Guest essay by Andy May
According to Javier and the IPCC, total solar radiation output varies little, less than 0.1%. This is only 0.7 to 1.4 Watts/m2 compared to an IPCC anthropogenic effect estimate of 2.3 Watts/m2. They believe it has a small effect on the Earth’s climate. Others, like Abdussamatov, think solar output is more variable, perhaps varying 3 Watts/m2 (their Figure 3). Other variable stars, similar to the sun, seem to have 3% dimming in their minima, which is certainly significant. Both of the latter two examples are larger than the IPCC estimate of man’s influence. We don’t want to get any further into this debate here other than to note the IPCC may be significantly underestimating the effect of solar and ocean cycles in their models. The key point is we don’t know what drives the Earth’s climate. There are a bewildering number of natural and man-made factors that influence it.
While variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) may be small, there is clear evidence that Earth/solar cycles affect our climate. This is discussed in detail by two well referenced posts by Javier here and here. While measured TSI variations are small, the solar UV (ultraviolet) output varies by up to 10%, this affects ozone heating in the stratosphere which may have an influence on the troposphere. The varying UV radiation from the sun and other solar impacts on climate are discussed by Dr. Isaac Held and others at an NRC workshop here.
An interesting quote from the NRC (National Research Council) workshop in 2013:
“In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet.”
Well duhhh! They follow this with the preposterous explanation that solar influence is regional, how exactly does that work? The sun is 109 times larger in diameter than the Earth and 93,000,000 miles away, how can its influence be regional? The Pacific Ocean covers almost one third of the Earth’s surface and 68% of the landmass is in the northern hemisphere; so changes in the surface that the solar radiation hits are bound to cause uneven warming in the short (hundreds or thousands of years) term. This fact does not mean incident solar radiation changes are regional any more than a tornado leaving two walls of a house standing only affected part of the house. As they correctly note, solar changes cause changes in precipitation and in air circulation. Uneven warming can be expected to do this. However, an uneven warming effect does not disprove solar-caused global warming. It just means global warming of a heterogeneous surface cannot occur evenly everywhere instantaneously. The main means of temperature distribution are through water phase changes, that is evaporation, circulation and precipitation. The adjustment of the Earth’s surface to a change in solar activity takes a long time, thus we have long term ocean cycles like the 1,500-year cycle.
The effects of irregularities in the Earth’s orbit
The largest climatic effects appear to be related to long term changes in the Earth’s orbit. These orbital changes occur roughly in cycles of about 413,000, 100,000, and 41,000 and 21,000 years. They are probably, at least part of, the cause of the glacial periods of the Pleistocene geological epoch. The 41,000-year cycle is a change in the Earth’s axial tilt or it’s obliquity. Short term changes (geologically short, that is only thousands of years) are probably related to obliquity and orbital precession (the 26,000-year cycle). Probably obliquity has a larger influence on our climate than precession. Both appear to play a role in initiating and ending major periods of glaciation. The seasons change more dramatically when the tilt is high (24.5°) than when the tilt is low (22.1°). The current tilt is intermediate at 23.5° and decreasing rapidly. Precession controls the distance from the sun during the seasons. Right now the sun is closest to the Earth in the northern hemisphere winter, this moderates the northern winters and makes the southern hemisphere winters more severe.
Below (Figure 1) is a plot of orbital eccentricity, obliquity and precession from 110,000 years ago to 60,000 years from now. The plot was made using a calculator based on Lasker et al.’s algorithm at Colorado State University.
Figure 1
The last glacial period is shaded in blue and the present day is shown with the heavy vertical line. For reference the last glacial maximum (LGM) and the Younger Dryas cool period (YD) are marked. The bottom graph is the computed mean daily insolation at 65°N on the summer solstice. Because most of the land mass is currently in the northern hemisphere this is a key latitude for initiating a glacial period as well as for ending one. It is easier to accumulate long-lived ice on land than on water. The last glacial period began when insolation was headed toward a low of 440 Watts/m2 at 65°N. The last glacial maximum was reached when insolation was 460 Watts/m2. The highest insolation, over 540 Watts/m2, occurred early in the glacial period. By then a lot of ice had accumulated and presumably increased the northern hemisphere albedo enough to keep the ice from melting.
The important points to observe in Figure 1 are that today the obliquity is falling rapidly. Falling obliquity nearly always coincides with cooling temperatures. There is only one exception in the last million years at the end of the Younger Dryas. But, total insolation was quite high and rising at the time. The other key point is that solar insolation at the critical 65°N latitude varies a remarkable 100 Watts/m2! This is over 50 times the IPCC’s estimate of the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and 44 times the total estimated anthropogenic effect.
Javier presents the following illustration (Figure 2) showing the relationship of obliquity to climate in our recent past:
Figure 2
So, the overall natural cooling trend we have observed for the last 5,500+ years is mostly caused by declining obliquity. The decline in temperatures is modified by shorter climate cycles. These shorter cycles are weaker than the orbital cycles, but strong enough to be detected. In Figure 2, the purple line is obliquity, the blue boxes represent periods of glacial advance in various parts of the world and the red curve is Bond’s ice raft debris hematite-stained grain curve (inverted). The black curve is the Marcott, et al. global temperature anomaly. To see the present orbital situation compared to the starting point for the last glacial period see Javier’s Figure 17. The long cooling trend from 5,500 BP to the present day is sometimes called the “Holocene temperature conundrum” because it is the opposite of what would be expected when greenhouse gas concentrations are rising. This is discussed in Liu, et al. and graphed here from Knownuthing’s bucket and shown in Figure 3 below. The red curve is CO2 concentration and the blue is methane. The green curve is an ensemble of three computer models (CCSM3, FAMOUS, and LOVECLIM) of global temperature based primarily on the CO2 and methane curves. The discrepancy between the computer model results and the Marcott, et al. reconstruction is obvious.
Figure 3
Other important solar cycles
Javier notes:
“Frequency analysis of solar variability during the Holocene identifies several cycles (McCracken et al., 2013), with the most important being the 11.4-yr Schwabe cycle, the 87-yr Gleissberg cycle, the 208-yr de Vries cycle, the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the ~ 2400-yr cycle. Even longer cycles can be identified from 10-Berilium (10Be) records in ice cores, like a 9600-yr cycle (Sánchez-Sesma, 2015). Comparison of climate and solar variability records leads to the important observation that the length of the cycle correlates with the amplitude of the climate effect observed and in general the longer the cycle the more profound [its] effect … on climate.”
The post on Professor Curry’s website mostly discusses the 2450 year Bray cycle also called the Hallstatt cycle. Estimates of the length of this cycle vary from 2100 years to 2500 years. Since the estimates are based on 14C dates, this variability is to be expected. The best 14C dates are only good to +-100 years or so, and they can be much further off. The cause of the Bray cycle is unknown, but by process of elimination it is likely to be related to solar cycles. Scafetta, et al. suggest it is due to the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Geoff Sharp suggests that the overall cycle is 4627 years divided into two severe cold periods at roughly 2100 years and 2500 years. Specifically, Geoff Sharp has shown that all grand minima happen when Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are together with Saturn opposite. These are attractive ideas, but the climate cycles have imprecise periods and tying them to specific solar cycles, with a specific cause has yet to be done.
Whatever the cause of the Bray cycle, historical records show that it has a measurable effect on climate. Javier points out that the little ice age (LIA) occurs at a Bray cycle low. Bray cycle lows correspond with grand solar minimums which are clusters of solar minima, such as those observed in the LIA. The Bray cycle lows in the Holocene are marked in gray in Figure 2.
There are two other important climate cycles, the 1,500-year oceanic cycle and the 1,000 year long solar Eddy cycle. The 1,500-year oceanic cycle is not directly related to solar cycles as discussed here. The 1,000-year Eddy cycle is directly related to a solar cycle and shows up clearly in all records.
The earliest Bray minimum (B-5) occurs during the recovery from the Younger Dryas period 10,300 years ago. This corresponds with Bond event 7. The event is clearly seen in Petit et al.’s Antarctic temperature reconstruction, but it is only a change in slope on the Alley, 2004 Greenland reconstruction. None the less, it is a major ice raft anomaly in the North Atlantic. Evidence of colder temperatures in this period are seen in Norway, Germany, California, and Tibet. At this time the religious monument at Gobekli Tepe (southern Turkey) was deliberately and mysteriously buried. The city wall around Jericho was first built at this time.
The second Bray minimum (B-4) occurs about 7,700 years ago. It corresponds with Bond event 5a and occurs about 500 years after the dramatic 8,200-year BP event. The 8,200-year event is related to the Eddy cycle and the 1,500 year oceanic cycle, but not related to the Bray cycle. The B-4 event is a long slow cooling event that does not end until 7,100 BP (in this post BP means before 1950). This event coincides with the beginning of the Ubaid period. This period also sees the end of the European hunter-gatherer culture and the rise of agriculture.
The B-3 event marks the beginning of a long period of cooling that lasts until the depths of the LIA. The peak insolation (see Figure 1) occurs about this time and falls after. This is the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the beginning of the Holocene Neoglacial period. From this point on precession moves perihelion (Earth closest to the sun) toward the northern hemisphere winter and orbital obliquity falls. This period coincides with Bond event 4. By this time the Sahara desert has mostly formed, replacing the lush savannah that existed during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Numerous glacial advances around the world show that B-3 (sometimes called the 5.2 kyr event) was strong and took place all over the world.
The B-2 event coincides with the Homer grand solar minimum about 2800 BP and Bond event 2a. This occurs during the collapse of the Minoan civilization and during the Greek Dark Age. A great drought started in the Black Sea area around 1177 BC and this drove the “Sea Peoples” to invade Greece and Egypt. This initiated the Greek Dark Age, ended the Minoan civilization and the Mediterranean and European Bronze Ages. The 3.2 kyr event, when the megadrought began, is not associated with a solar event and may have been caused by the long term ocean cycle or the Eddy cycle or both.
The B-1 event is the little ice age (LIA). It coincides with the Wolff, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton cluster of grand solar minima and with Bond event zero. As with all of these events placing a starting date is difficult. Javier places the start of the LIA at 1258 AD, others place the start after 1500 AD. Either way this is a long period of colder weather that reached its coldest between 1600 and 1800 AD. The LIA is unusual. It was very cold relative to other cold periods and it lasted almost 600 years, longer than any of the other cold periods. Because it started late in a long period of cooling (see Figure 2) it would be expected to be colder than earlier cold periods, it started from a colder point. As to the length, it began and ended with periods of significant volcanism. These could be responsible for extending the period. It also occurred at a confluence of the Bray cycle, the 1,500-year oceanic cycle and the Eddy cycle.
Conclusions
The IPCC bases its conclusion that man has caused most of the warming in the late 20th century solely on two assumptions. The first is that the only natural causes of warming or cooling are TSI (total solar irradiance) and volcanism. Further, they assume the variability of TSI is very small and the climatic effect on the Earth is instantaneous and evenly distributed. We can see from the references above and here and here that this assumption is weak. The second assumption is that the warming from 1951 to 2010 is mostly due to man, see figure 10.1 here. This assumption is also dubious since the warming from 1910 to 1944 is very similar as shown here. How can one claim that the warming from 1910 to 1944 is natural and the warming from 1951 to 2010 is man-made? Further, as shown above, many natural climate cycles (both oceanic and solar) are much longer than 59 years. The IPCC calculation of man’s influence on climate was not based on data, it was computed from the difference between two climate model runs. One model used TSI, volcanism and the IPCC estimates of man’s influence and one was based only on TSI and volcanism. The “Holocene temperature conundrum” casts serious doubt on the climate model results.
So, given that many natural climate cycles are much longer than 59 years and poorly understood; how can we have confidence in the IPCC calculation of man’s influence? We are not suggesting that man has no influence on climate, but we do not believe that man has caused most of the recent warming.
