First this news: The Ap Index continues to fall. While the January 2009 data is not out yet, the December 2008 data is and is an Ap value of 2 according to SWPC. While this number may be lower than other sources (Leif will fill us in I’m sure), I’m plotting it for consistency since I’ve been following the SWPC data set for well over a year now.
I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The sun has been running at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered. It is an anomaly worth investigating.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little Ap magnetic activity there has been since. Here’s a graph from December 2008 showing the step in October 2005:
Additionally David Archibald writes with a new idea on how to use the Ap Index to predict the maximum amplitude. See below.
In late January, I contributed a post predicting that the Ap Index would have a minimum of 3 in late 2009. There is a good correlation between the aa Index at minimum and the amplitude of the following solar cycle. This also holds for the Ap Index:
The Ap prediction results in a prediction of maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 24 of 25. This would be the lowest result since the late 17th century.
Here is David’s prediction for global warming in the next 5 months – http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf.
This forecast WILL be a spectacular failure.
Excuse me if I have difficulty taking his work seriously.
Please pardon my ignorance of the significance of this, but “. . . the lowest result since the late 17th century” seems to be a rather profound statement. What does it mean? Does this explain something of the present, serve as an indicator of future conditions or trends, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
Layman question. Which is more important in a given solar cycle; magnitude/intensity of spots over a period or total number of spots between minimums?
Looks like the AGW sunspot counters for cycle 24 will be singing ” O’ Lonesome Me”. I have a suspicion that soon they will be sliding off their high horse and landing on a bit of reality. If those of you whom I speak are reading, its not so bad on our side. We’re rather nice people in my opinion.
Hmm… Unless we can work out a mechanism for why this would be, I’m sceptical that this correlation would necessarily hold. After all, we only have 7 data, so there is a reasonable chance this correlation could have arisen by chance.
On the other hand, even if it is true correlation, we don’t know enough about it to say that the correlation will be exactly linear or that it will hold for very low AP values. It’s also difficult saying where the minimum is, and as there is considerable variability month to month, that may have significant bearing on this prediction.
Anyway, it’s interesting, but I think it probably isn’t too useful with our current knowledge of this.
wow 25!!? I was thinking more 75-ish…
I’m not a solar physicist but there are a few predictions out there which put the max at around 70-80…
Only time will tell!
Is this bad?
Maybee another little iceage if we also have a period with larger volcanic eruptions?
[snip]
I’m gona-change my nappies…. 🙂
Reply: Implied, or misspelled profanity is still prohibited ~ charles the moderator
Interesting.
I think I’d better book my flight south before the energy czar .
I think I’d better book my flight south before the energy czar removes my travel rights.
OT: Arctic species of ctenophore has invaded the Black Sea.
See here.
Nice one, thanks a lot great piece.
I really really hope you’re wrong, David.
What the world doesn’t need right now is another Little Ice Age
Anthony, I think the SWPC data needs checking. The BGS data says 4.3 for January and 3.2 so far for February. http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/cgi-bin/apindex
There was also a change in character in the F 10.7 radio flux from April 2008 that I will follow up.
Number of eminent solar experts believe that the strength of the polar magnetic fields at the time of SC minimum, is a precursor for intensity of the next cycle. According to the data from two solar observatories (Mount Wilson and Wilcox) over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining; at the current minimum it is at its lowest value recorded. This indicates that next cycle is going to be low, further more; I believe that decline is going to continue for at least next 2-3 cycles (projected probability more than 90%).
This is in line with the predictions by Livingston and Penn.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField.gif
It might be a coincidence Anthony, but that 2005 step down you keep referring to just happens to be the period when the Sun enters its grand minimum retrograde action. We are firmly inside the inner circle now which is quite different to the normal path….except at times of type “A” grand minima of course.
Diagram here:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/02/carsten.jpg
I like simple modeling approaches. The one proposed by David Archibald is not simple enough, though. The curve fitted implies negative sunspot numbers for AP index <2. We know (correct me if I am wrong) that both variables cannot become negative. If there is a simple linear relationship I would assume that it is of a linear homogenous type. Thus I would drop the intercept and force the curve through the origin. This would result in a prediction of about 50 max amplitude for solar cycle 24, conditional on the ap index minimum predicted by David.
DJ (23:06:27) :
This forecast WILL be a spectacular failure.
Its nice to make statements, but this is a scientific blog, please back up statements with some kind of reference.
Richard111 (23:13:33) :
Layman question. Which is more important in a given solar cycle; magnitude/intensity of spots over a period or total number of spots between minimums?
—–
Layman’s answer. I’d recommend treating the sunspots not as a “cause” (nor strictly speaking, as a symptom or result either) of the solar minimum, but rather as a separate (highly visible!) indicator of the solar trend.
Example: You can measure temperature as an indicator of a person’s relative health (high fevers indicate sickness – rather, the body’s RESPONSE to an internal sickness) but the high fever or flushed skin or swollen glands or lack of energy themselves are not the CAUSE of the illness.
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Just as the solar poles are declining in strength so is the amount of angular momentum. I haven’t seen a scientific reason for this slow decline in polar strength, especially since each cycle is supposed to be a roll of the dice according to dynamo theory?
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/ultimate_graph2all.jpg
Its a prediction based on peer reviewed science, unlike David’s work which avoids peer review.
Lets revisit this in June – even better – let’s have David himself revisit in on this site in June.
I really really hope you’re wrong, David.
I guess you aren’t speaking for the 300 Australian’s who died this week in the hottest more extreme fire storm episode ever observed or the 7000 people who lost their houses, or the Inuits whose houses are disappearing into the Arctic Ocean, or the Tuvaluan’s who are being swamped by king tides. Its very easy to being a sceptic when no responsibility sits with you…
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (02:42:30) :
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
b) Magnetospheric electromagnetic interaction feedback, but this possibility has been resolutely rejected by Dr. Svalgaard.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (02:42:30) :
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining; ……..
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
b) Magnetospheric electromagnetic interaction feedback, but this possibility has been resolutely rejected by Dr. Svalgaard.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
Wolfgang K. (02:18:55) :
I like simple modeling approaches. The one proposed by David Archibald is not simple enough, though. The curve fitted implies negative sunspot numbers for AP index <2. We know (correct me if I am wrong) that both variables cannot become negative. If there is a simple linear relationship I would assume that it is of a linear homogenous type. Thus I would drop the intercept and force the curve through the origin. This would result in a prediction of about 50 max amplitude for solar cycle 24, conditional on the ap index minimum predicted by David.
Sounds like a sensible approach and a more realistic result to me.
Fits better with Landscheidts prediction from 1988 too. Nice graphic Geoff, it looks like Theodor had a better handle on SC24 back then than Hathaway does now…
Is this not all caused by the amount of AWG and CO2 that is projected to be released into the atmosphere by 2050? Isn’t that the scientific consensus? 😉
DJ,
I’m sorry, but as an Australian I do take exception to your implied comment that global warming, climate change or whatever euphemism you want to use was responsible for the Victorian bushfires and hence the horrible deaths of these poor people.
Thanks to an “enviromentally friendly” policy of no backburning or hazard reduction, there was years and years of fuel all piled up and ready to burn. People are forbidden, under threat of onerous fines ($420,000 in one case), from clearing their property of trees.
Global warming or not, if proper bush management was performed there would not have been the extreme fuel load ready to burn.
DJ, the fires in Australia are nothing to do with AGW. They are to do with inept green land management practices which have prevented land clearing, the construction of fire breaks, or precautionary burns during the cool season. Adducing those deaths to support your pet theory of climate is unsavoury shroud waving and you should desist.
Please also point out where the Inuit are losing houses. In your head probably.
Reply to DJ
With respect, the episodes you highlight do not in themselves hold any credence for the AGW theory. – which is (please forgive me if I’m wrong) the point you’re trying to put across.
Perhaps you’d be better off linking us to these peer reviewed works, so we can investigate and make our own minds up, rather than post details and examples of natural disasters, of which 1 has been shown to be partly down to the work of arsonists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090213/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_wildfires
..which had nothing whatsoever to do with global warming and everything to do with capitulating to greenie idiots who insist on preventing by any means the proper management of Eucalypt bushland that is very well known to be prone to fire, something even Germaine Greer knows about. See also Miranda Devine’s piece in the SMH
So please spare me the pose about you caring about why those Aussies died because every natural tragedy it appears has been used as grist to keep the global warming hysteria going. You don’t care – you just want justification for your bizarre and unscientific belief system.
King Tides are natural phenomena and the tide gauge there shows virtually no sea level rise in 30 years. The real problem in Tuvalu is population pressure and overextraction of groundwater- nothing at all to do with sea levels.
This is the most objectionable part about green ideology – the willingness to dance on other people’s graves and take some sort of perverted pleasure exploiting the misery of others to make misleading and unscientific claims about the state of the world.
@DJ (03:04:58) :
“Its very easy to being a …… when no responsibility sits with you…”
DJ, this phrase cut’s both ways
DJ,
I know something about Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Kiribati. None of these atolls are experiencing anything out of the ordinary. The sea level is not rising. If it were, it would be front page, above the fold news for these atolls, many of which have an average elevation of only two meters above sea level.
And the Australian bush fires were set by arsonists. The Australian government bears the responsibility for its insane policy of requiring residents to avoid fire breaks around their property.
I am not familiar with your reference to Inuits “whose houses are disappearing into the Arctic Ocean”, but based on your other opinions, I’ll take that one with a grain of salt, too.
“DJ (23:06:27) :
Here is David’s prediction for global warming in the next 5 months – http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf.
This forecast WILL be a spectacular failure.
Excuse me if I have difficulty taking his work seriously.”
RESPONSE;
I do not think the fall in UAH temperatures is going to be as large as David, but my (admittedly amateur) model does show some cooling over the next six months. It did correctly predict the small uptick in january. It appears he puts a lot of stock in the ocean temperature cycles which do dominate short term trends in global temperature. The only thing with more dominance short term is large volcanic eruptions.
The very same restrictions that led to the Bush fires in Australia have been at work in the Forests of the US. For 2 decades, the Forest Service has been prevented from managing the National Forests by a group of alleged ‘environmentalists’ that nobody has ever met.
This would be an evironmental lawsuit/management problem.
But, of course, the fires are blamed on Global Warming.
So, here I sit, with 2 weeks of snow storms backed up all the way to Japan by Global Warming caused by a failure of SC24.
DJ Unfortunately for you Archibalds predictions are becoming reality (re sunspots cycle 24) compared to your mate Hathaway (NASA) who has been way off everytime and keeps modifying every two months or so. Its guys like you who really are helping the skeptic cause. Thank you BTW.
Wolfgang K. (02:18:55) :
I like simple modeling approaches. ………..
Simple modeling is fine as long as it is backed up by natural causes.
This (see the links) may not be simplest but all the numbers are well known astronomical values.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
based on
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
with 3.5-4 year shift (cycle rise time)
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
vukcevic (03:18:45) :
It is interesting that Cliverd et al and now yourself use mathematical models to come a very similar outcome as to what the angular momentum graphs tell us. When we have different streams of science correlating together its time to prick your ears up….and we can also throw Usokin and Solanki into the equation.
DJ. The comment on Tuvalu was poorly researched. What you’re doing is simply repeating things you’ve heard – without finding out for yourself. Go and read up, then come back on here. You’re about to be surprised, shocked even: “A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades. It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999.”
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1
Archibald’s extrapolation is interesting and may have some merit. Certainly worth discussing. However, it extrapolates far from the known into the unknown — without consideration of the actual physical phenomenon. So, I won’t be surprised if its off the mark. I guess we’ll see.
*sniff sniff*….smells like fresh troll to me.
In fact, maybe not so fresh. Wasn’t there a lengthy and lively discussion regarding Tuvalu recently here on WUWT?
Come in, throw a few absurd statements around, watch everything ignite…say…that’s kind of asronistic, isn’t it?
Just sayin…
JimB
Archibald’s predictions made at the International Conference on Climate Change in March 2008 have been remarkably on target. The sun is in a funk — virtually no geomagnetic index and only rare sun spots for Solar Cycle 24. 2007 & 2008 showed significant global cooling. Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets at record levels for the satellite era. The empirical and historical data strongly suggest that we are heading toward a grand minimum. Svensmark will be vindicated. If cooling continues, the Earth is heading for a disaster — inadequate energy policies and many food exporting countries will become food importers = mass starvation. The USA, European, and Australian governments have their heads buried in the ground. The Russians believe their solar scientists — they are already using energy as a weapon. I am glad that I live in a warm climate.
tallbloke (03:35:39) :
Nice graphic Geoff, it looks like Theodor had a better handle on SC24 back then than Hathaway does now…
It may seem strange but both Landscheit and Hathaway both predict a weak SC25. I personally think they might have missed it by one cycle, but time will tell as SC24 could well be the instigator. Lots of predictions and reputations on the line right now, just loving it 🙂
To be honest, an increase in global temperature by as much as 1.5 degrees would be preferable to a drop in global temperature by any measurable level.
