of the details are debatable. E.g. there is no evidence for TSI being lower this past minimum than at previous minima.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
And what is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
Coincidence
rbateman says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:35 am
We don’t have direct EUV measurements from space for SC14, and who knows what else was different that we do not have direct observations for.
We don’t need direct EUV measurements from space as EUV leaves a very clear imprint on the ionosphere which can be measured vis the magnetic effects of the currents generated there.
@rbateman says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
October 14, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Severe UK winters are at least as common around solar cycle maxima as they are around minima. Including two of the three coldest on CET, 1684 and 1740.
“So you are saying the the Winters of the Solar Max immediately preceeding and following the Maunder Minimum were total beasts? That just about screams of implications. You got any more on those events?”
Many of the coldest CET winters last century; 1979, 1947, 1940, 1929, 1917:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
btw 1684 was in the middle of the harshest part of Maunder (1670`s through 1690`s).
Slightly related : I wonder how many people think the heat from the Sun is the difference between night and day temperatures? Do they realise that without the Sun Earth would be -270C, and that the Sun actually heats the Earth by nearly 300C! Just a thought.
They should have a chat with Piers Corbyn. I like the fact he has been banned from making bets on the weather by a leading UK bookies. I haven’t heard of any similar ban on the UK met office!
M.A.Vukcevic says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:37 am
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
…………………
Hi Gates
Not many solar scientists understand the CET, and I studied contribution from numerous authors.
The CET is under ‘immediate’ control, with no delay, from the NAO (and even fewer people understand that one) and the ‘indirect’ influence (with delay of some years) of the N. Atlantic SST (better known as its de-trended version called AMO, and almost nobody either in the solar or climate science or combined understands the AMO).
As the Gulf Stream moves warm waters to the north, from the west to the east coast of N. Atlantic, the CET responds. You could look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Relationship between the solar cycle, the NAO and AMO along the time scale is shown in the last graph of the above link.
———–
I do find your pages very interesting. To what would you attribute the disconnect between solar activity and CET since about 1980?
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm
“And, probably the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the potential solar connection and a potential new Maunder-type Minimum and the effects it might have on global temps in the coming century can be found here:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Constructive comments from skeptics welcome on why this paper is crap…”
They used one of their own models. They admit themselves that their model doesn’t account for variations in UV. If that’s the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the implications of a Grand Minimum, then we can now say: The emperor admits he’s forgotten to get dressed.
DirkH says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:02 am
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
Constructive comments from skeptics welcome on why this paper is crap…
They used one of their own models. They admit themselves that their model doesn’t account for variations in UV. If that’s the best overall summary of the general “warmist” perspective on the implications of a Grand Minimum, then we can now say: The emperor admits he’s forgotten to get dressed.
_____
It seems the models have a pretty good match to past solar variations and temperatures, without the need of using the UV variations. Could possibly be even be a tighter fit with that included, not worse. I personally would find it exciting to see a Maunder Minimum, as it would really show the relative strength of CO2 forcing versus the lower TSI, Higher GCR’s, EUV effects etc.
The Rahmstorf paper quite clearly shows brief periods of cooling in the coming century– but those are from volcanoes. Overall, the conclusion is that the increased CO2 will cap any solar effects to about -0.3C maximum. Pretty specific scenario.
Gates,
Hello again.
You said “BTW, you are a riot. You’d be a lot of fun to talk to– especially if I’d had a few beers or glasses of wine…
If you’re ever in Denver, let’s go have some beers…”
Kind of you.
Thanks, when I come to you I don’t 4get the beers.
Now:
RIOT!
easy talking is an ART. in this small window that we are writing nobody knows who is that side what is her/his knowledge. here is not a good place for pre-qualification or qualification of people. I learned lots of things from you and Lucy, in this short time, good job Gates!
Thanks.
ACCKKII says about Gates:
“I learned lots of things from you…”
Unfortunately, most of them were probably wrong. ☺
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 10:45 am
“It seems the models have a pretty good match to past solar variations and temperatures, without the need of using the UV variations.”
