Sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years

From Cardiff University

Sun’s energy influences 1,000 years of natural climate variability in North Atlantic

Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University.

Scientists studied seafloor sediments to determine how the temperature of the North Atlantic and its localised atmospheric circulation had altered. Warm surface waters flowing across the North Atlantic, an extension of the Gulf Stream, and warm westerly winds are responsible for the relatively mild climate of Europe, especially in winter. Slight changes in the transport of heat associated with these systems can led to regional climate variability, and the study findings matched historic accounts of climate change, including the notoriously severe winters of the 16th and 18th centuries which pre-date global industrialisation.

The study found that changes in the Sun’s activity can have a considerable impact on the ocean-atmospheric dynamics in the North Atlantic, with potential effects on regional climate.

Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.

The study, led by Cardiff University scientists, in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Bern, is published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez, lead author from Cardiff University School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explained: “We used seafloor sediments taken from south of Iceland to study changes in the warm surface ocean current. This was done by analysing the chemical composition of fossilised microorganisms that had once lived in the surface of the ocean. These measurements were then used to reconstruct the seawater temperature and the salinity of this key ocean current over the past 1000 years.”

The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data.

“By using the climate model it was also possible to explore how the changes in solar output affected the surface circulation of the Atlantic Ocean,” said Prof Ian Hall, a co-author of the study. “The circulation of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is typically tightly linked to changes in the wind patterns. Analysis of the atmosphere component in the climate model revealed that during periods of solar minima there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles. This feature is often referred to as atmospheric blocking, and it is called this because it blocks the warm westerly winds diverting them and allowing cold Arctic air to flow south bringing harsh winters to Europe, such as those recently experienced in 2010 and 2013.”

Meteorological studies have previously found similar effects of solar variability on the strength and duration of atmospheric winter blockings over the last 50 years, and although the exact nature of this relationship is not yet clear, it is thought to be due to complex processes happening in the upper layers of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere.

Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez added: “In this study we show that this relationship is also at play on longer time-scales and the large ocean changes, recorded in the microfossils, may have helped sustain this atmospheric pattern. Indeed we propose that this combined ocean-atmospheric response to solar output minima may help explain the notoriously severe winters experienced across Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries, so vividly depicted in many paintings, including those of the famous London Frost Fairs on the River Thames, but also leading to extensive crop failures and famine as corroborated in the record of wheat prices during these periods.”

The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

###

Notes for Editors:

Funding for this research has come from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK, the National Science Foundation, Switzerland, the European Commission and NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL). This research forms part of the Climate Change Consortium of Wales (C3W; http://c3wales.org/).

==================================================================

The paper:

Solar forcing of North Atlantic surface temperature and salinity over the past millennium

Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Andreas Born, Ian R. Hall, David J. R. Thornalley & Stephen Barker

Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2094

Abstract:

There were several centennial-scale fluctuations in the climate and oceanography of the North Atlantic region over the past 1,000 years, including a period of relative cooling from about AD 1450 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age1. These variations may be linked to changes in solar irradiance, amplified through feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation2. Changes in the return limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation are reflected in water properties at the base of the mixed layer south of Iceland. Here we reconstruct thermocline temperature and salinity in this region from AD 818 to 1780 using paired δ18O and Mg/Ca ratio measurements of foraminifer shells from a subdecadally resolved marine sediment core. The reconstructed centennial-scale variations in hydrography correlate with variability in total solar irradiance. We find a similar correlation in a simulation of climate over the past 1,000 years. We infer that the hydrographic changes probably reflect variability in the strength of the subpolar gyre associated with changes in atmospheric circulation. Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Paleoclimatology, Solar. Bookmark the permalink.

213 Responses to Sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years

  1. David Larsen says:

    For all of you out there, today is the last day to submit your recommendations to the EPA on their carbon plan.

  2. Mohatdebos says:

    The conclusion of the paper appears to reflect a new consensus among climate shaman — natural forces can offset AGW, but AGW will continue unless we destroy our modern economies. The Economist has an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being; which argues that pause in warming is not permanent and will be reversed soon because the drivers behind the pause — aerosols from China, a quiet sun, ocean currents, etc., are reversing. I am not an English major, but one would think the term “pause” implies that the underlying process will not go on for ever. Finally, I find it interesting that 17-18 years of no warming is considered a temporary phenomena, but an almost equal length period of warming is considered permanent. I wonder what the shaman will say when the earth starts cooling as Joe Bastardi and other real climate experts are predicting.

  3. Janice Moore says:

    “Very Poor.”

    1. “…temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions… .

    Comment: If they are ignorant enough to think that is bona fide science, why should I give any weight to ANYTHING they say?”

    2.“By using the climate model it was also possible to explore how the changes in solar output affected the surface circulation of the Atlantic Ocean,… .

    Comment: IOW, it is possible to EXPLORE OUR OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS. Worthless.

    3. “… regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account … .

    Comment: Since these solar effects are mere conjecture THEY BE CANNOT BE “TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.” Let’s play pretend science. Waste of time (and taxpayer’s hard earned money).

  4. M. Nichopolis says:

    At the bottom… “Funding for this research has come from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK, the National Science Foundation…”

    When they finished their research and opened the door, what did they yell — “Ok, who ordered the recycled modeling tripe, with a smidgeon of corruption?”

  5. Janice Moore says:

    @ M. Nichopolis – LOL.

    Yeah, “…. AND A SIDE OF L1ES!”

  6. ren says:

    Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2094.html

  7. Londo says:

    I get it, all natural climate variability is insignificant compared to co2 unless it happens to cancel the effect of co2, then it’s a fluke.

  8. Janice Moore says:

    Okay, Dr. Svalgaard — How am I doing? #(:))

  9. Ken Gregory says:

    Where are the charts, graphs, data!
    This link has four figures, but they are too small!
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2094.html

  10. John Boles says:

    Non-linear emergent phenomena reacting chaotically to unknown inputs from poorly understood sources.

  11. noaaprogrammer says:

    By admitting that the sun may play a role, (but not as much as human-caused CO2), they are slowly morphing their way back to scientific sanity. Next, they will drop the modifying aspect of it being caused by humans, etc. etc.

  12. profitup10 says:

    Interesting in that our Article V project to Restore Liberty and would de-fund most GRANT Science studies has had a considerable increase in visits from the DOD, DOE, NASA, Universities, and colleges since we starting asking for real science PEER REVIEWS.

    Our project is growing larger everyday and when you ask serious questions and recommend taking the power of money and bribes away from the Federal government some panic sets into the E=GREEN movement. Make them apply this method to all research or no more money.

    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html

  13. lsvalgaard says:

    Their conclusion:
    “Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller [my bold] than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced oceanatmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”

  14. profitup10 says:

    The variables are infinite and the modeling programs are finite therefore new methods are necessary or we are just as well off with a Ouija board. We are all fighting over a few thousand of years worth of data in a system that is billions of years old.

    I think taxes might be a better indicator of climate – do we have money for heat and transport?

    http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-taxation-in-the-united-states.html

  15. Louis says:

    “Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.”

    That’s an odd statement considering we have already had a decade and a half of no warming and we are just now entering the period of predicted low sun activity. If carbon dioxide emissions have done nothing for 17 years, why should we think they will suddenly warm temperatures during “a prolonged period of low sun activity”? Talk about blind faith in CAGW!

  16. Tom in Florida says:

    “but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions”

    Since temperature changes created by human carbon dioxide emissions are almost nil, it means natural temperature changes created by solar activity are less than almost nil. Are they agreeing with Dr S?

  17. Despite their failure to recognise the effects of low solar activity as being global their data supports my New Climate Model.

    I suggest that solar wavelength and particle variations alter the ozone creation / destruction processes in the stratosphere to change the equator to pole tropopause height gradient.

    That is what causes the shifting climate zones and changes in jet stream tracks.

    They also overstate the assumed effect of our CO2 emissions as compared to the size of the natural solar induced climate variations.

    From MWP to LIA and from LIA to date the jet stream tracks approaching western Europe varied latitudinally by 1000 miles.

    I doubt that our emissions would shift them by as much as one mile.

  18. Janice Moore says:

    @ John Boles (2:07pm) — NICE. And, precisely.

    That’s why this weaselly, useless, language above:

    “These variations may be linked to”

    “hydrographic changes probably reflect variability”

    “this process could have contributed” {this is almost a bold faced l1e — for, they have NO EVIDENCE, only conjecture, that changes in solar irradiance over long time scales can cause anything but homeostasis in earth’s climate}

    *********************************************************
    DISCLAIMER OF SUPPORT FOR AGW

    Lest I be misunderstood right along with Dr. Svalgaard (he, unlike me, puts out world class science and yet is completely misunderstood and then unfairly maligned as supporting AGW) —-

    Asserting that there is no evidence (yet) that the sun drives climate changes over long time scales (as opposed to its merely maintaining earth’s homeostasis), i.e., that there is no evidence that the sun’s changes in irradiance are not outweighed by more powerful drivers like ocean currents and winds,

    is NOT saying that human CO2 is an effective driver of climate. So far, the null hypothesis on human CO2 remains NOT DISPROVEN.

    (I hope I made my anti-AGW position perfectly clear #(:))

  19. david(Mk2) says:

    PS. Don`t forget the pay cheque..

  20. Latitude says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Their conclusion:
    “Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller…
    ====
    …less than zero

  21. pochas says:

    noaaprogrammer says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    “By admitting that the sun may play a role, (but not as much as human-caused CO2), they are slowly morphing their way back to scientific sanity.”

    No, they’re not. They’re just banking the fires and hoping for the best, which would be that warming resumes or they get retired before the grants run out.

  22. Matthew R Marler says:

    lsvalgaard: Their conclusion:
    “Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller [my bold] than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced oceanatmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”

    The authors studied TSI effects in a small region of the globe and found them larger than they anticipated, possibly due to the indirect effects through changing circulation patterns. That possibility was supported in part by model simulations. Is it not at least as likely that the global effects of small TSI changes have been underestimated? It seems to me that this study will stimulate other studies of small TSI changes in other parts of the world aimed at the same time interval to see how general the results are.

    I do not know the answer to the question as I posed it. I became interested in reading more about climate when an article in Science prompted me to think that the effects of seemingly small changes in solar output were not well characterized. This paper contributes to my sense that there is much to be learned, including about the “indirect” effects, such as the changes in circulation.

  23. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Happy on His Lovely Beach Tom (in Florida),

    If I may, perhaps you intended instead to say:
    “temperature changes created by human carbon dioxide emissions {are} nil {so far as there being any evidence for such changes}.”

    There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth. First of all, whether or not CO2 per se is a controlling driver of climate is not known. Second, the tiny percentage of human CO2 is easily overwhelmed by a magnitude of 2 by the net CO2 of NATURAL sources and sinks.

    Just want to keep us on the path of evidence-based truth!

    Enjoy your beautiful beach,

    Janice

  24. F.A.H. says:

    It would be interesting if someone (not me) could gain acces to and analyze the reviewer’s comments and editorial direction for this and a great many other “peer reviewed” climate science papers to determine what changes were made to accommodate? In other words to measure if initially submitted papers were more supportive of AGW or less, prior to accommodating comments? I wonder if the slant toward buttressing AGW despite contrary evidence is voluntary on the part of the researchers or the result of pressure from the “peers” tapped by the climate journals?

