A new paper (Moffa-Sánchez et al) reports that they looked at layers of dead plankton in ocean mud (otherwise known as foraminifera in marine sediments) and have reconstructed the temperature and salinity of a couple of spots in the North Atlantic between 818AD – 1780 with data on δ18O and the Mg/Ca ratios. One immediate thought, an aside, is that if this technique works, there is no shortage of ocean mud, surely, and perhaps we could drill and analyze more mud for solar correlations in other places. (I hear foraminifera live in the Southern Hemisphere too). Perhaps no one is looking for the connection with the sun?
Moffa-Sánchez et al find the big climate shifts (the 100-year variations) correlate with total solar irradiance (TSI). See especially that orange line black line track in the d graph below. I stress, correlations don’t mean causation and the mechanism is mere speculation. But I find the graph intruiging. There are a lot of turning points, and in pure “curve fitting” type of analysis, this is a better curve fit than the one with CO2. (Find me a turning point that matches with carbon dioxide!) I suspect we’ll be referring back to this paper, and I hanker for more TSI comparisons with other sites and regions.
Figure 2 | Proxy records from RAPiD-17-5P. a, Solar irradiance forcing reconstruction based on the cosmogenic nuclide 10Be (ref. 10; orange) and global volcanic stratospheric aerosols30 (grey) TSI, total solar irradiance. b,
Temperature and c, salinity/18Osw estimates derived from paired Mg/Ca and 18O measurements in G. inflata calcite from RAPiD-17-5P. SMOW, standard mean ocean water. d, Three-point smoothed temperature record
from RAPiD-17-5P (black) and 1TSI (ref. 10) (orange). A 12.42-year lag has been imposed on the 1TSI forcing as indicated from the highest Pearson correlation (Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Fig. 3). Shaded areas
highlight the well-known periods of solar minima. (Click to enlarge and see original unscaled graph*)
The researchers suggest that when solar activity is low the winter jet stream over the North Atlantic is more likely to get blocked. (Which means vast tongues of cold arctic air stretch far to the south, and someone somewhere, gets freaky and not-nice weather.)
Scientists studied seafloor sediments to determine how the temperature of the North Atlantic and its localised atmospheric circulation had altered. Warm surface waters flowing across the North Atlantic, an extension of the Gulf Stream, and warm westerly winds are responsible for the relatively mild climate of Europe, especially in winter. Slight changes in the transport of heat associated with these systems can lead to regional climate variability, and the study findings matched historic accounts of climate change, including the notoriously severe winters of the 16th and 18th centuries which pre-date global industrialisation. — Science Daily
Back when CO2 levels were “ideal” the climate apparently swung wildly:
The results of these analyses revealed large and abrupt temperature and salinity changes in the north-flowing warm current on time-scales of several decades to centuries. Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low solar energy output, corresponding to intervals of low sunspot activity observed on the surface of the sun. Using a physics-based climate model, the authors were able to test the response of the ocean to changes in the solar output and found similar results to the data.
Low solar activity happened at the same time as blocking patterns appeared over Europe in the little Ice Age:
The results agree with the early concept that the severe winters experienced in Europe during the Maunder Minimum were caused by periods of increased atmospheric blocking1 and are also consistent with SLP field reconstructions that show a high-pressure system over northwest Europe towards the end of the Spörer and during the Maunder Minimum 20. Similarly, a number of studies suggest a negative NAO state during the Maunder Minimum or other periods of low TSI (ref. 21), in agreement with increased blocking arising from the weaker westerly winds.
Has the TSI stopped correlating? There is evidence from the last 50 years that supports the connection:
Growing evidence for the linkage between solar variability and frequency of blocking in the Northeast Atlantic has also been provided by meteorological studies. Modern observations show strong solar modulation of the blocking frequency and positioning during the 11-year solar cycles for the past 50 years, impacting substantially on UK winter temperatures22,23
The HockeySchtick points out:
The new paper contradicts claims by CAGW alarmist Jennifer Francis that global warming will cause an increase of jet stream blocking events, finding instead that jet stream blocking was more common during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age.
The researchers point out that none of these natural swings will be as big and as important as man-made CO2, not that anything in their results suggests that at all, but they have to put in these caveats in order to get published.
The essential, meaningless caveat:
“Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.”
The two ice cores are the black dots south of Greenland and Iceland in this map.
Figure 1 | Sea surface temperature map for January 2008 showing the schematic surface circulation of the North Atlantic and the core location of RAPiD-17-5P and RAPiD-35-25B (Supplementary Methods). Solid arrows indicate the warm salty waters from the tropics, namely the North Atlantic Current (NAC) and its main branches such as the Irminger Current (IC). The dashed arrows indicate the cold polar south-flowing waters such as the East Greenland Current,West Greenland Current and Labrador Current, which constitute the western branch of the subpolar gyre (SPG). Locations of RAPiD-17-5P (61 28.900 N, 19 32.160 W, 2,303m water depth) and RAPiD-35-25B (57 30.470 N, 48 43.400 W, 3,486m water depth) are marked with a black circle (adapted from UK Met O ffice Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Ice Analysis data29).
Where are all those Australian proxies?
There are hardly any long term reconstructions of Australian temperatures. There are so few, the scientific-ABC nexus got all excited over a paper by Gergis et al which essentially reconstructed the temperature of the entirety of Australasia in 1200 AD from just two tree proxies. The paper claimed Australasia had warmed by the frightening amount of nine one hundredths of a degree in the last 1000 years. Not long later it was withdrawn. We still wonder why it was published. But my point is, can we do foraminifera studies downunder? (Or corals, stalagmites, clam shells, etc). Surely we are not short of ocean mud.
ABSTRACT
There were several centennial-scale fluctuations in the climate and oceanography of the North Atlantic region over the past 1,000 years, including a period of relative cooling from about AD 1450 to 1850 known as the Little Ice Age1. These variations may be linked to changes in solar irradiance, amplified through feedbacks including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation2. Changes in the return limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation are reflected in water properties at the base of the mixed layer south of Iceland. Here we reconstruct thermocline temperature and salinity in this region from AD 818 to 1780 using paired 18O and Mg/Ca ratio measurements of foraminifer shells from a subdecadally resolved marine sediment core. The reconstructed centennial-scale variations in hydrography correlate with variability in total solar irradiance. We find a similar correlation in a simulation of climate over the past 1,000 years.We infer that the hydrographic changes probably reflect variability in the strength of the subpolar gyre associated with changes in atmospheric circulation. Specifically, in the simulation, low solar irradiance promotes the development of frequent and persistent atmospheric blocking events, in which a quasi-stationary high-pressure system in the eastern North Atlantic modifies the flow of the westerly winds.We conclude that this process could have contributed to the consecutive cold winters documented in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
REFERENCE
Paola Moffa-Sánchez, Andreas Born, Ian R. Hall, David J. R. Thornalley & Stephen Barker (2014) Solar forcing of North Atlantic surface temperature and salinity over the past millennium, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2094 [abstract]
21. Gray, L. J. et al. Solar influences on climate. Rev. Geophys. 48, RG4001 (2010).
22. Woollings, T., Lockwood, M., Masato, G., Bell, C. & Gray, L. Enhanced
signature of solar variability in eurasian winter climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37,
L20805 (2010).