R. Gates, that means NOTHING; you CONSTRUCT your model that way. Maybe by assuming the right aerosol forcings or whatever, or just by tweaking its parameters until it fits best; a process that can even be automated. I just take home that they have NOT modeled any UV variation influence and I am 100% confident that we will hear NOTHING more of this model; it will just vanish off the face of the Earth because it will completely fail to guess the future right (I avoided the word “predict” as warmists never predict anything, as they are always keen to admit). This model is a prime example for tax money waste; 100% useless.
R Gates
I have actually said it already to you: the reason for the divergence between temperature and sun after 1980 is because from that time there were more and more problems with UHI and bad thermometer siting, which raised the temperatures too much, and have been uncorrected by Jones and Wang. The source of your own graph is unidentified, as is that of Smokey, so it’s not clear why the solar lines are different in the two graphs. However, my own primer page talks about solar effects using several graphs (to overcome that kind of problem)
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm#solar
and you can click through to check the Charbonneau graph, and others.
Scientifically even better than my Primer is Ken Gregory’s page; it has several sections directly relevant to your request for evidence of recent correlation, re (a) Sun / cosmic rays (b) UHI
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
Here is an interesting refutation of the Lockwood & Frohlich paper you referenced
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
And here is more on UHI – my collection of others’ work, again.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/UHI.htm
Well, to me the balance of evidence is indisputable. I used to be a warmist until I found stuff like the above.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 15, 2011 at 11:44 am
Here is an interesting refutation of the Lockwood & Frohlich paper you referenced
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
What that ‘refutation’ fails to take into account [‘hide the decline’ perhaps] is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.
R. Gates says:
October 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“We’ve already seen some of the most obvious of fast feedbacks occurring, such as the long-term decline in year-to-year Arctic sea ice and the increase in global water vapor and the cooling of the statosphere.
Again, your choice of 30 years, is curious, but as we’ve seen some of the early fast feedbacks occurring, perhaps that is not important anyway.”
The Artic sea ice is not a fast feedback occurring any different to the build up pre 1970’s. Arctic ice likely build up for 30 years since the 1940’s and recently have had a decline for 30 years. The warming temperatures have slightly increased gradually and why ice has slightly fallen since the 1970’s. Hence, not a fast feedback and also there is no evidence to suggest it was down to CO2. Unless you think retention of energy from LWDR in a extra CO2 molecule takes over 30 years, hence my choice of 30 years (plus with being half cycle of either warming or cooling). Cloud albedo had declined for ~20 of the these 30 years too. You also fail to take into account reduced cloud albedo having an affect on Arctic ice. (nothing to do with CO2)
Water vapour has not increased according to satellite data and older data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The cooling of the stratosphere ended during the mid 1990’s and since then have remained stable.
To add to my last post and try and make it clear about the Arctic ice feedback.
Naturally the build up of ice is around the same rate of the melting ice since the late 1970’s. Therefore for CO2 to cause a fast feedback it would have to melt much faster than the build up naturally in the first place. With this not happening that’s why this can’t be a fast feedback caused by CO2. It is melting at the rate that would naturally be expected.
To R. Gates,
I am working on special study regarding Environment Economics and Policy.
I need some reasonable acceptable simple information.
I got many from you during your friends send/receive here.
To summarize above subjects:
1- Climate Changes are a.regular b. irregular;
2- Irregularities are because: a. irregularities in solar activities b.atmosphere reaction to solar impacts c. man-made CO2;
3- Solar irregularities are “AS-IS”, according to you specialist we find a.what is now happening b. what can be foretasted c.what can we do to be safe;
4- You say: you don’t think man-made CO2 is the main reason for climate changes, as I understand. Then, why we had KYOTO conference for climate changes. That was basically due to global warming and CO2 threats.
