What Is Causing The Warming ?

[edveasey]

I did a simple thing a couple of years ago, CET against number of sunspots recorded, records for both these go back to around 1650 and can be found on the web if you want to have ago

What I found was that a series of prolonged and low sunspot activity did corrolate more to CET temperatures than the shorter ones, that would suggest (simply from this data) that there is a cumulative effect, but there was also evidence of the shorter cycles having a direct effect also although not as pronounced.

I would still maintain that the lack of sunspot activity for the last 4 years, coupled with a strong La nina would now be giving us some lower than average global data, rather than the higher than average although lower than late 1990's. I was very suprised by the record ocean temperature this summer I think I'd like to see what factors caused this if anyone has any theories.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the lag between changes in solar activity and sea temperatures is only significant near the bottom of the sea, where temperatures take much longer to respond than at the surface. The lag concerning sea surface temperatures is actually quite small. Novembers 1995 and 2001 both had very high SSTs surrounding the British Isles following very warm Octobers, but in both cases a cold December followed and by the end of the December the SSTs had fallen to around normal. In contrast November 2006 also had very high SSTs around Britain but the winter that followed was very warm and so SSTs stayed very high.

This does not cut out the possibility of there being a substantial lag with solar activity because we also have to take into account its various effects on the atmosphere, but I don't think SSTs are a major source of lag in themselves.

My view is still that during the 2000s the absence of warming can be largely explained by the phase of ENSO, with many years having neutral or La Nina values in contrast with the exceptional dominance of El Nino states in the 1980s and 1990s. But you can also look at that another way and argue with some justification that ENSO probably contributed to the rapid warming of the 1980s and 1990s.

As for the record ocean temperatures this summer, I guess they will have been mainly the result of the developing El Nino.

[VillagePlank]

Whilst speculation, and debate is a very good thing, what cannot be brushed to one side as some sort of freak show is the 90%+ correlation of the leaky integrator. I should add, of course, that there is no known mechanism for sunspot count translating into insolation. And that's the crux of the matter. Plenty of researchers have found a link, and plenty of them have been published.

Should a mechanism be found that physically links sunspot count to climate, it's all over for the CO2 debate. That's a long way off, if, indeed, it actually occurs.

At risk of showing my hand, if you like, there is substantial mathematical evidence that corroberates hysteresis at all levels of weather measuremnt. From the hour, to the day, to the week, to the month, to the year, to the climate. Theoretically, it's sound.

[Iceberg]

I do disagree with that VP, past historic temperature trends do show some correlation with sunspot activity and a mechanism for this correlation surely exists.

What you need to prove is that ALL current warming is down to sunspot/SI activity without CO2 then we will have to stop thinking that CO2 is an important driver in climate variation this coming 100 years.

Of course there is hysteresis at all levels of measurement, the hotest part of the year isn't the longest day and hottest part of the day isn't where the sun reaches it's maximum point.

The problem comes when you say that the hottest day goes further and further into August due to hysteresis, wrt to this there is no evidence or correlation.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi

Doesn't the fact that we are still recording above average global temperatures despite being in a solar minima suggest that other man made factors are infact driving the climate. I heard this monring on the skeptics guide podcast that new research suggests that the solar cycle has a larger effect on the global climate than previoulsy thought; if this is the case why aren't we recording colder years.

Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. This is not a Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf or even Gleissberg minima we are in. This is the Schwabe minima which is deeper than most currently. The effect of the solar minima bites when it achieves the level of minima mentioned. Gleissberg minima is for 203 or cycle 25 to 26. This will not happen instantaneously, remeber it took 100 years for the planet to warm 0.7c, or after the mid century, dip 30 years. The schwabe cycle has low effect, its the bigger cycles that have the bigger effect.

I too was very surprised to see the oceans at their warmest ever....really.

With regards to the article on Tsunamis, volcanic activity etc etc, that isn't far fetched as that type of thing happens...but it happens with cyclical effects of the magnetic and gravitational heaves on the planet from the sun, moon and other planets...not because of CO2

BFTP

Edited September 8, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

I'm sorry Fred. But, I still don't buy into this 'magnetism causes tsunamis' stuff...CO₂'s effect on climate may well be being exaggerated, I'll readily accept that. But, as for all this GWO/astrometeorology stuff? Sorry, but I don't buy it, as it stands...

