THE DEMISE OF SUNSPOTS—DEEP COOLING AHEAD?
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,
“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.
What happened the last time sunspots disappeared?
Abundant physical evidence from the geologic past provides a record of former periods of global cooling. Geologic records provide clear evidence of past global cooling so we can use them to project global climate into the future—the past is the key to the future. So what can we learn from past sunspot history and climate change?
Galileo’s perfection of the telescope in 1609 allowed scientists to see sunspots for the first time. From 1610 A.D. to 1645 A.D., very few sunspots were seen, despite the fact that many scientists with telescopes were looking for them, and from 1645 to 1700 AD sunspots virtually disappeared from the sun (Fig. 1). During this interval of greatly reduced sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum, global climates turned bitterly cold (the Little Ice Age), demonstrating a clear correspondence between sunspots and cool climate. After 1700 A.D., the number of observed sunspots increased sharply from nearly zero to more than 50 (Fig. 1) and the global climate warmed.
The Maunder Minimum was not the beginning of The Little Ice Age—it actually began about 1300 AD—but it marked perhaps the bitterest part of the cooling. Temperatures dropped ~4º C (~7 º F) in ~20 years in mid-to high latitudes. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as their main food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Winters in Europe were bitterly cold, and summers were rainy and too cool for growing cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. About a third of the population of Europe perished.
Glaciers all over the world advanced and pack ice extended southward in the North Atlantic. Glaciers in the Alps advanced and overran farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
So what can we learn from the Maunder? Perhaps most important is that the Earth’s climate is related to sunspots. The cause of this relationship is not understood, but it definitely exists. The second thing is that cooling of the climate during sunspot minima imposes great suffering on humans—global cooling is much more damaging than global warming.
Global cooling during other sunspot minima
The global cooling that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was neither the first nor the only such event. The Maunder was preceded by the Sporer Minimum (~1410–1540 A.D.) and the Wolf Minimum (~1290–1320 A.D.) and succeeded by the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830), the unnamed 1880–1915 minima, and the unnamed 1945–1977 Minima (Fig. 2). Each of these periods is characterized by low numbers of sunspots, cooler global climates, and changes in the rate of production of 14C and 10Be in the upper atmosphere. As shown in Fig. 2, each minimum was a time of global cooling, recorded in the advance of alpine glaciers.
The same relationship between sunspots and temperature is also seen between sunspot numbers and temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica (Fig. 3). Each of the four minima in sunspot numbers seen in Fig. 3 also occurs in Fig. 2. All of them correspond to advances of alpine glaciers during each of the cool periods.
Figure 4 shows the same pattern between solar variation and temperature. Temperatures were cooler during each solar minima.
What can we learn from this historic data? Clearly, a strong correlation exists between solar variation and temperature. Although this correlation is too robust to be merely coincidental, exactly how solar variation are translated into climatic changes on Earth is not clear. For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007) has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate. Svensmark recognized the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Are we headed for another Little Ice Age?
In 1999, the year after the high temperatures of the 1998 El Nino, I became convinced that geologic data of recurring climatic cycles (ice core isotopes, glacial advances and retreats, and sun spot minima) showed conclusively that we were headed for several decades of global cooling and presented a paper to that effect (Fig. 5). The evidence for this conclusion was presented in a series of papers from 2000 to 2011 (The data are available in several GSA papers, my website, a 2010 paper, and in a paper scheduled to be published in Sept 2011). The evidence consisted of temperature data from isotope analyses in the Greenland ice cores, the past history of the PDO, alpine glacial fluctuations, and the abrupt Pacific SST flips from cool to warm in 1977 and from warm to cool in 1999. Projection of the PDO to 2040 forms an important part of this cooling prediction.
Figure 5. Projected temperature changes to 2040 AD. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton curve off the graph.
So far, my cooling prediction seems to be coming to pass, with no global warming above the 1998 temperatures and a gradually deepening cooling since then. However, until now, I have suggested that it was too early to tell which of these possible cooling scenarios were most likely. If we are indeed headed toward a disappearance of sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum during the Little Ice Age then perhaps my most dire prediction may come to pass. As I have said many times over the past 10 years, time will tell whether my prediction is correct or not. The announcement that sun spots may disappear totally for several decades is very disturbing because it could mean that we are headed for another Little Ice Age during a time when world population is predicted to increase by 50% with sharply increasing demands for energy, food production, and other human needs. Hardest hit will be poor countries that already have low food production, but everyone would feel the effect of such cooling. The clock is ticking. Time will tell!
