This new paper by Adophi et al uses beryllium, oxygen and carbon isotopes from Greenland ice cores right back as far as the depth of the last ice age, 22,500 years ago, and finds there is a link between solar activity and the climate. It follows these proxies of temperature and solar activity as the planet warmed to the start of the Holocene 10,000 years ago.
It is gaining attention in The Daily Mail, with the headline:
Is the SUN driving climate change? Solar activity – ‘and not just humans’ – could be increasing global warming, study claims
During the last glacial maximum, Sweden was covered in a thick ice sheet that stretched all the way down to northern Germany and sea levels were more than 330ft (100m) lower than they are today, because the water was frozen in the extensive ice caps.
‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release.
‘It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level.
Dr Joanna Haigh, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College London, tells MailOnline that the research is interesting but people should not jump to any conclusions.
‘This is a very nice careful piece of work which provides evidence from Greenland, over a period 10,000-25,000 years ago, consistent with a picture that has emerged from other studies looking at changes over more recent times,’ she says.
‘This shows that when the sun is less active winters are likely to be warmer in Greenland and colder in Northwest Europe.
‘It is not easy to draw any conclusions from this work with regard to the sun’s role in global warming or the recent slowdown in warming of global air temperature.’ — The Daily Mail,
There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather it indirectly affects atmospheric circulation.
‘Reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe,’ said Dr Muscheler.
‘This is because the sun’s UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation.
We can’t draw any conclusions except this small last note:
‘The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change.’
What about that 95% certainty then?
Getting down to the nuts and bolts, Adolphi et al find that the climate in Greenland appears to be influenced by solar cycles. They theorize the mechanism involves those very wiggly “meridional” wind patterns (which swing in loops far to the south or north, and drag hot weather up from the tropics or send cold blasts down from the arctic.) During solar minima there appear to be more of those “blocking” type wave patterns, and they remark that this is similar to what we see today during solar minima, even though the climate regime would be quite different in an ice age.
Greenland is not global of course. But in terms of national billion-dollar policies, it’s yet another paper suggesting that the reason modern climate models don’t work is that they don’t understand the sun’s role in the climate. Which scientist says they are 95% sure CO2 caused the modern warming? Of course, it’s a trick question.
Here we present the first reconstruction of solar activity variations for the end of the last glaciation from 22.5 to 10 kyr BP (thousand years before present, AD 1950) based on new and published 10Be data from the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores 4,6 supported by independent estimates of atmospheric 14C concentrations 7,8. In addition, we provide the first evidence for a solar forcing of Greenland climate during Greenland Stadial 2 (GS-2, 22.9-14.7 kyr BP; ref. 14) that seems coherent with increased frequencies of high-pressure blocking patterns south of Greenland during low-solar-activity winters a relationship that has been reported previously from modern observations and climate model experiments. 9,15
This sun climate relationship is accompanied by increased inputs of sea salt, higher snow
accumulation, and a decrease in terrestrial aerosols (Supplementary Fig. 10). This pattern is interpreted as episodes of a more meridional atmospheric circulation during solar minima advecting relatively moist North Atlantic air masses to Greenland. Modern observations indicate that this type of flow pattern is enhanced during winters with high-pressure blocking situations south of Greenland, which in turn have been found to occur more often during solar minimum periods9.On synoptic scales these high-pressure blocking situations can be described as cyclonic Rossby wave breaking events over the North Atlantic, often accompanied by a southward displacement of the eddy-driven jet and negative North Atlantic Oscillation anomalies24,25. Both are connected to solar variability in reanalysis and model experiments (Fig. 4).
Figure 1 | Key data used in this study. a, 18O variations as recorded in the GRIP ice core21. b, 10Be concentrations from the GRIP (red: this study, black: refs 4,5) and GISP2 (ref. 6; blue) ice cores. c, 10Be fluxes using accumulation rates inferred from the GICC05 age scale (ref. 28 and references therein) and
ice-flow modelling29 (line colouring as in b). d, 114C (that is, 14C concentration after correction for fractionation and decay, relative to a standard) from the tree rings7 (pink) and Hulu Cave speleothem H82 (ref. 8; black). Black dots indicate single measurements and grey shading shows the ±1 envelope (Supplementary Methods). Top bar, INTIMATE event stratigraphy14. GS, Greenland Stadial; GI, Greenland Interstadial. (Click to enlarge)
BACKGROUND
Why does 18O correlate with temperature? Most oxygen is 16O and only 1 part in 500 is 18O. During warm weather slightly more of the lighter Oxygen-16 type evaporates with more of the Oxygen 18 left behind in the ocean. Hence the ratio of the two types tells us something about the temperature of the air. – See Oregon Uni for info
How significant?
An R2 of 0.3 – 0.2. p <0.01, details here:
“Comparing the solar activity reconstruction to 18O from the GRIP (ref. 21) and GISP2 (ref. 22) ice cores reveals a significant positive correlation (r2 D 0.3 and 0.2, p < 0.01, for 10Be concentrations and flux, respectively) during GS-2 (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 9). Significant (95%) spectral coherence of 18O and the solar activity proxy 10Be at known solar cycle wavelengths (Supplementary Fig. 5) strengthens the hypothesis of a solar influence on climate.”
Figure 3 | Sun–climate linkages during GS-2. Top panel: GRIP (ref. 21; purple) and GISP2 (ref. 22; green) 18O during GS-2. Dark lines are low-pass-filtered (<1/150 yr). Bottom panel: Sub-millennial (150–500 yr) GRIP (purple) and GISP2 (green) 18O anomalies, their mean (dark blue, thick), and 10Be-based solar activity variations (orange). The 10Be axis is reversed. Note the high coherence of solar activity and Greenland climate during GS-2, which is robust also for the individual 18O records (Supplementary Fig. 9). For GS-1 and GI-1 the results are less robust. (Click to enlarge).
ABSTRACT
Changes in solar activity have previously been proposed to cause decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in both the modern and Holocene climates1. Direct observational records of solar activity, such as sunspot numbers, exist for only the past few hundred years, so solar variability for earlier periods is typically reconstructed from measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10Be and 14C from ice cores and tree rings2,3. Here we present a high-resolution 10Be record from the ice core collected from central Greenland by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The record spans from 22,500 to 10,000 years ago, and is based on new and compiled data4–6. Using 14C records7,8 to control for climate-related influences on 10Be deposition, we reconstruct centennial changes in solar activity. We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative 18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9,10.We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions.
From the supplementary file, the power spectra suggests that there are similar cycles within these isotope deposition records.
 |
Figure S4: Multiple Taper Method Power spectra of 14C and 10Be production rates during the Holocene (top 2 panels) and Greenland Stadial 2 (lower 2 panels). Black lines indicate 90 (solid), 95 (dashed), and 99 (dotted) % significance level inferred from fitting 1/f noise to each respective power spectrum. The yellow bars highlight dominant periodicities which are present during Holocene and Glacial in the production rate records. Amongst them the well known Gleissberg (80-90 years) and deVries (200-230 years) solar cycles, as well as previously discussed solar periodicities around 150 and 340 years37. All data has been linearly detrended and resampled to 20 year resolution before power spectrum estimation. Note the spectral similarity of 10Be during GS-2 and Holocene 14C and 10Be. |
When analyzing the cycles of Be (solar activity) and 18O (temperature) there appears to be an anti-correlation (meaning when one is up on a certain cycle, the other is down).
In further support for the reliability of our solar activity reconstruction we see a coherent amplitude modulation of the well-known solar de Vries cycle (207 yr) in both 10Be and
14C production rates (Fig. 2d), closely resembling the Holocene modulation pattern (Supplementary Fig. 8).
Figure S5: Multiple Taper Cross Spectral Density38(upper panel) and phase (lower panel) of GRIP 10Be flux and GRIP 18O. The black line in the upper panel shows the spectral coherence. The 95% significance level is indicated by the dashed line. The lower panel shows the phase relation between the two records (solid line) and its 95% confidence interval (grey envelope). The yellow bars mark similar periodicities as in Supplementary Figure 4. GRIP 10Be and 18O show significant coherence at solar periodicities and a stable phase relation of -180⁰, indicating anti-correlation between the records.
REFERENCE
Adolphi, Florian, and Muscheler R., Svensson, A., Aldahan, A., Possnert, G., Beer, J., Sjolte, J., Björck, A., Matthes, K., Thiéblemont, R. (2014) Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature Geoscience; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2225
h/t to Joffa, ScienceDaily and The HockeySchtick. H/t to Eric Worral for the Daily Mail article. Thanks to Robbo to.
“The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,” Dr Muscheler said in a press release.
Im stunned. Who would have thought the largest source of energy we know of has an effect on our planet’s climate? The next thing you know some fool will be suggesting a massive nuclear reactor like the sun is having more of an effect on our climate than an inert gas that occurs in micro concentrations in our atmosphere, its madness I tells ya! You young folk and your revolutionary ideas….
/sarc off
792
They keep telling us to stay out of it in case of burns, you’d think that would have given them a hint.
190
‘than an inert gas that occurs in micro concentrations in our atmosphere’
Water vapour and co2 as GHGs and heat vent blockers. [Therefore resulting in AGW!].
‘70 years ago the view that co2 could affect the global climate was held by only a tiny minority of climate scientists, many assumed there would be a self regulating mechanism that would put things back into balance. Then there was the scientifically valid view that water vapour also trapped radiation and warms up the Earth and it is more abundant in the atmosphere than co2. But research in the 1940s changed all that, Guy Stewart Callender, a British engineer showed that radiation absorption is not even. Water vapour absorbs is mainly in the 18-30 micro-meter band and allows most of the rest to escape into space, in effect these absorption gaps act like cooling vents , but co2 absorbs in a different range, 8-18 micro-metre so Callender concluded that co2 mops up this escaping radiation, effectively acting as a plug to these cooling vents’. Potholer54.
As you can see here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RdAKIN6Y6k
134
Describe balance.
60
Hang on there BA. What are the numbers on Anthropogenic CO2 emissions against NATURAL CO2 emissions?
Do you know?
130
‘What are the numbers on Anthropogenic CO2 emissions against NATURAL CO2 emissions?’
Are humans emitting seven parts of co2 against nature’s one?
‘(PN) How can we be sure that humans are to blame for this…{we know how much fossil fuel we take out the ground…we know how much we burn…a huge amount of co2, it’s about 7GT per year…volcanoes popping off, etc just about 1GT, so there is no question that human activity is producing a massively proportion of co2}…so seven times more…{that’s right…there is no controversy}.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czu87LViqyk
QED!
015
The oceans are rising at about 1.7mm per year and have been since the end of the nineteenth century. There has been no acceleration in that rate of rise. This means there is no anthropogenic footprint in the climate.
50
No, nobody is going to “see here”.
Because nobody is going to bother to follow your worthless links.
They have proven time and time again to be meaningless crud !
142
Gosh, I’m starting to worry about the anthropogenic water vapour now . . .
70
‘I’m starting to worry about the anthropogenic water vapour now’, well no need because its minor compared to CO2 and the like.
010
Minor? Water vapour forms up to 4% of the atmosphere in the tropics and is a much stronger absorber and re-emitter (about 7-8 times) than a trace gas of only 0.04 % ( 0.0398 rounded up). That’s two whole orders of magnitude difference! Get real!
The tail does not wag the dog and the hairs on the end of the tail don’t wag the tail. Therefore …
70
‘Water vapour forms up to 4% of the atmosphere’ so what? It is the IR frequencies that matter and co2 is on a more critical frequency than water vapour. that is why CO2 punches above its weight! And therefore has a dramatic influence compared to WV.
As you can see in the link at #1.2
05
gees BAffled one.
You seriously have NO IDEA about atmospheric water and its role, do you. !
Every post you make highlights your monumental ignorance.
If you are the best the [snip] alarmistas have to offer.. keep posting 🙂
You do a great dis-service to your cause because you show the baseline ignorance of people who “believe”. !
61
Is one of your ravings an answer to my question of what constitutes “balance”, its hard to tell?
40
Human CO2 is 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is .4% of the atmosphere or 400pm (approx).
