From Cardiff University
Sun’s energy influences 1,000 years of natural climate variability in North Atlantic
Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University.
Scientists studied seafloor sediments to determine how the temperature of the North Atlantic and its localised atmospheric circulation had altered. Warm surface waters flowing across the North Atlantic, an extension of the Gulf Stream, and warm westerly winds are responsible for the relatively mild climate of Europe, especially in winter. Slight changes in the transport of heat associated with these systems can led to regional climate variability, and the study findings matched historic accounts of climate change, including the notoriously severe winters of the 16th and 18th centuries which pre-date global industrialisation.
The study found that changes in the Sun’s activity can have a considerable impact on the ocean-atmospheric dynamics in the North Atlantic, with potential effects on regional climate.
Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.
The study, led by Cardiff University scientists, in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Bern, is published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez, lead author from Cardiff University School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explained: “We used seafloor sediments taken from south of Iceland to study changes in the warm surface ocean current. This was done by analysing the chemical composition of fossilised microorganisms that had once lived in the surface of the ocean. These measurements were then used to reconstruct the seawater temperature and the salinity of this key ocean current over the past 1000 years.”
The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data.
“By using the climate model it was also possible to explore how the changes in solar output affected the surface circulation of the Atlantic Ocean,” said Prof Ian Hall, a co-author of the study. “The circulation of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is typically tightly linked to changes in the wind patterns. Analysis of the atmosphere component in the climate model revealed that during periods of solar minima there was a high-pressure system located west of the British Isles. This feature is often referred to as atmospheric blocking, and it is called this because it blocks the warm westerly winds diverting them and allowing cold Arctic air to flow south bringing harsh winters to Europe, such as those recently experienced in 2010 and 2013.”
Meteorological studies have previously found similar effects of solar variability on the strength and duration of atmospheric winter blockings over the last 50 years, and although the exact nature of this relationship is not yet clear, it is thought to be due to complex processes happening in the upper layers of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere.
Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez added: “In this study we show that this relationship is also at play on longer time-scales and the large ocean changes, recorded in the microfossils, may have helped sustain this atmospheric pattern. Indeed we propose that this combined ocean-atmospheric response to solar output minima may help explain the notoriously severe winters experienced across Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries, so vividly depicted in many paintings, including those of the famous London Frost Fairs on the River Thames, but also leading to extensive crop failures and famine as corroborated in the record of wheat prices during these periods.”
The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.
Notes for Editors:
Funding for this research has come from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK, the National Science Foundation, Switzerland, the European Commission and NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL). This research forms part of the Climate Change Consortium of Wales (C3W; http://c3wales.org/).
==================================================================
The paper:
Solar forcing of North Atlantic surface temperature and salinity over the past millennium
Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Andreas Born, Ian R. Hall, David J. R. Thornalley & Stephen Barker
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2094
Abstract:
There were several centennial-scale fluctuations in the climate and oceanography of the North Atlantic region over the past 1,000 years, including a period of relative cooling from about AD 1450 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age1. These variations may be linked to changes in solar irradiance, amplified through feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation2. Changes in the return limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation are reflected in water properties at the base of the mixed layer south of Iceland. Here we reconstruct thermocline temperature and salinity in this region from AD 818 to 1780 using paired δ18O and Mg/Ca ratio measurements of foraminifer shells from a subdecadally resolved marine sediment core. The reconstructed centennial-scale variations in hydrography correlate with variability in total solar irradiance. We find a similar correlation in a simulation of climate over the past 1,000 years. We infer that the hydrographic changes probably reflect variability in the strength of the subpolar gyre associated with changes in atmospheric circulation. Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds. We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
Ulric: “It looks more like step changes than a cycle in the AMO to me, as in the mid 1920′s.”
You must be looking at a different graph to me then!
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png
Dear Mario,
Re: “If I cannot explain this to you, … .” No, dear engineer-scientist par excellence, you are a fine communicator — one of the best on WUWT. I need to adopt a more scientific (objective, precise, and accurate) mindset when I read comments like yours.
I re-read your comment and I think we essentially agree (there is no evidence that human CO2 has any meaningful effect on earth’s climate). Where we have a bit of a difference is in how we talk about it. You, a genuine scientist, want to discuss the science carefully and, of course, speak with great precision. I, a Communication – Marketing major, want to persuade policy-makers (and voters) that AGW is bad policy and see precision as sometimes hindering that effort. What I mean is, I think for persuasion it’s best to just assert the basic fact that: there is no evidence yet that CO2, much less human CO2, does anything to change the climate of the earth. That CO2 can effect a greenhouse effect in the laboratory, I agree.
You have succeeded! I promise to try harder to carefully consider the view of CO2 you so patiently tried to explain to me. I will try to not let my anger at the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers cloud my thinking.
With deep gratitude for your kindness to me and for your patient, expert, teaching,
Janice
amazing… the sun’s output may influence climate… simply amazing….. I suppose a Nobel Prize is in order for that.
Janice – cool… and we agree on most everything – especially when we separate the wheat from the chaff. I think, most often (perhaps always) the best way to charm those who disagree with us is to give due credit to the parts of their story that are true. It places credence in your favor. It’s hard – but it’s the right way.
There is truth in much of what the IPCC says, it’s in their conclusions, particularly their political motives, where the disinformation and dishonesty is. Further, it’s in their charter, which I find offensive, to prove an outcome –that man did it and it’s dangerous. They claim to be scientific – but they are seeking a predetermined outcome literally at any cost – and they stand to profit from such outcome. Science is about testing hypothesis with observation. The IPCC hides observation as best they can – and eliminates most credible “descending views” from within.
People who know something about physics and science will glean what truth there is, and will in those cases lump those who disagree with the truthful part (albeit small) as de-ni-ars. We don’t need them to be right about that!!! Truth should never be compromised as a means to an end… That’s how we got subsidies for Wind Turbines and PV solar companies – because truth was hidden. That’s how the summary for policy-makers is causing death and exacerbating if not promoting poverty while acting like they are achieving the opposite! It’s just horrible what this organisation is costing the world – and those efforts are viewed by some to get rid of pollution. The conflation of CO2 and pollution has clouded reason by many well meaning people – and they deserve to know the truth so they can act to make decisions based on merit.
Janice: PS – you’ve proof read some of my writings, and to that end – made them better. You have a critical mind to the written words – and we need cheerleaders who are knowledgeable such as you!
Mario Lento,
(re: 2:23) Great speech! You have my vote (lol)!
Seriously, if you ever ran for office (in a non-yella dog- Democrat district, that is) and barring crooked vote counting, you would win easily.
(re: 2:24pm) Aww, Mario. Thanks.
#($)) (<– she is blushing, today… and thinking about money, too, heh, heh….)
Your Janice pal
RichardLH says:
“You must be looking at a different graph to me then!”
Same graph, but I am looking at the minimum and maximum monthly anomalies and ignoring your trend lines. There is a sharp step up during the 1920’s:
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png
Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..
“””LOD such that periods of increasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by pe- riods of Planet increasing rotational rate while periods of decreasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet decreasing rotational rate “”””
Time-integrated North Atlantic Oscillation as a proxy for climatic change
Adriano Mazzarella
accepted 12 January 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2013.51A023
5. DISCUSSION
Length of day (LOD) is a good proxy for climatic changes under the assumption that it is the integral of the different circulations that occur within the ocean-atmosphere system both along latitude (zonal circulation) and longitude (meridional circulation) [4-6].
…(Figure 4). There is almost an equilibrium between zonal and meridional circulation: strong zonal circulations cause the contraction of the circumpolar vortex and an increase in air temperature while weak zonal circulations or, equivalently, strong meridional circulations with meandering or cellular pat- terns cause an expansion of the circumpolar vortex and a decrease in air temperature. Zonal epochs correspond to periods of global warming and meridional ones to periods of global cooling [4-6,17,18].
INAO values are found to be inversely related to those of LOD such that periods of increasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet increasing rotational rate while periods of decreasing zonal wind speed are accompanied by periods of Planet decreasing rotational rate [18]….
Carla says:
March 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Even small variations in Earth’s rotational rate (LOD length of day) will have an effect on atmospheric wind patterns and when they might start establishing new patterns..
You have this backwards. It is the wind patterns and other atmospheric and oceanic variations that have effects on the LOD.
Ulric: The only trend lines is the red dotted one. The other solid lines and the black dotted one are from filters. That cyclic behaviour you see is what the data says happens, not me adding some things that just might have.
There IS a regular ~60 year signal in the data. You cannot just wish it away.
Thankfully it is settled science and so all our energy prices are necessarily going to skyrocket.
… just read about the death of my favourite hockey stick … barycentrism and now I have to read about how 99.8% of the matter in the solar system may have it’s own cycles uninfluenced by the little specks around it? I might as well go and string together ad hoc tree ring sequences …
Seriously, unlike NASA, I think Earth’s Weather must be influenced by Space Weather and we already know the Sun has cycles … so in 30 years I think there will be a recognizable imprint from the present ‘New Dalton Minimum’ in solar activity on the Earth’s surface temperature. The rest of it is to debate and discover (mechanisms of energy transfer/interference, et cetera).
I’ll digest this article later.
John@EF says:
March 11, 2014 at 7:49 am
Janice Moore says:
March 10, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
Re: “We do not know what x, y, z, and w are.”
Thank you.
Janice
***********************
Dear Janice Moore,
I hate to rock your giddy boat, but I hope you understand that Dr. Svalgaard is not agreeing with your BOLD view. Not identifying specific percentages for x, y, z, and w is not the same as “NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth”. The Dr. does assume a value for “y”, however arbitrary and vague, and there is considerable scientific research that supports impacts of CO2 and land use, for example. Anyway, have a nice day, and enjoy your fantasy. lol
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not sure what you mean by this comment, but if you have any evidence that human CO2 affects climate as per AGW theory, please share it with the rest of us.
thanking you in advance
Whatever the Sun did or did not do to the European climate, this is what it did to the temperatures as recorded by the CET:-)
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/cet/
Um, not true.
How can I say it is not true?
Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
What is science?
First, make a guess, then compute the consequences of that guess, then compare that guess with observation or experiment, if it does not compare, your wrong, if it does, you may be right.
The guess, increasing CO2 will heat the earth through “the science of radiative transfer”.
The computed consequence, the longwave absorbed by the CO2 will be detected by, based on the increase of CO2, an increase of temperature at 12KM altitude in the tropics of 2.1C.
The observation, the temperature there has increased…by 0.7C, 1/3 the predicted amount.
2nd guess, the increasing backscatter of longwave will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, tripling or quadrupling the heating effect of the CO2. Observation, no such increase of water vapor is observed.
Conclusion, your statement is wrong that there is no evidence that CO2 does anything. It is observed to be doing something. That something is a temperature increase of between 1/3 to 1/12 of the IPCC predicted amount, or from 0.25C to 1C. That is not enough to be dangerous. That is enough to be beneficial (it was the last few times ). It may not be enough to prevent the next ice age, scheduled to start right about…now. Preventing the next ice age would be <extremely beneficial.
So you need to amend your statement, like this Au contraire: we CAN say (absolutely): “There is, so far, NO evidence that human CO2 does ANYTHING to raise or lower the temperature of the earth by a dangerous amount”.
Legatus,
Whoa there. Hold your horses.
What you are describing is only a correlation. There is no proof of causation, and what you label “evidence” really isn’t. If your .7º rise is due to CO2, then that leaves no room whatever for natural variability. How do you explain the large temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution? Did they stop when CO2 took over?
Your assumption falls flat for another reason: the fact that global warming has stopped for at least seventeen years now. That is a long time!
I do agree with your final statement, because I think that CO2 has an effect. But at current concentrations, that effect is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded. Since the basic debate is over ‘global warming’, the alarmist crowd has decisively lost the argument. There is nothing to worry about regarding the [harmless and beneficial] rise in CO2.
Dear Legatus,
“{CO2} is observed to be doing something. That something is a temperature increase of between 1/3 to 1/12 of the IPCC predicted amount,… .” (you at 9:36am today)
You misuse the term “observed.” Above, you merely assume, based upon mere correlation, that CO2 “did” something. You have, Legal One, committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You have NO mechanism which provides evidence, i.e., proof, of causation. You have attempted a Mussolini — dictating by mere fiat what is so.
Here’s a little illustrative example:
Given:
1. Read Legatus’s post.
2. Immediatly after, an e mail from my most annoying client {{Ding!}} appeared in my in box.
Therefore;
I’m not going to read anymore of Legatus’ posts. ‘Cause that client just wastes my time.
LOLOLOL. #(:))
Sincerely,
Janice
Hey, D.B.! While it appeared that I used your EXCELLENT post without giving you any credit, I hadn’t read it before writing mine. (and I would have credited your inspiration) Great minds!
#(:))
Something I read in the comments (sorry, I didn’t go back and look for a proper cite) got me to thinking about how small inputs can have a greater effect on ‘outputs’ orders of magnitude above the input. Certainly we have the AGW faithful making that claim about a trace gas, so why not with energy inputs as well?
I see it all the time in electronics and optics, two fields in which I make my living, where a very small input, either current or voltage in the electronic realm, or a light of a given wavelength or power density in the optical realm, can have effects many orders of magnitude above the energy they ‘inject’ into the system. I understand I am using examples on the atomic/sub-atomic level, but might it be the case at the macro level as well? Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate due to it causing a change in wind circulation patterns or energy exchange between ocean and atmosphere, for instance? Or am I just blowin’ smoke here?
Legatus says:
March 12, 2014 at 9:36 am
Um, not true.
How can I say it is not true?
Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
What is science? First, make a guess, then compute the consequences of that guess, then compare that guess with observation or experiment, if it does not compare, your wrong, if it does, you may be right.
The guess, increasing CO2 will heat the earth through “the science of radiative transfer”.
++++++++
Let’s go through your tests:
Make a guess: (The one the IPCC made is suitable), I guess that it is impossible for the global temperature to not rise for 10 years… OK – change that to, ” I guess that it is impossible for the global temperature to not rise for 10 years”. Uhm… well, uhmm – CO2 increased, and the guess was wrong.
So then here comes along Legatus, who never got the memo. THE GUESS WAS WRONG. So Legatus tries to choose some period somewhere for any amount of time where both temperatures went up and CO2 went up… and he considers that proof.
Well – Legatus, in science, it only takes 1 observation to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. You hypothesis in this case was that CO2 drives global climate, and that it was impossible for global temperature to not rise for 10 or 15 years. Well – either the impossible happened, or your hypothesis has been shown to be wrong.
Legatus
Says:
“The computed consequence, the longwave absorbed by the CO2 will be detected by, based on the increase of CO2, an increase of temperature at 12KM altitude in the tropics of 2.1C.
The observation, the temperature there has increased…by 0.7C, 1/3 the predicted amount.”
I think in order for the recent warming to be caused by AGW, the upper air temperatures were predicted to warm at a faster rate than the surface warmed. They did not, therefore by that simple fact, the AGW theory is invalidated, or the theory of radiative transfer is wrong (highly unlikely).
Dear DCE,
Re: “Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate … .” (you today at 12:57pm)
Until someone more knowledgeable answers you, I reply to affirm the worthiness of your thoughtful question and to attempt to answer (or, at least, spur more of your own good thinking on the matter). Yes and no. Over short time scales, i.e., with regard to weather, (not with regard to a significant shift in the climate of the earth) variations (the range of watts/m2 is small) in the sun’s irradiance DO drive successive, inter-related, changes in sea surface and air temperatures, wind, etc… . With regard to climate, however, the sun’s irradiance does not (and has not for a very loooong time) change enough (up or down) for it to potentially effect a climate shift for there is a built-in, self-correcting, cooling-heating, system for earth. So far, it has worked beautifully. And there is no reason to think it will not continue to function per design for a loooong time to come.
To illustrate:
1) local weather
Sun driven weather changes are what we see when we observe, for instance, in the Seattle area where I live, that the sun’s heating the land during the day in July causes an evening westerly off the Pacific Ocean, as the higher pressure colder air moves into the lower pressure warmer area. The westerly peters out as it heads east and northeast and other, countervailing, natural forces, negate it.
2) human body maintaining homeostasis
Adding some caffeine to your bloodstream could significantly increase your heart rate and your body temperature, but your body nicely counteracts the effects of that driver and you remain reasonably calm and at ease. Add a BIG dose of caffeine and — whoa! Watch out. The natural countervailing forces are overwhelmed and will be OWNED by the caffeine (“A-a-a-nything y-y-you say, C-C–C-Caffeine; y-y-your wish is our c-c-c-command. “). Fortunately (or by design, if you believe as I do) the sun, UNLIKE the caffeine, doesn’t periodically (within any relevant time span historically) blast the earth with enough solar radiation to take it out of climate homeostasis.
There has NEVER been any long-term, observed, increase in solar radiation that could possibly have caused, given the earth system (oceans, winds, etc…), a shift in the climate of the earth.
Of course, we can speculate as to what may have happened long ago that may happen again or about what unprecedented solar event may happen in the future. And that can make for a good science fiction novel.
Note: that the sun cannot (if it continues to operate as it has for virtually its entire life) cause a climate shift does NOT — NOT — NOT mean that, therefore, CO2 (human or natural) causes significant (i.e., something to worry about) shifts in the climate of the earth.
***********************************************************************
You (no doubt, heh): “Why in the WORLD, Ms. Moore, did you BOTHER to ramble on so?”
Me: Because if we lean heavily on the splintering stick of solar-irradiance-variations-drive-climate-shifts hypothesis, then, we will fall on our faces (for inevitably, there will come a time when solar activity is high, but earth cools or vice versa — we just happen to recently have a level of relatively low solar activity that correlates conveniently with the earth’s current flat-to-declining temperature trend).
That solar-as-the-driver-of-climate-shifts argument fails, of course, will NOT make AGW conjecture true. But, it sets the anti-AGWers up for a credibility fail, thus, undermining the cause of truth in science which is the only way we will successfully keep the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers where they are right now (HA!), off on the distant frontiers, roaring loudly, but harmless.
Truth wins. Every time.
Well, at least you know that your post wasn’t invisible to all but you — sometimes I’ve wondered that about some of mine… .
#(:))
Your WUWT Ally for Truth,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
March 12, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Dear DCE,
Re: “Can an otherwise small change in the Sun’s output have a greater effect on climate … .” (you today at 12:57pm)
…Janice writes: That solar-as-the-driver-of-climate-shifts argument fails, of course, will NOT make AGW conjecture true. But, it sets the anti-AGWers up for a credibility fail, thus, undermining the cause of truth in science which is the only way we will successfully keep the Envirostalinists and Enviroprofiteers where they are right now (HA!), off on the distant frontiers, roaring loudly, but harmless.
++++++++++++++++
It’s fun debating with the collection of knowledge you’ve summarized Janice. I will over no answers – but points to ponder.
Well considering that virtually all or at least very close to 100% of the energy that drivers climate comes from the sun, I’d have to say the sun is in fact the main driver of our climate. If anyone can tell me I’m wrong – I’m open to hearing it. Yes – there is radioactive material breaking down… and the heat in our core… There is also a huge amount of stored solar energy from years of plant life holding on to that energy…
Many have correctly stated that the TSI varies very little. TSI is specific (Total Solar Irradiance). It denotes all of the radiation from the sun and the ability of that energy to cause direct heating at all wavelengths/frequencies. However, there are other aspects of the sun that do vary up to 10% (I’m going with that figure, which is on order of 100 times the magnitude of the changes in TSI) between weak and strong solar cycles. Here I am talking about such things as the frequencies or wavelengths of the total solar radiation. Some albedo changes affect whether different frequencies are reflected or absorbed.
These other aspects cannot be discounted easily – with the simplistic reasoning that their sum total effect on heating something adds up to plus or minus 0.1% change. Finding and proving the smoking gun is difficult. I submit that these other “effects” are complex and it’s difficult to measure those effects directly. But indirectly? Positing that there is no measurable indirect effects needs more proof for me to swallow that claim.
For example, consider UV and generation of ozone and ozone’s affect, solar wind, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and possible effect on ionizing effects which causes small particles to clump – and form cloud seeding. All of these are affected by varying the solar frequency as well as the magnetic field of the earth which is affected by the solar winds and other output from the sun. I believe we are already seeing changes in oceanic circulation (that many predicted would be the result of the waning sun). I’m not saying that I prove anything here. However, I do think the sun has an effect on ENSO processes, for example – and we know or have good evidence that ENSO can explain the missing heat better than CO2… but what provides the energy for ENSO? The answer is the sun, remember the sun provides near 100% of all of the energy that drives our climate.
To say, there is proof that the sun is not a driver of climate falls a bit flat for me… just sayin’
Dear Mario!
“Fun,” eh? lol. #(:))
Two thoughts:
1) My non-technical background creates some unnecessary ambiguity.
2) I was responding (trying, heh) only to DCE’s “small change in the Sun’s output” speculation.
3) Thus, I AGREE THAT THE SUN IS THE MAIN THING as to climate through the ages; just not that changes in TSI drive a climate shift.
So, I think we may be talking past each other a little…
EVEN MORE I know so little that I may have once again over-simplified. That is not to put myself down, just to acknowledge a fact.
Re: “Positing that there are no measurable indirect effects needs more proof… .”
My thought:
Since these solar effects are highly likely negated by other natural forces, I thought I could assert that as a null hypothesis. The burden of proof then being on those who assert that TSI variation does measurably drive climate shifts (by which I mean a shift resulting in earth being several degrees cooler or warmer for a long time).
Re: ENSO processes
My thought:
Yes, TSI DOES affect ENSO, but, changes in TSI (as DCE put it “in the sun’s output”) are not the driver, just that the sun over time warms the surface of the ocean regardless of TSI up – down variation. That is, that ENSO is just part of climate homeostasis over long time scales and not a climate shift driver.
Bottom line: I am SO GLAD that you showed up to give DCE (and me!) a much more informed, educated, answer. (sure hope DCE reads your post!)
Even more, I hope one of your scientist colleagues will step up and affirm and or “debate” with you! {that in bold to promote that!}
I am HAPPY TO BE TAUGHT, Mr. Lento. Especially by you.
Your Admiring WUWT Ally for Science Truth,
Janice
P.S. I apologize for my response here is not being the detailed, careful, argumentation your thoughtful post deserves. I’m finally starting on a tedious project (not science, lol) and am giving WUWT short shrift (for me, that is!) for awhile. PLUS I BARELY KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT — pretty much tapped out above…. unless I looked up a bunch of stuff and I don’t want to!!!!
#(:))
P.P.S. Re: “just sayin'” – LOL, Mario — you KNOW that phrase infuriates me 🙁
— that’s why you used it, huh? Heh, heh. Yes, indeed, you are FUN! (smile)
RichardLH says:
March 12, 2014 at 2:59 am
“Ulric: The only trend lines is the red dotted one. The other solid lines and the black dotted one are from filters. That cyclic behaviour you see is what the data says happens, not me adding some things that just might have.
There IS a regular ~60 year signal in the data. You cannot just wish it away.”
Firstly, ~1875 to ~1945 is not a ~60yr signal, and the sharp step up during the 1920’s cannot be wished away either.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-amo-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-years-and-s-g-years-filters-with-hadcrut-overlay.png