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.
Dr. Svalgaard writes: “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.”
Having been a frequent visitor to the sight and solarcycle24.com for the past several months, I have never seen two proponents of solar forcing argue. There is no need for us to argue, because the way the sun influences weather and climate is complex. The fact that TSI alone cannot account for decades-long and centuries-long temperature swings does not mean that TSI is insignificant. The point I wished to make is that Dr. Svalgaard’s attempt to disprove the relevance of the sun to climate by focusing solely on TSI is not scientifically valid — as though its influence was not sometimes magnified by a strong solar wind and diminished cloud cover during periods of solar maximum. The inverse is also true, low TSI is typically coupled with a weak solar wind and increased Svensmark clouds.
Again, no argument here, just a full, multi-faceted examination of the sun. Forest, trees. Forest, trees. Forest.
Glenn (10:03:42) :
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
Loehle’s paper [also in Energy & Environment, so may that is junk too :-)] was quoted earlier. His corrected plot is here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120, average dT +0.3, higher than today
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200, where dT dips to -0.2
Old Man Winter (11:07:45) :
The fact that TSI alone cannot account for decades-long and centuries-long temperature swings does not mean that TSI is insignificant. The point I wished to make is that Dr. Svalgaard’s attempt to disprove the relevance of the sun to climate by focusing solely on TSI is not scientifically valid
TSI is just in this regard a proxy for solar activity in general, all the solar indices vary together. I could have used cosmic ray intensity instead. The cosmic ray intensity right now is what it was 100 years ago and during the Maunder and other minima. The Sun’s magnetic field is back to where it was 100 years ago. I’m not focusing on TSI, all the solar ‘indicators’ do not vary as much as we thought they do.
That solar proponents don’t argue is the scientifically invalid point. The cosmic ray people, to take one camp, claim that ALL the variation is due to cosmic rays. I don’t see Svensmark say: “See, I show you this beautiful correlation between cosmic rays and low clouds, but beware there are many trees in the forest and the cosmic rays are just a small part, the correlation I show is also due to TSI, geomagnetic activity, UV, what have you, and it is really impossible to tell how much is due to cosmic rays”.
“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.”
Simple typos are not distortions nor a sign of something other than a serious discussion. You used the word convenient first, Leif, and I agree that is insulting. Adjustment is not, however. What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post, and I find it very curious that you think you can behave in that manner with impunity.
Look, I’m not the one bucking the prevailing thought. You are. And your “I have repeatedly pointed this out” is not in the slightest way convincing to me, you’ve demonstrated an abysmal record for practicing poor logic, and I can’t even open
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
Perhaps you should learn how to reference URL’s. By the look of it, you’ve “argghed” many times in the past over your own inadequacies. Don’t get on me for typing 1965 instead of 1946. These are plainly tactics that should not go unnoticed, and they are totally unneccesary.
As to how I respond to your arguments, that is up to me. If all you can get out of what I write as “piling on something else” I suggest you not respond.
There be plenty o’ swag fer us all. No sense in gettin’ all stove in over a wee . . . misunderstandin’.
Arrr.
Glenn (11:53:17) :
Simple typos are not distortions nor a sign of something other than a serious discussion.
same typo, twice?
What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post
I was riled a bit by your habit of doing so:
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
There is no “cosmic ray record”, Leif
Leif, anyone can easily see the increased solar activity
You used the word convenient first, Leif,
But now that we agree that is not so nice, we can just stop that.
I can’t even open
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
Just click on it. Maybe you need the PDF reader.
Don’t get on me for typing 1965 instead of 1946 [twice]. These are plainly tactics that should not go unnoticed, and they are totally unneccesary.
They are not tactics, and accuracy is important and necessary.
Leif Svalgaard (08:04:28) :
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?
Leif,
Because the earth’s atmosphere is semi-transparent as you well know. Not all of the
incoming UV, X-Ray gets reemitted out into space. Some gets sent downwards. The
key is that when the variation in UV, X-Ray over a solar cycle is factored in with the
near total absorption of this radiation vs the 30% reflection of the visible light, the
effective solar variability is closer to one percent then to a tenth of a percent.
That tenth of a percent number has always bothered me.
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.
“The thermosphere[] begins about 90 km above the earth.[1] At these high altitudes,
the residual atmospheric gases sort into strata according to molecular mass (see
turbosphere). Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption
of highly energetic solar radiation by the small amount of residual oxygen still
present. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to
15,000°C. Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically
charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond
the horizon. At the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 2,000 km above the earth’s surface,
the atmosphere mixes into space.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
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.
The 20th century saw seven straight big solar maxes from 1938 to 2002.
All seven had peaks greater than 80
Four had peaks greater than 120
And one had a peak greater than 180
Compare this to the 19th century
Only four had peaks greater than 80
Four had peaks less than 80
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
BTW, it’s cooling a bit now. 🙂
Mike Ramsey
There is no “slop”, but periods of high and low solar activity, corresponding with high and low temperatures.
“Loehle’s paper [also in Energy & Environment, so may that is junk too :-)] was quoted earlier. His corrected plot is here:”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
I didn’t say anything was “junk”. A reader could quite understandably believe that I had, from your wording above. But if you can’t see the warming in that graph during the Medieval Warming Period, I don’t know what else to say. Again, there were highs and lows, but mostly all above the baseline. No real *cold* periods. This was a period of mostly high solar activity, and warm temperatures.
“So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120, average dT +0.3, higher than today
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200, where dT dips to -0.2”
Don’t know what you’re getting at with this “higher than today”. The Medieval period was a time of high solar activity and warm temperatures. Your reference above shows that there was a time when temps were higher than in the recent past, but that wasn’t under consideration.
Jeff Alberts (09:02:49) :
“You’re forgetting a biggie. Tectonic movement.”
Not forgetting, just disregarding. The changes in sea level this may cause are very insignificant. To give an example the huge 9.0+ earthquake off Indonesia in 2004 caused a rise in sea level of 0.1mm. To produce the sea level rise recorded would reuire 33 such events each year!
“The changes in sea level this may cause are very insignificant. To give an example the huge 9.0+ earthquake off Indonesia in 2004 caused a rise in sea level of 0.1mm. To produce the sea level rise recorded would reuire 33 such events each year!”
How about other events? Is all tectonic activity relatable to the Indonesia event?
Are you saying that the Indonesia event caused a global sea level increase?
Have you considered the variability of gravity due to the effects of tectonic movement?
Mary Hinge,
Way way back I asked about the rise in sea level which you said, presumably based on CSIRO, was proceeding at 50% above the rate in the 20th C but Hansen had said in his testimony to the UK Court was double the rate of the 20thC.
You can’t both be right so please tell me which is it?
Thanks
evanjones (09:59:20) :
grrr, grrr
Arrr.
I see sombody remembered that it’s National Talk Like a Pirate Day.
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html
[REPLY – So there, jeez, ye scurvy swab. I’ll not be owin ‘ye them five doubloons, then! Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!]
Glenn (13:18:47) :
About the ‘junk’. I didn’t say you did say that, it was a reference to the same journal that carried the article this thread is all about.
if you can’t see the warming in that graph during the Medieval Warming Period […] This was a period of […] warm temperatures.
The Medieval period was a time of warm temperatures.
So, we agree it was warm.
“So, let’s compare timing:
10Be Oort minimum 950-1120
Medieval maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200″
During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm. They were also warm during the following Medieval solar maximum 1120-1250, with peak close to 1200.
What is quite insulting is your recent habit of repeating my name a dozen times a post
“I was riled a bit by your habit of doing so:”
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so. I referred to you in “Glenn (08:55:43)”
twice, and also identified a prior quotes by you at the start of that post.
That has only happened once to my knowledge.
If you want accuracy, then don’t make claims such as my having a “habit” of repeating your name a dozen times a post. If you want honesty, don’t include examples from separate posts as you just did, creating the false appearance that I did indeed use your name more than I really have in one post. Another suggestion is not to allow your emotions to guide actions, as mistakes will invariably occur.
And yes, “typos” can and often are repeated.
Warning: Lets all play nice, please – Anne
Glenn (14:42:14) :
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so.
You just did it again.
and
Leif, a “Maximum” is a period of high solar activity.
was not called for.
Anyway, if you can off the ‘insulting’ pedestal, did you open the paper? Did you read it? Do you have specific comments? I have referred you to it many times. It sounds very much like you never even looked at it. I take great pains to carefully look at everything you cite or quote. That is just simple decency in any serious discussion.
An obvious problem with this paper is the statement on page 4 “Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small.” I would be shocked if John Christy doesn’t know that this isn’t true. Or maybe he just forgot about the ozone hole. And the smaller amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at high latitudes.
Leif, thanks for the reference to Loehle’s corrected plot. I was unaware of the follow up to the original paper.
Ric Werme
Satellites have been measuring sea level (mean or docile) since 1992. It is an amazing application of applied science.
“Any instantaneous measurement of sea level in a series may be considered the sum of three component parts: observed level mean sea level + tide + meteorological residuals.”
“Each of these component parts is controlled by separate physical processes and the variations of each part are essentially independent of the variations in the other parts.”
“A complication in measuring sea level, is that the sea-level does not rise by the same amount all over the globe due to the effects of the earth’s rotation, local coastline variations, changes in major ocean currents, vertical movements of the earth’s crust (up and down), and differences in tidal patterns and sea-water density.”
“Satellite altimetry measures the distance between an Earth-orbiting satellite and the surface of the ocean. Knowing accurately the position of the satellite we can know the height of the ocean relative to the centre of the Earth.”
“Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm.”
“The Jason 2 satellite … orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission.”
Ric why would you doubt a sea-level rise of 3.3mm per year, when the measuring satellite position is +/- ?: the distance to the center of the Earth is +/- ?; the accuracy of the satellite measurement is 3.3mm; and the sea-level measurement drift is less than 1mm per year.
I hope this has helped, if you are considering beach-front property in the Caribbean or the South Pacific.
Keep the faith.
Gary Hladik (15:11:08) :
thanks for the reference to Loehle’s corrected plot. I was unaware of the follow up to the original paper.
The very fact that he corrected the paper shows the power of blogs [“Thanks in particular to Eric Swanson, Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre and the visitors to Climate Audit (climateaudit.org) who helped uncover errors in data handling”] when the discussion can be carried in a serious and and collaborative manner. This may be a sign of things to come where review can be done transparently and with much larger input than the traditional peer-review.
“Glenn (14:42:14) :
No, Leif, I have no habit of doing so.
You just did it again.”
It is a method of identifying who I am responding to. Perhaps you don’t like that “habit”. Then again, *you* just “did so”, so be “riled” at yourself as well.
How about *you* calling off the “insulting pedestal”?? I take stuff from you quite often in your replies, and rarely say anything. Perhaps you are special.
“I have referred you to it many times. It sounds very much like you never even looked at it.”
Refer me to one time you have. It did open for me after I said it would not open. Don’t know why it wouldn’t load the first time. And I do not recall ever
seeing it before. Here’s your chance to support some of the stuff you lay claim to, as the above “sounds very much like you never even looked at it” as if I ignored it. I may have, and not opened it. If I take the time to open something, I will read and study it at least superficially. This adjusting of the sunspot count seems to be an area that would require some research besides taking your word for it, and as it has not been done, I see no reason to think that it may be anything other than your personal idea and not shared by others. In the meantime, I’d rather take official information at face value.
Yet this doesn’t even matter. A previous poster provided you with a cycle graph showing the last century more intense than the previous. That fits the definition of rising solar activity for the purpose intended. It correlates with the rise in temperature over the last century.
“During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm.
Support that. My understanding is that the Oort was a short minimum.
And temperatures were cooler than the surrounding periods, still warm but not quite as warm. Do you expect that were solar activity to be associated with temperatures that it would be close to absolute zero during the Oort?
I note Mary Hinge’s favourite source of statistics appears to be Australia’s CSIRO. They, along with our Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), are strong proponents of ‘climate change’ and I would think there are many Australians, and others who would be more than a little skeptical in respect of their impartiality in these matters. Mary, are you Australian?
Glenn (15:40:56) :
“During the solar Oort Minimum [that lasted longer than the Maunder Minimum and was as deep] temperatures were thus warm.”
Support that. My understanding is that the Oort was a short minimum.
I referred you to http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20B%20from%2010Be.pdf
Did you open that?
It has a reference to the original paper:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, A12102,
doi:10.1029/2004JA010633, 2004
The heliospheric magnetic field from 850 to 2000 AD inferred from 10Be records
R. A. Caballero-Lopez, H. Moraal, K. G. McCracken and F. B. McDonald
Glenn (15:35:11) :
I’d rather take official information at face value.
Like the IPCC AR4?
That fits the definition of rising solar activity for the purpose intended. It correlates with the rise in temperature over the last century.
Except that even NASA is beginning to back-pedal a bit on that, c.f. the NEWS: NASA thread. Solar activity is back to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are not.
Doesn’t this paper assume feedbacks are distributed evenly worldwide? If positive feedbacks are stronger in higher latitudes than at the tropics then a doubling of co2 would not result in the same warming trend in both.