by Javier Vinós & Andy May
“On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands climate change.” J. Vinós, paraphrasing Richard Feynman’s words about quantum mechanics.
7.1 Introduction
This plain-language summary has been written at the request of some readers of our series of articles on the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis:
- (I) The search for a solar signal
- (II) Solar activity unexplained/ignored effects on climate
- (III) Meridional transport
- (IV) The climate shift of 1997
- (V) A role for the sun in climate change
- (VI) Meridional transport as the main climate change driver
Climate is extremely complex, and people, including scientists, have a natural tendency to look for simple explanations. The Occam’s Razor principle is a good first approach but climate change cannot have a simple answer. Over the past seven years, one of the authors of this series (JV) has been laboriously reading many thousands of scientific articles and analyzing hundreds of climate datasets trying to understand how Earth’s climate changes naturally. This is a first step to understanding the human impact on climate change. The outcome of this work is the book “Climate of the Past, Present and Future.” It is a graduate-student level academic book that discusses many controversial issues about natural climate change over the past 800,000 years. In this book, a new hypothesis on natural climate change is presented. It relates changes in the strength of the meridional (poleward) transport of energy with climatic changes that have taken place, both in the past and recently.
The book can be downloaded here (open access) Vinos-CPPF(2022)
Since meridional transport is most variable during the winter of the Northern Hemisphere, and is modulated by solar activity, we named the concept the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis. The other author of the series (AM) is a writer of several published climate books, they are: “Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction?,” “Politics and Climate Change: A History,” and “The Great Climate Change Debate: Karoly v Happer.” We joined forces to explain this new hypothesis through this series and a new book we are co-writing that will be tailored toward a more general audience. An audience interested in climate change but not in its complex scientific details. The hypothesis grew out of an investigation into the effect of solar variability on climate. But solar variability turned out to be only part of natural climate change. As the scientific evidence for the hypothesis was presented in the first six parts of the series, this summary will present only the conclusions, some additional supporting evidence, and answer a few interesting questions and comments from readers.
7.2 A synopsis of the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis
The IPCC assessment reports published since 1990, reflect a scientific consensus that natural forces, including solar activity and ocean-atmosphere oscillations, like the Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations, had a net zero effect on the observed global average surface temperature changes since 1951. The IPCC consensus does not allow for changes in the poleward (meridional) transport of energy to have significantly affected this average temperature over the past 75 years.
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis proposes that changes in the meridional transport of energy and moisture are the main way the climate changes now and in the past. Meridional transport variability has many causes and forces that act simultaneously and in different time frames on the climate system. They integrate into a very complex poleward energy transportation system. Among these are multidecadal ocean-atmosphere oscillations, solar variability, ozone, stratospheric-reaching tropical volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, and changing luni-solar gravitational pull. Meridional transport is therefore an integrator of internal and external signals. It is not the only way the climate changes, but evidence suggests it is the main one.
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis does not disprove greenhouse gas effect induced climate change—manmade or otherwise—in fact, it acts through it. But it does not require changes in the atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases to cause significant climate change. Therefore, it does refute the hypothesis that CO2 is the main climate change control knob.
Meridional transport moves energy that is already in the climate system toward its exit point at the top of the atmosphere at a higher latitude. It is carried out mainly by the atmosphere, in both the stratosphere and troposphere, with an important oceanic contribution. The greenhouse effect is not homogeneous over the planet due to the unequal distribution of water vapor, and it is stronger in the wet tropics, weaker over deserts, and much weaker at the poles in winter. When meridional transport is stronger, more energy reaches the poles. There it can more efficiently exit the climate system, particularly during the winter, when there is no Sun in the sky. Most polar imported moisture in winter freezes, emitting its latent heat. Additional CO2 molecules increase outward radiation, as they are warmer than the surface. The net result is that all imported energy into the polar regions in winter exits the climate system at the top of the atmosphere (Peixoto & Oort, 1992, p. 363), and increasing the energy transported there at that time can only increase the loss.
When meridional transport is stronger, the planet loses more energy and cools down (or warms less) in a non-homogeneous way, because the net energy loss is greater in the polar regions. However, as more energy is directed toward the poles, the Arctic region warms, even as the rest of the world cools or warms more slowly. When meridional transport is weaker, less energy reaches the poles and exits the climate system. Then the planet loses less energy and warms, while the Arctic cools, because it receives less energy from the lower latitudes.
Most of the energy is transported through the lower troposphere and ocean track. As a result, changes in multidecadal ocean oscillations produce a greater effect on climate in the multidecadal timeframe than changes in solar activity. Solar changes have a stronger effect on stratospheric energy transport. Even so, there is a non-well defined link between changes in solar activity and changes in the multidecadal oscillations that result in major multidecadal climate shifts right after 11-year solar cycle minima (see Part IV). Nevertheless, modern global warming started c. 1850, when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation increased its amplitude and period (Moore et al. 2017). The overall multidecadal oscillation (aka the stadium wave) currently has a period of c. 65 years, and the 20th century included two rising phases of the oscillation, explaining its two warming phases (1915-1945, and 1976-1997; Fig. 7.1).
Meridional transport was further reduced during the 20th century by the coincidence of the Modern Solar Maximum (Fig. 7.1): A long period of above average solar activity between 1935 and 2004. It is the longest such period in at least 600 years. Solar activity acts mainly on stratospheric energy transport, but since it affects the strength of the polar vortex and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (see Part II), it also influences tropospheric transport.
Fig. 7.1. Changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and solar activity are consistent with temperature changes. Top, above average solar activity reduces poleward transport causing warming. Bottom, the ascending half-period of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation causes an even bigger reduction in transport and has a bigger temperature effect. Middle, temperature evolution for the past 120 years is consistent with the effect of these two factors on transport. Data from SILSO sunspots (top), HadCRUT4 deseasonalized temperature (middle), and AMO deseasonalized (bottom), have been smoothed with a gaussian filter.
As it can be seen in Fig. 7.1, most of the warming during the 20th century can be explained by the combined effect of the ocean multidecadal oscillations and the Modern Solar Maximum on meridional transport. No other proposed factor can satisfactorily explain the early 20th century warming period, the mid-20th century shallow cooling, and the late 20th century strong warming period, without resorting to ad-hoc explanations. In a single century two periods of reduced transport (warming), coincided with the ascent of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the effect of the modern solar maximum. This resulted in 80 years of diminished transport that contributed to the greatest warming in 600 years, triggering political and scientific alarm.
7.3 Solar changes, transport changes, and climate shifts
The amount of energy transported poleward varies continuously, with major seasonal changes. However, at certain times the annual average atmospheric transport at high latitudes changes more rapidly over a period of a few years and settles into a different average strength. These abrupt changes in transport are mainly a winter phenomenon, and cause climate shifts on average every 25 years. Climate shifts were first identified in 1991 (Ebbesmeyer et al. 1991), yet they are not considered a cause for climate change in the IPCC reports, despite numerous studies suggesting they are. After each shift, the climate settles into a new regime.
It is known that one of these shifts took place in 1976 resulting in accelerated warming, and another one in 1997, resulting in decelerated warming (see Part IV). The four known shifts that took place in the 20th century happened soon after solar cycle minimums. The climate regimes, or meridional transport phases, disproportionally affect the Arctic climate in an opposite direction to the climate of the northern mid-latitudes. The accelerated warming from 1976-1997 was characterized by a quite stable Arctic climate, but the decelerated warming since 1997 has coincided with strong Arctic warming. Figure 7.2 shows how the sudden Arctic shift of 1997 was caused by an increase in meridional transport. The only energy that reaches the Arctic in winter is through transport, and the shift was accompanied by an abrupt increase in the amount of energy radiated to space.
According to IPCC theory, without a change in solar energy and/or a change in albedo (solar energy reflected by clouds and ice), a change in outgoing longwave energy could not happen, because energy out must match energy in. Yet without a significant change in either solar energy or albedo, a significant change in outgoing longwave energy occurred, as shown in Fig. 7.2.
Fig. 7.2. The change in meridional transport at the 1997 climate shift resulted in an abrupt increase in the amount of energy radiated to space, particularly during the winter. This increase was not compensated for by a corresponding decrease elsewhere.
Climate scientists contributing to the IPCC reports cannot blame the 1976 climate shift on changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases, so they suggest it was caused by a coincidental small reduction in anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. They set the sulphate cooling effect to a point that allowed increasing CO2 levels to overcome the previous cooling trend in 1976. As the 1997 shift cannot be explained in terms of anthropogenic factors, any data that shows that the shift occurred is ignored, and the focus is shifted to the increased Arctic warming.
Climate shifts undoubtedly represent changes in the meridional transport of energy. No theory can successfully explain climate change without accounting for abrupt or gradual changes in transport. The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis has been developed to explain how climate has changed naturally for the past 50 million years and how it is changing now, integrating into a single interpretation tectonic, orbital, solar, oceanic, and atmospheric causes of climate change. It has tremendous explaining power, and many apparently unconnected phenomena can be linked through it. As an example, changes in wind speed and evaporation are discussed below. Many climate scientists will be able to reinterpret their results guided by this new energy transport view of climate change.
Particularly challenging was to find an explanation for all the previously unconnected evidence of a strong effect on climate from small changes in solar activity. This 220-year-old problem constituted the genesis of the hypothesis. The evidence that small changes in solar activity affect the meridional transport of energy is very solid. Two pieces of evidence are mentioned here.
The first is the repeated observation during the past six decades that changes in solar activity have affected the Earth’s speed of rotation (see Part II). This can only be accomplished by solar-induced changes to atmospheric angular momentum that affect the global atmospheric circulation. This is not a small feat for such small changes in incoming energy, and it derives from the dynamical changes caused by UV (ultraviolet radiation) absorption by ozone in the stratosphere.
The second piece of evidence is that Arctic temperatures display a negative correlation with solar activity. This is not a recent development, as shown in Fig. 5.5. This negative correlation was demonstrated for the past two millennia by Kobashi et al. in their 2015 article “Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling.” Part of their figure 3 is shown as Fig. 7.3.
Fig. 7.3. Greenland temperature anomaly and solar activity over the past 2100 years. (B) Greenland temperature anomaly. Average NH temperature from four NH records and combined Greenland temperatures. Periods of warm (cold) anomalies in Greenland are in red (blue). (C) Two TSI reconstructions by Steinhilber et al., 2012 and Roth and Joos, 2013 in z score. The blue (red) areas are the periods of stronger (weaker) solar activity corresponding to (B) with possible multidecadal lags. (E) Decomposition of the Greenland temperatures into solar-induced changes (blue) and hemispheric influences (orange) with a regression constant (–31.2°C; dots), constrained by the multiple linear regressions. The error bounds are the 95% confidence intervals. The green shaded area is the period (the late 20th century) when the modern solar maximum had strong negative influence (red circle) on the Greenland temperature. Figure from Kobashi et al. 2015.
The most plausible explanation for Arctic temperature displaying a negative correlation to solar activity is that changes in the Sun regulate meridional transport. An increase in solar activity reduces transport, cooling the Arctic, and a decrease in solar activity increases transport, warming the Arctic. The effect on the temperature in the mid-latitudes is the opposite.
More evidence is provided by the relationship between solar activity and the strength of the polar vortex (see Fig. 5.4). While this relationship provides an explanation for the Arctic temperature-solar correlation, the polar vortex data cannot be extended back in time as much as Greenland temperature data.
7.4 The explaining power of the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis
Climate research has increased enormously over the past few decades, and frequently changes in climate phenomena are discovered. When these changes do not fit into the IPCC-sponsored CO2 hypothesis, and are not properly reproduced by models using greenhouse gas-related theory, they are considered climate oddities and ignored by the climate science community, who are focused almost exclusively on anthropogenic changes. There are many of these phenomena. We have already mentioned the expansion of the Hadley cells (see Fig. 4.5f). We mention another example here.
At the turn of the century, it was noticed that wind speed over land had been decreasing for over two decades. The phenomenon was termed “global terrestrial stilling” (McVicar & Roderick 2010). It was worrisome because power generation by wind turbines is related to the wind speed to the third power, so the 15% reduction in wind speed observed over the U.S. translated into an almost 40% reduction in available wind energy. The land wind stilling is puzzling as models do not show it. Moreover, it was accompanied by an increase in wind speed over the ocean, so the proposed explanation at the time was that land surface roughness increased due to increases in biomass and land-use changes (Vautard et al. 2010), in another example of an ad-hoc explanation.