5- Comparing CO2 caused by solar activities and man-made reasons, you and your friends as I see, believe that man-made CO2 is NOTHING! I am interested to see what should WE do as our part and share to make better life…reducing CO2. At least we can do so and it is a must. Should we neglect it? Do you accept the responsibilities? Suppose there are two men living on this planet, YOU and ME! What is your direct recommendation and order? We have Disasters, what can we do? But we can do many things to make this planet CLEANER, I want to find out DO YOU RECOMMEND PEOPLE TO FOLLOW MAN-MADE CO2 IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE? Please do not compare the effective rates of solar and man-made CO2, just SAY GO AHEAD AND DO IT!
You are studying your cases that’s okay. But give a job to do my best parallel to what you are doing. I know that in the mean time, you have just figures and tables and curves and many ANDS. But I as all the people on the EARTH must do something to help my blue EARTH be well.
I am sorry that I am not only interested in specific discussions here among specialists, it’s very interesting, but I want to tell you my job is something else that I like it more, I need your ideas. that’s it.
Your views is important to me, that would help me to reach and access the required results to define environmental economics faster.
Many thanks,
ACCKKII
Hi Smokey,
You said:”Unfortunately, most of them were probably wrong. ☺”
I am okay with Gates.
Thanks for your attention.
I wrote something to Gates and explained all I want.
You as specialist, can join us that would be very much appreciated.
You know what I need to get.
BUT!
Discussions brings you what is right or wrong, don’t worry you all with your knowledge would help me.
Warm Regards,
ACCKKII
@Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“.. is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.”
especially in the last four or so years:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?RALData/osf+open_solar_flux+i+someone@somewhere+1
in fact 2010 has the same yearly CET as 1902.
Ulric Lyons says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm
@Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm
“.. is that solar activity [their Figure 3] is now back down to what it was around 1900.”
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890’s.
Gates, Smokey and Lucy:
“Helping People Help the Planet”
To liaise with good initiatives whose aims are to
redirect humanity’s energies toward true sustainability,
awareness of our present state, and what we can do
To build up a neutral source of key information, for beginners as well as experts,
including information on basic Climate Science and the real climate issues
To provide a Forum for discussion, for key issues
in Climate Science, Renewable Energy, and Sustainability
To put forward scientifically, ecologically and socially sustainable
“solutions”, visions, pipedreams and projects,
including new energy-harvesting proposals
and ways of grading / taxing / rationing consumer products
according to how planet-friendly they are “from cradle to grave”
GWT
Matt G says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890′s.
You cannot draw any conclusions based on a single month. In fact, 22 December at 4 am was the coldest since the 1890 \sarc
Matt G says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Plus December 2010 was the coldest since the 1890′s.
I don’t this is even true. Global temperature, anomalies, temperature in Timbuktu, or what?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm +2:38 pm
Yes, likely doesn’t mean anything, but funny the UK had it’s coldest December recorded (records began in early 20th century) and the coldest CET December in 2010 since the 1890’s. (much colder than post 1890’s records too) Was just an addition to 2010 being a very cold recent CET year, comparable to similar around that time (1902). Plus first time a month in nearly a century (except February 1947) has been in the top 3 ever coldest since CET records began.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 4:22 am
We don’t need direct EUV measurements from space as EUV leaves a very clear imprint on the ionosphere which can be measured vis the magnetic effects of the currents generated there.
So how good are these EUV proxys? Do they show the big reduction in base EUV measurements observed by the SEM satellite data that show the SC23/24 min data is much lower than the previous minimum.
The current level of EUV is barely above that recorded during the SC22/23 min.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/EUV.png
rbateman says:
October 15, 2011 at 1:35 am
Solar Wind speed never seems to vary much despite other changes between SC23 and SC24.
A graph to back up Robert’s statement.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/Sc23wind_rz_medium.png
Lucy Skywalker:
The increase in temperatures globally aftger 1980 is not uncorrected UHI effects from Jones & Wang. Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time. I don’t really care whether your a warmist or skeptic or a bit of both (as in my case), but you might want to dig bit deeper to at least get your science correct. Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Lucy Skywalker:
Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time.