When somebody comes-up with a mechanism of causation (and not just a mere correlation), I'll gladly reconsider my position. But, as it stands, IMO, it all sounds like someone telling me what they think I want to hear i.e. that there's a severe winter just around the corner...And, in that, they're right enough! :unsure:

PS Fred: I'm not saying that as a Moderator, just me! :lol:

[Anti-Mild]

But, as it stands, IMO, it all sounds like someone telling me what they think I want to hear i.e. that there's a severe winter just around the corner...And, in that, they're right enough! :lol:

But there is a severe winter just around the corner!!

Consider the observed phase switch of PDO and NAO, the possible weak El Nino, the persistent southerly tracking jet, and the colder than average seas in our neck of the woods, and it's all in place.

Back on topic.....what is causing warming? Hmmmmm...I'll get my coat :unsure: :lol: !!

[MR EXTREMES]

hold on im not so sure about a really cold winter round the corner theres nothing to suggest this.

i notice also the warming has hit the headlines on the bbc site again http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8244223.stm

i get confused when i read this stuff i wonder wether global warming can only be the way forward and whether neg pdo amo and minimum could really take effect and i admit ive read alot on both sides.

come on people tell me?

im a coldie,

but just because i am dont mean i dont listen to both sides which is the most relistic?

there just seems to be a bombardment of warming stories i mean there pushing the colder prospects out of the picture.

[jonboy]

For my sins I do believe that the vast majority of how our climate acts in trend terms is dictated by the position of the planets and how they interact with the sun. Whether this is gravitational or magnetic fields is for some by far better brain than mine.

The suggestion that low sun activity (low sunspots) allows more cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere and thus help generate more cloud cover (different to that generated by natural sun activity) so less easily burnt off holds some sway with me and its this process that leads to cooling. Equally the orientation of the earth is also part of that process and will determine by how much the arth may cool (my thought is that if the equatoeial region was squarely in line to get the full impact of cosmic rays then this region may cool the most and how that effects is yet to be understood)

So what causes low sun activity? My mind is being drawn more and more to planetry alignment and what gravitational or magnetic forces are at play. If those forces are in balance ie planet X imports forces y at distance x is balanced by planet Z with forces A at distance B or any combination of planets that create balance then we end up with a quiet sun. We are entering a period of planetry alighnment does this actually mean our solar system is entering a period where the sun at its center is actually in balance and thus quiet if so we could indeed be entering a deep minmum which we don't undestand.

My own viewis that we are but we do not remotely understand how it all fits together and mans input is purely on a small local scale and cannot affect the underlying effect of our solar system.

My apologies if this seems to ramble but I am open minded and do feel we need to look after our planet but wish people would talk about the right reasons and blame it on GW or AGW because until we understand properly the sun's effect that cannot be proved

Jon

[VillagePlank]

I do disagree with that VP, past historic temperature trends do show some correlation with sunspot activity and a mechanism for this correlation surely exists.

What you need to prove is that ALL current warming is down to sunspot/SI activity without CO2 then we will have to stop thinking that CO2 is an important driver in climate variation this coming 100 years.

Of course there is hysteresis at all levels of measurement, the hotest part of the year isn't the longest day and hottest part of the day isn't where the sun reaches it's maximum point.

The problem comes when you say that the hottest day goes further and further into August due to hysteresis, wrt to this there is no evidence or correlation.

If you want a record breaking temperature during a day, perhaps in August, you almost certainly need to have a lead up to it. The mechanism for such a form of hysteresis is already understood such as raising soil temperature drying out the soil - the sun simply doesn't come out and produce a record breaking day. With the reduction in such properties in the soil the ground heats, and stays heated, longer. That's hysteresis.

When the sun goes down at night, does the temperature follow? Of course, it doesn't. There is a lag - that's hysteresis. How can we be recording, say, 20C temps overnight when it's dark and there's no solar driver? Hysteresis. Where is that temperature temporarily stored?

No one that I know seriously considers that CO2 is not in some form or another a player in climate. The question left, is, of course, how much? Indeed, my last post says '.. and it's all over for CO2' unfortunately there is no tongue in cheek/ irony/ cheeky wind-up smile smiley. I should know better, I guess.

I'm sorry Fred. But, I still don't buy into this 'magnetism causes tsunamis' stuff...CO₂'s effect on climate may well be being exaggerated, I'll readily accept that. But, as for all this GWO/astrometeorology stuff?