Then, unexpectedly, the wind stilling trend started to reverse between 1997 and 2010, and since 2010 all land regions in the Northern Hemisphere are experiencing an increase in wind speed (Zeng et al. 2019). The explanation turned to internal decadal ocean–atmosphere oscillations, that seemed to correlate.
It is unknown to many people, but evaporation over the oceans depends a lot more on wind speed than it does on sea-surface temperature. It was demonstrated that global sea-surface evaporation has closely followed changes in wind speed (Yu 2007; Fig. 7.4).
Fig. 7.4. Changes in wind speed and evaporation during climate regimes. At the 1976-97 period of low transport/high warming, global ocean wind speed (black continuous) increased in parallel to ocean evaporation (blue dashed), while land wind (red dotted) entered a period of stilling. At the 1997 climate shift the trends changed. Data from Yu 2007 and Zeng et al. 2019. Europe has been chosen because it is downwind of the main transport route to the Arctic in the North Atlantic and responds earlier to its changes. Since 2010 the trend is shared by wind over all terrestrial Northern Hemisphere regions.
Lisan Yu shows that between the 1970s and the 1990s, “the enhancement of Evp [evaporation] occurred primarily over the hemispheric wintertime,” while “the westerlies associated with the [Aleutian and the Icelandic] low systems strengthened and expanded southward” (Yu 2007).
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis can explain this evidence, which, in turn, supports the hypothesis. The 1976 shift reduced meridional transport due to atmospheric circulation becoming more zonal, this increased wind speed and evaporation over the oceans while decreasing wind speed over land, because most meridional transport takes place over the ocean basins. The changes were more intense during the winter season, when more energy must be transported poleward, and resulted in a low-transport, high-warming, global climate regime (Fig. 7.1). At the 1997 shift the increase in meridional transport was caused by a more meridional atmospheric circulation, decreasing wind speed and evaporation over the oceans while increasing wind speed over land. The climate regime shifted into a high-transport, low-warming one.
It is obvious that changes in non-condensing greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols could not have been the driving force behind these changes in meridional transport. This suggests they have been attributed too much climate sensitivity in climate change theory and models. However, the changes in transport and atmospheric circulation are clearly associated with changes in evaporation and air moisture that, without a doubt, must affect changes in cloud formation and transport, not forgetting changes in seawater salinity. Hypotheses that explain recent climate change in terms of water vapor and cloud changes might be subservient to the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis. The integration of solar, astronomical, and atmospheric-ocean oscillation changes makes this hypothesis an all-encompassing one. It is more likely to be correct than partial hypotheses.
7.5 Some questions and comments about the hypothesis
Given the complexity of the climate system we do not have answers to every question, nor it is required that we do for the essence of the hypothesis to be correct. Some interesting comments came up in the discussions and it is worthwhile to bring them up, for those readers that missed them. Here we review a few of the more interesting questions and comments:
(1) Q: Is it necessary that there has been an increasing trend in solar activity since the Little Ice Age?
A: While an increasing trend in solar activity since 1700 is defensible, it is not required for the solar part of the hypothesis to be correct. As Fig. 7.1 shows, it is enough that an above average activity has reduced meridional transport contributing to the warming. The displayed Modern Solar Maximum had that effect. Fig. 7.3 provides strong support for the solar-transport link over the past two millennia.
(2) Q: Is the greenhouse effect required for the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis?
A: Yes. In a thought experiment, it was proposed that a reader imagine that the polar regions are another planet (B) that is connected to a planet A made of the tropics and mid-latitudes. The connection allows the transfer of heat. The greenhouse effect in planet B is weaker since its atmosphere has a low water vapor content. During 6 months of a year planet B is in the dark. If more energy is allowed to pass to that planet, it is radiated more efficiently to space and the binary system average temperature decreases, despite planet B warming. The opposite happens if less energy is allowed to pass.
(3) Q: Why is there no correlation between surface temperature and solar activity if the hypothesis is true?
A: Because there shouldn’t be a correlation. At the multidecadal scale, meridional transport responds primarily to the multidecadal ocean-atmosphere oscillation. At the inter-annual scale, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and El Niño/Southern Oscillation have a strong effect. The Sun is not dominant at these time-scales. The role of the Sun increases as the time scale lengthens due to its longer-term secular cycles and their longer-term cumulative effect.
(4) Q: How important is the role of ocean transport in climate change in your hypothesis?
A: Oceans store most of the energy in the climate system, and most of the solar energy flows through the ocean before reaching the atmosphere. It therefore has a crucial role in climate. However, the role of the ocean in meridional transport is secondary to the role of the atmosphere and so is its role in climate change. Ocean transport is currently considered to be mechanically driven, with winds and tides providing the required energy. The atmosphere transforms heat into mechanical energy, while the ocean does not. This does not diminish the effect of the heat the ocean transports, which is about one third of total meridional heat transported. It also carries all the heat transferred from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere. But the importance of ocean transport decreases with the increase in latitude, and so the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis cannot rely on ocean transport except in a supporting role.
(5) Q: Do changes in solar activity affect ocean currents?
A: Changes in solar output should not affect ocean currents directly because that requires mechanical energy. Changes in solar output must necessarily affect the atmosphere first. This is important because it essentially rules out solar hypotheses that propose an initial solar effect over the ocean.
(6) Q: Does your hypothesis rule out warming from anthropogenic forcing like greenhouse gas emissions, industrial aerosols, and land use changes?
A: No. It just leaves a lot less room for them. If the hypothesis is correct, it is unlikely that the anthropogenic effect on climate can account for more than half of the observed warming, and probably much less.
(7) Q: What about Svensmark’s cosmic rays-cloud hypothesis?
A: We have not found any evidence for that hypothesis.
(8) Q: Isn’t the change in irradiance during the solar cycle too small to affect climate?
A: The change in irradiance with the solar cycle is only 0.1%, too small to change the system energy budget significantly and drive climate change. The ultraviolet radiation part 200-320nm of the spectrum is only 1% of total solar irradiance energy, and it varies by 1% with the solar cycle (10 times the variation in total energy). So, the ultraviolet radiation change responsible for the solar cycle effect on climate is only 0.01% of the total energy delivered by the Sun. The other 0.09% of the energy change is irrelevant in terms of climate change and has no detectable effect. The solar effect on climate is not about the amount of ultraviolet solar energy, but its dynamical effects in the Earth’s atmosphere. 99.99% of the energy responsible for the solar effect is already in the climate system. An increase in meridional transport reduces its transit time through the system, while a decrease in transport increases its residence time causing the temperature changes.
(9) Q: Your hypothesis cannot be correct because the top of the atmosphere should be in radiative equilibrium and return the same amount of energy it receives.
A: That statement is incorrect. The radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is never in equilibrium and the planet is warming or cooling all the time at any time frame considered. Nobody has ever identified a period when the amount of energy entering the climate system was the same as the amount of energy exiting the climate system. The Earth has no way of returning the same amount of energy it receives. Many not well constrained feedback mechanisms are responsible for what thermal homeostasis the planet is capable of.
(10) Q: Stratospheric temperature also shows a shift in 1997 from a declining trend to a flat trend.
A: Yes, that is evidence of the 1997 climate shift and the ongoing pause despite the 2016 El Niño. The stratospheric temperature trend has the reverse profile to surface temperature trend. Models believe this is due to changes in stratospheric CO2 and ozone, but models and observations disagree significantly (Thompson et al. 2012). The stratosphere temperature trend is consistent with what is expected if the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis is correct.
(11) Q: Scientists are already aware that changes in meridional transport are a possible cause for warming. See Herweijer et al. 2005.
A: The IPCC does not believe changes in transport have significantly contributed to the observed warming since 1951. If they did it would be included in the natural (internal) variability that they have assigned a net zero effect (see Fig. 5.1). Models do not reproduce transport correctly, and Herweijer et al. 2005 is an example. Models assume that the sum of ocean and atmospheric transport is nearly constant. This is called the Bjerknes compensation hypothesis (see Part IV). In their model experiment they increase ocean transport by 50% and observe warming from water vapor redistribution changes (greenhouse effect changes) and a reduction in low cloud albedo and sea-ice albedo. The problem is they fail to mention that their model-based proposed mechanism should work as negative feedback to warming. In a warming planet with polar amplification and a reducing latitudinal temperature gradient, a reduction in ocean transport is both implied and observed (they acknowledge it, referring to McPhaden & Zhang 2002). According to their model experiment this should drive cooling from transport changes, not warming. Their failure to mention this is misleading, to say the least. In a serious challenge to the model-based Bjerknes compensation hypothesis, researchers have found a strengthening of the North Atlantic Current since 1997 (Oziel et al. 2020) simultaneous with the strengthening of the atmospheric transport shown—and referenced in our articles—and in agreement with the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis.
(12) Q: Shouldn’t the tropical convection zones be the main radiators of the planet, responsible for cooling? Directing heat away from the wet tropics should warm the planet.
A: That is incorrect. More energy is lost at the tropics than at the poles, but the energy loss at the tropics is essentially capped by deep convection. There is a point when additional downward energy does not increase surface temperature because it is used to increase convection. The proposal that deep convection acts as a thermostat in the tropics is over 20 years old (Sud et al. 1999). Deep convection transfers excess energy to the atmosphere but reduces outgoing longwave radiation through cloud formation. Most of the energy remains within the climate system. The negative correlation between sea surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation, once temperature exceeds 27°C, is a well-known feature of tropical climate (Lau et al. 1997). The standard view is that transporting more energy toward the poles warms the planet. Our hypothesis and the evidence we have presented supports the opposite view.
(13) Q: The essence of Arctic amplification in winter is not what you say, but the impact of increasing sea temperatures, the decline in sea-ice and the increase in winter clouds, that are changing the Arctic to a warmer regime.
A: That is the position of most climate scientists. We disagree. That is the effect. The cause is a change in the amount of heat transported by the atmosphere to the Arctic that took place quite abruptly in a few years after the 1997 climate regime as shown in Fig. 7.2. This increase in heat and moisture transport produced the rapid decline in sea-ice and increase in cloudiness that are features of the new Arctic regime. All consensus Arctic predictions are failing because the situation stabilized in the new transport regime instead of causing positive feedback—the logical conclusion if the consensus position were correct.
(14) Q: Your view of El Niño/Southern Oscillation is incorrect. La Niña and El Niño are the alternating states of an oscillator.
A: That is not supported by a frequency analysis of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. El Niño and La Niña are opposite deviations from the neutral state. Our analysis shows the frequency of La Niña years displays a strong negative correlation with the frequency of neutral years (see Fig. 2.4), not El Niño years. And the frequency of neutral years follows the solar cycle. There is only one way to interpret this evidence. La Niña and neutral are the alternating states of an oscillator that responds to solar activity. As neutral conditions are not opposite La Niña conditions, the oscillator tends to accumulate too much subsurface ocean heat. El Niño resets the oscillator. El Niño frequency depends upon how much extra heat the oscillator collects, which, in turn, depends upon whether the planet, overall, is warming or cooling. This is a very unorthodox view but it is supported by the evidence.
(15) Q: You show in Fig. 6.9 that over 85% of the surface warming shown in HadCRUT5 for the period 1997-2014 is the product of changes made to the temperature datasets since HadCRUT3. Is this correct?
A: Yes. Global annual average surface warming is not only a poor measure of climate change but, since it is calculated as an anomaly to an average, it is also a very small number relative to the accuracy of the measurements, and to the much larger seasonal temperature changes from which it is subtracted. The planet is warming but the numbers used to show it are not as meaningful as we are led to believe. A significant part of the warming claimed is due to the way it is calculated, as shown in the figure.
(16) Q: Do you really believe that you are correct and the IPCC is wrong?
A: Paraphrasing Einstein, if the IPCC is wrong it should not be necessary that one hundred authors show it. One is sufficient.
(17) Q: According to your theory, what should we expect from climate change in the next years and the rest of the century?
A: The current below average solar activity and an expected cooling phase in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation indicate a probable continuation, or even accentuation, of the reduced rate of warming during the first third of the 21st century. A modest cooling during this period is possible. Unlike the 20th century, this century should contain two cooling phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Even if another extended solar maximum takes place for most of the century, the 21st century should see significantly less warming than the previous one, regardless of CO2 emissions. A grand solar minimum is highly improbable according to our interpretation of solar cycles, which is a relief. Based on past evidence, a grand solar minimum sets the planet into a severe cooling trend.
