I saw this yesterday, but I decided to wait a day just in case it disappeared. It’s quite the surprise to see the New Scientist dedicate a story, much less an editorial saying that the sun has a role in climate.
Here’s some excerpts:
THE idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.
…
So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.
The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.
The second effect is bottom-up, in which additional visible radiation during a solar maximum warms the tropical oceans, causing more evaporation and therefore more rain, especially close to the equator.
…
The third solar influence on climate is extraterrestrial. Earth is bombarded by cosmic rays from exploding stars, which are largely deflected by the solar wind during solar maxima and to a slightly lesser degree in minima.
One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332). Just to be sure, though, the idea is being tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Initial results are expected in the next six months.
A theory that has more traction with climate scientists says the rays may change cloud behaviour rather than formation. Using weather balloon measurements, Harrison has shown that clouds have charged layers at their top and bottom, and he suggests that ions produced by cosmic rays might be responsible (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043605). “The charge might make it easier for larger water droplets to form,” he says, causing rain to fall sooner during solar minima. “But that’s just one of many possibilities.”
Read the full article here
DUH!
Though, all in all, though, refreshing for New Scientist. Let’s see how it all plays out.
One point of ridicule though: Who the hell are “climate skeptics”?
What a stupid, stupid statement.
“Uh…..I’m skeptical of the climate.”
WHAT??
Nonsense.
“CAGW Skeptics” is a much more accurate term….but you know…..they will never use that one because it throws their whole multi-billion dollar game, under the bus.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
A theory that has more traction with climate scientists says the rays may change cloud behaviour rather than formation. Using weather balloon measurements, Harrison has shown that clouds have charged layers at their top and bottom, and he suggests that ions produced by cosmic rays might be responsible (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043605). “The charge might make it easier for larger water droplets to form,” he says, causing rain to fall sooner during solar minima. “But that’s just one of many possibilities.”
I like this.
Over the past 10 years living half my time in a rural dry area, I have noticed that good rains come with thunder and lightning. The past few years very few such storms have come in my area. Thunder and lightning are connected with the charges on clouds, and maybe this long minimum is discharging them before they come over the olive groves in my area 🙁 .
What about solar activity’s ability to bring done power grids and Cause northern lights? Doesn’t this solar activity also have the power to create eddy currents in the oceans and warm them at least a little bit? Or cause other effects on the climate.
A little behind the curve are they not?
Its been known for years that the sun drives the climate and weather but it did not fit the CAGW/GCD narrative and if there is one thing thing the alarmist industry hates most is anything that contradicts their narrative.
Its the sun stupid! It drives the oceans and it drives the winds and it governs our entire existence on this earth, what is so hard to understand? Without the sun there would be no clouds and no rain and no wind and no biomass, it IS the climate driver and everything else plays a supporting role, the sun is the star in more than one sense.
A climate sceptic? huuuh!
I’ve long thought that a heliocentric perspective has a certain appeal.
Nothing like an onset of cooling to make some climate scientists open their eyes to mechanisms ignored during the previous warming period. I can’t help but note the condescension still out there regarding the causes of that warming though.
I tend to think the New Scientist is just hedging its bets here. Just in case these “sun” people are right. I suspect we will see other publications saying more or less the same thing in the next little while. Having once “hitched their wagon” to settled science they will be careful not to get either left behind or make that mistake again.
This is nothing but a story that allows them to explain the 30 year cooling cycle we are in.
Lower global temperatures will not disprove CAGW, the human caused CO2 driven warming is just “in hiatus” by the temporarily inactive sun and the warming will come back with a vengeance.
Here we go again. Waffle, waffle, waffle.
“”Where solar effects may play a role is in influencing regional weather patterns over the coming decades. Predictions on these scales of time and space are crucial for nations seeking to prepare for the future.””
So what went on in the past? Is this all NEW information?
And just how weak is the so called “backradiation” from CO2 when viewed through the Maxwell_Boltzmann energy distribution curves of our predominately COLD troposphere?
I love that third reason where they are trying to shuffel to a position of saying that Svensmark is right and wrong at the same time. My money says that CLOUD will show Svensmark to be right and the people who claim that the cosmic ray effect is small will be shown to be wrong.
The correlation between solar cycles and climate has been very good. And while correlation may not be causation, blowing off the effects of the sun for the purpose of promoting AGW, and because we couldn’t explain how those effect were produced, has simply been bad science on the part of the warmers. Will the IPCC be publishing lessons on how to dance backwards.
One more point. We seem to be getting new information about factors of climate variability at a fairly constant rate. Of course this is as it should be. But what has always bothered me is that the modelers at one point decided that they had the elements of variability nailed down well enough to make century predictions – when really all they had was a few of the elements of variability and the rest was just thrown at CO2 with the explanation of “what else could it be?”
They forgot another possible mechanism. During low solar activity less ozone is created and therefore more UV light reaches the surface. This causes phytoplankton in the oceans to produce a chemical that enhances cloud cover.
May they tell us too, that climate is he sum of local weather patterns over a longer time ?
Certainly not.
I wonder which explanation has Mr Giles for +0.7 deg C global temperature rise between 1905-1945.
Leif, I told you so.
“There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate. They are not supported”.
I think there is a typo there. It was meant to be:
“There are extravagant claims for the effects of human emissions of carbon dioxide on global climate. They are not supported”.
Everybody knows that the most important driver of the global climate is the sun. Don’t they? It seems to me that the difference in climate between that in polar regions and that in equatorial regions is the sun. Am I right?
So no effect in the past, but expect a cooling effect in the future.
After spitting on Svensmark’s work, they acknowledge it here, then marginalize it, then attempt to steal it out from under him with a variation. Despicable.
So a 0.1% change in the sun’s brightness can’t possibly have any global effect yet a 0.01% change in Co2 (from 28oppm-380ppm or 100/1,000,000) can have a catastrophic effect on the global climate. Really?
Michael, it is even worse. The CO2-induced warming allegedly started in 1975, so you should say “0.004% change” in the composition of atmosphere (390 vs 350 ppmv).
We got it wrong…..No No, the sun dun it!! The new D word guys covering their Ass!!
However I welcome the more inclusive recognition of other relevant sciences, next it will be discovering variable weather, it affects the models, don’t blame us.
Michael in Sydney says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Uh, yeah. Changes in the Solar “Constant” directly affects watts/m^2 whereas the change in CO2 (280ppm to 380 ppm is a 36% increase in my math). While the logarithmic effect will reduce the effect significantly over the change from 180 to 280 ppm, It’s still a substantial change. OTOH, CO2 is overrated as a climate “disruptor” so that 36% increase won’t have a big impact on the immediate survival needs of people in the Australian outback or a tropical island.
Oh, I get it. The sun affects the weather, but not the climate.
Good news. When they start publishing stories like this in a comic like New Scientist, you know that a tipping point has been reached. Watch (I mean Wattch) this space.
Well I didn’t start seeing cloudy days that I thought would never end until winter ’08-’09.
Before Chaiten in May ’08 and then followed by 4 more VEI-4’s it was sunny days that I thought would never end.
You’d think the GCR’s should have been forming a lot of clouds by summer ’08 if they were more than a very weak influence.
The clouds change their behavior alright. The bigger ash gets washed out until what’s left is very fine ash aerosols and sulfate ions, etc to form less dense clouds. Clouds that produce little rain.
Eyjafjallajökull produced a lot of good size dense cloud producing ash and ultraviolet absorbing particles.
We’ve definitely had a lot bigger solar dimmimg shock than the last solar minimum cycle.
First they vilify skeptics for eons, now they triumphantly declare that the sun has an influence. What opportunistic apple-polishers.
So it might be the sun but in a tricky way that only scientists can understand. Hotter / cooler concept is not supported!
Ahem, excuse me, but weren’t those ‘three mechanisms that have come to light’ in operation when it was decided that ‘it must be CO2, there is no other explanation’? And what about the mechanisms that have not yet come to light? And what about the calculations around CO2 concentrations that proved so robust?
Cheers,
Nations seeking to prepare for the future.
Is not Ozone a normal reaction to U.V. More U.V more ozone, less U.V. Less ozone . A linked natural cycle,
If you use a U.V. steriliser, its not the U.V. that kills the bugs but the Ozone generated.
Nature is more wonderful than we think
Alexander Feht says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Leif, I told you so.
That there are extravagant claims of solar effects on global climate that are not supported… [New Scientist]
I’ll go with that too. Good that we agree.
Layne Blanchard says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:22 pm
After spitting on Svensmark’s work, they acknowledge it here, then marginalize it, then attempt to steal it out from under him with a variation. Despicable.
Sounds about right. These people have no sense of shame.
Kyle says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:20 pm (Edit)
So no effect in the past, but expect a cooling effect in the future.
The expert solar deniers are finding it increasingly difficult to rationalise away something which is obvious to all laymen. The Sun is the big dog on the climate block.
The inset paragraph in the graphic about solar energy warming the oceans is laughably inadequate. The gain in ocean heat content throughout the second half of the C20th is the cause of ‘global warming’. Pielke senior now recognises that upper ocean energy content is the correct metric for guaging Earth’s climate. The atmosphere does not warm the ocean, the sun does. Then the ocean warms the atmosphere.
The warmista are circlng their wagons, and dragging the horses behind, as usual.
“the 30 year cooling cycle we are in.”
Can someone point me to the data that shows cooling, thanks.
The author of the paper in Nature appears to unaware that there are two ion cloud mechanisms: 1) GCR which creates ions (high energy protons create MUONs in the upper atomsphere. The MUONs travel through the atmosphere creating ions) and 2) Electroscavenging (caused by solar wind bursts) which removes ions.
There is a second mechanism (“electroscavenging”) by which solar activity changes modulate planetary cloud cover. Solar wind bursts caused by coronal holes create a space charge difference in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. (Planetary cloud cover closely correlates to GCR level up until around 1994 at which time there is a net reduction in planetary cloud cover independent of whether GCR is high or low. The net reduction in GCR is closed by solar wind bursts. See below for details.)
The next paper provides data the shows there is close correlation with geomagnetic field changes (ak) which are caused by the solar wind bursts and planetary temperature. The next review paper by Tinsley and Yu summaries the data that supports the assertion that solar activity changes modulates planetary cloud cover and shows how that mechanism is hypothesized to work.
See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
Now your getting it. It only effects the local weather in North America, Central America, South America, the Arctic and Antarctic, Asia, Africa Australia, Europe and all the oceans. But not climate. Climate is different because it is a a global effect. The sun doesn’t shine at half the Earth at a time. Just multiple regions.
They should get some school kids to read their stuff before they print it so obvious stupidity doesn’t slip through.
I am eagerly awaiting their explanation for why reduced heat loss due to CO2 causes forcing but solar warming does not.
So Nought Scientist has finally had to admit that “it’s the sun, stupid!”
That must have choked them…
‘You know what, there’s lots of simple papers we can write about the sun’s influence on climate. Won’t take huge grants, but great for our standing as academics. We mustn’t let the anti seeohtwo brigade in though, or our status might be rumbled’.
I’d lay big, big money that that’s the way this will play out.
In my opinion, right now, a detailed document of ALL scientists who denounce CAGW skeptics must be assembled and published and ANY attempt by them to start taking the ground they deride must lead to their professional sacking.
It’s an absolute disgrace if they’re allowed to colonise what they despised, whilst attacking those that promoted it.
And any society which condones it is totally sick……………..
Well, Hallelujah. I note that approximately once every year we have a winter and about the same number of summers every year. Without the aid of billions in research grants my extensive study has led me to conclude that it is normally colder in winter than it is in summer.
