General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

1.

Quick answer to some of your question.

Item #1 I used different data than most researchers, exacted the data myself and this is the average lunar month the data showed...27.3 strong cycle using perigee and declination, so it differs from a straight declination cycle once the mean is taken.

Item #2 Yes there is a typo or two....this is a free book with no grant money, did our best with limited resources...and thank you for pointing out the Bryson mispelling in that one stance, we had not caught that one, most understand and get by it just fine.

Item #3 I am sure someone would have complained about anyone I used.

Item #4 Ice in Lake Vostok only goes to about 450,000 years ago...so it is different than the one you mention 500km from it...that is quite a difference and conditions can be different

Item #6 I am talking about permafrost newly exposed as glaciers retreat and melt, and as the 200 year warming cycles warm northern areas...so it is newly exposed in most cases.

Some good suggestions by you, but I could not cover all in my limited book available "free" for all to read.

If you would like to help with a more indepth book...we should do it.

Thank you for your comments...and it was nice to see they did not change my findings.

Regards

David

Surely that is the most important thing at the end of the day. I am sure that any of the IPCC scientists would be prone to some of the 'errors' mentioned if they didn't have the luxuries afforded to them in terms of resources. In the final analysis it is whose findings are more accurate rather than the route taken to get there.

Who cares a monkies basically....keep up your good work

[sunny starry skies]

I plotted the Vostok ice core samples and the plot was available only had meaned data points for anywhere from about 1000 to 4000 years...did not have points anywhere near 140 years or 300 years. The values are meaned over a long period of time to rid noise (such as seen in 4 or 5 year running means for world temperatures during the past 100 years). Yes they may analyze data every 140 or 300 years or so, but it is then meaned over a much longer period of time.

And it should be noted that takes several thousand years for snow to compact to form ice, thus new ice from 4 to 8 thousand years ago does have problems as you noted in the earlier thread. I recognize this and talk about it during power point presentations. This is the main reason we do not have a history of CO2 from 1900 back several thousand years.

Regards

David Dilley

What, you mean like this record, for the last 1000 years?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

Some nice figures in there of what the CO2 record looks like in an ice core, over the last 1000 years.

Etheridge, D.M., G.I. Pearman, and P.J. Fraser. 1992. Changes in tropospheric methane between 1841 and 1978 from a high accumulation rate Antarctic ice core. Tellus 44B:282-294.

Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan. 1996. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO₂ over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research 101:4115-4128.

And you fail to understand the concept of 'closure age' once again...

Data is available from ice cores, and you can easily identify the resolution, as well as the data quality:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

For the Fischer et al study, it is easy to determine that their samples are focused around their areas of interest. During the ~130Ka glacial termination, there are 53 samples between 137Ka BP and 127Ka BP, a mean of less than 200 years. This sampling resolution is not the same as the closure age, which is the time over which the bubbles are trapped (about 300 years for this core). Nor is it the same as the age of the ice, or the time of transition between snow and ice. So your hypothesis is totally unsupported (that they average the data over much longer timescales), and I'd also rather you did not misrepresent what I said as well.

The high resolution Fischer study shows how low the internal variability for CO2 measurements within an ice core is at high sampling resolutions. For the above-mentioned hi-res region in the Fischer dataset, the mean difference between neighbouring measurements, once the rising trend of the glacial termination is removed, is 8.76ppm, with a standard deviation of 8.8ppm. This indicates excellent agreement between neighbouring measurements, and no sign of the wild scatter you talk about. And crucially it is in the relatively slowly-accumulating Vostok ice core.

I apologise to other readers of this thread for continuing this argument, but this is basic palaeoclimate science, with the data readily available for examination, and so I feel it important that others are not misled by incorrect assertions.

sss

[Cycles]

I have listed below many of the references I used. And I do remember some sources indicating problems with using new ice (newer than a few thousand years old). And you are right, those using the new ice have good resolution such as what you mentioned (few hundred years).

