- High resolution SST and SSS reconstruction off Cape Hatteras
- Low salinity anomaly (3.5-5.2 ka): absence of Labrador current influence
- Millenial NAO pattern and solar variability
Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene
By Pierre Gosselin (reposted from No Tricks Zone with permission)
A new paper titled High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka appearing just recently in the AGU Paleoceanography Journal authored by Caroline Cléroux et al provides further, clear evidence of a major solar impact on climate during the Holocene. Hat/tip: http://kaltesonne.de/.
According to the paper’s abstract, the study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream.
Now if I recall correctly, this was the region that Stefan Rahmstorf deemed not long ago as good enough to be used to represent sea level trend for the whole world.
The above authors focused on the last 10,000 years to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and looked at centennial to millennial time scale variability. To do this, a seabed core was extracted off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina at a water depth of 620 m.
They observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, they reconstructed positive salinity anomalies off Cape Hatteras. For the 5.2–3.5 ka period they demonstrated that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north.
What’s behind the anomalies? They found that variations were in sync with total solar irradiance. The abstract states (emphasis added):
Wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the d18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”
The paper’s introduction has a few sentences that the IPCC really needs to take note of (emphasis added):
The last decade of paleoclimate research has shown that the Holocene is not the stable, climatic event-free period as previously thought: both external and internal (oceanic) forcings have caused major climatic changes. […] On a shorter time scale, observations over about the last 50 years show interannual and decadal climate change. These fluctuations probably persisted throughout the Holocene, together with centennial to millennial variability.”
Dr. Sebastian Lüning writes at the Die kalte Sonne site:
The new findings once again clearly underscore that the last several thousands of years are characterized by natural temperature cycles that are controlled by fluctuations in solar activity (see p. 68-75 in ‘Die kalte Sonne’). The logical continuation of these natural cycles through today shows that an important part of the warming of the last 150 years has to be attributed to the increase in solar activity. It is not a mere coincidence that the last decades have been the most solar active of the last 10,000 years.
The climate models used by the IPCC are not able to reproduce these millennial cycles because they assign only a very small climate impact to the sun. Also the recently introduced new climate model from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg suffers from the same deficiency, and thus the results of that model are essentially unrealistic.”
In layman’s terms: crap in, crap out.
Once again yet another study that emphatically shows that climate changed in the recent past (while CO2 was stable), and that these changes were in sync with solar activity.
UPDATE: In comments, a graph from the paper is pointed out by Willis Eschenbach, and I have to agree the correlation is poor. He writes:
Can’t say I’m all that impressed by the match between the solar and the ∂18O …
Regarding this, they say:
This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”
Both signals are “in phase over the rest of the studied period”? Not for the last 3,000 years on my planet. W.
==============================================================
I agree with Willis and Mosher in comments. The claim seems overstated compared to the data. – Anthony
Two points:
First, regardless of the last link, to a letter to Nature in 2004 suggesting that the sun has been particularly active the last “several decades,” one article doesn’t demonstrate that the Sun has been more active in the last “several decades” than in any other similar period in the entire ~10,000 year Holocene. If there are more articles out there with similar findings, it seems important to bring them to our attention. Not long ago, there were articles suggesting, from Be10 and C14 proxies, that the Medieval Warm Period was warm because the sun was particularly active. That looked like pretty good science to me.
Secondly, whatever one’s viewpoint on the importance of CO2, the last sentence of the Abstract of the Nature article in the last link above (“solar active of last 10,000 years”) says this:
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”
Yes, maybe the authors felt that they had to say this to get published, and they don’t really believe it. But let’s see if there is confirmation of these findings before getting on a bandwagon. Getting on bandwagons too early is part of why we are in such a dismal place in science right now. Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.
John says – “Getting on bandwagons too early is part of why we are in such a dismal place in science right now. Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.”
Precisely so!
Why does the Sun issue keep coming back time and again? It it trying to ‘tell’ us something?
Leif, we need your expert input.
Yeah…It’s the sun, stupid.
John says:
March 4, 2012 at 1:13 am
Secondly, whatever one’s viewpoint on the importance of CO2, the last sentence of the Abstract of the Nature article in the last link above (“solar active of last 10,000 years”) says this:
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”
Yes, maybe the authors felt that they had to say this to get published, and they don’t really believe it. But let’s see if there is confirmation of these findings before getting on a bandwagon. Getting on bandwagons too early is part of why we are in such a dismal place in science right now. Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.
I think that’s pretty much standard practice from those still trying to do real science exploration, I see it all the time. What I find gratifying is that such research is still being done, compare with the many deliberately biased studies which produce the logic fail results; the examples too numerous but like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/hansens-sea-shell-game/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/the-500-year-fud-about-sea-levels/
This relevant guest post by Alec Rawls a must read:
“Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:
“My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.”
“Given what I found—systematic fraud—”
“The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.”
“A person reading AR5 from cover to cover would come away with not even a hint that for more than ten years a veritable flood of studies have been finding solar activity to explain something on the order of half of all past temperature variation. The omission is virtually complete.
“As a result, AR5 misattributes virtually all of the explanatory power of solar-magnetic activity to the correlated CO2 variable. This misattribution can be found both in AR5′s analytical discussions and in its statistical estimations and projections, and the error could not be more consequential.”
“Nothing could be more perverse in such a circumstance than to unplug the modern world in a misbegotten jihad against CO2. The IPCC’s omitted variable fraud must stop. AR5′s misattribution of 20th century warming to CO2 must stop. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the solar-magnetic warming theory. ”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
I was hard pressed to keep the extract this short.. 🙂
Perhaps this subject deserves its own link on WUWT?
