Guest post by Alec Rawls
In an interview with NewScientist magazine, Imperial College professor of atmospheric physics Joanna Haigh scoffs at the idea that late 20th century warming could have been caused by the sun:
Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. “If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.”
What she means is that the 20th century’s persistent high level of solar activity peaked in 1985. That is the estimate developed by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich. The actual peak was later (solar cycle 22, which ended in 1996, was stronger than cycle 21 by almost every measure) but set that aside. Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
Haigh’s argument against solar warming was in response to my suggestion that one new sentence in the leaked Second Order Draft of AR5 is a “game changer.” That is the sentence where the authors admit strong evidence that some substantial mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The only solar forcing in the IPCC’s computer models is Total Solar Irradiance so if some solar forcing beyond TSI is also at work then all their model results are wrong.
No, no, no, Haigh told the NewScientist, it is “the bloggers” who have it all wrong:
They’re misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say.
Look whose accusing people of misunderstanding. This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing. When a forcing goes barely past its peak (solar cycle 22 nearly identical in magnitude to cycle 21), does that really create cooling? Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?
“Deliberately or otherwise,” this is an astounding misunderstanding of the very most basic physics, and Haigh is not the only consensus scientist who is making this particular “mistake.” Hers is the stock answer that pretty much every “consensus” scientists gives when asked about the solar-warming hypothesis. I have collected examples from a dozen highly regarded scientists: Lockwood, Solanki, Forster, Muscheler, Benestad, and more. Not surprisingly, it turns out that they are all making some crucial unstated assumptions.
Solar warming and ocean equilibrium
To claim that the 20th century’s high level of solar forcing would only cause warming until some particular date such as 1970, or 1980, or 1987, one must be assuming that the oceans had equilibrated by that date to the ongoing high level of forcing. That’s just the definition of equilibrium. After a step up in forcing the system will continue to warm until equilibrium is reached.
When I asked these scientists if they were making an unstated assumption that the oceans must have equilibrated by 1980 say to whatever forcing effect high 20th century solar activity was having, almost all of them answered yes, each giving their own off-the-cuff rationale for this assumption, none of which stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. Isaac Held’s two-box model of ocean equilibration is better than Mike Lockwood’s one-box model, but just move to the next simplest model, a three-box model of ocean equilibration, and any idea that longer term forcing won’t cause longer term warming collapses.
The well mixed upper ocean layer (the top 100-200 meters) does equilibrate rapidly to a change in forcing, showing a response time of less than ten years, but that isn’t the end of the story. As the top layer warms up it transfers heat to the next deeper ocean layers. If the elevated forcing persists then these next deeper layers will continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries. This warming will reduce the temperature differential between the upper and deeper layers, causing there to be less and less heat loss over time from the upper to the deeper layers, causing the upper layer to continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries.
This accords with what we actually see. Since the 50 year absence of sunspots that coincided with the bottom of the Little Ice Age, 300 years of uneven warming have coincided with an uneven rise in solar activity. Any claim that these three centuries of natural warming had to have ended by a particular 20th century date (never mind right when solar activity was at its peak), is at the very least highly speculative. To claim that we can be confident that this is what happened is borderline insane.
Or maybe it’s that other thing that Joanna Haigh insinuates about. Maybe there is an element of deliberateness to this “misunderstanding” where scads of PhD scientists all pretend that warming is driven by the rate of change of the temperature forcing, not the level of the forcing. How else to blame late 20th century warming on human activity? Some rationale has to be given for why it can’t have been caused by the high level of solar activity that was still raging. Aha, what if temperature were driven by the trend in the forcing rather than the level of the forcing? That would do it. Let’s say that one. Let’s pretend that even peak forcing will cause cooling as soon as the trend in the forcing turns down.
It’s one psycho-drama or the other: either Haigh’s insinuations about dishonesty are projection, accusing others of what she and her cohorts are actually doing, or she’s just dumber than a box of rocks.
Haigh also channels Steven Sherwood, pretending that the highlighted sentence is just about GCR-cloud
The draft report acknowledges substantial evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification and lists Henrick Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory as an example of one possible such mechanism (7-43 of the SOD):
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
Haigh claims that the evidence about cloud formation being induced by cosmic rays points to a weak mechanism, then simply ignores the report’s admission of substantial evidence that some such mechanism must be at work:
Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
Rawls says that if Haigh had read the actual sentence itself, she would have realized that it isn’t about galactic cosmic rays, but only mentions GCR-cloud as one possible solar amplifier.