The older ice data cited in my book is for period well beyond several thousand years ago, and the resolution is several hundread years out to several thousand years...just as I mentioned in the book.

For their data noise was filtered out, and of course values meaned over the several hundred to several thousand year period.

Big question concerns the noise filtered out...is it totally noise, or is it spiked in CO2 during the 200 year recurring global warming cycles??

References...

3. Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus43(:83- 90.

4. Barnola, J.M.,Raynaud D., Lorius C., Historical CO2 Record from the Vostok Ice Core, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Geophysique de l’Environment, 38402 Saint Martin d’HeresCedex, France,.

8. Fischer, H. Whalen, M., Smith, J. Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations. Science, 12 Mar 1999: 283: 1712-1714.

13. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, at the Earth Institute at Columbia University http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/

14. Mann M.E., Bradley and Hughes, 1998, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No.6, p. 759-762

20. Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and Atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

1. 1000 year and 2000 year temperature reconstructions from Wikipedia (Figures 21-22) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparisons.Png#Reconstructions

2. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures, The Holocene, 8: 455-471.

3. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

4. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction, Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289: 270-277.

5. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network, J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.

6. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability, Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.

7. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.

8. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143

9. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future, Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781

10. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265

11. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

[Cycles]

The high resolution Fischer study shows how low the internal variability for CO2 measurements within an ice core is at high sampling resolutions. For the above-mentioned hi-res region in the Fischer dataset, the mean difference between neighbouring measurements, once the rising trend of the glacial termination is removed, is 8.76ppm, with a standard deviation of 8.8ppm. This indicates excellent agreement between neighbouring measurements, and no sign of the wild scatter you talk about. And crucially it is in the relatively slowly-accumulating Vostok ice core.

sss

Please let me know if I am wrong, but is the Fischer study for newer ice and with the high resolution you are talking about? It is the newer ice I have heard has problems because of the age of it (too new.

Data I looked at for the older ice had much less resolution (600 to a few thousand years old), and thus providing mean values for many warming-cooling cycles during the period in question.

[Roger J Smith]

UK climate returns to normal since May 2007

__________________________________________________

Here's something you probably won't read in your newspaper or see on TV, but based on the CET monthly temperatures averaged over the entire period of record 1659 to Feb 2010, the following facts emerge:

1940 to 1987 inclusive mean temp 0.26 above long-term average

1988 to Apr 2007 inclusive mean temp 1.05 above long-term average

May 2007 to Feb 2010 mean temp 0.23 above long-term average

This gives an indication that the temperature increases associated with the "global warming" period have been halted and that the temperature has returned to the baseline established in the period 1940 to 1987 which I chose because it is widely seen as the period of "old-fashioned U.K. winters" in the past century.

For further comparison, note the following:

average 1901 to 1939 was 0.22 above long-term average

average 1901 to 1987 was 0.25 above long-term average

average 1801 to 1900 was .09 below long-term average

average 1701 to 1800 was .05 below long-term average

average 1659 to 1700 was .46 below long-term average

average 1711 to 1739 was .23 above long-term average

What all of these facts show is the following:

There was a relatively cold period in the late 17th century which faded out around 1710. This was followed by an interval from 1711 to 1739 not unlike most of the 20th century and apparently the very recent period.

The 18th and 19th centuries in general were slightly colder than the 20th century, by about 0.3 to 0.4 C degrees.

The period 1988 to April 2007 then saw a considerable warming of about 0.8 Celsius degrees when compared to the base line established. This increase does not appear in the data from May 2007 to the present.

I don't draw any conclusions from this, but these are the facts we are dealing with.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

David

Your book is fascinating and IMO the last couple of years have shown some very interesting traits. When one starts nit picking at typos then you know your research is getting under the skin as it appears to have some meat to it.

