Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG. – IPCC AR5 Chapter 8
Section 8.4.1 of the IPCC AR5 Report provides 2 pages of discussion on observations of solar irradiance. But they conclude that all this doesn’t matter for the climate. I agree that the TSI RF variations are much less than projected increased forcing due to the GHG. But the solar-climate connection is probably a lot more complex than this statement implies.
Climate Etc. has had 6 previous posts on the sun-climate connection [link]
Svensmark
Henrik Svensmark has an essay While the Sun Sleeps, that has been translated by WUWT. Excerpts:
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age.
It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
[C]limate scientists try to ignore this possibility. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
Vahrenholt and Luning
Vahrenhold and Luning have a book entitled The Neglected Sun. An interview with Vahrenholt is provided by GWPF. Bishop Hill has a review of the book, excerpts:
The authors of The Neglected Sun, Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, present a compelling series of reasons to say that not only is the belief in human-induced CO2 warming over-stated but that it ignores by far the most obvious influence of the Earth’s climate: the Sun.
The core argument is simple. The Sun may be a minor star in an insignificant part of our galaxy but in human terms it generates a staggering quantity of energy. Every second, it produces 620 million metric tons of hydrogen. It has been doing this for something like four billion years. It is estimated that it will continue to do so for a further 5.4 billion years.
That said, it is subject to a series of cycles: short, medium and longer term. These have clearly played the key role in the Earth’s climate. In the mid term, the most obvious are a series of ice ages, played out over thousands of years, briefly interrupted by warmer periods. The last five of these ice ages each lasted 100,000 years, the intervening warm periods about 10,000 years. Over the last 8,000 years or so, there has a period of unusually benign solar activity. Perhaps co-incidentally, this has precisely coordinated with what, historically, has been called the birth of human civilisation: settled communities, writing, agriculture, the domestication of animals.
In the shorter term still, every subsequent advance in human society has coincided with warmer periods, every reverse with cooler periods. Fast forward again and we find that since about 1850 a further period of modest warming has occurred. The IPCC contends that this warming, in stark contrast to all earlier periods of warming, can only be the consequence of increased CO2 emissions.
Never less than politely, Vahrenholt and Lüning tear this simplistic argument into minute shreds. They reserve their major criticisms for the debasement of the science. The West can clearly cite the scientific method as among its most obvious triumphs. Yet this painstakingly-won advantage is now being sacrificed, they contend, in the interests of activists, egos, political necessity and headlines. In short, the science has been corrupted in the interests of political expediency.
We can take some comfort from this. Truth has a way of winning, however painfully. Patently, Vahrenholt and Lüning have laid out what at the very minimum must be a serious case for calling into question the IPPC orthodoxy. To ignore their arguments can only be an act of deliberate obfuscation or deliberate ignorance.
NRC Report
There is a recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” available from the National Academies Press. A NASA press release entitled Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate provides a good overview. The punchline is:
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Note, this report was published early Jan 2013. Something else the IPCC ignored.
JC conclusion: What a relief that the IPCC consensus has decreed with high confidence that solar variations won’t influence the 21st century climate. For a minute there, after reading the NRC Report, Svensmark and Vahrenholt, I thought us scientists might have more work to do to figure out how the Earth’s climate system works.
You should add mine too:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Regardless of whether a mechanism is understood the correlation between solar maganetic activity and climate changes are compelling. Moreso than CO2. While anthropogenic CO2 emission has increased non-stop over the past 15 years increase in global average temperature has not increased at all. Meanwhile, the sun went quiet several years and global average temperature has been decreasing during those several years. People with no agenda do not ignore such highly correlated events.
DS: Your are entirely correct to point out the complete lack of correlation between rising CO2 levels and global averaged temps. What is so strange therefore is that even the JC’s of this world (in which I also include the Watts, Spencers, Lindzens, etc) still assume that there ‘must’ be some warming from CO2. Surely then the time has come to put the ‘ZERO climate sensitivity to CO2’ hypothesis to the test. I have been repeatedly berated for raising this (on other forums), including the strawman “name one science body that holds this view” (classic consensus and appeal to authority), but it is inescapable that the observed data is telling us precisely this.
Does the sun produce hydrogen or helium??
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2003/eit304/20031028/20031028_2236_eit304_1024.jpg
Two ways to fix that.
“Every second, it
producesfuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen.”“Every second, it produces 620 million metric tons of
hydrogenhelium.”Takes yo pick. It’s actually a bit less than 620 million metric tons of helium as a tiny bit of the mass is converted to energy according to e=mc^2 so it’s probably better to use the first one.
It converts hydrogen into helium via nuclear fusion, The 620 metric million tones per second is the amount of mass that is converted into energy by the process of fusion (E = mc^2).
Bill | October 1, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
Does the sun produce hydrogen or helium??
===============
why “or”? why not both? helium is created by the fusion of hydrogen. hydrogen is produced by neutron decay.
Hi Stephen, I regularly read your posts at WUWT and agree with much of what you say. I’m not fond of your page because it’s a one-way street with no comments allowed.
Here come de sung, here come de sung, he keep on rollung, he keep on rollung, alung.
=========
little darling,
it feels like years since it’s been here…
I like the George Harrison version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxzEeKfpyIg
I wonder how much longer we will be able to sing it?
The sun’s rays illuminate
the city boulevarde
like a film-set, shine
on faces of people
in the street, set rows
of office windows aflame,
glance side-ways down
dingy alley-ways, bounce
off the brown river
in silver flashes, slant
through tree branches
in deep forests, but
do not penetrate the
dark board-rooms
of the IPCC.
b-t-s
Why the sun? Because.
How the sun? Well, ya got me there.
============
Thus for hubris will come the judgment they cannot predict. Revelation 16:7-9 NIV
Hang on there DLH, according to the GHE and IPCC energy budget, the incoming solar radiation can only ‘heat’ the Earth to -17 degC, but then the IPCC is quite well versed at redefinitions, so redefining freezing into scorching is par for the course.
The IPCC is worshiping Nature, and demanding that all Politicians bow and force us to pay exhorbitent taxes lest we change global temperatures by unmeasureable amounts and allow the sea level to rise (and fall) like it has since the dawn of time.
If Obama had a sun it would look like that one.
What makes that probable?
It’s certainly a lot more complex when all very weak effects are included, but that’s hardly the point. The issue becomes important only if the other effects are stronger than that trough TSI. Is that probable or only a remote possibility?
Somewhere between possible and probable, of that I’m 95% sure.
===========
A good candidate for changes on the scale shorter than Milankovitch and longer that oceanic basin oscillations.
==============
Pekka, I suspect probable. Then again, how much more would the sun have to do to exceed the pittance of potency granted to it by the IPCC?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044004/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044004.pdf
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf
AR5 WG1 discusses the impact of cosmic rays on aerosols and clouds in chapter 7.4.6, which is almost 2 pages long. The chapter 8.4 refers to this chapter concluding
However there is high confidence (medium evidence and high agreement) that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or their change over the last century or during a SC in a climatically-significant way (Harrison and Ambaum, 2010; Erlykin and Wolfendale, 2011; Snow-Kropla et al., 2011).
Pekka, there is a reason I selected these two papers. If cloud cover varies in phase or anti-phase depending on the geographic region, what is a possible cause? Changes in heat transport might be one, yes? The other paper claims a correlation between heat transport and solar activity.
“medium evidence and high agreement”
Yep, that about sums up climate science. Although for some aspects of climate like solar influence, “medium evidence” strikes me a way too generous. How can you have medium evidence when the vast majority of the climate/industrial complex ignores solar?
Look at what happened during the last solar minimum, likely the lowest in a hundred years. Not long after Dec 2008, NASA reported the lowest height of the atmosphere they ever recorded. Following over the next couple of years, polar high pressures which are usually lower than the lower latitudes turned higher pushing massive amounts of cold air south. The Washington DC area had 30% more snow than ever recorded and Europe started a streak of 5 colder than normal winters. The point is there seems to be weather phenomena beyond Svenmark’s theory and changes in the height of the atmosphere and polar pressures may be an alternate driver.
…or atmospheric height may be an EFFECT of the solar changes.
What makes that probable?
The normal energy budget has the solar energy distributed between two layers, surface and atmosphere, 135Wm-2 and 75 Wm-2. Solar absorption in the atmosphere provides ~50% of the “greenhouse” effect. But consider the system as 4 layers, Oceans subsurface and surface, atmosphere moist and dry, now the solar energy absorbed in each layer impacts every other layer with four different time constants and heat capacities. That is what you really have which is divided between two hemispheres N-S plus two E-W. How simple do ya think you can make it?
What I am pretty sure of is that a lot more work needs to be done to rule out other ways the sun can influence our climate than insolation changes alone, and long before we started wringing our hands over CO2.
The sun drives the energy necessary for all weather events on Earth. The sun may impact clouds, ozone, Sea Level Pressure, atmospheric circulation and so on. The sun’s impact is far from being understood.
And what about clouds?
Here’s what the AR5 WGI has to say about clouds in the world’s best climate models:
“There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity.”
Now, silly me, I would have thought that something that the models still haven’t quite mastered (“Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of
watts per square meter.” on the following page) would at least lower our confidence in the overall predictions that models produce. After all, the IPCC is very highly confident that the models are not correctly simulating a factor that produces even several tens of watts per square meter of irradiation difference.
Ever the optimist I actually started reading that first sentence with the expectation that the IPCC was about to use poor cloud simulations to explain the model deviation from abservations. Silly me.
Of course it’s clouds, and of course an honest course was open to them. Why didn’t they take the obvious and sensible path? Now that’s mistifying, to me.
=============
“Now that’s mystifying, to me.”
It isn’t to me, and not to u either I’m sure… ;-)
It seems models are simply responding to the parametrizations of clouds. They are built to fit with the real increasing in temperatures in past decades, to fit with it, they must introduce those parametrizations (“model adjustment” process, I suppose that like in any other modelling), but the errors in those parametriztions may have the same magnitude or even higher than the whole effect of CO2. So… the model gives you what you introduce on it. That said models are a very important tool for many things, but it would be interesting that “skeptics” could introduce their hypotheses on them and participate in their development, as qualified users (a model is a tool, not “the true”).