This appears to be caused by the earth going round the sun, which causes a fluctuation in solar insolation amounting to around 0.12% on a planetary average basis. Mmmm, call that a change of around 1367/4*(1-0.3)*0.0012 = 0.3 Watts/m^2 change in net received global solar flux. This brings about a measurable fluctuation in northern hemisphere albedo of around 4%, and the same in the southern hemisphere. Because Australians don’t like to barbecue in August, they have arranged cunningly for their summer to arrive at a different time, so the NH and SH albedo changes combine to give an aggregate planetary albedo change (due to ice, snow cover, clouds and bio-induced terrestrial colour change) of between 2 and 3%. If we take the lower estimate, the fluctation in albedo translates into a massive 6.8 Watts/m^2 (=1367/4*.02), close to twice the forcing expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. At the same time we see a redistribution of atmospheric sensible heat brought about by the large annual changes in the divergence flux which redistributes heat from the equator towards the poles. All this causes temperature swings of order 20 deg C at mid latitudes and an overall change in planetary average surface temperature of about 4 deg C. AND ALL THIS HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AS A RESULT OF THAT TINY CHANGE OF 0.3 W/m^2 in received solar flux – the same magnitude of solar change that Dr Judith Lean (lead author for IPCC) has argued could not have any influence on late 20th century temperature changes.
Dr Lean’s argument is based on the assertion that there are no amplification factors associated with solar irradiance (or that they are negligible). OK then. That suggests that climate sensitivity to solar is the same as for any other form of heating mechanism. On this basis, we can therefore calculate the minimum (pre-equilibrium) climate sensitivity from the annual cycle as 4 deg K (average temperature change) divided by 0.3 watts/m^2 (solar forcing). This yields 13.3 deg K/(watt/m^2). Oh hell, we have all been dead for some time.
Of course it’s the sun, stupid.
Whatever its motivation, we should all welcome the willingness of New Scientist to publish the article.
Slowly, slowly, catchee monkee. More and more, little holes are appearing in the armour. It’s going to get harder and harder to backtrack as more sunlight shines through.
I sense electric universe theory tends to get frowned upon here; I only mention it because I’m currently reading Donald Scott’s “The electric sky” and was surprised to find a number of very perceptive comments relevant to climate science there.
Scott, very definitely, whether you agree with EU theory or not (FTR I am agnostic), does not underestimate the importance of the sun on the earth’s climate. I doubt whether many here would disagree with him, at least in this respect.
This is an explanation of the solar mechanism that cause solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts as per my above comment create a space differential in the atmosphere that removes ions by a process that is called electroscavenging.
http://www.shao.az/SG/v1n1/SG_v1_No1_2006-pp-12-16.pdf
“The regions of open magnetic field – coronal holes, sources of high speed solar wind and drivers of recurrent geomagnetic activity, are not accounted for in the sunspot index. It appears that in the last decades the impact of coronal holes has increased which can be explained by the increasing tilt of the heliospheric current sheet. This increased tilt means that the Earth encounters two high speed streams from coronal holes per solar rotation and higher geomagnetic activity. On the other hand, the tilt of the heliospheric current sheet is related to the galactic cosmic rays modulation, and galactic cosmic rays are considered key agents mediating solar activity influences on terrestrial temperature. Therefore, using the sunspot number alone as a measure of solar activity leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity for the global warming in the recent decades.”
Hey Tallbloke, next thing they will be eating the horses, but that’s probably better than eating crow!
But, we couldn’t think of anything else so it must be co2. Had we all just listened to Gore and company we might have just stopped any more climate research and saved billions. The science is settled. :o)
This can’t be right. Us nasty deniers paid for by BigOil and the Tobacco companies have been told time and again that “the science is settled” (Obama) and that anyone who doesn’t accept the “scientific consensus” is just a “flat earther” (Gordon Brown)
And now they come along with their crackpot theories about the sun, for heaven’s sake? Whatever next? They’ll be talking about ocean currents and natural cycles and UHI effects if we’re not carefull.
If they don’t stop messing about they won’t even get to throw the economy of the developed world under a bus as Maurice Strong told them to.
DirkH says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:13 am
First they vilify skeptics for eons, now they triumphantly declare that the sun has an influence. What opportunistic apple-polishers.
I’m not aware of any respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist that has ever said that the sun does not influence the climate. Please provide some evidence or a link for any opportunistic apple polisher that has in the past declared that the sun has no influence on climate.
Thanks.
When you’re hot, you’re hot !
Pigmeat Markham
1969
A year ago in a presentation at York University I stated that the CAGW scare is dead. I said the scare would have its economic ‘life-blood’ cut off in Copenhagen and, after that, it would fade away.
The article in New Scientist is more confirmation that the CAGW scare is dead. The scare still moves in its death throes, and that movement will be obvious in Mexico and Bali during coming weeks and months. But it is dead.
Nobody will declare the death of the CAGW scare but it will be forgotten by the end of this decade. Similarly, nobody declared the death of the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s, but few remember that scare unless reminded of it.
I am convinced that the priorities now must be
(a) to avoid harmful effects of the dead CAGW scare (e.g. adoption of ETS)
and
(b) to defend against whatever daft scare (e.g. ‘ocean acidification’) ‘greens’ attempt to replace it with.
In my opinion, action on those priorities requires that we shout, “I told you so!” whenever we see ‘retreat statements’ such as the article in New Scientist.
Richard
All my life I have noticed that the daytime is hotter than the nighttime, is it because of the sun or is it that I breathe out more carbon dioxide during my waking hours? Give me a couple of million pounds and I will give you the result you want.
The last part of the article says:
So how large are these effects? In its 2007 report, the IPCC stated that changes in solar irradiance accounted for less than 5 per cent of planet warming since 1750. The scale of the effect is unlikely to change. But having established that global average temperatures are rising and will continue to rise over the 21st century, the key task for the next IPCC report will be to refine regional and medium-term forecasts. For this, including the upper atmosphere in climate models will be key. “We have known for a while that this makes a difference,” says Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, “especially for solar effects.”
Gavin new all along that the science wasn’t settled. Good old Gavin. Always good for a ridiculous comment.
Models, maybe, perhaps, may, mechinsim is unclear, one theory, one of many possibilites, idea is being tested,
Is it not wonderful to see that at last ‘science’ has become a science!
“Solar deniers”- I love it.
The evidence for this being largely true comes from the mouths of Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Schmidtetal-QSR04.pdf
I think people might be reading a bit too much into this New Scientist article.
In December 2001, nearly 9 years ago, Shindell, Schmidt, Mann …(do those names ring a bell) co-authored a paper which looked at Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum. The Abstract reads
The idea that the sun may drive weather patterns is not new – even among AGW proponents. However, there is a difference between a shift in weather patterns which brings colder conditions to europe, say (but warmer conditions to other regions) and a change in earth’s energy balance which will result in a global change in earth’s temperature. Lower solar activity is not going to lower the energy received by the earth by an appreciable amount so it’s not likely to have a significant effect on global temperatures.
I think Vukcevic has posted on the Dalton minimum effect on the CET record. I can’t remember exactly what he wrote but it wassomething to the effect that the last decade of the DM had colder than average winters but very little change in summer. He can correct me on this if I’ve got it wrong.
“…The Sun Joins The Climate Club…”?
Strange, I would have thought that the sun was the founder member…
Things make me question whether these are scientists at all after comparing their words above with some reality in this: just read the abstract (unless you have a spare US $ 31.50)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2010.02.014
Don’t take me wrong, these are very precise instruments, they can measure within a day within a very, very small fraction of 1 W/m2 BUT and a huge BUT, their absolute accuracy has a lot to desire. They know TSI over a 11 year span varied but 0.1% to great precision but they just aren’t quite sure if the BASE TSI was 1367, 1365, 1364, or 1361 W/m2, not really. Absolute accuracy and precision are two completely different animals. Another paper speaks of the great degradation most of the radiometers suffer from and they have algorithms and attempts to correct this but are the degradation just that, degradation, or were they seeing secular trends in the BASE TSI. I’m still not convinced they know what they are talking about because they basically keep lying by omission of all of the facts.
@ Maxbert says:
“Oh, I get it. The sun affects the weather, but not the climate.”
Lol…of course, how could we have thought any different?
CAGW industry preparing for this:
Re: earlier post, i.e.
John Finn says: .
September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
I forgot to mention a key point from the Shindell et al Abstract
They even mention the AO and NAO oscillations. To answer Tallbloke’s point
The warmista are circlng their wagons, and dragging the horses behind, as usual.
I think the warmista have had this issue covered for some time.
It is unfortunate that popular and political science is presented regularly by the media is hopes of a Pulitzer, while good work and good theories are buried in abstracts and web pages.
So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.
This is fascinating but doesn’t change the overall picture of our understanding of global warming.
The significance of this is that it now seems to be accepted by parts of the mainstream media and some mainstream climatologists that the significant effect from a change in the level of solar activity lies in the resultant latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems which is the very indicator that I have been banging on about for several years now having first noticed the equatorward latitudinal shifting around 2000.
Indeed my entire New Climate Model is built up from the initial observation of that latitudinal shifting and the logical implications thereof for the global energy budget. It has taken me ten years to get from that initial observation to a workable hypothesis as to how it might fit a coherent climate overview.
There is an interesting implication as regards Svensmark’s GCR proposal.
If the jets shift equatorward from a less active sun (for whatever reason) then that suggests overall system cooling because the equatorward shift of all the cloud bands increases albedo and reduces solar shortwave into the oceans.
With the troposphere cooling the ability of the air to hold water as vapour will fall so as long as the cooling process is in progress the rate of cloud formation will run ahead of the rate of evaporation so that an increase in total cloudiness should be observed.
However at the same time the lower solar activity will let in more GCRs but that would not be the main reason for more clouds.
On that basis Svensmark’s observation would be upheld but not the causative relationship.
It may just be a coincidence that a less active sun results in both increased cloudiness and more GCRs with no substantial cause and effect relationship between GCRs and cloudiness.
It’s worth a ponder.
Here another paper on the absoluely precise, don’t ever question them, radiometers flying above: /sarc
http://www.acrim.com/NASA_NIST%20TSI%20Workshop/Output/Day2%20Summary_v9.pdf
Sadly, Rhys Jagger, society is sick. But the anti-bodies are kicking in and fighting back at last. There is hope that society will overcome this dread disease. The twerps have noticed at last that it is the sun at the centre of the solar system and not themselves.
Layne Blanchard says: September 24, 2010 at 11:22 pm
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they steal and plagiarize your good work while holding you in an arm lock of unabated contempt and strawman misrepresentations.
Richard S Courtney at September 25, 2010 at 1:19 am
I hope you are right and that further damage from CAGW can be stopped very soon (e.g wind farms).
Prof Philip Stott has been saying the same for some time. “You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Global Warming is as dead as a door-nail, although I suspect that the Global Warming Ghost will hang around moaning and wailing for quite a while yet”. See http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/4/27_Nails_in_the_Global_Warming_Coffin.html
This is still not the whole story, but at least it’s a start.
Where is the 600 km high Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge covering an area in circumference equivalent to 25% of the atmosphere in this diagram?
They show the “thermosphere” as being a sphere when in-fact the “thermosphere” is actually the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge. It is a 600 km bulge under the solar point and only exists on the sunny side of the globe.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Hurrah!
Now all we need is for Chris Huhne MP and British insurance companies to open their eyes to the truth, instead of seeing ‘unusual’ weather as a means of either making claims about new green jobs or stinging us with increased insurance premiums.
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:51 am
So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.
Yes we can agree with the IPCC that their level of scientific understanding for solar influences is low. eg Haighs comparison of observations with the “Lean” model.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/simspectralobservation.jpg
Tim Williams says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:10 am
DirkH says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:13 am
“First they vilify skeptics for eons, now they triumphantly declare that the sun has an influence. What opportunistic apple-polishers.
I’m not aware of any respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist that has ever said that the sun does not influence the climate. Please provide some evidence or a link for any opportunistic apple polisher that has in the past declared that the sun has no influence on climate.