There is some evidence that the motion of the planets is a cause of sunspots which is why they readily increase and decrease in quantity with a discernable pattern (a sinusoid - which might imply elliptical orbits) IF that is the case, and then sunspots, or some process of which they indicate, is found to influence climate, then the motion of the planets causing our weather doesn't seem so silly. And sunspots are magnetic phenomena.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

The problem comes when you say that the hottest day goes further and further into August due to hysteresis, wrt to this there is no evidence or correlation.

Unfortunately, that might well be a problem with our calendar system, and nothing at all to do with weather :lol:

On a more serious note, the leaky integrator, say, works on monthly variation, and not on anything smaller. It would be weather, then, and not climate?

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Part of the problem with visualising the leaky integrator is that it is being used to describe global average temperatures. It's all very well to use the argument that it cools down rapidly at night and warms through the day, or that it's always colder in winter than it is in summer, but...

The problem with this argument is that when one side of the planet is wrapped up in bed, the other side of the planet is basking in day. When one half of the planet is shivering in winter, the other half of the planet is sweating in summer.

There's a lot more to the issue than simply the temperature at the point of measurement (whether that measurement is a thermometer or the feel of warmth on our skin - "interaction" would be a better word). I do feel, Iceberg, that you are oversimplifying the problem, and that's why you are having such difficulty in lending it any credence whatsoever.

CB

I do disagree with that VP, past historic temperature trends do show some correlation with sunspot activity and a mechanism for this correlation surely exists.

If I may ask - what is this historic mechanism?

[Iceberg]

The historic mechanism is that SN and SI is related. There is alot of evidence for this.

CB I don't think it's a case of over simplifying things, its more a case of going back to basics. I've completely agreed with VP that LI can have an effect on daily, weekly and even annual temperatures it's interannual temperatures/decadal temperatures where I have a problem unless the driver is very large.

"The problem with this argument is that when one side of the planet is wrapped up in bed, the other side of the planet is basking in day. When one half of the planet is shivering in winter, the other half of the planet is sweating in summer."

Again the problem with this statement is that temperature somehow flows around the globe and between the hemisphere's, this simply isn't the case. The vast, vast majority of the energy/temperature gets irradiated back out of the earths atmoshphere, during the nighttime and to a greater extent during winter.

Quite simply if temperature is the level of the bucket, and the level of the bucket falls back to the temperature in 1955 for example then the level of the bucket will be the same level as in 1955 and all the build up since then must have gone.

" I do feel, Iceberg, that you are oversimplifying the problem, and that's why you are having such difficulty in lending it any credence whatsoever"

I don't have a difficultly lending it credence, it's an interesting thoery, which I am sure plays some part (probably very small IMO). The difficulty I have with it is that there is simply no mechanism that can be evidenced for the LI to play a major role.

Alot of this probably belong in the LI thread I've given by reasons for not supporting the LI theory, I will watch with interest to see what evidence comes along to support it.

[VillagePlank]

[The] LI can have an effect on daily, weekly and even annual temperatures it's interannual temperatures/decadal temperatures where I have a problem unless the driver is very large.

To rephrase, hysteresis occurs on all levels apart from the one we're interested in?

This, actually, is the point that I am stuck on in writing up the LI. I'll be brief, because, as you say, this should belong elsewhere - essentially, you can measure partial dimensions of cartesian functions (the wigglely line that makes up the temperature series) These dimensions were named fractal (because they are a fraction rather than whole number) and under certain conditions the dimension stays the same no matter what the length of time you are measuring - a sure sign of self-affinity, which means aggregate weather observations might be fractal in nature. If they are fractal in nature then properties of each aggregate pass on through onto other aggregates. One of the properties, in this case, is hysteresis. The problem being is that aggregates lose information (detail - an aggregate is an average of an average etc) Information loss is related to thermodynamics in terms of entropy. And that's the tricky tie up.

Anyway if you can show a property to be the case on a day, a month, a season, a year, then it proves that that property must exist for longer periods, by induction. No need for physical evidence for a request for further research, then, if that happens to be the case.

If you'll allow me the latitude, I won't divulge exactly how you do this, because this is my work, and I'm currently writing it up. I'll publish it here, on NetWeather, though.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

I am honestly interested in what you come up with VP.

Just one last comment the effects get smaller as the timeframe increases IMO. during the day the effect is large, by the time you get to months the effects are really dwarfed by other drivers(altough still there), they are still on a decadal basis, but unless the changes to in the inbound/outbound flow are exceptionally large the effect is very very minimal.

The point you made about fractals was shown superbly on the coast program on BBC (last week I think).