(18) Q: What would be a good test of your hypothesis?
A: The expected climate change for the next 30 years, as described above is consistent with several alternative theories to the IPCC’s, based on the effect of the multidecadal oscillations. The Winter Gatekeeper explains better why the shift took place in 1997, and predicts the next shift for c. 2032, i.e., three solar cycles. The best test will be when a very active solar cycle takes place, if Arctic amplification turns into cooling and Arctic sea-ice grows it will support our hypothesis. If this happens, proposed alternatives to our hypothesis will be entertaining.
Regarding Figure 7.1, what does the vertical axis depict, in what units, and at what scale?
Vertical axis have been omitted for simplicity.
Smoothed annual sunspots go between 49 and 125
Smoothed GSAT anomaly (1961-1990) values go between -0.46 to 0.70ºC
Smoothed AMO anomaly values go between -0.24 and 0.15ºC
“When meridional transport is stronger, the planet loses more energy and cools down (or warms less) in a non-homogeneous way, because the net energy loss is greater in the polar regions.”
The planet is definitely warmer during a warm AMO phase, partly due to a decline in low cloud cover, which also allows for greater upper ocean heat uptake, like since 1995.
“As a result, changes in multidecadal ocean oscillations produce a greater effect on climate in the multidecadal timeframe than changes in solar activity”
The AMO envelope is a response to solar variability, it is warmer when the solar wind is weaker.
“Changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and solar activity are consistent with temperature changes. Top, above average solar activity reduces poleward transport causing warming.”
Stronger solar wind states in the 1970’s caused global cooling, by driving cold AMO conditions and multi-year La Nina.
“An increase in solar activity reduces transport, cooling the Arctic, and a decrease in solar activity increases transport, warming the Arctic. The effect on the temperature in the mid-latitudes is the opposite.”
Sounds good with the Arctic, but how many land regions in the mid latitudes are on average actually warmer during a warm AMO phase? The UK has seen an 8% increase in annual sunshine hours since 1995, more so in winter but not in summer. Some continental interior regions become drier during the warm AMO.
“Changes in solar output must necessarily affect the atmosphere first. This is important because it essentially rules out solar hypotheses that propose an initial solar effect over the ocean.”
This is fundamentally wrong. The sun (TSI) controls the ocean, and then the ocean controls the atmosphere with a 2-month lag:
https://i.postimg.cc/fbrKC4dy/109y-SN-vs-30y-Had-SST3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
“However, the role of the ocean in meridional transport is secondary to the role of the atmosphere and so is its role in climate change. “
Likewise, this view is overturned by direct evidence given here for ocean transport being a very significant driver of polar air temperature, making it primary.
https://i.postimg.cc/xTMLm9cV/NH-SST-NH-Sea-Ice-Extent-and-80-N-Temperature-Correlations.png
I’d give this series an A for effort but a C- for accuracy, not least of all for the reason the major solar-climate irradiance ocean warming effect was again undervalued and overlooked.
Nice comment, Bob.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
We do tend to oversimplify, don’t we?
“On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands climate change.” J. Vinós, paraphrasing Richard Feynman’s words about quantum mechanics.
Dumb quote. Comparing completely different scientific field based on one long-ago quote is meaningless. And stupid.
If Feynman were alive today he would be a leading spokesman warming about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming.
Nobody understands climate change. That’s a fact. It is too complex. Lots of things in climate are unexplained.
I am sure the Inquisition would agree with affirmers, as they called Galileo a denier for confronting the consensus.
> they called Galileo a denier for confronting the consensus….
Wait, I thought Brett and Heather Weinstein were Galileo? And it turns out it was Javier all along!
Javier wrote:
Nobody understands climate change. That’s a fact. It is too complex. Lots of things in climate are unexplained.
Things are unknown in every scientific field, include Feynman’s high-energy physics.
So what. By far, enough is known in climate science to understand the fundamental role of greenhouse gases, and that no other know factors can account for rapid modern warming.
02 AKA Appell AKA David Appell
“ If Feynman were alive today he would be a leading spokesman warming about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming.”
You have absolutely no evidence to make such an assertion. Picking up right where you left off, before your hiatus.
I read his 1985 book and I don’t recall any mention of global warming. That book was written 2 years after the epic EPA whiff prediction that SLR could be 12 feet by 2100. Forty years later it’s only been 4-5 inches.
He must have been thinking of you with the start of the title of his book “Surely you’re joking…..”
CKid wrote:
“ If Feynman were alive today he would be a leading spokesman warming about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming.”
You have absolutely no evidence to make such an assertion. I read his 1985 book and I don’t recall any mention of global warming.
Feynman was an extremely honest scientist. Man-made global warming is an honest science. That’s all I need to know. It’s a basic science built on long-accepted facts and it doesn’t take a stretch to understand it or accept it.
I don’t know what 1985 book you’re talking about but I am very sure I have read far, far more Feynman than you have.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make something stupid. What is far more ‘stupid’ is your claim that you know what Feynman would think about anthropogenic global warming theory if he were alive today. The most inarguable statement in the whole article is that no one fully understands climate change. Any claim to the contrary is pure hubris. There are theories about all kinds of aspects of climate change and models. But no one has a comprehensive understanding of all of the mechanisms, the complex interactions, and the effects globally and regionally.
I know what Feynman would think about AGW because he was an extremely honest scientist, Manmade global warming is an honest science. It’s only pitiful amateur no-nothings here who think it isn’t.
“If Feynman were alive today he would be a leading spokesman warming about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming.”
It speaks volumes about you that you would claim to know what someone else might think, and not even offer any support for the claim. And, he isn’t around to contradict you. If he were, and did contradict you you, I would expect that you would simply dismiss his objection in the same manner that William Happer is generally ignored. It is bad enough to appeal to authority. However, to claim to appeal to a dead authority, without evidence, is really just you trying to be a proxy for an authority. Poor form!
Great response! Exactly what I thought when I read the comment.
Clyde, Feynman was an honest scientist. AGW is an honest science. There isn’t one scientist alive who doesn’t accept it.
Clyde wrote:
However, to claim to appeal to a dead authority, without evidence, is really just you trying to be a proxy for an authority.
It’s not me trying to use the dead Feynman, dude. I’m just sticking up for him from those trying to exploit him for their ideology.
Presumptive/unproven/unconfirmed mind reading of a mind that is no longer functioning.
David Appell | September 22, 2022 at 7:14 pm | Reply
“If Feynman were alive today he would be a leading spokesman warming about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming.”
Good that you spoke with Feynman
Feynman was a rigorous scientist. All I need to know.
Javier –
fig 7.3 The blue line shows “solar influence” with a moderate high during the LIA and decreasing through the last 150+ years. The arrow shows “weaker ” as the it rises in the chart –
Is that the correct interpretation ?
thanks
Joe
Yes. Weaker solar activity has a positive effect on Greenland temperature, so the solar influence in (E), blue line, is essentially the inverse of solar activity and shows as peaks during the LIA the Wolf, Sporer, and Maunder grand minima.
Sure. Less energy on Greenland means it warms.
How stupid can you get?
Javier claims:
Yes. Weaker solar activity has a positive effect on Greenland temperature
Why?
Odd how Judith suppresses my replies until, maybe, she approves them.
Judith….
Why don’t you ask Tokuro Kobashi, or Bo Vinther? They are excellent climate scientists and they express that opinion in the article. based on evidence, obviously.
Oh, I forgot, you are anti-science. Or at least anti-scientist for those that dare to say things you don’t agree.
“How stupid can you get?”
Well, you could start by just focusing on direct solar insolation and ignore all the other factors that Javier has described. That should help increase your Stupid Quotient.
Javier wrote:
Why don’t you ask Tokuro Kobashi, or Bo Vinther? They are excellent climate scientists and they express that opinion in the article.
An “opinion” isn’t science.
They made a hypothesis. And if their hypothesis is true (slowdown in AMOC), the consequences are far more severe than a temporary cooling in Greenland.
FACT: Greenland keeps melting:
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
“Fact check: Greenland still losing ice due to greenhouse gas emissions, experts say,” USA Today 10/24/22
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/fact-check-greenland-still-losing-ice-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-experts-say/ar-AA13kt1w
02
Glad to see you back. It’s always good to see your fact free and science free comments. They add a little levity to the discussion. You have been absent for so long we were wondering if your hiatus from commenting was going to be longer than the warming hiatus.
Pingback: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A - News7g
Thank you for the summary post, and the refreshing and updated perspectives on climate change.
Observing the broader picture.
The sun’s energy spectrum is vast and the processes transferring heat around the globe are extremely complex. CO2 is a minor player in the sun’s energy spectrum while being a minor fraction of the atmosphere’s contents. The ability of CO2 to direct the planet’s chaotic climate is highly unlikely based on fundamentals.
The pinnacle of arrogance and folly lies with wasting trillions of dollars (while impoverishing tens of millions) in pursuit of green energy dogma.
Coherent policy is based on reliably providing reasonably clean and reasonably affordable energy.
Further, claiming that man can control the distant climate by controlling CO2 (a central tenet of global warming) is nonsensical, as well as manifestly unachievable. The earth’s climate is controlled by the sun and global energy transport.
Mike, I would have liked this, except I do not know what you refer to with the last sentence.
Reasonably clean and reasonably affordable, is best, that is wonderful!
But, different people have different ideas about what is reasonably clean and reasonably affordable
On a planet claimed by these guys to be sensitive to changes in solar UV?
“On a planet claimed by these guys to be sensitive to changes in solar UV?”
Showing your ignorance? There are hundreds of papers on the UV effect on the stratosphere and on the stratosphere-troposphere coupling. That the planet responds to UV changes is a fact. How and by how much needs further research, but there is already a lot of research that shouldn’t be ignored or waved away by people that spend a great deal of their time writing comments in climate blogs.
“by people that spend a great deal of their time writing comments in climate blogs.”
Low energy solar UV change amplified through the planetary system to produce a discernible effect. And stop being an idiot about it.
Elementary systems theory. Changes in solar UV – a very minor component of solar energy – amplified through the planetary system to produce a discernible effect. 😊
Oh I spend most days and nights online. For large parts of the last decade flat on my back. Lately – ironically – because my left middle toe has an injury from walking again and I’m trying to rest it. The left big toe has ‘gone to market’ as it says on a tattoo on my left foot. When my middle toe is rested I’m going all hog on my foot tattoo. Black wolf, red flowers, red riding hood. It’s a warning to the other toes. A prayer that the madness will stop.
I spend time on a blog in between reading and writing. If I’m lucky it’s stimulating. I’m developing agorophobia. What with boys being conscripted for a war they would be hopelessly unprepared for. What is the end game? What we need is peace and trade. My only other tattoo is a tasteful honeyeater silhouetted in eternity loops. Symbolizing abundance and renewal. Capitalism responsible to democracies and the rule of law make it possible to create a high energy future with 21st century science and technology. I pray that sanity prevails.
Papers, smapers. The Global Warming Extremists don’t need no stinkin’ papers!
Re energy – and reasonably reliable 24/7 .
In this book, a new hypothesis on natural climate change is presented. It relates changes in the strength of the meridional (poleward) transport of energy with climatic changes that have taken place, both in the past and recently.
That is exactly right, now I am going to read more and see how they take the exact right answer and not follow through properly.
Richard P. Feynman reminds us- “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Experiment is over… not only is global warming theory wrong, the Left’s picture of history and the modern world we live in has been wrong.
I regard myself as left wing politically, and the only “picture” I have of history is one based on evidence. I agree therefore that climate change alarmism is overstated (massively), which puts me at odds with your notion of some over-arching view of what the “left” think. Panic over climate change when we do not fully understand it leads to very poor policy choices that impact the environment and the poor – exactly contrary to concerns I have as someone left-leaning politically.
Reducing climate science and its societal impacts to left versus right is very foolish IMO.
Agnostic comment – “Panic over climate change when we do not fully understand it leads to very poor policy choices that impact the environment and the poor – exactly contrary to concerns I have as someone left-leaning politically.”
Agnostic – you hit a problem that is common on both the left and the right. Very few on either side of the political spectrum will call out / object to those ideas that are both common and wrong that their side supports.
“… which puts me at odds with your notion of some over-arching view of what the “left” think.”
You appear to be the exception to the rule, based on the spin put on the issue by the overwhelmingly left-leaning ‘news’ media.
