By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD (reprinted from his blog with permission)
UPDATE (12:35 p.m. CDT 19 May 2011): revised corrections of CERES data for El Nino/La Nina effects.
While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.
I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.
If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.
BACKGROUND
The single most frequently asked question I get after I give my talks is, “Why didn’t you mention the sun?” I usually answer that I’m skeptical of the “cosmic ray gun” theory of cloud changes controlling climate. But I point out that Svensmark’s theory of natural cloud variations causing climate change is actually pretty close to what I preach — only the mechanism causing the cloud change is different.
Then, I found last year’s paper by Laken et al. which was especially interesting since it showed satellite-observed cloud changes following changes in cosmic ray activity. Even though the ISCCP satellite data they used are not exactly state of the art, the study was limited to the mid-latitudes, and the time scales involved were days rather than years, the results gave compelling quantitative evidence of a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover.
With the rapid-fire stream of publications and reports now coming out on the subject, I decided to go back and spend some time analyzing ground-based galactic cosmic ray (GCR) data to see whether there is a connection between GCR variations and variations in the global radiative energy balance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy, taken from the NASA CERES radiative budget instruments on the Terra satellite, available since March 2000.
After all, that is ultimately what we are interested in: How do various forcings affect the radiative energy budget of the Earth? The results, I must admit, are enough for me to now place at least one foot solidly in the cosmic ray theory camp.
THE DATA
The nice thing about using CERES Earth radiative budget data is that we can get a quantitative estimate in Watts per sq. meter for the radiative forcing due to cosmic ray changes. This is the language the climate modelers speak, since these radiative forcings (externally imposed global energy imbalances) can be used to help calculate global temperature changes in the ocean & atmosphere based upon simple energy conservation. They can then also be compared to the estimates of forcing from increasing carbon dioxide, currently the most fashionable cause of climate change.
From the global radiative budget measurements we also get to see if there is a change in high clouds (inferred from the outgoing infrared measurements) as well as low clouds (inferred from reflected shortwave [visible sunlight] measurements) associated with cosmic ray activity.
I will use only the ground-based cosmic ray data from Moscow, since it is the first station I found which includes a complete monthly archive for the same period we have global radiative energy budget data from CERES (March 2000 through June 2010). I’m sure there are other stations, too…all of this is preliminary anyway. Me sifting through the myriad solar-terrestrial datasets is just as confusing to me as most of you sifting through the various climate datasets that I’m reasonably comfortable with.
THE RESULTS
The following plot (black curve) shows the monthly GCR data from Moscow for this period, as well as a detrended version with 1-2-1 averaging (red curve) to match the smoothing I will use in the CERES measurements to reduce noise.
Detrending the data isolates the month-to-month and year-to-year variability as the signal to match, since trends (or a lack of trends) in the global radiative budget data can be caused by a combination of many things. (Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.)
The monthly cosmic ray data at Moscow will be compared to global monthly anomalies the NASA Terra satellite CERES (SSF 2.5 dataset) radiative flux data,
which shows the variations in global average reflected sunlight (SW), emitted infrared (LW), and Net (which is the estimated imbalances in total absorbed energy by the climate system, after adjustment for variations in total solar irradiance, TSI). Note I have plotted the variations in the negative of Net, which is approximately equal to variations in (LW+SW)
Then, since the primary source of variability in the CERES data is associated with El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, I subtracted out an estimate of the average ENSO influence using running regressions between running 5-month averages of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and the CERES fluxes. I used the MEI index along with those regression coefficients in each month to correct the CERES fluxes 4 months later, since that time lag had the strongest correlation.
Finally, I performed regressions at various leads and lags between the GCR time series and the LW, SW, and -Net radiative flux time series, the results of which are shown next.
The yearly average relationships noted in the previous plot come from this relationship in the reflected solar (SW) data,
while the -Net flux (Net is absorbed solar minus emitted infrared, corrected for the change in solar irradiance during the period) results look like this:
It is that last plot that gives us the final estimate of how a change in cosmic ray flux at Moscow is related to changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance.