Roger

That is a very interesting post, it goes to show that AGW cannot be rammed down thr throat on a local basis which was so repetitively done when winters were mild. It must be said that local cooling doesn't discount it either....but balance is what its all about....and that post is balanced.

Ice

what was the El Nino update. Going solely on the Unisys the SST signal in El Nino region is now below +2c anomaly and in mid Feb it was above +2.5c. Like I say though this isn't an official report but an observation by myself.

BFTP

Edited March 9, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[sunny starry skies]

Please let me know if I am wrong, but is the Fischer study for newer ice and with the high resolution you are talking about? It is the newer ice I have heard has problems because of the age of it (too new.

Data I looked at for the older ice had much less resolution (600 to a few thousand years old), and thus providing mean values for many warming-cooling cycles during the period in question.

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'.

Edited March 9, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Solar Cycles]

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.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Edit: Blast, I think you'll find rather more than typos wrong with the 'book'.

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....that'll do for now and he is right, all your posturing hasn't chnaged the findings. I am like RJS inasmuch that we think this is 'part' of the big picture but nonetheless a sigtnificant find.

Govts, AGW scientists have no intention of giving anything that goes against AGW any weight whatsoever, we all know that.

BFTP

Edited March 9, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

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.

Anti science is probably anything that flies in the face of 'puritanical' AGW Shades of the Exorcist almost methinks

Mr Starry believes it is fact and is simply incredulous that not everyone else does - hence his frustration at our overwhelming idiocy.

The premise of Davids book is entirely credible imo - irrespective of the attempted shredding of it.

Entirely agree Fred with your thoughts - you could brush your spelling up though!

Edited March 9, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[sunny starry skies]

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

[Solar Cycles]

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

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!

[sunny starry skies]

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!

How about we move the discussion forward. I'll not thank you for comparing me to a politician, as I was stating facts about the poor quality of Dilley's research.

Here's a paper (Lean, 2010) just released that reviews evidence for solar activity's influence on climate. It once again shows that the influence on climate is there, but that it is at the <10% level.

http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC18.html

I think the article is freely available to all as well.

What do you think of the article? Here's a pertinent quote from it:

"Although the sheer volume and the high fidelity of the empirical evidence may suggest a prominent solar impact on global climate, Figure 7 cautions that the corresponding global response is typically an order of magnitude smaller than the strongest site-specific Sun–climate linkages (with increases of as much as 1◦C during the solar cycle). Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming (based in part on the attribution of radiometric trends to real solar irradiance changes49) presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured

increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun."

What do you mean by 'past warming'? If you mean the 19th-20th Century, you have the attribution studies. If you mean a direct causal link between GHGs and climate, you have observations of Earth's radiation to space, and of increased downward longwave radiation, as I have linked to previously, as well as the 100-year-old physics that predicted that this would happen.

sss

[Devonian]

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.

He's read the papers cited, and shown how and why they are being misinterpreted. If you think him wrong YOU show is why rather than make glib ccusations of him

UK climate returns to normal since May 2007

__________________________________________________

Here's something you probably won't read in your newspaper or see on TV, but based on the CET monthly temperatures averaged over the entire period of record 1659 to Feb 2010, the following facts emerge:

1940 to 1987 inclusive mean temp 0.26 above long-term average

1988 to Apr 2007 inclusive mean temp 1.05 above long-term average

May 2007 to Feb 2010 mean temp 0.23 above long-term average

This gives an indication that the temperature increases associated with the "global warming" period have been halted and that the temperature has returned to the baseline established in the period 1940 to 1987 which I chose because it is widely seen as the period of "old-fashioned U.K. winters" in the past century.

For further comparison, note the following:

average 1901 to 1939 was 0.22 above long-term average

average 1901 to 1987 was 0.25 above long-term average

average 1801 to 1900 was .09 below long-term average

average 1701 to 1800 was .05 below long-term average

average 1659 to 1700 was .46 below long-term average

average 1711 to 1739 was .23 above long-term average

What all of these facts show is the following:

There was a relatively cold period in the late 17th century which faded out around 1710. This was followed by an interval from 1711 to 1739 not unlike most of the 20th century and apparently the very recent period.