Surely, Al Gore would agree with you completely… except for the part about not being concerned about impending climate change catastrophe.
Clyde Spencer: “You appear to be the exception to the rule, based on the spin put on the issue by the overwhelmingly left-leaning ‘news’ media.”
No, I am not an exception to the rule. I follow other socialist climate skeptics on social media. I will concede that a greater proportion of left leaning people are generally alarmed, but that’s because of a sense of responsibility and empathy and not enough understanding of a difficult and complex subject. It’s a good reason to be wrong.
Also, we regard much of the media as RIGHT leaning, particularly in the UK. BBC annoy both sides, but feel much less independent than they used to be. Papers over here are very right wing and do have a disproportionate sway over the agenda.
PS. Incidentally, it seems the definition of “socialism” is quite different in the US to most everywhere else.
Take, for example, the True Believers of global warming alarmism. With them it’s all about politics not science. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a Left versus right issue now would it?
On this I think you are at least partially right. I think the problem is from both sides. Manmade climate change is not a hoax. There is solid science and reasoning behind it. It’s just that it’s wrong, or highly exaggerated. Claiming that climate change is part of some leftist agenda to control our lives, as many right-wing commenters say, just looks like someone who is unwilling to accept responsibility for the impact we can have on the planet or objecting simply because people you generally disagree with think something is so.
If it were the case that we were having as profound an impact on the climate as it is claimed, I would be all for doing everything in our power to mitigate it. But if it is not, then we risk penalising the most vulnerable in societies around the world. In general, making decisions based on things you don’t know, or have inadequate information on, leads to poor conclusions and policies. That goes from self protection against crime, to decisions on health, all the way to policies on climate.
I don’t agree with everything Lomborg says, but I agree with his approach – a push back against alarmism in favour of more considered and thought through policies.
agnostic2015 wrote:
“Manmade climate change is not a hoax. There is solid science and reasoning behind it.”
Actually, there is NO science behind “Manmade climate change,” none whatsoever. The only thing that science has shown is that man is pumping a small amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that tiny trace amount of CO2 will produce a well-understood greenhouse “forcing”. Whether or not that very small, and logarithmically ever-diminishing, forcing actually produces any significant or even noticeable warming after it is integrated into the complex climate system, has not been proven in the slightest by anyone with any experiment. If you know of such an experiment, by the way, pray tell…
If not political then pathological- ‘⁷They didn’t seem terrified, as you might expect, but instead seemed rather delighted with themselves, excited and entertained by their secret knowledge. They also had a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.”
That’s how some people think, e.g., QAnon, sufferers of Hot World Syndrome, anti-vaxxers…
Jonathan Cohler: “Actually, there is NO science behind “Manmade climate change,” none whatsoever.”
That is patently untrue. There is tons of good science that is wrong. There is endless amount of good science that is predicated on man having had an impact on climate. The reasoning is sound, it’s just wrong…or at least exaggerated.
We are net emitters of CO2, CO2 does have a warming effect. These in turn lead to feedbacks. It may be that we have some effect on the climate, its just that we can’t tell it apart from natural variability. Some scientists make a case that the impacts are strong and lead to extreme responses that we should want to avoid. There is a ton of science (of varying quality) supporting that notion. It is not a hoax.
Which is not the same thing as being right.
agnostic2015 wrote:
Jonathan Cohler: “Actually, there is NO science behind “Manmade climate change,” none whatsoever.”
That is patently untrue. There is tons of good science that is wrong.
As is so typical of climate alarmists, you present absolutely nothing. As I wrote at the end of my post, “…has not been proven in the slightest by anyone with any experiment. If you know of such an experiment, by the way, pray tell…
Saying “there is tons” is not only poor English it is patently false. Perhaps that’s why you didn’t give me an example of ONE such experiment? [Remember now, computer programs are not experiments, and declarations from political bodies such as the IPCC are not experiments. I’m talking about scientific experiments.]
As I said previously, give me ONE, just ONE, any ONE experiment that proves climate has been changed by man. If you can provide ONE, then maybe we can have a discussion. If not, all the rest is noise.
‘to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous’– definition of a hoax, e.g., Michael Mann’s ‘Nature’ trick…
Cold water out of the Antarctic in the south Pacific gyre is driven north in the Peruvian Current. The driver is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) on a spinning planet. Solar may be one of multiple influences on SAM – in a complex dynamical way. The Humboldt Current has origins in deep roiling ocean currents that emerge at the surface when the eastern Pacific thermocline is shallow. Wind, cloud and current feedbacks cause a cold and nutrient rich ‘V’ to form in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/south_pacific_gyre-1.png
Trade winds blow harder – warm surface water piles up in the west in a balance of forces that maintains higher water level in the western Pacific and lower in the east. At some stage the – I guess – the delicate balance get’s a kick in the bum from the Madden-Julian Oscillation and warm surface water surges east.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/data/along-track-nrt-data/?page=0&per_page=3&order=publish_date+desc&search=&fancybox=true&condition_1=2022%3Ayear&category=204
That it’s a stochastically forced nonlinear oscillator is the picture built over centuries. We are very close to having most of the pieces.
https://www.youtube.com/user/taichiatduke
Javier, your work is brilliant, clear, well-supported, and I believe likely totally correct. The now also well-documented and supported Svensmark cosmic-ray hypothesis further enhances your meridional transport argument, by the way, because the increased magnetic wind during the modern solar maximum between 1935 and 2004 would have reduced average cloud cover on the earth thereby increasing the overall solar energy input into the earth system.
I was surprised, however, by your comment in the Q&A where you said “We have not found any evidence for that [the Svensmark] hypothesis.” There is in fact copious evidence to support Svensmark, as I assume you must know, including Svensmark’s 10 years of experimental results, followed by 10 or more years of experimental results from CERN’s CLOUD experiments and dozens of other published papers and results, which I would be happy to list for you if you are truly unaware, but stating you have not found “any evidence” to support the Svensmark hypothesis could only mean that you haven’t looked.
Here’s just one recent article from CERN as a starting point if you truly are unaware: https://home.cern/news/news/physics/cloud-discovers-new-way-which-aerosols-rapidly-form-and-grow-high-altitude
You might also investigate the several studies done on the Forbush effect, starting for example with Svensmark et al (2016) The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JA022689
Here’s another recent paper presenting evidence that might interest you Svensmark et al (October 11, 2021) Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1
“This plain-language summary has been written at the request of some readers of our series of articles on the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis:”
‘Meridional transport is the main climate change driver, but given the complexity of the climate system, it is far from a passive process that depends only on the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. Instead, it is a highly regulated process that can drive more energy for a smaller temperature difference and less energy for a larger temperature difference ”
Ah, That is better.
The basic premises are that,
Climate change is natural.
Climate change is due to the methods of heat transport available.
Climate change is not due to CO2 [in major part].
Climate change is not due to other GHG.
Climate change is not due to changes in the sun’s temperature.
Climate change is highly regulated yet small changes in temperature at the right time cause bigger climate changes and bigger temperature changes at the wrong times cause smaller climate changes.
It might have been more appropriate to make these comments at the start but I appreciate that the effort both of you have put in, both in researching and writing the papers which has now been doubled by your assessment of the responses.
The good things.
The amazing number of facts put together in some of the papers at the start summarizing the science.
The obvious conclusion that the heat of the sun in its 24 hour passage around the world drives engines of heat movement in both the earth and water that give us our weather and climate.
That this mechanism might be modifiable by and due to small temperature changes in winter that you feel you are able to show with different sets of data.
The problems
as pointed out that people have been searching for over a century to find such links without the previous ideas bearing fruit.
That counter factual arguments have to be used such as small changes cause big effects and vice versa.
The comments that negative correlation of La Nina and Neutral events are somehow proof of positive effects.
The problem as I see it is that if one espouses Climate Change is natural then it will occur with or without the conditions that you have found.
In other words other effects that you have dismissed or not considered may well be as equally deserving of honors.
Mr Ellison’s comments about the difficulty of causation due to chaos are fairly spot on for a Climate system as complex as the earth, though he fails to consider it applies to his own ideas of causation.
Similarly trying to prove CO2 is the cause of all things suffers from the same problem.
Even if true the effect cannot be seen as there are too many other variables of potential equal or greater effect.
Thus we all see the signs that prove our own theories only to see them evaporate away again.
For every theory put up, PDO, El Nino, CO2, MT, we find ourselves looking for a root cause only to find that there are other causes behind them ad infinitum.
This does not mean you should stop looking.
Some ideas carry a lot more weight than others and may well play some part of importance.
More to the point though is how you have both, as I said, put up facts and figures and been brave enough to put them out their with enough gravitas to get them recognized as worthy of discussion by Judy.
I will continue to be a skeptical pain with my follow up comments but best of luck now and in the future.
9) Q: Your hypothesis cannot be correct because the top of the atmosphere should be in radiative equilibrium and return the same amount of energy it receives.
A: That statement is incorrect.
“The radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere is never in equilibrium and the planet is warming or cooling all the time at any time frame considered. ”
Why the statement may be correct
“Grey bodies, like black bodies, absorb electromagnetic radiation. The absorptivity of a grey body is the ratio of the amount of energy absorbed by the body to the amount of energy absorbed by a black body at the same temperature. Note that the definition of the absorptivity is parallel to the definition of emissivity. If the components of a grey body, the particles and molecules in a sample of an atmospheric aerosol, for example, are in thermal equilibrium, then the emissivity and absorptivity for thermal radiation must be equal. If the emissivity and absorptivity were not the same, the sample could spontaneously develop cooler and warmer regions, which violates the second law of thermodynamics”
At any one time,no matter what the change in energy throughput is, the emissivity and absorptivity are the same.
But since everyone feels this is not the case, the second law is wrong?
Nobody has ever identified a period when the amount of energy entering the climate system was the same as the amount of energy exiting the climate system.
The Earth has no way of returning the same amount of energy it receives.
So? A lot of misinformation out there?
Internal flow analysis Earth’s energy budget
From Wikipedia,
To describe some of the internal flows within the budget, let the insolation received at the top of the atmosphere be 100 units (=340 W/m2), as shown in the accompanying Sankey diagram. Called the albedo of Earth, around 35 units in this example are directly reflected back to space: 27 from the top of clouds, 2 from snow and ice-covered areas, and 6 by other parts of the atmosphere. The 65 remaining units (ASR=220 W/m2) are absorbed: 14 within the atmosphere and 51 by the Earth’s surface.
The 51 units reaching and absorbed by the surface are emitted back to space through various forms of terrestrial energy: 17 directly radiated to space and 34 absorbed by the atmosphere (19 through latent heat of vaporisation, 9 via convection and turbulence, and 6 as absorbed infrared by greenhouse gases). The 48 units absorbed by the atmosphere (34 units from terrestrial energy and 14 from insolation) are then finally radiated back to space. This simplified example neglects some details of mechanisms that recirculate, store, and thus lead to further buildup of heat near the surface.
Ultimately the 65 units (17 from the ground and 48 from the atmosphere) are emitted as OLR. They approximately balance the 65 units (ASR) absorbed from the sun in order to maintain a net-zero gain of energy by Earth.[18]
That is the problem with believing undue simplifications.
The energy that is not returned by albedo gets distributed over the entire climate system, and each part of it has a different return time to the top of the atmosphere as escaping IR. There is no mechanism that can put at the top of the atmosphere the same amount of energy that it is entering. Thermal homeostasis is multifactorial and imperfect. The Earth warms and cools all the time at all time frames. This should be very simple to understand to anybody.
Climate is a lot more complex than most people can fathom.
A Black Body is a hypothetical construct. Real world objects have a less than perfect emissivity, and real world objects have an absorptivity that varies with wavelength. To properly constrain the problem, the absorptivity needs to be integrated over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, or at least over the dominant wavelengths of the sun’s emissions.
Clyde Spencer | September 23, 2022 at 10:09 pm |
Angech, you asked if I agree with you.
Basically, no.
The reason?
Because a Black Body has high emissivity, I’m going to assume that it has to have a complex refractive index with a non-negligible imaginary component. That means moderate reflectivity and not transparent.
Your original comment however suggested that a Black Body has perfect emissivity which is unarguable since it is a hypothetical construct based on this premise.
Not high emissivity as you now suggest.
Further the essence of a black Body is that it is totally absorptive and not transparent and most importantly has no reflectivity.
I therefore do not think you are able to argue moderate reflectivity exists.
