This is interesting. A quick cooling in Europe together with an increase in humidity and particularly in windiness was found to coincide with a long-term reduction in solar activity 2800 years ago during something called the “Homeric minimum”.
The paper published in Nature Geoscience suggests that solar grand minima was the trigger for cooling of the climate in Europe. Approximately 2800 years ago, one of these Grand Solar Minima, the Homeric Minimum, caused a distinct climatic change in less than a decade in Western Europe. While they talk about UV, the forcing mechanisms still are unclear but the evidence in this paper suggests that solar effects are significant. Dr. Leif Svalgaard sent me the notice of the paper, and included this graph which he says:
Attached is one of the better reconstruction of solar activity.
There are, of course, several other excursions not mentioned, e.g. the more severe one around 650 AD
Here’s the abstract, bold mine:
Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
by Celia Martin-Puertas, Katja Matthes, Achim Brauer, Raimund Muscheler, Felicitas Hansen, Christof Petrick, Ala Aldahan, Göran Possnert & Bas van Geel
Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1460
Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun2, 3. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759 ± 39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199 ± 9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.
UPDATE: Here’s the press release from the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres.
Climatic effects of a solar minimum
A grand solar minimum and the climate response recorded for the first time in the same climate archive highlights the need for a more differentiated approach to solar radiation
An abrupt cooling in Europe together with an increase in humidity and particularly in windiness coincided with a sustained reduction in solar activity 2800 years ago. Scientists from the German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ in collaboration with Swedish and Dutch colleagues provide evidence for a direct solar-climate linkage on centennial timescales. Using the most modern methodological approach, they analysed sediments from Lake Meerfelder Maar, a maar lake in the Eifel/Germany, to determine annual variations in climate proxies and solar activity.
The study published online this week in Nature Geosience (06/05/2012) reports the climatic change that occurred at the beginning of the pre-Roman Iron Age and demonstrates that especially the so-called Grand Minima of solar activity can affect climate conditions in western Europe through changes in regional atmospheric circulation pattern. Around 2800 years ago, one of these Grand Solar Minima, the Homeric Minimum, caused a distinct climatic change in less than a decade in Western Europe.
The exceptional seasonally laminated sediments from the studied maar lake allow a precise dating even of short-term climate changes. The results show for a 200 year long period strongly increased springtime winds during a period of cool and wet climate in Europe. In combination with model studies they suggest a mechanism that can explain the relation between a weak sun and climate change. “The change and strengthening of the tropospheric wind systems likely is related to stratospheric processes which in turn are affected by the ultraviolet radiation” explains Achim Brauer (GFZ), the initiator of the study. “This complex chain of processes thus acts as a positive feedback mechanism that could explain why assumingly too small variations in solar activity have caused regional climate changes.”
Albeit those findings cannot be directly transferred to future projections because the current climate is additionally affected by anthropogenic forcing, they provide clear evidence for still poorly understood aspects of the climate system, emphasizes Achim Brauer. In particular, further investigations are required with a focus on the climatic consequences of changes in different wavelengths of the solar spectrum. Only when the mechanisms of solar-climate links are better understood a reliable estimate of the potential effects of the next Grand solar minimum in a world of anthropogenic climate change will be possible. In this respect, well-dated annually laminated lake sediments are also in future of crucial importance for these studies.
Therefore, scientists from the German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) and other institutions search for such archives around the world in order to to obtain a more accurate approach to the solar-climate relationship and the different regional responses.
Celia Martin-Puertas, Katja Matthes, Achim Brauer, Raimund Muscheler, Felicitas Hansen, Christof Petrick, Ala Aldahan, Göran Possnert and Bas van Geel: “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum”, Nature Geoscience, DOI 10.1038/NGEO1460
Pictures of Eifel maar lakes and drilling can be found here:
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/M40-Bildarchiv/Bildergalerie+Klimaforschung
“A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations”
Say what?
I thought we were told that the models have proven that only CO2 affects the climate?
Solar-flares have been suspected of having the greatest influence on changes in the climate by a majority of respected scientist for a hundred years.
What!!! This is sacrilege!!!
Leif
After reading your work for quite a while now, am I detecting a subtle shift in your own position regarding solar influences? To me the ultraviolet angle is interesting as we spacecraft guys know quite well that variations in UV have a major influence on the exosphere, with the tenuous atmosphere expanding and contracting in direct proportion to the magnitude of the change.
Now I personally don’t know what that variation means but I do know that the change is quite large and that if this influence continues downward in the atmosphere, which we know it does to at least below 100,000 ft, then we may have a mechanism for the interaction. In all of the remote sensing work that we did there is a quaint and funny nomenclature for altitudes between about 120,000 ft and low orbit. It is called the ignorosphere as it is too high for balloons, planes, and too low for orbiting spacecraft or anything but sounding rockets that spend only a couple of minutes transiting that region.
Interesting….
There is much that we do not know.
But we can’t regulate the solar footprint, so there’s no money (taxes) to be made from this.
Made Der Spiegel today but only in German so far. They do mention how cooler periods are associated with starvation, wars, disease and general ugliness—what a revelation!
I’ve been looking at European temperatures wrt wine-making. When the greatest cooling is depends on where you look. Same thing with proxy data of stalactites. And comparisons with SW US stalactites.
Not hugely, but 20 or 30 years. It looks like why Mann et al could claim that the MWP was regional, not global. But I’m wondering if that regional-not-global is actually THE characteristic of all of our planetary climate, that it takes time to move around.
Consider this: right now the Arctic, according to Hansen’s data, is warming rapidly and greatly. Meanwhile, Antarctica is cooling and expanding ice-wise. Is this any different from the data of the MWP? If you used the same regional-not-global analysis for the MWP today, would you also conclude that their is no “global” warming?
Is this showing a bait-and-switch?
“the ignorosphere”
Doesn’t that also describe a group of climate scientists when confronted with data that does not support “the cause”?
Has anyone done a Fourier analysis of that reconstruction to identify cyclical ‘beats’?
Looks like things around 500 years and in the few thousands……but that’s just eyeballing it.
I see it’s published in Nature Geoscience.
Perish the thought that solar inputs could affect climate science research published in Nature magazine itself.
What’s the IF for Nature Geoscience vis a vis Nature?
And what do climate scientists think about the relative merit of papers printed in either journal??
It’s interesting they have to pay homage to the climate models. Hail to the modelers!
Why is the graph only going to 2000?
We don’t know what happened afterwards?
I am reporting a gradual decline in Maxima
(which nobody who is anybody – as climate websites go – seem to be plotting)
and it goes negative after 1994
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I think it must be linked to reduced TSI>?
How fast can it get how cold?
It is global, not regional. There is plenty of data supporting the global nature of cyclical climate variations.
To achieve circulation changes one must change the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
The sign of the necessary change in stratospheric temperatures as a result of solar variability is the opposite of conventional climatology hence recent evidence that there is a reverse sign solar effect in the upper atmosphere as publicised by Joanna Haigh and others.
This is the most likely scenario:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How THe Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
Just eyeballing, it appears that the 650 excursion is expressed.
Leif: why do you consider this one of the better reconstructions?
Dr. S got his ‘SSN ironing board’ set up at a solar jamboree somewhere or another. I wonder what might come out of it.
He postulates that, based on the Wolf’s magnetic needle records, the sunspot numbers are wrong, and whole thing needs flattening out.
Of course, he could be right but I have reason to think he is wrong.
Wang ,Lean and Sheeley have used simple algorithm to calculate TSI on the based on the accepted sunspot count. It was reasonable that he should claim that the WLS data set is flawed since there was no an independent proxy which could test its accuracy.
Things have changed, now we do have a good proxy in the Antarctic’s magnetic field bi-decadal variability, based on the geomagnetic data not only from the old Wolf’s single magnetic needle on the Swiss mountainside, but on thousands of records collected all around the globe since 1600.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
These records show that the WLS data are good and consequently the currently accepted sunspot data are more realistic than the ‘revised’ set proposed by Dr. Svalgaard and his followers, if has any.
Henry@Stephen Wilde
I tend to agree with you that it (i.e. the cooling) is global
What did you think of my new tables which I have stratified now in the way as discussed…
Henry@Unattorney
It seems we could currently be cooling at an (alarming) rate of 0.1 degree per annum/.
the problem is: I don’t know where it will stop
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Weather is regional. Climate used to be regional. It still is, but that inconvenient fact has been forgotten with the urge to sell the GHG master control knob concept.
Homeric.
Stephen Wilde says
\….then more UV from a more active sun should make the stratosphere
even warmer. I suspect that premise to be mistaken.
There are….
Henry says
I knew that!
I figured that out some time ago
Amazing.
I am sure I even have said it here somewhere
More UV puts more ozone up in the upper atmosphere which deflects more sunlight…
it is a paradox…
Stephen W: the authors seem to be invoking your theory.
Dennis Ray Wingo says: “Leif, [a]fter reading your work for quite a while now, am I detecting a subtle shift in your own position regarding solar influences? To me the ultraviolet angle is interesting as we spacecraft guys know quite well that variations in UV have a major influence on the exosphere, with the tenuous atmosphere expanding and contracting in direct proportion to the magnitude of the change.”
Leif assured me some time ago that the ionosphere is so tenuous that it can have absolutely no effect on weather. I’m not so sure. For one thing, the ionosphere is deep enough that a photon can’t pass through it without colliding with at least one molecule. I also wonder changes in the ionosphere can affect the effective black body temperature of the night sky.
Sorry to spoil the party that seems to be developing here, but this paper is about regional climate change in Europe due to changed atmospheric circulations patterns in the Northern Hemisphere caused by changes in the UV spectral range of solar radiation. These atmospheric circulation patterns, e.g., quantified with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index determine how heat is re-distributed from low latitudes to high latitudes, whether the climate is more continental or more maritime over the land areas. The effect on the globally averaged energy balance is much smaller. For instance, there was a very cold winter in 2009/2010 in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including Europe, which also could be seen in the strongly negative phase of the AO index. Nevertheless, the year 2010 was the warmest year on record in the GISS surface temperature analysis, and one of the warmest in the other surface temperature analyses.
