The Big 5 natural climate dynamics – when considered together- offer a far better explanation of both regional climate trends and the statistical global warming trend since the end of the little ice age.
The first of the Big 5 identifies the effect of varying transport of warm Atlantic waters into the Arctic. A transcript is available at: https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-big-5-natural-causes-of-global.html
This is inconsistent with “greenhouse” theory where the only factor that alters Earth’s energy balance are greenhouse gasses.
Sea ice is not even in the atmosphere. The diagram showing heat fluxes at the head of the post does not show any impact of sea ice variation on the energy balance.
It would appear that you are suggesting if all the sea ice goes then the Earth will cool rapidly due to the loss of insulation over the oceans. This is contrary to the consensus where loss of sea ice results in lower albedo and consequential warming.
Bringing in insulating properties of sea ice is a surface factor. Nothing to do with what goes on with the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
RickWill what are you talking about???You say “Sea ice is not even in the atmosphere.” ??
Well duh!
Did you even watch the video or read the transcript?. The video is about climate dynamics that cause warming but incorrectly get attributed to CO2.
Nice video!
I’m sure that, somewhere in his cranium, there’s a cogent point struggling to make its way out. It’s not clear to me whether he’s agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, or something else entirely.
I thought you were well in the camp that believed in a “greenhouse effect” being the means of controlling Earths energy balance then you bring up the idea that sea ice (definitely not a gas) somehow alters the energy balance.
Soon you will be claiming the atmospheric ice in the form of clouds is a factor in Earth’s energy balance.
My point may not be clear but it was a sarcastic dig at your previously stated belief that there is a “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gasses” control the energy balance and climate. Clearly you now recognise that sea ice has a large impact on the global energy balance and it is definitely not a “greenhouse gas”.
Well then, as I correctly suspected you are one of the whackadoodle’s who denies any greenhouse effect at all. Your jumbled thinking is well illustrated by your comments.
As I said in the beginning of this video
“I previously discussed how CO2 has maintained today’s hospitable climate in the video titled, “How CO2 Saves The Earth: Greenhouse Gases Vital Warming & Cooling Effects” But as our lower atmosphere saturates with CO2, additional CO2 has much less of an effect today.”
Jim Steele, I will defend the ‘whackadoodle’s’ [sic] in this case.
There is an ‘Atmosphere Effect’ but not a Greenhouse Effect in the way that that particular effect was originally postulated. Basically, the atmosphere does not act like a greenhouse throughout the 24-hour period. The atmosphere promotes convection during the day, which is the opposite if a greenhouse.
There are essentially two problems with the Greenhouse effect: 1. The Theory and 2. The evidence.
There is no radiative Greenhouse effect because radiation from atmospheric CO2 cannot add to the internal energy of the surface molecules which are warmer than the emitting CO2 molecules. Radiative forcing is, in this case, a myth. There is only one source of heating, that being the Sun.
There is evidence for some global warming but the evidence is not directly indicative of being caused by CO2, and any suggested evidence has been tortured by false assumptions leading to poor model projections. As you have pointed out, there are several natural factors.
If you could state the exact mechanism which you believe constitutes the Greenhouse Effect, I’d be happy to discuss further. Name calling seldom has any benefit.
Regards,
Arfur Bryant
First I agree the term Greenhouse effect is a misnomer. But that is irrelevant.
I believe the argument by you and your ilk that “atmospheric CO2 cannot add to the internal energy of the surface molecules which are warmer than the emitting CO2 molecules” is due to your confusion about net energy gain, and the misnomer global “warming”.
Perhaps it would be better stated that so-called greenhouse gases “slow the rate of cooling”
There is ample evidence that greenhouse gases intercept OLR
There is ample evidence that the atmosphere radiates LWR back towards thee surface.
So your argument must prove that Downwelling LWR does not interact with the surface.
The argument of you and your ilk is that colder object cannot warm warmer objects. But that is phrased to mislead.
It is a totally “whackadoodle” idea to think that a warmer surface can discriminate whether or not a a 13 micron infrared wave has originated from a warmer body OR cooler body.
But that’s what your ideas are indirectly advocating, and avoid explaining. Instead my encounters with your ilk is they try to dominate any honest discussion by repeated filibusters that repeat ad nauseum that “colder object cannot warm warmer objects”
My argument is greenhouse gasses can slow down the cooling rate, not cause a ” net warming”
Indeed a warmer surface radiates more LWR than a cooler surface, but the interaction with downwelling LWR, no matter its source, will partially offset some of the warmer surfaces loss of LWR and thus slow the rate radiative cooling which is misleadingly called global warming.
