Guest post by David Archibald
The most skillful climatologist the World has seen was Hubert Lamb (1913 – 1997). He can be credited with making the first prediction of the current solar minimum. This was in 1970 in a report (Weiss and Lamb) for the German Navy.
He did it by making a reconstructed record of the average frequency of southwesterly surface winds in England since 1340. Quoting Lamb “We sense a cycle or periodicity of close to 200 years in length.” and “There may be a valuable indication of the origin of this apparent 200 year recurrence tendency, in that the sharp declines of the southwesterly wind indicated in the late 1300s, 1560s, 1740s-1770s and now, in each case fell at about the end of a sequence of sunspot cycles which built up to periods of exceptionally great solar disturbance (around 1360-80, the 1570s, the 1770s, the 1950s and more recently). The frequency maxima of the southwesterly wind, and evidence of warm climate periods in Europe sustained over several decades, all bear a similar relationship to these variations of the Sun’s activity.”
Following is Figure 11.6 from Lamb’s 1988 book “Weather, Climate and Human Affairs”:
The frequency of the southwest wind at London is shown by the solar line. A tentative forecast (broken line) is made simply by moving the whole curve 200 years to the right, i.e. the forecast implied by accepting the apparent 200 year recurring oscillation shown by the series.
Successful predictions have many fathers. Lamb’s successful prediction forty years ago was the first prediction of the current minimum and reminds us that climate cycles can be relied upon to continue to the end of time.
References
Weiss, I. and Lamb, H.H. (1970) ‘Die Zunahme der Wellenhohen in jungster Ziet in den Operationsgebieten der Bundesmarine, ihre vermutliche Ursachen and ihre voraussichtliche weitere Entwicklung, Fachlich Mitteilungen, Nr. 160, Porz-Wahn, Geophysikalisher Bertungsdiesnt der Bundeswehr.
David Archibald
February 2012
Joel Shore says:
February 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Depending on your source of information, the expected rise of CO2 is 2ppm per year–or 2% per year. The former would give you a linear (not exponential) rise; the latter would be an exponential number. (Your spurious argument depends on the data used, not the methodology–I could run circles around you in mathematics if you wish to compete.)
But getting past the arugment with curve fitting (which is a ridiculous discussion and an attempted hijack of the thread), estimates show that if ALL the known fossil fuels were burned, it would increase the CO2 content to about 600 ppm, and that’s about it. After that, it would be gradually absorbed in the biosphere and the level would drop, which is unfortunate.
However, more to the point–can you prove there’s a problem with a rise (linear or exponential) in the CO2 level?
And I’ll provide an answer for you, because you’d never respond with the truth–NO, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH RISING CO2 LEVELS.
CO2 doesn’t cause significant warming, although what warming it does cause is beneficial. It greatly improves the viability of plants, which contributes to the animal portion of the biosphere, including humans! And no–a bunch of “screaming in the night” articles by scientists protecting “The Cause” (and their grant funding) is NOT sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
(Remember, the CO2 level throughout the vast majority of Earth’s history has been MUCH higher than it is today and the oceans aren’t found floating around in the atmosphere as a consequence of some horrible, catastrophic tipping point your crowd hasn’t and can’t idenify.)
Bottom Line: Your side has failed to falsify the null hypothesis regarding CO2. And as a consequence, the arguments you put up are also bogus. Sad, sad state of affairs for the CAGW meme. There’s global warming, (but only perhaps–because it doesn’t appear in data that hasn’t been squeezed until it screams), but is the warming we’ve (perhaps) detected caused by man? The vast majority has not. And is the minor warming we’ve seen catastrophic? No–unless you’re a grant seeking “climate scientist” (a very disparaging term, by the way) whose livelihood depends on crying “Wolf”!
William Astley says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm
That it would do so in a rather steady cycle confirms my long-held belief that it is/was the sun’s behavior that likely cause the onset of Ice Ages rather than the Milankovitch Cycle hypothesis, with which I have never been comfortable or convinced. My big worry is that we’re near or at the end of our current Interglacial, that we could see one of these “abrupt cooling phases” you indicate, and it could tip climate conditions that would have a catastrophic impact on Earth. The only catastrophic “tipping point” I believe in comes not from the CAGW crowd–they have nothing demonstrable–but from irrefutable geologic evidence of cyclical Glacial/Interglacial swings.
A very sobering thought.
Where does all that ‘convection’ finally dump it’s heat energy?
Can you (or we) say: “Radiated off the planet” ?
.
Joel Shore says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:49 am
“The reason the exponential model fits so well is that our emissions of CO2 have been growing approximately exponentially and the fraction of CO2 that is rapidly partitioned into the oceans and biosphere has remained about constant.”
That, again, is begging the question. The data are more or less consistent with the hypothesis, but do not rule out other possibilities.
“Some (many?) scientists believe that there will be some saturation effects eventually and these sinks will no longer be able to keep up; fortunately, we haven’t seen any sign of this yet.”
And, won’t. Our contribution is miniscule.
_Jim says:
February 20, 2012 at 10:29 am
“Can you (or we) say: “Radiated off the planet” ?”
From what altitude? By what gases? With what relative efficiency?
Pamela Gray says:
You can see it here: http://www.frontiernet.net/~jshore/CO2_concentration.pdf
RockyRoad says:
Those who say 2ppm per year are talking about the current rate of growth. They are not saying it has been 2ppm for all time because it hasn’t. The rate has been increasing over time as you can clearly see from the link to my graph of the Mauna Loa data above.
Oh brother; are you actually saying: “one way in, no way out” regarding thermal energy (received via insolation) and our planet ?
Seriously, a science course in radiation dynamics would be a good place to start*, or spend a night under a star-lit sky … the ‘effects’ of radiation are demonstrable in a number of ways (for instance: how does dew form, how does fog form.)
* Intro-level meteorology courses also cover these, well-known, widely accepted, easily demonstrable assertions. Just as Anthony.
.
Last sentence should be: “Just ask Anthony.” TIA
To Joel Shore: Re: “I get a doubling time of 32 years for the 2-parameter exponential fit and 43 years for the 3-parameter exponential fit.”
I totally disagree – that’s nonsense. In 1959 the CO2 was at about 313ppm. How long will it take to reach 626ppm? Well its been 50+ years already and it has not doubled. It is at 380 – an increase of only 21%. There is a long way to go before Doubling occurs! I make it about 160 years, so (1959 + 160 =) the year 2120.
So I can only conclude that the prediction you referred to (by Wallace S. Broeker in his article/paper to Science) is unsuccessful. And the outstandingly unsuccessful bit is the Doubling Time. Broeker (in the Doscovery link) said 30 years. That is way wrong = FAIL!
_Jim says:
February 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“Oh brother; are you actually saying: “one way in, no way out” regarding thermal energy (received via insolation) and our planet ?”
Frankly, your sentence is so convoluted, I’m really not sure what pigeonhole you are trying to stuff me into. You were pointing out that energy can only ultimately leave the system through radiation (duh!). I was simply pointing out that heat convected above the troposphere has alternative outlets besides CO2.
I would recommend less “gotcha”, more substance, if you want to prevail in this forum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 8:19 am
The following might be a physical clue as to why the Solar Cycle is stuck:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uvp2324a.PNG
Examine it carefully. It would appear that the average gap between the Northern and Southern spot belts is not closing since it began in mid 2009, at least not like it should. Runs of spots that migrate toward the equator on one side are accompanied by runs of spots on the opposite side away from the Solar Equator.
For lack of a better description I am wanting to call it an upwelling or resistance at the Solar Equator leading to a repulsion.
The other thing that is getting more significant is the lack of umbral spot area growth, now falling behind SC14 (which you probably already know):
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
Joel Shore @ur momisugly Monckton responds to skeptical Science: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/#comment-897282
If Moderators agree: My reply is moved from the Monckton thread to here, because this thread is more on-topic and not so long and old in the tooth.
Well, out of all your extensive lectures on lapse rates and the upper troposphere etc, I’m struggling to understand why you suggest it is unreasonable to speculate that if the surface temperature, increases then the rate of evaporation would not also increase, although maybe biological transpirations might be a tad more complicated to assess. Are you suggesting a saturation problem, and if so, why? I seem to recall that somewhere you suggested rather the opposite WRT possible cloud cover changes.
Thus, on this point will you please elaborate the physics according to Joel that mystify me?
Oh BTW, there is also an argument that if CO2 increases then GHE theory gives that backradiation will increase, and since the wavelengths involved are absorbed microscopically in the skin on water, there might well be an increase in evaporation. However, there is no need for you to confirm your disagreement; the point above is sufficient.
rbateman says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The following might be a physical clue as to why the Solar Cycle is stuck
By mechanism, I mean equations, numbers, etc.
BTW, your F10.7 has a very large spike [above 900 sfu] on 2011/03/07. I know that it is in the data file from the Canadians, but it is spurious nevertheless. Earlier, those spikes where removed manually. Now it is all done by computer, as they ‘proudly’ proclaim: “This measurement has been derived, processed and transmitted automatically”. This means that some quality control is less than it used to be. The ‘correct’ value for that day [derived from comparing with other stations] is 150 sfu.
J Calvert N(UK) says:
(1) This would be a much better place if people around here actually improved their reading comprehension. Which part of the two sentences following the sentence that you wrote did you not understand. You know, the ones that said:
(2) Your prediction for how long it would take to double from the 1959 value appears to be based on the assumption that the CO2 levels continue to rise at the current rate of 2ppm per year, an idea that there is no evidence for whatsoever given that said rate has increased steadily over the past half century.
(1) The Broecker article did not make a prediction of doubling in 30 years. Actually, in Table 1 of that article, Broeker predicted a CO2 concentration of 403 ppm in 2010 (when it was at the time somewhere around 330 ppm). The actual value in 2010 was about 390 ppm. So, his prediction was a little high but not bad.
(2) The Discovery article was not by Broeker. And, while the article may have been a bit unclear on this point with their wording, it is pretty clear from the context that what they meant to say is that the contribution due to man, i.e., above the 280 ppm baseline, is on a path of doubling about every 30 years, not the total CO2 concentration. This is in line with my estimates based on the exponential fits of 32 – 43 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm
rbateman says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The following might be a physical clue as to why the Solar Cycle is stuck
By mechanism, I mean equations, numbers, etc.
I can post up the numerical data in a csv file if you want it.
I just graph the stuff to see where it’s been and where it’s headed, as in a milestone watch.
rbateman says:
February 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm
The following might be a physical clue as to why the Solar Cycle is stuck
“By mechanism, I mean equations, numbers, etc.”
I can post up the numerical data in a csv file if you want it.
Numbers derived from a physical theory with equations and the lot. Data is not mechanism, although it may give one hints in which direction to look.
Bob_FJ says:
Actually, this thread really has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of convection that you are so desiring to talk about…but whatever.
I am not saying that these things don’t increase. However, what I am saying is that these things increase in a way that we can understand and predict, not in some way that miraculously cancels out the radiative greenhouse effects that you really want to be miraculously cancelled out. And, the way that convection (including evaporation) increases is in such a way as to maintain the lapse rate at the adiabatic lapse rate. [The one slight complication in this is the issue of dry vs saturated adiabatic lapse rates.] And, this means that in fact the effect of an increase in the radiative greenhouse effect does not get cancelled out (although it is smaller than if convection were not able to compensate at all).
The basic point is that the atmosphere is only unstable to convection as long as the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate. This greatly limits the extent to which convection can cancel out the greenhouse effect, which is exactly why Nikolov and Zeller had to go to put convection into a model in a totally unphysical way (such that it drove the lapse rate to zero) in order to get the result that they, like you, wanted to get, which is convection canceling out the greenhouse effect.
JS: OK maybe I should have paid more credence to your definition of Doubling Time. But I ignored it because it seemed somewhat arbitrary compared with an absolute Total CO2 concentration doubling time – i.e. setting the criteria to fit the data. Arbitrary is messy – a significant part of the Moana Loa CO2 that is above 280 ppm is not directly anthropogenic but must come from the recent warming of the Pacific due to ENSO (1998 to 2009).
What I’m most interested in is which definition of Doubling Time was applied to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png to obtain the crucial 32 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2. Gotta go it’s v late here.
Myrrh @ur momisugly the Monckton/Skeptical Science thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/#comment-897544
Thanks for your interesting comment Myrrh. Just one point of confirmation; when you wrote in part:
Well yes figuratively, but not necessarily because it is a GHG. The Trenberth cartoon attributes radiative heat loss from the surface of 23 W/m^2 as absorbed by all GHG’s, so that includes water vapour, the big one. However the cartoon gives that surface heat loss from evapotranspiration is much greater at 80 W/m^2, totally separately to absorption by GHG’s.
And Joel Shore, (he who knows everything), confirms that the Trenberth numbers are fine, so this must be true!
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2012 at 5:19 pm
So does the behavior of SC24 in the Sunspot belts ‘bouncing’ off the Solar Equator ( or even running all towards the same Pole (N or S), as shown by the data, give you any clues as to where to look?
btw… remember that multicolor depiction of the flows coming off the Solar Poles, where SC25 had not even shown up yet (and were supposed to by now)? What was the name of it?
“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”
There was a color map of this flow, and I am wondering where it originated and is there a current update?
Joel Shore @ur momisugly February 20, 6:20 pm
It seems Joel that you chronically disagree with just about everything. It is typical that many threads do wander off topic to varying degrees; it is the nature of the beast, but the moderator(s) agreed with me that this thread is more appropriate than the old and tired “Monckton replies to Skeptical Science Blog thread”. (and your description of my interest is flawed/incomplete)
I’m beginning to understand why Tallbloke has banned you from commenting on his blog. (whilst inviting you to post a meaningful article). I’ve also seen Anthony Watts scold you on several occasions, and I admire his patience.
This elitist grumpiness of yours is quite unnecessary and is not constructive.
IMO, you even exceed the elitism of Andrew Dessler!!!!!!
I’ll come to your other points later.
[Moderator’s Note: WUWT is a not entirely willing skirmish ground for a, uhhh, conversation that should be conducted elsewhere. All parties are expected to keep it civil and on topic while on our turf. Capice? -REP]
Bart @ur momisugly February 20, 12:45 am
Or perhaps the eco-artist was typical of the altitude of many IPCC contributors?
ALL: The comical IPCC graph that Bart refers to, together with some interesting comparators is here:
http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/linear-trends-on-noisy-data/
rbateman says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Great stuff and thankyou for the insight. No solar magnetic reversal at cycle maximum?
David Archibald says:
February 21, 2012 at 6:03 am
Or one that is not visible due to the sunspots/active regions not being strong enough to show themselves. It would be the proverbial tree falling in the forest. Does it makes a sound if nobody is there to witness it?
J Calvert N(UK) says:
No…Rather little is due to that. It is true that as the temperature increases, feedback effects on CO2 levels become an issue. However, it is still a rather small part of the total. That would be included in my point that some scientists predict that the fraction of our CO2 emissions that stays in the atmosphere will tend to increase; however, up to this point, such an increase has not been detected.
The increase in forcing for a doubling of CO2 levels is ~4 W/m^2. That number is based on a doubling of the actual CO2 levels in the atmosphere (e.g., going from 280 to 560 ppm).