References
D’Aleo, J., Easterbrook, D.J., 2010. Multidecadal tendencies in Enso and global temperatures related to multidecadal oscillations: Energy & Environment, vol. 21 (5), p. 436–460.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2000, Cyclical oscillations of Mt. Baker glaciers in response to climatic changes and their correlation with periodic oceanographic changes in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 32, p.17.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2001, The next 25 years; global warming or global cooling? Geologic and oceanographic evidence for cyclical climatic oscillations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 33, p.253.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of late Pleistocene, abrupt, global, climate changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 37, p.41.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, Causes of abrupt global climate changes and global warming; predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p. 77.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2006, The cause of global warming and predictions for the coming century: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 38, p.235-236.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global warming and climate changes in the coming century: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 507.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Late Pleistocene and Holocene glacial fluctuations; implications for the cause of abrupt global climate changes: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.594
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Younger Dryas to Little Ice Age glacier fluctuations in the Fraser Lowland and on Mt. Baker, Washington: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p.11.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2007, Historic Mt. Baker glacier fluctuations—geologic evidence of the cause of global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 39, p. 13.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Solar influence on recurring global, decadal, climate cycles recorded by glacial fluctuations, ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic measurements over the past millennium: Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Implications of glacial fluctuations, PDO, NAO, and sun spot cycles for global climate in the coming decades: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 40, p. 428.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2008, Correlation of climatic and solar variations over the past 500 years and predicting global climate changes from recurring climate cycles: Abstracts of 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo, Norway.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2009, The role of the oceans and the Sun in late Pleistocene and historic glacial and climatic fluctuations: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, vol. 41, p. 33.
Eddy, J.A., 1976, The Maunder Minimum: Science, vol. 192, p. 1189–1202.
Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H., 1997, The Role of the sun in climate change: Oxford University, 279 p.
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007, The chilling stars: A new theory of climate change: Icon Books, Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd, 246 p.
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., 1997, Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverda missing link in solar–climate relationships: Journal of Atmospheric and SolareTerrestrial Physics, vol. 59, p. 1125–1132.
Svensmark, H., Pedersen, J.O., Marsh, N.D., Enghoff, M.B., and Uggerhøj, U.I., 2007, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions: Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463, p. 385–396.
Usoskin, I.G., Mursula, K., Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M., and Alanko, K., 2004, Reconstruction of solar activity for the last millenium using 10Be data: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 413, p. 745–751.
=================================================================
UPDATE: Bob Tisdale has posted a rebuttal. Here is what he has to say via email.
Hi Anthony: The following is a link to my notes on the Easterbrook post:
We should have progressed beyond using outdated TSI datasets, misrepresenting the PDO, and creating bogus global temperature graphs in our arguments against AGW.
I’ve advised Easterbrook, and we’ll see what he has to say – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@phlogiston
OK, here’s the problem with your data, which also shows neatly why the MWP does not appear strongly in the hemisphere-wide reconstructions:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
shows an MWP from 1200 to 1600
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_laihalampi.php
says; “200-year period stretching from AD 1000 to 1200 — which we will designate the Medieval Warm Period — was approximately 0.8°C warmer”
So, I will grant you, you have some non-anecdotal evidence, but it still doesn’t show a consistent, global MWP, as it is not even talking about the same period.
You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.
John
John B says:
June 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Neither Wikipedia nor Charles Lamb were around to witness the warmer times of the MWP, nor were they around during the LIA period. Not even the RWP or the Dark Ages.
The people who lived in those time were, and some of them actually wrote down what was going on.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 1:53 am
http://i53.tinypic.com/10gjr5s.jpg
Have you noticed throughout this data a cumulative delay between the ENSO and global temperatures by about a decade later?
For example, for each batch of frequent El Nino’s or frequent La Nina’s/neutral ENSO there is a decade delay in the peak or trough in global temperatures from this period. If this continues global temperatures should have already reached there peak recently and the next batch of frequent La Nina’s should drive global temperatures down for the next 25/30 years if this repeats.
Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mann-graph.jpg?w=762&h=708
These do show a MWP and LIA.
John B says: June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
[…]
You have to look at the big picture, and you have to do it without preconceptions. (I just can’t wait for the responses to that statement). You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges. Which is exactly what the peer-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.