Human contribution is 12ppm of the 400ppm.
Australia’s contribution of that is .18ppm.
Let’s get this into perspective.
Australia’s contribution of CO2 is more than balanced out by the CO2 deficit of 500,000 birds (including protected raptors) and 88,000 bats extinguished by Wind Turbines per-capita.
60
Oops, slipped a point there James … at 398ppmv, CO2 is 0.0398% (or 0.04% rounded up) ppmv of the atmosphere.
30
Even better.
20
James, the anthropogenic CO2 currently ADDS 3% to the total CO2 contribution EVERY YEAR.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, this additional CO2 from burning fossil fuels has increased the total CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm.
The relationship between emissions and CO2 concentration increase is shown here:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/06/fig1.png
.
04
Considering that, 125,000 years ago, CO2 levels shot up 67%, or naturally rose by 120 ppm (180 ppm to 300 ppm) as the Earth warmed into an interglacial, we know that natural emissions of CO2 can naturally out-emit their natural sinks, causing an imbalance in the carbon budget and raising atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 levels can and routinely do rise 100% naturally.
We also know, using the IPCC’s 2013 carbon budget graph, that natural CO2 emissions add up to about 200 gigatons (GtC) per year, and anthropogenic CO2 emissions add up to about 9 gigatons (as of 2013) per year. In other words, natural CO2 emissions out-gas anthropogenic emissions by more than 20 to 1 according to the IPCC.
So, considering that (a) natural CO2 emissions have shown that they can overflow their natural sinks in the ice core record and thus they can raise atmospheric CO2 without human intervention, and considering that (b) there are 200 gigatons of natural CO2 emissions pumped into the atmosphere for every 9 gigatons of man-made emissions, and considering that (c) natural sinks do not intelligently discriminate between natural versus man-made CO2, why do you think that absolutely none of the 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (280 ppm to 400 ppm) since 1850 can be said to have been derived from natural sources? How do natural CO2 emissions go from accounting for 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels for millions of years…to accounting for 0% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 beginning in the year 1750?
For that matter, back during the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous, CO2 levels averaged between 1,800 ppm and 2,000 ppm. How’d they get that high without humans burning fossil fuels? Why didn’t the natural sinks balance out the emissions back then?
41
Kenneth,
There have indeed been large variations in CO2 concentration over geological timescales but these changes occur over millennia or millions of years and are related to large scale changes in forcings.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.short
http://courses.washington.edu/ocean450/Discussion_Topics_Papers/Berner1990.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.29.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
These mechanisms have not applied over the last 150 years. What has occurred over the last 150 years is the burning of a calculable amount of fossil fuels from which the amount of CO2 produced can be calculated,from which the amount of warming can be calculated. Again, I refer you to Callender’s 1938 paper.
As far as the 20 to 1 factor in “natural” vs anthropogenic CO2, again this figure corresponds to a single year of CO2 emmitted to the atmosphere.
So no you don’t see much of an increase in CO2 concentration or temperature rise from one year to the next.
But you do see it over a period of 200 years from 280 to 400 ppm, or a 40% increase as the yearly anthropogenic contribution accumulates. The temperature rise accompnaying that increase is about 0.9 C.
And it should be recognised that that the 200 gigatonnes of “natural” CO2 emissions is a recycling of existing CO2 through the biosphere via the carbon cycle.
And that recycling includes CO2 added anthropogenically in previous years which has become part of that cycle.
There is no net gain in CO2 concentration via this recycling process.
There is a net gain in atmospheric CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels, and this gain adds year after year after year.
05
“There is no net gain in CO2 concentration via this recycling process.”
125,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, and 350,000 years ago (and beyond) CO2 levels rose by 120 ppm (180 ppm to 300 ppm) within a few hundred years, as this graph shows…
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/temp_co2_ch4.gif
So, in other words, there most definitely has been a net gain (sources out-emitting their sinks) in CO2 concentration in geological history. In fact, it’s happened rather routinely.
Since 1850, or within a span of 165 years, CO2 levels have risen by 120 ppm (280 ppm to 400 ppm).
Since CO2 levels can and do routinely fluctuate naturally by 120 ppm, why is it considered certain that absolutely none (0%) of the 120 ppm of additional CO2 since 1850 is due to natural emissions of CO2 (oceans, biomass), and 100% of the increase is due to humans?
After all, CO2 levels began rising in about 1770, which is approximately 100 years before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began to rise, as seen here…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17501875.png
30
“There is a net gain in atmospheric CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels, and this gain adds year after year after year”
This is WONDERFUL NEWS… thanks Phil ! 🙂
The planet, and all life on it, luvs CO2 ! 🙂
20
Kenneth I wrote that there is no net gain in CO2 concentration via recycling of CO2 through the carbon cycle.
Certainly over geological timescales the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied greatly, usually operating in tandem due to feedback mechanisms.
The warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution cannot be explained by “natural” forcings alone. The effects of the addition of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels must be taken in to account.
03
PS Kenneth,
With regard to CO2 concentration, fossil fuel emissions and temperature, here are some graphs giving a broader perspective:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9TuvgwlerZ8/UvBROnTHaRI/AAAAAAABJUc/7b67VqPJ2iE/s1600/global-co2-levels-since-1700.png
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/06/fig1.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
03
The feedback mechanisms for the glacial-to-interglacial periods are that the temperatures rapidly rise first (5.0 to 10.0 C within a span of a few decades), mainly due to solar forcing/orbital changes, and then, about 800 years later on average (the well-accepted 800-year CO2 lag), the CO2 levels begin their precipitous rise along the same track of the temperature rise. CO2 rise follows, rather than precedes, temperature rise. This is well established geological science.
The carbon cycle goes “out of balance” naturally, producing a net gain of CO2 ppm. This happens because: a) the variable Sun warms the oceans, which causes them to release their vast stores of CO2; b) the ice sheets ultimately melt, reducing reflectiveness (albedo), and filling the ocean basins with several meters of higher sea levels, allowing more CO2 storage and release; c) the exposed land ultimately greens, and the larger volume of biomass ultimately adds more CO2 to the carbon cycle (respiration/decay), which leads to CO2 sources overflowing their sinks, adding to the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Yes, some of the increase in CO2 ppm levels is due to anthropogenic sources, mainly fossil fuel burning. But the natural and common occurrence of natural CO2 emissions overflowing their sinks and raising atmospheric ppm levels did not just stop occurring in the year 1750, or 1900, or 1950. Natural sources of CO2 naturally outbalance their sinks. This happened in the past, and it is still happening today. It didn’t just stop.
20
And that extra CO2 feeds the biosphere allow it to finally grow as it should.
There is ZERO effect on temperature from the slight, but greatly beneficial, CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
CO2 is the base of ALL life on Earth and has been perilously low for a very long time.
Human release of sequesters CO2 is SAVING the Earth. !!!
41
excuse typos.. watching TV !
was ad break, only time worth bothering with responding to the Dr Brian junk. !
21
‘Human release of sequesters CO2 is SAVING the Earth. !!!’
Indeed, its one of those extraordinary coincidences. Historians will look back and laugh at how we tried to tax a harmless trace gas.
30
It always amazes me how skeptics claim that it is obvious that 400 ppm CO2 can be considered utterly inconsequential when it comes to affecting the temperature, but this same “miniscule” amount of CO2 is utterly and literally vital when it comes to the biosphere, and in fact addition of 120 ppm is “saving the earth”.
Seems to me the earth wasn’t doing too badly prior to 1750.
28
Have you confirmed this experimentally?
Please take the time to talk with a greenhouse keeper about CO2…. or any scientist who has studied it. Perhaps you could look at NASA’s earth greening pics?
40
Not experimentally backslider. Relying on historical evidence here.
05
That is commonly known as “anecdotal evidence”… perhaps then we should take another look at all the anecdotal evidence which shows that the late 1800’s were far far hotter than today?
30
At 1.2.5.2.4 Shehan says:
Aw Philip, it is comments like these that cause me great concern over your ability to analyze science and make rational arguments.
Are you suggesting that the body of empirical science surrounding how plants utilize CO2 is less in depth and less well understood than how CO2 affects climate?
Really! You need to brush up on the meaning of empirical.
Seems to me the earth isn’t doing too badly today.
41
Mark D.
You misunderstand my point. I am perfectly happy to agree with skeptics that a miniscule concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the basis of most plant and animal life on earth.
My problem is with those skeptics who then turn around and say that self evidently, this miniscule amount of CO2 cannot effect temperature, in spite of the science that says it does.
No the earth isn’t doing to badly today. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased global temperatures less than 1 C to date. Even if temperatures rise several more degrees, life on earth will do very nicely.
The problem is that a population of around 9 billion people, and their infrastructure currently located in cities and agricultural regions determined by global temperatures that have existed for the last few millenia will be in trouble if temperatures rise by several more degrees as the CO2 concentration continues to rise.
17
“It always amazes me how skeptics claim that it is obvious that 400 ppm CO2 can be considered utterly inconsequential when it comes to affecting the temperature, but this same “miniscule” amount of CO2 is utterly and literally vital when it comes to the biosphere, and in fact addition of 120 ppm is “saving the earth”.
”
No accounting for your ignorance, is there !
Your problem to solve, not ours.
Go and do some BASIC learnin’ !!
30
Backslider: Anecdotal evidence? The historical record of human societies?
And your evidence for societies doing it tough?
04
No Philip, you don’t see the lack of reason in your comparison.
Skeptics are not skeptical of how plants utilize CO2, we and science know a great deal about the subject. We know from close observation and there are possibly millions of research papers on plants. How plants use CO2 is very possibly “settled” science. CO2 is not pollution, plants love it.
The effect of CO2 on climate? Well, can’t measure it, can’t duplicate it, the theory itself is still questioned, the sensitivities not really known, the earths other systems may easily negate any effects of CO2, and potentially huge unknown external forces are at play. Do you see anything to be skeptical about here?
I thought so and I assume you’re still “amazed”.
It is the few extra PPM of CO2 humans have loosened from rock that has caused human success. It is why we have been able to feed, cloth, house, and advance the peoples of the world. Making life happier, longer, healthier and slightly less brutish.
Why would you want to do anything to upset this?
30
You could start here.
20
Mark D:
No you still fail to understand.
It is not about the scientific evidence on the role of CO2 in either biology or atmospheric physics.
As I wrote above, “skeptics” often refer to the 400 ppm or 0.04% concentration as if SELF EVIDENTLY a miniscule amount of “TRACE” gas could not possibly affect temperature or climate.
No further statement on any evidence is required.
OBVIOUSLY, as any fool can se such a MINUTE AMOUNT OF THE TRACE GAS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY AFFECT ON CLIMATE.
Yet this objection is no problem when it comes to biology.
By the way, 400 ppm amounts to 3.2 trillion tonnes of atmospheric CO2.
15
Backslider, you are also failing to understand my point.
Yes, fire, floods and famines have been a feature of human history on this planet, as they are today
I wrote:
Seems to me the earth wasn’t doing too badly prior to 1750.
That is, history, literature, art(those paintings of peasants at the harvest) etc. etc. show that people lived quite well on the earth’s bounty when the CO2 concentration was 280 ppm.
24
Do you purport that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth out of the Little Ice Age?
22
No.
15
Good. So, what exactly caused the Earth to fall into the LIA and what exactly caused it to come out again? What significant things can you observe happened during the LIA and what significant things can you observe as it came out?
30
“Natural” climate forcings.
03
That is totally inadequate….. meaningless even.
20
Backslider, What caused the LIA?
03
I asked you that question.
You see, to even begin considering CO2 as an influence on climate you must first have solid answers to these questions. Since you push CO2 warming theory I expect you to be able to answer them.
20
No Backslider you asked me if anthropogenic CO2 put an end to the LIA.
You said that my reply of natural climate forcings was “totally inadequate….. meaningless even”, yet you decline to give any cause for the LIA. That really is totally inadequate.
I endorsed Schindell’s explanation as to which natural forcing immediately above this comment of yours:
“I don’t believe you answered my question as to whether you believe that it was The Industrial Revolution which pulled us out of the LIA?”