Hence your argument depending on reflectivity
” To determine the total amount of EM energy absorbed over a given interval of time, one needs to integrate the incident flux at every wavelength and use Fresnel’s Equation to determine the amount absorbed by convolving the incident flux with the (1-reflectivity) for the angle of incidence at each point on the geoid. The geoid will reach different temperatures at different locations because of differences in the refractive index and specific heat capacity.”
is wrong.
Fortunate because the essence of a hypothetical Black Body is that every area of the geoid reaches the same temperature at the same time.
It would be true for a grey body that
” the emitted EM radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature, as per SB, one needs to calculate or measure the surface temperatures. Thus, even the outgoing flux needs to be calculated on a point-by-point basis, integrated over the geoid.”‘
But since we are doing a hypothetical comparison and due to the points I made about absorption and emission the end result is the same.
I am sorry you cannot see that.
Angech
Note that I didn’t use the term sphere, but, rather, the term “geoid,” which refers to the shape of the Earth. Because the surface materials of Earth are not uniform, it does not meet the definition of a hypothetical Black Body, and must therefore, be a Grey Body.
No real polished substance has zero reflection at all wavelengths, and therefore cannot be considered a Black Body. Real substances can have strong absorption features at specific wavelengths, and mimic a black body for that particular wavelength. (I’m not sure about this, but I suspect that line emissions of a hot substance would correspond to a wavelength for which the Extinction Coefficient approaches infinity.)
It is possible to mimic a Black Body by physically shaping material. That is, a highly reflective metal can appear black in visible light by reducing it to a very fine powder. Metals have relatively large “Extinction Coefficients,” (the imaginary part of the complex refractive index) at visible wavelengths. Similarly, a light trap can be constructed of a stack of shiny metal razor blades.
In summary, there is no natural material that I know of that has zero reflectance for surfaces that are flat at the molecular level, for all wavelengths. Therefore, real world materials and objects are, at best, Grey Bodies, and the assumption of a Black Body is a convenience for First Order approximations.
Clyde:
“the assumption of a Black Body is a convenience for First Order approximations.”
–
Yes, that is right!
The original definition of Black Body says Black Body absorbs all the incident on it EM radiation.
–
It was said in order to emphasize the Black Body emits EM radiation at 4th power of its absolute temperature (T).
–
Any incident EM radiation had to be neglected as insignificant, since the experiments were conducted in the indoors environments.
–
The surrounding walls’ EM emission upon the heated filament was insignificant for the experiment’s results. So, its reflection couldn’t be affecting the original outcome.
Thus, it was said, the incident EM radiation was completely absorbed.
–
It was never said the Black Body’s absolute temperature is a result of the warming by the EM radiation absorption.
–
The by the EM radiation warming – it is a completely different, yet to be written chapter in Physics.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, The only thing I would add to Javier’s comment is that Earth is neither a graybody or a blackbody. It is a rotating sphere with a fluid atmosphere, over a mostly liquid surface. Using a model of radiation striking a flat surface, that is a graybody or a blackbody, to describe energy entering and exiting our climate system is silly.
Thank you to all 3 of you for your considered responses to my question.
” Your hypothesis cannot be correct because the top of the atmosphere should be in radiative equilibrium and return the same amount of energy it receives.””
“That is the problem with believing undue simplifications.”
“A Black Body is a hypothetical construct”
“The only thing I would add is that Earth is neither a
graybody or a blackbody.”
You have all expanded on your answers with sensible comments which are worth reading.
Javier | September 23, 2022 at 11:38 am | Reply
“That is the problem with believing undue simplifications.
The energy that is not returned by albedo gets distributed over the entire climate system, and each part of it has a different return time to the top of the atmosphere as escaping IR. There is no mechanism that can put at the top of the atmosphere the same amount of energy that it is entering. Thermal homeostasis is multifactorial and imperfect. The Earth warms and cools all the time at all time frames. This should be very simple to understand to anybody.
Climate is a lot more complex than most people can fathom.
Clyde Spencer | September 23, 2022 at 12:11 pm
A Black Body is a hypothetical construct. Real world objects have a less than perfect emissivity, and real world objects have an absorptivity that varies with wavelength. To properly constrain the problem, the absorptivity needs to be integrated over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, or at least over the dominant wavelengths of the sun’s emissions.
Andy May | September 23, 2022 at 4:31 pm
angech, The only thing I would add to Javier’s comment is that Earth is neither a graybody or a blackbody. It is a rotating sphere with a fluid atmosphere, over a mostly liquid surface. Using a model of radiation striking a flat surface, that is a graybody or a blackbody, to describe energy entering and exiting our climate system is silly.”
Yet the TOA exists both as a hypothetical construct and a real thermodynamic law that objects must lose heat proportional to their overall surface temperature [Clive].
Explicitly stated “The Earth warms and cools all the time at all time frames.” [Javier].
The earth is a ” rotating sphere with a fluid atmosphere, over a mostly liquid surface.” [Andy May] is not an excuse for trying to model how radiation enters and leaves our system.
It demands that we use our imagination to think of how two disparate concepts in total disagreement can actually merge.
Clyde Spencer
“A Black Body is a hypothetical construct. Real world objects have a less than perfect emissivity, and real world objects have an absorptivity that varies with wavelength.”
–
Second point first.
absorptivity that varies with wavelength.
You seem to be saying that this is a problem.
If I point out that the real world object absorbs all wavelengths that it absorb does this help explain why it is not a problem?
If it is not absorbed it either passes through or is reflected.
The fact that absorption is uneven at different wavelengths and absorbing surfaces does not stop blackbody eqivalence.
It merely shifts it to a blackbody that is receiving different wavelengths and strengths, which it treats the same as if it had a pure source in.
Thus grey or black both emit the same amount of energy that came in and was, for want of a better term as it is not correct, absorbed.
Do you agree with this?
A blackbody should be considered to be at absolute zero.
A grey body is not.
The extra energy in the grey body which is not from the heat source is what supplies the extra balancing outflow.
Basically you are all counting absorption as extra stored energy in the grey body while the grey body is letting the same amount of its own supply of energy out.
It is like a farmer having truckloads of sheep come in while his farm hand is letting the same amount out at the back paddock to the rustlers.
You are only counting the visible rise in energy in one spot while neglecting the overall constant energy loss which is demanded.
Clyde Spencer
“A Black Body is a hypothetical construct. Real world objects have a less than perfect emissivity, and real world objects have an absorptivity that varies with wavelength.”
A less than perfect emissivity?
Something either has emissivity or it does not.
When measuring emissivity the temperature of the emitting object has dropped by the amount of energy it has emitted.
So what you are saying is this is it’s temperature now when really it has already dropped when you measure it.
A true measure would be the amount of energy previously contained minus the emission is the true temperature and energy content at the time of measurement.
Only in this way does the concept of lack of ability to store incoming energy become apparent.
There is no stored ocean heat content from the sun.
Only ocean heat content inherent existing in the earth from the act of putting it together eons ago
While not correct an analogy would be that any heat going into the ocean on the sun facing side of the world is going out to space in equivalent amount on the dark side.
There is no battery of hot ocean molecules deliberately hanging onto heat exclusively from the sun.
Angech, you asked if I agree with you.
Basically, no. Because a Black Body has high emissivity, I’m going to assume that it has to have a complex refractive index with a non-negligible imaginary component. That means moderate reflectivity and not transparent. To determine the total amount of EM energy absorbed over a given interval of time, one needs to integrate the incident flux at every wavelength and use Fresnel’s Equation to determine the amount absorbed by convolving the incident flux with the (1-reflectivity) for the angle of incidence at each point on the geoid. The geoid will reach different temperatures at different locations because of differences in the refractive index and specific heat capacity. Because the emitted EM radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature, as per SB, one needs to calculate or measure the surface temperatures. Thus, even the outgoing flux needs to be calculated on a point-by-point basis, integrated over the geoid.
The point being, to get an accurate estimate of the net energy balance, requires a lot more than some hand waving about “average albedo” and “average temperature.”
“There is no stored ocean heat content from the sun.
Only ocean heat content inherent existing in the earth from the act of putting it together eons ago”
Nonsense. I guess you know nothing about benthic core stacks like LR04 that inform about the variable temperature of the ocean bottom during the Pleistocene. ¿Where do you think the energy for those changes comes from? The Moon?
What you are expressing is a belief, coming from a simplification, derived from an assumption. That ain’t science in my book. Closer to religion. When asked to provide evidence for what you say you have provided none. It is a waste of time.
Clyde:
“Because the emitted EM radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature, as per SB, one needs to calculate or measure the surface temperatures. Thus, even the outgoing flux needs to be calculated on a point-by-point basis, integrated over the geoid.”
–
Yes, that is right!
Every planet has its mean surface temperature (Tmean).
When comparing for the solar system the planets and moons without-atmosphere the satellite measured mean surface temperatures (Tmean), what we have discovered is the:
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Thus, it became possible to write the
PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
–
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth OTOH is a real body and is conveniently located to be observed and simulated. Soon to be a vastly more sophisticated Earth Null School.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-57.69,55.46,383
For those who are unfamiliar with the CERN CLOUD experiment was originally proposed in 2000, and has been in operation since 2009. The home page (https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud) states as follows. Hardly “no evidence”.
*******
The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron (PS) at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science. The results should contribute much to our fundamental understanding of aerosols and clouds, and their affect on climate.
What can cosmic rays tell us about climate?
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth’s atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. However, despite its importance for climate, aerosol formation is poorly understood. Measuring the underlying microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is important for a better understanding of atmospheric aerosol and is the key to unravelling the possible connection between cosmic rays and clouds.
Pingback: About Meridional Cooling and Climate Change - Climate- Science.press
Thanks Javier and Andy for this strong research and findings. I have reblogged your introduction with links here, and added some supporting discussion from other sources. My comment:
A recent post was Seven Theories of Climate Change, summarizing an array of explanations for fluctuations in temperatures and precipitation over Earth’s surface.
Now, thanks to Javier Vinós & Andy May, we have a new hypothesis combining solar variability with oceanic/atmospheric oscillations to explain the climate record. An introduction to their findings is published at Climate Etc. The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VII). A summary plus Q&A. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some added images.
My first exposure to meridional cooling was provided by Clive Best, and later on is a repost of that understanding consistent with Vinós & May.
https://rclutz.com/2022/09/23/about-meridional-cooling-and-climate-change/
Thanks Ron.
General circulation models are too complex (too many variables) to be useful as a predictor of climate change. You can get good fits of data with enough variables but most of the resulting coefficients (relationships) are meaningless. Thus, the model is meaningless as a predictor..
As you show, natural emissions of CO2 are being transported from tropical emission zones to frigid polar zones. The open cold polar waters (with phytoplankton) absorb all the CO2 that reaches the surface. However, sea-ice forms with winter and covers most of the sink so the CO2 being delivered from the tropics builds up until the ice melts in spring and summer.
I propose simplifying the model into two polar sink zones and two emission zones and study only the vertical flow of water,. CO2, and energy in each. In the emission zones the flow is both up and down with the formation of clouds and rain but a small fraction of the emitted CO2 goes out the top of clouds to be delivered by jet streams to polar regions. In the polar sink zones the flow is always down in winter because the surface is colder than the air above it.
I have worked with such a model and have come to significant conclusions.
1. The formation and melting of sea-ice is the main controlling factor in the annual variation in observed CO2 concentrations.
2. Nature “net zeros” all emissions (including anthropogenic emissions) within a year.
3. The observed year-to-year increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is a result of increases in natural emissions and not the accumulation of anthropogenic emissions.
4, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will continue to rise in the near future even if we were able to completely stop all anthropogenic emissions.
Thank you Javier and Andy for the plain language summary.
Javier,
Svensmark (October 11, 2021) Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing regarding Forbush Decrease events directly affecting energy balance of the earth states “A statistically significant linear relationship exists between the strength of the 13 FDs and the globally averaged SW responses.” That’s some pretty obvious EVIDENCE.
A good rule of thumb is never say “there is no evidence” because almost always there is some evidence. Indeed in this case there are decades of evidence from numerous sources including some of the most well-known scientists and organizations (CERN) in the world!
GCR pretty definitely affects cloud formation, and clouds pretty definitely affect temperature on earth. Lots of evidence there!
Indeed, if you add this into your analysis, you will find that your meridional argument is markedly strengthened.
Thank you for all your great work!