  25. F.A.H. says:

    Actually, it just occurred to me that this could be done without violating any sanctimony if somehow the originally submitted manuscripts could be compared to the final, published result.

  26. Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm. But it’s not science, it’s a toxic mixture of cargo-cult and environmentalist politics, thickened with the need for more grant funding.

  27. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Mohatdebos says:
    March 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    … I find it interesting that 17-18 years of no warming is considered a temporary phenomena, but an almost equal length period of warming is considered permanent.
    ———————————————-
    Many of us wonder the same thing.

  28. Mathew Marler asked:

    “Is it not at least as likely that the global effects of small TSI changes have been underestimated?”

    Direct effects, no. The change in simple TSI is too small as Leif often points out.

    Indirect effects, yes, because the global air circulation patterns appear to change with changes in solar activity. The above paper makes a start in recognising that fact but ignores the similar changes in the southern hemisphere during the LIA.

    I have proposed a plausible mechanism involving ozone which changes global cloudiness and then alters the proportion of TSI able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system.

    That produces a large enough amplification of the solar changes to produce the variations observed over the past several thousand years.

  29. Janice Moore says:

    @ Latitude: “…less than zero.” Yes.

    Perhaps, I was wrong. It appears that Dr. Svalgaard DOES support AGW by that comment (emphasizing “much smaller”). Aaack. I don’t want to think that!

    ********************************************

    Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    Would you please do many of us who highly value your thinking a favor? We need to hear from you that you agree that the null hypothesis re: human CO2 as a climate driver is NOT DISPROVEN. I say “need” to hear because it would put many a WUWT mind at ease.

    Your somewhat perplexed (but hopeful!) student,

    Janice

    P.S. I’ll assume the answer to my Q to you (re: my post of 2PM today)
    is, essentially, “Poor.”
    <(:(] Well, thanks for giving me the courtesy of not saying it out loud (smile).

  30. Janice Moore says:

    @ Grumpy (2:33) LOL — Yes, and heavy on the “thick.” As a brick!

  31. Gunga Din says:

    Mohatdebos says:
    March 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    …Finally, I find it interesting that 17-18 years of no warming is considered a temporary phenomena, but an almost equal length period of warming is considered permanent.

    ==============================================================
    They’ve been out in the Sun too long?

    I wonder what the shaman will say when the earth starts cooling as Joe Bastardi and other real climate experts are predicting.

    ===============================================================
    I sometimes wonder if the terminology changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because “they” noticed the temps weren’t rising or if ‘they” didn’t really expect they would but didn’t want the Gravy Train (“Power Train”?) to be derailed.

  32. Rogue Geochemist says:

    Interesting that in the abstract there is no mention of AGW. One might surmise that the AGW language was added during peer review/editorial – would love to see the article as originally submitted.

  33. Col Mosby says:

    Did they bother to mention what they assume to be the effects of CO2 ?

  34. RMF says:

    I think it would be useful to perhaps read the entire thing and take it in before jumping to conclusions about this study!

    Its focus on solar activity and its affect on ocean temperatures and localized climate, introduces some new and interesting approaches to the study of climate. As has been noted repeatedly here and in other places, many models and studies tend to overlook or underplay, cooling mechanisms, and this has clearly resulted in models running too hot. So I welcome this kind of study that begins to offer outlines based on actual study of the oceans and documented temperatures.

  35. taxed says:

    At last it seems that climate science is starting to look in the right area as to the causes of climate change in the NH. Because l now think its the change and movement of the Azores high in the North Atlantic is what is key to major climate change in the NH.
    As am now getting convinced that its the current strong and fairly stable Azores high is what blocks the NH off from entering into a ice age.

  36. Konrad says:

    “The study found that changes in the Sun’s activity can have a considerable impact on the ocean-atmospheric dynamics in the North Atlantic, with potential effects on regional climate.”

    So they claim to have identified a climate response to solar variability, but then –

    “Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions”

    Given CO2 has no ability warm an atmosphere exhibiting vertical circulation, this would mean that the solar effect they claim to have identified is less than nothing. Not sure how that works…

  37. rogerknights says:

    F.A.H. says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    It would be interesting if someone (not me) could gain acces to and analyze the reviewer’s comments and editorial direction for this and a great many other “peer reviewed” climate science papers to determine what changes were made to accommodate? In other words to measure if initially submitted papers were more supportive of AGW or less, prior to accommodating comments? I wonder if the slant toward buttressing AGW despite contrary evidence is voluntary on the part of the researchers or the result of pressure from the “peers” tapped by the climate journals?

    Maybe, after the warm turns, a congressional investigation could delve into this matter. Sociologists of science would be eager to offer assistance. Participation could — at first, anyway — be voluntary. But clamming up would look suspicious.

  38. thanks all i knew you were right all along for years I’ve being saying this on my radio show in vancouver lost a few listeners cause I’m a foil head ! thanks one and all

  39. lsvalgaard says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm
    Would you please do many of us who highly value your thinking a favor? We need to hear from you that you agree that the null hypothesis re: human CO2 as a climate driver is NOT DISPROVEN
    I don’t like double negatives. For me the issue is this:
    x% is due to solar activity and related
    y% is due to man [CO2, land use, manipulation of data]
    z% is due to random fluctuations of a complex non-linear system [e.g. ocean related]
    w% is due to long-period cycles [e.g. due to orbit changes or solar energy production]

    We do not know what x, y, z, and w are. To assume that any one of them is 100% is silly, so they are likely all rather small. If we assume they are equal, that gives us 25% for each which to within a factor of 2 sounds reasonable.

  40. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Soooo … the Sun’s variability is hiding the man made global warming, but the global warming is not due to the Sun’s activity – that can only cool the planet.

  41. Michael D says:

    rogerknights: [Sociologists of science would be eager to offer assistance. ]
    That will be an interesting study, some day: “The Sociological Distortion of Climate Science during the AGW Fiasco of 1990-2020″. I just hope that the evidence is being preserved.

  42. James Strom says:

    To me this paper seems to ascribe large changes in Earth’s climate to fluctuations in solar output, and, surprisingly, it seems to explain historical weather for a long period, at least as much as climate. Then, as if to calm everybody down, they say that of course any of these changes are small relative to CO2 forcing. It could be that the last assertion may have been tacked on to ensure publication.

    Or maybe I’m just hallucinating.

  43. lsvalgaard says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    March 10, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    but the global warming is not due to the Sun’s activity – that can only cool the planet.
    Solar activity if high enough [e.g. by a 1000 times] can certainly warm the planet. Your ‘only’ is a misconception.

  44. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Leif, you highlighted the wrong words in the conclusion; here is my versions:

    “Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced ocean-atmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”

    In other words, they have untested assumptions and a complete lack of evidence, AKA. numbers, data etc. This is just hand-waving BS.

  45. Chad Wozniak says:

    Another, rather clumsy attempt to sneak in AGW propaganda behind a veneer of “real” science. I am not deceived.

    And yes, the historical record DOES point to the Sun being the primary drive of climate, versus no correlation or evidence whatever that CO2 has a discernible effect.

    We won’t be out of the woods with these mollusks until CAGW is dead and buried once and for all.

  46. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    Re: “We do not know what x, y, z, and w are.”

    Thank you.

    Janice

  47. TimO says:

    But if blame the Sun we can’t buy more oceanside houses, 100ft houseboats and Gulfstream jets for Al Gore!!

  48. Robert of Ottawa says:

    lsvalgaard @ March 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Solar activity if high enough [e.g. by a 1000 times] can certainly warm the planet. Your ‘only’ is a misconception.

    I wrote that in a fit of rhetoric,. You are correct.

  49. Gary Pearse says:

    “can led to regional climate variability, and the study findings matched historic accounts of climate change, including the notoriously severe winters of the 16th and 18th centuries which pre-date global industrialisation.”

    Although I think the paper is squeezing too much out of these much-abused little shells, I welcome the historical references. I think it would be a good idea for Anthony to have a section on historical climate (probably include paleoclimate as a sub group.

    Shakespeare writ during the LIA
    Let us see what he doth say:

    From Act II, Scene 7 in As You Like It:

    http://allpoetry.com/poem/8449737-Blow–Blow–Thou-Winter-Wind-by-William-Shakespeare
    Then there are the paintings:
    By Berman: compare his painting to recent photo showing level of glacier:

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=Little+Ice+Age+paintings&client=firefox-a&hs=Gh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=o0EeU4qnKIm9yAGjioBA&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1002&bih=416#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=e0256BTy9VIiBM%253A%3BBcCJ5yYeAvmpwM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.swisseduc.ch%252Fglaciers%252Fglossary%252Ficons%252Flittle-ice-age-two.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.swisseduc.ch%252Fglaciers%252Fglossary%252Flittle-ice-age-two-en.html%3B700%3B450

    By Hendrik Averkamp:

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/reviews/2010/james_ice_age.html

    And loads more. It’s also a nice artsy counterpoint to bloodless graphs and equations and yet it is also hard data.

  50. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Hobby Hunter.

    There is no doubt that if a large portion of the population walked around with tinfoil on their heads, more evil solar radiation will be reflected back into space, thus saving the planet.

    There is method to the Warmista madness.

  51. Alex Hamilton says:

    It is more likely to be cosmic rays from near the Sun that affect CFC levels here, which in turn affect the ozone layer. This new research shows that CFC levels correlate well with climate records thus leaving carbon dioxide out of the picture, as I have been saying, because a correct application of physics shows that gravity forms an autonomous thermal gradient (lapse rate) leaving none of that “33 degrees of warming” needing to be done by water vapor and carbon dioxide etc. In fact, gravity causes even higher surface temperatures which are then reduced by water vapor, as empirical data shows when comparing similar moist and dry regions.

  52. Mario Lento says:

    Borrowed from Janice’s post:

    1. “…temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions… .”

    And then the statement:

    2. “The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries.”

    So let me get this straight. On the one hand, human CO2 emissions will cause far greater warming than the large and abrupt changes (cooling) in temperature caused by diminishing solar output? Is this just a token to the alarmist community so they can get their paper published? Where is the large and abrupt effect of CO2 on climate?

  53. Janice Moore says:

    A genuine question (as simple as it is):

    Dr. Svalgaard,

    Re: “e.g. by a 1000 times” (you at 3:46pm)

    1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?

    2. If re-wording my question in item 1 would make it more helpful to us here, please do that for me and answer that, better, question.

    So grateful that you take the time to teach us,

    Janice

  54. Bruce Cobb says:

    Pity the poor sun. For 1,000 years it was head honcho of our climate, the big Kahuna, top dog, then along comes “carbon”, and whoosh; demoted, put out into a back closet with hardly room to turn around. The sun is the Rodney Dangerfield of climate forcings.

  55. noaaprogrammer says:

    What will the onset of the sun becoming a red giant be like in affecting the Earth’s temperature? Gradual – over millennia, or sudden – over centuries?

  56. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, Mario!

    Re: “Where is the large and abrupt effect of CO2 on climate?”

    LOL. I think I can answer that one.

