From the University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year,” says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets.
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value (Figure 1a) and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands,” explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat–heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 1b),” says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
###
Still can’t get my head around warming seas becoming ‘acidic ‘. I thought they out gassed CO2?
Ran across this tonight on the wunderground weather site: U.S. Lightning Strikes May Increase 50% Due to Global Warming, by Dr. Jeff Masters.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2860
“… Main author [of a study published on Thursday in ‘Science’ journal] David Romps of the University of California-Berkeley said in a press release, “This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. Warming causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and if you have more fuel lying around, when you get ignition, it can go big time…”
__________________________________
Okay, so warming increases water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is a far more prevalent “greenhouse” gas than CO2, the more water vapor the warmer it gets and the warmer it gets the more water vapor. Sooo, is the next step to impose a global water vapor tax on us?
The article goes on to talk about ozone (yet another “greenhouse” gas) increase from all that lightning. ‘kay, add a global ozone tax to the tab.
The article is also replete with lurid tales of the death and damage caused by lightning, in case we aren’t taking the threat seriously enough.
Me, I think I’ll just go sit on the porch and enjoy the light show…
The most interesting feature of current global SSTs is the persistent cold SST all around the boundary of Antarctic sea ice.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The north Pacific peak being pulled like a rabbit out of a hat is distracting from this more important phenomenon down south.
Remember that SSTs are only surface. North Pacific anomalies down to 150m don’t look anything unusual (bottom figure):
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYOC001.gif?1297119137
Higher surface temp does however mean more loss of ocean heat.
Yes, this focus on the North Pacific is a cherry pick. But, then, so is 90% of the rest of the case for AGW.
Bipolar seesaw anyone?
I’ve been trying to find out which record the last month was the hottest on.
Finally I found it after considerable research:
A question a lot of sceptics should be asking is not what’s happened to the warming – but why isn’t there more cooling. We have low solar activity and a cool phase of the PDO (note the temperature dip in the 1940s) but now in 2014, a non El Nino year, global temperatures in at least 3 of the main 4 datasets are at record highs or close to record highs.
John the solar activity is not low enough or long enough as of today to create cooling but that will be changing as this decade proceeds and you will see a cooling trend. I have stated the solar parameters needed and also said they have to follow some 10 years of sub-solar activity in general. We have the 10 years of sub-solar activity in general in now it is to wait and see what happens to the climate when the sun sinks into a period of very low solar parameters.
Why? Did we need 10 years of above normal solar activity to start the warming in the early 20th century?
What evidence do you have that cooling will happen when these “low solar parameters” are reached. You’re making stuff up. It’s just wishful thinking on your part. The solar link has failed to materialise. The next shift in mean global temperatures will be upwards
John (Finn), while I agree with you about Salvatore’s prediction of upcoming cooling, you fall into the same trap. To quote you, what evidence do you have that warming will happen? How do you know that the next shift in temperatures will be upwards?
I gotta confess, in a world where no one can explain why we went into the Little Ice Age, and no one can explain why we came out of the Little Ice Age … in this chaotic, poorly-understood world, the number of people like you and Salvatore who earnestly assure me that you have the inside track on the future evolution of the climate is nothing but astounding.
Truth is, I immediately discount anyone who tells me that they know which way the climate frog is going to jump. Nobody knows what the next decade will bring, just as no one predicted the “pause” … and claiming that you do know merely marks you as someone who is not paying attention.
w.
Well, Willis, I also think it will go up — after what Jimmy Carter referred to, in a different context, as a “suitable interval”. Perhaps about 20 years. At that point ENSO will have shifted and we will be in a positive PDO. Unless other factors intervene, we will likely see warming comparable to 1976 – 2007, the flip side of the negative PDO of the 1950s, and that of today.
But even so, bottom-line, there will in all likelihood only be net lukewarming.
Willis Eschenbach
November 15, 2014 at 6:14 pm
The Little Ice Age is perfectly well explained by solar minima. Climate generally cooled during the 14th century, although the world was still warmer for most of that century than now, its latter half especially. The Wolf Minimum lasted from about 1280 to 1350, so the decline of the Medieval Warm Period correlates well with this period of lower solar activity. Climate rebounded in the latter 14th century, but then the LIA set in with the Spörer Minimum, c. 1460 to 1550, followed again by a rebound in the later 16th century. But then the cold returned with a vengeance during the depths of the LIA, thanks to the Maunder Minimum, c. 1645 t- 1715. This was followed by the most rapid and long-lasting multi-decadal warming sine the Medieval Warm Period in the early 18th century, much more powerful than the early and late 20th century warmings. Climate muddled along cooler than now but not extremely cold either during the latter 18th century until the Dalton Minimum, c. 1790 to 1820, which was followed by more muddling until the onset of the Modern Warm Period in the second half of the 19th century.