23. Barriopedro, D., García-Herrera, R. & Huth, R. Solar modulation of Northern
Hemisphere winter blocking. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D14118 (2008)
h/t HockeySchtick and Tallbloke see also Science Daily
*The original graph is tall and skinny. It seems a waste to compress a thousand years of information so I stretched the image horizontally, but otherwise did not change it.
*Headline order flipped, thanks to Brian in comments.
As described here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
150
I would also like to give you an extra thumbs up on behalf of the late William of Ockham.
50
I agree with Stephen Wilde and Piers Corbyn. The Sun impacts on the Jet Streams. They both have been saying this for years. During periods of “reduced solar output” expect the Jet Stream to move towards the Equator and bring severe cold fronts well before and well after winter. This already is happening e.g. last year in the N. Hemis, “Winter Weather” really only finished in mid April, not February. When the GM kicks in later this decade expect the LIA to wreak havoc and result in GC. Clearly CO2 emissions play no part in causing GW or for the matter GC. So with that in mind WA voters on April 5 should vote for the Liberal Party in the Half Senate Re-election because the Liberal Party have a clear Lower House mandate (following the 2013 September Federal Election) to rescind the ludicrous Carbon Tax – a “tax on nothing” which has caused the Oz Economy incalculable damage since it was introduced by the previous very idealistic Govt (ALP).
161
March 17, 2014
Labor pushes for inquiry into decline of manufacturing
JUNE 30, 2011
Treasury reference modelling showed that without a carbon (sic) tax, manufacturing was expected to grow more slowly than the rest of the economy, by about half a per cent annually to 2020 in real terms.
. . .
Obviously the carbon(sic) tax wasn’t high enough.
They should have doubled it to help manufacturing and taxed Australia to prosperity.
~ ~ ~
And there is a lesson for any other country contemplating a carbon(sic) tax.
Like China:
China reconsiders carbon tax, citing Australia’s planned repeal
40
Apologies for the thumbs down, didnt mean to do that. Could not agree more with your Comment.
00
That’s OK – I assumed the thumbs down was from Blackadderthe4th – surely “Blackadderthe4th” is not Ben Elton who co-wrote Seasons 1-3 of the hilarious Blackadder TV Series.
00
Shouldnt the heading read “The North Atlantic jet stream correlates with Solar output” as the Solar output is the independent variable in the correlation. Just a minor point, but we are trying to be scientifically accurate here.
—-
Brian, I wish you’d come earlier to help with the proofing. Good point. The sentence evolved, in this case, in an unfortunate way.. I will fix. Thanks. – Jo
00
Well I don’t know about causing a Little Ice Age but just such a ‘quasi-stationary high-pressure system’ has persisted for most of this week, blocking the prevailing westerly wind over southern England with the result that a new flight path which the National Air Traffic Service are trialling that passes right over my house couldn’t be used at all.
We’ve had four days of return to blissful peacefulness while aircraft have been forced to take of into uncharacteristic easterly winds.
‘Its an ill wind … that doesn’t blow some good’ , as they say.
Long may Global Warming or Low Solar or Climate Change or whatever it is keep kinking the Jet Stream and bringing us these easterlies that keep these infernal flights at bay.
Funnily enough the local MP came round last weekend to sympathise with our new predicament and ever since there had been almost no more flights, for which I suspect he may be reaping most of the credit.
100
Observations of gamekeepers working in the Scottish hills concurs with the notion that North Easterly winds have tended to become dominant there over recent years.
Call that unscientific but these year round outdoor workers tend to know what freezes their brass monkeys.
120
Ask any tree and you will find we are still a long way short of reaching an ‘ideal’ CO2 level, however we could get close by the middle of the next century.
Our sun is a variable star, just like every other star in our galaxy, which means that its energy output varies over time. We are all aware of the circa 11 year cycle, but are less sure of the duration, intensity and regularity (if it exists) of the longer ones.
If I had to choose between foraminifera for a temperature proxy, as opposed to Arctic tree rings,
I would choose the former any time. Mann and his mates’ manipulative analysis of tree rings is a classic example of bad science, as practiced by so much of the alarmist community.
211
Given the number of whales which stop off in the calm waters of Hervey Bay, I suggest my hometown might be a good place to look for foraminifera sediments.
72
Eric,
You raise an interesting question. Does whale poop float? The poop of most other mammals does, so are whales an exception?
20
Interesting question, Rereke.
Could be a science grant in it. Failing that, I will observe and report back after the next Japanese whale hunt. For a fee I get to harpoon a Humpback. How cool is that?
Now that’s what I call “eco tourism”.
33
Definitely a science grant in it if you include an incantation along the lines of investigating how anthropgenic global warming affects the density of whale dung, quantifying same and running as eries of mo0dels investigating how same affects the model outputs. Be set for life I reckon.
10
Never thought of that one. I’ve had a lot of odd things happen in Hervey Bay – encounters with jellyfish, getting nipped by baby fish, getting bitten by lobsters after a storm washed them close to shore. But I can’t say I’ve ever encountered anything which I could remotely identify as whale poop.
Still there is always a first time 🙂
I suggest its probably very soft and rapidly “dissipates” in the water. Most of the identifiable solids of poop are things like grass fibre. Given whales mostly eat microscopic krill, there would probably be very little macroscopic fibre in their diet.
So maybe I have encountered lots of whale poop after all!
10
‘Solar output correlates with the North Atlantic jet stream over a millenia’, under other circumstances people have posted correlation does not mean causation!
[That’s good BA. Congrats. Did you copy that from what I wrote in the post, or did you think of it all by yourself this time? Maybe you could try applying it to the statement “the warming correlates with CO2”. – Jo]
09
Not necessarily, but it may bear further inquiry, which in the case of Carbon Dioxide has been studied now at length while the correlation is not being sustained and its a travesty that it cannt be.
30
Yes, Eliza Doodle, succinctly put. Perhaps Ba4’s ignorance is strongly correlated to an overt preoccupation with Youtube!