As they say
there is more than one way to skin a cat.
This new report may, or may not, be true but it does demonstrate yet again: the urgent need for a more open debate on the science.
Not that the debate will alter anything because all policy decisions based on the so called consensus are already in place.
Just because salinity change tracked with irradiance does not prove a causative relation.
It`s the sun you fool, where`s Leif.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/maunda2.jpg
Interesting that the Max Planck model underweights the sun, because Sami Solanki was one of the scientists who determined that “the last decades have been the most solar active of the last 10,000 years.”
I copied this from Aviation Week a number of years ago
http://i39.tinypic.com/iqf0a9.jpg
Correlation between the NAO and the heliosphere’s magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit was very strong until mid-1990s
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GNAP.htm
as published here some time ago:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
(my ISP is slow and intermittent at the moment due to maintenance )
John says:
March 4, 2012 at 1:13 am
““Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”
Yes, maybe the authors felt that they had to say this to get published, and they don’t really believe it. But let’s see if there is confirmation of these findings before getting on a bandwagon. Getting on bandwagons too early is part of why we are in such a dismal place in science right now. Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. See, the authors talk about the “strong warming during the past three decades”. It hasn’t warmed in the last decade so make that “strong warming from 1980 to 200.” So they are talking about TWO DECADES. Fine. Now are these two decades unusual in any way?
Ignoring the last few years of GISS’ rewriting of the temperature history, we had a global average temperature record for the 20th century where there was a warming period from 1910 to 1940ies with the exact same slope as the later warming period from 1975 to 2000.
I think you can still find that – now forgotten – temperature graph in IPCC AR4 (albeit decorated with progressively shorter and steeper trend lines, illegitimately creating the impression of accelerating warming).
GISS needed to distort the record to save the CO2 narrative; as before 1950 there were simply not enough CO2 emissions to explain the first warming period.
The two decades the authors talk about are not interesting or special in any way. (Except for people who believe the latest adjustments by Hansen et. al. are justifiable. If you are one of them, I’d be eager to hear the justification.) It’s a safe bet to assume that the authors have inserted that sentence as the necessary cowtow to the high priests of the CO2AGW church – or maybe they have been confused themselves by the past decade of relentless post-normal-science propaganda to think the two decades from 1980 to 2000 have been in some way special.
ABOUT the adjustments…
Biggest component of 20th century warming is the infamous Time Of Observation (TOB)
adjustment – McIntyre calls the adjustment largely BS
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/#comment-776239
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/#comment-776275
I DON’T think we have to wait for more evidence pointing towards the sun as the driver of the climate as there is only BOGUS evidence pointing to CO2 as the culprit…
John says: March 4, 2012 at 1:13 am
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”
Yes, maybe the authors felt that they had to say this to get published, and they don’t really believe it.
————————————————————————————————–
the sun’s influence would rather be over longer – centennial periods, where we have additional local decadal variations partially controlled by other mechanisms like ocean circulations or other.
I think you are right we should wait for more but it is encouraging to see science advancing.
Sorry! John and Kohl, but the people hitting me with taxes I cannot afford have been on the bandwagon for decades. We need positive answers quickly.
Open top bandwagon to let the sun shine in.
===============================
“Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.”
Good idea. We are still waiting for “conclusive evidence” that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming.
Do you have any such evidence?
Thanks
JK
Sigh. Yet another group of authors to be kept off of the IPCC citation lists.
@John
The information that the Sun has been more active in the last hundred years than the previous 1,000 or more is not based solely on ‘one letter to the editor in Nature in 2004). If the subject interests you or you are skeptical of the claim, maybe you should research it instead of passively asking Anthony to do it for you.
There appears to be more ‘conclusive evidence’ of solar influence than CO2 influence in the literature. Another interesting ‘research’ opportunity.
Richard111 says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:23 am
“Sorry! John and Kohl, but the people hitting me with taxes I cannot afford have been on the bandwagon for decades. We need positive answers quickly.”
As much as I disagree with John and Kohl, I must also disagree with you: Come the next cooling scare and you will find that you will now pay higher taxes to alleviate the threat of another Ice Age (or more appropriately, glaciation; but that word won’t occur in the propaganda); and you will find Hansen as the first proponent… for him it would just be another U-turn; up to 1985 he was warning of another Ice Age caused by…
…increasing CO2 emissions.
(The Rube-Goldberg-mechanism posited was: More CO2 – global warming – more clouds – higher albedo – triggering a rapid onset of glaciation. In a way similar to the latest announcements that melting Arctic sea ice leads to cold winters. For Hansen one thing is important: staying ahead of the game.
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
One GCM to rule them all.)
So tell me. How do you model this? The same way Hansen did? With a biased fudge factor? Mechanism people.
I believe it should be “millennial.”
It’s a sneak attack. Someday we’ll all wake up and find it was the sun “that done it” after all.
Right you are Richard111: The phrase “end of the debate” also fits very well with the phrase “never let a good crisis go to waste” and these are not just phrases we are talking about when enacted into policy momentum and the tax resource plays that go with them.
Yeah, DH, and I’ll add Cheshire Cat Sunspots. I’ve been anticipating the U-Turn. Part of the learning curve Hansen’s on is guilt-tripping the Chinese about aerosols and magically finding Kevin’s ‘missing heat’, two mice @ one blow. The record clearly shows, too, that every time temperature rise drives CO2 rise 800 years later, temperature inevitably drops sometime after that.