A key take-away is that solar variability and the Earth’s orbit can have a large effect on global climate. But, the conditions on the Earth at the time of the solar change coupled with the uneven distribution of oceans, ice and land on the surface cause the impact of any solar change to be distributed unevenly. This delays the global impact on temperature and causes what we observe as long term oceanic cycles. These long-term cycles are not properly accounted for in the climate models.
We could argue with some of Javier’s points or conclusions, but he has provided a very good overview of natural climate cycles. These cycles are in the available literature piecemeal, but his well referenced and well organized posts are an excellent summary. English is not Javier’s first language and we need to look past this, but his research and content are first rate.
Ignore the millennial at your perennial.
=============
GOOD ONE! LOL!
I am prejudiced in favor of solar variablity effects on climate, but a good many comments by Dr Svalgaard have convinced me there is no good proxy evidence supporting that suppostion. Nevertheless, climate does vary over a time period shorter than the Milankovitch cycles, so. . .
What about LIA onset-intensification coincident with Wolf-Sporer-Maunder minimums?
That’s at least as good or better than the spurious correlation between rising CO2 (MLO record) and the adjusted surface temperature data sets.
And both are as good correlations as my age vs. the MLO record. Each have gone up a pretty consistent amount since 1962.
/sarc
Influenced by Leif Svalgaard sound objections, I assumed for a long time that the low solar activity during the LIA amounted to little as it was only a period (n=1), until I decided to look up the data myself and see what had happened at previous times of very low solar activity.
Then I saw the evidence, now I’m a believer
Not a trace, of doubt in my mind
true believers. Javier’s settled science.
Of course he never posts his data (AS USED) or his code (AS RUN)
With the exception of Willis, NO SOLAR ADVOCATE at Wuwt has EVER posted the actual data
and their actual code, when they publish a post.
Willis is the only one who actually gives you the TOOLS to check his check.
everyone else, well, they document their work, worse than Mann.
Now, typical responses… change the topic, complain about something else, make excuses for them..
solar hypothesis? mostly hearsay
…
[I’m a] Solar Believer (ooooh) I’m a believer,
I couldn’t see gasses now if I tried!
I thought C02 was just the only thing:
Turn the knob and get the heat.
What’s the use of thinking (doo-doot doo-doot)
Disconnect your brain (doo-doot doo-doot)
Play along and minimize the pain …
Then I saw Abdussamatov: now I’m a believer,
Without a trace – of doubt in my mind,
[I’m a] solar believer (ooooh) I’m a believer,
I couldn’t see gasses now if I tried!
All that warming was out to get me (doo-doot doo-doot)
That is just s the way it seemed (doo-doot doo-doot)
Fixed effects and no way out of it …
Then I saw Javier: now I’m a believer,
Without a trace – of doubt in my mind,
[I’m a] Solar believer (ooooh) I’m a believer,
I couldn’t see gasses if I tried!
((poorly) ripped off from Brad Carlin and Neil Diamond)
As knowledgeable as Dr Svalgaard is the earth does not respond (absorb) each wavelength the same, for example it reflects more blue light than red. In the UV chemical reactions are forced in the stratosphere, and the solar winds cause major change in the ionosphere so much so that the ionosphere become reflective to EMR during sunspot maximums. Another example, UV causes Ozone, Ozone modifies incoming light to some extent.
Major changes to our atmosphere are caused by aspects of solar emission that vary much more than 1% and it is not without possibility that one or more of these affects climate. TSR is only one aspect of our bathing in solar light.
Fact is we just don’t know enough to say.
A general problem is that people assume that the sun varies cyclically on time scales of millennia without good reasons why it should. The Sun is very large and has enormous thermal and magnetic inertia so it is hard to vary it. In addition many of our proxies for longer-term solar variations are contaminated by the climate itself, so correlations are somewhat circular.
Consider a pendulum of enormous mass, it also has tremendous inertia. But once set in motion it rhythmically cycles between PE and KE … good reason not needed. And it is a simple 2 DOF system (x and z coordinates in a gravity field).
But the # of DOFs of the sun and its vibrational and magnetic modes is…..?
The same reasons that sun varies on 11 and 22 years time scales.
vukcevic hypothesis is based on a simple logical premise: “the sun is the principal component of a closely co-related system of bodies, not an aimlessly wandering star.”
“people assume that the sun varies cyclically on time scales of millennia without good reasons why it should.”
If it does it doesn’t matter if we a have a good reason or not. People believed in thunderbolts since there have been people many millennia before we had a good reason why they happen. According to some it was Jupiter while others thought it was Thor, perhaps that is our level of understanding of long Solar cycles.
The Sun is very large and has enormous thermal and magnetic inertia so it is hard to vary it.
==========================
We see cyclical changes in the sun on scales as short as 8 years. Given that the sun can change even a little in such a short time means that a much larger change is possible in time periods a hundred plus times longer.
” … without good reasons why it should.”
There are very good reasons that the Sun could be more variable then we think. When we look out into space, the vast majority of the stars we observe are variable with what seems to be arbitrary period and magnitude variability. To claim that the Sun is special and has extraordinarily constant output is silly beyond reason.
“The effective blackbody temperature of the sky may thus vary slightly.”
The blackbody temperature of the sky is largely irrelevant and only the blackbody temperature of clouds matters as only the water in clouds can absorb arbitrary energy and re-emit it as a Planck spectrum consequential to its temperature. The O2/N2 in the atmosphere is nearly completely transparent to both visible and LWIR photons.
Confusion arises because consensus climate science seems to assume that GHG’s heat the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere which then heats the surface. GHG effects are largely radiative and the photons emitted by GHG molecules returning to the ground state heat the surface directly (actually slow down its cooling) which then heats the O2/N2 in the atmosphere by conduction which then rises by convection, where conduction nor convection has any influence on the radiative balance or the resulting sensitivity.
“In addition many of our proxies for longer-term solar variations are contaminated by the climate itself, so correlations are somewhat circular.”
That could be somewhat circular reasoning, as you don’t know whether variations in the ‘climate itself’ are internal variability or solar driven. Who decides what constitutes the ‘climate itself’?
“…without good reasons why it should…”
Just because we don’t know the reason(s) why certain events happen does not mean we must ignore them.
I have solved that “general problem” you refuse to listen.
Observations show planetary orbital behaviour is a counterpart to the timing of suns rotating and reversing polarities.
*the
Movement of ocean water seems to take place at intermediate time scales. The heating/ cooling capacity of significant quantities of ocean water is immense. The movement of these waters is directed by the relative strengths of salinity, temperature, ocean shape and contours and mass flow momentum. None of this information constitutes proof but it must be sufficiently significant to be included as a variable even if it needs to be quantified. I’m pretty sure “weather” is not only what happens after the sun comes up but how much large areas of water warmed, cooled, rose, sank, diluted, etc., thousands of sunrises ago -and that bridges the time gap to the longer cycles.
Ocean currents, surface and subsurface, could have their own self reinforcing cycles as well. What do we know about them? What do we know about long term variations in up- and downwelling?
Those cycli could play a role through longer term warming and cooling trends. And enhance those trends or diminish them.
Excuse me, but when I apply the arithmetic that I learned in school, I get that 0.1% of 342 W/m^2 = 0.342 W/m^2.
That is way lower that the 0.7 to 1.4 number this paper suggests.
Stop fudging with the numbers.
G
Well we have satellite direct measurements of TSI over several solar cycles (not contiguous) and those measurements clearly show something of the order of 0.1% p-p cyclic change over the eleven years, with of course short peak fluctuations greater than that that are short lived.
Don’t look for any of those fluctuation spikes to explain Jerry Brown’s State mega drought .
Those records are for several satellites which don’t agree with each other absolutely but they certainly do in the amplitude range, and those several satellites are several generations of hardware improvements.
TSI fluctuations is a non issue for climate.
G
I was only dealing with historical reconstructions of solar activity using various isotope proxies for solar activity, not the current measurements by satellite. Unlike Mann, I conclude there was a Medieval Warm and a Little Ice Age, and the cause was . . . God knows what. There is a lack of evidence for any model.
Solar radiation at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (averaged over all of Earth) is about 340 W/m^2, and that absorbed by the Earth or its atmosphere is on average about 70℅ of that. A 1℅ variation of that is nowhere near .7-1.4 W/m^2.
TOA radiation is not a constant. The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. When closest to the sun, the earth must be storing energy, then emitting it when farther away. This is not a linear system. Emission varies by T⁴; thus aphelion emission may not mirror perihelion absorption.
Also, IIRR, the times of maximum solar UV correspond to a greatly expanded atmosphere. Though the ionosphere is very tenuous, it’s impossible for a photon to escape without colliding with at least one ion. The effective blackbody temperature of the sky may thus vary slightly. I doubt if any of this is compensated for in the models.
The reference was total solar output, not incident radiation. Thus, I referred to the 1366 W/m2 output of the sun and the number is 0.1%, not 1%.
Oops, my 1% instead of .1% was a typo. Meanwhile, the IPCC anthropogenic effect estimate of 2.3 Watts/m2 is W/m^2 of Earth’s surface, and the comparable figure for solar radiation is the incident radiation.
Wrong… the total solar ‘change’ in output in the visible spectrum is around 0.1%
I get real unhappy when “wonders” concatenate differencing data sets,
such as captured in many of the “common knowledge” graphs borrowed for this article.
The Ice Core temperature estimates are the low ball smear of 2000 years before the ice becomes solid. Both the CO2 and the O2 gases have 100’s of years during the ice sintering process to escape to lower levels. This gives about the “lowest” value for the 2000 years unless someone wants to argue with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
To put temporal instantaneous temperature readings on the end of the low estimates is, in my view, professional incompetence.
If the folk “justifying” this professional incompetence, cluelessness, and horror weren’t in the category of
…… “once hired, never fired or held accountable”
I certainly would have fired them from the research lab I set up for Intel. XKCD and Josh can get away with such phony results, bullies and trying to dominate folk, not so much.
On the other hand, the “dirt/dust” is only likely to move “down” a bit, couple hundred years, under gravity, 25 meters or so. Thus the dust storms of 35,000 yag to 13,000 yag when plant growth became feasible due to acceptable levels of CO2, looks to be a huge bottleneck/pruning period for human genetic diversity and selection of behavior requirements for survival.
Susan,
Welcome to the “settled science” world of Climate Science. Your concerns of interpretations of gas bubbles in polar ice cores is why I consider most mainstream climate science to be mere hucksterism (huckster, (n) someone who sells something with biased interests using devious or suspect methods).
Susan,
Only the atmospheric gases in ice cores are smeared. The isotopic ratios used for temperature proxies are generally not smeared.
This discrepancy is one of the reasons for very high (and wrong) climate sensitivity estimates. The smearing lowers the frequency and attenuates the amplitude of the CO2 signal. When this is correlated to the higher frequency temperature signal with its unattenuated dynamic amplitude range, the result is invariably wrong. This yields too high of a temperature sensitivity to CO2 and too low of a CO2 sensitivity to temperature.
BAN CO2
Susan, you posted “Thus the dust storms of 35,000 yag to 13,000 yag when plant growth became feasible due to acceptable levels of CO2 . . .”
Really, you don’t think Earth had any plants (on land or in oceans) before say, 50,000 years ago. (Note: I added in a little geological time-scale margin to cover your assertions that ice cores don’t provide reliable paleoclimate proxies for atmospheric CO2 levels.)
Sorry, with such a statement, I can’t pay attention to anything else in your post.
negatory.
The dust in the ice cores is an excellent proxy for plants having a very difficult time growing with the lack of CO2. The 35,000 to 13,000 I mention has a lot of dust that fades out in about 13,000 yag as CO2 became high enough that plants could do well.
1. The best scientific data indicates that global atmospheric CO2 levels did not drop below 180 ppm over the period of 35K to 15K years ago (the end part of the Earth’s last glacial period).