20
@[That’s good BA. Congrats. Did you copy that from what I wrote in the post, or did you think of it all by yourself this time? Maybe you could try applying it to the statement “the warming correlates with CO2”. – Jo]
Well seen as there is at least 500 million years of evidence that co2 is in fact closely linked to temperatures and likewise temperature doesn’t go far from co2 levels. correlation can be linked to causation, which just goes to show when some people have posted correlation doesn’t mean causation, they can be and are in fact wrong in this case, you see it all depends on what resolution you are considering! I was just pointing out an overall view has to be taken with all parameters considered! Therefore correlation can link with causation.
[ha ha ha…. correlation is causation when it suits you and your religion. CO2 rising since WWII but temps rising since 1680 is hardly a good correlation, except you could suggest that rising temp causes rising CO2. Here’s a news flash for you BA, there Are No Turning Points that Match. There are no rising and falling curves where CO2 leads the turning points in a reliable way. Instead there is a fairly poor coincidence where temps rose just as fast before we pumped out our CO2 (1920-1940), then temps fell (1950-1970), then temps rose again at the same rate as they did in the 1930s. Any half sane person doesn’t call this “causation by CO2”. – Jo
Only 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and therefore currently heating up the planet!
[Only the blindly religious can see that in the scotese and berner graph. – Jo]
[SNIP incoherent text and advertising – Jo]
[Sorry, did you want me to read your gibberish auto-voice-to-text translation or look at your long dull youtube? If you write in coherent sentences, and make an argument, I might even do that. Don’t waste our time BA. Either you know what point you want to make, or you don’t. – Jo]
19
Here is a graph from 2007, so it doesn’t show the extra 7 years of the cessation of warming.
10
Now if you push that 1940’s peak back up about 0.6C to where it was before Hansen et al threw a 10 tonne block of ice on it…
even the faint fake coincidence disappears.
10
That was meant to be #29.1
00
hierarchy’s gone again . lol!
00
Damn, don’t anyone get excited for BAD Jnrx4 – that was meant to be a thumbs up for Jo’s response to the Carbon Zombie. Got carried away is all…
10
Correlation neither does nor doesn’t mean causation. Causation is determined by other factors. Correlation may be suggestive of and perhaps even seen as a prerequisite for causation, but causation must be established by other means. Correlation may just as well arise from a common but different and unknown cause to the quantities observed, such as eg heating by any means causing temperature and then CO2 to rise. Without the causation being established it would be unreliable to depend on a past correlation as a predictor of anything, even if sometimes it may be all we’ve got.
10
That was to BA4’s failure to grasp the nature of causation at #28.
Correlation is just a coincidence. Causation is something else, yet the two may coincide.
00
I am reminded that Reply on a final comment isn’t nesting as it should, comment # 34 qualifying #31 and this one on #34.
00
That was to BA4′s failure to grasp the nature of causation at #28.
Correlation is just a coincidence. Causation is something else, yet the two may coincide.
00
Nay, Nesting appears to be broken entirely , since Comment #28.
00
BA gives trolls a bad name.
00
‘[SNIP incoherent text and advertising – Jo]’ Advertising? And you know the last text was sent by mistake, I dropped the mouse and the text was sent!
[I wasn’t talking about the repeat comment. I was talking about the text in the one I wrote in. Jo]
‘correlation is causation when it suits you and your religion’, you mean when it suits you, double standards or what? I refer you to the title ‘Solar output correlates with the North Atlantic jet stream over a millennium’! But 500 MILLION years of correlation of co2 and temperatures is not enough? And is just dismissed out of hand!
[What correlation over 500 million years? What? We know higher temp causes high CO2, and visa versa. But we also know there are M i l l i o n s of years where temp was low and CO2 was high. There may be a correlation from CO2 to temp, but the resolution is pathetic 300 million years ago. we can’t resolve cause and effect. – Just you with your religious gift can. 😉 Jo]
‘you could suggest that rising temp causes rising CO2’, well it does! As the Arctic soils, etc., warm up they will and are releasing methane/co2!
‘fairly poor coincidence’ and that statement is crass, there is no such thing in scientific world, it would be like saying god did it! But there is at least 500 million years of EVIDENCE that co2 and temperature are linked!
‘[Only the blindly religious can see that in the scotese and berner graph. – Jo]’ not if you add the missing factor, the Sun, into the graph, which people of your persuasion tend to miss out! And this reinforces the opinion you are just practicing cherry-picking, by not watching the vid! Because its all explained in depth there.
[Yes, it’s explained in “so much depth” you don’t understand it or you’d explain it yourself. lol – Jo]
‘look at your long dull youtube?’ so how do you know they’re long and dull if you haven’t watched them? Hoist by your own petard, methinks. A true scientist has to check, double check and check again!
[The 5% sample rate I’ve done tells me all I need to know. They are 95% too long. – Jo]
‘Don’t waste our time BA. Either you know what point you want to make, or you don’t.’ well it was you who insisted that there is text in the post, not just a link. But one of your mods came on and said just post LINKS! Hmm,left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!
[BA – I asked you (You) to Write A Comment. Instead you use software to do voice to text, and post gibberish with no sentence structure. It’s unreadable. You are not doing what I asked. We don’t want blank youtube links – they are not comments. But neither do we want “transcriptions” of the youtubes. It’s a crappy conversation when one person in the room insists we watch his videos or reads a transcription of someone else talking at a different event. No Thanks. If YOU want to make a point — make it. If you don’t understand what Alley or potholder say, don’t bother transcribing a bad speech. – Jo]
11
I can agree with you that CO2 has been around for 500 million years. It has probably been around for much longer than that, considering the age of the universe.
I can agree with you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – which is a term used to refer to gases that have been shown to increased plant growth. It is also a fire retardant, which is why it fills so many fire extinguishers.
But neither of those two facts, singly or jointly, leads to the conclusion that it is currently heating up the planet. Because to say “currently”, implies that there was a time, “previously”, it did not. How can a simple gas change its purpose like that?
Wooly thinking – should try harder.
10
Blackadder4th, you better mail that to Al Gore when he fabricated the link between CO2 and temperature but did not mention that temperature rises first and then CO2 follows. Talking about correlations
40
It does not “mean”. However it should be studied. A trait the alarmist seem to be lacking.
00
The Moffa-Sánchez chart above does show a correlation but some parts of the chart show the TSI change lagging behind the terrestrial change. I suggest this means as we all know; “Correllation is not causation”. More to the point I think that the search for “long term reconstructions” needs to consider that the solar and terrestrial changes may both have a common non solar cause.
I just re-watched part of a TV documentary about dark energy, dark matter and a mystery repulsive force. These things are simultaneously said to be undetectable and non interactive yet responsible for 96% of what holds galaxys together and makes them work.
I suggest that the repulsive force is the most likely to affect a modulation of our weather and the suns weather at the same time. Small changes in radioactive decay rates have also been seen to occur BEFORE the sun shows a change(click here). Also that the trail of effect once understood will provide long term reconstructions so good that all the fake ones will instantly become their own self condemning evidence.
