General AGW discussion thread [Archive]

William

2008-Feb-17, 05:42 AM

This thread is started to record global temperature changes March 2008 to March 2009 and significant climatic change observations in the same period.

Based on the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize, the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009, if the change matches the largest estimate of the cloud forcing function (Svensmark’s) and if the solar magnetic cycle moves to a Dalton minimum. (Based on the slope of past abrupt climate changes and assuming past abrupt climate changes were driven by solar magnetic field changes. See comments, for caveat. The solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds hypothesis is still being evaluated, by the scientific community.)

The following is a graph that shows how global temperature has increased in the 20th century. Also included is a monthly global temperature deviation table that shows the first indication of global cooling (2008 February, cooling of about 0.35C to about 0.12C.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/graphs/Fig.C.txt

The Baud thread “solar cycle 24” outlines how changes to the solar magnetic field are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover. The paleoclimatic data shows that there are periodic abrupt drops in planetary temperature which correlate with solar magnetic field changes, but there has not been until the 21th century a hypothesized mechanism as to how solar magnetic cycle changes could possibly affect the earth’s temperature.

As noted in the Baud solar cycle 24 thread there are also a minority of solar physics that are predicting that cycle 24 will be move to a Dalton minimum (period of low solar magnetic cycle activity.) As noted in the same thread, there is observational evidence that supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.

There are a minority of scientists (Svensmark, Shiva, and so forth) who have stated that a significant portion of the 20th century warming is due to solar magnetic field changes that increase or decrease the total amount of planetary cloud cover. (A link to Svensmark’s paper is provided below. See comments, for caveat.)

The following is Svensmark’s paper “Cosmoclimatology”. (The Baud thread solar cycle 24 is a better summary.)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A(svensmark )&cookieSet=1

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x

Comments:
1) Although papers have been written to support the solar magnetic modulation of cloud hypothesis and there is data to support that hypothesis, this subject is not resolved and there have been critical papers written that challenge the solar cloud modulation papers.

2) There are historic observations from the turn of the 19th century that can be used to predict how the climate in different regions would change if the planetary temperatures drop to 1880 levels by March 2009.

orionjim

2008-Feb-17, 04:16 PM

William

2008-Feb-17, 06:11 PM

In reply to orionjim's comment:

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

Your above comment makes sense, there does, however, seem to be a larger than expected drop in land + ocean temperature, already. This is a summary of the by month land+ocean temperature anomalies. Has the land + ocean temperature anomaly dropped 0.35C?

Monthly Mean Surface Vs Surface & Ocean Temperature Anomaly (C)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Here are some thoughts, as to why the drop in planetary temperature, might be faster than expected.

1) Tinsley and Yu's cloud modulation mechanism (In response to changes in electroscavenging and GCR) is greatest over the ocean (as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor) and over specific regions of the ocean (40 degree to 60 degree latitude). The forcing function is therefore not linear over the entire planet. (i.e. There will more relative cooling, faster relative cooling over specific latitudes of the ocean.)

2) Svensmark stated in his book that to explain past abrupt climate changes that slightly less than 0.6C of the 0.7C 20th century warming would need to be due to solar changes. Using that assumption then roughly 0.6C of the 20th century warming would be due to electroscavenging. The cooling is then 0.6C + 1.2C = 1.8C. Where the 1.2C is due to increased GCR (reduced solar large scale magnetic field and reduced number of sunspots, Dalton like minimum.) and the 0.6C is due to less electroscavenging (reduced solar wind bursts from solar magnetic storms).

The following is my back of the envelope calculation using an assumed cooling of 1.8C with an assumed e folding time for the solar magnetic field of 4 years and an assumed cooling of the top 50m of the ocean of also 4 years. Based on this calculation the ocean land temperature would take until 2011 to drop to 1880 levels. As the ocean + land temperature drop is possibly already -0.35 (A drop of -0.35C should not have occurred until 2009 based on this calculation) this calculation might be too conservative. The prediction of a drop in temperature of -0.8C by 2009 March, might therefore be possible.

Table 2, (Assume -1.8C total change)
2007 0
2009 -0.32
2010 -0.60
2011 -0.84
2012 -1.03
2013 -1.19
2014 -1.32
2015 -1.42

William

2008-Feb-19, 02:29 AM

In reply to orionjim's comment:

I would suggest using the Land data only and calculate significance limits to compare to.

The following is the calculation you suggested using land + ocean. Does the planet appears to be cooling? Is the ocean temperature anomaly now negative?

January, 2008 Land + Ocean Temperature Anomaly is 0.12C compared to 0.56C Average 2003 to Jan. 2008. Standard deviation for that period is 0.118. 0.12C is 3.6 sigma.

Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)
--------------------------------------------
Year+Month Station Land+Ocean
2006.04 .56 .44
2006.12 .76 .57
2006.21 .65 .55
2006.29 .62 .47
2006.38 .40 .43
2006.46 .64 .53
2006.54 .57 .43
2006.62 .70 .58
2006.71 .66 .55
2006.79 .76 .60
2006.88 .74 .62
2006.96 .81 .69
2007.04 1.09 .87
2007.12 .82 .63
2007.21 .72 .59
2007.29 .78 .66
2007.38 .72 .55
2007.46 .53 .53
2007.54 .62 .51
2007.62 .78 .56
2007.71 .72 .50
2007.79 .77 .55
2007.88 .66 .49
2007.96 .60 .40
2008.04 .31 .12

Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55
Standard Deviation Same Period = 0.118
2008 Jan, 2008 = 0.12 (3.6 Sigma)

Data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

Tunga

2008-Feb-20, 12:56 AM

There might be a better question to ask. Is the global cooling effect resulting from the downturn of the sun's magnetic field already underway?
http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1312291.html
This January was the coldest worldwide since January 1989.

Last years news articles talked about the unusual loss of Arctic ice as evidence that man-made global warming was underway. A recent NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html
In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. Cold weather in Vietnam killed nearly 60,000 cattle. This winter is the coldest on record in Afghanistan. The death toll of people killed by unusually severe cold weather in Afghanistan since December last year has risen to 926. It also killed 100,000 cattle in Afghanistan. Many cold records are falling this winter especially in Asia.

All of this is happening at a time when the strength of the sun's magnetic field (as evidenced by the effects of the solar winds on perturbing the Earth's magnetic field - Ap index, AA index) are at unusual lows.

tusenfem

2008-Feb-20, 11:25 AM

All of this is happening at a time when the strength of the sun's magnetic field (as evidenced by the effects of the solar winds on perturbing the Earth's magnetic field - Ap index, AA index) are at unusual lows.

I have looked through the Ae index given here (http://swdcwww.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ae_realtime/index.html) and I do not see anything unusual about it. So, magnetospherically there is nothing different. Also, IMHO, Ap and AA indices are not really very useful in describing the disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere. In my 8 years or Earth magnetospheric work I have not used these indices in any of my papers.

Also, the solar wind magnetic field remains at its usual value, varying between 0.2 and 80 nT, with a normal value of about 6 nT.

Interestingly, I found the following comments on geomagnetic activity and solar cycle:

11-year variability

The 11-year variability of the geomagnetic activity (e.g., Ellis, 1900) has been recently studied by Vennestrom and Friis-Christensen (1996). They suggest that the activity can be divided into three peaks:

1. Shortly before sunspot maximum. Linked with transient solar activity, and seen with relatively larger amplitude in ring current (storm) activity than in substorm activity.
2. About 2 years after sunspot maximum. Largest peak compound of transient and recurrent magnetic activity (the former dominating?).
3. Descending phase of the solar cycle. Largely recurrent, and seen with larger amplitude in substorm activity than in ring current (storm) activity.

So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low."

Tunga

2008-Feb-20, 07:47 PM

tusenfem writes "So, as far as I can see, there is no "unusual low.""

This article discusses the low and also contains a graph (1991-2008) of the Ap index.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/

There is also some discussion here about solar cycle 24 & 25.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

"AA Index" is not the most precise indicator but it has the advantage of a monthly data timeline going back to 1868. Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data timeline goes back to 1880. Therefore "AA Index" permits a long term analysis against ocean temperature. "Ap Index" is a better parameter but has a shorter data history. Other parameters such as solar wind speed and density may be even a better parameter but are only a recent data series. Therefore when looking at a link between long-term temperature trends and the intensity of the magnetic field within the solar winds, the "AA Index" is a rough order approximation.

William

2008-Feb-21, 04:23 AM

In reply to tusenfem:

Look at figure 12 in the attached which shows the number of solar magnetic storms per year, from 1865 to present and the corresponding number of sunspots. There is a roughly 20 times increase in the number of magnetic storms at the end of the solar cycles, when comparing the 20th century to the 19th century.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075558

Background:
Mechanism:
The paleo record shows both a period of warming similar to the 20th century and cooling. The warming is hypothesized to be caused by electroscavenging were solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. The second mechanism is solar modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR). More GCR more clouds (cooler planet) and less GCR less clouds (warmer planet). This paper by Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” outlines the two mechanisms.

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

Paleo Record
The paleoclimatic record indicates that in the past there have been a series of abrupt climatic changes, at which time there is concurrent solar magnetic field changes. The abrupt climatic changes were confirmed as they are found in multiple independent proxy sources. (Ocean floor sediment, ice core data, and so forth.) There is smoking gun evidence that changes in the sun are causing abrupt climate change on the earth.

The question is: What is the mechanism? TSI changes are not enough to cause the temperature changes observed. Kaplan’s recent paper 2006 indicates that the abrupt climate changes are global, affecting both hemispheres simultaneously, which rules out orbital changes of insolation as the driver, as orbital changes in insolation affect each hemisphere roughly 90 degrees out of phase.

This paper for example, discusses the Younger Dryas abrupt temperature change. The largest solar change in the last 20 kyrs is noted to occur at the same time the planet abrupt changes from interglacial back to glacial.

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas? By Hans Renssen et al.

http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf

From the Younger Dryas paper:

Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40-70 %/% within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30-60%/% in 70 years … (Hughen et al.,1998) and … in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites. What are the possible causes for this large increase in atmospheric 14C? Geomagnetic variations are not a likely cause, since these generally act on a much longer timescale (i.e. millennia).

tusenfem

2008-Feb-21, 10:00 AM

William

2008-Feb-22, 03:29 AM

In reply to tusenfem's comment: So, basically that says that there is no unusual low as stated by Tunga, or what do you want to say?

I do not understand your question. Is it is there evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or that an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle will result in global cooling?

I have provided observational data and logic to support the assertion that the solar magnetic field has been interrupted. In the Baud thread "sun cycle 24" there are three papers referenced that predict an imminent, solar magnetic cycle minimum based three different logical premises: 1) solar physical model, 2) An analysis of the paleo record of past solar magnetic cycle changes, and a third based on solar barycentric motion that matches the paleo record.

In the Baud thread "solar cycle 24", there are multiple papers that provide paleoclimatic evidence of semi periodic abrupt climate change that correlation with past solar magnetic field changes. There is satellite data and analysis of the earth's albedo, provided in the Baud thread "solar cycle 24" that supports the assertion that there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover which would have caused a portion of the planetary warming during the 20th century.

Based on the paleoclimatic record the planet should if that line of reasoning is correct, abruptly cool, due to solar magnetic field changes which will increase planetary cloud cover. So far the planetary temperature data does indicate abrupt cooling.

This is for example, only one of a large group of papers all of which note past abrupt climate changes correlated with solar magnetic field changes. The problem was how did a solar change if it was not a change in TSI, affect planetary temperature.

Link: Role of solar forcing upon climate change

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.gg.rhbnc.ac.uk/elias/teaching/VanGeel.pdf

"A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases... most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) ... the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations."

"... we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change."

Last 40 kyrs

Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)... "conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records"

Recent Solar Event

"Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) "...coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age... (van Geel et al 1998b)

Periodicity

"Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 ... from tree rings and ...from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core ... believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation.."

tusenfem

2008-Feb-22, 08:11 AM

I do not understand your question. Is it is there evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted or that an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle will result in global cooling?

Well, you came up with this reference, replying to a comment I made to a post by Tunga. I just point out that what you write and what is in the paper is inconsistent with what Tunga claimed that magnetospheric activity was at an "unusual low".

I have not even considered the warming/cooling by magnetospheric activity.

And by the way, this forum is called BAUT with a T not a D.

William

2008-Feb-23, 03:03 PM

In reply to tusenfem: I have looked through the Ae index given here and I do not see anything unusual about it. So, magnetospherically there is nothing different. Also, IMHO, Ap and AA indices are not really very useful in describing the disturbance of the Earth's magnetosphere. In my 8 years or Earth magnetospheric work I have not used these indices in any of my papers.

Based on how the cloud modulation mechanism “electroscavenging” works (see comment) the geomagnetic index to measure to determine if there is correlation is Ak rather than AA.

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

From that above paper:

"It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from - 0.76 in the period 1868-1890 to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, ... According to Echer et al (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by sunspot number. In figure 6 long term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataga 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p< 0.01."

Comment
1) The electroscavenging mechanism is controlled by changes in the ionosphere space charge which changes the global electric current. According to Tinsley an increase in the global electric current, results in the removal of cloud forming ions. Palle's satellite research data and analysis supports Tinsley's assertion.
2) Average land + ocean temperature appears to have dropped 0.5C, March, 2007 March to Feb. 2008.
3)The largest drop in temperature (March,2007 to Feb.,2008) has been in ocean surface temperature which supports the assertion that the change in planetary temperature is caused by a sudden increase in low level clouds, due to an abrupt drop in electroscavenging (electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions) and an abrupt increase in GCR (GCR creates cloud forming ions), as the atmosphere over the ocean is ion poor.

William

2008-Feb-23, 06:57 PM

Regional meteorological observations, in 2007 and 2008 show the first indication of abrupt cooling?

Southern Hemisphere had record cold winter, 2007

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Frigid_Southern_Hemisphere_Winter.pdf

It was an outstanding winter for us in part of South America. Buenos Aires in Argentina had its first snow since 1918. Southern Brazil experienced 4 consecutive months of cold and below average temperature with daily and all-time records.”

Santiago, Chilean capital, had its coldest winter since the Little Ice Age. The last time it was so cold there was in 1885 (see Padahuel plot from NASA GISS).”

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Rare_Snowfall_Across_South_Africa_999.html

Snow fell on South Africa's biggest city Johannesburg for the first time in 25 years as icy temperatures gripped vast swathes of the country on Wednesday, the weather office said. .... "Sleet has been recorded occasionally since then, but never snow," added climatologist Tracey Gill.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

Europe

In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.

Middle East

..the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. ..

Antarctic

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice (my comment yearly freezing of ocean surrounding Antarctic ice sheet) in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

Arctic Ice

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

William

2008-Feb-24, 04:06 AM

This is a link to a summary and pictures (I was surprised by the pictures which compare their 2007 winter to past events.) that a South American meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart has written concerning South America’s 2007 record cold winter. I would expect based on the solar modulation of cloud mechanisms that the next South American winter (starting May, 2008 will be more extreme.)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ficecap.us%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2FTh eGreatSouthAmericanMayColdSpell.doc&ei=oObAR8aKDqSaoQSoms3bDQ&usg=AFQjCNFd_aVoEEyshabNoS4-r_QxQuksjg&sig2=Lp7bYlAwq-g-18_pvGNBZQ

Comment:
Eugenio Hackbart is the Chief Meteorologist for MetSul Weather Center, a private weather center located in Sao Leopoldo, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. His opinions are published in Portuguese at the site: www.metsul.com

William

2008-Feb-25, 12:30 AM

Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System to a step change

Background
There is evidence of a recent abrupt drop in planetary temperature based on the NASA data. (See below comment and above comments for details.) Although regional meteorological observations (in both hemispheres), supports a drop in planetary temperature, additional data is required to confirm the change is real.

When there is more data, it should be possible to determine the magnitude of the forcing function change which appears to be related to the recent solar magnetic cycle changes and to determine the final equilibrium temperature (assuming a long term solar magnetic cycle change.)

This paper is a good overview of the science and technical issues, concerning the planet’s response to a step change in forcing. It examines planetary temperature changes to step changes in forcing from volcanic eruptions, to estimate the planetary time constant to be 5 years +/- 1 yr. In addition, it finds evidence for a planetary response to a forcing change of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2).

The current evidence of an abrupt change in planetary temperature supports a short time constant. (See the paper for details as to why the planet has a short time constant. The reason is that the layers of the earth's ocean do not mix due to density differences. This paper's findings is consistent with paleoclimatic evidence of abrupt climate changes. It is also consistent with a basic text book I have on Atmospheric Science.)

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System, S. E. Schwartz

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

In contrast to these studies (my comment: which assert a time constant of 40yr to 400 yrs) there is a growing body of observational evidence to suggest that the time over which changes in climate can take place can be quite short, just a few years. High-resolution studies of temperature change in ice cores as inferred from isotope ratios and other variables demonstrate substantial widespread temperature change in periods as short as five to ten years [Taylor et al., 1997; NRC, 2002; Alley et al., 2003].

…cooling of global proportions in 1816 and 1817 followed the April, 1815, eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. Snow fell in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and portions of Massachusetts and New York in June, 1816, and hard frosts were reported in July and August, and crop failures were widespread in North America and Europe – the so-called "year without a summer" (Stommel and Stommel, 1983). More importantly from the perspective of inferring the time constant of the system, recovery ensued in just a few years. …

From an analysis of the rate of recovery of global mean temperature to baseline conditions between a series of closely spaced volcanic eruptions between 1880 and 1920 Lindzen and Giannitsis [1998] argued that the time constant characterizing this recovery must be short; the range of time constants consistent with the observations was 2 to 7 years, with values at the lower end of the range being more compatible with the observations.

… time constant of about 2.6 years is inferred from the transient climate sensitivity and system heat capacity determined by Boer et al. [2007] in coupled climate model simulations of GMST (My comment GMST is global mean surface temperature) following the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Comparable estimates of the time constant have been inferred in similar analyses by others [e.g., Santer et al., 2001; Wigley et al., 2005].

Comments:
Based on the NASA Land + Ocean (Above Normal)
Average (2003 to Jan, 2008) = 0.55C (Above deemed normal.)
Temperature Jan, 2008 = 0.12C (Above deemed normal, 3.6 Sigma significant.)

Change in planetary temperature over about a year = -0.43C

William

2008-Mar-14, 03:31 AM

This is a link to University of Oulu’s Cosmic Ray data site. This site provides long term trend data of neutron counts which are proportional to galactic cosmic rays (GCR). This is a link to a request for data from Jan. 1, 2001 to March 10, 2008. The neutron counts, as shown in the plot of the data, have increased roughly 12% in the last two years, which is due to the reduction in the solar heliosphere.

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/Request.dll?Y1=2001&M1=Jan&D1=01&h1=00&m1=00&Y2=2008&M2=Mar&D2=10&h2=00&m2=00&YR=00&MR=00&DR=00&hR=00&mR=00&PD=1

If this link does not work, go directly to the University of Oulu site set start at “Jan 1, 2001 and end to Jan. 2008.

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

As noted in the comments above, according to the solar modulation of cloud hypothesis, a reduction in solar wind bursts which has recently occurred will result in less electroscavenging. As electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions, this change should result in more planetary clouds.

In addition as solar cycle 24 has failed to start there is a weaker solar heliosphere. Due to the weaker solar heliosphere there are now 12% more GCR striking the earth's upper atmosphere which should also create more cloud forming ions, particularly over the oceans which are ion poor.

Based on the hypothesis, less electroscavenging and more GCR should result in more clouds over the oceans, which are ion poor. An increase in planetary clouds should cool the planet. (This is a link to a paper that explains the electroscavenging mechanism and the GCR mechanisms.)

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

This is a link to noaa ocean surface data. As the data shows, the planet's oceans have started to cooled. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

William

2008-Apr-09, 06:54 PM

The following data (over the next year or so) can be used to prove or disprove the solar magnetic cycle hypothesis and to determine the relative contribution of CO2 to the 20th century warming. (See comment.)

This is the by month average ocean/land temperature. (This temperature is a composite.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt

This is a link to a site that provides the ocean surface temperature. The temperatures are updated every 3 to 4 days. As noted, by others the planet’s oceans have recently cooled. The question (need data to answer) is will the oceans continue to cool and if so, by how much.

Compare April 2000 to April 2008.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

Comments:
1) The solar magnetic cycle appears to be stalled. If the solar magnetic cycle fails to start, then there will be an increase in galactic cosmic rays that strike the earth's atmosphere. In accordance with Svensmark/Tinsley/Yu/Palle’s theory, an increase in GCR will cause an increase in clouds over the oceans which are ion poor. More planetary cloud cover will cool the planet.
2) In the 20th century according to Palle’s satellite and earthshine analysis there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover due to the process electroscavenging. Electroscavenging is the name for the process where high speed solar wind bursts create a space charge in the ionosphere which in turn increases the global electric circuit and removes cloud forming ions.
3) The paleoclimatic record shows a series of gradual warmings similiar to the 20th century warming and also abrupting cooling periods. There is evidence of correlation with solar magnetic cycle changes to the cooling periods but there was no known mechanism as to how a change in the solar magnetic cycle could cause a reduction in planetary temperature.

HypothesisTesting

2008-Apr-16, 07:40 PM

George

2008-Dec-10, 09:37 PM

There is some interesting skepticism coming from a Senate report, apparently stemming from news out of the UN Global Warming Conference taking place now in Poland.

Here. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6&Issue_id=)

This does not mean they are against the idea of Global Warming nor even against the idea that some warming being due to man's involvement.

Swift

2008-Dec-10, 09:51 PM

Here is a working link (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6&Issue_id=) and some content.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The linked page is part of the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, as in Republican Senator Jame Inhofe of Oklahoma and the Environment & Public Works Committee, which he is a member of.

I take that as meaning this is his private blog, and does not necessarily reflect the official position of either the committee or the US Senate.

I am very suspicious of several things about this. First, who are these 650 scientists and why does a raw count (650 vs. 52) matter. Personally, the opinion of 52 climatologists about global warming is a lot more important than 650 electrical engineers (I love EEs, I'm just picking on them for the moment). And I'm pretty positive that more than 52 scientists worked on IPCC 2007, 52 is probably just the committee heads or the principle authors.

Second, I'm suspicious that the attack is also on Al Gore. As I've said numerous times, Al Gore is only a spokesperson for Al Gore, and frankly, whether he is right, wrong, or something in between on global warming doesn't matter to the IPCC or most anyone else.

George

2008-Dec-10, 10:59 PM

I am very suspicious of several things about this. First, who are these 650 scientists and why does a raw count (650 vs. 52) matter. Personally, the opinion of 52 climatologists about global warming is a lot more important than 650 electrical engineers (I love EEs, I'm just picking on them for the moment). Both links list some impressive credentials applicable to atmospheric science. However, it is doubtful they all are as credible as those listed in the link. At least one, Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, is reportedly an economist.

And I'm pretty positive that more than 52 scientists worked on IPCC 2007, 52 is probably just the committee heads or the principle authors. Yes. Isn't it closer to 2000 total? I believe the governments signed-off on their report, which should have involved even more scientists.

Second, I'm suspicious that the attack is also on Al Gore. As I've said numerous times, Al Gore is only a spokesperson for Al Gore, and frankly, whether he is right, wrong, or something in between on global warming doesn't matter to the IPCC or most anyone else. This doesn't surprise me that the main firgurehead would be mentioned.

Swift

2008-Dec-10, 11:33 PM

This doesn't surprise me that the main firgurehead would be mentioned.
Oh, it doesn't surprise me. I just don't think it proves anything significant about GW.

I've noticed a lot of people who disagree on global warming seem to like to attack Gore or his movie or things like that, rather than the IPCC or serious studies. But to me, showing that Al Gore misspoke in his movie, for example, has close to no significance as to whether global warming is real or not, IMHO.

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-11, 08:55 AM

650? Wow, I guess I can start burning lots of oil again.

mike alexander

2008-Dec-11, 03:43 PM

Well, if Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby says it's rubbish, that's good enough for me!

Pippin

2008-Dec-11, 05:58 PM

I can see all the reputable sources used in their analysis:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/arctic-sea-ice-extent-in-october-2008-fastest-ever-growth/
this is verifiable proof obviously along with the authors other very good works:
Space Aliens May Have Destroyed Home Planet With CO2 Emissions
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/space-aliens-may-have-destroyed-home-planet-with-co2-emissions/

Well I'm convinced ! :P

Swift

2008-Dec-11, 06:09 PM

Is the second link a joke? (I suspect not, which is really scary, that he thinks that Hubble data was some hidden NASA warning about GW).

Pippin

2008-Dec-11, 06:19 PM

Sadly no it was not a joke, I clicked on a few of the supporting links from the original article. I didn't click them all, but none of the ones I clicked were from anyone remotely "reputable".

captain swoop

2008-Dec-11, 06:25 PM

Well, if Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby says it's rubbish, that's good enough for me!