Jim,
Firstly, I’d like to have a mature and reasoned discussion with you but I would ask that you refrain from using terms like ‘your ilk’ and ‘whackadoodle’. These type of comments serve no intellectual purpose so I try to ignore them. I hope we can agree on that. Now to answer your comment…
The fact that you agree the term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a misnomer makes me wonder why you defend it so virulently. Of course the name of the effect is relevant. That is how the effect was sold to the world. The fact that scientists keep using the term merely shows they are happy to give credence to something that they know to be false. So from now on, I’ll refer to it as either the ‘Atmosphere Effect’ or the so-called Greenhouse Effect.
You believe that I am confused about ’net energy gain’. I am not confused. There is no net energy gain when radiation from a cooler source interacts with matter. There is either energy gain or no energy gain. Net energy gain would happen if the radiation from the cooer source was absorbed to some degree by the warmer matter molecules. This doesn’t happen. Any received energy will be dealt with in three ways:
a. The energy is absorbed for internal energy gain. This is an energy gain result.
b. The energy is reflected (more precisely, absorbed for no energy gain then instantly re-emitted at the same frequency). There is no net energy result.
c. The energy is transmitted (carries on through the receiving matter). Again, there is no net energy result.
Similarly, there is no such thing as ‘net warming’. Heat does not flow both ways. There is only warming, or no warming. In the case of reflection or transmission, there is no thermal relevance to the receiving matter. So no net energy result.
If you don’t believe me, tell me how many cold objects do I have to surround myself with before I get warmer?
According to the original explanation of the so-called GE, longer wavelength radiation from several cooler sources would be ‘added’ to make a net energy gain and therefore the receiver warms. This was the original ‘Global Warming’ due to the absorption (not really, as this radiation is either transmitted or reflected) of back-radiation.
Now, as to ‘slowing the rate of cooling’. In scientific terms, you are on slightly firmer ground here but phrases like that are generally vaguely used without explaining the specifics. And the specifics count. With this change of theory, the AGW supporters immediately eschewed their original theory and went down the route of CO2 acting as insulation, hence slowing the rate of cooling. This seems reasonable until you look at the numbers.
So I have a question for you. How long is the delay from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere? The answer is less than a minute. Usually, much less than a minute, even if a photon bounces back and for between the surface and the mid-atmosphere dozens of times. So if you assume (as you seem to do) that CO2 is acting as an insulator, you are arguing that the planet warms significantly because it has a magic insulator – aka the ‘so-called greenhouse gasses’ – that makes up 0.05% of the atmosphere. How much warmer do you think you would be if you wrapped yourself in a blanket made of 99.95% air and 0.05% insulator? Against this, the thing that is causing the delay (the increasing CO2) takes seven months to add one part per million concentration.
So you have a delay measured in seconds (before equilibrium is achieved) against an increased insulation which is measured in months. This will not give rise to any significant warming.
Of course so-called greenhouse gasses intercept OLR. They are radiatively active gasses.
Of course they will radiate LWR back to the surface (and other directions).
And yes, they do interact with the surface. But the interaction is limited to reflection providing the incoming radiation is from a cooler source. I don’t have to prove that, it is the Clausius form of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It would be up to you to prove that your idea of back-radiation either warms the surface or delays the cooling to a significant extent.
Your comment about a warmer surface being unable to discriminate a 13 micron wavelength is, frankly, silly. A 13 micron photon is from a source at one specific temperature. The surface molecule can definitely discriminate between a 12.99 micron photon and a 13.01 micron photon, because they come from a warmer (12.99 micron) or cooler (13.01 micron) source. It is fairly simple, if the average incoming photon carries enough excess energy (i.e, a short enough wavelength), it will be absorbed for energy gain and raise the internal energy of the receiving molecule.
So I hope you can see that I am explaining, not just advocating. Your argument about slowing the rate of cooling has no evidence to support it. There have been enough periods in the Earth’s history (and very recently) which show that warming hasn’t taken place when CO2 has been increased to falsify your argument, at least on a significant scale. Your ‘partially offset’ is, in reality, immeasurably insignificant.
Regards,
Arfur
Well Arfur,
Sorry if it troubles you, but your arguments are totally in the realm of the whackadoodles. And I stand by the description.
You reveal how you are willing to twist word to mislead the discussion, I never uttered the prhase ’net energy gain’, but you falsify my words to make your strawman arguments.
