This is an interesting paper from our good friend Dr. John Christy of UAH and D. H. Douglas. In it, a bold claim is made about the likelihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998. Here is figure 1 from the paper:
From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.”
Here is how the abstract reads:
“The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
You can read the paper and the link below. which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth.
I’m sure this will raise the ire of a number of people, but at the same time, what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?
h/t Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
well i for one appreciate mr. svalgaard’s position in regards to 10-be…i also appreciate the position of svensmark, sunspot theory, oceanic circulation, plate tectonics, orbital influences, ice core co2 lag data, milankovitch cycles, ect… the people promoting “consensus” should get their mouth washed out for using such vulgarity…it wreaks of an “agenda”…it seems to me the correlation of solar activity is strong but ignoring mr svalgaard’s points is not how the scientific method is suppose to work…when evaluating the predictions of solar activity as well as climate models, how could anyone in there right mind ponitificate they know it all and that we should act now…observation should confirm theory, and it appears we are in a fascinating time in which to observe…tks to all for the discussion
Mike Ramsey (04:29:38) :
I agree with the comment about visual. The air is not transparent to infrared.
The rest, called the long wave (LW) downward atmospheric radiation, heats the earth’s surface.
And if the air is not transparent to infrared, how is that then supposed to reach the Earth’s surface?
Infrared covers a wide range of wavelengths and at some wavelengths transmits and at others absorb. The radiation budget of the atmosphere is a well-studied and understood phenomenon and we hardly need to belabor that here. You can find more here: http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html. In layman’s terms it may be easier just to state that heat does not flow from colder to warmer areas [stratosphere to surface], but the other way.
Arguing about minima and temperatures billions, thousands, hundreds of years ago is apparently not to useful as people have a hard time agreeing on the timing, the size, the globality, etc. Perhaps this is easier:
The global temperature now is about 0.75 K higher than a century ago, yet the current solar cycle 23 is in all respects identical to cycle 13, ten cycles ago.
I have found a curious phenomenon: there are are several schools of solar ‘connectionists’: some say it is clouds via cosmic rays, some say UV is higher at max and warms us more, some say it’s heating effect of geomagnetic activity, etc. They will all gang up and jump on me, but leave each other in peace 🙂 although they should be fighting each other: “no, it is not all cosmic rays, but UV”, or the reverse. The bottom line to me seems to be that the Sun simply does not vary enough to make but an insignificant contribution. The silly counterargument is: “turn the sun off, and then see what happens”. I think it was even used in this thread.
[…] Source: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Dee Norris (07:33:43) :
“I wasn’t looking for answers, but thank you for your concern.”
You’re welcome!
This is the part I question. We don’t have a measurement system in place that can measure to this kind of accuracy, nor did we 100 years ago. So I don’t think that statement can be made with any certainty.
[…] Source: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com […]
Be Cap’n Christy be up to summat t’ be ignorin’ the motion o’ th’ ocean? As me pappy before me used ta say, she all be in th’ current events. When I were captain, we’d a had none o’ that infarnal gas, ye blasted lubbers.
Arrr. (Not to be confused with “argh”.)
Leif:
“The simple argument goes like this: if low solar activity caused a dip during the MWP, then what caused the MWP itself so there was something to dip from?”
Umm, the Medieval Maximum.
“Umm, the cosmic ray record shows there was a Medieval minimum in solar activity, in contrast to a Medieval maximum in temperature.”
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif. There have been many “records”, most of which point to period(s) of high solar activity during the Medieval Maximum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
“We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period such as the cooling periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1795–1825). The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 (Scafetta and West, 2006). We briefly discuss the global cooling that occurred from the medieval maximum (≈1000–1100 AD) to the 17th century minimum.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
“The global temperature now is about 0.75 K higher than a century ago, yet the current solar cycle 23 is in all respects identical to cycle 13, ten cycles ago.”
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Media/graphics/SolarCycle.gif
You’re forgetting a biggie. Tectonic movement. Ocean levels have risen in some places, fallen in others. There is no “global sea level”. Some plates move at cm per year, more than the purported rise.
Luis Dias (09:27:19) :
“Give me ten years without an El Niño at the start and an El Niña at the end, and you may persuade me better.”
Okay, I am curious: The UAH anomaly for August 2008 is lower than the months from January 1987 through November 1988 — with the slight exceptions of March and May of ’87 being barely above. That is a period of 20 years, although I understand the argument that 2008 saw a La Niña.
So let us try nearly thirty years ago. From September 1979 to October 1981, again August 2008 is lower except for two miniscule exceptions.
I do not believe that we are talking about massive El Niños 20 and 30 years ago. So do I understand correctly that the warming trend is so weak that a La Niña 30 years later can offset it?
As a physicist following this thread and the AGW arguments, I am bewildered by the bad use of terminology and physics.
I have said this before, but particularly this business of forcings is really so misleading to the underlying physics of the planet.
I agree with the quotes of
“Mike Bryant (20:36:11) :
The missing link in most analyses, in my opinion, is that the earth’s climate is not a passive system. It is not like a pool ball on a level table, where a shove will deterministically move it a distance proportional to the applied forcing, and in the direction of the forcing.
Instead, it is like a madly spinning pool ball on a complex surface with hills and hollows. When you push it, it pushes back. It sometimes moves less than the forcing applied, and sometimes more. At certain points, an immeasurably small difference in the direction of the shove will take it along a totally different trajectory. It does not move in straight lines.