Although many here may wish to draw a different conclusion from this paper, there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years, and there is nothing in there that contradicts a continuing global warming due to a continued increase in greenhouse gases in the future, even if the sun went to a similar state as during the “Homeric minimum”.
“More UV puts more ozone up in the upper atmosphere which deflects more sunlight…
it is a paradox…”
Henry, it seems that high solar activity with its associated particle and wavelength changes reduces ozone above 45 km to cause a cooling mesosphere and stratosphere DESPITE more ozone below 45km.
Low solar activity increases ozone above 45km to cause a warming mesosphere and stratosphere DESPITE less ozone below 45km.
It has to work that way otherwise we could not see zonal jets at a time of more active sun and meridional jets at a time of less active sun. The reason being that a warming stratosphere is associated with meridional jets and a cooling stratosphere with zonal jets.
It is well know that so called sudden stratospheric warming events send surges of cold polar air equatorward which is just the same mechanism on a smaller short term scale.
I think that reverse sign solar effect on ozone from around 45km is the reason why the lapse rate reverses at the stratopause between stratosphere and mesosphere. The stratopause is at around 45km to 50km and varies in height in line with changes in solar activity.
The cessation of stratospheric cooling in the 90s and the start of slight stratospheric warming was coincident with declining solar activity and fits in with the tropospheric cooling trend from the mid 90s revealed in your ‘Pool Table’ data.
The troposphere cools when the stratosphere warms and vice versa.
The established view that the active / quiet sun warms / cools the whole atmospheric column must be wrong.
Jan says
Although many here may wish to draw a different conclusion from this paper, there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years, and there is nothing in there that contradicts a continuing global warming due to a continued increase in greenhouse gases in the future, even if the sun went to a similar state as during the “Homeric minimum”.
Henry@Jan
jy bent ook een grappemaker…
It has been cooling on earth,
since 1994
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
“The effect on the globally averaged energy balance is much smaller.”
Agreed that the effect is larger as one progresses from equator to pole and the large sea area in the southern hemisphere reduces the impact there.
However more meridional or equatorward jets give increased cloudiness (not as per Svenmark) due to the longer lines of air mass mixing around the globe and that causes reduced solar shortwave into the oceans for an effect on ocean heat content and the globally averaged energy balance over enough time.
As regards CO2 the thing is that if solar inactivity causes cooling then the earlier high solar activity would probably have been enough to cause the observed warming without any significant contribution from CO2.
Anyway, this isn’t a new finding merely a consolidation of phenomena accepted in principle by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt (and others since) a while ago as here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7758
“How Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann almost got it right in 2001”
A pity for all of us that they didn’t follow through and instead just defaulted to the faulty CO2 paradigm.
Meanwhile, all credit to Leif for highlighting this even though he doesn’t agree with the solar / climate implications.
UV penetrates deepest into ice and water. Even at the point in depth where there is no visible light from the sun, there is still UV. I believe, and this is just my own personal belief, that changes in UV light have a significant impact on both ocean energy content and the melting of ice.
by Celia Martin-Puertas, Katja Matthes, Achim Brauer, Raimund Muscheler, Felicitas Hansen, Christof Petrick, Ala Aldahan, Göran Possnert & Bas van Geel
Any relation to James? Enquiring minds need to know.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 7, 2012 at 9:53 am
“Henry, it seems that high solar activity with its associated particle and wavelength changes reduces ozone above 45 km to cause a cooling mesosphere and stratosphere DESPITE more ozone below 45km.”
Stephen, you’re confusing me. I thought high solar activity means more UV as a fraction of TSl which means more ozone and more heating of the stratosphere. This makes sense to me as an amplifying mechanism for TSI. At solar max you have the normal surface heating somewhat diminished plus augmented stratospheric heating, making a push-pull effect on convective circulation, that is, more upward convection at the equator and more meridionial circulation at high altitudes. This produces a temperature inversion at the poles and the northward jet stream shifts you often talk about. Anyway, thats the mental image I have of UV effects (which may change tomorrow).
Stephen Wilde says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/solar-grand-minima-linked-to-cooling-period-in-europe/#comment-978669
Henry says
if we want to know for sure,
we have to measure it…???
it seems to me many people underestimate the power of ozone
on its own (at very low concentrations it deflects at least 15-20% of all incoming sunlight,
so if there is more or less it will have a marked influence on that percentage…
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 9:48 am
Two notes:
1) This paper concludes “We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.” Given that we may be heading into a grand solar minimum, that’s one of the reasons why it’ll be interesting watching what happens in the next couple of decades.
2) Anthony used to report the monthly figures from GISS, but abandoned them after discovering all the shanigans they do with past data. (Hey, I remember a hot day in the drought of the late 1960s. Oh, you mean it wasn’t that hot? Excuse me!) The “hottest year” crap is so tied up with noisy data under the best of circumstances, it’s not worth getting to worked up about. “Hottest decade” is more interesting, as is the plateau it may be showing.
I see this more as an indicator that solar activity in records such as this and the “pause” in global warming for the past 15 years suggests that people who call GHGs the dominant driver since the late 1970s’ PDO flip may be in for a surprise. In the meantime, it’ll be interesting watching what happens in the next couple of decades. At any rate, this paper is not about dominant drivers, it’s about solar activity and an interesting correlation.
I do agree that some people here overreact to most of the papers that come through here. Most are little steps, and the important ones will be found to be important years from now. Chill out and enjoy the trip.
Yes, and no. It is my understanding that while 2010 was the highest if you average the entire year on an annual basis, the highest temperatures reached during 2010 never exceeded 1998. 1998 had a shorter, higher peak than 2010 which was broader though somewhat cooler at maximum. But the difference is so tiny as to be insignificant anyway. There is no significant difference between 1933, 1998, and 2010.
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:28 am
Has anyone done a Fourier analysis of that reconstruction to identify cyclical ‘beats’?
Looks like things around 500 years and in the few thousands……but that’s just eyeballing it.
Both the TSI and the Antarctic’s magnetic field variability (see graph 3 in the link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm as in my post above) have one of the peaks around 490 years.
pochas,
Sorry if I’m confusing you. It is a complex ever changing interplay between the top down solar effects on the stratosphere and the bottom up oceanic effects on the troposphere.
That interplay alters the height of the tropopause and, more importantly, the average slope of the tropopause height between equator and pole so that the air circulation systems can slide latitudinally to and fro beneath the tropopause.
High solar activity results in LESS meridionality as during the late 20th century hence the need for a cooling stratosphere when the sun is active.
The observation of LESS ozone above 45km when the sun is active and MORE ozone above 45km when the sun is inactive is the only way to achieve the observed outcome in my opinion.
Leif often challenges me to point up something that can falsify my narrative. More ozone above 45km when the sun is active would be a real problem for me. Also less ozone above 45km when the sun is quiet.
So far, the observations are just as I need them to be.
Warm oceans push the jets poleward, cooler oceans allow them to withdraw equatorward.
Active sun pulls the jets poleward and a quiet sun pushes them equatorward.
The position of the permanent climate zones at any given moment reflects the net outcome of that interplay.
According to USHCNv2
1921: 54.37
1931: 54.37
1934: 54.61
2006: 54.95
1998: 55.09
That was what was in the database in 2006. Since that time temperatures before 1950 or so have been changed to cooler (they get modified cooler with each passing month, no idea why NOAA keeps adjusting older temperatures cooler each month or new temperatures warmer).
In 85 years there was really no significant difference. Meanwhile 2004 was colder than 1933:
1933: 53.78
2004: 53.64
So the reality is that there has been no overall “global warming” since the 1920’s – 1930’s. It cooled after the 1930’s and then warmed right back up again to about where it was then and it looks like temperatures are in another cooling period after peaking at around the early 2000’s.
Jan Perlwitz shows that he is ignorant of the Scientific Method. Perlwitz says:
“…there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years…”
But Perlwitz cannot provide a testable, verifiable, empirical measurement quantifying the specific percentage of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2, because there exists no such verifiable measurement. If such measurements did exist, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be accurately known. It is not known. Esteemed climatologists have postulated sensitivity numbers from ≈1ºC, ± 0.5ºC, down to under 0.5ºC, to zero. Their highly educated views are more reputable than the IPCC’s preposterous, model-based 3+ºC.
Next, it is astonishing that GISS even employs someone like Perlwitz, who clearly was not even aware of the basic scientific concept of the Null Hypothesis. Yesterday, Perlwitz wrote:
“And why should anyone care about some stupid “null hypothesis” you have invented in your parallel universe? I do not see why I would have the burden of “falsifying” some hypothesis you have made up for yourself.”
First, the Scientific Method requires that scientists — including putative scientists such as Perlwitz, who puts forth a conjecture such as CO2=CAGW — have the duty to try and falsify Conjectures, Hypotheses, and even established Theories and Laws. But Perlwitz dodges that professionable responsibility, asking why he should have that burden. Obviously, Perlwitz does not understand the Scientific Method. No doubt he believes instead in Kuhn’s silly Post-Normal Science [another term for Jerome Ravetz’ ’emotion-based pseudo-science’].
The rigorous Scientific Method is based on testability and falsifiability, as quantified by Dr. Karl Popper. It is the gold standard of science. Anything less is embraced by those who don’t have either the rigor or the empirical facts to support their claims. [That is not to say that AGW does not exist. It may well exist. But it is only a conjecture. To be a hypothesis, AGW must be testable, and it is not. Thus, it is a conjecture; the first step in the Scientific Method.]
Mr. Perlwitz has made it crystal clear that he has never even heard of the Null Hypothesis: [“why should anyone care about some stupid ‘null hypothesis’ you have invented in your parallel universe?”].
