by Javier Vinós
Part 2 of a 3-part series. Part I is here.
The effect of the Sun on climate has been debated for 200 years. The basic problem is that when we study the past, we observe strong climatic changes associated with prolonged periods of low solar activity, but when we observe the present, we are able to detect only small effects due to the 11-year solar cycle. There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. But the main question is how the Sun affects climate.
In this article we examine the effects on climate caused by the 11-year solar cycle over the last few cycles and their relation to recent climate change.
- The IPCC Says…
In its 5th Assessment Report, the IPCC used climate models to calculate the Sun’s contribution to warming. These models only take into account changes in the total energy coming from the Sun, which is known to vary by only 0.1%. Therefore, the IPCC’s answer is that the Sun has contributed nothing to the warming.[i] This is absurd given our knowledge of past climate and the fact that we passed through a 70-year solar maximum in the 2nd half of the 20th century, one of the most active periods of solar activity in thousands of years.
Figure after AR5, WGI, Ch. 5, FAQ 5.1, Fig. 1, pg. 393
The IPCC is ignoring a large body of evidence that the Sun affects climate in ways that cannot be explained by these energy changes alone. We have space to review only a few of these unexplained effects. Let’s start with the surface.
- Sun’s Effect on the Surface
Most of the Sun’s energy reaches the surface of the planet. If this energy increases by 0.1%, then every point on the surface receives 0.1% more. One would expect this to cause a small overall warming, estimated by scientists to be two hundredths of a degree Celsius, which is undetectable. But that is not what is being observed. Several studies show that over the solar cycle, the surface is warming 4 times more than expected, 0.1°C, and it is doing so in an extremely irregular way with large spatial variations.[ii]
Figure from Lean 2017. The surface temperature response to solar cycle from observations using multiple regression from the 1996 minimum to the 2002 maximum. On the right are zonally averaged changes.
Going from a solar minimum to a solar maximum, some areas show more than 1°C of warming, while others show more than half a degree of cooling. This is not the effect you would expect. If we analyze the average for each latitude, we observe a very strong warming around 60°N latitude. But if we analyze the change at 20 km altitude, in the stratosphere, we observe something very curious. The response in this layer of the atmosphere is inverse to the response at the surface. Why is this important? The IPCC tells us that one of the fingerprints of warming due to our emissions is that we see warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. But if the Sun also shows an inverse response between the two, then the observation is no longer evidence of guilt from emissions. It could be the Sun. It is also important to note that the part of the globe that has warmed the most during global warming (since 1976) is the land surface of the Northern Hemisphere, precisely the region that shows the greatest warming in response to a more active Sun, while the tropics have barely warmed at all.
- Sun’s Effect on the Ocean
Years ago, some scientists studied the rates of warming and cooling in the upper layer of the tropical oceans. They found that it follows a cycle similar to that of the Sun.[iii] However, there is a problem: the variation in the Sun’s energy is ten times smaller than it would need to be to cause these changes. Instead of thinking that this supported an indirect effect of the Sun on climate, most scientists ignored the study.
Figure from White et al. 2003. Upper, heat storage anomaly above the 22°C isotherm from 30°S to 30°N expressed in W (stored)/m2. Lower, solar irradiation anomaly.
In the Pacific, trade winds push warm surface water westward, bringing up deep, cold water off the coast of South America. This is called the Neutral phase. In some years, the trade winds become stronger and push the cold water toward the center of the Pacific, accumulating more warm water to the west. This is the La Niña phase. In other years, the trade winds blow more slowly or in the opposite direction, the cold water stops rising in the east, and the water in the central and eastern Pacific warms. This is the El Niño phase. This oscillation affects the weather of much of the planet and we must remember that it has three states, not two.
Since 1990, there have been countless studies on the solar cycle and El Niño. You will not find any reference to them in review articles, books or IPCC reports.
I set out to investigate this relationship using solar activity data and the Oceanic El Niño Index, which shows in blue the periods when the equatorial Pacific is cooler than average and in red when it is warmer. Since solar cycles have slightly different lengths, I divided both data series into segments of a solar cycle and then adjusted the length to be the same for all cycles. This statistical technique is called epoch analysis. In this way, the mean and variance of the data are determined for periods that coincide in their phase of the cycle. This revealed a pattern that indicates an El Niño response to solar activity. I looked at a period when the cycle is gaining activity, which is accompanied by La Niña conditions. I used the Monte Carlo method to determine the probability that this result was random, and the answer was only 0.7%. This means that there is a 99.3% chance that the La Niña conditions at this time in the solar cycle are due to the Sun.
Figure shows Epoch analysis of solar activity and Oceanic El Niño Index. X-axis is the variable length of a full solar cycle. Right curves show the mean and standard deviation of left curves. Red rectangle indicates the part of the data analyzed by Monte Carlo method.
Since the answer is clearer for La Niña, I analyzed the relative frequencies of each phase of the El Niño phenomenon. What is observed is that the Neutral condition years follow the solar cycle in their frequency with a delay of one or two years. Surprisingly, the frequency of La Niña is the opposite of Neutral. The solar activity determines whether it is a La Niña year or a Neutral year. The Sun’s effect on El Niño years is less clear. El Niño seems to have another cause, which could be the amount of heat accumulated in the ocean. The solar pattern is confirmed by a study of El Niño frequencies since 1900, because among the repeating peaks there is an 11-year peak, which is the frequency of the solar cycle.[iv]
Figure shows the relative frequency for Neutral years (orange) and La Niña years (blue) from the official (Domeisen et al. 2019) classification shown in the bottom squares. Frequency was calculated for a 5-year sliding window and Gaussian smoothed.
It is striking that with so much evidence and studies, the vast majority of scientists do not know that the Sun controls the very important El Niño phenomenon. But El Niño is a product of the action of the trade winds over the equatorial Pacific. To control El Niño, the Sun must control the atmospheric circulation.
- Atmospheric Effects
We have known since 1988 that the Sun affects atmospheric circulation.[v] But like other effects of the Sun on climate, most scientists ignore this knowledge. This effect on the atmosphere may affect hurricanes in a much more significant way than global warming. The graph of the annual number of major hurricanes in the world (inverted) shows that the number of hurricanes tends to increase at or after the solar maximum.[vi]
Figure after Pielke & Maue 2024. Data for global major hurricanes (≥94 knots) from Ryan Maue, is an inverted and 3-year centered average. It displays a decadal periodicity.
How does the Sun manage to affect the atmosphere? In 1959, a scientist discovered that changes in the polar vortex seemed to respond to solar activity.[vii] This is a question that continues to be studied, and we are beginning to understand that much of the effect of solar activity on atmospheric circulation is due to this effect.
In the next graph, solar activity is represented in red. In purple at the bottom is the strength of the polar vortex.[viii] High values indicate a strong vortex and low values indicate a weak vortex. These values tend to show a large change from year to year. In blue you can see the cumulative wind speed that forms the polar vortex.[ix] When the curve goes up, it indicates that most of the time the speed is above average and the vortex is strong. When it goes down, it indicates the opposite.
This figure shows in red the monthly number of sunspots, in blue the cumulative anomaly of zonal wind speed at 54.4°N, 10 hPa (Lu et al. 2008), and in purple the mean vortex geopotential height anomaly at 20 hPa (NCEP, Christiansen 2010).
During Cycle 20 of low solar activity, the vortex wind was slower than normal and most years had a weak vortex. This corresponds to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when many winters were cold. Then came Cycle 21, which was very active. The wind speed increased, and there was only a weak vortex at the beginning and end of the cycle, when solar activity was low. In the late 1970s and 1980s the winters were warmer. Cycle 22 remained very active and the wind continued to be faster than normal, resulting in no weak vortex years. Winters continued to be warm throughout the 1990s. With Cycle 23, solar activity decreased again, leading to a decrease in wind speed. Weak vortex years returned. And also since the late 1990s, cold winters have returned, something that scientists who ignore the Sun’s effect on climate have trouble explaining.
The data I have does not cover solar cycles 24 and 25, but the correlation between low solar activity and cold winters continues, especially in eastern North America and Eurasia. Since the late 1990s, winters have tended to be colder across much of the Northern Hemisphere, while the Arctic has warmed, as the next figure shows.[x] The winter of 2024 was the coldest in Mongolia in decades. 6 million animals died, 10% of their population.[xi]
This figure shows the observed surface temperature trends for the months of January and February during the 1990–2015 period (Kretschmer et al. 2018).
Without understanding the effect of the Sun on the climate, this cannot be understood. None of this has anything to do with atmospheric CO₂. Acknowledging that the Sun controls the temperature of Northern Hemisphere winters implies that the sun has contributed to the observed warming, since much of the warming is due to increasing Northern Hemisphere minimum temperatures.
The Sun’s effects on the atmosphere also have a striking effect on the Earth’s rotation.
- Earth’s Rotation Effects
Since the middle of the 20th century, we have been able to measure the speed of the Earth’s rotation with great precision. In 1962, a French scientist realized that solar activity modified the rotation speed of the planet.[xii] Since then, this finding has been confirmed by dozens of studies. Climatologists are ignoring this finding.
I have also analyzed the data, and they leave no room for doubt. The Earth’s rotation increases twice a year, when winter arrives in each hemisphere. I chose to analyze the changes that occur between November and January because the change is smaller and more variable, allowing me to see the response better. This graph compares a high solar activity year with a low activity year. When activity is low, the rotation speeds up and each revolution is shortened by half a millisecond.
This figure shows the changes in the length of day in milliseconds for 2014 (red) and 2017 (black). IERS EOP C04 data with smoothing.
My analysis confirms what many researchers have found: the Earth’s rotation changes with solar activity. When solar activity is low, the rotation accelerates more between November and January, and when it is high, it hardly accelerates at all. The effect is disturbed by other phenomena that also affect the rotation of the planet, such as El Niño, but the 11-year cycle is clear. The result obtained in other studies with a different treatment of the data is similar. [xiii]
This figure shows in red solar activity (10.7 cm flux), in black the 3-point smoothed amplitude of the NH winter change in length-of-day, and in purple the result from Barlyaeva et al. 2014.
The effect of the Sun on the rotation has been known for 60 years, and yet no explanation has been given. Its cause must necessarily lie in changes in the angular momentum of the atmosphere. The exchange of angular momentum between the Earth and the atmosphere can be understood in terms of what happens to an ice skater when he turns. As the arms move away from the body, the spin becomes slower, and as they move closer, the spin becomes faster. The problem is that changes in angular momentum large enough to affect the Earth’s rotation cannot be caused by changes as small as 0.1% in the energy deposited on the surface by the Sun.
- Conclusions
None of what you have just read is reflected in the IPCC reports, which ignores the large amount of evidence showing that the Sun’s effect on climate is not limited to a small change in energy. And none of this is in the climate models.
To recapitulate, we have seen that the changes caused by the Sun on the surface have inverse dynamic patterns to those of the stratosphere, which is the same fingerprint at CO2-driven warming. We have seen that the Sun causes temperature changes in the ocean far greater than expected, and that it influences ENSO, a major global climate phenomenon. We have seen that the Sun regulates the strength of the polar vortex, which affects the frequency of very cold winters in much of the Northern Hemisphere, and we have seen that it alters the rotation of the planet. None of this can be explained by a 0.1% change in the energy reaching the planet’s surface from solar minimum to solar maximum. There is something else. Something that has been studied since 1987 that can explain these effects. The IPCC knows about it and mentions it in its 5th report, but is unwilling or unable to understand its global significance.
It can be argued that the effects of solar activity on climate that we have analyzed are periodic. Solar activity varies cyclically every 11 years, El Niño gives way to La Niña, the vortex changes its strength every winter, and the rotation of the planet returns to what it was. However, there are two things indicating that there is a much stronger long-term effect, and therefore that solar activity has a cumulative effect on climate that we do not yet understand well. One is that, as we have seen, the winter temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere change over decades with solar activity, causing a warming in the Arctic and a cooling in North America and Eurasia during the winter since the late 1990s, which has been going on for 25 years now because of the low solar activity that we have had in the 21st century. The other is that, as we saw in the first part, low activity for more than a century in the past was the cause of some of the major climate changes of the Holocene.
I have spent the last 10 years trying to understand how climate changes naturally, without preconceived ideas, by examining a huge amount of information and data. The evidence has led me to an alternative theory of climate change to that of the IPCC. It is not based on changes in solar activity, but, to my surprise, it explains them. There is much more to climate than the Sun, but the conclusion is that the 20th century solar maximum has been a major contributor to recent warming. And it is not lost on me that this means that controlling our emissions, which has become the main goal of the UN and the Western world, may not have much effect on future climate.
This article can also be watched in a 16-minute video with English and French subtitles.
References
[i] Masson-Delmotte, V., M. et al., 2013. Information from Paleoclimate Archives. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. FAQ 5.1, Fig. 1 pg. 393.
[ii] Lean, J.L., 2017. Sun-climate connections. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.
[iii] White, W.B., Dettinger, M.D. & Cayan, D.R., 2003. Sources of global warming of the upper ocean on decadal period scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108(C8).
[iv] Deser, C., et al., 2010. Sea surface temperature variability: Patterns and mechanisms. Annual review of marine science, 2, pp.115-143.
[v] Labitzke, K. & Van Loon, H., 1988. Associations between the 11-year solar cycle, the QBO and the atmosphere. Part I: the troposphere and stratosphere in the northern hemisphere in winter. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 50(3), pp.197-206.
[vi] Pielke Jr., R., & Maue, R. 2024. Global Tropical Cyclones.
[vii] Palmer, C.E., 1959. The stratospheric polar vortex in winter. Journal of Geophysical Research, 64(7), pp.749-764.
[viii] Christiansen, B., 2010. Stratospheric bimodality: Can the equatorial QBO explain the regime behavior of the NH winter vortex? Journal of climate, 23(14), pp.3953-3966.
[ix] Lu, H., et al., 2008. Decadal‐scale changes in the effect of the QBO on the northern stratospheric polar vortex. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D10).
[x] Kretschmer, M., et al., 2018. More-persistent weak stratospheric polar vortex states linked to cold extremes. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(1), pp.49-60.
[xi] The New York Times, 2024. A Harsh Mongolian Winter Leaves Millions of Livestock Dead.
[xii] Danjon, A, 1962. La rotation de la Terre et le Soleil calme. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l’Academie des Sciences, 254(17), p.3058.
[xiii] Barlyaeva, T., Bard, E. & Abarca-del-Rio, R., 2014. Rotation of the Earth, solar activity and cosmic ray intensity. Annales Geophysicae Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 761-771.
In my view, more of the same. People are looking at external forcing and trying to correlate changes in external forcing with some parameters in the climate data. None are looking at internal self-correcting factors in the climate systems, I write system[s], plural, because different regions do have different self-correcting factors.
Astronomical factors change the climate solar into the far north and to the far south a huge amount over thousands of years, yet the temperatures do not change much at those latitudes. This means the internal self-correction in both polar regions over power huge changes in solar in.
In the tropics cooling, IR out is a function of temperature to the fourth power and temperatures are very stable in the tropics. In polar regions, ice is spread on land and pushed into the oceans as ice shelves and ice bergs. There is more snowfall in warmest times and colder times follow. There is less snowfall in colder times and warmer times follow. Ice extent has large influence on albedo and cooling by ice thawing. What changes between ice ages and warm times, the ice is what is different, it is much the cause and not just result.
Climate is complicated, but most people do not consider the simplest, most powerful factors. Ice ages happen when more ice is spread over larger areas. Ice on land happens when polar oceans are deep and warm to provide the evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice on land necessary to start ice ages. Ice ages end because the oceans are low and cold and there is not enough evaporation and snowfall to maintain the ice in the great thawing ice sheets.
People spend their life and careers studying correlations with external forcing and a few internal parameters, yet never consider internal natural self-correcting responses of the climate systems.
This refers back to Part I
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/
Javier wrote: Since glaciers grow when it is colder,
I write: It snows more with more ice accumulations in warmer times and more ice volume and weight cause the glaciers to grow and that causes colder. Change to: Since growing glaciers causes colder. They thaw and reflect over larger areas.
Javier wrote: It is very easy to demonstrate that sea level rise was several times faster during the last deglaciation for thousands of years. A lot more energy per unit of time had to go into melting that ice.
I write: There was not a lot more energy per unit of time available to go into melting of that ice, the solar in available to thaw the great ice sheets was the same 18 thousand years ago as it was 22 thousand years ago, there was no sudden increase in energy available to thaw ice. This means the ice sheets had already thawed and thinned and were ready to retreat. The oceans had not risen because the melt-water had flowed into the Arctic Ocean and was trapped there. Sea level rose rapidly with melt-water surges from the Arctic.
Hi everyone:
Still here.
I decided I should learn about Quantum Mechanics.
Sabine has something good:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0705
They write about ensembles. Which I associate with climate models. The system can evolve to one of two states and by changing the initial conditions you might get a distribution. They’re describing it like weather forecasting it seems to me.