    It is in lines 3,205 through 5,333 of the computer code for the model simulation.

    Seriously, good point. WHO IN THE WORLD DO THEY THING THEY ARE FOOLING with such statements? What a giant farce.

    Time to shine a little common SENSE onto those AGW rats (sounds of scuttling into the shadows):

    That story’s {CO2 causes global warming} a crock of baloney. – Judge Judy

    #(:))

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    Read — it — and — weep, all you Envirostalinists.

  57. Chris says:

    Since changes in CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes and we’ve had a standstill in temperature the last 17 plus years, and temperature could go down with solar activity, we could end up seeing a decline in CO2 levels down the road. It would be fun to see how the alarmists would explain that away.

  58. profitup10 says:

    You are arguing over such a small percentage of the atmosphere that is meaningless – the percentage of CO2 is small and the human contribution is so small that it is meaningless in the chemistry of climate – it can however improve plant growth.

    Silly to argue about FEELINGS ND NOT SCIENCE.

  59. profitup10 says:

    COME ON FOLKS – If the sun stops shining how long would the earth support life even if the air was 50 % CO2 – silly science and totally absent any application of logic or the Scientific method?

  60. Leo G says:

    The Cardiff University researchers imply that a very small change in solar output over a long period, has little effect on earth surface temperatures, but a disproportionately large effect on ocean mixed-layer temperatures- the converse of anthropogenic CO2 forcing.
    What’s wrong with that?

  61. davidmhoffer says:

    So… they can detect sudden and abrupt changes that were natural in sea floor sediments from 1000 years ago, but these are smaller than the changes caused by CO2 which, with over a century of modern instrumental records and 30 years of state of the art satellite records, we CAN’T measure?

    LOL.

  62. profitup10 says:

    Reality and a possibility of a scientific proof. Other than that the GRANTS ARE FEEDING ME AND MINE?

    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm

  63. Bill_W says:

    “Londo says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm
    I get it, all natural climate variability is insignificant compared to co2 unless it happens to cancel the effect of co2, then it’s a fluke.”

    Mostly correct Londo. But they also say that it did cause large effects in the past like the cold winters in the LIA. But no more apparently. I also like that they admit that the changes they are seeing are amplified in the NH today but than can dismiss things in the past that may have been largely constrained to the NH.

    Great comment by Leif Svalgaard that we don’t know what x, y, z, and w are but they could all be 25% within a factor of two. So roughly 10% to 50%. And that is lumping all human effects together, not just CO2.

  64. daddylonglegs says:

    So I guess our mild wet and windy winter this year in Europe was due to us being close to the peak of sun spot cycle 24?

    But ocean current temperatures responding so promptly to sunspot changes – that takes some explaining.

  65. AnonyMoose says:

    “Analysis of the atmosphere component in the climate model revealed that during periods of solar minima there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles (in the climate model).”

    (Omitted phrase inserted)

  66. MattN says:

    The SUN drives the climate?!?! No F$%^&*G way!!!!

  67. Janice Moore says:

    Re: “… there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles (in the climate model).” (Good one by Anony Moose, heh — 4:59pm).

    Imagination is funny.. it makes a cloudy day sunny… oh well… .
    #(:))
    Tommy Dorsey and Frank Sinatra

    (Sinatra comes in at 1:26)

    @ Pamela Gray — not the GREATEST dance music… but… you and Mr. Wonderful could just sort of slow dance to it at two beats per step (smile).

  68. john says:

    ‘it’s the sun wot dun it‘!!

    Who’d have thought the sun could have ANY influence on climate, any heat goes to the bottom of the sea !!

    There must be an AlGore rhythm to explain it (:-))

  69. lsvalgaard says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?
    The the Sun [and the Earth] was young solar activity was MUCH higher than now, the solar wind blew about a 1000 times stronger, but the situation then cannot really be compared to now.

  70. Janice Moore says:

    Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard.

  71. jauntycyclist says:

    the co2 stuff certainly looked added on.
    if they have a correlation between sunspots and climate then we need a mechanism. From what i see the usual mechanism is claimed as vulcanism and the sunspots are just coincidence. If they start adding in sunspots then they will have to start adding in the Earth’s axial tilt , magnetic shield, x rays and all the rest?

    “…the earth currently reaches its perihelion on January 3, close to the Northern Hemisphere’s winter solstice. This timing of the perihelion and Northern Hemisphere’s winter solstice reduces seasonal differences in insolation in the Northern Hemisphere because the hemisphere is closer to the sun in winter and hence relatively warmer. On the other hand, the earth is further away from the sun and relatively cooler during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, reaching its aphelion on July 511,000 years ago, the reverse was true: the earth reached its perihelion during the northern summer, increasing the seasonal variability of earth’s climate”

    “Earth’s axial tilt or obliquity varies from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees over the course of a 41,000-year cycle. The current angle is 23.4 degrees. Changes in axial tilt affect the distribution of solar radiation received at the earth’s surface. When the angle of tilt is low, polar regions receive less insolation. When the tilt is greater, the polar regions receive more insolation during the course of a year. Like precession and eccentricity, changes in tilt thus influence the relative strength of the seasons, but the effects of the tilt cycle are particularly pronounced in the high latitudes where the great ice ages began.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html

    Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found that the ends of those periods – called glacial terminations – corresponded to times of greatest tilt. ..Earth’s axis is currently pointing at the North Star, Polaris, but it is always rotating around in a conical pattern. In about 10,000 years, it will point toward the star Vega, which will mean that winter in the Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January.”

    http://www.livescience.com/6937-ice-ages-blamed-tilted-earth.html

    so there is a natural reversal of the seasons so one should expect reversals so all this warmest since x and wettest since x seems pointless if its going to flip anyway?

    what a disaster for co2ers if its the earths tilt + Sunspots correlation + magnetic shield? no amount of tax is going to change that?

  72. jauntycyclist says:

    so if in 10k years winter in the Northern Hemisphere will begin in June instead of January then one should be able to plot that transition and see if what is happening now fits that trend? the model could be tested by seeing if it matches what has happened since the last seasonal flip? although that might be complicated by a possible pending magnetic reversal?

  73. I agree with a theme repeated several times above–if the solar effect is much less than the AGW effect, why is there a “pause” instead of a modest decrease in the rate of acceleration? If I am pushing down the gas (AGW effect) and dragging a cinder block behind my car (solar variability), I should drive at 45 mph instead of 55 mph. But a “pause” suggests I am standing still–or even going backward. That says I’m not dragging a cinder block–I’m attached to tractor-trailer pulling the opposite direction.

    Another example of the eternal conflict between findings and funding… the one who pays the piper calls the tune. This is why we need LoserPaysResearch.com

  74. Climatologist says:

    Funny how they have to pay respect to man-made warming

  75. Legatus says:

    So lets see…

    The only real data was large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. We can ignore “data” from a model because it is not data, merely computer enhanced prejudices.

    So, some questions:

    Please describe exactly how, and in what way, there was “low solar energy output”, be specific. How “low” compared to “normal”, exactly? What specific kind(s) of “energy”? Low “total solar irradiance” is the exact phrase used, yet I have seen no evidence that low sunspot activity leads to such, hence the obvious need for clarification (or withdrawal of the paper).

    The sun has “low sunspot activity” about every 11 years or so, so it should also have “low solar energy output”, or even low “total solar irradiance,”right?

    Please show data of the expected 11 year cycle of “ large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current” which we should see during these 11 year spaced periods of “ low solar energy output”.

    I see no description of the mechanism of how this “low solar energy output” is creating this “high-pressure system located west of the British Isles”, merely “our computer model told us so”. Perhaps there is such in the paper, yet there is no link to said paper seen here.

    I live in California, there is just such a blocking high pressure system here. Computer climate models have failed to predict it’s presence, and have also predicted it would go away, and yet it stays. Excuse me if that makes me skeptical of models that predict such here. I also have seen no evidence that it is caused by “ low solar energy output”, nor has it even been suggested.

    There is also the problem that the Little Ice Age seems to have effected a larger area than just what would be effected by such a blocking high pressure. It would therefor seem that one would have to show how this effect happened in those other places as well.

    At least some of the cold associated with said LIA happened before the periods of “ low solar energy output”, how was that, exactly?

    Next, the measurements show the following:
    CO2 has gone from 280 to 395 parts per million.
    This should result in trapped longwave radiation heating the atmosphere at 12KM altitude in the tropics by 2.1 C.
    The measured heating at this place is 0.7 C, 1/3 the predicted amount. (Note that this does mean that CO2 is having an effect, just not a dangerous one.)
    CO2 alone is not enough to create any catastrophe, it is said that an increase of water vapor will increase it’s effect by 4 times. Measurements completely fail to show any increase in water vapor.
    The predicted catastrophic heating is 3C, multiplied by the 1/3 of ¼ of the actual, measured heating seen, is 0.25C.
    The LIA cooling was 2C.
    2C is larger than 0.25C, a lot larger.
    So, since the temperature change will be only 1/12 the amount predicted to be caused by “human carbon dioxide emissions”, an amount much smaller than happened during the LIA, the following statement is shown false “Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.
    Note that that also assumes that “low sun activity” will have a significant effect, especially the current “low” activity. I say this because other periods of “low” activity appear to have had no such effect (other periods outside of the LIA), and because we have to define “low”, how “low” is “low” enough, and what, exactly, is it that is “low”?

    And I would sure like to know the physical mechanism by with the specific yet unmentioned type of “low solar energy output” caused this effect, rather than just “our computer told us so”.

  76. Tom in Florida says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm
    Dear Happy on His Lovely Beach Tom (in Florida),
    If I may, perhaps you intended instead to say:
    “temperature changes created by human carbon dioxide emissions {are} nil {so far as there being any evidence for such changes}.”
    There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth. First of all, whether or not CO2 per se is a controlling driver of climate is not known. Second, the tiny percentage of human CO2 is easily overwhelmed by a magnitude of 2 by the net CO2 of NATURAL sources and sinks.
    Just want to keep us on the path of evidence-based truth!
    ========================================================================
    I originally wrote the comment that way however, I would never place an absolute on something that still could true even in the slightest way. So I took the safe route and used the words “almost nil”. Too many posters tend to attack absolutes as a distraction so there was no need to go there as the point I was trying to make was not dependent on it.

  77. Janice Moore says:

    My dear Tom (in Florida),

    I understand your caution. And I respect your goal of not being inflammatory. However, with regard to this, “I would never place an absolute on something that still could be true … .” (you)

    Au contraire: we CAN say (absolutely): “There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth.” (me)

    Be BOLD, dear Tom, be bold!

    Let ‘em attack us bold, confident, speakers — we can take it!
    (I’ve had some pretty big boulders heaved at me on WUWT — and, thanks largely to Gunga Din and my ever-supportive hero, Mario, I’m STILL here.)
    #(:))

    Respectfully (if in slight disagreement) yours,

    Janice

  78. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    lsvalgaard says: Their conclusion:

    “Despite the hemispheric temperature changes expected from solar minima being much smaller [my bold] than the warming from future CO2 emissions, regional climate variability associated with solar-induced oceanatmosphere feedbacks could be substantial and should be taken into consideration when projecting future climate changes.”