Plus ca change, look what we chose.
==============================
This would imply reaching some tipping point regarding CO2–that the level of atmospheric CO2 reached just 30 years ago (that would be ~1982) is the magical point at which it achieves significant global warming attribution.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/plot/uah/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/to:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
No. I don’t think so. Not only that–I don’t see any empirical evidence that the level of CO2 in 1982 (~345 ppm) is “catastrophic”.
http://i44.tinypic.com/1zn4uud.png
There continues to be more and more of evidence that increases in CO2 benefit the Earth, however.
The paleoclimatic record shows the planet’s climate changes cyclically, warming and then cooling, with a mean period of 1470 years. The cycles occur in both the interglacial and glacial phase. The cycles are not identical. Following the warming phase roughly every 8000 years to 10,000 years, the warming phase is followed by an abrupt cooling of a sufficient magnitude to terminate an interglacial period. The 12,800 year before present Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period is an example of the very, very, strong abrupt cooling event, at which time the Northern Hemisphere when from interglacial warm to glacial cold for roughly 1000 years with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade.
The cyclic warming and cooling can be seen in the Greenland Ice sheet data. (See this link, “The Big picture, figure 3 in the attached which is an excerpt from Richard Alley’s paper.)
http://www.climate4you.com/
Obviously, cyclic large climate changes have a cyclic physical cause. The oceanographers looked for some ocean current change as a forcing mechanism. That hypothesis has failed for the following reasons: 1) It has been shown that ocean current changes are not physically capable of causing the temperature changes observed, 2) there is a lack of correlation of ocean current changes and the observed temperature changes – 1470 year cycle and special abrupt cooling events, 3) the cooling due to a complete collapse of the North Atlantic drift current is a factor of 5 to 6 times too small to explain the Younger Dryas cooling for example, and 4) the interruption to the North Atlantic drift current due to a melt water pulse occurred a 1000 years before the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period (The melt water pulse interruption of North Atlantic drift current as an explanation for the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period has been shown to be an urban myth that fails for at least three fundamental reasons.)
A second ocean current mechanism failure (in addition to the failure of a complete stoppage of th North Atlantic drift current to explain the Younger Dryas “H0” cooling event and the cyclic similar “Heinrich” abrupt cooling cycles) has the failure of the global thermohaline conveyor model. Tthe global ocean conveyor model has created to try to explain the polar see-saw. Recent deep ocean measurements indicates there is no global deep ocean conveyor and ice core temperature measurements comparing the Greenland to Antarctic ice sheets, shows the polar see-saw temperature changes are simultaneous which the global ocean conveyor model cannot explain, which does not matter anyway as there is no global ocean conveyor.)
One of the arguments for positive feedback which amplifies any forcing change is that paleoclimatologists cannot explain abrupt climate change without amplification. Well it is true paleoclimatologists cannot explain cyclic abrupt climate change, it is also true that additional fundamental scientific errors does not help one solve a problem.
Top of the atmosphere radiation measurement vs planetary temperature however indicates the planet’s feedback response is negative (resists forcing changes by increase or decreasing planetary clouds). If the planet’s feedback response is negative then there is a very, very, large serial climate forcing mechanism.
It has been known for some time that there are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling, however, a hypothesis using a solar forcing function to explain the cyclic climate changes was not considered as the standard solar model is based on solar observations in the last few centuries. The idotic ocean current mechanism and the obsessive efforts to push the extreme AGW paradigm has delayed the solving of this problem. There is now a suite of well documented observational anomalies/paradoxes (paleoclimatic, geomagnetic, geophysical, and astronomical) to provide a guide as to what changes are required to the standard solar model and to provide an outline of what to expect next due to the solar cycle 24 change. As it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, we may have an opportunity to observe a significant cooling cycle.
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf
ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
“The earliest Holocene abrupt climate changes occurred at 12,800, 8200, 5200, and 4200 B.P. . . .” The 8200 B.P. event, “lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia (Alley et al. 1997; Barber et al. 1999; Hu et al. 1999; Street-Perrot and Perrot 1990).
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop… …(not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
The 8200-year Climate Event
This figure shows snow accumulation and isotopically inferred temperature records in the Greenland GISP2 ice core and a temperature record derived from oxygen isotope measurements of fossil shells in the sediments of Lake Ammersee, southern Germany. These records all show a major climatic instability event which occurred around 8200 years ago, during the Holocene. The event was large both in magnitude, as reflected by a temperature signal in Greenland of order 5 C, and in its geographical extent, as indicated by the close correlation of the signal in these two locations. The dramatic event is also seen in the methane record from Greenland (not shown here) indicating possible major shifts in hydrology and land cover in lower latitudes. source: Von Grafenstein et al (1998) Climate Dynamics, 14, 73-81.
Abrupt tropical cooling ~8,000 years ago
“We drilled a sequence of exceptionally large, well-preserved Porites corals within an uplifted palaeo-reef in Alor, Indonesia, with Th-230 ages spanning the period 8400 to 7600 calendar years before present (Figure 2). The corals lie within the Western Pacific Warm Pool, which at present has the highest mean annual temperature in the world’s ocean. Measurements of coral Sr/Ca and oxygen 18 isotopes at 5-year sampling increments for five of the fossil corals (310 annual growth increments) have yielded a semi-continuous record spanning the 8.2 ka event. The measurements (Figure 2) show that sea-surface temperatures were essentially the same as today from 8400 to 8100 years ago, followed by an abrupt ~3C cooling over a period of ~100 years, reaching a minimum ~8000 years ago. The cooling calculated from coral oxygen 18 isotopes is similar to that derived from Sr/Ca. The exact timing of the termination of the cooling event is not yet known, but a coral dated as 7600 years shows sea-surface temperatures similar to those of today.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
“Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe’s mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.