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
=====================================
I couldn’t find you on there ……. ????
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Lucy Skywalker:
Don’t know where you’re getting this information, but it simply is not true. Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980, with each successive solar cycle a bit weaker than the previous since that time.
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm
So how good are these EUV proxys? Do they show the big reduction in base EUV measurements observed by the SEM satellite data that show the SC23/24 min data is much lower than the previous minimum.
They are very good as the physics is straightforward. The EUV data has calibration uncertainties. At the SORCE meeting in Sedona one of the conclusions was
“SUSIM and SORCE solar UV irradiance measurements are inconsistent with one another.
– Accordingly, at least one of SUSIM and SORCE must have significant unresolved calibration problems”
The TSI has now been reassessed and it is now established that the 23/24 minimum was not any lower than the 22/23 minimum.
Here is a good discussion of the issues:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1j_Lean_Irradiance.pdf
The bottom line is that there is no good evidence for any difference between minima. The instrumental uncertainties are just too great.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years.
It is now established [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Workshop1-Weighting.pdf ] that the sunspot number since 1945 is 20% too high, so your statement may be a bit misleading.
Wasn’t there something of a to do about Jones & Wang? Something about station data?
DaveE.
philincalifornia says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
=====================================
I couldn’t find you on there ……. ????
___
You made me smile Phil…thanks!
Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
_____
The PDO is certainly something to consider. With La Nina conditions dominating this phase of the PDO we certainly are getting less heat moving from ocean to atmosphere. I do disagree with your “false rise” statement based on UHI. Satellite readings over the past 30 years are not corrupted by UHI effects. Global temps increased during this period…the only issue is cause or causes.
philincalifornia says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Many people don’t know about it, but a really great resource to cut through a lot of the fluff on the internet is to go right to Google Scholar:
http://www.scholar.google.com
=====================================
I couldn’t find you on there ……. ????
_____
Thanks Phil…you made me smile! It should be noted that WUWT can’t be found under http://www.scholar.google.com either, though the research of some of WUWT scholarly contributors can, which is a credit to this site..
R Gates
It seems you haven’t looked at the UHI refs I gave you. Please show you have. One reason the correlation holds that Smokey gave from the Arctic, is because thermometers there were relatively free of UHI bias (and had ultra-long records too since they needed to know). See here Unfortunately over the last decade, UHI corruption may have crept in here too.
Leif you’re no doubt correct… as far as you go. Geoff is no doubt correct as well. Personally, from this ref I’ve already given here, I think there’s no doubt the Sun has been on a long extended high, that was still continuing its effect to 2000 even though the gas may have been turned down somewhat since 1980. Like slowly boiling a pan of water.
UHI’s, are mainly a problem over recent decades contaminating the instrumental record, where urban sprawl is continuing and not so much a problem with stationary urban areas.
There is an exception with establshed urban areas, but I haven’t seen research covering this yet. That involves the increased energy use in cities, especially since the invention of central heating, increasing bigger buildings and increasing traffic. All these are significant energy inputs to the local atmosphere.
For those that don’t know what it was like before central heating, during cold winters only one room in the house may have been heated, where everybody would have kept warm. The rest of the rooms were far too cold to be in, unless wrapped up with winter clothes. Nowadays all rooms in the house are genrally warm enough to wear a t-shirt and be comfortable. That is a big difference in energy used to keep our rooms warm, and all of this must eventually escape and warm the local surrounding atmosphere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm
They are very good as the physics is straightforward. The EUV data has calibration uncertainties.
Thanks for your links but I am struggling to see how your references change anything. I can’t see where the SEM EUV values are challenged, which is the major issue as TSI is not important. Do you have EUV proxy data that is reliable that can dispute the much lower baseline EUV floor during SC23/24 min shown in the SEM data?
It is now established [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Workshop1-Weighting.pdf ] that the sunspot number since 1945 is 20% too high, so your statement may be a bit misleading.