    Translation:
    “Overall, blame CO2 emissions for having a much greater impact on temperature than a waning sun. But when model projections fail miserably, blame regional scale, the waning sun for inducing oceanatmosphere induced feedback loops.”

    How convenient.

  79. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Translation:
    “Overall, blame CO2 emissions for having a much greater impact on temperature than a waning sun. But when model projections fail miserably, blame the waning sun for inducing regional scale, oceanatmosphere induced feedback loops.”

    Cut & paste error – Fixed

  80. Matthew R Marler says:

    Stephen Wilde: Direct effects, no. The change in simple TSI is too small as Leif often points out.

    Indirect effects, yes, because the global air circulation patterns appear to change with changes in solar activity. The above paper makes a start in recognising that fact but ignores the similar changes in the southern hemisphere during the LIA.

    I meant direct and indirect effects combined. Like you, I hope for more studies along these lines.

  81. Mac the Knife says:

    The following link provides a .pdf file of the Supplimentary Information supporting their NatGeo paper. Contains their sampling techniques, analytical methods, and statistical tricks. Only about 2.5Mb…. Couldn’t access the full paper, but found this while searching:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2094-s1.pdf

  82. ren says:

    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.3972.pdf

  83. Sparks says:

    It’s wrong.. the sun does not induce carbon dioxide warming or cooling.

  84. “Low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events”.
    Joe Bastardi used equivalent words on his videos on Saturday 1st and 8th of March ’14.
    WeatherBELL, at http://www.weatherbell.com/

  85. Sparks says:

    Andres Valencia says:
    March 10, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    It’s not solar irradiance. Hi or Low.

  86. Sparks says:

    There are two main factors that drive weather;

    1) The Sun
    2) What regulates the sun.
    3) What the Sun regulates.

  87. Bill Illis says:

    Ken Gregory says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    Where are the charts, graphs, data!
    This link has four figures, but they are too small!
    ————————————————

    I often find that the underlying data in climate science papers is completely different than the charts shown in the paper (but this seems to be exclusively on the global warming activist side rather than the objective sceptic side).

    In this case, the main large size graph is particularly impressive. Based on the chart, it doesn’t look like they screwed around with the basic data. Be10 and volcanic influences on TSI, very closely correlated to the temp from do18. I don’t think anyone has done this at high resolution before.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ngeo2094_F2.html

    Just for reader’s info, in the journal “Nature”, the link to the large scale charts will have “fig_tab” in the link line or “images_article” rather than “carousel”. Just change it in the link line. small image with carousel below.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/ngeo2094-f2.jpg

  88. RMF says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm
    “1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?”

    Hmm, I was thinking that just this morning as I stepped out into 261 K without slippers: WTH, will the sun never come out???

  89. Gail Comb says:

    profitup10 says: @ March 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    My first reaction to this was: Time to DE-FUND SCIENCE! And ad Academia too while you are at it.

  90. Sparks says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    “1. When (if ever) has solar activity been high enough for long enough to almost certainly have caused a general warming of Earth?”

    When its Magnetic poles revolve around its equator facing us for extended periods. it has serious dangerous potential, where as the silly gases do not.

  91. Carla says:

    Blocking patterns..changes in atmospheric circulation patterns..

    Over the course of a normal? lol solar cycle.. Earth’s rotation changes +3ms to -3ms. Over the course of a normal solar cycle.
    Over the course of a solar cycle the plasmasphere sub-corotates and super corotates.
    What could change the angle and strength of the polar vortex? and bring up some blocking patterns?

    good night

    I like that x,y,z and w.. good stuff..

  92. Sparks says:

    Carla says:
    March 10, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    You need to buy a frame of reference frame lol get tax for it or something!

  93. SteveS says:

    ” y% is due to man [CO2, land use, manipulation of data] ”
    This is the money quote

  94. Perry says:

    Anthony,

    Usual disinformation at the BBC. Headline is…….. Genghis Khan: Good weather ‘helped him to conquer’

    In the article we get “But as the empire expanded from from 1211 to 1225, Mongolia saw an unusual spell of regular rainfall and mild temperatures.” Genghis Khan died in 1227, but the Mongols continued to expand their empire. So, shouldn’t those 16 years be more accurately described in terms of a changed climate, rather than as weather, which is more of a daily event?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26523524

    The Alans were another horse culture who were forced west seeking better pasture for their horses & as they moved east to west, the climate improved & their power increased, until they made right nuisances of themselves in Europe..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

  95. javierm0n0 says:

    all i can think of is this quote i saw today. Some dude from congress said wind was a finite resource. Not sure if it was fabricated for meme’s sake but sometimes i wonder about their intelligence.

  96. Sparks says:

    Perry,
    that’s all crap and conclusions from experts!

  97. Solomon Green says:

    . “…temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions… .”

    Without that insertion, for which the authors appear to have produced no evidence, it is doubtful if they would have justified their grants and, almost certainly would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

  98. george e. smith says:

    Well if you ask me, (don’t ask me), “Study”, is an acronym for “Contemplate your navel.”

    Scientist do NOT “Study” ! They “observe” and they “measure”.

    So they got funding for this “study” from Switzerland; now that is ironic.

    Just last Sunday, I took a five minute stroll down the road from the front door of my little sister’s apartment, where I was able to take a photograph, of the real, and the imaginary. I wish I could simply copy and paste that picture right here.

    It’s basically a picture of a small economy car pulling out of a gas station (the real); a European gas station.

    Looming up in a field behind, is what looks to me like a real life Higgs Boson. (the imaginary).

    Yes my sister has lived for decades, five minutes up the road from CERN.

    The gendarmes showed up en masse (that’s French), and hussled me out the front gate, which wasn’t supposed to be open on Sunday; but I got my pictures anyway.

    Maybe I’ll see if they will let me in tomorrow, (with my camera).

    But Higgs Boson’s are not going to replace the gasoline, in your economy car; the Swiss, do have some very nice looking and tiny cars, from Mercedes, and Alfa Romeo, and others, and some nice fancy BMW motor bike/scooter/hansomcab/whatever gizmos.

    But pay no attention to the Swiss, when it comes to being green and clean. Yes the trains are clean, and they really do run on time; bloody amazing system actually.

    BUT ! it looks as if about one person in three under age 35-45 ; men, women, and children, all smoke, and they hang around the train/bus stops; always upwind of me, so the whole town stinks, like an old ash tray. But the United Nothings, Geneve, can always be counted on as a good place to protest for free clean green renewable energy/air/whatever .

    But if you are going to dig around in the mud for “study” material, well excuse me, I meant to say sediments, not mud; you can probably find some dirt on something, that the Swiss, might pay you to “study.”

  99. daddylonglegs says:

    This appears to be strong support for Stephen Wilde’s New Climate Model.
    Specifically, weak sun – loopy meridional jets (and blocking highs),
    strong sun – straight zonal jets.

  100. I remember time (not so long ago) when Dr. Svalgaard refused to attribute any warming or cooling to the solar activity. Now he gives that negligible shiny object in the sky 25% of the influence. I’d call it a progress, if it wasn’t a retreat.

  101. RichardLH says:

    Well CET oscillates along with little regard to either the Sun or AWG.

    http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/cet/

  102. RichardLH says:

    george e. smith says:
    March 11, 2014 at 2:02 am

    “I wish I could simply copy and paste that picture right here.”

    Let snag.gy http://snag.gy/ be your friend. Copy your clipboard to the ‘net with ctrl-V and post the url!

  103. Gail Comb says:

    Chris says: @ March 10, 2014 at 4:25 pm
    …. temperature could go down with solar activity, we could end up seeing a decline in CO2 levels down the road. It would be fun to see how the alarmists would explain that away.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Who says they have to explain it if they are the ones doing the ‘record keeping’?

    We have already seen they have no respect for the data and will manipulated so it matches the agenda.

    Temperatures would still be ‘Rising’ if warmists were in charge of the satelite data.

  104. Twobob says:

    Spin;-{
    The Universe rotates.
    the World wobbles.
    Volcanoes blow.
    Water moves.
    Wind blows.
    Moon orbits.
    Spotty Sun shines.
    Humankind affects it all?

  105. LT says:

    Now if they can expand their research to explain why LIA was not just a regional event, but a global event.

  106. “Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions…”

    (http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/index.cfm?fuseAction=datatools.view&&project_id=38&navOrgCode=610&navTab=nav_researchers) NASA:
    “The second finding is crucial in understanding the physical mechanisms of the impact of solar variation on Earth’s climate. Based on SIM observations Cahalan et al. [2010] demonstrate remarkable different climate responses (stratosphere, troposphere, ocean mixed layer) to SORCE-based and proxy-based SSI variations. The out-of-phase SSI variations also have implications to re-examine the connection of the Sun and stratosphere, troposphere, biosphere, ocean, and Earth’s climate. [...]”
    “… and how solar variations influence the Earth’s climate over long time scales REMAIN UNRESOLVED.”

    NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq10.html ) :
    “… our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal […]

    Is sufficient compare these three quotes to demonstrate the pseudoscientific nonsense contained in the first citation – no basis for such an axiomatic level of certainty in this type of works – papers.

    I only “Like you, I hope for more studies along these lines.” Not solely about positive feedbacks antr. CO2 …

    Fool agree with Sparks.

  107. Full agree with Sparks, of course, sorry for the mistake.

  108. John Day says:

    Alexander Feht says:
    I remember time (not so long ago) when Dr. Svalgaard refused to attribute any warming or cooling to the solar activity. Now he gives that negligible shiny object in the sky 25% of the influence. I’d call it a progress, if it wasn’t a retreat.

    You are not interpreting his “25%” correctly. He believes that we really don’t know what the four factors x,y,z and w are. Therefore, to be fair (printsip bezrazlichiya nye pravda li?), one cannot give any factor more credit than the other. So they all get 25%.

    So his stance has not changed. He still does not believe that solar magnetic activity has been shown to have any significant effect on climate, but is being fair about and leaving unbiased room for doubt.
    :-|

  109. Ulric Lyons says:

    “Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.”

    Regionally in the north hemisphere cold outbreaks will depend on how deep the negative AO/NAO episodes are, which in the past few years has been as low as during the last weak solar cycles 12-14 in the 1880-90’s. I don’t think that +/-0.5°C average global temperature makes much difference

    “Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun.”

    So why was the AMO in a positive phase during the 1880-90’s?

  110. lsvalgaard says:

    Alexander Feht says:
    March 11, 2014 at 3:02 am
    I remember time (not so long ago) when Dr. Svalgaard refused to attribute any warming or cooling to the solar activity.
    Your venom has gotten the better of you. Just due to the solar cycle one must expect at least a 0.1C variation as I have always maintained. Now, there are people who claim that not even that will happen, i.e. that there are long-term effects without any underlying short-term [cycle] effect.

  111. RichardLH says:

    Ulric:

    A better question might be, why is it that AMO/NAO are so cyclic?

    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-reconstructed-monthly-nao-rnao-monthly-anomalies.png

    and how does that relate to CET

    http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/cet/

  112. Ulric Lyons says:

    RichardLH says:
    “Ulric: A better question might be, why is it that AMO/NAO are so cyclic?”