Hi Ragnarr, nice to have you back. Have you heard about Google’s AI weather forecasting systems ‘SEEDS’ and ‘GRAPHCAST’?
https://research.google/blog/generative-ai-to-quantify-uncertainty-in-weather-forecasting/
In a year or two I expect these models to accurately predict major weather events up to a year in advance and directly attribute AGW effects to the current and future climate.
Try it out:
https://charts.ecmwf.int/products/graphcast_medium-t-z
In Ragnaar’s link one ought to read carefully the abstract.
Quote: “This suggests that it describes an ensemble of states with different values of a hidden variable. Here, we analyse this idea with reference to currently known theorems and experiments.”
Currently known theorems might miss completely the ‘Hidden variable’.
Profs Zharkova has added a new variable; planetary influence, although if I got that correct, has missed the influence of the moon in combination with planets. The effect on earth of abrupt gravity changes (due to earth’s relatively fast rotation) appear to correlate to both seismic and climatic events over the past two years. [this comes from indications from ancient historical events in which the new moon condition features prominently].
Test for planetary effect: full moon next two days; planets all away from sun (the Med is already getting ‘mildly’ excited).
megi:
Someone suggested Jupiter may be related to the 11 year sunspot cycle. Jupiter moves through the night sky about 30 degrees per year. Jupiter wobbles the sun. Not bad.
The climate is deterministic. And there’s a wave function for it. We speak of climate probabilities.
Ragnaar:
“Jupiter wobbles the sun.” Not likely. Jupiter wobbles the mass-less barycentre. And there is likely a big time-lag between force and movement where inertia is a dictating factor.
I recall reading the Met saying the night, at midnight, hurricane Ian made landfall there was an abrupt though small drop in pressure (as the site came under the Jupiter pull). A small throttling process on an extremely large mass of air and water vapour. That was abrupt and short-lived, however others in the past left permanent change.
Good to see you again, Ragnaar.
melitamegalithic, see page 12: solar inertial motion graphs, including narrative context on the following pages:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00439
SiM causation (defined in said pages) is enhanced by more than just Saturn, there’s a confluence of variable multi-planetary gravitational forces in play.
Star wobble is well defined, and common in celestial sceince; astronomers use this indicator to find exoplanets surrounding distant stars.
Jungletrunks: first, tks.
I had seen the paper and pg 12. I am skeptical of extrapolations made. See the introductions of the referenced papers; they are informative. However mass matters, the sun is a 1000 times that of Jupiter. The barycentre has its use as a ref point, but phase lag between gravity pull and movement is another matter; it is not instantaneous. Science has a way for getting bogged with wrong extrapolations.
Here is an example; it is not on the subject of this thread, but impacts it greatly.
See https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v6/analysis-dodwell-hypothesis.pdf last paragraph. “The most reliable ancient data do not demand the sort of catastrophic change in the earth’s tilt–” Date 2013.
In 2015 I had evidence from my own research for earth tilt change. It has taken me near 9 years to get all the details, but now there’s no avoiding the fact. Also it happened repeatedly, and it is abrupt. So extrapolating obliquity back according to a formula makes for false conclusions.
Go back to ‘gravity’, primarily as it effects the earth. The sun is stationary because earth orbit eccentricity is small. The effect of other bodies is proportional to their mass and inversely to the square of their lowest distance from earth. The moon comes first in that, then Jupiter followed by venus. The rest don’t matter. When those three bodies are near in conjunction with earth, it is trouble time.
“We have seen that the Sun causes temperature changes in the ocean far greater than expected ”
Said differently, the Sun is NOT the cause of ocean temperature changes.
Turn off the sun and see what happens.
The energy comes from the sun.
I write:
The sun is not the only cause of temperature changes.
“the Sun is NOT the cause of ocean temperature changes.”
That’s what most scientists believe, but they are wrong. They just don’t know how it does it. People tend to think in simple terms, but the climate is complex.
Wegener was told that the continents were so heavy that nothing could move them. They were also thinking in simple terms.
My point is that you yourself have a difficult time explaining what is currently going on if you ignore human influences. (And yes, scientific paradigm shifts usually are dismissed early on, but most radical ideas are wrong.)
My ideas are far from radical. Many scientists have shared them in the past, and a few do now.
I don’t ignore the human influence. I just disagree with the statement that recent climate is human-caused. Natural climate change is as important now as it has always been. The climate effect of CO₂ has been so exaggerated that climate science has painted itself into a corner. To come out of that corner a shift in focus is required. I offer one.
“I just disagree with the statement that recent climate is human-caused….The climate effect of CO₂ has been so exaggerated that climate science has painted itself into a corner. ”
Why do you say that? Predictions of temperture increases driven by CO2 made 25 years ago have largely come to fruition. For awhile the models “ran hot” compared to data, but recently the data is catching up. Perhaps the presence of aerosols and higher than modeled cloud cover masked the CO2 effects 15 years ago, and now that they have been somewhat cleaned up, the data reflect the earlier models better. Are you spending too much time with the contrarian literature, and not enough with peer-reviewed stuff?
Climate trends are usually a few centuries long (LIA 500 years). Predicting warming when there is warming has little merit.
0.3°C per decade were predicted, which is way too high. And models continue to run hot, particularly CMIP6 which is so hot that the recommendation is to cherry-pick the cooler models.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming
And the main problem is that models inform us that for the last 300 years climate change has responded exclusively to human causes. Which is so absurd as to defy reason.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/img/figure/es-2.png
You guys, have lost your way and are in need of a light beacon. Natural climate change is that beacon. But to follow it you need to renounce to the ridiculous idea that we are in a climate emergency.
“Climate trends are usually a few centuries long”
You are implicitly assuming that human effects are zero with this statement. Yet you struggle to find natural explanations.
“Overall, climate models remain incredibly successful research tools, and nothing about this “too hot” generation invalidates the tenets of climate science, says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-author of the commentary. The greenhouse effect is still warming the planet. Ice is melting, seas are rising, and droughts are becoming more frequent in some areas. But the models are not perfect, Marvel says. “They’re not crystal balls.””
A quote from one of your references about too hot models.
“You are implicitly assuming that human effects are zero with this statement.”
No, I do not assume that, but the current warming period started around 1820 according to proxies and glaciers, so it cannot be our fault, as the effect cannot precede the cause. I ignore the human contribution as everybody else. Whoever says he knows the human contribution is a liar.
“Overall, climate models remain incredibly successful research tools, and nothing about this “too hot” generation invalidates the tenets of climate science”.
OK, so we agree models are wrong. They cannot be right and produce too much warming. I also point that when models become too complex and overadjusted, any “improvement” tends to break them, and the return becomes negative.
javier: “0.3°C per decade were predicted, which is way too high.”
The increase in warming rate has been steady over the last 50 years and is currently approaching 0.3°C/decade. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “way too high”?
https://mega.nz/file/omdizYYK#14vzHFCUn6qgx2CEor3vcXNlt_RSld7t2QMHqAu1_nA
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
“I ignore the human contribution as everybody else. ”
Thanks for confirming that you ignore the human contribution. That is why you cannot explain the data. But scientists do not ignore it. I am not sure who your “everybody” is.
“OK, so we agree models are wrong. They cannot be right and produce too much warming.”
No I do not agree with you that models are wrong, just that they are imperfect.
You and other skeptics like to talk about historical climate changes that cannot have had human influences. Do you know of any historical changes as rapid as the present ones?
I wouldn’t say that 0.15°C/decade approaches 0.3.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/
“Thanks for confirming that you ignore the human contribution. “
And you do too. Nobody knows the value of climate sensitivity, so nobody knows how much our emissions have contributed to recent warming.
The attempts to know the value of climate sensitivity for the past 45 years are a resounding failure for climate scientists.
https://i0.wp.com/ukesm.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Policy-CMIP6-Fig1.png
Javier,
Since there is uncertainty in the magnitude of the very definite human effect on climate, you decide there is no effect. Yet you cannot explain the sharp upwards trends with natural effects. Your logical position is confused.
“you decide there is no effect.”
I will repeat it once more since you seem to have trouble understanding simple English.
I do not think human emissions have no effect on climate. I do not know what effect they’ve had. I do not know if it is 20% of the observed warming or 50%.
What the evidence supports the way I interpret it is that natural warming has been very important in the warming observed in the 20th century, and in the 21st century from different natural causes. Perhaps more important than human emissions.
What distinguishes me from most other scientists is that I will not believe human emissions are the main cause of the observed warming without evidence supporting it. I am not in science to proclaim any faith. I don’t care how many scientists are willing to do that.
Javier: “What distinguishes me from most other scientists is that I will not believe human emissions are the main cause of the observed warming without evidence supporting it.”
Too bad there is so much evidence supporting it. What distinguishes you from most (other) scientists is you reject that evidence because it doesn’t agree with your pet hypotheses.
I don’t consider models to be evidence of anything except computer skills. They have no connection with the physical reality.
Computer models don’t have algorithms that can reproduce certain “known solar effects” on Earths climate. It’s like trying to build a clock and having pieces left over; clock hands going circular isn’t good enough if it can’t keep time.
If a plane was designed using only computer models, without any physical test, no wind tunnel tests, no flight tests, ¿would you be a passenger the first time it takes off for a long flight? And we trust computer plane-design models a lot more than climate models, because they have been thoroughly validated.
So, why are we placing the global economy on board such a computer test flight with absolutely no guarantees it is not going to crash?
It seems to me complete insanity. We will pay a price we can’t afford once it crashes.
David Andrews | May 18, 2024 at 12:40 am |
Why do you say that? Predictions of temperture increases driven by CO2 made 25 years ago have largely come to fruition.
Warming cycles and cooling cycles have typically lasted 150-300 or so years. predictions of continued warming during the middle of one of warming cycles isnt really all that impressive.
From Javier somewhere above “Climate trends are usually a few centuries long (LIA 500 years).”
From here: https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/
fig 122, the LIA is an inflection point. The cycle, Eddy, is about 980 years long, ie 490 yrs between inflections.
At~6150bce to 1680ce, 8 cycles => ~979yrs. ave ( +/- a century; variable nodes)
The revelation in that 2018 thread is extremely important.
The inflection point at 2346bce is now well known (in Greek, Hindu and variously in biblical ancient texts). The following at circa 1250bce is similarly “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed – Eric Cline”, the last leg of it.
Thank you for another excellent article, Javier. As you know I’ve been studying the interaction between the sun and global temperature. Using spectral analysis I found the correlation between global temperature and sunspots to be surprisingly low at 11 years, but significant at ~22 years. This suggests to me that we’re also ignoring solar magnetic fields, which may affect cloud formation by modulating GCR’s.
The second point I’d like to make is that many people treat sunspot data as solar activity rather than as a proxy for solar activity. What I’m discovering is that the encoding of solar activity in the sunspot data, particularly long-term activity, is complex. I’m finding it useful to think of sunspot cycles as a carrier that is amplitude, frequency, and pulse-width modulated by solar activity.
Andrew Douglass, the astronomer that invented dendrochronology, was the first to describe the effect of the 22-year cycle on climate in his drought studies with tree rings in Arizona. I’ve given it quite some thought, because nobody has come with an explanation on how the climate could detect the inversion of the Sun’s magnetic field and, quite frankly, it looks impossible.
An alternative explanation is that since the solar effect on climate is cumulative over time, it can be better detected when at least two consecutive cycles push in the same direction. And it is not uncommon for solar cycles to come in pairs of similar activity. There is some bibliography on it. Right now we have 24 and 25 with similarly low activity. That should complete this pair.
See here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0372a/report.pdf
See pg A23 cyclic fluctuations.
However my bet would be on ‘planetary’, rather than solar. And in conjunctions throw in the moon, full or new, for good measure. Gravity change instigates thermodynamic change. There appear to be correlations in events of the past two years
Quote link: “–the wet and dry periods noted in the Pacific
Border and Great Plains are generally of 10 to 13
years’ duration, but are almost opposite in phase, so
that when one zone –“. ~12yrs is the orbital period of Jupiter.
“–the wet and dry periods noted in the Pacific
Border and Great Plains are generally of 10 to 13
years’ duration, but are almost opposite in phase, so
that when one zone –“
The opposite effect at both sides of the Rockies strongly supports its solar origin. This was well researched by Roger Currie in 1993,
Currie, R.G., 1993. Luni‐solar 18.6‐and solar cycle 10–11‐year signals in USA air temperature records. International Journal of Climatology, 13(1), pp.31-50.
And it is clearly evident in the second figure in the article above (the one with the map).
“ This is absurd given our knowledge of past climate and the fact that we passed through a 70-year solar maximum in the 2nd half of the 20th century, one of the most active periods of solar activity in thousands of years.”
For me that is the takeaway and I am not sure how the IPCC, after stating essentially the same thing, can dismiss solar in the next couple of paragraphs.
As always, an enjoyable and informative read.
Knowing the effects of solar activity on ENSO are completely smoothed out like the long flat handle of a hockey stick, much like the MWP and LIA, gives insight into the mathematics Michael Mann, Western academia, America-hating IPCC and the Eurocommies employed to arrive at the alarming upward tilt of the hockey stick’s blade, along with an unproven, unverifiable AGW conjecture that this sudden deviation from flat Earth climate correlated solely with industrialization (mostly, America’s impact) on the modern world.
Further grist for your mill. As a ham radio operator (H44WE) I’m well aware that the sunspot cycle affects the upper reaches of the atmosphere. However … the effects don’t seem to make it into the lower atmosphere.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/msu-vs-sunspots-all.png
Go figure …
w.
Baldwin, M.P. and Dunkerton, T.J., 2005. The solar cycle and stratosphere–troposphere dynamical coupling. Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics, 67(1-2), pp.71-82.
Thanks, Javier. Your link says:
“We discuss dynamical mechanisms that might communicate stratospheric circulation anomalies downward to the troposphere and surface.”
and
“The 11-year solar cycle could have an effect on the lower atmosphere”
Not what I’d call evidence …
Regards,
w.
It just points to the answer. The effect of the stratosphere on winter atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere is studied in hundreds of papers. There is absolutely no doubt that the stratosphere affects the troposphere, and there is absolutely no doubt that solar activity affects the stratosphere.
Pingback: Here Comes The Sun – small dead animals
Great article, thanks.
The section on La Niña and solar cycles is very much like Leamon & McIntosh’s papers, but Javier didn’t cite them this time to give them the credit for their original work on the subject of sun and La Niña.
Moreover, several years ago I identified the cause of the La Niña at that time of the cycle as a function of accumulated irradiance below the decadal ocean-warming threshold I established a decade ago, when this function is always minimal. I also established the fact that there is a natural tropical temperature step-up in-sync with the solar cycle that produces El Niño after these particular La Niñas.
My works over the previous several years included a practical prediction system for the timing of the transition between La Niña and El Niño as a function of the sunspot number and the number of spotless days for the previous year, which was successful in 2023.
Drs. Leamon and McIntosh saw my work in person in 2022, and I talked to Dr. Leamon for a while in front of my symposium poster.
Prediction from May 2022 – https://i.postimg.cc/J7Dq1ryh/Annual-Spotless-days-vs-annual-SN.png
Results were in by Oct 2023 – https://i.postimg.cc/Fs5S1Hqm/Sunspots-TSI-and-Eq-OHC-last-year-10-Oct23.png
As far as hurricanes and sunspot activity, I have both Drs. Vinos and Ryan Maue beat, as I made my graphic years ahead of his graphic:
https://i.postimg.cc/Yqt1W6dQ/Total-ACE-is-driven-by-Sun-and-ENSO.jpg
ACE will increase from the warming effect of this solar cycle.
bob – do you have comparable graphs / studies of ace going back to the late 1800’s / early 1900’s?
My particular analysis was with Ryan Maue’s ACE data.
Here is an Atlantic ACE graph since 1850:
Atlantic ACE with other reconstructions from Nature.
Also see Kerry Emanuel 2022, Nature.
Bob – thanks. From the nature article –
“The method also privileges the null hypothesis and would diminish the magnitude of any real trend that was present6. With these assumptions in mind, this body of research concludes that there are no detectable trends in hurricanes or major hurricanes (Saffir-Simpson category 3 and above) through the entire record, from 1851 to various times in the 21st century.”
One of the major short comings in detecting trends with hurricanes, extreme weather , etc whether caused by global warming or any other causes, is the difficulty in adjusting for observational deficiencies. Though the de jour method used by “climate scientists” is to use truncated data sets.
May I suggest to look at our recent article which shows the link of ENSO with volcanic eruptions linked with the solar and planetary positions and less with solar activity as such.. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ns2024164_18303679.p…
Plus some other papers showing the effects of solar activity on the earth temperature, sea level and ice areas in https://solargsm.com/publications
Kind regards
Prof. V Zharkova
Thanx Prof. VZ, but your first link doesn’t go to your article.
Can you please identify exactly which volcanic eruptions were involved in causing the last 10 years of ENSO events?
Thanks for your comment, Prof. Zharkiva.
A different topic, I’m fascinated with your hypothesis that gamma rays were responsible for anomalies you found with the Sporer Minimum. You described Vela Junior (a supernova remnant) as a possible source for the gamma rays. I couldn’t find much detail about this supernova, one tidbit: “H.E.S.S. observations have provided the most accurate characterization of source properties ever obtained in gamma rays for Supernova Remnant Vela Junior. Deeper insights at this energy range may only be possible with future instrumentation like CTA, offering an order-of-magnitude sensitivity improvement and a better angular resolution at TeV energies.”