I am not saying there is no effect whatsoever from changes in cosmic rays. There might be small detectable changes.
The problem is the Laschamp event. That was the mother of all cosmic ray parties. Hundreds of years with cosmic ray levels not seen in over a million years. Despite claims to the contrary, I did the real test, and without knowing when it took place it is not possible to locate it in climate records. Ergo, it cannot have much effect if a humongous change in cosmic rays has no discernible effect over glacial climate variability.
It is not the only evidence I have analyzed. I have checked for the climatic effects of every strong increase in 14C production during the Holocene. Most have a climate pattern defined as the climate signature of a solar grand minimum (SGM), defined in chapter 5 of my book and illustrated in figure 5.17.
A few strong increases in 14C production do not display a climate signature, and therefore I do not consider them to be grand solar minima. One of them took place 9,500 years BP and it is the biggest 14C increase in the entire Holocene. Nothing remarkable shows up in climate records until two hundred years later, when a SGM belonging to the millennial cycle took place. I have tentatively identified that 14C increase as the arrival of cosmic rays originating from the Vela supernova explosion that took place during the early Holocene (figure 8.1 in my book).
The fact that the biggest 14C increase in the Holocene has no discernible climate effect strongly supports the conclusion from the lack of discernible effect from the Laschamp event. Cosmic rays have no discernible effect on climate. The effect is due to the reduction in solar activity, not the increase in cosmic rays.
That is my conclusion, and dubious cloud chamber experiments will not change it. There is no shortage of condensation nuclei in Earth. Even the trees produce their own.
Javier, thank you for your response.
The Laschamp event was very short-lived (only about 440 years from end to end) and was not an instantaneous reversal as it is often described. It was one of many quite complex changes in the magnetic field of the earth. (http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/comparison1_strip.gif) And indeed there were quite large changes around that time in the GISP2 ice core data and in 10Be.
As Euan Mearns has noted, “What we do know is that in the GISP 2 ice core there appears to be a correspondence between cosmic ray flux and temperature variations (Figure 2) and similar co-variance of cosmogenic isotopes and climate impacts have been described for the Holocene (refs 1, 2, 3, 4).” (http://euanmearns.com/the-laschamp-event-and-earths-wandering-magnetic-field/)
And what about the stunning correlation that Svensmark generated by analyzing the solar system’s path through the galaxy, estimating the GCR flux and comparing that to terrestrial proxies for global temperature? Here for example is another GCR vs Temperature comparison http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/ice-ages/fig5.jpg
And why do refer to the CERN CLOUD experiments as “dubious”? What is it specifically that you doubt? Dubious is far from being a scientific term.
Jonathan, the correlation in ice cores is likely due to the known solar effect on climate rather than the unknown cosmic ray effect. Those 400+ years during the Laschamp event might have seen an increase in cosmic rays of an order of magnitude, not to forget solar wind and particles, as the Earth’s magnetic field during the event is estimated as 95% weaker than present.
The solar system path through the galaxy is not as well constrained as to call it a “stunning correlation.” Other explanations are also possible for the temperature changes during the Phanerozoic. Tectonics, dust clouds, who knows what. The very distant past does not provide good support for anything, as our knowledge of it is very poor.
I have not seen good evidence in support of the cosmic ray hypothesis, therefore, I am skeptic of it. If good evidence appears I’ll change my mind.
The CLOUD results are dubious in that they do not provide good support for the cosmic ray hypothesis, nor they rule it out.
Curious:
Quote Javier “The problem is the Laschamp event. That was the mother of all cosmic ray parties.”
That event appeared here https://booksite.elsevier.com/brochures/geophysics/PDFs/00095.pdf and in connection with the eastern Mediterranean.
What have since become evident in many studies are tectonic rotations, particularly in the Mediterranean.
How reliable are then paleomagnetic readings, and then the theories developed from them?
Javier, so you discount Shaviv (New Astronomy, 2002) “The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth” which concludes rather emphatically re the correlation, “Periodic glaciation epochs on earth in the past 1 Gyr can be consistently explained using the proposed scenario: Periodic passages through the galactic spiral arms are responsible for an increased CRF, an increased LACC, a reduced global temperature and consequent ice ages.” http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/long-ice.pdf
“so you discount Shaviv (New Astronomy, 2002) “The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth” which concludes rather emphatically re the correlation, “Periodic glaciation epochs on earth in the past 1 Gyr can be consistently explained using the proposed scenario: Periodic passages through the galactic spiral arms are responsible for an increased CRF, an increased LACC, a reduced global temperature and consequent ice ages.”
I don’t discount anything. It is just that the evidence is not strong enough for the claim. The problem with the solar system travel through the galaxy is that nobody knows really when the arms were crossed, much less the effect it had.
This recent paper claims that the arms are crossed with a 170-200 Myr frequency, which is too much for Shaviv’s claims:
“We report time series analysis of the Hf isotopic composition of zircon grains from the North Atlantic and Pilbara cratons, the archetypes of Archean plate tectonic and non-plate tectonic settings, respectively. An ~170–200 m.y. frequency is recognized in both cratons that matches the transit of the solar system through the galactic spiral arms, where the density of stars is high. An increase in stellar density is consistent with an enhanced rate of Earth bombardment by comets, the larger of which would have initiated crustal nuclei production via impact-driven decompression melting of the mantle.”
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/doi/10.1130/G50513.1/616377/Did-transit-through-the-galactic-spiral-arms-seed
If it is 170-200 Myr it cannot be 150 Myr, but I really have no way to know who is correct, so I don’t play. You, on the other hand, want to believe.
And let me tell you that in my book I was reprimanded by one referee for including Shaviv’s galactic hypothesis, even though I did not endorse it. I just thought it was worth mentioning it, but it is too speculative for my taste.
Javier,
The conclusion that GCR correlates directly with glaciations does NOT depend on the spiral arm crossing frequency being exactly 150 Myr. Like most things in the real world, it is much more complicated than that.
Here, for example, is a recent paper that comes to the same Svensmark-style conclusion with a crossing frequency of 188 Myr: Gillman (Nov 2019) “Reconciling the Earth’s stratigraphic record with the structure of our galaxy” which uses the latest data on sun’s distance from center of galaxy and speed relative to center to calculate the frequency.
The conclusion is essentially the same, however, “The timing of key events in the history of the Earth, including major extinctions and glaciations, and the origin of the Solar System, can be reconciled with a model of passage through the spiral arms.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987119301094
I know the it-must-be-CO2-orthodoxy doesn’t want to admit the obvious that has now been proven over and over again for the last thirty years or so vis a vis GCR, which is no doubt why one of your book referees reprimanded you, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then…
“The conclusion that GCR correlates directly with glaciations does NOT depend on the spiral arm crossing frequency being exactly 150 Myr.”
Well, it does in my opinion. This is a figure in my book:
https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Phanerozoic_temperature-CO2_pdf/7836935/2
It shows major ice ages separated by aproximately 150 Myr. There is no way to fit there a 180 Myr spacing. No way. If you superimpose there the galactic arms crossings at 180-200 Myr frequency they do not coincide by tens of millions of years with ice ages.
Color me skeptical, and saying: “it is much more complicated than that” does not precisely reduce my skepticism. Either the ice ages take place when crossing the galactic arms, or they are unrelated.
Javier wrote:
“Color me skeptical, and saying: ‘it is much more complicated than that’ does not precisely reduce my skepticism. Either the ice ages take place when crossing the galactic arms, or they are unrelated.”
Javier, I said “it is much more complicated than that” because I presented a recent paper that contains within it a detailed and extensive explanation: Gillman (Nov 2019) “Reconciling the Earth’s stratigraphic record with the structure of our galaxy”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987119301094
After you have read the paper, I would love to know your thoughts on where it is that the authors are going wrong in your opinion. They provide a detailed mathematical and scientific explanation of how a 188 Myr arm-crossing period works to explain a lot including past glaciations.
Please be specific about with which parts of their argument you disagree. Saying if the period is not 150 Myr then it doesn’t work “in your opinion” doesn’t tell me anything. Why doesn’t it work and specifically what about the Gillman Science argument is incorrect in your view.
“where it is that the authors are going wrong in your opinion.”
I lack the necessary knowledge to judge that kind of paper, so neither I refute it, nor do I believe it. I suspend judgement on it until I see if other experts in the field agree or disagree and based on what. But nevertheless, that is a subject very removed from my areas of interest, so I just say it is interesting and move on.
But that paper does not support Svensmark hypothesis.
The Ordovician Ice Age was centered at 450 Ma. The Karoo Ice Age was centered at 300 Ma. The Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous cool period was centered at 150 Ma. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age is now.
Let’s say 450 Ma the solar system was crossing an arm and the Late Ordovician Ice Age took place. The next ice age takes place at 300 Ma, but the passage at 270 Ma, 30 Myr later. The next cool period at 150 Ma, but the next passage at 90 Ma, 60 Myr later. The next ice age now but the next passage 90 Myr later. When analyzing correlation in oscillations, it is critical that the phase is maintained.
Not to mention that the solar system is at present in a minor arm or branch that would not support a major ice age at this point if the hypothesis were correct.
Javier wrote:
“But that paper does not support Svensmark hypothesis.”
Actually, it very clearly does support the Svensmark hypothesis. Here is a more complete summary from the paper, demonstrating why I said “it’s more complicated”:
“A coherent Earth and galactic stratigraphy emerges from a model with an average arm-passing time of 188 Myr. The superchrons define a large region away from the arm centres (Fig. 2, note the distribution of 99% confidence intervals of superchron midpoints). A cold period and first high extinction zone follow the end of the superchrons. The two extinctions in this zone (end-Capitanian and end-Ordovician) have been identified as having ‘multiple similarities’ (Isozaki and Servais, 2018). The cooling events in this region encompass examples varying in intensity and duration, with interpretation affected by the resolution of available data, e.g., from Maastrichtian fluctuations of a few degrees on 100 kyr timescales (Thibault et al., 2016) to the Marinoan glaciation, identified as one of the two most severe in Earth’s history, occurring over at least four million years (Prave et al., 2016). Sudden cooling events could be linked to gamma-ray bursts, which have been discussed as a possible contributor to the end-Ordovician extinction (Melott et al., 2004). The cold region is followed by a short region containing the end-Cretaceous (66 Ma) and end-Permian (EA 64 Ma), the latter having the highest recorded levels of extinction (percentage of genera or species, Stanley, 2016). These first two post-superchron regions overlap the duration of a high Iridium–Cobalt ratio during the late Cretaceous–early Paleogene, interpreted as indicative of a molecular cloud encounter (Nimura et al., 2016, allowing for the Chicxulub impact, and ‘not explained by … surface materials of the Earth’). The high extinction region leads into the star formation regions identified by the methanol maser and 870 μm dust arm tracers which overlap with the equivalent ages of the earliest Solar System. Much later there is the suggestion of linked events across arms during the equivalent age of the Monterey carbon isotope excursion, prior to passage through the next superchron region.”
And here is the graphic that so succinctly displays all that information:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674987119301094-gr2_lrg.jpg
Fig. 2. A galactic stratigraphy. Events corresponding to passage through the four arms are shown in four vertical panels. Absolute ages are plotted as modulo 188 values from 153 Ma to -35 Ma around the relevant arm, so that, for example, ages of >153 Ma to <188 Ma would be plotted as negative values in arm 2 (the dashed line is modulo age of zero). The horizontal bands indicate features located at similar positions across the arms: superchron centres (grey, spanning the 99% confidence intervals of centres; the grey at the top is the entry into the next superchron region), glaciations/cooling events and two large extinctions (blue), the end-Cretaceous and end-Permian extinctions (red) and methanol masers to 12CO, the earliest Solar System and global events from the PETM to the Carnian Humid Episode (yellow). The Monterey equivalent band (green) lies beyond the arm centre and is interpreted as the arm end (see Discussion). The four largest extinctions (blue circles) are labelled with both the name of the extinction and the estimated percentage of extinct genera (Stanley, 2016). The midpoints of superchrons are indicated by red circles, with the 99% confidence intervals for the midpoints calculated including the two values in the upper zone plus 188 Myr, spanning the equivalent of 77 Ma to 194.5 Ma. The arm tracer centres are shown with errors equivalent to ± 100 pc. Their position on the left indicates that they are generic to all arms.
So as you can clearly see, the 188 Myr estimate of arm spacing does support the GCR Svensmark hypothesis quite clearly.