I know this has been explained to you before, so I wonder why you continue to claim that no one has a clue what caused the Little Ice Age. Maybe no one can know for certain, but there is good reason to think that climatic fluctuations like the Holocene Thernal Optimum, the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods, and the cold periods like the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages and LIA Cold Periods, are not merely chaotic. All interglacials (Bond Cycles), and for that matter glacials (D/O and Heinrich events), show these quasi-periodic centennial to millennial scale variations, based upon multi-decadal cycling around a trend line. In fact they’re visible in the paleo record from well before the current glaciation.
For instance, evidence of solar activity cycles from the Miocene on decadal, centennial and millennial time frames, from Austrian lake sediments, but also with a survey of some prior findings:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617729/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006748
Greg Goodman November 15, 2014 at 2:11 am
I disagree. If we test the method on the full dataset, it gives us the best data available for what will happen in the portion of the dataset we have not tested (the end of the data).
Look, you can end your filter once you don’t have enough data to apply it. That’s fine.
But there is nothing that is “non-engineering quality” about providing an answer plus an error estimate of applying the filter to the remaining data.
What is not good engineering is to just run the filter to the end (by padding or other methods) without providing an error estimate. But if you include an error estimate, it can be quite valuable information.
Not true in the slightest. Further information is always of use, as long as it comes with an error estimate. Which answer is more valuable: “I don’t know”, or “4.3 ± .38”?
Obviously the latter, so I fail to see why you claim it is not of much use.
Been there, done that. The error starts at zero back one half-width of the filter, and grows with each data point up to the end. You could do it with a french curve with almost no error. I’ve done it so many times I just do it by eye.
Probably what I should do is to add the end error estimation to my R code that does the gaussian calculation, so it prints automatically on my graphs …
In any case, thanks for your comments, always interesting.
w.
So is that warm anomaly in the North Pacific keeping us warmer in Washington and Oregon, or are clear skies simply radiating ocean heat it out to space?
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KPDT&wfo=pdt
It appears that this sea surface heat anomaly is evaporating (via radiational cooling) into the cold dry atmosphere never to return to warm us up. Bon Voyage heat. We will sorely miss you.
Just realised the reason for this manufactured warm record – G20. They need a show and tell for that.
But it looks like leaders are not taking it ery seriously. No climate on the G20 agenda
Actually, there has been an almost constant stream of discussions about climate change at the G20 here in Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Obama has apparently agreed to tackle climate change with the Chinese and this is all over the Aussie MSM like a sweat rash! Not sure how Obama will manage this without support from Congress.
Obama does all kinds of things without Congress to which the Constitution expressly grants power to the legislative branch, not the judicial. Without Congress, he might have trouble coming up with the $3 billion he promised to help poor countries fight climate change, although he has managed to run annual deficits of about a trillion dollars every year without getting Congress to open the purse strings, as required by the Constitution. The Fed just invents money and Harry Reid just ruled without a budget by continuing resolution.
The idiotic climate change accord with China is peanuts compared to what he’s liable to do by imperial fiat about immigration. BTW the agreement is a heck of a deal. The US promises to lower our emissions immediately, which are already headed down, thanks to natural gas, while China pledges to do something in 15 years, even though its emissions greatly exceed America’s and real pollution (not the essential trace gas and plant food CO2) are choking China’s cities and poisoning its countryside.
Bart November 15, 2014 at 11:20 am wrote in response to an earlier post by me.
What is it you have trouble with, Bart – is it reading? or understanding?
I never said the trend was close to 0.019 deg per decade “over the last decade”. I was referring to the HadCRUT trend since 1995 and I actually said that
While it may not be significantly different to ZERO (at the arbitrary 95% level), it’s also true that it’s not significantly different to a trend of a 0.19 deg per decade.
And this
In fact, the probability that the trend since 1995 is below ZERO is about the same as the probability that the trend is above 0.18 deg per decade.
In fact, under a valid statistical model, the maximum likelihood trend is about 0.075 deg/decade, and has been for about 14 decades. Sensitivity to CO2 is virtually zero.
332 million cubic miles of water will be affected by 39/1000 of 1% of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Uh huh. Yea.
…. but wait, there’s more Mike D:
For it to be anthropogenic, it has to be from the Beer-Lambert Law decimated CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm (and even that is arguable).
Hansens boiling ocean mathematics could be off by a hundred orders of magnitude, which could be many 10s of orders of magnitude worse than homeopathy.
It’s so fkin wrong the actual math(s) don’t matter. In other words, the greatest error in the history of science !!! Congratulations Jim.
The warming seems to be at the northern edge of the Ring of Fire so has volcanic activity increased here?
Willis:
“But heck, milodon, break out your “evidence”, present for us the next Chilean tree study …”
Thanks, w.