So the IPCC use the sun as an excuse for the “pause”, yet still deny that it affects climate? Judith, no wonder you are now finding a report that says “the science has been corrupted”. Why couldn’t the scientific world pick this up years ago, when it was already obvious that this is what was happening?
And yes, “Truth has a way of winning, however painfully”, but next time, please can we find a way of avoiding the pain…
Yes. That’s what I was trying to figure out in the comment I posted before I saw this one.
Here ya go Websters,
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zf4GtHBcV2E/UksHtAOa9XI/AAAAAAAAJv4/opPGMm8B35Y/s640/solar+ponies.png
Cappy you really are amusing in your deliberate obfuscation. There is no 11 year signal hiding in there.
OTOH, I can actually pull something out after I remove the SOI and volcanic disturbances. It is a small component though. One can use the Eureqa software to do the composition.
Webster, The ~11 year is a small component. The ~21 year Hale cycle, due to the internal lag is a little larger since the ~11 year cycle ranges can range from 9 to 14 years. If you found a sweet looking 11 year cycle you know you screwed up :)
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf
You have not the slightest clue webster.
Keep feeding me this stuff Chief. You are “digging your own grave”.
Tung 2013
“The response is expected to be small given the small radiative forcing of 0.1% from solar minimum to solar maximum, which is imbedded in a larger climate noise”
Who would have thunk it?
‘Cappy you really are amusing in your deliberate obfuscation. There is no 11 year signal hiding in there.’
You typically pull something out of your arse out of utter ignorance – and then compound it by being a liar and a twit.
Webster, Tung 2013, “We obtained a globally averaged warming of almost 0.2 K during solar max as compared to solar min, somewhat larger than previously reported.”
With that result, remember that there is an issue about the effective TSI variation at the surface during prolonged solar minima. 10Be reconstructions indicate about 3 Wm-2 change while the TSI only estimates are about 1.25Wm-2. 0.2K puts solar in the 25% impact range and the 10Be reconstructions in the 0.6K range without feedback. Kinda nifty huh?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/–hk05PyzaUU/UkA6c9JVmlI/AAAAAAAAJnI/vo-1rzZCR2w/w927-h495-no/What+Uncertainty.png
People are saying that the decline was the result of a cooling sun. Apart from the fact that Sun is at Schwabe peak – the influence is obvious.
Webster claims no cycle based on nothing at all – and then quotes back the study I linked to saying there was an influence.
The utter dishonesty is stunning.
Cappy, that quote was not in the 2013 article but in the 2007 article.
Why would Tung say that it is “expected to be small” in a 2013 paper when he could just reference his 2007 result and say that it is known to be 0.2C? Or that the non-oscillating trend is less than 0.1C over 100 years?
The fact of the matter is that the SOI, the volcanic disturbances, and the GHG warming signal are all bigger than the TSI fluctuations. And until these are all considered collectively, it is difficult to mine the TSI out of the GMST data. I can do this no sweat, because I treat them collectively.
Webster, “The fact of the matter is that the SOI, the volcanic disturbances, and the GHG warming signal are all bigger than the TSI fluctuations.”
No one has denied that the TSI “fluctuations” are small, ~0.2 C per the 2007 Tung and ~0.25C per Hansen etc. etc. etc. The issue is the longer term sensitivity to TSI + the SSI and their influence on the ENSO SOI, PDO etc.
If you had a consistent 11 year cycle, TSI influence would be crystal clear. With an irregular pseudo-cycle and a fairly steady lag ~8.5 years, you get inconsistent impacts. That is why the 21 year solar Hale cycle is more pronounced than the ~11 year cycle. It is also likely why the larger El Ninos tend to happen during solar minima.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/PzcRQ0MmC4lmItGKRma0r9hbPOsOsbYLqSIQz3CkwQE=w419-h181-p-no
That has a pretty strong TSI correlation in the Nino regions.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zf4GtHBcV2E/UksHtAOa9XI/AAAAAAAAJv4/opPGMm8B35Y/s640/solar+ponies.png
That is a pretty strong correlation in the tropical region. That is the furnace for climate. If you ignore that solar can have at least a 0.2K impact and up to 0.6K impact you are going to over estimate CO2 forcing. Since CO2 is a feedback to solar forcing, you can over estimate by quite a bit.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_NyNYk1bKpU/UgqK0nPXhVI/AAAAAAAAJMY/qiCfBK-8ahI/s640/Tropical+SST+with+three+forcings+Law+Dome+0+start.png
The larger el nino tend to occur following enhanced bi polar vortex, which seem to arise during following solar minima,or during volcanic excursions, which suggests an O3 mechanism.
The expansion of the polar jets act as a transport barrier,reducing the meridional gradient. eg Beron Vera
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2893.pdf
Maks, “The larger el nino tend to occur following enhanced bi polar vortex, which seem to arise during following solar minima,or during volcanic excursions, which suggests an O3 mechanism.”
Right, and since there is a larger change in UV during solar minima it would be nice to know how much change there actually is during a prolonged minimum. Can’t do much about the volcanoes, but the solar part appears to be underestimated.
No, the sunspot variation is only responsible for a slight amount of the global temperature response. It is approximately this level of significance:
http://imageshack.us/a/img802/8223/wud.gif
If the TSI perturbation was large, it would be easy to detect it’s contribution, because the 11-year oscillation would appear clearly, yet it doesn’t really emerge at all.
Webster, “If the TSI perturbation was large, it would be easy to detect it’s contribution, because the 11-year oscillation would appear clearly, yet it doesn’t really emerge at all”
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-cK5w6IIzsQk/UkQ_98eSZMI/AAAAAAAAJqY/6tYmO0t2ubY/w1043-h450-no/TSI+and+the+ENSO+Regions.png
That is the ENSO region with that itsy bitsy 11 year solar variation. It is large enough to be seen.
“No, the sunspot variation is only responsible for a slight amount of the global temperature response.”
When you don’t have a clue, just pretend you do.
GaryM,
An 11-year periodic signal really should show up in a Fourier power spectrum, yet it gets swamped by the noisy SOI and volcanic components.
Here ya go Webster.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/sun-sun-sun-just-for-fun.html
Where matters, asymmetry matters, longer time constants matter.
Webster, “Find any 11-year ponies in that glop, Cappy?”
You can only see the 11 year ponies in the tropics. The 21 year unicorns are what can be spotted in the Global record. That is because of the 8.5 year troll that delays the ponies path.
You can’t produce them Cappy.
Typical all bluster, no results.
Webby
If direct solar irradiance were the only solar impact on climate, there would have been no Little Ice Age.
Just because our “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing mechanisms is low, does not mean they do not exist.
Max
‘Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example — would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this difficult to
measure, and not-so-well-known quantity.’ http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
Zhou and Tung 2013 state that the effect is expected to be small – but are discussing amplification mechanisms.
So webby quotes the expected to be small quote from the intro – gets the citation wrong even – and utterly misunderstands the context. He tries, tries again and tries yet again but still stuffs it all up.
Chief,
For a 1 W/m^2 TSI change, the theoretical response is ~0.05C.
It is barely extractable from the climate noise, but the Eureqa software is able to dig it out and place it on the Pareto frontier of solutions
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5489/tvh.gif
The SOI explains the pauses and wiggles, the volcanic eruptions explain the deeper excursions, and an accelerating function explains the upward trend. The TSI explains a slight periodic wiggle on the curve that is impossible to make out with your eye..
You are really free to do this if you were to get off your lazy …….
You can always get a computational robot to do it too, hee hee.
‘The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997). A number of independent analyses have identified tropospheric changes that appear to be associated with the solar cycle (van Loon and Shea, 2000; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005), suggesting an overall warmer and moister troposphere during solar maximum. The peak-to-trough amplitude of the response to the solar cycle globally is estimated to be approximately 0.1°C near the surface. Such variations over the 11-year solar cycle make it is necessary to use several decades of data in detection and attribution studies. The solar cycle also affects atmospheric ozone concentrations with possible impacts on temperatures and winds in the stratosphere, and has been hypothesised to influence clouds through cosmic rays (Section 2.7.1.3). Note that there is substantial uncertainty in the identification of climate response to solar cycle variations because the satellite period is short relative to the solar cycle length, and because the response is difficult to separate from internal climate variations and the response to volcanic eruptions (Gray et al., 2005).’ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
You are a liar and a fool. You claim no 11 year cycle impact on temperature and then backtrack with misquotes and BS.
There is a reason I don’t repeat your incompetency – it is because it is ultimately just ignorance and bluster.
“Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.”
and
“Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. Angular momentum is important because the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course. ”
Both of which are elements of the hypothesis that I have been promulgating for the past several years.
The final element linking it all to climate changes is the alteration of jet stream meridionality and climate zone latitudinal positioning which changes global cloudiness so as to change the proportion of ToA insolation able to enter the oceans to drive the system.
Those changes are caused by solar variation acting on ozone amounts differently at different heights and latitudes in order to change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles in each hemisophere.
Has anyone else proposed that ?
That natural process has been shifting the global air circulation up to 1000 miles latitudinally in certain regions from MWP to LIA to date.
In comparison I would be surprised if our emissions have shifted it all by as much as a mile.
The literature on this goes way back, but expert deception artists have campaigned hard to obfuscate. For this crime against humanity I assert they deserve jail time.
There is literature on the various components but as far as I know no one else has joined the dots.
Stephen you need to see Happ’s terrific review at.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
Actually nobody in the climate community can afford not be familiar with Happs work – especially JC
It, erl, Happens I’m inclined to ozone, but cosmic rays are so seductive. There are a plethora of mechanisms.
==============
Stephen, the bigger issue here is the egregious solar distortion being darkly leveraged in terrestrial climate discussion. We should be planning the architecture of a judicial inquiry into the deliberate expert distortion that has hijacked much more than blog discussions. There are certain climate & solar academics I would love to see caught lying under oath in a court of law. I want to know if they would go so far as to conduct themselves criminally in order to maintain their aggressive political agenda. A simple sequence of questions on solar-terrestrial relations – under oath – would give us the answer. Ensuring integrity of process could be a formidable challenge due to the severe shortage of mathematically qualified judges.
Right. Solar variations don’t matter. And they have high confidence in that.