2. Earth’s tropical zone plants did not cease growing during this period. Are you implying very high N-S concentration gradients of atmospheric CO2 during this period???
3. Even cold-tolerant plant species continued growing in non-tropical zones during this period. “The last late Glacial from 22,000 up until just before 13,000 14C years ago was very cold and dry throughout Europe. Large ice sheets were present over much of northern Europe, and ice caps covered the Alps and the Pyrennes. Forest and woodland were almost non-existent, except for isolated pockets of woody vegetation in and close to the mountain ranges of southern Europe. Instead, a sparse grassland or semi-desert covered most of southern Europe, whilst a mixture of the dry, open ‘steppe tundra’ and polar desert covered the parts of northern Europe not occupied by ice sheets . . . In southern Europe, across most of the Mediterranean zone, temperatures were perhaps 8-10 degrees lower than at present in both summer and winter (Frenzel 1992 a,b). It is interesting to note, however, that frost was not severe enough to wipe out relict populations of the endemic Mediterranean date palm, Phoenix theophrasti, from the warmest parts of Crete and the SE Aegean (Rackham, in press).” (Source: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html )
4. “. . . Ward et. al. (1999) grew both a C3 (A. theophrasti) and C4 (A. retroflexus) species at 180 (glacial), 270 (pre-industrial), 350 (modern), and 700 (elevated) ppm CO2 with severe drought treatments. In this case, the authors found that the C3 species responded to drought by dropping a large number of leaves, and retaining high water potential in remaining leaves at all CO2 treatments. At 180 ppm CO2, however, C3 plants retained relatively greater leaf area (by dropping fewer leaves) and delayed the lowering of g following the induction of drought relative to plants grown at 350 ppm CO2. The combined effects of these responses
contributed to the maintenance of a positive carbon budget in the C3 plants grown at 180 ppm CO2.” —(Source: “Plant responses to low CO2 of the past”, Gerhart & Ward, 2010, available (free) at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/asset/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x.pdf;jsessionid=0A95164E14CF0BB6655D35F531685440.f03t04?v=1&t=itpwwjzu&s=7e8bcdcb289ae02792bb2c51e5849ebb7271c084 )
Had me going there for a while Susan. The thought of a YAG dust storm had me licking my chops. I was going to go and collect a truckload of that dust.
I often have to kick myself to recall that the lost squadron on Greenland was located under 160 some odd feet of snow gathered in 65 or so years, and I have always wondered at what age, ice becomes a good hermetically sealed enclosure to save stuff for eons.
G
“To put temporal instantaneous temperature readings on the end of the low estimates is, in my view, professional incompetence.”
It’s also professional incompetence to present a global temperature in any fashion (Average, mean, anomaly, etc).
on an aside, SWPC reorts a G2-class solar storm headed our way. Should give a nice auroras over Canada and the northern US Thursday night.
More at: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g2-moderate-geomagnetic-storm-watch-28-30-september
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/pad_sides_large/public/top_news/G2_Watch_28-30Sep.jpg
Using my simple three level energy balance model shows that the surface temperature sensitivity to incoming solar shortwave radiation is about 42% more than that from longwave (IR) forcing from greenhouse gasses such as water vapor or CO2 at the top of the atmosphere, 0.3741 vs. 0.2627 C /Wm-2
See:
http://edberry.com/blog/climate-clash/g90-climate-sensitivity/improved-simple-climate-sensitivity-model/
Suggested edit.
Heat is energy (latent and sensible), and energy is conserved. Temperature is not conserved.
Valid point, thanks.
Milancovich rules
Rully, the discussion here ignores the larger picture of why the power spectra of glacial/interglacial oscillations changes abruptly about the middle of the Pleistocene; why the 410kyr cycle has no discernable power; and why it should be that Milankovitch cycles appear to have little influence when the planet does not happen to be in one of the five or so known ice ages.
See “A causality Problem for Milankovitch” coauthored by none other than Richard Muller.
If you want to know what causes an interglacial and periods of glaciation shut your pie hole!! they can be abrupt, Earth is not immune to cooling is it??
The Sun provides Earth with 386.4 X 10^22 joules of energy each year.
If that energy increased by just 1.0%, the Earth would warm at something like 0.01C each year as long as the extra energy was being received.
Right now, the oceans are warming at about 000.8 X 10^22 joules each year and let’s say that was bumped up by a warmer Sun by 7 times higher and that imbalance lasted for 50 years. Bang on 0.5C by itself. If it lasted for 100 years, now we up to 1.0C.
One should not get caught up in small variations is Total Solar Irradiance from the Sun. The changes are small, but they add UP to big numbers over decades. Not individual days or months but after many decades.
I just read a science article about a star which previously appeared to be about the same mass as our Sun and, in just 30 years, its surface temperature increased by 40,000K (TSI would have doubled – Our Sun’s surface temperature is only 5,780K and this star increased in temperature by 7 times our Sun’s basic surface temperature). In real life, it appears stars can change by significant amounts in short time-frames).
https://astronomynow.com/2016/09/13/astronomers-observe-star-reborn-in-a-flash-within-the-stingray-nebula/
Thankfully our sun has obviously never experienced the hypothesized helium flash event, else we wouldn’t be here to discuss it (or anything). It seems to me likely that that star (SAO 244567) must do those on a repetitive, cycling basis. I consider it unlikely in the course of deep time, we just happened to observe a one-off 30 year event on a star that has a life span of ~10 Gigayears.
A helium flash is something that occurs in an aging star that is no longer a main sequence star. The sun is almost halfway through its being a main sequence star, and won’t become a red giant for another roughly 6 billion years. SAO 244567 is in a post red giant stage and/or a star in a close binary system where interaction between the two stars caused an outcome atypical of SAO 244567’s age and mass. Low mass stars that cause fluorescence of surrounding nebulae (from very shortwave UV resulting from very high surface temperature) are not main sequence stars.
If that energy increased by just 1.0%, the Earth would warm at something like 0.01C each year as long as the extra energy was being received.
No, if for a billion years the energy was X, then increased to 1.01 X, the temperature the next billion years would not increase by 0.01 C times 1000,000,000 = 10,000,000 C.
That is obviously correct on a billion year timescale.
But it does not follow from that, the same applies on short multidecadal time scales. There could be lags that may permit an accumulation of warming for a short period of time .
of course not. It would approach asymptotically to the temperature of the star in some sort of T-e^(-at) where T is the star temperature and a is some unknown time constant. I don’t think anyone is saying the relationship would go on to invalidate the laws of thermodynamics.
Whether the theory holds water or not is a totally different question. One would have to determe whether it has any predictions to test that are different than other theories then go out and measure the variables.
Hypothetical visible sunlight gibberish,
About the black curve in the Figure 2 and 3 graphs: I followed the link to the Marcott et al paper, and could not find a curve that was close to matching it. If it is there, can someone point me to what page, figure, graph, etc.? I saw a global temperature anomaly curve in the top 3 graphs in the right column of their Figure 1 on a page labelled 1199 (3rd page of the PDF) that appeared similar, but it was about .7 degree C cooler for the warm period around 1000-9000 BP, more than .5 degree C cooler for the peak around 7000 B.P., and about .4 degree C warmer where it ends.
As Javier explains in his post, the temperature was rescaled to match the paleontological evidence that the Holocene thermal optimum was 1.2 deg. C warmer than the LIA. This is well documented and Javier provides good references in the appendix to the judithcurry.com post. Thus he used Marcott’s proxies and methods, but because he included reference points like Rosenthal’s paleo-ocean temperatures (Rosenthal, 2013, Science) he got an expanded scale to the one Marcott published. I probably should have mentioned the appendix in the text. See here for more discussion of the temperature in the Holocene Thermal Optimum: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2015/12/20/holocene-thermal-optimum/. In essence, he included ocean temperature in his estimate, reasonable since oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
The black curve presented in the figures is made from the same 73 proxies used by Marcott et al., 2013, but with their actual published dates, without the redating that Marcott et al., 2013 did, and averaged by the differencing method that corrects to certain extent for proxy drop out so it prevents bogus spikes at the end.
So it is Marcott et al., 2013 data without their questionable practices, as shown by Tamino here (black curve):
From this article:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/
Although I do not agree with their selection of data, I prefer to go with a published one, rather than present my own that would immediately be dismissed.
The temperatures have been re-scaled according to the criteria presented here:
Global Holocene Climatic Optimum
To be consistent with other published evidence.
Thanks Javier. The whole Marcott thing is a can-of-worms. Those posts explain it well.
I just compared the red curve as well as the black curve with the curve in Marcott et al 2013. Neither the black curve nor the red one comes close to matching, even with temperature rescaled and shifted. Marcott et al shows ~9,000-10,000 MP being a little lower than the peak around ~7000 BP, and the highest temperature being where their curve ends, according to the purple curve in their top two graphs in the right column of their Figure 1 on the third page of the PDF.
Donald,
“Neither the black curve nor the red one comes close to matching, even with temperature rescaled and shifted.”
I think you should read Marcott et al., 2013. After making their reconstruction using redating and truncation at pleasure, they run a set of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations that combine both proxy to temperature calibration uncertainty (1000 simulations) and age uncertainty (1000 simulations). From the 10,000 combined realizations, 1000 realizations are randomly drawn. Their average is what is presented in their figure.
That is an unusual procedure to be done on proxies because it erases all climate information and leaves a featureless Holocene with only a distinct characteristic, a huge spike at the end, that happens to be an artifact.
Why would they do that? I would say because they want to present an Holocene climate where the only feature is the late warming. In doing that they make themselves a disfavor, because paleoclimatologists aren’t going to get anywhere near that graph. It is only useful for internet places like Skeptical Science. Not even Tamino accepts it.
Javier,
Then what is the red curve?
“what is the red curve?”
It is the result of applying the re-dating software CALIB made for the recalibration of 14C dates that currently goes by version 7.1 to the proxies.
Since it changes some dates around, it moves and sometimes creates or erases features. Some people like it and some don’t. It is accepted practice. As we are talking about the very distant past, when we cannot be very sure about the dates, whether which procedure is closer to the reality is anybody’s guess.
Seriously ! I’m supposed to believe that black curve and the red curve are different.
Now if each time instant on the time axis, one obtains a black value and a red value of two different but simultaneously occurring, and being observed variables then I guess they are different.
But if it is just two persons jiggling the same set of observations, then I see no difference of any consequence whatsoever. I’d blame the difference on a lousy calendar.
G
Both curves are different interpretation of the same data based on dating uncertainties. We have to live with the uncertainty of the past until we invent a time machine.
A naive observer would say that both agree quite well, which is expected since they are based on the same data.
I asked Steve McIntyre in a comment that he should do a proper Global Holocene Temperature reconstruction, given his expertise in proxies. He wouldn’t comment back.
Here is a direct link to Javier’s appendix: https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/global-holocene-climatic-optimum-temperatures1.pdf
Thank you for the essay Andy.
The following observation was quite interesting.
“The current tilt is intermediate at 23.5° and decreasing rapidly. Precession controls the distance from the sun during the seasons. Right now the sun is closest to the Earth in the northern hemisphere winter, this moderates the northern winters and makes the southern hemisphere winters more severe.”
Is there anyone here that could tell us what causes the Earth’s tilt angle to change and change rapidly?
Is it related to changes in rotational speed, magnetic field, changes in inner core rotational speed?
I recall a physics problem where a height of earth’s extended axis at each pole is given, on top of which rotating giant turbines are constantly turning (counter to the earth’s rotation) to right the earth’s tilt by 1 degree. The problem involved relating the axial height above the earth’s surface and the turbine’s force required to decrease the tilt by 1 degree over some length of time.
The real question is why Earth’s obliquity changes are so small. The short easy answer is the moon stabilizes it to a large degree. Understanding and modeling the small changes and the quadrupole interactions between the Earth and the Moon system is a very hard problem.