An exciting development for astrophysics is that the design phase of CTA finished just last month, they’re moving into the build phase. https://www.ctao.org/news/the-ctao-enters-a-new-phase-of-growth/
It seems unimaginable, but there’s a possibility that data gathered by CTA could soon provide answers to how climate has been effected on Earth by gamma rays.
Can you provide further elaboration on the subject? The scientific forensics that led you to the hypothesis of gamma rays effects on the Sporer Minimum?
Javier, you remarked, “The problem is that changes in angular momentum large enough to affect the Earth’s rotation cannot be caused by changes as small as 0.1% in the energy deposited on the surface by the Sun.”
A possible influence is the build-up of Winter snow, particularly on high mountains, but the expected result would appear to be opposite what you document. Any thoughts?
According to Rutgers Climate Lab, NH winter snow extent does not appear to display a decadal variability. Other than that I could not say.
Javier is at liberty to study his own book, but, Cave hominibus cumque liber solo
The good doctor is categorically mistaken in eliding the “solar maximum” with maximum solar irradiance, as the latter falls , not rises as sunspots cover an increasing fraction of the solar surface.
Despite the wonderful auroral displays ( and mesospheric heating) caused by recent coronal mass ejections, the enormous dark sunspots that give rise to them are presently visible to the naked eye though an eclipse filter because they are thousands of degrees , or tenths of an Ev cooler than their surroundings.
Here is NASA’s direct and well quantified imaging of this effect:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/four-decades-and-counting-new-nasa-instrument-continues-measuring-solar-energy-input-to-earth/
Something that you overlook is that the spectral emissions change, with 10-15% more UV being emitted during high sunspot activity. UV photons have higher energy than visible or IR electrons and are therefore capable of accomplishing things the longer wavelengths can’t, such as creating ozone.
Sunspots are accompanied by clearer zones (faculae) that increase emissions. Correlation between sunspots and solar energy is quite good, and better for UV as Clyde mentions.
Correlation between sunspots and 10.7 cm solar emissions:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369380562/figure/fig18/AS:11431281144694232@1681351746232/Plot-of-the-12-month-smoothed-monthly-mean-values-of-F107-versus.jpg
“is categorically mistaken in eliding the “solar maximum” with maximum solar irradiance, as the latter falls , not rises as sunspots cover an increasing fraction of the solar surface. “
The smoothed plot that Javier supplied doesn’t apply to this issue as that plot doesn’t include TSI.
The sunspot darkening effect mentioned is important on short time scales of a few solar rotations, as TSI closely follows SN. Using yearly data, we can see TSI lags SN by up to a few months (not actually one year as stated in the second link).
https://i.postimg.cc/gcSZt39Z/Instrumental-and-model-TSI-v-SN.png
https://i.postimg.cc/8PZPBzP2/Solar-Cycle-24-Influence-on-SST.jpg
Please fix the link you have provided to your reference to the sun’s radiance at 10.7 cm
The link goes to a figure from this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366962728_Is_the_F_107cm_–_Sunspot_Number_relation_linear_and_stable
The relationship between sunspots and TSI depends on the TSI reconstruction used. It is different for PMOD than for ACRIM. In all cases less sunspots = less solar activity.
Thank you for the link.
I trust you realize that, useful as 10.7 cm / 2.8 GHz gyroton radiation is as a proxy for solar magnetic activity, the solar microwave flux, which takes a radio telescope to detect, is too small to measurably modulate climate.
10.7 cm photons are almost as irrelevant to climate change as the centimeter waves in the ~2.7º K cosmic microwave background, as they too are ~2.3 trillion times less energetic than those the sun emits at its 6,000º K blackbody peak.
TSI reconstructions are worthless. We can’t even agree on how to piece together the space-based measurements.
We do have good sunspot data, I think it will be a long time before we have enough measured data to reconstruct TSI using sunspot and other proxy data.
As I mentioned before, too many people focus on the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity. Allow me to offer a different way of looking at sunspot data.
In the plots you can see the frequency of two cycles, the 11-year cycle (.09) and a 100-year cycle (.01). As solar activity increases, so does the frequency of the 11-year cycle. The 100-year cycle moves in the opposite direction. As you look at these plots, I encourage you to think about what temperature has been doing over the same time periods.
https://localartist.org/media/stft.JPG
Each line in the plot is a spectrum computed over the specified interval (100 or 150 years) ending at the time noted on the vertical axis.
You can find a plot of temperature over this same time interval on my github page.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Nice plots, Bob. I like them.
Free as Dr Vinos may be to assert that:
“TSI reconstructions are worthless. We can’t even agree on how to piece together the space-based measurements.
To avoid condemnation Ignoramus et Ignorabimus , he really needs to address who “We” are, and what is stopping him from running the numbers on “the space measurements,”
Address your request to Robert Cutler. I did not say that.
Yes, Russell. Please address any questions or comments you have to me, but I would ask that you first take the time to review my post entirely. It appears that you may have been in a hurry.
Are you the Russell Seitz of Microbubbles LLC. If so do you still want to combat global warming by brightening the oceans with microbubbles?
Interesting, Mr. Seitz chose to run and hide, rather than acknowledge his mistake and direct his question. Musta been a pretty important question, eh Mr. Seitz?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1972, there been a substantial reduction in air pollution. The catalytic converter greatly reduced pollution from cars. Cleaner air allows more sunlight to reach the earth.
How much has cleaner air contributed to global warming?
That question falls into the category of how much CO₂ has contributed to global warming. Nobody knows.
harold
The Clean Air Act applied to only the US, where indeed there has been great progress as shown here by this EPA report.
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary
This is a nice historical perspective on global air pollution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7536029/
This study presents more of a mixed conclusion
“ Half the world’s population are exposed to increasing air pollution”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-0124-2
I am quite certain that one of the principal mechanisms via which the Sun affects our climate over all time scales is variations in spectral irradiance over the 11 year sunspot cycle and also longer term variations during solar grand minima and maxima. UV spectral irradiance varies much more than total solar irradiance, which is fairly constant and thus provides the justification for the IPCC to dismiss any solar influence on climate and weather. In turn, variation is solar UV affects ozone concentrations, particularly at high latitudes and this has knock-on effects upon atmospheric circulation/jet stream behaviour, which may feed into further downstream effects upon cloud cover/oceanic cycles (AMO/NAO/PDO/ENSO). But it’s not simple and it’s ferociously difficult to separate cause from effect, so obviously, the intellectually challenged climate alarmist clowns plugging the ‘CO2 = global warming = extreme weather’ equation find it difficult to comprehend plus it’s not politically convenient to entertain the idea that climate change is mostly natural.
Well, obviously I agree, Jaime. The part of the climate system that responds more strongly to the solar cycle is the stratosphere. And this layer of the atmosphere is very important for determining winter atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.
The objection that solar variability implies too little energy is as naive as a child asking how a finger can have enough force to lift an elevator. In the third part I’ll discuss what provides the energy to change the climate. Something that was proposed 50 years ago and ignored.
The Sun’s effect on climate is a nonlinear problem, something that should have been clear since Labitzke’s 1987 discovery that the response of winter polar stratospheric temperatures’ to the solar cycle depended on the quasi-biennial oscillation phase. But the scientific world had lost interest in solving the solar question in the late 80s, and was excited about the funding possibilities of human-caused climate change.
Your post is too hard to read as one large paragraph. Paragraphs of a post should be less than 10 lines. About 6 or 7 lines is best.
Cycles within cycles, ferociously complex interactions
btw nature’s interacting systems. earth, sea and sky.
Thanks, Beth.
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present – Watts Up With That?
Dictated in haste but in some considerable knowledge :-).I’ve read this fairly quickly but I noted no mention of what appears to be the primary effect of short term solar activity on Earth climate.
I suggest “solar” means solar wind, not insolation, as regards causality of short term temperature cycles. It may be that some solar activity cycles produce higher proton fluxes than others. I suggest this theory.
The available evidence, and the measurements made to validate the hypothesis is that short-term cyclic change is solar driven, but probably related to solar winds and not solar insolation. Which I suspect may not occur at same time, or some solar activity is less productive of protons… you get the drift.
What is seen in the temperature time series when frequency analysed is a number of temperature peaks which coincide with known cosmic ray peaks, also strongly correlated with some of the known solar activity cycles, which are probably those associated with strong Solar Winds. Still with me…..
To e clear, observations have show that cosmic ray intensity varies in close correlation with the primary temperature peaks we see in the short-term temperature record over thousands of years, and that these also correlate strongly with Known solar cycles. I commend Carl-Otto Weiss’s account of their work in progress in 2016, and also the subsequent 2017 paper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU
Paper: DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
This is solid empirical science which considers the temperature time series back over 2000 years, the period the IPCC say there was no significant natural change in. Which of course we know is simply a lie from the hundreds of geological and archeological papers which have measured this variability as regards its effects on the actual planet, not made up in models.They can’t admit this measured reality because it suggests most of what we see now muct be natural, and only a teensy bit CO2 related.
I suggest the preponderance of real evidence based science, not made up in models, suggests that the solar cycles that are associated with temperature cycles are those that cause significant variability in the solar proton wind, and these affect the cosmic ray proton intensity (obviously not the EMR), and thus vary cloud formation through nucleation as demonstrated by Shaviv and Svensmark.
nb: Note this is easy to check, because only cosmic ray particles have the energy to penetrate deep into the atmosphere and produce the isotopes C-14 and Be -10. Solar wind protons don’t, but can deflect cosmic ray protons. More solar winds equal less cosmic rays hence less clouds and globally warmer due to less cloud albedo, because more solar insolation reaches the ocean surface with less clouds. Simple, as described by the authors above
nb: The land barely matters, no heat capacity, no 7% per deg changing evaporative feedback, etc..
I also offer my shortlist of solar cycles which are well enough known to have the names of their observers associated with them.
11 yr Schwabe Sunspot cycle (link Jupiter’s orbit);
22 yr Hale cycle (solar magnetic field reversal)
61 Yoshimura (Solar barycentre Jup/Sat beat)
84-92 yr Gleissberg solar cycle (linked to Uranus orbital period)
120 yr Velasco (Solar min in 2040?)
172 yr Landscheidt (Uranus/Neptune resonance)
210-240 De-Vries/Suess (TSI link with Uranus)
934 yr Bond (Angular momentum sun & planets)
1470 yr Dansgaard-Oeschger (Fred Singer’s favourite found through Heinrich events)
2300 yr Hallstatt/Bray Solar cycle
“Those are all there are
of which the news has got to Harvard
There may be many more, but they haven’t been discovered” as Tom Lehrer sang.
So a question remains hanging… Do some visible solar activity cycles produce more solar winds, as in fusion fuel nuclei, than others?
It would be interesting to know what the relationship of the charged particle fluxes arising from the different solar activity cycles is. Perhaps the Parker probe can tell us? Better still I suspect the solar activity measurements already made by satellites between Earth and the Sun will tell us that, if they have proton detectors. If there are any. A paper for someone?
Willie Soon, does CERES know?
That is all I have time to say at the moment, if anybody knows the answer to this that would be great, we could send the news to Harvard :-)
brian.catt@deconfused.com
Your climate may vary.
The control of Earth climate is to maintain an energy balance in space. The temperature must be whatever is needed to create the negative feedback necessary to balance the solar warming, whatever the insolation or atmospheric condition is. A sustained imbalance as the IPCC suggest is an overt nonsense to any real physicist. Everything changes, all the time, to maintain this balance, and AGW is a tiny part of the overall system, most of which the models ignore. CO2 is not a control by any physical measure or as control theory understand it to be, not significant within the natural control system of Earth’s enrgy balance in space
So the global average temperature can never be constant naturally, changes constantly, and responds to all changes in insolation or the atmosphere. The IPCC’sc,aims of 2,000 years of stability are not only wrong per the dominant natural science of the period, they show a woeful ignorance of how the whole Earth climate system works. The natural feedbacks involved are at a scale, over 10W/m^2 per deg K, that the tiny perturbation to the energy balance from AGW can be rebalanced by a fraction of a degree change at the Earth’s surface. Just not a problem. We know all this from the satellite measurements of energy fluxes that control the continuous energy balance, which show the claims of models made in denial of the absolute physics, and later the mountain of energy data, were always false on the physics, later absolutely wrong on the energy balance data facts.
The dominant change is natural, as above, no monotonic signal, “all we see is cycles” Carl-Otto Weiss (2016). AGW temperature effect is down in the noise.
What we now know about the sun explains everything about late 20th century warming. As it turns out, “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950-2009),” says Ilya Usoskin, “was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.” [Usoskin et al., Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity, A&A 562 (2014)
A 3000 Year solar activity record!
we live in this bizarre and Kafkaesque reality of academia’s global warming alarmism. Working stiffs in the free enterprise economy, engaged in the business of living for the benefit of all society, like Randian heroes, are accused of the crime of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and destroying the Earth as government scientists simply ignore decades-long, unique and rare record-setting solar events.
Thanks Javier for all your great work. Your solid science is always greatly appreciated. You have provided much data and the mechanisms to support what I’ve only suspected intuitively. Most researchers report the Pacific Ocean was in an El Nino-like condition during the Little Ice Age during which Maunder Minimum would reduce trade winds, while a more La Nina-like (neutral) Pacific dominates since the late 1800s which allows more solar heating of the eastern Pacific where the greatest heat flux enters the oceans.
The increasing winds from 1970s to 1990s along with increasing solar energy and stronger confining of the polar vortex was new to me. It is excellent data explaining why there has been a cooling trends in the winters of North America and Eurasia since 1990, as shown by Cohen (2014) and others .
Thanks, Javier. As always, good discussion.
Javier,
“I wouldn’t say that 0.15°C/decade approaches 0.3.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/”
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that either – I said current (last two) decades of decadal increases approach 0.3 C. I don’t really care what you wouldn’t say. You should know better than to misrepresent what your link says:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
I think you don’t understand “decadal change” and probably didn’t bother to look at (or understand) the graphic I linked that showed (and analyzed) year-by-year decadal increases in GMST over the instrumental era.
BTW, you haven’t answered what “way too high” means. I see it as a false denial.
Global temperature decadal rate of change is just too variable to mean much.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/rate-of-change-of-global-average-temperature-1850-2007-in-oc-per-decade-3/image_xlarge
Your data stops at 2007. Mine is derived directly from HadCRUT5 and goes through 2023. Why do you fakes have a propensity for 20 – 40-year-old data and arguments based thereon?
You still haven’t told us who predicted decadal rates of 0.3 C, when they made the prediction, and when they predicted it would be reached. Further, since 0.3 C/decade has actually already been reached, you haven’t told why the “prediction” is “way too high”. As usual, your claims and hand-waving denials have little basis or value.
“Global temperature decadal rate of change is just too variable to mean much.”
What does “too variable to mean much”, mean? I note that nearly all the yearly values in your (and my) plot are positive – that means a lot if you can figure it out.
That graph has data for 16 decades, yet you somehow think that the last 1.5 decades have changed the entire picture.
The 0.3°C/decade warming rate prediction is from the IPCC:
“we predict under the IPCC “Business-as-Usual” emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years;”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_III_spm.pdf
Javier,
You have no idea what I think. I think the last 6.5 decades change the picture, and the 10 before form a sufficient baseline for that “picture”. I also think you and a few others here are desperate for an alternate explanation, any alternate, and fail miserably.
Thanks for giving your IPCC5, WG3 source. Looks like they were just about right, if a bit conservative on the timescale for reaching +0.3 C/decade (we are already almost there), You still haven’t told us why the reality is, in your opinion, “way too high”.
BA Bushaw,
“I also think you and a few others here are desperate for an alternate explanation, any alternate, and fail miserably.”
–
We do not fail miserably.
Because we do not fail at all.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 18, 2024 at 8:32 pm |-Your data stops at 2007. Mine is derived directly from HadCRUT5 and goes through 2023. Why do you fakes have a propensity for 20 – 40-year-old data and arguments based thereon?”
Not surprising – the man who regularly cites studies using truncated data sets condemns some one for using a truncated data set. Hmm!
Joe not a scientist – pathetic – realizing that they are ignorant makes some people angry. Keep it up, very entertaining.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 9:33 am |
Joe not a scientist – pathetic – realizing that they are ignorant makes some people angry. Keep it up, very entertaining
yes it is Absolutely pathetic – A non scientists pointing out the lack of integrity in climate science. Truncated data sets, cherrypicked start dates, Embracement and praise of dubious work in pursuit of an agenda. The hypocrisy to point out the personal condemnation of truncated data set by the person who relies on cherrypicked start dates and truncated data sets.
Jtncs,
You funny (and having comprehension problems). I just presented an analysis based on the complete HadCRUT5 data set to refute Javier’s claim, which did not include the last 16 years of available data. Like I said, YOU are pathetic – all you have been able to point out is what you don’t understand, thanks for that. And of course, you present no data at all – now that’s extreme truncation and cherry-picking. What is left, is unsupported personal opinion, and yours doesn’t particularly interest me.