The 18th and 19th centuries in general were slightly colder than the 20th century, by about 0.3 to 0.4 C degrees.

The period 1988 to April 2007 then saw a considerable warming of about 0.8 Celsius degrees when compared to the base line established. This increase does not appear in the data from May 2007 to the present.

I don't draw any conclusions from this, but these are the facts we are dealing with.

I can't seee anyone is denying those fact? I do though wonder if it's advisable to draw firm conclusions from the end point of a data series?

[jethro]

Here's a paper (Lean, 2010) just released that reviews evidence for solar activity's influence on climate. It once again shows that the influence on climate is there, but that it is at the <10% level.

http://wires.wiley.c...isId-WCC18.html

I think the article is freely available to all as well.

sss

I've had a quick look through that paper (thank you) I'm rather puzzled though....

It says:

"from 2014 to 2019, global annual surface temperatures are expected to increase only minimally (0.03^°C), as declining solar irradiance cancels much of the anthropogenic warming, analogous to the recent period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance during the descending phase of solar cycle 23 countered much of the anthropogenic warming. "

And:

"Although solar irradiance cycles impart only modest global mean surface temperature changes (of 0.1^°C), they are nevertheless sufficient to alter climate trends on decadal time scales and must therefore be understood and quantified for more reliable near-term climate forecasts".

If solar cycles only impart changes of 0.1c but are able to decrease the impact of AGW down to 0.03c then surely that implies the degree of warming due to AGW is tiny and that the Sun is by far and away the most important driver of climate change and warming?

Am I having a thicko moment??????

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the key argument is regarding short term vs long term: solar activity can cause enough decadal variability to drown out the AGW signal but if climate models have a half-reasonable handle on the situation then the AGW signal is capable of producing a warming over a long period of time that far outweighs that from the degree of solar forcing that we've seen in reliably-recorded history.

I have my doubts about the sun being responsible for the temperature trend between 2002 and 2008- wasn't there a strong La Nina event in 2008 that was largely or entirely responsible for the cooling of that year?

The figures that the paper comes out with (90% of the warming over the last 100 years being anthropogenic in origin, solar activity contributing 10% or less) are dependent on the reliability of the models used, so I would stop well short of accepting these as the last word (for sake of balance, note that I would say the same if a study reached the conclusion that solar activity explained, say, 30-50% of the warming).

[Devonian]

I've had a quick look through that paper (thank you) I'm rather puzzled though....

It says:

"from 2014 to 2019, global annual surface temperatures are expected to increase only minimally (0.03^°C), as declining solar irradiance cancels much of the anthropogenic warming, analogous to the recent period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance during the descending phase of solar cycle 23 countered much of the anthropogenic warming. "

And:

"Although solar irradiance cycles impart only modest global mean surface temperature changes (of 0.1^°C), they are nevertheless sufficient to alter climate trends on decadal time scales and must therefore be understood and quantified for more reliable near-term climate forecasts".

If solar cycles only impart changes of 0.1c but are able to decrease the impact of AGW down to 0.03c then surely that implies the degree of warming due to AGW is tiny and that the Sun is by far and away the most important driver of climate change and warming?

Am I having a thicko moment??????

.03C for about five years or .06 for a decade or, take away the Sun .16C for that decade? So, an underlying anthro warming effect of .16C for that decade - about on projection?

[jethro]

I think the key argument is regarding short term vs long term: solar activity can cause enough decadal variability to drown out the AGW signal but if climate models have a half-reasonable handle on the situation then the AGW signal is capable of producing a warming over a long period of time that far outweighs that from the degree of solar forcing that we've seen in reliably-recorded history.

But wouldn't that rely upon either increased impact from GHG's (contradicting the physics) or heat being stored and masked? I find both of those implausible.