SUMMARY
What the above three plots show is that for a 1,000 count increase in GCR activity as measured at Moscow (which is somewhat less than the increase between Solar Max and Solar Min), there appears to be:
(1) an increase in reflected sunlight (SW) of 0.64 Watts per sq. meter, probably mostly due to an increase in low cloud cover;
(2) virtually no change in emitted infrared (LW) of +0.02 Watts per sq. meter;
(3) a Net (reflected sunlight plus emitted infrared) effect of 0.55 Watts per sq. meter loss in radiant energy by the global climate system.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?
Assuming these signatures are anywhere close to being real, what do they mean quantitatively in terms of the potential effect of cosmic ray activity on climate?
Well, just like any other forcing, a resulting temperature change depends not only upon the size of the forcing, but also the sensitivity of the climate system to forcing. But we CAN compare the cosmic ray forcing to OTHER “known” forcings, which could have a huge influence on our understanding of the role of humans in climate change.
For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the supposed “scientific consensus” is).
First, let’s compare the cosmic ray forcing to the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) during 2000-2010. The orange curve in following plot is the change in direct solar (TSI) forcing between 2000 and 2010, which with the help of Danny Braswell’s analytical skills I backed out from the CERES Net, LW, and SW data. It is the only kind of solar forcing the IPCC (apparently) believes exists, and it is quite weak:
Also shown is the estimated cosmic ray forcing resulting from the month-to-month changes in the original Moscow cosmic ray time series, computed by multiplying those monthly changes by 0.55 Watts per sq. meter per 1,000 cosmic ray counts change.
Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.
One obvious question this begs is whether the lack of recent warming, since about 2004 for the 0-700 meter layer of the ocean, is due to the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover canceling out the warming from increasing carbon dioxide.
If the situation really was that simple (which I doubt it is), this would mean that with Solar Max rapidly approaching, warming should resume in the coming months. Of course, other natural cycles could be in play (my favorite is the Pacific Decadal oscillation), so predicting what will happen next is (in my view) more of an exercise in faith than in science.
In the bigger picture, this is just one more piece of evidence that the IPCC scientists should be investigating, one which suggests a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And, again I emphasize, the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming.
tallbloke says: May 21, 2011 at 12:46 pm
……….
10Be are some sort of a proxy for precipitations in Greenland, and not much else. Once instrument records came in 1960s onward, the existing correlation disappeared.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm
Here’s Jasper Kirby’s correlation between ice rafted debris (proxy for SST) and 10Be (proxy for galactic cosmic rays) that Leif wants to dismiss as confirmation bias.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jasper-10be-ice.jpg
Vuk:
As you can see, although there are periods in Jaspers graph where the correlation isn’t so good for quite a time, the long term correlation is excellent. So it doesn’t worry me that the modern instrumental record shows a breakdown in the link between CET and 10Be.
Try to take an overall perspective rather than being put off by short term anomalies.
Shaviv comes to similar conclusions:
Shaviv, N. J. (2005), On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A08105, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866.
Note the ratio total to luminosity alone is about 2.9, similar to Spencer’s 3.5 above.
vukcevic wrote (May 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm):
“Once instrument records came in 1960s onward, the existing correlation disappeared. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm “
No, the phase relations changed. (Are you using insufficient linear methods to assess relations? If you take a phase-aware view in the complex plane your correlations will go up and your imagined lags [& any notions of variable lags] will vanish.)
There are accepted simple reasons for such changes (what Tomas Milanovic calls “spatiotemporal chaos” at Dr. Judith Curry’s blog Climate Etc.)
Tangible example:
NPI temporarily reversed its interannual phase relations with AO & NAO in the late 1980s. Something similar happened around 1970.