Not misleading at all. Even with the 20-22% discount SC 21/22/23 cycles are amongst the highest measured in the last 100 years. You don’t need to sell me the Waldmeier factor, the LSC is born partly on his indulgence.
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm
The PDO is certainly something to consider. With La Nina conditions dominating this phase of the PDO we certainly are getting less heat moving from ocean to atmosphere. I do disagree with your “false rise” statement based on UHI. Satellite readings over the past 30 years are not corrupted by UHI effects. Global temps increased during this period…the only issue is cause or causes.
The PDO is more than something to consider, it may be the strongest climate driver.
I was referring to GISS and Hadley as to the UHI effect. But dont make the mistake it is all about thermometers, urban heat islands also raise the actual temperature in real terms (small) that is outside any meager rise that CO2 is capable of.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:29 am
Personally, from this ref I’ve already given here, I think there’s no doubt the Sun has been on a long extended high
That is the myth I’m trying to dispel. You can see more here: http://www.leif.org/research/How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:02 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
Thanks for your links but I am struggling to see how your references change anything. I can’t see where the SEM EUV values are challenged, which is the major issue as TSI is not important. Do you have EUV proxy data that is reliable that can dispute the much lower baseline EUV floor during SC23/24 min shown in the SEM data?
SEM suffers from the same problem as all the other UV measurements, namely instrumental noise and uncertainty. As for climate, SEM is not important as the wavelength is so short that none of UV gets down below 100 km altitude.
Not misleading at all. Even with the 20-22% discount SC 21/22/23 cycles are amongst the highest measured in the last 100 years.
cycles 17 (137), 18 (152), 19 (190) [mean 160} were as high as or higher than 21 (155), 22(158), 23 (120) [mean 144]. So the last three cycles do not stand out as anything special. Perhaps the real issue is that cycles 16, 20, and 24 were the lowest.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:02 am
Do you have EUV proxy data that is reliable that can dispute the much lower baseline EUV floor during SC23/24 min shown in the SEM data?
Conclusion from
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1b_DeLand_Solar%20Cycle%20UV_NEW.pdf
“Solar UV proxy data at minimum of Cycle 23 (2007-2009) are not significantly different from previous cycles”
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:20 am
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm
The PDO is certainly something to consider. With La Nina conditions dominating this phase of the PDO we certainly are getting less heat moving from ocean to atmosphere. I do disagree with your “false rise” statement based on UHI. Satellite readings over the past 30 years are not corrupted by UHI effects. Global temps increased during this period…the only issue is cause or causes.
The PDO is more than something to consider, it may be the strongest climate driver.
I was referring to GISS and Hadley as to the UHI effect. But dont make the mistake it is all about thermometers, urban heat islands also raise the actual temperature in real terms (small) that is outside any meager rise that CO2 is capable of.
————-
I have studied the PDO a bit and am certain that the so-called “great climate shift” of 1976-77, related to the PDO, also began the late 20th century warming run. It is this event, along with still unresolved solar effects and things like Bond Events that keep my skeptical side active.
In regard to the actual heat coming from the thousands of cities around the world, this of course adds to the actual sensible heat that satellites can measure, but is, taken in totality, still rather meager in size. But no matter the size, it is still anthropogenic in origin.
Despite my skeptical perspective on CO2 and climate change, I am still persuaded that the geologically speaking very rapid buildup of CO2 by humans is having an effect on the climate. Recent studies show that carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere even faster than it did during the PETM some 55 million years ago, which brought a huge climate change and species loss to the planet.
One final thing that I am watching closely is the warming of the North Central Pacific. This is not atypical of a cool PDO and La Nina, but it also happens to be where there is a major upwelling deeper water from the global THC. If heat is being “hidden” in the deeper ocean, when it decides to come back up so to speak, the North Central Pacific is one of the places warmer water would come out of hiding.