BaBy –
All I did was point out that you condemned someone for using a truncated data set when you regularly cite studies using truncated data sets.
It must be getting personal when the double standards you regularly go by gets pointed out.
Pathetic is the double standards you employ
jntcs: “It must be getting personal when the double standards you regularly go by gets pointed out.”
You are the only one pointing it out, but that is because you are the only one so ignorant that you don’t understand the difference between justified truncation and intentional cherry-picking and omission of known data.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 11:53 am |
jntcs: “It must be getting personal when the double standards you regularly go by gets pointed out.”
You are the only one pointing it out, but that is because you are the only one so ignorant that you don’t understand the difference between justified truncation and intentional cherry-picking and omission of known data.
As usual – a very dishonest retort
Explain the “Justified Truncation” of data using the cherrypicked start date (year) for increase extreme heat waves when using a longer period starting early 1900’s when such broader history shows a much smaller rate of rate of increase, and likely no increase when adjusted for observational differences
Try to be honest and ethical in your response. I understand that is not your forte – but give honest and ethical response.
Ganon – As usual – a very dishonest retort
Explain the “Justified Truncation” of data using the cherrypicked start date (year) for increase extreme heat waves when using a longer period starting early 1900’s when such broader history shows a much smaller rate of rate of increase, and likely no increase when adjusted for observational differences.
Deception is not a valid reason for “justified Truncation”
Try to be honest and ethical in your response. I understand that is not your forte – but give honest and ethical response.
“During Cycle 20 of low solar activity, the vortex wind was slower than normal and most years had a weak vortex. This corresponds to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when many winters were cold. Then came Cycle 21, which was very active. The wind speed increased, and there was only a weak vortex at the beginning and end of the cycle, when solar activity was low. In the late 1970s and 1980s the winters were warmer.”
1971 to late 1976 had the strongest solar wind states of the space age, driving a positive North Atlantic Oscillation regime, and milder winters. Then when the solar wind weakened from late 1976, the winters became colder.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/16/Tmin/England.gif
There’s no good evidence of how solar wind affects climate, nor a credible mechanism to do so. In the absence of evidence skepticism is the best choice.
And England is not the Northern Hemisphere. Your figure does not contradict what I say. Check Figure 3h in:
Cohen, J., Screen, J.A., Furtado, J.C., Barlow, M., Whittleston, D., Coumou, D., Francis, J., Dethloff, K., Entekhabi, D., Overland, J. and Jones, J., 2014. Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nature geoscience, 7(9), pp.627-637.
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/36132/1/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf
Winters in the 60s and early 70s were, as I say, colder. Just not where you are looking. You didn’t get the part where I say eastern NorthAmerica and eastern Eurasia.
There is good correlative evidence of daily-weekly changes in the solar wind driving NAO anomalies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
I have hundreds of years worth of correlations of the heliocentric planetary ordering of the solar signal discretely driving mid latitude heat and cold waves. Plenty enough to suggest the effect is real, and I have 16 years experience of predicting such heat and cold waves.
You will never understand how the Sun drives climate while disregarding how the Sun drives weather, and how stronger solar wind states drive a colder AMO via positive NAO regimes. That is why the AMO was colder in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s. In 1969 and 1979-80 there were major lows in the solar wind at sunspot cycle maximum, giving negative NAO/AO conditions, causing colder winters, warmer AMO anomalies, and El Nino episodes.
Since the 1990’s the major lows in the solar wind have shifted to around a year past sunspot cycle minimums. During the cold AMO phase, the positive NAO/AO regimes are nearer to solar cycle minimum, and during the warm AMO the positive NAO/AO regimes are at and just after solar cycle maximum. The phase shifts between solar cycles and the NAO regimes have been well noted, but not explained until now.
The NAO is not just England! and the AO was also in a positive regime 1971-1976, which does not bode well for colder winters in other regions either. A positive NAO/AO regime implies a stronger polar vortex.
Arctic amplification is bunkum, the AMO and Arctic warmed since 1995 because of weaker solar wind states since then, via negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012. The cold winter weather of Jan-Feb 2014 would have occurred with or without Arctic warming, it was discretely solar driven, I had predicted it several months in advance. I see Cohen’s work as yogurt weaving.
More papers on the solar wind and the NAO and polar vortex:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024460
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL097076
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6197
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136468261830378X?via%3Dihub
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021EA002179
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD027605
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50236
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/1/141/5523147
https://academic.oup.com/book/26837/chapter-abstract/195849617
With respect to the high autocorrelation of hydrological and climate data I wonder whether the use of the Monte Carlo method to determine the probability of observed sun Enso interactions makes much sense.
I find this article, along with this site generally, to be pretty desperate in its singular attempt to find some other explanation besides co2 for global warming. this theory is not really a theory as (1) there is no explanation the way in which changes to solar cycle are amplified in their effect on the climate (2) even the solar cycle affects the climate by .1c instead of .02, it’s still an 11 year cycle that cannot explain the last 50 years of unprecedented warming (3) the solar impact on ENSO has no theoretical explanation (4) even if solar cycle is impacting ENSO (of which I am highly skeptical in spite of the 99.3% confidence), this still has no long-term effect on climate but only on year-to-year variability as ENSO does not change the net heat content on a planetary level, but just how the heat is distributed.
I doubt i will posting here much more. had hoped this site would be more balanced.
I agree this site should be more balanced with other views on sun-climate effects. Funny that you should mention all the main issues of my work that Javier has said no one wants to listen to.
Dietrich,
“I still wonder why there is no more curiosity about the climate cooling period from 1945 to 1975.”
–
Dietrich, it is a scientific paradox, the why there is no more curiosity. <(';-)=
–
“…the supposed Earth temp based solely on solar input is the limit that Earth must eventually cool to.”
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dan
The IPCC states that the multi decadal solar activity during the 20th Century is in the top decile of the last 9,000 years. That has to qualify as very unusual and offers a logical explanation for later warming, with lagging oceanic and atmospheric effects.
None of it has necessarily to be in place of AGW, but rather additive to it.
Following up on Cerescokid and Dietrich responses to DanB. Its worth noting that the typical warming cycle and typical cooling cycle last 150-300 years. Its generally acknowledged that the warming in the early part of the 20th century was likely due to increase solar activity. How much of the later half of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century due to the thermal inertia of the atmosphere and the thermal inertia of the oceans? The fixation on c02 impedes the understanding of a very complex climate system.
You’re still here.
Ragnaar
Nice to have you back. Your link above about Quantum Mechanics was interesting, especially the hidden variables. I might be oversimplifying the topic, however. Climate science seems to have an infinite number of hidden variables that endlessly change and thus make temporal comparisons either impossible or meaningless.
cereso:
Hidden variables are still a big question and I am in Sabine’s camp. The climate is a evolving to a future now. Though we don’t know how to compute the future now, we know there is a calculation. I think in their paper, we can ask where do our climate probability distributions realized come from? The climate scientists are doing a measurement. The wave function collapses or whatever you want to call that. Then they tell a story about how we got here.
Robert Cutler: “Bruce, your plot offers simulations.”
(1) it is not my plot – It is an IPCC plot that was referenced by Javier.
(2) It also shows [people offer, plots show] the OBSERVED DATA to which the simulations are compared – that’s the whole point, sorry you don’t get it.
(3) Yes, I’ve seen your plots.
Mr. DanB, the trouble with focus on singular CO2 global warming cause explanation is the lack of openmindedness. I still wonder why there is no more curiosity about the climate cooling period from 1945 to 1975. First, curiosity about the fact that it happened in between long stretches of warming. Then, why was the onset and release so abrupt? After all it extended as a 30-year climatic event. What abruptness triggers happened? There were no significant volcanic or similar atmospheric disturbances. Yes, voices alluded to SO2 blanketing from post-war industrial resurgence (why not from pre-war build-up and from WWII explosives?). Was this researched? There was also an attempt to ‘correct’ the graph, blaming the switch in ocean temperature measurement from ship topside bucket method to engine inlet monitoring. I had debunked that tale with analysis of an error band of 1.6 degree C for both methods. Why not cloud cover change? What other explanations could there be? Water vapor? Water vapor and aerosols? Water vapor and aerosols and clouds and sun in concert? Add a dose of methane? Then, while the cooling period happened, it apparently suppressed the earlier warming trend by about 0.5 deg C over these 30 years. Meaning, had it not happened the earth could be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is now. That’s a lot of warming avoided. Why is this not an ongoing research effort? Where is the curiosity beyond CO2 calamity research?
Dietrich,
“I still wonder why there is no more curiosity about the climate cooling period from 1945 to 1975. First, curiosity about the fact that it happened in between long stretches of warming. Then, why was the onset and release so abrupt? After all it extended as a 30-year climatic event. What abruptness triggers happened? There were no significant volcanic or similar atmospheric disturbances. ”
–
Dietrich, it is a scientific paradox.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you can add to the curious things happening during this cool-down period. The CO2 levels rose by 20 ppm during the time frame. Where is the direct correlation of CO2 and warming, when we see the direct opposite? No hard core research into this scientific paradox?
“voices alluded to SO2 blanketing from post-war industrial resurgence… Was this researched?”
According to the IPCC this cannot be correct. Anthropogenic forcing remained positive throughout the entire period, so it could not have caused the cooling. Models blame volcanoes but it doesn’t fit the data, and the last significant eruption, Agung in 1963, was 13 years prior to the end of the cooling period, so it could not be the cause either.
“Mr. DanB, the trouble with focus on singular CO2 global warming cause explanation is the lack of openmindedness.”
It seems to me, the ones the having the most trouble with a singular CO2 warming cause are the ones that don’t believe CO2 has any effect. It appears you are projecting and are not openminded enough to understand the complexity of nonlinear (chaotic) systems with many forcings and feedbacks.
“I still wonder why there is no more curiosity about the climate cooling period from 1945 to 1975.”
Maybe because it is now well understood, and has been for some time. Clue – it is not CO2 and it’s not orbital forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Physical_mechanisms
“there is now general agreement that aerosol effects were the dominant cause of the mid-20th century cooling.”
Not so well understood, because the IPCC and models disagree with that statement. Anthropogenic forcing (GHGs + aerosols) was positive ever since 1920, so it could not have driven any cooling.
Eyring, V., et al., 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 6th AR IPCC. pp. 515–516. doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.005
Much of the supposed knowledge by affirmationists is based on faith, not knowledge.
Javier,
Thanks for the reference. Below is a copy of the concluding graph. Just look at all that cooling! Yeah, it is combination of aerosols and a small instrumental shift due to measurement method change for SST (pre 1945, buckets samples near the surface, while cooling intakes are at least several meters below the surface. The aerosol cooling that began ~1945 continued to the present, but has been nearly constant since ~1985, while GHG warming continues to increase; ~1970 is when the GHG warming rate exceeded the cooling leading, to the “steady” warming that has been observed since. And yes, without the aerosol cooling, things would be 0.3 – 0.5 C warmer.
I’d recommend you carefully study what you reference. If you don’t understand the data and conclusions of the real climate community, that is your problem, but not a surprise.
https://mega.nz/file/86Uhhbob#0IjxwrLIjMZOdJ8kSH6QwIbbJ9RW8RTK86zkzJI-mGQ
Bruce, your plot offers simulations.
Did you bother to compare the temperature observation in your plot to the plots of solar activity I posted earlier? In particular note the frequency trajectory of the 11-year solar cycle (frequency of 0.09 year ^-1).
https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/17/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-climate-ii-the-present/#comment-1005802
I think you’ve seen it, but my model does a better job of extracting that information and it explains no only the cooling, but also the two pauses.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Excel version
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
Javier: “Not so well understood, because the IPCC and models disagree with that statement.”
Actually, the models agree very well with observed data; zoom in and compare the solid and dotted black lines. As for the IPCC opinion, you’d have to give a reference.
“Thanks for the reference. Below is a copy of the concluding graph. Just look at all that cooling! Yeah, it is combination of aerosols and a small instrumental shift … The aerosol cooling that began ~1945 continued to the present,”
You see, the difference between you and me is that I check the data to know I am correct in what I say.
That graph is a vector based pdf, so the data can be extracted, and that is what I did to make figure 55 in my second book. So I know for a fact that you are wrong.
According to that IPCC graph, human greenhouse minus human aerosols produced the following global surface warming in °C:
1921 0.008
1922 0.048
1923 0.020
1924 0.003
1925 0.024
1926 0.033
1927 0.038
1928 0.041
1929 0.031
1930 0.096
1931 0.088
1932 0.053
1933 0.050
1934 0.037
1935 0.053
1936 0.011
1937 0.030
1938 0.069
1939 0.086
1940 0.070
1941 0.084
1942 0.090
1943 0.122
1944 0.135
1945 0.048
1946 0.031
1947 0.063
1948 0.113
1949 0.139
1950 0.159
1951 0.135
1952 0.114
1953 0.070
1954 0.101
1955 0.120
1956 0.122
1957 0.090
1958 0.102
1959 0.134
1960 0.129
1961 0.081
1962 0.090
1963 0.088
1964 0.039
1965 0.050
1966 0.107
1967 0.032
1968 0.091
1969 0.124
1970 0.132
1971 0.093
1972 0.128
1973 0.129
1974 0.088
1975 0.125
1976 0.165
As you can see there is no negative number in that period, so according to the IPCC and models, the cooling that took place between 1945 and 1976 is not the result of human aerosols, because human greenhouse forcing was bigger all the time.
So models and scientists don’t know why there was cooling at the time.
Bruce (responding on the wrong subthread)
“(3) Yes, I’ve seen your plots.”
That’s it?
Forget attacking my model as a diversionary tactic. What arguments do you have that we should ignore my spectral analysis of sunspot data, and all it implies?
Javier: “I know for a fact that you are wrong”
You don’t know much of anything.
Even if the sum (not difference as you state) of H-GHG and H-aerosol forcings is greater than zero, there are plenty of other forcings and feedbacks that can cause cooling greater than the summed human forcings, particularly 40-80 years ago when those human forcings were much smaller than now.
You start with the false assumption that anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols are the only sources that change measured temperature; that is incorrect. No need to go further.
Robert,
Yes, wrong thread – sorry – the limited nesting here can become cumbersome at times.
I didn’t attack your model.
“there are plenty of other forcings and feedbacks that can cause cooling greater than the summed human forcings”
So, again I am right. You have no idea what caused the cooling of 1945-1975 despite you saying before you do know.
This is the point where the CO₂ hypothesis becomes non-scientific. Doesn’t matter that the data contradicts the theory. There must be an explanation. Perhaps the ship buckets. Perhaps one of the feedbacks. You don’t realize it, but you have embraced a secular religion. It cannot be wrong no matter what and it must be defended against infidels.
Cerescokid: “The IPCC states that the multi decadal solar activity during the 20th Century is in the top decile of the last 9,000 years. That has to qualify as very unusual and offers a logical explanation for later warming, with lagging oceanic and atmospheric effects. None of it has necessarily to be in place of AGW, but rather additive to it.”
Hoecht: “…the trouble with focus on singular CO2 global warming cause explanation is the lack of openmindedness.”
Well said. I would recharacterize the before a bit by suggesting the possibility that the current state of climate science does not “necessarily” need to be additive to current AGW theory, but replace AGW theory entirely, at least the models.
Prof. Zharkova presents powerful arguments for the latter.
An entertaining video segment for perusal (beginning at about the 54 minute mark); it’s an example of what computer models don’t account for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMK2QIw-YE
Te before segment offers an amusing take-down of IPCC hubris. Zharkova ends the segment by describing radiative transfer in action, correcting physics that the IPCC currently maintains:
See Harde et al, 2017; S. Perming, E.D. Kuznetsov, 2018
See page 12 solar inertial motion graphs.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00439
Zharkova et al, 2019, 2020, 2022
Katiashvili, 2020, ApJ
Obridko et al, 2021, MNRAS
Velasco-Herrera et al, 2021
Zharkova’s recent paper, Oct 2023
There’s not much discussion about the fact that currently Earth is closer to the Sun, translation—it’s warmer because of it—directly accounting for the “hockey stick”.
There’s virtually no discussion about contemporary “extra solar forcing” caused from solar inertial motion. The IPCC seems to have swept it under the rug; as the before video segment describes.
Jungletrunks
I’ve often wondered how much research was not initiated about alternate theories of warming because of the IPCC pulling the trigger so early in favor of AGW rather than creating an environment that welcomed other ideas. Whether overt or not, it seems the natural inquisitive nature of scientists was stifled once the consensus came to be the dominant narrative.
Worth repeating
Hoecht: “…the trouble with focus on singular CO2 global warming cause explanation is the lack of open mindedness.”
_worth repeating – “The IPCC states that the multi decadal solar activity during the 20th Century is in the top decile of the last 9,000 years. That has to qualify as very unusual and offers a logical explanation fCor later warming, with lagging oceanic and atmospheric effects.
Does the effect of changes in solar output show instantaneously or is the a delay of few hours or a few decades?