Earth to Perlwitz: The Null Hypothesis is one of the basic principles of the Scientific Method. It is directly related to testability. And it has never been falsified. Dr. Kevin Trenberth has wrestled with the climate Null Hypothesis for the past couple of years. Anyone claiming to be adequate would already understand the Null Hypothesis. Obviously, readers here at the internet’s Best Science site know much more about the subject than this fake expert, who posts here during his taxpayer-paid workday.
I disagree with those who think Jan Perlwitz must be a sock-puppet screen name since his understanding of science is so deficient, beause he got too upset when someone outed his NASA position. Since Perlwitz is admittedly ignorant of the Null Hypothesis, and since he does not follow [or even understand] the Scientific Method, my suggestion to NASA would be to transfer Mr. Perlwitz to Muslim Outreach. Because it is clear that basic science goes right over Mr. Perlwitz’ head.
Of course everyone knows that in the grand maxima of debate-has-ended in group think manipulated science such solar effects are small and can be shuffled away with a small constant factor along with the AMO and anything else not worth mentioning. If it does not come from the political science high priests it does not count.
I looked up the Steinhilber paper that seems to be the source of the solar proxy that Leif sent along. The first line (explaining the importance of better solar activity proxies) says:
Kind of surprising to see such a strong statement made with no qualification.
Smokey says:
May 7, 2012 at 11:11 am
Jan Perlwitz shows that he is ignorant …
Well said. Nothing to add.
Leif makes a brief mention of another minima around 650AD. That probably coincides with this extract from my article carried here three years ago;
‘….Some of the Roman climate references are fascinating. This observation from a series of cold winters -after many warm ones- around the 8th century in Byzantium (centred around Modern day Turkey)
“Theophanes’ account recalls how, as a child, the author (or his source’s author) went out on the ice with thirty other children and played on it and that some of his pets and other animals died. It was possible to walk all over the Bosporus around Constantinople and even cross to Asia on the ice. One huge iceberg crushed the wharf at the Acropolis, close to the tip of Constantinople’s peninsula, and another extremely large one hit the city wall, shaking it and the houses on the other side, before breaking into three large pieces; it was higher than the city walls. The terrified Constantinopolitans wondered what it could possibly portend.”
It would be remiss not to connect the Roman warm optimum and the series of savage winters recorded above that afflicted Constantinople, with the great medieval warming of Greenland and the age of the Vikings several hundred years later. This enables us to contemplate the astonishing notion of Romans and Vikings from respective warm periods co-existing in the same era, as Vikings guarded the capital of the Eastern Roman empire.’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%E2%80%93-history-and-reliability/
tonyb
Resource guy says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/solar-grand-minima-linked-to-cooling-period-in-europe/#comment-978755
true.
But in the end the (real) truth might hit them a bit?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Svalgaard’s jamboree
7 May 2012 (Zurich)
Team of L. Svalgaard: Long-term Reconstruction of Solar and Solar Wind Parameters @ ISSI, Hallerstrasse 6, 3012Bern, Switzerland (SeminarRoom, first floor)
Vukcevic:…. could claim the Wang Lean Sheeley data set is flawed since there was no an independent proxy which could test its accuracy
Leif Svalgaard:
That is what the workshop I”m at right now will be solving. It does not look to good for Wang Lean Sheeley.
Here is the agenda for this sub-topic at our ISSI workshop:
Reconstructions based on Cosmic Rays: Beer, McCracken, Steinhilber, Usoskin (devil’s advocates: Lockwood, Solanki, Cliver):
(1) 11-yr modulation during the Maunder Minimum: What does the modulation look like if no filtering is applied?
Was modulation strong or weak during this period in relation to the Spoerer minimum and later periods such as the Dalton minimum, the Gleissberg minimum around 1900 or the recent period of high activity?
Is there any evidence for a 22-yr cycle (e.g., Jokipii in the Sun in Time (1991) and Hiroko Miyahara at a recent IAU Symposium in Argentina)?
How did solar wind B vary at high time resolution? The auroral record (Siscoe, 1980) indicates a diminution of solar activity during the MM. Do you see evidence for this in the cosmogenic nuclide data?
(2) Dip in B centered on 1895: How consistent is the ice core (i.e., seen in both hemispheres? multiple cores?) evidence for this depression? Is the dip supported by geomagnetic data? By sunspot number data? Could Krakatoa
have contributed?
(3) Drop outs to B ~ 0 nT beginning with the Spoerer Minimum: Supported by 14C? Observed in multiple 10Be cores? Time scale of drop-outs? Contribution from volcanos?
(4) Comparison of Caballero-Lopez (2004), McCracken (2007), and Steinhilber et al. (2010). Evolution of time series. Consideration of the sensitivity of the B reconstructions to the local interstellar spectrum (LIS) used.
Thanks for finding this. I misread the o.p. – mistook the Steinhilber graph as part of the (blocked) Nature paper. Ach! Such a bloonder!
Tying these minima into historical events or periods is fascinating. There is a collection of historical references of various types to weather and climate here, mainly for Britain and Western Europe (the page linked is for the 6th-8th century A.D.):
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/500_750.htm
And, in the downturns in the 4th millennium B.C,
“Tentative suggestion of a ‘downturn’: climatic conditions decade-to-decade now more variable, with occasional cooler / colder & wetter periods, BUT overall this spell still warmer than today! Storm tracks are thought to have been directed more towards the British Isles (perhaps biased to southern areas), and more vigorous. Periods of heavy rain, severe gales – these more frequent, and summer warmth was less reliable – with runs of such seasons classed as ” wet and cool”. European glaciers advance (again, but not in Britain) and forests retreat from higher elevations (storm damage?). Decline in warmth-loving tree species. ( a ‘disturbance of the global regime’: [Lamb] )”
– with a recovery after 3000 B.C.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/4000_100BC.htm
As a historian, it was the knowledge of fluctuating climate conditions throughout history that first made me utterly sceptical of the Team’s spurious assertions. I have not changed my mind. My own interests are in the major systems’ collapse around ca. 1200-1100 B.C., when there were destructions of important Middle Eastern and Anatolian civilisations, possibly and arguably linked to folk movements (and why were they moving if so? Climate?). This doesn’t seem to tie in with the minima shown on the graph but, as suggested in the link above, an eruption of Hekla might be implicated in some way.
BTW, shall we just presume Perlwitz (many puns occur to me) is the undergrad intern at NASA? S/he certainly shows all the signs. Even I, a non-scientist, knows what the Null Hypothesis is about. Where do they get them from?
“the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing”
Clearly, there is a feedback mechanism.
In the IPCC report and the climate models, there is no feedback mechanism.
So, the IPCC and the climate models are wrong. For how many years have ‘we’ been saying that, and for how long have the climate mainstream been denying it?
What makes me really angry is that these people have happily piled enormous CO2 feedbacks into their models, without any evidence that the feedbacks exist – and yet they exclude the possibility of a solar feedback without discussion. (I would prefer to call it something like an indirect effect rather than a feedback.)
Rhys Jaggar says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:28 am
Has anyone done a Fourier analysis of that reconstruction to identify cyclical ‘beats’?
Looks like things around 500 years…..
_________________________
Yes Dr. Richard Feynman’s sister Dr. Joan Feynman. She used ancient records of the water levels of the Nile that were accurately measured plus auroral records. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.
Paper: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JD007462.shtml
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA089iA05p03023.pdf
tonyb says:
May 7, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Robert Graves references the classical historians (Herodotus and Pliny) in foonoting the “clashing rocks”, or wandering rocks of the Bosporous. The metaphor was used in his version of Jason, and I recall seeing elsewhere. Sounds like he was referencing the ice floes or icebergs coming down through the ice-swollen bosporous. The Symplegades were important enough to name. All pretty interesting imo.
Unattorney says:
May 7, 2012 at 9:08 am
How fast can it get how cold?
________________________________
Woods Hole at one point suggested within a decade (I am not sure the paper is still up unchanged.)
Gail Combs
and
Unattorney
There is a long article with lot of details on abrupt changes in the Earth’s climate here:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=10
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 9:48 am
Sorry to spoil the party that seems to be developing here, but this paper is about regional climate change in Europe due to changed atmospheric circulations patterns in the Northern Hemisphere caused by changes in the UV spectral range of solar radiation. These atmospheric circulation patterns, e.g., quantified with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) index determine how heat is re-distributed from low latitudes to high latitudes, whether the climate is more continental or more maritime over the land areas. The effect on the globally averaged energy balance is much smaller. For instance, there was a very cold winter in 2009/2010 in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including Europe, which also could be seen in the strongly negative phase of the AO index. Nevertheless, the year 2010 was the warmest year on record in the GISS surface temperature analysis, and one of the warmest in the other surface temperature analyses…..
__________________________
With the shell game played with the global surface temperature, that statement is subject to a very large grain of salt.
……
The great dying of the thermometers: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
Hansen’s slice and dice of US temperatures: graph
Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
An Adjustment Like Alice: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/an-adjustment-like-alice/
Darwin adjustments: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/reproducing-willis-eschenbachs-wuwt-darwin-analysis/
New Zealand: A goat ate my homework: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/02/breaking-news-niwa-reveals-nz-original-climate-data-missing.html
…..
With a record like that, I prefer the satellite lower Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
So yes 2010 was warm but 1999 was warmer in the satellite records and so was 1933 (Dust bowl)
crosspatch says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:16 am
UV penetrates deepest into ice and water. Even at the point in depth where there is no visible light from the sun, there is still UV. I believe, and this is just my own personal belief, that changes in UV light have a significant impact on both ocean energy content and the melting of ice.
________________________
Here are the graphs illustrating your point.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Dutch newspaper Trouw interviewed Prof. Bas van Geel:
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trouw.nl%2Ftr%2Fnl%2F4332%2FGroen%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F3251521%2F2012%2F05%2F07%2FInvloed-van-zon-veel-groter-dan-klimaatpanel-ons-wil-doen-geloven.dhtml
Zac,
Don’t you know that the anwer to to any problem is, More Taxes. They do NOT spend it on climate now, so why should NOT spending it on the unchangable Sun, make any difference? If anything that give a perpetual reason to spend more. The answer is More Taxes!