Can anyone show this is not the case?
40
Could also be chnges in the solar magnetic field preceding changes in TSI,so the magnetic field cosmic ray or some other effect from changes in solar magnetic field strength drive both.
10
“Could also be changes in the solar magnetic field preceding changes in TSI.”
True! Being a radio tech I see the earths magnetic tail as an efficient antenna for very low frequency radiation and was surprised to hear the sun has a magnetic tail also. The suns magnetic tail could alow it to be modulated from afar in parrallel to us. I tend to think that the repulsive force does at least come into play due to the Allias effect(click here).
How could magnetic effects explain a pulse change like that?
The only thing you can rule out for certain is CO2.
50
The 1960’s Hippies had it right. “It all comes down to the vibe, man – you gotta get with the vibe.”
10
Hey I know that lingo.
Yes they did Rereke but you cannot use the vibe if you are not in the groove under pressure. As this lawyer clearly demonstrates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ
If the force is with you then it is no skill to use repulsive pressure to keep you in the grove.
For example instead of trying to explain away things like heat transfer from cold to hot in devices such as an air conditioner as being all about gas pressure you need to accept the reality presented by Peltier effect devices and understand not all pressure is a gas. Not accepting that you are out of the groove is not a cool move. Say “my bad” and get with it.
If you can put the repulsive pressure in the groove and get it to spin with the cool that is super hip and will get you high. So a super conductor vortex capture of the repulsive force could produce usable antigravity effects that will not bring you down. Pyramids are massive man. So that the cosmic are not sucked in and to prepare the for the cool spin it needs to be in a pyramid. Just build it and they will come to see the baby jive!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHNdQJPmTRU
Alternatively here is the good oil. It is a gas to bottle up for the good oil. Just use the repulsive pressure and the heat when it is on to raise your energy. So you can see the bitch does not need to be massive. If she is s gas in the grove with the vibe she can be tiny and really hot too. She could be the lady behind abiotic.
00
Sorry for the OT but Ive woken a very happy camper this morning.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/tas-election-2014/
Greens utterly decimated and Nick McKim was gracious and realistic enough to admit, people have lost interest in saving trees when it comes at the expense of their jobs. Whoda thunk it.
Conversely in SA the greens increased their vote for the first time in any election for some time. Just goes to show you, two heads are better than one and SA is basically now a state of ugg boot wearing, mullet headed dole bludgers.
No offence 🙂
251
The Libs have almost 53% of the TPP in SA but Labor are leading on number of seats, and there have been some of the most dodgiest behaviour from a win-at-all-costs Labor in the last few elections (including federal)
If it was a real win by Labor, I would have no hesitation in declaring that South Australians only had enough intelligence to pickle things in a barrel. It is a body that may not be criticised, though, that makes SA look bad.
60
SA will have a minority ALP run Govt, thanks to a deal with 2 Independents, just like Juliar Gillard had to do after the 2010 Federal Election. So SA will be the only ALP governed State in Oz – and that only by a thread. In recent time smart Aussies have voted for the “right wing” parties – LIB, NAT & PUP (a far better option than the EWBP or Greens). Why SA has voted this way puzzles me – a good example of masochism – at least the citizens of Tassie have finally seen the light.
Note: EWBP = Economy Wreaking Ball Party.
41
EWBP = Economy Wrecking Ball Party not Wreaking – typos on Sunday nights I guess are understandable, especially only hours before St Patricks Day.
01
I thought you were being very clever, with “wreaking”. There was certainly something odiferous about them.
00
Unintended pun – on reflection EWBP should read EWWBP.
00
Don’t go near the keyboard tonight.
00
Also forgot to mention that on the way to vote I drove past the Greens election vehicle, all brightly adorned with green posters etc.
It was a large SUV. I was so stunned I nearly ran off the road. My partner forbid me from stopping to take a photo lol
But just more of the same BS on the one hand backed by utter BS on the other.
Now Nick Mckimm is blaming their deal with Labour for their near 10% drop in votes. Reality being, as I have pointed out so many times. No 2 parties have less in common than Labour and the Greens. It was a stupidly unholy alliance of idiots who know nothing about their own political histories.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/greens-a-mirage-in-labors-wilderness/story-fni0cwl5-1226856318950
But the BEST NEWS OF ALL! The Greens are in real danger of losing their party status. Damn life is good sometimes.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/greens-are-out-for-the-count-after-tasmanian-election-fall/story-fnj45fva-1226856283050
Bye idiots, Id say its been nice, but it hasnt even been amusing. Its been damaging and divisive and the only silver lining is thinking of all those trough swilling hippies now having to look for real jobs. Assuming there are any left after 10 years of green crapola.
30
Chimney sweep would be an apt vocation for a greenie.
00
“Chimney sweep would be an apt vocation for a greenie.”
That’s why they grow the long hair and the beard. 🙂
ohhhhh.. you didn’t mean the broom part, did you !
10
Broom heads. Pass on fixing the stick to it.
00
Leave that to their mates . !
00
“..but they have to put in these caveats in order to get published” get more grants and keep their jobs.
Science has been corrupted by politics.
90
The connection between solar and jet streams is via UV heating of the stratosphere.
UV has much greater variability than TSI averaging 1.5% difference between solar max an min but fluctuates massively on short time scales (from memory it spikes up 200% when a big storm happens)
Firstly UVC ionises O2 that then forms ozone (O3), Ozone then absorbs UVB which warms the stratosphere Causing the stratospheric inversion. The stratosphere also expands and contracts over the course of the solar cycle.
The general theory is that a strong solar cycle causes a strong polar vortex, Positive AO, AAO. I have my doubts however. I Suspect it is the change in UV output rather that is the driver, at least in the southern hemisphere. As the Solar cycle ramps up the stratosphere receives pulses of energy and expands, these pulses cause instability resulting in troughing in the stratosphere and produce the equivalent of spring like weather. When the solar cycle is declining you get stable autumnal weather. This fits with the antarctic polar vortex which strengthened over the long decline of cycle 23 causing the decline in frontal activity in souther australia. Northern hemisphere may be different. Small solar cycles may mean that each pulse of UV has more effect due to coming off a small base, the availability of unexcited ozone molecules, or effect in a more compressed stratosphere.
50
Ah yes. That might be why Piers Corbyn was going on about upper stratospheric warming causing a lot of the trouble last winter 2012/13, which lasted pretty much till June.
50
One should also look at the different penetration of different UV frequencies into the oceans.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/144/m144p109.pdf page 114..