DJ.. don’t know who you are, but the tone of your comments is rather antagonistic to say the least! It does mean that I do not give your views as much credence as they might deserve.
I am making the comment to let you know the impression you give to a neutral observer. It is an unfortunate one.
OT, so mods delete if too annoying.
My favorite thing on this site is the Artic Sea Ice extent daily map. But I have this nagging suspicion that parts of it are fake. Call me naive, but . . . early June the sea ice extent for 06, 08, and 02 made near identical “jump and dive”s within days of each other.
I don’t believe that. I’m not scientific. I’m skeptical. You can see other artifacts like that if you stare.
So, I will be intensely skeptical if this week 2009 makes a further dip and sudden jump like 2008 did, about this time last year.
DJ’s remarks border on immoral…I have lived on Mt Dandenong Victoria in the past for 15 years during the Ash Wednesday fires and others….its probably the most wildfire prone area’s on the planet. Its a natural cycle here in Oz, but some of us get off the mountain when its gets over 40 deg C.
Having followed the sun’s lack of activity and the delay in SC24. It would appear that we are in for a few cool years. I see on reason to think it to be unusual in that it is all with in the natural variability observed in recorded history. Yes we have new ways of measuring the min/max but history tells us that it isn’t unheard of. We have had maxima and warming and we have had minima and cooling. We also have had idiots refusing to let people protect their property before also. I only hope that some good will come of the disaster in Aussie land.
Now is a good time to study the effects of the sun on the climate as we are entering a very different event than we have had the ability to observe with the better instrumentation now available. Perhaps we shall learn more about the drivers of our climate and be better able to adapt to our climate than any time in the past.
Very good article Anthony, now is the time to push for better scientific investigation of our solar system and it’s possible effect on our planet.
Bill Derryberry
Off-topic but interesting. Excerpt:
“Rutu Dave presents herself as one of five people who wrote the first draft of the most recent IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Revealingly, more than once, she calls it the IPCC Summary OF Policymakers!
She talks about the problems trying to get the Summary approved in four days with language barriers, etc. She said the Chinese “just don’t seem to shut up” and mentions “little tricks” to move things along.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has written on the dishonest process of producing the flawed IPCC SPM’s. Richard is a brilliant man. I think he would be further shocked to learn how the SPM process was manipulated by such airheads.
**************************************
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/02/very-revealing-talk-by-ipcc-rutu-dave.html
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Very revealing talk by the IPCC’s Rutu Dave
Update 2: A related interview with Dave is here (translated from Dutch):
You were only twenty-six when you institute an internationally renowned as the IPCC started working. How did you go?
“The IPCC was a floor above the department where I worked in the National Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM) in Bilthoven. My former boss was working at the IPCC and there was a vacancy, so he asked if I wanted to.”
…
Dave is at the World Bank carbon finance specialist, say specialist finance and carbon dioxide emissions trading. Her expertise is CO2 emissions and emissions trading.
…
Dave travels with folders full of figures and tables for developing countries ministers and mayors to show how much money they can earn emissions trading.
Update 1: That was fast. The videos are no longer publicly available.
There was briefly a “part 3” video, where Dave admits that she was “thrown in” to her IPCC job; her focus had been “trade policy”. To learn about climate, she read some books on a train.
—-
I’d be surprised if these two Rutu Dave videos (below) are still publicly available in six months.
Early on, she mentions that she was not the smartest student in her class, and suggests that the “lot of cute guys that were there in suits” made Model UN meetings interesting.
There’s no indication whatsoever that she knows anything useful about climate science; she praises Al Gore. She’s obviously quite proud of the Nobel Peace Prize that “she” got.
Rutu Dave presents herself as one of five people who wrote the first draft of the most recent IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Revealingly, more than once, she calls it the IPCC Summary OF Policymakers!
She talks about the problems trying to get the Summary approved in four days with language barriers, etc. She said the Chinese “just don’t seem to shut up” and mentions “little tricks” to move things along.
She talks proudly about the IPCC getting “more famous” after Gore’s propaganda movie came out, with media attention from all over. She said she had her choice of going to Bali or to Oslo (for the Nobel ceremony), she chose Bali (mentioning the beaches). She said she’d have chosen Oslo had she known Brad Pitt would be there. Also, someone she knows actually met Uma Thurman!!
Now Rutu Dave works for the World Bank; several times, she says that they are trying to help their clients “make money from climate change”.
YouTube – Rutu Dave as guest speaker at the ISSE
She received her Bachelors degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of East Anglia (UK) in 2000. She was awarded her Masters degree by Wageningen University (Netherlands) in 2002.
YouTube – Rutu Dave speaking about her work with the IPCC. Part 2
Posted by Tom at 7:12 AM
PEER REVIEW – A CHARADE:
Excerpt:
“Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is.” (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192)…
Horrobin concludes that peer review “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.” (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.”
Allan says:
Does the 8% who support the status quo on peer review includes Mann and the Hockey Team? Some of us knew that Mann’s hockey stick was broken from the moment it was published – the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historic record was a bold lie. The hockey stick was very effectively used by the IPCC to promote hysteria about alleged catastrophic global warming. The Mann hockey stick falsehood is now about ten years old, and for about ten years the word has been COOLING.
Repeating, for Climate Dyslexics – EARTH IS COOLING, NOT WARMING.
Regards, Allan
********
from CCNet: INVITATION TO A SYMPOSIUM ON PEER REVIEW
ISPR/KGCM 2009 Organizing committee
Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is.” (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).
“A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research.” (Horrobin, 2001).
Horrobin concludes that peer review “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.” (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.
Since a growing number of studies conclude that peer review is flawed and ineffective as it is being implemented, why not apply scientific and engineering research and methods to the peer review process?
This is the purpose of the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing:
ISPR (http://www.ICTconfer.org/ispr) being organized in the context of The 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2009 (http://www.ICTconfer.org/kgcm), which will be held on July 10-13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.
——————————————————-
Deadlines for ISPR 2009 and KGCM 2009
March 18th, 2009, for papers/abstracts submissions and Invited Sessions Proposals April 13th, 2009: Authors Notification May 27th, 2009: Camera ready, final version
——————————————————-
Best regards,
ISPR/KGCM 2009 Organizing committee
MORE INFO at http://www.ICTconfer.org/ispr
Smokey: please check the following link, it’s data from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60024/IDO60024.2006.pdf
Page 13, trends in sea levels since 1992:
Kiribati + 5.3 mm/year
Tuvalu + 5.7 mm/year
Vanuatu + 2.2 mm/year
These trends take into account inverse barometry and vertical movements of the islands. Given this, I would find it optimistic to say that “The sea level is not rising.” there.
Slightly OT,;-)
Dr Lief Svalgaard,
the correlation I was referring to was from a paper by Texan geologist Gregory Benson in an historical context. Cannot find the link at the moment at was a few years ago now but will endeavour to hunt it down over the next few days. Perhaps because of the reference to solar correlation the paper has been removed if it was challenged.
Lee Kington,
Thanks for the links, it’s fascinating watching time go by before ones very own eyes. Thanks once again.
How about an open discussion on this site between Leif Svalgaard & David C Archibald? The DCA paper on cycles 24 & 25 is still on the UK Treasury department’s website + others!
AtB
We have the Ap index and Sunspot number [with good calibration] back to the 1840s. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%20at%20Maximum%20Following%20Ap%20at%20Minimum.png is a plot of Rmax [dark-blue open circles] at the solar max following the year where Ap is minimum [about 6 months after sunspot ‘minimum’] and of Ap at that point [pink curve]. There is a well-known correlation as shown. Both a power-law and a linear relation is shown. There is not much difference [the power-law marginally better]. The blue diamonds show the calculated Rmax for the power-law and the red circles for the linear relation. they both match the observed values as well as their R2 values say that they should. Note that the right-most point is a prediction of cycle 24. Since we don’t know what Ap will be for this minimum I have guessed [based on assuming that the values for the past several months will stay where they are] that Ap = 4 for this transition. The predicted value of Rmax with this guess for Apmin is thus 75+/-10 in good agreement with what the polar field precursor technique gives [ http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ]. Back at the deep minimum in 1901, Ap was 4.1 so 4 seems a reasonable choice. Keep in mind that the SWPC-NOAA values for recent Ap are just plain wrong [too low].
While Rmax=75 is low [as we said in 2004: the lowest in a hundred years], we are not in unknown territory and not at Dalton minimum levels.
Anthony looking back at 1998 ,la nina year ,wasn’t there a lot of sunspots?I’m asking because it seems that high sunspot activity and warmer temps seem to go hand and hand with each other.Since the sun seems to be asleep global temps have been trending downward and from what i’ve been reading will continue for many years.Can’t wait to see the egg on the global warming crowd.
I applaud David Archibald’s attempt to use the science to help make a predictor models and I feel his scope is right on. If we can figure out smaller indicators that can predict a few months out – that’s a huge accomplishment. We’ve probably all seen predictions and models on the web or in the headlines showing the next 10 years, 100 years and 1,000 years that fall outside 95% confidence levels in the first 5 years… If David is willing to get out there with small steps, it may help us understand the larger picture someday. It’s not easy to publish predictions, you risk both ridicule and, apparently, a guy named DJ!
This solar activity falls into the predictions of Rhoades Fairbridge and the 178 year Jose cycle. The sun has entered the retrograde motion around its barycenter. According to Fairbridge we should be entering a period of cold. According to Fairbridge during the beginning of this cycle we should see increased volcanism and earthquakes.
Any comments?
The truth about the Australian wild fires is way too inconvenient for DJ…
Is there a relationship between the recent intense SSW event and the Ap?
One thing stand out from the usual icecap.us garbage, he staes that Another large La Nina formed in late 2008.
By all definitions used there has been no La Nina late 2008 let alone a sensationalistic ‘large La Nina’. This is why his work would never be taken seriously by peer review, it’s just a collection of innacuracies and speculative hogwash. He hasn’t taken into account that temperatures are recovering after the strong La Nina in EARLY 2008 at all. he didn’t even give us the benefit of a good belly laugh by implying that lack of sun spots will cause the temperatures to drop further (even though temperatures are know rising dispite a prolonged solar minimum!)
ENSO and a quiet Sun have not yet been linked with a connecting mechanism. Because I get up before the Sun rises, does not make the Sun rise. There are many, many, many such correlations and cycles in the Universe. Many times, these various cycles can be in sync, and stay that way during more than one generation, giving us the impression that they are linked in a cause and effect fashion. But without a testable mechanism, it is best not leaving sacrifices at my door encouraging me to make the Sun rise.
So DJ, did you assume that David thinks there is a Sun-global temperature mechanism when you referred to his temperature prediction? He may entertain such a notion but the graphs you linked to all seem to have to do with oceanic cycles and temperature. Did I miss where he correlated his predicted temperature fall to something other than these Earth bound oceanic cycles in your link?
We are looking for a mechanism that links the sun to a mechanism influencing earth’s climate and other external factors like the sudden heating of the Troposphere over the Arctic last January causing a rise in temperature of 50 degrees, changing the weather systems.
The AP magnetic index and it’s effects are in need of further study.
So is the the link between our sun and volcanic activity which is mentioned a recent article from Joe Bastardi:
According to Joe Bastardi the “Barbarian” (cold period) has arrived at the gate!
In this article he explains that the Barbarian comes with a “triple crown” of cooling:
1) Natural cyclical reversal
This mechanism is well understood and monitored (PDO/AMO/ENSO)
2) Solar radiation reduction
Controversy between Leif Svalgaard versus David Achibald and Svensmark!
3) Increased volcanic activity
We know there was significant volcanic activity during the Maunder and Dalton Minimum. The question is was it a coincidence or is it part of a mechanism?
“Decreased solar radiation leads to more cosmic dust, which in turn has an effect of increasing the speed of the Earth’s rotation, creating a negative global atmospheric angular momentum. Take a look at what is going on with that. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/aam/glaam.gif Notice how negative it has been during this time of reduced radiation.
The increased speed of rotation forces cooling at the poles, but there is something else that happens. Chances are this creates an increased stress on the earth, meaning more volcanic activity”.
He also refers to historic evidence referring to a Danish report:
Conclusion: 70- to 90-year oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
The complete article can be viewed here:
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
Anyhow, we never have been in a better position to observe what forces and mechanisms trigger the change.
We are in the first row seats this time to make life observations.