Wrong. The recent paleoclimate reconstructions ignore most everything I have read over the past 50 years. They ignore all previous work, history, geology and invent some obscure, barely detectible effect, and claim impending disaster from a minor natural variation in temperature. Oh and that magical CO2, it is about 16% of ‘normal’ for this planet. It has such a big effect on the flora because they are starved for the levels they evolved in. You need to take off your peer-reviewed fantasy glasses.
Since Bob and Leif post with their full, real names, lead public lives, and publish frequently… no.
Matt G said:
These do show a MWP and LIA.”
Yes, indeed they do, and I accept that, but…
1. Only one proxy shows MWP over the claimed range of 1000-1200 (EIV with uncertanties)
2. Even that one does not show the MWP as being as warm as present day
3. The LIA is not as debatable as the MWP and does indeed appear, but again it is not that strong (compare, say, 1600 with 500 or 200) . You can’t have it all ways, either the MWP was a positive blip, the LIA was a negative blip, or they were both rather small blips.
I am glad you are using a peer-reviewed source. It say what it says, though I am sure others will find ways to dispute it, e.g. rbateman , “Neither Wikipedia nor Charles Lamb were around to witness the warmer times of the MWP” he would clearly rather go with anecdotes. This, of course, means he also discounts all of phlogiston’s lake sediment data, as he wasn’t there either.
If we accept that chart, as you appear to, we can then start to talk about whether late 20th century warming is attributable to “natural variability”…
Moderate Republican said:
“John B – thank you for the citation. I hope that wasn’t too strenuous, but we know how taxing Ctrl V can be.
I didn’t see anything there about a plan to focus on cooking (get it – urban heat – oh man that is funny) the site locations to bias the data. Maybe I just missed it.”
You’re welcome Mod Rep. But you didn’t miss anything. You see, it’s a secretplan.
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“Which is exactly what the
peerpal-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”Fixed that for ya.
HenryP said:
“What I am finding now that if you look at the part of my table where I report the means (average temps), all the stations in the SH (the first five stations) show virtually no warming. The actual “global” warming appears to be mainly happening in the NH.
Do you perhaps have an expanation for that? Any idea?”
Congratulations, Henry. You have replicated one of the testable predictions of AGW, that warming will be more pronounced in the NH than the SH due to the greater land mass in the NH.
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Matt G says: “Have you noticed throughout this data a cumulative delay between the ENSO and global temperatures by about a decade later?”
Please find a comparison graph of global temperatures vs scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies and mark it up, throw some notes on it.
Henry@Stephen Fisher Wilde
this article was interesting!
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
I think you adequately explained how the earth can be 15 degrees C warmer without resorting to any green house gas effect. However, just where you jump to the CO2, I lost you a bit (from page 5 to 6) even though I think I know what you mean. Perhaps you should explain more fully the differences in concentration and physical properties between CO2 and water –
i.e. that the CO2 cannot condense and vaporize like water causing any buffering effect like the one you propose.
Your theory does explain to me why I don’t see anything of ‘modern” warming happening in the SH. There is very little landmass in the SH and therefore the buffering effect of the oceans on temperature swings becomes much more pronounced then in the NH.
Henry@John B
John B you can also take note of this: there is virtually no modern warming taking place in the SH.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
(see: in the Means portion of the table first 5 stations compared to the rest in the table.)
So, that is also exactly why you would not have seen any evidence of a of a MWP or RWP in the SH. It will not show because it will not happen. There is just too little landmass in the SH. It is exactly that theory for the buffering effect of the interaction between oceans and atmoshpere that Stephen is proposing that keeps the temps. completely constant. In fact during the winter months in Pretoria, (that is now), I saw maxima rising by as much as 0.1 degree C per annum over the past 35 years. (3.5 degrees in total). Yet the means i.e. that is the average temp., stayed exactly the same.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
John B says
Congratulations, Henry. You have replicated one of the testable predictions of AGW, that warming will be more pronounced in the NH than the SH due to the greater land mass in the NH.
John B: I explained this before.
The ratio of the observed warming is maxima: means: minima := 4:2:1
So it is the maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temperature.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
If it had been the other way around, i.e entrapment of heat due to increased GHG’s, namely the minima (that happened during the night) pushing up the average temps., I would have agreed with you that the warming was not natural but man made.
Dave Springer says:
June 19, 2011 at 5:28 am
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
“Which is exactly what the peerpal-reviewed paleoclimate reconstructions have done.”
Fixed that for ya.”
Thanks for that Dave, but I’ll bet you are happy to quote them whenever they produce a cherry you like the look of 😉
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:31 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.