I repeat, it is a totally “whackadoodle” idea to think that a warmer surface can discriminate whether or not a a 13 micron, or 15 micron infrared wave has originated from a warmer body OR cooler body. You offer your bogus narrative that “surface molecule can definitely discriminate between a 12.99 micron photon and a 13.01 micron photon” but again it is just your narrative devoid of science. If a surface molecule can absorb 15 micron wavelengths, it doesnt matter where it cane from and you are just making up shit.
Sometimes I wonder if you and your ilk push your whackadoodle ideas purposively simply to make all skeptics look ignorant!
Oh dear! You cannot hold a reasoned debate. You did raise the term ‘net energy gain when you said “I believe the argument by you and your ilk that “atmospheric CO2 cannot add to the internal energy of the surface molecules which are warmer than the emitting CO2 molecules” is due to your confusion about net energy gain… “
So you accuse me of making shit up when you clearly didn’t read your own words.
The wavelength of incoming radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the source. The hotter the source, the shorter the wavelength and the greater the energy carried. That’s why the Sun heats the Earth.
Energy from atmospheric CO2 does not carry enough energy to raise the internal energy of a surface molecule. That why the atmosphere doesn’t heat the Earth and any talk of slowing the cooling has no empirical evidence to support. At some point you will realise this. Until then, you may carry on believing what you wish.
I tried to have a sensible discussion but you insist on attacking me without providing a scientifically valid mechanism for how so-called greenhouse gasses warm the planet.
Good luck to you.
Regards,
Arfur
Indeed I first mentioned net energy gain but only by directly quoting what you and your ilk repeated write. Again it has never been the the way I discuss the issue,
You claim to bee taking the “high road” and just have a sensible discussion, but that is just BS. All you have done is continue to push the same narrative misapplying scientific principles simply dismissing my sound science.
The issue is very simple. I argue that 1) 15 micron infrared heat waves carry heat and 2) 15 micron infrared heat waves can be absorbed by the earth’s surface.
You provide no evidence that disputes that but again engage in the same empty filibuster narratives.
You engage in slimy misdirection when you reply, “Energy from atmospheric CO2 does not carry enough energy to raise the internal energy of a surface molecule.”
The issue is not if a greenhouse gas carries “enough energy”. That is your slimy way of dismissing that 1) 15 micron infrared heat waves carry heat and 2) it can be absorbed by the earth’ surface.
Instead you try to put up a front that you know your science with factoids irrelevant to the issues saying “The hotter the source, the shorter the wavelength and the greater the energy carried. That’s why the Sun heats the Earth.”
And when I expose your slimy attempts at misdirection you feign hurt with “Oh dear!”
So I repeat, it is a totally “whackadoodle” idea to think that a warmer surface can discriminate whether or not a a 13 micron, or 15 micron infrared wave has originated from a warmer body OR cooler body, but that is the pseudo-scientific crap you are pushing.
Regards
You are incapable of being reasonable and I have pointed out that you first mentioned ‘net energy gain’. This conversation is over.
Think what you like.
This isn’t true. From Planck’s thesis on radiation.
If the earth’s surface radiates at 255K, It just keeps on radiating at 255K regardless of what the atmosphere sends back. But the effective radiation from the surface is “255K – T(atmosphere)”. Only a body interspersed between the surface and the atmosphere would receive both radiation amounts and heat correspondingly.
In other words the cooling gradient is slowed but it is not forced backward. The math would be:
(ΔT/time) for no GHGs, and
(ΔT/time+) for GHGs
Jim Gorman,
What I said isn’t contradicted by the Planck statement at all. The fact that the atmosphere (B) is a weaker emitter than the surface (A) is exactly what I said. Therefore there is no heating from the atmosphere. A heats B but does not heat B0 (the Sun)!
What doesn’t happen is any heating from B to A.
And your + symbol for GHGs is just another way of stating the ‘delay in cooling rate’ hypothesis but you don’t give a value for +. As I said, that value is insignificant (and possibly unmeasurable) as it is seconds versus months.
And the ‘heats accordingly’ for your body between the two heat sources would be ‘gains heat from the hotter body and gains no (zero) heat from the cooler body. This is what happens to the planet.
Put simply, there is no valid, physical mechanism for the CO2 => Global Warming idea.
Regards,
Arfur
Not totally true. With no GHG’s, 15um radiation would pass through the atmosphere directly to space. The only process to heat the atmosphere would be conduction from the surface to the atmosphere.
With GHG’s, some of the 15um is intercepted and generally through collisions that energy is transferred to the N2/O2 gases thereby raising the temps further than conduction could do.
I have in several threads remarked that more specificity is needed when describing the “surface”. Why?