Thanks.”
With “they” i was referring to the NS editors, not to climate researchers. As you might remember, they had some “science-settled – skeptics-are-flat-earthers” opinion pieces.
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 1:51 am
“So there’s nothing in the article that disputes the IPCC’s conclusions.”
Dispute of the IPCC’s conclusions is Not Necessary.
Burden of proof that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming rests with the IPCC and their minions, not the skeptical scientists. The IPCC has not demonstrated any proof or empirical evidence of causation.
The scientific method does not require an alternate explanation to falsify the hypothesis the CO2 is the cause of Global Warming.
The null hypothesis of natural variation as the cause of all climates in all regions has not been falsified.
The IPCC’s conclusions that have not yet been shown as total fabrications dispute themselves.
I attended a lecture on this subject by Mike Lockwood at Trinity College, Dublin on September 23. It was a very slick presentation with great slides and animations. He made the case that changes in the sun’s output are a factor of 10 less than the ‘forcing’ seen over the last century that caused a 0.8C rise in average global temperature. He blamed half of this increase on GHGE and rest on resulting positive feedbacks. He said practically all feedbacks were positive! I questioned him at the end about UHI’s contribution to the overall world temperature increase since the CET which is corrected for UHI only showed a 0.4C increase, and why he believed that clouds were more positive than negative feedback and got waffly answers. “Why would anyone not properly account for UHI?” “If more Arctic temperatures were included in HADCRUT the global temperature rise would be even more.” His cloud response was a waffly explanation of high clouds and low clouds.
His overall theory about variations of UV output from the a quiet sun interfering with the jet stream and causing climate disruption in Europe was a reasonable theory as far as it goes. He explained it with reference to cold winters in England during Maunder Minimum. I suspect that they needed something to explain cold winters in Europe in the future when the world as a whole bakes. He also made reference to the potential stopping of the North Atlantic drift due to fresh water from all the melting ice in the Arctic. Relied very heavily on Michael Mann for temperature reconstructions.
Someone else asked him about the atmosphere or climate (terrible puns!) for climate scientists lately and he went on at length about ‘poor Phil Jones’ whose only sin was arrogance having to suffer the ‘slings and arrows’…
Overall, I agree that raw solar output does not explain global temperature increases but then neither do greenhouse gas emmissions. Some of the people I spoke to after the lecture are more worried about an overdue ice age and believe anything we can to to warm the Earth is a good thing!
“Roald says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:53 am
This is fascinating but doesn’t change the overall picture of our understanding of global warming.
The findings do not suggest – as climate sceptics frequently do – that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun. “There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate,” says Giles Harrison, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Reading, UK. “They are not supported.”
”
For a minute there I was doubting my sceptism – you know, how all the models are wonderful and they didn’t need to include the sun etc. but now Dr Giles Harrison has told me ‘there is nothing to see here’ I feel much better. sarc/off
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swshargi/
chers David
Breaking News! The Sun influences climate! Who would have thought it!
What next?
Breaking News! Apples fall down from trees. Gravity Discovered!
Stephen Wilde: sorry if this seems a silly question.
Is it possible that clouds, with their differing +/- charges top/bottom, are directly influenced by geomagnetic field strength fluctuations; for positional bias equatorial/poleward?
I remember seeing a basic demonstration of an electro magnet, with the old iron filings thing showing the effect of the magnetic field. As power was increased/decreased, the effect was most clear on the outer edges of the field, where the equator would be. Imagine this in a 3D model, a spinning spherical magnet in a vacuum, surrounded by charged particles; would the particles increase/decrease at the equator/pole depending on the field strength and charge polarity?
Hi Mak! Don’t you just love the way Anthony turns these interesting, but not earth shattering, articles/papers into “shock and awe”?
Interesting but hey! Climate change and the sun? I’m not sure…
Am more familiar with the Sloan and Wolfendale model, which fails to reflect Hendrik Svensmark’s hypothesis, but has been cited widely as disproving it.
I suppose we must await CERN. Svensmark has conducted additional measurements as solar activity has permitted, the results of which, he reports, confirm his work to date. It’s demonstrably early to state with any degree of certainty that the effects on ionization are small. It seems to me that Harrison et al make use of this interim moment – where the CERN Cloud series initial reports not yet expected – to diminish or to undermine work which is in progress.
But perhaps they do not, or perhaps this is quite usual in the cut and thrust of publication. Whatever it is, it’s distinctly premature.
DirkH says: September 25, 2010 at 2:37 am
“I’m not aware of any respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist that has ever said that the sun does not influence the climate”
Well, you really narrowed that down. If you were to drop the ‘respected’ bit and open it up to the people working for and with the IPCC then it would be simpler to come up with some names. Respected, peer reviewed, publishing climate scientist; that’s a tough one.
John Finn says: September 25, 2010 at 1:47 am
“Had this issue covered for some time” – thanks, that’s a classic wagon-circling remark. No:
(a) all the orthodoxy’s emphasis has been on the ACTION we must take WITHOUT DEBATE because THE END IS NIGH due to our CO2 emissions;
(b) note opening sentence: “The idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback“
Andrew30, yeah riiight, and relying on the null hypothesis, Gem Theory cannot be proven either.
“Will says:
September 25, 2010 at 2:28 am
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html ”
Will, now that is a great article and has some very clear thinking in physics. It explains O2 and N2 radiation so much better than I in past comments I’ve made. Thank you very much.
DirkH says:
September 25, 2010 at 2:37 am
“With “they” i was referring to the NS editors, not to climate researchers. As you might remember, they had some “science-settled – skeptics-are-flat-earthers” opinion pieces.”
So you think the New Scientist editors have only now “triumphantly declared” that the sun has an influence on climate? Perhaps you don’t read the New Scientist very often?
“Science: Climate change – the solar connection ” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217962.900-science-climate-change–the-solar-connection.html)
“Absorbent clouds cast shadow on climate models” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519703.100-absorbent-clouds-cast-shadow-on-climate-models.html)
“Solar cycles drove medieval markets” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024260.600-solar-cycles-drove-medieval-markets.html)
“Blame the volcano trouble on sun and global warming”(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18794-blame-the-volcano-trouble-on-sun-and-global-warming.html)
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 3:06 am
Something about something that has nothing to do with the climate on earth (GEM Theory of field unification)
How exactly does the inability to prove GEM Theory of field unification:
Prove that C02 is the cause of Global Warming?
or
Prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates?
Or was that just a failed attempt at a distraction in the hope that I would forget the scientific method.
The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the CO2 Global Warming hypothesis, not the skeptical scientists.
David J. Ameling says: September 24, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Missing point #4, Solar Wind effects (cannot yet say EU, shhhh)
NS article:
Double Strawman.
(1)
ClimateCAGW sceptics……blame the last century’s rise of global temperatures on
(2) TWO factors, neither of which is sufficient alone: (a) The Sun; (b) our own multiple and very badly quantified UHI + surface stations issues
NS article:
…to undo the unscientific “established” idea that temperatures “will continue to rise…” and thus
undoprepare to morph IPCC’s whole raison d’etreAndrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:06 am “Gem Theory” ahh, make that Germ Theory.
Tim Williams says: September 25, 2010 at 3:24 am
“Perhaps you don’t read the New Scientist very often?’
Tim, are you the rehab consultant for all the Reed Elsevier publications or just New Scientist?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
Anthony,
If you have not done it already, would now be the right time to take a copy of the various pro agw sites, where they rebut all arguments that counter the CO2 explanations for climate change? It might prove interesting to monitor such articles for change.
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 3:43 am
Something about something that has nothing to do with the hypothesis that human caused emissions of CO2 are the cause of Global Warming. (Germ Theory (was GEM theory))
How exactly does the inability to prove Germ theory (or GEM theory):
Prove that C02 is the cause of Global Warming?
or
Prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates?
Or was that just a failed (second) attempt at a distraction in the hope that I would forget the scientific method.
The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis, not the skeptical scientists.
…”It’s quite the surprise to see the New Scientist dedicate a story, much less and editorial saying that the sun has a role in climate.”..
Some cracks are imperceptable, some are visable close up, some can be seen across a room. Expect more cracks. More reason. More discussion. The only thing “settled” in science are bad hypothoses.
Tim Williams says: September 25, 2010 at 3:24 am
“Perhaps you don’t read the New Scientist very often?’
Tim, are you the rehab consultant for all the Reed Elsevier publications or just New Scientist?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
Are you suggesting that undeclared industry sponsorship of the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medecine (and 5 other titles in Australia) undermines the credibility of a publishing house that also produces ‘The Lancet’ and ‘Gray’s Anatomy’ along with the New Scientist?
The sun? All talk, no science. A couple of days ago I went out on my deck with a ruler and actually measured. Believe me, the moon is substantially bigger than the sun.
I posted this today on SolarCycle24.com today, not sure if I am pleased to forestall New Scientist though, as I stopped reading it some years ago because of AGW bias
Re: How cold did it get during the Maunder Minimum
« Reply #68 Today at 9:08pm » [Quote] [Modify] [Delete]
I posted the following on Sept 2
.It seems that the New Scientist has had similar thoughts, perhaps they are seeing the (Sun) light?
Re: Global warming temperature predictions
« Reply #51 on Sept 2, 2010, 8:51pm » [Quote] [Modify] [Delete]
dougproctor,
Came across a statement recently by Judith Lean, the Solar scientist, that Extreme UV varies a hundredfold between periods of high and low Solar activity. This reacts mainly with oxygen in the thermosphere and heats it. This would be the reason that the atmosphere has shrunk recently.
My view of this is that the lack of heat in the thermosphere allows the polar jet streams to move equatorwards, and this causes big changes in the temperatures and weather systems in the temperate zones.
These jet streams get blocked at times, like recently with the Moscow heat wave, at the same time causing low temperatures in Siberia, and a blocking of the monsoon in Pakistan.
In the southern hemisphere we have had record lows in South America right up to the equator and 2 degrees north, with temperatures in Argentina reported lower than Antarctic stations, huge stock losses, 400 people dead of cold in Peru, and upper Amazon rivers in Bolivia choked with dead fish and other aquatic life with water temperatures down to 2°C. And last year the Mongolians lost more than half of their stock in -50°C temps
As many have pointed out, temperatures are a poor metric to measure climate, the reason some of the historical cool periods, like the Dalton are memorable is not that the average dropped that much, but the extremes, especially the winter ones are particularly low.
It may be that it is a near zero sum game, but the game is still run by the Sun 😉
So no temperature predictions from me, just an advisory to get some warm underwear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20….imate-club.html 23 Sept 2010
”Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun’s brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.
So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.
The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.”
Tim Williams says: September 25, 2010 at 4:19 am
“Are you suggesting that undeclared industry sponsorship of the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medecine (and 5 other titles in Australia) undermines the credibility of a publishing house that also produces ‘The Lancet’ and ‘Gray’s Anatomy’ along with the New Scientist?”
Undeclared industry sponsorship!!!!
The case in the Australian courts was against Merck and concerned Vioxx.
Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce Several Volumes of a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles–most of which presented data favorable to Merck products–that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship
George Jelinek, an Australian physician and long-time member of the World Association of Medical Editors, reviewed four issues of the journal that were published from 2003-2004 and stated that four of the 21 articles featured in the first issue he reviewed referred to Fosamax. In the second issue, nine of the 29 articles related to Vioxx, and another 12 to Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions regarding the MSDA drugs.
Many people has died as a result of the actions of Merck and their ‘researchers’ and their ‘peer-reviewed’ studies. Merck approached Reid Elsevier and paid Reid Elsevier to publish the documents as if they were actual science.
Reid Elsevier took the money and published the lies and are therefore, in my opnion, complicit in the deaths of innocent people.