But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic …. When Battisti and I had finished our study of the influence of the Gulf Stream, we were left with a certain sense of deflation: Pretty much everything we had found could have been concluded on the basis of results that were already available. Ngar-Cheung Lau of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and Princeton University had published in 1979 an observational study in … Their modeled climate cooled by a few degrees on both sides of the Atlantic and left the much larger difference in temperature across the ocean unchanged. Other published model experiments went on to show the same thing. …What is more, by the late 1990s satellite data, and analyses of numerical models into which those data had been assimilated as part of the weather-forecasting process, had shown that in mid-latitudes the poleward transport of heat by the atmosphere exceeds that by the ocean several-fold.
Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas. Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it’s not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.
Pamela Gray says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:33 am
“So tell me. How do you model this? The same way Hansen did? With a biased fudge factor? Mechanism people.”
Wavelet analysis – which is a way of mixing the time and frequency domains… let me explain it like this: you take a window of a time series and Fourier transform it, then you shift the window a little and transform again. You end up with the “spectrum over time”. Well ,at least that’s about what you get after applying a wavelet transform, only that the wavelet transform does it in a continuous way.
I’m on a bandwagon and this report is at least a ball bearing in that wagon. The bandwagon that says, “CO2 probably has some kind of role in global temperatures, but we have no idea what role it plays in the overalll climate or what it’s specific role is in the mix with all GHG. We don’t know how small a role it plays in temperature, we don’t know how big the other roles are, we don’t even know that we’ve identified all factors with a role, we don’t know their effects on each other, we don’t know for a fact that reducing anthropegenic CO2 will reduce CO2 levels because there are other significant sources of CO2, we don’t know what and how things – including the climate and our knowledge – will change.” The overwhelming scientific evidence is that climate is still a scientific mystery.
We can, however, say with some confidence that we cannot expect to stop climate change by holding CO2 constant, that it is possible for earth to turn cold with higher levels of CO2, and that we will continue to experience both weather and climate change.
I’m not a scientist, but that’s pretty much the bottom line for all the work thus far, yes?
What’s behind the anomalies? They found that variations were in sync with total solar irradiance. The abstract states (emphasis added):
“Wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the d18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period .”
There is a TSI reconstruction during the Holocene from F. Steinhilber et al., but I think it is not simple to solve the anomalies, and there are more music in the TSI than a frequency band of 1000 years.
With some logic there is a simple conclusion that a frequency band of 1000 years, that effects the processes on Earth inclusive the global climate, must have a geometry in the solar system that processes this band of oscillations. If this logic is valid it is clear that a dummy like ENSO have its frequency from the geometry from the Earth – it can be shown that ENSO has frequency relation to QBO of 1:2 and QBO to the chandler wobble a frequency relation of 1:2 – and these passive terresrtial resonators do not create heat.
There are some ideas published about possible geometries on the Sun, and one is the Idea of Ching-Cheh Hung, ‘Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets’ NASA/TM—2007-214817′. Consequently I have added some 11 tide functions of planets between +913.5 years and 0.16 years; but already two or four solar tide functions scaled in the magnitude by fitting to the temperature proxies shows a remarkable result:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_tsi_6ky.gif
This gives hints what’s behind the anomalies. It is clear now that a bunch of solar tide creators from about 11+ tide relevant objects creates a spectrum of tide frequencies which are not easy to separate. But a further hint that tide functions on the Sun have a relation to the terrestrial anomalies is the fact, that the oscillations of the sea level (linear increase subtracted) oscillations measured by satellites are significantly phase coherent with solar tide function of the most dens objects, Mercury and Earth:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_vs_xyzo.gif
The tide function is modified by a term that increases the magnitude of the tide function from the actual distance of Mercury to the Sun. A lower frequency is superimposed, but visible as well in the UAH global temperature and in the sea level function reduced from the synthetic linear function. But the solar tide frequency of Mercury and Earth is also visible without any time delay.
That a more complicate temperature pattern can be simulated with solar tide function shows a comparison with the hadcrut3 data:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_had_1960_3.gif
If significance is still valid, and the music of the sun echoes on Earth, then a lot of dissertations are waiting to do in Heliocentric Climate Science.
Mikhail Gorbachev says: ‚Dangers await only those who do not react to life.’
V.
DirkH says:
“ABOUT the adjustments…
Biggest component of 20th century warming is the infamous Time Of Observation (TOB)
adjustment – McIntyre calls the adjustment largely BS”
Actually your first link says Steven Goddard calls it “largely BS”. I saw no reference to McIntyre in that comment.
William Astley says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:23 am
(Discussing in detail various parts of the Younger Dryas event …)
If a single Tunguska-style/Tunguska-sized event happens, we know – from observation of the weather in the years immediately after 1906 – that (1) no crater would be created despite an immense blast zone and that (2) that immense blast zone will not materially affect cooling or heating outside of the immediate area. Volcanic events even of immense proportions (Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Minoa, Crater Lake (?), Yellowstone(?), etc) have a definitive and measurable climatic influence – but of short duration. Further, no volcanic event yielded a Dryas-like ice age dust-albedo-ice-albedo feedback … (as far as we know) in the past 10,000 years.
