Solar Cycles
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Solar Cycles
-
-
Whatever the outcome C-Bob!
There is no way we will ever reduce our CO2 outputs until we have an energy source ,in place, that doesn't produce it in quantities.
The worlds 'energy demands' will not reduce as more and more of the developing world catches up with /demands the energy spent on folk in the developed world.
With population exploding this 'demand' will not reduce.
So whether we caused the warming or not warming is occuring and maybe we'd better just skip the 'blame game' and look to our future in terms of mitigating the impacts of any warming on our growing poulation.
I'm with you on that one GW, population explosion is in danger of taking us all back to the stone age. And yes we do need to find a viable energy alternative to fossil fuels ASAP. Would be interesting to know just how close we are to finding that solution!
-
But what is wrong with a person preferring a particular weather pattern John? It happens all the time in here, people see charts that will bring their desired weather, and then ramp it up! Human nature John, I'm afraid we are stuck with it!Ian, why don't you simply post what the models show in your view and leave out the lecture every time you post.
I'll make an offer, as two of the forecasters on NW, I'll stop making any reference to which I prefer in the model discussion thread, posting those comments in the moaning thread-will you do the same please?
-
You might want to put that up as a link rather than a file, SC!
http://wattsupwithth...a-being-global/
(I'm not having a go at you or anything - you should have seen the state of my maths this morning!)
CB
Better yet, full paper here:
https://darchive.mbl....pdf?sequence=1
I though I had!
Thanks CB, it's Google Chrome I blame!! -
And March's Global temps for the oceans was?
Down to a decaying el nino my dear friend!
-
More evidence to suggest that the MWP and LIA where more than just some regional event.
Another indication of MWP and LIA being global « Watts Up With That .htm
-
For all the hot air that warmers tend to spout regarding a warming world, why is then that the data from ARGO Buoys are showing cooling Oceans?
-
Which means it's just coincidence that temperatures have risen just at the time the concentration of a significant ghg (CO2) have? Or, infact that CO2 isn't the ghg we, science, understand it to be? Some claim that, someone should go write it up
How big are the changes, I seem to remember we're talking mm's of movement to orbits million of Km big? I must say to argue that the planets (mostly Jupiter a mere ~780million Km from the Sun and (is it?) ~.001% of it's mass) and how they intereact with the simply vastly bigger Sun, have more effect on our climate than a rapid increase in CO2 (and other anthro effect) here on Earth is something I find very hard to accept indeed!
Did he accurately forecast these things? How accurately? How much wiggle room?
It strikes me that you'll dismiss anything other than CO2 being responsible , why don't you apply your probing questions at climate scientist. After all your willing to dismiss any scientific work, that may show AGW not to be the big bad wolf it's made out to be. I'm not saying it isn't Dev, but you, GW. and a few others will swallow any cock and bull story, if that story suits your ideologies! I thought science was all about keeping an open mind, sadly this is no longer the case. HOW SAD!!
-
Good post YS, and I think a lot of warmers would do well to take on board what your saying ( GW above certainly hasn't ), I also agree with you on the certainty of what is the casuse, I've stated before that climate science is in it's infancy, and to take a we know best attitude, when there are so many feedbacks we just don't fully understand, is a tad premature. There is a strong body of evidence to suggest we have underestimated the effects of solar, lunar, and ocean cycles. It's only in the last week that climate scientist have acknowledge that solar activity has been underestimated. I think we will see more of the same in years too come. As for AGW, again we just don't know what the true effects of this will be. Should make for an interesting few years to come though!The thing is GW, the arctic has been (most probably) ice free in the summer on several occasions before now.
The Vikings colonised Greenland (and not just the Southern tip, they were there and trading for over 100 years !) and there is controversial evidence to suspect that the Chinese navigated the Northwest passage many hundreds of years ago.
We know that we have had various cycles of warm and cold climate that seems to have affected the Northern Hemisphere more so than the Southern ... most probably because of the polar region being water based and the Southern Land based.
The little Ice age started post a stable and warm medieval period itself between a colder phase and a more stable warm Roman period. It is my view that solar activity has a much larger impact on the climate that we so far understand all relating and mixed in with Ocean cycles.
We know the 20TH century saw solar activity rocket as compared to the very quite 19th century ..... and that this now turning around again. I know that this is just one side of an argument, but there are data to suggest that one of the mechanisms of an active sun, is to affect cloud formation (via an electromagnetic component) and the amount of solar irradiation absorbed by the surface of the Earth. This is really going to be most felt in the Oceans, that will take in that heat building up a warm pool of water. This will be distributed by the ocean currents to the Northern and Southern permament heat loss sinks and distributed across the land via wind currents.