Reid Elsevier, the people that own and control ‘The Lancet’ and ‘Gray’s Anatomy’ along with the New Scientist, publish lies for money. They have admitted it to the court.
So, in answer to your question.
Yes.
I can hardly believe no one has mentioned Piers Corbyn, Great Britain’s very own achetypal “mad scientist”. He has been saying something similar for years but keeps the details to himself as he makes a handsome living out of…. long range weather forecasts.
He can be found at http://www.weatheraction.com/
Phillip Bratby says:{September 24, 2010 at 11:18 pm}
“Everybody knows that the most important driver of the global climate is the sun. Don’t they? It seems to me that the difference in climate between that in polar regions and that in equatorial regions is the sun. Am I right?”
Wrong. The difference is due to solar insolation at the Earth’s surface. The Sun does not change its output based on the latitudes of the Earth. Stand outside directly in the Sun and then step into shade, you will feel cooler. The Sun’s output hasn’t changed, you have changed the amount of energy you are receiving on your skin.
Peter whale says:{September 25, 2010 at 1:21 am}
“All my life I have noticed that the daytime is hotter than the nighttime, is it because of the sun?”
Same answer.
Richard S Courtney,
“I am convinced that the priorities now must be
(a) to avoid harmful effects of the dead CAGW scare (e.g. adoption of ETS)
and
(b) to defend against whatever daft scare (e.g. ‘ocean acidification’) ‘greens’ attempt to replace it with.”
The way I see it panning out, the AGW scare may be forgotton, but all these mitigation measures will remain. We will continue to see more and more windfarms and policies to reduce energy consumption, but the reasons for doing so will change. Instead of the CO2 demon, it will be called lowering pollution, sustainable development, energy security. Take your pick – probably all of them. The die is cast.
I note that this egregious magazine is also backpedaling on other Global Warming markers as well.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727794.400-kilimanjaros-vanishing-ice-due-to-treefelling.html refers…
This article reinforces the fact that we do not really know much about climate. We can say solar variation is only 0.1 percent but we cannot say a small variation cannot have a big effect on climate over a period of decades. It is possible for the climate to be hypersensitive to small variations to solar changes. The theory of solar amplification has never been falsified.
The fact researchers are finally identifying some of these different changes the sun causes is a good thing, including its role in clouds. We know so little about clouds and the processes involved in their creation. Let’s face it – cloud cover was not been well measured back in the 1930s and 1940s. Do you remember the Howard Hughes movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio? It had a long series of scenes in which his filmmaking was frustrated because the airplane scene did not have any clouds in the sky as a reference point. They went for months without clouds. The dustbowl years of the 1930s were very hot because the Earth did not have much cloud cover. The rise in global temperatures from 1910-1945 had nothing to do with a rise in atmospheric CO2. Everyone agrees on that point.
Funny that they’d use the term “brightness” as a measure of the sun’s potential impact on earth’s climate. While it is true the sun’s “brightness” varies by only 0.1% during the 11-year sun cycle, UV radiation varies by 6%! Since when does “brightness” equate directly to climate impact? It really doesn’t, folks. They hooked their wagon on a particular aspect of the sun and jumped directly to CO2 as the culprit, especially as it relates to UV radiation. Let’s focus on UV energy from a source that varies by 6% and other aspects about the sun that only now are being discovered and measured and we’ll have a completely different understanding–something far superior to the old excuse that it’s all CO2’s fault.
Phillip Bratby says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:21 am
“We have known for a while that this makes a difference,” says Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, “especially for solar effects.”
Gavin new all along that the science wasn’t settled. Good old Gavin. Always good for a ridiculous comment
I’m no fan of Gavin Schmidt but, on this occasion, Gavin has the evidence to back up his claims. This a paper he co-authored with Michael Mann (among others) in 2001. I cited the paper in an earlier post (i.e. John Finn says September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am) but forgot to provide a link
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;294/5549/2149
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
It’s all there. Regional temperature variation, AO/NAO shifts … the lot.
“There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate,”
Really? I have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting a solar influence on the climate (Cosmic Rays and Solar sections),
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Such as…
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)
– Nicola Scafetta
These papers are extensive despite the media’s denial of their existence.
Will says:
September 25, 2010 at 2:28 am
Thank you for your comment about the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge. I’ve read about the thermosphere before but no one has ever made plain that it is localized and travels the globe with the Sun’s rays. Very interesting! I’m heading off on vacation this morning but will be sure to read more about this when I come back.
All guesswork, no data to show it is feasible: ‘top to bottom’, ‘bottom to top’, ‘back to front’ or ‘sideways’.
Dr. Svalgaard and ‘solarium’ club are correct, but they do not have an alternative.
I ‘modestly’ suggest I do. See it here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ltr-Gmf.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Deja vu?
We don’t really have much of a clue how “A” works on “B”, but we know “C” overpowers “A”! A sound scientific conlcusion in my view! Not!
BBC2 concluding documentary on the Sun some years ago with pitcure of boiling Sun, “No one can explain exactlly what effects the power of the sun has on our climate, but whatever it is it’s already been overtaken by manmade global warming!” cut to pickie of calving of an ice sheet! What we need to do with these AGW warmists/catastrophist scientists is make them more financially accountable, as private sector business has to be, none of this clinging to nannies apron strings when it doens’t pan out as they claimed it would, cut their finding for every wrong prediction, that’ll make sit up!
“John Finn says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:47 am
Re: earlier post, i.e.
John Finn says: .
September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
I forgot to mention a key point from the Shindell et al Abstract
In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases.
They even mention the AO and NAO oscillations. To answer Tallbloke’s point
The warmista are circlng their wagons, and dragging the horses behind, as usual.
I think the warmista have had this issue covered for some time.”
John, you need to recognize that the solar influence is sufficiently influential to explain the ENTIRETY of the climate change that we have seen. The Arctic Oscillation index simply measures the change in the distribution of the atmosphere between the Arctic and mid latitudes in the northern hemsiphere. A falling AO represents higher pressure in the Arctic and lower pressure at mid latitudes and at the equator. But these changes in pressure proceed simultaneously in both hemispheres and in a much more dramatic fashion in the southern than the northern hemsiphere. The effect is to increase the differential pressure between mid latitudes in the southern hemisphere and the equator. That differential is responsible for the trade winds. The current La Nina is a response to a greater differential preesure. The speed of the change seems to be unprecedented. The move to a La Nina dominant regime is most obvious after 2007.
We agree that the sun drives cooling/warming via its effect on the distribution of the atmsophere. You need to appreciate that this in turn drives the trades which in turn determine the strength of cooling evaporation from tropical waters and the extent of upwelling of cold waters on the eastern margins of the major oceans, the Pacific being by far the largest.
And because the southern hemsiphere is mainly water rather than land, the effect on global temperature is deterministic.
You may think that “the warmista have had this issue covered for some time”.
I agree, they are aware of the phenomenon, but they have wholly underestimated it’s significance. And they haven’t a clue about the factors driving the changing distribution of the atmosphere, and therefore the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.
If they really knew about these things they would not be talking about AGW.
The following quote is from the abstract cited in your earlier post September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
“In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. ”
But I suspect it has nothing whatsoever to do with the very slight change in solar irradiance and a great deal to do with changes in the solar wind.
Did they suggest a mechanism?
I see recent news reports warning that Anthropogenic greenhouse gas CO2 “AGG” can cause cold, snowy, winters. (The mechanism is not explained however the Green news release alleges that the mechanism is related to a warming Arctic.) Perhaps the new warning will be AGG causes AGC.
When there was benign warming it was easy for the AGW cabal to convince themselves and the news media that 100% of the warming was due to atmospheric CO2 increases even though there was a lack of correlation between the temperature rise and CO2 levels (geological past – last 500 MM, past – last 1.2 MM, and current – last 25 years).
I wonder what the lag time will be for the scientific community and the public to change from AGW to AGC. I am curious what propaganda strategy will be used to try to convert opinion from AGW to AGC. Climate change seems to be losing traction. What will be the proposed solution to AGC?
I wonder how long it will take the green lobby group to come to the understand that CO2 is a “green gas” that is beneficial to the biosphere. i.e. Life on this planet is carbon based.
Solar cycle 24 compared to cycle 21, 22, and 23.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
Solar cycle (20, 21, 22, and 23) were unusually active (highest in 10,000 years) and GCR based on cosmogenic modulated isotopes (C14 and BE10) unusually low from 1940 on.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
There are a number of paleoclimatic papers that note there is correlation with past C14 and other cosmogenic isotopes changes and abrupt climatic change. For example Gerald Bond’s Persistent Solar Influence on the North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene that discusses the 1470 year cycle. (Bond was able to track roughly 30 abrupt temperature drop cycles through the Holocene interglacial period and into the last glacial cycle – the Wisconsin.)
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
There is a mechanism to change the solar magnetic cycle and there is evidence of a cycle of change of the solar magnetic cycle.
Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion by R.Fairbridge and J. Shirley
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/
There is also evidence of larger solar magnetic cycle changes that are also cyclic.
This paper, “Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion?” provides a full explanation of the solar mechanisms and a summary of previous papers concerning solar inertial motion and solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/20/115/2002/angeo-20-115-2002.pdf
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 25, 2010 at 2:59 am
“Had this issue covered for some time” – thanks, that’s a classic wagon-circling remark. No:
I repeat (for the 3rd time) Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann et al co-authored a paper around 9 years ago which looked at “Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum” Here it is (again)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;294/5549/2149
(a) all the orthodoxy’s emphasis has been on the ACTION we must take WITHOUT DEBATE because THE END IS NIGH due to our CO2 emissions;
I don’t necessarily agree that global warming due to CO2 is going to be catastrophic but the New Scientist article doesn’t change anything as far as AGW is concerned. There is a misunderstanding about the article and about what is generally known. Soalr activity does appear to correlate with shifts in weather patterns. As “the Team” state in their paper “In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases”. This is exactly what we see in the long term temperature records. Regional and seasonal shifts – NOT wall-to-wall cooling.
Global temperature change can only really be achieved through an imbalance in the earth’s (incoming=outgoing) energy budget. TSI variability is not sufficient to explain the *global* temperature changes we have seen. The solar effect on climate may mean Europe and the US get colder winters over the next few years but this probably only means that other regions will be warmer.
Also note that the AO, PDO, NAO and any other ‘O’ are just cycles. They do not result in a long term trend.
(b) note opening sentence: “The idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback“
The opening remark is nonsense. For crying out aloud, the IPCC in their “attribution and detection” studies cite solar activity as the main cause of the 1910-1940 warming. Thanks to Leif Svalgaard we now suspect that they are probably wrong.
King Kong recently discovered again? Roaming the skies on a daily basis but viewers eyes were clouded by CO2. Will the money return? New studies needed.
Grey Lensman says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:24 am
“If you use a U.V. steriliser, its not the U.V. that kills the bugs but the Ozone generated.”
Got a link to support that?
UV-C is pretty effective at breaking the bonds in nucleic acids which has long been held to be the operative mechanism in germicidal application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation
I forgot the best bit:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
the rest is
above
John Finn says:
September 25, 2010 at 5:48 am
“Also note that the AO, PDO, NAO and any other ‘O’ are just cycles. They do not result in a long term trend. ”
Nonesense. See: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
I quote
“The flux in surface pressure appears to be cyclical. However, the cycle is longer than the sixty years of available data. We cannot say for sure what the cycle length may be or how it varies over time. However, there is good evidence that the warming cycle that began in 1978 peaked in 1998. Cooling is underway.
We must acknowledge that the ENSO cycle is not temperature neutral. There are short ENSO cycles of just a few years and long ENSO cycles that are longer than 60 years.’
And the same applies to the Oscillations that you mention.