So. My question: If a “train” of high-altitude cometary impacts – as which very recently hit Jupiter under our telescopes with Shoemaker-Levy – impacted earth, would that type of “smaller” but visibly-repeating impacts without a geologic crater formation be enough to create the dust-albedo covering that could initiate the Younger Dryas?
Its NOT just an Einstein “theoretically infinite elevator” physics question: We (humans all over the northern hemisphere) observed a single Tunguska-style impact at the beginning of one century. Less than 100 years later, we observed a train of 24 such impacts hit Jupiter and darken its southern skies for months afterwords before the end of that same century.
RockyRoad says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:22 am
This would imply reaching some tipping point regarding CO2–that the level of atmospheric CO2 reached just 30 years ago (that would be ~1982) is the magical point at which it achieves significant global warming attribution.
Er, uhm, ah, no. See …
The increase of CO2 from 280 (circa 1650, or 1860, or whenever – take your choice) to 350 ppm in 1980 did all three: increase global temperatures by 1/3 of one degree in two 25 year periods, cause temperatures to remain steady over three 20 year periods, cause temperatures to fall by 1/4 of one degree over two different 20 year periods …. This is real potent stuff, this CO2, it is. 8<)
Anthony et. al. Haveyou seen this? Austrailia is proposing s Super Regulator of speech. Straight out of Orwell.
——————————
Late yesterday afternoon, I read something that sent chills down my spine.
Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up.
Its “recommendations” will sicken every single Australian: They actually call for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to censor not just the newspapers and TV, but websites, personal blogs, and even what you say on Twitter!
This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia.
It is clear from the report, in particular paragraphs 4.31-4.42, that silencing climate realists is a major reason for these regulations: it is unashamedly explicit in this (and even uses the dirty trick of using polls from – wait for it – 1966 as evidence the media is pro-climate skeptic, and that – wait for it – only the ABC is unbiased!)
The size and scope of the proposed Super-Regulator is breathtaking. They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/
So, yet another example of a system that amplifies the otherwise small magnitude of the TSI variation.
Huh.
Jeff Alberts says:
March 4, 2012 at 8:20 am
“Actually your first link says Steven Goddard calls it “largely BS”. I saw no reference to McIntyre in that comment.”
Mea culpa – an error in my notes… I’m looking for McIntyre’s posts about this…
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 8:22 am
William Astley says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:23 am
(Discussing in detail various parts of the Younger Dryas event …)
____________
“So. My question: If a “train” of high-altitude cometary impacts – as which very recently hit Jupiter under our telescopes with Shoemaker-Levy – impacted earth, would that type of “smaller” but visibly-repeating impacts without a geologic crater formation be enough to create the dust-albedo covering that could initiate the Younger Dryas?”
______________________________________
Here’s a very interesting argument in re: Younger- Dryas, etc…
http://cometstorm.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/a-different-kind-of-climate-catastrophe-2/#comment-29
10-second inspection yields 2 graphs worth filing away:
http://www.agu.org/journals/pa/pa1201/2011PA002184/2011pa002184-op07-tn-350x.jpg
http://www.agu.org/journals/pa/pa1201/2011PA002184/2011pa002184-op10-tn-350x.jpg
Now, on to other things…
Bobuk says:
March 4, 2012 at 3:46 am
It`s the sun you fool, where`s Leif.
You and a few other commenters are clearly not familiar with Leif’s views and research. He believes the connection between solar activity and climate is “on shaky ground.” That’s because long term measures of solar activity are inconsistent and unreliable. Among other things, he has made a convincing case that the so-called Modern Grand Maximum that is supposedly the driver of late 20th century warming is an artifact; it did not exist. On January 16, 2012 Leif made an important presentation on this subject. He posted it here:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Here are his Conclusions from slide 48:
• Solar Activity is now back to what it was a century ago (Shouldn’t TSI also not be?)
• No Modern Grand Maximum
• Cosmic Ray Modulation discordant
• Experts (?) cannot agree on the Long-term variation of solar activity
• Solar influence on Climate on shaky ground if we don’t even know solar input
I think that sums up his current thinking on the subject. If we’re lucky, he will reply with additional comments or clarifications.
Jimbo says:
March 4, 2012 at 2:48 am
Why does the Sun issue keep coming back time and again? It it trying to ‘tell’ us something?
Leif, we need your expert input.
One problem I have with this study [and others] is that the periods they peddle aren’t in the solar data. Here is the power spectrum of TSI during the Holocene: there is no 1000-yr peak [or 1470 yr], but many other ones at 80, 208, 500, 700, 900, and 2300 yrs: http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber-TSI-FFT
http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber-TSI-FFT.png
In reply to:
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 8:22 am
William Astley says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:23 am
(Discussing in detail various parts of the Younger Dryas event …)
If a single Tunguska-style/Tunguska-sized event happens, we know – from observation of the weather in the years immediately after 1906 – that (1) no crater would be created despite an immense blast zone and that (2) that immense blast zone will not materially affect cooling or heating outside of the immediate area. Volcanic events even of immense proportions (Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Minoa, Crater Lake (?), Yellowstone(?), etc) have a definitive and measurable climatic influence – but of short duration. Further, no volcanic event yielded a Dryas-like ice age dust-albedo-ice-albedo feedback … (as far as we know) in the past 10,000 years. So. My question: If a “train” of high-altitude cometary impacts – as which very recently hit Jupiter under our telescopes with Shoemaker-Levy – impacted earth, would that type of “smaller” but visibly-repeating impacts without a geologic crater formation be enough to create the dust-albedo covering that could initiate the Younger Dryas?