Aussie climatologist Steven Sherwood did the same thing, claiming (very prematurely) that the evidence does not support GCR-cloud as a substantial mechanism of solar amplification, then pretending away the report’s admission of clear evidence that some substantial such mechanism is at work:
He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.
“I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
As JoNova and I blogged last weekend, this ploy inverts the scientific method, using theory (dissatisfaction with one particular theory of solar amplification) as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Using theory to dismiss evidence is pure, definitional anti-science. Unfortunately, NewScientist gives this slick anti-scientist the last word:
“The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”
Sherwood and Haigh are flat lying to the public about what a simple single sentence says, pretending the admission of strong evidence for some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing was never made, then trusting sympathetic reporters and editors not to call them on it. This is why the report had to be made public. After my submitted comments showed how thoroughly the new sentence undercuts the entire report it was obvious that the consensoids who run the IPCC would take the sentence right back out, and here Sherwood and Haigh are already trying to do exactly that.
Too late, anti-scientists. Your humbug is on display for the whole world to see.
Leif:”Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Since 15% of the variation in tree ring size appears to be related to a solar proxy, and TSI only varies by 0.1-2%, something else must be operating.
No, because things usually don’t behave in such a linear way. Most chemical reactions take place at twice the speed if the temperature is increased by 10 degrees, so that is 100% for a 3% increase in the driver. The fusion that powers the Sun increases 25% for a 1% increase in temperature. And so on.
But you still ignore the graph that shows why I don’t think the Sun is a major driver of climate.”
I agree that non-linear effects could act to increase the effect of solar inputs on the growth of trees, however, since I can only think of one class of *chemical* reaction that could do so – namely the phase change of water. Do you have another in mind? As it happens, I believe that this is almost certainly the means by which solar effects are magnified beyond what we would expect from TSI alone (assuming we do discover that it is so magnified).
It is not that I am ignoring your graph, I just wanted to be sure that we agreed on the basic statistical issues. Assuming that we do, I would say that your bare graph does not really address the issue. It is possible for the sun to not be *the* major driver of climate or whatever and also for it to be a bigger driver of climate than we would expect by considering TSI alone. The latter is the issue of this thread.
In that vein, I will propose what I would consider an actual test of the contention raised by this thread. Take your graph and publish the r value and its significance for the temperature and the TSI, as well as those values comparing the temp to another more variable solar measure (like the UV or CRF). If the r values and significance stay ~ equal for the TSI as for the CRF say, then you might well be justified in claiming that there is no magnification of the solar effect.
OTOH, if as with Dengel, the correlation of the more variable solar measures is better than with TSI, the evidence will probably suggest such a magnification is a (strong) possibility.
Cheers, 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
”It is hard to objectively evaluate the unknown [or perhaps you don’t thunk so]”
It is hard to evaluate the unknown; the first step is being realistic about what you think you know. This is very difficult for people who have huge egos.
”That has been modelled and found to be tiny [perhaps you disagree]: “Out-of-phase forcing leads to ~0.05K increase in surface temperature, about half as large as in-phase forcing.”
Thanks for the link, there’s some decent data there but hardly anything that conclusively establishes a tiny climate sensitivity to UV variation, quite the opposite in fact. The trend in UV to temperature is obvious to anyone who hasn’t already decided its CO2 can see it.
”And, besides, UV has not had any long-term trend since 1722, so it is difficult to ascribe ‘Global Warming’ to changes in UV.”
You keep saying that as if it has some meaning. We’re talking about cycles over time spans of 1100 years or more. To scale it’s like we’re at 5:00 PM and you’re saying insolation has no trend since 7:00 AM therefore couldn’t have caused the warming. Just in case you don’t know insolation begins to rise at sunrise, steadily climbs peaking at noon and steadily decreases to sunset every day (cloud disruptions notwithstanding), therefore 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM would have the same value and technically “no trend” (similar “trick” you’re using). The daily peak in temperature however doesn’t occur until 4:00 or 5:00 PM. There are, of course, other influences to the daily temperature track than just insolation, like cloud cover, but none of these are the cause of the diurnal cycle, yes, it’s the Sun.
John West says:
December 24, 2012 at 9:08 am
You keep saying that as if it has some meaning. We’re talking about cycles over time spans of 1100 years or more.
The interest is not about 1000-yr cycles, but with what will happen in the next few decades.