Consider Mars. Abrupt obliquity changes in the range of 45degrees have occurred in the distant pst, and will occur in the future. Apparently chaotic with no periodicity. Mars has no massive moon to stabilize it.
For more entertainment on this topic: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/259/5099/1294
It’s a PDF from a 1993 Science Mag article, but still the best analysis of obliquity changes of Mars. The math and physics is not for the faint of heart.
http://i63.tinypic.com/9a8o09.png
What I also find curious, is that Touma and Wisdom (above) found that Mars’ mean obliquity changes about 3-4 Mya )see the test above fig 1 and the cut-off part of fig 2.) is in the same general ball park that Earth began to rapidly cycle through glacials and interglacials 3.2 Mya. Related? maybe, maybe not. But probably unprovable or testable in any event.
The Earth’s tilt changes due to the gravitatory effect of other planets, mainly Jupiter, followed by Saturn, Uranus and Venus. As the changes in tilt stop once the reach their maximum or minimum, the speed of change in tilt is maximum at midway, more or less where we are now.
Carla,
Our solar system is regulated by the 360 degree
rotation of the sun’s outwardly directed acceleration.
The earth is caught up between a large moon and
an accelerating sun. All of the Milankovic cycles
are a result of this tug-o-war.
Please visit weathercycles.wordpress
“Fibonacci numbers and the special conjunction cycles”
Go play with a top and read up on gyroscopic phenomena.
Better still read up on vectors and angular momentum.
Why do bicycles ride terribly if you try to ride them backwards ??
G
Old Egyptian State collapsed around 1200 BC due to prolonged drought. During the Warming Roman Rome had farmlands in North Africa after the conquest of Carthage.
1200 years BC drought caused famine throughout the Mediterranean. It was cold and dry.
The 3.2 kyr event that brought about the collapse of the Late Bronze Age palace cultures. Mega droughts are the most disruptive events affecting mid-latitudes.
It makes sense that there should have been such strong Greenland-Arctic warming then with such frequent and strong El Nino.
The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) represents the largest perturbation to the climate system on an
inter-annual time scale, but its evolution since the end of the last ice age remains debated due to the
lack of unambiguous ENSO records lasting longer than a few centuries. Changes in the concentration
and hydrogen isotope ratio of lipids produced by the green alga Botryococcus braunii, which blooms
during El Niño rains in the Galápagos Islands, indicate that the early Holocene (9200–5600 yr BP) was
characterized by alternating extremes in the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño events that lasted a
century or more. Our data from the core of the ENSO region thus calls into question earlier studies that
reported a lack of El Niño activity in the early Holocene. In agreement with other proxy evidence from
the tropical Pacific, the mid-Holocene (5600–3500 yr BP) was a time of consistently weak El Niño activity,
as were the Early Middle Ages (∼1000–1500 yr BP). El Niño activity was moderate to high during the
remainder of the last 3500 years. Periods of strong or frequent El Niño tended to occur during peaks in
solar activity and during extended droughts in the United States Great Plains linked to La Niña. These
changing modes of ENSO activity at millennial and multi-centennial timescales may have been caused
by variations in the seasonal receipts of solar radiation associated with the precession of the equinoxes
and/or changes in solar activity, respectively.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Zhang_Leduc_Sachs-El%20Junco%20Botryo%20dD%20Holocene-EPSL14proofs.pdf
ENSO is caused directly by the sun, what I have been astounded by lately is the total lack of scientific understanding by the usual authority and “authority” will always act as an authority, the wit of authority will tar you with the same brush or so the expression goes.
Meanwhile engineers have been looking into all this bullshit fiasco called “global warming” supposedly caused by humans, and are calling foul on the whole premise.
Let me make one thing clear, the Sun has an enormous polar field, its expanse encloses the entire solar system, almost instantly.
This star at the centre of our solar system has a colossal rotating and reversing polarity that interacts with not only our own earth, but every planet, the suns polarities when reversing form a circuit with earths conductive oceans.
This is the clever engineering bit, the suns Poles reverse and strike the Earth every 11 years on average so to speak as its timing is apparently based on sunspot number, (which is bullshit in itself), anyway, the circuit changes approximately every 22 years (one solar reversal of 360 degrees), the sequence of the suns polarities striking earth and the speed and angle when it occurs change the measured outcome we record as ENSO.
The most interesting thing about the suns polar reversal is that it coincides with planetary orbital factors, the planet Uranus (for example) has an orbital rotation that exactly matches the timing and length of the recorded solar cycles, in case you’re unfamiliar with the planet Uranus’s orbit, it rotates with it’s polarities facing the Sun, and is perturbed from its orbit by Neptune on a regular event that matches the so called gleissberg cycle in solar activity.
One very important note: every time the suns polarities speed up during a reversal to a certain extent, the suns sunspot number drops off significantly (as seen during the 1970’s and early 1800’s).
How Ice ages occur: On occasion the suns polarities DO NOT reverse and remain at it’s geographic poles, sometimes for a long period, this is related to the contraction and expansion of planetary orbits that are a counterpart of the sun itself.
(Lief wont like this, as the Idea of a spontaneous self regulated “solar dynamo” type theory dribbles away 😉
Note to Mosher; RE: whiny comment about producing data! I have also released my data for scrutiny, with no bad criticism, My work has been used elsewhere, in some scientific papers too I believe, and that’s just my pass time in ‘amateur’ astronomy/science etc.
Precession and obliquity are well understood cycles with a physical basis, and it is reasonable to look for the effect of these on climate. I have no problem with analysis of cycles in this form – find a cyclic effect with a very plausible claim to physically influence climate via a well understood mechanism – and then look at the climate to see if you can indeed see such an effect. I have no issue with this kind of analysis at all.
But when you turn it around and start by seeking cycles in the climate and then when you think you’ve found some, go looking for cyclic physical phenomena with matching periods (like the orbits of Jupiter Saturn and Neptune) with no consideration of physical mechanism then I think you are venturing onto very shaky ground indeed. The dangers of finding illusory cycles in chaotic phenomena are too well known. And when you start talking about Neptune having an effect with no discussion of a physical mechanism then I’m going to have to call it astrology.
We’ll see then what has happened to the temperature of the stratosphere and the troposphere in 2009, year of reduced solar activity (on the northern hemisphere).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2009.gif
And in 2015 – the highest geomagnetic activity in the cycle 24.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2015.png
It has to do with the size of the ozone hole in the south. In 2015 was high geomagnetic activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
And when you start talking about Uranus having an effect … then I’m going to call it proctology.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
What is your problem? Uranus is a planet, get over it!!
Neptune’s mighty Trident is cause enough!
Do you hang out with the proveyors of “cycle mania” much? Lief and Mosh would be so proud…
*purveyors, excuse me lol
It follows that an increase in the earth’s albedo is long lasting effects.
Considering the fact that the historic atmospheric CO2 levels lag the temperature changes, it makes more sense that solar variability drives the change in climate. The small temperature changes would be magnified by the positive feedback provided by the changes in CO2.
Except they lag exactly as predicted by agw science.
Steven
So the lag as the climate cools as predicated by AGW theory as well?
? leads or lags ?
both?
The accumulation of ozone in the north-western North America is a bad forecast for the winter. Ozone density is much higher than that of air, and therefore is an obstacle to circulation.
http://es-ee.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/gl_dev/current.gif
‘They follow this with the preposterous explanation that solar influence is regional, how exactly does that work? ‘
Global cooling starts in a regional sort of way, the NAO is sensitive to the sun’s behavior. We now see a signal in the North Atlantic.
A word of warning to all those living in mid latitudes, be conscious that huge wind storms and sea floods are on the cards as we make the transition to a cooler climate.
Very interesting and thoughtful article. Thanks. Two comments:
1. Forget “the computed mean daily insolation at 65°N“. Forget it, because most of the land mass is currently in the northern hemisphere, and the land doesn’t retain its heat. If you want an answer to the riddles, and you’re looking at Earth, IMHO you must look at the oceans.
2. In defence of “the preposterous explanation that solar influence is regional“, I would interpret that as meaning that although the sun’s variations must reach Earth uniformly, its effect varies by region (different regions show different effects).
The computed mean daily insolation at 65°N over land is particularly important as regards seasonal melt and the possible onset of glaciation and ice ages. That is the reason you want to keep an eye on it.
Mike, it strikes me also that insolation received by any particular region is dependant on cloud formation parameters present at any given time. So if cosmic radiation increases actually prove to enhance cloud nucleation, we should see less energy making it to the surface, having a delayed effect on the oceans, where the heat is most easily stored by ENSO and similar oceanic cycles to be released later to the atmosphere in colder latitudes. This “delayed reaction” to insolation changes (both TSI and cloud blocking) could make it very difficult to track the actual effects of solar min/max variation.
(Anybody who wants to shoot this down, please do- I’m here to learn)
– Proxies (see comments above) are affected by numerous factors including the climate itself, from the point in time of being generated all the way to and including measurement (methods and accuracy). Wherever some kind of a contemporaneous instrumental record is available it should take preference to any proxy data.
– Solar energy is stored in the oceans which has effect on the nearby land temperatures some years after its direct impact. Consequence of this is that looking for an 11 year solar signature in the land or ocean data is a fruitless exercise.
– However, if it is looked at the change (delta) in the sun’s output (here taking the Group Sunspot Number as more accurate representation of the solar activity rather than the more familiar SSN as recommended by Dr. Svalgaard) than it is perfectly clear that there is strong association between solar activity and the 300+ years of the Central England instrumental temperature records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GdCs1.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2.gif
“…looking for an 11 year solar signature in the land or ocean data is a fruitless exercise.”
Vuk, this graph (courtesy of dr spencer) shows detrended data with three year smoothing to cancel out effects of el nino/la nina. Pinatubo cooling was removed as well…
Hi there
If Dr. Spencer has found a definite 11 year cycle signature in the GT, than I am more than happy to accept it. However, the amplitude between min-max (-0.06 to +0.06) of 0.12C is generally accepted as the correct one even by the hardcore solar de-niers (Dr.S usually quotes 0.1C).
Couple things; There is some question as to whether el ninos shouldn’t just be taken out altogether. That is, if they merely represent a break down in the cooling mechanism of the ocean… (it’s interesting to note that the ukmo argo data shows decreasing temps until 2010 and then rising temps thereafter, absent the 2010 el nino spike. like dr spencer’s data, there is a one year lag between solar min and minimum temperature as well.) So the .1C could be more like .2C. Secondly, we don’t really know what temps would be like if they did not cycle back down to the next minimum. How long would it take temps to equilibriate if a rise of 0.1% tsi is sustained. That’s the big QUE… If an 11 year cycle can produce say .2C in half a cycle, then is it possible for a century’s worth of a similar rise in tsi to produce .6C?
“Right now the sun is closest to the Earth in the northern hemisphere winter, this moderates the northern winters and makes the southern hemisphere winters more severe.”
Seems a pretty good reason – and explanation as to why Arctic ice has declined slightly in recent decades whilst Antarctic ice has increased.
First of all the data Javier provided as well as all of the other data shows beyond a doubt that the climate always responds to a prolonged minimum solar condition.
This is what the historical climatic record shows and secondly Javier, as well as all of us who support a solar /climate connection are of the opinion that it is the solar secondary effects rather then the solar changes themselves which impact the climate.
The claim is the 11 year sunspot so called normal cycle and the climate will not show a relationship because the noise in the climate system obscures the slight solar changes not to mention the variations within the 11 year sunspot cycle from maximum to minimum conditions cancel each other out.
Only when the sun enters extreme prolonged periods of inactivity or activity for that matter are those two issues nullified and hence a solar /climate connection is able to be established. It is no longer obscured.
I have come up with the minimum solar parameters needed in order to accomplish this by looking at the historical climatic record and how it has responded to solar activity. It shows each and every time the sun enters a protracted period of extreme inactivity the response in global temperatures has been down.