William: No the comet explanation is incorrect. There are massive burn marks throughout the Northern Hemisphere which coincide with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling cycle. Those burn marks were not caused by a comet fragments and even if there were comet impacts, comet impacts could not cause what has observed.
The burn marks were caused when the solar cycle restarts. There is suite of astronomical, geomagnetic, paleoclimatic, and geological evidence and analysis to support that assertion. For example:
The Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event is a Heinrich climate cycle. The Heinrich events occur with a periodicity of 8000 to 10000 years. Comet impacts with the earth are not cyclic. A comet impact will not cause the planet to cool for a 1000 years. There are cycles of warming followed by cooling and some cases abrupt cooling, in the paleorecord. (There needs to be a physical explanation for the warming and why cooling always follows the warming.)
The cyclic warming and cooling can be seen in the Greenland Ice sheet data. (See this link, “The Big picture, figure 3 in the attached which is an excerpt from Richard Alley’s paper.)
http://www.climate4you.com/
Cyclic geomagnetic excursions occur at the same time as the Heinrich events. A comet impact cannot cause a geomagnetic excursion. The cyclic geomagnetic excursions require a physical explanation. There are no geological mechanisms (something to cause the planet’s liquid core to change cyclically and abruptly) to cyclically abruptly, rapidly cause the observed geomagnetic excursions.
The burn marks at multiple locations throughout the Northern Hemisphere that were created at the same time 12,900 years before present, (the Younger Dryas has been dated to 12,800 years) before present do require a physical explanation. There are cosmogenic isotopes changes that coincide with the warming that occurs prior to the abrupt cooling climate change.
The sun is at the scene of the cyclic abrupt climate change events each and everytime.
A geomagnetic excursion is the name for a period when the geomagnetic field becomes non-polar (multi poles appear) and the field intensity drops by a factor of 7 to 10. An abrupt interruption in the geomagnetic field takes roughly a 1000 years to be integrated by the liquid core. The abrupt interruption to the geomagnetic field, is caused by a restart of the solar magnetic cycle, that also causes the burn marks on the planet. A very large powerful electromagnetic pulse is required to abrupt change the geomagnetic field. There is evidence of the same mechanism affecting the other planets. The same mechanism can explain why the geomagnetic field of Uranus and Neptune is not polar aligned with the rotational axis of the those planets and is significantly off set from the rotational axis of those planets.
The planet cools when the geomagnetic excursion occurs due to Svensmark’s mechanism. (The geomagnetic field shields the planet from high speed cosmic particles referred to as GCR which create cloud forming ions.) The climate change is complex however as it is dependent on the position of the new geomagnetic poles.
An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18155
Based on elevated concentrations of a set of “impact markers” at the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial from sedimentary contexts across North America, Firestone, Kennett, West, and others have argued that 12.9 ka the Earth experienced an impact by an extraterrestrial body, an event that had devastating ecological consequences for humans, plants, and animals in the New World [Firestone RB, et al. (2007) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:16016–16021]. Herein, we report the results of an independent analysis of magnetic minerals and microspherules from seven sites of similar age, including two examined by Firestone et al. We were unable to reproduce any results of the Firestone et al. study and find no support for Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact.
There are small, medium, and large solar cycle restarts all of which affect the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic specialists have spent the last 10 years studying the proxy record to confirm that archeomagnetic jerks at which time the geomagentic field’s axis changes by 10 to 15 degrees do occur and as noted there are climate change events that are concurrent with the geomagnetic field changes.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007
Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).
The following is an incorrect hypothesis by a specialist to attempt to explain the cyclic geomagnetic excursions (the point of copy this reference is it notes there cyclic geomagnetic excursions and that the timing of the geomagnetic excursions correlates with the termination of the interglacial periods). The geomagnetic excursions are not caused orbital changes the geomagnetic excursions are not caused by ice sheets forming or melting. The geomagnetic excursions are caused by a restart of solar magnetic cycle. The effect of the solar magnetic cycle restart is dependent on the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit at the time of the restart, the tilt of the earth, and the seasonal timing of perihelion. (Seasonal timing of perihelion determines the relative magnitude of the affect on each hemisphere of the earth and hence the field polarity effect.)
http://www.mendeley.com/research/paleoclimatic-context-geomagnetic-dipole-lows-excursions-brunhes-clue-orbital-influence-geodynamo/
Paleoclimatic context of geomagnetic dipole lows and excursions in the Brunhes, clue
for an orbital influence on the geodynamo?
The hypothesis of an influence of the astronomical precession on the geodynamo energy budget was recently reappraised by theoreticians. Paleomagnetic indications of such an influence remain controversial because reconstructions of paleointensity variations from sediments are suspected to be contaminated by lithological, paleoclimatically induced influences. Three sets of complementary indicators are however available: 1) records of the direction of magnetization in sediments, 2) records of magnetic anomalies of the deep sea floor basalts and 3) records of production variations of cosmogenic isotopes from sediment and ice cores. These records confirm the genuine geomagnetic origin of paleointensity lows and their narrow link with excursions or short reversals recorded in various materials and often dated by radiometric methods. The analysis of these time series and their comparison with δ18O records of the paleoclimate suggest that such globally recorded geomagnetic dipole lows have preferentially occurred in the context of interglacial or transitional paleoclimates at the time of low or decreasing obliquity. The dominant periods, extracted with the complex continuous wavelet transform technique, range from 40 to 125 ka, further suggesting a link with orbital parameters. These results encourage future efforts of research to improve the precision, the resolution and the dating of the time series of geomagnetic dipole low, in order to better decipher orbital signatures and understand their origin. An important implication of this topic is that the next geomagnetic dipole low should be related with the present interglacial.