Smokey says:
May 7, 2012 at 11:11 am
…..my suggestion to NASA would be to transfer Mr. Perlwitz to Muslim Outreach. Because it is clear that basic science goes right over Mr. Perlwitz’ head.
________________________________
Excellent suggestion Smokey. One can understand why NASA retirees are embarrassed.
RichieP says: @ May 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm
….BTW, shall we just presume Perlwitz (many puns occur to me) is the undergrad intern at NASA? S/he certainly shows all the signs. Even I, a non-scientist, knows what the Null Hypothesis is about. Where do they get them from?
_________________________
A sad comment on our current education system.
FWIW, I have more interest in history and am learning more history now than I ever did when I was young.
Odd that the sediment cores retrieved from the lake would only cover dates older than 2000 yrs. Still, even if the 650 A.D. minimum is outside of their time period, there is another lesser minimum at about 400 B.C. that is in their data set. (The “Platonic minimum” perhaps?) I wonder if their full paper says anything about this episode.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 9:48 am
“Sorry to spoil the party that seems to be developing here, but this paper is about regional climate change in Europe […]”
Brauer and his modeling gang in this case had to fudge their models in such a way that the model, on one hand, shows agreement with the proxy study while on the other hand does not disturb the IPCC’s basic tenets.
THIS IS EASY TO DO when you have enough parameters, and you and I know it.
RichieP at May 7, 2012 at 1:20 pm wrote:
What about, instead of attacking my person, by disseminating falsehoods about me, you try to get educated? For instance, you could start with reading Thomas Kuhn and/or Paul Feyerabend to learn something about modern epistemological theory that is relevant for understanding the scientific process, even if you are a non-scientist.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
“…there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years…”
And so, since the laws of nature are constant, and greenhouse gasses are the dominat driver of climate we are left with what, dinasour farts? to explain the paleoclimate.
As I pointed out, Mr. Perlwitz does not possess the necessary rigor for the Scientific Method. Instead, he believes in the touchy-feely pseudo-science that Kuhn and Ravetz preach.
Weak minds gravitate to Post-Normal Science. Perlwitz should do a keyword search for ‘Ravetz’ to see how thoroughly that bunkum was deconstructed here. PNS is emotion-based anti-science. It is no wonder that someone who admittedly doesn’t understand the Null Hypothesis is attracted to it.
Gail Combs at May 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm wrote:
The point I was making was that particularly cold winters in parts of the Northern Hemisphere and a largely positive globally averaged temperature anomaly are not in contradiction to each other. I took the year 2010 as an example for such a case. The cold winter in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 in some regions were related to circulation anomalies, which distributed heat from the lower to high latitudes differently compared to other years, whereas the global energy balance is more important for the globally averaged temperature anomaly.
On what data is your assertion based, according to which the globally averaged temperature anomaly was larger in the year 1933 than in the year 2010?
As for the year 1998 (I guess that’s the year you meant, not 1999) compared to the year 2010. 1998 was a year with a very strong El Nino, and solar activity was closer to the solar maximum. Greenhouse gas forcing, solar forcing, and El Nino acted all in the same direction. 2010 was a year right after a prolonged solar activity minimum, which was also somewhat deeper than previous minima. There was an El Nino at the end of 2009, which was weaker than the one of 1998, after a couple of La Nina years, and which was followed by another La Nina in 2010. So, only greenhouse gas forcing acted clearly in direction of warming. Solar activity counteracted it, and the El Nino/La Nina pattern also acted somewhat toward a cooling in the second half of the decade. Nevertheless 2010 was one of the warmest years on record at least since 1880, other years in the first decade of the new millennium were among the warmest year too, and the first decade was the warmest decade on record. So, I argue that this rather strengthens the case for global warming due to greenhouse gases, instead of weakening it.
I would say, in contrast to the view of all the ones here who claim a (drastic) global cooling was imminent, it is much more likely that we will see a new warm record of the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly within a few years, when there is a new solar maximum, even if it is smaller than the previous one, and if there is also a new El Nino at the same time.
I do not expect that such predictions like the one in the manuscript by Solheim et al., who predict a temperature drop, averaged over all years of the solar cycle 24, of 0.9 K for the Northern Hemisphere, and 0.3 to 0.5 K (or so, if I remember right) for the whole globe, will become true. I rather expect that those predictions will utterly fail.
If they became true I would have to strongly rethink my understanding of the workings of the Earth system, which I will do in this case. Will the ones here who believe in those predictions, like the ones by Solheim et al., do a rethinking of their understanding of climate, if those predictions fail, and I am right with my expectation?
Richdo says at May 7, 2012 at 4:07 pm:
I said greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the global warming over the last 35 years. You even quoted this! They have been the dominant driver over the last 35 years due to the strong increase in the greenhouse gas mixing ratio from anthropogenic emissions in the second half of the 20th century leading to an increase in the radiative forcing, which amounts currently to about 0.25 W/m^2 per decade at the current rate of increase. I didn’t say anything about Paleoclimate. The importance of greenhouse gases as driver for climate change depends on their rate of change over time, and the magnitude of the forcing change from this, in comparison to forcings by other climate drivers.
DirkH at May 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm wrote:
And how have you logically deduced your assertion that they did “fudge their models” for the purpose you claim? You don’t like their results, therefore the models must be fudged? Like this?
A quick cooling in Europe together with an increase in humidity and particularly in windiness….
I would be very surprised if you could derive humidity from lake sediments. I assume they have some measure that shows increased precipitation and assume its due to increased humidity, which is an error in my view.
Increased precipitation could, and likely did, result from increased GCRs/aerosols.
Its been discussed here before, but its possible the term Dark Ages originated because the period was literally darker from more cloud and perhaps volcanic aerosols.
This is the earliest know use of the term.
Petrarch in the 1330s.[3][6] Writing of those who had come before him, he said: “Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius; no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom“.
Albeit those findings cannot be directly transferred to future projections because the current climate is additionally affected by anthropogenic forcing, they provide clear evidence for still poorly understood aspects of the climate system, emphasizes Achim Brauer.
===
LOL
Avoiding losing all their research grants… in extremis.
Mr. Perlwitz says that GHG’s “have been the dominant driver over the last 35 years due to the strong increase in the greenhouse gas mixing ratio from anthropogenic emissions in the second half of the 20th century leading to an increase in the radiative forcing, which amounts currently to about 0.25 W/m^2 per decade at the current rate of increase.”
I note for the record that Perlwitz’ “0.25 W/m^2” number is entirely model-based, as is his preposterous belief that human emissions can be quantified to one-quarter of a Watt per square meter. Nonsense. There are no testable, empirical measurements verifying that number. It is a complete fiction. With climate models it is: Garbage In, Gospel Out. It is neither testable nor falsifiable in the real world. “0.25 W/m^2” is a computer artefact of models, and nothing more.
Further, the climate Null Hypothesis falsifies the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. As climatologist Roy Spencer points out, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Kevin Trenberth is so bothered by his inability to falsify the Null Hypothesis that he stated: “The Null Hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.” But of course, that turns the Scientific Method on its head, by placing the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. That is witch doctor talk, not science.
Even Trenberth has gotten no traction for that bit of pseudo-science. But it could be worse: Trenberth might have shown that he was as ignorant of the existence of the Null Hypothesis as Mr. Perlwitz. Trenberth at least understands the basic concept.
Stephen Wilde
Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. …. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity …
This all looks like your New Climate Model.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Gail Combs at May 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm wrote:
As for the year 1998 (I guess that’s the year you meant, not 1999) compared to the year 2010. 1998 was a year with a very strong El Nino, and solar activity was closer to the solar maximum. Greenhouse gas forcing, solar forcing, and El Nino acted all in the same direction. 2010 was a year right after a prolonged solar activity minimum, which was also somewhat deeper than previous minima. There was an El Nino at the end of 2009, which was weaker than the one of 1998, after a couple of La Nina years, and which was followed by another La Nina in 2010. So, only greenhouse gas forcing acted clearly in direction of warming. Solar activity counteracted it, and the El Nino/La Nina pattern also acted somewhat toward a cooling in the second half of the decade. Nevertheless 2010 was one of the warmest years on record at least since 1880, other years in the first decade of the new millennium were among the warmest year too, and the first decade was the warmest decade on record. So, I argue that this rather strengthens the case for global warming due to greenhouse gases, instead of weakening it.
We humans are naturally story-tellers, from a complex morass of evidence we extract a simplifying story that will at once impress the audience and advance our socio-economic position. That’s how intelligence has evolved. However in science we need to consciously oppose this trend since it leads us up the garden path too often.
You have woven a nice story about how just 3 things – like Rublyev’s divine trinity – together dictate the climate – greenhouse forcing, solar forcing and ENSO. But there are so many others that could – to borrow your expression – “spoil the party”. Ocean deep circulation has a 1000 year timecourse and we know almost nothing about long term variations in upwelling linked to THC patterns. Also, if as is likely the global atmosphere-ocean system exhibits chaotic non-equilibrium pattern behaviour, then the SYSTEM ITSELF can easily throw up major variations without ANY outside forcing. In fact this slavish recourse to the concept of a forcing for everything that happens reveals a failure to understand this possiblity of spontaneous intrinsic pattern without forcing. This is one of the biggest blind-spots of climate science.
But I applaud your appeal to future climate development as the proof of who is right and wrong, and adherence to Popperian “falsifiable” science in contrast to many in the AGW camp.
I’ll join phlogiston in applauding Jan P. Perlwitz for saying that evidence could change his mind. An attitude sorely lacking in CAGW circles. In a recent ABC survey, I answered “Strongly agree” to the question “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I could easily change my mind about global warming.”“, in spite of having indicated a deep scepticism of AGW in other questions, because no matter how personally painful a change of mind might be, I still have to be prepared at all times to recognise actual evidence.