If you measure the coast of the UK using a metre ruler it's 3000 miles, a 15 cm ruler and it's 5000 miles, 1 cm ruler and it's 8000 miles etc ad infinitum.

The numbers above are made up because I can't remember them exactly, but you get the gist.

[Methuselah]

I tend towards the view, that the sunspot cycle is driven by events taking-place within the Sun itself; and, that by-and-large the planets are on the receiving-end of things...

The nearest thing I can postulate as a mechanism connecting sunspot number to Earthly weather phenomena, is the relation between sunspot-number and Solar output. This is why I take the Solar minimum thingy so seriously...

[VillagePlank]

The point you made about fractals was shown superbly on the coast program on BBC (last week I think).

If you measure the coast of the UK using a metre ruler it's 3000 miles, a 15 cm ruler and it's 5000 miles, 1 cm ruler and it's 8000 miles etc ad infinitum.

Yup - I didn't see the program, but Mandelbrot introduced fractals to the human race with his earth-shattering book - The Fractal Geometry of Nature, and part of the book was published in a paper describing the length of the coastline of Britain.

... the changes to in the inbound/outbound flow are exceptionally large the effect is very very minimal.

That's largely irrelevant in a non-linear system. Even the CO2 hypothesis stipulates that very very small quantities, by volume (measure the CO2 change as a percentage of the atmosphere not as a multiple of itself) change the weather/climate significantly. Of course, we all know this as the butterfly effect, and it's abound in all things climate and weather related.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

The historic mechanism is that SN and SI is related. There is alot of evidence for this.

Sunspot number and solar irradiance being related is not a mechanism for the sun's effect on earth climate - it is an intra-solar relationship. Their being related is still true today, and yet that says nothing of the mechanism by which they affect earth's climate.

CB I don't think it's a case of over simplifying things, its more a case of going back to basics. I've completely agreed with VP that LI can have an effect on daily, weekly and even annual temperatures it's interannual temperatures/decadal temperatures where I have a problem unless the driver is very large.

Yes, but you've agreed on the principle when used on short term things like the change in temperature of one half of the earth between day and night, or winter and summer. There is a difference between these effects and the effects on the globe as a whole over a long period. As a global average on a daily basis, the Earth's temperature doesn't change much at all (perhaps a couple of ten-thousandths of a degree or thereabouts {see below} - too small to be accurately measured), but you accept hysteresis on a local scale (London is warmer some time after the sun has peaked in the sky). The two events are not comparable in the way you are trying to compare them.

"The problem with this argument is that when one side of the planet is wrapped up in bed, the other side of the planet is basking in day. When one half of the planet is shivering in winter, the other half of the planet is sweating in summer."

Again the problem with this statement is that temperature somehow flows around the globe and between the hemisphere's, this simply isn't the case. The vast, vast majority of the energy/temperature gets irradiated back out of the earths atmoshphere, during the nighttime and to a greater extent during winter.

Woah there, cowboy! You seem to be suggesting that temperature (or energy) doesn't flow around the globe at all. Remember that for the Earth to warm by the amount we have seen over the past 100 years we need only retain around 1/1000th of a degree Celsius per month, which is about 3/10000ths of a degree per day.

So you refute the suggestion that enough energy to raise temperatures by 3/10000ths of a degree could move around at all?

Quite simply if temperature is the level of the bucket, and the level of the bucket falls back to the temperature in 1955 for example then the level of the bucket will be the same level as in 1955 and all the build up since then must have gone.

I agree, but I'm not sure what your point is.

" I do feel, Iceberg, that you are oversimplifying the problem, and that's why you are having such difficulty in lending it any credence whatsoever"

I don't have a difficultly lending it credence, it's an interesting thoery, which I am sure plays some part (probably very small IMO). The difficulty I have with it is that there is simply no mechanism that can be evidenced for the LI to play a major role.

I think the mechanism you are looking for may simply be the Greenhouse Effect. Put simply, even if no changes are made to the composition of the atmosphere, if the incoming energy increases then the outgoing radiation also increases, but the outgoing doesn't increase by quite as much as the incoming (until the system has reached a new equilibrium). This is standard and accepted physics.

What happens to the atmospheric temperature if 3/10000ths of a degree of heat doesn't escape?

Alot of this probably belong in the LI thread I've given by reasons for not supporting the LI theory, I will watch with interest to see what evidence comes along to support it.

This is true. If you would like to continue then maybe we should take it over to the LI thread (or start a separate LI Discussion thread, so as to not clutter up the science in there). I don't want to hijack another person's discussion!