Your statement that “When analyzing correlation in oscillations, it is critical that the phase is maintained” is a gross oversimplification of the matter we are discussing. It is not a simple oscillation that we are discussion here. The spiral arms are not single points in space, they are quite wide, and the GCR flux obviously varies across the arms.
Since you said you lack the knowledge to judge the paper, I take that to mean you have not considered it in your very astute model at present.
I hope you will take it on yourself to learn more about this paper and this subject in general, and consider it going forward, because this paper is clearly a very important advancement in our scientific and mathematical understanding of how our planet is impacted by its trip through the solar system. Pretending it does not exist, simply because you have failed to understand it yet, does not mean it is unimportant. Indeed, it may be the most important factor.
One of my favorite mentors many years ago told me that sometimes the most important factors in solving any kinds of problems are the things that you don’t know that you don’t know.
I hope you will take up this challenge and research this further!
Thank you again for all your work.
A statistically significant linear relationship exists between the strength of the 13 FDs and the globally averaged SW responses.
I don’t know if J&A were the muse for this, but Willis has included advection in one of his missives.
I got to thinking about that, and after a while I realized that that doesn’t tell the whole story. I realized that the answer was distorted because I hadn’t included advection.
Advection is the horizontal transport of heat. Generally, it’s in the form of moving ocean and atmosphere. It generally flows, as you might expect, from warm to cold—from the equator to the poles. Here’s a map showing the average transport, both export (red) and import (blue) of energy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/17/a-more-accurate-multiplier/
The Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Interacting-Emitting Universal Law
–
Here it is the ENTIRE planet surface IR emittance Universal Law
–
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a uniform temperature sphere in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
–
4πr²σΤmean⁴ (W)
–
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance with both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
–
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
–
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Congratulations to Javier and Andy for undertaking a massive and complex task. It is a landmark piece of work in our understanding of the climate.
The AGW hypothesis was always constrained by ideological and political imperatives, being the central plank of the UN redistribution of wealth initiative.
Javier
“ Over the past seven years, one of the authors of this series (JV) has been laboriously reading many thousands of scientific articles and analyzing hundreds of climate datasets trying to understand how Earth’s climate changes naturally”
Congratulations on your work. You have advanced climate science and added to the cumulative knowledge that future scientists will be using in decades to come.
I’m interested in your state of mind over those 7 years. You came from a different field and familiarizing yourself with the literature in only 7 years was a Herculean task, especially since some scientists have been working on these issues for 40-50 years. Could you share with us when you said to yourself “something doesn’t add up” about AGW and just as importantly when did you come to believe your hypothesis was on the right track?
Thank you.
I’ve always been attracted by complexity. By the end of 2014 I started a blog on systemic risks analysis. I perceived a serious risk from debt (and monetary policies), demographic trends, resource limits (particularly energy), and decided to include a climate risk. Pretty soon after I started analyzing climate change I saw that the claims were not proportionate to the evidence. I’ve been reading scientific papers for decades, so I can see immediately what the evidence presented demonstrates and what it doesn’t, as well as alternative explanations, so it doesn’t matter to me what the authors claim, but what they actually demonstrate. Particularly troublesome to me was the treatment of skeptic scientists, because solid science defends itself. Only troubled science requires a strong defense.
The evidence is very strong that modern warming started very strongly a century before human emissions increased strongly. The effect cannot precede the cause in this universe. There was something else. I then became skeptic but didn’t have any answers. I didn’t think the sun had much to do, but the amount of paleoclimate papers I was reading was piling up, and a pattern was emerging. Most periods of very low solar activity (grand solar minima) coincided with periods of climate worsening, even 10,000 years ago. The LIA was not alone.
As a scientist I learned to let the hypotheses develop from the evidence pretty much on their own, and be ready to abandon them if the evidence stopped supporting them. Not many scientists learn to do that, but I had very good teachers.
The evidence led me to the sun, not my convictions. And the evidence led me also away from the sun. I’ve been always bothered by the Early 20th Century Warming starting earlier than the Modern Solar Minimum. The logical answer was that the sun was only a part of something more important. That something came to me while thinking on the “low gradient paradox.” The Early Eocene was very warm because the gradient could not drive as much energy transport as today. From then on, paper after paper, the evidence was consistent with the hypothesis. That finally convinced me. Good theories explain many things and find support in evidence that was not considered when it was developed.
“There is no stored ocean heat content from the sun.
Only ocean heat content inherent existing in the earth from the act of putting it together eons ago”
Javier | September 24, 2022 at 4:11 am | -Nonsense.
Most objects in our solar system have energy in them.
The question is why.
Another question is for how long.
The way the sun and the planets have formed and are aged are essential to the question of ocean heat content on a water planet with a hot core close to an even hotter core of plasma acting as a further energy source.
The formation of the earth 4 to 5 billion years ago, and the sun possibly longer were accompanied by enormous masses of energy.
Where did this energy come from?. Why was the earth described as a molten hot mass at the beginning that has now cooled down and formed a crust?
Heat from a sun that was busy forming itself?
Heat from the process of accumulation of cold debris from previous suns [the standard model] ?
Certain facts are obvious.
The heat from the sun could never, in 4 billion years, warm the earth to its current internal temperature.
At the distance away it is and the size of the earth it cannot melt sand on the surface. It tries as hard as it can just to stop most of the surface from freezing over.
The energy contained in the earth trying to get out of the earth is enormous.
Small compared to the sun but still very important.
At is size and surface area it will take eons more to get down to absolute zero.
It is capable of putting out its 48 terrawatts for another 4 billion years by itself but it will not be very hot on the surface where that energy is being lost.
This is the point that is lost in your deliberations.
There already is a basal load of energy constantly coming to the surface , small though it is.
Enough to keep water at the bottom of the ocean where the sun never reaches at a temperature around 273 K and liquid because of the enormous pressure of the ocean above and the temperature of the earth below.
Not because of the sun.
Not because of a little bit of heat during the day to the top couple of 100 meters by the sun.
There is no stored energy possible or capable in any surface on the earth solid or liquid.
If they have a temperature they are radiating energy out at that temperature, not because it is stored but because that is what the combine small earth production and the normal daily intake of energy provide to go out.
To mention benthic core stacks like LR04 that inform about the variable temperature of the ocean bottom during the Pleistocene.
is misleading and to miss the point entirely.
Misleading because they do not dwell on the bottom of deep oceans, more on coral reefs or sediment a couple of 100 meters [to 2000 meters down],They are used more to give an idea of surface temperatures in the Pleistocene.
What point is there to a measurement of an ocean bottom that Steve Mosher could tell you the temperature of for the last billion years if you simply give him a depth and pressure gauge without ever needing to go there?
How much energy does the sun put into the earth per second?
Simple
But, how much energy does the sun produce? According to Dr. Louis Barbier, a comic ray astrophysicist with NASA, the sun creates “roughly 5 x 1023 horsepower, or what can be called 3.8 x 1033 ergs per second.”
What does that mean? Barbier answered that question, too: “It is enough energy to melt a bridge of ice 2 miles wide, 1 mile thick, and extending the entire way from the Earth to the Sun, in one second.”
That is every second 24 hours a day.
That is what is keeping us at our average 15 C global surface temp. Not any stored energy in the ocean.
Actual continual energy giving air temperature ocean temperature and land temperature we expect each second.
Turn it off and in 1 second what would happen?
Instant freeze on the surface as all that out ingoing energy is gone.
Kaput.
Is the earth now at absolute zero.?
No . turn off the sun and Jupiter will still be a gas giant.
Would not even notice.
Eath however would be an instabnyt ice covered liquid water at the bottom of the seas structure like Jupiters moons.
Still hot in the centre still radiating 4 terrawatts, just not livable.
When asked to provide evidence for what you say you have provided none.
The evidence is before your eyes.
Look at planets and moons not dependent on the sun
Look at Jupiter.
Look at Europa.
Consider the known vast energy inherent in an earth structure without the sun.
Consider the known vast energy pumped into the surface every single second.
Consider the equally vast and slightly greater energy going out every second.
Ask yourself how much energy is in the atmosphere, earth surface and ocean surface [only]
Is there really more than 1 seconds worth sustaining it all?
No.
Thank you for taking the time to previously look at what I wrote and you are probably right to dismiss it all as nonsense, rubbish or religion.
“There is no stored energy possible or capable in any surface on the earth solid or liquid”
The greening of the planet is storing energy. Phytoplankton in the surface waters of the ocean, trees on land. Then there are fossil fuels that are being blamed for warming the earth’s atmosphere. .
Still working on that one
Every battery has an internal resistance. You can think of an actual battery as a perfect battery in series with a resistor. As you charge the resistance converts some of your charging energy to heat. (note that watts = power = energy/time = Joules/sec). Say you’re charging a 10V battery at a rate of 100 watts (stored energy per time). For a perfect battery that would require you apply 10V at 10 Amps. But if the battery has a 1 ohm resistance you’d actually need to apply 11V meaning you’ll need to supply 110watts of power to get 100watts to the battery.
In other words the energy stored in fossil fuels is not extra energy.
I’ve no disagreement with the hypothesis that the CliSci catechism fails in its treatment of convection, but wouldn’t so readily abandon the good bishop’s Razor Principle. The basic question is whether convection favors transport of energy 10km vertically or several thousand kilometers horizontally to escape the surface. Convection is a nonlinear viscous process dependent on thermal gradients. Textbooks will tell you that this gradient is induced by a gravitational field and dependent only on the heat capacity of a kilogram of moist air. They omit telling you that this concept originated with Kelvin in 1862 and was promptly skewered by independent calculations of Maxwell and Boltzmann. Thermal gradients arise only in nonequilbrium systems and must necessarily depend upon dissipative parameters such as viscosity and radiative absorption. In a model calculation, I found climate sensitivities equivalent to 0.8K for CO2 doubling with a fixed tropopause temperature and 2.2K with a fixed boundary temperature differential. The import is that, whatever the correct value might be, it will significantly depend on the modeling of thermal gradients.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” A.E.(attr.)
The winter gatekeeper hypothesis gives a nice explanation to LW radiation budget. But what about the change in shortwave warming, with cloud and albedo change. It look like CERES and other satellite data are dismissed. 40 years with unreliable data?
nobodysknowledge,
“change in shortwave warming, with cloud and albedo change.”
Speaking for myself here, Javier may have more to say. Clouds and albedo changes are a very heavy lift. I’ve spent more time than I should have studying them and got nowhere. Extremely small changes in either have an enormous impact and are below the resolution of the data we have, including CERES data. Plus, as Javier has written, how does albedo balance itself between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres so well? What drives that, we don’t know. What happens when cloud cover increases? We don’t know. With more time and better data, we might figure it out, but don’t hold your breath.
“At the inter-annual scale, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and El Niño/Southern Oscillation have a strong effect. The Sun is not dominant at these time-scales.”
The Sun drives all the major oceanic changes in MT, like in 1976-77 and 1995 at seasonal scales, and the Sun discretely drives major heat and cold waves at weekly scales. Through changes in the solar wind strength causing NAM anomalies. Without which the anomalies would not occur.
Thanks for the download.
“The current below average solar activity and an expected cooling phase in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation indicate a probable continuation, or even accentuation, of the reduced rate of warming during the first third of the 21st century. A modest cooling during this period is possible. Unlike the 20th century, this century should contain two cooling phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.”
Given that the AMO warmed with the weakening of the solar wind since 1995, I would expect the AMO to cool when the solar wind strengthens again sufficiently. The AMO partially cooled when the solar wind was slightly stronger at and just after the last two sunspot cycle maximums, the latter known as the ‘cold blob’, and also in 2018. The longest lag is a feedback through ENSO.
The 20th century had two cold AMO phases:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1875
Ulric, The AMO at the beginning of the 20th century was well into its cool phase and at that time the MSM was beginning.
The AMO cooled 1901-1904:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1885/to:1905
What is your criteria to suggest that is when the MSM was beginning?
“The AMO cooled 1901-1904:”
Yes, the gaussian analysis of AMO shown in figure 7.1 was done since 1856, and shows peak AMO values around 1878. By 1900 AMO was already 20+ years into decline. Lowest AMO values were reached around 1920, so only half of the cooling part of that AMO oscillation was included in the 20th century. The first part after the shift has a stronger climatic effect. We have seen that in the latest phase, with the 80s showing more rapid warming than the 90s, and the 90s more than the 2000s.
We stand by our prediction, but obviously we will not be proven correct for many decades.