We know we have ENSO, NAO and PDO cycles, that when in phase can readily amplify or when out of phase modulate the temperature signal.
During the course of roughly 58 years of observation since 1950, the PDO in its negative (cold) phase coincided withthe 1945-78 global cool period, and in its positive the 1978-2006 phase coincided with the period of global warming. At the end of the last PDO cycle the large Pacific gyre off Alsaka lost its heat and the cyclel turned negative, coinciding with the recent fall .... or levelling off in surface temperatures.
From what I have read, there are a number of factors that can account for the Majority of the late 20th century warming - solar being a major constituent. We have a current levelling off / drop in global temperatures (since 1998), a recent shift inthe Jet stream South (not what we have been forecast !!) and loss of heat store in the oceans, all coinciding with a 30% drop in solar magnetic energy from a peak in 1990 to the peak in 2000 and a lengthened interlude of low megnetic energy from 2006 to 2010.
There is at least a body of evidence to suggest that the major part of the 1980-2000 warming was caused by cloud thinning and increased flux of visible light to the ocean and land surface; the cloud patterns showing evidence of phase changes associated with ocean oscillations as well as the peaks and troughs of the solar cycle.
Does all of this explain the recent observations of Global warming ...... I am not 100% certain, not at all ....... however, they certainly to my mind make me question the computer Co2 model, and the longer the predicted temperature patterns deviate from that observed (see Met-office site for graph), then the more I am coming to question the 'consensus' theory.
Lets see what happens .... La Nina for late summer / Autumn ?
Y.S
With
-
Unfortunately Blast if this only effects the NH, then the warmers will still claim victory. Too many with their own political agendas, wishing for AGW to be proved right. Maybe a snow ball earth scenario would be the only thing left to convince them, sadly it would be far too late by then for them to take their blinkers off!We will see a big drop in global temps over the next few years. The scene has been set, the El Nino is subsiding and pretty fast now too. The global pattern is locking into a cold phase now and it will be visually evident by back end of this year. Indeed it is evident now but 'wait and see' is what must happen.
We are not in a deep minimum yet...we are heading towards a deep minimum and the continued citing of the earth still being warm in a deep minimum is at best misleading.
BFTP
-
Don't blame you CB, some just refuse to accept that solar output as a lag effect. Still give it a few more years, and maybe then the penny will drop!Posted by myself on another thread, but applicable to all:
I really do give up - henceforth I shall be doing any further work on the LI with VP by e-mail and telephone...I've had enough of this smug point-scoring (and it's not even legitimate point-scoring because you still haven't got the...well, er... point).
Adieu.
CB
-
Not at all, but taking individual months over a 30 year time scale shows what exactly? Also a lot of those recordings are taken in the midst of a el nino, so are expected to above average!Well, when cooling is local that's what it is, likewise when, on average, the globe is warming. I wont pretend that isn't the reality nor would I if the opposite was the case.
So, all the temperature record showing record or near record warmth atm are wrong?
-
Dr Lockwood is talking about a possible localised cooling that happens at the same time the globe continues to warm - I fail to see the problem with that.
Re the volcano, so far it's had little or no effect on either the weather or the climate.
Funny when it's cooling it's localised, but when it's warming it's Global. Well that's what they would like all us drones to think, however any evidence that supports continuing warming is sketchy to say the least!
-
It does bring a smile to my face LG, for years AGW's where adamant that there was no correlation between solar activity and global temps. Oh dear is that another wheel that has fallen off the AGW bandwagon. Still that won't stop the eco-terrorist demanding we cut all our emissions to zilch, whilst having no viable alternative to put in it's place!From the same bunch of people who only a few years back were regaling us with tales of being able to grow bananas and stuff in our window boxes due to global warming...
http://www.dailyexpr...-Little-Ice-Age
Climate changists - I wash my hands of you,and the recent events in Iceland are a reminder of our insignificance and helplessness when Ma Nature shrugs.
-
No don't GW - this is the Arctic Ice thread.
-
No worries Stew , current synoptics runs it well south of any 'ice' so you just have AGW to worry about (record global temps, warm plumes etc.) and the pee poor condition of the ice in the high Arctic...........
Explain how that is down to AGW please!
-
GW you can't say that. Warmists say there's no link between sun activity and the world climate.