If not the same, perhaps the same mold.
Both attempting to change the recognized method. (SSN/PDO)
Both saying the Sun/Ocean has little affect on the World Temps.
Both elusive when cornered with hard evidence.
Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
HenryP says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:14 am
John B: I explained this before.
The ratio of the observed warming is maxima: means: minima := 4:2:1
So it is the maxima (that happened during the day) that pushed up the average temperature.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
If it had been the other way around, i.e entrapment of heat due to increased GHG’s, namely the minima (that happened during the night) pushing up the average temps., I would have agreed with you that the warming was not natural but man made.
Yes, AGW also predicts more warming at night. Other studies have found that to be the case. Not sure why you haven’t seen that, but I do note that you are only looking at 12 stations.
Take a look here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3-figure-1.html
To summarise it:
cold nights decreasing, cold days also decreasing but not so much
hot nights increasing, hot days also increasing but not so much
I realise this is looking at number of anomalous days, rather than actual temps, but I assume it correlates. If you, or anyone else, doesn’t agree, you are free to look deeper.
The original research was done by Alexander (2006)
Disclaimer: I do not present this as FACT, or claim it PROVES anything, as that is not the way science works
John b says
Yes, AGW also predicts more warming at night
Also?
And then refer me to the IPCC?
Sorry, John, but after this here:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
and a couple of other issues that I encountered, during the course of my investigations, after deciding to check out Al Gore’s story,
I have become very sceptical of any information coming from anywhere where people’s industries, jobs, grants, etc are totally dependent on man made global warming (now: climate change) being true.
I will certainly visit more stations. It is a work in progress. I have only just now discovered that the number of stations SH and NH must be equal to get the right balance on my table.
But I will stay as I am: an independant hobbyist.
Anyways, John, how is the weather in your area? Don’t you feel like helping me to get more stations on my table?
I do feel sorry for all of you. I cannot help you.
The reading in church today was from Psalm 29, note verse 3. I think I did figure out today why there is no warming in the SH.
HenryP said (in his link): “In the light of the above mentioned, I feel justified in removing these results from Gibraltar from my pool table. I will also do a re-think on the choice of my weather stations. I wonder if it is wise to carry on assessing weather stations from countries whose governments and institutes may have a direct benefit (jobs, grants, industry, etc) if man-made global warming were true.”
So that would be most of them, then. Come on, if you believe everyone is lying, you may as well just give up.
Seriously though: Yes there are zealots in the AGW camp, yes there are those who would exaggerate to get a point across, yes there are even those who would lie to make money (e.g. vendors of home wind turbines). But… Have you ever met a real scientist? Do you know what they get paid? Do you know how much the average climate scientists stands to make if AGW is or is not true? Answer: it ain’t much! I have a chemistry degree and a Master’s in bioinformatics, but I have spent my entire career in the commercial software industry because SCIENTISTS DON’T MAKE ANY MONEY. That’s not why they do it. And I can tell you, if a scientist had some real data or a plausible theory against AGW, he or she would be screaming it from the rooftops (OK, actually through a peer-reviewed journal). A Nobel prize would beckon (actually that is one way to make money, but there are far more lottery winners than Nobel prize winners). At the science level, there is no conspiracy.
Well, UK is out with me. Australia now as well. (Somebody at Sceptical Science noticed a small difference between one of my data and that now reported by BOM, so now I know that somebody is or has been fiddling with the data there as well). I think USA is dicy as well, I am not yet sure. If anyone has tinker free data for me there, I will be very happy. It seems to me most of the anglo saxon countries then that I would try to avoid.. that still leaves a lot of other countries left for me.
John, I just want to know the truth. In that process of finding it I am still learning a lot of new things, like today, this theory from Stephen Wilde on how the temp. on earth is being kept constant in order for life to be able to exist at all….I also would like people like Al Gore and Hansen to publicly apologise for the mess they caused.
As far as peer review is concerned, let me enter this quote from Craig Goodrich that he made one day here at WUWT. I think it is a classic. I am sure he won’t mind if I repeat it again here for you:
“I am sick to death of their rote yapping about “peer review,” when they have perhaps irremediably corrupted the process, and when the point of science was never “peer review” per se but complete openness as to methods and data — which they have steadfastly, almost neurotically, refused to allow. I am nauseated when I hear their “oil funding” chorus, when Greenpeace and the WWF have each received more than two orders of magnitude more funding from corporations than all the free-market think tanks combined — let alone the skeptical science community.