Javier, the ESRL AMO series is detrended, it actually warmed slightly up to 1900.
Since 2013 I have predicted the next cold AMO phase starting from the mid 2030’s.
Javier wrote:
“The first part after the shift has a stronger climatic effect. We have seen that in the latest phase, with the 80s showing more rapid warming than the 90s,”
The first part of what? after what shift?
No the faster AMO warming was in the 90’s:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1980/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1990/to:2000/trend
“The first part of what? after what shift?”
Climate regime shifts that separate climate transport regimes. We dedicated the 4th Part just to that. Those shifts have been identified for the 20th century by several authors.
I don’t rely too much on 19th century data when I can avoid it.
AMO is just an Atlantic proxy for meridional transport. When there is a shift to a low transport regime, AMO warms due to a slowdown of energy transport through the Atlantic. The first years after a shift show the most change, as it constitutes a reversal. This was seen for example in Arctic sea ice that declined dramatically 1995-2007, but stabilized afterwards to the new transport situation. That is why it is not about being in a warm or cool AMO, but changing from warm to cool or from cool to warm, when the change becomes apparent.
We will notice the AMO shift long before 2030. That is my opinion.
Javier, the change became apparent 1901-1904. I didn’t need a lecture on the mechanics. Look at the noise in the RAPID data, and note that during negative NAO episodes, the overturning (MOC) slows, but the Gulf Stream speeds up marginally.
Ulric, You are picking nits.
“The first part of what? after what shift?”
Read Part IV.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/08/22/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iv-the-unexplained-ignored-climate-shift-of-1997/
Obviously I am asserting that the AMO shifted colder 1901-1904 and not from 20+ years before. The AMO is normally warmer during a centennial solar minimum, which the 1880-1890’s were the central part of. That is why Atlantic hurricane seasons were so intense in those decades, a warmer AMO.
Some 90% of precipitation comes from oceans distributed around the world. Where that lands may as well be random – but the Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) does seem to be redder in the past few decades. Clicking the pointer and the SPEI at a point – or a region – will be graphed. More negative is drier – and a larger proportion of sensible heat. As measured by thermometers at the surface.
https://spei.csic.es/map/maps.html#months=1#month=7#year=2022
Surface heat is partitioned into sensible and latent. Sensible heat escapes at light speed. Evaporated water vapor mixes languidly upward until it cools in the lower atmosphere. Where it is measured by satellite based Advanced Microwave Sounding Units.
Pre and post 1998/2001 climate shift the world – oceans and atmosphere – warmed. 2016 may be a transition event in a roiling, spinning water planet evolving as spatiotemporal chaos.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Understanding this is an ongoing monitoring and modelling project. Vastly expanded weather science at seasonal and regional scales.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/data-driven-model.png
Apologies for the quality of that last graphic. It’s figure 1 on p.27 of this pre-print.
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3029184_8/component/file_3282959/content
And it quite clearly says post-print…??? Despite the pre-print formatting. Maybe it’s a Max Planck Institute thing. Keep science accessible?
“The problem is they fail to mention that their model-based proposed mechanism should work as negative feedback to warming.”
Particularly the circulation models, increasing positive NAO would drive a colder AMO and Arctic.
Arctic amplification is a contrivance, AMO & Arctic warming is a negative feedback to low solar via negative NAO conditions.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
A quick study in soils, grasses and livestock for all the right reasons and growing more grass. Carrie Richards is an amazing rancher. Mature grasses fed to livestock led between paddocks. Building soil organics, fertility, productivity, water holding capacity… Hold that thought.
Do you have a transcript?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #521on September 26, 2022 at 2:56 pm - Always Bet On Black
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #521 - Energy News Beat
Javier Vinós & Andy May, thank you for your review, and Javier thank you for your book.
I checked the authors and see no papers presented on the subject. What peer review was conducted? Do Judith Curry or Anthony Watts provide peer review before publishing?
Based on the authors published papers, I do not see a published an article on this subject. Was there a peer review of the book? Does Judith Curry provide a peer review?
Edward, peer review is a very corrupt and unreliable process, especially in the so-called area of “climate science”. You might want to read the following recent exposé on peer-review publishing before worshipping at the altar: https://substack.com/redirect/bd2fbced-a283-4af2-8e6e-6128806c4ba7?r=izf91
Exactly, Jonathan.
Compare the first three reviews here:
https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Vinos-CPPF2022.pdf
Yes, the book was peer-reviewed.
OK. sounds like the answer is no. Part 2, Do Judith Curry or Anthony Watt’s web/blog sites provide any type of peer review?
I don’t know of any web sites that need peer review. Seems like a super silly question.
Does https://www.realclimate.org have peer review?
Still trying to figure out how much CO2 contributes using your hypothesis.
“As it can be seen in Fig. 7.1, most of the warming during the 20th century can be explained by the combined effect of the ocean multidecadal oscillations and the Modern Solar Maximum on meridional transport.”
In the response to Question 6
“…it is unlikely that the anthropogenic effect on climate can account for more than half of the observed warming, and probably much less.”
My question: Is the 21st century warming different than the 20th century warming? Is the percentage for the 21st century warming different than the percentage for the 20th century warming?
For sake of discussion, 21st century warming shown in:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
could be used, but other sites show similar trends.
Edward, given that empirical natural variation in global temperature FAR exceeds anything we have seen to date, there is no scientific way to attribute ANY of the observed warming to human beings other than be surmise and guesswork (sometimes disguised as “models”), i.e. not science.
Edward, an IPCC lead author published a study in 2015 calculating (using published data from the National Climatic Data Center) that the standard deviation of natural centennial global temperature variation during the Holocene (the last 11,700 years) is 0.98 ± 0.27ºC. See Lloyd (2015)
Now the most extreme (alarmist-run) global temperature data sets, the last 100 years has seen approximately 1ºC of global warming. Even using that likely exaggerated number, the last century is completely within the bounds of natural variation over the last 11,700 years.
Or as the study author concluded: “..while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”
Jonathan — consider the source, the journal E&E. It is a sh!t journal and has been since the editor said, 20 yrs ago, that she had a right to be biased.
“When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, ‘I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?'”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen#Views_on_climate_change
“Is the 21st century warming different than the 20th century warming? Is the percentage for the 21st century warming different than the percentage for the 20th century warming?”
20th c. warming was irregular. Two decades of cooling followed by three decades of warming, then 2.5 decades of lesser cooling followed by 2.5 decades of warming.
What we have seen in the 21st c. so far is lack of warming except for the big El Niño period that started in the Summer of 2014 and ended in the Spring of 2016.
What is clear is warming has not accelerated since the mid-90s despite strongly accelerating emissions.
Javier, thank you for your book – very well argued, with a huge set of references to the wider scientific literature. This will be very useful to anyone interested in the science. Your discussion of the Milankovitch Theory is the best one that I have read: it’s an excellent and convincing synthesis.
By starting with Milankovitch, you establish a clear direct impact of solar radiation on the Earth’s climate system. This is an excellent platform to base the later discussion of the other possible impacts of the sun on other features of the climate system.
I think that the sheer size of the Milankovitch changes in solar energy at the critical places on the Earth’s surface is one thing to point out in contrast to the equivalent CO2 forcing. As you discuss in relation to the next glaciation, it is not at all clear that even a doubling (or more) of CO2 levels can have enough impact to prevent the next glacial onset, once the obliquity level drops low enough.
The glacial cycle is on a geologic timescale. if our current civilization does not self destruct we will have control over our planet’s climate in 100 years, will be able to diffuse cyclones and target precipitation where we want it, like Greenland. I hope we win instead of survivors competing in Thunderdome.
Too optimistic Ron.
I agree we will get near there one day
The means to control need to be butterfly wings to minimise the energy needed.
Cloud seeding is a good example.
Variable direction windmills and wind blocking devices.
But bigger energy strategies carry the greatly increased risk of unintended consequences.
We are Arrakis rather than Dune
In 1900 nobody foresaw there would be powered flying machines fighting in combat over France in 1914. HG Wells’s
The First Man on the Moon was written that year as a fantastic fantasy not the science establishment’s projection for 69 years in the future.
mikeedwards13 wrote:
I think that the sheer size of the Milankovitch changes in solar energy at the critical places on the Earth’s surface is one thing to point out in contrast to the equivalent CO2 forcing.
Really? Then give us the rates of change of climate forcings for each, Milankovitch today vs manmade (GHGs-aerosols).
dF/dt.
Didn’t think so.
Thank you. I am glad you liked it.
This study, totally independent, is of far greater value and significance than anthing published by the IPCC and their cohorts.
Geoffrey: this research is of no value at all unless it’s peer reviewed by experts and published in a legitimate scientific journal.
It has been peer-reviewed and published in a book. The reviews are available in the book.
Your criteria means you give no value to Darwin, Newton, Galileo or Wegener’s research, as it was not peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals.
When I made my only comment on Javier Vinós’s & Andy May’s ‘Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis’ we were at Part I and I promised myself I would not comment further until the ‘whole series’ had appeared, and only then if I felt assured I had understood – to the best of my ability – the whole picture these guys offer as evidence. I likened their work to an investigation as to whether the human race is steadily and knowingly murdering Planet Earth. Note no singular human or group of humans can be isolated in this investigation because either we are all guilty of abusing carbon or we are not. This cannot ever be just about carbon dioxide and there are no human exceptions since all our alternative methods of producing electricity involve considerable carbon emissions for the duration of a project in one way or another – think fuel for the workers (breathing, shelter, transport, clothing, bedding, warmth, food and drink etc.) if nothing else. And, of course, then there is nature, guilty as charged, but not at all red faced, embarrassed or feeling the need to change anytime soon.
But the ‘carbon clean energy providers’ (e.g. nuclear and hydro-electric) have not been formidable players over the past several decades of ‘alarm’. The ‘alarm’ was solely focused on dirty fuels and even natural gas seemed much cleaner provided it came from far, far away. Clean coal was just as bad as dirty coal if politicians said so. But no large scale nuclear plant building across the west to at least provide the bulk of the increasing demand for electricity driven by some ‘strange’ global decision making in the circumstances – the whole computer industry, the internet, digital media, telecommunications, smart ‘phones, social media and so on – in the light of carbon dioxide’s apparent ability to turn up Our Planet’s heat thermostat (a discovery that had apparently evaded us as being rather important long before nuclear energy came along) especially when fossil fuels are used to make most electricity. And it isn’t as if green discoveries [sic] like wind and solar generation are actually ‘green’ at all or able to do what our power house generators are able to do. Wind has noise, health impacts, and raptor deaths when it is pumping out its output. Solar may have local benefit but has the human cost of mining all the ingredients ever been seriously considered as justifiable in terms of our environment, the very one we are supposed to be saving? Just like wind there are huge impacts from the PV market which will only damage Planet Earth still more than fossil fuel can or will ever do. There are consequences to whatever we do and always have been.
And so the ‘whodunnit’ is clearly solved – we are all guilty subjects regardless of what we claim to be doing to mitigate the damage (yes you ‘greens’, you are still massive contributors to the problem you claim to be solving), but what, actually, is the crime we are supposed to have committed? The claim is we are changing the climate and yet, as all the facts support, the climate changes regardless of what we do. And that is what the authors of this very detailed work hypothesise – the natural cycles that do all the work to provide us with a reasonable rather than an unbearable climate. It is those natural cycles that must be central to any human strategy to make our energy creation more efficient and reasonably priced. And so is there a crime here or not? I cannot see a human one at all unless mass brainwashing of climate science and scientists can be proven to have been deliberately undertaken by certain ‘somebodies’. Perhaps that is worth investigating …
The authors and their article raise a whole lot of doubt about our current NetZero policies having much impact on anything at all, let alone making the planet a better place, and I thank them for their efforts to bring sanity back to climate science and science generally.
AGW is not science. It is an international political war on fossil fuel producers.
Fred Haynie commented:
AGW is not science. It is an international political war on fossil fuel producers.
Tell me you don’t understand any of the science without telling me you don’t understand the science.
Google Fred H. Haynie and read some of my publications or go to http://www,retiredresearcher.wordpress.com for further discussions.
If that link doesn’t work, try searching “wordpress, climate changes”.
Pingback: L'IPOTESI DEL GUARDIANO INVERNALE: NUOVO SUPPORTO PER L'EFFETTO DELL'ATTIVITÀ SOLARE SULLA MINORE CIRCOLAZIONE ATMOSFERICA