Did the baddies nick the data or was left open for all by accident. There hasn't been any prosecutions by the plods.
Aye indeed they do PIT, beggars belief how some on here are so blinkered. Apologises to one or two pro AGW's on here who aren't so blinkered!
-
Hi Jethro, Sorry I have to disagree, the report said that government policy over paying for the data the should be produced was partly to blame and that the CRU policy on the FOI requests was essentially right, however how the back office staff dealt with it was wrong, this isn't the scientists fault and the report has not found that it was.
BTW I agree they should be more open and things need to change, but the skeptics have by and large scored a very large own goal here. The science is good.
The good thing is that they had been cleared of cooking the books, unlike another group which was part of the infamous Hockey stick. As for the science being good, that's a wee bit premature, as that implies it's all settled. But maybe some good will come out of this, an honest and open house is one which the IPCC should now be striving for. As it does seem that in general the scientists aren't the ones to blame!!
-
It certainly is, but what will it have to with AGW? Absolutely nothing GW, let's look at the facts, we are still below the post 79 average, but there as been a recovery during the last 3 years. Come September we will know whether that is 4 years or not, until then lets speculate.bb ,what does 'more' mean where you come from? I know with children under 3 there is a propensity towards choosing that which 'looks' larger over volume so an under 3 would choose a rolled out sweetie over two of the same sweets rolled together. Don't tell me that you really choose the thin stretched ice extent as the 'more' in this case. How can folk accept in one breath that the perennial has drastically reduced since 79' and then tell us that sea ice has reached the levels of 79'????? Please ,tell me how that works. We either have the same amount of ice in the Arctic Basin as we did in 79' or we don't, Scientific measurement says we have up to 2/3 less ice today than in 79' so how can it be the same?????
Within 3 months we'll have science papers on the findings and then we'll have blogs about the papers and then the broadsheets will be running the story and then the red-tops will run the story.
It's all going to get very interesting now isn't it?
round and round we go SC. I did not state "this shows AGW to be right". I was very specifically pointing out that enhanced warming of the Arctic is but one of many requirements for the AGW theory, and one that is supported by the evidence. Therefore AGW is supported by Arctic observations, not proven by them. Or do you not believe that Arctic sea ice is retreating, that temperatures have risen more in the Arctic than elsewhere, and that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting at an ever-faster rate? These observations are not based on dodgy science. All the studies I're read clearly state that the thinning and reduction in albedo of the sea ice makes it ever more vulnerable to favourable winds or weather patterns. I haven't seen a single recent study suggesting natural variation to be the cause of Arctic warming. Care to enlighten me? I do like your "Absolutely no evidence"! Go have a read of the papers yourself. Restrict yourself to the last 2 years of publications on Greenland and the Arctic ice, and there's plenty to keep you busy.
Good posts G-W, but it's clear that some just don't want to understand what is happening.
sss
Your so good at twisting others words, yet you fail to take on board at what is being said. I don't need to read your propaganda thank you very much. As for Arctic ice retreating, no arguments there. but what does that tell us sss. Does it say that this is down to AGW, NO. So lets look at the facts, not the IPCC book of fables.
Ps
Your patronising tone to every skeptic who disagrees with you, is beginning to grate me. For that reason I'm giving your posts a wide birth!!!
-
But surely the point is that enhanced warming in the Arctic was one of the predictions of AGW theory, therefore observation of it, as predicted, is in support of the theory. It does not, on its own, tell us that humans are warming the planet, but if the Arctic were not observed to be warmer, then the mechanisms (in relation to the Arctic) by which AGW theory operates would be suspect. However, we observe a reducing trend in Arctic sea ice (most prominent in September minima, but also present in March maxima), and we observe acceleration of and negactive mass balance in high latitude glaciers and ice sheets. Hence the theory is supported by the evidence. Temperature data conclusively shows polar amplification. A great deal of other evidence from other sources demonstrates the link to humans, and observed effects in different layers of the atmosphere.
sss
Absolutely no evidence to support any such claims, there is just as much evidence in hand for natural variation to be responsible. It's been well documented the causes of warming in the Arctic, so to state that this shows the AGW theory to be right is nonsense. I admire your well drilled stance, but the proof is in the pudding, and as of yet you have provided none, just wild claims backed up by questionable science.
-
All ice has to start (or re-start) somewhere. Previously in history, single year ice has obviously being multi year ice - so we know it can happen.