Not following your logic here. The IPCC references Wu et al., and many references therein, in which we find that TSI increased about 1 W/m^2 since 1700 (or about 1/300 W/m^2 per decade), and no more than about 1.5 W/m^2 over the previous 9,000 years, whereas the recent (since 2005) rate of increase in the Earth’s energy imbalance is about .5 Wm^2 per decade (Loeb et al., GRL, 2021). How do “…lagging oceanic and atmospheric effects” work to account for the current (increasing) imbalance? Please explain.
“Not following your logic here.”
You didn’t pay attention to my article. The change in energy does not explain any of the solar effects on climate presented. It is clear that the Sun does not act on climate through its change in energy, so insisting on it is to persist in the error when the evidence says otherwise.
Javier – Sorry, my question was directed to ckid, Jtrunks and JoeTNCS who all say:
“The IPCC states that the multi decadal solar activity during the 20th Century is in the top decile of the last 9,000 years. That has to qualify as very unusual and offers a logical explanation for later warming, with lagging oceanic and atmospheric effects.”
What’s the “logical explanation”?
(Perhaps ckid, Jtrunks and JoeTNCS did not pay attention to your article.)
“What’s the “logical explanation”?”
The temporal coincidence of the highest solar activity on at least 600 years and the highest warming on at least 600 years deserves careful study and not a summary dismissal.
Regarding logical explanations it is my experience that logic is a human cognitive process that has little to do with the physical reality of the Universe. What is the logic in time being relative? Things are what they are regardless of logic.
The solar effect on climate is indirect and nonlinear. We know it is indirect since the 1980s when we discovered that the change in total energy is too small to have a significant impact, yet paleoclimatology clearly supports it does.
And we know it is nonlinear since Karin Labitzke discovered in 1987 that the effect of the solar cycle on the winter polar stratospheric temperature depended so much on the phase of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation that it completely reversed with the change in phase.
The explanation for the solar effect on climate had to be looked for in the stratosphere, which is the part of the climate system that responds more strongly to changes in solar activity. The problem could not be solved until we gained enough knowledge on the stratosphere, quite recently.
Thanks Javier, but I’m still wondering what “logical explanation” ckid, Jtrunks and JoeTNCS had in mind.
” …it is my experience that logic is a human cognitive process that has little to do with the physical reality of the Universe.”
I look forward to your un-logical theory of the solar effect on climate :-)
Casssen
I am going to repeat J vinos comment – What’s the “logical explanation”?”
The temporal coincidence of the highest solar activity on at least 600 years and the highest warming on at least 600 years deserves careful study and not a summary dismissal.
fwiw – I dont know the cause of the current warming – though I am certainly not going to dismiss scientific facts and scientific logic and knowledge based on adherence to co2 control knob theory.
Pat
So the extended high solar activity, in the upper 10% of several thousand years doesn’t in the least raise the possibility that it has affected climate? Regardless of the research, that is a very unusual occurrence worthy of consideration. If nothing else, raising the possibility we don’t know as much about physics as we think we know.
ckid –
“So the extended high solar activity, in the upper 10% of several thousand years doesn’t in the least raise the possibility that it has affected climate?”
Well of course it does. Likewise CO2: To paraphrase Javier’s comment above, ‘the temporal coincidence of the highest CO2 levels and the highest warming in at least 600 years deserves careful study and not a summary dismissal.’ The difference, of course, is that there is a quantitative, physical (dare I say ‘logical’) explanation for the CO2 warming, while we await one for solar activity. Hence my inquiry about what you had in mind.
Kid,
Percentile of a population distribution has nothing to do with climate. What is important is the radiative forcing (e.g., W/m^2) in recent time compared to the average solar radiative forcing for your several thousand years.
At a minimum a correlation like this is interesting and worthy of further study.
And like much literature in climate science there is a recognition of processes not understood and a great debate among the solar scientists as to all the causes and effects. I’m sure there were some who thought they understood everything there was to understand about medicine 200 years ago. I suspect solar scientists in 2200 will look back at the current science in the same way that we look at medicine 200 years ago.
https://www.tandfonline.com/cms/asset/973464b3-6d66-4645-bf15-60950a182f78/ktmp_a_1796243_f0004_oc.jpg
https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-021-00433-8
‘the temporal coincidence of the highest CO2 levels and the highest warming in at least 600 years deserves careful study and not a summary dismissal.’
I don’t think you can claim that the effect of CO₂ is not being carefully studied. We can’t say the same for the effect of the Sun, that is being summarily dismissed by NASA and the IPCC for not fulfilling their expectations.
“this theory is not really a theory”
I guess you didn’t understand the article. It is a collection of Sun-climate effects that the CO₂ theory cannot explain, are not included in climate models, and the IPCC ignores. Talk about desperation.
Theories will be presented in part 3.
We applied the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explaines the so much large difference of +68°C between our Moon and our planet Earth.
When considering the (solar EM energy)/(surface matter) interaction process, the surfaces of Earth and Moon have those the two great differences between them. Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon, and, also, Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now we know much more about climate change compared to what was known back when climatists first took sides against modernity. For example, we now know that about 40 percent of global warming is due to the impact of cosmic rays –i.e., more or less of them as the Earth races around the Sun (as the solar system hurtles through the galaxy), that in turn are moderated more or less as a consequence of more or less solar (magnetic) activity. In other words, having nothing to do with modern man’s atmospheric CO2, climate change is due to changes in the Earth’s albedo, which is the result of changes in low cloud cover, which we now know has a far more significant impact on the climate than IPCC models ever allowed for (i.e., in a nutshell: cosmic ray intensity varies and so does the Sun’s magnetic activity and over time higher solar activity means fewer cosmic rays which results in fewer clouds and leads to more global warming because less of the Sun’s energy is reflected away… and, vice versa).
I tweeted data totally supporting Javier’s analyses
HOW EL NINO LA NINA AND THE SUN DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE!
https://x.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1792282059484090743
Thank you very much, Jim.
Like a knife in the neck of honor and ethics in science (global warming catastrophe science is nothing more been politically correct horse)-
‘Nature magazine declares that science manifests one of “humankind’s worst excesses”: racism. The Smithsonian Institution announces that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.’ ~Disparate Impact Thinking Is Destroying Our Civilization, Imprimis (FEB 2024 | V53, No. 2)
Substitutes for the scientific method- intuition, personal belief, the casting of chicken bones…
Meanwhile, Western liberal utopianism has been on display from Copenhagen to Cancun among those discussing global warming like children hiding under a blanket sharing fears and taking turns scaring each other in the dark. But, the ‘new approach to environmentalism’ — according to Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who authored “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout) — ‘requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.’ Patrick has essentially outed Leftists as perpetrators of an anti-humanist and anti-capitalist agenda by eco-commies.
Christian Schlüchter understands what makes the glaciers fluctuate. The solar activity is the lever of change. In addition, tectonic movements and the shifting of the seasons in the northern hemisphere play a role. Even volcanoes can be a trigger. Schlüchter is more worried about the corruption in science history and also in economics: There are many examples of the failure of science in history because courage was lacking. The same also applies to other disciplines, currently, for example, for the economy.
This ongoing discussion of the mechanics of climate is very important, but what gets shoved under the rug is the failure of proposed “solutions”. Wind and solar being two, EVs being a very large third.
And every time I look, the cost of the “green” solutions gets more and more staggering. Now they are saying we need 69 million more miles of grid at a cost of $24,000,000,000,000!!! (That’s 24 TRILLION folks!).
Governments and companies need to spend an extra $34 trillion on the clean energy transition between now and 2050 to reach net-zero emissions, according to BloombergNEF.
The research group’s 250-page New Energy Outlook report, which crunches 18 million datapoints, says that amount is 19% more than what’s expected in its base case scenario. The finding indicates that sectors from electric vehicles and renewable energy to power grids and carbon capture need extra support.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/key-takeaways-from-bloombergnef-s-new-energy-outlook
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/grid-investment-must-outpace-renewables-for-net-zero-bnef-says
The first time I saw estimates like this was way back in 2012 and it was less than 1/3 Bloomberg’s numbers. This is not the first time they have inflated the costs of net zero. I wish they would use a fixed unit of value instead of inflated US$.
My guess is the 2012 numbers were way off since it was based off a lot of unknowns at the time. Now we are where the rubber meets the road and the tires are getting dangerously thin.
Jim2: “Now we are where the rubber meets the road and the tires are getting dangerously thin.”
Yeah, better to buy new tires rather than wait for a 100 mph blowout and hope to survive.
The green agenda is putting our survival at risk.
Jim: “Governments and companies need to spend an extra $34”
Jack: “I wish they would use a fixed unit of value instead of inflated US$.”
Indeed, Jack, the US economy has inflated about 20% since 2020; instead of $34 trillion it would have only cost about $27 trillion back then. The Lefts answer to thin tires is #print-more-tread, inflate those tires; start walking.
“I wish they would use a fixed unit of value instead of inflated US$.”
A Troy Ounce of gold? A mink’s pelt? A pound of rice? A Texas dollar?
A pound of flesh (or bugs, maybe!) is what they want, more like many pounds per capita.
Thought you might get a chuckle out of this …
https://x.com/KathleenWinche3/status/1792629395569410126
This breathless article fails to mention that EV sales are going down hill and Hertz is having trouble unloading its 30,000 EVs at basement level prices. Didn’t mention that Tesla is getting out of the supercharger business. Didn’t mention grid problems caused by solar and wind. Didn’t mention that in some places feed-in tariffs and subsidies are being cut. And doesn’t mention the nation-killing Inflation Production Act.
Going even faster means that renewable energy deployed globally needs to triple by the end of the decade while energy efficiency doubles and the oil-and-gas sector cuts methane emissions by 75%, according to the IEA’s models. “We need to do more,” Cozzi says.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-28/our-planet-is-warming-fast-and-needs-extreme-climate-solutions
All we need is more (and more) money!
The chance of power shortages in Australia’s populous southeast has increased as coal-fired plants are phased out and grid and battery storage projects are delayed.
Reliability risks have risen for Victoria and New South Wales through 2027-28, the Australian Energy Market Operator said Tuesday in an update of its Electricity Statement of Opportunities report. The advancement of generation and storage projects since the long-term outlook was published in August has lowered the risks after that.
“While new generation and storage capacity continues to increase, project development and commissioning delays are impacting reliability,” AEMO Chief Executive Officer Daniel Westerman said in the report. “Reliability risks have the potential to be managed within relevant standards over most of the next 10-year horizon” if new generation and storage projects are added through government programs, he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/australian-grid-operator-flags-risk-of-power-crunch-in-southeast
Solar activity (as indicated by sunspots) peaked before 1960. Since then, it has gradually declined. The global temperature anomaly accelerated AFTER the peak in solar activity and has continued increasing at least as fast and may have even been accelerating further. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that the sun is primarily responsible for the temperature trend of the last few decades.
The so-called “divergence problem”. To that I would add, similar solar-cycle patterns have occurred multiple times in the past, but have not generated temperature excursions similar to that observed over the last ~60 years.
ganon
I provide this link for just one purpose, with over 6,000 citations, the study demonstrates the great divergence of views about the impact on climate from solar activity.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Also, nothing is constant about the reaction of earth to solar forcing, even if that was constant. No geological, terrestrial, oceanic and atmospheric elements of today are precisely the same as they were in previous inter glacials or early Holocene or during the MWP or LIA. Nothing profound. Just self evident. That means all those interrelationships and interdependencies that played out millions or thousands of years ago are not going to play out precisely as before. That means the temperature profiles won’t be precisely the same.
Ooops.
600 citations.
Thanks kid,
how many references does IPCC AR6 have.
Yes, the climate is always changing, and never the same. It’s a chaotic (formal definition) system.
kid: “That means the temperature profiles won’t be precisely the same.”
Of course not, I asked for something “similar” not “precisely the same”. Still waiting. Feel free to quote rapid changes due to ice sheet collapse and glacial lake releases; the only way they are similar is they demonstrate the resolution of paleo reconstructions is sufficient to detect such rapid changes.
ganon
“ Here, we present a community-driven ensemble experiment to assess the influence of decision-making on the interannual variability and multi-centennial trajectory of climate reconstructions. Based on a double-blind approach that ensures conceptual and methodological independence between the participating laboratories, we show how different techniques of extracting climatic information from TRW data influence the final reconstructions”
Like much in climate science, there are areas of research that are in their infancy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23627-6
ganon
“Tree-ring-based climate reconstructions are degraded by expression of local Liebig’s law stresses which introduce nonadditive noise
Liebig’s law noise is globally ubiquitous and is detected in both width and density and at both temperature- and moisture-limited sites
Climate signals in tree rings are strengthened by decreasing the influence of each tree in years it is more likely to record local stress”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018PA003449
Kid,
Thanks for the references. Does not change the fact that no one here can provide an example of a climate “event” similar to what is happening now, even though studies of D-O events (which are not similarly caused) Show that the paleo reconstructions easily have enough resolution, at least over the last 15 ky, to detect an event similar to current.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 11:45 am |
Kid,
“Show that the paleo reconstructions easily have enough resolution, at least over the last 15 ky, to detect an event similar to current.”
Your repetitive statement on the temporal resolution of the paleo record is absolutely false and you know it is false.
jtncs,
You don’t know what things I know. If fact, it’s clear that you don’t know much at all.
Paleo reconstructions can resolve the warming phase of D-O events. You are simply wrong and uninformed (not to mention behaving like a child).
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 1:17 pm |
jtncs,
You don’t know what things I know. If fact, it’s clear that you don’t know much at all.
Paleo reconstructions can resolve the warming phase of D-O events. You are simply wrong and uninformed (not to mention behaving like a child).
Ganon – Again you are grossly overstating the resolution of the paleo reconstructions.
Ceresco has repeatedly shown you why
McIntyre – has provided extensive documentation of issues throughout the paleo reconstruction community.
Joetncs –
Perhaps it’s time to quit belaboring the issue of insufficient paleo temporal resolution. Sure, there are ‘good’ proxies and ’not-so-good’ proxies, depending on what question you’re asking. But here’s one (of many) that you should contemplate:
“Annually resolved Atlantic sea surface temperature variability over the past 2,900 y”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2014166117
This is a very detailed, data-rich, informative study, worth reading carefully.
To perk your interest, I quote from the ’Significance’:
“The results show that the current warmth in sea surface temperature is unseen in the context of the past ∼3 millennia.”
Oh, I see you are ‘informed’ by McIntyre’s take-down of the entire paleoclimate enterprise. Too bad.
Pat C – similar mispresentation of the my statements.
Bab continuously makes the claim that the warming rate over last 60 years is higher than any time over the last 5k, 10k 20k years. That claim may or may not be true.
However, the resolution of the proxy data is not even remotely sufficient to use comparing against instrumental record. As good as the paleo reconstructions may be, they pale in comparison the resolution of the instrumental record. Its out right dishonesty to claim otherwise.
Pat – dont tell us that you are unaware of the dubious work in the paleo community
Just a small sampling – And pointing the poor resolution of the high resolution proxies that so much is relied upon by the non-infidels
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/
Joe,
I said, “Paleo reconstructions can resolve the warming phase of D-O events.”
You: “Again you are grossly overstating the resolution of the paleo reconstructions”.
No, I stated a fact that is easily checked.
Thanks for your thoughts anyway – the fixation is obvious.
ganon
Yet more problems with the standard approach of Dendrochronology.
“To summarize, the pronounced differences between our novel RCSa reconstruction and results using more traditional approaches reveal that considerable bias is added to reconstructions which do not account for the current no-analogue situation. Neglecting fertilization effects and other non-climatic anthropogenic influences on tree-growth rates will 1) diminish true long-term trends in reconstructions that are derived by using a differing statistical treatment for the modern and historical/subfossil data (split-detrending); or, 2) lead to lower absolute values of temperature, precipitation, or drought in the pre-instrumental period in case a biased common RC (positively influenced by the modern accelerated tree-growth rates) is applied to uniformly standardize modern and historic/subfossil datasets. This bias will be most pronounced in climate reconstructions for the temperate areas of Europe and North America, which are heavily influenced by novel atmospheric depositions. Nevertheless a fertilization effect cannot be disregarded in the northern, nitrogen limited boreal and high-mountain environments.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385214/
ganon
With so many challenges and need for corrections and recalibration, this is becoming close to junk science. How can we have confidence in the data that allows any confidence in past temperatures.
“ We review the merits and state of the art of tree-ring wood microdensitometry and its associated analytical challenges
We show that systematic level offsets in mean wood density from different techniques and laboratories require correction
Measurement resolution—notoriously difficult to control—is identified as the major challenge for future research applications”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019RG000642
Jeffrey, If you read my other posts you will learn that sunspots are not solar activity, they are a proxy for solar activity. Also, I believe that you’ve completely ignored earth’s response to solar activity. With vast thermal sinks called oceans, the response to changes in solar activity will not be instantaneous.
Sunspots are Javier’s primary metric for solar activity. I’m just using the same metric he does.