Jan P. Perlwitz – in essence I accept your challenge, but not quite as you put it, with the sceptics’ case based essentially on a prediction by Solheim et al. That prediction depends on a certain behaviour by the sun, so if the sun does not behave as predicted then the climate cannot be expected to behave as predicted either. Also, I have not done or checked the calculations so I don’t know how much cooling to expect (and I seriously doubt whether anyone else does). But if the sun goes into and stays in low activity for a number of years, and if the ocean heat content also rises to the models’ predicted levels, then I would (in your words) ‘have to strongly rethink my understanding of the workings of the Earth system, which I will do’. This applies regardless of what CO2 levels do.
OTOH, no matter what the sun does, if CO2 levels stay up or increase and if the temperature continues below the models’ lowest estimates (for those CO2 levels), then I will welcome your re-think.
We don’t have a cut-off date for the re-think, but maybe the start of solar cycle 25 would give enough time? (That’s still a long wait, and I suspect that it will all be over before then.)
A couple of observations about that Steinhilber reconstruction. First, it estimates 20th century solar activity to be rather high compared to 18th and 19th century solar activity, in contrast to Leif’s oft-stated assessment that 20th century activity wasn’t significantly higher. I looked into the sources of Steinhilber’s reconstruction to see if the observational sunspot numbers were used to calibrate the later part of the record (which would allow what bias there may be in Waldmeier’s post-1945 counting techniques to bias the reconstruction) and the answer seems to be no.
The reconstruction IS a composite, joining isotope proxies with observed neutron counts, but sunspot numbers do not seem to have been used to calibrate the joining of the two records. The construction goes back to Steinhilber 2008, which states:
Was there some period of overlap between the isotope and neutron records that they could use to calibrate the joining? It’s not clear, but looking through the paper, they are not using observed sunspot numbers for calibration. Even so, their reconstruction doesn’t look so different from the observed numbers. Perhaps the Waldmeier counting problem is not as big as Leif has been thinking?
A second interesting feature of Steinhilber’s reconstruction is that its deepest LIA minimum (by a substantial margin) is Sporer (centered a bit before 1500), while it estimates Wolf and Maunder to be approximately the same depth and duration as each other. This seems a bit different from earlier reconstructions, which show Wolf not as deep, and show Sporer pretty similar to Maunder, but not deeper and longer (figure 2, Usoskin 2003).
If Steinhilber’s Sporer estimate is right, how could the sun go magnetically quieter than during Maunder, when almost no sunspots were seen for 70 yrs? We got a picture of what that looks like in 08, with the surface of the sun looking like a even field of wheat gently waving in the breeze. Does the wheat get shorter?
The “Homeric minimum” is hindcast with precision when looking at solar AM. This is no mean feat as there can be no room for error. The solar path and planet angles of the Homeric Minimum are nearly the same as the Sporer Minimum and offer clear evidence of a repeating pattern. This pattern doesn’t come along all that often.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/type_a_b.png
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/c14nujs1.jpg
Mike Jonas says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“the amplitude of solar forcing is small”
That assumes that TSI is the proxy for solar forcing. Einstein won his Nobel for showing that frequency, not intensity determines the energy level of photons. Yet solar science concentrates on a hopelessly misleading proxy to base its climate conclusions.
For example, a person can sit all day under a 100 W/m2 IR, but if you change that to a 100 W/m2 UV lamp it can prove fatal. The exact same solar intensity in W/m2 used by solar science to measure the effect of the sun on climate. Totally different effect. Ignored by science in their calculations of energy balance.
Why not use magnetic field strength as a proxy for solar activity? We know that climate undergoes massive change when the magnetic fields on earth reverse. The earth’s magnetic field is puny in comparison to the sun’s. While solar intensity remains fairly constant, the same cannot be said for the sun’s magnetic field.
@Leif:
That 650 AD date is about 1470 BP. (inside the error band of my ability to read the scale on the graph from which the 650 date is estimated.)
You might recognize that as Bond Event 1, or The Migration Era Pessimum. (Wiki has since purged the usage of ‘pessimum’ for that cold period in favor of just “migration period”. Doesn’t sound so cold and miserable that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
that has been largely ‘sanitized’ of any reference to the cold then.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/enwiki/en/Migration_Period_Pessimum
So yeah, it was cold, centered on that down spike in solar activity then, too.
That “Homeric Minimum” 2800 BP could also be called Bond Event 2, AKA the Iron Age Cold Period:
Oddly, that wiki has not been sterilized, so I’ll quote it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_Cold_Epoch
Not much in that wiki, though.
That dip about 1600 we already know as the Little Ice Age…
So moving on back, at about 5500 – 5800 B P there are some more dips.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
Yup, another cold time…
Now it’s a bit less precise as you go back further in time. There’s the 8.2 Kiloyear even, that shows up as that dip about 6200-6400 BC, but there is also a dip about 7200 BP or 5200 BC. What about that?
Well….
one of them is another Bond Event. The other one shows up as a cold dip in a temperature chart I’ve got stuck in this posting:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
All in all, a rather strong set of correlations…
But correlation is not causality, so I’m sure there’s some other explanation…
The case for solar induced UV changes that affect climate is growing by the month. We are also witnessing it in real time over the past few winters in particular. As the heat leaves the oceans this will induce further cooling.
UV can vary by 30-100% over the cycle depending on the wave length, current UV levels are substantially lower than those experienced typically at this point in the solar cycle. All wave lengths contribute to altering ozone content at different levels of the atmosphere.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
the sun doesn’t change in size, so why should it change much in visual intensity?
rather, what we should see is a change in frequency as the sun ramps up and down. a hotter sun should be shifted to the UV. A cooler sun shifted to the IR.
Climate changes would then be more a result of ionization rates than W/m2.
@Doug Proctor:
I speculate that there is a variable time lag in ocean warming and cooling, based on initial cooling in the central Pacific as an increased Circumpolar Current whacks into Drake Passage and sends more cold water up the spine of South America. It then takes 18 years to get to Alaska. At the same time, Australia cools a bit on the early side. The Indian Ocean is a bit isolated, so takes even longer. Then there is a current that leaves it, travels around the tip of Africa and out into the South Atlantic gyre, eventually moving north to become the Gulf Stream and at the end, reach Europe.
That would imply the East of the USA and Europe are last on the warming / cooling list and California / Australia / Peru are early. Recently we’ve seen cold deaths in Bolivia and Peru, lots of rain in Australia as it cools down, and a cold California, while the East Coast was warm.
So I think there IS a need to look at time delays in changes (i.e. a “Global Average” is exactly the wrong thing to do), but that the ‘shift’ is a global one. Just one with time lags.
Oddly, HadCrut uses a baseline 10 years later than GIStemp, each centered on a cold period in their local. I’m sure there’s nothing to it…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/sea-temperature-time-delay/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/
@Rhys Jaggar:
Try:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
and
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
ferd berple – the quote you attributed to me was in fact quoted from the Martin-Puertas et al paper in the WUWT post. You are IMHO absolutely correct in saying “solar science concentrates on a hopelessly misleading proxy to base its climate conclusions“.
Smokey
Smokey. you are wrong.
“Jan Perlwitz shows that he is ignorant of the Scientific Method. Perlwitz says:
“…there is nothing in there that is in contradiction to that greenhouse gases have been the dominant driver for the observed global warming over the last 35 years…”
1. The paper discusses the effect the sun may have on regional climate.
2. that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the effect that C02 may or may not have.
jan is correct. there is no logical connection between a paper that talks about the effect
the sun may or may not have and the effects c02 may or may not have.
stepping on the brake slows the car. This observation has nothing to do with the
effect of stepping on the gas. stepping on the gas makes the car go faster.
Your next comment shows some serious misunderstanding
“But Perlwitz cannot provide a testable, verifiable, empirical measurement quantifying the specific percentage of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2, because there exists no such verifiable measurement. If such measurements did exist, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be accurately known. It is not known. ”
Esteemed climatologists have postulated sensitivity numbers from ≈1ºC, ± 0.5ºC, down to under 0.5ºC, to zero. Their highly educated views are more reputable than the IPCC’s preposterous, model-based 3+ºC.
############
the 3C number is not BASED ON models. models do not constrain the estimate of sensitivity.
The 3C number is estimated ( It can ONLY be estimated because you CANNOT do controlled experiments with the earth )
The estimates comes from three sources:
1. Paleo: in particular work done on the LGM
2. Observations: work down on volcanos and temperature series
3. Models
in these 3 lines the models are the least informative. the sensitivity number is not based on models. If every model vanished tomorrow, the science would not change and the best estimate would still be 3C. models add very little to our confidence in the number. Hansen has even acknowledged this.
Finally, Sensitivity is a measure of how the earth system responds to ANY change in forcing.
So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.
sensitivity is a measure of the change in C per change in WATTS of forcing.
Leif Svalgaard says
Attached is one of the better reconstruction of solar activity. There are, of course, several other excursions not mentioned, e.g. the more severe one around 650 AD
Who is to say which reconstruction is better. Solanki/Usoskin (14C) agrees with Steinhilber (10Be) in most areas but there is a noticeable difference at 650AD. The 14C proxy data shows 2800 years ago was a larger deeper grand minimum than 650AD. The solar AM position also agrees with the 650AD 14C values so we have two pieces of separate evidence agreeing. What does the 10Be have as verification at 650AD?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/solanki_sharp.png
Steven Mosher says: May 7, 2012 at 11:53 pm
So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.
No, that is WRONG approach. Changes in the sun are not small, they are huge,
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2009/03/picture-4.png
it is that the TSI changes are small.
TSI changes are small of order of 0.05%, the Earth response is large of order of 2% (see the link bellow). To any sensible and practical scientist that would indicate that it is not either matter or sensitivity or amplification, it clearly shows that the TSI is not the driver of the large climatic changes. It shows that there is a different mechanism at play which science needs to investigate further.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
No progress can and will be made while scientists run in circles chasing either the CO2 or the TSI tails.
Vuk.
Nice try.
The reason why people focus on TSI ( watts ) is that there is a clear physical connection between Watts INTO the system and the system temperature (C). You can blather all you want about other properties of the sun that change but to counts as science you have to establish a physical model of how the property you point and grunt at manifests itself as a change in temperature. You cannot merely assert that a change in property X, explains a shift in the system temperature. you have to supply the MISSING MATH AND PHYSICS.
Until you do you have mere speculation. you need a physical model ( with the right units ) that can be used to explain the past and predict the future. you don’t have that, so at best you have sun worship. An old religion, but religion nonetheless
“So, if small changes in the sun cause big changes in temperature THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR HIGHER SENSITIVITY.”
Those solar changes do not cause big changes in SYSTEM temperature. Instead they only redistribute energy within the system unless the changes go on for a long time resulting in a significant net increase or decrease in accumulated solar shortwave entering the oceans.
The observed climate shifts are actually the system reorganising so as to maintain thermal equilibrium as far as possible despite the solar changes.
The climate shifts alter the rate of energy flow through the system to minmimse system sensitivity.
The surface temperatures are affected due to the changes in air flow across individual regions but the system itself is very insensitive to changes.
Thus what we have is a highly sensitive water based ‘thermostat’ which makes the system highly insensitive to all and any forcings.
Liquid oceans for 4 billion years is no accident.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 7, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Hello Geoff,
Nice to see that you have picked up on the issue of differential ozone effects above and below 45km which is something I have been banging on about for some time.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How THe Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
from November 2010.
Mind you I think it a bit early to pin it onto ozone alone. I suspect that a combination of multiple solar effects on the upper atmosphere is involved.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm
‘What about, instead of attacking my person, by disseminating falsehoods about me, you try to get educated? ‘
Does your pique at my daring to question your understanding of basic scientific principles mean that you now accept the Null Hypothesis, both as a fundamental concept and in the specific issue of climate science?
Stephen Wilde says:
May 8, 2012 at 2:17 am
Hi Stephen, I think we are pushing in the same direction and agree with your closing comment. There are many atmospheric scientists that dont get a mention here, working towards solving the solar/climate link. It is a pity this research is being drowned out by a vocal few, us amateurs have an important role in a world lead by gravy train riders.
This paper is but one more small piece of evidence to add to the mix.
Steven Mosher, you say “there is no logical connection between a paper that talks about the effect the sun may or may not have and the effects c02 may or may not have.
To my simple mind, you are absolutely wrong. I have read and re-read large tracts of the IPCC report, and it is very clear that the models are all based on the assumption that observed 20thC warming was caused by CO2, with only the absolute minimum possible allowed for other factors. For example, the sun is dismissed without discussion as not having any effect beyond its direct forcing. That means that any possible indirect solar effect is dismissed out of hand, yet indirect effects of CO2 are siezed on without any evidence that they exist. Why is this so? Simple. Without the claimed indirect effects, the warming would not be enough to explain the late 20thC warming. The IPCC even states that the computer models are the source of these indirect effects.
So where does this leave us wrt the sun? The answer is that any paper which indicates that the sun has an effect on climate is a threat to the IPCC story because it reduces the amount of warming that can be claimed for CO2.
And it is not only the sun that is a threat. The whole of the 20thC warming is included in the models’ equations for CO2 (after deducting direct solar) yet the 20thC was clearly influenced by a cyclical effect which had two upward phases and only one downward phase. Clearly that cyclic effect provided a significant part of the 20thC warming, probably around a third. Because the IPCC ignored it, the CO2 effect was overestimated. They needed it to be overestimated, otherwise CO2 could not be portrayed as powerful enough to be alarming. (I think I am justified in portraying it this way, because the IPCC has been shown by Donna Laframboise to be heavily influenced by the WWF).
All in all, the IPCC gave itself a very difficult problem – namely that the direct forcing of CO2 was not even close to delivering enough warming – and the solution was to invent indirect effects to boost the direct CO2 forcing by a factor of about 3.
The whole exercise was appallingly unscientific, and they have used every trick in the book to protect their position – and one of those tricks is to try to squash any suggestion that the sun or anything else can affect climate.
That is the connection you deny.
The scary part is that this whole thing is about political power.
I am still very much puzzled that nobody who is anybody in climate science seems to be plotting the maximum temperatures which actually tell us what the sun-earth duo is doing….
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
One still has to come up with reasonable/testable explanations for how the magnetic solar cycle causes significant climate change. TSI varies by .1% from low to high points in the cycle, which comes out to ~.1C IIRC. UV varies more, but I still don’t see any convincing connection on how that changes the climate down at the surface. Yes, I’ve read ALOT of others’ speculations, but nothing convincing to me. Climate is a water-vapor-driven heat-engine “fueled” by regional solar radiation striking the surface. I think it’s pretty convincing that Milankovitch cycles control the majority of long-term (10k yrs) climate changes, and internally generated DO/Heinrich events the short-term “triggers” to initiate more sudden changes. Looking at the ice-cores, recent changes like the MWP and LIA are hardly more than minor blips compared to the big shifts.
Alec Rawls says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:43 pm
If Steinhilber’s Sporer estimate is right, how could the sun go magnetically quieter than during Maunder, when almost no sunspots were seen for 70 yrs? We got a picture of what that looks like in 08, with the surface of the sun looking like a even field of wheat gently waving in the breeze. Does the wheat get shorter?
I also have some questions re the Steinhilber reconstruction and note the divergence thru the LIA. The Maunder period does not agree with any other reconstruction I have seen (solar proxy or temp). When comparing the two records with an overlay the allowances made for the decline in geomagnetic strength also seems to differ, the Steinhilber reconstruction is much flatter?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/solanki_sharp.png
Steven Mosher says:
“If every model vanished tomorrow, the science would not change and the best estimate would still be 3C.”
“Best estimate”? Hm-m-m…
Prof Richard Lindzen disagrees with that preposterous
best estimateWAG. The three Drs. Idso say sensitivity is even lower than Lindzen’s ≈1ºC per doubling; less than 0.5ºC. Dr. Spencer says sensitivity is less than than 0.5ºC per doubling. Dr. Miskolczi says it is 0.00ºC per doubling of CO2.So who should we rely on? Actual experts? Or on Mosh’s model-based “3C”?
I think I’ll go with the estimates of real experts, over the bought and paid for climate alarmism of the IPCC.
Mosh continues: “Sensitivity is a measure of how the earth system responds to ANY change in forcing.”
Then explain why climate sensitivity is routinely defined as the warming produced by a doubling of CO2 [“2xCO2”]. It is because the entire debate revolves around the demonization of “carbon” [by which both scientific illiterates and the CAGW propaganda alarmists mean carbon dioxide, a minor trace gas]. The entirely trumped-up scare story blaming CO2 for every routine weather event has been falsified by Planet Earth herself.
AGW remains an untested conjecture. It may be true, or not. But there is no measurable evidence showing conclusively that X amount of human CO2 emissions results in Y degrees of global warming. The most compelling argument is that the rise in CO2 is the result of prior ocean warming; just as a warming Coke will outgas CO2. The alarmist crowd has simply reversed cause and effect.
So in order to perpetuate the falsified CO2=CAGW nonsense, the IPCC is forced to claim that a doubling of CO2 [not “all” forcings] will raise global temperatures by 3ºC or more. But the fact is that there is no verifiable evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture. If there is, produce it.
CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Those are verifiable facts, as opposed to conjecture.
“To my simple mind, you are absolutely wrong. I have read and re-read large tracts of the IPCC report, and it is very clear that the models are all based on the assumption that observed 20thC warming was caused by CO2, with only the absolute minimum possible allowed for other factors.”
You are wrong. I suggest you read the MODELS. ModelE has been online since I started reading in 2007. The models do not assume that the observed warming was caused by C02.
Here is what the models do. The models use accepted and experimentally validated physical theory of radiative transfer. Those theories, the same theories used to design radars and to process satellite imagery, calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance. No factor is “minimized” You simply did not know what you are talking about. you read the IPCC report. That is a review of the science not the science itself.
When you get to the core, when you push through the secondary review literature and get
down to the actual science, you will have a better understanding. I welcome that day
Steven Mosher says:
May 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
That is the worst post I have seen from you Mosher.
Surely you agree there is more to solar output than pure heat?
Steven Mosher says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/solar-grand-minima-linked-to-cooling-period-in-europe/#comment-979610
…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….
Henry says
Pray do tell how you figured out that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling? I have been looking for those results (and the test methods) for more than two years now.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been tested!!!!!!
Smokey comments:
using following link:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-HadCrut15-years.gif
What does this graphic refute? The graphic refutes the hypothesis that carbon dioxide was the only factor controlling temperature and that the change in the temperature would linearly follow the carbon dioxide change.
Nicely done, Smokey! The only problem you have is, this is just one of the main strawman arguments applied by fake skeptics like you. No one in climate science postulates such a hypothesis. You have falsified nonsense you have created yourself, or whoever of your comrades.
For someone like Jan Perlwitz, who hadn’t even heard of the Null Hypothesis until this past week, to call someone who is questioning the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture a “fake skeptic”, I simply say: consider the source: a fake scientist.
Smokey.
There is no null hypothesis for “warming is natural”. That is an unfalsifiable null. A proper Null has numbers in it. Further, nobody asserts at C02 = CAGW. nobody. You will not find that in any published paper and you wont find it in any models.
C02, as Anthony, Willis, spencer, lindzen, scafetta, Singer, argue WILL CAUSE warming.
It will not cause cooling. The argument has always been what is the final effect.
Stepping on the gas in your car will, all other things being equal, cause the car to go faster.
Do other things effect your top speed? yes. the road, your traction, the amount of gas in the car, your drag, the wind, many factors play in the final number. Noting that a strong headwind can slow you down, says nothing about sentence ” adding power will make the car go faster”
noting that brakes slow the car says nothing about the sentence “adding power will make the car go faster”. Adding C02 to the atmosphere changes its opacity to IR. more clouds change the opacity as well. This is known. This is measured. Changing the opacity to IR leads to surface that cools less rapidily. You know this from sleeping outside on cloudy nights versus clear nights. More clouds, more opaque to IR, less rapid cooling. GHGs act the same way, but over much longer peroids of time. clouds come and go. C02 stays around in the atmosphere.
The question is: how much “warming” can we expect? The earth varies naturally. Nobody deines that. The question is, if we permenately change the IR opacity of the atmosphere, how will those natural cycles be amplified? what DC slope will we add to the natural up and down. It wont be zero. there is no evidence that it will be zero. Our best physics says the slope will be positive.
How big and how long will that take? that is the science debate.
HenryP at May 8, 2012 at 9:42 am commented
with respect to “…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….”
Your assertion that is has never been tested is factually wrong.
These calculations can be done with line-by-line radiative transfer code that calculates the effect of the gases for each gas and for each spectral line. The skills of these codes are regularly tested against measurements from the real world. So are the skills of radiation codes applied in climate models.
More information can be found here:
http://rtweb.aer.com/
Our tax money
at workwasted: posting from the public trough in the middle of a work day during a work week. Must be fun.Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:08 am (responding to)
Smokey comments:
The entirely trumped-up scare story blaming CO2 for every routine weather event has been falsified by Planet Earth herself. … (trimmed, to avoid redundant posts) …
“Nicely done, Smokey! The only problem you have is, this is just one of the main strawman arguments applied by fake skeptics like you. No one in climate science postulates such a hypothesis. You have falsified nonsense you have created yourself, or whoever of your comrades.”
You’ve done this “trick” (of hiding behind the falsehood that “a so-called CAGW real scientist-did-not-specifically-say”) several times, and it is getting tiring.
Please name a single, CAGW-consensus-believing-peer-reviewed-so-called “scientist” who went on record when these lies and exaggerations WERE published and WERE propagandized by the “consensus” CAGW-theist ABCNNBCBS news media and liberal government-paid politicians.
No, instead, we see Hansen deliberately getting arrested in his demonstrations numerous times specifically to publicize such lies and exaggerations about the climate, drought, tornadoes, lunar-tides, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, and sea-level rise. And sea-algae-turbity. And turtle shells. And bird populations.
And dinosaur poots.
And a thousand other lets-put-global-warming-in-my-research-to-get-more-CAGW-funding-when-I-write-about-the-influences-of-CAGW-on-my-topic.
Again. Name ONE “climate scientist” who went on record saying that the UN’s/IPCC’s/your own/ every liberal politician’s CAGW-self-serving “exaggerations” were government lies and propaganda.
How pervasive is your CAGW-serving propaganda? Look at your own “google” search under “Images”. YOU are invisible, except for the self-funding list of government-funded taxpayer-paid research papers. But your boss, Jim Hansen, is shown 15 times in pictures (under YOUR search name and NASA-GISS) is photographed being arrested 12 times.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:23 am (responding to)
HenryP at May 8, 2012 at 9:42 am commented
with respect to “…….calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance….”
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been tested!!!!!!
Your assertion that is has never been tested is factually wrong.
These calculations can be done with line-by-line radiative transfer code that calculates the effect of the gases for each gas and for each spectral line. The skills of these codes are regularly tested against measurements from the real world. So are the skills of radiation codes applied in climate models.
Er, uhm, ah … No.
See, you merely claim that these calculations “have been done” by examining … (wait for it!) ..what else? … but MORE models of radiative heat transfer. Show us the measurements REAL TESTING these models have gone against the full scale-real-world data.
You can’t. Or more exactly, you have not done so at any time. You have only claimed “consensus” as your authority.
And, as stated before, EVERY “consensus” by EVERY “scientific authority” has been proved dead wrong EVERY time it has been claimed … before a new theory or a new finding has been exposed.
Jan Perlwitz says
More information can be found here:
http://rtweb.aer.com/
Henry says
It does not give me the right dimensions:like
cooling/warming in
in W /m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
i.e. show me a balance sheet of SW (cooling) and LW (warming) in those dimensions?
RACookPE1978 at May 8, 2012 at 10:41 am:
I just have given the website, where this information about how the radiative transfer codes are tested against measurements from the real world can be found. Still, the opposite is being claimed. I guess we have a nice example here for the phenomenon that is called cognitive dissonance. It’s not my job to get people educated who have chosen for themselves to stay in a state of ignorance.
Mosher writes:
They sure as hell do. Just look at the RF table from any of the IPCC reports. AR4 lists total solar forcing as 0.12 W/m^2, vs. 1.66 for CO2. This us how they have parameterized their model. They don’t use all their gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has 14 times the warming effect of the sun. The warming ratio is fixed at the outset. Garbage in, garbage out.
If Sevnsmark is right that solar-modulated GCR is affecting cloud formation, the albedo effects should be included in the sun’s RF effect. Similarly for Stephen Wilde’s theory about the UV shift having ozone effects that affect cloud formation by driving the polar jet northward. The IPCC assumes all such mechanisms away, and they are perfectly explicit about it, judging the evidence for GCR-cloud and other particular mechanisms to be too weak to include in their models.
I’d have no qualm with that if they still took accountof the overwhelming evidence that there is SOME such mechanism by which solar activity is driving climate far more powerfully than can be accounted by the slight change in TSI. If they don’t understand the mechanism, they still need to include the explanatory power of the data in their prediction scheme. Just do a statistical projection, as is done with solar activity projections. Hathaway et al. don’t understand what drives solar variation, but they have observed statistical regularities that they project.
But the “consensus” does not try to account the data. Just the opposite, they use their negative judgment about competing theories as an excuse to literally leave the evidence out of the IPCC reports. In the first draft of AR5, vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence.
This is an inversion of the scientific method. The “consensus” is using theory (their discontent with GCR-cloud in particular) as an excuse to dismiss evidence, while science is defined by the precedence of evidence over theory. These people are anti-scientists. But Mosher thinks it is “religion” to adhere to the data. That “religion” is called “science.” Mosher should join.
Steven Mosher says: May 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
… blather…. grunt…. speculation… worship… religion…
Hi Steven
Only equation you need is:
Energy input into equatorial region = energy radiation back to space + energy absorbed and transported pole-ward by the oceanic currents
Left hand side is more or less constant, while balance between two factors on the right hand side is continuously changing.
Steven, CO2 doesn’t do much if anything, the geomagnetic field doesn’t do much if anything, but since the gmf can’t be changed by temperature, can’t be affected by mankind, and most likely it can’t change temperature, it is the ideal proxy to tell you what is going on under your feet, or more precisely under you feet while you are sailing out of Half Moon bay.
p.s. I had to google ‘blather’ = to talk nonsensically.
HenryP, don’t bother. You won’t get a straight answer.
. . .
“It’s not my job to get people educated who have chosen for themselves to stay in a state of ignorance.” …says a fake scientist who didn’t know what the null hypothesis was as recently as last week.
Speaking of a job, wouldn’t it be nice if we could all have taxpayer-funded make-work jobs that allowed us to comment on blogs throughout the workday? Now I’m beginning to understand the excitement in the Climategate emails, which constantly discussed their endless paid trips to Rio, Bali, Hawaii, Copenhagen, etc., etc. Add blogging during working hours, and there you have the perfect job!
But in the end, all the red faced, spittle flecked, wild-eyed predictions of planetary doom come down to this.
Jan P Perlwitz
says
who have chosen for themselves to stay in a state of ignorance
Henry says
Myself and Stephen and Geoff and Vukcevicand RaCook1978 and others
have given you a lot to think about
if you’d really cared to go back all over their comments?
In fact I have shown that earth is cooling since 1994
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
which confirms that Orssengo’s graph seems to be right
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Now, on the above graph, who do you say is right, the IPCC green line (positive/incline)
or Orssengo’s
which predicts/shows that earth is cooling since after 1994 (negative/decline)
(Remember always: there are none so blind as those who do not want to see)
From several pages on that website J Perlwitz cited above:
“Atmospheric and Environmental Research scientists and engineers help governments and businesses solve the world’s biggest climate issues. We prepare agencies like NOAA, NASA and the Department of Defense, along with large insurance, investment and energy companies to anticipate, manage, react to and profit from weather and climate related risk.”
Therefore, ALL (government-paid) money made to date by this (government-paid) group DEPENDS SOLELY on their CAGW-precepts and this group’s continuing success (and his/her paychecks ?) depends directly and immediately on their continuing CAGW-favorable propaganda/output back to geo-government-funded sponsors. No CAGW-“risk” -> No CAGW-funds.
Regardless of their funding biases and theoretical biases and prejudices, the referenced group might be correct in their science.
So, what is the ONLY “evidence” actually found on ANY page in that entire website? I found only a couple of graphs of specific transmission parameters of IR radiation against IR wavelengths in perfect gasses . I will assume that these graphs are actually based on laboratory measurements.
The rest?
All models. From top to bottom, all models.
For example:
LBLRTM attributes provide spectral radiance calculations with accuracies consistent with the measurements against which they are validated and with computational times that greatly facilitate the application of the line-by-line approach to current radiative transfer applications. LBLRTM’s heritage is in FASCODE [Clough et al., 1981, 1992].