This may also be of interest
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/0b_Cahalan-SunClimate@Sedona.pdf
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:55 am
To what would you attribute the disconnect between solar activity and CET since about 1980?
……………
It is early 1990s.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-winter.gif
Difficult one to untangle. I would assume major contributing factor is a steep rise in the North Atlantic SST since 1990, which has now peaked.
R. Gates says:
October 15, 2011 at 8:55 am
To what would you attribute the disconnect between solar activity and CET since about 1980?
Cloud albedo, read a while ago a report from the Met Office that claimed sunshine hours had increased over the last few decades in England. Not too different from the observed satellite data mentioned before, with the 5 percent decline in global levels.
This can be confirmed here.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/
Just select England, sunshine, annual.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 16, 2011 at 8:05 am
“Solar UV proxy data at minimum of Cycle 23 (2007-2009) are not significantly different from previous cycles”
I am talking about EUV measured in the 26-34 nm range. Your referred proxy records do not seem to cover this region. I see there is no mention of the SOHO SEM data?
Your other reference states “Near-Ultraviolet changes more than TSI, explaining 1.0 K variations at ~40 km, top of O3 layer” this is an area you decide to ignore. Many are suggesting upper level atmosphere changes have an influence on climate.
So the last three cycles do not stand out as anything special.
They are amongst the highest recorded in the past 100 years even with 20% haircut back to 1945. The graph is indisputable or are you going to procrastinate yet again?
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
R Gates
I’m delighted you’re inviting WUWT readership to Boulder Co.
WRT science here, I’m falling behind with other things and probably you’ve also left this thread behind. So I’ll only say outline things, and then drop this thread.
First, I hear your comments re satellite temps over the last 30 years. I still say, again, look at my UHI work. This demonstrates, to me, that there are still very serious questions to answer – and I wonder if the calibration of satellites has itself been influenced by UHI. You have to remember that satellite measurement, for all it is a brilliant idea, is still not a direct measurement but a proxy that has to be calibrated.
Second, I’ll just note that there are serious questions that have been swept under the carpet, concerning the use of ice core proxy measurement of CO2 pre-1959.
Third, I repeat that the annual turnover of CO2 in both oceans and vegetation is an order of magnitude higher than our CO2 turnover. Again I don’t get the feeling that you’ve even examined this. I have examined in close detail the close correspondence between CO2 emissions and CO2 rise: and if one looks VERY closely, the correlation breaks down and reveals itself to be sheer coincidence for a limited period – which observation is backed up by the commonsense notion that natural cycles can easily absorb our emissions.
Fourth, I see that Leif’s solar arguments re the sun seem to support you. I hope to research these further. So far, every time I’ve looked again, I came to the conclusion that there WAS significant increase in solar activity over the last century overall. And even if, at this late hour, I am persuaded by Leif, it still does not take away the UHI problem noted above.
Fifth, of course, is the vilification of those who argue as I do, cogently with lots of clear science and years of experience, Professors Segalstad and Jaworowski being two of them.
… Jaworowski & Segalstad are concerned with CO2 and CO2 in ice. Segalstad also shows how the “manmade CO2” argument is not scientifically backed up, there are serious challenges to the “evidence” of the isotopes that warmists use to bolster this.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm
I am talking about EUV measured in the 26-34 nm range. Your referred proxy records do not seem to cover this region. I see there is no mention of the SOHO SEM data?
The calibration uncertainty increases as we go to shorter wave lengths so the SEM data is even more uncertain that the other UV. But the 26-34 nm range does not penetrate down below 100 km [and are in the milliWatt/m2 range] so have no influence on climate.
Your other reference states “Near-Ultraviolet changes more than TSI, explaining 1.0 K variations at ~40 km, top of O3 layer” this is an area you decide to ignore. Many are suggesting upper level atmosphere changes have an influence on climate.
Even so, the near-UV are the ones for which there were no changes detected between minima.
They are amongst the highest recorded in the past 100 years even with 20% haircut back to 1945. The graph is indisputable or are you going to procrastinate yet again?
First the graph does not include the ‘haircut’. Second as I showed, SC 17, 18, 19 were higher still so the last three cycles are nothing special. Of the 9 cycles the last 100 years, SC21,22,23 were among the 7 top most active ones, so yeah that makes them the highest recorded?
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 17, 2011 at 2:47 am
Stanford Poll: Large majority of Americans support government solutions to global warming
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-global-warming-poll-061010.html
@R. Gates “Pretty much by any metric you wish to choose, overall solar activity has been declining since 1980,”
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_4638.gif
So you’re saying the primary source of heat and light in the solar system affects the earths climate? What poppycock.
Falling solar wind speed drives El Niño , rising solar wind speed SW drives La Niña :
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_15396.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The inverse of short term land temperature deviations. Which is why it is quite common to have a colder N.H. winter just before an El Niño.
Have you seen this post? http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/17/self-organizing-model-of-the-atmosphere/
Based on this site: http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2011/9/13_What_Drives_Global_Warming.html
Money quote:
(My inserted [ ] interpretations of the Germanic English vocabulary.)
Brian H says:
October 19, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Have you seen this post? (What Drives Global Warming?)
„. The self-organized model builds a dynamic system model – a system of nonlinear difference equations. The model shows a high accuracy of 77% given the fact that there is noise and uncertainty in the observational data. Figure 1 plots the observed vs predicted global temperature anomalies of this model retrospectively for the past 23 years and predictively for the next 6 years till October 2017. It is supplemented by the uncertainty of the predictions as a range where actual temperatures will most likely be observed in. Concluding from that graph, no significant further global warming is expected in the coming 6 years. Temperatures rather remain at the current level of warming.
(Frank Lemke)
[Bold Character by Volker]
Hi Brian,
I do not really know what the climate prediction model of Frank Lembke includes, but the point here is that it is a mathematical extrapolation for 6 years until October 2017 analysing the global temperature frequency spectra of the past 23 years. That means that the cause of the single temperature frequencies of this time interval of 23 years remains in the dark. I think there is no doubt that in general this model can be used taking the data from last 2 or 3 millennium to predict the global temperatures maybe for a longer time interval. Now, the question ‘What drives global warming?’ suggests that a heat driver is found. But no mechanism is shown; still mathematical gymnastic with recent global temperature proxies.
I have choosen a different scientific method to predict the global temperatures for about 1000 years, and have analysed simple all heliocentric synodic pattern of celestial objects in the solar system back for 50 years, 2000 years and 5000 years, which are well known from NASA ephemeris for this 6000 years. From this I have fitted the strength of each celestial couple empirical in a summation index called Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI).
There are some GHI x calculated with different time steps of i.) 1 year, ii.) 1 month, and iii.) 1 day for the time intervals of i.) 6000 years, ii.) 2000 years and iii.) -60 +30 years.
You can lokk fo a comparison of the results with some 4 plots A, B, C, D, with well known reconstructed temperature proxies from the literature.
Because of the origin of the terrestrial temperature frequencies, also of the past 23 years, it takes no wonder that a summation of some high frequency synodic pattern of the celestial objects shows a remarkable correlation with the pattern extrapolated out of known global temperature spectra done by Frank Lembke:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/2017_comp_ghi12.gif
I think the very important point here is that my temperature spectra have a basis in the motion of real celestial bodies, its heliocentric frequencies, and positions on the length of ecliptic. I have no idea, which mechanism drives the terrestrial global temperature, but however, that makes the matching geometry pattern not untrue, rather it suggests that the main global temperature pattern has its ‘origin’ in the periodic motions of couples in the solar system including the Sun.
Clearly this pattern is superimposed by the impedances of the earth and its frequencies of: 1/1.186 years ^-1, (Chandler wobble), 1/2.371 years ^-1 (QBO), and 1/11.862 years^-1, (Jupiter). The QBO frequency is twice the ENSO frequency of 1/4.742 years^-1.
More here.
V.