Quick research says cosmic rays are not part of TSI as they come from elsewhere (not the sun). So title suggests solar and the correlation is made to a specific band of radiation within the TSI maybe the correlation could have been from the elsewhere.
A largely-ignored issue is the variability of the galactic cosmic ray flux at the heliopause. GCRs are anisotropic. Interestingly, 10Be data from Greenland and Antarctica do not agree. It doesn’t mean cosmogenic isotope data are useless. These differences are consistent with an alternative mechanism – variable anisotropic GCR flux at the source (heliopause). Svalgaard and Svensmark could both be right.
This is a travesty. If the Sun were to be shown that it drives climate, how can we then blame people and extract taxes from them to save our world?
A citizen’s brainstormig is in order. I will contribute with my hypothesis that rising levels of CO2 cause increases in UFO activity, chem-trails and HAARP-like long waves which clearly change the direction and amplification of the teluric currents, causing impossible-to-measure but accurately computer-modelled spiritual energies which shoot up through the poles (explaining the auroras and migraines) to bombard the Sun, which understandably responds by…spotting, of course. In conclusion, it’s worse than we thought.
There, just as good as the current UN-IPCC hypothesis which has been taking a beating lately due to the embarrassing pecccadilloes of its proponents. I just need some funding to get a Playstation which can regurgitate a new model, to draw up some cool charts and to rush textbook changes for the kiddies in time for the new school year next September.
So if data sets are “picked” to match a hypothesis, bias can be shown to exist in the piece of research. To then model this as a scenario set, a fudge factor must be used. This is no better than the IPCC set of scenarios. Fudge factor is another term for bias.
Leif,
The “1000” year cycle (plus/minus 100 years) is indeed a prime solar cycle. Have a look e.g. at Abreu et al. (2010) who termed this solar cycle “Eddy cycle”. So I am not sure why you are so skeptical.
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2010/2010/2010_abreu.pdf
You are right when it comes to the 1500 years. This is certainly NOT a primary solar cycle. For the Holocene I think what we see is a mathematical average of some Hallstatt (2300 years) and Eddy (1000 years) cycles. Some individual Eddy cycles may be too weak so sometimes you only have the Hallstatt cycle. The 1500 years cycle itself may therefore not exist during the Holocene and is just a mathematical artefact.
The situation seems to be fundamentally different during the Pleistocene when we have the Dansgaard-Oescheger cycles (1470 years). These are probably real cycles and may or may not be related to combinations of Suess/de Vries and Gleissberg (sensu Rahmstorf). One should not mixup these two types of millennial scale cycles.
Cheers, Sebastian
Coach Springer says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:58 am
You’re right–I looked it up and found that CO2 is NOT antifreeze; it turns solid around -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees C).
We shouldn’t rely on CO2 to prevent the next glacial episode or extend the current interglacial.
DirkH.
TOBS adjustments are not Bogus. I’ll suggest you read the TOBS thread on CLimateAudit which we did YEARS ago.
That adjustment has been verified several ways. It you have evidence that it is bogus, present that data and that code.
With all the publically available data ( Berkeley Earth) and with No adjustment, the answer comes out the same.
Pamela Gray says:
How about an unbiased fudge factor? The first predictive scheme should not be a GCM at all. Scientists should be looking at what factors seem to have accounted for past temperature change, then using these factors to predict future change in accordance with their past influence.
Numerous studies have found solar activity to “explain” in the statistical sense something on the order of half of all past temperature change on every time scale other than the Milankovitch cycle (some examples in the second section of my AR5 review here, and additional examples like the present paper have been coming out at a rapid pace, with NO contrary findings). Based on these past patterns Scafetta and others find that something like half of 20th century warming was attributable to solar effects. Shaviv only attributes 1/3 to solar effects. Others claim that all warming since the Little Ice Age can be accounted for by solar activity.
These statistical projections of past patterns should be our primary means for forecasting. Physical models should only be used for forecasting when they can be shown empirically to do better, and simple pattern projection should never be abandoned, but should always remain as a check on modeled forecasts. The weight between the two should be performance based.
Here Pamela is defining “fudge factors” as biased, but that is not the common language meaning of the term, at least pre-IPCC. In common language, a fudge factor is a means to incorporate an observed effect when the mechanism is not known, so that it can be represented by a physical model.
We don’t NEED to forecast by GCM at all, and given that current GCMs are known to under-account solar effects by a wide margin (and hence misattribute solar effects to the CO2, which just happened to be correlated to solar activity over the calibration period) it would be better not to use present GCMs to forecast. But with an appropriate fudge factor, they could be useful. Just give solar activity a forcing factor in line with its observed effects and the result MIGHT be an improvement in predictive performance (forward and backward).
But by no means should we limit forecasting to modeled mechanisms. The first check is projection of past patterns. In other words, FUDGE FACTORS FIRST!
Thanks to Pamela for relating that news about leftist Aussie officials plotting totalitarian censorship powers. Yikes.