He was Chancellor in Thatchers Govt in the 80s

mike alexander

2008-Dec-11, 07:15 PM

Space Aliens May Have Destroyed Home Planet With CO2 Emissions

I was able to trace this back to The Onion.

No, really, I just made that up.

I'm sure Lord Nigel would offer that, along with a patrician sniff, as proof of.... well, I don't know.

For God's sake, don't tell this guy about interstellar clouds of carbon monoxide!

tdvance

2008-Dec-11, 10:28 PM

The main take-away would be that "a consensus believe..." oft used in arguments is either inaccurate or oversimplified. 650 (not 650 random citizens, 650 who presumably know what they're talking about) is certainly a statistically significant dissent. I always wondered what Feynman, often railing against "cargo cult science", would say. Of "Nuclear Winter" proposed by Sagan, et al., he said, "those guys don't know what they're talking about". I suspect if he were alive today, he'd be saying something similar.

I believe the status is--there is no proof, certainly not in the sense of General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics, that temperature observations are anything more than natural climate cycles. I think the "burden of proof" should be high in science, as it is in physics, chemistry, and even the very complex medicine.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-11, 11:02 PM

That list of 650 disenting international scientists is hilarious. It includes a TV weatherman whose qualification is that he holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University. And it also includes Ray Kurzweil, whose background is in computing and holds a ** in computer science. But the interesting thing is that Ray Kurzweil believes that global warming is occurring, so why on earth is he on the list? This list doesn't appear to be an exercise in honesty.

Swift

2008-Dec-11, 11:03 PM

650 (not 650 random citizens, 650 who presumably know what they're talking about) is certainly a statistically significant dissent.
As I said, I don't necessarily agree. Is the opinion of 650 economists or mechanical engineers particularly significant? On what are they basing this opinion - a careful study of the data or they just can't imagine it?

But ok, maybe it is a carefully weighed, fine opinion. Those 650 disagree with the IPCC. How many scientists agree with the IPCC reports? I have a PhD in chemistry, and I agree, so that's one.

How about a petition of scientists and specialists from the EPA (http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_29_11_global_warming_petition.pdf)?

We, the undersigned, are Presidents of 22 Local Unions representing over 10,000 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) environmental engineers, environmental scientists, environmental protection specialists and support staff. We are writing to protest the lack of progress in addressing global warming.

How about the science academies of 13 nations:

In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.”

See this wikipedia page for that reference and many more scientific organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

I believe the status is--there is no proof, certainly not in the sense of General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics, that temperature observations are anything more than natural climate cycles. I think the "burden of proof" should be high in science, as it is in physics, chemistry, and even the very complex medicine.
I've written about this before. On general principles I don't disagree with you. But there are two problems. First, unlike an experiment in chemistry or medicine, you can't have a control group; there is no "control" Earth. So you can't conduct the research the exact same way.

Second, the question of global warming is much more than an academic problem. If the models are correct, we have to do something now if we are to prevent the most dramatic changes. We can't wait another 10 or 20 or 30 years collecting more data.

As often is the case when science meets policy, you have to make policy decisions on the best available data, even if that is less than a scientific ideal. I often run up against a similar problem in the business/industrial world.

That can be unsatisifactory from a scientific standpoint, but it is often necessary. Personally, as I see, the best available data supports global warming.

tdvance

2008-Dec-11, 11:27 PM

"Second, the question of global warming is much more than an academic problem. If the models are correct, we have to do something now if we are to prevent the most dramatic changes. "

Unfortunately--you can justify almost anything that way. Better to have a high burden of proof. The reason the burden of proof is so high in, say, physics, is because there have been so many mistakes made when the burden of proof was lower. That huge changes with huge economic consequences are being proposed is all the more reason to have a higher burden of proof (that, and the fact that even those who agree something must be done don't always agree that what is proposed would even be successful).

George

2008-Dec-12, 03:48 AM

But the interesting thing is that Ray Kurzweil believes that global warming is occurring, so why on earth is he on the list? They are opposed to the anthropogenic argument and are not necessarily against the idea that the Earth is warming.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-12, 04:05 AM

They are opposed to the anthropogenic argument and are not necessarily against the idea that the Earth is warming.

He is on record as saying it is anthropogenic. When a list of supposedly dissenting scientists contains a TV weatherman and someone who has quite clearly stated that human activity is resulting in global warming, I don't see how anyone could avoid the conclusion that the people who made this list are either incredibly incompetent or just plain dishonest. Personally I tend to think that it is the latter.

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-12, 07:49 AM

Unfortunately--you can justify almost anything that way. Better to have a high burden of proof. The reason the burden of proof is so high in, say, physics, is because there have been so many mistakes made when the burden of proof was lower. That huge changes with huge economic consequences are being proposed is all the more reason to have a higher burden of proof (that, and the fact that even those who agree something must be done don't always agree that what is proposed would even be successful).

This sounds vaguely like the "Precautionary Principle", but that can be used both ways here. If the situation is that continued action is bad in a certain manner and while we know that cessation is good in a certain manner, then cessation would be precautionary and the detriments of the specified manner would be avoided. However, if the proposal is a counter-plan that is not based on the status quo or previous equilibrium point, then the precautionary principle might argue against instituting the counter-plan.

Cessation of activities that release global warming gasses is probably not controversial or problematic from an environmental point of view, after all, we might discover that it's not anthropogenic, thus the burden of proof need not be high. However acting in ways to reverse the trend covers up the effects of one action with another, which could be controversial from an environmental point of view, and would require a higher burden of proof.

Of course, this ignores all the social, political, and economic issues with either action because it's irrelevant to a determination of the veracity of either claim. Moreover, the claims of social, political and economic burden are often contradictory, after all, increasing efficiency is often its own reward.

geonuc

2008-Dec-12, 09:49 AM

Swift

2008-Dec-12, 01:58 PM

pumpkinpie

2008-Dec-12, 03:34 PM

geonuc

2008-Dec-12, 04:02 PM

Second noted. Any objections (other than from swift)?

Motion carried. swift to be installed as EPA administrator. :D

George

2008-Dec-12, 04:43 PM

He is on record as saying it is anthropogenic. When a list of supposedly dissenting scientists contains a TV weatherman and someone who has quite clearly stated that human activity is resulting in global warming, I don't see how anyone could avoid the conclusion that the people who made this list are either incredibly incompetent or just plain dishonest. Personally I tend to think that it is the latter.
Oh, I see. You're saying they have included in their list someone who disagrees with them. How dumb is that?

lomiller1

2008-Dec-12, 06:49 PM

If these people are truly qualified to comment and have cogent arguments against AGW then they would be publishing papers in peer reviewed journals backing their arguments. Instead of debating whether the people truly qualify as experts, or if they really disagree with AGW we can simply look at what they publish on the subject and the response those publications get. This is how the IPCC works after all, they don’t do an opinion survey, they do a literature review.

It seems obvious to me, however, that these people are not publishing papers that challenge AGW because such papers are all but non-existent.

ravens_cry

2008-Dec-12, 07:18 PM

Swift

2008-Dec-12, 08:09 PM

I don't see what there is to argue.
We are at present releasing a carbon dioxide into the air, from a source that has been 'outside' the carbon cycle for millions of years, it is essentially 'new' carbon. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not as strong as some chemicals, but it is one. This will eventually have an effect. The only thing that could be possibly argued is, are the present changes seen caused by this effect. Maybe so maybe not but I do know this. We are not exactly helping.
Throw in we are directly measuring a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and have for 50 years) and have not measured significant other things (like solar output) to account for the temperatures seen.

Yep, it seems pretty clear to me. I really don't understand the doubters doubts.

dgruss23

2008-Dec-12, 11:23 PM

Throw in we are directly measuring a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and have for 50 years) and have not measured significant other things (like solar output) to account for the temperatures seen.

Yep, it seems pretty clear to me. I really don't understand the doubters doubts.

If I could share some thoughts from the AGW "doubters" camp, there is some worthwhile evidence to look at: Scafetta&West (2006) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3317718S) found that ~50% of the 20th century climate record could be explained by solar activity. It is possible to get the full text of this article on-line free if you search the article title in google. In the paragraph 15 of this paper they discuss other research that might explain the rest of the warming without the need for CO2.

Usoskin et al 2003 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..91u1101U) in fact did find that the Sun has been unusually active during the last 60 years:

The extension of the sunspot number series backward in time is of considerable interest for dynamo theory, solar, stellar, and climate research. We have used records of the 10Be concentration in polar ice to reconstruct the average sunspot activity level for the period between the year 850 to the present. Our method uses physical models for processes connecting the 10Be concentration with the sunspot number. The reconstruction shows reliably that the period of high solar activity during the last 60years is unique throughout the past 1150years. This nearly triples the time interval for which such a statement could be made previously.

In fact if you look at figure 2 of their paper you'll see a figure that looks very much like the famous hockey stick graph except that unlike the hockey stick, the Medieval Maximum and Maunder Minimum actually show up in the reconstruction - along with the other periods of solar variation.

There is plenty more that could be cited - published in journals such as Geophysical Research letters, Physical Review letters, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Journal of Geophysical Research, The Astrophysical Journal, ...

The research supporting an important solar influence on climate both on long time scales and within the 20th century is significant and comes from many lines of evidence. It is completely justifiable to be wary of accepting the notion that humans are causing a catastrophic climate change by introducing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This notion that those of us that are "AGW doubters" are ignorant and lacking evidence to back up their "doubt" is nonsense.

And regarding the seemingly poor choice of the 650 scientists argument - there is a lot of research cited on the website linked to in the OP. Furthermore - as people that are pointing out that there is published research out there that challenges AGW, it is a bit unfair to blame them for feeling they need to point out that there are scientists with relevant knowledge that doubt global warming. Scientific American, Discover, and Science News, the mainstream news media, the IPCC constantly portray AGW as a fact for which there are no scientific reasons to doubt. So what choice do they have but to point out that there are actually scientific researchers publishing research in respected journals that raises important relevant questions as to how serious a threat greenhouses represent?

And I haven't looked at their full list of researchers and cited articles, but I did note quite a few articles on the website that are in my files.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-13, 06:02 AM

dgruss23

2008-Dec-13, 03:20 PM

More hilarity. The paper by Anja Eichler that Inhofe claims shows that half of warming is due to the sun actually says human emissions are the driving force behind global warming. It would be nice if he or his staff could actually bother to read the papers they say support their position. More evidence of either massive incompetence or dishonesty or both.

Unfortunately, I don't have free access to Geophysical Research Letters, so I can't look at the full paper in this instance, but I don't think they were unaware of the conclusions of the paper. Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL&sortBy=author) that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing (http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2008GL035930-pip.pdf) - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007 (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/scafetta-west-climate-phenomenology.html)] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too.

You can see in the bold that they are well aware that Eichler et al claimed that CO2 is responsible for the difference.

The correlations between solar activity and the Earth's climate are now established ranging back as far as 200,000 years and as recently as the 20th century. The correlations appear on both short and long time scales. When I first commented on this years ago on BABB, the question at that time was how much of the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun. The studies that have investigated this question over the last 5 years consistently provide an answer of ~50-67% for the Sun.

That means that CO2 must contribute less than 50% because there are other potential anthropogenic forcings besides greenhouse gases.

With roughly 50% of the recent warming attributed to the Sun we might also ask new questions:

If we just assume that the other 50% is due to CO2, then how much would the planet warm in the next 100 years if we assumed a constant solar influence during that time?

Since the Sun contributes ~50%, what will happen if the Sun enters another cooling cycle? A cooling cycle may be due since Usoskin et al found that the Sun is at its most active in the last 1150 years.

Scafetta and West also point out that the temperature records could be contaminated by some Urban Heat Island and other land use effects. NASA found a few years back that jet contrails potentially could explain a significant portion of the warming.

So there are plenty of areas for further investigation before it can be concluded that CO2 and other GHG are driving a catastrophic climate change. Speaking of which, what evidence is there that catastrophy is on the way? I'm serious about that. How do we know that (1) significant warming will occur in the 21st century and (2) that the results of said warming will be catastrophic?

mugaliens

2008-Dec-13, 03:23 PM

I've noticed a lot of people who disagree on global warming seem to like to attack Gore...

I took the time to read through the intro/full report combo (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)thoroughly, and do not agree that they're attacking Gore.

Rather, I found that the report is doing precisely what it said in it's intro: "...challenged man-made global warming claims..."

Who made those claims is irrelevant. What's relevant is the answer to the question: How reliable/accurate are those claims?

I heard someone throw out a few non-climatology degrees in an attempt to dissuade opinion. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of the 650 scientists are key experts in various climatology and related/supporting fields.

This is a government website, not a woo-woo site. It's the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

But they're not the sponsors. The event didn't happen in the U.S. They had no control over it. It's a global phenomenon from scientists around the world who're growing increasingly discontent with the GW rhetoric that continues to be slung around by some scientists, but mostly the scare-tactic-sells-programming media.

The fact that "many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC" is huge. One, two, or even a handful is common - pockets of discontent are inevitable. But for such a large contingent to go on record, to counter the claims of their parent organization, isn't just telling. Rather, it holds very substantial meaning.

This rather large group of individuals is saying, "time out, folks - let's stop the insanity, get a grip, and find out what's really going on," and having made inroads into just that, they're reporting that much of the previously-released information is hogwash, either over-state, or unsubstantiable.

This isn't a time to mindless cling to and recite the GW mantras. Rather, it's a time to step back and listen to what is being said, and to examine why.

Reading through the quotes in the report makes it clear that there is very good reason for these dissenting opinions, and I, for one, am very glad the calmer, cooler, more methodical heads have stood up against many of the claims of anthropogenic GW.

And since someone else had the bad taste to attempt to undermine the impact by mentioning a few irrelevant degrees, let me share with you all the degrees and credentials of those who were quoted:

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics

Atmospheric Scientist, PhD Meterology, of NASA

UN IPCC scientist, PhD environmental physical chemist

Geologist, board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

Chemical Engineer, former Greenpeace member

Solar Physicist, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Center, published more than 40 peer-reviewe scientific articles on the sun and solar interactions with the Earth.

Researcher at the Institute of Geophysics

U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

Climate statistician specializing in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serving on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review

Geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher

Physicist and environmental researcher who reversed his previously-held opinion.

Chairman of the scient committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, authored 130+ peer-reviewed papers

Former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, himself authored more than 150 publications

Astronautical engineer, NASA astronaut, a staff physicist with MIT

Environmental Scientist, > 150 published articles

Vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research in Japan

Paleontologist, of the Committee for Scientific Research, head of a Paleontology Department

Atmospheric scientist, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department, author of numerous peer-reviewed publications

Chemist, > 50 peer-reviewed publications

NASA astronaut/geologist/moonwalker, formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey

Climatologist, member of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

This list is merely a small sample of all 650 dissenting international scientists.

Pippin

2008-Dec-13, 07:30 PM

dgruss23

2008-Dec-13, 09:02 PM

Ok so solar activity is driving 50% of warming(+or-) and then CO2 and other greenhouse gases add to the rest. And them amplify the warming caused by solar...... It's all the same to me, less green house gases, less global warming. I don't see how an honest scientist could argue against that logic. I can see how a dishonest congressman from an Oil State could argue against it, by reading his blog reports ;)

Two things. First, we don't know that CO2 increases are having any significant effect. It could be as high as 50% of the warming, but the other non-solar 50% of the warming could be additional natural influences, or anthropogenic sources such as urban heat island effects, jet contrails ...

Second, what evidence is there that warming is bad? Would we prefer another little ice age? If CO2 has any significant effect at all perhaps then increases in CO2 will help offset future decreases in solar activity. Studies are showing increased growth of plants with increased CO2 levels. Is that bad?

The problem here is that for over 2 decades the presumption has been that CO2 increases will definitely drive significant warming and that any such warming will be bad (glaciers melting, sea level rising, more severe storms, shifts in precipitation patterns, extinction of species ...) It has become so ingrained in people's thinking that people rarely stop to question those assumptions/predictions.

Where is the evidence that even if 50% of the warming is from CO2, we are destined for bad consequences. If the next few solar cycles downturn and 50% is solar and 50% of the influence is CO2, then the climatic effects of CO2 and the Sun would essentially cancel out.

Of course the 20th century climate record doesn't prove that CO2 is that important. The 1940-1970 cooling trend which occured even as CO2 was increasing correlated with a period of decreased solar activity. If the Sun can so easily overwhelm the CO2 influence, then it is not clear that we have a major problem.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-14, 04:06 AM

Unfortunately, I don't have free access to Geophysical Research Letters, so I can't look at the full paper in this instance, but I don't think they were unaware of the conclusions of the paper. Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

No, they were either unaware of what the paper said or blatently misrepresented the conclusions. I will let the author of the paper, Anja Eichler, speak for herself. Here is an email exchange between her and Joseph Romm, authour of Hell and High Water:

EICHLER: Thank you for informing us about the controversial discussion of our paper in your country. You are totally right that our conclusions were misinterpreted and we are a bit concerned about that.

ROMM: Am I correct that your study was NOT saying human-caused emissions were NOT the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century?

EICHLER: Yes, this is correct. We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

ROMM: Am I correct that your final sentence [in the paper] was merely saying that your results suggest the Sun was responsible for under 50% of the warming since 1900, but you were NOT saying your results shows that the Sun was in fact responsible for half the warming.

EICHLER: This is also absolutely correct.

dgruss23

2008-Dec-14, 04:48 AM

No, they were either unaware of what the paper said or blatently misrepresented the conclusions. I will let the author of the paper, Anja Eichler, speak for herself. Here is an email exchange between her and Joseph Romm, authour of Hell and High Water:

EICHLER: Thank you for informing us about the controversial discussion of our paper in your country. You are totally right that our conclusions were misinterpreted and we are a bit concerned about that.

ROMM: Am I correct that your study was NOT saying human-caused emissions were NOT the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century?

EICHLER: Yes, this is correct. We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.

ROMM: Am I correct that your final sentence [in the paper] was merely saying that your results suggest the Sun was responsible for under 50% of the warming since 1900, but you were NOT saying your results shows that the Sun was in fact responsible for half the warming.

EICHLER: This is also absolutely correct.

1. What is the source for this e-mail exchange?

2. Again, I would like to see the entire paper, which will require a trip to the local university's science library because I can't get the article on-line.

3. However, I do have the Scafetta et al paper about which Eichler et al say:

"Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007 (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/scafetta-west-climate-phenomenology.html)] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun."

So if Eichler et al was saying their results were in agreement with those of Scafetta and Scafetta consistently finds that the Sun likely contributes 50 to 69% of the warming (see here (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf) as another example, then perhaps Eichler needed to have a little bit more clarity in defining what is meant by "in agreement". Eichler says "only up to approximately 50%" where as Scafetta's papers consistently indicate 50% or more. If Eichler disagrees with 50%, then Eichler should not be saying that the results are in agreement with Scafetta's.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-14, 05:18 AM

If I could share some thoughts from the AGW "doubters" camp, there is some worthwhile evidence to look at: Scafetta&West (2006) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3317718S) found that ~50% of the 20th century climate record could be explained by solar activity.

What you aren’t mentioning is that for this paper to be correct climate sensitivity need to be much higher meaning we will get far more CO2 warming then anyone is currently predicting. Essentially they are saying small forcing create enormous warming but that it takes so long we’ve felt very little of the CO2 induced warming and are still working on the 0.1% increases in solar intensity from 80 years ago.

Usoskin et al 2003 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..91u1101U) in fact did find that the Sun has been unusually active during the last 60 years:

By that they mean it increase in the early part of the 20th century then stayed about the same for the last 60 years.

Their point is that the IPCC claims 90% of the warming is from AGW (or so Inhofe claims in the quote below from the website of the OP). Therefore, research that shows 50% of the warming of the last century can be attributed to the Sun would be an important alteration to the IPCC claims

The bulk of the research shoes 80% - 90% of 20th century warming is manmade, the IPCC is simply quoting the current research. Scaffette is generally rejected by climate scientists because it implies much higher levels of greenhouse warming.

The correlations between solar activity and the Earth's climate are now established ranging back as far as 200,000 years and as recently as the 20th century.

Incorrect. The correlation on that scale is almost entirely orbital effects that redistribute but don’t significantly change the amount of solar energy the earth receives.

princemyheart

2008-Dec-14, 05:20 AM

I've noticed tha 'Global Warming' is not the term used as much as 'Climate Change' nowadays. We have had a prolonged dry period [maybe drought] here for the last 7 years.... over the last week, things have become very wet and cold.... and it's Summer! I can't wait to look back in 30 years and see what happened :-]]

lomiller1

2008-Dec-14, 05:27 AM

Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming

Solar induced warming warms the upper atmosphere, greenhouse warming cools it. The upper atmosphere is cooling.

Solar induced warming causes a stronger daytime signal, greenhouse warming is stronger at night. Nighttime temperatures are currently warming more then daytime temperatures

Solar warming is more prominent at lower latitudes, greenhouse warming more prominent at higher latitudes. Current warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes.

Solar warming creates more summertime highs, greenhouse warming creates fewer wintertime lows. We are experiencing a marked decrease in wintertime los worldwide, but no increase in summertime highs.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-14, 05:38 AM

So if Eichler et al was saying their results were in agreement with those of Scafetta and Scafetta consistently finds that the Sun likely contributes 50 to 69% of the warming (see here as another example, then perhaps Eichler needed to have a little bit more clarity in defining what is meant by "in agreement". Eichler says "only up to approximately 50%" where as Scafetta's papers consistently indicate 50% or more. If Eichler disagrees with 50%, then Eichler should not be saying that the results are in agreement with Scafetta's.

If you read that paper you would see that Scafetta and West attribute 25-35% of the warming from 1980-2004 to the sun, so there is no disagreement. But even that conclusion is not supported by direct measurements of solar activity which indicate no trend in solar activity over that period.

1. What is the source for this e-mail exchange?

It's right here:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/#more-4423

Kebsis

2008-Dec-14, 06:04 AM

princemyheart

2008-Dec-14, 07:34 AM

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-14, 07:55 AM

I just wanted to interject this; I've never heard of a Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, but why is it so rediculous that an economist would be a part of this? In a discussion about what we should be doing in the future about global warming, which would undoubtedly effect the economy, isn't an economists opinion warranted?

If the question is what should we do about global warming, then yes, economics definitely comes into that. But if the question is is global warming occuring and if so what is the cause, then not so much. In fact, not at all. And the headline on Inhofe's minority page is:

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

mugaliens

2008-Dec-14, 09:46 PM

I see a lot of debate concerning direct radiation, but little to nothing about secondary effects, which may be more of a multiplier of radiation than having any direct effects.

dgruss23

2008-Dec-14, 11:53 PM

What you aren’t mentioning is that for this paper to be correct climate sensitivity need to be much higher meaning we will get far more CO2 warming then anyone is currently predicting. Essentially they are saying small forcing create enormous warming but that it takes so long we’ve felt very little of the CO2 induced warming and are still working on the 0.1% increases in solar intensity from 80 years ago.

Could you clarify where you are getting this from? Climate sensitivity is discussed in paragraph 17 of the paper, but not as you're describing. What they pointed out in that paragraph is that the Lean 2005 TSI reconstruction would suggest an almost 3x greater climate sensitivity to solar changes than the earlier reconstructions.

By that they mean it increase in the early part of the 20th century then stayed about the same for the last 60 years.

No, actually that is not quite the case. The sun spiked up in activity between 1900 and 1940 as can be seen in figure 2. Usoskin et al describe this as "unique" during the last 1150 years. However if you look at the remainder of the 20th century solar activity in figure 2 you can see that there was a drop in solar activity between ~1940 and ~1975. This drop in solar activity corresponds with a cooling trend in the temperature records that is well established and not disputed. This cooling trend of course happened even as CO2 continued to increase. Then after 1970 toward the present you can see the solar activity begin to spike back up again -- and temperatures have begun to increase since the 1970's.

The 1940-1970 cooling that corresponds with decreasing solar activity is support for an important solar influence on climate even on smaller time scales. Why was the climate cooling between 1940 and 1970 as CO2 increased, if CO2 is such an important climate forcer?

The bulk of the research shoes 80% - 90% of 20th century warming is manmade, the IPCC is simply quoting the current research. Scaffette is generally rejected by climate scientists because it implies much higher levels of greenhouse warming.

80-90% - No. That significantly underestimates studies on the solar influence.

Incorrect. The correlation on that scale is almost entirely orbital effects that redistribute but don’t significantly change the amount of solar energy the earth receives.

There are additional solar effects beyond TSI variations. See for example Sharma's work (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm) and here too (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002E&PSL.199..459S). He finds that variations in solar activity may be responsible for the glacial/interglacial cycles. In order for that to occur the solar influence has to be more than just direct TSI variations. There are also indirect solar effects hypothesized to be associated with the solar wind moderating cosmic ray flux in the upper atmosphere.

Christl et al (2004) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JASTP..66..313C) also found evidence for a relationship between cosmic ray flux and the Earth's climate on the same timescale as Sharma.