@Cliff I would imagine that this is referring to the 30 year downtrend due to the downtrend in the AMO. Of course, the AGWH (Anthrogenic Global Warming Hysterics) seem to deny that an uptrend existed from the 1970s till the early 2000s.
tallbloke says:
The atmosphere does not warm the ocean, the sun does. Then the ocean warms the atmosphere.
A bit like a hot water bottle, fill it full of hot air or hot water and feel the difference.
Tim Williams says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:24 am
“[…]So you think the New Scientist editors have only now “triumphantly declared” that the sun has an influence on climate? Perhaps you don’t read the New Scientist very often?”
“Science: Climate change – the solar connection ” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217962.900-science-climate-change–the-solar-connection.html) ”
[DirkH]: This is from 1991. It’s possible that the NS was respectable back then.
““Absorbent clouds cast shadow on climate models” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519703.100-absorbent-clouds-cast-shadow-on-climate-models.html)”
[DirkH]: This is from 1995. It’s possible that the NS was respectable back then.
“Solar cycles drove medieval markets” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024260.600-solar-cycles-drove-medieval-markets.html)
[DirkH]: This is from 2003. It says something about medieval times and is not relevant to the AGW debate.
I’ve been an avid NS reader from ca. 1997 to 2001. I don’t remember them doing a lot of skeptic bashing back then. I lost interest in them when they started to pepper their website with tons of advertisement popups and every second article proposed a different fate for the end or the beginning of the universe.
Their decline to what they are now must have started when i stopped reading them. What i know about their climate-related opinion pieces i know by following links from WUWT over the last 10 months. And yes, they are quite the AGW propaganda rag.
A few times each year, New Superstitionist gives a tiny bit of credence to the sun, as in this article … but they never alter their Gaian doctrine, nay, never a jot or a tittle.
They are never confused by heretical facts, even after they condescend to publish the heretical facts.
In reply to John Finn’s comment and quote of Shindell et al’s paper.
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
Drew T. Shindell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1 Michael E. Mann,2 David Rind,1 Anne Waple3
“We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions.”
Shindell et al’s paper assumes the past climate changes were caused by TSI (sun’s output is less) rather than the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary cloud cover. There are multiple errors in their analysis.
The AGW cabal assume the planet’s response to a forcing change is positive (planet amplifies forcing change) as opposed to negative (planet resists forcing changes by increasing or decreasing planetary cloud cover). The positive feedback amplification is required to amplify AGG forcing. If the planet’s response to a forcing change is negative rather than positive then a larger forcing change is required to explain what is observed.
If one stops pushing an agenda and tries to scientifically explain the observations (All of the observations. Cyclic changes require a cyclic forcing mechanism.) it seems that there is overwhelming evidence that the sun is causing the planetary changes.
There is smoking gun evidence of a solar magnetic cycle mechanism as past planetary temperature change is cyclic (for example the 1470 year cycle) and the past cooling periods and warming periods correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The cosmogenic isotope changes are known to be cause by solar magnetic cycle changes and by geomagnetic field changes.
The GCR changes are caused changes in the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere – bits of the magnetic solar magnetic field that are carried by the solar wind out into the solar system) and affect higher latitudes on the planet where the geomagnetic field is weaker. (A complication in analyzing the paleoclimatic record is that there are concurrent archeomagnetic jerks where the planet’s geomagnetic field abruptly changes inclination by roughly 10 to 15 degrees at the same time as the cooling events. The tilting of the geomagnetic field causes an increase and decrease of GCR intensity at different latitudes as the geomagnetic poles no longer align with the planet’s rotational axis.)
(There is currently no explanation for what causes the cyclic geomagnetic field changes archeomagnetic jerks – periodicity around 200 years and geomagnetic excursions that have a periodicity of around 8000 years to 12,000 years. The geomagnetic excursions correlate with Heinrich events such as the Younger Dryas.)
So, according to solar deniers like John Finn et al, changes in the sun only affect weather, not climate. Got it.
Tim Williams says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:24 am
“[…]the sun has an influence on climate? Perhaps you don’t read the New Scientist very often?
“Blame the volcano trouble on sun and global warming”(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18794-blame-the-volcano-trouble-on-sun-and-global-warming.html)
”
Well, from 2010… and quite an interesting piece of work there.
“”Solar activity tends to ramp up for 300 to 400 years and then fall again over about 100 years,” says Lockwood. Right now the sun has just begun its downward path from a maximum, suggesting that blocking patterns will become more common over Europe during the next century.
Global warming may compound the problem.
”
In a beautiful, might i say Hegelian spin, they show that the harmful effects brought by AGW get WORSE when the sun winds down its activity. Beautifully crafted really. As it’s based on IPCC climate models with all their known shortcomings it’s of course no better a guess than throwing dice, but we don’t need to tell that to the sheeple, no?
I mean, use the IPCC’s models that have consistently failed for one decade – soothsaying a warming that didn’t happen – and write a paper that predicts, well, that the solar minimum “compounds the problem”; that’s really rich.
NS – we give science it’s bad reputation.
Richard S Courtney says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:19 am
“I am convinced that the priorities now must be
(a) to avoid harmful effects of the dead CAGW scare (e.g. adoption of ETS)
and
(b) to defend against whatever daft scare (e.g. ‘ocean acidification’) ‘greens’ attempt to replace it with.”
I well remember the conflation of the issues of leaded petrol, acid rain and greenhouse effect in the minds of the public. I also remember the emergence of Friends of the Earth as a big promoter of scare at that time (core themes; protecting human and environmental rights, protecting the planet’s disappearing biodiversity, the repayment of ecological debt owed by rich countries to those they have exploited). They and others were pretty effective with promotion of environmental issues but ineffective in defining their separate natures. This goes on still despite, rather like the millenium bug, being demonstrably wrong. I can only conclude that there is an inate desire among a percentage of the population for a hair-shirt aproach to life. In fact, the apparent enthusiasm of what are now termed ‘watermellons’ for the hair-shirt lifestyle is the first metric I use when trying to assess the latest ‘we must’ chant that comes along.
So Mr. Courtney, I agree agree exactly but would place your point b) first.
To John Finn,
It is claimed that Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann et al co-authored a paper around 9 years that would support a significant solar effect on climate.
That paper published in 2001 does not have any value according the same subsequent opinion of its authors. The reason is because that paper was using the TSI reconstructions by Lean [1995] and Hoyt [1993] that presented a much larger secular TSI variability than more recent TSI reconstructions such as Wang and Lean [2005] and Solanki [2007].
Thus, or the most recent TSI reconstructions are wrong and TSI varied much more in the past, or the current models are missing additional important solar-climate mechanisms.
While an anecdote is not data, the comment that Europe is more prone to stagnating weather systems during a solar minimum, is interesting. I remember hitch-hiking through western Europe in the summer of 1976, during a solar minimum. There was an exceptionally hot summer in Western Europe and drought in Britain that year. Swimming in the channel near Calais was like being in the Med Sea. Shades perhaps of the Russian heat wave this minimum. 1976 was also an exceptional year for French wine.
The IPCC claim that a 0.1% change in total solar irradiance was not enough to impact global climate was just one of the super dumb things the IPCC said. It made the idiotic assumption that the only way the sun can impact climate is through changes in the total amount of solar radiation. Everyone new that statement was a fools argument and that the interaction of the sun and the Earth’s atmosphere was much more complicated than that.
It was one of the main reasons that the IPCC was recognized as an advocacy group and not a scientific organization by anyone with a brain (which apparently excludes the media). Even if they manage to cover their butts on this one, they still have to deal with the fact that their main argument is a logical fallacy – “We can not explain it any other way, so it must be true.” The IPCC argument for an AGW crisis is no stronger than the ancient explanation of severe weather: “We made the gods angry! That must be the true because we can not explain it any other way!” It is an argument from ignorance, something they demonstrate continuosly.
John Finn says: “the IPCC in their “attribution and detection” studies cite solar activity as the main cause of the 1910-1940 warming.”
Could you provide a link to that statement? It does not match my memory from my reading of the IPCC FAR — unless it is an implication from the claim that the warming in the last 50 years is due anthropogenic causes.
Sounds more like they’re gonna try and pacify the sceptic and lining up the finishing line (which will no doubt come in the next issue) which spells, essentially, to be able to prove that the good ol’ fart that Sol is we’d just need a tad bit more grant money, say in the multi-million dollar range, mkey.
The New Scientist piece in the “tiny” link in the article drew the following comment from Lord Monckton:
It’s All Down To Cosmic Rays
Sat Jul 05 16:52:56 BST 2008 by Monckton Of Brenchley
This item is inaccurate and misleading. There is, in fact, some 10 million years of evidence for an anti-correlation between cosmic-ray flux and global surface temperature (e.g. Shaviv, 2006). Though correlation (or anti-correlation) does not necessarily imply causation, it is difficult to imagine a common causative agent that might explain this very long and very precise anti-correlation.
THe suggestion that cosmic-ray flux variations cannot explain the warming trend of the last few decades is misleading because it does not allow for the action of other and shorter-term influences on climate, such as the accumulation in and subsequent slow release from the oceans of atmospheric warming caused by the recently-ended Solar Grand Maximum, during which the activity of the Sun was greater and for longer than at almost any previous similar period in at least the past 11,400 years.
It is inappropriate for scientific journalists to talk of the “wild claims” of Svensmark et al., whose thoughtful papers, including a magisterial and very thorough paper (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 2007) refuting many of the wild claims repeated here by the New Scientist, are carefully researched and reasoned, and may provide a clue explaining the self-evident amplification of the Sun’s activity in influencing global temperature.
There are, of course, other possible explanations for this amplification. For instance, the oceans – 1100 times denser than the atmosphere at the surface – are a formidable heat-sink, and it is easy to demonstrate a multi-decadal correlation between changes in the two great ocean circulations (the Pacific Decadal and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations) and surface temperature on the decadal and multidecadal scale. Shorter-term ocean oscillations, notably the El Nino / La Nina oscillations – are particularly strong influences on global surface temperature. The oceans, therefore, may be acting as a buffer, delaying solar influences on atmospheric temperature by perhaps up to half a century (Michaels, 2008).
Also, it is not clear that the IPCC has taken sufficient account of the fact that about half of all incoming solar radiation is already in the infrared. This fraction is not really subject to terrestrial forcings, except to a very small degree.
In short, it would be unwise to dismiss solar changes as a recent cause of climate change; and in the face of the data it is no longer scientifically credible to dismiss it as a cause of longer-term changes in temperature at the Earth’s surface.
=========
Note that the purported refutations of Svensmark and Shaviv depend either on ignoring the specification of powerful particles reaching low tropospheric altitudes, not total top-of-atmosphere CR flux, or on smoothing over periods too long to reflect CR flux and cloud changes over a solar cycle.
“The findings do not suggest – as climate sceptics frequently do – that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun.”
Ah, the devil is always in the details. A good part (perhaps half or more) of the warming was simply due to things like UHI effect, poorly-sited temperature stations, and station drop-out. And, you gotta love their use of the word “blame”. Because warming, of course is “BAD”. But yeah, the sun gets most of the credit for the very minor, in no way unusual, and very, very much welcomed (except by warmistas, of course) warmup from the LIA. Now, we are in for a cooling period. C02 can’t stop that from happening, because it never had anything to do with the warming to begin with.
Nice to see “New Scientist” beginning to get it, though they clearly have a long way to go.
The computer models are woefully inadequate to make projections of climate. They look only at pulses of ghgs and measure the effects on radiation budgets. What about solar x-ray flares, which alter the upper atmosphere’s chemistry, destroying ozone? What about solar geomagnetic effects altering the the magnetosphere, allowing peneration of galactic cosmic ray flux to cause increasing lower cloud cover and global cooling? What about the historical record and totally predictable influence of the Jovian planets on solar secular Gleissberg (83-year) and semi-secular Landescheidt (391-year) climate cycles? What about the 18-year Lunar Nodal and 1,800-year Lunar Declination Cycles?