So poor in the opinions and for once leave out the “dead horse” (thanks Smokey) of CO2 being a climate driver.
vukcevic (03:08:36) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (02:42:30) :
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
Hi Vukcevic, good to see you’ve picked up on this idea of Ray Tomes which I resurrected on SC24.com
The maximal effects should occur when conjunctions/oppositions are 45 degrees round the plane of invariance from the nodes indicating the tilt of the sun’s axis.
Back on topic, I am still in love with this quiet Sun! It’s like watching a baby sleep, something a woman does with much pleasure. It is a very beautiful sight to me when the Sun is so sleepy. The even pattern of it’s softly roiling surface makes me wish I could get a closer look.
Smokey (04:07:17) :
DJ,
“I am not familiar with your reference to Inuits “whose houses are disappearing into the Arctic Ocean”, but based on your other opinions, I’ll take that one with a grain of salt, too”.
Smokey,
This is a very well documented story.
It was part of Gore’s presentation as solid proof evidence for AGW.
It was debunked.
When the ice melted, the waves had free play and erosion undermined the foundations of some of the houses.
They never should have build on that site.
To be more accurate arsonists were partly responsible, as is the policy of firebreaks. However for this event to have occured the right conditions had to be in place, such as high winds, record high temperatures and prolonged drought conditions. I direct you to this story from July 2008 of scientists warning of the increased possibilty of drought and heatwaves. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/07/climatechange.drought
Australia has seen some extremes lately, concurrent with the extraordinary heatwave in the south is flooding in the north, 60% of the state of Queensland has been declared an emergence zone due to floods. In recent years Tasmania has seen record high and low temperatures.
The tragic bushfires cannot be seen as proof of AGW but they can be seen to be part of an increasingly strong case for AGW.
Mary Hinge (07:10:44) :
for this event to have occured the right conditions had to be in place, such as high winds, record high temperatures and prolonged drought conditions.
Utter utter rubbish. How did the 3 other equally big fires in Victoria earlier this century come to pass if ‘record temperatures’ have to be in place? Or are you admitting the temperature record is as badly cooked as Victoria?
Stop backing up your bull with other peoples misery and loss.
Some what OT, but i have traded commodity futures for 33 years. Creating a future pricing model is the bread and butter of “technical analysis”. Modelers create model v 1.0. Test it against historical prices. And enter the market, confident that their model will generate enormous profits. The models are excellent at predicting past prices, as they are fitted to historical data. Unfortunately it is impossible to profit by accurately predicting the past. When the model fails, which they inevitably do, the modeler, undeterred, creates a new version, incorporating the old model, plus new factor x, which yields model v 2.0. This happens time and time again. IMHO, modeling chaotic events, i.e. prices or temperatures, is a fools errand.
Mary Hinge said;
“In recent years Tasmania has seen record high and low temperatures”
Can you please confirm which stations in Tasmania you are referring to and the years involved?
tonyB
“has probably been due to greenhouse gases”
“opinion is divided on whether it can be attributed to climate change.”
“Australia’s agriculture minister, Tony Burke, described the report as alarming and said: “Parts of these high-level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report” ”
The bushfires can also be seen as a natural occurence, aggrevated by poor forestry practices & the activities of arsonists.
BTW. AMO for jan. -.007. First negative since 2002, and first concurrent negative AMO and ONI since Jan. 2001.
DJ (03:04:58) :…….unquotable. This is an offense to the human kind! Using for their own benefit the other peoples´suffering it is really shameful. No words..
So if I read the tea leaves right, the sun has decided to put on a display just when we have the right instruments in place to observe — In ways mankind has never been able to do before. The net of that is we can advance our understanding of our solar system and it’s influence on Earth … If the temperature results over the next decades match the solar predictions, then the AGW tax hoaxers can go find a rock and climb under it. If not, then we are back to “we don’t know”.
The good news is real science is in play once again. And it’s now getting really interesting to see. I sure hope it stays out in the open where lay people can see, observe and yes, maybe even toss their pebble in the pond every now and then.
Anyone who thinks the fires in Australia are unusual should peruse the fire history of Ontario, Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, or the Great Lakes-NY axis.
Huge fires regularly burned in those regions long before industrialization and killed thousands and thousands of people.
The American Plains burned from Canada to Texas once every decade – usually in just a few days.
You need fuel for a fire – without it – nothing will occur. How that fuel accumulates over time AND then how it comes to burn on a given date is the real story. A wet, strong set of growing seasons is needed to accumulate the fuel – and a return to dry or a drought, then a few days with dry humidities is what is needed.
tarpon (07:54:14) :
The good news is real science is in play once again.
IMHO, the vast majority of posts on this topic have promoted pseudo-science of the worst kind.
Flanagan (06:00:13) : said
“Smokey: please check the following link, it’s data from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60024/IDO60024.2006.pdf”
Flanagan, I’m not sure you’ve read the whole report in which there are many falls as well as rises. They specfically say that not too much should be read into the figures as the time scales are too short to obtain any meaningful data
Also satellite altimetry is (reasonably) accurate to a few centimetres in deep water but known to be inaccurate in shallow waters. (which I can vouch for from my own involvement in this field) The inaccuracy can be many times the actual measurement being recorded.
TonyB
Wally (04:23:37) :
What about February?
The Administration’s dream green team: Chu, Salazar, Holdren, Browner and Jackson.
————————————————————-
Obama’s ‘Extreme Team’ On Energy
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3302/218/
Holdren’s favorite policy prescriptions, including the “limitation of material consumption,” “redistribution of the wealth,” and even “movement toward some kind of world government.”
DJ
Please reference the studies you quote. The peer reviewed ones.
Thank you
On Social Workers and Arsonists
by Bill Muehlenberg
February 12, 2009
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/muehlenberg/2009/02/on-social-workers-and-arsonists
Thus this eye-opening letter was as expected as it was incredible. It was written by a social worker who urged us to be a whole lot more sympathetic with the arsonists responsible for many of the bush fires now raging in Victoria. In true liberal fashion, the writer asks us to try to understand the arsonists, and not be so harsh on them.
mr watts,
as a geologist, i have been trained to appreciate earth’s varied and colorful paleoclimate history…your professionalism in the face of AGW alarmism is most commendable…i thoroughly enjoy the debates about the cause of climate variability…mr svalgaard’s solar insight has caused me to pause about what i once thought was an obvious correlation between sunspots and temperature…i still find myself not wanting to eliminate a possible correlation, however, together with the discussions between magnetic fields, svensmark’s clouds, volcanoes, and oceanic circulation by the many learned commentor’s is really fun as the search continues for the elusive climatic smoking gun…earth’s history tells us that gun does not shoot co2 cartridges!!!…the passion to understand in the face of those with an agenda is inspiring and uplifting…i guess i just wanted to say thanks to all and please carryon in making this truly one of the best science blogs!!!
Leif,
Thanks for the information — in particular the pdf. Your 2004 prediction and method seems all the more credible today.
Let´s get back to the Sun issue. Are we approaching a Dalton or a Maunder type minimum?
tallbloke (06:53:36) :
to
vukcevic (03:08:36) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
Hi Vukcevic, good to see you’ve picked up on this idea of Ray Tomes which I resurrected on SC24.com
No idea who Ray Tomes is , but I’ll look him up (if he is on the web).
How can it be ‘utter rubbish’ to say that the correct conditions have to be in place. The fires would not have been so tragic if the drought, high temperatures and winds did not occur! How can you deny those simple facts? To say that I am using other peoples misery is a downright lie and if you hadactually read what I had written you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for saying that.
RE: Flanigan 6:00:13
I went to the 2006 study you linked regarding sea level rise. You may have missed this on page 21:
“Figure 4 shows how the trend estimate has varied over time. In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Nino when sea level fell 25 cm below average, the trend actually went negative and remained so for the next three years. Given the sea level record is still relatively short, (since 1993!) it is still too early to deduce a long term trend.”
Were you somehow capable of deducing a long term sea level rise trend from the same data that the authors of the study missed for the 18 years worth of data they used?
Allan M R MacRae (05:59:08) :
Is there any specific reason, why you did not mention that this survey was about peer review in fund allocation, rather than peer review in journals?
Here is the page on books.google.com and the quote in full:
Most of the records where from Hobart and Launceston, summeries etc below from BOM and a news story.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/record-breaking-cold-morning-in-tasmania/9154
Record heat
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/tas/20090129.shtml
Record drought
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/tas/20070103.shtml
Extraordinary January 2009- record low and high temperatures for January
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/tas/summary.shtml
Record cold April2006
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/tas/20060501.shtml
bluegrue (09:00:55) :
Well done for exposing yet another ‘selective quote’ from a typical sceptic argument.
Mary Hinge 6:47:28
You state: “(even though temperatures are know rising dispite a prolonged solar minimum!)”
One way to insure a measureable temperature rise trend would be to place your measuring instruments so that they can receive the benefit of the exhaust from a nearby air conditioner or place your thermometer on the roof of a building or just build an airport or sewage treatment plant around it. I’m amazed that there has been no increase in temperatures over the last 10 years. Can you imagine what the temperature record would have shown over the last decade if you had some accurate measurements from well sited instrements? We probably would not be having a discussion about warming. Let me know if you would prefer spring a day or two early or a mile or two of ice above your head.
“Excuse me if I have difficulty taking his work seriously.”
I’ve followed DA’s predictive models since the winter/spring of 2007. He always has a reasoning from data in the public domain for his prognostications.
IMHO, his arguments demonstrate a certain creativity and thrust to the manifest relations of physical phenomena befitting a layman, which self-characterization he has always maintained.
To the degree that my focus has been on a issue taken up in his predictions, he has routinely braver than I. I gather this follows from courage of conviction, not the moonbattery which some here prefer.
Mary Hinge (07:10:44) :
“The tragic bushfires cannot be seen as proof of AGW but they can be seen to be part of an increasingly strong case for AGW”.
Mary Hinge,
I do not understand how you can make this remark.
1. Bush fires are as common on this planet since there are woods.
2. Australia is called the continent of droughts, floods and fires.
3. There is absolutely NO STRONG CASE for AGW let alone AN INCREASINGLY strong case. As the current facts published at this web site indicate AGW science is dead.
Neither your unscientific remarks nor the 400 million dollar for research as part of the Obama stimulus package will make it alive.
Bluegrue
Do you think that peer review works better for an insular “team” of scientists vying for billions of dollars of government research money to preserve their world view? Do you think there is any chance that they are working to protect their own vested interests and do everything they could to prop up each others tenuous conclusions? Is there any chance that their reluctance to use accepted statistical methods and reluctance to share data and code has anything to do with good science or is just an exercise in self preservation? How would it look if the arguments and studies you have based your life on for the last 20-40 years turned out to be completely bogus?
You need to understand something more about the fundamental nature of people to truly understand why the concensus is trying to drub any skeptic into silence. It threatens their livlihood and reputation.
I’m no scientist just another observer. It’s funny how these alarmist make statements about extreme highs and lows particularly when summer fully sets in then go on to blame it on AGW. The W at the end stands for WARMING, so how would that apply to the below average temps which seem to happening more and more often.
What happened in the bush fires last week that killed all those innocent people and what a horrible death they all must have suffered, can be laid squarely at the feet of the so called environmentalists. I, like so many others enjoy the environment of a green earth but would never’ put bugs above humans ‘ ( 2gb’s Brian Wilshere ). The debris on the forest floors was so great that estimates place the heat generated to 500 hiroshima bombs. Eucalypst were exploding like bombs. This failure to allow hazzard reduction must be considered a criminal act. But how to bring to justice invisible criminals.
Mary Hinge
You state: “How can it be ‘utter rubbish’ to say that the correct conditions have to be in place. The fires would not have been so tragic if the drought, high temperatures and winds did not occur! How can you deny those simple facts? ”
You are being too simple in your thinking. Fires in Australia are natural, ask the aborigines. The expectation that there would not be fires and firestorms reflects a lack of understanding. Prohibiting land owners from clearing brush along roads and near their houses reflects ignorance. Allowing the vast majority of the fires in recent years to originate on State owned property where there has been neglect in managing the build up brush with selective and controlled burning reflects incompetence.
Don’t insult us by arguing that a questionable .6cm increase in temperature over the last 150 years since the conclusion of a mini ice age is somehow the causal link to these fires. It’s arguable whether .6cm increase is even accurate given the tendency to measure temperatures near the exhaust of an air conditioner!
I asked Mary Hinge (regarding record weather conditions)
“Can you please confirm which stations in Tasmania you are referring to and the years involved?”
To which Mary replied with links. (09 08 58)
“Most of the records where from Hobart and Launceston, summeries etc below from BOM and a news story.”
I have read and counter checked the links.
Link 1 Record breaking cold morning were respectively a 46, 22, and 10 year old record
link 2 Record heat one was back to 1986 and another to 1972, another didn’t break the record set in 1943
link 3 Record drought 20 year records and they caution against their accuracy because of the split of the rainfall betwen high and low land
link 4 Record high The station started recording in 1976
Link 5 Record cold Generally 20/30 year records-but I’m not going to argue about record cold 🙂
I had a chat some months ago with someone from the Australian weather service as I was trying to graph their temperatures as I have done for Hadley to 1660. She apologised that so many stations had moved, been swamped by urban development, were known to have been inaccurate in the past, or were just to recent to be of much use. All in all, Australia is not the country to attempt to draw any conclusions on regarding its historic climate patterns
TonyB
Whilst on the subject of Australia, we have a mistaken impression that it has a benign climate. This poem shows its potential savagery-the first verse refers to the authors childhood in England. To believe that Australia has dramatically changed its character is to fail to understand its history.
My Country By Dorothea Mackellar. (Circa 1904)
The love of field and coppice, of green and shaded lanes,
Of ordered woods and gardens is running in your veins.
Strong love of grey-blue distance, brown streams and soft, dim skies-
I know but cannot share it, my love is otherwise.
I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons, I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror- the wide brown land for me!
The stark white ring-barked forests, all tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains, the hot gold hush of noon,
Green tangle of the brushes where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops, and ferns the warm dark soil.
Core of my heart, my country! Her pitiless blue sky,
When, sick at heart, around us we see the cattle die –
But then the grey clouds gather, and we can bless again
The drumming of an army, the steady soaking rain.
Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
Over the thirsty paddocks, watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness that thickens as we gaze.
An opal-hearted country, a wilful, lavish land –
All you who have not loved her, you will not understand –
Though earth holds many splendours, wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country my homing thoughts will fly.
TonyB
Sidebar:
Perhaps we should distinguish between:
o Those “Greens” / “Environmentalists” who honestly believe that humans are stewards of the earth, and
o Those “Greens” who dance on the graves of the dead, for which they are at least partly to blame.
The Greeks had a word for the latter: misanthropos. I.e., Misanthropes.
I’d like to know how the AP index was determined (or what proxy was used) for the 1800’s.
I would like to thank Dr. Svalgaard for his immense patience and tact. Many of the topics discussed relative to global warming/cooling and solar influence on such are repeats. Over at Solarcycle24 Dr. Svalgaard has pointed up the contradictions we face with solar influence on climate. Most recent evidence on solar cycles indicates that TSI did not drop significantly during the little ice age. Current data on TSI shows that during this minimum it is staying pretty stable within a range of 2-3 tenths of a watt per square meter.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
So if TSI isn’t dropping enough to cool the earth, what can cause global cooling? Perhaps the feedback loop between TSI and the earth’s climate requires a series of alignments with such things as TSI, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, increased albedo, etc.
Right now, satellite temperatures give no indication that we are experiencing either global cooling or global warming. Regional impacts are being felt, of course. So perhaps an emphasis on “global” whatever masks the more important regional effects that actually have the major impact on human society.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
I personally hope that solar cycle 24 has a low sunspot maximum in the range of 50-75. We’ll learn a lot and hopefully gain more insight into the impact of the sun on Earth’s climate.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:38:01) :
to
vukcevic (03:18:45) :
It is interesting that Cliverd et al and now yourself use mathematical models to come a very similar outcome……
I have looked at Cliverd et al article some time ago. It is an interesting assemblage of already well known periods. What is missing there, in my view, is lack of any attempt to explain why those periods are there. It is a bit of ‘disassembly’ into components and then put together again, but it does not get us any closer to the source of the origin.
Wolfgang K. (02:18:55) :
I like simple modeling approaches. ………..
My formula would suggest SC24 to be around 80 (or lower if SC24max is beyond 2013).
Mark (10:27:30) :
I’d like to know how the AP index was determined (or what proxy was used) for the 1800’s.
A starting place is: http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-writeup.pdf
Many papers and presentation at http://www.leif.org/research/ can give you more details. A more technical [and heavy-going] account is here: http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
We have data to be able to do this back to the 1830s.
and a side note
Inuk, singular, as in “Charlie Watt, an Inuk from Kuujjuaq” ” or . . . what we used to call “an Eskimo” back in the pre PC days
Inuit, plural, as in “all the Inuit in Canada”
There is no word “Inuits”.
There are Inuit leaders trying to scam big payouts over this AGW thingy, claiming their way of life is being destroyed. All credit if they can guilt out more money from the those who fell guilty about the past.
Kim said
“Right now, satellite temperatures give no indication that we are experiencing either global cooling or global warming. Regional impacts are being felt, of course. So perhaps an emphasis on “global” whatever masks the more important regional effects that actually have the major impact on human society.”
I increasingly believe we have a number of broadly regional climates with more localised climates within them, and then micro climates. These micro climates are substantially distorted by UHI.
The idea that there is some reliable global average temperature or a global climate is as bizarre as the idea of global average sunshine hours or windspeed.
If you examine many national temperature records they do not show the same data as the constantly rising global temperatures. This latter is an artefact based on a tiny number of weather stations in 1850 which have moved randomly, with numbers expanding and decreasing ever since. They tell us nothing other than that climate scientists passionately believe that they know more than they do, when really we are merely at a very early stage in the development of this branch of science.
As Thomas Kuhn put it in The Road Since Structure:
“… – individuals committed to one interpretation or another sometimes defended their viewpoint in ways that violated their professed canons of professional behaviour. I am not thinking primarily of fraud, which was relatively rare. But failure to acknowledge contrary findings, the substitution of personal innuendo for argument, and other techniques of the sort were not. Controversy about scientific matters sometimes looked much like a cat fight.”
Tonyb
Edward (09:17:14) :
Strange how the satellite readings correlate well with meteoroligical stations. I know there is plenty of space junk out there so maybe you can start a campaign to bring awareness of Spacejunk Heat Islands and Temperatures, and how this is affecting readings of global temperatures!
Nice to see you ar looking at the records objectively, or maybe objectionally is more accurate!
If you had bothered to read my earlier comment I said that this was one of the factors, please stop misrepresenting what I am saying just because it goes against your sun worshipping beliefs. The hot conditions evaporated the volatile oils, the drought made the vegatation and soil surface dry and the winds spread the flames. This combined with the planning stupidity of letting people build in this regions without adequate fire breaks and the mindless stupidity of one or two arsonists made this extremely tragic.
Why don’t you go and count some sun spots or something, you may as well go for some extra terrestrial pursuits ’cause you haven’t a clue what happens on this planet.
Responding to:
william (09:26:15) :
Regarding:
“You need to understand something more about the fundamental nature of people to truly understand why the consensus is trying to drub any skeptic into silence. It threatens their livelihood and reputation.”
Sad but true.
The old saying, “Money is the root of all evil” has poisoned our sciences ever since science began helping humanity to a degree that made science profitable.
This has been seen for years in the field of medicine. Back when doctors didn’t make as much, there were snake-oil salesmen, but not to the degree we now see. (Nor were there as many lawsuits.)
In my youth Tim Leary was a darling of the press, and he promoted LSD at Harvard, calling it a drug which would save the world. Those who spoke up against him were laughed at as being square and old-fashioned, and called anti-progress and even evil. As a result some of the most brilliant young minds our nation had were damaged and destroyed. Rather than contributing to society they became derelicts. I knew some personally, and some still wander about Harvard Square asking for spare change.
I’m afraid money attracts slimy people, and most people simply don’t have the time to crusade against them. It is only when enough of the general public are hurt that resistance begins, and reform happens.
Here is another whacko report from the UK, aired tonight on channel 4.
The Mechanical Institute of Engineers, based on computer models suggest,
http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/02/day13/climate_change.pdf
Mary Hinge, why do you blog here, you seem totally wedded to AGW cause and appear to have a closed mind to any other opinions.
Mary Hinge “The hot conditions evaporated the volatile oils” Wrong:The boiling point of Eucalyptol is 176°C all this “family” has relatively high boiling points.
“The idea that there is some reliable global average temperature or a global climate is as bizarre as the idea of global average sunshine hours or windspeed.”
Like T sub eff, bizarre as in flying unicorns that speak.
Robc (12:04:26) :Very interesting link…it begins with the words “The heat is on”
The next report will say: “The heat is off”
Good grief, are you for real? Liquids evaporate at temperatures below their boiling point. A very familiar example would be water. In case you don’t know the boiling point of pure water it is 100 degrees centigrade. Have you noticed how, after a rain shower the water magically goes away. Now, the temperature outside doesn’t reach 100 degrees C, and according to your argument it must magic as it becomes invisible! Just so you know what happens, it evaporates at much lower temperatures than it’s boiling point, and the higher the temperature the quicker the evaporation (in constant wind conditions of course).
Now before you say that Eucalyptus oil is different from water (I know it is) and has totally different behaviour (it doesn’t) just think about the smell of eucalyptus, then think about why how you can smell the oils if they aren’t evaporating.
More doom and gloom – with thanks to the BBC reporters, of course http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7887536.stm Fish stocks will dwindle due to… wait for it… climate change. Funny that, there never seems to be a report that something good would come of a rise in temperatures. Funny that.
Mary, you’re evidently on another one. What colour is the sky in yours?
I look at other opinions, and more importantly, reliable scientific evidence. I have seen plenty of opinions, but that’s all they are, opinions. The scientific literature (i.e the reliable sources) do not sem to have too much in the way of convincing evidence that AGW is not happening. The overwhelmingly vast majority point to the fact it is happening.
I visit and contribute to this site to see if any reliable and plausable alternatives to AGW can be demonstrated and tested. So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science.
DJ (03:04:58) :
Its a prediction based on peer reviewed science, unlike David’s work which avoids peer review.
Lets revisit this in June – even better – let’s have David himself revisit in on this site in June.
DJ,
If the peer review process in climate science is anything like the peer review process in my field, then I’ll have to cast my bet right now that David is more right than you are. Since you haven’t really specified you own prediction, however, that does leave you in the smug power seat, doesn’t it, just where “peer reviewers,” no matter how irrational or egocentric they may be, like to sit. The most interesting thing about your wager, then, given the way that you have wrapped your argument up with the mantle of authority rather than specify a rational argument, is that if you are wrong, it would seem that you will have to admit that the entire peer review process (at least in climate science) is flawed. Will you do that if David’s prediction turns out to be correct? Because, as a reasonably intelligent and increasingly informed outsider to the debate, I see more and more evidence that his prediction may be correct.
Like some other posters, I don’t really look forward to another Maunder, er Gore, minimum. But since I haven’t read any of the unnamed peer reviewed studies that you cite, and obviously don’t have any need to genuflect before the idol of established wisdom, I’ll bet Dave ends up being right, and raise you.
–psi
: Robc (12:08:36) :
Mary Hinge, why do you blog here, you seem totally wedded to AGW cause and appear to have a closed mind to any other opinions.”
Hmmm, isn;t that the compliant that Isee lodged here so frquently about hte AGW crowd, that they allow no differing points of view?
Mary Hinge:”it evaporates at much lower temperatures than it’s boiling point”
Yes indeed, but just a little. The fact behinds is that these high temps in Australia are the current and usual La Nina conditions, and it seems that there will be several Ninas ahead (of course Ninas-girls- are more aggressive than Ninos-boys-) 🙂
Mary UnHinged
The satellite data also does not show “a fingerprint hotspot” of heated predicted by GCM’s so if you are solid with the Satellites you must not put put much stock in the AGW predictions of GCM’s. But who needs that to invalidate the theory, we can can look at where GCM’s assume 90% of the “heat” is being stored, the oceans. Funny thing is, the oceans have been cooling over the last five years. How is that possible with all these years in the 21st century being so close to being the hottest years on record? Don’t take my word for it. Read about it at: http://climatesci.org/2009/02/13/article-by-josh-willis-is-it-me-or-did-the-oceans-cool-a-lesson-on-global-warming-from-my-favorite-denier/
By the way, I absolutely believe in global warming every 1500 years and I absolutely believe that changes in land use such as eliminating forests and paving the grass lands and building cities and changing Hydrological systems absolutely has resulted in some degree in climate change. I don’t believe in CO2, Al Gore and a Greenhouse Venus future for the planet earth even if we burn every hydrocarbon in the ground which is going to happen anyway.
Unfortunately, since there are no sunspots to count, I’ll have to get back to you on your suggestion and I have not heard from the scientific community that the Science is settled as to our understanding of the Sun and all of the potential impacts it has on life and climate on the Earth. Let me know when that consensus is complete.
Tony, maybe it’s best to ask local about what they observe then: Kiribati Islanders Seek Land to Buy as Rising Seas Threaten
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a0kuXMsICBhg&refer=australia
I’m guessing that Mary believes that having eucolyptus oil evaporate during the local summer is a new phenomena.
There is a known problem with eucalyptus and its ability to spontaneously erupt into flame but it doen’t need extreme heat, although it will cause it to burn, just strong continuous sunlight will do the same thing.
I can’t remember the exact temperature of combustion but it is surprisingly low and, of course, once started is self sustaining as long as combustible material exist in its vicinity.
Oh and by the by, a little decoram on the site please. This site, like Climate Audit, was always polite and precise before the blog competition and I would like it to return to that state, please. If you wave your arms, remember to achor them with a quoted paper or reference. It doesn’t have to be peered reviewed but published or given in public would help.
Bon soirée à tout le monde.
Why do people continue to respond to Mary (Un)Hinge(d) who I think on an earlier thread was identified as a man? S/he obviously is a troll; she/he is not a scientist or interested in science. If her/his questions stimulated discussions that helped new readers on the blog, well, then, fine. However, I find her/his intrusions block informative discussions, as a troll’s are designed to do. And there are way too many of them. Of course — personal opinion. At least from this reader, goodbye, Mary, or whatever your name is.
I am ready for some good news. I can’t stand it any more. Probably time to unplug from the web for a while.
I am ready to agree with Mary Hinge that the fires are a combination of factors, the excessive heat being one. I’m not ready to believe the high temps are anything other than normal variation.
For me, the question then becomes what do you do? The quickest and cheapest thing to do would be more sensible land use policies, and laws and penalties to discourage arsonists. How long would it take to have the same mitigating effects by reducing atmospheric CO2 (if ever)? Better land management could very quickly make you feel safer. Even if you brought down atmospheric CO2 concentration, would there be any reason to think this can’t happen again.
Should you do both? Maybe? But the easy changes will have the biggest effect. The costly, slow change will have very little or no effect.
@TonyB.
quite some impressions from weather & climate change in the 1930/1940ties could be derived from the stories from Arthur. W. Upfield.
I’m assuming, that you are, indeed, from down under.
If not, my assumption was wrong.
KlausB
Barry Foster (13:05:07) :
” Funny that, there never seems to be a report that something good would come of a rise in temperatures. Funny that.”
This is one of the more obvious disconnects with climate research and history. It appears that life and particularly humans have flourished in warm periods and suffered during cold periods. As such, a logical mind would expect to see many more quality research papers telling us about the improvements to our lives if warming continues.
Alas, just the opposite occurs. Add to that the nonsense Mary is throwing out about a AGW leading to brush fires that have occurred throughout recorded history and it’s no wonder that AGW proponents have little credibility.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/gallery/0,26637,5037340-5006020-10,00.html
Just what sort of evaporation rate do you see in that picture?
@Charles The Operator
Hi Charly,
you are doing a job here, indeed.
Have a good night.
[don’t forget to purge my message, it’s totally OT here]
Mary Hinge,
1. Fire doesn’t need high tempertures to propagate, it supplies it’s own high temperatures. Once the fire was started (by arson, apparently) it was self-sustaining.
2. If AGW causes extreme temperatures, then the U.S. (the country with the most reliable long-term temperature records) would be a significant negative data point in the AGW theory. Looking at the U.S. state temperature records shows the U.S. set 13 state temperature records between 1990 and August 2006 (the last date when I last looked) out of 89 set between 1906 and 2006. Since the former timespan is exactly 1/6 of a century, one would expect about 15 record temperatures, so the period of warmest global temperature shows less extremes that average. Even more telling is that only one of those was set since 2000.
So does AGW cause an increase in extreme temperatures. or not? Do the alarmists need to fudge their theory once again to explain away another discrepancy? If every missed prediction can be explained away, what would ever constitute a refutation?
Flanagan (13:58:14) :
“Tony, maybe it’s best to ask local about what they observe then: Kiribati Islanders Seek Land to Buy as Rising Seas Threaten
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a0kuXMsICBhg&refer=australia.”
Flanagan,
This is a typical example of a politician making an attempt to cash in on the AGW hype with support of the UN and the World Bank.
There is noting wrong with the sea levels. Look for a visual:
http://www.john-daly.com/
Flanagan
I merely read thoroughly the previous link you provided which does not provide the evidence you believe. Also please note the comments about the short time scales of the records and the considerable inaccuracy of satellites
As for your current link, the politics and the land use must be considered which is mentioned here.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927
Mary Hinge
I enjoy your posts here-it is good to have another perspective otherwise we all sing from the same song sheet.
TonyB
KlausB (14:49:48) said;
“TonyB.
quite some impressions from weather & climate change in the 1930/1940ties could be derived from the stories from Arthur. W. Upfield. I’m assuming, that you are, indeed, from down under. If not, my assumption was wrong.”
No I am from England although I have a sister living in Australia. I am not aware of Arthur W Upfierld and shall read some of his work-thank you
TonyB
I realise that Mary seems to have deviated this thread from the original topic but…..
The big fires in Australia have certainly raised the AGW debate with links to CSIRO studies warning of bigger and more frequent bushfire events such as the one last week, which have now been apparantly vindicated.
However, one does need to look at facts over a period of time and not cherry pick from one measurement (eg: Mary Hinge on last months UAH spike and subsequent proof of no link to sunspot activity !)
The fact is that Victoria has not had a big fire event such as this for 26 years. Whilst it did experience it’s highest temperature on record of 46.4, the previous record was 45.6, set on January 13, 1939.
I’m sure in 1939 no one was talking about AGW
Just to assist Mary in her quest, I have provided Melbourne’s historical records for each day of January (warmest month on average) below..
January max temps for Melbourne (for each day of January)
1 40.4 1900
2 40.7 1900
3 41.6 1991
4 40.6 1976
5 39.0 1896
6 37.8 1964
7 40.4 1988
8 43.1 1939
9 40.3 1905
10 44.7 1939
11 42.9 1898
12 42.4 1867
13 45.6 1939
14 44.0 1862
15 40.5 1883
16 42.8 1908
17 44.2 1908
18 41.8 1959
19 43.6 1882
20 43.5 1875
21 43.3 1875
22 43.9 1860
23 43.1 1906
24 43.3 1982
25 40.2 1910
26 41.8 1981
27 41.5 1858
28 42.1 1858
29 41.5 1898
30 39.7 1879
31 43.7 1968
When you look at the data you will notice that only two daily records fall after 1985 and most records were set more than 100 years ago.
I’m not trying to either proof or disprove a point here, but thse records certainly do not lead to a warming conclusion !
KLausB
I have searched for Arthur W Upfield. This is a good site;
http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/upfield.html
Bearing in mind the context in which I made my comments-that savage Australian weather is nothing new-I thought this piece from the site rather ironic;
“It’s generally agreed that his best novel is Death of a Lake in which the solution to the mystery is revealed when a lake dries up. Upfield himself considered Gripped by Drought to be one of his best and I agree.”
Truly nothing seems to change, no matter how much the members of the team believe it does.
I will try and get hold of one of his books-thanks for the tip
tonyB
Ron de Haan (06:50:19) :
Decreased solar radiation leads to more cosmic dust, which in turn has an effect of increasing the speed of the Earth’s rotation, creating a negative global atmospheric angular momentum. Take a look at what is going on with that. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/aam/glaam.gif Notice how negative it has been during this time of reduced radiation
This is an interesting topic. Ian Wilson has done some work in this area and suggests the Earth’s rotation is linked with Solar rotation rates. I have been searching for months trying to find reliable current Solar rotation rates without much success. There is sketchy evidence during past grand minima that rotation rates varied.
Today I received some feedback from NASA with an email link to someone who may be able to help me, I will report back on any developments. I am surprised this data is so hard to get, you would think this is an area of high importance.
Mary wrote:
“I visit and contribute to this site to see if any reliable and plausable alternatives to AGW can be demonstrated and tested. So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science.”
It is entirely possible to model the climate of the past century with no reference to greenhouse gases. One example is the paper by Tsonis et al. titled ‘Synchronized Chaos’ discussed here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm
It is agnostic in that it models the observed climate changes without prescribing any causal factors.
In this sense it is subversive, as greenhouse gasses could then be responsible for difference percentages of the forcing depending upon how one models aerosols, albedo, water vapor and humidity feedbacks, etc.
OT. The magnetic field strength for region 1012 was estimated at 1989G [at poor seeing]
“John Finn (08:08:16) :
Wally (04:23:37) :
do not think the fall in UAH temperatures is going to be as large as David, but my (admittedly amateur) model does show some cooling over the next six months. It did correctly predict the small uptick in january.
What about February?”
January was predicted at 0.27 versus the 0.31 from UAH. Going forward their is a slight downtick, to 0.22 in february falling to 0.15 by April. Of course with a model with at best a ±0.2 C accuracy the two decimal points is a bit pointless. My model is going to get less and less real because I do not have any ongoing optical thickness values to put in. I am assuming constant for now. I checked with the SAGE II project and found out they stopped publishing their data in 2000 due to instrument issues and that is the latest data I have found. SAGE III is taking similar data but I have only found binary files I do not know how to read and I do not think those are publicly available.
To get back on topic, looked at a plot I had with the effect of Sunspots and it had them at about ±0.1 C, so not real big but something.
To get the facts straight (again) the police reckon two of the main six fires were started deliberately. Every year there are about 30,000 bush fires, of these about half are started deliberately. As I have tried (obviously in vain) to get through to you is that the scale of these fires was down to a combination of factors, that being the heat, drought and wind.
pyromancer76 (14:14:34) :
Is that your real name? If you don’t like discussions with people who may not share your views then too bad. The long winter evenings must just fly by for you.
Sigh… off course there is evaporation every summer, it’s just that there is greater evaporation in hotter temperatures. Do you not read a post before replying to it?
I’m sure if you keep looking at your
godsun then the spots will come. While your waiting why not check out this correlation between global mean temperatures and sunspots http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1870/plot/gistemp/scale:300Oh…there isn’t any…none at all…not a sausage…
Keep looking!
Which planet does that happen on? Not this one that I’ve ever seen. Sheesh!
Mary Hinge (11:46:18) :
I am not the first to say this here, but please do keep posting, Mary H. You come across as someone who holds their views genuinely. The last thing we want is for any genuine person who does not agree with the local “consensus” to be suppressed. [Disclosure : I have been banned from an AGW website for posting a scientific paper that disagreed with AGW.]
Strange how the satellite readings correlate well with meteoroligical stations.
I have downloaded the Global Surface Temperature data from the Hadley Centre (Hadcrut3 http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly), and the UAH global LT satellite data (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2).
I have then graphed them together. (I don’t have a website so can’t post the graph anywhere). They do indeed correlate well, in that they both go up and down at about the same time.
However, there are two noticeable discrepancies from a casual visual inspection of the graph :
1. The temperature trend is much greater in Hadcrut3 than in UAH. It has increased maybe 0.2 to 0.3 deg C more, in the ~30 years.
2. The UAH LT temperature seems to lag the hadcrut3 surface temperature by a few months.
I have not done a rigorous mathematical/statistical analysis on these, but if my visual inspection is correct then it raises a couple of issues wrt AGW:
As I understand AGW, it is primarily the CO2 that has got up to the LT that traps outgoing radiation, converting it into heat which then finds its way back to the surface. So, if AGW is correct, the LT should heat before the surface, not after, and the LT should heat more than the surface, not less.
I’m not inclined to place a lot of weight on this, because I have not done a proper study of it, but I would be interested if anyone would care to provide an explanation.
Hey .. on topic for a change, I was wondering what you folks thought about this: http://geomag.usgs.gov/downloads/pt2008.pdf
Figure 7 at the bottom seems to show that a corelation of sunspots to magnitism, .. meanwhile … this article, which I found listed in the references for the paper above could explain why volcanic activity added to low sun magneticism could alter our weather patterns, and over the long term our climate conditions. Please note this second paper mostly deals with earthside events to the atmosphere.. but indicates the sun also contributes to the whole deal.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5846&page=1
anyhow, Im in over my head.. but what I got from my research is that Anthony is right on in thinking that the magnetic index is the missing link between our sun and our climate changes.
its probably the most wildfire prone area’s on the planet.
nobwainer, the most bushfire prone place in Australia and probably the planet is Western Australia’s Great Southern Woodland. Bushfires burn pretty much continuosly there. One fire in the mid-90s burned continously for 2 years and consumed 4 million acres approximately.
Most Australians have never heard of the Great Southern Woodland or the fires, that’s because nobody lives there. So no one, least of all the media cares about the fires that are bigger than all the rest of the bushfires in Australia put together.
The only news of the fire in the 90s that made the media was 50,000 emus that died up against the vermin fence trying to escape the fire.
So as others have noted the problem in Victoria wasn’t the fires. It was the number of people living in the bush without adequate fire breaks, etc.
What caused the deaths was a deadly cocktail of people’s complacency, government pandering (to the Greens) and ineptitude, and Green zealotry.
Not everyone. There was a story this week about a man who was fined $50,000 a couple of years ago for cutting a firebreak around his house. His house survived while almost all the other houses in his area burned down.