Power is additive. When measuring the temperature of the “surface” by examining the intensity of the radiation, one is actually examining the power radiated by the solid (soil/water) surface PLUS the power radiated by molecules in the atmosphere. This is where the GHG theory fails. The total power must be allocated to each separately to determine the actual temperature that each is radiating at.
What do you reckon the 33C that GHG’s actually originates from? Is the temperature of the solid surface 33C hotter than the sun can make it or is the power from the solid surface plus the power from GHG’s what is being seen?
Nobody has ever claimed that GHG’s are the only thing influencing the atmospheric temperature! Indeed, part of the debate is figuring out how much to attribute to various parts of the system.
“This is contrary to the consensus where loss of sea ice results in lower albedo and consequential warming.”
Consensus? Since when is there consensus in science? That statement alone proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’ve had several online “discussions” on Arctesea ice over the years.
Maximum extent is reached round about now. The sun is at maximum in 6/7 weeks, sea ice minimum is September /October therefore there is quite a lot of Arctic albedo during June to August for peak solar energy.
During low solar energy there is open water radiating heat into space more effectively than ice.
Perhaps someone here can tell what’s wrong with this?
Snow cover on land is a different issue.
Well, there is a consensus that General Relativity explains the macroscopic and Quantum Mechanics explains the microscopic, but the consensus also is that the two theories are incompatible and no one knows how to reconcile them.
So, consensus does exist in science, but it’s a provisional consensus about best physical explanations. And that consensus is changeable, not fixed.
Let’s see: provisional excludes consensus climatology from science, which everyone knows is god’s lips to Mann’s ear.
The annual warming of the arctic has more to do with the Sun’s rays being absorbed in the atmosphere than with the Sun’s rays hitting the ground.
link
The albedo of the arctic matters way less than you would think because the Sun’s rays have to travel through more atmosphere to reach the surface than would be the case at the equator for instance. The albedo of the surface matter less at the poles than at any other place on the planet. If the surface contributes 12% of the albedo globally, it’s way less than that at the poles, no matter how much ice melts.
Also the sharp angle that the Sun’s rays hit the sea surface in the polar regions also leads to lots of energy reflected back to space, like the way the surface of a lake can seem like a mirror to the Sun around sunrise and sunset.
“This is inconsistent with “greenhouse” theory where the only factor that alters Earth’s
energy balance are greenhouse gasses.
Sea ice is not even in the atmosphere. The diagram showing heat fluxes at the head of the
post does not show any impact of sea ice variation on the energy balance.”
I think what you’re trying to say is that sea ice isn’t part of the Earth’s energy
balance diagram. You are right that it isn’t. What Jim did was to show that after the
1990 shift of the Arctic Oscillation when sub-freezing Siberian winds blew insulating ice
out of the Arctic, Arctic air temperatures suddenly began warming several times faster
than the global average, with the stored heat in the warmer water being the source of
that warming. The Arctic warming was thus a result of local climate dynamics & not because
of global greenhouse gasses as represented by the Earth’s energy balance diagram which
was the basis for Schmidt’s erroneous claim. Is that what you were trying to say & does
my interpretation of what Jim said make sense to you?
After that, Jim explains that through cyclicality involving the ICTZ & Atlantic-based
oscillations, the Arctic will eventually cool & its ice will become thick again as it was
pre-1990. The warming/cooling is cyclical, not permanent. That’s the way I always
understood it to work.
OOPS- ICTZ s/b ITCZ
Contrary to the consensus? There is no doubt at all that sea ice insulates the ocean and holds in heat.
The albedo affect is limited however by the angle of incidence of the suns rays, water is quite shiny at low angles, and the fact that in the arctic summer it is usually cloudy.
I have attached a page from Planck’s Thesis on Heat Radiation. Before someone gripes, I know this is from the Thermodynamic Equilibrium Section, but it illustrates that the angle of incidence is consequential in determining what happens.
Until climate science and its scientists get away from average insolation over the entire earth, even at the poles, and begin to include a cos θ In their determinations, they will never understand how AND WHERE the earth heats and why.
The trouble rises when arguing the contrarian point of view. We’re stuck proving or disproving within their context. But in reality thier context may not even be relevant as ilustrated by this video.
Science is never about “common sense”; the rigorous processes of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics hide a level of science written in formulas, calculations and statistics that represent the uncommon sense of science. The earth climate involves a continuous unclear complex dynamics of atmospheric gases, oceans, volcanic activity, solar radiation, and soils.
the “open-sea Arctic chiller” model is very interesting, have to keep that in mind
To Jim Steele
I read transcript(prefer written version always), good summary.