If a computer model is only set up to find human CO2 influnce on global temperatures, what possibly could be the projection other than that man causes cc? What would happen to the models, if they included all the natural inputs of: the Earth (underwater volcanoes and hydrothermal vents), the Moon (ocean circulation cycles), the Sun (CMEs, magnetic and solar wind cycles), and the Planets (Earth/Venus/Jupiter Tidal cycles and Jupiter conjunctions with Saturn/Uranus/Neptune climate cycles)? Agw would disappear into the background of natural cc.
I welcome this begrudging recognition of the Sun as a ( if not THE) driver of Weather ( if not climate) .
They will not take it too far however.
Because you can’t tax the Sun.
John Finn says: September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
I think Vukcevic has posted on the Dalton minimum effect on the CET record. I can’t remember exactly what he wrote but it wassomething to the effect that the last decade of the DM had colder than average winters but very little change in summer. He can correct me on this if I’ve got it wrong.
If you assume Dalton minimum was 1800-1830 than CETs for
1800-1805 = average1750-1850
1805-1817 average1750-1850
Here are seasonal and annual anomaly values for each year 1660-2010
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
Sorry, previous post was incomplete so here it is again
John Finn says: September 25, 2010 at 1:35 am
I think Vukcevic has posted on the Dalton minimum effect on the CET record. I can’t remember exactly what he wrote but it wassomething to the effect that the last decade of the DM had colder than average winters but very little change in summer. He can correct me on this if I’ve got it wrong.
If you assume Dalton minimum was 1800-1830 than CETs for
1800-1805 = average1750-1850
1805-1817 average1750-1850
Here are seasonal and annual anomaly values for each year 1660-2010
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
For some reason it is omitting this important line:
1817-1829 > average1750-1850 !
These guys have no shame. Like the meeting in Exeter to discuss overhauling the surface temps of the globe:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/more-dirty-pool-by-ncdcs-karl-menne-and-peterson/
the NewScientist is belatedly beginning its own rehabilitation. The first rehab (surface temps) was ordered by (Senate Committee?) government or they would still be fighting a rearguard action and saying ‘yeah there are some bad sitings but our studies show they have minimal effect’ (they are still going to say that when they have finished their whitewash of the global temp system and homogenizations). They both are relying on “new” discoveries by their own disgraced scientists and both feel the need to disparage “climate skeptics” whom they treat as monolithic naysayers instead of giving credit to the bright and brave who originally presented these “new” discoveries. I hope the next counter-conference on climate presents a program of findings and theories with proper attribution that were developed by those sceptical of the consensus before its all been rediscovered. If I may suggest a theme: a summing up of key contributions to climate science made outside the consensus that are now being accepted by the mainstream of climate science. The two examples above are excellent examples. I detect in this article a nibbling at the edges of Willis’s tropical thermostat theory too. Don’t let the besteds steal it all.
I must AndrewW
please explain the lack of any significant warming of the planet in the past decade while CO2 increased?
“”Where solar effects may play a role is in influencing regional weather patterns over the coming decades”
Now, I am becoming confused. I thought insolation was a Global phenomenon. How does a global phenomenon affect only regional areas. Perhaps they mean, all regional areas, to varying degrees. Can someone clarify? GK
Anthony – “I saw this yesterday, but I decided to wait a day just in case it disappeared. It’s quite the surprise to see the New Scientist dedicate a story, much less and editorial saying that the sun has a role in climate ”
GeoFlynx – Now that statement is just a bit too cynical to be left unchallenged. The Sun’s energy is what powers AGW and has been taken into account in painstaking detail in so much of the IPCC work. What this article is attempting to address is the small, 11-22 year, periodic effects the Sun has on the Earth’s climate. Many who have taken a course in Fourier analysis will recognize this solar cycle climate connection as one of the early classic exercises and realize that its effects seldom rise above noise. The suggestion that somehow these solar changes are responsible for the current spate of warming may be titillating but are in no way supportable.
Hey Cliff
“the 30 year cooling cycle we are in.” (CO2fan)
Can someone point me to the data that shows cooling, thanks.
See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/new-paper-in-nature-on-ocean-cycles-finally-causes-recognition-in-media/
So the science is not settled. Unlike the song in the musical Oklahoma we evidently have not gone as far as we can go. But then that was fiction.
Why is global warming theory hard to believe. Some things just need proof.
Even if we knew all there is to know about climate could we do anything about it. The congress thinks so and their solution is regulation, laws and taxes. Hey you do what you know.
John Finn said:
” Lower solar activity is not going to lower the energy received by the earth by an appreciable amount so it’s not likely to have a significant effect on global temperatures. ”
I disagree. We are rather belatedly finding that even the alarmists once reognised that the jets were more equatorward when the sun was less active but they then made several mistakes, inter alia:
i) They assumed that the observed effect was not global but only regional.
ii) They failed to consider the energy budget implications of global latitudinal jet stream shifts.
iii)They failed to realise that simply shifting the main cloud bands latitudinally affects global albedo and the amount of solar shortwave entering the oceans for a resulting net global cooling effect. It is now clear that global albedo steadily fell whilst the jets moved poleward and is now rising with the jets moving equatorward. The oceans are indeed cooling.
iv) They abandoned all attempts at a proper scientific interpretation of what they observed in favour of their favoured CO2 forcing scenario and climatology has been on the wrong track ever since.
Dave Springer says: September 25, 2010 at 6:15 am
Grey Lensman says:September 25, 2010 at 12:24 am
“If you use a U.V. steriliser, its not the U.V. that kills the bugs but the Ozone generated.”
Got a link to support that?
UV-C is pretty effective at breaking the bonds in nucleic acids which has long been held to be the operative mechanism in germicidal application.
Dave, I worked in photolithography, ie defining circuitry in photosensitive plastics. One process was designed around the incising power of UV light on poly-methyl-methyl-acrilate, PMMA, basically plexiglass. PMMA can be formed in very long chains, and UV incises the long chains to shorter chains, causing a differential in solubility in a solvent material. My understanding is that most organic molecules are incised by UV, and that is why they break down in sunlight, if not consumed by organisms.
True, TSI variability on its own is not sufficient to explain the temperature changes that we have seen.
However, the Sun may well have a series of influences other than simple TSI variability – TSI variability is associated with a series of other varying influences including solar magnetic field, solar wind and associated cosmic ray flux. When all taken together, all these factors may well have a considerable influence on the Earth’s climate system.
There are hints that the Sun has a much larger influence on the Earth’s climate – but there is a need to understand the mechanisms involved, with nothing very convincing published as yet.
As for the PDO, etc, just being cycles, that may be true, but who is to say whether there are cycles on much longer timescales. There are some indications of this in paleoclimate studies.
As for cycles being unable to change global temperatures, that is simply incorrect – for example, changes in cloud coverage could well influence global temperatures since clouds are one of the major aspects relating to the Earth’s energy balance (they are a negative feedback in the overall greenhouse effect).
Don’t believe it.
German chief climate advisor Schellnhuber has told us that the nature makes it very easy to understand: “CO2 and global temperature are linked in a linear relationship.”
Minor players like the sun or the oceans can’t simply override this massive anthropogenic CO2 influence in the atmosphere. I mean, no … no way.
Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.
This has been brewing much longer than the article would imply. I have reported the “stuck in Lodi” weather patterns over the Pacific Northwest for over 2 years. The sequence starts in the West and migrates over the next couple of years to the East.
One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332).
However, models that suggest the input to the Global Climate Models (infinite loop) are akin to the blind leading the blind.
Steve Keohane
http://ohioline.osu.edu/fse-fact/0005.html
From the above comments it looks even better, a double whammy so to speak.
Somebody on one of the posts here gave an excellent description of how the natural process occurs. Due to the inclination of the earth, in winter it gets no light and in summer less than the north in summer. Thus the “hole”. Thats putting it very simply but the main result is “ozone hole” is a myth, an artifical construct sold to protect an expiring patent.
In the same issue they have a piece about how the snow on Kilimanjaro has gone because the air is drier after all the trees were cut down around the mountain. ( I am sure I heard this explanation some years back) So that is two admissions in one issue.
The sickening thing is that after they have reversed their positions they will still not admit the sceptics were right all along, they will make out that new evidence came along and the sceptics had nothing to do with their new understanding: the sceptics will be remembered as a fringe minority of nutcases that just happened by lucky chance to be right.
William says:
September 25, 2010 at 6:52 am
..There is smoking gun evidence of a solar magnetic cycle mechanism as past planetary temperature change is cyclic (for example the 1470 year cycle) and the past cooling periods and warming periods correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The cosmogenic isotope changes are known to be cause by solar magnetic cycle changes and by geomagnetic field changes.
The GCR changes are caused changes in the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere – bits of the magnetic solar magnetic field that are carried by the solar wind out into the solar system) and affect higher latitudes on the planet where the geomagnetic field is weaker. (A complication in analyzing the paleoclimatic record is that there are concurrent archeomagnetic jerks where the planet’s geomagnetic field abruptly changes inclination by roughly 10 to 15 degrees at the same time as the cooling events. The tilting of the geomagnetic field causes an increase and decrease of GCR intensity at different latitudes as the geomagnetic poles no longer align with the planet’s rotational axis.)
(There is currently no explanation for what causes the cyclic geomagnetic field changes archeomagnetic jerks – periodicity around 200 years and geomagnetic excursions that have a periodicity of around 8000 years to 12,000 years. The geomagnetic excursions correlate with Heinrich events such as the Younger Dryas.)
~
This is all very interesting.
William says:
“..affect higher latitudes on the planet where the geomagnetic field is weaker..”
Now if we could tie this into the South Atlantic Anomaly, being a huge, gaping, weak spot in earths magnetic field..
“..The low altitude trapped particle population is also influenced by secular changes in the geomagnetic field (8): the location of the centre of the geomagnetic dipole field drifts away from the centre of the Earth at a rate of about 2.5 km/year (the separation currently exceeds 500 km), and the magnetic moment decreases with time. The combined effect is a slow inward drift of the innermost regions of the radiation belts. The separation of the dipole centre from the Earth’s centre and the inclination of the magnetic axis with respect to the rotation axis produce a local depression in the low altitude magnetic field distribution at constant altitude. As the trapped particle population is tied to the magnetic field, the lowest altitude radiation environment (below about 1,000 km) peaks in the region where the magnetic field is depressed (1). This region is located to the south east of Brasil, and is called the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). Figures 4 and 5 represent a world map at 500 km altitude of the trapped proton (>10 MeV) and trapped electron (>1 MeV) distributions, respectively..”
http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Scientific/Topics/SpacePhysics/RadiationEnvironment3.html#2.4.2
Figure 4
http://www.spenvis.oma.be/help/background/traprad/psaa.gif
Figure5
http://www.oma.be/BIRA-IASB/Scientific/Images/Figure5.gif
William says: “.. currently no explanation for what causes the cyclic geomagnetic field changes archeomagnetic jerks – periodicity around 200 years and geomagnetic excursions that have a periodicity of around 8000 years to 12,000 years..”
I have a deluded theory about that, dealing with such things as changing Interstellar Magnetic Field strengths as well as changes in the vector at which the Heliosphere during its orbit encounters them. Also a varying background around said fields. (Changing Interstellar vectors and changing magnetic fields)
The background has deluded us for years into thinking that it was all warm and ionized. We were unable to distinguish between the inside of the heliospheres edges and the outside medium. (the warm ionized mostly from within and not from with out.)
Thanks to Leif..
Try again before i get roasted for incompetence.
Due to the inclination of the earth, the South Pole in winter it gets no light and in summer less light than the north pole in summer.
I think that corrects it.
Great to see Nature feeling it has to give publicity to the solar/Earth climate link – must have been much gritting of teeth!