Some important LBLRTM attributes are as follows:
– the Voigt line shape is used at all atmospheric levels with an algorithm based on a linear combination of approximating functions;
– extensively validated against atmospheric radiance spectra from the ultra-violet to the sub-millimeter
– the self- and foreign-broadened water vapor continuum model, MT_CKD, as well as continua for carbon dioxide; among the other continua included in MT_CKD are the collision induced bands of oxygen at 1600 cm-1 and nitrogen at 2350 cm-1
– HITRAN line database parameters are used including the pressure shift coefficient, the halfwidth temperature dependence and the coefficient for the self-broadening of water vapor
– a Total Internal Partition Function (TIPS) program is used for the temperature dependence of the line intensities
– CO2 line coupling is treated as first order with the coefficients for carbon dioxide generated from the code of Niro et al. (2005) and Lamouroux et al. (2010); CH4 line parameters include line coupling parameters for the v3 (3000 cm-1) and v4 (1300 cm-1) bands of the main isotopologue
– temperature dependent cross section data such as those available with the HITRAN database may be used to treat the absorption due to heavy molecules, e.g. the halocarbons
– an algorithm is implemented for the treatment of the variation of the Planck function within a vertically inhomogeneous layer as discussed in Clough et al. (1992)
– algorithmic accuracy of LBLRTM is approximately 0.5% and the errors associated with the computational procedures are of the order of five times less than those associated with the line parameters so that the limiting error is that attributable to the line parameters and the line shape
– computational efficiency mitigates the computational burden of the line-by-line flux and cooling rate calculation [Clough et al., 1992], for example linear algebraic operations are used extensively in the computationally intensive parts of LBLRTM so that vectorization is particularly effective with a typical vectorized acceleration of 20
– FFT instrument function with a choice of 9 apodization functions
– includes a realistic spectral sea surface emissivity model in the infrared [Masuda, et. al., 1988, Wu and Smith, 1997]
– input atmospheric profiles in either altitude or pressure coordinates
– interfaces with other radiative transfer models (like RRTM), and as the forward model for inversion algorithms (e.g. Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) and Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI))
Conclusion: The taxpayer-funded CAGW “research” community MUST CONTINUE TO SELL its government-funded CAGW programs and CAGW-rewarding programming experience to their government-paid funding sources to get future government-funded program monies. Follow the money. Those who who most loudly claim “big-oil-money corrupts science” must have some evidence for their claims, and since the funding sources they are most familiar with ARE government-funded money coming from government-favorable-sources, …..
Steven Mosher,
We have had this same discussion several times. You say, “Our best physics says the slope will be positive.” That is not the question regarding the climate null, which states that what has been happening will continue to happen, within the same parameters. [“The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.”] In order to falsify the Null Hypothesis, past climate parameters must be exceeded. They are not. Nor is the global temperature accelerating. Quite the opposite.
The long term trend line from the LIA shows mildly rising temperatures. If the ≈40% rise in CO2 caused any more than minuscule warming, then recent temperatures would be accelerating upward. They are not.
The rise in temperature from the 1970’s until the late ’90’s has happened before. Thus, the Null Hypothesis remains un-falsified. It tells us that the warming since the LIA is natural, not anthropogenic.
Further, going back to the beginning of the Holocene, we see that current temperatures are very ordinary. There is no scientific basis for alarm. The true reason that the [false] alarm is being sounded is due to $billions of grant dollars paid out every year. And no scientist gets those federal grant dollars for telling the truth: “There is nothing unusual occurring. What we are observing is normal weather. It has all happened before, when CO2 remained very low.”
Thus, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
Smokey says: May 8, 2012 at 11:59 am
The rise in temperature from the 1970′s until the late ’90′s has happened before.
Not only happen before, but even at higher rate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
and here is detailed comparison
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
‘For the short term climate change look above you head, for the long term change causes search under your feet.’
Steven Mosher says: May 8, 2012 at 11:33 am
……………..
Hi again Steven
I occasionally post on the Gavin’s RC, and true to himself he sends 99% of my posts to the ‘bore hole’, currently very good and reliable repository of my graphs. Since someone from the United States Geological Survey (136.177.20.32) Arvada, Colorado, looked at this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
earlier this afternoon, there have been 4-5 other hits from academic places ranging from Oxford to Nanning, China, never happened before, usually get 1 or 2 hits a week originating from the ‘bore hole’.
Steven Mosher – thanks for replying, but I regret to have to tell you that you are in some kind of fantasy land. You say “Here is what the models do. The models use accepted and experimentally validated physical theory of radiative transfer. Those theories, the same theories used to design radars and to process satellite imagery, calculate the effect that increasing C02 and other gases has on the radiative balance. No factor is “minimized” You simply did not know what you are talking about. you read the IPCC report. That is a review of the science not the science itself.
When you get to the core, when you push through the secondary review literature and get
down to the actual science, you will have a better understanding. I welcome that day“.
That statement is refuted right up front in the IPCC report. In the Technical summary, it says “A number of methods for providing probabilistic climate change projections, both for global means and geographical depictions, have emerged since the TAR and are a focus of this report. These include methods based on results of AOGCM ensembles without formal application of observational constraints as well as methods based on detection algorithms and on large model ensembles that provide projections consistent with observations of climate change and their uncertainties. Some methods now explicitly account for key uncertainty sources such as climate feedbacks, ocean heat uptake, radiative forcing and the carbon cycle. Short-term projections are similarly constrained by observations of recent trends.“.
They are stating explicitly that the models are tuned to match “recent trends“. That means they fiddled the CO2 effect to match recent temperature trends, and I think it is very reasonable for me to assume that by that they mean the late 20thC, or perhaps the whole 20thC.
Why should I read all 32 (?) models when the IPCC tell me in plain language up front that they are fiddled? How can I possibly read all 32 models? Why are there so many models anyway? If the science was truly settled, there would be only one. OK, maybe a finer model for short term and a coarser model for long term.
Do you still want to deny that they have fiddled? “Although the large-scale dynamics of these models are comprehensive, parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes such as the formation of clouds and precipitation, ocean mixing due to wave processes and the formation of water masses, etc. Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between diff erent AOGCMs.“. That means that the things they don’t understand, like clouds, are modelled using fiddle factors. That’s what “parametrizations” are.
And why should I read all of the models when they can’t agree among themselves on the crucial parts of the science? On cloud feedback, the IPCC report says “the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback .. but strongly disagree on its magnitude.“. There is no mechanism for the cloud feedback, it is explicitly stated to be an artifact of the models not real science, and no-one has a clue how it operates or how large it is. This isn’t “accepted and experimentally validated physical theory“, it’s a con. Measurements of the tropical troposphere temperature show they got it wrong. Dessler (http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf) tried to prove otherwise and had to admit that cloud feedback, if it existed at all, could be negative.
I’m tired of all this shonky pseudo-science. The day I will welcome is when science prevails over the charlatans.
Mosher writes:
Actually, it is normal for studies that find a statistical correlation between solar activity and climate to formally refute the null hypothesis: that the observed correlation is merely coincidental and not indicative of a causal relation (which if it is real can only go one way).
A typical statement is this one from Usoskin et at., 2005:
If the sun is not actually responsible for the observed fluctuations in temperature, the true correlation would be zero. That is the null hypothesis. The study refutes refute this hypothesis with a significant amount of confidence.
There are plenty of things to criticize about this study. They use Mann’s hockey stick as their temperature reconstruction, so their error bars are not actually capturing all of the error in the analysis. But no one can say that they have not tested their null hypothesis and, conditional on the validity of their analysis, refuted it.
Another example is a rather amusing study I came across the other day. Some researchers decided to replicate Hershel’s 1801 study of the correlation between sunspot numbers and wheat prices. They backed him up 99.8%:
Many many solar-climate studies refute with substantial confidence the null hypothesis that the observed solar-climate correlations are a product of random chance.
Alec Rawls says:
May 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Mosher writes:
There is colossal hypocrisy and double standards in this AGW argument used against skeptics that “correlation is not causation”.
Correlation of sunspots with temperature or wheat prices does not prove causation.
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
Correlation of palaeo records of cosmic rays and supernovae with global temperatures and number of marine species does not prove causation.
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
Correlation of the rate of change of the solar cycle length with global temperatures does not prove causation.
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
The correlation of orbit of the solar BARYCENTER (gotta love that word, OOOO yesssss!!) around the sub-Jupiter point with the PDO cycle does not mean causation.
“Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Barycenter, Barycenter, Barycenter!!”
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
The correlation of the rate of change of the length of day with global temperature is not causation.
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
The correlation of the width of the inter-tropical convergence zone with cloudiness and (inversely) temperatures proves nothing.
Fine. Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
Can’t have it both ways. No, really, you can’t. Sorry.
Phlogiston says:
Then correlation of late 20th century warming with late 20th century CO2 increase also proves NOTHING.
Henry says
but I do hope that you (and Jan and Mosher) understand why there is some correlation between increasing warmth
(as witnessed by us on earth first and foremost by increasing maxima which NOBODY but me seems to be plotting)
and increasing CO2, namely
(extra) heat + HCO3- (dissolved in massive quantities in the oceans) => CO2 (g) + OH-
this reaction is similar to boiling water to remove dissolved carbon dioxide and HCO3-.
This is not bad as more carbon dioxide in the air is required for those like me who want more greening on earth.
Unfortunately the reaction does go the other way when it gets colder…….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Water vapor also falls out of the atmosphere as it gets colder, and since the heat trapping effect of a unit of water vapor diminishes as water vapor increases, it also increases as water vapor diminishes, making the loss of water vapor with cooling have an ever increasing cooling effect. Same with atmospheric CO2. And these is not the only mechanisms by which cooling feedbacks are much more dangerous than warming feedbacks, increasing rather than decreasing in strength as they progress. Another is albedo. As snow and ice descend to lower latitudes, each successive degree of latitude covers a rapidly increasing amount surface area, and in particular, land surface area (especially in the northern hemisphere).
Alec Rawls said
….as water vapor diminishes, making the loss of water vapor with cooling have an ever increasing cooling effect…
Henry says
thx, I hadn’t even thought of that yet. And it is happening already.
namely, I reported
global humidity decreasing at -0.02% RH/annum over the last 37 years;
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
others have reported around -0.01% /annum at local places (USA), but negative, nonetheless.
In the light of my latest findings
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
-which confirms the Orssengo graph-
i.e. global cooling having started “officially” sometime during 1994,
I should perhaps re-calculate those RH figures and rather evaluate from 1975-1994 and then from 1994 to present….
Scary. I am already worried about what I will find…