See here for a “simplified layman’s view”:
1902-1954: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/vaughn_npp_image6.png
1954-2006: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/vaughn_npp_image7.png
On a multiscale complex correlation color-contour plot based on empirical wavelet embeddings, ~’70 & ~late ’80s show up as yellow (fire) on a blue (ice) background, objectively indicating a reversal in phase relations (based on RAW data, since the algorithm doesn’t have the data visualization & perception issues some human minds have with raw data).
Dr. Svalgaard, I have respected your scientific work for years, and recommended your work to others. I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds. Especially if you have anything debunking Dr. Kirkby’s past papers.
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby. You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Thus cycle 5 was about the median size (out of 23 measured, not one of the smallest so that is a subtle deceit)
1 May 1755 Jun 1761 Aug 1766 6,8 90,4 73 62 135
2 Aug 1766 Oct 1769 Jun 1775 9,6 125,3 38 68 106
3 Jun 1775 May 1778 May 1784 7,0 161,8 35 72 107
4 May 1784 Nov 1787 Jun 1798 9,1 143,4 42 127 169
5 Jun 1798 Dec 1804 Jul 1810 2,8 52,5 78 67 145
6 Jul 1810 Mar 1816 Apr 1823 0,0 50,8 68 85 153
7 Apr 1823 Jun 1829 Aug 1833 0,1 71,5 74 50 124
8 Aug 1833 Feb 1837 Jul 1843 7,4 152,8 42 77 119
9 Jul 1843 Nov 1847 Jan 1856 10,7 131,3 52 98 150
10 Jan 1856 Jul 1860 Apr 1867 3,3 98,5 54 81 135
11 Apr 1867 Jul 1870 Dec 1878 4,3 144,8 39 101 140
12 Dec 1878 Jan 1884 Feb 1890 2,0 78,1 61 73 134
13 Feb 1890 Aug 1893 Sep 1901 4,0 89,5 42 97 139
14 Sep 1901 Oct 1905 Jun 1913 2,8 63,9 49 92 141
15 Jun 1913 Aug 1917 Apr 1923 1,1 112,1 50 68 118
16 Apr 1923 Jun 1928 Sep 1933 5,6 82,0 62 63 125
17 Sep 1933 May 1937 Apr 1944 2,9 119,8 44 83 127
18 Apr 1944 Jul 1947 Apr 1954 6,5 161,2 39 81 120
19 Apr 1954 Nov 1957 Aug 1964 3,2 208,4 43 81 124
20 Aug 1964 Feb 1969 Mar 1976 8,5 111,6 54 85 139
21 Mar 1976 Nov 1979 Sep 1986 12,4 167,1 44 82 126
22 Sep 1986 Oct 1989 May 1996 12,8 162,1 37 79 116
23 May 1996 Jun 2000 Dec 2008 7,9 125,6 49 102 151
24 Dec 2008 – – 1,7
Only cycle 6 was a tiny bit smaller….
However cycles 4 and 5 were larger than cycles 1,2 and 3 which appears to have been enough to speed up the recovery from the LIA for a while.
see above table.
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Your graph doesn’t show any red wiggles bigger than green wiggles.
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-wiggle.png for one
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds. Especially if you have anything debunking Dr. Kirkby’s past papers.
Solar activity [as measured by the sun’s magnetic field in the heliosphere, which most people think controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system] in the past 50 years has not been markedly higher than 150-years ago, e.g. Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf The climate has been rather different though. This is to me a simple refutation that the GCR flux cannot be a major player in the climate debate.
You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?
The above point stands regardless of what they publish. If there are anybody to mock it are the wild-eyed ‘enthusiasts’ that have here tried to defend the link even while disagreeing amongst themselves.
tallbloke wrote (May 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm):
“Thanks Paul. Have you demonstrated that graphically?”
Not labeled as such, but see the links I provided above (on SCL’ etc.)
Current investigations:
1) Role of north-south continental-maritime terrestrial asymmetry & decadally-varying semi-annual amplitude in multidecadal terrestrial oscillations (in the context of synchronized interannual terrestrial oscillations with spatiotemporally variable phase relations, which throw off linear methods).
2) Rate of change of solar rotation (as perceived from Earth).
Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm
This is a moot point since assumptions underpinning linear calibration are patently untenable.
Those were Spencer’s and you have to demonstrate that in this particular instance they are patently untenable. They are not ALWAYS untenable; many, if not most, times they are quite adequate.
tallbloke says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Your graph doesn’t show any red wiggles bigger than green wiggles.
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-compare.png
Several, in fact, here are some:
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-2000-2011-wiggle.png
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I’d love to read your peer-reviewed publications regarding the relationship (or lack of it) between charged particles and clouds.
In http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf we demonstrate [see e.g. Figure 10] that solar activity [as measured by the heliospheric magnetic field that most people agree control the flux of GCRs] the past 50 years was not markedly different from what it was 150 years earlier. This conclusion was once controversial, but no longer: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L . The climate 150 years ago was not similar to today’s, showing that the GCR intensity is not a major player.
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby.
Not at all, they are just reporting on the fact that ions cause clouds, something Wilson got the Nobel Prize for in 1927. My point above stands regardless of what they publish.
You’re mocking them in advance of full publication.
If there are someone to mock it is the wild-eyed enthusiasts here that can’t even agree among themselves, and ignore the evidence [see point above] before them.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Current investigations:
1) Role of north-south continental-maritime terrestrial asymmetry & decadally-varying semi-annual amplitude in multidecadal terrestrial oscillations (in the context of synchronized interannual terrestrial oscillations with spatiotemporally variable phase relations, which throw off linear methods).
===================
Hi Paul….would you mind please translating that one for me? Not being sarcastic…I am serious.
Many thanks,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
David Corcoran says:
May 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The reputations of every researcher associated with the CERN CLOUD project is on the line, Leif, not just Dr. Kirkby. You’re mocking them in advance of full publication. Doesn’t that weaken your position?
============================
It certainly does.
Especially in light of the fact that the published response [TWICE now] is some sort of red herring, a real live royal bloody subject-changer about WHOM just to mock:
You know, those ‘wild-eyed “enthusiasts” who don’t even agree amongst themselves.’
Hmmm….I thought disagreement [and sometimes heated], was the essence of scientific induction?
Would the mocker rather have a bunch of bland ‘yes men’ nodding and blindly agreeing on everything??
Regardless, such ‘mocking’…is obstreperous sandbox child play…and has no place in science…and is an attempt to wrest control by the APPEAL TO FORCE logical fallacy.
Whatever happened to induction??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I like to follow Nir Shaviv’s blog on the cosmic ray issue as well… very interesting data on cosmic ray influences on geological time scales.
http://www.sciencebits.com/
I remember looking through some of the cosmic ray data way back when. As I recall, there are different types of cosmic ray detectors, some that detect both lower energy and high energy cosmic rays (I think these would most commonly be neutron monitors), and some that detect predominantly only the very high energy cosmic rays (e.g. ion chambers that detect particles > 10 GeV). Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes, the lower altitude clouds being the clouds that more likely to have an overall cooling effect.
Is the Moscow cosmic ray detector an ion chamber detector or some other type of detector? What energies of particles does it detect?
I have thought about this issue. It seems to me there may be more complexity to assessing the climate effects of cosmic rays. The current theory, is that in long periods of high solar wind, high energy cosmic rays are blocked from forming cloud condensation nuclei in lower atmosphere, and therefore there are fewer / less dense low altitude clouds, resulting in warming.
However, in addition to this effect, reduced low altitude cloud cover and high albedo could have the effect of increasing the diffusion of water vapor into upper parts of the atmosphere over the oceans (because the water never condenses at low altitudes), thereby actually possibly enhancing the greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric water vapor, and increasing the greenhouse effect of high altitude cloud cover (because the water vapor is able to reach higher elevations before condensing on cloud condensation nuclei formed by the lower energy cosmic rays).
Conversely, I would think it possible that the effects of increased high energy cosmic may be two-fold:
(1) Increased low-altitude cloud coverage, resulting in cooling.