On the other hand, as you quoted in your previous post, “The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle.” So either the forcing trend reduction is due to volcanoes almost exclusively, or the forcing trend doesn’t matter. Except they didn’t mention that. The solar contribution is “much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG”, so it can’t possibly have contributed much to the pause.
And then they say in the pause logic, “However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.”
They have low confidence, but don’t mention the Sun in that context. Not sure what that means, except “now you see it, now you don’t”.
Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed somethings. Aerosols are directly measured and the stratospheric optical depth is measured and is, and has been, very low over the past 13 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
There can be no ‘forcing’ from volcanoes as there have been no big volcanoes and people have actually measured the amount of particulate absorbence.
Secondly, the sun is being a bit of a wimp at the moment
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
However, as we all have been informed by Real Climate Scientists, time after time, there is no change in Earths temperature due to changes in solar output.
So, with no solar ‘forcing’ can be introduced to explain a lack of warming (Thanks Gavin et al.,), no aerosol ‘forcing’ (thanks NASA) and we know that there are no decadal, cyclical, movements of energy in the oceans (Thanks Gavin et al.,) the pause must be due to changes in GHG.
Yes, well I’ve been reading RealClimate, and I know that if they are right, we should be thankful for AGW, since they say that there’s a long-term cooling trend ending in the LIA that was broken by us humans. Further cooling below the temperatures of the LIA? No thanks.
“a relatively smooth curve with slow cooling trend lasting millennia from the Holocene optimum to the “little ice age”, mainly driven by the orbital cycles. At the end this cooling trend is abruptly reversed by the modern anthropogenic warming.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
another government computer crashed
The Institute of Physics has a good summary of solar-physics issues:
That’s why IPCC5 hasn’t much new to say in regard to solar variations … because the science has been comparably stable to the solar irradiance.
Mediocre-to-weak cycle-scientists, statisticians, and denialist cherry-pickers will feel differently of course … just as they have for the past 150 years and more!
Meanwhile, The Sensible Center Of Climate Change™ is moving on toward its *next* major event Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature (2014)
Conclusion Move along folks! No substantial disagreements here!
fan delicately averts his eyes, and whistles by.
=====================
Fan. The oceans have stopped rising. Obama said so. He did it. He caused them to stop. Weren’t you listening? Are you some kind of racist or something?
In response to wrong comment vvvvv.
Kim, young scientists in particular appreciate the distinction between weak, mediocre, and strong climate-change science.
Curve-fitting and cycle-chasing and hand-waving just ain’t in the same league as (what Judith Curry aptly calls) “the strongest available climate-change science.”
That’s the plain lesson of scientific history *and* also ordinary-citizen common-sense too, eh kim?
Young scientists in particular appreciate the prospect of having a long and distinguished career ahead of them. They will not want to be left holding the bag when the current crop of balding, goateed climate crooks who have mislead them for personal gain finally retire.
Young scientists in particular will do well to question authority and especially to question those who substitute appeals to their own authority for scientific reasoning. They would do well to emulate Judith, who takes bold moves to associate with science and distance herself from the politics masquerading as science that is ‘climatology’. Otherwise, young scientists in particular will reap what their corrupt elders have sown.
Young scientists in particular will find a hard lesson in the ramifications of using the imprimatur of science to facilitate realpolitik, when they are left holding toxic resumes while the guys who perpetrated this fraud from the beginning have long since cashed in and checked out.
If and when the Earth’s oceans stop rising, then the denialist worldview may acquire some credibility.
Until then not, eh JJ?
That’s why young scientists refuse denialism.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Kim, young scientists in particular appreciate the distinction between weak, mediocre, and strong climate-change science.
Please specify again the “strong” climate change science. I find it all full of holes, without any “strong” support for the claim that recent change in global mean temperature is driven by CO2 increase.
As usual, FOMD’s post is filled with sound and fury signifying nothing.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun’s activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century? By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations… but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases was far outweigh any solar effects.
a. Any news since the 1990s?
b. If the sun continues its decline in activity and the CO2 concentration continues to rise, we should have a good test of the relative importance of the CO2 change and the solar change on climate change in the upcoming 20 years.
When the Black Death hit Europe for the first time it was noted that people who frequented the bath-houses, introduced centuries earlier by the Romans, were much more likely to die than those who did not. This was enough to persuade the populous that bathing removed natural odors which protected one from the plague. Indeed, many people would reinforce the bodies natural orders by covering the body with human excrement; a process that the IPCC are replicating to this day.
I live for the sun (sun sun sun sun)
Because it makes fun (fun)
Pretty girls with their guys
Such a love you can’t buy
Baby, We all live for the sun
The Sunrays — I Live for the Sun (1965)
You need to look at not just at sun behavior, but also the GCR-climate coupling as revealed by proxies/geosciences – an empirical finding in its own right. If the mechanism behind such a substantial coupling is deemed not well enough understood to enter models, then this requires they be somehow prescribed in there, or it likely invalidates (for purposes of longer-term climate projection or CS estimation) models proceeded with nevertheless.
If I remember correctly, AR4 attributed much of the warming during the first half of the 20th century to solar variation. How is that treated in AR5? Has anyone checked? I’m not even sure where to look for it.
The dominant solar variable is plasma speed, it appears to have a direct short term influence on polar air pressure, probably due to rates of Joule heating of the upper atmosphere in the polar regions, and the resultant winds and circulations.
Occurrences of lower velocity plasma are accompanied by negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, and El Nino conditions and episodes:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
I also suspect that the total heat of the thermosphere will influence surface temperatures, its temperature is very strongly effected by the solar plasma speed, as the SABER data shows.
JC 90’s strong believer, 2000’s believer, 2010 believer, 2012 skeptical lukewarmer, 2013 very skeptical no lukewarming, 2014 denier! LOL me for record denier 100% C02 0 0 effect on temeprature because of FEEDBACK effects the earth is climatically homeostatic
Paleoclimatology appears on figure 5.3 (p5-111) showing correlations with apparent Milkanovitch cycles. The graph suggests we are on the peak of a cyclicly high sea surface temperature/CO2/sea level cycle and heading for a cycle of global cooling. Which GCMs predict that?
Science may not be able to pinpoint the exact physical mechanism(s) for years to come and still be able to predict multidecadal climate changes according to the solar oscillations. Waiting for the exact mechanism is senseless.
About possible and probable.
The theory of non linear dynamics teaches that every system described by a system of non linear differential equations of the form dF/dt = Gµ(F) where G is an operator and µ a parameter will display sudden behavior shifts depending on µ.
.
Examples are :
– The discrete logistic equation X(n+1) = µ.Xn.(1 – Xn). The value of µ is dictating the transition to chaos.
– The Lorenz solutions of 2D Navier Stokes equations for a chaotic flow
– The major Ruelle and Takens paper with near 3000 citations : http://www.ihes.fr/~ruelle/PUBLICATIONS/%5B29%5D.pdf
This µ parameter also called control parameter of the dynamics is representative of the forcings that the system is submitted to. For µ = 0 the system is in equilibrium and for small values of µ it is in or near a steady state. As µ increases the behavior becomes more complex and chaotic. To avoid doubts – a chaotic behavior doesn’t absolutely mean random with zero mean.
In other words chaos doesn’t mean ”noise” and the spectrum of a chaotic system is generally continuous with eventually some peaks depending on µ values.
.
Now the climate which is obviously a non linear dynamical system out of equilibrium has the Sun as the only external forcing agent (neglecting gravitational effects of the Solar system, cosmic rays and the Galaxy). That’s why the control parameter µ is almost certainly linked to the Sun. This doesn’t exclude a possibility that the system has other control parameters linked to other much smaller forcings. But definitely the Sun’s forcings is the most important by orders of magnitude.
.
According to the above which has a very solid theoretical and experimental foundation it is not only possible but probable that the Sun is governing the control parameter values. Now another interesting property is that the system may react in an extremely sensitive way on an infinitesimal variation of µ. This is the classical difference between chaotic and linear systems.
In a linear system a small variation of a parameter around a point leads to a small response and one may f.ex do a Taylor development around the point. In a chaotic system this is no longer true for an infinite number of µ values. If the system is very near to a critical µ value, a small variation leads to a large response (shift) and no linear perturbative approach (Taylor) is possible.
So if one admits that the major control parameter of the climate is governed by the Sun, then it follows that an argument of smallness of the variation (compared to some other parameter) doesn’t allow to conclude that the response is small too.
While the sun, as (effectively) the only source of energy to the system, is clearly a “major control parameter of the climate“, I don’t understand how we can assume that other factors aren’t equally in control, in the sense of how “the system may react in an extremely sensitive way on an infinitesimal variation of” them. Such factors could certainly include pCO2 and other GHG concentrations.
They could also, AFAIK, include such things as the nature of the relief in the Himalaya/Tibetan Plateau and the Andean Highlands, sea level in the South China Sea, humidity and nature of ground cover in the Bodélé Depression, etc.
Why focus on the Sun?
It is because the sun actually controls the amount of energy put into the system. GHG’s control, to an extent, how that energy leaves the sytem.
Tomas, I thought that there were Lorenz type experminets or modes that showed the difference in pertubations of the energy versus a factor such as mass. Do you know of such?
A sane voice. The solar obfuscation artists deserve jail time at the very least.
Tomas Milanovic:
“Now another interesting property is that the system may react in an extremely sensitive way on an infinitesimal variation of µ.”
So we have the big player the Sun that by most accounts, varies little. We also have a non linear dynamical (chaotic) system. How to explain the small variations, leading our climate system?
The value of ‘u’ can be sensitive to small changes. I think of its slope value passing through the vertical or at least flirting with that. Causing a discreet step and returning ‘u’ to a more moderate slope for the time being.
Perhaps with a linear system we want a ½ % percent change in the Sun to result in something like an observed change of ½ % on Earth. But that may not be the case.
Tomas would have everyone believe that a solar forcing perturbation would get amplified by a nonlinear effect or stochastic resonance so that it could potentially explain a warming signal.
Yet this same phenomena would lose the underlying 11-year periodicity?
Whut’s up wid dat?
Tomas would have everyone believe that a solar forcing perturbation would get amplified by a nonlinear effect or stochastic resonance so that it could potentially explain a warming signal.
It is an accepted argument to explain the quaternary advances and retreats (although it is limited to a Terran reference frame) eg Nicolis and Nicolis
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stochastic_resonance
No stochastic resonances, see
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/#comment-391540
The 11 year solar cycle pumps terrestrial mass distribution and circulatory pattern. This is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt. Suggesting otherwise is intolerably offensive, patently unethical, 2+2=5 purely political distortion.
There is no sensible mathematical reason to expect a 1:1 correspondence with globally aggregated surface temperature. That expectation is a math-less myth pushed by shameless deception artists who IMHO deserve jail time for the severe obfuscation they maliciously inject with deeply hostile, harassing, disruptive intent into what could otherwise be productive climate exploration & discussion.
Functionally innumerate members of the public also need to take their share of the blame for being so ridiculously stupid as to actually expect a 1:1 correspondence. There’s no mathematical reason to expect a 1:1 correspondence with that statistic unless one starts from deviously false assumptions that are entirely divorced from reality.
Ultimately it’s our poor western math education system that’s responsible for leaving such a large proportion of our population (including prominent climate academics) functionally innumerate and thus vulnerable. This is the base root of mass climate delusion.
If I am following what could happen with a sensitive ‘u’, that’s a lot of leverage. Like an 18 speed gearbox, or not. How far could it go in either direction? From glacial to interglacial and back?
Solar effects have always been the Achilles Heel of the IPCC. They cannot afford to agree that they exist with sufficient magnitude, otherwise the whole house of cards which is CAGW collapses.
I trust that the headline of this thread, and our hostess’s conclusions are sarcastic.
“They cannot afford to agree that they exist with sufficient magnitude, otherwise the whole house of cards which is CAGW collapses.”
And yet they are the means to explain natural variation of weather and climate. So the blind lead the blind into the cold pit together.
You’ve got it wrong, Jim.
They DO matter – but only in one direction.
They are unable to cause any perceptible warming when present, but their absence can result in significant cooling.
(I think this is called the “negative ratchet principle”.)
Keep smilin’
Max
I am not surprised by the IPCC ignoring the Sun. After all, that data does not fit their conclusion.
“Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. ”
The GH theory explains how the stratosphere gases works to keep the Earth’s climate within certain bounds. Negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks will vie with each other so that the trajectory of Earth’s climate will continue to stay within quite well defined bounds.
Why is this the case? Call it the Anthropic Principle? Call it a co-incidence? Whatever .. this is what is indeed happening and no-one can explain why this is happening in any rational way. Biological life on this planet will therefore continue to evolve, given the perfect conditions that Earth have for this to occur.
This graph looks similar to Berkeley and even a little hockey stickish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
“solar variations don’t matter”
Jail them.
If you make bullets it only matters that the war continue. The climate war is an industry and Dr. Curry’s position in it isn’t that much different than the people making stuff up at the IPCC. Talking about solar or a hundred other details serves the consensus interest by avoiding the truth of the political design of AGW.
If you write climate papers it only matters that the uncertainty continues.
Curry is performing a valuable service for the climate science industry. For the climate mitigation industry not so much. ;-)
I don’t know if I would parse it that way at all David. Dr. Curry preserves the AGW meme even if she conflicts with the extreme Gore/Mann wing of the movement. If she were successful in moderating the movement it could be even more successful over the longer term in rationalizing statist interventions.
Mitigation might represent the full-moon crowd today but adaptation excess and controls have as much potential for government exploitation. Both are fruit of a poison tree and it isn’t a tree of knowledge.
Just a short note:
September sunspot count SSN = 36.9
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
is at the 18 months low, despite the current SC24 cycle is at its peak.
The links provided by JC should at least make us think a little more about the possibility that there are some more unknown unknowns.
Even if the sun is the major driver of the climate (which it obviously must be), it doesn’t mean mankind (mostly America) is not responsible for maintaining a proper climate equilibrium. We were neglecting the sun and at relative peace up through 2001, and temperatures kept increasing. It seems Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god of sun and war, was becoming angry. Then we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Huitzilopochtli was somewhat satisfied and world temperatures stabilized and slightly declined. We maintained a campaign of drone strikes and then the Arab spring erupted, throwing Egypt into chaos and pleasing the Egyptian sun god Ra.
And the scary part is that this probably fits the temperature data better than the computer models.
This recent paper shows very large changes in the Suns spectrum, during the two halves of a solar cycle
Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on
climate modelling, Ermolli et al., 2013
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf
Now I do not think all photons are equal and that even though the total amount of energy put out bu our sun is reasonable constant, the impact of spectral changes can have potent effects on the atmosphere, and thus the climate.
The energy of the 200-400 nm band is going to be heating the upper atmosphere and altering the ozone levels.
“I do not think all photons are equal”
Photonic racism!
At the risk of being a spectroscopic bigot I must regretably agree. Maybe we should form a group to inform others. Let’s call it the Flu Flux Flan or FFF for short. We can put images of solar flares on our white hoodies. Whaddaya think?
Yellow hoodies.
Good point. White hoodies are all colors mixed together equally. That won’t do. We are all about photonic separation by color. Rainbow hoodies?
Sir Fred Hoyle was a Flu Flux Fan so that might cause some confusion.
Without directly addressing Greenshirt leftism, it’s media and state alliances to the AGW movement Dr. Curry will remain an insider foil rather a force of genuine reform.
What “they” say has always been absurd and the reason they say it quite clear. Dr. Curry can comment on the absurd as much as she likes but without the reason for the absurdity the truth alludes the conversation.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/26/why-the-ipcc-meeting-isnt-being-televised/
Talking about “science” is an idiotic claim regarding AGW with the blinders that need to be observed on these forums and by the host. Solar activity doesn’t matter to AGW because AGW isn’t about science to begin or end with. How plainly obvious does it have to become??
After 25 years of formal operations and observations of the IPCC Dr. Curry wants to be shocked that science was always in the backseat a hostage?? Preposterous. As is calling for the IPCC to be put down with a whole host of fantasy attached while the reality of the AGW movement will be placed in a memory-hole.
cwon,
It’s veryt rare for someone to come through a western education establishment, controlled top to bottom by progressives, and not come out with some version of progressive beliefs. Conservative history, economics and theory are not even taught. Progressive policy and “ethics” are taken for granted.
A friend of mine is currently pursuing a masters degree in social work, after being a teacher for years. One of her classes is social work methodology. Her latest homework assignment was to read an NY Times article detailing the wonders of Euro socialism in Holland, and then write a report on what country she would like to live in.
It is actually surprising there are any conservatives at all any more given the success of the progressive movement in taking over academia and the media.
Even if Dr. Curry has only come to recognize the dishonesty of the movement n one small area – the climate consensus process – that is more than most.
GaryM,
Dr. Curry might “recognize” but her contrition is rather small compared to the crime involved.
She’s an educated person and her posture remains politically correct even in modest dissent. As I’ve stated, someone has to go to the boxcar and sign the surrender documents and I fear the same blunders of 1918 will be repeated. AGW will be placed in incubation only to return perhaps a generation from now in an even more radical formation. Dr. Curry is an accomplice and a useful foil for the establishment.
I expect her to endorse a “new” IPCC under the title “moderate” and the incubation phase will be formal, skeptics will declare victory but nothing will have changed. Leftist activists and academics will be funded and Dr. Curry will remain at best a consensus useful idiot. If this blog is any indication the bar is set pretty low among “skeptics”.
cwon,
There won’t ever be a moderate IPCC. It is a political animal and does the bidding of its political masters. So long as those progressive politicians remain in power, the IPCC will remain a radical progressive organization. If conservatives ever get sufficient power, the IPCC will be defunded, but that us unlikely to happen any time soon. Moderates have no say. The IPCC is protected from the typical political process by layers of insulation, the UN being the greatest barrier.
There will be an AR6. And it will say whatever is necessary to preserve the political cover the politicians who fund it need.
I expect a re-branding effort of the IPCC series with the complicity of many “skeptics” as dumb a lot as they are to accept the levels of “dissent” expressed by Dr. Curry. AR6 might happen but I expect another whole level of “science” gruel to be packaged. Kinda like Egyptian election reforms.
An interview with Michael Novak, on what happens when a liberal/progressive begins to question what “everybody knows.” His book, Writing from left to Right – My Journey from Liberal to Conservative was the impetus for the interview. His description of “secular excommunication” might ring true to other recent refugees from the church of progressivism.
-Leaving progressivism behind is “a long slow process”
-Liberalism “turned more Marxist” in the 60s
-Progressivism is ” a well intentioned but deadly error”
-While on the left “you don’t listen to your opponents – you shout them down”
-Former friends who were colleagues stopped appearing on panels and at conferences where he would speak
Dr. Curry doesn’t deserve refugee status quite yet. She’s the David Brooks of climate consensus. The phony opposition with an entirely false rationalization of the climate conflict and debate. It’s always a myth that AGW peaked on really good “science” for example. Dr. Curry helps keep myths like that alive.
Skeptics shouldn’t be invested her positions, it’s a false flag that preserves the core of climate authority that needs to be eliminated and punished for having ever existed. Climate Nuremberg trials are required. The statues of Al Gore, Michael Mann and Jim Hansen toppled in the square. Investment in climate fraud is so great the actual science becomes of smaller and smaller in importance, AGW war will drag on for decades. Dr. Curry remains an accomplice.
Thanks for the link:
“Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.”
You know, if anyone ever wanted to be…you know…scientific, they would use these expensive yet so far worthless (at predicting temps) climate models to test various possibilities of solar influence.
But no one is willing to losing the “CO2 is the Earth’s thermostat meme.”
On twitter, a group of climate scientists (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Anchukaitis, Oliver Bothe and Steve Easterbrook), are making vague accusations
“@curryja plenty of real issues to discuss w.r.t #IPCC, so why misquote to make stuff up?”
“It’s easy to detect when someone is not engaging honestly with a scientific question when they just make stuff up”
“@curryja It’s fine to critique the IPCC, but when you seize on every theory going, you only destroy your own credibility”
Perhaps they will come here and explain in detail what they are talking about. Or perhaps they won’t.
I’m going after them on twitter, pathetic really
Don’t feed these trolls. That’s what these schoolyard taunting twits really are.
Blaring blog post headlines like this “How the IPCC forgot to mention the pause” might fed into such perceptions.
It does give the impression of someone more intersted in rhetorical strategies to garner attention, than sober assessment of the science.
“sober assessment of the science”
That means you have to stop drinking the AGW-spiked Kewl-Aide.
Andrew
Recent Climate Etc titles: not so good.
• IPCC’s pause ‘logic’ The quotes are a gratuitous rhetorical device.
• Sunday’s climate ‘logic’ More gratuituous quotes.
Older Climate Etc titles: much better
• So what is the best available scientific evidence, anyways? Outstanding title & outstanding topic.
Good for you, Dr. Curry!
I’d be fascinated to hear more about all the wacky conspiracy theories you seize on. I’ve got my popcorn ready and my tin foil hat adjusted; all I need now is some elaboration from Easterbrook.
Doesn’t it occur to these guys that slime like that discredits the slime-er more than the slime-e?
well their little one liners don’t hold up to much scrutiny. I’m starting to get the hang of twitter :)
Speaking of making headlines:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/385037310276153344
Apparently Gavin does not know what a quote is. Not surprising. He does not know what science is either.
Dear god.
Every day I see these 140 character blurbs i want to strangle Friedhelm Hillebrand and his stupid typewriter experiments.
If you can’t say it in fifteen syllables, it might be worth taking more.
==================
Yes,
Judith doesnt quote anyone in her title and therefore cannot misquote.
Gavin, however, misquotes Judith.
Weird
Michael | October 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
Judith,
Yes.
Scientists who agree with the IPCC are doing so to advance their careers.
And just recently – it’s all about getting research grants.
And even more recently -there’s a plan to ignore the ‘pause’.
———————————————————————————-
The first two aren’t conspiracies. They’re simple self-interest.
The last one would be a conspiracy.
Judith,
Noticed Ret-ward’s twitter accusation regarding the leaking of AR5. I’m not sure which leak event he’s referring to, but as far as I’m aware the first was by Alec Rawls, an expert reviewer, in December of 2012:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
Of course the IPCC itself leaked deliberately to the press not at that long ago, I doubt this is what ret-ward is referring to.
Don’t know why this trivia stuck in my mind, but I thought I’d mention it since all of the lice crawling out to bite you on twitter these days irritate me for some obscure reason. ~shrug~
Best regards.
Don Easterbrook is the smart one.
https://twitter.com/SMEasterbrook/status/385024777825812480
I loved that one :) He’s the guy talking about conspiracy theories. Has anyone ever heard me talking about conspiracy theories?
Judith,
Yes.
Scientists who agree with the IPCC are doing so to advance their careers.
And just recently – it’s all about getting research grants.
And even more recently -there’s a plan to ignore the ‘pause’.
Michael,
That’s how you substantiate a claim, is it?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory:
Is it you who infers that Scientists who agree with the IPCC are doing so to advance their careers. And just recently – it’s all about getting research grants. requires a secret plot by unusually powerful conspirators? If not, I’d love to see a link to where Dr. Curry talked about that. As far as the secret plot to ignore the pause goes, does Curry talk about a secret plot someplace I missed? Is it here?
hmm. I don’t seem to see it there. How about
Yea–oh. No. No secret plot mentioned there either.
hmm…
Be a pal, help us out with a link.
My favorite was this one:
https://twitter.com/SMEasterbrook/status/385028456817635328
Michael,
Sorry, did I miss your implied sarc tag?
Doh!
:)
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm
” Mark Bofill | October 1, 2013 at 11:16 am |
Is it you who infers that Scientists who agree with the IPCC are doing so to advance their careers. And just recently – it’s all about getting research grants. ”
You don’t appear to know the difference between imply and infer
imply: strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
It is quite clear that you are implying that Judy is implying, but grammatically, you appear to be implying that Judy is inferring.
However, Judy is not implying or inferring, she is analyzing.
DocMartyn,
There you have it! But I meant to state that Michael was inferring, not to imply that Judith was either inferring or implying. Can I infer from your implication that you’ve analyzed my abuse of implied inference thoroughly?
:p
Any minute they’ll claim this
” Bob Ward
.@curryja I will be publishing a blog next week itemising some of the many serious errors in your recent blogs. You have been busted.”
Since when do sheep attack?
DocMarty,
“Since when do sheep attack?”
Any time you take away their slop bucket.
What really has their dander up is Dr. Curry’s call for putting down the IPCC, the publisher of their company newsletter.
(Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Anchukaitis, Oliver Bothe and Steve Easterbrook)
Speaking of climate control knobs… there’s three of them. ;-)
Oops… four of them.
please join willard in the class for counting
Since they’re not questions nor seconds, the Mandarin of the Lukewarm Society might be the best Manchurian candidate for your accounting, Big Dave.
the queen of hearts is not in the game I play
No actually I meant three names of the four names were knobs. I had the wrong Easterbrook in mind. Don not Steve is the non-knob Easterbrook.
What about Gregg?
The birds twitter, but the Sensible Center™ Caravan just keeps rolling.
That’s why the politics-first snark is slated to be forgotten.
Fanny, take a gander.
IPCC says, “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
But, but… the IPCC didn’t mention that……
The minds of the consensus are rapidly closing. Their pejorative language is their last argument to defend the flaws in their understanding of the science. Still I would like them to come here and make their arguments. I would love to see a respectful debate.
It would matter more if Dr. Curry formally acknowledged the left-wing credentials of the core of the IPCC and the AGW movement instead of serving cold soup about “bias” and “politics” that equalize the perpetrators and victims of the AGW agenda.
Dr. Curry remains an “insider” and the is no climate truth to be found there at all. “Science” is now just a co-oped Orwellian phrase and Dr. Curry honors the convention. Why else would she care what these clowns are tweeting? Actual science has nothing to do with it, she’s on the margin of fringe group both in their minds and more importantly hers.
I am betting on the wont.
You can’t tax the sun. Well, not as easily as CO2. That’s why it’s ignored.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F
Pekka Pirilä | October 1, 2013 at 6:02 am | Reply
“What makes that probable?”
The fact that solar spectrum changes significantly with magnetic activity. Total solar irradiance may change very little but the power spectrum changes significantly. UV-B for instance is mostly absorbed very high in the atmosphere while lower frequencies are not.
ferinstance:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html
[snippage]
SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
12.17.10
Two satellite instruments aboard NASA’s Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission — the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) — have made daily measurements of the sun’s brightness since 2003.
In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.
Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.
As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun’s irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the “solar constant.” However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun’s output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun’s magnetic field.
However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths — including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light — into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.
Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.
The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate.
Modeling studies are showing that our climate depends critically on the true solar spectral variations. “If we don’t have the instruments up there to watch this closely, we could be arguing about spectral irradiance and climate for decades,” said Cahalan.
David, doesn’t that larger than expected UV and shorter wave visible play some role in the oceans? If there were a green fluid effect of some kind that would really play hell with current conventions. Might need a bigger drawing board?
It is clear that there is substantial variability in the solar magnetic field, the solar wind and high energy radiation. Climate scientists have hardly begun to address the ways in which these can affect our climate.
As others have pointed out, the purpose of the IPCC is to advise governments on the dangers of carbon dioxide driven climate change and this has skewed the entire direction of the science and its funded research.
However, as the data itself has been showing for years, this is a misguided policy and other climate drivers are currently being dominant.
A number of climate scientists have an open mind and respect what the data is telling them. It seems that many others are determined to promote IPCC political objectives and dogma regardless of the damage it is doing to the reputation and integrity of the discipline. Climatology is rapidly losing the characteristics of a science and is showing all the hallmarks of a scam.
“It is clear that there is substantial variability in the solar magnetic field, the solar wind..”
And negative AO/NAO conditions when it is slow, leading to lower temperatures in the temperate zone:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
(Don’t regard the long term flat trend as decisive alone, it doesn’t mean much without knowing the relative forcing effects of positive and negative modes, though the inter-decadal trends do follow the global warming periods well)
I should note that the lows in the Ap index is where the strong El Nino occur, so there will be a disparity between Ap and global temperatures at least at inter-annual to pentadel scales because ENSO is pushing surface temperatures in opposition to the solar signal.
Could it be that just a more southwards displacement of the jet stream is responsible for reducing the trade winds (with some west QBO assistance), providing the switch to El Nino conditions and episodes? That would favour the north hemisphere winter time for the largest southerly excursion of the jet.
Leif, that’s right.
perhaps an uncertain hypersensitivity
The finding that.
Leif is right.
Debunks the IPCC 4.
No solar influence.
No explanation for the past.
Now we are without CO2.
Now we’re out of the Sun
Now we have no equilibrium climate sensitivity.
The temperatures are constant.
I think.
We have a very stable climate system.
With some natural variability.
1K up
1K down
There are incidences of more negative AO/NAO conditions at all the low points in the Ap index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
trend= zero
With some natural variability.
Fernando days:
“trend= zero”
You cannot draw any conclusions from that without knowing more about the relative forcing effects of the highs and lows in Ap. Most importantly the Ap lows consistently have negative NAO/AO conditions, and the inter-decadal scales do relate well to warming and cooling periods.
no significant
solar radio flux with NAO
months Jan-Dec
lag 0
corr 0.314
p 0.1472
no 65
95% CI 0.05… 0.48
I didn’t mention solar radio flux, that’s the wrong metric.
Nevertheless, even if there is such decrease in the solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller in magnitude than the projected increased forcing due to GHG. – IPCC AR5 Chapter 8
If measured solar activity continues to decline while the CO2 concentration continues to increase, then we shall soon have a good test of that hypothesis. Strictly speaking, “confidence” can’t be tested, but it won’t be long before the models that emphasize CO2 and the models that emphasize solar activity are in strong disagreement, and they can’t then both accurately agree with the measured global mean.
damn crazies are out in full force.
Nice thing is we are almost at solar max.
Predictions Gents, do that popper thing. If the sun is the control knob and its poised to be turned down, then predictions, please
You can select any of the following.
1. Cloudiness. Select your dataset
2. SST
3. Land temps
4. Ice
5. Precipitation
6. TLT
7. Sea level
Take your pick. Given your theory that the sun is the controller, and given that its gunna go from high to low, this is the perfect time to log your predictions
Note, Popper fans, to be falsifiable a prediction must contain a number that can be tested. So, no hand wavery, gents. That means you wilde.
No conditional predictions, if blah blan and blah blah, then we may see..
We are taking clearly written clearly agreed upon predictions. Otherwise you aint doing science, you are kibitzing. You actually need to sit across the board and make a move.
Oh, bullfeathers. “I don’t know” doesn’t mean “you’re right”.
I dont know.
ok, now that the witty comeback is done.
Harold.
“I dont know” is your personal expression of ignorance. your personal ignorance has no scientific value.
next, knowledge is not the goal of science. Your job is to express the best understanding you have and submit that understanding to the test of data.
If you claim ignorance, we cant disprove that you are dumb.
Steven Mosher: Your job is to express the best understanding you have and submit that understanding to the test of data.
Sometimes all “understandings” fail the tests of the data. That is how to recognize ignorance.
> Sometimes all “understandings” fail the tests of the data.
An appropriate time to interpret the data as a diamond.
Coming up next week: how all the data is bunk.
Popper doesn’t require numbers. Direction of trend is sufficient.
Furthermore, since more than one variable is involved (sun AND oceans) any prediction has to be conditional in the short term.
My move has been made. Let’s just see how the real world now behaves and what new data comes in.
oops. this belongs here:
Mosher: Given your theory that the sun is the controller, and given that its gunna go from high to low, this is the perfect time to log your predictions
I agree. A solar theory might predict a 0.2C decline in temp in the next 2 decades, conditional on a specific continuing decline in solar activity (and at least 1 each high/low prediction based on a higher/lower solar activity trend); just as the CO2-based predictions are dependent on the continuing rise in CO2 concentration (with high/low alternatives.)
However, there is still the possibility that at this temperature the main effect of warming or CO2 increase will be to increase cloud cover and damp the warming. It is possible for the CO2 hypothesis to continue to lose credibility without anything now specified being shown to be accurate.
Sure.
Ah, conditional predictions.
Look when the IPCC makes a conditional prediction folks get all bothered. I’ll give you an example.
‘if the ice continues to melt at this rate, it will be gone in 2013″
That was seen by skeptics as a prediction. Funny.
Anyway, for all the folks who are confident it is the sun, let them step forward and make the predictions now.
Steven Mosher: ‘if the ice continues to melt at this rate, it will be gone in 2013″
That was seen by skeptics as a prediction. Funny.
Actually, the prediction was that ice would indeed continue to melt at that rate. It was not conditional. In this area, the most famous conditional predictions are the predictions that catastrophic consequences will occur if humans do not drastically cut the rate at which we burn fossil fuels. Quantitatively, Hansen and others have projected scenarios of CO2 increase and the consequent evolutions of global mean temperature.
‘if the ice continues to melt at this rate, it will be gone in 2013″
Are you suggesting that the IPCC said that? Some propagandists, probably the climate scientist kind, certainly did. I think the IPCC said 2080 in 2007. That was before the dramatic decline in 2007, of course. Did the IPCC make a pronouncement about it in the meantime?
Anyway, if they had said that, it would be seen as a prediction, primarily by the alarmists, not the skeptics. And I would suspect that it was done on purpose.
Mathew wrong.
Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Steven Mosher: Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
That’s one of them.
steven –
Is there anything wrong with “conditional predictions?”
The problem is when people deliberately (or ignorantly) misrepresent the conditionality of what others say. For example:
I suppose that someone made a prediction that was not conditional at some point, but statements that were clearly conditional have been misrepresented, widely.
Anyone who makes a conditional “alarming” prediction in public should be aware that it will probably be presented as unconditional. By alarmists, by sensational media and possibly by skeptics. All of those may have reasons to misrepresent it.
No disagreement there. We’ve seen it happen countless times, so there’s no reason to expect different outcomes. Just more of the same ol’ same ol, IMO.
Steven Mosher: Look when the IPCC makes a conditional prediction folks get all bothered.
The most important conditions in the AGW “warning” business are:
1. “other things being equal”
and
2. “at equilibrium”.
As in “If atmospheric CO2 accumulation continues, then the Earth temperature will be warmer at equilibrium, other things being equal.”
Mosh,
Wrong. I don’t have to know how to cook to know that the chef botched the dish. I don’t have to know how to drive to know that the driver of the car in the ditch erred. I don’t have to know how to fly a plane to know that it shouldn’t be wrecked and burning on the ground.
This is science — somebody has a theory (especially one that supposedly requires billions of people being inflicted with much pain), then they bring the evidence to the table. If the evidence doesn’t support the theory, they haven’t proved it. We know the null hypothesis. No one has met their burden of proof. When they do, we’ll talk.
stan,
you’ve confused philosophical skepticism with scientific skepticism
and confused the courtroom and the lab.
Your job as a scientist is to propose a theory and then test it.
“I dont know” or “your theory is wrong” is a part of the science job,
but to do the job completely you have to offer a better explanation.
In short, all science is wrong. there are always bits and pieces we dont know and will never know. there are bits we have half right and bits we have utterly wrong. But, there is always an operational paradigm- a standard model if you like. It serves as a proxy for the truth, which we never really get to. the job of a scientist is to use the TOOL of skepticism to find problems and then use the Tool of better theory to remove the problem. Of course new problems, new horizens open up as we solve old problems. Further, you seem to confuse court room logic with science logic. The burden is on the challenger. The challenger has a burden to IMPROVE understanding, to build on the foundations, if he contends the whole foundation is rotten, to replace the entire foundation with revolutionary ones.
and further stan, you misunderstand the null and its purpose.
Steven Mosher: job completely you have to offer a better explanation.
Maybe, but before the explanation arrives, it is wise to admit to ignorance. Imagine the early 20th century when Poincare and most others understood that the Newtonian theory and and its descendents were wrong about Mercury and other things. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions were theoretically empty “curve fitting”. Only after Einstein’s General Relativity were they willing to accept that an advancement in knowledge had been arrived at sufficient to the problems that they had acknowledged.
We have similar problems now: why, for example, to the early and late 20th century temperature increases have the same slope? Why exactly has the change in ocean height been consistent across time (predating the industrial revolution) while simultaneously being inconsistent geographically? Why exactly has the temperature change over the last 15 years been slightly negative? No explanation yet explains all of the changes and non-changes without appeals to ad hoc counterbalancing “forcings” or “natural variation”.
All of this seems to be assuming that it’s possible to predict the climate. Then maybe it’s someone’s job to try to do so.
Wrong. You seem to think the IPCC is about science. Silly rabbit. This is and always has been about politics.
Further note, I am under no duty to replace IPCC crap with something better. We already have an explanation for temperature rise. The explanation makes perfect sense and is in accord with all observations. It doesn’t include CO2 as a control knob for climate. Those who say CO2 controls have all the burden. They are the ones trying to replace the common understanding. If they can’t make their proffered explanation stick, we toss it in the trash and we’re back to business as before. I don’t have any duty to come up with my own flawed theory.
SM says ” Your job as a scientist is to propose a theory and then test it.
“I dont know” or “your theory is wrong” is a part of the science job,
but to do the job completely you have to offer a better explanation.”
But in real life, instead of models, that’s not how it works. In real life, there are theories floating around. If you have an experimentalist bent, you devise ingenious experiments to test the theories. If you have a theoretical bent and a theory is proved wrong, you try to find a way to explain the results. Of course, one guy would love to do it all, but that’s a rare bird.
Example: Aether. Michelson and Morley prove it doesn’t exist as conceived at that time. But they don’t figure out how to explain their own experiment. But a different scientist does submit a theory.
Sorry Mosh, but for policy purposes the courtroom model is more appropriate because we have a loss function. Anyway, what is pragmatic-instrumentalist you doing relying on Popper? Sympathy for the devil?
“but to do the job completely you have to offer a better explanation.”
This old chestnut keeps popping up for no apparent reason.
I know of no better explanation to offer to disprove alchemy, astrology and numerology than that they are simply not accurate descriptions of reality. I feel no need to find a substitute for turning lead into gold, or predicting the future, to say that.
Wilde.
Popper doesn’t require numbers. Direction of trend is sufficient.
Direction of trend can be expressed as a number you dolt. Make your predictions.
here. now.
Mosher.
Your nastiness makes me disinclined to engage with you.
Wilde,
Why is it that you claim to be a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society on the papers at your web site, yet your name does not appear on the official list of Fellows at http://rmets.org ?
Whut’s up wid dat?
Mosher, you need this book. Urgently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
Mosh: “Direction of trend can be expressed as a number you dolt. Make your predictions.
here. now.”
The same request would have more weight without the abuse. Your suggestion is reasonable.
OK, OK, OK, cooler by three, uh, I mean 3. Dimensions. Mebbe four(4).
=================
Steven Mosher,
does this count as a prediction as far as you are concerned? Prof. Anastasios Tsonis at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,: ‘I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling’
That’s change in mean global temp <= 0.
Hi, Steve. I will play. Can you post your prediction so I know what form you expect mine to be in?
Ozone levels in the upper atmosphere will rise and in the lower level fall.
Ozone levels in the upper atmosphere (above 45km) and towards the poles will continue to rise whilst ozone levels below 45km and towards the equator will fall (relatively) whilst the sun remains inactive.
Mosher has failed to notice that my New Climate Model already implies a number of trend changes by which it could be readily falsified if I am wrong.
You wanted predictions Here are the conclusions of the latest post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The data and methods are also posted in a series of earlier posts on my site.
“To summarize- Using the 60 and 1000 year quasi repetitive patterns in conjunction with the solar data leads straightforwardly to the following reasonable predictions for Global SSTs
1 Continued modest cooling until a more 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 minus 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 minus 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 the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and more CO2 would help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !!
The Solar Cycles 2,3,4 correlation with cycles 21,22,23 would suggest that a Dalton minimum could be imminent. The Livingston and Penn Solar data indicate that a faster drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures might even be on the horizon. If either of these actually occur there would be a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. his is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data
flat 30 year trend by 2020. 0.1 K is flat.
1. Cloudiness. Select your dataset
MODIS of course
2. SST
Cooler
3. Land temps
Cooler
4. Ice
Increase
5. Precipitation
Increase
6. TLT
Cooler
7. Sea level
Tricky – heat content steady in ARGO. The increase in stearic sea level in ARGO was 0.64mm/yr – in a period of increasing salinity of the oceans. This brings the satellite altimetry data into significant doubt.
The key is the polar cyclones.
‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1
‘Question: Why is it important to determine and
understand the stratospheric response (e.g., ozone) to 11-year solar forcing?
Answer: Because, as shown originally by Joanna Haigh (1996; 1999), the solar-induced change in stratospheric ozone produces perturbations of tropospheric circulation and climate. Moreover, the amplitude of these
perturbations is sensitive to the actual change in ozone in the stratosphere and its distribution.’ http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/10S1_0613_LHood.pdf
So we are in a cool period dominated by one periodicity in solar UV intensity. The intense polar cyclone pushes more cold, Southern Ocean water into the Peruvian Current. When the surface water is cold enough upwelling abyssal currents break the surface. This sets up feedbacks across the Pacific. The northern hemisphere has a similar dynamic – and the
difference is Drake’s Passage. There is every indication that the magnification of solar intensity in the terrestrial climate system will bring yet cooler temps on longer term periodicities.
The decadal pattern suggests intensification of the Antarctic polar cyclone over a decade at least. Cooler SST bring more cloud.
The hypothesis is no warming – or even cooling – over a decade to three more.
Chief Hydrologist I think you would find a great deal of interest at
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
Also I would appreciate any comments you might have on my 2:15
comment .forecast and link above.
Hey Chief:
“The intense polar cyclone pushes more cold, Southern Ocean water into the Peruvian Current. When the surface water is cold enough upwelling abyssal currents break the surface. This sets up feedbacks across the Pacific. The northern hemisphere has a similar dynamic – and the difference is Drake’s Passage.”
Are you saying Drake’s Passage has more resources to draw from in that it can tap into a bigger reserve of cold and can move it easier?
Predictions? I predict that in 20 years the temperature will be about the same as this year +/- 1.25 C and we will have about the same ability to predict our climate future. :)
your temp predictions are really safe. we will stay inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years and you are well inside.
You are wrong about our ability to predict. We will have more data that will show that what will happen next is the same as what happened during all the warming periods in the past ten thousand years and that data gives us a well bounded prediction. What always happened before will happen again. This is available now. We do know what happened before and that will happen again.
We do know what happened before and that will happen again.
We know that the Hockey Stick Stuff did not happen and that flawed climate model output is not data and is not evidence.
Note, Popper fans, to be falsifiable a prediction must contain a number that can be tested
Oh you mean like Lean and Rind eg
From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic
influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface
temperature 0.15 ± 0.03C, at a rate 50% greater than
predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity
in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019
is only 0.03 ± 0.01C warmer than in 2014.
“damn crazies are out in full force.
Nice thing is we are almost at solar max.
Predictions Gents, do that popper thing. If the sun is the control knob and its poised to be turned down, then predictions, please”
We can barely agree that we had pause for 15 years or more.
Any temperature change within a year’s time, will not affect 15 year or longer trend.
As you say we almost at solar max [or we have past it- some think we will get double peak].
But this year’s temperature is down, chance seem to favor it being up next year, but even down it doesn’t mean anything more than if slightly up.
I thought it would have warmer this year than it has been.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
So no change in long term trend and we will only continue the pause within a year.
Within 5 years it’s going to change everything regarding longer trend, and in years I would say we will have a longer cooling tread, but basically not statistically significant. What will agreed upon is it’s longer more certain pause. And after this, I would predict everyone saying we entering the Ice age, and by time every has agreed we doomed due freezing future, the sudden decline in temperature, will not occur.
It doesn’t seem likely that over the next decade the sun will become completely quiet, whereas having a relatively quiet sun in comparison to 20th century seems probable. And seems likely the sun activity will pick up after a decade, but unlike to return to highest levels of 20th century- before we get to 2100. But there slim chance sun could go completely quiet for a *long* time, and it possible the sun will spring back to high levels of 20th century within a decade or two.
So if complete quiet it’s going to cool and the cooling will kill some people- millions. If sun roars back, we might see .5 C or warming trend before 2050.
Or we will have many years of exceeding the 1998 highest level. Otherwise 1998 may not matched in terms of peak warm year in next few decades.
Prediction we will not get 1998 peak or warmer within a decade.
US, Africa, S America, and Australia’s temps will cool for approximately the next 25-30 years, where they will warm again.
Eurasia’s temps will will cool, I can’t tell for how long f rom my data because my NCDC GSoD dataset doesn’t go back far enough to see the end of the last AMO cycle.
Let me expand on this for a moment.
The Sun warms the oceans, which collect this energy. As the temperature of the oceans increase a trigger point is reached which switches the state of the ocean from the cold phase to the warm phase, this transition changes the oceans currents, increasing the amount of warm water getting pumped into the arctic ocean, which melts polar ice. This then greatly increases the heat loss, starting the cool down cycle. After the accumulated heat is radiated into space, the oceans phase switches back to the cold mode starting the cycle over again.
The charge rate is based on the rate the Sun warms the oceans. Quiet solar cycles will increase the charge time, active solar cycles decreases the charge time. the 25-30 year prediction is based on the charge rate of the 20th century solar output. An unusually quiet Sun will increase the time until the warm phases return.
Mosher: Given your theory that the sun is the controller, and given that its gunna go from high to low, this is the perfect time to log your predictions
I agree. A solar theory might predict a 0.2C decline in temp in the next 2 decades, conditional on a specific continuing decline in solar activity (and at least 1 each high/low prediction based on a higher/lower solar activity trend); just as the CO2-based predictions are dependent on the continuing rise in CO2 concentration (with high/low alternatives.)
However, there is still the possibility that at this temperature the main effect of warming or CO2 increase will be to increase cloud cover and damp the warming. It is possible for the CO2 hypothesis to continue to lose credibility without anything now specified being shown to be accurate.
I thought the sun was a net consumer of hydrogen, but Svensmark says it consumes hydrogen.
The thing with cosmic rays, there just are not enough of them to affect clouds. It helps to compare the magnitudes of Avogadro’s number and the Curie. If the cosmic ray flux was high enough to affect cloud formation, we would live in a highly radioactive world.
Have you ever seen a cloud chamber? One cosmic ray particle can set off hundreds of droplet nuclei And a high-energy particle can produce a large shower of collision particles. And, IIRC, the cosmic ray intensity beyond the atmosphere is considered very unhealthy for humans.
Yes, and the showers of particles penetrate the cloud forming region of the atmosphere. Hundreds you say but there are thousands of particles in the air already, most of them charged already. You getting the high energy solar radiation mixed up with cosmic rays, see here:
http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/What/What.cfm
There just are not enough cosmic rays and they don’t correlate with anything anyway.
But I don’t know anything about them so they could cause climate change and the IPCC ignores them, and they cause clouds, and Al Gore and Mann and fraud,
Who you jiving with that cosmik debris
h/t Frank
There are lots of charged particles reaching the surface (at least to ~1,000′ above sea level) http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/cosmic_ray_detecting_thermometer-87672
bob droege
You are jumping the gun with your unsubstantiated prognosis.
Let’s look at the facts, instead.
The CLOUD experiment at CERN has demonstrated experimentally, under reproducible controlled conditions, that the cosmic ray cloud nucleation mechanism works in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols.
IOW we have a proven “mechanism” for the cosmic ray / cloud climate forcing hypothesis of Svensmark et al. (as we do for the radiative absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs).
There are also long-term empirical data, which show a fairly good correlation between solar activity and our planet’s climate (but, of course, correlation does not provide evidence for causation).
What we do NOT have is the next step, which is planned at CERN: reproducible experiments in a controlled environment simulating our planet’s climate to either validate and quantify or falsify the hypothesis that this mechanism can result in significant changes to our climate.
Once these experiments have been concluded, we will know whether or not the cosmic ray cloud mechanism really results in significant climate change.
Not before then, bob.
So you’ll just have to wait.
Max
LOL! The sun doesn’t vary enough! The sun can’t do this!
Keep screaming, the sun accounts for 99.97% of the earth’s energy budget – small changes matter – it’s the sun stupid.
The sun provides the energy. Earth manages the energy. We have been within plus and minus two degrees C for ten thousand years. We have been within plus and minus one degree C for most of ten thousand years.
This is only possible because polar sea ice and water have a set point temperature that sea ice melts and freezes. when the polar oceans are warm and wet it snows like crazy and the upper temperature is bounded.
When the polar oceans are cold and frozen it does not snow and the sun melts more ice in summer than gets replaced in winter and ice extent decreases and albedo decreases and earth warms.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | October 1, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
I have previously made it clear that having been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since about 1971 I am entitled to continue referring to myself as a Fellow despite the subsequent change of rules.
I cannot use the designation F.R.Met.S but on one occasion it was incorrectly used by a publisher without my approval.
I don’t generally use it these days since it allows those such as you to divert attention from the scientific merits of my hypotheses.
Stephen Wilde says:
“That natural process has been shifting the global air circulation up to 1000 miles latitudinally in certain regions from MWP to LIA to date.”
It shifted that far north in 7-8 days at the end of the March cold spell. There is no long latitudinal shift over centuries, it’s all short term noise.
I think there is a long term shift of the average position over centuries.
It is well enough established that the ITCZ shifts over long periods of time as well.
Stephen Wilde said:
“I think there is a long term shift of the average position over centuries.”
I don’t think the data suggests that at all, for example there are still months during the depths of Maunder that have very positive NAO conditions. The NAO was generally more negative through Maunder, but it did not take centuries to recover, it changes as fast as the weather does:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/north_atlantic/nao_mon.txt
Wilde,
Then take it off your web site.
This isn’t CalvinBall and you don’t get to make up the rules as you go along.
That’s how science works as well.
BTW, Martin Lack documented Wilde’s claims in a book “The Denial of Science”
Heh, but Web gets to make up the rules for someone else’s site.