Jeffrey, your simplistic interpretation and application of sunspot data is incorrect, which leads you to wrong conclusions. The oceans act to integrate solar energy. As a simple thought experiment, if you integrate sin(ax), you don’t get another identical sine wave, you get a cos(ax)/a — a sine wave displaced in time and scaled with frequency.
If you’re read my other posts then you know that it’s quite easy to show a strong relationship between global temperature and solar activity.
You are making an assumption that invalidates your reasoning. You are assuming that the effect of solar activity on surface temperature is linear, i.e. the effect is proporcional to the cause.
“In mathematics and science, a nonlinear system (or a non-linear system) is a system in which the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input. Nonlinear problems are of interest to engineers, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and many other scientists since most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system
If the effect of solar activity on climate is nonlinear it shouldn’t be expected that their trends match.
Javier, you say, “If the effect of solar activity on climate is nonlinear it shouldn’t be expected that their trends match.” Where did I show an assumption of linearity? I just expect the cause and effect to move more or less in the same direction. For more than six decades, sunspots and global temperature have moved in opposite directions.
While denying that you can predict anything, you castigate the IPCC because its projections may be imperfect.
“I just expect the cause and effect to move more or less in the same direction.”
That’s a linear expectation. For example if solar activity produces a warming effect when above a certain level, it will still produce warming even if it trends down for as long as it is above that level. Fire stoves work that way. You can reduce the intensity of the fire below the pot and it still keeps warming until you reduce it below a certain level.
But it can be more complicated. If the solar mechanism acts over a climate process that depends on more things, the effect will depend on all those things. In that case the trends would disagree despite the Sun having an important effect.
“While denying that you can predict anything”
I don’t deny I can predict something. We just need to look at where in the climate system the effect of solar activity is clearer and we can make projections. The parts of the climate system that respond more to solar activity are the stratosphere, the Arctic, and Northern Hemisphere winter trends. But predicting solar activity is also a problem.
Javier,
Anybody, even you, can predict anything. Supported projections are what count, and they, like everything else in the future, still have uncertainty.
Javier, your statement, “If the effect of solar activity on climate is nonlinear it shouldn’t be expected that their trends match” makes your conclusion “that the 20th century solar maximum has been a major contributor to recent warming” untestable. It’s a denial that your conclusion has any value.
The IPCC made a projection that is testable; where is yours?
A planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planet’s average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
17% of emissions are directly from the surface through the atmospheric window. Emissions are related to surface temperature. Plus the temperature of the atmosphere has its biggest input from the heat it gets from the surface.
In the Graph the cause and effect move in the same direction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The mean green.
Germany’s planned coal phase-out will lead to enormous supply gaps in the power grid, according to the head of the country’s primary domestic energy company.
If German coal plants are closed down, as is required by 2030, the country faces around 100 power cuts of up to 21 hours a time annually, according to Westenergie, Germany’s largest electricity-distribution system operator.
That would mean many areas would be without electricity for around 90 days a year.
Katherina Reiche, head of Westenergie, warned electricity supply was under severe threat and widespread power outages will result from the Government pushing through the planned coal phase-out.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/03/germans-may-be-left-in-the-cold-three-days-a-week-energy-titan-warns/
Charging an electric car in Germany is one of the most expensive uses of electricity.
https://www.energyprices.eu/electricity/germany
Looks like they need some free market ideas like this:
https://electrek.co/2024/05/21/company-japan-offering-unlimited-ev-charging-nationwide-under-20-a-month/
But one should always read the fine print…
“unlimited charging sessions at certain times a day”
Putting gasoline in your car and burning it is one of the most expensive uses of valuable and irreplaceable hydrocarbons.
Here comes another round of grab your wallet. The Dimowits have enacted a tsunami of expensive regulations. This is nowhere close to a free market in just about any segment you care to name.
The Biden administration is announcing a climate rule that would require most fossil fuel power plants to slash their greenhouse gas pollution 90 percent between 2035 and 2040 — or shut down.
The highly anticipated regulation being unveiled Thursday morning is just the latest step in President Joe Biden’s campaign to green the U.S. economy, an effort that has brought a counterattack from Republicans and coal-state Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. That’s on top of efforts by Biden’s agencies to promote the use of electric cars, subsidize green energy sources like solar and wind and tighten regulations on products including gas stoves and dishwashers.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/11/biden-rule-tells-power-plants-cut-climate-pollution-00095827
Bushaw, in response to your response on 5-21.
“Maybe because it is now well understood, and has been for some time. Clue – it is not CO2 and it’s not orbital forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Physical_mechanisms”
This portion of the discussion thread is about the cool-down 1945 to 1975. This Wikipedia statement says it is caused by aerosols and orbital forcing. You say it is not orbital forcing. Nonsense. Orbital forcing is a slow process, not one that causes quick changes. And aerosol emissions have not been turned up or down quickly over this time frame.
This Wikipedia posting is a bucket full of tidbits and attempts to make sense. But it is discombobulated.
I am surprised you resorted to this site to make a statement.
Dietrich,
“This portion of the discussion thread is about the cool-down 1945 to 1975. ”
–
It was the era before internet. There should be plenty of climatological publications during 1945 to 1975 in the libraries, which publications never made it into the internet.
Politics is the only hope of avoiding the green regulations killing entire countries. Here is a ray of hope.
Tell the world, the Dutch tractor protests and a War on Net Zero won
Six months after Geert Wilders won the Dutch election he has finally negotiated an agreement with a few minor parties to form government and the unthinkable has happened. The centre-of-the-road conservatives (referred to as “far right extremists”) got elected to unwind the worst excesses of the totalitarian left. Henceforth, the forced farm reclamations will stop, mandated heat pumps are out, electric car subsidies are going and in a brave scientific move, no one will be culling livestock to change the weather. The Netherlands won’t have to pursue stronger environmental policies than the rest of the EU so their leaders can show off at cocktail parties and get jobs with the UN. The Netherlands will still be tied to crazy EU rules, but those elections are coming next month. And official government ministers are so much harder to ignore in EU negotiations. The landscape has changed.
This is at Jo Nova’s site. Search for “Jo Nova”.
Dietrich,
I made my own statement. The reference supports it, and gives an overview of the subject with 56 references therein for those that want to investigate further – it is simply a good starting place. I am amused that you are surprised that I choose to cite an overview article with plenty of references included, while you provide no references at all. I am not surprised that you try to turn it into a personal attack.
“And aerosol emissions have not been turned up or down quickly over this time frame.”
That is incorrect. 1945 -1975:SO2 increased nearly 3-fold from 45 to 125 megatons/yr.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
Frankly, personal opinions do not interest me. Reference and quantify your claims – else there is nothing to discuss.
Who says the cooling of 1945 to 1975 was due to industrial aerosols, besides Wikipedia?
Because the IPCC and models don’t support it, as I have shown.
Is this one of those things you affirmationists like to believe without any need to prove it?
Lots of sources for that. e.g.:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
If you want more, “cause of 1945-1975 cooling” is a pretty easy search that you might be able to handle.
I am not an affirmationist. I am a (real) scientist; I evaluate the evidence (main reason I am here) and make a judgement. My judgement is that the scientific evidence indicates that you are wrong, and you have done nothing to change that.
As for “no need to prove”. That is correct – there is no “proof in science” (an easy search term). There is a need for evidence.
OK, I see. Wikipedia and a press article. So that is on what you base your beliefs. Not bad for a scientist.
I’ve read tons of articles and have never come along one defending with some sort of evidence (even models) that the cooling was due to aerosols. That is why I was surprised by your claim that you know well it is so. I somewhat thought you might have read such article, but I see you have “alternative” sources of information.
I don’t care if you think I am wrong, because I don’t need to convince you or anybody else. The physical reality is what it is and that is the only judge I care. Or do you think Wegener was wrong just because almost everybody believed so?
Bruce, your New Scientist article includes the following statement: “Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well”
When this 2007 article was written that was true. But we’re now in 2024, and I’ve shown how easy it is to accurately predict global temperature using only sunspot data. Since 2007 we also have two long pauses that were not predicted by GHG models, but were predicted from solar activity. In fact, the existing sunspot data allows me to predict that we’re at the peak of global temperature (current spike not included), and that temperatures will be continue to be stable and possibly drop slightly between now and 2030.
I’m glad you’re here to “evaluate the evidence and make your own judgments”. So, let’s hear your thoughts on my results.
Javier: “OK, I see. Wikipedia and a press article. So that is on what you base your beliefs. Not bad for a scientist.
No, it is not what I base my beliefs on – it is what you asked for.
I guess you weren’t able to handle the 4-word search term. And, you are right – no need to convince me or anyone else – good thing.
Enjoy your journey.
Robert, where are those two long pauses since 2007?
https://mega.nz/fm/JiFQgJIZ
You keep talking about your work – if you could post a link to some sort of manuscript, I’d be glad look at it.
“I guess you weren’t able to handle the 4-word search term.”
Nice try. You said you knew something. It turns out you didn’t. You won’t even admit it. Your credibility just took a hit.
I thought I could prompt you to give me an explanation of the two rather astounding quick changes. First, from upward temperature trend to cooling, right around 1945, and then rapid reversal around 1975. In the climate, as you well understand, nothing happens drastically. That has nothing to do with my opinion. It’s just that I have enough skills to read a graph. Your point about SO2 steady increase within these 30 years does not apply to my query. So, what did trigger those quick changes?
Sorry, I don’t see any “astounding quick changes” beyond the noise levels observed throughout the pre-satellite data. Slow change – yes, with inflection points and noise too large to discern sharpness in the inflection points. I too have some experience with graphs and interpresting them; however, you are free to see what you want to.
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
Guess I’m more interested in the forest (the overall accelerating growth) than the trees (past small wiggles in that growth curve).
Dietrich – typical deceptive response
A) heavily compressed graph designed to overstate the robustness and the rate of warming
B) He dodges the issue you raised so2 .
Joe, can’t help yourself, can you, child? What triggered you? – me? – good? LOL
Joe said :”heavily compressed graph designed to overstate the robustness and the rate of warming”
Some people say the stupidest things – guess that happens if hair is on fire with hatred.
The graph is roughly square and the data fills the graph in both dimensions. Nothing is compressed, nothing is overstated, nothing is left out, the data source is given, and the data is fit with an exponential growth that corresponds to the physical causality of known GHG gas effects. As for the robustness, it is called a correlation coefficient – given and not overstated.
As for the SO2, I did respond, with a reference to the SO2 yearly emission rates including the period of question. The change was large (~3x) and most definitely relevant.
?Are you really this dense, or just lashing out with false accusations that you think might work as personal attacks?
Me dodge the issues? Surely you jest. Because I don’t give you the answers you want, doesn’t mean I am dodging an issue.
Sleep well, child, don’t let the hypertension get you.
Here is a 31-year (WMO default duration for global climate analysis) symmetric running average for the complete HadCRUT5 dataset. If you want to call the small dip at 1960 an “astounding quick change”, feel free. I stand by my position – the noise lets your brain see what it wants you to see. Clearly, some simple analysis (running average) is needed to guide (constrain) your eyes. I would also point out that your “quick changes” are based largely on two extreme single data points.
So my explanation is simple: noise and (your) inability to accurately “eyeball” noisy data.
https://mega.nz/file/RzNVkaoD#WE2NMseirWVZnP7VO_ySLwVRkBp-k-y1QPFDybyHRtI
compressed X axis
Elongated Y axis
caught twice
Whats your next deception?
Ganon – you stated that you responded to Dietrich H’s question on SO2 – Where in your response did you respond to DH’s question on SO2?
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 5:39 pm |
“Sorry, I don’t see any “astounding quick changes” beyond the noise levels observed throughout the pre-satellite data. Slow change – yes, with inflection points and noise too large to discern sharpness in the inflection points. I too have some experience with graphs and interpresting them; however, you are free to see what you want to.
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
Guess I’m more interested in the forest (the overall accelerating growth) than the trees (past small wiggles in that growth curve).”
JTNCS,
Not caught for anything – it is you that has been caught for not understanding the basic principles of graphing.
(1) There is no compression or expansion of axes, they are simply what the numbers say they are. Temperature and time have different units and cannot be scaled against each other. Thanks for demonstrating your understanding of graphs.
(2) I answered Dietrich’s question about SO2 here:
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 11:34 am | Reply
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 22, 2024 at 5:39 pm |
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | May 23, 2024 at 12:21 am |
I responded. Whether or not you like my answers is immaterial.
Apparently the searching and reading comprehension skills are about as good as graph understanding.
Bye bye, non-scientist child.
Bruce, there’s no need for a manuscript to view what’s easily observed in any plot of global temperature. I’m talking about the stair steps beginning around 2007 where the rate of temperature rise suddenly dropped. [CO2] did not. The temperature took a second jump around 2015 and was relatively stable until the recent spike, which is not predicted from solar activity, so I’m obviously expecting temperatures to drop to pre-spike levels this time.
https://i0.wp.com/www.sciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/100-climate_spolight_warming-hiatus_global-temp_desktop.png?w=680&ssl=1
This is from a ScienceNews article that was written to explain the pause as a “hiccup”.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-climate-change-science-early-2000s
Here’s my prediction of the pauses using only sunspot data
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/images/TempPredictionSSOnly.png
Any plot of the instrumental temperature record I look at (and work with), looks like 2007+ is inter-annual variability, similar to the rest of the record.
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
So, no kind of manuscript? Thanks anyway.
Bruce, I’m not surprised that you don’t want to discuss my results. Your repeated deflections tell me that you agree with them.
That’s right – I’d much rather read about them, and decide if I’m interested in discussing them. If you’re not ready, that’s OK.
Sorry Bruce, you’ve already played that hand. Good luck.
Robert,
Only because you continue to “play the hand” of not being able to provide a write-up of your work, while not admitting that you don’t have one.
Let us know when you think enough of your work/calculations to write them up.
But, Good luck to you, too.
KId,
Thanks for the references. I’m aware of the problems with tree rings; resolution (one year) is not one of them.
“Measurement resolution—notoriously difficult to control”
No, resolution is easy, accuracy is difficult.
As an instrumental scientist, I’ve always felt that proxy reconstructions are instructive, but not definitive. However, unless you have a time machine, the proxies are what is available to work with. I am much more interested in the instrumental age, which also happens to be where most of the interesting AGW stuff occurs.
Snow and frost in the Rocky Mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/Cw8rKT2/gfs-T2m-nwus-3.png
Here it is a strong example from our Moon’s behavioral case.
It is well known that the dark side of the Moon, because it has a low heat capacity and has 29 times as long as the Earth to cool each night, cools to very low temperatures, and emits very little radiation.
While the lit side has low heat capacity and 29 times as long to heat up, and heats up to a very high temperature (~380 K), and emits very much more than the average temperature would, because of the T ⁴ factor in the emission.
–
In the case of Moon we have the phenomenon demonstrated in a very impressive manner. But the same phenomenon happens all the same way, for all planets and moons.
–
Thus a planet does not emit at its average surface temperature (Tmean).
Therefore, a planet’s average surface temperature (Tmean) cannot be associated with any kind of planet surface Infrared Emission Spectrum.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Javier,
I haven’t really looked at earth’s rotational rate before, but after reading your findings, began to wonder if solar magnetic polarity was important. It seems that it is. In this plot I’ve shown length-of-day underneath a plot of butterfly plot of solar magnetic fields.
What I see is a change in LOD slope that occurs when the sun’s magnetic fields switch polarity. Without thinking about this too hard, this suggest to me an interaction between the earth and sun dynamos. Any thoughts?
https://localartist.org/media/ButterflyLOD.png
The getSynoptic.py program used to generate the butterfly diagram is on my github site
I am not convinced by the figure.
That’s OK. I wasn’t convinced by your LOD arguments and your claim “Its cause must necessarily lie in changes in the angular momentum of the atmosphere.” You didn’t mention if you’d ruled out the interaction of the sun’s magnetic field with earth’s and the impact that would have on the earth’s massive iron core.
Robert,
Some calculations would be interesting, but keep in mind:
“Magnetic dipole–dipole interaction, also called dipolar coupling, refers to the direct interaction between two magnetic dipoles. Roughly speaking, the magnetic field of a dipole goes as the inverse cube of the distance, and the force of its magnetic field on another dipole goes as the first derivative of the magnetic field. It follows that the dipole-dipole interaction goes as the INVERSE FOURTH POWER OF THE DISTANCE.” [my CAPS]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole%E2%80%93dipole_interaction
What are the units on the y-axis in the lower plot? Thanks.
A record hot ocean is bad news across the board, not just because of hurricanes but it harms shipping, important ocean currents, coral reefs and fisheries, Spinrad said.
There’s the background of human-caused climate change that’s making water warmer in general, but not this much warmer, McNoldy said. He said other contributors may include an undersea volcano eruption in the South Pacific in 2022, which sent millions of tons of water vapor into the air to trap heat, and a reduction in sulfur in ship fuels. The latter meant fewer particles in the air that reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere a bit.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-dangerous-brew-ocean-la-nina.html
The SO2 debate is interesting and used by both sides. Alarmists have used it to say the 1945-75 ‘cooling’ would have been warmer without them. The skeptics say that their effect shows that CO2 isn’t the only game in town. Which is it?