On those large scales we're talking about solar influence related to internal variations in the solar activity level, not orbital variations of the Earth about the Sun, which I would agree are not likely to be significant in the Earth's climate.

dgruss23

2008-Dec-14, 11:55 PM

lomiller1

2008-Dec-15, 12:08 AM

"Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming"

I need some help here. Surely the source of both is solar? Isn't the 'greenhouse' effect radiated heat from the Earth's surface trapped by the atmosphere?

Looks like I've got some learning to do.

The energy is almost all solar but temperature change is a function of both incoming and outgoing energy. This means the planet can warm for two possible reasons, more energy comes into the atmosphere or less energy gets out. The greenhouse effect of course acts to reduce the amount of energy that escapes the atmosphere (at any given planetary temperature.)

dgruss23

2008-Dec-15, 12:13 AM

If you read that paper you would see that Scafetta and West attribute 25-35% of the warming from 1980-2004 to the sun, so there is no disagreement. But even that conclusion is not supported by direct measurements of solar activity which indicate no trend in solar activity over that period.

Scafetta and West say the following (JGR, November 3,2007):

Figure 6 shows the comparison between the two NH temperature reconstructions shown in Figure 1 and the phenomenological solar temperature signatures obtained with the TSI proxy reconstructions corrected with the ACRIM TSI satellite composite since 1980, as shown in Figure 3. By assuming ACRIM, the solar activity has an increasing trend during the second half of the 20th century. ... By assuming MOBERG05, the Sun is responsible for ~0.45K (or 56%) with LEAN2000 and ~0.55K (or 69%) with WANG2005 of the warming that occurred from 1900 to 2005, and ~ 0.15K (or 20%) with Lean2000 nad DeltaT=0.25K (or 42%) with WANG2005 of the warming that occurred since 1950. (The estimates might present an error of 20%).

In this article (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JASTP..66..313C) Scafetta and West point out that between 2002 and 2007 the planet showed a cooling trend as the Sun went from the 2001 solar max to the 2007 solar min. And isn't 2008 on pace to be the coolest year of this decade? And isn't the onset of increased solar activity delayed with this cycle?

In addition Scafetta and west argue that the IPCC has significantly underestimated the solar influence and therefore significantly overestimated the anthropogenic influence on climate.

My point in all this is that contrary to what some were saying at the beginning of this thread, there is evidence for a significant solar influence on climate - and that evidence has been uncovered on all timescales studied.

It's right here:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/#more-4423

Thank You!

dgruss23

2008-Dec-15, 12:15 AM

I see a lot of debate concerning direct radiation, but little to nothing about secondary effects, which may be more of a multiplier of radiation than having any direct effects.

Yes, this is a common misunderstanding. It is well established that variations in the amount of energy the Sun puts out alone, cannot explain climate change past or present. However, indirect solar effects such as moderating the cosmic ray flux, may have an even larger impact on climate than the variations in solar energy.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-15, 02:47 AM

In this article (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JASTP..66..313C) Scafetta and West point out that between 2002 and 2007 the planet showed a cooling trend as the Sun went from the 2001 solar max to the 2007 solar min.

The issue of cherry picking a short time period to show a “trend” aside, how can they assume it takes 70 years for a warming of the sun to show up, but less then 5 for a solar minimum to show up?

And isn't 2008 on pace to be the coolest year of this decade? And isn't the onset of increased solar activity delayed with this cycle?

No one has ever found a direct, statistically valid correlation between the solar cycle and global temperate, primarily because the energy variation across the solar cycle is miniscule in comparison to what it takes to heat/cool the planet.

BTW "coolest year of this decade" is still warmer then any year prior to 2000 save 1998.

However, indirect solar effects such as moderating the cosmic ray flux, may have an even larger impact on climate than the variations in solar energy.

that's a topic for ATM

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-15, 10:04 PM

My understanding is that an overabundance of CO2 can, through the greenhouse effect, increase whatever natural heat retention ability of the earth there is past a tipping point, where other processes start to come into play and that some of these processes can also enhance the natural heat retention ability of the earth.

ravens_cry

2008-Dec-16, 03:10 AM

One example is the basic scientific fact that gases, unlike solids, dissolve less readily in warm water then cool water. What this means is that dissolved CO2 in the worlds oceans, will start to be released as the temperatures increase from man released CO2. While I doubt we could say, create another Venus from our actions, it would certainly change the world as we know it. Another thing is that the polar ice reflects significant amounts of sunlight away from the earth because of it's high albedo. With that gone, and from the melt of permafrosts, starting the decay of long dead biomass, it is more then just the CO2 from fossil fuels alone.

Ari Jokimaki

2008-Dec-18, 12:31 PM

Lean & Rind (2008) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf) report only 10 % for the solar forcing contribution of the warming in the last 100 years.

ArgoNavis

2008-Dec-18, 12:45 PM

Just a few more notes on solar vs greenhouse warming.....Solar warming is more prominent at lower latitudes, greenhouse warming more prominent at higher latitudes. Current warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes.....

Drivel.

Both satellite and land based temperature measures indicate that the Antarctica has not warmed at all.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gPVBk-7hxLM/SRjjjOyZP6I/AAAAAAAAACc/wBoUvyEQfzk/s1600-h/GISS_october.gif

and

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/464/index.html

Unless you think Antarctica is not a "higher latitude".

Please feel free to provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.

Argos

2008-Dec-18, 12:48 PM

This is a government website, not a woo-woo site. It's the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Does not impress me at all.

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-18, 01:28 PM

lomiller1

2008-Dec-18, 04:59 PM

Could you clarify where you are getting this from? Climate sensitivity is discussed in paragraph 17 of the paper, but not as you're describing. What they pointed out in that paragraph is that the Lean 2005 TSI reconstruction would suggest an almost 3x greater climate sensitivity to solar changes than the earlier reconstructions.

The short version is that climate sensitivity is the same whether you increase the amount of energy entering the atmosphere of decrease the amount that can exit the atmosphere. This means that if you assume a higher climate sensitivity for solar activity you are also assuming a higher sensitivity to greenhouse gasses.

Longer version is that there is no such thing as “sensitivity to solar activity”, climate sensitivity is to the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, whatever it’s cause.

Forcing like changes in greenhouse gasses or solar activity change are rate of change of energy. As long as more energy flows into the system it will continue to warm. Clearly an increase in solar activity would not cause the earth to warm indefinitely. As surface temperature rises so does the amount of blackbody radiation the earth is generating. At some point this outgoing blackbody radiation matches the increased solar activity and the warming stops. Climate sensitivity is a measure of the amount of temperature rise it takes for BB radiation to offset the other change.

This process occurs reacts to energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere so it doesn’t matter whether that energy imbalance comes from greenhouse gasses reducing the energy that escapes or increased solar activity increasing the amount of energy the earth receives.

No, actually that is not quite the case. The sun spiked up in activity between 1900 and 1940 as can be seen in figure 2.

It’s now 2009, meaning there has been no increase in solar activity for 70 years, and we are 110 years out from when solar activity began to pick up. Again you can’t have it take 70-100 years for an increase in solar activity to show and still expect a decrease in solar activity to show up in 2 years.

However if you look at the remainder of the 20th century solar activity in figure 2 you can see that there was a drop in solar activity between ~1940 and ~1975. This drop in solar activity corresponds with a cooling trend in the temperature records that is well established and not disputed.

There is no “1940 – 1975 cooling trend” Global temperatures spiked in the late 30’s then decreased rapidly during WWII. They then stayed about the same for the next 2 decades. Changes in aerosol production due to human economic activity nicely explains this.

Temperature response to aerosols are faster then CO2 but because they don’t stay around as long CO2 has a greater long term effect. If you build a new coal plant it takes ~20 years before the warming effect of CO2 overcomes the cooling effects of aerosols when a near. During the 30’s when industrial production was shutting down and aerosol output dropped temperature spiked rapidly, during WWII when industrial production spiked global temperatures dropped.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-18, 05:21 PM

Drivel.

Both satellite and land based temperature measures indicate that the Antarctica has not warmed at all.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gPVBk-7hxLM/SRjjjOyZP6I/AAAAAAAAACc/wBoUvyEQfzk/s1600-h/GISS_october.gif

and

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/464/index.html

Unless you think Antarctica is not a "higher latitude".

Please feel free to provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.

You are correct, I should have specified the Artic and western Antarctica as central Antarctica is driven by a whole different set of forces. Other then that you post is utter nonsense and a clear attempt to divert attention from the real questions.

ArgoNavis

2008-Dec-18, 09:00 PM

You are correct, I should have specified the Artic and western Antarctica as central Antarctica is driven by a whole different set of forces. Other then that you post is utter nonsense and a clear attempt to divert attention from the real questions.

Not at all.

Here (http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/IMAGES/nl_images/amsua_ts_asc.gif) is a better graphic. Please explain how the higher lattitudes are experiencing warming.

The rest of yout post is drivel too. You clearly have no real evidence or data to support these assertions.

I should know better than to argue than to try and argue with a religious fanatic who believes in the biggest scientific fraud in history.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-18, 10:05 PM

Not at all.

Here (http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/IMAGES/nl_images/amsua_ts_asc.gif) is a better graphic. Please explain how the higher lattitudes are experiencing warming.

What exactly is temperature for Dec 17 2008 supposed to tell us about the long term temperature trend? It’s not even anomaly for gods sake, but the current temp in deg K, so of course the poles are cooler…

lomiller1

2008-Dec-18, 10:08 PM

Any economists around? I've always been curious about the whole "it'll destroy the economy" argument against governments taking action on global warming.

Japan, the UK, France and Germany already produce less then ½ the CO2 per capita as the US, Canada or Australia. Clearly there are some significant CO2 reductions that can be made with little or no economic impact.

ToSeek

2008-Dec-18, 11:11 PM

I should know better than to argue than to try and argue with a religious fanatic who believes in the biggest scientific fraud in history.

To quote Rule 2 of this forum, "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks." This is out of line.

Ronald Brak

2008-Dec-19, 03:56 AM

Any economists around? I've always been curious about the whole "it'll destroy the economy" argument against governments taking action on global warming.

Taking action on global warming will not destroy the economy. Cutting Australian CO2 emissions by 80% over the next 42 years will cost an estimated total of 2.7% of GDP. That's about one years growth out of 42 years. This is something that we can certainly afford to do. And it's not even that we will be 2.7% poorer as we will benefit from suffering less economic damage resulting from climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a sensible way to protect our economy.

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-19, 06:34 AM

Isn't macro-economics a zero-sum game?

No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game#Economics). Good leadership can create wealth, bad leadership can destroy it. An exchange need no be win-lose, it can be win-win.

geonuc

2008-Dec-19, 12:36 PM

Does not impress me at all.
Me neither, given that the page is actually a blog controlled by one member of the committee. It doesn't represent the views of the Senate committee as a whole. Not even close.

Swift

2008-Dec-19, 08:00 PM

So, a poorly formulated plan to reduce CO2 emissions could end up sapping at least a portion of GDP off to some never never land of government waste and/or corruption.
But a poorly formulated plan to do just about anything could do that.

Warren Platts

2008-Dec-19, 08:40 PM

I'm inclined to urge the next US administration to install Swift as EPA administrator. What he says makes sense.

There are some things we - the US in particular - could be doing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses that are sensible even if the models are not entirely accurate. Doing more to reduce gasoline consumption would help, for example.
Yeah, we could mismanage the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, fix the tax structure to encourage people to stay perpetually in hoc on their houses, and thus cause a housing bubble. Then when the American housing bubble bursts, it will induce a worldwide depression that will dramatically reduce global fossil fuel consumption, and thereby reduce global CO2 emissions everywhere! :think::eh::doh:

Ara Pacis

2008-Dec-20, 10:58 AM

Yeah, we could mismanage the money supply by keeping interest rates artificially low, fix the tax structure to encourage people to stay perpetually in hoc on their houses, and thus cause a housing bubble. Then when the American housing bubble bursts, it will induce a worldwide depression that will dramatically reduce global fossil fuel consumption, and thereby reduce global CO2 emissions everywhere! :think::eh::doh:

That plan's so crazy... it. might. just. work.

ravens_cry

2008-Dec-20, 09:10 PM

Or we could bomb ourselves back to the Stone Ages, and never use fire again.
That would do it too.:shifty:

speedfreek

2008-Dec-21, 02:17 AM

Torsten

2008-Dec-21, 07:34 PM

If you google search the site (top of the page) for "oism" ("oregon institute of science and medicine"), you'll find old discussion on it.

parejkoj

2008-Dec-21, 07:58 PM

What do we think of the recent update at Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html) then? I would have assumed it had been discussed here before, but I couldn't find any references to it using the forum search.

That seems roughly as irrelevant as the list quoted in the top of this article. Have the people who signed that "petition" published in the relevant journals? This is all an attempt at a response to Naomi Oreske's Science article on consensus (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;306/5702/1686). Unfortunately, petitions and lists are no replacement for actual research.

See Gavin's reply to this comment on realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/#comment-106689) for more on Inhofe's list.

Kebsis

2008-Dec-25, 09:12 AM

I remember reading that the average given for a particular years temp are actually a composite of several averages. Is this true?

mugaliens

2008-Dec-25, 06:07 PM

No one has ever found a direct, statistically valid correlation between the solar cycle and global temperate, primarily because the energy variation across the solar cycle is miniscule in comparison to what it takes to heat/cool the planet.

Perhaps not with the solar cycle, but certainly with sunspots. It's not perfect (what correlation is?), to be sure, but it's certainly there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg).

I find it interesting that the more recent the time frame, the stronger the correlation. Indeed, priot to about 4,500 years ago, it apparently flips, with there being a distinct negative correlation.

I wonder what's up with that?

Still, this much closer examination of the last 400 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png) (C-14 indications of temps in this graph (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png)) is quite telling.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-26, 05:31 AM

Perhaps not with the solar cycle, but certainly with sunspots.

But my post was specifically about the solar cycle. Over the 11 year solar cycle there is nowhere near enough of a change in the energy reaching the earth to make measurable changes in global temperature. The swing in solar output is simply too small to make a measurable change.

It's not perfect (what correlation is?), to be sure, but it's certainly there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg).

I find it interesting that the more recent the time frame, the stronger the correlation. Indeed, priot to about 4,500 years ago, it apparently flips, with there being a distinct negative correlation.

I wonder what's up with that?

That flip pretty much rules out any real statistical correlation. Your eyes are simply finding patterns that are not really there.

Still, this much closer examination of the last 400 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png) (C-14 indications of temps in this graph (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png)) is quite telling.

First of all your second link isn’t to a proxy for temperature it’s a proxy for sunspot numbers. Of course it agrees with the observed sunspot numbers, that why it’s a proxy…

No one is suggesting solar output but these tend to be small as the sun is remarkably stable in it’s output. It may increase or decrease it’s energy output by 1/10 of a % every now and again but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to nearly a 2% increase in solar output.

mugaliens

2008-Dec-26, 09:17 PM

But my post was specifically about the solar cycle. Over the 11 year solar cycle there is nowhere near enough of a change in the energy reaching the earth to make measurable changes in global temperature. The swing in solar output is simply too small to make a measurable change.

True, which is why I mentioned sunspots, rather than the solar cycle. You've yet responded to the sunspots.

That flip pretty much rules out any real statistical correlation.

Wrong. There is a high positive correlation over 1/2 of it, and a high negative correlation over the other half. But that's just for the 2,000 year data. Over the last 400 years, the correlation is quite high.

Your eyes are simply finding patterns that are not really there.

Correlation is measured mathematically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#Mathematical_properties), not by one's eyeball.

First of all your second link isn’t to a proxy for temperature it’s a proxy for sunspot numbers.

I think you mean my third link, not my second link. The caption of the third link is:

"Changes in carbon-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon-14) concentration in the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere), which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure."
It's a proxy for "solar activity," not sunspots. Nor "temps" as I errantly stated in my post.

Of course it agrees with the observed sunspot numbers, that why it’s a proxy…

Evidently, you're not familiar with the use of poxies as markers for other activity...

No one is suggesting solar output but these tend to be small as the sun is remarkably stable in it’s output. It may increase or decrease it’s energy output by 1/10 of a % every now and again but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to nearly a 2% increase in solar output.

The sunspot theories do not argue a direct cause of global warming via solar activity. Rather, they argue an indirect change in the ability of Earth to either retain or lose heat. The correlations are far too strong to ignore. Since it's highly unlikely any Earth phenomenon is causing sunspots (snicker), it's far more likely there is something happening in conjunction with sunspot activity which affects the Earth's regulation of its temperature.

We may yet find the causal factor is extrasolar, and may be either causing both sunspots and affecting Earth's temperatures, or that it's causing sunspots, which themselves are changing Earth's temp regulation. There's a lot we still don't know about our immediate galactic neighborhood. For example, the Local Interstellar Cloud, commonly called the Local Fluff, has a temperature of 6000 deg C.

For example: According to this (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/06jan_bubble.htm)Science at NASA page, the Local Fluff's effects on Earth are effectively cancelled by the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field:

"It has little effect on Earth because the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field are able to hold the wispy cloud at bay."
What happens when the Sun's magnetic field is somewhat, even slightly, distorted by sunspots? That may have absolutely no effect on the Sun's irradiance of the Earth, but how does that change in the Sun's magnetic field affect the Local Fluff's effects on Earth???

Furthermore, there are more dense clouds out there, such as the Sco-Cen complex, which is sending a stream of interstellar "cloudlets" in our direction. According to Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago:

"If we ran into one, it would compress the Sun's magnetic field and allow more cosmic rays to penetrate the inner solar system, with unknown effects on climate and life."
Hmmm... That's interesting. And it raises the question, again, about the effect that sunpots' change has on the Sun's magnetic field on comic ray penetration of the inner solar system.

My point is this: When it comes to global warming, it is very myopic to focus all of our attention here on Earth. There's a LOT more going on out there (topside) than most people realize. It behooves us to exhaust those possibilites before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars non-effectively attempting to stop something here on Earth which may turn out to have exceedingly little to do with man, and everything to do with star-stuff.

It's enough to make me want to Starscream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starscream).

mugaliens

2008-Dec-26, 10:51 PM

Hang on. My sense of fairplay is offended. We're supposed to accept your correlation between sunspot counts and temperature (which completely breaks down some 4500 years ago) and dismiss the correlations between atmospheric composition and temperature?

Why would you do that? Correlations are just that: correlations. They do not imply causality. When strong enough, over a sizeable duration, they do substantiate, however, that either one causes the other, or that both are the result of a common cause.

...you want to be absolutely sure that there's no other possible cause before our governments commit any money to reducing our output of greenhouse gases?

Wow. That's ballsy...

I like "thrifty," better, or "prudent" or "wise" or even "sensical," but if you prefer ballsy, sure, why not? Go with ballsy.

dmr81

2008-Dec-27, 12:23 AM

it raises the question, again, about the effect that sunpots' change has on the Sun's magnetic field on comic ray penetration of the inner solar system.
The cosmic ray idea is considered ATM (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/80612-no-global-cooling-consensus-3.html#post1362715). The proposed mechanism has several problems (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/) and it does not show any correlation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm) with temperature during the recent period of global warming.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-27, 04:37 AM

True, which is why I mentioned sunspots, rather than the solar cycle. You've yet responded to the sunspots.

Why should I respond to your attempt to change the subject?

I will, however, say that Sunspots are a proxy for small changes in solar intensity that accompany them. These can have a small but measurable effect if nothing else is going on, but the amount of energy involved is small beside the greenhouse effect.

Wrong. There is a high positive correlation over 1/2 of it, and a high negative correlation over the other half. But that's just for the 2,000 year data. Over the last 400 years, the correlation is quite high.

If you are allowed to “flip the polarity” willy nilly or cherry pick subsets of the series without a physical basis you can match almost any two time series.

Correlation is measured mathematically, not by one's eyeball

Not in your post is wasn’t…

Evidently, you're not familiar with the use of poxies as markers for other activity...

Eh? You commented on the agreement between sunspot numbers and a proxy for sunspot numbers and said it was “quite telling” I merely pointed out that it’s not at all surprising for a proxy to agree with the thing it’s a proxy for.

The sunspot theories do not argue a direct cause of global warming via solar activity. Rather, they argue an indirect change in the ability of Earth to either retain or lose heat.

Such theories belong in ATM for a reason.

For example: According to this (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/06jan_bubble.htm)Science at NASA page,

That article has nothing to do with climate change, and discusses the possible effect of cosmic radiation from a nearby *supernova* which is ridiculously far from any normal change in cosmic radiation.

My point is this: When it comes to global warming, it is very myopic to focus all of our attention here on Earth. There's a LOT more going on out there (topside) than most people realize. It behooves us to exhaust those possibilites before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars non-effectively attempting to stop something here on Earth which may turn out to have exceedingly little to do with man, and everything to do with star-stuff.

Sure there are other things going on and none of them change what we already know about greenhouse gasses. When you hear a gun shot and turn the corner to see someone holding a smoking gun over the body of someone who was just shot you do not investigate every other person in the city to see if they were responsible before arresting the guy with the gun.

I also take issue with your claim there is some huge cost involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most developed countries already produce less then half the CO2 per capita as The US, Canada or Australia and the gap is widening. Simply getting those three countries down the the per capita use of the rest of the developed world would make a huge cut in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Joe Durnavich

2008-Dec-27, 03:36 PM

I get what you're saying about not wanting to throw trillions of dollars at a problem only to find it a complete waste. However, as I mentioned a few posts back, it's not as if that money just disappears into a pit somewhere. Those dollars would represent investment in new technologies, new industries and new or improved sources of energy. Even if, after all human effort possible was expended to reduce CO2 emissions and sequester CO2 into some form of long-term storage, we ultimately were unable to stop global warming, we would still realize some important benefits to our economy and well-being as a direct result of the efforts!

But is there scientific support for this?

Science has presented a case for an anthropogenically influenced global warming trend. But it is not clear that science can make a case for specific threats and dangers to humanity. It is not clear that science is in a position to make a case that government action can mitigate such threats or that it is even necessary to. It is not clear at all that increasing the power of governments over its citizens and seizing more in taxes will lead to a significant number of viable technologies. It is not clear that the resulting technologies will compensate for the technologies that did not come to be because of the forced redirection of resources to "green" technologies.

Intertwined with this are the moral issues. Global warming science is what it is. That's fine. But you want to take from me my SUV and my 300-watt halogen light. You want to control what industries my personal income is invested in. You want to burden me with an even larger and more powerful government bureaucracy. I think science is overstepping its bounds.

ArgoNavis

2008-Dec-28, 12:17 PM

Scientists have discovered strong evidence that we may be harming our planet (and, by the way, it's the only one we've got), and are acting as concerned citizens in an attempt to bring government attention to a threat with potential to drastically alter all of our lives and livelihoods. There may be a cost for taking action on this threat, but there are rewards for doing so even if the threat is later demonstrated not to be of human origin.

Actually, I don't consider that there is any evidence whatsoever that "we" may be harming our planet. In fact, most environmental measures over the last 30 years are all positive.

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC (http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html)) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases". This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years. It could easily be noise in the data.

It is also why temperatures as measured (as best a "global" temperature can be measured) are not correlated to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png). If there was ever an hypothesis that increases in atmospheric CO2 forces "climate change" then it has been falsified. It is a belief that only persists due to vested interests.

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured, the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average, temperatures are refusing to rise and the incidence of extreme cold weather events appears to be increasing, contrary to the predictions of AR4. Yet the hysteria of what "might" happen continues.

The effect of a carbon tax is really quite profound, as it not only reduces current economic growth, but also future growth as resources are diverted by government fiat to poor investments in marginal technologies like wind turbines and so called "green" cars. It doesn't take much of an anlyitical brain to uncover what a mindless mantra this actually is. It is code word for lower living standards with high cost outcomes.

ArgoNavis

2008-Dec-28, 12:25 PM

Of course, there has been other scientists who challenge this dogma, of interest should be the Manhatten Declaration (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/005464.html) of March this year, which 400 (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66) signed.

The Declaration stated that "Global warming" is not a global crisis; affirmed that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans;
carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but rather a necessity for all life;
that the supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;
that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future of global climate. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
Noted that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.

This, along with the total lack of evidence, should be enough to raise some slither of doubt about this fraud.

dmr81

2008-Dec-28, 01:32 PM

Actually, I don't consider that there is any evidence whatsoever that "we" may be harming our planet.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC (http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html)) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

It is also why temperatures as measured (as best a "global" temperature can be measured) are not correlated to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png). If there was ever an hypothesis that increases in atmospheric CO2 forces "climate change" then it has been falsified.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/091608.html
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

the incidence of extreme cold weather events appears to be increasing
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga.php

dmr81

2008-Dec-28, 01:38 PM

Of course, there has been other scientists who challenge this dogma, of interest should be the Manhatten Declaration (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/005464.html) of March this year, which 400 (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66) signed.
Provide details of any of them who are climate scientists.

affirmed that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but rather a necessity for all life
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

that the supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Noted that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

This, along with the total lack of evidence
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

should be enough to raise some slither of doubt about this fraud.
Appeal to conspiracy.

Joe Durnavich

2008-Dec-28, 04:00 PM

Whoah, those are some pretty tall leaps! Who said anything about increasing power over citizens or "seizing" taxes? Who proposed taking away private property or making beaurocracies more powerful?

Let's dial down the drama one or two notches, ok? As I understand them, most of the proposals on the table use existing governmental powers, tax bases and beaureaus to implement policies that would encourage reductions or offsets to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
You may be reading in the wrong sort of drama. True, my post was in response to the comments about throwing "trillions of dollars at a problem." We are on the verge of formally classifying carbon dioxide (or even worse, "carbon") as a pollutant precisely so that the world's governments can redirect trillions of dollars in an attempt to reduce that pollutant. The drama is not so much that we are empowering big bad evil governments, but that this is being offered as a necessary course of action without anything approaching the scientific rigor that supports global warming claims.

There is plenty of science in support of global warming. Just look at the posts between ArgoNavis and dmr81 above. As science does, it continually refines itself amidst a sea of critical review. The solutions being offered to global warming, however, are stated as a given. It is just assumed that government action is the right course of action or even a necessary course of action. Science provides for itself many feedback mechanisms so that it can detect and correct its errors as quickly as possible. When the discussion turns to problem solving, however, the solutions offered seem to be based more on intuition and gut feeling with no real guidance apparent. Has Kyoto been a net benefit or a net loss to us? Is science even capable of answering such a question?

I believe market mechanisms will select which products and services "win" rather than some heavy-handed government intervention. Let me illustrate with an over-simplified example of the SUV. It's easily conceivable that licensing and operating a Hummer or other "gas guzzler" would be more expensive if these ideas were implemented, but folks will then be directly, economically, encouraged to make "greener" and smarter decisions about what kind of vehicle they can afford to drive. All of the decision making authority is left exactly where it belongs: in the hands of the individual consumer.
Do you see what I mean? It is assumed as a given that governmental policies that encourage "greener" decisions by the consumer will lead to a healthier environment. Such policies may be intuitive, but science was developed, of course, partly to overcome intuition. The US did not sign Kyoto, but as I remember, our rate of CO2 emissions growth was lower than about 75% of the nations that ratified it.

Science is not some body of people who are attempting a coup. Science is a method of problem solving and thinking about the physical world around us.
Then where is the science that shows us that rising sea levels are problem to begin with, that shows us that such-and-such a governmental policy will solve the problem, that shows us what we will have to sacrifice to attain it, and that shows us the result will be a net benefit? This is a far more difficult area of study because it involves human behavior. It is not clear that turning control of resources over to politicians will lead to benefits that are equal to or better than the benefits that would have come about if those resources remained the private property of those who developed or produced them.

Scientists have discovered strong evidence that we may be harming our planet (and, by the way, it's the only one we've got), and are acting as concerned citizens in an attempt to bring government attention to a threat with potential to drastically alter all of our lives and livelihoods. There may be a cost for taking action on this threat, but there are rewards for doing so even if the threat is later demonstrated not to be of human origin.
Notice again how it starts out with science making a case and just grades right on over into politics as if the same basis applied. I am dialing up the drama a bit to draw that distinction, which I think is not always appreciated enough in these discussions. Freedom deserves an avid defense.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-29, 04:36 AM

This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years. It could easily be noise in the data.

Or it could be you cherry picking whatever part of the globe happens to fit your belief system. As a whole GLOBAL warming continues unabated.

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png).

Watts is hardly a reliable source.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

In any case the warming trend continues unabated. It’s only by cherry picking the (at the time) extremely warm El Nino year for a starting point that you get any other result.

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC (http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html)) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases".

First of all the effects of urbanization have been removed from ground station data since the late 90’s. This is why the ground station data agrees with satellite data like RSS, at least as much as you would expect given ground stations and satellites are not measuring exactly the same thing. As for the amount of warming

Originally from Meehl et al 2004

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured,

You’re a year to late on that claim and it’s wrong to boot. There was an unusually high noise spike in Antarctic sea ice last year, but it wasn’t statistically significant. Over the last 12 months Antarctic sea ice has continued to hover around it’s average since Satellite observation began. There is some evidacne from whaling records that the currnet norms for Antartic sea ice are well below what they were until the mid-early 70’s when they dipped then stabilized at current levels

the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average

Not even close

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This, even though Artic sea ice is limited by the size of the Artic ocean meaning winter extents can’t significantly change.

ArgoNavis

2008-Dec-29, 11:33 PM

In any case the warming trend continues unabated. It’s only by cherry picking the (at the time) extremely warm El Nino year for a starting point that you get any other result.

No it doesn't. If anything it is cooling (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif).

Cute graph you posted. Is it supposed to mean something?

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's? Easy, just tweek the model to give you the answer. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How about a future (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE=) prediction?

The Arctic (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/seaice-feb2008.png). See also (http://www.thelocal.se/12580/20080621/).

"..are likely to be informed by Swedish polar researchers that there is in fact very little concrete proof tying global warming to climate changes in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Some indeed argue that there is more change in today’s political rhetoric than there is in the environment."

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years. Ice here. (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg)

I know it is pointless to argue with religious fanatics, but the ice simply isn't melting.

dmr81

2008-Dec-30, 09:21 AM

If anything it is cooling (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif).
The warming trend has not stopped. In noisy data of this sort it is expected that the noise will mask the trend for short periods, as demonstrated here (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/).

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's? Easy, just tweek the model to give you the answer. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf)). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf))
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

How about a future (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE=) prediction?
Same weather v climate fallacy you posted on the other thread.

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years. Ice here. (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

the ice simply isn't melting.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/091608.html

tusenfem

2008-Dec-30, 11:57 AM

I know it is pointless to argue with religious fanatics, but the ice simply isn't melting.

ArgoNavis, you have been warned before about using this kind of comment by ToSeek in this post on this very page (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-3.html#post1391328). Like ToSeek said: To quote Rule 2 of this forum, "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them.

I think it might be good for you to take a few days off, to cool down and reconsider your comments.

HenrikOlsen

2008-Dec-30, 01:34 PM

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years.
Well, Duh!

You're talking about measuring the temperatures at a heat sink and wondering why they don't change.

That's similar to the disingenuous way of claiming there's not warming by arguing from the temperatures of the Atlantic ocean which has one end in a big lump of ice.
The thing to measure in a case like that isn't temperature but rate of melting, which for arctic ice is actually more than predicted by even the pessimistic models.

As for the arctic, the area covered by ice, which is what you're arguing from, is governed by multiple factors one of which is rate of movement of glaciers which have speeded up drastically.
This means more ice is transported to the outer areas, resulting in greater covered area even through the total volume is dwindling.

lomiller1

2008-Dec-30, 06:45 PM

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's?

If it’s peer reviewed like the one I posted go right ahead. I suggest, however you consider the reason no peer reviewed graph supporting your position exists.

BTW you also seem to ignore the fact I told you Antarctic ice hasn’t changed since the late 70’s are trying tom present it as a dramatic conclusion. Be a man. Acknowledge your error and move on, don’t adopt a very slightly modified version of my statements verbatim and claim they were what you were saying all along. Its poor etiquette

I also note that you the cherry picking of 1998 as the starting year, exactly as I suggested you were…

William

2009-Jan-05, 02:49 PM

Many people have anchored their belief in AWG (CO2) on the Hockey Stick graph.

Is the methodology used to create the Hockey Stick graph valid? No. Is the Hockey Stick conclusion valid? No.

What are the scientific implications that the widely distributed Hockey Stick graph is knowingly incorrect?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Some people have stated that 90% of the 20th century warming of 0.5C is due to AWG C02.

The remaining 10% of 20th century warming is due to increased solar output.

Why is the planet now starting to cool?

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

The effect of CO2 warming is supposedly greatest in high latitude regions. Why has the Antarctic not warmed? Why are record cold winter temperatures now being set in the Northern Hemisphere?

There is evidence in the proxy data that the planet semi-periodically abruptly cools. What caused the past abrupt drops in planetary temperature?

lomiller1

2009-Jan-05, 04:04 PM

On the internet anyone can say anything they want, you can just look at random bloggers like McKitrick and take them at face value, you need to see if their statements are backed up with peer reviewed literature or if they are arguing from self authority. Arguments from self authority only carry weight if the person in question is a legitimate authority in the field. Ross McKitrick is not an authority, he has no relevant education and has published no peer reviewed papers pertaining to this subject.

What has been published are more then a dozen separate large scale climate reconstructions, and they all show the hockey stick pattern. What has not been published is a papers that refutes these papers, or any paper that shows significantly different results.

William

2009-Jan-05, 09:23 PM

In reply to Lomiller's comment: Are there published papers that show the AWG hockey stick is incorrect?

Yes there are.

The mistake made by Mann et al. is fundamental and invalidates the conclusion of Mann et al. Mann et al made a basic mathematical mistake that invalidates the conclusion of the paper.

Mann et al.'s analysis made the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) appear to not occur. Other published data using different temperature proxy data indicates the Medieval Warm Period did occur. There is supporting historical documentation that shows the MWP did occurred.

The issue is not whether planetary temperature rose during the 20th century. Planetary temperature did rise during the 20th century. The issue is that planetary temperatures also rose during MWP.

As C02 levels did not rise during the MWP the reason for the Global warming for the MWP is not AWG. There must therefore be another first order forcing function that can warm the planet that is not address by the IPCC.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/00000006/art00002

Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series S. McIntyre et al.

Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance by S. McIntyre et al.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/2004GL021750.pdf

The ‘‘hockey stick’’ shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. [1998, 1999] has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the ‘‘dominant pattern of variance’’. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

William

2009-Jan-05, 09:36 PM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081230/tuk-experts-predict-2009-to-be-scorcher-dba1618.html

Currently the warmest year on record (My comment, from the Medieval Warm Period to now.) is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52C - well above the 1961 to 1990 long-term average of 14C.

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

It has been stated that the 20th century warming is 90% AWG and 10% solar.

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

HenrikOlsen

2009-Jan-05, 09:48 PM

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?
You're mistaking weather for climate again.

William

2009-Jan-05, 10:37 PM

In reply to HenrikOlsen: You're mistaking weather for climate again.

Henrik,

Was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) climate or weather?

Were the past abrupt climate changes (cooling), climate or weather? Note the abrupt climate changes are semi-periodic.

The 100 kyr re-occurring glacial period (Canada, Northern US States, and Northern Europe are covered by a 2 mile thick ice sheet for around 100 kyr), is it climate or weather?

My point is there have been very large climate changes in the past. Cold changes in the climate are not beneficial to life on the planet. We are at the end of the interglacial period.

Solar insolation at the critical 60 degree latitude north is the same as the coldest point of the last glacial period.

Why is the current cooling change assumed to be benign?

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-05, 11:23 PM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081230/tuk-experts-predict-2009-to-be-scorcher-dba1618.html

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

Perhaps I'm confused, the short article you linked to seems to be about warming not cooling.
"What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44C, was 0.21C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

William

2009-Jan-06, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post: http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-4.html#post1403096:

Originally Posted by William View Post
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081230/...r-dba1618.html

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

Perhaps I'm confused, the short article you linked to seems to be about warming not cooling.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44C, was 0.21C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

The article I quoted noted that AWG global warming stopped in 1998. The article I quoted stated for no scientific reason that 2009 will be warmer.

What matters is:

1) What percentage of the 20th century warming was attributable to CO2. 90% or 5%?

2) Is the planet about to abruptly cool? As noted solar insolation at the critical 60 degree North latitude is the same as it was at the coldest period of the last glacial period. There are semi-periodic abruptly cooling periods in the proxy record. Glacial periods last for 100kyr and are periodic.

Past interglacial ended abruptly. Based on the length of past interglacial this interglacial is about to end.

Life on this planet is carbon based. CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 120 million years.

More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.

If the 20th century warming was not due to CO2 and the planet is about to abruptly cool, then AWG is not the problem.

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-06, 12:59 AM

The article I quoted noted that AWG global warming stopped in 1998. The article I quoted stated for no scientific reason that 2009 will be warmer.No it doesn't. The entire article is only five sentences long.

What matters is:...not misrepresenting sources.

William

2009-Jan-06, 03:12 AM

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-06, 03:35 AM

More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.

Because everyone knows that the current difference between deserts and forests is the amount of CO2.

William

2009-Jan-06, 03:41 AM

The Hockey Stick graph via data cherry picking and mathematical manipulation removed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), see attached two published papers.

Other analysis shows the MWP in the 15th century was warmer than the 20th century.

As C02 levels were not high in the 15th century there must be some other first order climate forcing function.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/00000006/art00002

“Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series”

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, "MBH98" hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

This is the second paper that invalidates the Hockey Stick paper.

“Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance”

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/2004GL021750.pdf

These lecture notes summarize the Hockey Stick issue.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

William

2009-Jan-06, 04:05 AM

In reply to Ronald Brak:
William:
More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.
Ronald Brak
Because everyone knows that the current difference between deserts and forests is the amount of CO2.

Ronald,
I believe few people appear to understand C3 plants and CO2 starvation. There is a myth that a warmer planet with more CO2 would have increased desertification. That is not correct.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1692178

Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.

Most plants use a C3 process for photosynthesis, which is effective in warm moist climates with high levels of CO2. When CO2 levels drop the C3 plants produce more stomata which cause the plant to lose more water. Increasing CO2 levels enables the plant to produce less stomata and hence lose less water.

When the planet is warmer there is more rain and moisture. During the ice ages the CO2 dropped to 180 ppm which caused some plants to die due to low CO2. In addition the planet was very dry. There is a ten fold increase in atmospheric dust deposited in the Green Land ice sheet during the glacial phase which indicates a significant increase in desertification.

Due to CO2 starvation and a lack of water during the last glacial phase one third of the current Amazon rain forest changed to C4 grasses.

http://wc.pima.edu/~bfiero/tucsonecology/plants/plants_photosynthesis.htm

ToSeek

2009-Jan-06, 11:02 PM

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

The warmest year on "record" was 1998 (.5C above mean). 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were cooler than 1998.

It is a fact that planetary temperatures are no longer increasing.

Cherry-picking one year does not allow for that conclusion. The five-year average has continued to increase steadily. And 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all warmer than any year before 1998, which doesn't sound like cooling to me.

It has been stated that the 20th century warming is 90% AWG and 10% solar.

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

- If the five-year average temperature starts going down while CO2 levels continue to go up and there's no other factor to account for the change.

- If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)

William

2009-Jan-07, 12:43 AM

In reply to ToSeek's Comment: http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-4.html#post1403865 Cherry-picking one year does not allow for that conclusion. The five-year average has continued to increase steadily. And 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all warmer than any year before 1998, which doesn't sound like cooling to me.

Your statement does not address the scientific issues. Published proxy data supports the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than 1998.

Indications Planet has reached a Plateau and is now Cooling
Based on the data the planet has stopped warming. i.e. It has reached a plateau. The years after 1998 are not warmer than 1998. i.e For 9 years the planet's temperature has reached a plateau.

There are early indications that the planet has started to cool. 2008 is the 10th warmest year in the 20th century. The Antarctic seasonal sea ice is 30% above the long term average. The arctic seasonal sea ice is close to normal in area and I would expect based on current very cold arctic temperatures to be recovering in thickness.

Planet was warmed and cooled before
As CO2 levels did not rise in 15th century there is likely another first order climate forcing function that can warm the planet.

There is also the little ice age to explain. i.e. My point is that something is causing the earth to warm and cool in cycles. CO2 follows rather than leads these cyclic changes.

Challenges to the Magnitude of the CO2 mechanism & Sign/Magnitude of Feedbacks
There have been direct scientific challenges, in published papers, that question the validity of the CO2 forcing mechanism (basically the issue is whether CO2 saturates. Tropical tropospheric temperatures do not match what is predicted by the models.) and the base assumptions used in the the General Climate Models. (The issue is are the climate feedbacks in response to a forcing change positive or negative. If feedback is negative then the planet’s response to a doubling of CO2 even with the high IPCC estimate is only 0.5C.).

HenrikOlsen

2009-Jan-07, 01:21 AM

Planet was warmed and cooled before
As CO2 levels did not rise in 15th century there is likely another first order climate forcing function that can warm the planet.

Which is rather irrelevant to the question of the source of the current forcing, when it's shown that the factors that forced that warming period isn't present now.

orionjim

2009-Jan-07, 01:25 AM

...
- If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)

A good fit can be found with the length of the solar cycle. See:

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
by Christensen and Lassen
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/254/5032/698 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698)

Or you can get it from the Friends of Science here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...hr_Lassen-.pdf

And the co2 seems to fit to the 800 to 1200 year lag (seen in the proxy data) behind the MWP.

Jim

HenrikOlsen

2009-Jan-07, 01:36 AM

orionjim

2009-Jan-07, 02:02 AM

That's a correlation to a data set which is only known for the last 130 ears, it doesn't have any actual explanation for the correlation.

To me it sounds a bit like the correlation between the ration of length of the second and third finger, and whether you're homosexual.

It reads like the result of looking at all the data sets they could find which didn't involve without CO2 and picking the one that had the best correlation

I agree, because we don’t know how the solar dynamo works. But the correlation is high and it is possible the sun could be the cause. But as you said it’s just a correlation.

I could come up with a causal mechanism and call it a model, but then that would be ATM under this sites rules.

Also on the same note all of the models of co2 are just that; models. The IPCC says the odds are 90% that the warming of the last 30 years is caused by co2.

Actually ToSeek’s comment was:

…
- If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)
my bold

And if you look at the correlation the solar cycle fits for 100 years and the co2 correlation only fits for 30 years.

Jim

HenrikOlsen

2009-Jan-07, 02:22 AM

And if you look at the correlation the solar cycle fits for 100 years and the co2 correlation only fits for 30 years.

Jim
Actually the models of the influence of total CO2 correlates nicely for much longer than that when the models includes the fact that climate is influenced by multiple factors of which CO2 is only one.

Trying to say that modern models claim that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate is a strawman to make them easy to refute by referring to earlier changes that clearly wasn't CO2 driven.
What the modern models actually do is explain both the earlier climate changes and the current ones and showing that the current changes looks like they're forced by changes in total CO2 (and CH4) concentrations.

That's the straw man william tried to set up in his last post.

William

2009-Jan-07, 02:46 AM

In reply to Henrik Olsen: http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-4.html#post1404032

CO2 Mechanism
There are multiple fundamental issues with the CO2 mechanism.

The planet’s 20th century warming does not directly follow the CO2 rise. There is the plateau and very cold winters in the 1970’s. There is a sharp increase in temperature in the 1990’s and then 1999 to date the planet’s temperature has stopped rising and now appears to be cooling.

There is other data and analysis that questions the validity of the magnitude of the CO2 forcing mechanism for increasing CO2 levels. (i.e. There is evidence that indicates the CO2 warming mechanism saturates at low concentrations and/or that the planetary feedback response to any forcing change is negative rather than positive.)

There are multiple cases where CO2 was been higher or lower without correlation of planetary temperature. There is roughly a lag of 800 years on glacial termination before CO2 levels rise.

Abrupt Cooling
There are in the long term climate record semi periodic abrupt planetary temperature drops of 2C to 4C.

Look at the problem from a different standpoint. Assume that in response to an event that is connected with the current solar changes that the planet starts to abruptly cool. Will humans take action to stop abrupt global cooling? There have been 22 glacial/interglacial cycles. This is not an academic question.

Environmental Protection & Sensible Policy
I am completely in agreement there is a limit to consumption and the number of people the planet will support. With that constraint in mind policy should consider that CO2 is not a pollutant.

The statements in comment 104 http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-4.html#post1403991 are correct. If CO2 does not result in increased global warming then increased CO2 is positive to life on the planet not negative. C02 levels were very low prior to human produced CO2. C02 is not a pollutant.

orionjim

2009-Jan-07, 03:53 AM

Actually the models of the influence of total CO2 correlates nicely for much longer than that when the models includes the fact that climate is influenced by multiple factors of which CO2 is only one.
…

I agree. CO2 correlates for 1000’s of years. It lags temperature by 800 to 1200 years, nicely. I think that’s what William was trying to show with McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers. Doing away with the MWP is important to put the focus only on CO2 making it the driver. If you allow the MWP then the rise in CO2 would be caused by the MWP according to the data (it’s been about 1000 years).

…
Trying to say that modern models claim that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate is a strawman to make them easy to refute by referring to earlier changes that clearly wasn't CO2 driven.
What the modern models actually do is explain both the earlier climate changes and the current ones and showing that the current changes looks like they're forced by changes in total CO2 (and CH4) concentrations.
…

I have a good idea of the models that are being used and I understand they are driven by multiple factors and I understand how they can combine creating the greenhouse gases. I certainly wouldn’t argue with them. What differs between the last 30 years and all of the previous history is, like you said, that now CO2 has to be the main driver to increase temperature.

I only jumped in to say; “don’t underestimate the sun”.

Jim

William

2009-Jan-07, 06:14 AM

I started looking at this problem from the perspective of trying to find out what was causing very abrupt climate changes, that were found in the Greenland Ice Sheet data.

The finding of abrupt climate changes was not expected. The abrupt climate changes and the glacial/interglacial cycle itself is not explained. The forcing appears to be semi-periodic and affects the enter planet.

I agree with Jim it appears we have not seen all of the phases of the sun.

“Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes” by Richard Alley

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full.pdf+html

As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.

Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved approx. 8°C warming (8,25) and approx. 23 increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in windblown materials (17), and approx. 50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).

For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval approx. 11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning approx. 5 years and in total covering '40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less (8). The most direct interpretation of the accumulation-rate record is that snowfall doubled over 3 years and nearly doubled in 1 year (9). Several records show enhanced variability near this and other transitions, including ‘‘flickering’’ behavior in which climate variables bounced between their ‘‘cold’’ level and their ‘‘warm’’ level before settling in one of them (27).

One abrupt century-long cold event approx. 8,200 years ago (my comment 2C temperature drop in less than a decade.) is prominent in Greenland and other records and affected methane significantly (36). Temperatures before and after this event in Greenland and many other regions were slightly higher than recently, showing that warmth is not a guarantee of climate stability.

mugaliens

2009-Jan-07, 12:45 PM

On the internet anyone can say anything they want, you can just look at random bloggers like McKitrick...

That's an ad-hom.

I read his paper, and found some of his arguements compelling, particularly the following:

If the world could warm so much on such a short time scale as a result of natural causes, surely the 20th century climate change could simply be a natural effect as well. And the present climate change could hardly be considered unusually hazardous if even larger climate changes happened in the recent past, and we are simply fluctuating in the middle of what nature regularly dishes out.

William

2009-Jan-07, 03:49 PM

There are indications that the 2008/2009 winter is returning to 1970’s cold.

As noted in this article there are currently very low temperatures in the Arctic. Later in the winter the very cold Arctic air moves south and then creates ice storms and blizzards in areas that normally have a mild winter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/20012008news.shtml

Over the last few days high pressure has been continuing to build across Siberia bringing unusually cold weather. (My comment: The loss of heat which cools the atmosphere creates the high pressure region. The high pressure is a result of the cold weather not the cause.)

On Wednesday weather warnings were issued by Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry after forecasters predicted a fall of temperature to –55C
(-67F). On Saturday night the temperature in Ojmjakon, Siberia actually fell to -60.2C (-76F). January temperatures across the larger Siberian cities normally range from –15C to –39C (5 to -38F).

Over the last few days this cold air building over the Polar regions of Canada and Siberia, has now been sent southwards across the States in a phenomenon commonly known as the “Siberian Express”.

Comment:
I have been looking for an observed change that might be a hint to what could be causing the planet to cool (assuming the planet is cooling) and the mechanism(s) that would result in significantly colder winters and summers. (Outside of the normal variance.)

As noted in this article, the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/outer_atmosphere.html

CINDI’s first discovery was, however, that the ionosphere was not where it had been expected to be. During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.

Stroller

2009-Jan-07, 04:41 PM

The warming trend has not stopped. In noisy data of this sort it is expected that the noise will mask the trend for short periods, as demonstrated here (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/).

From Tamino's blog:

"Let’s put some of this to practical use; let’s create some artificial data,"

I guess he just couldn't bring himself to use the 'real' data.

So, what does this 'noise' consist of? A reversal in the 60 year quasiperiodic Pacific Decadal Oscillation perhaps? Solar minimum? Ah but of course, the solar cycle only makes a difference of ~0.03C doesn't it, so that's out.

So if it is the negative phase of the PDO (evidenced by the incidence of a strong La Nina last winter, and another brewing up now back to back with it), how much of the warming during the preceding years will the proponents of the CO2 warming theory ascribe to it's 30 year long positive phase?

or is it all just noise?

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-07, 04:59 PM

William

2009-Jan-07, 05:43 PM

But weather isn't climate. It was cold here in early December, then it warmed up and has been warmer since. It must be evidence of global warming, right?

William said: There are indications that the 2008/2009 winter is returning to 1970’s cold.

As noted in this article there are currently very low temperatures in the Arctic. Later in the winter the very cold Arctic air moves south and then creates ice storms and blizzards in areas that normally have a mild winter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/n...2008news.shtml

Over the last few days high pressure has been continuing to build across Siberia bringing unusually cold weather. (My comment: The loss of heat which cools the atmosphere creates the high pressure region. The high pressure is a result of the cold weather not the cause.)

On Wednesday weather warnings were issued by Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry after forecasters predicted a fall of temperature to –55C
(-67F). On Saturday night the temperature in Ojmjakon, Siberia actually fell to -60.2C (-76F). January temperatures across the larger Siberian cities normally range from –15C to –39C (5 to -38F).

Over the last few days this cold air building over the Polar regions of Canada and Siberia, has now been sent southwards across the States in a phenomenon commonly known as the “Siberian Express”.

Record cold winter temperatures require a cause.

My point is there is a normal expected range of temperatures for each location for each month. When temperatures fall outside of that range for large areas of the planet that indicates something has changed.

There are other indications that the planet is cooling. Increase sea ice in the Antarctic. Arctic sea has in terms of area recovered to close to normal.

Has anything changed would could explain the record cold temperatures? My other point is this article which notes the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

Also interesting is that the number of electrons in the ionosphere is a factor of 10 less than that predicted by the models.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html

CINDI’s first discovery was, however, that the ionosphere was not where it had been expected to be. During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.

Stroller

2009-Jan-07, 07:30 PM

Arctic sea has in terms of area recovered to close to normal.

Has anything changed would could explain the record cold temperatures? My other point is this article which notes the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

Also interesting is that the number of electrons in the ionosphere is a factor of 10 less than that predicted by the models.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html
To be fair William, there is only so much room in the Arctic ocean so it's not unexpected that ice gets to average levels in the winter. What is different this year though, is ice thickness, which has been building much more rapidly according to argo buoy data. Thicknesses of 1.6m were being recorded at the end of october. Those sorts of readings from the same area the year before weren't achieved until January. I predict the spring melt will be later and less extensive.

The issue with the ionosphere is very interesting. There is speculation that the very strong solar erruptions in 1998 created a 'bubble' in the solar wind which ripped away a chunk of our ionosphere. I haven't found solid information on this, but there certainly has been a step change downwards in geomagnetic activity since the end of 2005.

mugaliens

2009-Jan-07, 08:49 PM

But weather isn't climate. It was cold here in early December, then it warmed up and has been warmer since. It must be evidence of global warming, right?

Either that, or you have enough sense to come in out of the snow and sit yourself before a nice fire!

ToSeek

2009-Jan-07, 10:09 PM

Your statement does not address the scientific issues. Published proxy data supports the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than 1998.

Why are you all of a sudden bringing in the Medieval Warm Period when that was not mentioned in the post I'm responding to?

Indications Planet has reached a Plateau and is now Cooling
Based on the data the planet has stopped warming. i.e. It has reached a plateau. The years after 1998 are not warmer than 1998. i.e For 9 years the planet's temperature has reached a plateau.

Again, your conclusion is unjustified. 1998 is an outlier due to a strong El Nino. If you ignore 1998, you can see a steady warming trend both before and after. If you incorporate 1998 in some appropriate way, like doing five-year averaging, you see the same thing. There is no plateau in the data.

There are early indications that the planet has started to cool. 2008 is the 10th warmest year in the 20th century.

Completely untrue. 2008 does come in 10th, but all the years warmer than it occurred since 1997, so very few of them were in the 20th century. Reference. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081216/sc_mcclatchy/3124855)

The Antarctic seasonal sea ice is 30% above the long term average. The arctic seasonal sea ice is close to normal in area and I would expect based on current very cold arctic temperatures to be recovering in thickness.

Wrong again. Arctic sea ice right now is about 2 million km^2 less than the 1979-2000 average. Reference. (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-08, 01:05 AM

Record cold winter temperatures require a cause.

My point is there is a normal expected range of temperatures for each location for each month. When temperatures fall outside of that range for large areas of the planet that indicates something has changed.

My refrigerator/freezer is a net producer of heat, yet it keeps my peas frozen. The cause is that the warmth is pumped to a different location.

I'd be interested in knowing if there is a circulation that can perform this function on the Earth. Is it the thermohaline circulation or ENSO or something that that would mitigate heat flow to the arctic while absorbing or redirecting the heat that would go there instead? I ask for information, since I'm not that well versed in climatology. Anyone?

Kebsis

2009-Jan-08, 08:25 AM

How is the average temperature of the Earth calculated? I have been told that several averages are taken using different methods, and then averaged together. Is this true?

Stroller

2009-Jan-08, 09:05 AM

How is the average temperature of the Earth calculated? I have been told that several averages are taken using different methods, and then averaged together. Is this true?

The short answer is we don't know.
Despite being publicly funded bodies, NASA?Giss and Hadley Met won't reveal their methods or details of data selectivity. Despite attempts to force them to reveal them under the freedom of information laws in the UK and US.

Phil Jones at Hadley famously said to an enquiring scientist something like:
"Why would I want to share the results of 25 years of work with you when you'll probably want to try to find something wrong with it."

The satellite teams are more open but no-one but them understands the equations.

For more in depth info and discussion I'd rcommend the climateaudit.org site.
Steve MacIntyre has been having some success with replicating the Giss record. It ain't pretty.

National records seem to be more reliable over the longer term, but of course are not perfect proxies for global temperature. Nonetheless, over long time frames (Central England Temperature runs from the late 1600's) they may contain a valuable indicator of long term global trends.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-08, 10:18 AM

The reason that scientists don't look at paranormal phenomena is that the field is so heavily populated with cranks and charlatans that any serious scientists risk being overlooked and dismissed as cranks and charlatans. Sadly, there is a genuine risk that serious arguments demonstrating problems with the AGM notion are going to be overlooked because most of what we see is crankiness and charlatanry.

So in the long run, all of this cherry picked data, climate vs weather problem, failure to take account of regression to the mean, quoting articles that don't support your point, etc, do serious damage. I have become so bored by all of it that I don't even bother reading it any more, knowing that it is almost certainly going to turn out to be sleight of hand once again.

In other words, if you are serious about contesting the AGW, a bit of keep-your-mouth-shut until you have something worth taking seriously would probably be in your best interests.

Some comments on Nigel Lawson from rather earlier in the thread. He has in fact taken part in considerable studies of global warming, and recently published a book on it, so is considered a serious commentator. Economists are generally more careful about the use of data than physical scientists, because we more regularly have difficult data with complicated statistical problems to deal with than physical scientists. So I think economists are often good people to employ to look at difficult data. But I'm biased because I am an economist. But I turned up something that did worry me. Not a scientifically valid point I know, but it is related to what I have been saying above. Reading through the wikipedia articles on his several well-known children, by chance I find a family connection to Christopher Monkton, the journalist who wrote that particularly plausible and clever collection of 100% sleight of hand trying to discredit AGW. But Lawson's particular position (like Bjorn Lomborg) seems to be that adaptation to global warming may be a rather cheaper solution than preventing it, denying the more apocalyptic predictions, so perhaps I shouldn't take the Monkton connection seriously.

Oh yes, records being broken. The thing is there are so many possible meteorological records that one can think of, so many possible categorisations of the data, that it is hardly surprising that one can find records being broken all the time; the curiosity would be if you didn't. The same phenomenon that people use to make people think that astrological star-sign is a significant predictor of something or other, when in fact it is just the expected characteristic of random numbers. As it happens, the night before last recorded the lowest ever temperature I have known in the 18 years I have lived in the area. But nearby rather lower temperatures were recorded, and they were no record. So it isn't really very significant, just the first time in 18 years there has been a particularly fortuitous coincidence of conditions at precisely my location.

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-08, 11:20 AM

The short answer is we don't know.
Despite being publicly funded bodies, NASA?Giss and Hadley Met won't reveal their methods or details of data selectivity. Despite attempts to force them to reveal them under the freedom of information laws in the UK and US.

In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.

Stroller

2009-Jan-08, 11:58 AM

In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.
And then report the readings to the NOAA, who use obscure 'adjustment techniques' inside black boxes. :lol:

Kebsis

2009-Jan-09, 11:29 PM

In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.

Well, I understand that some sort of temperature measurement device is used. What I mean is, how is the data collected and compiled? I don't claim to understand how it's done, which is why I was asking for an explanation. But to me, it seems like finding an average temperature for a planet is the type of thing that you'd get five different answers for if you got five different organizations to do it.

The first time I was made aware of this question was on an anti-global warming website, so I don't know how much veracity it has. But to a laymen like me it seems like an honest question; how can you put stock in estimates of how much damage a degree or two change in the average temperature does when it is so difficult to say for sure what the the average temperature actually is?

parejkoj

2009-Jan-10, 07:39 AM

On how global temperature is measured, the lack of an urban heat effect, etc.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Instrumental_Record_is_Not_Reliabl e
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Myth:_Warming_is_due_to_the_Urban_ Heat_Island_effect
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/temperature-record-reliability-attack.php

For those complaining about the lack of public access to the GISS code, you must not have looked hard enough:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-10, 11:01 AM

Well, I understand that some sort of temperature measurement device is used. What I mean is, how is the data collected and compiled? I don't claim to understand how it's done, which is why I was asking for an explanation. But to me, it seems like finding an average temperature for a planet is the type of thing that you'd get five different answers for if you got five different organizations to do it.

The first time I was made aware of this question was on an anti-global warming website, so I don't know how much veracity it has. But to a laymen like me it seems like an honest question; how can you put stock in estimates of how much damage a degree or two change in the average temperature does when it is so difficult to say for sure what the the average temperature actually is?

It's pretty accurate. Basically we have hundreds of weather stations across Australia with carefully calibrated thermometers and they all record maximum and minimum daily temperatures and other data. Average temperatures are just averages. There's nothing complex about it. And the Bureau of Meteorology produces annual reports like this one:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20080103.shtml

So basically we can be quite sure what the average temperature is, with quite small margains of error.

Stroller

2009-Jan-10, 01:34 PM

On how global temperature is measured, the lack of an urban heat effect, etc.

For those complaining about the lack of public access to the GISS code, you must not have looked hard enough:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
Steve McIntyre over at cimate audit (A seriously competent statistician) has been decoding and reconstructing the Giss info for quite a while. He should know better than anyone that the resources provided do not enable just anyone to reconstruct the Giss temperature series. He does however acknowledge that Giss has made an effort (however reluctantly) to make most the data and code available. There are still areas where the methods of 'adjustment' and the selectivity of stations is quite opaque.

William

2009-Jan-10, 01:52 PM

Why are you all of a sudden bringing in the Medieval Warm Period when that was not mentioned in the post I'm responding to?

William: My point is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a long term warm period that was as warm as the 20th century warming. The MWP had a cause. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the proxy climate data in addition to abrupt planetary temperature changes. There needs to be a mechanism to warm the planet to create the MWP and to cool the planet to create the Little Ice age. That mechanism cannot be CO2 as there is no mechanism to cyclically increase and decrease CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

There must be a scientific explanation for the MWP, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming.

Again, your conclusion is unjustified. 1998 is an outlier due to a strong El Nino. If you ignore 1998, you can see a steady warming trend both before and after. If you incorporate 1998 in some appropriate way, like doing five-year averaging, you see the same thing. There is no plateau in the data.

Completely untrue. 2008 does come in 10th, but all the years warmer than it occurred since 1997, so very few of them were in the 20th century. Reference. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081216/sc_mcclatchy/3124855)

William: 1998 was the warmest year in the 20th century. 1998 is not, however, warmer than the warmest year in the MWP. All years after 1998 were cooler than 1998. 2008 was the coldest year in that ten year period. To me that is a clear cooling trend.

It appears the cooling trend is continuing and accelerating as there are now record (roughly 20 year record) cold temperatures being set in multiple locations in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.

Wrong again. Arctic sea ice right now is about 2 million km^2 less than the 1979-2000 average. Reference. (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)

William: Your link is to the Arctic sea ice anomaly, not to the Antarctic sea ice which slightly less than 2 million square kilometres more than the long term average in 2008. That is the most amount of sea ice in the antarctic in 30 years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

This is a link that provides the total sea ice for the planet. Total sea ice has recovered to slightly above the long term average which would provide support the assertion that the planet is now cooling.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

If 2008 is a cooling trend, then 2009 should be significantly colder than 2008.

William

2009-Jan-10, 02:13 PM

This is a link to the satellite data that shows the ocean surface temperature. Based on the ocean surface temperatures it appears the planet is cooling.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.9.2009.gif

The planet’s 1/e response time to a step forcing change is roughly 3 to 4 years. Roughly 85% of the planet's heat energy is stored in the oceans so a measurement of ocean surface temperature is an indication of how the planet’s heat energy balance is changing.

For record cold winter temperatures to occur at high latitude locations, there must be an increase in heat loss to space. The very cold high latitude air then moves to lower latitudes were it mixes with warm moist air to create blizzards and ice storms.

Torsten

2009-Jan-10, 06:31 PM

William, what method do you use to weight the contributions of each of the colours on that chart? You do realize that the projection being used there stretches the areas at higher latitudes.

You've claimed earlier (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/80612-no-global-cooling-consensus-2.html#post1360110) that a step forcing change had occurred, and that based on the measure of arctic ice, this change had started in 1992, but that it was now recovering, presumably based on the fact that the 2008 summer minimum was not as low as in 2007, and that the winter refreezing was proceeding as usual. Since you are making the same sort of claim here, I would like you to answer the two questions I asked back then:

1. What would you have said about arctic ice if you were examining this chart (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg) in January of 1997? Keep in mind that the data point for summer 1996 is within the period you claimed was warming, and which has, in your opinion, now ended.

2. Since you claimed that the ice extent only began significantly falling in 1992, I created this chart (http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceMonthlyArea.jpg) in which the pre-1993 and post-1992 trends in ice extent are calculated separately for each month. How I did it is described in the thread linked above. I am still interested in your explanation of what this chart shows in light of your previous claim.

mugaliens

2009-Jan-10, 09:37 PM

The reason that scientists don't look at paranormal phenomena is that the field is so heavily populated with cranks and charlatans that any serious scientists risk being overlooked and dismissed as cranks and charlatans.

Exactly, as Dr. Raymond Stantz (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000519/)unfortunately discovered.

danscope

2009-Jan-11, 05:39 AM

Note from Tonto,Tarzan and Frankenstein:
Ice melt. Sea Rise. Man swim. Not good.
**********************
This interpretation from Tonto, Tarzan, and Frankenstein.

William

2009-Jan-11, 03:26 PM

William

2009-Jan-11, 03:58 PM

Torsten

2009-Jan-11, 04:57 PM

The 2008 C02 increase was 0.24 ppm. That is the smallest increase in the entire 50 year period.

As CO2 emissions in 2008 are greater or not less than other years (I would assume.) something must have changed.

One explanation would be colder ocean surface temperatures.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Suggest you look at it again. The eyed-balled peak-to-peak or trough-to-trough trend line of the chart they provide on the page does not change noticeably from prior years and should be a clue that something is amiss with the number they have posted. Look at the global value down the page.

mugaliens

2009-Jan-12, 01:22 AM

All I know is that 2006-2007 was one of the warmest winters on record. Last year it was normal. This year it's one of the coldest, and right now it's 6 deg F.

I've never seen it be 6 deg F here in Germany. In fact, I've never seen the snow outside remain on the ground for more than three days. What's out there now has been there for nearly two weeks.

I've also never heard snow here crunch as snow does when it gets this cold. That's a first, too.

True, three years do not make for a statistically significant trend... But they do give pause for thought, and if atomospheric CO2 drops next year, I'll consider that a smoking gun. It might not be the right gun, or the right culprit, but there's a little too much "coincidence" to dismiss it out of hand without taking a much closer look at the devil behind the details.

William

2009-Jan-12, 01:51 AM

Suggest you look at it again. The eyed-balled peak-to-peak or trough-to-trough trend line of the chart they provide on the page does not change noticeably from prior years and should be a clue that something is amiss with the number they have posted. Look at the global value down the page.

Hi Torsten,

The graphs are for two locations. The first chart is for Mauna Loa. That chart does show the 2008 C02 increase to be 0.24 ppm in the right hand chart summary, for 2008. The 0.24 ppm increase is consistent with the Mauna Loa chart and is the lowest increase at Mauna Loa for the 50 year period.

The second chart summary states C02 level averaged over different ocean surface locations.

That chart shows the CO2 increase to be 1.82 ppm, however, C02 moves in and out of the ocean depending on the ocean surface temperature so that number is not representative of the average C02 in the atmosphere. (i.e. By moving to regions where the ocean is warming there will be high levels of CO2 at the ocean surface so there are two variables rather than one.)

I believe the Mauna Loa location is an unbiased statistically accurate point for long term measurement of atmospheric CO2. Based on the Mauna Loa data the 2008 increase of 0.24 ppm is the smallest increase over the 50 year period.

Your thoughts?

Comment:
I will drop a note at one of the Climate Blog to confirm the Mauna Loa data is correct and to see if I can get more information as to causes.

When the planet warms CO2 levels drop (say for example the 8200 year BP abrupt cooling of 2C) and when it warms CO2 levels increase.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

William

2009-Jan-12, 02:43 AM

This is further to my last comment.

It appears there will be more discussion concerning the Mauna Loa very small C02 increase for 2008. (0.24 ppm increase for 2008 as compared to roughly 1 to 2 ppm, typical.)

The writer of this blog has notice the Mauna Loa CO2 quoted increase for 2008 is 0.24 ppm, the smallest increase in the entire 50 year period.

Included in the blog is a graph that shows how the solubility of CO2 in water changes with temperature. If the planet is cooling CO2 levels should drop.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/mauna-loa-co2-record-posts-smallest-yearly-gain-in-its-history/

Comment:
The actual increase for 2008 may be less than 0.24 ppm.

It appears the person that did the Mauna Loa CO2 chart calculation used the November, 2008 CO2 value for December, 2008 (See link below from NASA that shows the data by month).

As December was much colder than November in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere the December, 2008 CO2 atmospheric value should be less than November.

This is a link to the by month data.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

This the by year data for Mauna Loa. See how the largest increase in CO2 coincides with the warmest year, 1998.

year ppm/yr
1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73
1964 0.29
1965 0.98
1966 1.23
1967 0.75
1968 1.02
1969 1.34
1970 1.02
1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10
1976 0.91
1977 2.09
1978 1.31
1979 1.68
1980 1.80
1981 1.43
1982 0.72
1983 2.16
1984 1.37
1985 1.24
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.25
2004 1.62
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
2008 0.24

flynjack1

2009-Jan-12, 04:13 AM

Excuse me folks for interjecting however I felt the following germaine to the discussion. This article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm

seems to make a sound statistical argument for recent warming trend, however the conculsion nearly made me cough up my coffee. That such a conclusion should be published with the content of the study is indiciative of the problem with the reasoning of the AGW crowd.:

"Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of greenhouse gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming“, says Zorita in summary.

How one can attribute warming to CO2/greenhouse gasses based on the simple fact that it appears to be happening is totally beyond me! I dont doubt that human activity contributes to the greenhouse gases however I am skeptical that it is the only or even the major forcing agent. Certainly this study does nothing to contribute to that end of the argument.

parejkoj

2009-Jan-12, 04:27 AM

Torsten

2009-Jan-12, 04:35 AM

Hi William

My thoughts? That having this discussion is unreal. I know the chart is for two locations. For years they track each other nicely, doing pretty much the same thing. In 2008 the global chart rises as it has before, growing by about 2 ppm, but Mauna Loa suddenly stops? And you think this enormous change in relative behaviour has something to do with the oceans?

Here's the chart as it appeared today:
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/co2_trend_mlo_displayed_20090111.png

Take a look at the last black point and the last red point. Does it not make more sense that the December value is simply incorrect given that there appears to be a value completely missing from the chart?

Take a look at the 2008 value in this file on annual means for Mauna Loa:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

It's recorded as 385.45, and for 2007 it is 383.71, for a difference of 1.74.

It looks to me like a problem in the data handling. And yes, it is annoying.

That chart shows the CO2 increase to be 1.82 ppm, however, C02 moves in and out of the ocean depending on the ocean surface temperature so that number is not representative of the average C02 in the atmosphere. (i.e. By moving to regions where the ocean is warming there will be high levels of CO2 at the ocean surface so there are two variables rather than one.)

I have charted the global monthly mean for marine surface sites and the Mauna Loa monthly means for the period January 2005 to November 2008. There is nothing in 2008 to indicate that such a huge difference should show up in December.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Global_Marine_vs_Mauna_Loa.jpg

I take it that my questions asked earlier will never be answered.

flynjack1

2009-Jan-12, 04:48 AM

Because that study did not address the cause of the warming, only the fact that the Earth is warming? The quote from the author at the end is simply to state that their paper agrees with the IPCC results. If you are skeptical of the power of CO2 forcing, try reading the latest IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm) or a blog written by active climate scientists (http://realclimate.org).

Because the study implied in its conclusion what was causing the warming (not addressed in the study) versus the fact that warming was shown to be statistically valid. I was always taught that ones conclusion should be consistent with the evidence supported in the study at hand. It worries me that this fails to offend the sensibilities of scientist.

parejkoj

2009-Jan-12, 04:55 PM

Because the study implied in its conclusion what was causing the warming (not addressed in the study) versus the fact that warming was shown to be statistically valid.

No, the press release concluded with a quote from one of the authors. Here's the actual study, in Geophysical Research Letters (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL036228.shtml) (which my institution apparently does not have access to, so I can't quote from it). If you want to know what the study concluded, you'll have to read the study, not a press release about it. See the difference?

orionjim

2009-Jan-12, 05:28 PM

No, the press release concluded with a quote from one of the authors. Here's the actual study, in Geophysical Research Letters (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL036228.shtml) (which my institution apparently does not have access to, so I can't quote from it).
...

You can find the paper here:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/zorita08grl.pdf

...
If you want to know what the study concluded, you'll have to read the study, not a press release about it. See the difference?

No!

Jim

parejkoj

2009-Jan-13, 02:29 AM

You can find the paper here:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/zorita08grl.pdf

Thanks for sharing the link. This one appears to be an oddity: the claims of the paper are actually *stronger* than the claims of the press release. Also, it's a nifty statistical analysis.

As to your:

If you want to know what the study concluded, you'll have to read the study, not a press release about it. See the difference?
No!

I'm not sure whether you are being facetious or not, so: things that are claimed in a press-release cannot be equated to claims in a peer-reviewed paper.

Torsten

2009-Jan-13, 03:24 AM

Here you go William, all fixed!

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

They are reporting the 2008 C02 increase measured at Mauna Loa was 1.58 ppm.

William

2009-Jan-13, 03:46 AM

Here you go William, all fixed!

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

They are reporting the 2008 C02 increase measured at Mauna Loa was 1.58 ppm.

Thanks Torsten. I was worried CO2 might fall.

What is the solution to the blue in this display?

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.9.2009.gif

Stroller

2009-Jan-13, 09:11 AM

Here you go William, all fixed!

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

They are reporting the 2008 C02 increase measured at Mauna Loa was 1.58 ppm.
The lowest annual increase for 15 years.

Torsten

2009-Jan-13, 04:03 PM

So 1996 and 1999 didn't happen, and 2001 and 2004 don't matter.

And we'll ignore that the global values from marine surface sites were lower in 2006, 2004, 2000, 1999, 1996 and 1994.

orionjim

2009-Jan-13, 05:09 PM

…
I'm not sure whether you are being facetious or not, so: things that are claimed in a press-release cannot be equated to claims in a peer-reviewed paper.

Yes I was being facetious based on a quick scan of their paper. I took the time today to read the paper and I apologize to you and the authors of the paper. They do bring up several good points. I have always assumed weather was driven by different factors and never really thought that the pattern we’ve seen in the past 17-20 years could be random. Their look at autoregressive, long term memory or as I think about it, even short term memory models, all of which could produce the trend we’ve seen in the past 20 years.

While the two models they covered in their paper turned out to have a very low probability of being the cause, the thought process they went through made sense. More than the press release indicated.

Jim

parejkoj

2009-Jan-15, 07:43 AM

On the subject of media coverage of climate... (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/)

flynjack1

2009-Jan-17, 04:49 PM

Sorry Gentlemen for the late response, as I have been out of town, and my hotel was compelled to charge a ridiculous fee for Internet access. In any case I will have to agree after having read the paper that the authors conclusions were not as portrayed by the press release. My bad for not having been suspicious of the press release in the first place. I stand corrected.

ArgoNavis

2009-Jan-18, 11:29 AM

Again, your conclusion is unjustified. 1998 is an outlier due to a strong El Nino. If you ignore 1998, you can see a steady warming trend both before and after. If you incorporate 1998 in some appropriate way, like doing five-year averaging, you see the same thing. There is no plateau in the data.

Rather, the temperatures appear to be not "plateauing" but diving, which is supported by the anecdotal evidence from the local weather:

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

Wrong again. Arctic sea ice right now is about 2 million km^2 less than the 1979-2000 average. Reference. (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)

I am not sure what is actually proves - that because something is below an arbitrary average it is about to disappear?

There appears to be no downward (or upward) trend (http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic).

Do you think arctic ice should always be at the historic average? or maybe you would expect some divergence from the mean?

You also seem to be ignoring the record white stuff at the southern pole, and the refusal of the Antarctic (http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/soe/display_indicator.cfm?soe_id=1) to warm.

dmr81

2009-Jan-18, 12:06 PM

Rather, the temperatures appear to be not "plateauing" but diving
No they do not. The temperature data is noisy. It is inevitable that there will be short periods in which the noise hides the trend, as demonstrated here (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/).

which is supported by the anecdotal evidence from the local weather
Short term local weather does not tell you anything about climate, as has been explained to you many times before.

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin
The source of that graph is not, as it claims, the University of Alabama at Huntsville. No serious researcher would use a high order polynomial fit for noisy data like that. Using a high order polynomial fit to noisy data only emphasizes the noise over the trend, especially at the end, where the recent La Nina caused a slight drop. This is compounded by the fact that it does not include the last few months of data, in which it returned to the level of the linear trend after the La Nina faded. See here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php) for more details.

[re: arctic ice] I am not sure what is actually proves - that because something is below an arbitrary average it is about to disappear?
Let's see what the experts think about it.

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. While above the record minimum set on September 16, 2007, this year further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/091608.html

This has been explained to you several times before. Why do you always ignore the responses and simply post up the same false claims again and again?

There appears to be no downward (or upward) trend
Let's see what a professional statistician says about that.

Both extent and area show an unambiguous decline. Linear regression indicates that the average rate of decline since satellite observations begain is 51,000 km^2/yr for extent and 49,000 km^2/yr for area. And yes, the decline is statistically significant. In fact the decline is demonstrably nonlinear, and the rate of decline is faster now than it was earlier.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/northern-ice/#more-1189

This has been explained to you several times before. Why do you always ignore the responses and simply post up the same false claims again and again?

You also seem to be ignoring the record white stuff at the southern pole, and the refusal of the Antarctic to warm.
Wrong again.

The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".

While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

This has been explained to you several times before. Why do you always ignore the responses and simply post up the same false claims again and again?

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-18, 03:35 PM

A single year does not make a trend, but a trend does start with a single year.

This is a link to the news reports concerning record cold temperatures in the UK and and Europe. I believe the source of the cold weather is very cold temperatures in the high latitude Northern regions. For example Alaskan interior in January was around -50C. Siberia minus -60C. The very cold air then moves south to create record cold winter temperatures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7815773.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/UKs-Cold-Snap-Sees-Sea-Freeze-Over-Britain-Now-Colder-Than-Greenland/Article/200901115199114?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15199114_UKs_Cold_Snap_Sees_Sea_Freeze _Over%3A_Britain_Now_Colder_Than_Greenland

Cold winter in UK. A small coast region of the southern ocean froze. First time in decades.

Water mains froze. UK government supplies heating supplement to pensioners, first time ever, to help pensioners pay for heating.

Actually you probably can't identify an exact turning point in a noisy data sequence, so I don't think a trend does begin with a single year.

Although several places in the UK have had their lowest temperatures since records began, those records aren't very long, and there are hundreds of places measuring temperatures in the country. Looking at the average temperature across the whole country, no records have been broken. At a national average level, only the coldest temperature for about 6 years was recorded.

Whilst several places in the USA are currently recording record low temperatures, again in rather brief record sequences, out of hundreds of places where temperatures are recorded, other places in the same country were breaking records for their highest ever recorded January temperature on exactly the same day! The most extraordinary thing drawn to my attention was how the temperature changed from about -40C to about +10C within 24 hours in some places in Alaska.

Whilst Europe and the eastern USA have been colder than average recently, most other places in the world have been warmer than average recently. The places which have recently been unusually cold are only a small proportion of the whole world.

There are so many temperature records available to be broken, so many places where temperature is measured, such short temperature records, that even in a warming trend statistical noise demands that record low temperatures should still be regularly achieved in various places. If the world as a whole gets warmer, but the mechanism which makes NW Europe currently so anomalously warm in comparison to its latitudinal average, the gulf stream, changes, NW Europe will say "warming, what warming, no warming around here".

In the 18 years that I have lived at this address and a nearby one, until a few days ago, the lowest temperature that I have experienced occured one night in, would you believe it, mid-April 2003, not even in winter, and a year in which many maximum temperature records were set. The right combination of circumstances, and overnight temperatures can drop, drop, drop, even when it is warm in the day. Remember deserts. UK is not normally desert-like, but it was a bit more desert-like in 2003, and overnight minimums were actually lower than average. But plainly in the last 18 years that combination of circumstances has not succeeded in occurring in Dec-Feb, when you would be more likely to expect it to be cold than in April. It therefore no surprise that eventually that 18-year record was eventually broken by about 1.5 degrees C one day in early January a few days ago. Even then, it was only very cold for a few hours, and in fact it occured towards the end of a cold snap that came to a very sudden end within hours of recording the minimum. Although I have plenty of plants in my garden rated to only about -6 or -7C (a luxury we are permitted in many parts of Britain), a very brief, very dry, snow-covered minimum of -8.5C, appears not to have done them any harm. We've scarcely had a frost since then. Yesterday was a wonderfully warm day for a January.

William

2009-Jan-18, 04:09 PM

Actually you probably can't identify an exact turning point in a noisy data sequence, so I don't think a trend does begin with a single year.

Although several places in the UK have had their lowest temperatures since records began, those records aren't very long, and there are hundreds of places measuring temperatures in the country. Looking at the average temperature across the whole country, no records have been broken. At a national average level, only the coldest temperature for about 6 years was recorded.

Whilst several places in the USA are currently recording record low temperatures, again in rather brief record sequences, out of hundreds of places where temperatures are recorded, other places in the same country were breaking records for their highest ever recorded January temperature on exactly the same day! The most extraordinary thing drawn to my attention was how the temperature changed from about -40C to about +10C within 24 hours in some places in Alaska.

Whilst Europe and the eastern USA have been colder than average recently, most other places in the world have been warmer than average recently. The places which have recently been unusually cold are only a small proportion of the whole world.

There are so many temperature records available to be broken, so many places where temperature is measured, such short temperature records, that even in a warming trend statistical noise demands that record low temperatures should still be regularly achieved in various places. If the world as a whole gets warmer, but the mechanism which makes NW Europe currently so anomalously warm in comparison to its latitudinal average, the gulf stream, changes, NW Europe will say "warming, what warming, no warming around here".

(Next comments cut. See link for full comment.)

Ivan,

The Gulf Stream is not the reason for the warm winters in the UK and Europe. As noted in this article 90% of the reason for the warm European winters is the west to east jet stream. Same reason why the West coast of the US is warmer than the east coast of the US.

The statement that the Gulf Stream is a first order climate driver is a myth started by Wally Broecker. As this article and paper by Seager shows there is no scientific basis for that myth.

The ocean warms in the summer because summer is warmer than winter. The heat energy due to the more direct sun in the summer and longer days is more than an order of magnitude greater than the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift current heat.

What does warm Europe is the Rossby wave that is created when the jet stream moves across the Rocky Mountains in the US. That creates a sinusoidal wave in the jet stream which when it reaches the coast of Europe creates a Southern wind that pulls air from the Southern Atlantic Ocean which is warmer than the North Atlantic.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Fres%2Fdiv %2Focp%2Fgs%2Fpubs%2FSeager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf&ei=C1BzSdewN4zaNJar9Rs&usg=AFQjCNGTVy6rPxnyibO3bpUGqsCmCYUF4A&sig2=cBgAlQD2BHlIQH7S0YhUUQ

William

2009-Jan-18, 04:24 PM

Actually you probably can't identify an exact turning point in a noisy data sequence, so I don't think a trend does begin with a single year.

Although several places in the UK have had their lowest temperatures since records began, those records aren't very long, and there are hundreds of places measuring temperatures in the country. Looking at the average temperature across the whole country, no records have been broken. At a national average level, only the coldest temperature for about 6 years was recorded.

Whilst several places in the USA are currently recording record low temperatures, again in rather brief record sequences, out of hundreds of places where temperatures are recorded, other places in the same country were breaking records for their highest ever recorded January temperature on exactly the same day! The most extraordinary thing drawn to my attention was how the temperature changed from about -40C to about +10C within 24 hours in some places in Alaska.

Ivan,

Cooling trends all begin with a single year when the planet's temperature drops. It is not obvious at year one that this is the beginning of a sever planetary cooling period rather than "noise."

The term "noise" is used by some groups when when the planet cools. When it warms some groups use the term "global warming". Abrupt planetary cooling requires a cause. We will have data in the next year or two which will resolve what caused the 20th century warming.

There is now direct observational evidence that the planet is starting to cool. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere have cooled based on the most rapid increase in sea ice in the measured period.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. …

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. ….

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

dmr81

2009-Jan-18, 04:57 PM

There is now direct observational evidence that the planet is starting to cool.
No there is not (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/).

Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere have cooled based on the most rapid increase in sea ice in the measured period.
I have explained to you many times before that the global average temperature is not inferred from the ice extent, it is measured. The temperature measurements do not show any evidence of cooling.

As for the ice, you have made these false claims about it over and over again. Each time you have been shown to be wrong. Why do you always ignore the responses and simply repeat the same false claims over and over again?

Arctic Ice:

Both extent and area show an unambiguous decline. Linear regression indicates that the average rate of decline since satellite observations begain is 51,000 km^2/yr for extent and 49,000 km^2/yr for area. And yes, the decline is statistically significant. In fact the decline is demonstrably nonlinear, and the rate of decline is faster now than it was earlier.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/northern-ice/

Antarctic Ice:

Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834
Why do you think you think there are no scientific sources making the same claims as this article? Did you even look at what they did? You do not determine a trend by cherry picking two points and drawing a line between them. :rolleyes:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/

Torsten

2009-Jan-18, 05:58 PM

Rather, the temperatures appear to be not "plateauing" but diving, which is supported by the anecdotal evidence from the local weather:

Do you understand what was done to produce that chart? Any idea at all?

I am not sure what is actually proves - that because something is below an arbitrary average it is about to disappear?

There appears to be no downward (or upward) trend (http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic).

It is hard to believe that you are serious. The charts you link show 2007 and 2008, as well as the first few days of 2009, all of which are below the 1979-2007 average. And that choice of presentation, limited to the yearly cycle, completely hides the trend that is clear in a chart displaying a multiyear time series (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg). (Ice area and extent charts with 1979-2007 average linked by ArgoNavis as they appeared today are archived here (http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/ssmi1_ice_area_small20090118.png) and here (http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/ssmi1_ice_ext_small20090118.png).)

I remember that several times in the past, when the issue of arctic ice was raised, you responded (http://www.bautforum.com/1261504-post3.html) by posting this link (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) to the global coverage. Why didn't you do that today? (How the chart appears today archived here (http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/global_daily_ice_area_withtrend2009.jpg).)

I'm not holding my breath for a reply though, and I expect more of the same to be posted by ArgoNavis.

Torsten

2009-Jan-18, 06:25 PM

The term "noise" is used by some groups when when the planet cools. When it warms some groups use the term "global warming". Abrupt planetary cooling requires a cause. We will have data in the next year or two which will resolve what caused the 20th century warming.

Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy
Science 10 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

and in a news article in that same issue, Richard Kerr wrote this about the paper:

"The Hadley group tested the usefulness of their new prediction model by "hindcasting" the climate of two past decades. Starting from the observed distribution of ocean heat content, the model outperformed its own forecasts that lacked observed initial conditions. Errors in predicting global temperature declined by 20% or 36%, depending on the type of error. The model successfully predicted the warming of El Niño and the effect of unusually warm or cold waters around the world. An actual forecast starting in June 2005 correctly predicted that natural variability--the appearance of cooler water in the tropical Pacific and a resistance to warming in the Southern Ocean--would offset greenhouse warming until now. But beyond 2008, warming sets in with a vengeance. "At least half of the 5 years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record," the Hadley Centre group writes"

orionjim

2009-Jan-18, 08:08 PM

Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy
Science 10 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799

Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

and in a news article in that same issue, Richard Kerr wrote this about the paper:

"The Hadley group tested the usefulness of their new prediction model by "hindcasting" the climate of two past decades. ...

And how is this any different than what William is saying?

I’ve attached a chart with made up data that fits the last sentence in their abstract. See bold in the quote.

It sounds like they a saying what many skeptics are saying.

BTW, hindcasting is easy, predicting the future is much more difficult.

I couldn’t find a free copy of their paper, so I didn’t read it. If you did, can you tell me what the difference in internal variability is from the GISS data with the trend removed?

Thanks,

Jim

Torsten

2009-Jan-19, 12:49 AM

And how is this any different than what William is saying?

Argh. I've posted that abstract and quote several times before, and then added "We'll see if they are right in a few years", or something to that effect. This article struck me as being an actual blunt, no-dodging-possible, falsifiable prediction. My posting it again was meant to show William that people have worked on this problem and tried to incorporate things that are known to happen on shorter time scales - something between weather and climate - and which could account for the observations that concern him. As I understand it, variations in upper ocean heat content play a big role in it.

But I don't think William is referring to short term internal variability. My sense of everything he has written is that he is looking for evidence that the Earth is either in a "current very long term cooling period" (http://www.bautforum.com/1346094-post52.html) or is entering a period of profound, long term cooling (posts on solar activity, suggestions that March 2009 temperatures could be like those in the 1880s). This is much different than the Hadley group concluding that temperatures will ultimately rise despite the internal variability holding temperatures back for now.

William uses any slight example of variability that favours his viewpoint as support for it (as people are prone to do . . .). For example, he has cited last summer's arctic ice minimum being 8% above the 2007 minimum as an indication that the planet has turned a corner towards colder temperatures. I have asked him two or three times, including in this very thread, to tell me what his position would have been if it were January 1997 instead of 2009. He ignores the question.

I’ve attached a chart with made up data that fits the last sentence in their abstract. See bold in the quote.

Yes, a chart of their predictions is needed see how it differs from your example.

It sounds like they a saying what many skeptics are saying.

Except that the skeptics don't end up with higher temperatures a decade out.

BTW, hindcasting is easy, predicting the future is much more difficult.

No argument with that - I've had my own frustrating experience with datasets trying to make predictions from simple models. The authors of that paper admit to regional instances where their decadal model had larger errors than their base model.

I couldn’t find a free copy of their paper, so I didn’t read it. If you did, can you tell me what the difference in internal variability is from the GISS data with the trend removed?

I don't see a statement of the internal variability after detrending, and I'm guessing that it is because the trends are non-linear and the result of inputs that change at different rates, for example, solar radiation, anthropogenic sources of CO2 and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, ocean circulation, etc. They state that the improvements in "DePreSys" (the new model) relative to NoAssim (the older version) on decadal time scales result mainly from initializing ocean heat.

This link (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol317/issue5839/images/large/317_796_F4.jpeg) to one of their figures should work for non-subscribers and will give you a sense of what they've found with this model. The associated caption includes these statements:
"Globally averaged annual mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1979–2001) forecast by DePreSys starting from June 2005.
"Also shown are DePreSys and ensemble mean NoAssim (blue curves) hindcasts starting from June 1985 and June 1995, together with observations from HadCRUT2vOA (black curve)." (I'm unsure of copyright here, so am keeping quotes to a minimum.)

I am very curious how this will work out, but what if it proves to be accurate?

William

2009-Jan-19, 03:52 AM

No there is not (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/).

Arctic Ice:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/northern-ice/

Antarctic Ice:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/cold-hard-facts/

Besides name calling with childish happy faces you have no arguments and do not understand the science.

Sea ice increased Winter 2008/2009 in both hemispheres.

You provided a link to data from Winter 2007/2008 and note sea ice decreased which is correct but I provide a link to current data, not data from a year ago.

Sea ice increased in Winter 2008/2009.

That is a fact. There are record cold temperatures in both Northern and Southern Hemisphere. As the 1/e time constant for the planet's ocean is roughly 4 years and 85% of the planets heat energy is stored in the first 150m of the ocean the step change will take some time to reach the new cold equilibrium.

As I noted above the planet was as warm as it is currently, during the period of the Medieval Warm period. What caused the Medieval warm period? Note there are cycles or warm periods followed by cold periods.

The Medieval Warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age. What caused the little ice age?

Lastly you provide a link to the Antarctic data. The Antarctic (continent) cooled rather than warmed in the later half of the 20th century.

That is a fact. Real Climate attempts to explain the cooling with a hypothesis that there was increased winds that stopped warm air from moving toward the Antarctic continent.

If that was true the ocean about the Antarctic would have warmed rather than cooled.

danscope

2009-Jan-19, 05:48 AM

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-19, 07:27 AM

As I noted above the planet was as warm as it is currently, during the period of the Medieval Warm period.
Then why are thousands of years old glaciers melting only now (for example Thompson et al., 2006 (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf), Koch et al., 2007 (http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/ho_2007.pdf), and Menounos et al., 2009 (http://web.unbc.ca/~menounos/www/Menounos_2009.pdf)), why didn't they melt during the MWP?

Another thing is that there seems to be very little evidence supporting the claim that MWP was as warm as today, see here for example (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html).

The Antarctic (continent) cooled rather than warmed in the later half of the 20th century.

That is a fact.

Monaghan et al. (2008) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml) find that between 1960 and 2005 there was positive, but statistically insignificant trend. Between 1970 and 2005 they find weakly negative trend, but again after 1992:

However, the SAM trends have leveled off since the mid-1990s, and temperature trends calculated for 1992–2005 indicate statistically insignificant warming over nearly all of Antarctica.

So, how is it a fact that "The Antarctic (continent) cooled rather than warmed in the later half of the 20th century"?

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-19, 11:20 AM

Ivan,

The Gulf Stream is not the reason for the warm winters in the UK and Europe. As noted in this article 90% of the reason for the warm European winters is the west to east jet stream. Same reason why the West coast of the US is warmer than the east coast of the US.

The statement that the Gulf Stream is a first order climate driver is a myth started by Wally Broecker. As this article and paper by Seager shows there is no scientific basis for that myth.

I have in fact read precisely the article you quote, and keep a reference to it in my favourites.

It depends what you consider anomalous. I am perfectly aware that the mere fact of being on the west rather than the east of a continent at temperate latitudes makes a bigger difference than the Gulf Stream. I consider the W/E of a continent effect to be normal. But the Gulf Stream does carry a very large amount of heat to NW Europe, and we would be rather colder without it, especially in Western Norway.

Here's some quotes from that article.

"Like many other myths, this one rests on a strand of truth."
"The Gulf Stream indeed contributes to Europe's warmth "

I think the 90% figure is one you just made up and overstates it.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-19, 11:33 AM

Ivan,

Cooling trends all begin with a single year when the planet's temperature drops. It is not obvious at year one that this is the beginning of a sever planetary cooling period rather than "noise."
Each year, at temperate latitudes, there is a spring warming trend followed by an autumn cooling trend. I challenge you to identify, using statistical analysis, from a sequence of daily temperatures at a typical temperate locations, to be able to identify the precise day when the turning point occurred, with sufficient statistical confidence that we know it is precisely that day. In a sequence, like daylength, where there is no noise, we can do that. But not in a noisy sequence like temperature.

orionjim

2009-Jan-19, 03:59 PM

...
But I don't think William is referring to short term internal variability. My sense of everything he has written is that he is looking for evidence that the Earth is either in a "current very long term cooling period" (http://www.bautforum.com/1346094-post52.html) or is entering a period of profound, long term cooling (posts on solar activity, suggestions that March 2009 temperatures could be like those in the 1880s). This is much different than the Hadley group concluding that temperatures will ultimately rise despite the internal variability holding temperatures back for now.
...

Hey Torsten,

It finally dawned to me that they must be factoring in the effects of El Niño and La Niña. That would make their hindcasting mean something. But what concerns me is they could end up muddying up the waters on interpreting the GISS data. If you look at the GISS five year moving average it has any internal cycles in it and looks pretty good. If you look at the variation in this data since the satellites that measure the Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) in 1978 and the added sea buoys added in the late 80’s and early 90’s you will see a dramatic reduction in variation in the GISS moving average chart. This, I think, is because of the added number of data points going into calculation of the yearly average.

With that said all one needs to do is calculate the 6 sigma limits on the 5 year moving average since 1990 and use these limits to see if a change has happened. The limits would need to be on the same slope as the moving average. It would be a legitimate way to detect a change and I think in a roundabout way is what William is trying to get at. The point is you can detect a true change in five years or less (depending on the amount of change.

There needs to be a defined way to declare a change has or has not happened. I have not seen anything like this, but it needs to be done. People sitting around and arguing about it will never work. There are sound statistical methods to detect a change.

Jim

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-19, 04:01 PM

Hey, William, When chunks of ice the size of the State of Rhode Island continue to fall off the Antarctic ice shelves on a regular basis, it becomes clear to the most casual observer that the place is having a melting trend, and not cooling.
Jack Nicholson

I am not taking a position here.

Care must be taken describing causal mechanisms for an dynamic ice sheet.

Factors include:

Snowfall amounts upice (provides gravity driven pressure to achieve equilibrium)

Isostatic adjustment at the land water interface (or any tectonic activity)

Water temperature and flow pattern (upwelling and overturn; in some cases wind driven) at the foreshore

Air temperature (cold causes expansion and cracking; warmth aids in flow rate)

Land ice interface (wet subglacial or dry subglacial contact and landform makeup; granitic outcrops or soft sedimentary)

A large ice sheet will be affected by these factors and more, so I suggest it is risky to oversimplify any observed single event.

Torsten

2009-Jan-19, 04:30 PM

There needs to be a defined way to declare a change has or has not happened. I have not seen anything like this, but it needs to be done.

Hi Jim:

I haven't taken the time to try to understand this paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/14889.full#abstract-1), but I think it addresses this topic.

One of these days. . . .

Klausnh

2009-Jan-19, 04:41 PM

Ivan,

Cooling trends all begin with a single year when the planet's temperature drops. It is not obvious at year one that this is the beginning of a sever planetary cooling period rather than "noise."

The term "noise" is used by some groups when when the planet cools. When it warms some groups use the term "global warming". Abrupt planetary cooling requires a cause. We will have data in the next year or two which will resolve what caused the 20th century warming.

There is now direct observational evidence that the planet is starting to cool. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere have cooled based on the most rapid increase in sea ice in the measured period.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpgArctic Research Center, University of Illinois response to DailyTEch article:

"Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent
or area."

PDF link (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf)

William

2009-Jan-19, 07:52 PM

Each year, at temperate latitudes, there is a spring warming trend followed by an autumn cooling trend. I challenge you to identify, using statistical analysis, from a sequence of daily temperatures at a typical temperate locations, to be able to identify the precise day when the turning point occurred, with sufficient statistical confidence that we know it is precisely that day. In a sequence, like daylength, where there is no noise, we can do that. But not in a noisy sequence like temperature.

The bulk ocean temperature (top 150m) is not noisy. As noted the article linked to below the bulk ocean temperature shows starting in around 2002 a gradual cooling.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf

Comment:
In the last 6 years there has been a marked increase in low level clouds and curiously an increase in high level clouds which helped to off set the increase in low level clouds. I would expect a reduction in high level clouds, based on past planetary temperature changes. High level clouds warm the planet. Low level clouds cool it. I am not sure what is modulating high level clouds. Perhaps the reason has something to do with the shrinking ionosphere.

William

2009-Jan-19, 07:59 PM

I have in fact read precisely the article you quote, and keep a reference to it in my favourites.

It depends what you consider anomalous. I am perfectly aware that the mere fact of being on the west rather than the east of a continent at temperate latitudes makes a bigger difference than the Gulf Stream. I consider the W/E of a continent effect to be normal. But the Gulf Stream does carry a very large amount of heat to NW Europe, and we would be rather colder without it, especially in Western Norway.

Here's some quotes from that article.

"Like many other myths, this one rests on a strand of truth."
"The Gulf Stream indeed contributes to Europe's warmth "

I think the 90% figure is one you just made up and overstates it.

Ivan,

You need to read to the end of the article.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1

The article's sub title is "The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth"

...But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic…

danscope

2009-Jan-19, 08:12 PM

I am not taking a position here.

Care must be taken describing causal mechanisms for an dynamic ice sheet.

Factors include:

Snowfall amounts upice (provides gravity driven pressure to achieve equilibrium)

Isostatic adjustment at the land water interface (or any tectonic activity)

Water temperature and flow pattern (upwelling and overturn; in some cases wind driven) at the foreshore

Air temperature (cold causes expansion and cracking; warmth aids in flow rate)

Land ice interface (wet subglacial or dry subglacial contact and landform makeup; granitic outcrops or soft sedimentary)

A large ice sheet will be affected by these factors and more, so I suggest it is risky to oversimplify any observed single event.

Hi, I have to agree with you. I believe the evidence is heavily weighted in the direction of warmer.
Best regards, Dan

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-19, 08:42 PM

Hi, I have to agree with you. I believe the evidence is heavily weighted in the direction of warmer.
Best regards, Dan

The Holocene warming continues, so of course it has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age.

orionjim

2009-Jan-20, 12:23 AM

Hi Jim:

I haven't taken the time to try to understand this paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/14889.full#abstract-1), but I think it addresses this topic.

One of these days. . . .

Yes, that’s it; but it’s not nearly as complicated as they make it sound.

Jim

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-20, 11:50 AM

Ivan,

You need to read to the end of the article.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1

The article's sub title is "The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth"
You sound like Graham Hancock, who, when a geologist dived 3 times to an underwater rock formation and denied Hancock's claim that it was human-formed, said that he needed to dive many more times to understand it. Of course I read to the end of the article, and it doesn't alter the fact they admit a material contribution from ocean heat transport (OHT). 90% still doesn't appear. The sub-title is journalistic shorthand for a more complex message, namely that the Gulf Stream is not, as commonly thought, the most important reason. But it does have an admitted and significant contribution. You yourself admitted a 10% (100%-90%) contribution from the Gulf Stream, which you still haven't sourced.

If we go to Seager's original article
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf
and look at figure 9, which shows the temperature contribution of OHT (ocean heat transport) to warming the North Atlantic, we find that the British Isles lie between the 3C and 6C contours, touching the 6C contour in the north. So if the total amount of winter warming is 15-20C, we find that the contribution of OHT to the local warming in the vicinity of the British Isles is 20-40%, not the 10% you mentioned.

So the British Isles would be cooled substantially if ocean heat transport fails, more especially Scotland, and also Iceland and Norway. The amount is substantial in comparison to forecasts of global warming.

Yes, westerly coasts are going to remain a lot warmer than easterly coasts even if ocean heat transport stops. And many parts of NW Europe probably have more to thank the Rocky Mountains for than the Gulf Stream. But there is something important and extra coming from the ocean, even for England, and more especially in the case Scotland, Norway and Iceland. The Seager article specifically notes that in the case of places like northern Norway and Iceland, the ocean provides more than 50% of the warming.

Warren Platts

2009-Jan-20, 02:20 PM

As I noted above the planet was as warm as it is currently, during the period of the Medieval Warm period. What caused the Medieval warm period? Note there are cycles or warm periods followed by cold periods.

The Medieval Warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age. What caused the little ice age?Earlier in this thread I had half-jokingly suggested that the way to stop global warming is to induce a global economic depression that would drastically reduce the demand for fossil fuels. But it was only a half-joke because past drops in CO2 are correlated with economic depressions caused by pandemics--outbreaks of disease that kill from 25% to 90% of the human population. Thus to answer your questions, the Medieval Warm period was caused by massive deforestation. The Doomsday Book commissioned by William the Conqueror reports the results of a survey of England showing that 90% of the land was deforested by the 11th century. Then the Black Death hit, causing mass abandonment of farmland and reduced economic activity in general. The resulting drop in CO2 then caused the Little Ice Age. When economic activity and deforestation resumed, the Little Ice Age ended.

Probably, the reason we don't see more of an uptrend in warmer temperatures is that we're overdue for a good old fashioned Big Ice Age. In other words, we're running as fast as we can in order to stay in the same spot. If humans were ever to stop pumping out CO2, it wouldn't be long before snow fields in northern Canada started building into full-fledged glaciers. So we need to be cautious when it comes to proposing regulations for reducing CO2 outputs. In other words, human-caused global warming is real, but the alternative could be much worse.

HOW DID HUMANS FIRST ALTER GLOBAL CLIMATE? By: Ruddiman, William E., Scientific American, March, 2005, Vol. 292, Issue 3. (http://www.hawaii.edu/geog_mr/ssci250online/11-climate/ruddiman.htm)

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-20, 03:24 PM

So, agriculture returned and then the cold in Europe ended? Huh...what??

Warren Platts

2009-Jan-20, 07:19 PM

So, agriculture returned and then the cold in Europe ended? Huh...what??Yeah, that's right.

William

2009-Jan-20, 07:30 PM

...Of course I read to the end of the article, and it doesn't alter the fact they admit a material contribution from ocean heat transport (OHT). 90% still doesn't appear. The sub-title is journalistic shorthand for a more complex message, namely that the Gulf Stream is not, as commonly thought, the most important reason. But it does have an admitted and significant contribution. You yourself admitted a 10% (100%-90%) contribution from the Gulf Stream, which you still haven't sourced.

If we go to Seager's original article
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf
and look at figure 9, which shows the temperature contribution of OHT (ocean heat transport) to warming the North Atlantic, we find that the British Isles lie between the 3C and 6C contours, touching the 6C contour in the north. So if the total amount of winter warming is 15-20C, we find that the contribution of OHT to the local warming in the vicinity of the British Isles is 20-40%, not the 10% you mentioned.

So the British Isles would be cooled substantially if ocean heat transport fails, more especially Scotland, and also Iceland and Norway. The amount is substantial in comparison to forecasts of global warming.

Yes, westerly coasts are going to remain a lot warmer than easterly coasts even if ocean heat transport stops. And many parts of NW Europe probably have more to thank the Rocky Mountains for than the Gulf Stream. But there is something important and extra coming from the ocean, even for England, and more especially in the case Scotland, Norway and Iceland. The Seager article specifically notes that in the case of places like northern Norway and Iceland, the ocean provides more than 50% of the warming. (My comment which is only 2C, not 15C to 20C.)

Seager state in his article that if the Gulf Stream stopped the British Isles winters would be 2 to 3C colder and the summers unchanged which is 10% to 20% of the 15 to 20C winter warming. (Please see article.)

Stoppage of the Atlantic Drift current was hypothesized to have caused the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling. The Younger Dryas is when the planet when from interglacial warm back to glacial cold for roughly a thousand years.

That change could not possible have been due to stoppage of the Atlantic Drift current as Seager notes in his article. Stoppage of the Atlantic Drift current has a minor affect on European temperature and is a factor of 10 less than what is required to explain the abrupt Younger Dryas cooling. (Also there was significant cooling in the summer.)

As Seager notes there has been widespread media comments that the Gulf Stream is a first order climate forcing mechanism. It is not. The Younger Dryas cooling was not caused by a change in ocean currents.

orionjim

2009-Jan-21, 07:06 PM

You can find the paper here:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/zorita08grl.pdf
...

Thanks for sharing the link. This one appears to be an oddity: the claims of the paper are actually *stronger* than the claims of the press release. Also, it's a nifty statistical analysis.

Something has been bothering me for over a week since I read the above paper. The paper addresses two main issues, 1) is the global warming data independent and 2) is there a long or short term memory effect happening. It’s not hard to set up a simulation in Excel that creates a set of random data that adds in a cycling effect and using a moving average; plot long term and short term effects. I think their paper shows that what is happening is not independent and not being driven by a long or short term memory effect.

So, what’s my problem? Do we conclude then that what we are seeing in the data is dependent on something? Is warming being caused by a CO2/Greenhouse effect or something else like a Solar or other effect. That appears to be the paper’s conclusion.

The problem I have is the authors didn’t consider the possibility that our climate system has "no memory". What does this mean? Consider our climate system as a funnel that you drop balls through, and when you drop a ball through the funnel the balls land on the floor producing a random pattern (temperature). Using this as a simulation we can reproduce what the authors did.

-Keep the funnel fixed, dropping balls and do a long term moving average plot of where they land.
-Allow the funnel to swing (cyclic) dropping balls and again plot the long term moving average
-Do the same as above plotting the last 5 or 10 averaged together.

What becomes apparent is the odds of ending up with a plot of our climate would be very rare. It would seem to end up with the patterns we are seeing we would need something else happening that would move the funnel. In other words to create the climate chart we are seeing would need to depend on the funnel being moved by something.

In the above cases the funnel has a memory, either fixed or cyclic (when allowed to swing). But what would happen if the funnel had no memory. This means that the funnel would be moved over the top of the last ball dropped on the floor. Then the next ball would be dropped from this point. To put it in terms of climate; the average temperature of the earth at the end of a year is the starting temperature at the beginning of a new year; any randomness is added to it.
The surprising thing is if you plot the points you will get a meandering of points with long trends that could, (read that as COULD) produce a GISS type climate chart.

I am not arguing that this is what is happening; I’m only suggesting that it could happen. I personally believe there are causes and what we are seeing is not random.

I've attached 3 charts below where the first two show the type of pattern we are seeing on the GISS plots and the third is more typical of the simulation.

If anyone is interested in the Excel spreadsheet let me know and I will post a link.

Jim

lomiller1

2009-Jan-22, 12:01 AM

The Holocene warming continues, so of course it has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Holocene warming should have ended 8000 years ago when Milankovitch cycles hit their peak for this interglacial.

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-22, 12:33 AM

Holocene warming should have ended 8000 years ago when Milankovitch cycles hit their peak for this interglacial.

For two years I've been wanting an answer for that one. In my most polite non argumentative voice, and in all seriousness, could I ask for a source for that, if it is not too much trouble, please.

William

2009-Jan-22, 03:02 AM

lomiller1 is correct that based on Milankovitch's theory the earth should be in the glacial phase now and could start to move to the glacial phase next week based on insolation.

Cold summers in the Northern Hemisphere are the trigger for the glacial phase. Perihelion now occurs in January and aphelion in June. Also the tilt of the earth is less than its maximum which also results in cooler summers. Insolation is currently the same as the coldest point in the last glacial period.

Based on the proxy climate data the interglacial periods end abruptly. If you look at the far right end of this graph below you can see how the last interglacial the Eemian ended. (Very abruptly.)

As is obvious in the graph below, there is a very, very, strong forcing external mechanism that can abruptly change the planet's temperature.

The orbital insolation changes set the planet up for the very, very, strong forcing mechanism. The insolation changes are very gradual and cannot possibly explain the abrupt climate changes.

As I noted a few comments up (See Link to article by Seager in American Scientist. Seager specifically states that.), that the very, very strong forcing is not the North Atlantic drift current. Complete stoppage of the Atlantic drift current would result in roughly a 2C cooling of Western Europe.

The ocean mechanism does not have the power to force the planet's temperature to force the planet to change form the glacial phase to interglacial or from the interglacial phase.

The Younger Dryas event, which abruptly cooled the planet in less than a decade resulted in a cooling of 15C to 20C in Western Europe. The Younger Dryas cooling lasted for roughly a 1000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Epica-vostok-grip-140kyr.png

William

2009-Jan-22, 03:22 AM

This graph shows ice formation on the Great Lakes compared to the average. Current ice formation is slightly ahead of the coldest winter, 1978 to 1979, in the period.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/GL/CVCSWCTGL.gif

The canals in Holland froze this year, which is the first time in 12 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1113084/Millions-ice-Europes-canals-freeze-over.html

Best ski season since 1974.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4298330/Heavy-snow-returns-to-Europes-ski-resorts.html

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-22, 03:28 AM

William

2009-Jan-22, 04:26 AM

Correction to my above comment. This graph shows the amount of Great Lake ice for this date compared to other years. There is more Great Lake ice Jan 21, 2009 than any year up until 1994.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHDCTGL/20090119180000_CVCHDCTGL_0004178237.gif

flynjack1

2009-Jan-22, 05:27 AM

Perhaps not coincidentally the graph also indicates a particularly big ice year on the great lakes in 1976 which was cycle 21's begining. Theres no peak in the ice for cycle 22 but cycle 23 began in 1996. Perhaps some correlation here, but it has to be complicated by El Nino/La Nina years.

Torsten

2009-Jan-22, 06:06 AM

But William, the Arctic Sea Ice Extent (http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html) is still below the 1979-2000 average, which means it's even further below the maximum ever measured for this date. What's up with that?

And speaking of weather, I just looked at the current conditions for three stations in Nunavut: Alert, Cambridge Bay, and Resolute. The temperatures were -29C, -28C, and -32C. The 20 year normal daily average for these stations is -32, -33, and -32. Gee, that's warmer than average in the high arctic.

You keep posting about weather in selected places. Until you post some globally calculated averages, this doesn't mean much.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-22, 07:16 AM

Stroller

2009-Jan-22, 11:03 AM

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-23, 08:39 AM

Some indicators that the medieval warm period was warmer than today are:

The Romans and the Norman invaders both grew grapes as far north as Newcastle (55N). No grapes grow north of Watford(51.30) today. Onthe basis that 1C is about 200 miles, the MWP was 1.5C warmer in the UK.

Finnish treeline studies show the same sort of result.

Reconstruction of Chinese temperatures from stalactites show the same result.
You are simply pointing out some local anomalies. Those don't mean that MWP was globally warmer than today.

It is quite hilarious that climate sceptics consider proxy based climate reconstructions to be rubbish, but then they welcome "climate proxies" such as wineries when it suits their purposes. Here's a thing that discusses growing grapes in England (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/).

Oh, and you have now excellent track record in making claim after claim after claim without providing any references or much evidence to back them up. Why is it that you are forcing others to seek information on your claims?

Stroller

2009-Jan-23, 09:19 AM

Holocene warming should have ended 8000 years ago when Milankovitch cycles hit their peak for this interglacial.
Temperatures have on average been dropping ever since. The Holocene optimium was warmer than the optimum around Roman times. Which in turn was warmer than the Medieval warm period, which was warmer than the modern warming period.

Which is interesting. This interglacial is lasting longer than many of the previous ones over the last 9 glaciation cycles.

It is quite hilarious that climate sceptics consider proxy based climate reconstructions to be rubbish

Not at all. Properly documented, conscienciously executed and correctly interpreted proxy studies are very useful.
Then on the other hand there is the dishonestly sampled statistically nonsensical rubbish churned out by Mann et al.

Here's the GRIP ice core proxy which shows temperatures have been cooling since the early Holocene:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Epica-vostok-grip-140kyr.png

Maybe earth will enter a new ice age. (Seems likely)
Maybe earth will return to it's more normal temperature around 6-8C warmer than current. (Doubt it)
Maybe earth will preserve our current climate within +/- 2C for ages and ages. (Hope so!)

Place bets now!

Why is it that you are forcing others to seek information on your claims?

To keep you miserable carbon sinners on your toes. :)
Cheer up Ari, I just want to help you understand it's not your fault after all.

William

2009-Jan-24, 04:20 AM

Then why are thousands of years old glaciers melting only now (for example Thompson et al., 2006 (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf), Koch et al., 2007 (http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/ho_2007.pdf), and Menounos et al., 2009 (http://web.unbc.ca/~menounos/www/Menounos_2009.pdf)), why didn't they melt during the MWP?

Another thing is that there seems to be very little evidence supporting the claim that MWP was as warm as today, see here for example (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html).

Monaghan et al. (2008) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml) find that between 1960 and 2005 there was positive, but statistically insignificant trend. Between 1970 and 2005 they find weakly negative trend, but again after 1992:

So, how is it a fact that "The Antarctic (continent) cooled rather than warmed in the later half of the 20th century"?

Ari Jokimaki,

You provided a link to a paper "Abrupt tropical climate change": Past and present that discusses Tropical Glaciation. CO2 has the least affect in the tropics so if CO2 was the reason for the 20th century warming there should be not be a significant amount of change in the tropics.

There is more change in the 20th century in the tropics than there was in the MWP because the mechanism is different. In the 20th century clouds at lower latitudes must have been affected.

As the paper you link to notes there has been abrupt climate changes in the tropics in the past (those could not have been due to CO2) which supports an external forcing mechanism such as some solar change that affects planetary cloud cover.

The other paper that you quoted notes that past rapid advances of high latitude glaciers coincided with a long period of low solar cycles which is exactly what is happening now.

Our data
confirm a previously suggested pattern of episodic but successively greater Holocene glacier expansion from the early Holocene to the climactic advances of the Little Ice Age, presumably driven by decreasing summer insolation throughout the Holocene. Proxy climate records indicate that glaciers advanced during the Little Ice Age in response to cold conditions that coincided with times of sunspot minima.

Priority research required to further advance our understanding of late Pleistocene and Holocene glaciation in western Canada includes constraining the age of late Pleistocene moraines in northern British Columbia and Yukon Territory, expanding the use of cosmogenic surface exposure dating techniques, using multi-proxy paleoclimate approaches, and directing more of the research effort to the northern Canadian Cordillera.

mugaliens

2009-Jan-24, 06:36 PM

The bulk ocean temperature (top 150m) is not noisy. As noted the article linked to below the bulk ocean temperature shows starting in around 2002 a gradual cooling.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf

It's a two-pager. I read it. Sounds like a very reasonable conclusion by a well-credentialed professor. It's critical that we not channelize our attention on one aspect to the exclusion of many others.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-25, 07:40 AM

You provided a link to a paper "Abrupt tropical climate change": Past and present that discusses Tropical Glaciation. CO2 has the least affect in the tropics so if CO2 was the reason for the 20th century warming there should be not be a significant amount of change in the tropics.
So you didn't look past the title of the paper? Figure 1 shows the locations of their evidence, most of it outside tropics. Also, saying CO2 has least effect in tropics (without any references or other evidence of course) doesn't mean that there's no effect, as you suggest.

There is more change in the 20th century in the tropics than there was in the MWP because the mechanism is different. In the 20th century clouds at lower latitudes must have been affected.
That doesn't explain things outside tropics. Glaciers are melting rapidly all over the planet. That didn't happen during MWP, why?

Also, you claim that in 20th century the mechanism is different, and imply that mechanism has to do with clouds, but then say that clouds "must have been affected". So you don't know the situation with the clouds, and yet you claim that they are responsible of the situation.

As the paper you link to notes there has been abrupt climate changes in the tropics in the past (those could not have been due to CO2) which supports an external forcing mechanism such as some solar change that affects planetary cloud cover.
Why past changes "could not have been due to CO2"?

It is quite widely acknowledged that past climate changes have had other major causes than the current climate change. That is the point, isn't it? Current climate change is exceptional.

In the other thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/76506-another-catastrophie-due-global-warming-12.html) I have recently shown evidence that there has been no significant changes in our planetary cloud cover in recent decades (Evan et al., 2007 (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf)), while global warming has been going on.

You forgot to answer my question about Antarctic.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-25, 08:09 AM

Here's the GRIP ice core proxy which shows temperatures have been cooling since the early Holocene:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rip-140kyr.png
That's not temperature in the Y-axis of that chart! And even if it would be, that would be just another local sample (from Greenland).

Thompson et al. (2006) (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf) show temperature reconstruction from ice cores from a more global sample in their figure 6D. Yep, current times are warmer than preceding (at least) 1300 years in that reconstruction.

If you prefer more local samples, Corona et al. (2008) (http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/1159/2008/cpd-4-1159-2008-print.pdf) give reconstruction from tree rings of European Alps in their figure 5 with same result as Thompson et al.

William

2009-Jan-25, 05:07 PM

So you didn't look past the title of the paper? Figure 1 shows the locations of their evidence, most of it outside tropics. Also, saying CO2 has least effect in tropics (without any references or other evidence of course) doesn't mean that there's no effect, as you suggest.

That doesn't explain things outside tropics. Glaciers are melting rapidly all over the planet. That didn't happen during MWP, why?

Also, you claim that in 20th century the mechanism is different, and imply that mechanism has to do with clouds, but then say that clouds "must have been affected". So you don't know the situation with the clouds, and yet you claim that they are responsible of the situation.

Why past changes "could not have been due to CO2"?

It is quite widely acknowledged that past climate changes have had other major causes than the current climate change. That is the point, isn't it? Current climate change is exceptional.

In the other thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/76506-another-catastrophie-due-global-warming-12.html) I have recently shown evidence that there has been no significant changes in our planetary cloud cover in recent decades (Evan et al., 2007 (http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~dvimont/Papers/Evan_etal_GL028083.pdf)), while global warming has been going on.

You forgot to answer my question about Antarctic.

Antarctic
I find those advocating AWG ignore the data and the analysis that disproves the hypothesis. The AWG theory requires the Arctic and Antarctic to both have significantly warmed. The Antarctic did not warm significantly and in fact the East Antarctic cooled from the 1970's to 1990's which disproves the AWG theory.

I provided a link to a published paper that provides a mechanism that explains the Polar See-Saw (i.e. Antarctic cools when the Arctic warms and visa versa.) based on changes to planetary cloud cover. The paper provides data over the last 6000 years which shows a cyclic warming and cooling of the planet. As the author notes there is no delay in the polar see-saw which rules out ocean currents as the driver. (Ocean current takes roughly a 1000 years for changes to propagate.)

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/76506-another-catastrophie-due-global-warming-13.html#post1417873

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_sc/sci_antarctica

The research found that since 1957, the annual temperature for the entire continent of Antarctica has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, but still is 50 degrees below zero. West Antarctica, which is about 20 degrees warmer than the east, has warmed nearly twice as fast, said study lead author Eric Steig of the University of Washington.

And east Antarctica from the late 1970s through the 1990s, cooled slightly, Steig said. (My comment, Roughly 15 years of cooling.)

Some researchers skeptical about the magnitude of global warming overall said that the new study didn't match their measurements from satellites and that there appears to be no warming in Antarctica since 1980.

"It overstates what they have obtained from their analysis," said Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado.

I find those advocating AWG ignore data that shows the planet is cooling. The data indicates a gradual cooling starting in 2000.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/to:2010/trend:60/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2010

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/to:2010/trend:60/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2010

There are cyclic sudden and abrupt planetary cooling events in the proxy climate data. The current data indicates a step change in forcing as the cooling appears to be accelerating.

This is a link to a Canadian Government site that provides ice cover on the Great Lakes.

Lake Erie is frozen. Great Lake ice cover matches the 1994 record and may reach the 1979 record.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?CanID=11080&Lang=eng

There has been record cold weather in the Canada, US, UK, and Europe this winter.

Planetary temperature change happens for a reason. Abrupt cooling does not occur because of "noise" (I am not sure what the word "noise" means in this context, however it is often repeated by those advocating the AWG theory if when there is cooling which cannot be explained by the AWG theory.)

Sever cooling will disprove the AWG theory. Sever cooling would be a significant environmental problem.

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-26, 04:34 AM

I thought we had decided that weather was not climate.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-26, 08:28 AM

I find those advocating AWG ignore the data and the analysis that disproves the hypothesis. The AWG theory requires the Arctic and Antarctic to both have significantly warmed. The Antarctic did not warm significantly and in fact the East Antarctic cooled from the 1970's to 1990's which disproves the AWG theory.
But you are ignoring the evidence yourself. The quote you provided below this your comment also said: "The research found that since 1957, the annual temperature for the entire continent of Antarctica has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit...". On East Antarctica cooling, Steig et al. (2009) figure 2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/fig_tab/nature07669_F2.html) shows that the "late 1970s through the 1990s" cooling in East Antarctica is in fact due to anomalously cold spike that occurred early 1990s, otherwise the East Antarctica temperature rises quite steadily. If you like to cherry-pick reported time periods, then let's look at time period between about 1976 and 1991 from Steig et al. figure 2. It shows warming in East Antarctica of almost 2 K. Similarily, time period between about 1994 and 2001 in East Antarctica shows also warming of about 2 K. So, if you want to highlight some time periods where fitted trends show cooling, that works also to warming direction.

I provided a link to a published paper that provides a mechanism that explains the Polar See-Saw (i.e. Antarctic cools when the Arctic warms and visa versa.) based on changes to planetary cloud cover.
I just pointed you the evidence which shows that there's no significant trends in cloud cover, but you keep ignoring that.

By the way, Svensmark theory was also based on ISPPC cloud data which Evan et al. showed to be problematic. Cosmic ray - cloud cover connection has also been studied in a string of papers (Sloan & Wolfendale (2007) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4294), Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2298), Erlykin et al. (2009) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0515)), and the situation looks very bad for that hypothesis.

I find those advocating AWG ignore data that shows the planet is cooling. The data indicates a gradual cooling starting in 2000.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gis...m:1980/to:2010

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss...m:1980/to:2010
Ridiculous use of trendlines! GISS 5-year mean (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) shows that cooling started around 2003 and 2004. Also, if you look elsewhere in that GISS graph, you will see that there has been similar and worse (so far) cooling events before, and warming has continued after them. For example early 1980s and early 1990s both had such events. That gives us a historical context to current cooling; history suggests that warming will continue, while there's no evidence suggesting that this cooling would continue so much that it would cancel the decades of warming that have occurred so far.

Lake Erie is frozen. Great Lake ice cover matches the 1994 record and may reach the 1979 record.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPr...11080&Lang=eng

There has been record cold weather in the Canada, US, UK, and Europe this winter.
Currently, Baltic Sea has no ice. This is third consecutive year of almost record warm winters here in Finland (last winter was record warm).

I thought we were supposed to talk about global climate, what is the point in cataloging these local anomalies?

William

2009-Jan-27, 03:14 AM

But you are ignoring the evidence yourself. The quote you provided below this your comment also said: "The research found that since 1957, the annual temperature for the entire continent of Antarctica has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit...". On East Antarctica cooling, Steig et al. (2009) figure 2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/fig_tab/nature07669_F2.html) shows that the "late 1970s through the 1990s" cooling in East Antarctica is in fact due to anomalously cold spike that occurred early 1990s, otherwise the East Antarctica temperature rises quite steadily. If you like to cherry-pick reported time periods, then let's look at time period between about 1976 and 1991 from Steig et al. figure 2. It shows warming in East Antarctica of almost 2 K. Similarily, time period between about 1994 and 2001 in East Antarctica shows also warming of about 2 K. So, if you want to highlight some time periods where fitted trends show cooling, that works also to warming direction.

I just pointed you the evidence which shows that there's no significant trends in cloud cover, but you keep ignoring that.

By the way, Svensmark theory was also based on ISPPC cloud data which Evan et al. showed to be problematic. Cosmic ray - cloud cover connection has also been studied in a string of papers (Sloan & Wolfendale (2007) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4294), Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2298), Erlykin et al. (2009) (http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0515)), and the situation looks very bad for that hypothesis.

Ridiculous use of trendlines! GISS 5-year mean (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) shows that cooling started around 2003 and 2004. Also, if you look elsewhere in that GISS graph, you will see that there has been similar and worse (so far) cooling events before, and warming has continued after them. For example early 1980s and early 1990s both had such events. That gives us a historical context to current cooling; history suggests that warming will continue, while there's no evidence suggesting that this cooling would continue so much that it would cancel the decades of warming that have occurred so far.

Currently, Baltic Sea has no ice. This is third consecutive year of almost record warm winters here in Finland (last winter was record warm).

I thought we were supposed to talk about global climate, what is the point in cataloging these local anomalies?

Ari Jokimaki,
Warm Finish Winters
Global warming does seem to hit Finland rather hard which seems puzzling as the remainder of the planet is cooling. I would look for a change in prevailing winds from the South rather than the North. A change in ocean currents could be a possible alternative explanation as the graph does show the planet is cooling rather than warming.

Evidence Planet is Cooling
A falling trend line is a falling trend line. The question is why is the planet cooling. Providing an explanation as to why a planet is cooling is more difficult than trying to explain why a specific region is warming or cooling. It is also difficult to explain global cooling as there has been bandwagon discounting of the solar cloud modulation science.

Re-mechanisms: There are at least three separate mechanisms by which solar cycle changes are hypothesized to modulate planetary temperature. And at least two are independent of GCR.

The researchers you quote above seem to be ignorant of the cloud modulation science and appear to be interested in trying to prove AGW was the cause of the twentieth century warming as opposed to solving the scientific puzzle. The paper trying to disprove GCR picked the wrong forcing mechanism.

The paper on cloud measurement stated that it is difficult to measure clouds which is no surprise as the IPCC stated the greatest uncertainty in their research and prediction is in cloud measurement and cloud science. Neither comment disproves the solar cloud modulation hypothesis, but rather supports the statement that the 20th century could have been due to cloud changes not CO2. (i.e The gradual warming followed by gradual cooling could be due to a different mechanism.)

Another mechanism to consider is changes in solar wind speed.

Changes in solar wind speed remove cloud forming ions via a process called electroscavenging. There is data to support the assertion that electroscavenging caused a significant portion of the 1992 to 2000 global warming. (i.e. The 1998 hockey spike.)

If that hypothesis is correct the planet should start to cool as the sun is moving to a quiet period, solar wind speed is its lowest level since the space age measurements were taken, and the solar cycle seems to have stalled. (See link below.)

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

From that paper: "It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from - 0.76 in the period 1868-1890 to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, ... According to Echer et al (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by sunspot number. In figure 6 long term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataga 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p< 0.01."

http://www.solen.info/solar/

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/03/06/finland-this-year-has-recorded-its-highest-average-temperature-for-awinter-season-since-1900/

Finland this year has recorded its highest average temperature for a winter season since 1900, the Finnish Meteorological Institute said Thursday. The average temperature in the Finnish capital Helsinki in January was 0.6 degrees Celsius, which was 4.8 degrees higher than that of the period between 1971 and 2000, said the institute….

Global warming and unusually constant warm currents from the south and the southwest may have contributed to the extraordinarily mild winter, the institute added. A recent poll showed that eight out of ten people see climate change as a great threat and most Finns would be willing to take more economic responsibility for global climate change.

And lastly, an aside. I would assume you know nothing about past cyclic abrupt climate change. Finland, Canada, North Europe are uninhabitable during the glacial phase. The interglacial in the past (There have been 22 glacial/interglacial cycles. Glacial periods are long. Currently 100 kyrs. Interglacials around 12 to 15 krys.) are short and end abruptly. I started my investigation trying to understand what is causing the abruptly climate changes.

The cooling to this point has been very gradual. There is no indication at this point of an imminent abrupt climate change.

This is however a very unusual solar cycle change.

Let's look for new significant data. A finding that disproves AWG and shows the planet is starting to abruptly cool would be news worthy.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-27, 10:16 AM

Global warming does seem to hit Finland rather hard which seems puzzling as the remainder of the planet is cooling.
No, that is wrong interpretation. Global mean temperature has dropped little starting from about 2003. That doesn't mean that the planet has been cooling everywhere, just the overall mean temperature has dropped (and like I said, there has been these cooling periods before followed by continued warming). There is nothing puzzling when some places are above or below average. If we have three numbers with values 1, 2, and 3, their mean is 2. Is is puzzling that there's one number (the 3) above the mean? Local cooling anomalies you keep citing have no meaning in global mean temperature trends.

A falling trend line is a falling trend line.
Of course, but your interpretation of it is wrong. Falling trend line doesn't mean that value of the sample falls whole time the trend covers. I already showed you the GISS graph which shows that cooling did not start in 2000, it started around 2003 and 2004. And without the anomalously cold spike in early 2008, there wouldn't be much falling trendlines to make fuss about. You are making a big deal out of nothing (of course, nothing is pretty much what climate sceptics have in their side these days). We'll start talking about planetary cooling when 30-year means start to show significant cooling.

After this you once again go on and on about clouds ignoring that there is no evidence of significant interdecadal changes in clouds, as I have pointed out.

Also, it seems to me that your cloud hypothesis belongs to ATM section of this forum.

lomiller1

2009-Jan-27, 05:15 PM

Does an insolation chart exist that takes all orbital parameters into account for the last two million years that could, possibly, be overlaid on the ice core charts?

The climate effect of Milankovich cycles correlate to Northern Hemisphere insolation, so you will only see plots including orbital variations that effect this parameter.

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-27, 05:26 PM

The climate effect of Milankovich cycles correlate to Northern Hemisphere insolation, so you will only see plots including orbital variations that effect this parameter.

I noticed that. So far I have not found a 65 degree south insolation curve to compare to Vostock.

lomiller1

2009-Jan-27, 06:06 PM

I noticed that. So far I have not found a 65 degree south insolation curve to compare to Vostock.

Why Vostok, and why 65 deg south?

Lisiecki and Raymo 2005 seems to have affair amount of the discussion you are looking for. It uses a stack of 57 different ocean sediment cores that produce a much longer record and looks at 65 deg North.

http://sheba.geo.vu.nl/users/peef/teaching/orbital_forcing/assets/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-27, 06:54 PM

Why Vostok, and why 65 deg south?

Lisiecki and Raymo 2005 seems to have affair amount of the discussion you are looking for. It uses a stack of 57 different ocean sediment cores that produce a much longer record and looks at 65 deg North.

http://sheba.geo.vu.nl/users/peef/teaching/orbital_forcing/assets/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

Thank you.

I believe it is important to look at the climate of the entire planet.

I think presence of land mass at the south pole affects ice ages.

I think that the Earth's oblateness affects climate.

I think the circumpolar ocean circulation affects ice ages.

In looking at the 65 N insolation curves it seems that there is a lag of temp following peak insolation. Why?

Why the switch from approximately 40k ice age cycles to 100k ice age cycles about one million years ago? (?circumpolar ocean circulation?)

What definitively caused the beginning and end of the younger Dryas?

What definitively caused the beginning and end of the Little Ice Age? ( I do not accept Warren Platts suggestion.)

I think we have more to learn.

Edit to add: Isn't Antarctica in an ice age now?

Edit to add a second time:Lisiecki and Raymo; et al

Finally, the LR04 stack’s phase relative to precession suggests the
presence of a large deep-water temperature signal from 2.7–
1.6 Ma and reveals a sudden change in the phase of
precession response at 1.6 Ma.

This is interesting!

William

2009-Jan-27, 07:38 PM

No, that is wrong interpretation. Global mean temperature has dropped little starting from about 2003. That doesn't mean that the planet has been cooling everywhere, just the overall mean temperature has dropped (and like I said, there has been these cooling periods before followed by continued warming). There is nothing puzzling when some places are above or below average. If we have three numbers with values 1, 2, and 3, their mean is 2. Is is puzzling that there's one number (the 3) above the mean? Local cooling anomalies you keep citing have no meaning in global mean temperature trends.

Of course, but your interpretation of it is wrong. Falling trend line doesn't mean that value of the sample falls whole time the trend covers. I already showed you the GISS graph which shows that cooling did not start in 2000, it started around 2003 and 2004. And without the anomalously cold spike in early 2008, there wouldn't be much falling trendlines to make fuss about. You are making a big deal out of nothing (of course, nothing is pretty much what climate sceptics have in their side these days). We'll start talking about planetary cooling when 30-year means start to show significant cooling.

After this you once again go on and on about clouds ignoring that there is no evidence of significant interdecadal changes in clouds, as I have pointed out.

Also, it seems to me that your cloud hypothesis belongs to ATM section of this forum.

Ari Jokimaki,

It does appear the ocean surface temperatures are cooling. I would assume there is a scientific reason for the cooling. Do you have an explanation?

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.26.2009.gif

The cloud hypothesis is clearly not "mine". You and I both know that. You are calling it "mine" to attack the hypothesis using forum rules rather than scientific data or logic.

The cloud hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis that is supported by data and multiple published scientific papers. The purpose of ATM is to limit crackpot personal theories, not stop any scientific discussion, particularly if there is new information or published papers concerning the subject.

That is what I am appropriately waiting for. This is a valid scientific issue as the sun is now outside of its normal cycle. I am looking for new solar data and have started to look at the early solar mechanism papers. I am also looking for planetary temperature data that would validate or disprove the competing hypotheses.

Could the cloud hypothesis be incorrect? Yes, but so could AWG. There is data such as the tropical troposphere temperatures which challenge the basic GWG mechanism. The scientific process is that theories must be changed to agree with data and new analysis.

If you look deeper into proxy data for the glacial/interglacial cycle there does appear to be a very strong cyclic external forcing function.

lomiller1

2009-Jan-28, 04:55 AM

Thank you.

I believe it is important to look at the climate of the entire planet.

I think presence of land mass at the south pole affects ice ages.

The Obliquity doesn’t change total insolation, Eccentricity does but much less then it redistributes where that insolation falls. The current thinking on why Milankovich cycles effect climate is that the northern hemisphere is more sensitive to changes in insolation then the southern. Increased spring/summer insolation warns the NH, causing CO2 to be released as the ecosystems pick up speed, permafrost melts, etc. This CO2 then globalizes the warming.

Without the globalizing effect of CO2 you’d expect NH and SH to alternate ice ages as Milankovich cycles warms them alternately.

What definitively caused the beginning and end of the Little Ice Age? ( I do not accept Warren Platts suggestion.)

The generally accepted view is that it was a small dip in solar activity amplified by positive feedbacks, but the possibly that there was human involvement in the LIA is gaining some momentum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-28, 01:27 PM

The Obliquity doesn’t change total insolation, Eccentricity does but much less then it redistributes where that insolation falls. The current thinking on why Milankovich cycles effect climate is that the northern hemisphere is more sensitive to changes in insolation then the southern. Increased spring/summer insolation warns the NH, causing CO2 to be released as the ecosystems pick up speed, permafrost melts, etc. This CO2 then globalizes the warming.

Without the globalizing effect of CO2 you’d expect NH and SH to alternate ice ages as Milankovich cycles warms them alternately.

The generally accepted view is that it was a small dip in solar activity amplified by positive feedbacks, but the possibly that there was human involvement in the LIA is gaining some momentum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm

My bold.

Yes, you have summarized nicely.

Gigabyte

2009-Jan-28, 07:33 PM

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears.

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

Hansen 'is a political activist who spreads fear'

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

Much more at source
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-28, 09:28 PM

97% of regularly publishing climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, but (in a slightly earlier poll) 42% of Americans think that there is substantive disagreement among climate scientists.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184

Curiously meteorologists (who deal in short term phenomena) are almost as ignorant as the general public as to the state of thinking in climate science.

Ivan Viehoff

2009-Jan-28, 09:38 PM

It does appear the ocean surface temperatures are cooling. I would assume there is a scientific reason for the cooling. Do you have an explanation?
Statistical noise resulting from the interaction of the large number of factors that affect temperature from year to year. Look at the sequence going back. It is noisy. You regularly get groups of a few years that stuck one side or other of the longer term trend. You'd expect that even with a random sequence of deviations, but actually in climate sequences there is serial correlation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_correlation because of things like oceanic oscillations (La Nina, etc), so you get stuck one side of trend for even longer than random movements would predict.

Even putting serial correlation to one side, what is the statistical significance of the movement over the last 5 years when compared to the standard deviation about trend over the last 30 years? The global warming deniers would never have let the global warming proponents get away with a mere 5 years of data showing an upward trend. They can't have it both ways.

Warren Platts

2009-Jan-28, 09:40 PM

What definitively caused the beginning and end of the Little Ice Age? ( I do not accept Warren Platts suggestion.)
The generally accepted view is that it was a small dip in solar activity amplified by positive feedbacks, but the possibly that there was human involvement in the LIA is gaining some momentum.

From the Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm) article:

Nevle and Bird don't attribute all of the cooling during the Little Ice Age to reforestation in the Americas.

"There are other causes at play," Nevle said. "But reforestation is certainly a first-order contributor."
I think all of you all, both the pros and the cons, are barking up the wrong trees. Clearly, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas: that's just basic chemistry. And the increase in CO2 is undeniable. Yet there is disagreement as to the extent of actual global warming. That is, it's not obvious--as in undeniable--that global warming has increased to a comparable extent. This tells me that the net long-term trend in nonhuman processes that control temperature are in the direction of future cooling.

In other words, we're overdue for an ice age, and if it weren't for us humans, then we would be well on our way to another ice age: an increasing level of CO2 is necessary if we want to preserve the temperature status quo. Granted we may have overshot a little bit recently; however, if we hold the rate of growth atmospheric CO2 at zero, that will put us on a long term cooling trend.

I, too, worry about Vanuatu; but let's not forget about our Canadian friends either! :)

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-29, 04:58 AM

It was 45.5 degrees celcius here in Adelaide in South Australia yesterday. The hottest in 70 years. Of course, if it's the hottest in 70 years then obviously it must have been even hotter 70 years ago, which proves that the earth is on a cooling trend.

Or maybe the heat has just fried my brain.

Yes, that seems likely.

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-29, 07:11 AM

It does appear the ocean surface temperatures are cooling. I would assume there is a scientific reason for the cooling. Do you have an explanation?
Ivan Viehoff already answered this, so I'll just refer you to this explanation on the subject (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/).

The cloud hypothesis is clearly not "mine". You and I both know that. You are calling it "mine" to attack the hypothesis using forum rules rather than scientific data or logic.

The cloud hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis that is supported by data and multiple published scientific papers. The purpose of ATM is to limit crackpot personal theories, not stop any scientific discussion, particularly if there is new information or published papers concerning the subject.
I meant it "your" hypothesis in the sense that you are offering it here, nothing else. I also don't know if you have your own variety of that. It is nevertheless ATM-hypothesis. It doesn't matter if it has published scientific papers. There are ATM-theories that have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published, and we still can't offer them outside the ATM-forum here. I don't see why climate science should be an exception to this, especially as climate sceptics like to offer huge amount of "hypotheses" presented as truth without providing any references or evidence, so others will have to waste their time trying to find information about those claims. I say at least limit that to ATM-forum.

You also accused me of "attacking the hypothesis using forum rules rather than scientific data or logic". That is rubbish. I have already shown that current body of evidence doesn't support that hypothesis, so that's pretty much the end of that hypothesis in my mind.

Could the cloud hypothesis be incorrect? Yes, but so could AWG.
It is very well established that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause the planet to be warmer than it would be without them. It is also well established that making the greenhouse gas content higher rises the temperature. It is also well established that human actions have made greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere higher. So, it is well established that mankind is warming the planet. Only question these days is exactly how much, and even of that we seem to have quite good idea.

If you look deeper into proxy data for the glacial/interglacial cycle there does appear to be a very strong cyclic external forcing function.
So what? It doesn't mean that current warming has to have some other cause than anthropogenic. There is lot of research done on past climate changes and current climate science is well aware that many past climate changes may have had different causes than rising content of greenhouse gases. Current warming is nevertheless attributed to (mostly) anthropogenic causes with good reason.

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-29, 07:32 AM

I turned the air conditioning off for a few minutes and the laptop started overheating. I connected the vacuum cleaner to it as an external fan, but it wasn't powerful enough to cool it down, so I removed the filter from the vacuum cleaner in an attempt to make it suck more. Now the air conditioner has been running for a while I only need the vacuum cleaner on half the time, but I am going to back up and then open the case to try and clean out any dust that might be blocking the movement of air in there.

jlhredshift

2009-Jan-30, 12:46 AM

I find it interesting that two reports of human impact on the world climate during the Little Ice Age suggest that the sixteen million people in Latin America and the one hundred sixty three million people in Europe had such a huge effect. The five hundred million people in Asia and the one hundred or so million people in Africa and all the rest of the worlds population were doing what?

I just do not accept that the climate was that sensitive to just the actions of those people in Latin America and Europe. I am a farmer, a small one, but, none the less, a farmer. A crop failure would not encourage me to open up more land to put in a larger crop. Seed, usually comes from the past years crop. When you are starving, that seed might get eaten. Of course in the 1850's the promoters of settlement in western United States promulgated the idea that "rain will follow the plow", well, that didn't work out to be true either.

Population source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

William

2009-Jan-30, 01:32 AM

Statistical noise resulting from the interaction of the large number of factors that affect temperature from year to year. Look at the sequence going back. It is noisy. You regularly get groups of a few years that stuck one side or other of the longer term trend. You'd expect that even with a random sequence of deviations, but actually in climate sequences there is serial correlation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_correlation because of things like oceanic oscillations (La Nina, etc), so you get stuck one side of trend for even longer than random movements would predict.

Even putting serial correlation to one side, what is the statistical significance of the movement over the last 5 years when compared to the standard deviation about trend over the last 30 years? The global warming deniers would never have let the global warming proponents get away with a mere 5 years of data showing an upward trend. They can't have it both ways.

Ivan Viehoff,

It seems to me that you are asserting that when the ocean is warm that is due to CO2 driven global warming.

When the ocean is cold that is due to winds.

And if anyone provides data, analysis, and papers that disputes that assertion they are incorrect as so many people have stated that the 20th century warming was due to CO2.

Current ocean temperatures:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.29.2009.gif

January, 1998

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo_archive/anomnight.1.27.1998.gif

William

2009-Jan-30, 01:59 AM

Ivan Viehoff already answered this, so I'll just refer you to this explanation on the subject (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/).

It is very well established that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause the planet to be warmer than it would be without them. It is also well established that making the greenhouse gas content higher rises the temperature. It is also well established that human actions have made greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere higher. So, it is well established that mankind is warming the planet. Only question these days is exactly how much, and even of that we seem to have quite good idea.

So what? It doesn't mean that current warming has to have some other cause than anthropogenic. There is lot of research done on past climate changes and current climate science is well aware that many past climate changes may have had different causes than rising content of greenhouse gases. Current warming is nevertheless attributed to (mostly) anthropogenic causes with good reason.

Ari Jokimaki,
The planet is currently cooling not warming. Do you dispute that assertion? How can that be possible if the CO2 hypothesis is correct and solar forcing is limited to TSI?

We are living at the end of the interglacial period. All of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly. Yes or No?

The sun is currently in a abnormal state. The sun was at its highest activity level in the last 10 kyrs during the 20th century. Yes or No?

There is in the climate proxy record extreme drops in temperature which have no explanation. Recent detailed analysis shows evidence that in the past there have been multiple cyclic events were the planet abruptly warmed and cooled, and that some of these abrupt climate changes are of out of sync with insolation.

There is in the climate record coincidental cosmogenic isotope changes repeatedly at the abrupt climatic events (Smoking gun evidence. Serial killer. Do you understand my analogy?) Specifically how the solar changes are connected with the abrupt climate changes is not known.

To me this seems to be a relevant and important issue to discuss and to look for new data. (i.e. Remember the abnormal changes that are currently occurring with the sun.)

i.e. I am trying to explain why I believe this is an important issue to discuss. Perhaps you could explain why you believe discussion of this topic should be suppressed.

Joe Durnavich

2009-Jan-30, 03:51 AM

It was 45.5 degrees celcius here in Adelaide in South Australia yesterday. The hottest in 70 years.

Perhaps you folks down there should think twice about holding your summers in the winter.

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-30, 04:29 AM

Perhaps you folks down there should think twice about holding your summers in the winter.

I think there are definitely arbitrage opportunites between the two hemispheres.

And because the Adelaide grid was overloaded due to people running air conditioners, power cut off in my local area for forty minutes. It got a little warm, but my air conditioner is back on now and some other suburb is probably sweltering now. (They have to keep switching which suburbs have power to stop old people dying.)

William

2009-Jan-30, 05:05 AM

I think there are definitely arbitrage opportunites between the two hemispheres.

And because the Adelaide grid was overloaded due to people running air conditioners, power cut off in my local area for forty minutes. It got a little warm, but my air conditioner is back on now and some other suburb is probably sweltering now. (They have to keep switching which suburbs have power to stop old people dying.)

There seems to be selective reporting of extreme weather.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/cold-weather-here-to-stay/9718

August 2008 continues to be one of the coldest on record for most of Australia with temperatures averaging as much as six degrees below normal.

The cold weather has even spread to northern Queensland with Burketown dropping to five degrees on Saturday morning for the first time in 24 years. On the Queensland coast Coolangatta has now dropped to five or less on 10 consecutive mornings, easily beating the old record of six.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=148&a=4827

Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years

(RIA Novosti) - Northern parts of Saudi Arabia are covered with snow with schools, mosques and administrative bodies paralyzed, local media reported Friday.

The oil-rich kingdom is being hit with subzero temperatures and snow storms with freezing winds of up to 50 km/h (30mp/h). Some regions have been experiencing problems with water supplies as pipes have frozen, and livestock has died from the cold.

The Saudi Gazette reported late in December that the winter was expected to last 89 days, with temperatures reaching below zero. National media said the winter is the coldest in the country for 20 years.

From a scientific standpoint (Moving beyond exchanging extreme weather stories.) there is an interesting recent finding of very cold nighttime temperatures in desert regions.

I had expected some change in the troposphere which would result in colder winter temperatures (both hemispheres) and have been looking for data and/or a paper.

Ronald Brak

2009-Jan-30, 05:31 AM

August 2008 continues to be one of the coldest on record for most of Australia with temperatures averaging as much as six degrees below normal.

August was very cold. We had sleet in Adelaide. But I will mention that 2008 was the 14th warmest year on record in Australia and was 0.41 degrees above the 1961-90 average:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20090105.shtml

Ara Pacis

2009-Jan-30, 05:31 AM

From a scientific standpoint (Moving beyond exchanging extreme weather stories.) there is an interesting recent finding of very cold nighttime temperatures in desert regions.

Something other than the well-known fact that drier regions get colder at night than those with higher humidity?

Ari Jokimaki

2009-Jan-30, 08:41 AM

The planet is currently cooling not warming. Do you dispute that assertion? How can that be possible if the CO2 hypothesis is correct and solar forcing is limited to TSI?
Apparently you didn't look at the explanation I offered. There is no proof that planet is currently cooling. There has been a drop in global average temperatures, but there's no proof that this is anything else than noise as explained in the page I linked to.

We are living at the end of the interglacial period. All of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly. Yes or No?
No. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial) says that we are not even half-way in this interglacial period. All past interglacials have ended gradually, not abruptly. Example of that can be seen in the linked Wikipedia article's figure; at bottom there is ice volume presented in red, see how gradually ice volume goes from low to high between 400 and 350 thousand years ago. Others are similar but not so clear examples as that one.

The sun is currently in a abnormal state. The sun was at its highest activity level in the last 10 kyrs during the 20th century. Yes or No?
What is abnormal? Sun has been in low activity mode before. According to this diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg), Sun has been more active than in 20th century several times during last 10 kyrs.

Perhaps you could explain why you believe discussion of this topic should be suppressed.
Where have I indicated that? I merely suggested that ATM-hypotheses relating to the issue should be discussed in ATM-forum. What stops you of doing that if you wish to discuss those hypotheses?