The situation in 2007 was extremely vulnerable, as we all know. Yes it is only a short time, and we certainly cannot draw conclusions of lasting recovery as a given from this, but that said, it is very telling that from the most vulnerable of stages in 2007 we have seen a stabilisation and higher ice maxima retention since then plus now we see a figure that brings us in line with 2002/3.
We also know that there have been cyclical synoptic changes as well since the mid 2000 decade - with a markededly increasingly more southerly tracking jet stream that is taking less warmer plumes of air into the arctic.
And as others say, we have seen the same doomwatch prophecies that each year that passes will be the deathknell of the arctic ice. Not in 2008, not in 2009 and now not so far in 2010 either. We wait on the summer to see what happens
Such people profess to not wanting the arctic ice to fail, yet apparently revel in every opportunity of seemingly wanting to make the same OTT predictions several times a week (somethimes several times a day!)
Unfortunately as a consequence of this, it is hard not to believe that it is some kind of wind-up - and that they do actually want it to happen all in the name of rubber stamping AGW.
Then others will suggest that we should look at 'the science' and follow slavishly what that suggests in terms of forebodings. As an example - recent history has shown that such predictions have not been correct too. Failures like an inability to pick up cyclical changes in positive (warming) and negative (cooling) cycles such as the PDO. One only has to look at the astonishment of the METO that the jet stream has defied climatic trends and headed south. Very much reflected in their warm tinted seasonal forecasts which have gone woefully wrong due to their subsumation in all things AGW without looking at the bigger picture in tems of what real seasonal factors are going to influence the weather instead of meddling with adding bolt on % increases in temperature for assumed man made forcings. They have forgotten that climate is long term and the weather is 'now'
Undoubtably in my mind the change in synoptic pattern that 'the science' has failed to anticipate, or believe was even able to happen, is a main reason for the stabillisation of the arctic ice since 2007.
Also we should look at the failure and mishandling of the negative solar minimum cycle (see NASA for eg here) for similar over pre-occupied reasons as the UK METO. Once again, solar minimum is a big driver of synoptic patterns in terms of stratosphere/ozone behaviour and impacts on the AO and in turn jet stream patterns. Which in turn impact the polar field and the arctic ice distribution.
'The Science', to my mind, pays far too much attention to supposition over the possibility that man made positive warmth amplification feedbacks might exist to override and negative cyclical feedbacks to the point where it becomes so skewed that only reality finally shows it up as over exaggerated and over cooked.
It is a bit like hearing a doom laden weather forecast and then watching and waiting to see it inevitably unfold out of your own window. Sometimes what you actually go on to witness is not what was predicted to happen.
An excellent summary there Tamara, I'll say it just about sums up where we stand regarding climatic observations, or I shall say the lack of!
-
Well if your going of evidence, then we are in upward trend. I find this thread fascinating, with all the unsubstantiated claims about how we are all doomed. So let's just wait until September for the conclusion, that way no one has to eat humble pie!Doc, I go by the evidence. Wrt Arctic ice I think the evidence is: a long term downward trend in both ice extent and area and a very marked reduction in average ice age (thus thickness). In that context I think blips, even a month is that, mean little. What say you?
-
But CB, I've shown you examples of our direct measurement of the causation, namely reduction of outgoing longwave radiation at CO2 and methane-specific wavelengths, and a similar increase in downward longwave radiation measured at the surface. The decrease in OLR is of the magnitude expected for our increase in GHGs. (Harries et al, 2001 Nature and other refs - the Skeptical Science link has them I think). This is direct observation that CO2 is the cause. The basic fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is not really up for discussion in the sense that it's science as old as the Theory of Evolution, and older than quantum mechanics. The physics says so, the effects were first predicted, and now they are observed, directly. That Richard Alley doesn't feel the need to explain that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is merely an extension of the fundamental nature of that property of the gas. What he is concentrating on is the sensitivity, as recorded in palaeoclimate records. The magnitude is up for discussion, yes, but sensibly it should reside somewhere between 2C and 4.5C as judged by many studies, be they experimental, modelling or palaeoclimate.
So yes, (as Alley says) the fact we can't explain it any other way is not causation in itself, but it is powerful evidence in favour of CO2 being as important as he says it is. That aligned with our direct observations of the CO2 warming effect in the atmosphere, and the spatial pattern of effects that is distinct from other possible causes, shows that CO2 is the driver of warming, and not solar, clouds, ENSO or anything else.