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf page 9… etc
Even slight changes in distribution within the 300-400 nano range could make quite a bit of difference to UV penetration into the aqueous 70% of the Earth’s surface
50
IMHO, there is little doubt the Sun exerts dominant control over Earth’s climate. Information posted on ResearchGate suggests this reason for the Climategate scandal:
[SNIP. Please Oliver, please do not post the same info. Please find a new way to make a point. – Jo].
The truth is more scary than Orwell’s fiction, but truth will also free us. [snip repeat]
http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/massive-overwhelming-evidence-show-sun-ocean-primary-driver-of-climate-change-not-co2/comment-page-1/
21
A positive from the CO2 scam has been the surge in research into climate and related issues. The longer the scam lasts the greater the chance the real drivers of climate will be determined and quantified. The scam will be destroyed by the science it initiated. No wonder they wanted the science to be settled.
110
Presumably that “ice cores..” in the heading to the second picture should be “sedimentary cores..”
I agree that such studies could be useful for the seas locally and possibly the dried up sea beds on land. However they seem tho be quite expensive involving a lot of spectrograph analysis off trace isotopes.
The positioning of a core also seems crucial and perhaps tied in with modelling of historical currents. A similar study by Morley et al referenced in a comment on tallbloke recently used a single core on the edge of a current of the east coast of Africa. Presumably such edges are places where small shifts cause large effects, like the weather in Melbourne. Expensive and subject to error unless carefully done.
Thank you for the article.
10
Yes,I agree, “ice core” seems wrong.
00
” where small shifts cause large effects ”
or like in the 60s
00
Ah! Those were the days.
(Apologies to all the youngsters)
00
Sorry, that should be off the north-west coast of Africa near the entrance to the Mediterranean.
10
there has been some work done on proxies around australasia –
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/australianz.php
30
I believe that Hubert Lamb discussed this phenomenon around 50 years ago.
For those interested I attach a relevant URL. The web site lists relevant publications by Lamb sometimes hard to identify even on the CRU web site: http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/
10
For studies like this one there are several things one needs:
1. A core with a thick sequence of highly laminated sediment.
2. A core where you can demonstrate a rapid rate of sediment accumulation.
3. A core with excellent age control
4. A core where you can demonstrate that there has been negligible bioturbation (i.e. no disturbance by bottom feeding or burrowing organisms)
5. A core where the small fossils of interest have fallen quickly through the water column and become incorporated directly in the uppermost very thin layer of sediment (and where this happens every year).
6. A core where the sediment is not being rolled along the sea-floor to the site by bottom currents. Such currents could erode and redeposit older fossil material from another site and mix it into the sediment at the core site.
7. A core where the fossils of interest are not dissolved as they fall through the water column or after they land on the sea bed.
8. A core that contains abundant fossils of the species of interest and where that species habitat was at or close to the sea surface.
Have these types of conditions have been confirmed for the site in question?
10
Of course it’s the Sun, stupid. Who’s been saying it’s all 100% natural cycles all along – well at last for the last three or four years – in a few thousand blog comments?
If you want to argue successfully with these people you should start with valid physics, and they won’t have a clue what you’re talking about. For example …
There’s no empirical evidence and no valid physics which supports the possibility of an isothermal troposphere being in thermal equilibrium, let alone thermodynamic equilibrium.
“Thermal equilibrium as a relation between the physical states of two bodies means that there is actual or implied thermal connection between them, through a path that is permeable only to heat, and that no energy is transferred through that path.”
If there were isothermal conditions, then there would be a transfer of thermal (kinetic) energy from higher to lower levels of air molecules (about 68 nanometres apart) as molecules travelled back and forth between these two layers, with an interchange of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy whilst in their free path motion that averages 68nm.
Hence the greenhouse is smashed, because it’s foundation was built upon the sand of the false assumption about isothermal conditions.
32
Doug,
This is not a physics question, but rather a question of English usage.
It is my understanding that, “isothermal” means “occurring, or remaining, at constant temperature”, and yet you say that they cannot be in thermal equilibrium, i.e. “maintaining a balance of heat energy”.
To me, those two statements would appear to be contradictory.
10
I think what Doug is referring to as “isothermal” is that there is no temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
I gather that there are some people out there who say that an open atmosphere should become isothermal (ie no temperature gradient.)
00
Taking the example of a model atmosphere with no heating and cooling, should the temperature be constant throughout or should the energy be constant?
If the internal energy is constant than the temperature needs to be cooler (kinetic energy less) at higher altitudes. Heat should flow from hot to cold so it should be isothermal. Which one occurs should depend on which one is negligible compared to the other, conduction of heat or diffusion of gas.
Doug, can you please explain what this is all about.
00
Vic, As a parcel of air rises, it does not loose energy.. Its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy.
The kinetic energy of underlying gases supports the potential energy of the higher up. If there is insufficient kinetic energy below, the air above must reduce it potential energy , changing that energy to kinetic energy. The proof of this is that the dry lapse rate is defined purely by the specific energy of the gas, and the force of gravity. It is totally measureable.
As long as the air is dry the only energies are potential and kinetic energy..
Add H2O you then complicate things by adding in latent heats, phase changes etc etc.
There are three main types of energy in the atmosphere… kinetic, potential and latent
There are 3 major types of energy transfer… convection, conduction and radiation.
Which of these transfer mechanisms rules in any particular part of the atmosphere or place on Earth, depends on many factors.
I think the other really big issue in determining how a planet’s energy transfers work is the type of atmosphere.
Venus, Uranus have what could be called thermally resistive or opaque atmospheres. Very little solar energy reaches the surface, but the surface is still very very warm. It can only be internally produced or a feed-down or gravity mechanism as Doug postulates. If there is not sufficient KE to support the PE above, there must be an energy bleed downwards, and hence a conversion to KE.. which is what temperature measures.
Mars has a ‘tenuous’ atmosphere.. The atmosphere cannot exert control of the surface temperature, hence major fluctuations. It absorbs very little and holds very little.
Earth is a sort of “half way” atmosphere. Substantial solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, but a substantial amount still reaches the surface.
The atmosphere “tries” to control the surface temperature, like it does on Venus, but never quite succeeds.
00
I did write ‘if the internal energy is constant’ so if PE increases then KE must decrease by this amount.
I was just trying to make the point in a different way, that if the temperature was constant throughout the atmosphere then the internal energy in the gasses will increase with altitude.
A higher energy at the edge of the troposphere as predicted by the GHE would mean a smaller change in temperature with altitude than predicted by either adiabatic lapse rate. Venus has a similar lapse rate as Earth but over 200 000 times the concentration per unit volume of CO2. Mars has 15 times that of Earth (concentration per unit volume) but the shallower lapse rate is due to its atmosphere being as thin as our mesosphere.
00
I think we have to be careful about the ideal gas laws.
