Hello Jennifer,
My paper, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate”** has now been published.
Here is the link:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
I would be most grateful if you would post it on your website. I am sure it will be of interest to your readers.
As is usual for a high quality international scientific journal, my article was subject to a vigorous peer review process, to which I had to respond before the reviewers and the editors would agree to publish it. This having been done, the paper has now been published.
Yours sincerely
Richard Mackey
—————————————
Here is the abstract:
Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has
a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.
It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir
Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the
sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic
force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the
relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is
very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in
producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.
According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will
create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about
the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought
then on record.
And an extract from the paper:
“The earth’s atmosphere contains several major oscillating wind currents that have a key role in the regulation of the earth’s weather and climate. These wind currents include the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO); Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO); the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO); the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO); the Atlantic Multdecadal Oscillation (AMO); the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD); and the Arctic Oscillation (AO); and the northern and southern polar vortices, which are two permanent cyclones at the poles. FAGAN (1999), (2000) and (2004) has shown how the climate changes rendered by these global atmospheric systems have resulted in major historic changes to cultures and societies throughout the world since the dawn of history.
LABITZKE et al. (2005), COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) and CORDERO and NATHAN (2005) report that the sunspot cycle drives these large-scale oscillating wind currents. For example, strength of the QBO circulation and the length of the QBO period varies directly with the sunspot cycle. COUGHLIN and KUNG (2004) also conclude that at a range of atmospheric heights and at all latitudes over the planet, the atmosphere warms appreciably during the maximum of the sunspot cycle, and cools during the minimum of the cycle.xix VAN LOON, MEEHL AND ARBLASTER (2004) established that in the northern summer (July to August), the major climatological tropical precipation maxima are intensified in solar maxima compared with solar minima during the period 1979 to 2002.
NUGROHO and YATINI 2006 report that the sun strongly influences the IOD during wet season in the monsoons climate pattern; that is, the December to February period. CAMP and TUNG (2006) found that a significant relationship exists between polar warming and the sunspot cycle. ZAITSEVA et al. (2003) found that the intensity of the NAO depends on solar activity. ABARCA DEL RIO et al. (2003) have found that the patterns of variation between indices of solar activity, the Atmospheric Angular Momentum index and Length of Day show that variations in solar activity are a key driver of atmospheric dynamics. The United States Geological Survey agency found that changes in total solar radiant output cause changes in regional precipitation, including floods and droughts in the Mississippi River basin.xx The tropical oceans absorb varying amounts of solar radiant output, creating ocean temperature variations.
These are transported by major ocean currents to locations where the stored energy is released into the atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric pressure is altered and moisture patterns are formed that can ultimately affect regional precipitation.
SCAFETTA et al.(2004) and SCAFETTA and WEST (2005) have found that the earth’s temperature periodicities, particularly those of the oceans, inherit the structure of the periodicity of solar activity. WHITE et al. (1997) and REID (1991) have found that the sunspot cycle produces periodicities in the oceans’ temmperatures. This research shows that sea surface temperatures in the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, whether taken separately or combined, follow measures of solar radiant output derived from satellite observations and the sunspot record.
The sun’s separate impacts on the atmosphere and the ocean, and the complex non-linear interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean, is another process that amplifies the non-linear impact of the sun on our climate. Given that solar activity is a key determinant of ocean temperature, the decline on solar activity measured over the last decade should give rise in due course to a cooling of the oceans.
Read the full paper here: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
** MACKEY, R., 2007. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate. Journal
of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 – 968. Gold Coast,
Australia, ISSN 0749.0208
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Excellent paper, Richard. I sometimes refer to Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987. Also his reply to Hong et al:
Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year d 18 O time-series of Chinese peat cellulose
Authors: Hong Y.T.1; Jiang H.B.1; Liu T.S.2; Qin X.G.2; Zhou L.P.3; Beer J.4; Li H.D.5; Leng X.T.5
The Holocene, Volume 10, Number 1, 1 January 2000, pp. 1-7(7)
Holocene comments and reply
Authors: Fairbridge R.W.; Oldfield F.; Hong Y.T.
The Holocene, Volume 11, Number 1, 1 January 2001, pp. 121-125(5)
I didn’t realise Rhodes Fairbridge was Australian and I’m very sorry to learn of his death.
I’m going out on a limb here, I know, but this paper sounds completely wacky.
Given that the earth’s surface is 70% ocean, this hypothesis makes much sense.
Piers Corbyn in London also uses solar activity to predict the weather, and his track record is very very good.
From an engineering or practical perspective, if the use of solar activity factors is able to successfully predict weather as Corbyn can, then it’s the sun driving our climate.
I suggest those interested to read an excellent book “The Sun Kings” describing how modern astronomy started from accidental discoveries of unusual solar behaviour. It’s not technical and thus should not stress Luke or Ender too much in the grey cell department.