Where is there a hint of the next 4?
Thanks
Devil’s Tower: 👍+ 👍
Jim Steele: 👍👍+ …a lot!
(Agree Devil’s Tower? I love Steeles’ posts. Rock solid, easy to read and digest, and I get a transcript instead of a video I can’t hear. Yay!)
Yes, very good article by Jim Steele.
The U.S. temperature chart tends to cycle in a similar manner to the AMO: Hot in the 1930’s and today, and cold in the 1970’s:
I wonder if there is a connection? 🙂
Did anyone give you permission to use the pre-tampered chart?
I never asked anyone for permission. Hansen hasn’t contacted me to complain yet, although I bet he doesn’t like being reminded of the past seeing as how it refutes his claims of a CO2 crisis.
I am aiming to present the next 4 parts one week at a time
Jim Steele, thanks very much for Part 1 in your list of the “The Big 5 natural climate dynamics”.
About a week ago, in response to a separate WUWT article, I posted the following six likely drivers of global warming/climate change™ that did not include anthropogenic CO2:
1) climate change related to AMO, PDO and other ocean/atmosphere interactions
2) climate change related to variable volcanic activity (and associated greenhouse gas and particulate/aerosol emissions) on planet Earth
3) climate change related to the Sun’s longer term (>30 year periods) sunspot/luminosity cycles known as “Gleissberg”, “deVries”, “Eddy”, “Bray” (formerly “Hallstatt”), and “Sanchez-Sema”
4) climate change related to variability in Earth’s geomagnetic field and how such, in turn, affects cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere (theory, with supporting evidence, put forward and advanced predominately by Henrik Svensmark)
5) climate change related to Dansgaard-Oeschger events (~ 1500 year interval)*
6) climate change related to the five major Milankovitch cycles of Earth’s ephemeris with respect to the Sun
* note that in Item 5, I mistakenly did not also include reference to Heinrich events
I realize that you restricted your “Big 5” to “explanation of both regional climate trends and the statistical global warming trend since the end of the little ice age” I can accept that, but believe that most of those I identify are not only active since that demarcation by also predate it by some millions of years (i.e., since the Atlantic Ocean pretty much settled into its current shape and since the Isthmus of Panama connected North America to South America, essentially fully separating the Atlantic from the Pacific Ocean. Ref: Scotese’s beautiful animation of plate tectonics at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_iEWvtKcuQ
I am heartened to see some degree of agreement on Item 1 above.
Gordon, I very much agree with the causes you listed and that they speak to changes over thousands and millions of years. However I decided that by limiting an analysis to changes since the LIA that it would be more easily digested by the general public, and be more relevant to recent climate change. Too often people dismiss analyses of changes over thousands and millions of years as not relevant to today’s climate.
Thanks, Jim,
Very good point!
I finally got a chance to watch the video “The Cloud Mystery” by Henrik Svensmark, Nir
Shaviv & Jan Veizer. It blew me away! In it they explain how cosmic rays affect clouds &
thus global temperature. They also explain that the earth goes through a Milky Way arm
about every 150M yrs which coincide with the cooling periods, with us being in the latest
one now. Quite interesting theory. (See attached graph)
I’m highly sceptical. The AMO and Arctic warmed strongly from 1995-1999 and 2005-2012, during *negative* North Atlantic Oscillation regimes. The AMO was also warmer during the late 1800’s centennial solar minimum, and given the reports of a great loss of sea ice 1815-1817, it must have been warmer during the Dalton Minimum. Because weaker solar wind states, as from 1995, create negative NAO conditions. So the AMO functions as a negative feedback to changes in indirect solar forcing.
Here we go again with Ulric comparing apples and oranges. Sigh.
Ulric says “the reports of a great loss of sea ice 1815-1817, it must have been warmer during the Dalton Minimum”
But the argument is not that greater Arctic warmth caused less ice.
My analysis finds the exact opposite” Less ice caused greater Arctic warmth: Ice was blown out of the Arctic by shifting sub-freeezing Siberian winds and that removal of insulating ice allowed more stored Arctic Ocean heat to ventilate!
For example here is Rigor (2002)
“Data collected by the International Arctic Buoy Programme from 1979 to 1998 are analyzed to obtain statistics of sea level pressure (SLP) and sea ice motion (SIM). The annual and seasonal mean fields agree with those obtained in previous studies of Arctic climatology. The data show a 3-hPa decrease in decadal mean SLP over the central Arctic Ocean between 1979–88 and 1989–98. This decrease in SLP drives a cyclonic trend in SIM, which resembles the structure of the Arctic Oscillation (AO).