But what makes me really sick is the realization that the $100 billion or so wasted on “climate science” — not quite yet an oxymoron, thanks only to Lindzen, Christy, our own Willis, and a small brave band of real scientists — could have bought an insecticide-impregnated mosquito net for every bed in Africa and South Asia, plus enough DDT to control mosquitoes in swamps near populated areas, with enough left over to keep NASA’s Mars program viable.
But instead of eliminating malaria and keeping mankind’s restless ambition alive, thanks to the warm-mongers we spent the money gazing at our global navel hoping to find the Global Warming Fairy, while at the same time utterly devastating millions of acres of wildlife habitat and peaceful countryside with useless industrial wind turbine phalanxes — which generate no actual power but lots of tax breaks and subsidies — in the quest for some delusional “renewable energy,” clearcutting rainforests for palm oil and fraudulent “carbon sinks,” and doubling world food prices by supporting ethanol production.
So having worked as hard as ever they can to destroy what natural environment remains in the developed world, and to murder as many as possible through starvation and disease in the undeveloped world, these wonderful people preen themselves and vaunt their moral superiority as “humanitarians” and “environmentalists.”
—
Sorry, I had to go get my barf bag.
—
I realize that WUWT, CA, and the rest of the climate realist blogosphere attempt to maintain a civilized level of objective scientific discourse, free from the diatribes that pervade warmist rhetoric. But sometimes it is necessary to vent, and my infrared iris opens up…….”
Have a good week you all!!!
John B says:
June 19, 2011 at 2:58 am
@phlogiston
OK, here’s the problem with your data, which also shows neatly why the MWP does not appear strongly in the hemisphere-wide reconstructions:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
shows an MWP from 1200 to 1600
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_laihalampi.php
says; “200-year period stretching from AD 1000 to 1200 — which we will designate the Medieval Warm Period — was approximately 0.8°C warmer”
OK 2 down, several hundred to go. But take heart – as the old Chinese saying goes “a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step”.
Reconstructing palaeo temperature is not straightforward, if you’re determined you can always find technical criticisms if you apply the standards of controlled laboratory testing. And use this as an excuse to ignore overwhelming palaeo evidence contrary to CAGW. This is the approach used by 6-day creationists to discount palaeo evidence for evolution. Praise the L-AGW_d!
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:43 am
Bob Tisdale says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:31 am
Geoff Sharp says: “Could Bob and Leif be the same person…surely not?”
My hair and beard are much longer, and Leif’s comments contain humor from time to time. I haven’t acquired that knack yet.
Not convincing…we might need to see you both in the flesh together.
…
Both dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
‘Members of the warmista club” – are you crazy? Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO? (As for Leif, thats not quite so clear…)
Phlogiston said:
“Reconstructing palaeo temperature is not straightforward, if you’re determined you can always find technical criticisms if you apply the standards of controlled laboratory testing. And use this as an excuse to ignore overwhelming palaeo evidence contrary to CAGW. This is the approach used by 6-day creationists to discount palaeo evidence for evolution. Praise the L-AGW_d!”
Sorry if my post was miseading. I agree that paleo reconstruction is difficult and would not dream of using creationist tactics to discount your work. I repeat what I said, “You need to put together all the data, in a statistically principled way, and see what emerges.” Do that, and you will be taken seriously. Provide a long list of separate data, anecdotes, charts and it will look like you have nothing coherent, even if underneath it all, you do.
I wish you well.
“Both (Bob Tisdale and Leif Svalgaard) dismissive of ideas outside of their own research.
Both members of the Warmista group.
‘Members of the warmista club” – are you crazy? Where have you been when Bob was smacking down Tamino about the PDO? (As for Leif, thats not quite so clear…)
There’s no way that either of them are part of the Warmista group. However they are both tenacious defenders of their own territory which is fine, that’s just part of the game and entirely legitimate.
Leif cannot accept a top down solar effect on the atmosphere from solar variability and as regards radiative effects he is probably right. However effects derived from atmospheric chemistry are a different matter altogether and I think he is not as open minded as he should be about that.
Bob cannot accept that there is an external solar induced forcing component affecting ENSO (and thereby PDO)over multidecadal and centennial timescales so as to allow tropospheric temperature changes such as those from MWP to LIA to date.
Personally I think they are both wrong and as soon as one does accept a dominant role for atmospheric chemistry together with a subsequent cloudiness/albedo effect on the energy input to the oceans altering ENSO and PDO characteristics then the whole thing falls into place as per my proposed new climate model.