That is if they are allowed to read anything on the AGW Index.
A peer reviewed scientific paper and SJT decides to go on a limb and call it wacky.
Which means you don’t understand earth processes and that is an unfortunate problem for the climate alarmists, in addition to their ignorance of science in general, let alone the scientific method.
I love Louis – always thoughtful and gets it right for the wrong reasons. As for our old mate Piers – well we’ll leave it to his pommy mates. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/corbyns_crp_predictions.php#comments Piers makes a name getting a few spectacular ones right – but does he have any skill. What about the ones he doesn’t get right. How many each way. As far as making his living out of it – well tarot card readers are still in business too hey !
But it is about the forecast quality Louis. Brilliant and back to the paper at hand.
A rambling essay more than a paper but I enjoyed it nonetheless and a treasure trove of golden oldies back to Quayle.
Too much anecdotal emotionalism to get through a serious journal – well save that rag Energy and the Environment. However to convince me – show me the money. Show me the hindcast skill. Oh for a bit of maths. Show us the cross validation Richard. So how about off the anecdotes and sweat it down to the forecast skill.
The effects of the enhanced greenhouse and solar on the non-linear, chaotic climate system remain hypothetical. There’s a new climate sensitivity paper here:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
This new ‘climate shifts’ paper puts another nail in the coffin of the SO2 aerosols cooling of 1945-1975:
http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
The lead author has an impressive CV:
http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/CURRICULUM%20VITA.pdf
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino (Southern Oscillation) and the North Pacific Oscillation – are they influenced by solar, or CO2, both or neither?
I was looking for a paper that examines cycles in the CET series:
Study of the solar signal in mean Central Europe temperature
series from 1760 to 1998(∗)
M. Brunetti(1)(2), M. Maugeri(2) and T. Nanni(1)(∗∗)
(1) ISAC-CNR Institute – Bologna, Italy
(2) Istituto di Fisica Generale Applicata, Universit`a di Milano – Milano, Italy
(ricevuto il 23 Ottobre 2002; revisionato il 22 Aprile 2003; approvato il 3 Giugno 2003)
We used a new series, highly reliable and representing the mean surface temperature of Central Europe for the period 1760-1998, to study Sun-Climate relationships. The results indicate that the influence of solar activity is evident only on a long time scale, in particular for the period 1860-present. On a short time scale it is not directly evident. From the spectral analysis we deduced that the strength of solar signal in the temperature series has an intermittent behaviour.
We proposed a mechanism of resonance between the two non-linear systems, the Sun and Earth climate, to explain our results.
Maybe L&F looking at just 20 years wasn’t a good idea.
Conclusions
Looking at the spectra and cyclogram analysis results, we believe that the 22y periodicity
in MAT (fig. 5b) could be attributed to the direct influence of Solar activity that,
in the period 1890-1998, appears to be in good agreement with Earth temperature also
as concerns long-term behaviour [15-17, 21, 27]. The other common periodicities both in
MAT and NAO spectra (the most significant 7.8y) support the hypothesis that MAT is
mainly affected by NAO.
Observing fig. 5b and 5d we noted that the 12.5y and 5.6y significant periodicities are
situated on both sides of the more significant 7.8y peak, at frequency interval of 1c/22y,
typical of solar dynamo. Other less significant periodicities, like 7y and 8.5y are situated
at a frequency interval of 1c/88y (Gleissberg periodicity). This pattern may indicate that
the 22y and 88y periodicity can be modulating waves of the NAO main periodicity 7.8y,
that could be seen as the result of a combination of frequencies corresponding to 11y and
22y periodicities. All these considerations might support the hypothesis formulated by Attolini et al. [28] that the Sun behaves as a non-linear system forced by an oscillator
having the Hale frequency with 1c/88y and 1c/132y as subharmonics.
Climate and solar dynamo are not linear systems. The climate has a lot of internal
variability supporting oscillations with many frequencies. The direct effect of changing
solar irradiance in driving climate change is believed to be small, and amplification
mechanisms are needed to enhance the role of solar variability. As Tobias and Weiss [29]
point out, resonance may play a crucial role in the dynamics of the climate system: when
a typical frequency of the non-linear solar forcing factor is similar to that of the chaotic
climate system then a dramatic increase in the role of the solar forcing is apparent and
complicated intermitted behaviour is observed.
In fact, looking at the behaviour of the Schwabe periodicity in the sunspot series by
means of a cyclogram analysis [28], a periodicity longer than 11 years is evident in the
first part of the series, while it is shorter than 11 years in the second part, where we
found a signal also in the MAT series (fig. 6).
The idea of “stochastic resonance” inducing enhanced coherence of global temperature
fluctuations with the solar cycle was already proposed by Lawrence and Ruzmaikin [30]:
“a noisy or chaotic non-linear system can amplify a week, periodic input”.