These are derived under some basic assumptions, which do not include gravity effects
“An ideal gas is one with molecules of zero volume which do not interact with each other.
It is also assumed that the gas is in free fall, so that there are no gravity-induced pressure gradients.
The ideal gas law applies to real gases only when the real gas is under certain conditions:
1.The gas must be under fairly low pressure, so that the molecules a. are very far apart compared to their actual volume and
b.do not interact except through collisions.
2.The gas must be within a limited volume so that there is no appreciable gravitational force gradient within the volume of the gas. ”
It is obvious that the modifications are needed to the ideal gas laws once atmospheric distances are involved.
I actually think that the PE⇔KE interchange is quite probably a good starting point into understanding of what is actually going on.
And certainly, if it is even slightly correct, CO2 plays very little part in the control of atmospheric temperatures.
00
Recently I shared a sun-climate update:
http://imageshack.com/a/img203/3609/3vkq.png
(~2 years-worth of new data)
____________________
New — a trivial extension:
The sun governs
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC):
http://s17.postimg.org/3schwvrtb/SCD_RI_AMOC_N_S_Gb.png
Solar activity controls both the global base state and the gradients (and hence circulation).
20
The ‘Catastrophic’ of CAGW is because of the presumed inability of ecosystems to adapt to changes of degrees centigrade over the period of centuries. Despite their demonstrated ability to do so over hours, days, seasons, years and decades.
Perhaps these records will now allay that anxiety.
31
“Correlate” in the headline not “correllate”.
00
Piers Corbyn has a rather solid record and relies heavily on the sun for his predictions — predictions for which clients pay him rather well because they’re accurate. That tells me something. I can’t begin to adopt this research yet as being authoritative. But the sun, that I will believe is a major driver of climate on Earth. The evidence, not only Piers Corbyn but generally, is too compelling.
CO2 isn’t even an extra strolling through the scene in the climate drama.
50
‘CO2 isn’t even an extra strolling through the scene in the climate drama’, what even after 4 billion years?
AGU, global warming and co2, with Richard Alley.
‘we should teach…the broad history of the globe’s climate…when we do that co2 keeps inserting itself everywhere we look, if you leave co2 out nothing makes sense, if you put co2 in a whole lot of it makes sense and then you can put the other pieces in the puzzle and make it work. So what we are going to do is wander through the history of the Earth’s climate and see how co2 is the only explanation for a lot of what happened…we are going to walk you through 4.6 billion years of history all the way to the present, we are going to start at the beginning and see where we end up’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPLjx5JSUI
Edited from, under fair usage policy.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/academic-faculty/alley-richard
010
Indeed, you are correct.
Every time it warms up, shortly afterwards CO2 levels rise.
Every time it cools down, shortly afterwards CO2 levels fall.
And not the other way round as per alarmist doctrine!
This has been clearly demonstrated during the icy periods and the shorter inter-glacials of the current 2.65 million year long Pleistocene Age
If CAGW theory was correct, you would see it in the geological record. However, there is no sign of it there, so it has to be false. Of course, CO2 is important, but as a life giving, not an evil, gas.
A steadily decreasing number of people have gone totally loopy in their over-estimation of the sensitivity of our planet’s temperature to changes in CO2 levels.
90
And from the POV of a complete layperson such as myself the reverse alarmist correlation of CO2 and Temp. actually makes some basic common sense. Increasing temperatures would presumably be more hospitable to increasing biomass and therefore increasing CO2. This is of course an over simplification of the process, but is more intuitive than CO2 rising for no particular reason then driving temperature ahead of it.
It also keeps me coming back to the question of the biomass of herd species back in the day and an unanswered question I have had for ages. Was the biomass of the ancient herds (bison, wildebeest, zebra etc etc) larger or smaller than modern domestic herds? If for example the stories about US buffalo herd numbers are accurate, there may have been more “cow farts” on the North American continent prior to 1700 than post 1900.
http://www.nps.gov/thro/naturescience/bison-buffalo.htm
10
Just in case you’re not just being funny. The warmer oceans push the CO2+H2O ⇄ H2CO3 and H2CO3 ⇄ HCO3-+H+ equilibrium to the left, and higher concentration of CO2 in the oceans means a higher concentration in the atmosphere.
Sorry about not finding a good link, too much alarmism.
10
Cheers I was serious, like I said I just hadn’t read up on it at all. Thanks for the explanation.
Any ideas on the cow farts (biomass/herd size)though? thats a serious question I would love to know if any research has been done to answer it.
00
I am guessing that world-wide land clearing has provided a larger habitat for domestic cattle than there was when bison roamed free. A lot of their territory is crops so its hard to guess.
There are 1.4 billion cattle and 1 billion sheep at the moment. There are estimates of 60 million American bisons living on the great plains before humans, so modern cattle well and truly out number the ancient herds.
You need to remember that the bacteria in the ruminant gut is similar to bacteria in litter that breaks down cellulose and emit methane, and there will be no money for such research. It might suggest we go back to controlled burns.
00
Vic, I recently read a rather enlightening story about the Indians in North America. The herds were at one time smaller and limited by grass land size.
The indians by constant burning extended the grass lands thousands of miles.
The open plains were the work of indians and the huge herds.
00
That sort of talk had Flannery labelled a racist.
00
In the era of the dinnosaurs C02 levels were about 5 to 10 times higher than today. Temperatures were about 22*C average on Earth. The Earth was an Eden from pole to pole. This is what geology and evolution teaches. CAGW does not exist
20
BADJnrx4,
Trying to fit the evidence around the crime again…
30
BADjnrx4,
The problem with AGW Theory is that there is no crime to begin with and there is no evidence so:
“if you put co2 in a whole lot of it makes sense and then you can put the other pieces in the puzzle and make it work.”
“… AND MAKE IT WORK.” ???
It’s all just a good old fashioned ‘verbal’ that won’t hold up to real science and the other thing with this sort of conduct is that it is manifestly fraudulent and corrupt.
50
‘this sort of conduct is that it is manifestly fraudulent and corrupt.’ well if that is so, why is R Alley still in the position he is? Why hasn’t he had to answer to the corruption?
01
That is a good question.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — “Who shall guard the guards” – Juvenal
Way back in Roman times, there were problems with systematic corruption, where every layer of a society is dependent on the malfeasance of the layers below, for its survival and livelihood.
That is how corruption works, and academies of higher learning will not be immune.
So that is a very good question, and one that needs to be answered, and probably will be answered, as more people come to understand that they have been duped by those who hold themselves up as the “Guardians of Truth and Knowledge”.
10
Ba4
(Richard Alley) ‘……..when we do that co2 keeps inserting itself everywhere we look, if you leave co2 out nothing makes sense, ……
(and)……we are going to start at the beginning and see where we end up’
–
Back at the beginning, apparently!