I suspect that if our climate had continued to warm over the last 15 years instead of going into a funk, the paper would never have seen the light of day. However, the truth will always out.
Henry@Stephen Wilder
I agree with your thinking.
But I still think that the reason why clouds are influenced to travel either more to the poles or more towards the equator has to do with earth’s electromagetic field and how this is affected by that of the sun’s.
Note my quote from the above:
A theory that has more traction with climate scientists says the rays may change cloud behaviour rather than formation. Using weather balloon measurements, Harrison has shown that clouds have charged layers at their top and bottom, and he suggests that ions produced by cosmic rays might be responsible (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043605). “The charge might make it easier for larger water droplets to form,” he says, causing rain to fall sooner during solar minima. “But that’s just one of many possibilities.”
So, as I suspected, the clouds do have electrical charges.
RobW says:
September 25, 2010 at 8:01 am
please explain the lack of any significant warming of the planet in the past decade while CO2 increased?
variations around a trend, this is also a possibility:
http://www.canada.com/technology/First+global+warming+global+dimming/1382084/story.html
Andrew30, the IPCC doesn’t claim that AGW is proven, germ theory likewise cannot be “proven”, some people believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus, others claim that AGW is not caused by elevated levels of GHG’s. Damn it, neither of the view points advanced by these groups can be dis-proven, so idiots think they must be right.
“so idiots think they must be right.”
Should have said: “based on this, some idiots think they must be right.”
Carla says: September 25, 2010 at 10:46 am
………..
And one should forget that all those magnetic giants and one or two minnows, found in the inner reaches of heliosphere, are not isolated islands, they are family of solar magnetic shield, led by their big ‘daddy’ engaged in constant defence of their heliospheric bubble from the galactic intruders.
For it we should be forever grateful, despite all the warmth from the sun, without the magnetic shield there would be no life on this little blue planet.
Science journalism, almost but not really science.
Nescafe almost but not really coffee
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 11:57 am
Something about something that has nothing to do with the hypothesis that human caused emissions of CO2 are the cause of Global Warming. (“some people believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus”)
How exactly does what people believe is the cause of AIDS:
Prove that C02 is the cause of Global Warming?
or
Prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates?
Or was that just a failed (third) attempt at a distraction in the hope that I would forget the scientific method.
The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis, not the skeptical scientists.
Cliff
Data question
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Andrew30, I haven’t claimed that AGW is proven.
Your argument: The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis, but AGW cannot be proven, itself proves what exactly?
Regarding the null hypothesis, A potential null hypothesis is “AGW is not occurring” if the data show a statistically significant change not accounted for by natural climate forcings, the null hypothesis is rejected.
So it’s a weight of evidence issue, a forcing exists, either it’s a natural forcing or it’s anthropogenic, to which does the weight of evidence point? Thus far we have a coherent anthropogenic theory vs a hodge podge of numerous natural forcing theories none of which have a coherent form as global climate forcing large enough to explain observation.
“Henry Pool says:
September 25, 2010 at 11:40 am”
Hi Henry. I’m open to suggestions as to why the jets migrate equatorward when the sun is less active but it must be something to do with the temperature of the stratosphere and thus the strength of the inversion at the tropopause.
It’s well established that phenomena known as sudden stratospheric warmings send the jets equatorward for a while and I propose a similar less dramatic effect from any stratospheric warming even if gradual over decades.
I have suggested a couple of possibilities but they are not critical for me. Any proven mechanism will fit in well enough.
The trouble is that the stratosphere has to warm to send the jets equatorward yet conventional climatology says the stratosphere cools when the sun is less active.
Currently it has warmed despite the quiet sun and the jets have moved equatorward.
When the sun was more active the stratosphere cooled and the jets went poleward.
The old explanation that CFCs disrupted the natural scheme of things is no longer tenable but I have yet to hear an intelligent comment on the issue from any AGW proponent.
I think they’ve got the sign wrong for the solar effect on stratospheric temperatures but that would be such a huge turnaround for climate theory that I’m not surprised by a period of silence.
I guess CAGW scientists should be refered to as “helioskeptics”, or maybe “solar deniers”.
Vuk etc. says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:07 pm
For it we should be forever grateful, despite all the warmth from the sun, without the magnetic shield there would be no life on this little blue planet.
That “magnetic shield” which we could call, more properly, electromagnetic, it is a double layer, the same as when we make buffer solution (like Coke at pH=3,5), so as to any more acid or alkali added won´t change its relative equilibrium, except in a catastrophic event.
So, the Sun, also, with its two polar fields, which if considered isolated (removed from any interference from other fields), could show a perfect regularity. If free from preconceptions we could consider the difference between a harmonic manifestation and an interferred one, we could identify the fields, or waves, which interfere with Sun´s fields. (Sin y+Cos y).
Thus, Vukcevic, present us an almost armageddonian forecast: The Sun at the ER!!:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PolarFields.gif
John Finn says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:47 am
To answer Tallbloke’s point
I think the warmista have had this issue covered for some time.
Revisionist claptrap. Schmidt was coauthor of a paper about a year ago which claimed to show the solar influence on climate was aonly around 10% of the co2 forcing.
Utter bollocks.
Now we have New Scientist doing a story on Kilimanjaro’s ice, which may cause a little more grief for those on Al Gore’s side of the fence.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727794.400-kilimanjaros-vanishing-ice-due-to-treefelling.html
Of course, regular readers of WUWT were well informed of this fact over two and a half years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/yet-another-inconvenient-story-ignored-by-the-msm/
As per usual, well done Mr. Watts.
Hehe 🙂 Perhaps they have realised that their readership is declining because they continually recount that the Sun has nothing to do with the planet’s climate 🙂 Many smilies. It will be fun to watch them squirm and jiggle as they try to worm their editorial stance away from AGW catastrophism.
My suggestion to the publishers of the once-worthy New Scientist magazine” “Fire them all; editors and enviromental journos”
Ben U. said @ September 24, 2010 at 10:28 pm
I’ve long thought that a heliocentric perspective has a certain appeal.
Very subtle, Ben; I salute you … as does Galileo 🙂
Andrew W says: September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm
” I haven’t claimed that AGW is proven”
I agree, AGW has not been proven, and can not be disproven.
That the fact that an unproven and non-falsifiable hypothesis (AGW) is not occurring does not prove that natural variation is not the cause of regional climates.
That the fact that an unproven and non-falsifiable hypothesis (AGW) is not occurring is irrelevant.
These solar connection stories always appear without a mention of how to make your own cosmic ray detector.
Unless I am naive and mistaken (quite possible!), I think it might be an important point, a demonstration of principle in the real world, not just words and numbers on a map:
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/ss/cosraydetect.htm
Is it irrelevant?
I feel there is another Sun effect that is important and doesn’t often get taken into account is the magnetic interaction between the Sun and earth causing periods of INCREASED seismic activity thus more submarine volcanic activity that increases Ocean temps by Hydrothermal and Magmatic Processes and is probably largely responsible for the recent co2 rise as well,then there is the much avoided question how much effect the nearing of the Earth and solar system to the thin magnetic disc of the Galactic equator and surrounding denser area of the spiral arm space cloud, (local fluff) as NASA calls it, to make it sound like it has a lesser effect and less dangerous?
Forecast graphs of solar activity, seismic and volcanic activity
of compression rims of the Earth.
E.N.Khalilov 2010
http://www.seismonet.org/page.html?id_node=130&id_file=97
Increased eruption frequency
Anual active Volcano count
Worldwide Earthquake and active Volcano Statistics
http://www.khptech.com/blog/4/ww-earthquake-stats
http://tinyurl.com/2cxr3df
http://tinyurl.com/2a8zwnb
http://tinyurl.com/2ba97o9
http://tinyurl.com/26h32hp
http://tinyurl.com/24zapjq
http://tinyurl.com/234xohm
http://tinyurl.com/2cqzx68
http://tinyurl.com/285bt98
http://tinyurl.com/2bxfhqy
http://tinyurl.com/2cr525j
http://tinyurl.com/2d9hy6o
http://tinyurl.com/2e5u6vg
http://tinyurl.com/2c3ctpl
http://tinyurl.com/2euusez
http://tinyurl.com/24qczrf
http://tinyurl.com/25zj4tr
http://tinyurl.com/23d4666
Increased tectonic activity
http://www.nov55.com/volcan.html
@Michael in Sydney — “So a 0.1% change in the sun’s brightness…”
You are spot on!
What the warmists don’t grok is that even 0.1% of a VERY LARGE number is still a very huge number. Maybe they don’t grok how much energy is in the Watts per square meter over all the square meters in the daylight side of the earth.
Maybe they would grok it if somebody showed / offered them 0.1% of the USA’s GDP, or of the UK’s or Australia’s or… no, I forgot, they have a non-scientific agenda and will insist into the next ice-age that 0.1% is a negligibly small number, and can be ignored.
As a scientist, they shame all I hold dear.
Newt Love (my real name)
Lets understand the possible impact of this paper. In it they say…
In other words, once the AR5 comes out, if sceptics yell “It’s the Sun stupid” they can say “we’ve accounted for that, see the AR5”.
Solar effects were generally left out of GCM’s, but the “science was settled”.
Now that they will “generally” include solar effects, the science is REALLY REALLY SETTLED.
Can one lose any more respect for scientists? At the moment I have the lot of ’em well below politicians and used car salesman.
p.s. Listen you morons, until and unless you know what makes the Sun tick, you ain’t gunna convince me that you know enough about our climate, therefore, I don’t approve of one extra cent in taxes for this scurrilous scam.
Andrew W:
I assume you are being deliberately stupid when, at September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm, you assert:
“Regarding the null hypothesis, A potential null hypothesis is “AGW is not occurring” if the data show a statistically significant change not accounted for by natural climate forcings, the null hypothesis is rejected. ”
No! Absolutely not!
The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred. And it is a fundamental scientific principle that the null hypothesis is adopted unless and until emiprical evidence of a change has occurred.
There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.
Hence, the only applicable scientific hypothesis concerning global climate change is the null hypothesis: i.e. nothing has altered natural global climate change.
This will remain true unless and until some evidence of a change (e.g. due to AGW) is obtained.
Richard
One day we’re all going to have to face the cold hard truth, sorry, moist cool truth and warm moist truth, that the elephant in the clothes dryer on this planet is water vapor. Nothing, I say again, Nothing is going to get done one way or the other until we get our hands on this enormous and horrific problem. Now the EPA is just wasting precious time and money (don’t know where they’re getting the latter) on all this CO2 crap. We need the mainstream scientific media to stop, look, and feel what’s going on and start getting the Enviro Mob to tackle this immediately. Why aren’t they listening? (non-sarc & sarc off)
Yes, the sun has been designated the new fall guy. Anything but the comets.
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm
So it’s a weight of evidence issue, a forcing exists, either it’s a natural forcing or it’s anthropogenic, to which does the weight of evidence point? Thus far we have a coherent anthropogenic theory vs a hodge podge of numerous natural forcing theories none of which have a coherent form as global climate forcing large enough to explain observation.
Actually, no. What you have is nothing more than a weak conjecture based on an exaggerated (due to incorrect measurement) warming coinciding with a rise in C02, some part of which is probably anthropogenic, and a whole host of models attempting to “prove” that C02 is causing it.
Sorry, but most of your “evidence” is manufactured (like the hockey stick). It is based on the idea that C02 is driving temperatures up. But, what has happened? They’ve gone from calling it global warming, to climate change, to climate disruption. Funny how they keep pulling the rug out from under you Believers.
This is an old political trick: Can’t you beat them, join them.
Richard S Courtney says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:19 am
A year ago in a presentation at York University I stated that the CAGW scare is dead. I said the scare would have its economic ‘life-blood’ cut off in Copenhagen and, after that, it would fade away.