.03C for about five years or .06 for a decade or, take away the Sun .16C for that decade? So, an underlying anthro warming effect of .16C for that decade - about on projection?

?????????

[Cycles]

Literature I read for my book indicated that ice core samples are very unreliable during the past 3,000 years or so...and yes I read Fischer, but data is unreliable. It takes several thousands of years for ice to form through the process of compacting snow. So how is it that you continually site new ice data as being relilable and with small deviations of CO2?

And again I stand by what I said concerning ice core samples older than 5,000 years. There is a long term mean taken during these samples, and by doing so it dampens out warm/cool cycles which occur every 200 years. And it is common knowledge among researchers that these readings are not as accurate as an instantaneous reading by today's instruments....thus in some instances we are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing old data versus today's data.

My research was quoted properly from the research papers I read. And yes anyone can argue differences in approaches, that is why there are thousands of papers out there with differeing views concerning reliability...probably is not a concensus on reliability.

And we should look at the IPCCC. Just a few years ago they said temperatures were running away and unstopable unless we stop putting CO2 into the air. Well, temperatures have not risen in 12 years (remained flat). And now the IPCC is recognizing some natural cycles by indicating temperatures could remain steady for 30 years....how can this be if CO2 is the cause for rising temperatuere? Every time we pick up an IPCC article they change their thinking...

Meanwhile, I have not changed my thinking or forecast. Earth is in phase 1 of global cooling with phase 2 only about 19 years away.

Regards

David

[sunny starry skies]

Literature I read for my book indicated that ice core samples are very unreliable during the past 3,000 years or so...and yes I read Fischer, but data is unreliable. It takes several thousands of years for ice to form through the process of compacting snow. So how is it that you continually site new ice data as being relilable and with small deviations of CO2?

And again I stand by what I said concerning ice core samples older than 5,000 years. There is a long term mean taken during these samples, and by doing so it dampens out warm/cool cycles which occur every 200 years. And it is common knowledge among researchers that these readings are not as accurate as an instantaneous reading by today's instruments....thus in some instances we are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing old data versus today's data.

My research was quoted properly from the research papers I read. And yes anyone can argue differences in approaches, that is why there are thousands of papers out there with differeing views concerning reliability...probably is not a concensus on reliability.

And we should look at the IPCCC. Just a few years ago they said temperatures were running away and unstopable unless we stop putting CO2 into the air. Well, temperatures have not risen in 12 years (remained flat). And now the IPCC is recognizing some natural cycles by indicating temperatures could remain steady for 30 years....how can this be if CO2 is the cause for rising temperatuere? Every time we pick up an IPCC article they change their thinking...

Meanwhile, I have not changed my thinking or forecast. Earth is in phase 1 of global cooling with phase 2 only about 19 years away.

Regards

David

If the data is unreliable, why do you use it to identify cycles in your book? You still haven't shown me this phantom smoothing. You still don't understand the difference between closure age and time of compaction of snow to ice. I showed you that high resolution data is available from deeper in the ice cores, and that it is internally consistent and exhibits none of the variation you talk of. Why is Fischer wrong? And that data is available for the last 1000 years, which is similarly internally consistent. Of course the readings are not as accurate as a direct measurement today, but they are fundamentally of the same thing. Do you think that a reading from a household thermometer that reads 14C is measuring a different property than a high precision thermocouple reading 14.134C?

You repeat that oft-debunked "temperatures have not risen in 12 years" BS. Care to place that into context, or explain to me the minimum length of time required for statistical significance of the trend, and why you wish to start at 1998, and not 1997, 1999, 1994, 1989, 1979?. Why would I not start a temperature series in 1991? Why do you wish to start from the biggest warm outlier in the HADCRUT3 dataset? Seeing as we're discussing non-significant trends (or more correctly, trends within the 'noise' of the climate signal), what's the trend between 1998 and 2009? Up, or down?