(2) Decreased high-altitude cloud coverage and decreased overall atmospheric water vapor, resulting in cooling.
I am curious if anyone has been able to compare long term changes in high energy cosmic ray flux with long term changes in high altitude cloud cover and / or water vapor. Is there an inverse relationship, opposite to the effect of high energy cosmic rays on low altitude cloud coverage?
savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Hmmm….I thought disagreement [and sometimes heated], was the essence of scientific induction?
Induction? Scientific disagreements when well founded are the lifeblood of progress, but that is not what is displayed here.
My ‘position’ can only be strengthened or weakened by data, not by opinion. Corcoran is the one that brought down the discussion to the plane of mocking. You seem to be comfortable down there. But nobody is mocking the CERN people, and their reputation is not on the line, because all they are talking about is the almost century-old knowledge that ions can create clouds. Finally even if they are wrong that would not hurt their reputation. Scientists are wrong all the time. You do an experiment and let the data speak.
Julian Droms says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Is the Moscow cosmic ray detector an ion chamber detector or some other type of detector? What energies of particles does it detect?
It detect neutrons generated in the atmosphere by protons with energy larger than 2.42 GeV. About neutron monitors: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//listen/main.html
Julian Droms says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Shaviv says it should be only these high energy > 10 GeV particles that have the energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere while still being able to seed clouds at those altitudes
At such high energies, the solar modulation of GCRs is actually very small. Look at the lower right-hand curves on Figure 1 of http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/bibliography/ICRC2005/usa-wiedenbeck-M-abs3-sh34-poster.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:22 pm
savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Induction? Scientific disagreements when well founded are the lifeblood of progress, but that is not what is displayed here.
=======================
Using your ‘against the man’ and also [continued] ‘appeal to force’ techniques in the following paragraph following your quote above…
…I would concur that your part of the the ‘disagreement’ is not a ‘scientific disagreement when well founded in the lifeblood of progress’.
It is not a scientific disagreement at all. It is an emotional one.
Meanwhile….Svensmark and others like him sail along, a little less agitated.
Clouds have a cooling effect. Ahhhh…..that feels good. Enjoy it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:11 pm
It is not a scientific disagreement at all. It is an emotional one.
You certainly sound very emotional about it.
Ahhhh…..that feels good. Enjoy it.
Some more emotion…
There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
This is science, your denial of this is emotion.
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/cosmos/solarwind/Sunspot%20Cycles%20&%20Human%20History.pdf
There seems to be some discrepancy between Leif’s report of the relative sizes of individual sunspot cycles and other sources.
Leif, I’d like to know from you…please
It appears from my own statistical analyses that it is the increasing maximum temperature that drove up the mean temperature on earth. (over the past 35 years)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?
Note that in the above link I am referring only to the sunspot cycle chart. I do not go along with all the interpretations set out in the narrative.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:26 pm
There are three strikes against the cosmic ray theory [which, BTW, did not originate with Svensmark].
1) the sun’s magnetic field that controls the amount of cosmic rays arriving at Earth is the same now as 150 years ago. Climate is not.
Very deceptive. The sun’s activity has suddenly dropped in the last few years from very high to very low levels. The implied assumption that climate should immediately follow suit if the sun is the main driver is part of the climate lie endlessly repeated by co2 driven theorists.
2) the amount of nucleation derived from GCRs is two orders of magnitude too small to have any affect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3609820P
From the abstract:
“In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
Aerosol microphysics is an area of knowledge being developed further by the people whose theory you are trying to demolish among others. To pretend that it is already sufficiently well understood to be used as a disproof of the Svensmark effect on the basis of a GCM and inadequate aerosol microphysics theory is laughable.
3) the cosmic ray intensity has varied the past several years much more than the solar modulation and the climate has not varied with it, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
Graybill tree rings? Blimey Leif you are getting desperate.