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
Imagine if you graphed insolation for a location in temperate NH on an hourly interval from about January to about August. Wouldn’t it look a lot like the sunspot record with little insulation during winter corresponding to the grand minimum of the 1600’s then steadily increasing peaks until about June and then steadily decreasing peaks?
So in August you say ‘no trend since April’ so it can’t have anything to do with insolation.
LOL, that’s how silly your “no trend since 1722” argument looks to me.
John West says:
December 24, 2012 at 9:33 am
So in August you say ‘no trend since April’ so it can’t have anything to do with insolation.
LOL, that’s how silly your “no trend since 1722” argument looks to me.
With that kind of silliness that you display, I guess that anything looks silly.
Now get this: climate is about trends over decades or even centuries.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Nobody knows what the magnetic field in the Antarctic was before 1957.
But we know exactly what the sun’s magnetic field was in 1700, and it was same as in 1800 and 1900 and 2000, and since we know what the Earth’s composite temperature was (except of course Antarctic before 1957) in 1700 and 1800 and 1900 and 2000 and ‘the sun has nothing to do with it’. Right?
Leif, Thank you for the Obrochta et al. paper. However, I don’t think it causes any problems whatsoever for the Bond 2001 paper except for Bond’s belief in the so-called 1500-year cycle.
From the paper’s conclusions:”Taking into account this uncertainty, the variability in HSG over the millennial frequency band is most consistent with dual 1000 and 2000-year forcing, **similar to the variability in inferred solar proxies**.” My emphasis.
IOW, the paper finds that even though they can find no evidence of a 1500 year cycle, they still find the variability in HSG to be similar to the variability in solar proxies (which is the relevant part of Bond 2001 to this discussion).
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet says:
December 24, 2012 at 9:05 am
I can only think of one class of *chemical* reaction that could do sDo you have another in mind?
This is well known, e.g. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/temperature.html
expect from TSI alone (assuming we do discover that it is so magnified
Dengel and Co, does not consider TSI..
It is not that I am ignoring your graph, I just wanted to be sure that we agreed on the basic statistical issues. Assuming that we d
We do not, as the r-values say nothing about how large the amplitudes are. Be specific now, does the Dengel paper actually say that tree rings are 15% wider?
for it to be a bigger driver of climate than we would expect by considering TSI alone. The latter is the issue of this thread.
The graph includes all the variables [besides TSI] people have brought up on this issue.
If the r values and significance stay ~ equal for the TSI as for the CRF say, then you might well be justified in claiming that there is no magnification of the solar effect.
People have done that many times and the results are well published. And TSI alone is not the issue. All the other variables contribute to the Ap-graph. The solar magnetic field as given by the sunspot number varies thousands of percent. But here are some r-values for yearly Ap against some other variables for the time since 1978 where we actually have good data:
CRF TSI Temp
0.79 0.58 -0.47 [But with opposite sign: i.e. temps go up when solar activity goes down]
For other periods the results are similar, but then you can begin to quibble about data not being reliable.
vukcevic says:
December 24, 2012 at 9:45 am
Dr. Svalgaard:
But we know exactly what the sun’s magnetic field was in 1700, and it was same as in 1800 and 1900 and 2000, and since we know what the Earth’s composite temperature was (except of course Antarctic before 1957) in 1700 and 1800 and 1900 and 2000 and ‘the sun has nothing to do with it’. Right?
It has taken you a looong time to finally admit this.
vukcevic said:
“As I said on many occasions it is strong geomagnetic storms that matter, they induce strong electric currents in ocean and magma alike.”
I would tend to look at atmospheric effects of elevated solar wind speeds.
Shawnhet says:
December 24, 2012 at 9:46 am
IOW, the paper finds that even though they can find no evidence of a 1500 year cycle, they still find the variability in HSG to be similar to the variability in solar proxies (which is the relevant part of Bond 2001 to this discussion).
Apart from the fact that the 1000-2000 yr ‘cycles’ are VERY poorly known in other solar proxies and not at all relevant to IPCC’s mandate to investigate climate change on decadal and century-scale times. We do not base policy of putative 2000-yr cycles.
lsvalgaard says:
December 24, 2012 at 10:39 am
We do not base policy on putative 2000-yr cycles
Some of which may very well be climate related rather than solar related, e.g.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!” and “When the first detailed 10Be measurements from polar ice cores were reported (e.g., Beer, et al., 1990) there was the hope that this ice core data could provide a “monitor” of past solar activity as it effects cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth, in much the same way as neutron monitors are used to monitor this solar activity in the modern era (Beer, 2000). This “concept” with its 1:1 correspondence between 10Be production and 10Be in ice cores, has since been used extensively to interpret historical 10Be ice core data in terms of changes in heliospheric conditions and their effect on cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth. Our results show that, given our current understanding (or lack of it) of the correspondence between 10Be production, sunspot numbers and the 10Be observed in ice cores, this is really not a reliable “concept” to use for historical extrapolation. The sunspot number itself remains the best indicator of cyclic (11 year) solar activity after ~1700 A.D.”