Where is the IPCC saying what you suggest? And where does the IPCC deny the existence of natural cycles, given that the most important ones are accounted for in AR4? If you learn a little basic climate science you would understand why the IPCC says what it does, but I don't expect you will, and you'll continure repeating your badly-researched, incorrect and misleading claims.

Hi Jethro, on your question, I think something like 90% of the heat is being delivered into the oceans, and also that the increasing concentration of GHGs offsets the reduced effect of GHG forcing at higher concentrations. If GHG forcing steadily continues on its upward trend, as we observe, then the magnitude inevitably takes us well beyond that which solar forcing can manage. In any one decade, solar forcing may just about do enough to negate a rise, especially if aided by ENSO, but the additional GHG forcing is still 'banked' by the Earth over that time, so when the ENSO/solar forcings go back to normal or positive values, temperatures will rise above where they were on the previous occasion that the ENSO/solar forcings were positive.

sss

Edited March 9, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Cycles]

1. If the data is unreliable, why do you use it to identify cycles in your book?

Reply by David...The old ice cores of course are not as reliable as today's instrument readings, and do not show the spikes in temperatures or CO2 during 200 year global warming/cooling.

Literature indicates the newer ice less than 3000 years old (approxminately) have more problems than older ice...takes time for compaction.

2. I showed you that high resolution data is available from deeper in the ice cores, and that it is internally consistent and exhibits none of the variation you talk of.

Reply by David.... the references I read for my book did indicate problems I mentioned (smoothing, eliminating noise), and of course this would eliminate spikes in temperatures and CO2.

3. Why is Fischer wrong? And that data is available for the last 1000 years

Reply by David...Stated why above, new ice is very different from old ice

4. You repeat that oft-debunked "temperatures have not risen in 12 years" BS.

Reply by David....there was a high temperture peak followed by similar peaks during the past 9 years, but not an increase in temperatures. Please look back to 1930 through 1939...the same thing happened then.

5. Where is the IPCC saying what you suggest? And where does the IPCC deny the existence of natural cycles, given that the most important ones are accounted for in AR4?

Reply by David.... You can research the latest statements from the IPCC...they indicate the IPCC now recognizes some natural cycles, and they recognize temperatures have not risen during the past 10-years.

Actually the United Nations Climate Group (the man that just resigned) said most of this also.

6. In any one decade, solar forcing may just about do enough to negate a rise, especially if aided by ENSO, but the additional GHG forcing is still 'banked' by the Earth over that time, so when the ENSO/solar forcings go back to normal or positive values, temperatures will rise above where they were on the previous occasion that the ENSO/solar forcings were positive.

sss

Reply by David....wait until next winter with no El Nino. There is much more cold air available in the Arctic and Antarctic than during the period 1998 through 2007.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But wouldn't that rely upon either increased impact from GHG's (contradicting the physics) or heat being stored and masked? I find both of those implausible.

Hi Jethro, on your question, I think something like 90% of the heat is being delivered into the oceans, and also that the increasing concentration of GHGs offsets the reduced effect of GHG forcing at higher concentrations. If GHG forcing steadily continues on its upward trend, as we observe, then the magnitude inevitably takes us well beyond that which solar forcing can manage. In any one decade, solar forcing may just about do enough to negate a rise, especially if aided by ENSO, but the additional GHG forcing is still 'banked' by the Earth over that time, so when the ENSO/solar forcings go back to normal or positive values, temperatures will rise above where they were on the previous occasion that the ENSO/solar forcings were positive.

sss

I was going to post a response of my own to that question but I think SSS has summed it up pretty well.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

And we should look at the IPCC. Just a few years ago they said temperatures were running away and unstopable unless we stop putting CO2 into the air. Well, temperatures have not risen in 12 years (remained flat). And now the IPCC is recognizing some natural cycles by indicating temperatures could remain steady for 30 years....how can this be if CO2 is the cause for rising temperatuere? Every time we pick up an IPCC article they change their thinking...