Mary Hinge (13:16:45) :
“I look at other opinions, and more importantly, reliable scientific evidence. I have seen plenty of opinions, but that’s all they are, opinions (an excellent description of the AGW point of view). The scientific literature (i.e the reliable sources)(a subjective decision as to reliability?) do not sem to have too much in the way of convincing evidence that AGW is not happening(where is the empirical data that anthropogenic global warming is happening?). The overwhelmingly vast majority point to the fact it is happening(where is this vast and overwhelming majority of empirical data showing that anthropogenic global warming in occurring?). I visit and contribute to this site to see if any reliable and plausable alternatives to AGW can be demonstrated and tested(I visit this site to find any empirical data that may be made available that proves the AGW theory). So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science(I agree. Perhaps Dr. William Gray can help with your dilemma: .http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/on_the_hijacking_of_the_american_meteorological_society/. Note particularly the appendix parts A and B).
Richard M @ 14:51:21
It appears that life and particularly humans have flourished in warm periods and suffered during cold periods. As such, a logical mind would expect to see many more quality research papers telling us about the improvements to our lives if warming continues.
I have three basic arguments I use against AGW believers and they go like this. The first responds to your point quoted above. All three of these are quite shocking to the AGW believers as they are just so … so … so … outre!
1. A higher CO2 content in the atmosphere on a warmer Earth will be beneficial for life on Earth. A warm planet is a happy planet.
2. The planet is not heating; the oceans are not rising; the polar bears are not dying.
And the third, my favourite, that I’d love to be at the AAAS meeting to ask Al Gore:
3. Clearly you think the planet is too hot. How could do you want it?
Al Gore, planetary thermostat!
Mary Hinge (16:03:00) :
….
I’m sure if you keep looking at your god sun then the spots will come. While your waiting why not check out this correlation between global mean temperatures and sunspots http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1870/plot/gistemp/scale:300
Oh…there isn’t any…none at all…not a sausage…
Keep looking!
See http://web.me.com/wally/Site/Wallys_Climate_Blog/Entries/2009/1/31_A_closer_look_at_the_model.html
After subtracting effects of oceans and volcanoes from my model there does appear to be a sunspot effect. I will have to look at it some more. I also need a lot more cycles to say anything significant. Trying to correlate sunspot numbers to temperature records does not work because the effect is not huge or it has a significant lag say 10 to 12 years.
bluegrue (09:00:55) :
Allan M R MacRae (05:59:08) :
Excerpt:
“Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is.” (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192)…
Sorry blue – Your reference did not work. Did you make this up?
>..which had nothing whatsoever to do with global warming and everything to do with capitulating to greenie idiots who insist on preventing by any means the proper management of Eucalypt
It is a mathematical fact that on Saturday the capital city of Melbourne broke its February temperature record by 3.2C (155 years of records) – the previous record was set just 26 years ago. It is a mathematical fact that the Victorian state record for February was broken by more than 2C – the previous record was set just 5 years ago. It is a mathematical fact that the fire danger during this event was the highest ever observed in Victoria. It is a mathematical fact that Melbourne and surrounds have experienced their longest drought on record, their hottest drought on record, their driest drought on record, their longest heatwave on record, their driest start to a year on record and their hottest day on record.
John you are out of your depth – you have no training relevant to this area have never published any relevant science. You are not an expert, and bluff doesn’t work against facts available to anyone who cares to look. Your rants against land clearing simply lays bare that you scepticism has nothing to do with science, but is rooted in your dislike for liberals and greens.
>The fact is that Victoria has not had a big fire event such as this for 26 years…
The fires in 2006/07 burnt the second largest area on record. The 2002/03 fires burnt the third largest area on record. The 2009 fires killed 4 times more people than any previous fire event.
How can anything on this site be taken seriously? How can so many people write confidently and be so wrong.
As for David’s predictions, lets revisit them in July. I trust he will eat humble pie and apologise and compensate those who will suffer the consequences of delayed action on climate change as a result of his work.
Take a look at inverse length of solar cycles correlated with temperature 1860-1980+ at this NOAA site:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3a.gif
>1. A higher CO2 content in the atmosphere on a warmer Earth will be beneficial for life on Earth. A warm planet is a happy planet.
A warmer planet will lead to massive increases in sea level (check with your local geologists about how high sea level was 120K ago when the planet was only slightly warmer). stably stratify the oceans sending the deep ocean anerobic (as happened in the end Permian extinction evet and suffocated deep ocean life), dry out the subtropics (as is happening on a global scale right now – yep Australia, SW USA, southern Europe, northern Africa are all getting drier), increase the severity of droughts , heatwaves , flood, fires. Oh, and CO2 acidification will stop the ability of corals to form from about 2050 – already this is evident in deep sea corals in the southern ocean and in shore reefs of the Great Barrier reef. Around this time the southern ocean krill will cease to have viable shells (don’t believe me put a few in a fish tank and elevate CO2 to 500ppm like the University of Tasmania recently did).
>2. The planet is not heating; the oceans are not rising; the polar bears are not dying.
The last decade has been a decade degree hotter than a century ago. The sea level correct for seasonal affected reached its highest level on record. The wiggle watchers have stopped watching as global temperatures have taken off in the last year – up 0.4C in just 12 months. Watch for some really high temperatures in the coming few years.
>3. Clearly you think the planet is too hot. How could do you want it?
When your economy, social structure, infrastructure, ecosystems are tuned to a certain climate and you change then you will suffer major consequences. Its the change that matters not the the average temperature.
I trust you will stop using these talking points in future.
REPLY: “I trust you will stop using these talking points in future.” Mr. Jones, let me make something perfectly clear. You don’t run this blog, I do. The decision about what topics to encourage and which to discourage is not yours to make, or even to suggest. – Take a timeout. I don’t want to see you here for at least 24 hours. – Anthony Watts
>January max temps for Melbourne (for each day of January)
1 40.4 1900..
Ozzie not only are your claims about fires wrong but you make many many many errors with your tempertures.
Just a few of the obvious omissions in your post…
1 40.4 1900
– it was 41.2C in 2008
..
..
..
25 40.2 1910
– it was 44C in 2003
28 42.1 1858
– it was 43.4C in 2009
29 41.5 1898
– it was 44.3C in 2009
30 39.7 1879
– it was 45.1C in 2009
How did you manage to make so many errors? Where did you get this stuff from?
How can anything you write be trusted when you get so many facts wrong?
Anthony surely it is time to ban posters who mislead the readers of your blog.
REPLY: “DJ”, your comment is disingenuous, banning people who make a mistake or with whom you disagree, especially when you misspell the word “temperature” yourself is hardly sporting. By your rules, you’d be banned also. – Anthony Watts
Anthony surely it is time to ban posters who mislead the readers of your blog.
you mean like the posters who state that global temperatures have increased 0.4C in the last year?
or maybe the posters that state that increased CO2 will cause corals to die, in spite of the fact that coral evolved at a time in earth’s history when atmospheric CO2 was many times today’s levels.
hello, Kettle? Pot calling…
*sigh*
The last decade has been a decade degree hotter than a century ago. The sea level correct for seasonal affected reached its highest level on record. The wiggle watchers have stopped watching as global temperatures have taken off in the last year – up 0.4C in just 12 months. Watch for some really high temperatures in the coming few years.
When your economy, social structure, infrastructure, ecosystems are tuned to a certain climate and you change then you will suffer major consequences. Its the change that matters not the the average temperature.
Heh. The snowbirds that have moved to Florida certainly haven’t suffered because their climate has changed. I’m sure they would suffer a lot more if they were living up north in the winter without fuel.
Actually, the last decade in my area has been cooler than 100 years ago. The last 100 years has been cooler than 200 years ago. The only place in my state that has gotten warmer has been where the population drastically increased and so did the amount of pavement. So tell me, has the population of Melbourne increased any in the past
A warmer planet will lead to massive increases in sea level (check with your local geologists about how high sea level was 120K ago when the planet was only slightly warmer). stably stratify the oceans sending the deep ocean anerobic (as happened in the end Permian extinction evet and suffocated deep ocean life), dry out the subtropics (as is happening on a global scale right now – yep Australia, SW USA, southern Europe, northern Africa are all getting drier), increase the severity of droughts , heatwaves , flood, fires. Oh, and CO2 acidification will stop the ability of corals to form from about 2050 – already this is evident in deep sea corals in the southern ocean and in shore reefs of the Great Barrier reef. Around this time the southern ocean krill will cease to have viable shells (don’t believe me put a few in a fish tank and elevate CO2 to 500ppm like the University of Tasmania recently did).
And your point is? My entire state has been completely submerged in the past; it has also been twice its present size. The cycle is called glacials and interglacials. Glacials are drier, interglacials are wetter. CO2 (particularly human-generated CO2) doesn’t have anything to do with it. The SW USA has a history of long droughts; in fact, longer than any in modern history, so I’m impressed or fearful. Nature happens. If the sea level rises, I’ll move inland. I’ll worry about that eventuality when citrus fruit can be grown throughout Georgia to the Carolina borders (again). Oh, and Florida wasn’t underwater at the time the citrus belt was further north, either.
Allan M R MacRae
With respect to the little sub-thread you seem to have started – Peer Review strikes me as somewhat like accreditation. Let each work be judged on its merits. To say certain people have not Peer Reviewed your work and therefore it’s no good is like saying that an unaccredited school simply cannot have any smart professors. Why? Well, because it’s unaccredited…
Anthony I do like reading comments from real scientists. Thou the snipping from the green shirts rabble does add colour it does become tiresome after awhile if the same comments are repeated without presenting a sound argument with the comments.
Maybe a link to another forum that allows this kind of fighting. Is there anyway you could select who can post on this forum?
I mentioned a little further up that I think there may be some correlation of sunspots with global temperatures if you subtract out larger effects. I went back and fit the GISS temperature values with factors for ENSO (MEI) and Volcanoes (Optical Thickness) to 1958. There is a lot more noise in the GISS data (±0.4 C) than the UAH data so the match is not as good but when the difference between the model and the temperatures is plotted and smoothed there appears to be a pattern reminiscent of the sunspot cycle. See:
http://gallery.me.com/wally#100002/GISS*%20vs%20M%20O%20Difference&bgcolor=black Click my name for a explanation of the general model and data source. It looks like the cycles are out of sync a bit, Fit looks like it might be better with a 10 year shift. Speculation at this point but interesting to me.
It looks like sea level graph has been updated at:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
I’d gladly setup a forum for such a thing. And Anthony could link to it if desired. If anyone thinks such a thing would be useful, email me at alberts dot jeff at gmail dot com.
Re my comment 18:13:37:
“The SW USA has a history of long droughts; in fact, longer than any in modern history, so I’m impressed or fearful. Nature happens.” Should have read so I’m not impressed or fearful. I hate it when that happens!
While I doubt CO2 is more than a minor factor is global temperature, I consider those AGW believers who post here to be invaluable. I want to learn all the arguments.
Let us all display the maturity, comity and professionalism that Al Gore lacks.
WA (09:57:25) : Perhaps we should distinguish between:
o Those “Greens” / “Environmentalists” who honestly believe that humans are stewards of the earth,
Got me thinking… I’m an ‘old style’ ‘green’ in the sense of not wanting extinction of blue whales and thinking 50 foot visibility in L.A. in the 1950s was a bad thing and that maybe we ought to get our hands dirty and plant as many trees as we cut down for lumber and fuel. I don’t fit in the modern green fascist movement. So what to call myself?
I think I’ll try ‘olive drab’ for a while. I dig in the dirt and plant things. Mix some brown in with green and it’s a nice olive color. Olives are productive. Olives and farming go well together. And olive drab even gets along with the military and hunting just fine. Olive is not overstated nor loud in public and olives never tell someone what to do with their lives…
Leif Svalgaard (07:57:52) wrote: IMHO, the vast majority of posts on this topic have promoted pseudo-science of the worst kind.
Thanks, Leif. Your humble opinion is good enough for me to quit reading right there (with thoughts of Anthony’s Wasted effort post in the back of my mind).
E.M. Smith
So what to call myself?
“Conservationist” used to be a respectable term.
It looks like more cooling is coming to the earth. Winters are already growing longer making growing seasons a little shorter. It looks like that will be a trend, i.e., longer and longer winters, shorter and shorter growing seasons. Hopefully no crops will be ruined by hail storms during growing seasons in this cooling trend. Most of the world would be able to take that in stride. But poorer countries like the Philippines would be hurt.
————
I think all on both sides could agree the earth is in a cooling trend… no matter how angry admitting it could make some.