Leif:”This is well known, e.g. http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/temperature.html”
Yes, I know that temperature can affect chemical reactions – what I don’t understand is what other sorts of chemical reactions besides WV could be affected by solar effects.
“expect from TSI alone (assuming we do discover that it is so magnified
Dengel and Co, does not consider TSI..”
Sure they do. From the paper: “Most variables were only weakly correlated with the annual growth anomaly: total solar radiation was never statistically significantly correlated with the growth anomaly but diffuse radiation was significantly correlated in some months (Fig. 2).”
“We do not, as the r-values say nothing about how large the amplitudes are. Be specific now, does the Dengel paper actually say that tree rings are 15% wider?”
No, the Dengel paper says that once we have the CRF data we can account for 15% of the variation in the tree ring data, which is much more than anything else they tested for including for instance the total solar radiation.
“The graph includes all the variables [besides TSI] people have brought up on this issue.”
I may’ve gotten confused as to what graph you are talking about. I was looking at the http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png one which appears to only deal with TSI vs temperature. Regardless, if you want to address the issue of this thread you need to compare the correlation of TSI (plus CO2 and whatever if you wish) to temperature to the correlation of a more variable component of the solar effect and those same other factors and the temperature.
“Apart from the fact that the 1000-2000 yr ‘cycles’ are VERY poorly known in other solar proxies and not at all relevant to IPCC’s mandate to investigate climate change on decadal and century-scale times. We do not base policy of putative 2000-yr cycles.”
I thought the point was that Obrochta et al. “demolishes the Bond 2001 suppositions used by IPCC.” Are you now saying that Obrochta et al. is wrong? Remember the IPCC’s “supposition” is that Bond 2001 reports an empirical relationship btw cosmogenic isotope archives and aspects of the climate. Do you know agree that Obrochta says nothing about this except to agree with it somewhat(possibly they may be wrong as well).
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet says:
December 24, 2012 at 11:52 am
what I don’t understand is what other sorts of chemical reactions besides WV could be affected by solar effects.
The issue was your assumption that a small change could not have a large effect.
“expect from TSI alone (assuming we do discover that it is so magnified
Dengel and Co, does not consider TSI..”
Sure they do.
No, they don’t. Goes to show how carefully everything has to be worded. They do not consider TSI to be significant nor GCR-clouds to be any amplification of TSI effects.
No, the Dengel paper says that once we have the CRF data we can account for 15% of the variation in the tree ring data, which is much more than anything else they tested for including for instance the total solar radiation.
So they just say that their data supports a very small variation, but it would be nice if you could give me a link to the paper.
I may’ve gotten confused as to what graph you are talking about.
Goes to show that you ignore what I show. I think I have posted the following several times:
“One of the things that convinces me that the Sun is not a major driver is the lack of any correlation between climate and the variation of geomagnetic activity since the 1840s. We have good geomagnetic data going back that far and many researchers agree that the Ap-index [which can be constructed back to 1844] is a sensitive measure of the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind speed in the heliosphere. The index touches ‘both ends’ of the stick, so to speak: the sun’s magnetic field that controls TSI, UV, flares, CMEs, and Forbush Decreases, and in combination with the solar wind speed controls the modulation and level of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. Here is the variation of the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
As you can see, there is no trend whatsoever, while over the same period global temperatures are believed to have risen about 1 degree.”
Are you now saying that Obrochta et al. is wrong?
What I’m saying is that they make the usual ‘knee-jerk’ assumption that ‘the other solar proxies’ are accurate. As I have posted:
Some of which may very well be climate related rather than solar related, e.g.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
“When the first detailed 10Be measurements from polar ice cores were reported (e.g., Beer, et al., 1990) there was the hope that this ice core data could provide a “monitor” of past solar activity as it effects cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth, in much the same way as neutron monitors are used to monitor this solar activity in the modern era (Beer, 2000). This “concept” with its 1:1 correspondence between 10Be production and 10Be in ice cores, has since been used extensively to interpret historical 10Be ice core data in terms of changes in heliospheric conditions and their effect on cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth. Our results show that, given our current understanding (or lack of it) of the correspondence between 10Be production, sunspot numbers and the 10Be observed in ice cores, this is really not a reliable “concept” to use for historical extrapolation.”