=====================
response from me:
Heck, WIllis, when are you going to break out your “evidence”?
=====================
Willis: Break out my “evidence” in scare quotes? Well, at some point I’m planning to write a post on it. And although I could just put up my graph showing the weakness of the 11-year cycle in the 14C data, your nasty attitude indicates that I should wait rather than provide half a loaf for you to snark about.
======================
Yes – I did think your attitude to Milodon was nasty – that’s why I reflected it back to you in your own style, putting the word evidence in scare quotes — just like you did. (there was more than one tree used in the study Milodon cited, btw)
empathy:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
As a layman I rely a lot on credible sources and government agencies’ databases in debating AGW advocated on Yahoo.
WUWT is one of my most trusted.
My first question is how do I find an easily digestible, accurate, and ongoing source for NOAA ARGO data? This has been invaluable in refuting those who fall back on ‘ocean heat content rise’ to explain the lack of global temperature increase.
My second question is why wouldn’t current ARGO trends blow these claims ‘out of the water’? What data do they rely on that trumps documented current technology like ARGO?
If my thermometer tells me it’s 90 degrees then it’s 90 degrees. If some guy wants to look at my thermometer, pulls out a strange, black box and waves it around, then tells me it’s 105 degrees I’d sure like to take a look at his instruments.
The answer is that the OHC estimates are either true or they are not. If not, then the entire question is moot. If so, then break out the champagne — earth has one helluva thermostat.
ARGO was created to eliminate the need for estimates. Its data are a known quantity.
If I take thermometer readings outside my house for a month they’re not called ‘estimates’. This would be a database.
Likewise there should be a location where high school dropouts like me can find similar ARGO databases collated and searchable by different parameters.
This would help me debate those on the Yahoo forums who usually just respond with their own spoon-fed talking points from agenda-driven sites like ClimateProgress.
I think y’all ought to stop picking on the Mosh. It is true that he endorses the current warming record. But even using the current warming record, the bottom line is lukewarming, only.
Where he and I depart is on the statistical integrity of the current warming record. Our approaches are dissimilar. He is attempting to infer metadata, while I advocate simply dropping moved and TOBS-flipped stations and falling back on oversampling.
I have that luxury because I am looking at the stretch of USHCN records that have excellent metadata. He can’t because he is using GHCN going further back than when competent metadata exists. He thinks one can infer it. I do not.
In this regard, I think he is barking up the wrong tree. But otherwise, we are much alike, him and I. We policy skeptics need to stick together, or there is no hope for any of us.
To Willis and John here is where I am. Notice I have many questions (PART THREE) which I pose meaning I don’t know if this is correct.
However , I think it may be due to the conclusions I have reached by looking at past historical climatic data and reading many climate research studies of current and past climate and the many theories tossed about as to why the climate changes. This does not mean I am correct but one has to go with what he /she thinks is correct. What is the use of doing anything to this degree if you do not reach some conclusion. I have reached mine right or wrong. We all have a conclusion to one degree or another.
Here is my case for why I say what I say.
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
PART TWO:
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
Once this weak maximum ends the minimum is going to be long and extreme and I think have significant climatic impacts.
PART THREE:
The new weather norm may be correlated to prolonged minimum solar activity which has not taken place post Dalton.
My thoughts, thinking and questions follow: Based from my previous post.
As I have been maintaining a prolonged minimum solar period gives rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern due to changes in ozone concentrations in a vertical and horizontal sense in the stratosphere.
A more intense atmospheric meridional atmospheric circulation pattern should result in a greater persistence in weather patterns, more cloud coverage and snow coverage and thus an increase in the albedo.
The questions to be asked are when the maximum of solar cycle 24 finally ends( which will likely be very soon) will the atmospheric circulation pattern lock into this greater meridional pattern? If so will it amplify the cloud coverage and snow coverage? If so to what degree?
Will prolonged minimum solar activity result in lower ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures? If so how fast?
Will volcanic activity increase?
How will the weakening earth magnetic field moderate solar activity?
Will the PDO/AMO stay or go into there cold phase ? Will the warm pool of water off the Western North America coast persist? Will ENSO feature more La Nina’s going forward in response to a cold PDO?
How will a cold phase AMO/PDO play upon Arctic Sea Ice?
I have three causes for global cloud coverage in mind, they are cosmic rays, the atmospheric circulation pattern and volcanic activity.
The big question is how will those three causes for cloud coverage respond when the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends following 10 years of sub-solar activity in general?
If the answers to these questions I have asked come out the way I think they will expect cooler global temperatures going forward and greater persistence in weather patters.
Note solar cycle 24 started JAN. 2008 no cycle has continued to increase in activity more then 72 months into a given cycle which means the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 should be ending in the very near future and a long severe solar decline could /should set in thereafter.