Yes, eucalyptol has a flash temperature of 49°C, pretty low. Almost any spark will set it off above that temperature. Its heat of combustion is 9.9 kcal/g; compare that to gasoline at 10.4 kcal/g. This stuff is very much like gasoline. (Though the flame temperature may differ slightly because of the leaf and bark matrix, plus the oxygen atom in the eucalyptol molecule. I don’t have time to calculate flame temperatures tonight.)
Without proper brush management, almost any large eucalyptus fire could rapidly turn into a firestorm, producing its own winds at up to 120 mph. Once the fire is ignited, neither the initial ambient temperature nor the drought matter.
But, in any case, wind, high temperatures, and drought are forces over which we have no control. Even ignition can’t be totally prevented (if you’re short of nutters, lighting can set the brush off). The only factor within human control was build-up of brush near homes and buildings. That control was prevented by Greenshirts.
They caused this holocaust, not AGW, not wind, not drought.
Regarding Ap vs. SC24 amplitude: I’d guess that since neither Ap nor amplitude can go below zero. the correlation (insofar as there is one) should pass through the origin. Also, since Ap leads amplitude, an assumption of linearity is unwarranted.
My guess? Maximum amplitude SC24 (not counting any SC23 rogues): 18 +/- 10.
Roger Carr (21:31:05) :
(with thoughts of Anthony’s Wasted effort post in the back of my mind).
If you are still reading, enlighten me on the ‘Wasted Effort’…
Mary Hinge.
I may not agree with the conclusions you have from the same data I observe, but I enjoy your input to the discussions.
On pseudoscience:
Man is a pattern detecting mammal. Our brains are wired for patterns. We see dragons in the sky clouds and the Virgin Mary in glass reflections.
It is not surprising that people who are scientifically bent will also see patterns. It is how our scientific knowledge was built up over the millennia.
Man is also a social animal, tending to make groups. And groups get labels.
There is orthodoxy in science, and there are the heretics.
By training I belong to the orthodoxy in science. Still. I can very well observe that all the new worthwhile discoveries come from the border between orthodoxy and heresy. Young scientists must be trained this way, as I also was in my youth: indoctrinated but allowed to press further.
In this sense “heretical” or “pseudoscientific” observations, statements, correlation patterns, are, in the words of my long departed father, the manure from which roses bloom.
I would not discourage them. They are out of the box, and who knows what the future orthodoxy will be?
They have and it’s showing the rise in sea level is continuing despite the many claims on this blog to the contrary. The continued rise is happening the way I said it would last summer when I had to wearily point out many times that the dip in sea levels was casued by the strong La Nina in 2007-2008.
You usually have some thoughts on the ssea level chart and I notice you have none here, perhaps you would like to share your thoughts with the rest of us.
How can any side admit to a ‘cooling trend’ when there is no such trend?
Please don’t take one sentence out of context. I know this is a sceptical tactic and you are so used to it the habit must be hard to break…but do try in fuure, there’s a good boy.
One reason I love this site, it gives everyone a forum to express their views with minimal censure. Debate is a great learning opportunity, especially the more energetic ones! The moderators do a great job here and I commend them and Anthony for that.
DJ
I hope your pockets are full of money. Already the AGW crowd is responsible for the ethanol lobby and the disaster in starvation it has brought to the third world. Maybe somebody will sue .In contrast to future suings you foresee for the skeptic camp this is here and now disaster.
continuing on pseudoscience:
I consider the IPCC outputs as pseudoscience. My opinion was formed when I saw that they are pushing spaghetti model graphs as if they are data, treating them statistically, without an inkling of what the statistical errors entering from the numerous parameters and assumptions would give as a statistical error around each model projection.
My opinion was confirmed when I realized that even a 1 sigma error on albedo would induce a +/- 1.0C error around each model projection.
It is an artists output, and art is not science.
Nevertheless I do not consider the models useless, the AGW theory has been responsible for an enormous amount of data that will be the fertilizer on which much better models will rise.
What is criminal is what is being pushed politically: the output of a pseudoscience to determine the fate of the world. Might as well ask the psychics, as many politicians have done in the past.
Way out of topic, but as I have been in a fire, fires are common in Greece where the pine is the culprit of huge firestorms, I will post it here.
Inferno
Gripping the wheel,
at midnight
I drive up the road
where the firestorm broke the barriers
and jumped across the canyon
to run down the hill to the sea
in a great joyful
all consuming roar,
of the pine tree’s orgasmic
moment of reproduction,
releasing a menacing
mushroom of a black cloud
over our heads
darkening the noon sun.
Left and right
the stumps of pines
outlined black
some still standing
as if whole
dried up in shock,
The whole mountain side
glows,
like a distant city,
lighted up
by the reluctant
olive trees
their core slowly
eaten away by embers.
The pines were old,
their sides gouged out
dripping resin tears
into tin catchers,
nailed to their trunks,
no young pines growing
in their stifling shade.
They reproduce by fire.
The old olive trees
have often been gutted by fire
maybe even before,
the first historic
persian invasions.
You can see them in the groves
the great great grandfathers of all,
with thick hollow
convoluted trunks.
The burned out stumps,
grow new shoots
in the spring
even the roots
throw out tender leaves,
claiming
eternal life.
It is to me
human transient
scampering away
in the small timescales
of my life
that the ecological disaster
seems complete,
as I drive through,
a walker on glowing embers
of the inferno.
Leif Svalgaard (23:56:24) :
Roger Carr (21:31:05) :
(with thoughts of Anthony’s Wasted effort post in the back of my mind).
If you are still reading, enlighten me on the ‘Wasted Effort’…
It is pity that this particular thread, meant to highlight Ap Magnetic Index prediction for Solar Cycle 24, and hopefully alternative methods, has been taken over by climate discussions, adequately and abundantly discussed elsewhere (past threads).
I hope Anthony keeps it going for a while, after the ‘climatologists’ have migrated elsewhere, so rest of us, be it experts , astrologers, ‘charlatans’ and ‘cyclomaniacs’ can freely discuss what was meant to be discussed.
Anthony keep it going, the Effort is NOT Wasted!
Mary Hinge (01:44:37)
Sorry to burst your bubble but I think you’ll find this is the latest sea level chart.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
Mary,
Just eyeballing the Sea Level Graph, it appears flat since late 2005, despite the trendline.
Mike
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Martin, with all due respects look at the dateline of the graph. The graph you linked to is the one cited in septic sites as proof that sea levels are not rising. This graph however only goes up to February 2008. The graph mike Bryant linked to is from the same source and is the up to date version that goes to December 2009. You must have seen that if you actually looked at the graph, or did you take at face value the usual garbage from icecap?
It also follows predicted trends of sea level rise, especially the increase in levels after the last La Nina in 2007-08
Mary Hinge (04:39:10) :
My bad. I think I need glasses. When I down loaded the image and expanded it I could see the error of my ways.
WOW thats some crazy stuff can you give me some of that info. sjkyle out
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:18:59) :
Ron de Haan (06:50:19) :
“Decreased solar radiation leads to more cosmic dust, which in turn has an effect of increasing the speed of the Earth’s rotation, creating a negative global atmospheric angular momentum. Take a look at what is going on with that. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/aam/glaam.gif Notice how negative it has been during this time of reduced radiation
This is an interesting topic. Ian Wilson has done some work in this area and suggests the Earth’s rotation is linked with Solar rotation rates. I have been searching for months trying to find reliable current Solar rotation rates without much success. There is sketchy evidence during past grand minima that rotation rates varied.
Today I received some feedback from NASA with an email link to someone who may be able to help me, I will report back on any developments. I am surprised this data is so hard to get, you would think this is an area of high importance”.
Geoff,
Thank you for the response.
What triggered me was the link between the sun, the earth rotation speed and volcanic activity.
We must look outside the box of entrenched topics which have made a false connection between CO2 and earth climate to find the real drivers and mechanisms.
I am looking forward to your follow up.
Mary Hinge (01:44:37) :
Mike Bryant (18:40:18) :
It looks like sea level graph has been updated at:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
They have and it’s showing the rise in sea level is continuing despite the many claims on this blog to the contrary.
Maybe you are looking at a different graph? I’m looking at http://1.2.3.13/bmi/sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg and it looks like levels have been generally heading downwards since the peak in 2006. This would agree with SST’s generally heading downwards
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003
Or is Hadley data not to be trusted?
Damn those tags! :o)
Looking at the correlation between the two graphs, I’m not surprised global warming central Colorado university hasn’t updated the sea level data for the last 6 months.
If this holds, farmers in Missouri should plant winter wheat. . . The Year Without a Summer. . . and attendant famine due to crop failures in the American and Canadian midwest and high plains would be quite something, though now doubt blamed on human C02 emissions.
Of course this hypothesis is relatively new, and even though it has had a pretty good prediction rate thus far, there is still much which we do not know, and solar physics weren’t quite as advanced back in the late 1600s. . .
anna v (00:50:40) :
Mary Hinge.
I may not agree with the conclusions you have from the same data I observe, but I enjoy your input to the discussions.
On pseudoscience:
Man is a pattern detecting mammal…all the new worthwhile discoveries come from the border between orthodoxy and heresy.
Anna, excellent post. Interested in elaborating on what you mean between “the border between orthodoxy and heresy”?
Mary wrote:
“I visit and contribute to this site to see if any reliable and plausable alternatives to AGW can be demonstrated and tested. So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science.”
Funny… I visit and attempt to contribute to sites like RC to see if any reliable and plausible altneratives to natural variations can be demonstrated and tested. So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science, which few there seem to practice, at least in the classic sense that includes transparency and access to data/methodology.
But I ramble…
I think the title of this thread has to do with sun spots…and one discrepancy that seems to take place in the discussion over the past year or two is that in the “against” group, they refer to the “for” group as believing that some sunspots directly warm our planet. It seems to me that the belief is more along the lines of sunspots impact the solar wind which impacts X which impacts Y which impacts atmospheric trends “down here” that cause warming or cooling.
My point is that AGWers seem to say there is no direct link between sunspots and climate.
But when realists say there is no direct link between C02 and global warming, we’re told that it’s not that simple….it’s a very complex system that we really don’t understand. Seems a little hypocritical to me…
JimB
Allan M R MacRae (17:05:24) :
Works fine for IE and Firefox on my PC.
I’m not in the business of making stuff up. At the very least, you could have tried to find the book on books.google.com yourself, before accusing me of outright fraud.
Here’s the step by step. I hope you are able to follow:
0) enable scripting on your browser
1) Got to google’s advanced book search
2) Enter “Peerless Science” into the mask for the book title and search
3) Follow the resulting link to the book by Chubin and Hackett
4) go to page 192
5) read
A link to the book is
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xfsh6D29WoIC
You owe me an apology.
Mary Hinge (04:39:10)
That should only effect the Pacific Ocean. No sign of it here. ;^}
http://s599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/?action=view¤t=pacific.jpg
See if it works. 😉
Mary Hinge,
how about
http://climatesci.org/2009/02/13/article-by-josh-willis-is-it-me-or-did-the-oceans-cool-a-lesson-on-global-warming-from-my-favorite-denier/
Fig 1 shows no rise of the sea level the last five years, consistent with the plots above of course.
Even if you think the planet is hotter, and that that has worsened the Australian bushfires, there’s absolutely nothing about those bushfires that indicates anything about the A part of AGW; that is anthropogenic. You might want to look it up.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but you’re asking for it.
william (09:26:15) :
I am a research scientist myself, though in a field unrelated to climate research. The group I work for has been subject to peer review several times when applying for funds, I know a bit about it. Your implicitly alleged conspiracy of hundreds of climate scientists simply does not exist. When it comes to allocating funds in research, I’ll take responsible, well educated scientists over responsible, well educated lawyers any time. The latter simply lack the necessary education in natural sciences. They are not too stupid to comprehend, but they simply do not have enough formal training to tell truth from fiction in advanced areas of research.
WOW. Buried in a treatise on economics by Marty Anderson “It’s just time” , he states “that every 300 or some years the sun cycles down 15 % of its output”.
I think when a brilliant economist and brilliant climatologists agree, we are in for a COLD, COLD, spell. Get you seeds ready to plant food. YOU WILL NEED TO, SHORTLY IN A FEW YEARS OR LESS.
Hi Mary Hinge
We have had this conversation about sea levels before on another thread and I am surprised you are still trying to make too much of data that barely stretches back ten years. Like climate patterns you need to look much further back in the hope of seeing some sort of long term trend and also understand the shortcomings of the data.
Sea levels are a fluid affair (pun intended) and a rise in one place is often matched by a fall in another, so information has to be heavily averaged, smoothed, interpreted, interpolated, sent through all sorts of computer models and emerges as pretty useless. There are some obvious factors that need to be considered, such as a high or low pressure weather system at time of measuring, together with the state of the tide-both within its twice daily cycle and also within the longer lunar cycle. Add waves of varying sizes and thermal expansion, and it becomes extremely difficult to measure to the ocean surface-wherever that may be at any one time. Satellite drift and the averaging already mentioned create further problems and account must be taken of obstructions such as new docks, build up of sand bars, the nature of the sea bed and the stasis of the land-is it rising, falling, or static?