Regression maps of SIM during the wintertime (January–March) AO index show 1) an increase in ice advection away from the coast of the East Siberian and Laptev Seas, which should have the effect of producing more new thin ice in the coastal flaw leads;
2) a decrease in ice advection from the western Arctic into the eastern Arctic;
and
3) a slight increase in ice advection out of the Arctic through Fram Strait.
Taken together, these changes suggest that at least part of the thinning of sea ice recently observed over the Arctic Ocean can be attributed to the trend in the AO toward the high-index polarity.”
The Arctic is definitely warmer and with less summer ice extent during a warm AMO phase. And the AMO is normally warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum, which are associated with negative NAO conditions.
Where are you getting your data to argue “the AMO is normally warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum”. Based on the literature it appears you are making things up again.
As I presented the AMO was warm from the 1930s thru to 1950s. I dont see (attached) your “centennial solar minimum” either in estimated TSI or sunspots during this time.
It appears that you are making it up about no current centennial solar minimum. There was also one in the late 1800’s, called the Gleissberg Minimum. With a warm AMO during both. The AMO warming from 1925 was also initiated by negative NAO conditions.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
You are either on a different planet or talking a different language, but sunspot cycles 17-19, that coincide with the warm AMO, dont look like minimums to me
There is consistently a warmer AMO during each centennial solar minimum, because of weaker solar wind states. But not all smaller cycles have weaker solar wind states. Solar cycle 20 had the strongest solar wind conditions since 1964, during a smaller sunspot cycle.
The AMO had the coldest anomalies in the early mid 1970’s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s, exactly when the solar wind was stronger. At major lows in the solar wind around 1969 and 1979-80, there were warmer AMO conditions. Post 1995 the solar wind weakened, and the AMO warmed strongly. The cold AMO anomalies in 1903, 1913, and 1923, follow the same pattern, with the cold anomalies around each sunspot cycle minimum, and warmer AMO anomalies around each sunspot cycle maximum.
If you inspect the NAO data, there are a series of large negative monthly values coming in with the AMO warming from 1925. Which was in fact during a smaller sunspot cycle, SC16.
So smaller sunspot cycles during centennial minima seem to reliably have weaker solar wind conditions, but at other times it can go either way. The same goes for larger sunspot cycles, they can have stronger or weaker solar wind conditions.
Solar plasma temperature (same as speed) and pressure 1964 to April 2022
Hmm I said, “sunspot cycles 17-19, that coincide with the warm AMO, dont look like minimums” and you avoid answering that. Instead offering apples to explain my oranges. That is why you are so annoying.
I did not avoid answering about larger sunspot cycles, but you are clearly avoiding the centennial minimums when the AMO is warmer. Getting huffy won’t help you.
“You are either on a different planet or talking a different language”
I’m amazed at all the reputedly clever people looking at sunspot cycles and the AMO, and associating the smaller sunspot cycle 20 with a colder AMO, and larger sunspot cycles with a warmer AMO, and failing or refusing to notice that the AMO was warmer in the late 1800’s centennial solar minimum and also is warmer in the current centennial solar minimum.
They are all on the different planet.
What is the source of your graph above. It seems to be showing changes in ocean currents. The Iceland Basin cools while the Sermilik Fjord warms. And that is to be expected as the subpolar gyre variations can drive more warm Atlantic water into the Irminger Current and the Greenland fjords and away from Iceland and vice versa. That is the kind of dynamical heating and cooling this video is discussing.
It’s a good proxy for the AMO, look at the changes in sea ice.
You are ducking the question. Again, What is the source of your graph above.
The source is in the graph link address.
At 6.30 in the video, the centennial solar minima part of the chart is placed nearly 100 years too late. The Maunder Minimum was in the 1600’s not the 1700’s, the Oort Minimum was from around 1010 not 1100. And positive NAO during the actual Maunder Minimum makes zero sense.
Ulric, Because the reliability of the exact sunspot counts in the past is rife with uncertainty I have chosen to use Carbon 14 data as a more reliable measure of solar irradiance. HIgher C14 production correlates with lower solar irradiance.
Also my objective was simply to show that solar irradiance trends correlate with latitudinal migrations of the ITCZ, not to quibble about exact sunspot dates.