00
If you leave out the sense nothing makes sense.
Here is some more of Alley’s work.
20
blackadderthe4th,
A. At best you have circumstantial evidence.
B. At worst you have a fraud involving doctored up data or willful misrepresentation of what the data means.
For the moment let’s assume the former (A), not the latter (B) and take a look at how we should proceed.
Are you familiar with the rules of evidence in a court of law? You should read up on them. What the law says about using circumstantial evidence in, for instance, the State of California where I live is quite instructive. Among the important points are these two:
1. In order to convict the evidence MUST SHOW that the defendant did the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
2. In order to convict the evidence MUST NOT SHOW that anyone else could have done it.
CO2 is up the creek without a paddle on both of these points. No evidence actually shows that CO2 can do anything you claim. There is great evidence that the sun can and does influence climate.
Where is your case? CO2 fails both tests.
I think you know what I think of the situation if B is true instead of A.
40
If you take the sun out of the equation, everything else becomes moot. And yet the Richard Alley’s of this world treat it as a constant. Go figure …
50
The heat from the Earth itself is also considered negligible (0.1W/m2 in the oceans and 0.07W/m2 continental) and, if I’m not mistaken, it has been around for 4 billion years at least.
While its small, do you think that it might have a larger effect on ocean currents than 0.6W/m2 of back radiation that can’t get past millimetres of water?
20
Since water has a much higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, and net transfer of heat is from the ocean to the sky, then even a fluctuation of 0.05W/m2, even if I believed that 0.1 figure above (which I don’t), is likely to countervail the miniscule effect of atmospheric induced “warming” from putative back-radiation.
The bug bear of this is what I would likely to refer to as the “Mannian law of averages” or perhaps “Trenberth’s missing screw” (as distinct from Occam’s Razor), that being the tendency of climatologists to look only at the averages of a system and then pretend that the over-arching basis for their calculations is actually commensurate with what happens in the “real world” scenario.
For example, I would argue that an active volcanic vent of considerable size in shallower waters in the Arctic Circle, where solar insolation is low, would have a markedly greater influence on global climate (not to mention local weather and sea ice levels) than the same sized vent in the Marianas trench in the middle latitudes – more bang for your buck so to speak. Once you average out the globe into a homogenous construct, such considerations are swept under the rug and understanding of potentially important regional factors with global influences are conveniently ignored.
60
I like that …
Taking all of the parts of a car, and “averaging” them by weight, or price, or whatever, and then replacing them all with the “average” car part, does not give you a working car.
Even the thickest Bogan can understand that.
10
It is shocking how ocean currents modify the sun’s output.
70
Apparently, so does CO2.
Those things have a long reach indeed, about 93,000,000 miles. I wish I had half that much influence.
60
I wish you did too.
40
There have been deep sea cores taken in our region. The AUSCAN expedition sailing in the French ship Marion Dufresne in 2003 took cores from the Murray Canyon. http://www.environment.gov.au/node/16834
From the on-line Diary of 22 Feb 2003…
“Today’s major news comes from the team working on the core collected yesterday, with an exciting find that Patrick De Deckker suspects is extremely significant for two reasons. Initial spectrophotometry (a technique which measures colour changes in sediments) has revealed remarkable similarities to results from the famous Vostok ice cores retrieved in the Antarctic.
“This is hugely significant and exiting,” said Patrick. “What we have here is a “proxy” for a sea level curve that also matches the Antarctic curve to a remarkable degree. This is linked to sea level changes over the past 150,000 years. To have these results correlate so closely with those of the Antarctic cores is very exciting. The similarity has quite frankly astounded us. We couldn’t have hoped for a better result,” he said.
The information gained from the sea level curve gives scientists information about changes to climate, oceanography and the geology of the area from the past. Depending on the age of the core samples, information can be gathered from as far back as the last million years. Our core sample provides information for the past 250,000 years of an exceedingly high quality.
“This again is a phenomenal result,” said Patrick. “We will be dividing the core into 1cm slices, which will represent 100 years of ocean history. We now have the potential to chart the history of the oceans and climate of this region every 100 years for the past 250,000 years.””
It might be interesting to follow this research up. Probably this core still exists and could be reanalysed.
——————————–
I like that information Phil. Perhaps we can ask for the data? _ Jo
20
CHALLENGE No.1: get the ABC to mention this, even at 2 o’clock in the morning.
CHALLENGE No.2:get Shorten and B Brown to READ the article.
PREDICTION as to the result: pigs will learn to fly before any of the above happens. Anyway, it’s all Abbott’s fault!
20
Look, I know this is way way off the topic, but I hark back to that disgusting huge banner at one of those marches on Saturday, the one which said F*** Democracy.
It seems that Democracy is only Democratic if the correct result is achieved.
The weekend referendum in the Crimea saw the biggest turnout to vote in that area’s history.
Whew! The result was really close too, (/sarc)
93% of those who voted said that they want to be a part of Russia again.
Now, to me, that sounds like democracy.
All the other (leftist) Governments in the supposedly free World have said that they do not recognise the referendum, let alone this overwhelming results.
It seems to me that outsiders from other Countries do indeed know what’s better for this region than those who actually live there.
It seems to those outsiders, Democracy is just great ….. as long as you get the right result.
Huh! Is it any wonder I’m cynical?
Tony.
60
Tony:
The ethnical makeup of Crimea is/was ~33% Ukrainian (who are mostly boycotting the election) and ~67% Russian. The latter is hardly surprising as Crimea was russian for nearly 200 years. Nikita Khrushchev handed it over as a gesture of goodwill and because he had got to the top with strong support from ukrainian party members (and those from Leningrad who felt slighted by Stalin).
It’s been a thorn in relations between Russia and the Ukraine since the latter became independent.
Note: Putin could claim the support of the deposed democratically elected President of the Ukraine, who was deposed for trying to put a democratically supported referendum motion into effect.
Note 2: Most of the leading Ukrainian politicians are of russian extraction. It’s not just black hats and white hats.
00
I can just imagine Khrushchev’s thinking in 1954.
Эй, что может пойти не так, как надо здесь?*
We’re the second most powerful Country on Earth. 15 States, all under our Soviet umbrella, Russia, the largest and strongest, Ukraine the second largest.
We still get to keep Sevastopol, in the Balaklava Raion, site of the only warm water Russian Naval Base.
Down comes the wall.
Ukraine now has Crimea, and, now out on their own, they find that life is a little harder now they’re out from under that Soviet umbrella. However, they do have a bargaining chip. They bargain with Moscow over that Naval Base. After years of hard negotiations Ukraine finally leases the base to Russia for 20 years.