============
kim
Webby hides behind his phony monicker to take potshots at others with his poison pea-shooter.
It’s his shtick.
Max
At least I have a web site and credentials for all to see.
Wait for my book to come out Beyond Voodoo Science: The Making of FUD — this is part of the fact finding mission, thank you.
If we continue with lower solar activity and no warming, even cooling, the IPCC will have a hard time getting out of the corner they backed themselves into. It’ll be politically difficult to admit that, well, maybe the small solar changes occur with amplifying feedback mechanisms, which explain the recent cooling…. AND, if so, the modern maximum must explain much of the late 20th century warming.
That is, IF the data is not further manipulated back into continual warming.
AR5 was their last chance to get honest about uncertainty. The chose to drive the truck straight in to the wall.
They opted for more obfuscation , hide the decline and incoherent statements. Shit or bust seems to be the new motto.
Presumably hoping world governments will sign up for funding $100bn UN slush fund with diplomatic immunity from prosecution and no auditing nor accountability.
And who can blame them? It’s either some quaint idea about integrity in science or jackpot $$$ .
Peter Glieck has demonstrated they already have immunity from prosecution in case of fraud and deception, so what the hell, go for it !
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change.
Repeat this ten thousand times and read on,.
But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
This is opinion and not proven science.
Repeat this ten thousand times. One time for each year of well bounded temperature during the past ten thousand years.
So the alarmists criticize skeptics because they don’t have a theory or model of their own. That’s silly. It’s perfectly OK to criticize whatever you like of climate science and not have anything to replace that part with. In fact, some climate scientists would probably be better off if they would admit that, they too, DON’T KNOW.
They don’t know but they have models to prove it?
They don’t know and models prove they don’t know…get it?
Yes, R Gates, I get it. It was my joke so I should. Would you care to tell me the models don’t prove it and we can discuss models or were you just doing a drive by?
:) Sure looks that way.
“The jury is still out as to WHY so much subsidence and dry air has dominated the basin the past couple months, but clearly, it wasn’t very predictable.
Colder than normal ocean surface temperature in an area west of Portugal is another suppressing factor that wasn’t generally accounted for, but that hindsight has shown according to Phil Klotzbach, hurricane researcher at Colorado State University.
“[There is] very strong correlation between June sea surface temperatures in that area and Atlantic ACE values,” Klotzbach said. “I suspect that those cold anomalies propagate and directly impact stability and circulation patterns in the tropical Atlantic during the peak of the season.”
This season will probably teach forecasters to look at a previously-overlooked predictor(s).
But the suppressed activity is not just specific to the Atlantic. Tropical cyclone activity in the entire northern hemisphere is down this year – about 46 percent of average, with all basins (including the east and west Pacific) falling well short of average. There seems to be a combination of global-scale (or at least hemispheric-scale) atmosphere and/or ocean patterns that is causing this drop in activity.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/30/what-happened-to-hurricane-season-and-why-we-should-keep-forecasting-it/
Hmmm subsidence and dry air not predictable … colder than normal ocean temp not accounted for … look at previously overlooked predictors … dang .. activity is low everywhere … hmm
“The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.
As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.
“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm
From the same article:
However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)
Reaching for the stars
When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.
Maybe there was more rain when there were more cosmic rays? Maybe?
In 50 years there should be a lot more answers than there are now and it will be interesting times.
Medical Science will have to pull up its socks, big-time, if I’m to observe said interesting times. A half-century added to my 2/3 century would make 1 1/6 centuries, and the trajectory for getting there mostly unimpaired is not looking good. (;-(
Nah. Tree growth is determined uniquely by surface temperature. This established unequivocally by M.E. Mann as the essential first step in validating his dendrothermometic methods.
Wasn’t it :?
Thanks for the BBC link.
Here is a link to the original New Phytologist article:-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03026.x/pdf
How many ways does the Sun vary? It would seem to be worth knowing.
The action of the sun on Earth cloud coverage via ionization of the atmosphere, itself influenced by the magnetic field in the solar system, itself influenced by solar activity, is most intriguing and cannot be swept under the carpet as it systematically is by IPCC spokespersons who intentionally mix it up with TSI. I am neither a denier nor a sceptic but an old physicist having sufficient experience in cosmic ray physics and other fields of physics to understand these topics as well as any one else. While being convinced that we should be careful not to throw much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there already is, and that a significant part of the 20th century warming is influenced by human CO2 emissions, I am shocked by the non scientific behaviour of the people who speak in the name of the IPCC to the general public. Irresponsible alarmism is common and implies wasting enormous resources by panicking instead of having a rational debate among scientists. I am particularly shocked that the scientific community itself has been contaminated, the gap between warmists and sceptics having become irreversibly profound. It sounds kind of hopeless to me, reminiscent of what happened to debates on nuclear energy at some 20 years distance.
Why are you opposed to replenishing Earth’s severely depleted atmospheric CO2 supply?
Erl Happ on drivers of surface climat relating ter ozone.
b-t-s
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
Hi Beth.
I am familiar with Erl’s work and very impressed by it but there are some differences with mine.
I think he is still at the stage of being over detailed and needs to boil his story down to the essential components.
Also I think that he is still of the opinion that an active sun warms the stratosphere rather than cooling it which is the established view admittedly.
I think that to get polar air masses moving more equatorward one really needs the stratosphere above the poles to warm relative to that above the equator when the sun is quiet.
Do you have a blog, Steven?
Stephen Wilde said:
“I think that to get polar air masses moving more equatorward one really needs the stratosphere above the poles to warm relative to that above the equator when the sun is quiet.”
It cooled in March 2013:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
Beth.
Website but no blog. I do my blogging on other sites.
Click on my name for the website.
Thx Steven.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-importance-of-solar-cycles-2/
Interesting paper and your observation that a cycle exceeding 12
years has always led to a prolonged grand minimum.
The English economist William Stanley Jevons in the 1860s
believed he saw a link between low sun spot activity and down
turns in the business cycle.
bts
Ulric.
We are at or near solar maximum so I would expect more spells of stratospheric cooling above the poles.
Note, though, that I refer to average stratospheric temperatures over multiple decades and centuries. You correctly point out that there is much variability on shorter timescales and I have no issue with that.
Stephen Wilde says;
“We are at or near solar maximum so I would expect more spells of stratospheric cooling above the poles.”
That does not seem consistent:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/fig-5-30hpa-temperature-at-the-poles.jpg?w=500
Ulric, you have again conflated short term variations within a single cycle with long term trends across multiple cycles.
Your link confirms what I say about those longer term trends. Thank you for that.
When the sun is active diminishing ozone above the poles with falling temperature and a strengthening vortex and when it is inactive increasing ozone with a rising temperature and weakening vortex.
The signal is stronger in the north since the oceans act as a buffer in the south.
Stephen: You were talking about short term variations within this solar cycle.
Stephen said:
“When the sun is active diminishing ozone above the poles with falling temperature and a strengthening vortex…”
So why do we see the opposite at the peak of the biggest solar cycle, SC19:
http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/fig-5-30hpa-temperature-at-the-poles.jpg?w=500
JC conclusion: What a relief that the IPCC consensus has decreed with high confidence that solar variations won’t influence the 21st century climate. For a minute there, after reading the NRC Report, Svensmark and Vahrenholt, I thought us scientists might have more work to do to figure out how the Earth’s climate system works.
Subtle as a brick. Nice.
And the Fifth Little Piggy went ‘we, we, we, we, we, we, we, all the way home’.
=====================
J Martin
JC apparently hasn’t realized that “the science is settled”.
Max
Steven Mosher | October 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
So if I were to say astrology is not a reliable way to divine future events in a person’s life I need to come up with a better way to make such divinations in order to complete “science” job?
I’m sorry Steven but I think you’ve confused your undergraduate minor in philosophy with a PhD in Philosophy and your undergraduate major in English with a PhD in mathematics. I administered, moderated, and wrote a fair amount of content for the blog of a guy with double PhDs, one in philosophy the other in mathematics, from the University of Chicago. You are a piker in both I’m afraid.
Well, in my major, I wrote all the papers between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM, and typed them between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Top that for authoritative.
===============
Touche quimosabe.
“but to do the job completely you have to offer a better explanation.”
There’s only one explanation that can be true. There is no such thing as a “better” false explanation. So the idea is either accept the explanation as true or reject it as false. Science is what brings us to the evidence that can answer the true or false question. If there’s not enough evidence either way, more science needs to be done.
But Mosher knows this, but his Warmerism is stronger than his philosophy.
Andrew
The true/false thing is what makes computers work.
Andrew
Their confidence levels all seem to be based on a show of hands of those invited to vote, not on anything actually scientific.
Ah but the solar warming was masked by aerosol cooling and that sneaky deep ocean grabbing all the extra heat without telling the surface. It’s natural the scientists just didn’t notice. The fact that they were paid for finding thermageddon from CO2 and not for natural explanations that would leave them unemployed in a month is neither here nor there.
As for predictions, cooling in the North at least, guesswork for the South as we have virtually no historical data worth a spit. Overall probably nothing much changing from the gradual, gentle and beneficial recovery from the little ice age.
Predictions for climate scientists are dire. Very soon politicians and journalists will start to notice the contradictions, spin and plain lies because the doomsayers keep contradicting each other. At some point the “intelligencia” of English and politics graduates that run our nanny state must surely also notice that a warming masked by cooling, both from the selfsame fossil fuels is very much like no change at all. Pretty soon you’d hope that any institution that cannot decide whether it will be warmer or colder, wetter or drier will be defunded as being of absolutely no use whatsoever to anyone.
who was recording the ”solar activity 1000y ago? Skeptics are harvesting from thin air, same as the Warmist: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Pingback: Solar Cycle 24 has passed its maximum – 25 years of cooling to be expected in this Landscheidt minimum | The k2p blog
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
I am here looking for some help. I understand TSI to be the measurement of the total Irradiance of the Sun at the top of our atmosphere in watts per square meter and adjusted to reflect our average yearly distance from the sun.
Is this correct? Thank you for your time.
What happened to
“Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [Galactic Cosmic Radiation] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”
that was in Chapter 7 of WG1 SOD of AR5?
Pingback: What's The Truth Behind Climate Change? | We Are Change | We Are Change