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-north-pacific-due-china-aerosols.html
Both. Here are the anthropogenic games in town
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
Bruce … Thanks for your reply. So, if it’s both, what can we say the relevance is? Cloud cover (as albedo not shown on your graph(?)) is ‘both’. There are other examples. By relevance I mean if there are variables that contribute to both sides of an issue, then we can safely say that the issue is complex, meaning that a simple rendering of one variable as cause would seem to be an unnecessary limitation. Saying one variable, CO2, has such an outsized effect, thus ignoring the ‘noise’ of other variables … seems to me … to have the effect of dampening research into not only other variables, but the effects those variables have on climate processes. It just doesn’t strike me as the proper way to do business.
Here’s another example of what I mean by unnecessary limitations in trying to understand processes. Judith re-posted this on X:
https://x.com/JuliusBusecke/status/1792930898976891279
> “The Overlooked Sub-Grid Air-Sea Flux in Climate Models”
> If you care about small scales in the ocean and atmosphere, and how they shape air-sea heat flux, give this one a read!
If you care … why wouldn’t we?
There are no outsized effects. Their magnitudes are what they are. A given forcing can have more than one effect. Try to understand the difference between forcings and feedbacks. The only people that try to blame it all on CO2 are, like you, trying to set up a false narrative that they can attack as being false. You asked what the other “players in the game are”. I answered with IPCC ranked list of anthropogenic forcings – CO2 is the largest, but not the only one.
Bill, Sorry – I can’t and won’t read stuff on X. I don’t consider it a reliable source.
No worries … here’s a link to the unpublished paper.
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/7144/
I assure you I do understand the basic difference between forcing and feedback, but certainly no where near these guys:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/96/2/bams-d-13-00167.1.xml
And if it seems like my comments utilize a strawman argument, then I have to assume I didn’t expressed myself well. Maybe this will help. I sited the Sherwood paper above not because of my legendary abilities as a scientist/mathematician. It appealed to me for what it seemed they were trying to accomplish, refining our understanding of tools/methods used in science. So, when confronted with something that ‘doesn’t fit’, sometimes it’s best to review how we got there rather (methods for instance) even at the expanse of a perspective.
The effect of anthropogenic atmospheric aerosols is included in the table, both direct reflection and cloud nucleation. (long blue bar going to the left near the bottom)
I’m not sure what the air-ocean heat exchange flux preprint has to do with anthropogenic aerosols. Maybe an unrelated “yabut” deflection? If you are saying there are things that are yet unknown and deserve further research, I agree wholeheartedly.
Yabut??? … I didn’t know you spoke Swedish. ;-)
ganon
Many scientists link to peer reviewed studies on X all the time, including Judith. A peer reviewed study is a peer reviewed study, regardless of where it appears on the internet.
Plus, you won’t be delighted by some of these gems.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOSI6iAWYAEfpE6?format=png&name=900×900
Western Academia and the Democommies’ climate change alarmism and green agenda have zero to do with science, economics or a desire for reliability. ‘We now have 200 years worth of inexpensive natural gas, thereby making any talk of energy security through solar and wind power completely laughable.’ ~Economist, Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Wow – zero – that’s not very much. Just offhand, I’d say climate change awareness (causing alarm for some) comes from (“has to do with”) science.
The science of climate change is that nothing is happening now that has not happened before.
New video:
Climate as a secular religion
https://youtu.be/02x30Axf0xA
Lots of fun in 7 minutes.
Nothing tops the religion of debt financed capitalism as an ideology.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2024/05/what-happened-to-paying-off-national.html
Wow looks bad until you see that global debt is 315 trillion dollars (333% of global GDP) and accelerating. There is no way the planet’s apex predator will trade consumerism for conservation. Party on dude.
The promise of Democommie salvation from the looming prospect of ‘global boiling.’
One of the obvious questions that open-minded people will ask you, Javier, is this:
‘What research has taken place the past 40 years to investigate possible methods of signal amplification between natural solar variability and measured variability of phenomena known to vary in synch with the 11 year solar cycle?’
If the answer is none, then the next question would be:
‘Do you or other skeptical climate scientists have any hypotheses concerning amplification mechanisms and do you have experimental protocols already designed should funding emerge to allow such hypotheses to be tested in a falsifiable way?’
Such amplification mechanisms might include chemical reaction cascades high up in the gaseous phase of the earth’s system, they might involve alterations in northern hemisphere jet stream patterns, they might involve considerable amplification of the total photosynthetic phytoplankton populations in the tropical oceans, they might involve considerable differences in the total sunlight hr*temperature index at northerly latitudes.
If I were asking questions in that field I would want to know at what specific frequencies the Total Solar Irradiation varies, and whether at those specific frequencies, the variation is far higher than a few tenths of one percentage point.
I would want to know what effects those specific electromagnetic frequencies have on atmospheric chemistry, on total ocean heat content etc etc.
The case for solar contributions to temperature changes will become much stronger when mechanistic patterns can be confirmed experimentally.
Two amplification mechanisms have been worked out by scientists over the past decades.
The most important one is termed the “top-down mechanism”, initiated by the response of stratospheric ozone to solar variations, first published by Joanna Haigh in 1996.
They are described in IPCC’s AR5:
“Two mechanisms have been identified in observations and simulated with climate models that could explain these low amplitude regional responses (Gray et al., 2010; medium evidence). These mechanisms are additive and may reinforce one another so that the response to an initial small change in solar irradiance is amplified regionally (Meehl et al., 2009). The first mechanism is a top-down mechanism first noted by Haigh (1996) where greater solar ultraviolet radiation (UV) in peak solar years warms the stratosphere directly via increased radiation and indirectly via increased ozone production. This can result in a chain of processes that influences deep tropical convection (Balachandran et al., 1999; Shindell et al., 1999; Kodera and Kuroda, 2002; Haigh et al., 2005; Kodera, 2006; Matthes et al., 2006). In addition, there is less heating than average in the tropical upper stratosphere under solar minimum conditions which weakens the equator-to-pole temperature gradient. This signal can propagate downward to weaken the tropospheric mid-latitude westerlies, thus favoring a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) or NAO. This response has been shown in several models (e.g., Shindell et al., 2001; Ineson et al., 2011) though there is no significant AO or NAO response to solar irradiance variations on average in the CMIP5 models (Gillett and Fyfe, 2013).
The second mechanism is a bottom-up mechanism that involves coupled air–sea radiative processes in the tropical and subtropical Pacific that also influence convection in the deep tropics (Meehl et al., 2003, 2008; Rind et al., 2008; Bal et al., 2011; Cai and Tung, 2012; Zhou and Tung, 2013b). Such mechanisms have also been shown to influence regional temperatures over longer time scales (decades to centuries), and can help explain patterns of regional temperature changes seen in paleoclimate data (e.g., Section 10.7.2; Mann et al., 2009; Goosse et al., 2012b) although they have little effect on global or hemispheric mean temperatures at either short or long time scales.”
Uv frequencies vary about 30 times more than visible frequencies (about 3%) and they have a very important effect on the ozone layer of the stratosphere, which is the most sensitive part of the climate system to solar changes in activity. Although the amount of energy contained in those frequencies is about 1% of the total energy, they produce around 1°C temperature change in the middle stratosphere.
Important to realize that this is talking about “low amplitude regional responses”.
That’s what the IPCC believes. As I have shown in my two articles, they are wrong because they are ignoring very important evidence of global effects: like Earth’s rotation effects and paleoclimatic evidence from grand solar minima.
OK, let me know when you publish your articles.
Subscribe to Climate Etc. and you will be informed every time a new article of mine is posted.
I am “subscribed” to Climate etc. Like I said, let me know when your articles are published. Anybody can blog anything; I prefer writing with scientific rigor over handwaving. Thanks for your efforts anyway.
By scientific rigor you mean this?
https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
Over 11,000 articles retracted, 23 journals closed, by Wiley due to rampant scientific fraud in peer-reviewed journals.
Or this?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
“17.5 percent of recent computer science papers exhibit signs of AI writing.”
I’m afraid peer-reviewed science is no guarantee of anything anymore, if it ever was. But that is also convenient, so you can say the papers you trust are good and those you don’t trust are fraud.
I’m not going to play according to the rigged rules those who disagree with me say I should follow.
ganon
If we award 1 point for each book on climate science and 1 point for each peer reviewed study on climate science, then at this juncture in the season the standings would be
Javier 2
ganon 0
Take heart though, until last night Caitlin Clark also had 0 next to her name in the WNBA standings.
Kid,
That’s ok, I give one point per peer-reviewed paper in climate and/or related/supporting physical science journals. Anybody can write books or blogs.
Bushaw: >50
Javier: 0
Kid: 0?
Researchgate has me for 124, but some are published conference papers, but I don’t count those.
ganon
Nice dodge. Link to the direct climate studies that are relevant to the current debate.
Kid,
Nice dodge – you didn’t say how many peer-reviewed publications you have in climatology or supporting fields. Guess you didn’t see the question mark – that’s OK, I’ll just assume the zero is correct.
ganon
No cookie. So you have none, nada, zip, zilch. Of course, if I was paid for all the tutoring I gave you about sea level rise and the Antarctic dynamics, I would be NVIDIA rich.
Kid,
I don’t need cookies – I have my publications and the recognition they have received. Can I offer you a brownie? Re tutoring: we’ve already covered the psychological aspects of your self-opinion – no need to repeat.
Perhaps you don’t understand the relationship and importance of trace isotope (and elemental) analyses to climatology. You can research use of uranium isotopes (and others) for dating in climatology. My sponsors happened to be interested in nuclear forensics, but much of the methods development can be applied to climate problems and environmental analysis. You can search my pubs for Uranium, Calcium (41:stable), Strontium (90:stable), (135:137:stable), for examples.
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/B-A-Bushaw-8748013
You can also search for patents in my name.
BTW, I must have missed your climatic or scientific experience. Was it that you read a lot and collect newspaper clippings?
The thing is having scientific articles means nothing today, if it ever. Fr.aud is rampant. Wiley has retracted over 11.000 articles in two years, closed 4 journals and is now closing 19 more.
https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
AI chatbots have thoroughly infiltrated scientific publishing and even the peer-review process.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
“up to 17.5 percent of recent computer science papers exhibit signs of AI writing.”
ganon
You’re down in the weeds. Small potatoes. Like Appell’s 8th grade equations.
Javier deals with the big stuff, the broad issues that are most relevant to global climate.
At one time it appeared you thought the waters of Amundsen Sea had become so tepid they were holding Large Mouth Bass angler contests there.
Kid,
When you can’t answer with intellect, go with stupid. Thanks for once again showing what you are.
Javier: “Ganon doesn’t know it because his knowledge of climate science is quite superficial.”
I think you are confused and referring to Christos. But it is pretty simple: if a parameter has values in different places, it has an average. As for superficial knowledge: I don’t claim to be a climate scientist, you do (or at least claim to be an “expert”), yet you don’t have the confidence (or ability) to write peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate, or you have nothing new to offer.
Javier “The thing is having scientific articles means nothing today, if it ever.”
Says the guy with zero scientific climate articles, which by your view, indicates he has less than nothing to say. Keep it up, every comment you make, makes us more aware of your illusory false superiority and penchant for using incorrect absolutes like “mean nothing” and “nobody knows”.
Also, of the few scientific papers you did publish on your prior interest, on how many were first or last author? That’s OK, I understand it is hard to make a living trying to do science without competence. I, fortunately, have published my competences in Journals like Analytical Chemistry, Physical Review Letters, Physical Reviews A and E, Spectrochimica Acta, etc. Where are your demonstrations of climate competence?Books don’t really count, because you can say anything you want.
“it is pretty simple: if a parameter has values in different places, it has an average.”
You keep showing your ignorance. If you take two global averages of two different magnitudes and you subtract them to get a number, you cannot decompose that number into local values. If you subtract the global average temperature of emission (let’s say 255 K) from the global average surface temperature (let’s say 288 K) the result, 33°C, cannot be decomposed into local components.
Now, if you think I am wrong show me where in the scientific literature somebody is calculating the global average greenhouse effect from local values and not the way I say.
You see, actual knowledge has to be demonstrated, and you continuously demonstrate you lack it. My knowledge is shown in my books for anybody to check. They are accesible and a lot of people are reading them.
I didn’t bring up “average greenhouse effect” – that was Christos (if you have questions or comments – direct them to him) – I just discussed it with him. If I had brought it up, I would have discussed specific effective radiative forcings, as I have done many times previously. What is the ERF you propose for your solar cycle variance hypothesis – or is it just more handwaving? Or is it just recasting well-known feedbacks?
Javier: “You keep showing your ignorance. ”
Yes, you do – averages are not decomposable without further information. That does not mean the averages don’t exist.
BTW, you still haven’t published a single climatology paper. If you think IPCC and the references they review are incorrect – publish papers on it – your unsupported claims here have little value.
Javier,
“If you take two global averages of two different magnitudes and you subtract them to get a number, you cannot decompose that number into local values. If you subtract the global average temperature of emission (let’s say 255 K) from the global average surface temperature (let’s say 288 K) the result, 33°C, cannot be decomposed into local components.”
–
Javier, we are not justified to “subtract the global average temperature of emission (let’s say 255 K) from the global average surface temperature (let’s say 288 K) the result, 33°C,”
Those are different physics terms.
The result, 33°C, doesn’t exist in the real world!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What it is that makes a CO2 molecule to absorb a quantum of EM energy?
–
And what it is that makes a CO2 molecule to emit a quantum of EM energy?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Many understand that global climate change throughout history could not be based on a denial of solar activity. Rather than CO2 as the monocausal explanation for global warming — which so happens to serve the interests of Leftists who demand hegemony over the American economy — climate change is, primarily driven by changes in the orbit of the earth, e.g.,
‘Low summer insolation occurs when the tilt of the axis of rotation of the earth is small; the poles are pointing less directly at the sun; the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice is farthest from the sun; and the earth’s orbit is highly eccentric.’
https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Arctic_climate_variability_prior_to_100_years_BP
‘Natural climate variability in the Arctic over the past two million years has been large. In particular, the past 20000-year period is now known to have been highly unstable and prone to rapid changes, especially temperature increases that occurred rapidly (within a few decades or less).’ (ibid)
Clue: Ice sheet instabilities and glacial lake releases that occur during glacial-interglacial transitions do not explain current rapid warming. Nice try.
‘prone to rapid changes, especially temperature increases that occurred rapidly ([b]within a few decades or less.[/b])’ (ibid)(emphasis added)
Wagathon,
“‘Low summer insolation occurs when the tilt of the axis of rotation of the earth is small; the poles are pointing less directly at the sun; the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice is farthest from the sun; and the earth’s orbit is highly eccentric.’”
You describe a planet warming phase at its most culminated point. And it is similar to what our Earth comes thru in our times.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re repeating yourself. I can read.
Thank you, BA Bushaw, for your response.
In the literature the ~ 130 W/m² is referred to as the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect.
–
Let’s calculate the total greenhouse effect then:
4*π*r² * 130 W/m² =
= 510.072.000 km² *1.000.000 m²/km² *130 W/m² =
= 66.310 *1.000.000.000.000 W =
= 66,31 *1.000.000.000.000 kW
Let’s calculate the by the surface total absorbed solar energy:
π*r² * 1362 W/m² (1 – 0,306) =
= (510.072.000 km² /4)*1362 W/m² *0,694 =
= 127.518.000 km² * 1.000.000 m²/km² *945 W/m²=
= 120.500 *1.000.000 *1.000.000 W
= 120,5 *1.000.000.000.000 kW
ganon, the result is impossible. Calculations obtain the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect to be 1/2 of the absorbed solar energy! It is like having the atmosphere greenhouse effect to be responsible for the Earth’s surface the 1/2 of the solar input recycling!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
It is possible – the outgoing absorbed power is less than the incoming absorbed power. I think you must mean that you don’t understand how the atmosphere can absorb a significant fraction of the outgoing energy and redistribute in mode and directionality. But then, you dismiss atmospheric effects because you think the atmosphere is “thin”.
Once again, it is because the Earth’s atmosphere is transparent to only small bits and pieces of the surface emitted IR. And it is a good thing; otherwise Earth would be a frozen world. The problem is induced variations in that absorption of upwelling IR, which had been relatively stable for at least 8,000 year.
The Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect +33°C PARADOX
I also tried to answer that question:
“If the Global average surface atmospheric greenhouse effect is +33°C, then what approximately is the atmospheric greenhouse effect at the different latitudes, like:
1). Kenya
2). Egypt
3). Greece
4). Czechia
5). Sweden
6). North Pole
Notice, the higher latitudes represent smaller areas on the Globe.”
–
But I couldn’t answer that question, because there is not such an answer.
If there is +33°C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it should be stronger at places with higher solar irradiance, because the core issue in atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect is the surface LW emission atmospheric feedback.
–
If there is +33°C atmospheric global average surface greenhouse warming effect, it should be the strongest at equatorial zone, because at equatorial zone the solar irradiance is the strongest.