That is fact and until data shows otherwise I think the case for a solar/climate relationship is strong.
In addition the sun drives the climate therefore logic follows that any change in solar conditions has to have an effect on the climate to one degree or another. The point is how large is the effect and is it large enough to overcome the noise in the climate system which can obscure small minor solar changes.
The other side is what are the extreme solar changes in regards to degree of magnitude and duration of time needed to change the climate through solar activity changes themselves and associates secondary solar effects?
I am sure every one agrees that if solar changes are extreme enough there would be a point where a solar/climate relationship would be obvious. The question is what does the solar change have to be in order to be extreme enough to show an obvious solar/climate relationship?
Again I have listed the solar parameters which I think satisfy this issue.
Salvatore, please note my comment to vuk on the 11 year cycle in temperature. (the graph is dr spencer’s)…
Oops, forgot tell you that my comments to vuk are just above us here
GOOD POINTS.
I have put forth those solar parameters /duration of time which I feel are needed to impact the climate and I think gong forward the solar parameters I have put forth will come to be which will then manifest itself in the climate system by causing it to cool. I dare say I think it has started already.
How cool it is hard to say because there are climatic thresholds out there which if the terrestrial items driven by solar changes should reach could cause a much more dramatic climatic impact.
Terrestrial Items
atmospheric circulation patterns
volcanic activity
global cloud coverage
global snow coverage
global sea surface temperatures
global sea ice coverage
ENSO a factor within the overall global sea surface temperature changes.
Solar Parameters Needed and Sustained.
cosmic ray count 6500 or greater
solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less
euv light 100 units or less.
solar irradiance off by .15% or more
ap index 5 or lower
Interplanetary Magnetic Field 4.5 nt or lower
Solar Flux 90 or lower
Duration of time over 1 year following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have had going back to year 2005.
PROVE ME WRONG WIITH DATA. I DO NOT THINK ONE CAN.
It is your job to prove your own hypothesis wrong.
Just a reminder…
The earth cools off by 10- 20C within a 24 hour period. Then warms up again by 10-20C every single day.
That is a huge gain factor.
For all you systems (feedback and control) wonks, That level of gain and periodic wipes out any “error” or “integration” signal.
Imagine a car engine hunting for 2000 RPM. It races up to 2200 rpm and slows to 1800 rpm, up and down up and down. Can you reasonably detect 1 or 2 RPM variation or drift in that level of variability?
No way.
NO WAY.
surface temp variability…example…
http://rjh.org/~rjh/perth/perth-weather-ll.html
Having flown across the Gulf of Mexico and from Miami to the Caribbean several times in the last year, what I find fascinating is the complexity of cloud patterns and how variable they are.
I see no a priori reason why the assumption that variations in cloud cover can be ignored “because it averages out” should be true.
Where can I find a good article on the variations in climate produced by changes in cloud cover?
Good point Paul.
You can say the same thing about the solar irradiance reaching the Earth. There is a huge difference (6%) between the minimum and maximum values during a complete orbit.
As you stated, the earth’s Surface can cool by 20 or 30 F per night, that works out to 11 to 17 C per night. I previously did this calculation on the daily cooling of
the atmosphere:
mass atmosphere = 5* 10^18 kg=5*10^21gm
temp atmosphere 255K (effective radiating temp to space- underestimates heat content)
specific heat 1.01 joules/gm C
5* 10^21*1.01*255= 1.288 * 10^24 joules
radius earth = 6400km= 6.4*10^6 meters.
area earth = 4 pi r^2 =514,718,540,364,021.76
240 watts/sq meter = 240 joules/sec per square meter
60 sec/min*60 min/hr*24hr/day=86,400 secs per day
5.147* 10^14 sq meters*240 joules/sec/sq meter *8.64*10^4 secs/day= 1.067*10^22 joules per day radiated away
1.067*10^22/1.288*10^24 = 0.83%.
So the atmosphere as a whole cools by less than 1% over the course of a day. That figure makes sense when you figure that the earth’s surface temperature may change by 10 C or more overnight far more than average changes over a week, but weather patterns persist for several days, and that’s why meteorologists can predict daily highs out a week or so. That cooling is obviously mostly from the
earth’s surface and air near the surface ,leaving most of the atmosphere unchanged.
and where is the data on induction and non-visible wavelength energy?
Frankly this entire concept about solar input to earth is incomplete.
“So, given that many natural climate cycles are much longer than 59 years and poorly understood; how can we have confidence in the IPCC calculation of man’s influence? ”
The IPCC is not a person, it is a NGO associated with the UN and the WMO and made up of people who voluntarily associate with it because they find it in their professional and personal interests to do so. We can reliably determine by the self-selected coincident indicators that they express, in their own words, what “calculation” they have confidence in.
The most common factor in my reading of what is published by the IPCC is not science but socialistic public policy.. The arrows all converge on the same point. The “calculation” these people have the most confidence in is not scientific but ideological. While the individual research results may vary, the public policy implications they draw always converges on the same socialistic goals: bigger government, less personal freedom, less prosperity, lower personal energy usage.
This is made far worse by the grant-making process they control in what research gets funded and what does not. It is reinforced by the community reaction when scientists accept funding from third parties who do not accept the AGW theory. Because their ideology is more reliable than their research, the IPCC is a means to an end, a socialistic end.
For the record this article is excellent and it echoes my theory which I hope will be allowed to post on this site.
I will send it over . Thanks.
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record, and can perhaps result in primary and secondary climatic effects due to this solar variability, which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles, and maybe a roll for Lunar Effects.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat(1470 years or so) but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects, and or other forcing no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place. Which was the case 20000 years ago to 10000 years ago.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial. However when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable.
Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness, because the climate is always under a semi extra terrestrial cyclic beat which stops the climate from going in one direction for eternity.
NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/
inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.
PART TWO
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.
My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?
I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.
Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.
What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.
I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.
I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.
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. The key is duration of time because although sunspot activity can diminish it takes a much longer time for coronal holes to dissipate which can keep the solar wind elevated which was the case during the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 ,which in turn keep solar climatic effects more at bay. Duration of time therefore being key.
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 start to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24,if sub- solar conditions have been in place for 10 years + which we have now had. Again the solar wind will be needed to get to an average of below 350km/sec. which takes time because not only do the sunspots have to dissipate but also the coronal holes. In other words a long period of very low sunspots will be need to accomplish this. It will be a gradual wind down..
Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview. Even if one or two should turn out to be true it would be enough to accomplish the solar /climatic connection.
A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light Lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.
Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.
Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing the Aridity over the Ice Sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.
Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.
Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.
Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.
This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.
In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/01/the-arctic-iris-effect-dansgaard-oeschger-events-and-climate-model-shortcomings-lesson-from-climate-past-part-1/
The above accounts for abrupt climatic changes within a glacial or inter- glacial period. Dr. Curry this is similar to your stadium theory.
“The key point is we don’t know what drives the Earth’s climate. There are a bewildering number of natural and man-made factors that influence it.”
And then go on to argue the sun dunnit.
here is a clue. when you see these phrases
“we don’t know ” ” There are a bewildering number of natural and man-made factors that influence it.[unnamed unicorns]
think about what the author is doing . we dont know. yet we know there are many
the appeal to unicorns takes many forms… because ABC
Steven Mosher September 29, 2016 at 4:56 am
“There are a bewildering number of natural and man-made factors that influence it.”
“And then go on to argue the sun dunnit.”
Perhaps you should re-read the article, you seem to have some misconceptions.
Try by first listing all of the cycles Javier touches upon, listing their originators and perceived effects.
next put them into subgroups (like back in grammar school)
You will thus find that solar effect is just one of many, just like a penny “e pluribus unum”
Sometimes Steve when you have these reading disconnects you just have to get back to basics. That way way you are seeing what is actually written rather than what you expect has been written.
michael
What I do know is the supposed historical (hysterical) temperature records kept by the US Government keep changing due to a “better understanding” of what was wrong in the initial and subsequent multiple adjustments. Cold is now warm and warm is now hot. I suppose before I take my last breath we will be on version 30 since it will probably actually be turning colder and we can’t have that.
Man Made factors?? Name one!
Thank you Andy, for such a good representation of my article.
I submitted my first article, Periodicities in solar variability and climate change: A simple model to Euan Mearns excellent blog on Energy and climate “Energy Matters”, to Judith Curry’s blog Climate Etc., and to WUWT. Euan published it, While Judith requested that the article was of higher scientific level and centered on the ~ 2400 year Bray cycle and its impact on humans. I rewrote it and this is the article you are commenting.
I think that the bottom line is that there is a staggering amount of evidence of very important climate change at times when the formation of cosmogenic isotopes increased significantly, and that the consensus is that they represent grand solar minima of the Maunder or Spører type. If correct, the repercussions affect our understanding of the climate change since the Little Ice Age.
Regarding English, my level is fair for a second language, but if somebody volunteers for English proof-reading my articles, that would certainly improve them. It is a pain for foreigners to have reviewers of our articles always criticizing our English even after we pay people to correct them.
Javier
The Climate etc article is an impressive work and very important contribution to the understanding of the long term climate variability. I saved it as a pdf file, but considering the volume I do read only segments at the time.
Thank you Vukcevic. Paleoclimatologists know this stuff very well, but they are a quite bunch always making holes and they never go to the press with what they find.
quiet bunch.
This begs for a comment editor
McCracken et al C14 spectral analysis for 4700-3500 BP is fascinating. The regular AMO at 69.05 yrs, and the 41.5 yr slip period that makes 69*4 + 41.5, to the 317.76 Ju-Sa-Ur grand synodic cycle. Next is the regular 108yr average solar minima period. And there is an astronomical reason why 2*69yrs at 138yrs should be stronger, that has recently played out in the NE Pacific blocking followed by strong El Nino 1876-1878 and 2014-2016. After that is the common 179yr astronomical return period, and it’s double.
I’m doing you a favour there, as I’m saying that the changes in C14 that are driven by climate change, all have a solar origin anyway, none of it is internal variability.
In fact the 41-42yr period is a component of the 69yr repeat. If you first look at 1976 and 2045, then look 1976+41=2017 and 2045-42=2003, the latter two are a pair of oblique versions of the same Ju-Sa-Ur quadrature.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Javier, I appreciate your comment very much. Your English is fine and your posts were very good. I especially appreciated your references, you are obviously very well read in this subject. I wanted to write this post to summarize your excellent work and put it before a large audience. What you have to say is important. If you send me your next post (in Word format) I’ll see what I can do using the “track changes” feature.
…So, in other words, there are more “unknown unknowns” then there are “known unknowns” ? Or are there just too many “known knowns” that just get ignored ?
Still lots of unknowns out there, Marcus. Anyone who claims the science is settled is wrong.
“Still lots of unknowns out there, Marcus. Anyone who claims the science is settled is wrong.”
Climate science may not be settled, but it surely is definitive and the IPCC and the self serving consensus it crafted around its reports is unambiguously on the wrong side of the truth.
Anyone who CLAIMS the science, is wrong (to do such); anyone who claims science is settled is an ass.
“The 3.2 kyr event, when the megadrought began, is not associated with a solar event and may have been caused by the long term ocean cycle or the Eddy cycle or both.”
Eddy is a proposed solar cycle anyway. The event was roughly 1350-1150, and given the sharp increase in El Nino through the period, that means an increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, which is exactly what we see through the coldest parts (regionally e.g. NW Europe) of solar minima.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/#comment-813011
Ulric, I asked you about the published evidence that El Niño experienced a sharp increase at the time because it does not agree with published evidence and I am interested in seeing what evidence you have when you say these things.
It was posted to the comment string that I have linked to above, in response to your request…
http://www.clim-past.net/6/525/2010/cp-6-525-2010.pdf
Thank you for the article, Ulric.
I have to say that their data does not agree with their interpretation. 3200 BP did not have a significantly higher ENSO activity than 3400 BP or 3000 BP according to Laguna Pallcacocha’s proxy and their figure 6.