Here is another one on that subject: http://www.leif.org/EOS/nikitin-2005.pdf
On your ‘test’ see my post on that; here is a plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-GCR-TSI-Temo-1978-2012.png
The r-values you were after are:
Ap vs. GCR modulation 0.79
Ap vs. TSI 0.58, taking into account the 1-year [which is well-known and apparent in the plot] 0.78
Ap vs. Temps -0.47 [solar activity down, temps up]
CR modulation vs. TSI 0.82
““expect from TSI alone (assuming we do discover that it is so magnified
Dengel and Co, does not consider TSI..”
Sure they do.
No, they don’t. Goes to show how carefully everything has to be worded. They do not consider TSI to be significant nor GCR-clouds to be any amplification of TSI effects.”
What are you talking about? They considered it and found it to be insignificant. Check the context of my original quote and your response to it.
“I may’ve gotten confused as to what graph you are talking about.
Goes to show that you ignore what I show. I think I have posted the following several times:”
Yes, I saw that post. However, what I was trying to do was construct a test that shows the nature of the relationship of the solar effects and the temperature. Saying that the temp rises by
~1C over that period doesn’t give you enough information to do that so I was looking at the the one that compare the TSI to temperature. I apologize for not making that clear but it was not that I was ignoring you.
“No, the Dengel paper says that once we have the CRF data we can account for 15% of the variation in the tree ring data, which is much more than anything else they tested for including for instance the total solar radiation.
So they just say that their data supports a very small variation, but it would be nice if you could give me a link to the paper.”
The CRF data can account for the a small portion of the variation but that portion is much larger than for everything else they test including the TSI. Here is a link to the paper:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/stgeorge/geog5426/2010/11/04/Dengel%20New%20Phytologist%202009.pdf
I thought you had already read it???
“Are you now saying that Obrochta et al. is wrong?
What I’m saying is that they make the usual ‘knee-jerk’ assumption that ‘the other solar proxies’ are accurate.”
Ok, so they are wrong too. Can we at least agree that they do not “demolish” Bond 2001?
“The r-values you were after are:
Ap vs. GCR modulation 0.79
Ap vs. TSI 0.58, taking into account the 1-year [which is well-known and apparent in the plot] 0.78
Ap vs. Temps -0.47 [solar activity down, temps up]
CR modulation vs. TSI 0.82”
Some good stuff here, I’m sure. However, FYI, what I was actually looking for was TSI vs Temps and CR vs Temps.
Anyway, I will be unavailable for a few days, so let me wish you and yours a Merry Christmas!
Cheers, 🙂
Shawnhet, Svalgaard: Gentlemen, you are arguing as if you think the IPCC is seriously presenting something coherent and unadorned. Seeing AR5 before it is dressed up for release is the story. You can see by Haigh’s reaction to the passage you are disputing she is unwittingly showing us what will actually be in the report (she is an author this section). Nothing you are discussing will survive. The flood of caveats contained in the scientific section are pre designed as loopholes to not have to present the real science. Also, the caveats provide a basis for saying the models predicted whatever comes to pass. Note they even have one that predicts the forecasts for temperature will lie outside the predicted range if needed by stating that the predictions assume a big drop in aerosols – an illogical assumption given that China, India, Brazil, etc. have no intention of curbing fossil fuel energy use. Arguing what IPCC means in one measly paragraph is too unimportant for two highly qualified scientists such as yourselves and underscores the magnitude of the task of reclaiming science from the philistines.
Shawnhet says:
December 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm
What are you talking about? They considered it and found it to be insignificant. Check the context of my original quote and your response to it.
There is no reference to TSI in their paper. The solar irradiance they talk about is that measured on the ground after all kinds of climate and weather influences.
Ok, so they are wrong too. Can we at least agree that they do not “demolish” Bond 2001?
If they are wrong too, then Bond 2001 becomes irrelevant.
what I was actually looking for was TSI vs Temps and CR vs Temps.
As everybody knows [and can easily verify] there are no significant correlations with temps:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-GCR-Temps-1978-2012.png
let me wish you and yours a Merry Christmas!