As Jasper Kirkby’s graph of ice rafted debris vs Be10 I linked above shows, there can be longish periods (decades) where the relationship isn’t as tight, but over thousands of years, the correlation is firm. Your dismissal of that graph as “confirmation bias” demonstrates your unbalanced, lopsided and unscientific approach to the Svensmark hypothesis and the CLOUD experiment nicely. It is a reflection of the unbalanced, lopsided and unscientific approach to the study of climate of the institution you reside at.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jasper-10be-ice.jpg
wild-eyed ‘enthusiasts’
Reactionary old goat.
Furthermore I seem to recall Leif previously telling me that the sun was as active in the 1780s as it was in the late 20th Century yet the atmospheric temperatures were not the same.
Now he says that cycle 5 peaking in 1790 was one of the smallest !!!
HenryP says:
May 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm
It appears from my own statistical analyses that it is the increasing maximum temperature that drove up the mean temperature on earth. (over the past 35 years)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So do you agree with me that global warming is due to natural causes rather than human influences?
Nice work and a fair question.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:09 am
Furthermore I seem to recall Leif previously telling me that the sun was as active in the 1780s as it was in the late 20th Century yet the atmospheric temperatures were not the same.
Stephen, it’s just more of the same old guff that the ocean will within months lose all the heat it gains from the sun. It’s the biggest lie in climatology, propagated by those who are desperate to maintain the illusion that the atmosphere is the driver of surface temperature. It’s easily disproved by observation of the lag of atmospheric temperature several months behind sea surface tempreature, but hey, theory trumps observation in this looking glass world of co2 driven anti-science.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm
All I need to do is the submit your opinion to the funding agencies and ask them to supply me with the necessary funds to build on your work, alas, I don’t think it would do me any good. Perhaps you could do that yourself.
Now back to sanity:
Sun-Oceans-ocean currents.
Yes sir.
Here are some quotes from my article, now half finished.
Deep cold ocean waters upwell in the high latitudes of North Pacific, and as surface currents moving across equatorial regions of the world oceans, absorb large amount of energy. Due to water’s high heat capacity, world oceans contain huge amount of stored latent heat. The energy is carried by the great oceans conveyor belt spanning the globe. Some of the energy stored is released into atmosphere in the North Atlantic and the Nordic Seas.
N. hemisphere’s winter temperatures show rising trend approaching 0.4C/century while summer’ of only 0.05C/century (last 300 years trends).
Obvious implication is that if the natural sources are causing the climate change, than the ‘winter effect’ is likely to be the most important one.
Dominant features of the North Hemisphere’s winter weather patterns are two sub-polar semi-permanent low pressure systems.
Aleutian Low is a semi-permanent area of low pressure most active during winter months. During the summer, it is considerably weaker becoming often almost nonexistent.
Icelandic Low is strongest during winter and early spring, when is located over Iceland and southern Greenland. In the summer months it is less intense, when the ‘Azores High’ becomes the weather driver in the North Atlantic.
Both Icelandic and Aleutian lows are at geographic latitudes ( 50 – 60 deg N) with direct effect on the air circulation in the ‘polar cell’ of the polar jet-stream, consequently having critical influence on the weather systems of the Northern Hemisphere.
Subpolar gyre circulates anticlockwise between 50° and 65°N and contains strong boundary currents, it is a critical in formation of the Icelandic low. The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current is source of the heat energy release. In combination with the Arctic cold currents it creates Labrador Sea current; this tightly governs the strength of the subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean. It is a region of intense interaction between ocean and atmosphere: the winter’s cold winds remove heat at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep sea convection reaching as far as 2500 m below the surface.
“Observations of sea surface height reveal that substantial changes have occurred during 1990’s in the mid- to high-latitude North Atlantic Ocean. TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data show that the geostrophic velocity derived from altimeter data exhibits declining subpolar gyre circulation. Combining the data from earlier satellites, we find that the subpolar circulation may have been weaker in the late 1990s than in the late 1970s and 1980s.”
Etc. etc….
CO2 and GCR are only minor players in this Nordic Saga of the natural climate change story.