    My question “why was the AMO in a positive phase during the 1880-90′s?” was pertinent to their claim that:
    “Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun.”
    as solar cycles 12-14 were weak, which seems to contradict their claim. I was not concerned with the cyclicity as such.

  113. John@EF says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
    Re: “We do not know what x, y, z, and w are.”
    Thank you.
    Janice
    ***********************
    Dear Janice Moore,
    I hate to rock your giddy boat, but I hope you understand that Dr. Svalgaard is not agreeing with your BOLD view. Not identifying specific percentages for x, y, z, and w is not the same as “NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth”. The Dr. does assume a value for “y”, however arbitrary and vague, and there is considerable scientific research that supports impacts of CO2 and land use, for example. Anyway, have a nice day, and enjoy your fantasy. lol

  114. RichardLH says:

    Ulric: I have great doubts as to if sun activity can responsible to the temperature outcomes. They are trying to match cyclicity in that to temperature. There are other cylicities that may be more important.

  115. profitup10 says:

    Didn’t the Senate answer all these issues in their overnighter on Climate Change?

  116. lsvalgaard says:

    If one includes Volcanism as a factor http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/volcano-activity-temperature-and-response-times/ then we have x, y, z, w, and v. This lowers the equal assignment from 25% to 20%. At this point there is no compelling values that everyone can agree on [as is required for a mature science].

  117. Ulric Lyons says:

    RichardLH says:
    “Ulric: I have great doubts as to if sun activity can responsible to the temperature outcomes.”

    With such a good correlation between negative NAO with weak solar cycles in late Maunder, Dalton, solar cycles 12-14, and currently?
    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-reconstructed-monthly-nao-rnao-monthly-anomalies.png

  118. RichardLH says:

    Ulric: Co-incidence is not a conclusion, only an observation. You do rather need a mechanism that connects on e to the together and that is what is missing.

  119. RichardLH says:

    Ulric: PDO and AMO/NAO show consistent cyclic behaviour that is not well represented by any solar output figures.

    http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/pdo/
    http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/amo/

  120. John@EF says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 11, 2014 at 8:30 am

    If one includes Volcanism as a factor http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/volcano-activity-temperature-and-response-times/ then we have x, y, z, w, and v. This lowers the equal assignment from 25% to 20%. At this point there is no compelling values that everyone can agree on [as is required for a mature science].
    ********************************
    And one should not forget cow farts, add q to the equation. Let’s see, that brings equal assignment to 16.67% … {rolls eyes & laughs}

  121. Mario Lento says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm
    @ Latitude: “…less than zero.” Yes.
    Perhaps, I was wrong. It appears that Dr. Svalgaard DOES support AGW by that comment (emphasizing “much smaller”). Aaack. I don’t want to think that!
    ++++++++++++
    Janice: As humans, we’re wired to want our team to win. Thinking is subjective my dear:) Truth, however and being “willing” to change what we think leads to growth. There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of CO2 should cause warming. So at least it passes the smell test for me. The question is, and always has been about, how much warming will a doubling of CO2 cause? I’m happy to delve into this more in plane English.

    The problem is with the “other team”, in that they claim that most of the warming was caused by the additional CO2. The only evidence of this (most of the warming is caused by CO2) has been in the climate models. Further, the models don’t show that CO2 caused most of the warming; rather they have shown that CO2 drives the process, and that secondary feedbacks amplify the process. The models are not supported by observations. They got it wrong – very wrong.

    There is ample evidence that warming from CO2 has a logarithmic affect on temperature. Said another way, after a certain relatively small concentration of CO2, the cumulative effects are rather small. The IPCC knows or at least believes this part, but they are confused or dishonest about the rest of what I am going to write here.

    Since the CAGW movement began, we’ve learned a lot about secondary feedbacks… and Richard Lindzen has illustrated (using Satellite data of the atmosphere at various levels) that the feedbacks range from positive to negative – (not just positive) and on the net, the feedbacks have been slightly negative –exactly the opposite to what the IPCC hoped for or claims. For example, observations show that there is no tropical hotspot, which was a cornerstone of the CAGW claim. They claimed that the release of extra methane, water vapor, and CO2 would start us into a tipping point of sorts, where we’d get this runaway self feeding one directional warming.

    There is no tropical hotspot… What actually happened was that as the planet warmed on average, more energy radiated into space. Willis writes a lot about the Thermostatic effect, and supports this based on observations. Richard Lindzen theorized on the Iris affect… which I think is similar – but not the same as what Willis shows. I am oversimplifying my understanding here.

    Keep on posting and cheering! You’re making us think!

  122. george e. smith says:

    Well thanks for that Richard, I may just try that a little later. Right now, I have to jump on the #18 train from CERN (end of line) and go downtown to l’hopital , to see how Sis is doing.

    George

  123. glen martin says:

    “low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events”

    How dare they claim something other than carbon pollution is the cause of extreme weather.

    Burn the heretic!

  124. Jim G says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 11, 2014 at 8:30 am
    “If one includes Volcanism as a factor http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/volcano-activity-temperature-and-response-times/ then we have x, y, z, w, and v. This lowers the equal assignment from 25% to 20%. At this point there is no compelling values that everyone can agree on [as is required for a mature science].”

    So, for the last 17.5 years the net effect all of these is 0, or each is worth 20% of nothing, take your pick. It would seem logical to recognize the two very large beasts in the room; the Sun, and the oceans which cover 70% of the planet, as being very big players in this game of climate, one way or another. One might add volcanism if considered as a variable heat source to the oceans rather than just a shading system for cooling the planet. So many variables, so few linear relationships=chaotic system. Should be fun attempting to find answers for a long time. So far the only systematic events which seem to make sense are the Milankovich cycles, but one needs to only be concerned with huge time periods to get much out of them.

  125. Janice Moore says:

    @ John E. F. (7:49am today) — To “assume a value for “y”, does not logcially negate Dr. Svalgaard’s statement: “We do not know what x, y, z, and w are.” (emphasis mine).

    IIRC, Dr. Svalgaard regularly asserts on WUWT that while variations in solar irradiance cause minor variations in earth’s temperature within a narrow range which maintains earth’s homeostasis, so far, there is no evidence that these solar variations cause climate shifts which are more likely driven by the oceans and other natural drivers.

    I agree with him.

    Boy, I sounded pretty giddy just then, huh? LOL, Mr. F. — you ought to see me at a party! Once, I was accused of drinking more than my share of the wine — and I had only been drinking pop!! And that is a typical scenario… .

    I may be “giddy” in your eyes, but, for now at least, you are illogical (but, I’ll assume simply by an anomalous mistake) in mine. But, we can still be friends, can we not?

    Hopeful that we can communicate in a more friendly manner from now on,

    Janice

    ****************************************************

    Dear Mario,

    Thanks for letting me know what you think about the effect of CO2 on climate. I’m with Murry Salby (perhaps, you are too — not sure from your comment) — temperature drives CO2 increase, not vice versa. Thank you for taking the time to patiently explain things to a non-scientist.

    And for the encouragement to keep on cheering. I needed that after John E. F.. I like me, but, well, he kind of threw a wet towel from the men’s locker room in this cheerleader’s face’. Won’t be long, though, till I’m dried off and jumping up and down and yelling: “W — U — W — T! … we are the best, B — E — S — T and we are boss, B — O — S — S, B — O — S — S, BOSS! Goooooo Wattsup!”
    #(:))

    Your WUWT pal,

    Janice

  126. Mario Lento says:

    Dear Janice: Regarding: “Thanks for letting me know what you think about the effect of CO2 on climate. I’m with Murry Salby (perhaps, you are too — not sure from your comment) — temperature drives CO2 increase, not vice versa. Thank you for taking the time to patiently explain things to a non-scientist.”
    ++++++
    It’s not so simple. Yes – you’ll often hear me saying that all evidence shows that CO2 levels follow temperature. But that fact does not disprove what I wrote below in any way. What I wrote is typically the skeptical argument based on science of what we do know. Said another way, that increasing temperature releases CO2 from solution, does not also mean that CO2 can’t have a positive or negative feedback effect. It is not as simple as an either/or outcome. Nor is it about whether or not someone agrees or disagrees. A fact about anything does not rely on whether someone believes it is a fact.

    If I cannot explain this to you, then I need to learn how to be a better communicator. :)

  127. taxed says:

    l have real doubts that the cause of ice ages is all down to changes in the tilt/orbit of the earth.
    l cannot see how with the present weather patterns in place over the North Atlantic. That these effects could make it so cold in europe as to bring the ice sheets all the way down England and yet leave NE Russia largely ice free. But l could see how a change in the weather pattern over the North Atlantic just maybe able to explain it.

  128. Ulric Lyons says:

    RichardLH says:
    “Ulric: PDO and AMO/NAO show consistent cyclic behaviour that is not well represented by any solar output figures.”

    It looks more like step changes than a cycle in the AMO to me, as in the mid 1920’s.

  129. RichardLH says:

    England may well be wet, but only a few miles north Scotland is also ‘wet’ but in a snow sort of way.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26339994

    Were the weather patterns to have tracked just a few miles further south then the whole of the UK might look the same.

  130. RichardLH says:

    Ulric: “It looks more like step changes than a cycle in the AMO to me, as in the mid 1920′s.”

    You must be looking at a different graph to me then!

    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png

  131. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mario,

    Re: “If I cannot explain this to you, … .” No, dear engineer-scientist par excellence, you are a fine communicator — one of the best on WUWT. I need to adopt a more scientific (objective, precise, and accurate) mindset when I read comments like yours.

    I re-read your comment and I think we essentially agree (there is no evidence that human CO2 has any meaningful effect on earth’s climate). Where we have a bit of a difference is in how we talk about it. You, a genuine scientist, want to discuss the science carefully and, of course, speak with great precision. I, a Communication – Marketing major, want to persuade policy-makers (and voters) that AGW is bad policy and see precision as sometimes hindering that effort. What I mean is, I think for persuasion it’s best to just assert the basic fact that: there is no evidence yet that CO2, much less human CO2, does anything to change the climate of the earth. That CO2 can effect a greenhouse effect in the laboratory, I agree.

    You have succeeded! I promise to try harder to carefully consider the view of CO2 you so patiently tried to explain to me. I will try to not let my anger at the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers cloud my thinking.

    With deep gratitude for your kindness to me and for your patient, expert, teaching,

    Janice

  132. Paul Westhaver says:

    amazing… the sun’s output may influence climate… simply amazing….. I suppose a Nobel Prize is in order for that.

  133. Mario Lento says:

    Janice – cool… and we agree on most everything – especially when we separate the wheat from the chaff. I think, most often (perhaps always) the best way to charm those who disagree with us is to give due credit to the parts of their story that are true. It places credence in your favor. It’s hard – but it’s the right way.

    There is truth in much of what the IPCC says, it’s in their conclusions, particularly their political motives, where the disinformation and dishonesty is. Further, it’s in their charter, which I find offensive, to prove an outcome –that man did it and it’s dangerous. They claim to be scientific – but they are seeking a predetermined outcome literally at any cost – and they stand to profit from such outcome. Science is about testing hypothesis with observation. The IPCC hides observation as best they can – and eliminates most credible “descending views” from within.