Most of this type of reconstruction for the solar activity use 10Be data obtained from Greenland. I wrote number of times that these can not be relied on as you can see from this spectral analysis:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/McCr.gif
Not only they show a bit of solar output at 11 years period, but it appears every single rain or snow storm in the Greenland’s past.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 9:16 am
“Here is the power spectrum of TSI during the Holocene:”
Reader beware: Leif knows very little about power spectra and how to estimate them. We had a long tussle over this issue some time ago on another thread. His insight on the matter is inversely proportional to his supreme confidence. The PSD he proffers in the above comment is so poor, it makes me wince in pain.
Can’t say I’m all that impressed by the match between the solar and the ∂18O …
Regarding this, they say:
Both signals are “in phase over the rest of the studied period”? Not for the last 3,000 years on my planet.
w.
Alec I don’t have a clue what you are talking about re leftist Aussie etc. Bias and fudge factor research I do know about.
Ya Willis I saw that and cringed.
If that were in a mann paper most of the folks here would be all over it as proving nothing.
The confirmation bias runs strong in the solar wing of the debate as strong if not stronger than the C02 wing
so few people attend to the actual data
steven mosher says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Thanks, Mosh. I’ve got the gain on my BS detector turned to the max, no matter which side of the aisle the paper claims to support. My problem is … I don’t believe anything.
Well, that’s not actually the problem, the problem is far too often I’m right to not believe anything.
And when the headline says:
I am reminded of when my daughter says, “In your dreams, Dad”, and the Urban Legend alarm starts to ring.
Neither alarm proves anything, of course … but they do show which direction to look.
All the best,
w.
Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“With all the publically available data ( Berkeley Earth) and with No adjustment, the answer comes out the same.”
=======================
Ok, and the conclusion is?
Perhaps the reason the Sun has 1,000 year cycles (maybe 934 year cycles) is shown in this inverted plot of the scalar sum of angular momentum of the Sun and 9 planets, which I wrote about early last year. Note that it also shows the superimposed 60 year (59.6 year?) cycles …
http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg
Even though solar activity is currently decreasing, I believe it will increase again around the year 2028 and that we may not reach the maximum of the 1,000 year cycle for another 100 to 200 years, by which time the trend will be 0.5 to 1.0 degrees C higher than at present. This may be deduced from the plot at the foot of the Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com
Of course carbon dioxide will have no additional warming effect because the standing waves which each molecule of carbon dioxide forms have fewer frequencies than those formed by water vapour, and there are only about 4% as many molecules anyway. So the radiative component of thermal energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is not at all significantly affected by carbon dioxide. There will be more on this in my peer-reviewed publication this week.
Sebastian Luning says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:13 am
The “1000″ year cycle (plus/minus 100 years) is indeed a prime solar cycle. Have a look e.g. at Abreu et al. (2010) who termed this solar cycle “Eddy cycle”. So I am not sure why you are so skeptical.
I’m skeptical because of their Figure 3, where the blue curve shows the actual data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm (responding to)
Sebastian Luning says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:13 am
I’m skeptical because of their Figure 3, where the blue curve shows the actual data.
This is unclear to me, can you clarify your statement please: Is their “‘blue line” correctly showing the actual data, but their interpretation on Fig 3 (and, perhaps, in the rest of their paper) incorrect (in your judgement)? Or is their “blue line” incorrectly showing actual data that is more correctly found elsewhere?
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm
This is unclear to me, can you clarify your statement please: Is their “‘blue line” correctly showing the actual data, but their interpretation on Fig 3 (and, perhaps, in the rest of their paper) incorrect (in your judgement)?
The blue line is correctly showing their actual correct data.
Bart says:
March 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm
His insight on the matter is inversely proportional to his supreme confidence. The PSD he proffers in the above comment is so poor, it makes me wince in pain.
Your own supreme confidence is misplaced and your pain unnecessary. Your comments on that old thread show how little of reality you have a grip on. Post your own PSD of the data if you wish to recover some respectability.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Leif, I strongly urge you to seek out guidance at your local university, probably in the electrical engineering department, to help you understand what a power spectrum is and how it is best estimated. Your transparent lack of formal training in this area is holding you back, and to those who understand what they are looking at… well, let’s just say you aren’t going to make the impression you want to make, and you are going to undermine people’s confidence in the work you are good at.
Sorry, the link to the Aussie climate censorship madness was from “The Other Pamela Gray.”
Is this (just about) X-flare coming our way?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
Dr. S. Tanks for the data file, it works fine.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2012/05mar12/cme_c2.gif?PHPSESSID=d0o4p8prbfrgopi2923bf0jcu3
Details here
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Alec Rawls and Pamela Gray, sorry for the confusion; my bad. I reposted Other Pamela Gray’s, post and fudged-up the monikers.
Found a 960-year period some years ago, from data mainly based on polar light data. Certain sunspot data supported it.
It’s the same period here – on the other hand, “a secular cycle” does not make sense to me:
http://books.google.de/books?id=IryMtwHHngIC&pg=PA720&lpg=PA720&dq=960+years+sunspot&source=bl&ots=sxZhcdJmdz&sig=79X-m-vp6dzopz7kMyCSTplOMko&hl=de&sa=X&ei=GhhWT6eVEM7XsgaQ4rjfBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=960%20years%20sunspot&f=false
This research finding and the lack of traction it will generate makes the point that no amount of drilling and analysis of long records in sediments or ice cores will make any dent in the political science of global warming.