Your objection to my graph seems merely based on what years are labeled the “Maunder minimum”. Your argument that it “ was in the 1600’s not the 1700’s”, makes “zero sense”, as most researchers estimate the Maunder Minimum lasting between “around 1645 to 1715″
I’ve attached a graph of C14 from “Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles
on climate change during the Maunder Minimum” Miyahara (2009)
Although I confess simply pulling a different C14 graph from the internet without checking its origins but because of its simplicity, that graph made 100% sense, because it clearly shows that solar irradiance declined from the Medieval Warm period to the Maunder Minimum and then began increasing through the 20th century as in Miyahara (2009) research
My points are valid, Maunder didn’t bottom out in 1750, the Oort minimum was not that late. It’s not 100 years late, but more than 50. And that NAO trace doesn’t make sense being more positive during the actual depth of Maunder in the late 1600’s, which is obviously about when it actually got colder in Europe, which has to be during negative NAO conditions. I don’t believe it has much to do with changes in solar irradiance, changes in the solar wind strength driving NAO/AO anomalies and regimes makes sense, from weekly to inter-decadal scales.
What is your problem. You are making up your own strawman arguments. You make no sense at all. Again I never argued the Maunder Minimum bottom out in 1750, and the C14 graph doesnt argue that either. You are confusing the dates of thee ITCZ’s southward positions.
And if you dont like the NAO re-construction in that illustration please explain why. The graph is from
Tropical rainfall over the last two millennia: evidence for a low-latitude hydrologic seesaw Lechleitner (2017)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45809A
Perhaps you can explain why they are wrong and you are right?
What is your problem. The C14 chart is labeled “Maunder Minimum” and with it bottoming out at 1750 where you have it positioned. I’m not even mentioning or looking at the ITCZ trace.
A shift to positive NAO in the 1670-90’s is bonkers, that would make it warmer in northwest Europe. The Nature link is dead.
LOL Although odd that link is now dead, I did give you the paper’s title, and if you really wanted to address your concerns a quick google search would provide you a link. But instead you duck another question.
And uncross your eyes, the C14 graph DOES NOT say the MM bottomed at 1750. That Is only your incorrect estimate.
But what is most ridiculous about your blather is, my use of the graph with ITCZ and NAO and its accompanying narrative was to point out the ITCZ southward shift correlated with declining solar irradiance. That graph’s NAO reconstruction. that you keep crying about, was NEVER a topic of the video, and so was not an issue I delved any deeper into.
If you really wanted to show the author’s NAO reconstruction was wrong, and so educate the readers and me, then you need to critique their methods and report back. But despite knowing the paper’s title, you just cry one link was dead. You are acting like a troll, quibbling over exact dates when you can only estimate it, ignoring the important trends of the video, and ducking the questions about your sources.
You made quite a feature of the NAO from 9.20 in the video, but you got it backwards, it was negative NAO in 1993 and then 1995 to 1999 which warmed the AMO and accelerated the sea ice loss. You have to look at the all months data not just one season, lots of the negative NAO episodes are in the summers, like in 2007 and 2012, remember the sea ice loss those years?
If rising CO2 forcing increases positive NAO conditions, that would cool the AMO and Arctic, like stronger solar wind states do.
Anyone presenting an NAO proxy with positive NAO conditions during the late 1600’s, i.e. during the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum, is by default very wrong regardless of their methods.
sigh! more diversions and avoidance. So annoying!
“And uncross your eyes, the C14 graph DOES NOT say the MM bottomed at 1750. That Is only your incorrect estimate.”
The C14 graph has a low labelled Maunder Minimum, which aligns close to 1750 on the ITCZ chart scale, that’s an actual measurement. So your blather is the diversion.
“If you really wanted to show the author’s NAO reconstruction was wrong, and so educate the readers and me, then you need to critique their methods and report back.”
Hurrell produced a NAO reconstruction back to 1659 using CET, sensibly the coldest part of the Maunder Minimum in the 1690’s had the largest negative NAO anomalies. Your chart ensemble shows positive NAO values in the 1690’s, and the most negative values around 1760. That has to be wrong whatever the methods, so the avoidance is also yours.
Given the problem of data manipulation and alterations or historical records, how can we even know enough about the past temperatures, not to mention the present ones, to speak definitively about how things are changing, have changed, or will change?
It is like trying to devise and analyze a budget while the till is being robbed and the accountants are cooking the books.
great video.
There overall message here in Part 1 is to factor in variable surface energy budgets, by mechanisms unrelated to atmospheric gases. Variable ocean heat flux + perturbed land surface energy partitioning account for a large part of observed temperature change. The latter, however, may not be ‘natural’ and obviously falls outside the scope of Steele’s work.
Jim,
I’m learning a lot from your climate videos (actually the transcripts).
Can you provide a citation for the Zou 2014 research discussed in the transcript? I can’t seem to find it online.
Thanks,
Ric
HI Ric,
The paper is The possible role of Brazilian promontory in Little Ice Age
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377026514000207?casa_token=nDWvgwfjoMgAAAAA:Kswc87QvZ6sdl2shI6X88csVPe7DLkFHpsYfOcNhfawroZmnJaeZ434Yi6bfCvDkNDvhzLF7XQ
I did an exercise combining AMO index ( NOAA values) and AGGI ( anthropogenic gas index ) and compared the result with measured temperature of different sources ( NOAA-NCDC, HadCrut5, also satellites values RSS and UAH ) . No doubt to find a correlation between them .
I also extrapolated the AMO index, also AGGI until end of century to have an idea of possible evolution until 2100 . We could have soon a confirmation of that simulation …, probably already next 5-10 years …
That’s corroborates the fact natural variations, specially AMO, have a major impact on Earth climate and AGGI is amplifying them …
1. You have provided, so far, “Hubert,” no data to support causation of human CO2 and any significant impact on climate.
2. There is anti-AGW data you need to refute, e.g., CO2 emissions up greatly, warming not; and also, that CO2 lags temperature (in the ice core data) by a quarter cycle at all time scales.
3. The GCM’s have proven to be so poor at projecting surface temperatures that they are unskilled, unfit-for-purpose; you need to overcome that anti-AGW evidence, also.
where is that in your models ipcc?
jim steele’s series of videos on youtube are worth watching.
Thanks Jim
I haven’t had time to watch the video yet – will do so soon – but the AMOC is critically important and has the ability to dominate climate in the northern hemisphere. It’s phase changes are associated with the spectacular Dansgaard-Oeschger events (“micro-interglacials”) during glacial periods and also the Younger Dryas (also a DO-related event). Thanks Jim!
Dear Professor Steele,
Thank you, so much, for yet another excellent class in climate dynamics based on data. Your conscientiously and thoughtfully responding to your class’s concerns (including some rude/obtuse ones), is SO REFRESHING. You have the keen, inquiring, mind of a true scholar and the heart of a born teacher.
Some thoughts:
1) At 1:40 term “regional climate dynamics” — very nice.
2) Re: image of pro-AGW quote (9:20 – 11:-01) is HELPING Schmidt, et al. — your words are not enough to counter that image.
Suggestion:
(1) Chop it off around 10:11 (and this is really, too long for their words to just hang up there, unchallenged (visually); and
(2)strike through junk science quote (with a big X) and replace that quote with TRUTH in BOLD.
3) Re: text at 11:02, use royal blue “ink” for “ICE” and “INCREASE” and black bold for “DECREASE” and “TEMPERATURE” on pale blue background. Key for slides is memory and persuasion: current colors/emphasis are not helpful.
3) In general, keep slides brief – not complete sentences; GOAL = memory aide, not a mirror of your talk.
E.g., At 11:14 “Increased Arctic temperatures
werecaused…”4) OMIT Item #2.sunspot “suggests” further cooling – unhelpful (though likely accurate) speculation because NEED TO BE very SUCCINCT TO PERSUADE.
i.e., make #2 –> lower solar irradiance = shift of ITCZ
So: #3 shift of ITCZ = AMO cooler water to north
5) The little graphic of earth “with a fever” is cute, but is UNDERCUTTING your point as it sits there for such a long time the “Really?” isn’t enough – images are powerful and remembered more than your oral words saying the opposite.
Suggestion: by 11:06, replace “earth with a fever” with an “Earth shivering” or other graphic.
6) At 12:05 – Point #5 should be a NEW SLIDE – it is being drowned out by other points above it. It is your main, key, point: make it boldly and simply:
CLIMATE SIMULATION MODELS
NEGATED BY AMO CIRCULATION DATA.
Then, add to same slide after you read that far:
NATURAL CLIMATE DRIVERS (“The Big 5”), NOT HUMAN CO2,
ARE HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE CAUSING THE CURRENT WARMING TREND ON EARTH.
7) Finally, you have an engaging, pleasant, voice and speaking style, but it would be helpful if you could place your camera so you are appearing to look at your audience. Averted eyes appear to be apathetic at best, at worst, mildly hostile.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HOURS OF RESEARCH AND VIDEO CREATION IN THE CAUSE OF TRUTH IN SCIENCE!!
Sincerely,
Your grateful student,
Janice
And……. that’s what I get for being late to class. 🙁 I’ll try to show up on time, next quarter, Professor Steele.😔