    People who know something about physics and science will glean what truth there is, and will in those cases lump those who disagree with the truthful part (albeit small) as de-ni-ars. We don’t need them to be right about that!!! Truth should never be compromised as a means to an end… That’s how we got subsidies for Wind Turbines and PV solar companies – because truth was hidden. That’s how the summary for policy-makers is causing death and exacerbating if not promoting poverty while acting like they are achieving the opposite! It’s just horrible what this organisation is costing the world – and those efforts are viewed by some to get rid of pollution. The conflation of CO2 and pollution has clouded reason by many well meaning people – and they deserve to know the truth so they can act to make decisions based on merit.

  134. Mario Lento says:

    Janice: PS – you’ve proof read some of my writings, and to that end – made them better. You have a critical mind to the written words – and we need cheerleaders who are knowledgeable such as you!

  135. Janice Moore says:

    Mario Lento,

    (re: 2:23) Great speech! You have my vote (lol)!

    Seriously, if you ever ran for office (in a non-yella dog- Democrat district, that is) and barring crooked vote counting, you would win easily.

    (re: 2:24pm) Aww, Mario. Thanks.
    #($)) (<– she is blushing, today… and thinking about money, too, heh, heh….)

    Your Janice pal

  136. Ulric Lyons says:

    RichardLH says:
    “You must be looking at a different graph to me then!”

    Same graph, but I am looking at the minimum and maximum monthly anomalies and ignoring your trend lines. There is a sharp step up during the 1920’s:
    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png

  137. Carla says:

    Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..

    “””LOD such that periods of increasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by pe- riods of Planet increasing rotational rate while periods of decreasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet decreasing rotational rate “”””

    Time-integrated North Atlantic Oscillation as a proxy for climatic change
    Adriano Mazzarella
    accepted 12 January 2013
    http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.51A023

    5. DISCUSSION
    Length of day (LOD) is a good proxy for climatic changes under the assumption that it is the integral of the different circulations that occur within the ocean-atmosphere system both along latitude (zonal circulation) and longitude (meridional circulation) [4-6].
    …(Figure 4). There is almost an equilibrium between zonal and meridional circulation: strong zonal circulations cause the contraction of the circumpolar vortex and an increase in air temperature while weak zonal circulations or, equivalently, strong meridional circulations with meandering or cellular pat- terns cause an expansion of the circumpolar vortex and a decrease in air temperature. Zonal epochs correspond to periods of global warming and meridional ones to periods of global cooling [4-6,17,18].
    INAO values are found to be inversely related to those of LOD such that periods of increasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet increasing rotational rate while periods of decreasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet decreasing rotational rate [18]….

  138. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..
    You have this backwards. It is the wind patterns and other atmospheric and oceanic variations that have effects on the LOD.

  139. RichardLH says:

    Ulric: The only trend lines is the red dotted one. The other solid lines and the black dotted one are from filters. That cyclic behaviour you see is what the data says happens, not me adding some things that just might have.

    There IS a regular ~60 year signal in the data. You cannot just wish it away.

  140. tom0mason says:

    Thankfully it is settled science and so all our energy prices are necessarily going to skyrocket.

  141. len says:

    … just read about the death of my favourite hockey stick … barycentrism and now I have to read about how 99.8% of the matter in the solar system may have it’s own cycles uninfluenced by the little specks around it? I might as well go and string together ad hoc tree ring sequences …

    Seriously, unlike NASA, I think Earth’s Weather must be influenced by Space Weather and we already know the Sun has cycles … so in 30 years I think there will be a recognizable imprint from the present ‘New Dalton Minimum’ in solar activity on the Earth’s surface temperature. The rest of it is to debate and discover (mechanisms of energy transfer/interference, et cetera).

    I’ll digest this article later.

  142. mpainter says:

    John@EF says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:49 am
    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
    Re: “We do not know what x, y, z, and w are.”
    Thank you.
    Janice
    ***********************
    Dear Janice Moore,
    I hate to rock your giddy boat, but I hope you understand that Dr. Svalgaard is not agreeing with your BOLD view. Not identifying specific percentages for x, y, z, and w is not the same as “NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth”. The Dr. does assume a value for “y”, however arbitrary and vague, and there is considerable scientific research that supports impacts of CO2 and land use, for example. Anyway, have a nice day, and enjoy your fantasy. lol
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I am not sure what you mean by this comment, but if you have any evidence that human CO2 affects climate as per AGW theory, please share it with the rest of us.

    thanking you in advance

  143. RichardLH says:

    Whatever the Sun did or did not do to the European climate, this is what it did to the temperatures as recorded by the CET:-)

    http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/cet/

  144. Legatus says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm
    My dear Tom (in Florida),
    I understand your caution. And I respect your goal of not being inflammatory. However, with regard to this, “I would never place an absolute on something that still could be true … .” (you)
    Au contraire: we CAN say (absolutely): “There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth.” (me)

    Um, not true.
    How can I say it is not true?
    Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
    What is science?
    First, make a guess, then compute the consequences of that guess, then compare that guess with observation or experiment, if it does not compare, your wrong, if it does, you may be right.

    The guess, increasing CO2 will heat the earth through “the science of radiative transfer”.
    The computed consequence, the longwave absorbed by the CO2 will be detected by, based on the increase of CO2, an increase of temperature at 12KM altitude in the tropics of 2.1C.
    The observation, the temperature there has increased…by 0.7C, 1/3 the predicted amount.

    2nd guess, the increasing backscatter of longwave will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, tripling or quadrupling the heating effect of the CO2. Observation, no such increase of water vapor is observed.

    Conclusion, your statement is wrong that there is no evidence that CO2 does anything. It is observed to be doing something. That something is a temperature increase of between 1/3 to 1/12 of the IPCC predicted amount, or from 0.25C to 1C. That is not enough to be dangerous. That is enough to be beneficial (it was the last few times ). It may not be enough to prevent the next ice age, scheduled to start right about…now. Preventing the next ice age would be <extremely beneficial.

    So you need to amend your statement, like this Au contraire: we CAN say (absolutely): “There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth by a dangerous amount.

  145. dbstealey says:

    Legatus,

    Whoa there. Hold your horses.

    What you are describing is only a correlation. There is no proof of causation, and what you label “evidence” really isn’t. If your .7º rise is due to CO2, then that leaves no room whatever for natural variability. How do you explain the large temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution? Did they stop when CO2 took over?

    Your assumption falls flat for another reason: the fact that global warming has stopped for at least seventeen years now. That is a long time!

    I do agree with your final statement, because I think that CO2 has an effect. But at current concentrations, that effect is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded. Since the basic debate is over ‘global warming’, the alarmist crowd has decisively lost the argument. There is nothing to worry about regarding the [harmless and beneficial] rise in CO2.

  146. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Legatus,

    “{CO2} is observed to be doing something. That something is a temperature increase of between 1/3 to 1/12 of the IPCC predicted amount,… .” (you at 9:36am today)

    You misuse the term “observed.” Above, you merely assume, based upon mere correlation, that CO2 “did” something. You have, Legal One, committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You have NO mechanism which provides evidence, i.e., proof, of causation. You have attempted a Mussolini — dictating by mere fiat what is so.

    Here’s a little illustrative example:
    Given:
    1. Read Legatus’s post.
    2. Immediatly after, an e mail from my most annoying client {{Ding!}} appeared in my in box.
    Therefore;
    I’m not going to read anymore of Legatus’ posts. ‘Cause that client just wastes my time.

    LOLOLOL. #(:))

    Sincerely,

    Janice

  147. Janice Moore says:

    Hey, D.B.! While it appeared that I used your EXCELLENT post without giving you any credit, I hadn’t read it before writing mine. (and I would have credited your inspiration) Great minds!
    #(:))

  148. DCE says:

    Something I read in the comments (sorry, I didn’t go back and look for a proper cite) got me to thinking about how small inputs can have a greater effect on ‘outputs’ orders of magnitude above the input. Certainly we have the AGW faithful making that claim about a trace gas, so why not with energy inputs as well?

    I see it all the time in electronics and optics, two fields in which I make my living, where a very small input, either current or voltage in the electronic realm, or a light of a given wavelength or power density in the optical realm, can have effects many orders of magnitude above the energy they ‘inject’ into the system. I understand I am using examples on the atomic/sub-atomic level, but might it be the case at the macro level as well? Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate due to it causing a change in wind circulation patterns or energy exchange between ocean and atmosphere, for instance? Or am I just blowin’ smoke here?

  149. Mario Lento says:

    Legatus says:
    March 12, 2014 at 9:36 am
    Um, not true.
    How can I say it is not true?
    Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
    What is science? First, make a guess, then compute the consequences of that guess, then compare that guess with observation or experiment, if it does not compare, your wrong, if it does, you may be right.

    The guess, increasing CO2 will heat the earth through “the science of radiative transfer”.
    ++++++++
    Let’s go through your tests:
    Make a guess: (The one the IPCC made is suitable), I guess that it is impossible for the global temperature to not rise for 10 years… OK – change that to, ” I guess that it is impossible for the global temperature to not rise for 10 years”. Uhm… well, uhmm – CO2 increased, and the guess was wrong.

    So then here comes along Legatus, who never got the memo. THE GUESS WAS WRONG. So Legatus tries to choose some period somewhere for any amount of time where both temperatures went up and CO2 went up… and he considers that proof.

    Well – Legatus, in science, it only takes 1 observation to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. You hypothesis in this case was that CO2 drives global climate, and that it was impossible for global temperature to not rise for 10 or 15 years. Well – either the impossible happened, or your hypothesis has been shown to be wrong.

  150. LT says:

    Legatus

    Says:
    “The computed consequence, the longwave absorbed by the CO2 will be detected by, based on the increase of CO2, an increase of temperature at 12KM altitude in the tropics of 2.1C.
    The observation, the temperature there has increased…by 0.7C, 1/3 the predicted amount.”

    I think in order for the recent warming to be caused by AGW, the upper air temperatures were predicted to warm at a faster rate than the surface warmed. They did not, therefore by that simple fact, the AGW theory is invalidated, or the theory of radiative transfer is wrong (highly unlikely).

  151. Janice Moore says:

    Dear DCE,

    Re: “Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate … .” (you today at 12:57pm)

    Until someone more knowledgeable answers you, I reply to affirm the worthiness of your thoughtful question and to attempt to answer (or, at least, spur more of your own good thinking on the matter). Yes and no. Over short time scales, i.e., with regard to weather, (not with regard to a significant shift in the climate of the earth) variations (the range of watts/m2 is small) in the sun’s irradiance DO drive successive, inter-related, changes in sea surface and air temperatures, wind, etc… . With regard to climate, however, the sun’s irradiance does not (and has not for a very loooong time) change enough (up or down) for it to potentially effect a climate shift for there is a built-in, self-correcting, cooling-heating, system for earth. So far, it has worked beautifully. And there is no reason to think it will not continue to function per design for a loooong time to come.

    To illustrate:
    1) local weather
    Sun driven weather changes are what we see when we observe, for instance, in the Seattle area where I live, that the sun’s heating the land during the day in July causes an evening westerly off the Pacific Ocean, as the higher pressure colder air moves into the lower pressure warmer area. The westerly peters out as it heads east and northeast and other, countervailing, natural forces, negate it.