YS: some RC links:
http://www.realclima...climate-change/ (earlier Scafetta paper)
http://www.realclima...climate-models/ (summary of global dimming including Wild)
http://www.realclima...logical-sequel/ (2007 scafetta paper you quote - very poor science!)
http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/ (clouds, weather and bad science!)
As I've said before, just because it is peer-reviewed (eg Scafetta and West 2007, McLean et al 2009) does not make it 'right'. Consider the data in the paper, and consider others' replies to the data. I've a suspicion you're misinterpreting Wild et al 2005, and your assertions are far too simplistic. I don't think Wild would say what you have said (re relative influence of solar vs CO2), so who did, or was it your interpretation?
sss
Edit: basics of CO2 properties from two sources, both with lots of technical info, and the second a 7-part series (removed from my posting on the technical discussion as it wasn't peer-reviewed):
http://chriscolose.w...fect-revisited/
http://scienceofdoom...e-gas-part-one/
And from RC, another really good description of why a little extra CO2 means a lot, and why we are not near saturation of CO2:
I fail to see how it's more powerful an argument than any other theory out there, it's still at best a stab in the dark.
-
That's the sort of answer a politician would give! It still doesn't answer my question, regarding AGW being responsible for our "past warming" though? It just shows that we have warmed, not the causation!Entertaining blindness here. I pointed out very obvious flaws and clear errors in Dilley's work and his posting. Not the least was an assertion about CO2 measurements not being possible over the last 1000 years, or at high resolution, when in fact they are and the data has been available for over a decade. I did not actually comment on Dilley's hypothesis, only the quality of his background research.
"As per usual sss, you are keen to dismiss any theory that goes against AGW being the main source of "past warming" we've endured." No I didn't, because I did not discuss Dilley's 'theory'. If there's evidence for an alternative hypothesis, I'll consider it, why not show some good evidence?
"What we don't find is 'intentional mistakes' like what the IPCC and Phil Jones presented, and what we do see is the climate beginning to respond similar to as projected". Please show the evidence for your slander of IPCC and Jones, in that you suggest without evidence, that somehow the IPCC (and by implication thousands of supporting studies) and Jones deliberately falsified material, where all of dear old Dilley's "mistakes" were purely accidental. Looks very much like double standards in your levels of skepticism there. Show me some evidence of the climate beginning to "respond" any different to what AGW theory suggests. I have shown you the global temperature datasets show that the warming continues unabated through the last decade, but I suppose you're blind to that too.
Looks very much to me like the blindness is only on one side here. You can be as open-minded as you like but you have to be able to assess the veracity of what someone is saying to you, and decide whether it is correct or not. If someone believes every word that Dilley is saying, it tells me a lot about that person's ability to perform critical thinking.
sss
-
Why don't you look at the data yourself? I link to it via the NCDC website for Vostok data. My point was to prove your assertion that ice core CO2 data points are averaged over 4000 years is totally false, which I did. Using one of the references you cite, I showed you that the closure ages are an order of magnitude smaller than you assert. Then, using data from the paper that you cite (Fischer et al), I showed that there is very little noise in high-resolution data from between 137000 and 127000 years ago. I also showed you a reference and a link to ice core CO2 data from the last 1000 years (Taylor Dome), in direct contrast to your assertion that such data does not exist. Can you see why I think your ability to research a topic is woeful?
You can glibly suggest that all my criticisms of your 'book' don't change the final findings, but I showed your level of research to be very poor in a mere 10 minute read of it, showing it is littered with inaccuracies that you could easily correct if you read the relevant papers in the first place. Your source material is also suspect, and glib assertions of "you'd complain about whatever source I used" don't cover the fact that you use as a source for your cycles an article in a 'popular science' magazine, that you turn a misquote (Rind abour permafrost) from a web page into a 'reference', that in your above 'reference list' you reference Wikipedia, and that you don't seem to understand the consequences for the world of melting all the ice on Vostok.
Your essay appears to be a poor contribution to the anti-science being pushed on the public. It is exactly the sort of thing the Royal Society for Chemistry were concerned about in Point 10 of their submission to Parliament:
"The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight."
sss
Edit: Blast, I think you'll find rather more than typos wrong with the 'book'.
As per usual sss, you are keen to dismiss any theory that goes against AGW being the main source of "past warming" we've endured. And what is this anti-science nonsense you keep churning out?
Lets not forget AGW is still only a theory, not a fact! Yes we have warmed, but you can present no evidence to show that man is responsible for this.
Thanks CB, it's Google Chrome I blame!! 
General Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted