Guest post by Dr. Norman Page
1 The IPCC’s Core Problem
The IPCC – Al Gore based Anthropogenic Global Warming scare has driven global Governments’ Climate and Energy Policies since the turn of the century. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on uneconomic renewable energy and CO2 emission control schemes based on the notions that it is both necessary and possible to control global temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions. All this vast investment is based on the simple idea that as stated in the IPCC AR4 report:
“we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.”
These values can only be reached by adopting two completely unfounded and indeed illogical assumptions and procedures:
1. CO2 is simply assumed to be the main climate forcing .This is clearly illogical because at all time scales CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
2. Positive feedback from the other GHGs – notably water vapour and methane is then added on to the effects of CO2 and attributed to it. Obviously, in nature, the increase in CO2 and Humidity are both caused by rising temperatures. It is also impossible to have a net positive feedback because systems with total positive feed back are not stable and simply run away to disaster. We wouldn’t be here to tell the tale if it were true.
From its inception the IPCCs remit was to measure Anthropogenic Climate Change and indeed Climate Change was defined as Anthropogenic until the 2011 SREX report when the definition was changed.The climate science community simply designed their models to satisfy the political requirements of their funding agencies. – Publications, academic positions,peer approval , institutional advancement and grants were unlikely to be forthcoming unless appropriate forecasts of catastrophic warming were dutifully produced. The climate models have egregious structural errors and ,what is worse, in their estimates of uncertainty the IPCC reports for Policymakers simply ignored this structural uncertainty and gave policy makers and the general public a totally false impression of the likely accuracy of their temperature forecasts.It is this aspect of the AGW meme which is especially unconscionable.
The inadequacy, not to say inanity, of the climate models can be seen by simple inspection of the following Figure 2-20 from the AR4 WG1 report.
Figure 1 from IPCC AR4
The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch Orbital Cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents,Earths geomagnetic field strength and all the Solar Activity data time series – eg Solar Magnetic Sield strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.
The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The gap between projections and observations is seen below
Fig 2 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
2, The Real Climate Drivers.
Earths climate is the result of resonances between various quasicyclic processes of varying wavelengths. The long wave Milankovich eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles are modulated by solar “activity” cycles with millennial centennial and decadal time scales .These in turn interact with lunar cycles and endogenous earth changes in Geomagnetic Field strength ,volcanic activity and at really long time scales plate tectonic movements of the land masses.The combination of all these drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earths climate and weather.
To help forecast decadal and annual changes we can look at eg the ENSO PDO, AMO NAO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for varying future periods. Currently the PDO suggests we may expect 20 – 30 years of cooling in the immediate future.Similarly for multidecadal, centennial and millennial predictions we need to know where we are relative to the appropriate solar cycles.The best proxies for solar “activity”are currently ,the Ap index, and the GCR produced neutron count. The solar indices are particularly important for their past history these can be retrieved from the 10 Be data.
In a previous post on http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com on 1/22/13 – Global Cooling – Timing and Amount(NH) I have made suggestions of possible future cooling based on a repetition of the solar millennial cycle. Here I point out for the modellers the value of using the Ap index as a proxy measure of solar activity. Compare the Northern Hemisphere HADSST3 Temperature anomaly since 1910 with the AP index since 1900 . Because of the thermal inertia and slow change in the enthalpy of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year delay between the driver proxy and the temperature.
Fig 3 – From Hadley Center
Fig 4 From http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
There are some good correlations .The 1900 and 1965 Ap lows correspond to the NH temperature minima at 1910 and 1975 respectively . The 1992 Ap peak ( Solar Cycle 22) corresponds to the 2003 temperature high and trend roll over- and as shown in the previous post referred to above might well represent the roll over of the millennial solar cycle which brought the Medieval and Roman warming peaks. The NH is used because it is more sensitive to forcing changes and its greater variability makes correlation more obvious.
As a simple conceptual model the Ap index can be thought of as simple proxy for hours of sunshine especially when mentally integrated over a 10 -12 year period. See Wang et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
As far as the future is concerned the Solar Cycle 23/24 Ap minimum in end 2009 is as low as the 1900 minimum and would suggest both a secular change in solar activity in about 2006 and a coming temperature minimum at about 2019/20. This change is also documented for TSI by Adbussamatov 2012 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
Fig 5.
As a final example for this post the following figure from Steinhilber et al http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Minima with cosmic Ray intensity.
CONCLUSION :
It is now clear that the Ap/GCR/10Be data are the best proxy measures of the Earth’s temperature driver over millennial centennial and decadal time scales. The best way of forecasting the future is to predict future solar cycles at these wavelengths keeping in mind the Earth’s magnetic field strength and obliquity trends over longer time periods.
3. The Response of the Modellers, IPCC and Political Alarmists.
The modelling community and the IPCC have both recognized that they have a problem. For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat and generating epicycle type theories to preserve their models.Hansen thinks it might have something to do with aerosols and Trenberth first wanted to hide it down the deep ocean black hole. Death Train Hansen is a lost cause as far as objective science is concerned but Trenberth has always been a more objective and judicious scientist and has recently made excellent progress in discovering a real negative feedback in the system. see
He says:
This is an encouraging start and its inclusion would improve models significantly. Clearly it would reduce very substantially the currently IPCC calculated temperature sensitivity to CO2 . He now also needs to add into the models the iris effect of the GCR modulation of the global incoming radiation flux via clouds ,possibly related natural aerosols, and resulting albedo changes on global temperatures.When this is done the sensitivity to doubling CO2 will be 1 degree or less similar to separate calculations by Lindzen, Spencer and Bjornbom:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html
The IPCC ‘s response to the lack of warming is seen in the SREX 2011 report. they say
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
In other words they realized that they could no longer scaremonger on the basis of the trend and so in that report and in the forthcoming AR5 they have chosen to concentrate on “extreme” events to promote their scaremongering anti CO2 policy agenda while keeping unchanged their climate sensitivity calculations. The core alarmists Hansen, Mann, McKibben and Romm and their MSM ,Celebrity and Political acolytes including Obama are simply following the IPCC script with their ever more hysterical predictions of future extreme disasters as the current earth obstinately refuses to warm up.
The AR5 Summary for Policymakers is currently in draft form.Obviously Trenberth and his associated modellers cannot restructure the models in time to change the science section but perhaps they could at least insist that the final report makes proper allowance for the structural uncertainty in the model outcomes .
CONCLUSION:
Trenberth’s latest work implies that when it is incorporated into the climate models the entire CAGW scare will collapse.
The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend and to help world food production by its fertilizing effect on crops.
Is it still a tragedy?
The only problem with this article is that it is completely logical–something the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas don’t accept. Unless it means money in their pocket together with power over the people, they just aren’t interested; it doesn’t fit their self-serving agenda.
However, this is indeed an excellent and compelling article for anybody willing to take the effort to actually think.
There are some good correlations .The 1900 and 1965 Ap lows correspond to the NH temperature minima at 1910 and 1975 respectively . The 1992 Ap peak ( Solar Cycle 22) corresponds to the 2003 temperature high
And the high Ap in the mid 19th century corresponds to the pronounced warming during that time…Moral: you can’t have it both ways.
Adbussamatov is already falsified: slide 37 of http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
The ‘stupid’ part is to cling to such nonsense just because it counteracts the CO2 story.
Just remember that logic does not work on these low-information voters … … …
Great post Dr Page.
Excellent, logical, simple explanation of the real situation versus the perceived threat! Very hopeful outlook for diminished acceptance of the AGW point of view. Do you think really it will die easily and quickly? I hope so , but am not so sure.
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:10 am
So how many years does the average global temperature have to stay with no statistically significant warming against a continual annual rise in CO2 before you’re willing to concede that CO2 is not even close to being the controlling factor, Leif?
Awaiting your numerical answer….
Trenberth is not suffering from a Messiah Complex.
Global warming is closely related to the polar temperature amplification.
Solar input is made of two components: TSI and geomagnetic.
The earth’s magnetic field variability is synchronised with sunspot magnetic cycles.
Geomagnetic component input is strongest at the poles and weakest in the equatorial area
Most of the global warming is concentrated in relatively small area less then 30% of the globe, around the poles, while equatorial area exhibits no warming.
See: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
CO2 can do no such thing. CO2 is a coolant.
Most media is pro AGW if not pushing CAGW. They are actively oblivious to legitimate scientific inquiry preferring to push a phony consensus that’s government funded. As the AGW ranks thin, soon only the hardcore Hansenites that hate all hydrocarbon energy will remain. These articles are important and give momentum to marginalizing these crazies.
Russell Johnson
This extreme weather meme has been brilliantly effective. HAve to hand it to them. Good that Trenberth seems to be walking things back, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to wait for actual cooling to establish itself over the next 5-10 years before we can finally declare victory.
There’s a typo, both here and in Dr. Page’s original article:
htpp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
should read
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
REPLY: Your comment is totally unhelpful, WHERE
Being right for the wrong reasons is not the same as being right. Positive feedbacks (first derivative equivalent) only create an unstable system if the second derivative equivalent is positive. If it is negative, the system damps to a new higher equilibrium.
The climate model ECS is to high because the positive water vapor feedback (which must exist just based on basic physics) is overstated. Trenberth is at least recognizing one of the mechanisms, although probably not the most important one. ECS is also overstated because cloud feedback is significantly positive when observation says it is neutral or somewhat negative.
A range of methods from Annan’s informed Bayesian priors to Lewis’ energy balance all suggest the most probable ECS is something between 1.6 and 1.9, and not the 0.5 in Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 paper.
There is a long chapter explaining this in some detail in my book.
“For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat ”
They are looking in the wrong place! It’s the cold that is missing!
Rocky Road says
So how many years does the average global temperature have to stay with no statistically significant warming against a continual annual rise in CO2 before you’re willing to concede that CO2 is not even close to being the controlling factor, Leif?
Henry says
I have challenged Leif on many occasions to provide me with the balance sheet, as referred to here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
I never got any answer, numerical or otherwise…
He also does not (want to believe) in the 88 year Gleissberg solar cycle even though others before me have found it, and I only confirmed its existence, apparently, …..
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
RockyRoad says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:29 am
So how many years does the average global temperature have to stay with no statistically significant warming against a continual annual rise in CO2 before you’re willing to concede that CO2 is not even close to being the controlling factor, Leif?
Awaiting your numerical answer….
the numerical answer is ZERO.
But you make the gross error to assume that if it is not CO2 then it must be the Sun. There is no good evidence for that. To wit: solar activity now is what it was a hundred years ago, but the climate is not.
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:49 am
The earth’s magnetic field variability is synchronised with sunspot magnetic cycles.
No, that is simply not true in the sense you use the words. The correct statement would have been that the short-term, temporary variations of the observed field at the surface of the Earth are caused by currents in the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and induced in the oceans [very small] and upper mantle is syncronized with solar activity. But that is not what you are peddling.
Graeme Stephens, et al., published an updated terrestrial energy budget recently, that included the uncertainties; (2012) Nature Geoscience 5, 691–696. The surface energy budget imbalance was +0.6(+/-)17 W/m^2. The TOA imbalance was likewise 0.6(+/-)4 Wm^-2 (misprinted as (+/-)0.4 W/m^2; when one calculates the rms error from the included individual errors, it comes to 4 W/m^2. I emailed Dr. Stephens twice politely asking about that, but he didn’t reply).
Notice that the uncertainties are ~10-30x larger than the imbalances. Stephens, et al., themselves noted that, “the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.” That is, anyone who says the terrestrial climate is out of energetic balance doesn’t know what they’re talking about. And that’s a published fact.
This surface 0.6(+/-17) W/m^2 is Kevin Trenberth’s “missing heat.” One wonders how they know the heat is missing, when the uncertainty is so large they don’t know whether it exists at all. The uncertainties are so large they don’t even know the sign of the imbalance, or even whether there is an imbalance. It’s ludicrous.
Hansen’s death trains are empty. There’s nothing in them because the data are too poor to determine whether the climate itself has gained any energy at all — or lost it.
What a sorry excuse for science.
HenryP says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:15 am
He also does not (want to believe) in the 88 year Gleissberg solar cycle
The Gleissberg ‘cycle’ has been ~107 years the past 400 years; there is no valid debate or doubt about that.
Dear Moderators,
Across from “Recent Posts” it says:
In a previous post on htpp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com on 1/22/13 – Global Cooling – Timing and Amount(NH)
Address should have http.
Thanks.
Norman Page writes: “Currently the PDO suggests we may expect 20 – 30 years of cooling in the immediate future.”
Not another one.
There is no mechanism through which the PDO can vary global surface temperatures. The PDO does not represent the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific (north of 20N). In fact, the PDO is inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. The PDO is basically an aftereffect of ENSO and the sea level pressure of the North Pacific.
To understand what the PDO represents and more importantly what it doesn’t represent, see (in reverse chronological order) here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/an-inverse-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-north-pacific-sst-anomaly-residuals/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/is-the-difference-between-nino3-4-sst-anomalies-and-the-pdo-a-function-of-sea-level-pressure/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/revisiting-%e2%80%9cmisunderstandings-about-the-pdo-%e2%80%93-revised%e2%80%9d/
And once again here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/misunderstandings-about-the-pdo-%e2%80%93-revised/
RockyRoad says: “So how many years does the average global temperature have to stay with no statistically significant warming against a continual annual rise in CO2 before you’re willing to concede that CO2 is not even close to being the controlling factor, Leif?”
RockyRoad, you wrote that in response to Leif’s statement, “The ‘stupid’ part is to cling to such nonsense just because it counteracts the CO2 story.” But read what Leif wrote again. I don’t believe Leif said that CO2 was the “controlling factor”. “Story” is not the same as “controlling factor”.
Regards
Brilliantly laid out. The alarmists really are in trouble and are groping around for new scares to prop up their claim to be the ones in authority and their claim for ever more cash and influence. It’s wonderful to see articles like this one which very clearly states what the fallacies are and what the truth is.
Any scientist who falsifies their data or their results in order to be funded great wads of cash should know that it ends with disclosure. Any scientist who falsifies their data or their results knowing that their efforts will bring down civilization, destroy the economy or at the very least kill thousands of people, should be tried for intentional crimes againt humanity.
I’m sure I’m not the only one to think so.
No wonder they are panicking.
Speaking of the IPCC how about this
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/20/us-other-nations-quietly-maneuvering-to-rein-in-sprawling-inefficient-un-system/
– – – – – – –
Dr Norman Page,
Your post stimulates a broader and more balanced view than the IPCC’s myopic alarming AGW by CO2 view. Thank you.
I can see no current physical science fundamentals that are barriers to the possibility that sensitivity to doubling CO2 will be an order of magnitude less than the separate calculations by Lindzen, Spencer and Bjornbom of 1 degree or less .
Also, what current physical science fundamentals are barriers to the possibility that sensitivity to doubling CO2 could be found through more open research thinking to be zero or negative?
John
Here is another paper supportive of this thesis…
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/50685
Not sure if Dr Trenberth would be amused or dismayed by Dr Page’s misinterpretation of his tropical cyclone slide show.
Had Al Gore or Michael Mann spent some time out in the sun and not all the time in air conditioned homes, planes, offices, cars then it could have been they would have noticed.
Or in the case of some, 10,000 years out in the sun every day.
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm
Lots of understanding due to the need for food and shelter.
Vukcevik says
while equatorial area exhibits no warming.
Henry says
my random sample seems to indicate that that statement is generally not true.
Places like Honolulu, Hato, Caracas, Phuket, Brasilia, Rarotonga all show a warming rate above the global average of 0.014 degrees C per annum since 1974.
MODS
policycritic says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:12 am
There’s a typo, both here and in Dr. Page’s original article:
htpp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
should read
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
REPLY: Your comment is totally unhelpful, WHERE
Mods, 6th paragraph – ‘acadmic’ academic. 10th paragraph ‘centenial’ centennial, there are some format errors with commas and fullstops.
[Thank you. ]
Scott Basinger says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:05 am
Is it still a tragedy?
—
It’s now officially a farce.
Indeed, an excellent post. As has been correctly pointed out before, if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were wholly responsible for the LESS-than-HALF-a-DEGREE of increased celcius temperature (since 1997), then why haven’t the ‘politicians-with-a-vested-interest-in-thinking-they-can-save-the-planet’ kerbed the production of all man-made forms of this ‘catastrophic’ gas. Carbonated drinks, modified air packaging, welding gas, fire extinguishers, air bags, beer, wine, bread, snack foods, air-blasting, laser coolants and PCB manufacture to name but a few. Infact, if CO2 was so efficient at ‘warming’, then why isn’t it inside sealed double glazing units?
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:10 am
And the high Ap in the mid 19th century corresponds to the pronounced warming during that time…Moral: you can’t have it both ways.
—
Nobody ever claimed that the sun was the only thing that matters when it comes to temperatures.
denniswingo says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:48 am
Here is another paper supportive of this thesis…
From the paper: “In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time”.
What happened to the 10-yr lag that Dr. Page invokes in his article?
It seems that people will believe anything as long as it supports their thesis…
REPLY: Your comment is totally unhelpful, WHERE
Using a simple search function, I was able to locate the string in question at the start of the second paragraph of section 2. Took me all of 10 seconds.
REPLY: Yes, but search function doesn’t exist in the WordPress Editor, nor does CTRL-F in browser work in that mode. Telling me where in the first place takes all of ten seconds too. If people want to be pedantic, at least be HELPFULLY pedantic – Anthony
MarkW says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Nobody ever claimed that the sun was the only thing that matters when it comes to temperatures.
so, what other things matter? and why are they not operating now [when we are saying ‘it’s the Sun, stupid’]?
leif says
The Gleissberg ‘cycle’ has been ~107 years the past 400 years; there is no valid debate or doubt about that.
henry says
I am looking at maximum temps.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
I am not interested in the obscure (20/20 vision related) data like sunspot number you are looking at.
Rud Istvan says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:12 am
“A range of methods from Annan’s informed Bayesian priors to Lewis’ energy balance all suggest the most probable ECS is something between 1.6 and 1.9, and not the 0.5 in Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 paper.”
Bayes’ work can teach you about weaknesses in your betting behavior. It cannot teach you anything about the world that exists independently of you. Bayes’ Theorem is the last refuge of academic Decision Theorists who realized that their work was going nowhere.
Here is one of my charts showing a trend between Solar activity and temperatures since 1865 from a study I’m doing, I have other charts with a the same trend from different temperature data.
This is using minimum temperatures from the Armagh Observatory, The maximum temperatures have an Identical trend to this.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
Excellent***** article !!!
So they are looking for the missing heat,
problem is,no one is holding them to the fire.
So Trenberth is stepping it back……Marx says
two steps forward one step back.
Bring back the Guillotine just saying <]"?)
Alfred
Kelvin Vaughan says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:15 am
‘“For example both Hansen and Trenberth have been looking for the missing heat ”
They are looking in the wrong place! It’s the cold that is missing!’
I wonder if Trenberth will some day tell us that his “deep ocean heat” hypothesis violates the foundation upon which he erected his “radiation in equals radiation out” climate theory. His new theory would be “radiation in equals radiation out – on the timescale of the natural processes through which radiation passes during its pilgrimage (to the deep oceans and back) on Earth.”
It’s the Sun, and all the other things. CO2 may have a meager effect, but it’s dwarfed by the Sun et al. CO2 may have a meager effect, or it may no effect. The only support for the albeit widely accepted contention the CO2 effects climate temperatures is a theoretical model. Another theoretical model posits that CO2 has zero effect beyond 200ppm. What model is correct? The one with all the money and media behind it? That’s what we think because we like everyone has been conditioned.
There’s NO empirical evidence for CO2 having an effect, having any effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
With no evidence, none, that CO2 affects the climate, what theoretical model should we give the benefit of the doubt to? I’d say to the one that is more easily consistent with the state of the actual evidence, to the theoretical model that says CO2 doesn’t have any effect higher than 200ppm.
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Leif, aren’t you concerned that some day you might get the title of naysayer? 🙂
HenryP says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:09 pm
I am looking at maximum temps […] I am not interested in the obscure (20/20 vision related) data like sunspot number you are looking at.
Well, the Gleissberg ‘cycle’ is claimed to be in sunspot numbers, but it clearly not there http://sidc.be/html/wolfaml.html
What you are looking at is irrelevant as far as the existence of a Gleissberg cycle in sunspot numbers.
If this whole episode was based on science it might, but I’m afraid it’s not. There’s a long list of human failings tied into this hypothesis.
The models will stop generating abnormal warming, but that won’t stop scaremongering, at least for a while. Plus, as the Sun winds down, the meme will be that it stopped AGW, and as soon as it starts back up, it will start again warming again.
AGW won’t go quietly.
Pat Frank says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:23 am
Very well said. Thanks.
Theo Goodwin says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Leif, aren’t you concerned that some day you might get the title of naysayer? 🙂
Saying ‘no’ to nonsense is an honorable thing I would think: “Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge” [Carl Sagan]
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:22 am
NOPE! Never said that, Leif–quit putting words in my mouth (or on the Internet), sir–you’re the one making the “gross error” with your assumption, and you know what they say about the word “assume”. 🙂
And thanks for your answer, but from it I might conclude you don’t believe CO2 is a contributing factor AT ALL–it’s nearly impossible to tell!
(But even if it did contribute one insy binsy bit, the benefits of (human-contributed) CO2 FAR OUTWEIGH the negatives to the degree to which CO2 contributes, wouldn’t you agree?)
Of course, if I’m wrong in my comprehension (because the wonderful number ZERO can mean so many things), please enlighten me without telling me what I’m thinking. More specifically, define what you mean by “story”. I’m interested in what you conclude is the role of anthropogenic CO2 in this CAGW meme.
Thanks again–especially if you don’t assume.
My apologies- this is pretty much off topic but I wonder if anyone could tell me what might the effect be on the temperature record since 1995 if the El Nino spike of 1998 was removed?
Yes- having an argument and need some help 🙂
Rud Istvan
The climate model ECS is to high because the positive water vapor feedback (which must exist just based on basic physics)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why must this be so? Yes warmer air can hold more water vapour and yes, water vapour is a GHG, but:
1. The atmosphere doesn’t hold maximum water vapour now, so there are factors at play which impose a maximum independent of temperature. Unless we know these mechanisms in detail, we cannot predict what effect increased temps will have on water vapour, and the models thus far have gotten this wrong (among the long list of things they have wrong).
2. Being a GHG means that water vapour absorbs and re-emitts IR in BOTH directions (up and down). The preponderance of water vapour exists in a thin layer close to earth surface while CO2 is relatively uniform from earth surface to top of troposphere. In other words, there must be a negative feedback to downward IR flux from all sources that radiate downward from altitudes above the water vapour layer.
I don’t think the assumption that increased water vapour is by default a positive feedback is as easily justified as one might think.
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Good! I kind of enjoy bumping against your “No,” Do notice the smiley face at the end of my post above.
Oops! Pardon my sloppiness. The comma should be a period.
Hi Henry
Few places around the equator show some warming but there are also some that do show cooling (Central Africa and S. America) but the huge majority of the Equatorial area is neutral, as you can clearly see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2012-lt-anomaly_thumb.png
Helpfully pedantic. Pretty funny. The typo patrol at this blog has to be the fastest on the internet. It’s tiresome, but they are just trying to protect the site’s reputation from the jerks who’d use anything to destroy WUWT.
It’s beyond me how the models blaming co2 alone for warming ever were taken seriously in the first place. What kind of scientific community wouldn’t laugh at a model that excluded the sun? A dishonest one.
Dr. Page, what has been the radiative forcing of climate from Milankovitch Orbital Cycles from 1750 to 2005? Has it been significant in any way?
RockyRoad says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm
before you’re willing to concede that CO2 is not even close to being the controlling factor, Leif?
I would think that the word ‘concede’ implies that you assume that I think CO2 is the controlling factor, so who is assuming here?
And you are wrong about assuming that I think CO2 is not a factor AT ALL. Of course it has some effect, just like the Sun has, but neither are significant on the time scales of interest [from years to centuries]. The word ‘story’ means the assumptions of the effect or lack thereof of CO2. You may have noticed that the is such a debate going on. That is the ‘story’.
Once again we get a thread in which every opinion is wrong except those of Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who insists that…um…well, actually I’m not sure what he insists, other than than everyone else is always wrong. Say, Dr. Svalgaard, could you point us to a document you wrote that tells us what you think is driving the climate and where it is headed from here? Thanks in advance!
James Ard says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:52 pm
What kind of scientific community wouldn’t laugh at a model that excluded the sun? A dishonest one.
Climate models do include the solar input, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/abstracts/6b_Cahalan_Contr.pdf
lsvalgaard says: “Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge” [Carl Sagan]
Nice quote. Thanks.
Paraphrased: Data is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge through climate models.
Leif I note with some satisfaction that you didn’t disagree with the 20th century Ap – lagged temperature correlations. I agree that the 19 th century Ap- temp correlations are to say the least not obvious. However I dont know where you assembled the Ap data from .Is there some difference between the 19th and 20th century Ap data base? Take a look at the Dye3 and NGrip ice core 10Be flux data for the 19th century. Eyeballing it it would seem a better fit to the NH temperature data but doesnt look much like your Ap numbers.
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
See Fig1
As far as the lag is concerned check. Usoskin et al Fig3 at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
Regards Norman
Oh, considering my post above at 12:18pm, one other thing I should mention. I say CO2 may have a meager effect, or NO effect. And with the evidence as it is (temperature changes causes changes in CO2 levels, with no evidence of CO2 causing temperature changes), the warmists now maintain that CO2 is both a cause and an effect of temperature change. So, if CO2 were to have anything more than a meager effect, there would be a runaway greenhouse effect, no question. As temps rose, more CO2 would come out the oceans, causing temps to rise, causing more CO2, etc. Temps would rise until the oceans boiled. But in the past CO2 was as high as 7100ppm, and there was no runaway greenhouse effect. It seems logical that the only possibilities is that CO2 has a meager (inconsequential) or no effect.
Jim Braiden says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:45 pm
My apologies- this is pretty much off topic but I wonder if anyone could tell me what might the effect be on the temperature record since 1995 if the El Nino spike of 1998 was removed?
Yes- having an argument and need some help 🙂
That is something like being asked if you still beat your wife. To be fair, you cannot just remove the El Nino spike without also removing the La Nina that appeared either just before it or just after it. The four slope lines below illustrate my point.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.2/trend
Sceptical The Milankovitch wavelengths are tens of thousands of years – there would be negligible change since 1750.
Matt Skaggs says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:55 pm
could you point us to a document you wrote that tells us what you think is driving the climate and where it is headed from here?
Climate is driven by a combination of many processes. Some drivers [in decreasing order of significance] are; (0) non-linear combinations of the following: (1) the Sun [its output has increased 30% over the history of the Earth, and will eventually fry us], (2) plate tectonics [enabling ice sheets to form if land is near the poles, or creating vast deserts in the interior of equatorial mega-continents], (3) Jupiter [through its influence on the orbit of the Earth – Milankovitch cycles], (4) greenhouse gases [massive volcanic emissions, e.g. the Deccan Traps], (5) biosphere [changing albedo of the surface], (6) ocean circulation, (7) solar activity [causing a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation], and last [and probably least] (8) human activity [land use and CO2 emissions].
Where are we headed? (1) we’ll fry in several hundred millions years, (3) glaciation in 50,000 years, (6) don’t know, (7) decrease of perhaps 0.1 degrees, (8) probably negligible, but it would be beneficial if I’m wrong on this [warm is better than cold]. The biggest unknown is (0) how all these changes will interact non-linearly.
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:22 am
……
I will agree with your comment to the extent that I have now added it to the web-page.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
with the attribution.
Jim Braiden says: “My apologies- this is pretty much off topic but I wonder if anyone could tell me what might the effect be on the temperature record since 1995 if the El Nino spike of 1998 was removed? Yes- having an argument and need some help :)”
We’ll look at sea surface temperature anomalies because land surface air temperatures simply mimic and exaggerate the short- and long-term variations in sea surface temperatures.
For the East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W), which covers about 33% of the surface of the global oceans, the 1997/98 El Nino does nothing more than add a spike to the sea surface temperature anomalies. Since the sea surface temperatures for the East Pacific haven’t warmed in 31 years, removing the 1997/98 El Nino would not cause much of a change:
http://i47.tinypic.com/24v7khg.jpg
On the other hand, for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans (90S-90N, 80W-180), the massive volume of warm water released by the 1997/98 El Niño caused an upward shift in the sea surface temperature anomalies of about 0.19 deg C:
http://i49.tinypic.com/29le06e.jpg
As you can see in that graph, the same things (upward shifts in response to the massive volumes of warm water released by El Niños) happened, to a lesser extent, in response to the 1986/87/88 and 2009/10 El Niño events. Therefore, without the 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events, the sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans would show no warming:
http://oi47.tinypic.com/jzw3np.jpg
The graphs are from my essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (pdf 42MB):
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
Anthony, sorry about that. Didn’t know the below:
Dr Norman Page says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Leif I note with some satisfaction that you didn’t disagree with the 20th century Ap – lagged temperature correlations.
Do I need to point out every little flaw? For example the decrease in the 1960s, that followed the strongest solar cycle we know off [in the 1950s]…
I dont know where you assembled the Ap data from .Is there some difference between the 19th and 20th century Ap data base?
The basic data is from http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf updated with newer data back to 1844 and expressed in terms of Ap which is what more people are used to work with. See also http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf The bottom line is that the 19th century is not significantly less active than the 20th.
Take a look at the Dye3 and NGrip ice core 10Be flux data for the 19th century. Eyeballing it it would seem a better fit to the NH temperature data but doesnt look much like your Ap numbers.
Note that the NGrip data shows a strong solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays, e.g. slide 31 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf telling us that solar activity has not come to a halt during the Maunder Minimum. Also the 10Be data are themselves depending on climate, e.g. a quote from the Berggren paper you referred to: “Combined snow pit 10Be measurements and local weather data covering almost a year at Law Dome, Antarctica, indicate that ~30% of short term 10Be variability is related to meteorological factors [Pedro et al., 2006]. The Law Dome site is, like Greenland, dominated by wet deposition.” and “We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
The geomagnetic data are directly measured at the surface and must always take precedence over a much more indirect proxy. If there are any difference, the problem is with the indirect proxies. There is a glaring problem with the cosmic ray data in the 1890s which is unresolved, but which is being investigated at an ongoing Workshop: see e.g. Figure 2 ofhttp://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf and the discussion of Figures 14 and 15 in http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm
I will agree with your comment to the extent that I have now added it to the web-page.
Whether you agree with facts is not relevant. Your added comment is misleading in the extreme as you omitted to mention that those variations are short-lived [days] and have nothing to do with the main field and its secular variation. You could show some honesty by including my comment in full.
” – eg Solar Magnetic Sield strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,” near the bottom of the 1st section should be Magnetic Field strength.
Can’t we just start calling it “Man-Made Global Cooling” now?
I thank the Creator for solar cycle 24 minimum every day. Certain people just have to learn their lesson the hard way.
There is a glaring problem with the cosmic ray data in the 1890s which is unresolved, but which is being investigated at an ongoing Workshop: see e.g. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
“Rud Istvan says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:12 am
Being right for the wrong reasons is not the same as being right. Positive feedbacks (first derivative equivalent) only create an unstable system if the second derivative equivalent is positive. If it is negative, the system damps to a new higher equilibrium.”
Question on this. It makes sense for a feedback like water vapor by itself but does it still apply when the positive feedbacks are supposedly coming from so many sources? (water vapor, CO2, methane, clouds, albedo. etc).
Once you ignore the facts (truth) and throw logic out the door to protect your theory you have entered dangerous territory. It is only a matter of time before the castle collapses. Sadly and tragically, billions of dollars later!
lsvalgaard says: February 20, 2013 at 1:55 pm
……….
I quoted only the accurate bit., for the rest :
1. Earth’s magnetic variability is not too small, it amounts to about 25% of the total variability on the century scale.
2.Variability shown in the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
is as short/long term as much is the sunspot magnetic cycle is a short/long term variability.
If you look at the above graph (green line) you can observe that Earth’s field is increasing intensity for about 11 years, then falling for further 11 years (in relation to the 22 year average), making it about 22 year cycle in total, following the trend of the sunspot cycle.
You say “few days”, by any measure few days can not equate 22 years, hence you must be either wrong or misinformed.
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 2:48 pm
I quoted only the accurate bit., for the rest :
nonsense. E.g. that the variability of 25% of the variability. Your learning problem still dominates.
There is another issue with Figure 2-20 from the AR4 WG1 report, apart from the near absence of the natural factors. The range of uncertainty is contrived.
Adding up mid-points of the positive forcings (CO2, CH4 etc.) gives 3.17 Wm-2. Summing the low values gives 2.64 Wm-2 and high values gives 3.90 Wm-2.
(3.90-2.64)*100/3.17 = 40%.
Adding up mid-points of the negative forcings (Aerosols) gives -1.45 Wm-2. Summing the low values gives -3.25 Wm-2 and high values gives -0.35 Wm-2.
(-3.25+0.35)*100/-1.45 = 200%.
Try moving any figure by 0.01 and the percentages do not round so nicely. Check for yourselves.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/03/forcings-hansen-et-al-2000-v-unipcc-2007/
The alarm bell in this piece is ‘There are some good correlations’. You can’t do that by eye: there needs to be a neutral process to identify if your theory works. I don’t care if I’m talking dirty, you need a MODEL which is built from data in one period, correctly hindcasts the history of a subsequent period, and then, and only then, can we start to worry about what it says about the future. Not doing that is the whole problem with CAGW…
lsvalgaard says: February 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm
……
If it helps:
Amplitude of geomagnetic 22 year cycle shown in the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
is about 25% of the total geomagnetic change on one century scale, as it is very clearly shown in here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm (top graph)
Conclusion: it is not too small, and it is not ‘few days’.
You are either wrong or misinformed.
To celebrate this article The World Match Play Golf Championship in the Arizona desert was suspended due to snow earlier today.
Nature has a sense of humour!
manicbeancounter says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm
The range of uncertainty is contrived. Adding up mid-points of the positive forcings (CO2, CH4 etc.) gives 3.17 Wm-2. Summing the low values gives 2.64 Wm-2 and high values gives 3.90 Wm-2. (3.90-2.64)*100/3.17 = 40%.
That is not how uncertainties should be calculated. See e.g. here: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys273/uncert/uncert.html#fraction
I watched ‘Little Ice Age, Big Chill’ again a week or so ago. They claim a .5% decrease in TSI is all it too to kick off the LIA. If we’re ~1365 now, .5% lower is only 1358.
Having said that, we really need to see some definitive cooling, not just non-warming, relatively soon or we are not going to look very smart….