And more troubling is that I have Moy’s data on which this paper is based, and it indicates that the strength and frequency of El Niño events has been growing during the Neoglacial period, and so it is a lot higher at certain times afterwards than during 3200 BP.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/ENSO-Bond_zpsqiqwmj1z.png
See if you can spot 3200 BP as something special in this graph.
So all in all I would say the evidence is not convincing of any link between the 3.2 kyr event and ENSO activity.
You must be joking, 1350-1150 BC sits right in the middle of that strong El Nino period:
Javier, your El-Nino frequency chart of the last 11,000 years seems to be given little attention here and elsewhere,which is surprising given the implication it indicates at first look.
Weak to few El-Nino’s during the warmest part of the Holocene, to Increasing and stronger, during the Cooling part of the Holocene. Seems to say that increased frequencies of strong El-Nino’s, are an indicator of a cooling world.
This implies that there is an unknown single Ocean 10,000 plus year cycle in existence. Was there a similar indication of this pattern in the Eemian inter glacial?
Did I miss something here?
We present a high-resolution magnesium/calcium proxy record of Holocene sea surface temperature
(SST) from off the west coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico, a region where interannual
SST variability is dominated today by the influence of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
Temperatures were lowest during the early to middle Holocene, consistent with documented
eastern equatorial Pacific cooling and numerical model simulations of orbital forcing into a La
Niña–like state at that time. The early Holocene SSTs were also characterized by millennial-scale
fluctuations that correlate with cosmogenic nuclide proxies of solar variability, with inferred
solar minima corresponding to El Niño–like (warm) conditions, in apparent agreement with the
theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to exogenous radiative forcing.
http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt//reprints/tmmscience10.pdf
Also this from REN,Thank you:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/28/solar-variability-and-the-earths-climate/#comment-2309152
Sunsettommy,
“Weak to few El-Nino’s during the warmest part of the Holocene, to Increasing and stronger, during the Cooling part of the Holocene. Seems to say that increased frequencies of strong El-Nino’s, are an indicator of a cooling world.”
Yes, this is quite well accepted within the scientific community, specially the part that during the Holocene Climatic Optimum there were a lot less El Niño. Some scientists discuss the increasing part because the proxies on El Niño do not all agree.
In my opinion the El Niño is a feature of a cooling world that is produced because the latitudinal thermal gradient (temperature difference between Tropics and Poles) increases and the Conveyor system is not capable of transporting so much heat, so the El Niño acts as a release valve. This mechanism is suppressed during very cold events (Bond events) that affect the entire planet.
“This implies that there is an unknown single Ocean 10,000 plus year cycle in existence. Was there a similar indication of this pattern in the Eemian inter glacial?”
I don’t think there is such a cycle, just a warming planet or a cooling planet following Milankovitch cycles. We live in a cooling planet that is just warming on a short time frame. Records for El Niño for the Eemian are sketchy, coming mainly from corals.
During La Niña ocean absorbs heat during El Niño captures.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Such a jet stream may inhibit La Niña, that is, slow down a the current equatorial Pacific.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/uk/wilde/inactive-sun-stephen-wilde-lrg.jpg
“See if you can spot 3200 BP as something special in this graph”
Yes it agrees with my graph that there was increased El Nino roughly 1500-500 BC, though it gives relatively lower intensities for that period.
Using my trusty dusty mind it is very obvious that a 0.1% variance in Solar output has 0 effect on the input to the climate system, but…a 0.008% increase in CO2 is the sole driver of climate catastrophe….riiiiight
CO2 has risen from 280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 now.
That’s a 40% increase.
40% of squat is still squat.
Toneb,you make a misleading statement here,that is obvious to anyone who uses the much more accurate VOLUME per mass of the air math. Then the increase is actually negligible since it is still a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.
The physics doesn’t care about %.
You won’t find a physical law that cares about %.
Concentration is the unit you need to look at.
Otherwise. ..fake skeptic alert.
I see that Mosher, has not noticed the differences between Volume,mass and percentage.
Steven Mosher September 29, 2016 at 9:07 am
The physics doesn’t care about %.
You won’t find a physical law that cares about %.
Please re-examine what you wrote.
You just debunked agw. I’m not being clever, if physics doesn’t care about % then it is irrelevant, what the number preceding the % is be it .004% or 40.%
Next you state
“Concentration is the unit you need to look at.”
which is a contradiction of your first paragraph.
You are, I think trying to imply that the % of CO2 matters only in a measure isolated unto itself, rather then in the total atmosphere.
In relation to the GHG effect (if that is what you are referring to) you are in principle correct, but as “Tom in Florida September 29, 2016 at 7:39 am” states 40% of squat is still squat.
This is because CO2 is not the only GHG and thus its contribution to said effect must be considered in relation to its % of total GHG
So in reality the change in total concentration of GHGs and % total atmosphere are relevant.
Physics does care about %, very much so. Try not to be so quick in taking a cheap shot. It detracts from the point you are trying to make.
michael
“Toneb,you make a misleading statement here,that is obvious to anyone who uses the much more accurate VOLUME per mass of the air math. Then the increase is actually negligible since it is still a TRACE gas in the atmosphere.”
It is a trace gas – however since only around 1% of the atmosphere is composed of GHG’s and ~99% are transparent to LWIR then, err, hardly.
Also, the most powerful (H2O) is a condensing gas with an absolute quantity constrained by temperature ( it rains/snows ).
Thus CO2 is very far from “trace” where the GHE is concerned.
It controls the amount of the most powerful GHG is present to exert a greater forcing (feedback).
Oh, BTW, haven’t you noticed that this “trace” gas, makes plants green? (Sarc).
Also you may like consider just how useful O3 is, despite being a “trace” gas.
If you are of a scientific mind you may care to examine the B-L law to calculate the forcing increase of the extra 40%.
http://moscow.sci-hub.bz/97db8c42c26b3b530b3c60d265f8eae6/10.1260@0958-305x.25.8.1439.pdf
“It controls the amount of the most powerful GHG is present to exert a greater forcing (feedback).”
Forcing and feedback couldn’t be more different. Conflating them is another of the serious errors made by consensus climate science. We see this in the bogus feedback model where they attempt to claim that feedback amplifies the sensitivity, rather than what their model implies, which is to ‘amplify’ forcing into temperature.
The only forcing the system receives is from the Sun. A change to the system, such as a change in GHG concentrations, does not force the system, but changes the systems response to forcing. It is possible to say that a change to the system is ‘equivalent’ to a change in forcing, but applying the equivalent change in forcing to a modified system will count the effect twice.
The IPCC defines forcing in an ambiguous manner where an instantaneous 1 W/m^2 increase in solar energy is ‘equivalent’ to an instantaneous 1 W/m^2 decrease in surface emissions passing through the atmosphere owing to an increase in GHG concentrations. The problem is that they are not equivalent, where all of each 1 W/m^2 from the Sun affects the surface temperature, while only a fraction of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere does as the remainder ends up leaving the planet. This fraction is approximately half owing to the same kind of geometric considerations that tell us that the average solar input is 1/4 of the total flux arriving from the Sun. That is, energy is emitted by the atmosphere over twice the area (top + bottom) it absorbs energy from (bottom only).
Tonyb – Updated Dec 2014
2014 – CO2, CH4 and N2O were ( in ppm ) 398.6, 1.893, & 0.326 = 400.819 total ppm
If in 2013 CO2, CH4 and N2O were ( in ppm ) 396, 1.824, & 0.326 = 398.15 total ppm
Reading in 1995 were ( in ppm ) 360.8, 1.75 , & 0.312 = 362.062 total ppm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
percentages of total atmosphere 2014 (remember watervapor is not included in above ppm)
400.82 / 1,030,000.00 = 0.0389% (at 3% watervapor)
percentages of total atmosphere 2013 (remember watervapor is not included in above ppm)
398.15 / 1,030,000.00 = 0.03865%
percentages of total atmosphere 1995
362.062 / 1,030,000.00 = 0.03515 @ watervapor = 3%
So the rest of the atmosphere has changed (at 3% humitity)(2014/2013/1995) 99.961% from 99.9611% from 99.965%. = 0.0035% 1995 to 2014 & 0.004% 1995 to 2013
That is the real change.
Excellent article. There are important aspects of solar variability that continue to be undervalued for climate forcings.
The 0.7 – 1.4W/m^2 variation in solar flux is actually variation in insolation, not forcing. To determine the variation in solar forcing, you need to divide these numbers by 4. So, compared to the change in anthropogenic forcing (around 2.5W/m^2), the change in solar forcing is something like 0.2 – 0.4W/m^2.
I debated a lot on the wording of those two sentences. They are both accurate as written, they are also what one reads in the literature. But, I can also see your objections since the numbers are not directly comparable. Your estimate of an effective “forcing” is OK for casual conversation, but I did not want to open the can-of-worms of solar influence. My main point was only looking at TSI, like the IPCC does, is silly. Solar variability can be UV variability, magnetic field variability, and on and on. TSI is only one measure and not a very good one. This is with or without the correction necessary to describe the radiation hitting the TOA.
Andy,
The comparison is incorrect. If the solar insolation changes by 1W/m^2, the solar forcing changes by 0.25W/m^2. You’ve compared the change in solar insolation with the change in anthropogenic forcing. You’re not comparing like with like.
And then there’s physics: Yes, I agreed with you that they are not directly comparable already. You are missing the point of the paragraph. I deliberately used numbers from Javier’s paper and the IPCC report (0.1% and 0.05 W/m2 respectively) and the 2.3 W/m2 from the IPCC report. I wanted to establish these numbers in the head of the reader early on for reference. I probably should have parenthetically added the incident radiation values at TOA (very roughly divide by 4) or something similar to avoid this sort of comment. But, as I hope the post makes clear, it doesn’t matter – it is just polishing a turd. TSI and total incident radiation at TOA are small potatoes when compared to the measured effects of the factors discussed in the post. This is especially true of the orbital parameters, but even the ocean cycles swamp these variations. IPCC went off the rails when they focused only on TSI and incident TSI and ignored the variations in the estimates and the complexity of the radiation, that was my only point.
Andy May says:
Of course you know the solar variation goes back and forth, unlike the CO2 “forcing”.
Because of the earth’s elliptical orbit the natural variation of incoming solar irradiance at ToA (100 km per NASA) fluctuates 90 W/m^2 from perihelion (1,413 W/m^2) to aphelion (1,323 W/m^2).
Because of the earth’s tilted axis the total solar insolation on a horizontal surface at the top of the atmosphere and 40 north latitude fluctuates 638 W/m^2 between winter and summer.
According to IPCC AR5 the heat added to the atmosphere by the increased CO2 over the 261 years from 1750 to 2011 is 2 W/m^2. IPCC AR5’s worst, worst, worst, worst case modeled scenario is RCP 8.5 W/m^2.
Considering the magnitude of these two natural variations how are we supposed to take IPCC’s modeled & projected atmospheric CO2 heating seriously?
Yes , I have very few messages I keep repeating which because they are fundamental but seem to be largely unappreciated . One is that the equilibrium temperature for a colored ball can be calculated by the ratio of the dot products of the absorption=emission spectrum of the object and the source power spectrum so actual equilibrium temperatures can be calculated given measured spectra rather than endlessly repeating the 255K meme .
The second is that the gray body temperature in our orbit is about 278.6 +- 2.3K from peri- to ap- helion . That 4.6K annual variation is several times larger than the 0.3% variation this whole AlGoreWarming hysteria is over . And its phase is known .
This known “forcing” ( I hate the word which seems unique to this retarded branch of applied physics ) should be analyzed the hell out of . Because it is totally known and inescapable . If you cannot explain where that variation in energy goes , your explanations for any more subtle effects have no standing in my eyes .
There have been a few articles here on that issue apparently showing that some gets disbursed into sub-harmonics . And , of course it is confounded with the N-S hemispheric asymmetry . But again , this is a relative sledge hammer of an effect and if you can’t account for its effects within , say , 10% , how can any other claims be given credence ?
According to the graphs obliquity , and precession are favorable for cooling while overall solar insolation at 65 n is starting to decline and should continue as the years go by . Eccentricity not favorable.
Another point is total solar variability is likely higher then the .1 % that somehow has become the gold standard given the period of actual observation has been over such a very short time period. A flawed assumption.
The Maunder Minimum featured more then a .1% variation as well as earlier periods. Even the solar lull of 2008-2010 had solar irradiance off by .15%
So I do by the argument that the sun is as steady as what is trying to be conveyed.
In addition all of the secondary effects of solar changes are ignored by the IPCC.
I am confident that this present prolonged minimum solar event will result in a global decline in temperatures which as probably already begun.
Re: Solar variability and the Earth’s climate
A corollary to Occam’s Razor: when you haven’t got the big stuff right, don’t sweat the small stuff.
Q. What is the largest feedback in Earth’s climate?
A. Cloud variability.
Q. Why is it the largest?
A. Because it gates the Sun on and off.
Q. Is it positive or negative?
A. Both. Positive (amplifying) with respect to TSI and negative (mitigating) with respect to surface warming from any cause.
Q. How does each work?
A. Clouds perpetually increase at night and burn off in the morning. Without delay, the rate of burn-off varies with TSI, amplifying the TSI that reaches the surface. Cloud cover depends on atmospheric water vapor, which increases with surface warming due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, but with lags of several centuries to a millennium or so due to the extended THC (aka the MOC). RIP.
Cloud cover also depends on the availability of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCNs), except that CCNs are abundant all the time. Otherwise [a] the atmosphere would act like a cloud chamber, with streaks appearing from entering particles; [b] cloud seeding would have worked; and [c] Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray hypothesis would have advanced to a theory.
That an amplifier even exists in the atmosphere, see Stott, P. A., G. S. Jones, & J. F. B. Mitchell, Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, J.Clim., v. 16, 4079-4093, 12/15/03; Tung, K. K., J. Zhou, & C. D. Camp, Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response, Geoph.Res.Lett., v. 35, L17707, 5 pp., 9/12/08. To see how closely Earth’s surface temperature follows the Sun, Google for SGW RSJ.
That no amplifier exists in the atmosphere, search IPCC reports for cloud parameterization. See also Wikipedia > Parametrization (atmospheric modeling). The GCMs already amplify CO2 by adding water vapor in response to (only) human emissions, but that is (only) to amplify the greenhouse effect.
Q. What isn’t cloud variability in the GCMs?
A. Because it invalidates the AGW conjecture. Keep moving, folks, there’s nothing going on here. Tony Watts can retire.
An opportune moment to remind of this hypothesis:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
which brings together all the points made in this thread into a plausible real world scenario.
IPCC AR 5 says clouds have -20 W/m^2 RF. That’s a lot of cooling. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 reanalyzed 8 power flux models. 7/8 or 87.5% modeled cooling, not warming, much to Trenberth’s dismay.
Nicholas Schroeder, 9/29/16 @ 9:49 am wrote,
IPCC AR 5 says clouds have -20 W/m^2 RF. That’s a lot of cooling. Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 reanalyzed 8 power flux models. 7/8 or 87.5% modeled cooling, not warming, much to Trenberth’s dismay.
Nicholas Schroeder is referring to this passage:
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions. By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates. Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller. The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling {582}effect of clouds on the current climate. Owing to the large magnitudes of the SWCRE and LWCRE, clouds have the potential to cause significant climate feedback. The sign of this feedback on climate change cannot be determined from the sign of CRE in the current climate, but depends instead on how climate-sensitive the properties are that govern the LWCRE and SWCRE. Citations deleted, bold added, AR5, ¶7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget, pp. 580, 582.
The words potential and significant are massive understatements, detached from reality. And the following citation may explain IPCC’s sign uncertainty problem:
Cloud albedo effect, -0.70 [-1.1, +.04] (all aerosols). AR4, Ch. 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing Table 2.12, p. 204.
This passage highlights another underlying problem: conflating the tiny cloud albedo effect and the huge effect of cloud albedo. Mr. Schroeder’s citation adds one more: conflation of short wave, incoming solar radiation and longwave, outgoing thermal radiation. The former is the subject of the article, and not the latter.
Cooling is a relative term, so what is the reference? With regard to TSI average over Earth’s surface, the cooling from the clouds is 77 W/m^2 (77/342 = 23%), a far larger figure. AR4 FAQ 1.1 Figure 1, Estimate of the Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance, Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) p. 94. That Budget is the basis for the radiative forcing paradigm, the foundation of the Global Climate/Circulation/Catastrophe Models. In that Budget, the remainder of Earth’s albedo is 30 W/m^2 (30/198 = 15%) reflected from the surface. Because these two factors operate sequentially, they algebraically add to too large a figure. The total albedo is not 23% + 15% = 38%, but 107 W/m^2 from 342 W/m^2, or 31%.
Being simply an annual budget, presumably at noon, that is, the reflection normal to the surface viewed in line with the Sun, it has no information about a globally cloudless day, from which one might assess the total cooling effect of clouds.
But these calculations are not the albedo of a cloudless Earth. Images of clouds show that most clouds lie over the ocean. See, for example, Geerts, B., E. Linacre, Variations of cloudiness with latitude, March, 2002, available on line from U.Wyo. That preference is to be expected because the atmosphere over the ocean is both cooler and moister than it is over land. The images reveal most of the continents, which are far less importance than the ocean, which is dark and hence absorbent. From these considerations, the 77 W/m^2 reflected by clouds should best be considered entirely as cooling — cooling Earth’s surface temperature by screening the ocean from the Sun. Again, first order effects.
The effect of cloud albedo is greatest over the ocean and decreases as latitude increases. The very concept of a global average surface temperature erases the facts (1) that Earth has a surface temperature distribution that decreases with latitude, (2) that temperature is greatest over land, but (3) that the ocean accounts for most of the absorbed solar radiation. The greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor, so it has the least effect over land masses, where the outgoing longwave radiation is greatest.
In short, the notion of a total cooling effect due to clouds is suitably alarming, but rather meaningless in the end. The most that could be said on this topic with any factual support today, the first order effects, would be to exercise small variations of the Kiehl Budget with (1) observed variations in TSI, (2) dynamic cloud albedo feedback, fast and positive with respect to TSI plus slow and negative with respect to SST, and (3) variable surface temperature. What is needed is a model, radiative forcing or not, containing, as a minimum, the largest climate feedbacks, a model that had a chance to cover the peak-to-peak temperature excursions of about 14ºC over the past 5 or 6 interglacial periods to support the ice core record.
Andy, thank you for this (IMHO) beautifully written and well-referenced article.
I think that this single article provides sufficient evidence to show any open-minded reader that the IPCC “consensus” conclusions re: anthropomorphic global warming are not science-based, and certainly not objective.
I was particularly impressed by the Lasker, et. al., A&A paper you linked in the paragraph leading into your Figure 1 graphs. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in how Milankovitch’s theories have been extended and solidified by capabilities now afforded by the latest advances in computer technology, computer modeling of multi-body orbital dynamics, and matching computer output to observational data (the last being something IPCC should learn how to do).
Also, you stated “The important points to observe in Figure 1 are that today the obliquity is falling rapidly. Falling obliquity nearly always coincides with cooling temperatures. There is only one exception in the last million years at the end of the Younger Dryas. . . . The other key point is that solar insolation at the critical 65°N latitude varies a remarkable 100 Watts/m2! This is over 50 times the IPCC’s estimate of the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and 44 times the total estimated anthropogenic effect.” The main take-away’s from this: (1) unless we entered another anomalous, not-human-caused, Younger Dryas-like event starting about 200 years ago, Earth’s civilization should be preparing for long-term global COOLING, and (2) the IPCC has no consideration for, let alone respect for, science-based facts.
I loved this statement that was made in reference to Figure 2 in the above commentary, to wit:
The precession of perihelion has a greater influence than many think as it amplifies the asymmetry between the 2 hemispheres. Currently, the S hemisphere receives over 80 W/m^2 (20 W/m^2 average) more solar power during its summer than the N hemisphere as the N hemisphere receives 80 W/m^2 more during its winter.
The distribution of land and water couldn’t be any different between hemispheres and this leads to the asymmetry. In the S, the snow belt, which in the N becomes more reflective from winter snow, is mostly water and there is a far less seasonal albedo difference. The N polar ice cap is over water and can be easily melted from below, while in the S, the ice cap is over land which also reduces albedo variability. This ice will persist until continental drift migrates Antarctica significantly North, a large impact hits the continent or the Sun reaches it’s red giant phase, whichever occurs first. The evidence is that Antarctic ice has persisted through many cycles of glaciation including during the last interglacial when global temperatures were as much as 3C warmer than today for thousands of years.
Yes. That is one of the arguments supporting that the glacial-interglacial cycle is driven mainly by obliquity, as the glacial cycle is symmetrical, like the obliquity cycle, while the precessional cycle is anti-symmetrical.
That is not to say that precession does not have a very important effect both on the glacial cycle and in the climate of the Earth. The end of the African humid period that caused the aridification of the Sahara was due to a southward displacement of the African monsoon and the ITCZ induced by changes in precession.
“That is not to say that precession does not have a very important effect both on the glacial cycle and in the climate of the Earth.”
All of the orbital and axial variations have an impact and the impact of each individual effect is less than the whole. Each periodic component can be considered to warm during half its period and cool during the other half. Superposition applies and when the effects of each influence happen to be aligned in the same direction, the total effect is larger than any one influence can do on its own.
When you superimpose changes in the orbit and axis on top of the ice core temperature data, the correspondence is unmistakeable and Fourier analysis confirms multiple periodic signatures coincident with the known periods of the various influences.
I suspect that the nearly unprecedented relative stability over the last few thousand years is due to opposing effects from the precession of perihelion and changing axial tilt. When these effects were aligned positively during the last interglacial, the temperatures were warmer while the depths of ice ages seem to occur when the effects are aligned negatively.
As a result, the current of highspeed solar wind speed up the wind in the stratosphere.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/f395eg.jpg
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JAS_NH_2016.png
It is worth observing changes in temperature in the stratosphere in the south to increase the speed of the solar wind.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2016.png
What acts on the sun also acts on the earth, magnetically or gravitationally. No need to assume the Sun does everything.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Not explained by Milankovitch Cycles and Sla Cycles per say. I have tried to explain it on the post I posted at 4:45 am sep 29th
Milankovitch Long range planetary simulations do not explain warming or cooling on one single planet, the expansion and contraction of the solar system is very predictable and we have extremely high precision of predicting planetary orbits, the planetary orbits of the inner planets are more precise than the outer planets, this is because Neptune and Uranus have only made 2 entire orbits since their discovery, therefore any long range calculation will be slightly off, we know this is the case through observations and how Neptune and Uranus perturbs each others orbit.
The solar system is a timing counterpart of the sun, the timing of the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities) as they rotate and reverse in relation to Earth is why there are periods of warming and cooling recorded on Earth.
We already know (by observation) that when the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities) do not reverse, we have the so called “clusters of low sunspot activity/solar cycles” as observed during the Maunder minimum.
When the solar system expands and contracts it has a continued timing effect on the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities). As the suns reversing polarities are a direct effect, when they don’t reverse for extended periods, cooling occurs, cosmic ray count goes up, or if the sun continuously reverses, extended periods of warming occurs, cosmic ray count goes down.
270 sunspot number at solar maximum is 270% more activity than solar minimum, translated into TSI as watts per square meter is incredibly dishonest…
But then again TSI of 0.1% change in the “suns total output” is and argument against the sun causing man made global warming. go figure…
I tried to explain it on my post at 4:45 am Sep 29 which was posted on the previous solar topic that came out on this web-site today.
Andy,
Great essay! With Javier’s contributions, the comments section has been an immensely thoughtful discussion.
Thats a big claim by Sharp mentioned in Andy’s post.
Surely Willis can debunk such wild claims?
Willis has commented over the past few years that he spoke with Theodor Landscheidt and didn’t understand his ideas, there was a fall out around the naming of the dip in solar activity.
I can accurately predict the rise and fall of solar cycle activity for thousands of years into the future… Therefore they should be named after me according to this logic, yea it’s a stupid reason to fall out over.
The surface of the earth does not cool very fast, the near surface air temperatures cool much faster than the surface of the Earth. It is the reduction in solar radiation rather than cooling that is responsible for the difference in temperature of the surface between Winter/Summer which can lead to the idea that it cools rapidly.
Don,
“It is the reduction in solar radiation rather than cooling that is responsible for the difference in temperature of the surface between Winter/Summer”
Huh? This statement makes absolutely no sense.
If the planet’s surface didn’t heat and cool relatively quickly, the seasonal variability in sunlight would have little effect on the surface temperature, nor would we see the more than 3C seasonal variability in the global average surface temperature. Even the surface of the oceans exhibits significant seasonal variability.
The reason for the large seasonal variability is that the p-p variability in the N hemisphere is larger than the p-p variability in the S hemisphere and the average of the 2 reflects the signature of the N. The global yearly temperature variability exceeds the nominal change claimed to arise from doubling CO2, but is hidden from view by anomaly analysis which cancels this out.
The failure to understand that the planet responds far faster to change than the warmists require is yet another bad assumption canonized by the IPCC and the self serving consensus it crafted around the reports it generates.
Wrong… The sun can cause and has caused El Nino events and satellite data has picked up this interaction with the Earths conductive oceans perfectly.
Earth responds exactly how you would expect.
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/images/map21-temp-c.gif
“The cause of the Bray cycle is unknown, but by process of elimination it is likely to be related to solar cycles.”
Or alternatively a thorough investigation of solar cycles could eliminate the proposed Bray cycle.
“The second Bray minimum (B-4) occurs about 7,700 years ago. It corresponds with Bond event 5a and occurs about 500 years after the dramatic 8,200-year BP event. The 8,200-year event is related to the Eddy cycle and the 1,500 year oceanic cycle, but not related to the Bray cycle. The B-4 event is a long slow cooling event that does not end until 7,100 BP”
There is a fundamental logic problem here. B-4 and B-3 dates are both warm on GISP, while the 8.2Kyr event is cold. And from the proposed long cooling up to 7.1 BP, why wouldn’t it then follow that B-3 cooled all the way to 4800 BP? Not that Greenland cooling is global cooling anyway, which is an even larger problem in the interpretation of what are grand solar maxima or grand solar minima.
It depends upon which GISP temperature reconstruction you use. They are all different and the error bars on all of them are large. See my post comparing several of them here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2016/07/28/review-of-temperature-reconstructions/
On Alley, 2004 (my preferred GISP reconstruction) 7700 ky is cooling, so is 5500 kyr.
‘B-3’ is at 5200 not 5500. That’s a large error bar.
“The 1,000-year Eddy cycle is directly related to a solar cycle and shows up clearly in all records.”
Javier™ claims Eddy ‘cycle’ events “during the early Holocene at 11.2, 10.2, 9.2, 8.2, 7.2, 6.2 and 5.2 kyr BP, followed by subdued lows at 4.3, and 2.3 kyr BP”. GISP registers cold at 8.2 and 7.2 BP, and with 6.2 BP slightly cooler, but 5.2 and 4.3 BP are both warm.
The 4.2 kyr event was a major climate catastrophe in the Middle East and elsewhere. 2300 years ago was warm, but it did cool by 1900 years ago in both Antarctica and in Greenland. One of the problems with these cycles is they aren’t perfect and the timing is variable. Probably due to the conditions on Earth when the solar event happens.
Yes I am aware of the drought and population displacements In the Near and Middle East around 2200 BC. The warm spikes in GISP are when all of those type of events happen, like at 1350-1150 BC.
“but it did cool by 1900 years ago in both Antarctica and in Greenland”
There is an obvious polar see-saw effect around 2800-2400 BC, are you suggesting that it didn’t exist around 1900 years ago. And would you say 2800-2400 BC was warm or cold for the mid latitudes?
“One of the problems with these cycles is they aren’t perfect and the timing is variable.”
The first problem is proving they exist, and with wildly opposing temperatures between 8.2Kyr and 5.2/4.2Kyr it’s not looking very good. Especially as GISP warmed strongly following 8.2Kyr.
Ans why relate cooling 1900 years ago to the 4.2Kyr event? that doesn’t make sense, neither does the idea that was a cooling period for the rest of the planet, as the first few centuries AD are the best of the Roman Warm Period.
YOU WROTE:
“The IPCC bases its conclusion that man has caused most of the warming in the late 20th century solely on two assumptions.”
I DISAGREE WITH THAT SENTENCE:
The IPCC was set up and staffed in response to a pre-existing “conclusion”:
Human emissions of carbon dioxide are responsible for global warming.
The IPCC was set up to “prove” that pre-existing conclusion was right, which was mainly done with confuser models (that proved nothing), with the goal allowing the UN to tell the world how to reduce what is now called “carbon emissions.”
The IPCC was not set up to determine anything important, such as:
(1) What causes climate change?
(2) What causes global warming?
(3) What is a “normal” average temperature?
(4) Has the change in average temperature since 1850 been abnormal?
(5) How accurate are estimates of the average temperature since 1850?
(6) Is the current climate harming humans, animals and/or plants?
(7) Is climate change harming farm productivity?
(8) Are sea level changes endangering humans?
(9) etc., etc.
background information for IPCC:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140108192827/http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/6036.php
If the “carbon dioxide is evil” assumption was true, then the UN might be an ideal organization to “police” worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide.
That would be the first step toward building the UN into a ‘world government’.
Any suggestion that the IPCC is a “climate science” organization is wrong:
REAL scientific investigations do not begin with a conclusion that makes no sense, ignore all evidence contradicting the conclusion, and then present wild guesses of the future climate (disguised as computer models) as proof that CO2 is evil !
I say the IPCC conclusion that manmade CO2 controls the climate “makes no sense” because there is no evidence in 4.5 billion years of climate history that CO2 has ever controlled the climate, nor any evidence that CO2 suddenly took over as the ‘climate controller’ in 1975 !
The IPCC is 99% biased leftist politics, and 1% unbiased climate science
Just what I would expect coming from an organization (UN) that thinks the most evil nation in the world is: Israel !
Climate science blog for non-scientists
A public service from me
No ads — no money for me
Leftists should stay away, or risk high blood pressure!
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
The author seems unaware of standard literature review technical writing. I offer feedback in just a few areas needing improvement, as the post has many.
1. If a literature review was intended one should not refer to gray papers and should instead quote peer-reviewed research.
2. Research critique is a standard practice in literature review, mostly done before referencing so as not to include poor examples of research, unless of course one wants to reference poorly done research. It should also include more than one side if an issue has more than one, as this one does (which has 3 or more).
3. Properly done, an acceptable literature review should lead the reader to a plausible proposed hypothesis. Instead, the author’s pen meanders in the land of maybe and might.
At the very least, the author should have submitted the post for preview by someone schooled in proper literature review and critique, as well as someone schooled in climate science. I give this a fail.
Re Pamela Gray, 9/30/16 @ 1:44 pm:
Ms. Gray leaves the impression she is unaware of the true state of peer-review, or its role in Modern Science. The observations on the subject by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, need reciting every once in a while. They never go stale:
Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of scientific data is surely discredited. ¶ The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Horton, R.C., Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up, Med.J.Aust. 172(4), 2/21/2000, 148-9.
Modern Science is the other, larger species of science, the one that thrives not in the academies of science, but in industry, where models actually have to work. What needs a warning label is peer-reviewed papers. The state of affairs in peer-review, publication, and consensus forming, Popper’s triad of intersubjectivity tests to replace pragmatism, is in large part why the Internet was developed, and why blogs like WUWT thrive. It’s freedom from peer-review.
Championing of peer-review, as in Pamela Gray’s recommendations, is to perpetuate conformity to Post Modern Science. Popper fails.
Ms. Gray is clueless on the failures of peer-review.
If science was based on peer review, there would be no progress!
The consensus is repeatedly proven wrong as science advances!
The consensus would slap down any paper / research that came to a conclusion contradicting their own, and character attack the author leftist-style.
That’s a primary reason there has been virtually no progress in understanding / measuring the REAL effect of CO2 on temperature since 1896.
In climate science peer review is “pal review” — if Ms. Gray does not know that, then she knows little about the sad current state of what is called “climate science” (I would argue that wild guess confuser models are not really science at all, since the climate physics model they are based on — CO2 is the climate controller — is obviously wrong.
Holster your weapons gentlemen. Easy now… Pamela Grey is one of the good guys.
However, I do agree with you that peer review as practiced by leading journals such as Nature and Science is mere pal review, and these once-great journals have recently published a pile of utter crap, especially about manmade global warming.
I suggest that the internet and forums such as wattsup are the new, much better and more transparent form of peer review. Publish, let others comment, take your lumps, and let your results stand or fall as they may.
“Geoff Sharp suggests that the overall cycle is 4627 years divided into two severe cold periods at roughly 2100 years and 2500 years. Specifically, Geoff Sharp has shown that all grand minima happen when Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are together with Saturn opposite.”
In fact these events also occur in a string at one third of 4627yrs, so that Geoff’s string at 1472, 1651 and 1830, is repeated at 76 BC, 104 AD and 286 AD, during the Roman Warm Period. And regardless of what solar minima occurred just before and just after them, they were all warm events.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
typo.. 283 AD
Very comprehensive and thorough treatment of the solar topic. Thank you.
This part of the conclusion caught my attention:
“The second assumption is that the warming from 1951 to 2010 is mostly due to man, see figure 10.1 here. This assumption is also dubious since the warming from 1910 to 1944 is very similar as shown here. How can one claim that the warming from 1910 to 1944 is natural and the warming from 1951 to 2010 is man-made?”
Your rhetorical question at the end is a good one. This IPCC claim is a strange assertion to make. I looked into it with the HadCRUT4 global means using a moving 30-year window that starts at different point in time and found that for one sample period (out of four that i looked at), where the end of the moving 30-year window runs from 1940 to 2015, we can find a statistically significant relationship between emissions and warming. But of course, as you point out, there is no way to generalize such a result.
Here is my analysis in case you are interested.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
Milankovitch Long range planetary simulations do not explain warming or cooling on one single planet, the expansion and contraction of the solar system is very predictable and we have extremely high precision of predicting planetary orbits, the planetary orbits of the inner planets are more precise than the outer planets, this is because Neptune and Uranus have only made 2 entire orbits since their discovery, therefore any long range calculation will be slightly off, we know this is the case through observations and how Neptune and Uranus perturbs each others orbit.
The solar system is a timing counterpart of the sun, the timing of the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities) as they rotate and reverse in relation to Earth is why there are periods of warming and cooling recorded on Earth.
We already know (by observation) that when the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities) do not reverse, we have the so called “clusters of low sunspot activity/solar cycles” as observed during the Maunder minimum.
When the solar system expands and contracts it has a continued timing effect on the suns magnetic poles [n- p+] or (polarities). As the suns reversing polarities are a direct effect, when they don’t reverse for extended periods, cooling occurs, cosmic ray count goes up, or if the sun continuously reverses, extended periods of warming occurs, cosmic ray count goes down.
270 sunspot number at solar maximum is 270% more activity than solar minimum, translated into TSI as watts per square meter is incredibly dishonest…
But then again TSI of 0.1% change in the “suns total output” is an argument against the sun causing man made global warming. go figure…