Officially satellites are accurate to within plus or minus 3-5cm (yes 30-50mm) unofficially probably double that level of inaccuracy.
Both the following two sites give a good description of the process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html
The following site deals with problems of the data;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859
The UK Environment Agency (with whom I work) where possible like to use physical tide gauges as well, which are both visually observed or can send data electronically. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats.
Sea level rises are being hugely exaggerated. In many places they are actually falling as per Newlyn
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
Others are rising modestly so the two above are cherry picked but show the rises and falls over decades rather well.
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt sea level organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
One of the worlds leading sea level expert Professor Morner has called the IPCC figures ‘a lie.’
TonyB
Jefferson Harmen Jr. (09:53:47) :
WOW. Buried in a treatise on economics by Marty Anderson “It’s just time” , he states “that every 300 or some years the sun cycles down 15 % of its output”.
I think when a brilliant economist and brilliant climatologists agree
Except that they do not. The solar output goes down only 0.05% or so.
Just a curious side note.
Did sea levels rise during the medieval warm period and drop during the “little ice age”?
You would think they should have
Please explain the context, then, because it seemed pretty obvious to me and some other posters. You made an extremely generalized statement that simply isn’t true. Perhaps you can be more precise in the future, there’s a good girl.
Pines play with matches? Don’t many species of pines rely on fires to open up their seed cones, in order to propagate?
I submit that no alternative explanation is needed. Prove to me that we’re seeing something out of the ordinary, then we can talk about alternatives. The brief span of human memory and record-keeping isn’t long enough to establish proof of precedence or unprecedence.
A.Syme (10:34:27) : said
“Just a curious side note. Did sea levels rise during the medieval warm period and drop during the “little ice age”? You would think they should have”
If you look at my post just above your comment you will see the reconstruction of Sea levels from the MWP by the Dutch organisation-there have been others since. We also have evidence of sea castles in the UK that were at one time provisioned by ships that are now high and dry-(nothwithstanding any stasis effect) I went on a dig once at one of these castles that used to have a quay at its base and the sea is probably a metre lower today than then. The higher sea levels can also be traced in the river systems of Europe where the Vikings developed shallow draught boats to take them into areas they could raid.
So the answer is Yes, sea levels were higher than today in the MWP and tide benches cut into rocks suggest they fell during the LIA
Tonyb
Psi (06:41:20) :
anna v (00:50:40) :
Man is a pattern detecting mammal…all the new worthwhile discoveries come from the border between orthodoxy and heresy.
Anna, excellent post. Interested in elaborating on what you mean between “the border between orthodoxy and heresy”?
Well, Galileo is the text book example.
Also the new theories springing in trying to explain the photoelectric effect.
What about the special theory of relativity? Lorentz transformations were embedded in Maxwell’s theory, but nobody thought to use them in matter. Also a corresponding Heisenberg uncertainty principle exists when studying classical electromagnetic waves. It is the eye of the heretic that can use the old stuff to build on and get a new theory/view. That is what I mean the border between orthodoxy and heresy, you need a solid base in the old in order to generate the new, but you need a heretic mentality to have something new to say.
Jeff Alberts (11:19:03) :
anna v (02:13:16) :
” Way out of topic, but as I have been in a fire, fires are common in Greece where the pine is the culprit of huge firestorms, I will post it here.”
Pines play with matches? Don’t many species of pines rely on fires to open up their seed cones, in order to propagate?
Yes. Most of the pines we have in Greece need the explosion of the pine cone to spread the seeds and high ground temperature for the seed to sprout.
When the forest is not pine, it is much easier to contain the fire. Pine resin is very inflamable. Olive groves with no pines in them burn only on the periphery, because the ground and the trees are cultivated and there are no shrubs, so a fire on the low grass cannot ignite the trees.
Mary Hinge!
– I enjoy reading your posts, primarily because you provide well informed balance to the debate.
– I do NOT enjoy the obvious contempt you show for other points of view!
In fact, far from adding weight to your point, it tends to make me suspect you’re being overly defensive. People who are confident in themselves and confident of their views, tend to debate with respect and with patience because their reasoning is unshakeable.
If you are so sure of your stance, surely there is no need for the defiant and contemptuous nature of your defense?
Ben
A. Syme, I would like to know exactly the same thing (about the sea levels during MeWP and LIA), but didn’t find any sources yet.
EW
Can I refer you to my posts 10 02 20 and 12 13 27 which partially answered your question.
tonyb
The best thing about this debate is we are living in the results. It looks like we will cross the 1978 to 2000 mean ice area for the Northern Hemisphere in the next 6 weeks for the first time since 2003.
If this cold snap rolls out like December its almost assured the Great Lakes will all freeze solid.
All timely for the March 8th gathering of skeptics in New York.
More spotless days and the odd spot from 23 being resurrected will only make it more interesting.
I think it is probably too early for the media in general to notice yet. I think the Comedy Network will pick up on the changing circumstances sooner … maybe a year. I give the mainstream media at least another year to catch up with the public on the demise of AGW. (My opinion is at … ( http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/Peer_Reviewed_Advocacy.html )
Then we can all wonder how Barycentric Tides evaded the notice of the general scientific community until recently while Paul Jose’s work
“Jose, Paul D. (1965) Sun’s Motion and Sunspots The
Astronomical Journal, Vol. 70, Number 3, April 1965;
P. 193-200 ( http://itsonlysteam.com/files/Paul_Jose_Jovian_Cycle.pdf )” was doing round with those interested in cycles (including Astrologers) and unacknowledged by later work like that of Hung
“Hung, Ching-Cheh (2007) Apparent Relations
Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the
Planets (NASA/TM—2007-214817) Glenn Research
Center, Cleveland, Ohio July 2007” ( http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330 )
I like Geoff Sharps additions to the enquiry into this ‘theory’ at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/ I hope for my retirements sake that his analysis suggesting this minimum will be between the Dalton and Maunder is more precise with his use of the angular momentum … theoretically a direct causal mechanism.
len (14:29:02) :
I like Geoff Sharps additions to the enquiry into this ‘theory’ at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/ I hope for my retirements sake that his analysis suggesting this minimum will be between the Dalton and Maunder is more precise with his use of the angular momentum … theoretically a direct causal mechanism.
Thanks len, you should be right in your retirement. I am actually predicting a grand minimum with less downtime than the Dalton, the angular momentum has almost run out of steam as we exit a golden period of strength.
In reference to: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Does anyone know why the variance has become smaller recently? Is it the instrumentation and/or the Sun? Thanks.
Alphajuno (21:07:33) :
Does anyone know why the variance [of TSI] has become smaller recently? Is it the instrumentation and/or the Sun?
It is the Sun. With fewer [almost no] active regions things just don’t vary so much.
DJ (17:07:00) : >>It is a mathematical fact that on Saturday the capital city of Melbourne broke its February temperature record by 3.2C (155 years of records) – the previous record was set just 26 years ago.<<
Try again.
Melbourne Jan 13, 1939 max 45.6C (from http://www.bom.gov.au = Australian Bureau of Meteorology)
Melbourne Feb 2, 2009 max 46.4C (same source)
Difference 0.8C over 70 years.
And if you really think that a single record is significant when we’re talking about global climate, then please note that the record low temperature in Maine USA of -48F set in the 1920s was broken this month by 2F, new record -50F.
But wait, there’s more – the decade with far and away the greatest number of all-time high temperatures recorded in the USA, by state and calendar month, was the 1930s.
It’s all fun, looking at records, but IMHO the important place to look for warming or cooling is in the oceans, not the surface or the atmosphere.
ops – typo – 46.4C on Feb 7 not Feb 2.
Mike Jonas (02:38:57) :
Well said…I also saw his error and was hoping someone like you would respond.
Off-topic a bit..
I noticed that the earth seems to get blasted from charged particles emanating from recurring coronal holes. If the particle stream from sunspots protect the earth from cosmic rays… then what effect does the stream from the holes have?
I vaguely remember reading an article (published back in the 90’s) where one researcher theorized that charged particles travel at a higher velocity than from coronal holes than from sunspot activity. The effect is a deeper penetration into the atmosphere and higher cloud formation (like cosmic rays). Anyone here have knowledge / insights into the effect of coronal holes on the earth’s climate?
I am a layman when it comes to this area, so please excuse me if I am butchering the explanation of this theory.
“I consider the IPCC outputs as pseudoscience. ”
And, as you elaborate, badly done, to boot. I cannot comprehend those versed in transparent lies and their minutiae.
“If this cold snap rolls out like December its almost assured the Great Lakes will all freeze solid.”
I dunno about this winter, but I expect to have an opportunity to
This graph, the 10.7 cm flux and last three specks(one not passing muster) being 23 all tell me we are cruising minimum right now.
DA recently forecast SS monthly value not to exceed 10 at the end of 2009. Looks like a good bet, just now. Watch 24 minimum walk, was July 2008, now Sept. 2008 is on the stand but the applause is lackluster.
Next Rmax 2015?
Thanks Leif. Is there any significance in your opinion that TSI as measured by SORCE is lower than the other (older) satellites?
http://www.acrim.com/
DJ (03:04:58) :
I don’t know why I’m doing this for DJ, but a few links about the Inuit that stand a good chance of revision in the next few decades, especially if the Chinese stop creating soot that settles in the Arctic. DJ is probably too busy being responsible in his research before posting.
In fact, let’s just blame this on Chinese soot, not on CO2. the main problem from my understanding and what I found was erosion on river and ocean coastline due to lack of ice & melting land. I didn’t see an update for this winter.
http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/blog/content/tipping-point-arctic-meltdown-inuit-culture-threatened-global-warming-181-alaskan-villages-f
http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=421&Lang=En
http://www.iccalaska.org/Media/Flyer_Summit.pdf
Interesting – Indigenous People’s Global Summit on Climate Change. April 20-24.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/eskimos-sue-exxon.php This site also has a link to the story “What to Do if Your Date Says, “Climate Change is Fake.””
Is there any estimate available about the effect of bushfires to the Australian record temperature values? I would suppose that large areas burning would heat up the air quite a bit.
I recently saw an interesting post on Accuweather.com which has a possible explanation for the warm up we have seen over the past couple weeks. There was a blast from a star 36,000 light years away which hit the atmosphere around the end of January. The blast was so strong that it ionized the atmosphere and possibly caused warmer tempratures. I am not sure what speed the ionizing portion of the blast was traveling but I suspect the different frequencies of enercy were traveling at slightly different velocities. The atmosphere warmed significantly the week before the blast hit, which makes me think the atmosphere was responding to a different portion of the energy spectrum than the one which caught NASA’s attention. If a star with an enormous erruption can cause a noticeable change in our atmosphere from a distance of 36,000 light years, it stands to reason that the star which is 8 light minutes away would might have an effect on our climate which varries more than the observed 1percent change in the sun’s output. In the early 2000’s I remember a giant solar flare which caused NASA to put most our our satalites in safe mode to protect them. In that year we were having a cold december, but within days of the flare I found myself at the park with the kids experiencing 70 degree weather during the first half of January. The average high in my area is 49 degrees for that time of year. I have come to believe that the interaction of the upper atmosphere with particles from the sun is a major player in our global temprature. We are on the verge of making some major scientific discoveries if we can quit wasting time worrying about a trace gas which is essential for life.
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=Abrams&pgurl=/mtweb/content/Abrams/archives/2009/02/a_mysterious_magnetar.asp
If you look at any of the temperature anomaly charts you will notice, that there was a rise from December 2004 to January 2005, but it was not out of the ordinary. For example, just a year earlier the rise in anomaly from Januar to February 2004 was of roughly equal size, both of the by far not the largest month to month wiggles. Effect? Possible. Large effect? No.
Here’s a NASA press release about the January 2009 SGR
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/gammaray_fireworks.html
and here as a starting point the wikipedia entry on the SGR flare in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGR_1806-20
CDJ: it’s temperature, not temprature.
And to some others: it’s anomaly, not anomoly.
Jari (05:53:01) :
Is there any estimate available about the effect of bushfires to the Australian record temperature values? I would suppose that large areas burning would heat up the air quite a bit.
“Melbourne did in fact have a hotter day before, four years before the Bureau of Meteorology started officially recording temperatures.
As the Argus newspaper reported at the time, the temperature on February 6, 1851, soared to 47.2C, helping to superheat the fires that then roared across 10 times more land than was burned last week.
Victoria’s highest recorded temperature is still the 50.7C measured in Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia’s is also 50.7C, recorded 49 years ago.
NSW’s is the 50C of 70 years ago.
Queensland’s is the 49.5C of 37 years ago. “