( please pardon the reformatting, but that reply was particularly substantive and deserves clarity, clearly both you and Mosher must use the same software 🙂
Since we are talking about “climate” and not the distant future end-game of the solar system, I would think that (#2) and (#3) belong right at the top. Indeed they work together with infinite possible permutations, so many that their positions and resultant conditions can never exactly repeat. That goes pretty much the same for (#3) taken by itself. Milankovitch and quasi-Milankovitch orbital parameters, specifically axial tilt variation, Earth orbit eccentricity (elliptical vs circular), seasonal precession combinations all look repetitious and predictable, but just as you mention Jupiter, it’s effect (and others like the moon) result from infinite possible permutations of their locations (i.e., each snapshot we take of current orbital locations has never actually occurred before, each day is completely new and unique).
If we are going to be wasting massive computer power on anything it should be on this very subject, plotting everything we know about all the orbits and sub-details of all heavenly bodies (axial tilt, etc), both backward and forward in time. Similar effort should be expended with computer plotting of continental movement (and related sub-details like mantle, crust, core, etc) forward and backward in time. These two categories, (#2) and (#3) and how they interact is where all the real action is (well probably 99% of it anyway), not in CO2 concentration and other childish distractions. We knew this 50 years ago before pop-Science reared its ugly head.
One possible addition to the first list is impact events, though I doubt we can say exactly where it belongs. But the 65 MYA event certainly altered climate for some time.
On the 2nd list, I’m with you except for the certainty of stating “glaciation in 50,000 years”, which is way too definitive to say the least. Maybe “glaciation in no later than 50,000 years”, but not something with that degree of certainty. Since the cause of Younger Dryas is still lying out there under a great big question mark, this particular subject should carry a great big red flag. Furthermore, stating it as certain in 50,000 years only serves to supply the AGW kooks with a talking point, that “we’re warming way ahead of schedule” or something like that. We know only a fraction of what we need to know before we can make these statements.
One problem with your theory, solar variation has only been around 0.1–0.2% for the last 2000 years.
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:23 pm
If it helps…
It does not help. There is no such variation and the sun doesn’t have any either.
Figure 2 should tell it all and stop it all. But it hasn’t. Actually, Tamino et al claim that the observations match Scenario B.
I must be missing something about how lines compare.
Weird, or what?
Any idea when we are going to hear from Kirkby, et al at CERN. I thought they were coming out with a second paper about a year after the first. What gives?
I’m ready for a WWF match between Svalgaard and Svensmark. Anthony, can you get us a ring?
“Once again we get a thread in which every opinion is wrong except those of Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who insists that…um…well, actually I’m not sure what he insists, other than than everyone else is always wrong. Say, Dr. Svalgaard, could you point us to a document you wrote that tells us what you think is driving the climate and where it is headed from here?”
Not to put a harsh edge on it, but the comment above is often how proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming treat skeptics. I don’t think it helps. Dr. Svalgaard takes a good bit of time answering questions on this blog and we are all more knowledgeable for it, even when we disagree.
As an engineer who works with quite a few young people I often find myself saying, “I don’t necessarily know the right answer, but I know the one you just gave me is wrong.” I say this so often eyes immediately start rolling and they walk away frustrated, but most of the time they come back with the right answer.
Just because a person understands an answer to be incomplete or wrong, doesn’t mean they have to know the right one.
If, as I understand it, the planet has a several million year history of around 100k year glacial periods interrupted by 15-20k warm interglacial periods, and we are now 15k or so into the current interglacial, why will glaciation not begin to occur sooner than 50k? According to Wiki the Holocene begins with the current interglacial. What happened other than the advent of human dominance of the planet that signaled the end of the Pleistocene? When I look at the list that Leif provided and where he ranked human activity it would seem that some of us humans are arrogant enough to say we’re in charge here and the laws of physics that rule the universe don’t matter.
Leif,
I note that volcanism and extraterrestrial originating impacts are not specificaly listed in your factors of potential importance to climate. No effects in your opinion or just didn’t make the cut on degree of importance in your list? Either could, of course, affect others that are on your list. Otherwise, good list and in particular the point that we do not yet know their complex relationships at this time.
Rud Istvan says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:12 am
“Positive feedbacks (first derivative equivalent) only necessarily create an unstable system if the second derivative equivalent is positive semi-definite.”
There is always an overarching negative feedback from radiation which, being proportional to temperature to the 4th power, is very powerful. But, that is insufficient on its own to ensure that the system is locally stable. And, positive internal feedbacks tend to make systems more variable, potentially even erratic. Pace the current memes floating around in the compliant media, there is no compelling evidence that weather patterns are becoming substantially more variable. Quite the contrary, we appear to be living in a fairly quiescent era.
Let’s take a look at some data and construct a toy model with history which, like the modern Earth, is generally well-behaved. This plot shows that CO2 obeys a relationship of the form
d/dt(CO2) = k*Ta
where CO2 is the delta-concentration, Ta is temperature anomaly relative to a particular baseline, and k is a coupling constant greater than zero. Let us suppose that
d/dt(Ta) = -a*Ta + b*CO2
where a is the radiation sensitivity and b, according to the IPCC and the basic GHE, is positive. However, it is elementary to show that, if b is greater than zero, then Ta is not locally stable. Unless the parameters change very rapidly with operating condition, the region of instability will be fairly large. Consider it unlikely that they would. It follows that the overall sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 on this toy planet goes beyond the basic GHE, and is net zero or even negative.
How much does this toy planet resemble the Earth, in all its complexity? I believe reasonably closely to draw likely conclusions.
Jim G says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:54 pm
I note that volcanism and extraterrestrial originating impacts are not specificaly listed in your factors of potential importance to climate.
Volcanism is in point (4). Impacts can ruin the day, of course, but are rather unpredictable, so I did not include them as something we can model.
actuatort says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:48 pm
why will glaciation not begin to occur sooner than 50k?
Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years: Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). “Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?”. Science 297 (5585): 1287–8. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
While I agree with most of the points made and the article’s reasoning, I think it would be less subject to being used as an example of non-AGW-alarmist ignorance if the assertion “systems with total positive feed back are not stable” were to be quantified. It is systems with positive feedback where the loop gain exceeds 1 that are unstable. Positive loop gain below that value has the effect of increasing gain with respect to specific inputs, but does not produce instability.
Larry Brasfield says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm
That is the small gain theorem, and it assumes the plant is open loop stable, i.e., that there is a dominant negative feedback stabilizing the system – a loop gain of unity determines the dividing line between dominant and subordinate. So, if the phrase “total positive feedback” is interpreted as “dominant positive feedback”, he would be correct.
The question is, if you have a positive feedback, what is the dominating negative feedback which stabilizes it? As I showed with an example above above, there may not be a known mechanism available which easily can.
The other GHGs, principally H2O, are thought to have the same relationship to temperature as CO2: as temperature rises, H2O in the atmosphere increases. If increasing H2O also increases the temperature, you have a very powerful positive feedback cycle going on. But, this is not possible based on the stable history, so there is clearly a flaw in the thinking. The assumption that the local sensitivity of temperature to these GHGs is positive appears to be very problematic.
Back on the discussion Willis Eschenbach’s “steel shell” analogy to the GHE, I showed that, because increasing the thickness of the shell increases the radiating area to space and decreases the radiating area to the ground, it generally decreases the surface temperature from what it would be with a thinner shell. I suspect there is something like that going on which actually prevents the local sensitivity of temperature to increasing GHGs from being overall positive. That still allows a global GHE which warms the surface above what it would be without the GHGs, but it has a natural limit, beyond which one gets diminishing, and even negative, returns.
Leif,
I read your post twice but did not see the volcanism in there but that aside, I suspect that volcanism and impacts, due to their irregular and unpredictable nature, may be two of the causes for climate to be not only nonlinear but actually perhaps chaotic in nature causing predictability of even the best of “models”, of which we have none at present, to be poor at best. Only the Milankovitch cycles seem to be somewhat “regular” on the grossest basis and longer term time scales. In any event, homo sapiens sapiens has little or nothing causal to do with any of it.
Jim G says:
February 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
I read your post twice but did not see the volcanism in there
“(4) greenhouse gases [massive volcanic emissions, e.g. the Deccan Traps]”
It is in bold now. Next time it will be with CAPITAL letters 🙂
Only the Milankovitch cycles seem to be somewhat “regular”
The future behavior of the Sun is the best known of all [stellar evolution is highly successful because we have literally billions of examplars to compare the theory with]. But as you say, at this point in time we can’t do anything about it.
Leif: A quick digression back to the Meteorite hit. I feel we were lucky that the Meteorite approached off center and so travelled horizontally, or slightly less than, extending the time it was in the atmosphere where molecules could whither it down. Had it hit perpendicularly, it may have made it to ground relatively with less whithering. Had it hit the ocean in such a scenario, super cavitation might play a role perhaps, until it hit the ocean floor even (maybe?). The size of the resulting Toon Army needs to be determined, if there is a role of supercavitation in such a vertical descent into the ocean, and what can be done in the event a inbound perpendicular collision is imminent, known, and forcasted.
johnnythelowery says:
February 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm
a vertical descent into the ocean, and what can be done in the event a inbound perpendicular collision is imminent, known, and forcasted.
Head for higher ground …
“Also, what current physical science fundamentals are barriers to the possibility that sensitivity to doubling CO2 could be found through more open research thinking to be zero or negative?”
well, basic physics.
People get very confused about this,partly because of IPCC talk
What is climate sensitivity?
“Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing.
Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so”
Lets translate. climate is a system. that system takes WATTS as an input and we then measure the response in temperature. This is just one metric. Lets consider another system, your car. It takes horsepower as a input and delivers speed– measured in miles per hour. same basic thing: system response to a forcing.
Note this: it is a GENERAL PROPERTY of the system. What’s that mean? that means when we talk about sensitivity we are talking about the response in temperature to ANY change in radiative forcing. So if the sun increases by one watt you see a change in temperature.
If we could hold all other forcing constant and change the watts of the sun by 1 watt and hold it steady for over a century, we could then measure the sensitivity by looking at Delta C. We cant do controlled experiments on the climate. CLimate science is observational. Like astronomy.
Its this fact that allows people to estimate sensitivity by looking at the cooling caused by volcanoes: Volcanos cool. thats a change in watts. look at the change in C. utterly independent of C02.. because sensitivity is a system response to any change in Watts.
see:
Wigley, T.M.L., et al., 2005. Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, doi:10.1029/2004JD005557.
But the approach of estimating sensitivity from volcanos is not without its challenges, covered here
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2007-11/ce0711151415Boer.pdf
The TAKEAWAY point is this: sensitivity is a measure of the system response to a change in forcing. Period. The other take away point is that it is hard to estimate. But, we know that its a positive number. If you increase watts then the temperature response is UP not down.
So other things to know. There are multiple forcing occuring at the same time. Lets take you car. You apply a horsepower force. Well, you have to overcome inertia before you get MPH. And if you have counter forces, like wind in your face, you can see that your speed is effected. Imagine a huge wind that drove you backwards IN SPITE of the horsepower. Well, you net forces were negative. That doesnt mean that horsepower isnt a positive
Some other things: some forcings might change as a function of speed. So take a drag force against your car moving forward. its a function of velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics). And lastly we must note that forcing dont take effect in an instant. If you apply yaw force to a jet ski it turns instantly. Apply a yaw force to an oil tanker. It turns more slowly. So, you might calculate a turn rate due to yaw force.
that would get you degrees per sec due to a side force.
Because we cant do controlled experiments we estimate sensitivity by measuring changes in T and measuring changes in Watts. This is typically done with observations, primarliy paleo observations, but also with modern records. The big issue is : uncertainty in measurements and uncertainty in inertia. The uncertainty in inertia is important because you need to understand that the full effect of the forcing can take time: think about that oil tanker. The uncertaiity in iinertia comes down to how much heat gets stored in the ocean. See the presentation above. The takeaway is this: There is a large range of estimates for sensitivity because of the uncertainty in the measurements
Farley 2008 is a good example of HOW this calculation is done.
“… examine the change in temperature and solar forcing between glaciation (ice age) and interglacial (no ice age) periods. The change in temperature, revealed in ice core samples, is 5 °C, while the change in solar forcing is 7.1 W/m2. The computed climate sensitivity is therefore 5/7.1 = 0.7 K(W/m2)−1.”
So the figure for climate sensitivity is .7 that means a one watt change equals a ride in temps of .7C over time. Now, you can argue with the exact figures the point of this is to clarify the MEANING of sensitivity. You can argue that sensitivity varies with temperature ( like drag varies with speed ).. but the fundamental point is to understand WHAT the metric means. change in C per change in Watts — ANY WATTS.
Or you could take the change in temps since 1750 approximately 1.5C and the change in
forcing of about 2.5 watts and get .6. Obviously, you can debate the numerator
and the denominator.. but you should get the picture of the math. Change in Temp divided by Change in forcing.
And what do we know. we know its not zero. If you increase watts, we get warmer. yes some ups and downs, yes it can cool if watts are stored for a period in the ocean, but in the end the energy has to balance out. And yes, it could be non linear.. all possible.
Now comes the confusing part and climate science has not helped itself here.
MOST of the talk about sensitivity is talk about the sensitivity to a doubling of C02.
What the heck is that?
When you increase C02 you increase the forcing. This is radiative physics. The physics used by spencer and christy. the physics used by IR detector folks. The physics created for the defense of our country. This is measured. This physics works. We build stuff based on this physics. When you double c02 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm you produce extra watts.
3.7 watts to be exact. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering. That is why skeptics who work in this field ( related to radiative physics ) don’t question 3.7 watts.
They use that physics day in and day out.
So how do you get to a sensitivity due to doubling? simple 3.7 * .7 = 2.6C per doubling.
That is just an example of the math
If you want a LOWER bound on sensitivity just use ~.35 that is the instantaneous or Planck sensitivity parameter. Thats what you know from first principles.
Whats that tell a skeptic? focus on sensitivity not C02. you wont get anywhere challenging radiative physics. Go to Lucia’s and try. You’ll find skeptical scientists who will set you straight. Or listen to lindzen and christy monkton and spencer. C02 ads forcing. 3.7 watts for doubling: the KEY is the sensitivity figure.. you want a science debate? you want to know where the uncertainity lies? Not in the forcing of C02. it lies in the figure for sensitivity. That is estimated by observations of temperature change and changes in forcing AND in heat storage. That implies another set of areas to look at
1. Estimates for temperature change. see anthony. see mcintyre
2. Estimates for TOTAL forcings..
there are many forcings and many uncertainties. See leif!
3. arguments that the sensitivity parameter is a function of temperature/ location. see some
consensus scientists!
Bottomline: as a skeptic it makes no sense to attack radiative physics. That is the solid part of the case. Second, you can get some leverage by looking at the accuracy of temperature observations ( in paleo) and by looking at the accounting of forcings. argument #3 is rather complex and you actually need to invoke models to make a case– a Good case.
So the sensitivity to doubling C02 cant be zero and cant be negative. It can only be zero if c02 forcing is 0 or sensitivity is 0. we know from engineering that doubling gives us 3.7Watts. The only escape from that is the door to the looney bin. Thus, response to 3.7 watts can only be zero if sensitivity is zero. That is, if turning out the sun had no effect.
pretty simple. For sensitivity to be negative Up would have to be down.
HTH
Leif Svalgaard says
Well, the Gleissberg ‘cycle’ is claimed to be in sunspot numbers, but it clearly not there (SIC) http://sidc.be/html/wolfaml.html
What you (i.e. Henry) are looking at (i.e. I am looking at MAXIMA) is irrelevant as far as the existence of a Gleissberg cycle in sunspot numbers.
HENRY SAYS
it seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes. Attempts have been made to explain 20th century global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variation associated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, ……
end quote
again, I say:
It appears at least one attempt did not fail, albeit that maybe I am a lone voice ?,
I have been able to confirm this, by looking purely at maximum temps:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Looking at the data from Anchorage (graph below) every place on earth is on its own sine wave (A-C curve). probably depending a lot on the exact composition of substances on the top of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, I have showed a few times that I can correlate the flooding of the Nile exactly with the 40-50 years period of warming (= minimum flooding at the end) that is followed by the 40-50 years of cooling (=maximum flooding at the end) that are apparent within this 88 year solar/weather cycle.
Never mind Leif, I am sure Dr. Norman Page and some others here agree with me that we can expect further cooling until about 2038 – give or take a few years either way- ?
The objective of a murder crime scene investigation (CSI) is to find evidence and logic that there was murder and that a specific individual committed the murder.
The pattern of the late 20 th century warming does not match the predicted pattern if the cause of the majority of the late 20 th century warming was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. James Hansen and the other extreme AGW paradigm pushes have stated that the time to discuss science is over, as the science (observations and logical analysis) does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis.
If the increase in atmospheric CO2 was responsible for the majority of the late 20th century warming, the warming would have occurred high in the troposphere over the tropics which would have caused the tropics to warm and the warming would have correlate with the CO2 rise. That is not what is observed.
Compared to the 1960 to 1970 baseline the tropics cooled slightly, there was no statistically significant warming in the Southern hemisphere, and the high latitude regions of the Northern hemisphere warmed. That peculiar warming pattern has occurred before and matches the warming that occurs during periods of high solar magnetic cycle activity.
An observation or prediction to support the assertion that the majority of the late 20 th century warming has due to the sun would be significant cooling, particularly in high latitude regions of Arctic, due to the cycle 24 magnetic cycle slowdown. (i.e. If the warming is reversible, the late 20th century warming has not due to atmospheric CO2 rise.) It appears the cooling has started. (In the past there was a 10 to 12 delay in cooling when there was a change from a very active solar magnetic cycle to a Maunder minimum. There is a physical reason for the delay in cooling. )
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climatic record. There are cosmogenic isotope changes which are known to be caused by solar magnetic cycle changes that correlate with the past cyclic warming and cooling periods. The past warming and cooling cycles in the paleoclimate record require a physical explanation.
The physical explanation is solar magnetic cycle changes, not increases or decreases in atmospheric CO2. (There is no physical mechanism to have cause atmospheric CO2 in the past to increase or crease cyclically.) The reason Mann cherry picked the tree data to write the Hockey stick paper has to remove the medieval warm period. The hockey stick paper does not change the physical fact that there was a medieval warm period and a little ice age.
The above assertion is not a surprise. There are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when CO2 was high and the planet was cold and periods when CO2 was low and the planet was warm.
Analysis of satellite top of the atmosphere radiation data Vs changes in ocean surface temperature indicates the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change rather than amplify the change. It appears the CO2 warming mechanism saturates, it is overridden by other atmospheric processes which enable the planet to regulate planetary temperature by increasing or decreasing planetary cloud cover and the heat that is transported vertically in the atmosphere due to water vapor evaporation and condensation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
Observations show there are major flaws in the extreme AGW hypothesis:
1. The missing heat is not in the ocean 8 – 14
2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space 15 -17
3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – 31
4. louds cool the planet as it warms 38 – 56
5. he models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. 63- 64
6. ight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C 66
7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. 70
8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. 71
9. It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2. (See also failures of hockey sticks) The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones?
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
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 a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation … …we show that including all CERES data (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 heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. … ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling.
HenryP says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:03 pm
it seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study
Over the last 400 years where we have good records, there has not been an 88-yr solar long cycle, but it has been a 107-yr cycle. So, it is irrelevant what period was over thousands of years as far a explaining the current situation.
William Astley says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:05 pm
The physical explanation is solar magnetic cycle changes
Except that that explanation is falsified by the data, e.g. solar activity now is what it was a little more than a century ago, while the climate is not.
Dr Svalgaard, thank you for your excellent response to Matt Skaggs.I am hoping you will not mind if I post this elsewhere. It is a clear description of what changes the earths climate. Thank You again.
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm
There is no such variation and the sun doesn’t have any either.
You would be surprised what is in them data.
I nearly finished a short article, with irrefutable evidence, will email you a copy.
dalyplanet says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:49 pm
I am hoping you will not mind if I post this elsewhere
Of course not. Please do. I’m glad my comment was helpful.
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:58 pm
You would be surprised what is in them data.
Sagan is on the mark again: “Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge” [Carl Sagan].
dalyplanet says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:49 pm
I am hoping you will not mind if I post this elsewhere
Of course not. Please do. I’m glad my comment was helpful.
leif says
Over the last 400 years where we have good records, there has not been an 88-yr solar long cycle, but it has been a 107-yr cycle. So, it is irrelevant what period was over thousands of years as far a explaining the current situation.
henry says
please read what they say:
For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years.
henry says
forget about the SSN. The 107 year does not fit my data on maximum temps.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The Gleissberg weather cycle could be due to a combination of factors and/or cycles, some of them may be solar and some not.
Henry@Steven Mosher
It seems you never considered the way how most of the energy from the sun actually arrives on earth.
It happens by UV and other short wave radiation smashing through the atmosphere and slamming into the oceans. Because water has absorbency in the UV region all that radiation is immediately converted to heat. Because this radiation is so intense, it brings the top layers of water to boiling, at 1 atm, causing evaporation, hence the formation of water vapor/clouds/rain.
PS
@Steven Mosher
I think there is also absorbency of water in some of the IR regions, so if there is, this IR would also be converted to heat in the water in addition to the amount of shortwave coming through where water has absorbency.
HenryP says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:08 pm
please read what they say
Makes no difference as there has been no ~90-yr period the last 400 years, but a 107-yr period.
forget about the SSN. The 107 year does not fit my data on maximum temps
So ‘your’ data has nothing to do with the Sun, as you acknowledge.
It happens by UV and other short wave radiation smashing through the atmosphere and slamming into the oceans.
No, most of the UV and all of even shorter wavelengths are absorbed very high in the atmosphere and don’t make it to the surface and the oceans.
vukcevic says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:58 pm
I nearly finished a short article, with irrefutable evidence
If it cannot be refuted, i.e. is not falsifiable, it is not science.
I will email you a copy.
Better, yet, submit it as a post here on WUWT.
HenryP says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:08 pm
……..
Henry
For C14 nucleation the Earth’s field is far stronger modulator than the sun:
Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2420
Leif says
So ‘your’ data has nothing to do with the Sun, as you acknowledge.
&
No, most of the UV and all of even shorter wavelengths are absorbed very high in the atmosphere and don’t make it to the surface and the oceans.
Henry says
for your info: “my” data are here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I would think that my evaluation of maxima has a lot to do with what UV and IR is coming through the atmosphere, ends up in the water, mostly, then provides heat from (H2O) condensation to the atmosphere, and then filters to our measuring instruments in the stations where we measure temperature.
Co-coincidentally (although personally I believe it was design), the ozone & others concentration on TOA is much lower in the SH (where most of the water on earth is)
You and ANYONE on this blog are most welcome to try and plot the speed of warming/cooling for maxima from my data quoted above in anything else but the 88 year A-C curve that eventually ended up with:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Thanks.
CO2 has zero input into temperature, though there is a correlation between past ice ages and high atmospheric CO2 content but correlation is not proof of causation. There can be no positive feedback with the so called GHG’s. CO2 does react to radiation, it adsorbs energy and immediately emits energy at a reduced level whilst increasing its internal kinetic energy ie. it gets warmer. But it has no other properties ascribed to it to be called a GHG. Water vapour has one property important in heat transfer. It can store heat as latent heat to be released on condensing to cloud etc. This mechanism transfers heat from the surface to height and the released heat is radiated to space. A cooling mechanism!. A negative feedback.
Steven Mosher says:
February 20, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Steve, We can’t control it for a century, but we do get exactly what we need every day. The Sun goes down every night, and the ratio of night to day changes, every day. But because someone wanted to hide this, we’ve been stuck with annualized data that destroys this relationship.
Here’s that relationship. This graph is tonight’s average night time cooling subtracted from today’s average day time warming times 100 for North of 23 Lat. This is the sensitivity to the daily change in the difference in incoming Watt’s vs outgoing Watts as the length of day changes as the season progress. Daily Sensitivity in ΔT. I calculated the diff for each stations day rise and following night fall in temp, then averaged diff from all the stations in a specified area. This graph is based on some 80 Million station samples. You see the annualized versions of this here. The take away from the annualized version is that even though T Rise and T Fall are different everyday, over the year their average is almost identical to each other. While the magnitude of each does vary slightly from the 40-50’s to 2010 they have stayed almost the same, there’s been no change to this from Co2, Also Diff has no trend over those decades.
While it might change forcing by 3.7 watts, as you can see from above it’s not effecting night time temperature drop, and if up measure the temp of the over head sky in IR while there’s low humidity, in my driveway my sky on a 1.5C day with clear skies, it measures something less than -40C, this -40C is after adding what about 1-2 watts so far?
You can also see this in the station data if you select for high pressure, low wind speeds, low humidity, and large and fairly equal T Rise and T Fall, there are a few hundred days under these conditions where the daily temp swing is +/- 40F, over twice the daily average.
So, when you select for low humidity, even if there’s is a 3.7 watt increase, it’s effect on surface temps is insignificant.
If though you alter surface records homogenizing them, and solve just for annual temperature, all of this information is lost.
Once again there is no significant global warming and no significant ice melting. Currently they are both “normal” see relevant graphs etc… LOL
Steven Mosher says:
February 20, 2013 at 9:23 pm
““… examine the change in temperature and solar forcing between glaciation (ice age) and interglacial (no ice age) periods”
You are of course referring to surface insolation not TSI. What I do not see in your post is the cause and effect of insolation changes due to the climate system reacting to any increase in watts. If an increase of watts causes more clouds to form then insolation will decrease and the temperature will also decrease. As everyone knows when standing in direct sunlight your skin has a certain temperature. By moving into shade that temperature drops due to decreased insolation on your skin. So while an increase in watts will add energy to the system, the system can react to decrease the effect of that energy, and after all, isn’t that what we seek as an end result: the actual climate that results from all the interactions of the forcings? I am not convinced how any computer model can be programmed to take all these complex interactions and variations into account ACCURATELY enough to predict anything close to reality.
Steven Mosher says
When you increase C02 you increase the forcing. This is radiative physics. The physics used by spencer and christy. the physics used by IR detector folks. The physics created for the defense of our country. This is measured. This physics works. We build stuff based on this physics. When you double c02 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm you produce extra watts.
3.7 watts to be exact. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering. That is why skeptics who work in this field ( related to radiative physics ) don’t question 3.7 watts.
Henry says
I have been looking at this for a number of years as my hobby and I still do not know how that 3.7 was arrived at. As far as I remember AR4, when I studied it, what they actually did, is, to measure the amount of warming that took place from 1750 and compared it with all the increases in GHG’s + some other known increases in forcings, since 1750, and then attributed a figure of warming for each GHG (except water!)/ by way of a weighting process.
This is actually the worst mistake a scientist can make: assuming you know the cause of a problem and then trying to work your way back trying to find an “answer” (figure= 3.7). This was considered perfectly reasonable – at the time – as it was clear that everyone knew (from Al Gore and them) that temps. were increasing as a result of more CO2. It seemed that nobody realized that there are also giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans, and, as any chemistry student knows: the first smoke what you see when you boil the water in a kettle is the CO2 gas coming out:
HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-
So more heat causes more CO2. More CO2 does not necessarily cause more warmth. You still have to prove that. Seeing as that the IPCC did not do that:
Perhaps you (as a firm believer in the “physics” of this) could provide me with that balance sheet (from the IPCC?) that I have been looking for all these 3 years? In the right dimensions, please, as requested here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Perhaps you should read it one day and get a bit wiser.
(remember the unwritten rules of the blog here: if you do not answer it is assumed you admit to being wrong or having been wrong)
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm
No, Leif–I call your incessant bluff; I simply asked a question and got a useless answer. You see, the synonyms for “concede” include: “grant, give in, admit, allow, give up, compromise, and forfeit” (the antonym is “maintain”) but doesn’t include “assume” at all–you made that up.
So you are obviously the one who has difficulty with English, but that’s common for someone who is intollerant of others because they think they know it all. I can see why you have difficulty conveying your message with the nasty approach you generally use–a good “bedside manner” isn’t one of your forte’s.
lsvalgaard says:
William Astley says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:05 pm
The physical explanation is solar magnetic cycle changes
“Except that that explanation is falsified by the data, e.g. solar activity now is what it was a little more than a century ago, while the climate is not.”
Given that the relationship between causal variables and climate is nonlinear (and possibly even chaotic) in nature, pointing out that any given potential causal variable does not correlate well at one, or even several, given data points in time with the climate is not a valid disproof of that variable’s ability to influence climate. Where most seem to go off the deep end is in ignoring all of the other variables in an attempt to come up with a simple answer resulting in only simple minded answers.
I would also suggest a look at The oceans as a calorimeter with a link to his peer-reviewed paper.
Dr. Niv Shaviv, a physics professor carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics, says in his article:
In his other article Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? Dr. Shaviv
RockyRoad says:
February 21, 2013 at 6:47 am
the synonyms for “concede” include: “grant, give in, admit, allow, give up, compromise, and forfeit” (the antonym is “maintain”) but doesn’t include “assume” at all–you made that up.
The use of ‘concede’ implies that you assume that I admit to a belief [which I don’t hold in the first place, so that assumption is false]. But, as far as I am concerned, your assumptions really don’t matter. I have explained myself sufficiently.
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:03 am
variable does not correlate well at one, or even several, given data points in time with the climate is not a valid disproof of that variable’s ability to influence climate
The shoe is on the other foot: if you claim a causal relationship you have to show that there is one, preferably with a plausible mechanism.
One of the criticisms of warmists is that solar activity does not march in lock step with temperature all the time. (They over look the same problem with CO2)
Gerald Roe pointed out one of the problems and the solution in the paper In defense of Milankovitch (see article)
The University at Buffalo scientists addressed another correlation problem.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:10 am
These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years
This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]. As Berggren et al. point out: “Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [the last 600 years]” in http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
Other recent work on solar activity reaches the same conclusion: e.g. slide 27 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Cliver6.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
so perhaps it is time to retire that meme.
Steven Mosher;
Note this: it is a GENERAL PROPERTY of the system. What’s that mean? that means when we talk about sensitivity we are talking about the response in temperature to ANY change in radiative forcing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steven, this statement is dead wrong and the rest of your explanation that follows it is wrong as a result. A change in radiative forcing from the sun changes the amount of energy input to the system. A change in radiative forcing from CO2 changes the amount of energy being put into the system by precisely ZERO. In the case of CO2, the change is in terms of WHERE in the system energy is concentrated at any given time. A change in forcing from CO2 CANNOT be directly extrapolated to surface temperatures.
THAT is standard physics. As documented by the IPCC, as explained in discussions between me and scientists as diverse as rgbatduke, richardscourtney and joel shore. If you won’t take my word for it then please, get in touch with one of them and get your physics straightened out.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. You have taken the full measure of the uncertainty monster, I see.
And as for Mark Cates’ comment, your guess that I am a stealth warmist is well wide of the mark. As a fellow engineer, I tend to build logic trees around fact-based claims, and the logic tree for CAGW is big and messy and anthropogenic CO2 emissions is buried at the bottom of a minor branch. Dr. Svalgaard’s response to my question actually look a lot like the top level of that logic tree.
lsvalgaard says:
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:03 am
variable does not correlate well at one, or even several, given data points in time with the climate is not a valid disproof of that variable’s ability to influence climate
“The shoe is on the other foot: if you claim a causal relationship you have to show that there is one, preferably with a plausible mechanism.”
I then conclude that you are in agreement with those that believe that CO2 has NO influence upon climate, but is itself a result of climate fluctuations.
Baa Humbug says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:50 am
The only effect of increasing CO2 will be to ameliorate slightly the coming cold temperature trend
CO2 can do no such thing. CO2 is a coolant.
===========
correct. Without GHG only the surface can radiate energy to space to cool the planet. This requires that the surface warm so that incoming and outgoing energy match.
By adding GHG to the atmosphere, both the surface and atmosphere can radiate to space. The portion that the atmosphere radiates to space via GHG is thus removed from the surface, lowering the surface temperature.
Back radiation from GHG is thought to warm the surface. But what is ignored is that back radiation is only 1/2 of the story. GHG is radiating the same amount to space, which in the absence of GHG would need to be radiated to space by the surface. The surface can only increase the amount it radiates to space by warming, which means that GHG actually cools the surface.
This is why we have a lapse rate, why the atmosphere cools with altitude. Without GHG the atmosphere would warm with altitude, which is observed in the region above the GHG layers.
HenryP says:
February 21, 2013 at 5:34 am
(remember the unwritten rules of the blog here: if you do not answer it is assumed you admit to being wrong or having been wrong)
No, some stuff is simply not worth responding to.
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 8:07 am
I then conclude that you are in agreement with those that believe that CO2 has NO influence upon climate, but is itself a result of climate fluctuations.
Of course CO2 has some influence [as Mosh says ‘basic physics’], so believe it has NONE is silly [or worse]. The question is ‘how much’?. The same with the Sun. On time scales that we care about, both those influences are low enough that we shouldn’t panic or draw unwarranted conclusions.
Leif,
Ok, so talking about proof, send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
Gail Combs says (quoting dr S)
As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment.
Henry says
Hi Gail!
I think I must say that I doubt this.
Some may disagree on the best fit for my data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
but we still have to live with the actual results of my statistical analysis i.e. the -not so thin – blue line, here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
This blue line suggests we are cooling, globally, and a natural consequence of that would be some shift of condensation of water vapor (e.g. cloud formation/ precipitation) from higher latitudes to somewhat lower latitudes.
This is why I explained that places like England and Holland and Washington DC run opposite the wave, i.e get warmer. When earth is cooling globally: they get warmer. Without that increase in cloud cover they would have been cooler….
So, within a certain band of latitude (remember the flooding of the Nile?) you get more clouds in a cooling period, naturally. More people live at lower latitudes so they will hardly notice this “climate change” except for the more clouds, rain and snow. Places like Anchorage and others at high latitudes will really be cooling off quite a bit from now onward. (for results : see my tables quoted earlier on this post.
leif says
No, some stuff is simply not worth responding to.
henry
You lose. I win. As usual : let’s face it: you cannot even get one person on this blog to agree with you. You should actually maybe try to understand the things that I write.
henry@leif
are you Mosh?
(seeing that he behaves like you)
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:19 am
send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
I’ll send it for free. How would you see it? Hint: weigh the seemingly empty envelope.
How do you know that the star Sirius exists? By paying for shipping an ounce of Sirius matter all the 8.6 light years?
You will have to wait a bit too before becoming convinced that Sirius actually exists. How about from the Andromeda Galaxy?
HenryP says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:28 am
You lose. I win.
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
Leif I think it would be useful if participants in this discussion stopped using solar “activity” and instead referred separately to first the SSN (TSI) and then GCR , 10 Be or Ap data. The first measures what the sun is putting out while the latter measure the Iris effect of the clouds caused to a large extent by the changing solar magnetic field on incoming GCRs. To me there is little doubt that Shaviv is more or less right. The Iris effect seems to have the largest effect on climate. Look at Fig 3 and 4 above. As mentioned in my post there is a good general 20th century match allowing for the lag time. The 20th century peak on your red curve is at the Cycle 22 max and is the highest point on the entire chart.Look at the NGRIP data in the Berggren paper you referred to. The correlation of the high Be flux with the Maunder and Dalton minima is incontrovertible as is the Be low with the 18th century warmth from about 1730 on and the generally falling trend and low flux values in the 20th century. I dont know what the TSI was doing for much of time frame – but the percentage variation in TSI is much less than the variation in incoming GCRs which is why the latter is the controlling influence on climate at decadal,centennial and millenial time scales.
As you rightly point out the Ap number during the 23 /24 minimum in late 2009 was down to 1900 levels which is why I will make a testable prediction that by 2019 -20 NH temperatures could well be surprisingly cool perhaps even 0.8 below current levels – though that seems a shocking amount even to me.
leifS says
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
henry says
I don’t believe it. You are Steven Mosher…
REPLY: wrong Henry – its Leif, and he’s right – Anthony
HenryP;
let’s face it: you cannot even get one person on this blog to agree with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Henry,
I rarely comment on Leif’s remarks. But I frequently follow his links to verify his claims. I find little to disagree on with him once I’ve looked at his information in detail.
Henry@David
surely you must see that leif and steven always claim that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling – based on RADIATIVE PHYSICS – t€and hat EVERYONE must understand this, but when you ask for the proof i.e.the actual measurements from tests – you get no answers, other than:
You are rapidly moving into the ‘not worth to answer’ category.
You be the judge, David.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:55 am
I think it would be useful if participants in this discussion stopped using solar “activity” and instead referred separately to first the SSN (TSI) and then GCR , 10 Be or Ap data.
Since the solar magnetic field is what is responsible for variations in SSN, GCRs, 10Be, and Ap, these indices are not separate. They all move together.
The first measures what the sun is putting out while the latter measure the Iris effect of the clouds caused to a large extent by the changing solar magnetic field on incoming GCRs.
Since all solar indices are just manifestations of that same magnetic field your statement is clearly not correct. In particular cosmic rays and the magnetosphere do not know about clouds [there are none where the effects occur]. Hence no Iris effect.
To me there is little doubt that Shaviv is more or less right.
One cannot discuss science with people who has little doubt.
As mentioned in my post there is a good general 20th century match allowing for the lag time
No, look at cycle 19 and the cooling the following 10-20 years.
the variation in incoming GCRs which is why the latter is the controlling influence on climate at decadal,centennial and millenial time scales.
Again, one cannot meaningfully debate with people who believe in ‘incontrovertible’ [the science is settled] ‘evidence’. The cosmic ray data is very much in doubt [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675 : “This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based” ] and is contaminated by climate itself [as even Berggren et al. note].
As you rightly point out the Ap number during the 23 /24 minimum in late 2009 was down to 1900 levels which is why I will make a testable prediction that by 2019 -20 NH temperatures could well be surprisingly cool perhaps even 0.8 below current levels – though that seems a shocking amount even to me.
What would you do if your prediction fails? Believe in CO2? ‘incontrovertible evidence’ is a tough vise to be in, with very little wiggle room.
Steve Mosher, you gave a clear answer above. I am skeptic who has complete believe in radiative physics. I consider you to be a climate maven and as such I would really appreciate you views on a couple of points you made.
“And what do we know. we know its not zero. If you increase watts, we get warmer. yes some ups and downs, yes it can cool if watts are stored for a period in the ocean, but in the end the energy has to balance out. And yes, it could be non linear.. all possible.” – Are you aware of credible evidence that these so-called missing watts are in fact stored in the deep ocean. I read what Trenberth said, but are you convinced?
This question is not in your post – do you believe [from] Vostok analysis and others that CO2 lags temperature by 100-800 years. If so, why not? If so, what do you attribute the most important negative forcing that is responsible for prevention of run away warming over the millennia?
Lastly, with regard to sensitivity, detection and attribution what is view on thoughts recently discussed by Annan?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-inevitable-failure-of-attribution.html
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:41 am
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:10 am
These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years
This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions. I have never see you over at Sciencebits.com going head to head with Dr. Niv Shaviv on the issue.
Shaviv however did counter your objections when other brought them to his attention. His rebuttal is Torquemada – the data torturer “Yes, I pulled finger nails until the data said “I give up, I give up!” o.k., now seriously….”
I suggest others follow the rest of the discussion about this issue in the comments over there. No one has cornered the market on ‘truth’ and that includes Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Shaviv so we should look at ALL the data, hypotheses and arguments.
Re “climate science community simply designed their models to satisfy the political requirements of their funding agencies”
My sister-in-law worked in a UK university. As she put it: In order to get funding, Global Warming had to be in the project. eg “The Mating Habits of Red Squirrels and how they will be Affected by Global Warming.” without “Global Warming” in the research, funding was hard to come by
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 10:48 am
Shaviv however did counter your objections when other brought them to his attention.
Well, he deflected the objection pointing to another torturer [Holgate]. No serious counter there.
No one has cornered the market on ‘truth’ and that includes Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Shaviv so we should look at ALL the data, hypotheses and arguments.
No one has cornered the market on ‘nonsense’ either and a large amount of what purports to be ‘arguments’ belong to that market.
Leif The NGRIP data referred to certainly does correlate withMaunder and Dalton minimums and later 18th century warmth as anyone who bothers to check can see for themselves , I suppose you can only mean that you don’t believe the data as presented. As to cycle 19 the highest peak in the Ap data is about 1958. Given a ten year delay NH temperatures were still high in1968. The Ap low in 1965 matches very well with the Temperature low in 1975 – I dont see any problem there.
I doubt that clouds and magnetosphere are concious at all but I assume that you think Svensmark
is completely wrong.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 10:48 am
“This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..” As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions.
As I said before people will agree with the wrong data as long a they serve their purpose. Does that also apply to you?
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:08 am
Leif The NGRIP data referred to certainly does correlate with Maunder and Dalton minimums and later 18th century warmth as anyone who bothers to check can see for themselves , I suppose you can only mean that you don’t believe the data as presented.
Nothing wrong with the data. I take it that you did not go to the trouble to read the references I provided you with. There is great doubt about what the ice core data shows. Climate, volcanic eruptions, instrumental difficulties all combine to muddy the waters. The fact that cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder Minimum was even more vigorous than today [Berggren, her Figure 2d] should give everybody pause.
As to cycle 19 the highest peak in the Ap data is about 1958. Given a ten year delay NH temperatures were still high in 1968. The Ap low in 1965 matches very well with the Temperature low in 1975 – I dont see any problem there.
Northern Hem Temps: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
began their decline in the 1940s and continued down until about 1978. Cycles 18 and 19 [from 1945-1965] were some of the highest cycles on record, so I do see a problem. Yogi Berra’s immortal words: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it” work in reverse too, and all too well..
I doubt that clouds and magnetosphere are conscious at all but I assume that you think Svensmark is completely wrong.
what nonsense remark is that? cosmic ray intensity and magnetospheric activity are determined by factors where clouds do not come into consideration as there are no clouds where those things take place. About Svensmark: he resurrected an earlier suggestion by Ney and initially had an interesting correlation [and mechanism]. Later data have however invalidated his theory [as so often happens in this field], but both he and his ardent followers still cling to it [go Figure – but this is a common human failing to refuse to give up a belief that gives them comfort].
@Theo Goodwin 12:09 pm
Bayes’ work can teach you about weaknesses in your betting behavior. It cannot teach you anything about the world that exists independently of you.
That is a most interesting perspective. I’m going to let that percolate a while.
Talbott, William, “Bayesian Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Let’s agree from the start that Bayesian analysis can be done stupidly or improperly. The use of box-car uniform prior’s to update CO2 sensitivity estimates is without any merit, IMHO.
But it begs the question whether a Bayesian updating process CAN be used to improve the estimates of the mass of a proton, the mass of the Earth, or the gravitational constant. I don’t see why it cannot be used.
However, in the end estimates of physical properties and behaviors are basic inputs into engineering and financial decisions. At this point, people are involved and placing their bets. To place these bets without a proper Bayesian context seems to me to be foolhardy.
Thanks for the philosophical puzzle, Theo.
anthony says
REPLY: wrong Henry – its Leif, and he’s right – Anthony
henry@Anthony
Note that Leif quoted the last part of my post that I had addressed to Steven M.
and not to him Leif.
I had added this last sentence only because I never get any replies from StevenM
Nevermind that, if Leif had answered the questions I had posed to StevenM.
But instead he chose to imply with that selective quote to indicate that my post to StevenM contained nonsense.
Seeing now that you (Anthony) say that he (Leif) was right,
then can I ask you Anthony, instead of :Leif or StevenM, to answer me on my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-stupid-the-minor-significance-of-co2/#comment-1229527
seeiing as that they (StevenM and Leif) simply refuse to answer?
thanks!
Henryp;
You be the judge, David.
>>>>>>>>>>>
My judgment is that Mosher’s physics is weak, Leif’s is strong. They may draw the same conclusions, but for different reasons. It isn’t a simple subject matter. If you have been paying attention, I call Mosher on his weak physics, Leif I learn from.
Leif In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change SST data are the best for various reasons which I have enumerated on various posts on my website. ( not the least is the fact that SST data most closely correlates with changes in global enthalpy which is what we should really measure ) The NH is more sensitive to climate change and more clearly shows what’s going on. The new HAD SST3 data is their latest version which accounts for the change in the measuring system before and after the 2nd world war and is probably the best data set to work with.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses. If the Sun is not a major driver, then I agree that when looking for subtle [or non-existent] effects, the dataset can make a difference. Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2?
Note to the reader from the NNIC Bremerton: It is insufficient to look to the solar cycles alone (ignoring what the Earth may be doing at the same time) to find correlation to the climate oscillations. However, combine two; solar and Earth magnetic variability and the correlation is a good as you ever hope to get:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm
It is insufficient to look to the solar cycles alone
It is even worse to make up data and pretend to do science when it is in fact plain nonsense.
lsvalgaard says: February 21, 2013 at 12:41 pm
………..
Hi Doc
I use the same data as did NASA-JPL and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris used in their research.
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm
I use the same data as did NASA-JPL and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris used in their research.
It is not the data that is the problem, it the invalid use of them.You went all quiet on my suggestion to submit your paper here to WUWT to disclose your nonsense. Put up or shut up, as they say.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 11:09 am
Gail Combs says:
“This [wrong] meme is still going around [probably will forever as long as it serves someone’s purpose]…..” As I said before take it up with the Physicist who is agreeing with the reconstructions.
As I said before people will agree with the wrong data as long a they serve their purpose. Does that also apply to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think anyone who has read the IPCC mandate, realizes the scientists on the taxpayer teat are not only not looking for any other possible climate influences besides CO2, they are actively and aggressively suppressing other ideas, especially the idea that the sun might actually have an effect. This is because if any other climate influences are identified the CO2 climate sensitivity must be modified DOWN and that would be political/career death.
I on the other hand have retired as a chemist, have no children and no real ax to grind except for a deep sense of outrage at those who are responsible for The Climate Hoax/fuel poverty/biofuel-starvation related deaths.
b>The IPCC mandate states:
Then there are all the other studies that support Shaviv’s position and not yours.
Here is an interesting one from 25 years ago that predicted the current quiet sun.
Cosmic Rays
Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
Apparent tropospheric response to MeV-GeV particle flux variations: A connection via electrofreezing of supercooled water in high-level clouds?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Issue D12, pp. 22283-22296, December 1991)
– Brian A. Tinsley, Glen W. Deen
Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp. 335-341, May 1995)
– Y. I. Stozhkov et al.
Atmospheric transparency variations associated with geomagnetic disturbances
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp. 1135-1138, September 1992)
– M. I. Pudovkin, S. V. Babushkina
Solar:
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Almost all your references are to old, obsolete papers. I have a list of about 2000 of such, all claiming significance [but often conflicting]. I understand your outrage, but the correct way to deal with this is to use updated science and recent results.
lsvalgaard says: February 21, 2013 at 1:27 pm
It is not the data that is the problem, it the invalid use of them
Invalid use of data, that is a new one.
Altering someone else’s historic data (e.g. sunspot numbers, temperature records and the like) one could consider an ‘invalid’ use of data, but doing exactly what the authors did, what NASA-JPL did, or Institut de Physique did, and drawing attention to what they missed or were not interested in, I consider not only appropriate but an advancement of research.
I emailed you the first article sometime last September, second article with further supporting evidence from http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/ is nearly finished, so I will email it to you as well. You can in 5 min flat repeat my calculation. I say, if it’s in them data it must be science, not one you may like or approve of, but the result speaks louder than any ‘distressed’ critic.
You went all quiet on my suggestion to submit your paper here to WUWT to disclose your nonsense.
I may have overstayed my presence here as it is, but if I am invited I may consider it, for time being I’m happy enough to ‘leak’ my own ‘confidential’ findings, it is ‘in thing’, don’t you know?
See you.
A couple of thoughts.
1) The Earth radiates about 390 w/m2 from the surface with only 40 of that not being captured. Doesn’t that put a limit on the GHE? If all 40 w/m2 got captured the surface temp would be 22°C which turns out to be the historic maximum.
2) There’s a simple explanation that describes what has happened over the last 500 years. If the Maunder Minimum reduced the energy captured in our oceans you would see a cooling just like we saw in the 17th century. Since then we’ve seen a pretty constant warming which would be expected as the sun got back to normal. Slow but sure. A few bumps along the way provided by ENSO and the AMO would describe everything that has happened. In addition, without adjustments to the temperature record there was very little warming in the 20th century. The oceans may have reached equilibrium now with little to no more warming expected from the nearly constant solar TSI.
vukcevic says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Invalid use of data, that is a new one.
No, you have been doing it for some time.
doing exactly what the authors did, what NASA-JPL did, or Institut de Physique did
‘Exactly’? show that that is true.
the result speaks louder than any ‘distressed’ critic.
First, I’m not ‘distressed’. Second, you don’t have any valid results.
I may have overstayed my presence here as it is
Indeed!
but if I am invited I may consider it
You don’t need invitation. People send Anthony stuff. Just do it.
for time being I’m happy enough to ‘leak’ my own ‘confidential’ findings
put up or shut up.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:40 am
Jim G says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:19 am
send me an ounce of dark matter, I’ll pay the shipping.
“I’ll send it for free. How would you see it? Hint: weigh the seemingly empty envelope.”
I’ll take it. I will use your methodology then empty the seemingly empty envelope then weigh it again. If it shows a difference of one ounce, I will become a believer. Hey, Leif, you were the one who was demanding “proof” of a hypothetical so be nice, after all, it was you who once told me “you need not stoop to my level”. That goes for you too!
Regards,
Jim G
Leif This article was written in the context of the climate wars.
Can you agree with the following propositions
1. On millenial and shorter time scales the Sun is the main climate driver.
2. CO2 is of minor significance – there is no need to waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions
3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggeted in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
4 Variations in TSI alone do not account for the amplitude of temperature change on earth.
5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplfies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.
If you agree with the above and you don’t think the cloud hypothesis is useful could you give us conceptually some notion of what you think is happening.
Finally where you think earth’s temperature is headed in the next 30 years – ballpark guess.
lsvalgaard says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm
I left out all the Henrik Svensmark papers and many many others.
Almost all your references are to old, obsolete papers…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fine how about some newer papers? Conflicting papers are not surprising in a young very active field especially when some scientists have an agenda that is political and not scientific.
Micheal Mann and his much abused Hockey Stick come to mind as well as Hansen’s ever changing temperature records.
These agree with the older study from 1995 so you can not make the sweeping statement that you did that the studies are ” old, obsolete” Those papers are not playstation models they are based on empirical data.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Fine how about some newer papers? Conflicting papers are not surprising in a young very active field especially when some scientists have an agenda that is political and not scientific.
This is not a ‘very new field’. It goes back to Riccioli in the 17th century. You demonstrate an aptitude to select papers to support your view. Did you really try to find some that didn’t and failed miserably? For example, that show that the Arctic and the Antarctic vary in anti-correlation on millennial timescales. Or that a large part of the 10Be record variability is due to climate and not to the Sun. The list goes on…Is ‘outrage’ also not an agenda?
Gail Thanks for the links on your very useful posts/
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Can you agree with the following propositions
1. On millenial and shorter time scales the Sun is the main climate driver.
No, there is no evidence for that. On the contrary the temperatures of the Arctic and the Antarctic are anti-correlated on millennial timescales, pointing to oceanic causes.
2. CO2 is of minor significance – there is no need to waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions
There is no such need, but you miss the point: politicians do not want to control CO2, just to extract money from you.
3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggested in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
I am not sure about this one. Smacks too much of Gaia for my taste. The Earth has been much warmer in the past, did that feedback not work back then?
4 Variations in TSI alone do not account for the amplitude of temperature change on earth.
I agree, although some solar physicists are trying to revive the TSI-idea [e.g. Shapiro et al.]
5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplflies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.
No, what would that be? The various proposals have always fallen flat. TSI is where the energy is.
If you agree with the above and you don’t think the cloud hypothesis is useful could you give us conceptually some notion of what you think is happening.
I mostly disagree, so it is hard to form a concept out of that? But how about stochastic variations of a complex system.
Finally where you think earth’s temperature is headed in the next 30 years – ballpark guess.
Have no idea. Guessing would suggest an upward trend [as that is what has happened in the past on climate time scales – 30 years or longer]. Also, some wishful thinking: warm is better than cold.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Fine how about some newer papers?
You should look in more detail on what they say. Am often quoted paper is one by Jasper Kirby [I’m sure you know it or can find it] where he presents the following Figure [top panel] http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png in support of the cosmic ray mechanism influence on temperature [proxied by d18O]. It looks pretty good on the surface. However, it is not correct and does not support the GCR-cause [on the contrary]. You see, what matters is the actual intensity of the GCR flux and that is determined mostly by the Earth’s magnetic field. The lower panel shows the real GCR record [proxies by red INTCAL 14C flux] for the past 2000 years. There clearly is a long-term variation that is not very nice when comparing with the d18O record, but if we filter that long-term [real] variation to suppress variations on a time scale longer than 200 years we get the blue curve which as you will agree is precisely Kirby’s blue curve. This is, however sleight of hand as the causative agent is supposed to be the actual flux with lon-term drift and all. Things like this make me outraged.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses.
Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2? You just blatantly ignore this my question. How can one have a reasonable discussion when faced with such an attitude?
[Dupe entry? Or should the first be removed? Mod]
I keep encountering the assertion that CO2 is a plant food and that we cant have too much of it. I also see that some are convinced that rising average and peak temperatures means a longer growing season – higher crop yields. There are two points to be made against such assertions. One is that no sufficiency of sustained warmth and sunshine, fertile soil, oxigen-nitrogen-co2 will compensate for insufficient rain and failing aquafers. No doubt, [snip — don’t use that word on this site. — mod.] want the public to decouple co2 from drought, if not from heat, but if they cant, they must convince the world that one region’s (or generation’s) catastrophe (droughts, floods, etc.) is another’s convenience (electricity, automobiles) – (“So sue me!”). The other point is an obvious one about how much of a “good thing” is too much – ‘how hot is too hot?’ – ‘how many ice free months can the Great Lakes have, winter after winter as prevailing winds carry off water vapor?’ what will the south west do when Lake Powell finally isnt a Lake any more- what will the Plains do when the Oglalla aquafer is depleted? just what ARE the plants that thrive emmersed in co2?’ (poison ivy according one study).
Another thing I keep encountering are implications that GW is a hoax designed to put an end to American Democracy. It would seem consistent with that kind of mindset that laisee faire applyed to climate is preferable to duly elected government trying to stave off environmental disaster. Cant you just hear the embattled redneck tea partyer shouting “get your government hands off my burning forests, dessicated croplands, trickling river channels, shrinking lakes and water tables, wildlife on the brink of extinction, sea beds paved with oil spills, crashing fish stocks, superstorms, rising ocean levels!”? Would someone like to expand on that viewpoint, get a little more specific about who is “behind” this?
One thing that I dont think was mentioned in ‘Wattsup..’ articles or comments was the issue of ocean acidity and dying coral species? How trivial is that?
lFebruary 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 12:03 pm
In choosing a metric by which to measure climate change…
If the Sun is major driver of climate it shouldn’t matter which dataset one chooses. But:
Did you read the links I gave you about cosmic rays? What is the last word of the abstract of Paper#2? You just blatantly ignore this my question. How can one have a reasonable discussion when faced with such an attitude?
Lsvalgaard,
“3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggested in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
I am not sure about this one. Smacks too much of Gaia for my taste. The Earth has been much warmer in the past, did that feedback not work back then?”
If you believe the Vostok ice core data that CO2 lags temperature by 100-800 years, and you believe in radiative physics (which I know you do), there has to be a built in negative feedback – else what would prevent run away warming?
Jon Schneider;
There are two points to be made against such assertions. One is that no sufficiency of sustained warmth and sunshine, fertile soil, oxigen-nitrogen-co2 will compensate for insufficient rain and failing aquafers.No doubt, deniers want the public to decouple co2 from drought, if not from heat
The most recent research, which is being cited in the draft review of United Nations IPCC report due out next year suggests that there is no connection:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/16/global-warming-to-drought-links-shot-down/
what we “want” sir is for a discussion of the actual science rather than what the uninformed think is the science.
Jon Schneider;
The other point is an obvious one about how much of a “good thing” is too much – ‘how hot is too hot?
Well and excellent point! I don’t speak for all skeptics (the term I use rather than the ugly and insulting term you used) but within the range of sensitivities claimed by the IPCC, even the upper bound represents a level of warming that would be a fraction of the cost to adapt to than prevent. But the fact of the matter is that the upper bound is not only unlikely, even the most ardent of warmist scientists are beginning to admit that even the lower bound may be an over estimate. In fact, temperatures over the last 16 years are below the lowest model estimates, something that the best researchers at NOAA insisted was impossible unless the models were wrong altogether. Here was are 16 years and on all 4 global major temperature indices, temperatures have been flat despite a 20% increase in CO2. No, it hasn’t gone into “extreme weather” either, that has also been debunked, extreme weather on a global basis is in decline and expected to continue to decline according to the next draft of the IPCC report.
Jon Schneider;
Another thing I keep encountering are implications that GW is a hoax designed to put an end to American Democracy
I suggest you not paint all skeptics with the same brush. At day’s end though, the specific motivation is far less important than what the actual facts of the science are. If the warmist meme is wrong, it is wrong. Why it is wrong doesn’t much matter at that point.
Jon Schneider;
One thing that I dont think was mentioned in ‘Wattsup..’ articles or comments was the issue of ocean acidity and dying coral species? How trivial is that?
How hard did you look?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
Leif of course I read your link the last word was” them” ,I am well aware of the uncertainties in the Be data you have to consider all the often contradictory data – see Gails links and make some judgement on the overall picture – reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
If you don’t now think its the sun but the Ocean systems – what drives them?
I gather you think God plays dice on a macroscpic scale – in which case theres not much we can learn about nature – I,m surprised you bother thinking about climate at all.
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
I appreciate the effort of your considerable comment. Thanks.
My question was prompted by Dr Norman Page saying,
So, I got to thinking we now are finally (sigh) successfully getting away from the irrational myopia on and alarming exaggeration of climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 by the IPCC assessments. We are progressing to a more balanced and open dialog about all aspects of the earth-atmospheric system; finding the more realistic aspect of not just CO2 but previously neglected more important other aspects. In the improved dialog there is growing confidence in much lower and/or insignificant magnitudes of effects from CO2. So I asked my question.
First, a view to CO2. It is certain that CO2 in its gaseous state adsorbs electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths (IR) and it gives up either all or some of that energy through emitting radiation and/or kinetic energy transfer to other atmospheric molecules. It is one of the many elemental building block type phenomena of our total earth-atmospheric system.
The earth-atmospheric system is a grand infinitely varying continuous experiment; we do not need to make one. But it is a fatally under-instrumented experiment temporally and spatially but going forward we can correct that. Looking backward on the experiment, we can improve the historical experiment by refining the proxies with inventive ideas of new proxies and better sampling of existing proxies. Get to work, science.
The experiment, as it stands, says the observational results show climate behavior is business as usual from the geological timeframe to the present; an earth-atmospheric system not significantly influenced by CO2 if at all.
The GC models are what show that there should be a significant CO2 influence on climate. I consider them wrong in a Feynman context.
What physical principle or essential scientific understanding is compromised by a (my) thesis that our earth-atmospheric system, which appears to act like a highly complex chaotic non-linear one, has a capability to produce a zero energy change response to increased CO2? Ditto for a negative energy change response to increased CO2?
That still remains my open question. Current scientific estimates and calculations may find certain earth-atmospheric system responses to changes in its system parameters (such as CO2). People like Lindzen have given attention to such estimates and calculation and I very much respect his. I understand. But what I am looking for in my question is clear barriers to zero or negative response; sort of the climate equivalent to the speed of light barrier.
Mosh, I considered your response, thanks, and now I am requesting more views to consider.
John
Bob says:
February 21, 2013 at 5:43 pm
If you believe the Vostok ice core data that CO2 lags temperature by 100-800 years, and you believe in radiative physics (which I know you do), there has to be a built in negative feedback – else what would prevent run away warming?
If you assume that the CO2 comes from the oceans then when the oceans have outgassed their CO2, warming stops, no? No matter how long you boil Coca Cola, after the initial fizz is gone, it is gone. But if the response to CO2 is logarithmic [as is claimed] then you have a limit there.
Dr Norman Page says:
February 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm
reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
That is not how science works. There is only one truth. Science is not about reasonable opinions. Science is a blood sport.
If you don’t now think it’s the sun but the Ocean systems – what drives them?
Any complex system has fluctuations. If you think the Sun varies on longish time scales, what drives that variation? You are just putting the problem in a different place, not solving it [unless you think the planets drive solar activity and produce flares, etc – don’t laugh now, there are people who believe that]
Only thing worse than danceing on the head of a pin is danceing on the head of the wrong pin.
lsvalgaard, “If you assume that the CO2 comes from the oceans then when the oceans have outgassed their CO2, warming stops, no? No matter how long you boil Coca Cola, after the initial fizz is gone, it is gone. But if the response to CO2 is logarithmic [as is claimed] then you have a limit there”.
So I can infer you don’t think there is a negative forcing. There is a finite amount of stored bicarbonate in the oceans and when there are maximally released it warms to what level that amount of CO2 can affect. The duration of the warming is then determined by the half life of CO2. When that occurs the CO2 is re-deposited back in the carbon cycle and then we having cooling again.
Bob says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:54 pm
So I can infer you don’t think there is a negative forcing.
Are saying that CO2 has negative forcing? I don’t think so.
On the time scales of interest the bicarbonates would hardly matter, so may be dancing on the wrong pin here ::-)
Steve Mosher says:
“When you double c02 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm you produce extra watts. 3.7 watts to be exact. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering. That is why skeptics who work in this field ( related to radiative physics ) don’t question 3.7 watts.”
CO2 produces energy!!! Fantastic. Who knew?
I must get some. We engineers could run the world on this free energy source. Who cares what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says. Who cares what Einstein’s Photoelectric Effect says.
lsvalgaard,
Sorry for not making myself clear. You said above that, ” CO2 comes from the oceans then when the oceans have outgassed their CO2, warming stops, no? No matter how long you boil Coca Cola, after the initial fizz is gone, it is gone.” I then said you then must believe, therefore, there is NO negative forcing, i.e. when all the CO2 that outgasses, warming stops. You then said, ” Are saying that CO2 has negative forcing? I don’t think so.” No, that is not what I said.
Leif “To wit: solar activity now is what it was a hundred years ago, but the climate is not.”
That’s an absurd statement. Are the solar cycles preceeding the current solar activity the same as the solar cycles that preceded solar activity a hundred years ago? Is the starting temperature equilibrium the same as it was a hundred years ago. Was the heat content of the oceans that preceded that solar activity of a hundred years ago the same as the heat content that preceded the current solar activity?
CRISP says
CO2 produces energy!!! Fantastic. Who knew? I must get some…
Henry says
true. Good comment.
I also have to laugh at those who refuse to answer me on my post but then prefer to make personal attacks. See here
anthony says
REPLY: wrong Henry – its Leif, and he’s right – Anthony
henry@Anthony
Note that Leif quoted the last part of my post that I had addressed to Steven M.
and not to him, Leif.
I had added this last sentence only because I never get any replies from StevenM
Nevermind that, if Leif had answered the questions I had posed to StevenM, I would be happy.
But instead he chose to imply with that selective quote from the end that my post to StevenM contained nonsense.
Seeing now that you (Anthony) say that he (Leif) was right,
then can I ask you, Anthony, instead of Leif or StevenM, to answer me on my post, here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-stupid-the-minor-significance-of-co2/#comment-1229527
seeing as that they (StevenM and Leif) simply refuse to answer?
thanks!
Leif “If you assume that the CO2 comes from the oceans then when the oceans have outgassed their CO2, warming stops, no? ”
No. The historical records shows that warming has often stopped and reversed direction while CO2 was still on the rise. Conversely cooling has often reversed itself and turned into warming while CO2 was still in decline. This tells you that the “feedback” strength of CO2 is weak enough that it can be easily overpowered by other elements of natural variation.
Steve Mosher says:
“When you double c02 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm you produce extra watts. 3.7 watts to be exact. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering.
At the end of the Ordovician with 2000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere you have the Saharan-Andean global ice age. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering.
In the pre-Cambrian, 600-750 MYa you have the Marinoan-Varanger snow-ball earth ice ages. Along with 10-20,000 ppm CO2 Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering.
2 billion years ago you have the Huronian global ice age, along with 500,000 ppm CO2 (50%) Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering.
I see Steve. It all makes perfect sense. CO2 always makes the planet disastrously warmer. No exceptions. Predicted. Measured. verified. this is engineering.
(This is mental illness.)
Dr Page says
Can you agree with the following propositions
1. On millenial and shorter time scales the Sun is the main climate driver.
2. CO2 is of minor significance – there is no need to waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions
3 There is a built in negative feed back in the system probably along the lines suggeted in the Trenberth link which prevents the earth from warming too much.
4 Variations in TSI alone do not account for the amplitude of temperature change on earth.
5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplfies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.
If you agree with the above and you don’t think the cloud hypothesis is useful could you give us conceptually some notion of what you think is happening.
Finally where you think earth’s temperature is headed in the next 30 years – ballpark guess.
Henry says
I would advise you to study my tables as they give a lot of insight as to what exactly is happening.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Most of the energy comes in via the SH (if you look at maxima) but it is not causing any warming in the SH.(if you look at means). SH temps. have stayed remarkably constant. Most of the warming on earth (if you look at the means) happens in the NH. So, this (extra) warming of the past 50 years must have entered via the SH, mostly, and is spread by currents and wind to the NH.
So to answer your questions:
1) True. The sun /earth interaction seems to cause cooling and warming periods. Most likely the variation in the E-UV causes a variation in ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides, at the TOA. For example, ozone is now increasing while global temperature is dropping.
2) If there were any warming caused by more GHG you would expect to see a slowing down of cooling. In that case you should see minima rising, pushing up means. If you look at all my tables that is just not happening. Over the longest period (38 years) the ratio is 0.036 to 0.014 to 0.006. That is 6: 2 : 1. So it was maxima pushing up means and minima and not the other way around. There may be a few places where I found minima rising faster than means but that was in places like Las Vegas where they turned a desert into a paradise in a few decades. (BTW that just shows that more vegetation causes some more heat entrapment, i.e. warming).
3) True. More warming causes more clouds which deflect more heat. At some stage a balance must reached where adding more heat will cause more cooling.
4) TSI may not change much when measured in total, but there could be a change in distribution within TSI caused by magnetic or gravitational factors which in turn sets off a chain of events leading to different reactions TOA, which in turn leads to increased ozone & others, leading to more back radiation of SW radiation, which is the main component heating the SH oceans.
5)As explained above 4). The dates for the bending points for the measured increases in ozone both NH and SH correlate closely to my proposed best fit for the drop in maximum temperatures which give 1951 and 1995 as significant dates..
The Svensmark cloud proposition is not useful. I can show you an interesting correlation with the flooding of the Nile. During a cooling period – such as now – you simply get more clouds and more snow and rain at lower latitudes. Cooling off at higher latitudes will be remarkable (look at the results for Anchorage!) plus you will get more droughts to the north.
Mosher is confused. He talks about CO2 as if it was a source of energy and then adds it to the TSI reaching the earth. This is nonsense and I think he knows it. The 3.7W/m2 is used as a simile… because theoretically some people have said that its effect is like adding heat. Mosher takes it a step further and calls it heat energy. This is not physics, it’s confusion.
Leif is way to smart for me to argue with. I have great respect for what he says. I still believe that there is very good evidence that the sun affects our climate in more ways than can be measured by TSI alone. That we cannot prove it does not mean that it is completely nonsense. To call it nonsense because it has not been proven is not very nice.
I have proven many things to people by doing something that was claimed impossible by some very smart engineers. Prior to doing the act, I could not prove it. I was fortunate enough to be able to prove my point by doing the “impossible.”
Since reading this article I have been playing about with sunspot numbers and temperature.
I plotted 1959 daily maximum temperature and the sun spot number. I took a big spike (3rd to the 19th May) in the sunspot number that coincided with a similar spike in the temperature. The two curves were almost identical.
Here is the spookey thing. the temperature seemed to lead the sun spot number. It seemed to know how the sun spot number would go.
Is there a force that affects both the sun and the temperature on earth that permeates space?
That was the Central England Temperature by the way.
Kelvin says
Here is the spookey thing. The temperature seemed to lead the sun spot number. It seemed to know how the sun spot number would go
Henry says
Jolly good show. Good independent research. It would be very possible for me to ponder that “the thing” that causes the change TOA (in the concentration of certain substances) is actually happening before it becomes visible as something happening on the sun. I think “the thing” could well be something magnetic or a magnetic force coming from the sun/earth that Vukcevik has been thinking about. I don’t know much about that. But always remember, in the end, what earth does with “the thing” is smooth it out over time and its space. Hence, the A-C curve or binomial curve when you evaluate the change in maxima over time….
I can check your result at other stations. Which is your source for SSN data?
***
Mario Lento says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:57 am
I still believe that there is very good evidence that the sun affects our climate in more ways than can be measured by TSI alone. That we cannot prove it does not mean that it is completely nonsense. To call it nonsense because it has not been proven is not very nice.
****
Dr S isn’t calling the proposition that TSI has some unknown effect on climate nonsense, he’s saying the “reasons” some are offering for it are. Big difference.
Bob says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:27 pm
No, that is not what I said.
Then I don’t know what you were trying to say. It is always difficult to figure something like that out and to ‘infer’ what is meant, like when you said: “So I can infer you don’t think there is a negative forcing”.
Tilo Reber says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Are the solar cycles preceding the current solar activity the same as the solar cycles that preceded solar activity a hundred years ago?
Yes, pretty much. The low cycles around 1900 were preceded by high cycles mid- and late 19th century just like the low cycles now were preceded by high cycles mid- and late 20th century: http://sidc.be/images/wolfaml_small.png Pity that you didn’t know that, but now you do. But your claim of absurdity applies equally well to all other claims of correlation. If the ‘baselevel’ of climate now is different from that a century ago, the question must be ‘why is that?’. What is your non-absurd answer to that question?
Tilo Reber says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:36 pm
‘Leif “To wit: solar activity now is what it was a hundred years ago, but the climate is not.”’
Leif keeps pounding the daylights out of that drum, but it is only on a superficial level. The peaks may not have changed much, but the area under the curves increased mid-century. And, since the Earth’s heat sinks act like a capacitor in an electrical circuit, the system behaves like an RC filter network, keying off that dc level of forcing.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:14 am
since the Earth’s heat sinks act like a capacitor in an electrical circuit, the system behaves like an RC filter network, keying off that dc level of forcing.
Your ideas about our complex climate are much too naive and simplistic. As Einstein said “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
Jon Schneider says: @ February 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm
I keep encountering the assertion that CO2 is a plant food and that we cant have too much of it…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jon says:
1. Warmer temperature means more evaporation which means more rainfall. It is colder temperatures that mean less rainfall.
2. More plant growth means more transpiration which means more water vapor put into the air. You are aware that planting trees/plants helps convert deserts back into productive land aren’t you?
3. Failing aquafers are just a matter of moving to nuclear power and desalination plants link
Jon says:
Sorry but the USA had a major drought back in the 1930’s called the Dustbowl and the 1100 AD, drought cycle is thought to have driven off the Anasazi. Egypt had four major droughts between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. A global mega-drought occurred of around 4,200 years ago. Droughts were part of the climate landscape well before the industrial revolution and trying to blame them on anthropogenic CO2 instead of finding out what really caused them is criminally insane.
Jon says:
You have that question upside down. Dr. William McClenney a geologist who has spent years researching the transition into glaciation put it this way.
Data also shows “The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages.” In other words you get wide temperature swings as the earth heads back into another ice age. This and not glaciation itself is the major concern for the present.
Even Woods Hole Observatory warns about wide swings and that politicians maybe barking up the wrong tree.
Others think we will see a prolonged interglacial like M11.
And again from Dr. McClenney
My above comment to Jon Schneider, answers Dr. Svalgaard’s question. I really do not care if the sun, a variable star according to astronomers, remains constant. What I care about is a decrease in insolation or other solar influence that effects the climate. My concern is not the mile high glacier sitting on NYC, I will be long dead by then, but the wild climate oscillations linked to the ending of an interglacial.
There are many other factors involved that have not been solved due to the bonehead insistence that CO2 is the control knob of the climate. There are the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond Events, and Heinrich Events and we do not know what caused them NOAA link
Dr. McClenney mentioned the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations too.
Some more comments by Dr. McClenney on D-O oscillations
(Dr. McClenney’s comments for both my comments come from articles and comments at WUWT, from “the CONVERSATION” a University blog link and from the Huffington Post comment section link
Bond Events:
The there is the new paper on the bi-polar see-saw where the ice increases in the Antarctic and decreases in the Arctic. Sound familiar?
So we are back to the events with unknown causes. (Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years.)
Graph showing obliquity The graph showing the calculated values for 300,000 years of orbital variation by Berger and Loutre, 1991. Taken from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Milankovitch/milankovitch.html.
Dr. Svalgaard,
I’m a simple layman trying to develop an opinion on the information presented in the PDF you introduced at the beginning of this thread. Since there are no notes accompanying the slides, I hope you will answer a couple of questions that come to mind?
First, is it safe to say that the be10 ice core reconstructions calibrate reasonably well with instrument measures of TSI? I’m asking because there seems to be an analog between Mann et al (hiding the decline) and a refusal to admit there is no correlation between TSI and GSN. That is to say, Mann et al chose to ignore the fact that the temperature reconstructions did not calibrate well with instrumentation and the TSI theorists are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that instrumentation indicates that there is no correlation between sun spot count and TSI.
Second, in slide 34 from 1640-1720 (the GSN bottom for the series) there seems to be an extremely strong correlation between GSN and TSI. What is the working hypothesis to account for this correlation which seems to extend beyond realm of coincidence?
Gail Combs says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:55 am
So we are back to the events with unknown causes. (Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years.)
Another example of your uncritical running with old memes. These events do not repeat every 1500 years. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf :
“Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging”.
Rob Ricket says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:58 am
Dr. Svalgaard,
First, is it safe to say that the be10 ice core reconstructions calibrate reasonably well with instrument measures of TSI?
No, that is not safe to say. There is no overlap between the two. The claimed relationship is based on proxies and models.
Second, in slide 34 from 1640-1720 (the GSN bottom for the series) there seems to be an extremely strong correlation between GSN and TSI. What is the working hypothesis to account for this correlation which seems to extend beyond realm of coincidence?
What the slide shows is not the real TSI, but one calculated from the group sunspot number under the [false] assumption that there is a background variation given by the 11-yr mean of the sunspot number [pink squares] and that TSI rides on top of that. This assumption is shown to be false because once we get into the rime where we have actual TSI data [the red oval] the model fails.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 8:41 am
This assumption is shown to be false because once we get into the time where we have actual TSI data [the red oval] the model fails.
Mann etal now use the slow ball, the stall, the dance on the head of any pin, get them to dance until the head of every pin is worn down or their boots have holes and their feet hurt to much to conitnue.
It is not about CO2 or the Sun.
It is about re-distribution of wealth and political power.
Your playing the wrong game.
Dr Norman Page says:
“5.There is some other solar caused mechanism which acts in conjuction with or amplfies the TSI changes to affect the Temperature.”
He answered that one back here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/haigh-anxiety-a-psycho-comedy-of-errors/#comment-1180637
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:37 am
“Your ideas about our complex climate are much too naive and simplistic. As Einstein said “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”.”
Your ideas are tunnel visioned. Sorry you did not understand the analogy.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 9:10 am
our ideas are tunnel visioned. Sorry you did not understand the analogy.
The analogy is false as most simpleminded analogies often are.
I don’t have ‘ideas’. I do science. So you can be sorry as much as you want about your unsupported insult about ‘tunnel vision’.
But even if we integrate our best estimate of the sunspot number over [say] 50 years we find that the result for the last 50 years is equal to the integrals ending in 1958, 1872, and 1798. The climates were very different over those intervals.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 8:41 am
Gail Combs says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:55 am
So we are back to the events with unknown causes. (Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years.)
Another example of your uncritical running with old memes…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
While your pdf was erasing all that empirical data from actual measurements done by several different scientists did it also erase the Medieval Warm Period period too just like the Hockey Stick did?
Gail Combs says:
February 22, 2013 at 10:01 am
While your pdf was erasing all that empirical data from actual measurements done by several different scientists did it also erase the Medieval Warm Period period too just like the Hockey Stick did?
You can do better than thus. First, you have to be specific. Which pdf? Second, Actual measurements? Which ones? Third: I have no mention of erasing the MWP. The HS throw back is unworthy of you.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 9:49 am
Integration is a continuous process, and your timeline is arbitrary. I encourage others to look more closely and open-mindedly. Others have found a correlation.
No doubt, Leif will counter that Roger used the wrong SSN. Pfftt. If you wanted to find a correlation with whatever series you use, you would, though you might have to gain more knowledge of signals and systems than you have previously displayed.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 10:38 am
Integration is a continuous process, and your timeline is arbitrary.
Any timeline is arbitrary.
No doubt, Leif will counter that Roger used the wrong SSN. Pfftt. If you wanted to find a correlation with whatever series you use, you would, though you might have to gain more knowledge of signals and systems than you have previously displayed.
People use the series that fit their pet theory. Signals and systems have nothing to do with the physics of the solar cycle or the climate.
I found these Q&A’s with Leif (from NASA on the Sun: 1/11 11:38 WUWT) to be illuminating. Bold are Leif’s answers.
Dr. S., the clarification is appreciated.
Since the reconstructions deviate from empirically measured TSI and sun spot counts, the entire reconstruction must be considered unreliable. It would seem that persons heavily invested in the TSI/sunspot connection to climate change face a critical test of humility. We have already seen that Mann and his cohorts have failed badly when faced with similar circumstances.
Ether we skeptics stand for truth or we stand for nothing. What say you Dr. Page?
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 10:38 am
Others have found a correlation.
By careful sleight of hand, omitting relevant data [a standard trick]. If one repeats Roger’s exercise with the total sunspot record back to where it is reasonably well established [1749] one gets
http://www.leif.org/research/Roger-Integral-Comparison.png
The blue and pink curves are our best estimates of the sunspot number [pink] and the Group Sunspot number [blue]. The yellow is just the pink minus its long-term average [57.75].
The heavy red curve is the integral of the yellow. I have overlaid Roger’s graph and offset it a bit down to not obscure the red curve. The larger difference prior to the 1940s is caused by the Waldmeier artificial increase due to weighting of the spots. There is now agreement that this should be corrected for [as I have done]. Note, that the red curve now is close to where it was in the 1870s and 1810s [the Dalton Minimum, BTW]. So much for that ‘correlation’. Perhaps you shouldn’t comment on something you don’t know anything about…
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Any timeline is arbitrary.”
No, it is a question of how much past memory the system has, i.e., how long a timeline over which the past influences the present. It is a continuous process, not an increment. Your 50 year argument has no merit.
“Signals and systems have nothing to do with the physics of the solar cycle or the climate.”
Right, because they’re not systems, and they produce no signals. Silly me.
Rob Ricket says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:16 am
It would seem that persons heavily invested in the TSI/sunspot connection to climate change face a critical test of humility
Since the other solar parameters vary the same way as TSI [the variations are all due to the same cause: solar magnetism] the same test applies to all claimed correlations. Now, nothing in Science is carved in stone and new data can always change the situation. A real problem is that some people cling to old data as long as the old data conforms to their agenda and beliefs. Luckily, science is self-correcting and old folks eventually die off.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:20 am
No, it is a question of how much past memory the system has, i.e., how long a timeline over which the past influences the present. It is a continuous process, not an increment. Your 50 year argument has no merit.
Wrong. As memory fades with time. The influence of the past gets weaker with time until lost in the noise. But see http://www.leif.org/research/Roger-Integral-Comparison.png
“Signals and systems have nothing to do with the physics of the solar cycle or the climate.”
Right, because they’re not systems, and they produce no signals. Silly me.
Coming to terms with your own silliness is always the first step to enlightenment. We can hope for further progress on your way to Damascus.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:24 am
“Since the other solar parameters vary the same way as TSI..”
Not plasma speed:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
http://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/composite-total-solar-irradiance.gif
Ulric Lyons says:
February 22, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“Since the other solar parameters vary the same way as TSI..”
Not plasma speed:
On a day-by-day basis, of course, they don’t, but the meaning of my statement is that each parameter follows the solar cycle in a characteristic way (that can vary from parameter to parameter). For the solar wind speed at Earth there is a minimum just after sunspot minimum then rising to a maximum during the declining phase of the cycle, see. slide 55 of http://www.leif.org/research/Two%20Centuries%20Space%20Weather.pdf
BTW, the solar wind speed is not the same everywhere in the Heliosphere. Over the polar caps the variation is quite different: large speed at solar minimum and low speed at solar maximum. The main point is that the variation has a characteristic variation over the solar cycle, which largely repeats in every cycle [for well-understood reasons].
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 11:30 am
“Wrong. As memory fades with time. The influence of the past gets weaker with time until lost in the noise.”
(Sigh) Yes but, over what time? 5o years is arbitrary. The effective time constants, relative to an equilibrium condition, could be hundreds, even thousands of years.
lsvalgaard said:
” The main point is that the variation has a characteristic variation over the solar cycle, which largely repeats in every cycle”
It still does not vary with TSI, neither is it anywhere near as consistent, the typical low points are highly variable from cycle to cycle. The solar cycle peaks at 1969 and 1979 see a fall in plasma speeds, unlike the next two cycles, and the drops just after minimum are *much* lower in cycles 23 and 24.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 12:57 pm
(Sigh) Yes but, over what time? 5o years is arbitrary.
seems close to the characteristic time of the variation of the integral, but more to the point my reproduction of Roger’s curve shows that we are now near where the integral was in the 1870s, 1810s, and that his ‘correlation’ breaks down on the full dataset.
The effective time constants, relative to an equilibrium condition, could be hundreds, even thousands of years.
Go tell that to people who find correlations on timescales of decades or years. There are time constants on many scales. You really are out of your depth here. Time to cut your losses.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:04 pm
It still does not vary with TSI, neither is it anywhere near as consistent, the typical low points are highly variable from cycle to cycle.
Once you have enough cycles [we have 11 now] a consistent pattern emerges as I showed you.
Lief,
What do you think about this:
Where you’d have two energy/temp delays, both oceanic in this case, one surface warming, the second delayed ocean warming due to currents cycling water into the ocean conveyor system.
Dr Glassman derived the equation from the temperature signal and TSI, I realize (I think from some of your posts) the TSI signal needed revised, and it’s possible he used the old value, and might therefore need to modify the equation, but I think there’s still a useful point that we could be dealing with a system that has multiple time delays.
svalgaard said:
“Once you have enough cycles [we have 11 now] a consistent pattern emerges as I showed you.”
Typical, but far from consistent.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:17 pm
“…seems close to the characteristic time of the variation of the integral”
Do you even know what an integral is? I think I may have been wrong to assume that you did.
“Go tell that to people who find correlations on timescales of decades or years. “
You do not understand the concept of time constants in the context of perturbed systems.
Over and out. Leif is often wrong, but seldom in doubt. Arguing is pointless.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Over and out. Leif is often wrong, but seldom in doubt. Arguing is pointless.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The nail you are looking at is not how the sun or the climate works. Sagan is [again] of application to your comments: “Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge” [Carl Sagan]
Ulric Lyons says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Typical, but far from consistent.
It is the difference between [space] weather and [space] climate. But the solar wind speed has little if any relevance to the climate of the Earth. What might matter is the energy in the flow which minimizes at solar maximum and in the magnetic field which maximizes close to solar maximum. What would you think the solar was during the Maunder Minimum?
Rob Rickett You say ” Either we skeptics stand for truth or we stand for nothing. What say you Dr. Page?” Of course – but the problem is knowing what the truth is. As an undergrad in Geology at Oxford the value of multiple working hypotheses was impressed upon me. Who in science ever knows what the truth is ? We always see through a glass darkly. In the first instance -looking at a correlation problem I have learned , after 40 years in oil exploration that you don’t have to understand the mechanisms behind a correlation ,for it to be useful. In this article I merely point out correlations between Leifs Ap data set and NH SST data. Any reader can look at the figs 3 and 4 provided and make his own judgement.Similarly I point out the correlation between the Cosmic ray intensity and the various Little Ice Age minima in Steinhilbers paper Fig 6
At this time I think the Ap index and the Neutron Count (a reflection of cosmic ray intensity) are useful proxies for “Solar Activity “as it effects earth. and are probably more useful than TSI because they vary more than TSI does. This says nothing at all about the mechanisms by which this “solar activity “affects earths climate.
Again my Forecast of cooling –
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html
is based on the simple idea that there is a millenial solar cycle which we are about to repeat – check the Christiansen Fig 5 in the above link.
Clearly everyone brings to the table their whole background of knowledge and experience when making their judgements on the ideas presented in any Article and I am pleased to see the number of comments generated here and the ,shall we say ,sometimes vigorous discussion.I always feel that one learns more from knowledgeable people who disagree with you than from those who agree.In the exploration business it was always helpful to have an abominable no man like Leif around – that doesn’t mean that he is always or even usually right but at least his observations are almost always pertinent and cannot simply be ignored.without due consideration.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Typical, but far from consistent.
What would you think the solar speed was during the Maunder Minimum?
Dr Norman Page says:
February 22, 2013 at 2:26 pm
abominable no man like Leif around
Present something with substance and you will get a resounding ‘yes’.
Norman Page said:
“The 1900 and 1965 Ap lows correspond to the NH temperature minima at 1910 and 1975 respectively”
The Ap lows correspond immediately to low land temperatures, 1902 was the coldest European summer for 500yrs. http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1900_1949.htm
You won’t see that at the global level though as the Ap low will bring on an El Nino and give a temporary peak in global temperatures.
lsvalgaard says:
“But the solar wind speed has little if any relevance to the climate of the Earth.”
The correlation to land temperature deviations from normals and ENSO is excellent.
Ulric Lyons says:
February 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm
The correlation to land temperature deviations from normals and ENSO is excellent.
So? what has that to do with solar wind speed? Nothing.
lsvalgaard says:
“So? what has that to do with solar wind speed? Nothing.”
Well it’s not our weather effecting the solar wind speed.
Thanks Dr. Page for commenting here.
lsvalgaard says:
February 22, 2013 at 2:15 pm
‘“Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge”’
And, I’m calling yours. It isn’t even possible to have a discussion, because you don’t even know what you don’t know.
Bart says:
February 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm
And, I’m calling yours. It isn’t even possible to have a discussion, because you don’t even know what you don’t know.
What you think you know it not the way nature works. My scientific papers have 2188 citations, how many do yours have? You hammer [no matter how well you know it] doesn’t always work, because not everything is nail. If you want discussion, comment on my reconstruction of Roger’s ‘correlation’ using the full dataset without the sleight of hand of omitting the beginning.
MiCro says:
February 22, 2013 at 4:07 pm
where Sn is the increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured as the running percentage rise in the trend at every instance in time, t, for the previous n years.
It is not clear where he gets the values 134 and 46 for n from.As far as I can see it is just curve fitting with no physics. Perhaps our expert, ‘Bart’, in curve fitting without physics could comment on this.
– – – – – – –
Dr. Page,
I too thank you for participating here to discuss your post.
These solar posts at WUWT are always enlightening for me.
John
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks as always for your energy to engage every single comment about our sun.
I hope your energy does not wane here at WUWT.
Personal Note – after addressing you here as Leif for years it is little strange to address you as Dr, Svalgaard. : )
John
John Whitman says:
February 23, 2013 at 6:52 am
Personal Note – after addressing you here as Leif for years it is little strange to address you as Dr, Svalgaard.
‘Leif’ is fine. I will be in good company with people referred to by their first names:
Napoleon, Rembrandt, Tycho, Galileo, Josquin, … 🙂
Leif “Yes, pretty much. ”
LOL. There is no correlation at all in the solar cycles that preceded 100 years ago and those that preceed today. Might I suggest that you spring for a new set of reading glasses, Leif. Or maybe it is only wishful viewing that is the problem. Tell you what, post the data for those plots somewhere where I can get it and let me run some poly curves through it. I think we can make the difference obvious to even you.
– – – – – – –
Leif,
I had to look up Josquin.
John
Leif: “But your claim of absurdity applies equally well to all other claims of correlation. If the ‘baselevel’ of climate now is different from that a century ago, the question must be ‘why is that?’. What is your non-absurd answer to that question?”
Sorry, Leif, but I can’t give a non-absurd answer to an absurd question. The idea that the climate base level should be the same from one century to the next when it has never been the same from one century to the next in our climate records; and the idea that I should be able to explain why it is different today than in the last century, with your implication that it cannot be done without AGW, is absurd. I can’t explain why the base level changed from century to century a thousand years ago. Does that mean that it was AGW?
Tilo Reber says:
February 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Might I suggest that you spring for a new set of reading glasses
May I quote Yogi Berra: “if I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it.
let me run some poly curves through it.
nobody in his right mind would think that poly[nomial fits] have explanatory powers.
But you can play with our best guess [subject to further tests and research] of the Group Sunspot Number since 1749 using
http://www.leif.org/research/Best-Guess-GSN.xls
John Whitman says:
February 23, 2013 at 2:46 pm
I had to look up Josquin.
So you learned something. His real name was Joost van der Velde [George from the Field]. An endearing form of Joost in Flemish is Joske, so the French ‘translation’ becomes Josquin [Joske] Desprez [somewhat obscure what that means].
Tilo Reber says:
February 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm
with your implication that it cannot be done without AGW, is absurd.
It is that assumption that is absurd.
I can’t explain why the base level changed from century to century a thousand years ago.
Many people claim that they can: It’s the Sun, Stupid. Good that you are not on that bandwagon.
Bart says
Over and out. Leif is often wrong, but seldom in doubt. Arguing is pointless.if anyway.
Henry says
Well I am glad we all agreed here that more CO2 is better for life but perhaps not for Leif.
God bless Leif anyway.
.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/klotzbach-et-al-revisited-a-reply-by-john-christy/#comment-1231086
Tilo says
If the ‘baselevel’ of climate now is different from that a century ago, the question must be ‘why is that?’.
Henry says
It probably is not….I would say from my research that we run on a 88 year wave, meaning that the weather is more or less the same as when it was back in 1925. In those days scientists were not even aware that thermometers need to be regularly calibrated after manufacture e.g. bring me a calibration certificate of a thermometer before 1925? So what baseline exist for data before 1925?Very little I am afraid.
look at the arctic ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Read the whole newspaper report. That ice melt due to warmer Gulf stream water iced up again from 1925-1945. The same thing will happen from 2015-2035. We are all in for some cooler weather. Better be prepared. That is why I am writing this today.
Leif: “nobody in his right mind would think that poly[nomial fits] have explanatory powers.”
Actually, nobody in their right mind would think that your eyeball assessment that the baseline period preceeding the climactic conditions 100 years ago was the same as it is today is correct.
I will agree that the poly fit has no predictive powers. But it is able to tell us about the cumlative strength of the solar cycles that preceeded 100 years ago and the ones that preceeded today. At least it can do this better than your eyes. In any case, here is a fourth order poly with your data. Double click for a full sized image.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/
Since you have an excel version of the data, you can also produce second or third order polys for yourself in seconds. And again you will see that conditions were not the same.
Now it is very clear that the cumlative strength of the solar cycles in the hundred years preceeding 100 years ago were weaker than those preceeding today. And if you look around 1910, you can see that the two solar cycles that preceeded the active one then were much smaller than the two that preceed the current one. And you can see that there is solar strength variation, even on the century scale.
So, hopefully your time debating here will have been well spent and you will have learned something, Leif.
HenryP says:
February 22, 2013 at 6:29 am
I used this site for the sunspot number Henry:
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
Tilo Reber says:
February 24, 2013 at 10:08 am
I will agree that the poly fit has no predictive powers.
To wit, your graph.
But it is able to tell us about the cumulative strength of the solar cycles that preceeded 100 years ago and the ones that preceeded today.
The cumulative ‘strength’ is perhaps given by the integral of the sunspot number.
Here is what that looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Roger-Integral-Comparison.png The values cumulated are the deviation from the overall mean. As you can see cumulated solar activity now [the think red curve] is close to where it was in the 1870s and in the 1810s. So the difference in climate is not due to the difference in cumulative solar activity. The small cycles around 1800, 1900, and 2010-30 [still to come], were all preceded by large cycles of similar heights, so solar activity has not [so far] behaved any different from in the past. That is what you can learn.
HenryP
The arctic got steadily warmer until around 1949, although there were a few severe winters during the war years. It did not immediately refreeze after the warming of 1922
Tonyb
Tilo says
Now it is very clear that the cumulative strength of the solar cycles in the hundred years preceding 100 years ago were weaker than those preceding today.
Henry@Tilo
As indicated, I doubt temp. measurements from before 1925. I doubt SSN measurements from before 1925 even more….What exactly, in those days, was defined a “spot”? Everybody had his own opinion about that, I am sure.
If you study my tables, here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
you will probably be able to work out a best fit, yourself, like I did,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures
and, assuming this all being correct,
it follows that the weather we have now is probably very similar to what we had about 90 years ago.
There is no real proof that it was much cooler then
(unless you can bring the calibration certificates of a thermometer of those days)
ergo, there is no man made climate change
there never was.
Henry@Kelvin
thx. I will try to verify that observation that you made.
My weather stations have records from 1973 or 1974. I figure by that time they had decided on a universal procedure to evaluate SSN. What program opens those files?
Henry@Tony
Again, do you honestly trust those no.s for the arctic from before 1930?
Show me the calibration certificates?
In the war and a few years beyond it was really very cold in Europe. In Holland we had an Elfstedentocht almost every year that time. According to my calculations that was towards the end of the last cooling period which ended around 1950- give or take a few years.
We will be there again around 2038.
HenryP says:
February 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm
In Holland we had an Elfstedentocht almost every year that time.
No, there were only four tochten before 1930. And, BTW, none after 1997.
HenryP
We have numerous physical observations, scientific studies and evidence of changes in fish distribution and plant advancement during the period 1920 to 1949 when the warming ended and set off the global cooling scare that dominated scientific thought for the next twenty years.
Glaciers all over the world were also monitored. I have a blog post on the period coming out shortly. It was derived from hundreds of scientific studies, newspaper reports and personal research at the met office archives and those at the Scott polar institute in Cambridge.
It certainly was not cooling In the arctic and all the great climate scientists at the time described the great ‘amelioration’ of the global climate during the 1920 to 1948 period
Tonyb
Extreme cold winters were experienced in Hld from 1941-1948. I said nothing abt other times.
HenryP says:
February 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Extreme cold winters were experienced in Hld from 1941-1948. I said nothing abt other times.
My bad, I connected with your comment of temperatures before 1930. But even so, the summers were warm, so on a whole tht period was a local maximum of temperature [warmth] before the cooling set towards the 1960s and 1970s.
Henry
Here are the de bilt seasonal figures.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/DeBilt_Netherlands.html
The warm period that Lasted until the late forties, undoubtedly with several severe winters in that decade can be clearly seen, as can the subsequent substantial cooling that temporarily caused concerns about a prolonged period of global cooling.
I certainly do not beIieve in the finite accuracy of thermometers and indeed have written on the subject of their unreliability, like Hubert Lamb I believe they can show the tendency but not the precision.
All the best
Tonyb
Tonyb
Leif: “The values cumulated are the deviation from the overall mean. As you can see cumulated solar activity now [the think red curve] is close to where it was in the 1870s and in the 1810s. ”
Even using your red curve, which seems a little phase shifted and a little over sensitive, the period 100 years ago is not the same as the period today. Not even close. So now you want to use some different time intervals. The 1870s still don’t look the same. The 1810s look close, but what have we got for temperature for that time? Reconstructions. And the reconstructions are all over the place, depending on whose you use.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png
Relying on reconstructions alone, you can find some that show that 2000 is colder than 1800. But you certainly don’t have the data to show that solar conditions were the same but temperature was different. And you have done nothing to include the time lag involved in getting the oceans to equilibrium. Looking for solar cycle and temperature correlations without taking into account the massive buffer that is the ocean strikes me as absurd as your assertion that solar conditions and baselines are the same now as they were a hundred years ago.
Henry: “We are all in for some cooler weather. Better be prepared.”
Looking at the 15 inches of snow on my back deck right now it is tempting to agree with you. But in all seriousness, I don’t know if it will get cooler. However, I have no concern that it will get significantly warmer. I’ve been watching what the oceans have been bringing to the surface for the last few years, and it looks to me like we may have reached a peak. There doesn’t seem to be the kind of subsurface heat available that created the huge El Ninos like we had in 1997. When we do get El Nino’s now, they seem to peter out with less and less force. The Arctic ice cap melt seems to be a trailing indicator. If we haven’t reached the worst of that already, I think that we will in the next five to ten years. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has been slowly increasing it’s ice mass during most of the satellite period. I don’t expect to see any change in direction there.
Tilo Reber says:
February 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Looking for solar cycle and temperature correlations without taking into account the massive buffer that is the ocean strikes me as absurd as your assertion that solar conditions and baselines are the same now as they were a hundred years ago.
Tell that to Dr. Page whose article this is. I agree that looking for solar cycle and temperature correlation is a somewhat absurd occupation, but, guess what, many people disagree with us on that. The integral of the sunspot number should [according to some people here] take care of the ocean inertia.Solar conditions are certainly back to where they were a century ago. You may not believe anything about the temperatures[neither do I, really], but remember, lots of people do. Take it up with them. As far as I am concerned it doesn’t matter much what the reconstructions say as it is clear that the influence of the Sun is minimal at best. If you believe otherwise, show me.
Tilo Reber says:
February 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Even using your red curve, which seems a little phase shifted and a little over sensitive, the period 100 years ago is not the same as the period today. Not even close.
You mean [‘seems …] that you eye-balled it and think that that does a better job than the computer adding up the numbers. One thing computers can do is to add. Another way of looking at it is to line up the great minima as in here http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Centennial-Lineup.png
You should be able [?] to see that these deep minima that occur about 105 years apart have several high cycles before and several low cycles after the minimum. The cyan curve is a guess based on our expectation [?] that the next couple cycles may be low. You might enjoy making a similar plot for temperatures to regain some lost credibility.
Leif: “As far as I am concerned it doesn’t matter much what the reconstructions say as it is clear that the influence of the Sun is minimal at best.”
That is likely going too far. The options for long term temperature variation are few. Blowing off the sun without any other source that has enough variation to account for the ice core data is premature. Certainly the TSI variation is not enough. But I’m still confident that Svensmark is right.
Leif: “The integral of the sunspot number should [according to some people here] take care of the ocean inertia.”
I don’t see how it would do that. How would the integral account for the magnitude of the buffering and the phase shift correctly?
Tilo Reber says:
February 24, 2013 at 4:16 pm
I don’t see how it would do that. How would the integral account for the magnitude of the buffering and the phase shift correctly?
Let the people who push this idea respond to that.It smacks of sleight of hand to me, but I’m not the great self-proclaimed expert on sleight-of-hands.
Blowing off the sun without any other source that has enough variation to account for the ice core data is premature.
The point is that the Sun does not vary enough. Wish it did, but it doesn’t. See slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
The red curve shows the real variation of cosmic rays. If Svensmark were correct, that would be way the temperature should vary. Unfortunately, that is not what is ‘observed’ [to the extent we can reconstruct the paleo-temperature] so there you have it. Jasper Kirby gives a graph that purports to show how temperature [d18O proxy] has varied the past 2000 years in concert with GCRs: http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL-Jasper.png [top panel],but as you see his blue curve [cosmic rays] is just my blue curve [lower panel and slide 18 of above], that is with the long-term variation [above 200 years] removed. But the climate presumably reacts to the REAL cosmic ray flux, not the one where the long-term variation has been filtered out. Such are the shenanigans committed by true believers and advocates. And you fall for it (sigh – what is the world coming to?)
climate reason says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-stupid-the-minor-significance-of-co2/#comment-1231814
Sorry, Tony. I have to disagree. Your figures for De Bilt confirm what I already knew. Thanks for that.
Namely, I also analysed the maxima for CET. You know why I chose maxima. It gives you a better steady picture on what is coming from the outside in……
We know from the RATIOS in my tables that average temp. is driven by maxima, not minima.
For CET, I first put in a long term trend (slope: 0.01)
I then put in a 22 year running average. Most amazingly, I found that that running average from 1950 – 2000 was running below the long term trend. So when all the world was warming from 1950 – 2000 we find CET cooling off……It is the same as you have found in Holland. Hld is at the same latitude and is nearby England. Do you see it?
So, I discovered that certain places on earth run exactly opposite the global curve. It found the same for USA east coast. Also in Norway.
You can check it yourself.
Here is my data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
here is my proposal of the best fit for those data.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Do you understand what I am saying?
Henry@Tilo & Tony
Why is this happening? It is quite simple, really. In a cooling period you get a shift where more clouds/precipitation are/is formed at somewhat lower latitudes, given that moisture content stays more or less constant. So, due to this and other weather related factors, some places on earth actually get warmer during a cooling period. (looking at average yearly temps).This is because if they did not have this extra cloud cover their average temps. would actually be a bit lower. (the GH effect…!!.)
So Tilo, we do not need special cloud theories, like Svensmarks. I have been able to correlate the flooding of the Nile in the past exactly with the global curve, i.e. minimum flooding around 1900, maximum flooding around 1950, minimum flooding around 1995.
If more clouds are formed at certain places, it means that other places on earth get cooler and or drier.
You can see this happening in Anchorage. Do you notice the cooling rates there in my tables? So, in future, progressively, the cooling will become more apparent at higher latitudes. It will also become drier there. To protect earth’s food stores, we must encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like Africa and South America. This is why I am writing this today!
Just to come back to accuracy of temp. measurement, average temps in CET went up by about 1 degree C since 1880. But we know that accuracy of thermometers in those days was about 0.5 degrees. So if you take that + or – 0.5 to absolute, then you are already at 1 degree C. Today, accuracy is probably smaller than 0.1; plus we now have continuous measuring whereas in the past we had a temp. observation by a person every 4 or 6 hours – if you are lucky and nobody was sick or on leave.
. It is clear that you can not compare temp. recording today with what they did 100 years ago.
So, all in all, it is not unreasonable for me to believe that the weather now is not that much different than it was 100 years ago.
HenryP says:
February 24, 2013 at 11:56 am
Henry@Kelvin
thx. I will try to verify that observation that you made.
My weather stations have records from 1973 or 1974. I figure by that time they had decided on a universal procedure to evaluate SSN. What program opens those files?
I used excel
I’m guessing that the temperature rise in the CET caused by the Sun is equal to one tenth of the SSN at any time.
PS
The 1/10 equals 1/100 of the SSN for degrees Celsius as the CET record is 10 times the actual temperature.
Henry@kelvin
I note there are three numbers in a row, if I take daily data from say just 2000.
What are these three no’s? Three different observation stations?
if I look at the variation I would say that is impossible?
Don’t worry abt CET, I want to compare with a station here, in the SH.
No idea henry
I ‘ve got global warming solved.
The number of sunspots total in each alternate SS maximum year have been increasing. You get a higher max followed by a lower max.
Both have been increasing.
It’s a climbing saw tooth until 2011 when it took a big dive.
Just thinking aloud, an ice age could be caused b an excessively long period of no sunspots.