Hmm! That Naval Base comes up for renewal of its 20 year lease in two and a bit years.
Now surely this isn’t just about the Naval Base. (/sarc)
It sort of gives some context now as to why the U.S. is up in arms over what is happening in Crimea. If they support Ukraine, and now with trouble in the Ukraine over supposedly closer ties to Moscow, you can just imagine what would have happened when the Lease renewal came up. The Ukraine would not renew it under any circumstances, and Russia loses its warm water Naval Base, and umm, just who might be a beneficiary of that I wonder.
Tony.
* Hey, what can go wrong here?
20
“Hey, what can go wrong here?”
People who just want to work and raise a family die. There was no popular uprising in Ukraine, Syria nor anywhere else. Maybe more vocal and violent than the marches yesterday but the same sort manipulation of a minority of idiots.
00
Again, we seem to have this small noisy minority (7% in this case, even less than the Greens) who want to go against a massive democratic vote.
If 93% of the populations say they want to be part of Russia again…these other countries should just butt out !!
10
On the New Zealand National Radio morning news, they were quoting 97% as being in favour or rejoining Russia.
What is it with this 97% number?
Does it possess magical powers, or something? Or is it a secret code for, “This number is fabricated to achieve a higher purpose, so although we made it up, it is not really lying”?
00
Not many options as retaining the status quo;reckon 93%is about right as Ukraine is a basket case with infrastructure and basic remedial work -poor.Geopolitical concerns aside the Crimea would be better off with The Russian Republic.
10
Only 93% eh ? Are Crimeans free to exercise their free will ?
What does it feel like to be part of a disintegrating country ?
Hastily organised referenda without consultation are more likely to fuel conflict than to calm it.
Actions and rhetoric from Western governments cannot reasonably be compared to that rabble on the street. Russian view of democracy is still the rule of the mob, so it is still more important to be part of the right mob.
00
Having been through the area a few times, you need to appreciate how much the gifting of the Crimea to Ukraine was massively unpopular both with Russians and with the people who lived there. I have heard many explanations, an apology for Holomodor (murder by starvation of millions), the 300th anniversary of the request to Moscow, the fact that Kruschev’s wife was Ukranian. None make sense. It was a wrong thing to do and the Russians have hated being part of the Ukraine for 60 years this year. So they have taken advantage of the total disintegration of Ukraine to make their claim to go home. Anyone over 60 was born in Russia and they love being Russian more than the Russians. Everyone knows this, except in the West, where it is all about evil KGB Putin invading. I suggested a plebiscite and predicted 95% weeks ago. It is not deceit, not a rigged election. Despite all the obvious corruption and shooting of 60 unarmed protesters by police snipers, the US still wants to believe the Ukraine was a model democracy. Rubbish. It was a police state where the police were the criminals.
30
It is now 95.5% according to The Australian website and the EU won’t recognise the referendum and is proposing sanctions.
Reagan speak.”PUTIN, turn off the gas.” Being of white Russian stock, got no love for Russia but less for the EU!
20
The EU are probably more of a socialist state than Russia.!
10
I’d say Russian diplomacy is pretty much ultra right wing just looking at the back-up Putin has mustered – Cossacks and his own OMCG – pretty sure those groups don’t have socialist policy handbooks.
Should send over some of our placard-waving, socialist-leaning, democracy haters to deal with them and lets see how a real hard-line regime deals with dissent.
10
This is OT, but important for WA voters on 5th of April.
The WA Senate 2014 group voting tickets are now available at the WAEC site. Election is on 5th of April.
http://www.aec.gov.au/wa-senate/gvt.htm Good to see Cohenite’s mob ( Freedom and Prosperity party ) putting the Libs ahead of Labor. Labor 54 to 57 and Libs 50 to 53. PUP has also put the Libs before Labor. Good on them and BTW I noticed that PUP has reversed their selections and put Scott Ludlum last for the Greens .
Jo I hope you or David can find the time to have a look.
10
Do feel at liberty to delete Comments at 36, 37, 38 and this one Mods once you’ve clocked the problem with nesting.
00
As I have written, the correlation between solar radiation and temperature should surprise no one.
What Dr. Murry Selby found (see his talk on Youtube) was the absolute correlation between the integral of temperature and CO2. I know few would understand it, but it should be a measure of total heat input and that indicates heating, mainly of the oceans which cover 2/3 of the planet to an average depth of 4km. Then consider that 98% of all gaseous CO2 is dissolved in the oceans and you have the total explanation for the increase in CO2 with temperature, rather than the other way around. I know I have written this before, but it is all so obvious.
So if I have a prediction, it is that total CO2 will start to drop if temperature drops. Who said we were in a hiatus? Why not a turning point?
10
I think another way of saying this is that when solar activity is low, the jet stream changes from “zonal” to “meridional” which is exactly what we have experienced. What that means is a warm west coast of the US with the moisture pushed far to the north as a high pressure sets up on the coast and then the jet dives down into the central US on the back side of that high pressure.
00
Re Murray Canyon Sea Core (off Kangaroo Island)
Hi Jo,
I found the data and associated paper related to the deep sea core taken off Kangaroo Island in 2003. The paper is titled “Antarctic deglacial pattern in a 30 kyr record of sea surface temperature offshore South Australia” The headline discussion seems to be that sea surface temperatures peaked 6000 years ago at around 19.5C and have been cooling ever since to around 17.5C in the top measurement around 700 years ago. This compares to current SST in the same area today of around 16.3C, (17.5C in summer & autumn and 14.8C in the winter & spring), and local modern averages along the nearby SA coast of around 15.5C. The paper points out the measured SST is potentially biased to summer temperatures and that the data seems to back up a strong link between onshore and offshore records of paleoclimate and compares well with information on hydrological and vegetation changes fromsoutheastern Australia showing a “warm early Holocene at a time of generally wetter conditions and a subsequent decrease in temperature at a time of increasing aridity after 6.5 ka”.
The actual data is also located at calvo2007. There are also links to other sea cores taken nearby and related papers at the parent websites that host this data.
Regards
Phill
00
I have only looked at the paper briefly (here is the link)
There are a few degrees difference between the four samples so while there seems to be a general trend, quoting the results to one decimal place is well and truly exaggerating the precision.
Assuming that the trend is true, it probably reflects other work that shows a general decrease in global temperatures for the past few millennia ie. the current warm period should not be as warm as the MWP nor the Roman period. The precision is not there to see a SH equivalent of the MWP nor whether there has been a period of about a couple of centuries of a degree difference in SST, as shown in the Moffa-Sanchez work that Jo talked about.
00
[…] Nigel Lawson May 2nd, 2014 Nova Solar Output correlates. How amazing – Joanne Nova.com March 16th, 2014 00 […]
00