I assumed you had read them so that the simple reply “natural forcings” was a repitition of a point already made in more detail.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/new-paper-shows-solar-activity-is-linked-to-the-greenland-climate-even-20000-years-ago/#comment-1544450
03
“It always amazes me how skeptics claim that it is obvious that 400 ppm CO2 can be considered utterly inconsequential when it comes to affecting the temperature, but this same “miniscule” amount of CO2 is utterly and literally vital when it comes to the biosphere, and in fact addition of 120 ppm is “saving the earth”. ”
Ok, you go and live on stale bread and water for a few days, see how you go.
Actually the atmosphere and plant life in general NEEDS MORE CO2, because it has been existing on the equivalent of stale bread and water for a long, long time.
Even the very small amount of extra CO2 we may have help contribute is helping to enhance the biosphere.
(Climbing out of the LIA is lending a big hand to the world’s plant life, as well.)
Plants hate cold and PLANTS LUV CO2, the more the merrier.
I know you HATE plant life (and life in general), but that is no need to insist that plant life lives on a near starvation diet.
And just because you have zero understanding of something, and a basic fact amazes you (doh !), doesn’t mean it isn’t correct.
31
Yes, Griss the planet was starving of plant and animal life prior to 1750.
Again at the risk of repeating myself:
“Seems to me the earth wasn’t doing too badly prior to 1750.
That is, history, literature, art (those paintings of peasants at the harvest) etc. etc. show that people lived quite well on the earth’s bounty when the CO2 concentration was 280 ppm.”
And I note that not only are you able to read people’s minds:
“I know you HATE plant life (and life in general)”
You understand how plants think and feel too:
“Plants hate cold and PLANTS LUV CO2”
Now go back into the garden and talk to the weeds.
03
Let me expand on your ridiculous anthropomorphism.
Plants to not love or hate anything. Plants evolve to thrive in specific climatic conditions. Tropical plants thrive in the tropics. Temperate plants thrive in temperate regions. Polar flora thrive in their polar regions.
03
“Plants evolve to thrive in specific climatic conditions”
Yes, most plants thrive in HIGH CO2 around 1000ppm, and in nice warm Climates.
They developed in much higher CO2 level. That is what they LIKE and do best in.
LOW levels around 200-400ppm, they are wimpy and despondent.. Like you.
Only a small percentage have systems that allow them to cope with the currently low CO2 levels.
—————————
“Temperate plants thrive in temperate regions. Polar flora thrive in their polar regions.”
Ah. the sum total of your plant knowledge, laid bare for all to see…. Well done, oh great, ridiculously clueless one. 🙂
21
The demonization of CO2 and the abortive attempt to curtail CO2 emissions..
is probably the most stupid and ridiculous thing humankind has even done,
particularly in a world with an ever increasing population that will need to be fed.
21
If you had ever done anything more than basic career maths, you would know exactly what this graph represents with respect to CO2 level and plant life…
….and just how close the Earth has come to losing it all.
That peak at the end is us humans saving the world’s plant life..
REJOICE for that small amount of extra CO2, we must never let it drop back down below that dotted line.
21
Griss. Thank you very much for the graph demonstrating how industrialization has lead to a large and sudden increase in CO2 concentration.
Unfortunately your statement that the graph represents anything “with respect to CO2 level and plant life” is totally false.
There is no data whatsoever on the graph concerning plant life.
Your assertion that the earth came close to “losing it all” when the CO2 concentration was 180 ppm, let alone 280 ppm before we started burning coal is unsupported by any evidence.
The fact that plants are still here, along with the animal life that is supported by it, including humans, particularly aborigines on this continent, the harshest environment of the inhabited continents, and apparently doing fine 30,000 years ago when the concentration was 180 ppm suggests otherwise.
Again, your resort to anthropomorphisms is totally unscientific, including the claim that the poor suffering CO2 molecule has been “demonized”. Tell us how much that has hurt its feelings.
And no that is not the sum total of my knowledge of plant life. It is sufficient to show how stupid your comments about what plants do and do not “Luv” are.
14
How is it that CO2 levels were much lower than now during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (5,000 to 9,000 years ago), and yet temperatures were much higher than now (by +2.0 to +3.0 C)? If the +0.76 C of warming since 1850 was wholly caused by anthropogenic CO2, what caused the temperatures to be 2-3 C warmer for thousands of years?
20
> (by +2.0 to +3.0 C)?
Wrong. http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-two-epochs-of-marcott/ etc etc.
14
Yep, that’s exactly what I thought.
Sounds to me as if Dr Muscheler used to be one of the 97% of scientists who “believe” in AGW but is now losing their religion, as the old song goes.
Who would have thought that the massive fusion reactor in the sky might have something to do with the climate. Next they will be telling us that the planets orbit around said fusion reactor. Will wonders never cease?
160
Except that we are now told that the Sun is not a massive fusion reactor at all, but rather a ball of electrically energised plasma.
Life is getting more and more interesting as I get older, and find I now know a lot less than I did when I was at school.
80
Rereke, Plasma is the fourth state of matter where electrons have been sripped from the atoms. This occurs in the massive temperatures in the interior of the sun, or in fusion reactors, but the energy comes from the fusion of the hydrogen nuclei. The trick with fusion reactors (among others) is to get more energy out of the fusion reaction than you put in to heat the material in the first place.
19
Would the person who does not like this post one minute after I put it up care to explain where he or she disagrees?
08
Still waiting for one of you to explain where my explanation of the role of plasma and fusion in the sun is wrong.
03
Unexpected?
You are kidding. It has ALWAYS been acknowledged by climatologists that solar activity plays a major role in determining climate. Every model ever constructed includes the effect of solar radiation, going back to Hansen’s 1981 model.
The question is whether the warming for the last 150 years can be explained by solar and other natural mechanisms. It cannot. You need to factor in the effect of anthropogenic CO2.
113
Actually Guy Callender’s calculations in 1938 concluded that approximately half the warming in the 50 years prior was due to anthropogenic CO2 without specifying the source of the other half.
09
Phil,
Those models have all failed, proving CO2 is not a factor.
60
James:
http://web.archive.org/web/20111019211836/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ar4mods.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
And the one promoted by skeptic Steve McIntyre, based on Callender’s 1938 work (Green line:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/model-comparison21.png
04
Phil,
The models have did not predict actual events.
Therefore the models failed.
The vary failure of the models proves CO2 is not a factor.
Edison found ten thousand ways not to build a light bulb.
Climate Scientists are well on the way to exceeding Edison in finding ways to prove CO2 is not a contributor to climate change.
40
Models do not “predict” the effects of volcanoes or el nino /la nina events because they do not occur at regular intervals.
The models have been successful in predicting the broad features of global warming, and accounting for the temperature record.
There has always been uncertainty in the magnitude of important input parameters such as the sensitivity factor, and as these parameters are better defined the accuracy of the predictions improves. Models or theories never prove or disprove anything.
The models do however successfully demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is an important driver of global warming.
I am on the record as saying I think that the sensitivity factor will be at the low end of the IPCC range (1.5 – 4.5 C.
Interestingly, the model I linked from skeptic Steve Mcintyre is Callender’s model, which employs a sensitivity value of 1.65 C.
McIntyre is explicitly examining how Callender’s 1938 predictions hold up compared to temperature data acquired since then:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/21/results-from-a-low-sensitivity-model/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/
15
‘The models have been successful in predicting the broad features of global warming, and accounting for the temperature record.’
They didn’t predict the expansion of Antarctic sea ice or the plateau in temperatures, but lets not quibble, the models have failed.
Global cooling is the null hypothesis simply because CO2 is innocent of the charges laid against it, which suggests Sol and the two gas giants may have a case to answer.
30
el gordo, like any other theory, such as the heliocentric model of the universe, AGW started out over a century ago , and the level of understanding at that time was of course very basic and imperfect.
As knowledge of the system grows, refinements of secondary features of the model take place to account for apparent anomolies.
The fact that planets were found not to move in circular orbits did not mean the model had failed. Kepler came up with a better understanding and changed the orbits to elipses. But then there was a problem with the orbit of Mercury…
Similarly, early AGW models were simple, such as Hansen’s 1981 effort which used only three forcings, volcanic, solar and CO2 to explain the temperature record. As increasing research takes place, more forcings are added to the system and the magnitudes of the forcings better defined.
All the models predict the primary consequence of additional atmospheric CO2, an increase in the mean global temperature.
Research continues to refine and account for finer details such as the where when and how much including regional consequences which are more difficult to understand and predict.
As far as the antarctic goes, there has been an increase in temperature and a loss of land based ice.
Recently there has been an increase in sea ice extent.
How to resolve the apparent paradox: increasing temperatures, loss of land ice, increase in sea ice.
Further studies have come up with at least two explanations.
Reduction in salinity by addition of fresh water from the melting land ice means that the sea ice freezes at higher temperatures.
Secondly, there has been a measurable shift in the position and strength of the circumpolar winds with increasing temperature.
That is how science works, with increasing knowledge the models are refined to account for finer scale features of the overall model.
As I have stated before, the plateau, pause or hiatus is not statistically significant, and indeed the slope since the el nino year of has not changed from the statistically significant trend over the entire UAH satellite record since 1979. Using an el nino event at the start of the period does not invalidate increasing warming due to CO2 concentration , and models do not attempt to predict el nino or la nina events.
http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe
If latterly the atmospheric rate has indeed actually slowed this is no different to the many such variations in the temperature record due to the multi factorial temperature forcings.
15
They do not predict the climate either. Since it is based upon those factors (among others).
You should read your posts before posting them.
40
Nonsense. The Antarctic has record cold temperatures. As for ice loss, all in the VOLCANIC area…
40
M Jourdan. Wrote it. Read it. Nothing to revise.
04
Backslider:
Antarctic temperature change:
http://tinyurl.com/kudf5wn
Here is what Dusty Schroeder, the lead author of the paper which studied geothermal heating underneath the Thwaites glacier in West antarctica had to say:
“The fastest glacial changes are happening where the ocean is warmer… “Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes.”
https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps
04
Yep, Antarctic temperature changes.
And here..
And here..
20
And please explain..
20
Griss, If you would care to provide some information with the graphs.
Rather than data for a few sttions around the periphery of the continent, here is fnformation and map explaining satellite measurements here of the whole continent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/
A paper on Antarctic warming:
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Steig_2009%20antarctic%20warming.pdf
The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957
13
OMG a calving glacier.. well that’s never happened before has it !!! dopey !!
And the second one contains Mannian “reconstructions”. If Mann is involved, its junk science.
Look and explain.. !!
20
Of course Griss. I forgot that any research that produces results “skeptics” don’t like is automatically flawed.
As for the :look and explain”, I did:
“Rather than data for a few stations around the periphery of the continent, here is information and map explaining satellite measurements here of the whole continent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/”
I was not referring to the calving of a particular glacier.
Go down the page just a bit and look at the map of the entire antarctic continent.
03
Anything with Mann as a contributor is almost certainly flawed. Glad you realise that.
And the WHOLE Antarctic temps are not going anywhere, except maybe very slightly downwards.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Antarctica_files/image002.jpg
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/uah_antarctica_temperature_anomalies1.png
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Antarctica_files/image006.jpg
Only the part on top of the volcanic/seismic activity shows any warming.
And of course the Antarctic sea ice sets new record levels on a daily basis !!
20
and the money quote from the original page showing that little satellite skin pastel chart of yours..
“The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.”
and you so often talk of “significance”. roflmao !!!
21
At the risk of repeating myself:
Griss, If you would care to provide some information with the graphs.
Rather than data for a few stations around the periphery of the continent, here is information and map explaining satellite measurements here of the whole continent.
“The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.”
There is no such statement on this page.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/
“And of course the Antarctic sea ice sets new record levels on a daily basis !!”
I won’t quibble about “record levels on a daily basis”, other than to say this is where I came in:
As far as the antarctic goes, there has been an increase in temperature and a loss of land based ice.
Recently there has been an increase in sea ice extent.
How to resolve the apparent paradox: increasing temperatures, loss of land ice, increase in sea ice.
Further studies have come up with at least two explanations.
Reduction in salinity by addition of fresh water from the melting land ice means that the sea ice freezes at higher temperatures.
Secondly, there has been a measurable shift in the position and strength of the circumpolar winds with increasing temperature.
12
And Griss I am distressed that you have not red thumbed my comments below.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/new-paper-shows-solar-activity-is-linked-to-the-greenland-climate-even-20000-years-ago/#comment-1546489
04
Oh, he managed to get a thermometer down there did he? Utter crap!
30
Don’t tell me that Antarctica is getting warmer.
It’s the coldest place on earth, with new records for the same.
30
I think that is Phil standing there with Turkey. !
“There is no such statement on this page. ”
That’s called selective editing, just for gullible dorks like you.
Now off you go and find the original.
Maybe hunt for one that goes past 2007, you know, something more up to date
Or maybe look at the southern sea temps.?
21
The really worrying thing is that we are still only a tiny amount above the low temperatures of the LIA,
still way below the temps of most of the Holocene.
Yet all indications are that cooling is on the way. !
I would MUCH PREFER some more warming, which with the small extra CO2 we are managing to help build, would be highly beneficial to the whole world.
The coming cooling decades will not be pleasant, glad I’m in Sydney, not somewhere further south.
Perhaps we should all move to West Antarctica, as it seems to be only place with any current warming !!
Should be nearly tropical in a few years !!
Off you go Philly boy, enjoy the balmy weather down there. 🙂
21
Griss asks me to find “the original” but still cannot supply any text to accompany his graphs.
But he does have a cartoon.
And Backslider has a single data point for somewhere in antarctica, which apparently, is evidence that it is not warming down there.
Griss tell him this measurement is tosh as the temperature was recorded using NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites, you know the one’s which have an uncertainty of 2-3 degrees.
14
Again, I aim to teach you to learn..
But you again refuse to do your own research.
The link is not hard to find.
Use your time. Don’t waste mine.
21
Griss, here is how it works in science.
If you make a claim you supply a reference. That’s what all those citations are in published papers. And if asked to supply a reference you do not flounce about like a princess with the vapours and say “Go and look it up for yourself.”
I have had enough experience on these blogs to know that when checking the full paper, often the claims of “skeptics” do not tell the real story.
Post the link.
And while you are at it, the text to go along with those graphs.
yaagfg
04
Nope.
They demonstrate that it’s possible to model a number of parameters that delivers an outcome determined by those parameters. That’s it.
Similarly, I can show you a model that demonstrates US Postal charges are an important driver of global warming.
You are confusing correlation with causation.
20
Why does that not surprise me?
Closed minds and all.
You should write logically. Cause you sure did not. I was giving you an out. But…..
closed minds and all…
21
Raven, Please supply the model showing that US postal charges cause global warming.
04
M Jourdan.
Please explain the failure of logic in my comment.
04
Here is the whole paragraph
“The map is based on thermal infrared (heat) observations made by a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite sensors. Because the satellite is observing energy radiated from the Earth’s surface, the image shows trends in skin temperatures—temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land, sea ice, or sea surface—not air temperatures. Making a long-term record out of data from different sensors is challenging because each sensor has its own quirks and may measure temperatures a bit differently. None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.”
So the level of uncertainty is 2-3C, and they are shading rates of 0.1c/yr on a very short record.
roflmao !!!!!!
21
Since you have failed to supply the link, I will base my answer on the paragraph quoted.
It states that the satellite record is calibrated against the ground station records.
Calibration errors are systematic, not random errors.
That is they are always greater or smaller than the true error by the same amount.
Therefore although a calibration uncertainty and thus the uncertainty in the actual temperature may be 2 -3 degrees, what is shown in the map is the difference between temperatures over a 26 year period. The calibration error cancels out in the subtraction.
By the way the shadings in 0.1 C/year are arrived at by dividing the temperature differences between 1981 and 2007 by 26. Or multiply the shadings by 26 to get the temperature change over the entire period.
04
Pardon, That should have read
That is they are always greater or smaller than the true value by the same amount.
04
Griss, I have been using my time productively, but not chasing a link you won’t provide.
I have been comparing the satellite map with the ground station data for which you requested a “please explain”
See the magnified version of four of these graphs here
http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#AntarcticLongMetSeries
Now, note the temperature difference between the data for Halley in 1981 and 2007 (use the square edges of a sheet of A4 paper to read the temperature of the scale.
For Halley, located on the Brunt Ice Shelf floating on the Weddell Sea in Antarctica:
1981; -18.2 C, 2007; – 19.1 C. Change -0.9 C
Now look at the location on your map of Halley on your map (the WeddelL sea)
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Antarctica_files/image008.gif
Look at the same location on the satellite map. It is mid blue, indicating moderate cooling in line with the land data.
Vostock: -55.2 to – 54.2= = 1.0 C. This should be strong warming on the satellite map, but at the resolution of these maps Vostok may in the may be pale blue, white or pale pink region.
Amundsen-Scott (South pole): -49.5 to -49 = + 0.5 C. Corresponds to the pink region on satellite map.
McMurdo: -17.0 to -16.3 = + 0.7 C. The tip of Ross island corresponds to the pink or red area .
So given the map and temperature data resolution, the satellite data agrees with the ground station data for which you requested an explanation.
03
Pardon me, forgot to include the satellite map:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/
03
Sure . . just as soon as you ‘demonstrate’:
‘Demonstrate’ is quite an explicit word, and I suggest is wrongly and inappropriately used when looking to explain something which has no empirical supporting evidence.
20
Raven:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
Your turn.
04
Easy . . .
20
OK Raven you have twice refused to back your statement:
“I can show you a model that demonstrates US Postal charges are an important driver of global warming.”
by showing the model.
You lose.
13
Phillip,
You’re missing the point. Please re-read from the beginning and follow the logic. If there’s something I’ve said that is unclear, just point it out.
Here’s how it all evolved. You said:
I picked you up on your use of the word ‘demonstrate’ because it implies that you could actually demonstrate your assertion. We both know you aren’t going to be able to do that because it would require an actual experiment of Earth’s climate.
My reply about the US Postal charges was to illustrate your confusing correlation with causation.
I would have thought you’d pick up on that, but no. You decided to double down and challenge the US Postal charges assertion.
Obviously I’m not about to rise to your challenge before you provide evidence of your ‘demonstration’ assertion.
Why is it that you don’t follow the logic and concede that you can’t support your ‘demonstrate’ assertion?
Frankly, I think you should have said something way back at the beginning like this:
Now if you’d said that, I might have grumbled under my breath a little but would have let it go.
Do you not see how you could have extricated yourself from the situation quite easily, and largely not given ground?
More to the point, if I have to keep up both sides of the debate, I’m going to become bored PDQ.
[Unfortunately there are plenty of people who confuse empirical evidence vs models. We see it in the media all the time. – Mod]
20
Raven, That makes three times you have failed to back YOUR assertion.
I am not missing the essential point here.
You stated, without equivocation:
“I can show you a model that demonstrates US Postal charges are an important driver of global warming.”
Now, without all the tapdancing around with dictionary definitions, go ahead and SHOW the model YOU claim DEMONSTRATES US postal charges are an important driver of global warming.
And Mod. I do not confuse empirical evidence with models. I am a scientist and also have a post graduate qualification in the history and philosophy of scince, so I understand the difference perfectly well.
It is skeptics who write that models are not science who only have it half right.
Models without data are not science.
Data without models are not science.
Science is the construction of a theoretical explanation (model) that explains observations (data).
As a relatively simple example, Watson and Crick used background knowledge of chemical bonding and some empirical x-ray data to construct a model of the DNA double helix.
And the model does not have to be perfect to be useful. I already mentioned the Copernican model of the heliocentric universe, which required modification over hundreds of years, but nobody has termed it a failure.
The link I provided above goes through the empirical evidence for AGW and the models that assist in providing the theoretical understanding.
If you cannot wait for the download and read the information on the data and the models I provided above, here are graphs from the 4th assessment report which demonstrate that models which do not incorporate an anthropogenic contribution to the temperature do not account for the empirical data as well as those which do.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
04
Raven, in anticipation of your fourth failure to do what you said you could do,you are not keeping up both sides of the debate.
You are not even keeping up your side of the debate.
It is you who have tried to obfuscate and ‘extricate yourself from the situation’- not easily, but clumsily and obviously.
“Now if you’d said that, I might have grumbled under my breath a little but would have let it go.”
Oh please. How magnanimous of you.
Well, I am not going to let you off the hook no matter how much you squirm and wriggle.
It is very very simple. You wrote:
“I can show you a model that demonstrates US Postal charges are an important driver of global warming.”
These are YOUR WORDS.
So SHOW ME THE MODEL that DEMONSTRATES US postal charges are an important driver of global warming.
If you fail to do so, you are exposed as being full of it.
04
Yep, and that’s because you’re holding up the show.
I’ve said, plain and simple, that I’ll back up my assertion just as soon as you back up yours.
I’m a patient man.
Excellent. Now you’re getting the hang of it, but why didn’t you take this tack right from the beginning.
I’m pleased you found some value in my thoughts, though.
Ya’know . . I reckon that’s another assertion you can’t back up; a conversation for another day perhaps.
Which is, of course, commentary on the modelling, not on anything else.
But there you go again with that ‘demonstrate’ word. You really should curb that.
20
You’re welcome.
But Phillip, I’m neither squirming nor wriggling. I’m patiently waiting for you to ‘demonstrate’:
Just how hard can that be, Phillip?
It must be true, otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, would you?
I mean . . you’re a scientist and you wouldn’t lie or exaggerate or do anything like that, would you?
I’m sure you’d entirely understand that a mere layperson like myself would need to reevaluate his faith in scientific integrity and would be shattered if there was even a hint of such skullduggery, yeah?
But now you have me thinking along these lines, I’m wondering about your continuing reluctance to produce your ‘demonstration’ isn’t one such hint. I’d hate to think that.
What do you think, Phillip? I would value the opinion of a scientist. Am I being a hard marker?
Anyway, as soon as you provide your ‘demonstration’, we’re in business.
20
Raven,as predicted you have failed to back up YOUR statement.
You have not even attempted to do so.
Your claim was without equivocation, and not contingent on my supplying references in support of my statement.
Never the less I did so, giving you a link to the AR 5 which contains both empirical evidence of warming and models which demonstrate that those which do not include anthropogenic emissions of CO2 do not account for the empirical evidence.
I further supplied graphs from AR4 which show both models and empirical data which demonstrate the same thing.
You have presented one definition of “demonstrate” (one which uses the word “prove” which is not a term which should be used in empirical science as all such knowledge is contingent) in order t weasel out of your own sttement that you can “demonstrate” a model.
Here are other definitions of demonstrate from the Oxford dictionary.
Show evidence of.
I have done so in the links. You are entitled to disagree with the evidence if you so wish, but that does not alter the fact that such evidence has been presented in the links provided.
describe and explain ( a scientific proposition machine etc.)
You have had the option to apply whatever meaning of “demonstrate” you choose to back up your assertion that:
“I can show you a model that demonstrates US Postal charges are an important driver of global warming.”
Over four days and 5 comments you have studiously avoided backing up your statement. Regardless of the alleged inadequacy of my references, you have been unable to supply a scintilla of evidence to support your own.
It therefore must be concluded that you cannot.
I noted that repeated failure on your part would demonstrate that you are full of it.
QED
(Quod erat DEMONSTRANDUM)
PS As for your assertion that I cannot back up another claim, there is no need whatsoever to wait for another day.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985JMagR..63..343S
02
That link to the publication does not seem to work. Here is another:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222734268_Applications_of_molybdenum-95_NMR_spectroscopy._14._Construction_of_a_transverse_probe_for_the_detection_of_broad_95Mo_resonances_in_solution._Studies_on_Binuclear_Mo(II)_compounds
02
I return at this point because I have just realized that the linked paper I wrote uses the Hu Zwanzig MODEL of molecular motion to DEMONSTRATE that the correlation between the chemical shift and the nuclear quadrupole coupling constant of the Molybdenum -95 nuclei in the series of compounds can be DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED by the electron donating ability of the “R” substituent on the molecule to donate electrons onto the molybdenum atoms, which simultaneously increases the shielding of the nuclei by the electrons and increases the electric field gradient of the MO-MO quadruple bond.
Suck on it.
02
My claim, was indeed without equivocation and deliberately so.
It was in response to your similar claim and intended to illustrate your notion of ‘demonstration’ to be false.
I’ve already covered this.
It is commentary on the modelling, nothing more.
Additionally, you have conveniently ignored all their assumptions. The IPCC’s primary assumption is that CO2 is the major driver of climate and it should be no surprise that their modelling reflects that.
Again, models don’t ‘demonstrate’ anything. To do so would require validation.
Having presented one’s evidence and the theory of how it all hangs together, validation is the pivotal and crucial next step. When you’ve done that, it could be said you have accomplished ‘demonstration’.
Any scientist worth his salt knows that.
Unlike any scientist worth his salt however, you are asserting that ‘presentation’ equals ‘demonstration’.
Perhaps a brush up on the English language is in order?
Additionally, given the dozens of recent papers looking to explain the hiatus, the IPCC modelling and the premise upon which it relies, are looking more unlikely with each passing day.
If the IPCC modelling were considered sound, then why would a multitude of so called mainstream scientists be looking to explain this.
Frankly Phillip, I think the jig is up.
20
Yes, it most definitely can. See #7.1.2.8 below for a small selection of papers (out of many more) than connect solar radiation to the 20th century climate.
40
And be assured “Solar Activity” has been controlling Earth’s Climate considerably more than 20,000 years – how about 4.5 billion years. As for CO2’s impact on Earth’s Climate – negligible. US$ trillions later the lunacy of the “AGW Theory” will be exposed for what it is – an astronomic waste of expenditure for close to zero benefit to mankind and in due will be exposed as “the biggest scam” in modern human history.
552
What’s this “close to zero benefit” K G? The CAGW scam has only and can only produce massive detriment.
241
Very good point Me – “close to zero benefit” should read “MASSIVE DETRIMENT”. The “CAGW Scam” has indeed been a “MASSIVE DETRIMENT” to mankind.
190
Ok, So we have been conned, that’s illegal!! Who do I sue? Bob and/or Christine??
The reparation bill, with damages, should send the Greens and affiliated churches… to the wall!
120
The class action of Maurice Blackburn against ANZ Bank for excessive late fees should give pause to all those Green acolytes and Climate Cassandras who assume that the general populace cannot resume some of their losses for false or misleading advice from them, or from government policy derived/based on their advice.
The precedent has been well and truly set, so should Steffen, Flannery, Kruszelnicki and the like be rather fearful that their adamant stance in the face of failure of their models to accurately reflect observations could see them liable to similar action for losses due to carbon taxation and RETs (general populace), or from adverse effects on industrial competitiveness (Aluminium smelting and manufacturers)?
I’d be very worried if I were them, given that most lawyers have no compunction in prosecuting whichever case brings in the most Green stuff, and that does not remotely refer to anything “eco-friendly”.
91
‘It is not easy to draw any conclusions from this work with regard to the sun’s role in global warming or the recent slowdown in warming of global air temperature.’ – Dr Joanna Haigh.
What exactly does that mean?. Does it mean ‘We don’t know’ or ‘You can’t conclusively prove we’e wrong as yet’. Weren’t we once told ‘It’s not the sun stupid!’.
It’s a bit like butter is healthier than margarine is healthier than butter is healthier than margarine… except that argument hasn’t cost 80 billion dollars.
292
It’s misdirection Ceetee. Just something to fill their study with more disclaimers in case they’re right or wrong.
But, I bet they did all the conclusion-jumping the moment CO2 was proclaimed the villain and, CFC’s in the 90’s from another scare nobody seems to remember, considering U.S. EPA are pretending to fight Ozone emissions now at the same time as pretending to protect Ozone itself. Hypocrites.
100
As I note above, one of the earliest people to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 was Guy Callender in 1938.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf
People did not indulge in conclusion jumping “the moment CO2 was proclaimed the villain.”
In fact Callender thought that AWG might be a good thing, but his paper was met with skepticism. That is real, legitmate skepticism. Not the “skepticism” on display so much of the time here.
Callender wrote: “the combustion of fossil fuel [. . .] is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways”, notably allowing cultivationat higher northern latitudes, and because, “the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely”.
“In fact, Callendar’s findings on the role of carbon dioxide were largely dismissed by the scientific community until improved estimates of the infrared absorption spectrum were obtained and analysed (e.g. Callendar 1941; Plass 1956).”
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins_jones_2013_Callendar.pdf
17
Guy Callender? 1938?
Wrong. It was Svante Arrhenius, 1896.
50
Sophocles, I think it was Callender who did the first actual calculation of the amount of warming due to anthropogenic CO2, but you may be right. I would have to check.
06
May I inquire what it is that the 4 don’t likes dispute in this comment?
I have checked and it was Callender who first quantified the effect.
04
It doesn’t take much solar variation to have pronounced climate effect.
Shindell, a staunch AGW supporter describes this in his research on the LIA:
And:
177
A few tenths of a degree multiplied by 5-10 is 0.5 degrees to 2.0 degrees.
I assume this is in degrees C. The 0.5 to 2.0 is for the N. hemisphere which
is where we see biggest changes today. Coincidentally, the change since 1870
is less than a degree (as I recall) for planet as a whole. So, it seems the changes
we see today are consistent with what you wrote above.
83
The point I was making is that even the AGW establishment can’t avoid involving the sun in climate but they try to restrict it to regional effects which is nonsense; the LIA was global.
One way or another the role of the sun must dominate and I still think Stockwell’s solar model is one of the best. See Figures 4-7.
170
You seem to have confused the “skeptics” here with your original post. They don’t know whether to thumbs up or thumbs down it.
Because you have the reputation as a “skeptic” you get a thumbs up from a lot of people.
But the post as presented, with quotations and reading the full link actually does explain why a small change in solar radiation can have a relatively low global temperature effect but a larger regional effect explaining the LIA in northern Europe, and a smaller effect elsewhere. This leads others to object either because they have actually understood the argument, and don’t like the implications, or because you note that it is by a “staunch AGW supporter” and must therefore get a thumbs down.
You have cleared up the confusion by saying that “even the AGW establishment can’t avoid involving the sun in climate” – again only a complete ignoramous would imagine they have not always recognised the role of solar variability in climate. So now all the “skeptics” know which way they should vote and the comment gets universal approval.
As for Stockwell’s solar model and figures, explain to me how this cumulative solar effect has only worked since the 1950s.
Are you and Stockwell trying to tell us that the 11 year solar cycle only began operating in the 50s?
If not why did the effects only start accumulating in the 50s?
Why, since the oscillation is just that, an oscillation about the mean radiation over the 11 year cycle, is there an accumulation at all, any more than if the sun had been outputting the mean of the oscillation constantly?
If not, why are we not all fried to a crisp by now from the accumulation of solar radiation over centuries and millenia?
What happened to upset the thermal equilibrium, where the energy coming in from the sun was equaled by the energy going out?(I can think of one answer, but you won’t like it.)
In figures 4 to 7 “the direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature” if looked at in isolation. But you do not need to invoke planet frying “accumulation”to account for the observed temperature record.
The 11 year cycle, in conjunction with anthropogenic factors, volcanic interactions and enso gives an extremely good explanation for the temperature record.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
011
That’s a rather ghastly, even for you, misunderstanding of Stockwell. I don’t know why you say his model only applies from 1950; Stockwell says:
Stockwell refers to the model also explaining the warming since 1950 as this is the modern so-called time of maximum AGW effect. he doesn’t say it only works from 1950.
Really if you’re going to be insulting try and read the paper first.
As for the reference to Shindell I agree it does seme as though I’m agreeing with him that any solar effect is only manifest at a regional level. That is due to my poor explanation because I don’t; as I said I included Shindell’s work to show that even the alarmists agree solar has some effect.
Clearly the LIA was global as new research shows as I also said but you also can’t read properly.
It is you who are the ignoramus.
30
Cohenite. I have read the paper. The data he shows is from 1950.
Claiming that he is studying this period because it is “the modern so-called time of maximum AGW effect” is no excuse for not applying his analysis to earlier periods.
In fact this would act as a control, when CO2 increases were not significant.
If CO2 is irrelevant, the model should work as well regardless of the claims of AGW.
If the cumulative solar radiance operates before 1950, presumably you would see the same increase as modelled in graphs 4 -7 from 1950. But then that would not match the temperature curve prior to 1950.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:12
With regard to the new research you cite on the little ice age, the abstract confirms that it was higher in greenland than the west antarctic.
This is consistent with what Shindell wrote, that there was global cooling due to reduced solar radiation of the maunder minimum, but it was amplified in the north atlantic region due to the effect of wind currents.
The remark about ignoramuses (or should that be ignorami?) was in this context:
“even the AGW establishment can’t avoid involving the sun in climate” – again only a complete ignoramous would imagine they have not always recognised the role of solar variability in climate.
03
As the link Cohenite supplies is set out in the form of a manuscript to be submitted for publication, I did a search to see if it had been published.
It has not been published in the peer reviewed literature, and I can guess why. As a referee I would have rejected it for publication until Stockwell showed the results for periods before 1950.
Either Stockwell did not answer that challenge or simply failed to submit the paper to any peer reviewed journal.
It was posted on an open access site vixra .org.
This site was set up because the conditions of an alternative open access site arXiv.org were too exhaustive.
“In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004 this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to. Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research institution.”
I suggest that if someone with a doctorate in physics cannot find one colleague somewhere in the world willing to endorse a submission, the research in question must be highly suspect.
But even this extreme version of “pal review” that “skeptics” sneer at is too onerous for vixra.org
http://vixra.org/why
13
PS My statement above that “the abstract confirms that it was higher in Greenland than the west antarctic” meant that the cooling effect of the maunder minimum was greater in Greenland, that is temperatures themselves were lower.
03
Perhaps also you should look at when Greenland was considerably warmer? Such as when the Vikings settled there. Much warmer than today.
I don’t believe you answered my question as to whether you believe that it was The Industrial Revolution which pulled us out of the LIA?
40
Backslider, I did answer the question: No.
And I believe I have already stated that climate varies from time to time due to “natural” forcings.
03
“Modern observations indicate that this type of flow pattern is enhanced during winters with high-pressure blocking situations south of Greenland, which in turn have been found to occur more often during solar minimum periods”
Well its taken them long enough. I’ve been saying that since 2007.
Climate change is best represented by changes in the atmospheric circulation via changes in the latitudinal positions of the climate zones and the jet stream tracks threading between them.
Longer jet stream tracks occur with a more meridional air flow and produce increased global cloudiness which reduces solar energy into the oceans for a cooling system.
The basic energy content of the Earth system stays much the same if atmospheric mass, insolation and gravity remain the same but solar induced changes in global cloudiness will induce variations about the mean by mimicking the effect of changes in top of atmosphere insolation.
461
Yes, Stephen I was thinking of you and your diagrams with jet streams as I wrote the post.
322
A change in clouds is nice place holder but I’m not convinced its the whole enchilada. What about those periods of ~125k years where it gets a wee bit nippy?
There is copious observation of mid-level volcanic event roles in significant temperature variation on the scale of years. The largest most protracted events have had decade-level effects on temp and weather patterns. And these are only for the volcanoes above the waves.
The volcanoes under the waves are much more numerous, much larger and the area of active systems many times larger than on land. It’s likely the thermal contributions plus their occasionally protracted absence of contribution can has a far larger effect on climate than does cloudiness variability from solar cyclicity.
Much is made of solar minimums and associated cold periods but there are a lot of large eruptions occurring historically in the same time windows as these ‘minimums’. This no doubt causes and also lengthens cold periods, if not exacerbates them.
And this is just for the eruptions on land which we’ve found out about. The really large protracted submarine eruptions which have happened we never find out about, we don’t know how many there are, and how big, or how often they occur. But we do know they do occur, we’ve seen before and after examples of areas affected by them.
We just notice the winds have been acting screwy for a few years, and its warmer or colder or wetter or drier than ‘normal’. We know eruptions in air can noticeably and measurably affect regional and global circulation. But we are not ready to admit that large submarine eruptions in deep oceans can affect regional and global ocean circulation as well, and thus alter climate. We have no idea how large submarine eruptions can be even, we are yet to find out, the hard way.
Cloudiness variation can only be a part-player in the overall natural variability.
112
Large volcanic eruptions are linked with solar minima. Cause is uncertain, adds to the effect & muddies the water.
62
Andrew, do you have a reference to that?
03
And some moron does not like a request for information.
03
In other words, if you are a believer it does not prove that humans are not guilty of modern warming. However, it does contradict those who claim that “people caused the warming” of the last century as being “essentially true“. To use a legal analogy, there is more than reasonable doubt as to whether even a majority of that warming was human caused.
211
This paper doesn’t help you. The key is JH’s “consistent with a picture that has emerged from other studies looking at changes over more recent times”. Which translates into, this doesn’t change the picture. That the sun influences the climate isn’t controversial (“The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change” is rather weird, but he’s trying to puff his paper in a press release). That the sun has caused the recent GW is (well, its wrong). This paper isn’t evidence for “the sun caused recent GW”.
You’re keen on “The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change”, for obvious reasons. But that’s not a quote from the study, that’s from a press release.
277
Have you changed your mind in the last 5 days? You posted on my blog a 2004 quote
In your 2010 article you say this is “essentially true”.
There are no clauses that allow for other influences, or for a scientific hypothesis being falsified in the future. Just a dogmatic statement.
512
Link to the comment is here.
101
Everything I’ve written is true. In particular, 1 and 2 that you quote is true. That the sun has influenced climate in the past is true. That the sun is not the cause of the recent warming is also true (the sun is, if anything, a cooling influence “recently”). I can only understand your question if you believe that “the sun has influenced the climate in the past implies that it must be the dominant influence now”. But that’s so obviously logically a non-sequitur that I can’t follow your “reasoning” at all.
370
WC, are you familiar with the American folk song Old Suzanna? I’ve excerpted the important lyrics for you:
Kinda sums it all up… don’t it?
422
NielsZoo you are rapidly becoming my favourite poster. Very nice!
91
Thank you. That’s high praise indeed with the quality of the folks that converse here. I’m just a poor engineer that occasionally has lulls in the workload that allow some time to interact… with someone other than my clients, wife or our little rescued zoo. Conversing with deaf pigs and leading blind dogs around is good practice for debating most of the more radical Warmists.
120
The sun is indeed in a cooling cycle. That must be why Hadcrut (and other temperature records) have shown a decrease in global temperatures for the past 15-20 years?
William, Mate, you have a “science” blog. You should know more about science to just make comments up without looking at all the evidence. It is not very sciencey…
330
Even HadCrut and Giss with all their adjustments to maintain the created warming trend, are showing cooling. !!
That quite scary ! 😉
I suggest those people living in places like the UK buy some ice skates.. The Thames may soon be an ice rink again !
241
‘Everything I’ve written is true.’ LOL.
What would the Oracle of Delphi say of you?
410
Now that’s funny. It reminds me of something I learned back in the dark ages of my college years about Delphi. Apparently the Pythia sat on a tripod in the middle of a chamber in the rock. One of the theories as to why she had the episodes where she could know Apollo’s will was that CO2 and CH4 pooling in the chamber caused her to hallucinate after a while due to anoxia.
240
The statement that (Twentieth Century) “warming is human caused” excludes not just solar influences, but any possible other influence, known or unknown, from being either an alternative or a joint explanation. Scientifically it is not a valid statement.
Further, climate consensus expert Dana1981 disagrees with you.
In his article What caused early 20th Century warming? Dana states
Dana Nuccitelli bases his argument on peer-reviewed literature, whereas you just have claims.
290
“Everything I’ve written is true. In particular, NO its not.
That the sun has influenced climate in the past is true. OK
That the sun is not the cause of the recent warming is also true BS, it most certainly was the cause of any small amount of warming in the latter part of last century
(the sun is, if anything, a cooling influence “recently”). YES. it is starting to.
I can only understand your question if you believe that “the sun has influenced the climate in the past implies that it must be the dominant influence now”.
Nobody cares if you understand or not. Irrelevant. The sun has always and will always be the dominant influence in our climate.
There are a few times in the distant past when its influence was slightly diminished, but that has not happened during the Holocene.
But that’s so obviously logically a non-sequitur that I can’t follow your “reasoning” at all.
Again, whether you think something is logical or whether you can follow basic reasoning, is totally irrelevant.
You obviously have nothing to offer to the discussion.
341
I think WC refuses to bend to the fact that the mere existence of the Sun and in combination with Earth’s rotation are the primary factors governing anything climate, because they cause evaporation and convection. If either were missing, I think it’s obvious the situation would prove that CO2 has little to no effect at all.
60
“Everything I’ve written is true.” That statement is proof of it’s own error.
280
And of its owner’s error. (and ego)
An ego his limited abilities cannot hope to match.
210
When I read that comment of William’s, solipsism springs immediately to mind.
110
I read that as “slopisism”.. Easy mistake to make regarding the WC. 🙂
Most of what he posts is just propaganda slop.
91
Lets assume you are the Wikipedia warmist who got booted.
Then you should know, that changes in the Earth orbit was
wilfully hidden as climate driver in the
major meeting of lead authors of AR4, wg1 in 2006. As this collution was announced at their meeting, the lead authors danced full of joy….
The global warming and the present plateau, from which
temps will only GO DOWN and never ever UP, is caused
by centennial Earth Orbital Oscillations. The CO2 and
solar activity changes are both negligible and you know it. More on my: http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate_papers.html
81
William Connelley:
According to the IPCC:
According to peer-reviewed science papers, solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2 to 7 W/m-2 (or about triple the radiative forcing of anthropogenic forcing on average) just from the 1980s to the early 2000s alone. See the papers below.
So for you to say the Sun had a “cooling” effect on climate in “recent” times is to ignore—or deny—peer-reviewed science.
—————————————–
Total Solar Irradiance increased by +0.05% per decade (∼2 W/m-2) between solar cycles 21 and 23 (1980-2002):
———————————
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m.jpg
———————————
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21– 23 (1980 –2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003].
———————————-
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00482.1?journalCode=clim
Surface incident solar radiation G determines our climate and environment, and has been widely observed with a single pyranometer since the late 1950s. Data from this summation method suggest that surface incident solar radition increased at a rate of 6.6 W m−2/decade (3.6%/decade) from 1992 to 2002 (brightening) at selected sites.
——————————-
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
———————————
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2011]
———————————
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate… We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year
———————————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4107/abstract
The annual sunshine duration mean time series shows a decrease from the early 1960s to the late 1970s [in Iran], in line with the widespread dimming of surface solar radiation observed during this period. By the early 1980s, there is an increase in sunshine through the end of the 20th century, aligning with a well-known and well-documented brightening period.
———————————-
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our TSI reconstructions give a value of ∼1 W/m2 per decade for the period 1900–1950.
80
Everything – except anything you write.
The problem with serial liars is that no one believes them even when they do tell the truth. You are a proven liar, so no one is going to believe you even when you are telling the truth. And you have only yourself to blame for it.
60
Case in point: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/wikipedia-page-on-propaganda-techniques-uses-97-meme/#comment-127899
Of course little willy has problems with dates since the change was made not a few days before, but over a month before.
Little willy, willy wont
60
William Connolley says The key is JH’s “…opinion”.
Not so William. The key is the data.
I realize you can’t help it, but just because someone says something does not make it real. Since we don’t know exactly which solar field, wind, or radiation band caused the past changes, we don’t how much of the current change is due to solar.
Since your favourite models don’t work, the only thing we know for sure is that their assumptions are NOT how the climate operates.
811
In Leif Svaalgard’s recent paper they say there is no Modern Grand Max. but then
also say that there is an unprecedented Modern cumulative max for 5 of 6 sun cycles
prior to current one being strong.
I will wait another ten years and see how the science evolves and how the planet
responds to low solar cycles.
120
I noticed that the incrementalist solar thought policing has descended to new lows in the related thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/19/revising-the-sunspot-number/
The dark agents have a nakedly strong will to enforce irrational thinking and frankly I am beginning to consider it criminal that Anthony allows them to continue hijacking wuwt to wage their darkly naked campaign of disinformation. This isn’t about free speech. It’s about mind control, brainwashing, and the dark psychology underpinning an abusive campaign that nakedly uses wuwt as a tool & weapon. When they come in with their needles and intention to forcibly inject: “Get the ___ away from me creep.”
–
It’s the sun.
40
William:
It isn’t easy to give up an old time religion that has served you well.
I fear it is not looking good for you and your playmates in the CAGW scam.
But keep on truckin’.
180
Poor ol’ fibber Will has to dance faster and faster. Hansen on down said the sun *does not count* as a forcing on climate change. You better get over to Wiki and rewrite a whole bunch of stuff and make certin you keep the story straight.
220
So, how then Billy did the earth come out of The Little Ice Age? Are you telling us that it was CO2 that did this? (*snigger*)
230
WC, Your ego is writing comments that your links can’t prove.
130
I live in a unique place.
In summer, the temperatures are higher than they are in winter!!!!!
Isn’t that amazing?.
That is because the carbon dioxide emissions in summer greatly exceed those experienced in winter.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the orientation of the planet in relation to the sun.
Amazing stuff this carbon dioxide.
400
That perhaps is the saddest commentary on the science. The largest factor is probably the least understood.
320
For forecasts of the likely coming cooling based on the natural 60 and 960 year quasi – periodicities in the Holocene and recent temperature data and using the 10Be and neutron count data as the best proxy for solar activity see the latest post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here is a summary of the latest update of the forecasts which also discusses the weather patterns on a cooling earth.
“After the publication of the AR5 WG1 draft I posted both a global and NH forecast on 10/9/13 based on using the both millennial and 60 year periodicities :
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 – with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-.
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees.
4) The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 2016 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.
3.2.2. Observations.
a) Solar Cycle 24 peak.
During the last year, Solar cycle 24 developed a second and higher Sunspot peak in February 2014 and activity has declined sharply since then. This decline should be reflected in a rapid increase in the Neutron Count in another 4 or 5 months, and the possible beginning of a more pronounced cooling phase. The sharp decline in solar activity since February may also lead to the non-appearance of the much anticipated El Nino.
b) The Polar Vortex Excursions.
I will quote again from the 2010 forecast:
“There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA. At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps”
This forecast was spectacularly confirmed by the early 2014 excursions of the Polar Vortex into the United States. Indeed, as I write this in Houston on July 29, 2014 another unusually early Canadian front has just gone through Houston with heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is a harbinger of weather patterns which will become more frequent on a cooling planet. As the excursions occur later in the spring and begin earlier in the fall, the snow cover finally never melts over the NE of the American continent and after a few thousand years full ice age conditions will develop, as suggested by Steve Goddard:
230
By “regional” are they including the rest of our solar system or just the country next door that has less Global Warming™ because they subsidize their buddies in the wind and solar industry that got them elected and they’ve got higher taxes on that evil carbon?
200
The coldest period of the Little Ice, the Maunda and Dalton Minima
were periods of low sunspot numbers, as noted by Royal astronomer
John Flansteed and Italian astronomer Giovanni Cassini, indicating
a much less active sun.
251
From Jasper Kirkby, on page 3, correlations between solar activity and climate during the recent 1,000 years:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
100
I’m old enough to remember Inigo Jones – and later found out that his extraordinarily accurate weather predictions were based on his theory of planetary-solar cycles.
He believed that cyclical variations in sunspot activity controlled the Earth’s climate and that these variations were themselves largely determined by the magnetic field orbits of Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
http://time-price-research-astrofin.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/ot-weather-prophet.html
90
Sorry to change the subject but I was pleasantly surprised by Bowie singing astronaut Chris Hadfield on ABC 7.30.
When prompted with the question Does the world look fragile from space?, he responded: The Earth is TOUGH.
Refreshing.
220
Excellent! THAT, I like to hear. One of the most annoying things about all the alarmism is the lie that the Earth is somehow delicate, as though we mustn’t step out of line, “or else”. Given all the Earth has survived so far from cosmic forces in its history to date, it’ll have no trouble surviving a trace element. It can accommodate human beings quite well, too, as is proven by our very existence.
150
More likes.
Despite the massive mass/power difference with the sun and big planets the earth has survived.
Doug
70
Update:
CHRIS UHLMANN: And seeing the world from that distance, did it seem fragile or miraculous?
CHRIS HADFIELD: The world is tough, you know, the world has withstood huge asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions and electromagnetic pulses. The world’s been here a long time. But at the same time, it does look miraculous. It looks so just improbable that it can be there at all, and yet it’s almost like looking at an exquisite jewel, like, “How can that be so beautiful and multifaceted?,” and yet it’s there and it’s tough and it’s strong, almost just begging to be appreciated.
7.30 Chris Hadfield
60
No, certainly don’t jump to conclusions about the sun. We only want to jump to conclusions about CO2. After all, there are no models and no doctored up data that shows us anything about the sun (yet). But there are dozens of models and a million kilograms of doctored up data that shows us all about CO2.
If conclusions was a cliff we’d all be in heap at the bottom. So Maybe we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about anything and instead, demand to see the evidence. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? But I doubt we’ll give up our favorite fall-guy, Mr. CO2. 🙁
320
Wait… what? There’s a “link” between the Sun and climate? I’m shocked!
210
That ball of fire in the sky can influence temperatures??
190
Can someone tell me why the words, ‘notch filter’ and ‘eleven-year delay’ keep popping into my slowly-Alzheiming-brain? (what’s left of it … )
I swear, I thought I saw something recently about a solar-climate connection … … it might have been a website, somewhere … … …
Hmmm, I guess I’ll just keep stumbling around, seeing if I can find it somewhere … … …
50
I wonder how these studies of Be, O and C coordinate with the tree ring studies. Anyone know?
40
Some thought I was an enormous beetle trundling a fiery ball across the heavens.
The ancient Eskimoes thought I was a little man wearing furs to keep myself warm.
But to most, I was a god.
https://archive.org/details/our_mr_sun
30
Greenland ice loss doubles from late 2000s
“However, the increased ice losses that have been detected are a worrying reminder that the polar ice sheets are still experiencing dramatic changes, and will inevitably raise concerns about future global sea-level rise.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28852980
128
So BA, you are saying this has been due to increased solar activity [the topic of this thread]? I think that for once then I would agree with you, although I do not believe the numbers being thrown around.
80
Greenland used to be able to be farmed. Did you know that ?
And yes the expansion of the ice caps this year over the previous couple of years, certainly is dramatic.
And the BBC… roflmao !!! Not a recognised source of ANY sort of science. 🙂
130
Hence the name given by historical inhabitants – ‘Greenland’.
110
According to the Saga of Erik the Red, he spent his three years of exile exploring this land. He named this land “Greenland” because he wanted to attract other people to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_the_Red
As is reported in many other articles!
‘Greenland used to be able to be farmed. Did you know that’, Yes, at the margins perhaps and not very well. That’s why it was abandoned by the Vikings, they couldn’t hack it! Next you’ll be rolling out the old chestnut that there used to be vineyards in the Britain during the ‘warmer’ Roman period, well we still have vineyards! And I believe the furthest north at Spennymoor, which is more less on line with Hadrian’s wall (Scotland) in Cumbria give or take a hair’s breadth.
012
According to WRITTEN records, the continent had 10 times the number of people today, 1000 years ago. These records have been preserved in the Vatican Archives.
In addition, according to GEOLOGIC records, there was farming and ranching going on under what is now glacier and permafrost.
The fairy tale you tell is an old wives tale that idiots tell to try to explain the fact that Greenland is frozen now.
Stick with the documented facts.
40
Erik the Viking contains more science than anything you have ever posted. !!
Oh, and here is a youtube link for you. 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rft9QtIFks
50
BA 4ths casual dismissal of the Greenland settler’s close to five hundred years of settlement of Greenland is quite remarkable for it’s sheer inanity.
Although no doubt, it is a good example of the type of fixated on just one item of an unproven ideology, inflexible rigid mentality that can only encompass and display such ignorance .
From BA’4ths comment above;
With close to 500 years of settlement from 986 to around the mid 1400’s, a comment such as “Greenland used to be able to be farmed. Did you know that’”is risible in it’s inanity.
Perhaps the Greenlanders use to just go down to the supermarket for their tucker over those 400 years of settlement.
“The Vikings founded Brattahlid and the two hamlets of Vesterbygden and Østerbygden. Around the year 1000 the population was approx. 3,000, living in 300-400 farms. This small community survived for 500 years. Why they disappeared is still a great mystery.”
If we use the same criteria for Australia which was first settled in January of 1788, we are now about half way at 225 years of settlement to the time that the Greenlanders length of settlement of Greenland.
If our descendants were to leave Australia by about 2250, some two and a quarter centuries into the future [ and a possibility that should never be discounted as we cannot predict the future ] then by BA’s4ths implied definition of failure “They couldn’t hack it!” would be applicable to Australians also.
Why the Viking settlers of Greenland disappeared nobody can know for sure but it is most likely the onset of the Little Ice Age made life to hard that the population both declined and perhaps the remnants of the population even migrated back to Iceland although there are no records of this occurring.
But they also left a legacy that is only now starting to be recognised. They had settlements in what is now North America’s New Foundland around some 300 years before Columbus supposedly “discovered” the North American continent.
Story of Viking Colonies’ Icy ‘Pompeii’ Unfolds From Ancient Greenland Farm
For what it is worth, Columbus is reported in some limited quarters of having some very crude maps indicating a land mass far to the west of Europe in his possession.
But why admit that if you are the big hero for being the discoverer of new lands that King and Empire can now exploit to their immense benefit.
40
The map he had may have been better than crude. The world map adorning the Doge of Venice’s ceilings pre-dates Columbus by several decades.
20
Thanks sophocles;
Interesting!
And when one thinks about it, sea farers were venturing a long way out into what was the southern central Atlantic to catch the winds and currents to return them to their northern European ports after rounding the Cape of Good Hope in their indian voyages.
So it was probably inevitable that a number of ships either messed up their navigation or got blown off course and no doubt most of those ships perished. But occasionally one would return after a long absence and have a crude map of the coasts it had reached far to the west, the coasts of what is now South America,
Winds in the age of sail
30
The standard method of measuring ice loss is in Gigatonnes, not cubic metres. The loss of 500 cu km of ice is equivalent to 1.25mm of sea level rise.
It is a short-term trend of no significance.
The IPCC AR5 used Sheppard et al. 2012. Around 50 authors looked at the data from 1992-2011. They concluded:-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
40
NYT Archives
Let’s see now…. 46 years, 260 feet of ice…. that’s over 5.5 feet of ice accumulating per year. How does that square with your alarmist melting claims, BA4?
60
Climate models prove that CO2 is not a factor.
190
As did James Hansen’s prediction.
We are well below his “end all CO2” scenario, even after all the Giss and HadCrut adjustments.. 🙂
100
There is a grave mistake in this paper: 10Be and 14C are measured on Earth as INSOLATION (INcoming SOlar radiaTION)
which is different to the outgoing solar Output (TSI- Total
Solar Irradiation). In between solar Output and solar Input
on Earth lies the Earth orbit, which varies on a measurable centennial scale: Thus, the 10Be and 14C measurements will
change, when the Earth orbit changes – and the solar output (solar activity) remains constant. More from the author at
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate_papers.html
10
Considering that the Milankovitch cycles are approximately 100,000 40000 and 20000 years long centennial changes are infinitesimal.
The 10Be count depends on the non solar GCR flux. When the sun’s magnetic field is strong fewer cosmic rays make it into the earths atmosphere. Thus the neutron count varies inversely with solar contolled IMF. The GCR flux may well be the main climate driver via clouds ,natural aerosols and the changes in albedo and optical depth which result from the changing GCR flux.
00
I’ve just posted the following rant over at WUWT under the same Greenland climate / Solar activity post as Jo’s above so to repeat, here it is;
___________________
As Nature and global temperatures and the global climate refuse to do as instructed by the climate science chicken entrails modeling reliant climate scientists, the great backdown and cover up is now well and truly under way.
Remember how just how fixed in stone for eternity, the SCIENCE WAS SETTLED only a short three or so years ago and no debate or argument would be allowed or countenanced at all as it was a completely established unarguable fact that the Earth was inevitably heading into a CO2 driven climate catastrophe entirely of mankind’s own making.
Now we see an increasing volume of mostly seriously bad papers and unsubstantiated claims, nothing unusual in that with current climate science, all suggesting that perhaps there is something else other than man made CO2 that might be having an effect on the climate.
The above paper is another example of the backdown from yesterday’s hard fixed, not to be challenged or allowed to be debated climate science, a back down, a snake like sliming slithering away they hope to get away with after their sheer ineptitude and outright ignorance of the real drivers of the global climate has been so clearly revealed for all to see.
And god forbid, it might just even be that the Sun, that great fusion furnace way up there that pours it’s immense energy into the global atmosphere which might just possibly have a minute effect on the climate.
But only in some regions and patches you understand. Or so we are assured by those expert climate scientists.
but it seems those regions and patches somehow seem to link up an cover the earth’s surface.
But despite this, we are still being most categorically assured by those same expert climate scientists that we will be all still going to a climate hell in a red hot carbon basket.
It’s just that the timetable has been delayed by unforeseen events such as the failure to warm and the unpredictability of the ENSO and the fact that they forgot about Clouds and have a few problems why the Antarctic ice is expanding as is the Arctic ice following the categorical assurance that we will have an” ice free Arctic by 2013″ and a few other minor hitches in the predictions such as we didn’t figure on the Sun having any effect on the climate but perhaps it does after all.
My contempt for climate catastrophe scientists rises by the day.
Not once, not a single one has ever even hinted at an apology for getting so much so wrong, a wrongness so wrong that the governments of the world on the heavily promoted ideologically driven advice of those same climate scientists have now expended close to a trillion dollars of the world’s treasure and wealth to try and prevent those catastrophic outcomes in the climate so firmly and unashamedly predicted by those same climate scientists.
The resulting tens of thousands of deaths from energy poverty and the consequent lack of affordable energy for heating for the old and the poor leading to hypothermia in so many countries when the politicals and greens forced the closing down of the tried and true and absolutely reliable fossil fueled generators which were supposedly to be replaced by the totally unreliable, unaffordable, totally ineffective so called renewable energy, which it is anything but.
All proposed, promoted, and backed to the hilt by climate catastrophe scientists. based on nothing more than the outputs of some heavily biased climate models which are so damn primitive and ineffective that they can’t even get the past history of the climate right when that past climate’s observed data is fed into them
And the results of all this vast waste of lives and treasure at the bidding of climate science?
Zilch, nada, nothing !,
Not even a hint that all this totally unnecessary sacrifice of lives and treasure made one iota of difference to the climate or anything else except to create fear and societal dissension and to transfer vast amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich via the vastly corrupt and leech like renewable energy industry.
The climate just rolls right on and keeps right on rolling on as usual despite some of those same climate scientists aided and abetted by their unbounded and complete arrogance, ignorance and hubris imagining that they can control the global climate by twiddling a couple of Carbon knobs.
The message from climate science of only a couple of years ago has been that Nature has been stood aside and mankind is the one who now controls the global climate.
Nature laughed and turned down the solar wick and now it starts to cool and there is not a damn thing those abjectly ignorant climate scientists or their running dogs in the greens and enviro water melons can do about it.
I have no problems with climate science researching the climate and coming to the wrong conclusions as science in the long term is self correcting.
What I most strongly object to and which has brought me to the point of complete and open contempt for climate science and climate scientists is the way in which they used their trusted positions a scientists to impose their own brands of personal ideology and beliefs in model predicted outcomes onto the rest of society to our extreme detriment in health, wealth, creation of unneeded economic malaise and societal dissension.
Modeled predictions that were nothing more than reflections on the climate modeler’s own biases but which were hyped up to the maximum by a group of arrogant, hubris laden, self promoting, narcissistic and as it turns out abjectly wrong climate scientists, into a predicted carbon dioxide driven climate catastrophe,
An ideological derived belief which had absolutely no underpinning in science other than pure conjecture on the part of those same hubris driven climate scientists.
When I see some deep humble apologies from climate science and climate scientists and a clean out of the worst of those climate charlatans by climate science itself and an admission and a full humble acknowledgment on how they, through their gross and complete hubris laden ignorance on their part and who have totally failed to comprehend how the global climate really works allied with their overwhelming hubris about their own omnipotence in climate knowledge, a position which they blatantly used to both impose their own ideology and suppress any others who dared to question or were at all skeptical about pronunciations of those oh so omnipotent climate scientists.
And who so deliberately and openly fed the hysteria of a predicted climate catastrophe due to mankind’s sinfulness in using fossil fuels with their CO2 emissions to enhance his health wealth and living standards over the last few centuries,
When I see a full open and humble apology from all of climate science and those same hubris driven climate scientists openly admitting that they were completely wrong in their climate catastrophe predictions and they humbly apologise and assume responsibility for the immense amounts of harm and destruction of lives and living standards and treasure they have created through their heavy promotion of what turned out to be nothing but predictions based on abject ignorance and hubris, then I will consider climate science with a somewhat better but still very wary consideration.
351
Please explain your method of getting the insane to agree that they (me) are insane.
Much geld to accrue from such, or perhaps not
41
I wish I could put words together as well as you do.
Well said, Mr ROM !!! 🙂
141
That was meant to be a reply to ROM @ #21 !
70
the Griss @ # 24
Thank you
And I seem to have permanent glued on Red thumb these days which draws me to one of two conclusions;
Either the Red Thumb is just an automated robotic like response to my posts which like robots in general, one that can’t think and can’t read and can’t reason,
Or
My Red thumb has read my post and disagrees.
If so mission accomplished as even reading posts quite subtly alters one’s approach and thinking towards a subject.
And skepticsm in this case is like a constant streams of drops of water on a stone. They appear to have NO possible effect.
But come back in few decades time and that stone has been appreciably altered and changed by that constant stream of drops.
And seeing my personal Red Thumb is apparently so convinced I am wrong could he / she answer the following rather easy question for an alarmist believer ,
A question that I have posted previously here on Jo’s blog, on WUWT and twice on Judith Curry’s “Climate etc” where if it can’t be or hasn’t been answered means??
I have had one response that attempted to answer this question and that was to point out the “predictions ” for the future which as we all know now, those so called predictions are actually very damaging, in fact disastrous to our global society if they are believed and attempts are made to follow the predicted outcomes of those climate predictions.
The question;
After 26 years of very expensive, ever expansive, very generously and publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where climate science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable or useful and useable benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?
Over to you Red Thumb.
241
“And I seem to have permanent glued on Red thumb these days ”
You too 🙂
Cute little fellas, aren’t they 🙂
91
And no, they will never answer that question….
…. because they can’t, or are too ashamed to.
121
It sells newspapers … maybe! 😉
20
The question;
After 26 years of very expensive, ever expansive, very generously and publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where climate science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable or useful and useable benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?
I am not your Red Thumb, but the answer is NO! The ClimAstrologists try but fail.
30
J.Seifert August 21, 2014 at 10:17 am · says:
…. More from the author at http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate_papers.html
Thanks for the link J Seifert. I got sidetracked there. Quite a fascinating site on the fall of the Akkadian empires and the 4.2 kiloyear event…
…. but it may be possible that the Sumerian K8538 tablet is ‘over-interpreted’?; http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/page11-9.html
30
20 Aug: UK Daily Mail: Jenny Awford: Did you say August or Autumn? Sun rises over misty Peak District as miles of rolling hills are shrouded in morning fog and the nation shivers as temperatures drop to 2C
Temperatures dipped as low as 2C in Northern Ireland and 3C in Derbyshire Peak District early this morning
Friday will see some coastal showers in the UK, but it will be feeling warmer across the country
Sunny spells are predicted for Bank Holiday Saturday and Sunday, but Monday will be a washout
And tomorrow Britain will be colder than Siberia, feeling chillier than an average October in the UK as the Arctic summer shiver peaks…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729849/Did-say-August-Autumn-Sun-rises-misty-Peak-District-miles-rolling-hills-shrouded-morning-fog-nation-shivers-temperatures-drop.html
40
history-making, says Bridle at Bristol:
20 Aug: UK Independent: The butterfly effect: climate change ‘forced species to adapt’
A British butterfly species has made climate-change history by becoming the first known animal of any kind to lose the ability to do something after global warming forced it to move to a new environment and adapt its behaviour.
The brown argus butterfly has spread from long-established sites in the south of England further north to areas such as Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire as climate change has made them warmer and more habitable.
But in the move the species has lost its ability to eat one of the two plants on which it has traditionally survived because it is not prevalent in its new home, according to new research.
“To our knowledge, this is the first time that the loss of adaptive variation during evolutionary responses to recent climate change has been demonstrated in any animal,” said one of the report’s authors, Dr Jon Bridle, of the University of Bristol…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-butterfly-effect-climate-change-forced-species-to-adapt-9679477.html
oh no, there will be followup videos as well:
VIDEO: 20 Aug: Today: Erin Quinlan: Leonardo DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary
Seems the Wolf of Wall Street has a few economic ideas for halting climate change. In a new documentary called “Carbon,” released online Wednesday, narrator Leonardo DiCaprio contends that trillions of dollars’ worth of fossil fuels are awaiting commercial extraction from the ground — and that if we burn them, our planet is toast.
Clocking in at under nine minutes, the short doesn’t mince words…
Three additional mini-documentaries, billed as a series called Green World Rising and slated for release in the next few weeks, will explore ways to make that happen…
http://www.today.com/entertainment/watch-leonardo-dicaprios-climate-change-documentary-carbon-1D80094818
30
From the Daily Mail:
However, he Dr [Raimund Muscheler] warned that the sun was not the only factor in causing climate change.
‘Climate skeptics like to say sun is causing more global warming than we think but I don’t think so
Oh dear!
120
“Oh dear”, is right…. .. he doesn’t think so….. whoopy doooooo .
roflmao.. And to you that is proof enough..
OH DEAR !!!!! 🙂
151
he also says “‘unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’ “
Seriously funny stuff, that’s for sure 🙂
The guys at WUWT are having field day with his nonsense.
Much hilarity for all 🙂
161
STUPID HORSE AKA “sillyfilly”, is a reject from Andrew Bolt’s Blog.
Always posting anti Australia BS there as well !!
Haven’t seen it in some time there as it was probably banned !
71
Sillyfilly presents no rational argument, only producing quotes out of context.
As such sillyfilly has no credence, and serves no purpose, other than to increment the comment numbering.
101
Quotes out of context(just to fill in the blanks):
Dr Raimund Muscheler, lecturer in Quaternary Geology at Lund University and co-author of the study, told MailOnline that solar activity in the modern day was causing about 0.1 degrees of warming in the 11-year solar cycle.
‘Bit it’s quite debated how much it really contributed in the last 100 years, since solar activity increased a bit,’ Dr Muscheler says.
‘The long trend is debated, but most people don’t think it’s much more than 0.1 degrees.’
‘….the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather it indirectly affects atmospheric circulation.
‘Reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe,’ said Dr Muscheler.
‘This is because the sun’s UV radiation affects the atmospheric circulation.
‘Interestingly, the same processes lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms.
So it appears to be yet another demonstration that the solar cycle has minimal influence on current temperatures. 0.1 DC compared to HADCRUT 1961-1990 absolute global average annual temperature which is 14.0°C, what an influence. Next time we hear “Here Comes The Sun”, I’ll remember the Beatles.
09
Sillyfilly,
Meanwhile:
The continued failure of CO2 based climate models prove conclusively that CO2 in not a factor.
61
Nicely played James. Game, set, and match.
60
Sorry to differ, no valid climate model can recreate the current temperature without an anthropogenic component. Of course we can manipulate the models, change the scenario analysis to averaging, vary the starting points and other statistical manipulations of the data to get to your conclusion, but that is illusory at best.
15
There is no such thing as a `valid climate model.’
What we do know about the climate is that turning off the sun will turn off the climate on planet Earth.
50
There’s no such thing as a valid pre-1979 temperature record, either. !!
The only thing that is certain is the adjustments to the temperature record match the CO2 increase very well.
40
Sillyfilly,
You reply does not make any sense at all.
You say:
“no valid climate model can recreate the current temperature without an anthropogenic component.”
The facts say:
No climate model with an anthropogenic component has predicted current temperatures .
30
“but most people don’t think it’s much more than 0.1 degrees.”
This is NOT the quote of a scientist, but a propagandist.
Do you know the difference SF? It seems not.
70
“Next time we hear “Here Comes The Sun”,”
Unfortunately it looks like being “There goes the Sun”:-)
I hope your owners buy a good horse blanket for you to use over the next few decades.
Its really funny watching all these climate pseudo-scientists/propagandists now starting to consider the Sun.
They can see what is happening and now need to use the sun’ sleepiness to explain the coming drop in temperatures.
CO2 is what provides your clover, your Lucerne, the grass you eat.. or would you rather starve, you stupid little nag !!
71
This MacDonald et al study finds that higher insolation was one reason that forests grew up to the Arctic coastline from 10,000 to 3,000 years BP.
http://epic.awi.de/4164/1/Mac2000c.pdf
This happened across nth Russia and Siberia for at least 6,000 years and temps were up to 7C warmer than today in that area. It is far too cold for the forests to grow there today.
80
The WC gets a mention here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/wikipedia-page-on-propaganda-techniques-uses-97-meme/
20
Climate Catastrophe alarmism and deliberately created fear generation at its most culpable
PREDICTIONS;
Arctic Ice in “Death Spiral,” Is Near Record Low
Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
September 17, 2008
The Arctic Ocean’s sea ice has shrunk to its second smallest area on record, close to 2007’s record-shattering low, scientists report.
The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
_______________________
REALITY;
PIOMASS Data Analysis: “UNPARALLELED” 3-SIGMA LOW JULY ICE MELT…Lowest On Satellite Record!
By P Gosselin on 21. August 2014 [ NoTricksZone blog ]
[ selected quotes ]
Germans Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Frank Bosse took a look at the July 2014 Arctic sea ice data. They found astonishing results.
July is a very important month during the melt season: In the Arctic the sun shines 24 hours per day, irradiance there exceeds that of the tropics as a result. The sun is also high above the horizon and so only about 15% of the sun’s radiation in the water is reflected.
The open water absorbs large quantities of energy, which can melt the ice from the side and from underneath. And this year something completely unusual happened: while since 1979 approx. 6500 km³ melted in July, this year only 5100 km³ melted. –
&
The very low melt in 2014 is a 3-sigma event!
A negative record – since 1979 – that is unparalleled. The relatively steady decline shown in Figures 4 and 6 is deceptive – the ice of the current year is decisively determined by the previous year. To a great extent the series is auto-correlated. One sees the true development much better with the loss diagram Figure 7.
Baffled experts
Something seems to have happened during the peak of summer to lead to a stopping of the downward trend. It was internal natural variability within our climate – it certainly was not the weather. All experts are currently baffled. [ again!!! ] This year the weather resembles more that of the year 2012 and back then there was a low point in ice volume development.
Over the last years natural variability has been increasingly used in climate science to explain away over-hasty predictions of greenhouse effects. Also the observations of the Arctic ice are adding to the scramble for explanations. If you are interested how the Arctic sea ice will finish in September – then stay tuned!
[ / ]
111
You could also refer to the 1930s ice loss data. The Danes published maps showing it. It should be archived on the ‘net somewhere. WUWT featured it a couple of years ago. IIRC the figures for the melt back then were about the same as for now. If you can find the data, you could add it to your troll demolition material 🙂
(Ecclesiastes 1:9)
20
Us see blocking polar vortex over the south magnetic pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_sh_f00.gif
The level of neutrons at the South Pole.
http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/thespnplot.gif
00