Same
Gary Pearse says:
December 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Shawnhet, Svalgaard: Gentlemen, you are arguing as if you think the IPCC is seriously presenting something coherent and unadorned
Alec Rawls pretends that that ‘measly paragraph’ is a ‘game-changer’. I, for one, don’t really care what IPCC says or thinks, but simply object to AR5 being a game-changer in any real sense.
lsvalgaard says:
“Now get this: climate is about trends over decades or even centuries.”
There’s exactly where we disagree. My position is that climate is about trends over millienia. You’re looking at a snippet of data and considering it more of a complete picture than it is IMO.
John West says:
December 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“Now get this: climate is about trends over decades or even centuries.”
There’s exactly where we disagree. My position is that climate is about trends over millienia.
The IPCC is [rightfully] not concerned about thousands of years, as we cannot base public policy on 1000-yr trends. Of interest is only decadal and [at most] century-scale variations. Eventually we’ll have a new glaciation [perhaps 50,000 years from now, but we cannot do anything about that nor should we be concerned]
lsvalgaard says:
”The IPCC is [rightfully] not concerned about thousands of years, as we cannot base public policy on 1000-yr trends. Of interest is only decadal and [at most] century-scale variations. Eventually we’ll have a new glaciation [perhaps 50,000 years from now, but we cannot do anything about that nor should we be concerned]
That’s got to be in the top ten most absurd things I’ve ever read. The IPCC should be concerned about thousands of years for understanding’s sake! How can we make good policy decisions on superficial understanding? You’re saying it’s OK for us to look through the proverbial hole in the fence and make policy decisions based on the appearance of a tree on the other side when in fact it’s an elephant.
We really should be concerned about the next glaciation as it really has the potential to put the hurt on civilization, unlike a little bit of warming. I really wish AGW were true, that way we’d at least have one method to help prevent the next glacial period.
John West says:
December 24, 2012 at 10:24 pm
We really should be concerned about the next glaciation as it really has the potential to put the hurt on civilization
After a public astronomy lecture a little old lady came up to the professor and asked in a quivering voice: “did you say that the Sun would swallow the Earth in five million years?” “No” answered the professor “I said five billion years”. “Thank God!” said the little old lady, “I was afraid you said five million years”.
“What convinces me most though is the monthly-yearly detail of correlation between the Ap index and land temperature anomalies, only a fool would deny the link between a low Ap index and episodes of colder temperatures.”
1. There is no significant correlation.
2. if there was, how would the AP index differentiate between effecting land temps at 2meters
and effecting ocean temps. That is, you cannot pick and choose climate metrics at your whim.
3. Again, case of the missing mechanism.
You can of course pick any random solar signal and manufacture a spurious correction with some selective climate parametee temperature the land, temperature of the sea, tropospheric temps,
CET, tree rings, lake levels, hurricanes, floods, the size of obama’s shoes.
It aint science. its numerology.
@steven mosher
Rather a case of missing knowledge. It ain’t science to say: we couldn’t find it, so it must be….
Incoming heatsource: Sun.
Radiated object : Earth
Changes in (if any) in global temp: Sun.
Occam’s razor.
Better start understanding how the sun really works instead of going on about intricate micro details of a chaotic system you really never ever will understand enough to make any kind of reliable prediction.
Hi Steven
Scientists should also know what is going on underneath their feet as well as above their heads, but sadly there is lot of ignorance and disinterest.
Earth’s Magnetic Field spectrum as calculated from the Jackson-Bloxham geo-magnetic data, contains most of the decadal components found in the climate’s natural variability, and more.
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2012 at 1:46 am
Earth’s Magnetic Field spectrum as calculated from the Jackson-Bloxham geo-magnetic data, contains most of the decadal components found in the climate’s natural variability, and more.
That data cannot be used in the Arctic and Antarctic [as you do], because there is no real data from there, explaining the “disinterest”
Doc
you can’t help yourself getting it wrong: it is not Arctic or Antarctic, as you already know, unless you whish to suppress the new knowledge, in order to give more time to the fast evaporating fizz out of the CO2 ‘catastrophic beverage’ hypothesis, but of course you wouldn’t do such a thing,.
Let me put you right once again:
It is the Earth’s magnetic field
It is its rate of change
It is at the core-mantle interface
It is computed at 2.5 year intervals
It is from the data by Bloxham & Jackson .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EMFspectrum.htm
Hope you had good Xmas and have a happy New Year.