All of which makes talk of “deterministic trends”, in my opinion, absurdly simplistic. Very little in Nature is linear, very little is “deterministic”. Climate exhibits self-organized criticality at a host of levels from ice melting to thunderstorms forming, and if there is anything which is definitely “non-deterministic”, it would be self-organized criticality.”- Willis Eschenbach ”
Forcings ignore the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. energy conservation. Watts per meter square refer to radiation, and radiation is part of energy : radiation is not conserved. Energy is what is conserved and this means the work done in the system and by the system speaking thermodynamically. Forcings are a distorted way of looking at the forces and energies in the system and do not lead to clarity of thought and exposition.
I truly do not understand why standard thermodynamics is not being used, with heat capacitances and all the known and standard ways of studying heat engines instead of funny mixing ups of quantum mechanical ideas ( back radiation etc) with bad energy conservation ideas( forcings). It is clear that the planet is a big heat engine powered by the sun but controlled by many parameters. Of course the sun supplies the heat.
Poor laymen are lost with statements ” the sun has very little to do with the warming”, but if one talked in terms of every day known thermodynamics, like the ones of an air conditioner, it is evident that the thermostat has much more control on what is happening than the standard supply of AC which might vary by 5% without the system noticing it. One cannot have an air conditioner without the AC supply, and on cannot have a viable planet without the sun, but the actual temperatures are not controlled by the power supply.
Glenn (08:55:43) :
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html
And you show the Hockey Stick, Glenn, and the link starts out, Glenn, by stating, Glenn, that “The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in Europe”, thus not global, Glenn.
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif
The work by Beer and colleagues, Glenn, is a serious attempt, Glenn, to deduce solar activity in the past from the 10Be data, Glenn. I have referred to it before, Glenn, but shall again: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf Solar activity was low, Glenn, during 950-1120 and high, Glenn, during 1140-1250. The latter, Glenn, is the Medieval maximum, Glenn, as clearly labeled, Glenn, on your Wiki reference, Glenn, around 1200, Glenn. If you slop a century or two, Glenn, you can match up anything, Glenn.
Glenn (09:02:01) :
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
You conveniently leaves out most of the low cycle 23, Glenn. And also, Glenn, assume that the sunspot record is correct, Glenn, where there are good indications that it is not, Glenn. Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%, Glenn, as we have discussed so often, Glenn. You may not agree, Glenn, that the calibration of the SSN based on geomagnetic records is valid, but you ignore, Glenn, that Rudolf Wolf himself calibrated the SSN [that we use today] this way. The error in the SSN crept in after Wolf’s death, Glenn. You [and other doubting Thomases, as Wolf puts it] might find it illuminating to read Wolf’s own words on this, Glenn. I have translated his paper from 1875 on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%38translation.pdf
moderator, please fix “on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%38translation.pdf“.
it should read: on this, Glenn; you can find it here, Glenn: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%translation.pdf
thanks.
grrr: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038translation.pdf
grrr, grrr
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf%2038%20translation.pdf
REPLY: Please don’t be angry here for URL’s with filenames that have spaces. That’s why _ exists. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (09:42:29) :
grrr, grrr
REPLY: Please don’t be angry here for URL’s with filenames that have spaces. That’s why _ exists. – Anthony
Angry at myself.
A test:
“http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf 38 translation.pdf”
grrr, grrr
Arrr.
Leif,
I’ll repost what one source actually said about solar activity during the Medieval Maximum, which is what is apparently being contested by you:
“The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.”
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
Some researchers seem to include a period of time before the Oort Minimum as the start of the Medieval Maximum, others place it in a range only after the Oort. There is no problem with either way. It was warmer before the Oort with higher solar activity, then the short Oort Minimum occured which dropped in temp a little, then solar activity increased again as did temperatures during the remainder of the Medieval Maximum.
NASA TO DISCUSS CONDITIONS ON AND SURROUNDING THE SUN
WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
They say ’50-year’ because that is how far back space measurements go. In the 50 years before that, solar activity increased from the state 100 years ago which we are just now again coming back to.
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, from many, many sources.
“You conveniently leaves out most of the low cycle 23, Glenn. And also, Glenn, assume that the sunspot record is correct, Glenn, where there are good indications that it is not, Glenn. Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%, Glenn…”
The NOAA graph may “conveniently” leave out cycle 23, but that doesn’t discount the increased solar activity in the last hundred years, nor would your convenient “adjustment” pre-1965, nor discount the increase post 1965 corresponding to the recent temperature increase up to the recent past.
This “we’ve discussed this before” of yours should not be used to intimate that your opinions should be regarded as having been supported. I find your claim of sunspot counts being 20% low pre 1965 to be quite exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
Glenn (10:20:55) :
“Sunspot numbers before ~1946 should be increased by 20%”
nor would your convenient “adjustment” pre-1965, nor discount the increase post 1965 corresponding to the recent temperature increase up to the recent past.
First, ‘convenient’ is an insult, as is “adjustment”. Second, a prerequisite for serious discussion is that you read the comments and/or not distort what they say. I’m not saying 1965, but ~1946.
I find your claim of sunspot counts being 20% low pre 1965 to be quite exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
Again, not pre 1965. And there is nothing exceptional about my result, it simply corrects human error introduced by Waldmeier. The more objective sunspot areas measured on photographs of the Sun made at Greenwich 1874-1975 do not suffer from that problem, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly in http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf If you wish to debate this, read the note and debate specific points in it.
Glenn (10:03:42) :
then the short Oort Minimum occured
A persistent problem with your arguments is that you do not respond to my specific comments, but just piles on something else. I’ll repost:
The work by Beer and colleagues is a serious attempt to deduce solar activity in the past from the 10Be data. I have referred to it before, but shall again: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf
Solar activity was low during 950-1120 and high during 1140-1250. The latter is the Medieval maximum as clearly labeled on your Wiki reference around 1200.
The Oort minimum was not a ‘short’ minimum, it was longer than the Maunder minimum.