Meanwhile, I have not changed my thinking or forecast. Earth is in phase 1 of global cooling with phase 2 only about 19 years away.

Regards

David

Yes we should. The behaviour of these as well as Hansen and Mann have all played a part of late in the degradation of the science wrt to climatology - and Science as a whole has to change. Sorry, just being honest and saying it as I see it.

Although certain AGW proponents continually demand this - sceptics are NOT required to come up with alternative hypotheses besides AGW to explain climate variation - they can rely on what is KNOWN in terms of natural and cyclical factors. Also in terms of continually citing 'evidence, evidence, evidence' - this does not always lead to conclusions without repeatable testing and, indeed, scepticism. I think if we all concurred with SSS wishes for eg then this would be putting science in jeopardy as a cut and dried thing far too prematurely.

On the contrary to the above, the onus is however on AGW proponents to be able to answer why temps trends over the last century correlate so closely (much too closely!) to actual Pacific and Atlantic cycles. Although the period from the 70's to the end of the 90's was rather warmer than the previous +PDO phase earlier in the 20th century, we have to factor in the very strong positive solar cycle within this latter period as well as the overall dominance of stronger nino phases than nina's.

It would be folly to pretend that man has NO effect whatsoever on climate, but even the most modest of solutions suggested by IPCC models are surely over progressive in terms of the postiive feedback assumptions that they make in terms of anthropromorphic forcings when we take into account the close natural cycle(s) correlation as described above. And that is only the beginning. Meanwhile the vast swathe of assumed postive feedbacks wrt anthropromorphic forcings, that are supposed to lead to all this runaway warming, have to be shown to be real and not just potentially alive in the testing lab.

Edited March 9, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[sunny starry skies]

I've had enough of the misinformation peddled by GWO. He is wrong on all 6 of his points, and I am not going to explain them once more, as he is clearly not interested in reading or understanding the answers. He still seems to deny reliability or resolution if ice core readings for either the last 1000 years or from older cores, because he's not willing to do the research, and is fundamentally contradicting his own earlier statements:

Dilley, yesterday at 13:03: "This is the main reason we do not have a history of CO2 from 1900 back several thousand years."

This is just plain wrong. We do have a history for the last 1000 years. It's published and available online, the resolution is good, and the data is internally consistent and consistent with recent instrumental readings. The resolution of older cores is also good, and the data quality is good when the resolution is required (such as for the Fischer paper).

You've been shown to be wrong on so many things here, not just by me, yet you pretend you're right.

Where is this cold Arctic air? In the Arctic that has experienced unusual warmth this winter? [a direct consequence of the negative AO]

Tides:

Your chapter on tidal cycles includes a number of basic misconceptions:

relationship of 6-monthly perigee peaks to equinoxes/solstices - not true: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

4-year cycle - bizarrely unexplained, given that the cycle of high and low declinations of the Moon is ~18 years (oddly you simultaneously accept that)

"gravitational force of the moon causes the oceans to bulge along the lunar gravitational envelope, and a dome of water to form on both sides of the earth." Er, no it doesn't, a common misconception, that does not take into account the Coriolis Force. See the description of amphidromic points in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Phase_and_amplitude

Your graphs of PFM at different scales are not just similar, but identical. Why would that be? And your other graphs purporting to show links are pathetic, with, as VP said, no statistical analysis, and obviously poor correlations.

Lastly, have a read of this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html

Maybe you'll learn a little about temperature, humidity and precipitation, and why your claims about the record snowfalls in the US are so wrong.

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scienceda...00309083700.htm

It would appear that we have a bigger 'driver' than solar variation then? We are all aware of the 'dimmed period' but I think many of us were hoping that Indo-China could restart the process and slow down the warming to buy us more time.

Let's hope that since 02' they've been 'dirtier' than ever eh?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Gray-Wolf