    2) human body maintaining homeostasis
    Adding some caffeine to your bloodstream could significantly increase your heart rate and your body temperature, but your body nicely counteracts the effects of that driver and you remain reasonably calm and at ease. Add a BIG dose of caffeine and — whoa! Watch out. The natural countervailing forces are overwhelmed and will be OWNED by the caffeine (“A-a-a-nything y-y-you say, C-C–C-Caffeine; y-y-your wish is our c-c-c-command. “). Fortunately (or by design, if you believe as I do) the sun, UNLIKE the caffeine, doesn’t periodically (within any relevant time span historically) blast the earth with enough solar radiation to take it out of climate homeostasis.

    There has NEVER been any long-term, observed, increase in solar radiation that could possibly have caused, given the earth system (oceans, winds, etc…), a shift in the climate of the earth.

    Of course, we can speculate as to what may have happened long ago that may happen again or about what unprecedented solar event may happen in the future. And that can make for a good science fiction novel.

    Note: that the sun cannot (if it continues to operate as it has for virtually its entire life) cause a climate shift does NOT — NOT — NOT mean that, therefore, CO2 (human or natural) causes significant (i.e., something to worry about) shifts in the climate of the earth.
    ***********************************************************************

    You (no doubt, heh): “Why in the WORLD, Ms. Moore, did you BOTHER to ramble on so?”

    Me: Because if we lean heavily on the splintering stick of solar-irradiance-variations-drive-climate-shifts hypothesis, then, we will fall on our faces (for inevitably, there will come a time when solar activity is high, but earth cools or vice versa — we just happen to recently have a level of relatively low solar activity that correlates conveniently with the earth’s current flat-to-declining temperature trend).
    That solar-as-the-driver-of-climate-shifts argument fails, of course, will NOT make AGW conjecture true. But, it sets the anti-AGWers up for a credibility fail, thus, undermining the cause of truth in science which is the only way we will successfully keep the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers where they are right now (HA!), off on the distant frontiers, roaring loudly, but harmless.

    Truth wins. Every time.

    Well, at least you know that your post wasn’t invisible to all but you — sometimes I’ve wondered that about some of mine… .

    #(:))

    Your WUWT Ally for Truth,

    Janice

  152. Mario Lento says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 12, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    Dear DCE,

    Re: “Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate … .” (you today at 12:57pm)

    …Janice writes: That solar-as-the-driver-of-climate-shifts argument fails, of course, will NOT make AGW conjecture true. But, it sets the anti-AGWers up for a credibility fail, thus, undermining the cause of truth in science which is the only way we will successfully keep the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers where they are right now (HA!), off on the distant frontiers, roaring loudly, but harmless.
    ++++++++++++++++
    It’s fun debating with the collection of knowledge you’ve summarized Janice. I will over no answers – but points to ponder.

    Well considering that virtually all or at least very close to 100% of the energy that drivers climate comes from the sun, I’d have to say the sun is in fact the main driver of our climate. If anyone can tell me I’m wrong – I’m open to hearing it. Yes – there is radioactive material breaking down… and the heat in our core… There is also a huge amount of stored solar energy from years of plant life holding on to that energy…

    Many have correctly stated that the TSI varies very little. TSI is specific (Total Solar Irradiance). It denotes all of the radiation from the sun and the ability of that energy to cause direct heating at all wavelengths/frequencies. However, there are other aspects of the sun that do vary up to 10% (I’m going with that figure, which is on order of 100 times the magnitude of the changes in TSI) between weak and strong solar cycles. Here I am talking about such things as the frequencies or wavelengths of the total solar radiation. Some albedo changes affect whether different frequencies are reflected or absorbed.

    These other aspects cannot be discounted easily – with the simplistic reasoning that their sum total effect on heating something adds up to plus or minus 0.1% change. Finding and proving the smoking gun is difficult. I submit that these other “effects” are complex and it’s difficult to measure those effects directly. But indirectly? Positing that there is no measurable indirect effects needs more proof for me to swallow that claim.

    For example, consider UV and generation of ozone and ozone’s affect, solar wind, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and possible effect on ionizing effects which causes small particles to clump – and form cloud seeding. All of these are affected by varying the solar frequency as well as the magnetic field of the earth which is affected by the solar winds and other output from the sun. I believe we are already seeing changes in oceanic circulation (that many predicted would be the result of the waning sun). I’m not saying that I prove anything here. However, I do think the sun has an effect on ENSO processes, for example – and we know or have good evidence that ENSO can explain the missing heat better than CO2… but what provides the energy for ENSO? The answer is the sun, remember the sun provides near 100% of all of the energy that drives our climate.

    To say, there is proof that the sun is not a driver of climate falls a bit flat for me… just sayin’

  153. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mario!

    “Fun,” eh? lol. #(:))

    Two thoughts:
    1) My non-technical background creates some unnecessary ambiguity.
    2) I was responding (trying, heh) only to DCE’s “small change in the Sun’s output” speculation.
    3) Thus, I AGREE THAT THE SUN IS THE MAIN THING as to climate through the ages; just not that changes in TSI drive a climate shift.

    So, I think we may be talking past each other a little…
    EVEN MORE I know so little that I may have once again over-simplified. That is not to put myself down, just to acknowledge a fact.

    Re: “Positing that there are no measurable indirect effects needs more proof… .”

    My thought:
    Since these solar effects are highly likely negated by other natural forces, I thought I could assert that as a null hypothesis. The burden of proof then being on those who assert that TSI variation does measurably drive climate shifts (by which I mean a shift resulting in earth being several degrees cooler or warmer for a long time).

    Re: ENSO processes

    My thought:
    Yes, TSI DOES affect ENSO, but, changes in TSI (as DCE put it “in the sun’s output”) are not the driver, just that the sun over time warms the surface of the ocean regardless of TSI up – down variation. That is, that ENSO is just part of climate homeostasis over long time scales and not a climate shift driver.

    Bottom line: I am SO GLAD that you showed up to give DCE (and me!) a much more informed, educated, answer. (sure hope DCE reads your post!)

    Even more, I hope one of your scientist colleagues will step up and affirm and or “debate” with you! {that in bold to promote that!}

    I am HAPPY TO BE TAUGHT, Mr. Lento. Especially by you.

    Your Admiring WUWT Ally for Science Truth,

    Janice

    P.S. I apologize for my response here is not being the detailed, careful, argumentation your thoughtful post deserves. I’m finally starting on a tedious project (not science, lol) and am giving WUWT short shrift (for me, that is!) for awhile. PLUS I BARELY KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT — pretty much tapped out above…. unless I looked up a bunch of stuff and I don’t want to!!!!
    #(:))

    P.P.S. Re: “just sayin'” – LOL, Mario — you KNOW that phrase infuriates me :(
    — that’s why you used it, huh? Heh, heh. Yes, indeed, you are FUN! (smile)

  154. Ulric Lyons says:

    RichardLH says:
    March 12, 2014 at 2:59 am
    “Ulric: The only trend lines is the red dotted one. The other solid lines and the black dotted one are from filters. That cyclic behaviour you see is what the data says happens, not me adding some things that just might have.
    There IS a regular ~60 year signal in the data. You cannot just wish it away.”

    Firstly, ~1875 to ~1945 is not a ~60yr signal, and the sharp step up during the 1920’s cannot be wished away either.
    http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png

  155. Gunga Din says:

    Janice Moore says:
    March 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    (I’ve had some pretty big boulders heaved at me on WUWT — and, thanks largely to Gunga Din and my ever-supportive hero, Mario, I’m STILL here.)

    =======================================================================
    Glad I could be of service.
    (I waited until the post had moved on so as not to start a salvo exchange.)
    Some read it from the stand point that it is just another book among many authored by men. They see what they perceive as a flaw and that is enough to validated that belief. Some read it as what it really is and acknowledge that the “flaw” is either in them not understanding what they read or was introduced as it passed through the hands of men before it got to us.

  156. Mario Lento says:

    Janice says:
    (I’ve had some pretty big boulders heaved at me on WUWT — and, thanks largely to Gunga Din and my ever-supportive hero, Mario, I’m STILL here.)
    ++++++++++++++
    I’m in good company, evidently…

  157. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    March 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Carla says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..
    You have this backwards. It is the wind patterns and other atmospheric and oceanic variations that have effects on the LOD.
    —————————-
    Yes, Dr. S., that is true.
    But, solar wind dynamic pressures and energetic particle accelerations will also have an effect on atmospheric circulations, as LOD debate continues in the scientific community…… They don’t know what to do with that 5.7 to 6 year variation in LOD that seems to be located on the rise of solar cycle and on the decline of solar cycle. Regular 5 to 6 year delay between max and min of Solar cycle in LOD. LOD goes up then goes down.

    From 1880 to 1920 you can see AAM out of phase with solar cycle, then around 1920 looks like they got intimate, as shown in Figure 1 pg. 4

    There are two short articles on the link.. the first article was kinda interesting too.
    REVISITING A POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOLAR
    ACTIVITY AND EARTH ROTATION VARIABILITY
    R. ABARCA DEL RIO, D. GAMBIS
    http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2010/pdf/Aleshkina.pdf
    pg. 3
    “””A variety of studies have searched to establish a possible relationship between the solar
    activity and earth variations (Danjon, 1958-1962; Challinor, 1971; Currie, 1980, Gambis, 1990). We are
    revisiting previous studies (Bourget et al, 1992, Abarca del Rio et al, 2003, Marris et al, 2004) concerning
    the possible relationship between solar activity variability and length of day (LOD) variations at decadal
    time scales. Assuming that changes in AAM for the entire atmosphere are accompanied by equal, but
    opposite, changes in the angular momentum of the earth…
    pg. 4
    Figure 1: Decadal band pass filtered times series, from up to bottom of: Solar Activity (SUN; as repre-
    sented by the Sunspots number), the Low Frequency AAM (LF AAM) Annual and Semiannual amplitude
    modulation (AN AAM and SA AAM respectively. The decadal cycle of Semi Annual amplitude is inverted
    (-SA-A).”””

  158. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    March 13, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    But, solar wind dynamic pressures and energetic particle accelerations will also have an effect on atmospheric circulations, as LOD debate continues in the scientific community
    There is no such debate [some wild claims perhaps], but in any case the direction of alleged causality still goes opposite to what you think.

  159. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Gunga Din,

    Thank you. And thanks for appearing here, way down the thread. You remember some of those boulders, eh? “… we wrestle not with flesh and blood… .” LOVE IS THE ANSWER!

    Your sister in Christ,

    Janice
    ************************************************************************

    Dear, dear, Mario,

    I am so thankful for you! All ALONE in a room, you are in excellent company. The best.

    With admiration and gratitude,

    Janice

  160. Janice Moore says:

    Okay, CARLA #(:)) — it’s your turn — back on topic!