—————
Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week? I’m facing a paper deadline and am waffling as to whether or not to go. Is anybody else planning to show up?
Richard S Courtney says:
I assume you are being deliberately stupid…
September 26, 2010 at 4:18 am There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.
Wow! Talk about disconnected from reality.
Bruce Cobb, I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving the temperature rise of the last hundred years is not unusual and that it can be explained by natural forcings.
Newt Love says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:03 am
Maybe they don’t grok how much energy is in the Watts per square meter over all the square meters in the daylight side of the earth.
Watts per square meter is bread and butter to climate scientists, obviously you don’t know much about the AGW debate.
Solar variation through the solar cycle amounts to a change in insolation of about 0.25 Watts per square meter, increased GH gases ~2 Watts per square meter, and in the latter it’s a continuous forcing adding up over decades, rather than a few years and then reversed.
For the CAGW agenda, solar only counts while pushing it as a “sustainable” energy source, but not as a major agent of climate warming. I agree with others: Huh?
Andrew W says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:45 am
Bruce Cobb I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving the temperature rise of the last hundred years is not unusual and that it can be explained by natural forcings.
If you were really interested you would know there is already plenty of scientific literature clearly showing that, and would have bothered to read it. But, your anti-science Warmist agenda obviously keeps you from doing so.
Oh, and try not to get so hung up on the “peer-reviewed” thing. In terms of scientific truth, it means nothing, particularly amidst the incestuous atmosphere of climate “science”.
vigilantfish:
At September 26, 2010 at 10:04 am you ask me:
“Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week? I’m facing a paper deadline and am waffling as to whether or not to go. Is anybody else planning to show up?”
Sorry, but I do not have the time to attend the event because I have very recently returned from overseas and have much subsequent writing-up to do. Perhaps I could attend it if York were near here (i.e. Falmouth, Cornwall) but it is not and my attendance (with travel to and from the event) would require at least two days that I cannot afford this week.
However, if you – or others – do attend it, then I would appreciate a report of the event.
Richard
Bruce, I know there is plenty of “literature” much of which I’ve read, but little of which stands up to peer review, perhaps you should try to objectively examine the merits of the science yourself.
Moderator, could you check (and fix) to see if I’ve made an error with my closing of italics in my comment at 11:39am, and possibly subsequent comments,
[HTML error fixed. ~dbs]
Andrew W:
At September 26, 2010 at 11:39 am you quote me saying:
“There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.”
Then you reply with:
“Wow! Talk about disconnected from reality.”
You think my accurate statement is “disconnected from reality”?
OK. Then please provide some evidence that disproves my statement. I – and several others including the IPCC – would be extremely grateful for such evidence.
Richard
Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.
There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.
Its not enough to defeat evil ideas, we must also defeat the those that promulgate evil ideas. Who and how were used to infiltrate and undermind our formerly revered learning centers and other institutions of science. They need to be hunted down and put to trial. If convicted, they need to be stripped of all their honors.
Andrew W:
At September 26, 2010 at 4:24 pm, in response to my accurate statement that said;
“There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.”
you assert (in full);
“Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.
There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.”
I thank you for confirming that you cannot dispute my accurate statement, and I address each of the points in your response as follows.
The opinion of “90%” of IPCC AR4 Authors is evidence of their opinion and of nothing else. It says nothing about evidence of a change to “the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries”.
(Similarly, there many more people than there are IPCC AR4 Authors who have the opinion that Santa Claus exists, but their opinion is not evidence for the existence of santa Claus).
You assert that
“Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.”
Your assertion is so wrong as to be risible. Mann’s “methodology” is probably the most discredited piece of junk in the entire history of science.
Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ) and indicate that the report of climate variability in the SAR was correct. In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting.
Importantly, McIntyre & McKitrick deduced that when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.
The controversy was such that the US Congress established an Expert Committee to assess the matter. The resulting ‘Wegman Report’ can be read at
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
It determined that the criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick are correct.
And its Conclusion 7 says;
“7. Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium
cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our
background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low
frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that
was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses,
thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the
methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The
paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims
essentially unverifiable.”
Several other assessments have shown the same. A recent one of note by McShane and Wyner titled ‘A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?’
was discussed at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
It Abstract says;
“We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.”
And you conclude your demonsration that you know my accurate statement is correct by saying to me;
”There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.”
My “beliefs” have nothing to do with this matter which only considers the evidence. However, I wonder what “IPCC conclusions” you are thinking about?
Importantly, your comments demonstrate that your beliefs outweigh any consideration of evidence that you could make. So, I understand why you have chosen to run away from consideration of the evidence.
Richard
It’s well known by Bob Carter that the sun has cycles and is largely responsible for our climate phases:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg
But what really worries me is the fact we have a deep ice age roughly every 100,000 years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
After viewing and understanding the implications of both images, what do you think will happen next? There’s a very good chance we’ll need thicker jumpers..
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:06 am
Andrew30, yeah riiight, and relying on the null hypothesis, Gem(Germ) Theory cannot be proven either.
I see the point of your attempted analogy, but the fact remains that the Germ theory is not proven under Koch’s criteria, it requires the absence or reduced immune response, or other mitigating agents, such as a tapeworm for Cholera, (Beauchamp was lucky he had one when he swallowed Pasteur’s Cholera solution!) plus means of entry, such as compromised skin.
So if CO2 is the Germ, (which I don’t admit, see Miskolsci) then it too requires an amplifier, acknowledged by the IPCC,to cause warming enough to be alarmed about. The ‘forcing ‘ agents, positive feedback, are shown to be negative or neutral, so we are ‘ just having a mild fever’ or more likely, the Germ is not harmful.
“Andrew W says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.”
How are they only 10% certain that natural variability isn’t to blame? I’m 100% certain Hansen’s cooking the books:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1998uschanges5.gif
I’m also 100% certain that current climatic changes are NOT unprecedented in either rate or magnitude:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
You likewise, will not change your beliefs despite the compelling evidence. Prove us wrong and that CO2 really is to blame.
Richard, the McShane and Wyner paper you site has a graph clearly showing the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented (a change in temperature far more rapid that any other change in temperature over the preceding 1000 years.
The paper also states: “our model gives a 80% chance that [the last decade] was the warmest in the past thousand years”.
Richard said: “Importantly, McIntyre & McKitrick deduced that when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.”
More importantly, other methodologies that don’t produce ‘hockey stick’ shape when applied to random data, when applied to the Mann et al data still produce the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
The claim that the ‘hockey stick’ shape of Mann’s reconstruction was a result of the methodology is a lie.
Hi Julian, if I recall correctly, you and I debated these issues years ago on the NZ CSC web site before they closed comments.
If the present warming trend continued at the rate seen over the last 40 years for the rest of the century I’d agree, that’s not catastrophic in my book.
Will the tipping points that many climate scientists fear eventuate, and if they do, will the resulting changes be catastrophic? I don’t know, because, unlike Mr Courtney, I don’t claim to be all knowing in these matters.
I guess another analogy could be drawn with germ caused diseases, even minor infections should be treated seriously because there’s always the danger that they could turn into something far worse.
“the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.”
This is all rather encouraging for the 5th IPCC report, as it will finally begin to account for the wider macro inputs, as well as having the horsepower and sophistication to model their impacts on a micro scale.
Given that much of the ideological activism surrounding climate change has been discredited there is an excellent chance that regardless of which way the 5th report leans the policy response that results will be more effective and efficient than that which has gone before.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/at-the-gates-of-climate-hell-%E2%80%93-the-fifth-ipcc-report-will-hold-the-answers/
Andrew W:
At September 27, 2010 at 2:33 am you wrongly assert:
“Richard, the McShane and Wyner paper you site has a graph clearly showing the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented (a change in temperature far more rapid that any other change in temperature over the preceding 1000 years.”
No! Read the paper.
It was an assessment published in a leading journal on statistics by expert statisticians that assessed Mann’s methodology by using Mann’s data then conducting an analysis using a conventional statistical technique. The assessment showed that the conventional technique provided an indication of global temperature 1,000 years ago that is similar to the global temperature now.
Furthermore, the recent rate of change being higher than in the reconstructions is a result of the recent data (i.e. since 1960) being indicated by temperature measurements while the reconstructions are from proxy indications: i.e. an ‘apples and elephants’ comparison. Indeed, the proxy indications from Mann’s methodology are that global temperature FELL after 1960 while the temperature measurements show the high rate of temperature increase. Please google “divergence problem” and “hide the decline” for information on this.
But, as you say, the paper also states:
“our model gives a 80% chance that [the last decade] was the warmest in the past thousand years”.
In other words, the paper reports that the error range on the determined historical temperatures make the indications from the proxies completely worthless.
I repeat, please read a paper before you selectively quote from it.
And your assertion saying;
“The claim that the ‘hockey stick’ shape of Mann’s reconstruction was a result of the methodology is a lie”
is a blatant falsehood as the references I provided clearly demonstrate. Please read them.
The Mann methodology is a ‘dead horse’ and I fail to understand why you – and some other AGW believers – keep flogging it. You would be well advised to copy the IPCC and to forget it (as the IPCC has done ).
Richard
Richard, I read the Wegman report when it came out.
The trick is hidden in this sentence “when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.”
What Wegman never covered, and the testing of which was never in his report, was that the hockey stick shape never changed when statistical methods that met his approval were applied to Mann’s data.
If you doubt that, find me the graph in Wegman’s report using the same data that doesn’t have the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
McShane and Wyner claim the proxy data was no better than random noise, but that evidently is not supported by the maths in their own paper.
The maths produced the graph in the McShane and Wyner paper, if the proxy data was no better than random noise, why the tidy graph?
Just about everyone involved in the AGW debate has some ideological ax to grind, so I’ve given up on scientifically unsupported opinions, and I don’t think that of the statements in their paper are supported by their results, similarly I’m not leaping to the defence of Hansens opinions about the rate of future climate change accelerating due to tipping points, all he gets is a “possibly”.
Andrew W:
You assert:
“McShane and Wyner claim the proxy data was no better than random noise, but that evidently is not supported by the maths in their own paper.”
Say what!?
Please explain your extraordinary assertion.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
September 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
vigilantfish:
At September 26, 2010 at 10:04 am you ask me:
“Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week?
Richard:
If I do go I will report. I don’t live as far away as you, but thanks to Toronto’s appalling transit system it takes two hours from where I live to get there, and I am right up against a deadline wall – I will go if a miracle happens with my writing.
16 years ago a student of mine completed her PhD examining Kondratief’s (the long waves of economic cycles). Using the data from Cornish tin mines (from the 10th Century), battle fatalities and the manorial figures for the production of bread (from the 14th Century) we hoped to detect the long wave in these economic proxies. No luck. However, fourier analysis supported by other techniques revealed a medium strength cycle of c. 11.4 years particularly in the tin mining data. Downloading solar cycle data from Greenwich demonstrated that the mining of tin was significantly influenced by the sun. The logic of course is that people turned to the mines when agricultural yields were low and vice-versa. The idea that the effect of the solar short cycle on climate is minimal as claimed in the NS does not appear to be sustained by the relevant evidence of economic activity.
Andrew W: Been there, done that. In fact, up until a few years ago, I assumed it was true. But I found, upon examining the “evidence” for CAGW/CC/CD that it simply doesn’t hold up to reality. It would have been far, far easier, and more convenient for me to have simply continued Believing, but above all else, I’m a realist, and a big believer in truth-telling. Apparently, you are not. So be it. Different strokes.
The rigors of scientific discipline demand ,inter alia,that a hypothesis or theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Einstein correctly asserted that one fact alone would prove him wrong.It does not take hundreds or even thousands of scientists.Predictions based on the theory are tested against the facts.If the predictions are not borne out,the theory is discarded.The AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.End of story.BTW,the burden of proof lies on the alarmists.Skeptics do not have to prove,disprove or explain anything.