Climate science solar shock and awe

Andrew30, yeah riiight, and relying on the null hypothesis, Gem Theory cannot be proven either.

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)

David J. Ameling says: September 24, 2010 at 10:25 pm

What about solar activity’s ability to bring done power grids and Cause northern lights?

Missing point #4, Solar Wind effects (cannot yet say EU, shhhh)
NS article:

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.

Double Strawman.
(1) Climate CAGW 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:

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 undo the unscientific “established” idea that temperatures “will continue to rise…” and thus undo prepare to morph IPCC’s whole raison d’etre

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/

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.

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?

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.”

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.