  161. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    March 13, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Carla says:
    March 13, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    But, solar wind dynamic pressures and energetic particle accelerations will also have an effect on atmospheric circulations, as LOD debate continues in the scientific community
    There is no such debate [some wild claims perhaps], but in any case the direction of alleged causality still goes opposite to what you think
    —————————————
    The overall trend in LOD (of the last 40-50 years) has been a slow down. But for that period the solar cycle had been medium/high in activity. Which is consistent with the thinking that higher solar activity, slower rotation rates, due to the high speed solar wind that Earth is faced with in its orbit. We have just experienced our first, really low amplitude solar cycle, so then we might expect a acceleration in Earth’s rotation.

    Maybe those four geo-magnetic jerks since ’03’ are telling us something?

  162. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    March 13, 2014 at 5:42 pm
    Which is consistent with the thinking that higher solar activity, slower rotation rates, due to the high speed solar wind that Earth is faced with in its orbit.
    That is not how it works, and the solar wind speed has not changed the way you think. The solar wind does not change the Earth’s rotation. Your thinking is wrong. End of story.

  163. Carla says:

    I did have the long term trend backwards .. see below..

    Characteristics of Perturbations in Recent Length of Day and Polar Motion
    Sung-Ho Na†, Younghee Kwak, Jung-Ho Cho, Sung-Moon Yoo, and Sungki Cho
    Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejeon 305-348, Korea
    http://janss.kr/Upload/files/JASS/30-1-33-Na.pdf
    pg. 9
    4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

    …”””Currently, average LOD is longer by a small amount than its nominal value, and has been decreasing through the last few decades. As noted earlier, positive angular acceleration existed at two time spans; 1981 – 1987 and 1995 – 2003, and recent Earth’s angular velocity has been increased accordingly. Average excessive angular velocity of the Earth since year 2000 is
    Δω0 ≃ –0.54±0.47×10 to the-12 (rad/s). Taking this rate as constant yields one leap second for every 4.3 year, which is longer than the average interval of successive leap seconds ever made (1.6 year) or that of last century (1.3 year). Therefore, for the near future, introduction of leap second will not be necessary as often as last century. Earth’s spin angular acceleration is affected by several causes including the change in the Earth’s dynamical form factor J2 and the core motion. Accurate monitoring of J2 has been done by the satellite orbit analysis since 1960s. However, large uncertainty lies in the estimation of angular momentum of core/mantle motion. More realistic simulation of the geomagnetic field generation would greatly improve this situation.”””…

  164. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    March 13, 2014 at 6:50 pm
    I did have the long term trend backwards .. see below..
    The Sun has nothing to do with the LOD. I would look at circulation in the liquid core or freezing of its innermost part on to the inner solid core.

  165. Sparks says:

    Carla says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm
    You have this backwards. It is the wind patterns and other atmospheric and oceanic variations that have effects on the LOD.

    Total nonsense Leif.

    The Length of day on earth does indeed slow down and speed up. You have claimed that “weather patterns” cause this variation, I disagree. The transfer of energy between weather and earths planetary mass is not transferable to earths orbital parameters, It works from earths orbital parameters (Length Of Day) to weather.

    All the planets speed up and slow down during their orbit, and most of them have massive amounts of weather, including Jupiter.

  166. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 13, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    The Length of day on earth does indeed slow down and speed up. You have claimed that “weather patterns” cause this variation, I disagree.
    That you disagree does not make you right.
    “There is now general agreement that most of the changes in LOD on time scales from weeks to a few years are excited by changes in atmospheric angular momentum” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuations_in_the_length_of_day

  167. Sparks says:

    Not a chance Leif,

    Weather does not effect a planets orbit.

  168. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 13, 2014 at 10:16 pm
    Weather does not effect a planets orbit.
    But does affect the LOD [which is not the orbit]. No need to further elaborate on this. I gave you already a pertinent link.

  169. Janice Moore says:

    Sparks — Dr. Svalgaard did not say weather affects a planet’s orbit.

    He said (on March 11th at 7:45pm): “…wind patterns and other atmospheric and oceanic variations that have effects on the LOD.”

    That is, that such natural phenomena affect Earth’s rotation.

  170. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, brother! I was writing my post at the same time as Dr. Svalgaard! Sorry for the apparent (not actual) mimicking.

  171. Sparks says:

    Not it does not Leif.

    I get the joke! (if that’s what you’re getting at?) lol

  172. Janice Moore says:

    You are the only one laughing, Sparks.

  173. Sparks says:

    No, the earths weather does not effect the earths orbit which includes (length of day).

  174. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 13, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    Not it does not Leif.
    No need to further elaborate on this. I gave you already a pertinent link.

  175. Sparks says:

    To clarify Janice, Earths weather has no effect on earths orbit.

  176. Janice Moore says:

    Sparks — The earth’s orbit includes the length of day?!

    Okay. Sure.

    Just like my drive down the freeway “includes” the revolutions per minute of my engine.

  177. Janice Moore says:

    To clarify, Sparks, NO ONE SAID THAT IT DOES.

  178. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, btw, Sparks you are NOT the only one laughing, now.
    #(:))

    This is hilarious!

  179. Sparks says:

    Janice, Lief did, he even provided a “pertinent link”.
    I think he’s being funny.

  180. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 13, 2014 at 10:48 pm
    Janice, Lief did, he even provided a “pertinent link”.
    The link does not contain the word ‘orbit’, so stop the nonsense.

  181. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, Sparks!

    LOL, Dr. Svalgaard (we’re not on a first name basis as you two are) provided a link to support what he said. Not to support what you imagine he said.

    You appear unable to receive any transmissions from “Janice said” or “Leif Svalgaard said.” Try asking “Carla said” to explain to you the difference between “orbit” and “rotation (of the earth)”.

    Hm are YOU just pretending to not understand just to be FUNNY? Sorry, Sparks. Nice try, but, well, it’s just kind of annoying.

    DID YOU RECEIVE THIS TRANSMISSION?
    PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE WITH THREE SHORT BLASTS ON THE WHISTLE.

    (chuckling)

    Janice

  182. Sparks says:

    What is the length of day on earth governed by?

  183. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please, let Carla appear and start to explain everything to Sparks. Christmas in March.

  184. Sparks says:

    It’s an open question, What is the length of day on earth governed by?

  185. Janice Moore says:

    In the off chance that you receive THIS transmission, dear Sparks:

    The answer to your question at 11pm today is:

    “Love Makes the World Go ‘Round” — Deon Jackson
    (on the CARLA, lol, label — on video at 0:06)

  186. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:08 pm
    It’s an open question, What is the length of day on earth governed by?
    Read the link, then explain in your own words what you have understood.

  187. Sparks says:

    Janice,
    I’m with you on that idea that “Love Makes the World Go ‘Round”.

  188. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, hooray, Sparks! Good note to end on.

    Good night.

  189. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    Read the link, then explain in your own words what you have understood.
    (I promise to read the link)

    The question I would like you to reply to is, as follows!
    What is the length of day on earth governed by?

  190. Sparks says:

    Good night Janice, :)

  191. goldminor says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm
    ———————————————
    OT…but would be interested in how you would view the step decline in Oulu over the last 23 days. There are 4 steps in that period, with most of the steps being a full % point.

  192. lsvalgaard says:

    goldminor says:
    March 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    OT…but would be interested in how you would view the step decline in Oulu over the last 23 days
    The steps are real, c.f. other stations http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
    and are due to four CMEs ejected from the rather active Sun during that time.

  193. goldminor says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 14, 2014 at 9:35 pm
    —————————————–
    Thank you, and for the link also.

  194. Sparks says:

    Leif,

    As Promised I’ve read the wiki link you have provided, which claims “These tiny fluctuations have periods which range from a few weeks to a few years. They are attributed to interactions between the dynamic atmosphere and the Earth”

    I still disagree. Weather variability does not cause “These tiny fluctuations”. Earths atmosphere interacting with earths core is pure BS, It’s Absurd waffle.

  195. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 7:49 pm
    Earths atmosphere interacting with earths core is pure BS, It’s Absurd waffle.
    That is not what the link said. The LOD is influenced by the atmosphere AND by [unrelated] movements in the core.

  196. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 17, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    lsvalgaard says:
    March 17, 2014 at 7:58 pm
    That is not what the link said. The LOD is influenced by the atmosphere AND by [unrelated] movements in the core.

    Earths Atmosphere does not effect our planets core in any way, nor does weather effect the length of day in relation to the earths core.

  197. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm
    Earths Atmosphere does not effect our planets core in any way, nor does weather effect the length of day in relation to the earths core.
    To repeat:
    1) the atmosphere influences LOD
    2) core movements influence LOD
    1) and 2) are unrelated.

  198. Sparks says:

    Lief,

    Earth itself has no influence on its own LOD.

    REPLY: BZZZT! Sorry, your statement is incorrect. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/11/length-of-day-governed-by-earths-core-processes/
    Also, please learn to spell Dr. Svalgaard’s first name correctly – Anthony

  199. Sparks says:

    Sorry Leif, happy Anthony? :)

  200. Sparks says:

    I don’t believe I have ever called Leif- Lief!

  201. Sparks says:

    LOD is not determined by weather. Which is my original point.

  202. Sparks says:

    To be honest earths core processes do not change earths weather either!

  203. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm
    I don’t believe I have ever called Leif- Lief!
    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 8:52 pm
    Lief,
    ———–

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    LOD is not determined by weather. Which is my original point.
    It is influenced by, not caused by. Weather redistributes the mass of the air, thus changes the moment of inertia of the Earth. Since the angular momentum does not change, LOD must. End of story.

  204. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    To be honest earths core processes do not change earths weather either!
    But changes the moment of inertia. Since the angular moment is constant, the LOD must change [and does].

  205. Sparks says:

    Leif,

    You’re saying, Earths rate of spin is influenced by weather. Weather is effecting the entire mass of the planet. (I apologize for spelling your name wrong Leaf) :)

  206. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 10:54 pm
    Weather is effecting the entire mass of the planet
    Good that you finally have seen the light. Weather also affects the chronic pain in my right leg.

  207. Sparks says:

    I disagree that weather is effecting the spin of the entire mass of the planet. Leif I’m sorry, the mass of our planet and its rate of spin is more likely to be effected by the interaction of its own orbital parameters around the sun with the moon, and be influenced by other planetary influences.

  208. Sparks says:

    *Interactions

  209. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 17, 2014 at 11:22 pm
    I disagree that weather is effecting the spin of the entire mass of the planet
    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/07/california-climate-pdo-lod-and-sunspot-departure/
    “The Atmospheric Angular Momentum index (AAM) is a factor used in numeric weather forecasting. The AAM index is a measure of the ratio of East West vs. North South winds on the planet. The AAM index accounts for about 98 percent of the variation in Earth’s length of day variation (LOD) (measured in milliseconds per day)”

  210. Sparks says:

    The Earth changes the angular momentum of the atmosphere, the atmosphere does not change the momentum of earth.

  211. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    March 18, 2014 at 12:08 am
    The Earth changes the angular momentum of the atmosphere, the atmosphere does not change the momentum of earth.
    You have to be precise with your words. The weather ['the atmosphere'] changes the moment of inertia of the Earth. The angular momentum does not change, hence the LOD must. From your wording it looks like you are confused about the meaning of moment of inertia and angular momentum.

  212. Sparks says:

    lol

Comments are closed.