–
We face a paradox here:
We should have assumed, in the case of Planet Earth without-atmosphere, at Earth’s equatorial zone the far below zero °C the surface temperatures…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
An average is a single mathematical value, and it exists. It does not mean the greenhouse effect (or temperature) is the same everywhere. You are free to do a proper spatial – temporal integration. I just take it as a simple comparative estimate.
BA Bushaw,
” I just take it as a simple comparative estimate.”
Please estimate for the Kenya. How much the greenhouse effect is in Kenya?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, it is a global estimate. I did not make that estimate, and cannot/will not make a regional one. You should study the difference between “take” (accept) and “make” (create). If you want regional estimates, you’ll have to find/make them yourself. However, I do agree it will be higher than the global average – due to temperature, water vapor content, and greater tropospheric thickness.
Thank you, BA Bushaw.
“However, I do agree it will be higher than the global average – due to temperature, water vapor content, and greater tropospheric thickness.”
–
Now, had not Earth atmosphere, would have been Kenya a frozen land?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I have no idea.
Ganon doesn’t know it because his knowledge of climate science is quite superficial.
There is no such a thing as a global average greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect attribution is simply the difference between the temperature of emission of the Earth and the temperature at the surface.
Anything you go beyond that is likely to be wrong.
Even that calculation is wrong. The temperature of emission of the Earth is not 255 K as used in the calculation. That’s the temperature of emission of a blackbody and the Earth is not a blackbody. Its emission temperature is 251 K. A >10% error (4°C) in the calculation is not acceptable.
Furthermore, the idea of a global greenhouse effect does not take into account the effect of albedo. Without GHGs the Earth would not have clouds, oceans, and plants, and its albedo would be different, so its temperature of emission would be different. So the calculation is a mixture of greenhouse effect and albedo, and not really due to the greenhouse effect.
The reality is that about 75% of the GHE is due to water vapor and clouds, so the GHE is very strong in the tropics and very weak in the poles in winter. Almost 75% weaker. This is the basis of my climate hypothesis.
Thank you, Javier, for your response,
“The reality is that about 75% of the GHE is due to water vapor and clouds, so the GHE is very strong in the tropics and very weak in the poles in winter. Almost 75% weaker. This is the basis of my climate hypothesis.”
–
Could you, please, give an answer to the above question:
“had not Earth atmosphere, would have been Kenya a frozen land?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Without an atmosphere the Earth would have no water, so no, Kenya could not be frozen. Its temperature would change like in the Moon. Scorching hot during the day and extremely cold during the night.
But there wouldn’t be a Kenya to speak of, would it?
Thank you, Javier.
“But there wouldn’t be a Kenya to speak of, would it?”
–
I mentioned above some countries on the Globe, to compare their latitudinal position with their known climatological conditions. The certain countries I mentioned I wish them to always flourishing and prosperous live.
–
I should be just, and I wish all the countries the same – I wish them to always flourishing and prosperous live.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hottest year in the last 2000 years
Very high confidence levels based on low resolution proxies.
https://climateaudit.org/2024/05/24/jan-and-ulfs-nature-trick-the-hottest-summer-in-2000-years/#respond
Hottest year in the last 2000 years
Yes, using the fake hockey stick.
Not, using honest history and data.
Joe, your comment suggests you don’t quite understand McIntyre’s latest post.
Pat – did you miss the sarc
Esper , Mann and many, if not most, of the other paleo reconstructions have very high confidence intervals (narrow confidence intervals ) based on low resolution proxies. The SH is especially high confidence levels considering the low resolution proxies and the dearth of proxies.
Now that the liberal utopians have set the course of the nation along the road to the Golden Goose graveyard and ghosts of Christmas past at a speed rail clip–the same path that was taken by Dead and Dying Old Europe–let’s review where we are are now after the Democommies wasted in trillions of dollars on unproductive activities, brainwashing the youth and growing an anti-America government bureaucracy:
■ The AGW True Believers are locked in a social and a moral crisis of self-defeating hypocrisy. The Left now blames humanity for living.
Seek help.
The same could be said to you.
Hot World derangement syndrome, unleashing the authoritarians regimes upon the world- the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population of Ukraine and a second Holocaust upon Jews in Israel, are far more injurious to life, liberty and property than American oil and energy independence from the jack boot tyranny of the DC/Eurocommies.
Rob,
Of course, it can be said to anyone. What matters is if help is needed. You, too, are questionable; but more a question of room temperature and anger, rather than paranoid delusions.
This is how a hoax dies… w/ petulant name calling.
AGW obviously is a Left versus right issue. Predicting a coming cataclysm is what the Left has found useful to take over the economy. The MSM jumped the shark with it’s proven willingness to abandon the scientific method for ideological and political convenience and because, astrology still sells.
The AGW hypothesis is essentially a scientifically untestable prediction of continued global warming, despite historical and future observations of natural climate cycles. Western academics continue to cry wolf to help raise the government revenue needed to fund a metalizing Socialist-Democrat bureaucracy, to be paid for by the hard work of the productive. Nevertheless, everyday reality is a metric we cannot ignore.
“Wagathon”, whoever you are, has it ever occured to you that your ranting about the nefarious motives of people you disagree with makes us all wonder exactly what YOUR motives are? Perhaps you realize that you are playing a weak hand, and your only hope is to appeal to a tribe. But you should note that over the past few hot years, true believers in your tribe are dwindling. The smart money is moving on.
The guilty ‘tribe’ here is Western academia that protects and defends the climate fear-mongers, corrupts science, poisons social discourse and consigns the third world to an energy-deprived existence of misery, poverty and death.
Wagathon:
I don’t see anything in the Wiki article about “Eurocommunism” that mentions climate change, or the US’s role.
My point, of course, is that some capitalists see an opportunity in the energy transition. That is because they, unlike you, see the mainstream climate narrative as solid science. Your rants about the politics sound to me as what one would say if he had no cogent scientific argument to make. It is plain silly to generalize as you do, but I guess you are talking to your base, preaching to your choir.
David Andrews | May 26, 2024 at 4:55 pm |
“My point, of course, is that some capitalists see an opportunity in the energy transition. ”
DA – curious if you heard of the Inflation reduction act
or the – American Renewable Energy Act of 2008
or the – Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008.
Not capitalists but rent seekers
Joe,
A carbon tax is my favorite legislation, because it would give incentives to entrepreneurs to find market based solutions. Several prominent Republican economists supported this, before the party lost its mind. But my real problem with Wagathon’s posts is his confusion between a scientific argument and a political rant.
Wagathon: You claim to know my motives, but you haven’t got a clue. There is money to be made on the energy transition by capitalists who don’t bury their heads in the sand. Are Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc. what you mean by “Eurocommies”? I plan a startup in buggy whips, just for you. Want to invest?
‘Eurocommunism was a trend in the 1970s and 1980s within various Western European communist parties, which said they had developed a theory and practice of social transformation more relevant for Western Europe.’ ~wiki
Their ‘theory and practice’ turned out to be pretty simple and simple-minded- blame America for causing global warming.
The AGW conjecture has been debunked- it fails because the null hypothesis that all global warming can be explained by natural causes, cannot be rejected. That is the science. The Hot World fabulists are perpetrating a hoax on the credulous. Scientists who do not call that out are part of the hoax. It is as simple as that and no one expects the global warming alarmists to admit their role in abandoning honor, ethics and integrity in science for political purposes.
NASA launches ground-breaking climate change satellite
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-nasa-ground-climate-satellite.html
“‘This new information—and we’ve never had it before—will improve our ability to model what’s happening in the poles, what’s happening in climate,’ NASA’s earth sciences research director Karen St. Germain told a recent news conference.
‘This is critical because it actually helps to balance the excess heat that’s received in the tropical regions and really regulate the earth’s temperature’, said Tristan L’Ecuyer, a mission researcher affiliated with the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
‘And the process of getting the heat from the tropical regions to the polar regions is actually what drives all of our weather around the planet,’ he added.”
This is great news. If the measurements last for over one solar cycle, the data should help confirm my hypothesis or refute it.
One of the key points where my hypothesis differs from the enhanced CO₂ effect hypothesis (ECO2E) is in its prediction that an increase in solar activity should result in Arctic cooling, while the ECO2E hypothesis says this is not possible as long as CO₂ keeps increasing due to Arctic amplification.
According to the ECO2E hypothesis there is no way the Arctic can cool, yet that is what I expect for the next two solar cycles as solar activity keeps increasing toward the new maximum.
Great news indeed.
“I expect for the next two solar cycles as solar activity keeps increasing toward the new maximum.”
Am I going to have to wait until part 3 for an explanation? Many people, including myself, feel that we’re past the solar maximum. It can be seen as a decrease in frequency of the 11-year cycle in my spectrum analysis, and as a fading of intensity in my butterfly diagram of solar magnetic fields. I also believe that we’re currently at the temperature maximum, which was exasperated by the current spike, which is not driven by solar activity.
Unfortunately, this mission will last for only ten months.
https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/documents/PREFIRE_NASAfacts.pdf
This is an admission that we don’t know the radiative balance at the poles. Of course, certain climate scientists still have no hesitation to tell us we will fry real soon now.
That’s too bad. Not even a year will not provide a basis for comparison.
jim2,
No, it is an admission that there is more to be known, more precisely. That is almost always the case in science.
Which climate scientists? How soon?
Not even a year will not provide a basis for comparison.
Yeah, but if they are successful, they are CubeSats, more can replace them and whatever is learned can make the replacements better.
That is unfortunate … only ten months … but maybe it will be able to go past the design limits. That’s happened on many other projects.
Jim: “This is an admission that we don’t know the radiative balance at the poles.”
I absolutely agree with you, Jim.
Bill: “maybe it will be able to go past the design limits”
This program is advertised as being cheap. Pony up some of the massive Inflation Reduction Act dollars. The Bill includes $783 billion on energy and climate change.
popesclimatetheory: “…a year will not provide a basis for comparison”
I would have assumed this data would have already been understood, until now, this isn’t just a tiny little refinement of data.
Why didn’t NASA, or the EU for that matter, launch a low cost satellite program long ago for this fundamental research, then supplement the study with more instrumentation as needed—and why not keep it going decadally? I’m astonished by this new “need for better science” understanding. Consider NASA’s ad, and all global Western political governance—a warming climate is an existential crises—so now it’s been decided it’s time to get serious with basic research?
That’s interesting that you propose a test of the hypothesis, but it seems to me that it is in 2 parts; 1) heat transport from equator to poles as being the primary mode for which the planet changes temperature which is naturally driven, and 2) that one natural driver is solar activity which influences the rate at which that transport occurs.
Surely the first part is pretty sure (even the NASA Earth Sciences think this), so even if it turns out that solar activity has less of an effect than your hypothesis suggests, it does not mean that the first part is wrong? What if you are partially wrong, and the solar activity can be strongly mitigated by other climate phenomena, or completely wrong and solar activity is not affecting polar transport of heat via modulation of the night jet?
Isn’t there a danger of if the second part doesn’t pass, that both parts are rejected?
We have planet Earth and the Moon orbiting sun.
The Earth receives 28% less solar energy per square meter than the Moon, because of the Earth’s Albedo higher than that of the Moon (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68°C warmer than Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We know important facts about IR out from Greenland and Antarctic ice core records. Ice Accumulations from both poles show there is the most ice accumulations in the warmest times, yet colder time come years later.
This proves or strongly indicates climate is in dynamic balance and not static balance.
IR out in warmest times is contributing to increased ice volumes and weights of ice that causes colder by thawing and reflecting more during the coldest times.
Increased IR out is supposed to cool the climate and decreases IR out is supposed to warm the planet. Yet the IR out is most when climate is warmest and the IR out is least when climate is coldest.
IR out in warmest times builds sequestered ice which does little or no cooling at that time. Ice spreads and thaws and reflects and causes cooling in the coldest times.
This is balanced dynamic climate cycles, balanced over long time periods.
Static balance with Solar in equal to IR out plus Albedo out is not correct during the warmest and coldest times.
In warmest times when ice shelves and sea ice are minimized are the times the ice accumulations on Greenland and Antarctic are the most.
In coldest times when ice shelves and sea ice are maximized are the times the sequestered ice spreads and pushes into the oceans and depletes, there is not enough evaporation and snowfall to maintain the ice on land.
This explains the alternating warmer and colder periods, there is no stable static equilibrium state.
It seems we are lucky enough to have different feedbacks that give us (currently) a good degree of natural homeostasis – probably wouldn’t be here without it. I wonder how much we will end up disturbing it?
Bring extra people in your house, your AC runs more.
Bring extra heat into the climate and the polar ice machines run more, we have historic records of how cold the cold periods were that followed the warmer times with more ice sequestering.
The IR out is likely over the oceans where the clouds of ice are formed or uphill toward the tops of the sequestered ice where the ice is deposited as the clouds are forced up.
It will be interesting to see honest data from these two new PREFIRE CubeSat’s.
Most of the ice that is cooling the climate now was formed with IR out hundreds or thousands of years ago. Newer ice accumulations are pushing the older ice. This is very long term dynamic self-correction due the abundance of water in its changing states.
Looks like a trusted source will evaluate the hotter-than-the-last-thousand-years meme.
https://climateaudit.org/2024/05/24/jan-and-ulfs-nature-trick-the-hottest-summer-in-2000-years/
What Esper et al. 2024 has demonstrated beyond doubt is that 2023 was the best year for trees in 2000 years.
The combined effect of higher temperatures and higher CO₂ made them grow their rings like never before in 2000 years.
We should declare 2023 “the year of the tree,” unless 2024 turns out to be even better.
What I don’t understand is why the Greens aren’t celebrating so much greening.
That’s the ironic part. More CO2 = better for plants and the truth of that is obvious.
Given the reinforcement of your best of all possible tree years hypothesis by the cultivation of paulownia in Spain, where to you stand on the respective climate views of HH the Pope and Cardinal Cano on the one hand and reformists like Reverend Swaggart on the other :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/01/humans-can-do-nothing-to-make-earth.html
“Trusted source” – you mean McIntyre, the guy who, in your reference, posted side-by-side graphics from Mann(99) and Esper (2024); he obviously graphically compressed the x-axis on one and covered it on the other (M99 covers 1000 years, E24 covers 2000), while leaving the y-axes scales different by more than a factor of 2. And then, has the gall to say:
“… the structure of the money diagram in both cases is almost identical, as shown in the comparison below.”
Also leaves out a horizontal line at the 2023 temperature in the (modified) Esper graph, which is really the whole point of his rant.
The graphs are similar, but not almost identical. That similarity is also found in the PAGES2K work.
I don’t know about McIntyre’s economic work, but with regard to climate, he appears to be a statistical assassin (and either a sloppy one or intentionally misrepresents) that blogs with an axe to grind.
You tend to believe those sources which agree with your biases and disagree with those that don’t. You are an alarmist.
Rob, As if you would know what I believe. Thanks anyway.
McIntyre is a retired mining engineer who used statistics to determine the best place to dig for the best ore. IOW, his livelihood depended on him using stats correctly. Not so with climate scientists/modelers.
Pingback: L’action du soleil sur le climat. 2ème partie : la période récente – Le Point de Vue
During a day on the beach under the sun my body absorbs energy and heats up. When the sun goes down, I get less energy and my fever rises and I release a lot of heat and get cold. When solar activity is declining does the same thing happen in the Pacific and do El Ninos increase?
Pingback: COME SAPPIAMO CHE IL SOLE CAMBIA IL CLIMA PARTE II: IL PRESENTE
Javier, Always an admirer of your work. Thanks.
I am curious if you have examined the effects of solar cycles on the ITCZ and ENSO. Numerous studies have shown the ITCZ moved southward as orbital dynamics changed from the Holocene maximum to today. As the ITCZ moved southward, temperatures cooled.
Concurrently there was an increase in ENSO activity. I suspect that the location of the doldrums due to the ITCZ migration could reduce trade winds or perhaps allow more westerly winds, in such a way that it allowed a greater eastward flow of warm water across the Pacific in the Equatorial Countercurrent.
Regardless of my hypothesis, as shown in the 2014 paper by Tapio Schneider in Migrations and Dynamics of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, the ITCZ moved southward since the Medieval Warm Period correlating with reduced sunspots and the minimums during that time. Accordingly many studies suggest the Pacific was in a more El Nino-like state during the LIA as the ITCZ was further southward, but since has been more in a La NIna-like state as the ITCZ has moved northward over the past 200 years and we entered a sunspot maximums.
With ENSO being a major climate dynamic, clearly there is connection with the effect from the sun from a combination of orbital and sunspot changes.
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY, AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP 2024 JUNE | wryheat
Pingback: Woher wir wissen, dass die Sonne Motor des Klimawandels ist. Teil 2: Die Gegenwart | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: fakta360.no: Bevisene for at solen styrer klima er her – Del 1: Historien – Antiglobalisten
Pingback: fakta360.no: Bevisene for at solen styrer klima er her – Del 2: Nåtiden – Antiglobalisten
Pingback: Woher wir wissen, dass die Sonne Motor des Klimawandels ist. Teil 3: Theorien | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: fakta360.no: Bevisene for at solen styrer klima er her – Del 3: Teorier – Antiglobalisten