CB

[VillagePlank]

The nearest thing I can postulate as a mechanism connecting sunspot number to Earthly weather phenomena, is the relation between sunspot-number and Solar output. This is why I take the Solar minimum thingy so seriously...

One of the biggest problems is doing like for like analysis. For instance, as mentioned above, CO2 is measured as a ratio of some previous value of CO2. This is so that we mere human beings can understand the numbers, of course. But solar output/sunspot count is measured as an absolute count not as a ratio to itself. For instance, during a sunspot cycle, the numbers will more than treble.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Yes, but you've agreed on the principle when used on short term things like the change in temperature of one half of the earth between day and night, or winter and summer. There is a difference between these effects and the effects on the globe as a whole over a long period. As a global average on a daily basis, the Earth's temperature doesn't change much at all (perhaps a couple of ten-thousandths of a degree or thereabouts {see below} - too small to be accurately measured), but you accept hysteresis on a local scale (London is warmer some time after the sun has peaked in the sky). The two events are not comparable in the way you are trying to compare them.

Yes, that's a good point, but in all good, true, robust mathematical fashions, I'm starting off small, and looking at the climate for a point on the globe, not for the globe. The bread and butter of inductive proof one might say.

Or, to look at it another way ... we more or less stumbled on a 90%+ correlation to the Hadley set, and I'm trying to figure out why that happened. ie we observed a phenomena, and now we're at the stage of theorising, cogitation, and hypothesising. It doesn't matter if the observation was the natural world or an Excel spreadsheet, the principles are the same.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes, that's a good point, but in all good, true, robust mathematical fashions, I'm starting off small, and looking at the climate for a point on the globe, not for the globe. The bread and butter of inductive proof one might say.

Or, to look at it another way ... we more or less stumbled on a 90%+ correlation to the Hadley set, and I'm trying to figure out why that happened. ie we observed a phenomena, and now we're at the stage of theorising, cogitation, and hypothesising. It doesn't matter if the observation was the natural world or an Excel spreadsheet, the principles are the same.

Absolutely - this is really a numbers game at this point. I was pointing out to Iceberg, though, that his rationale is faulty.

I look forward to reading your write-up (is that the right thing to call it? Paper? Theory? Analysis? Curse this grammatical and syntactical precision!!).

CB

[VillagePlank]

It will have to be a sequence of paper like PDF's, I'm afraid.

[Admiral_Bobski]

It will have to be a sequence of paper like PDF's, I'm afraid.

That's no problem - I've got my Acrobat installed!

CB

[Iceberg]

We will have to agree to disagree CB.

On a slightly different note and whilst looking into something completely different.

Black Carbon and Solar variations of SI.

Solar Irradiance has a trend variation of between 1 and 2 W/m2 over the last 50 years, extending to 3 W/m2 over the last 500 years.

Now Black Carbon is essentially partly burnt Carbon that finds itself with CO2 al la soot.

Black Carbon stays in the atmosphere for only a few weeks, until it falls to earth where it makes snow dirty etc and is a plague of pollution for many people.

Whilst in the atmosphere it absorbs heat causing the atmosphere to heat up, when it falls on icesheets, glaciers etc it reduces the albedo of the ice meaning that less heat is reflected back out of the earth.

This black carbon has been around for a very long time (from volcano's amongst other things) and can be seen in all ice drill samples.

Ramanathan has recently said that the effect of Black Carbon is approx 0.9 W/m2 for direct atmospheric warming and 0.2W/m2 for ice/snow warming effects. Giving a total effect of 1.1W/m2

So are we saying that the simple effect of Black Carbon (industrial pollution) has as much effect on the warming/cooling of the planet as the solar cycle variation over the last 50 years ?.

This isn't GHG related but is rather more related to rain forest deforestion slash and burn etc.

[VillagePlank]

So are we saying that the simple effect of Black Carbon (industrial pollution) has as much effect on the warming/cooling of the planet as the solar cycle variation over the last 50 years ?.

No. Well, at least, I'm not saying that. I am saying that the effect of the sun is multiplied by some sort of hysteresis effect. Of course, in the final analysis I would have to calculate what the effective w/m2 actually is for each year, but I'm not ready for that yet. Insolation figures are for spot measurements - they only measure what's coming in, and not what's already here, the leaky integrator, well, integrates in, out, and existing, as a proportion of existing.

Edited September 9, 2009 by VillagePlank