Once this happens many of the questions I have posed(I hope will) should be answered.
Truth is, I immediately discount anyone who tells me that they know which way the climate frog is going to jump. Nobody knows what the next decade will bring, just as no one predicted the “pause” … and claiming that you do know merely marks you as someone who is not paying attention.
My Reply
Willis says in the above, which I agree with 100%. Nevertheless what is wrong with expressing what one thinks may happen and why it may happen. Without the why it would be meaningless with the why you state your case right or wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete November 16, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Salvatore, this is why I pay so little attention to you. Following your hint about the Nordic Sea Ice, I got the historical data from here and compared it to the sunspot records.
The result?
NOTHING.
The correlation between them is a joke. It’s stronger with the ice leading the sunspots than with the ice lagging the sunspots, and neither one is significant. Nor is there any 11-year signal in the data. In other words, there is NO detectable relationship between times of low solar irradiance and the amount of Nordic sea ice.
I’m sorry to say that, because you obviously think about this stuff a lot … but making claims without any citations is bad enough. Making untrue claims without citations just makes me throw up my hands and skip your next dozen comments or so.
w.
I just read on another site that the warm water in the northern Pacific is largely [due] to a lack of storms to mix the water up. Obviously that can’t ask. Someone wrote that there is no ice on lake Superior currently. Actually there is but just in some small sheltered harbors
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures.”
It’s just the weak trade winds. If it’s greenhouse gas, there would be no 18-year pause because no pause in greenhouse gas increases in past 18 years.
Willis my reply to your reply is you will not find what you want to find when it comes to solar/climate correlations unless you put it in the context of all the other factors I mention below.
If you are going to try to ISOLATE solar activity versus the climate just on given solar activity at a given time and not within the context of other factors many solar/climate correlations are going to be lost to noise in the climate system and make it appear that the correlations are not there, which is why you reach the conclusions you reach. Especially when solar variation is not in an extreme phase of either high activity or low activity. The last long phase of solar low activity was from 1790-1830. I maintain if this level is reached under this current situation then you will see more apparent solar /climate correlations.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and have to be included in the context of given solar activity and how it may or may not effect the climate.
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives. Note the sun has to reach certain low level or high level parameters in order to over come noise in the climate system.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains meridional.
Again one can not isolate given solar activity versus how the climate may change it has to be in the context of other variables as well as the context of just how extreme the change in solar variability is.
I think we can all agree on one point which is there has to be a threshold point out there where by solar variability would exert a major influence on the climate.
Where the disagreement lies is many think the sun just does not vary enough to create that threshold point. I think it does. Time will tell.
Salvatore Del Prete November 17, 2014 at 8:25 am
Salvatore, I’m not the one making the unsupported claim that
That would be you.
I looked, using both CCF and Fourier analysis, and found no correlation between TSI and Nordic sea ice at all.
Now, if you think that I’m doing it the wrong way, it’s incumbent on you to show us the right way. It’s not enough wave your hands and mumble the magic incantation “Milankovich and Magnetic Field Strength”.
So I await your analysis that actually shows that what you claim is true. I did my analysis, it’s your turn. However, my strong suspicion is that unlike me, you’ll find fifty reasons NOT to do the analysis, and you will never present us with any mathematical analysis of the ice in the Nordic Sea of any kind.
However, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in this regard.
The ball is firmly in your court, Salvatore. Don’t bother with the bluster and the excuses. Either do the analysis or tell us you won’t do it, your reasons for making your choice are immaterial.
w.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/video-sun-sleep/
This lends support to my point of view. It does not prove I am correct but it supports my thoughts.
On the other hand Willis you could be correct only time will tell.
One thing that I respect about Willis is he makes a case as to why ALL items presented that may cause the climate to change just do not hold up under his analysis. You do make good arguments.
That said however we all know the climate changes (ice age to inter-glacial back to ice age) so although Willis makes the case as to why theories tossed about do not change the climate something is changing the climate because the climate changes. Therefore Willis can’t be correct. If he was correct then there would never have been an inter-glacial -glacial transitions or sometimes extremely abrupt climatic changes.
So what has to reconciled Willis in my opinion is if you keep saying everything presented shows no evidence that it causes the climate to change and yet the climate changes.
If not the sun for example which drives the basic climate system what can it be that would trump it? This is what makes me take the solar position when it comes to climate change because I can not think of anything else that could overwhelm solar influences completely independent from solar other then an impact from a comet or asteroid which I do not think can explain all of the many climatic changes. I keep being drawn back to the sun and hence I have tried to show how this may be the answer.
But darn it, no winds (at least not in the right places). So no El Nino. Well, we can live off the the hangover of the late great warm ocean into maybe January. Enough to tip a few gauges. We need every drop.