This is to demonstrate that the solar signal has not the same strength anytime in the
climate and that we have the strongest effect when resonance occurs.
Therefore, the solar forcing on the climate system could be a non-constant signal and
this complicates the identification of the real anthropogenic contribution to the global
warming.
From Armagh Observatory we have:
TRENDS AND CYCLES IN LONG IRISH METEOROLOGICAL SERIES
C.J. Butler1, A. García-Suárez2 and E. Pallé3, 2007
Wavelet analysis has shown that some of the same periodicities seen previously in rainfall and temperature are also present in sunshine and soil temperature for Armagh. The 6-8 year period, which is clearly seen in at least one season in all four meteorological series, is most likely associated with a similar periodicity in the
North Atlantic Oscillation. However, it is evident from a comparison of Figures 6 and 7, that the periodicities are often more clearly seen in the wavelet plots for Armagh meteorological data than in those for the NAO and SOI where they form a broad spectrum of periodicities rather than a sharply defined peak. The implication could be drawn that the NAO, rather than controlling the meteorological series directly, is itself controlled by a common forcing mechanism. The physical nature of the driving force behind these oscillations remains unclear, however the fact that one of them occurs near 22 years, the period of the solar magnetic (Hale) cycle, suggests that, in this case at least, solar activity may be involved.
Luke, Did you read the paper? And what do you mean by “forecast skill”? The IPCC forecasts it will get hotter in the short-medium term, Mackey forcasts it will get cooler?
Jen – the IPCC does not make forecasts in the traditional sense. It simulates what the mean climate state might be given various CO2 scenarios (we still don’t yet what humanity will do with CO2 do we ? so it’s a bit of an ask).
This paper implies it’s all solar clockwork. Albeit sophisticated clockwork.
Do a hindcast analysis by “forecasting” the past.
So therefore one should be able to test the system on a time series like 120 years of Australian rainfall record or 107 years of temperature. The relevant formal measures of mathematical “forecast skill” are linear error in probability space (LEPS) and relative operating characteristics ROC, and if you’re keen as mustard some rigorous cross validation or double cross validation lest David Jones just roll his eyes at you.
You need to know does the system get more forecasts right than wrong, and does it do better than random choice or persistence (if it rains today it’s more likely to be raining tomorrow type idea).
Other people have played around with chi square or non parametric stuff like the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for different distributions (the so-called vodka test – it’s a joke don’t think about it).
Without some formal analysis it’s all just a wonderful anecdote.
Even better would be see how the system goes on data it hasn’t seen – but you’ll 7-10 years worth to get into serious significance depending on the forecast period. But can we wait given the excitement.
No stats – it’s just a yarn. Albeit a romantic one.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0434(2000)015%3C0080%3AVOCPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
BTW – the Bureau will be amazed if checks out !
The problem is that you have so many quasi-periodic oscillation thingys going on like El Nino and decadal oscillations that you’re bound to see cycles. And this is the statistical rock you need to not perish on. Medical researchers and auditors are good at stats so they should whip into in no time flat.
Jen – Yes I did read the paper quickly looking for the cincher. I didn’t find it.
Does the IPCC say it will get hotter in the short term? You tell me – small homework exercise for you.
‘Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process’ – Richard Mackey
I was under the impression that climate sceptics claimed the intellectual high ground by demanding irrefutable scientific proof rather than the outrageously subversive greenie use of scientific simulations, hypothesis and circumstantial evidence….
I would therefore draw readers attention to Richard’s use of the words.. ‘sim’,’hypothesis’and ‘circumstantial evidence’…….
Solar activity could be heading for a big fall:
Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion
Rhodes W. Fairbridge and James H. Shirley, 1987
Abstract: We employ the JPL long ephemeris DE-102 to study the inertial motion of the Sun for the period A.D. 760–2100. Defining solar orbits with reference to the Sun’s successive close approaches to the solar system barycenter, occurring at mean intervals of 19.86 yr, we find simple relationships linking the inertial orientation of the solar orbit and the amplitude of the precessional rotation of the orbit with the occurrence of the principal prolonged solar activity minima of the current millenium (the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder minima). The progression of the inertial orientation parameter is controlled by the 900-yr great inequality of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn, while the precessional rotation parameter is linked with the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion previously identified by Jose (1965). A new prolonged minimum of solar activity may be imminent.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/
A growing number of scientists believe that there are clear links between the sun’s activity and the temperature on Earth. While solar magnetic activity cannot explain away global warming completely, it does seem to have a significant impact. “A couple of years ago, I would not have said that there was any evidence for solar activity driving temperatures on Earth,” says Paula Reimer, a palaeoclimate expert at Queen’s University, Belfast, in the UK. “Now I think there is fairly convincing evidence.”
–New Scientist, 16 September 2006
If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity. Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash. It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.
–Nigel Weiss, University of Cambridge, 16 September 2006
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/
Sunspot numbers are well on the way down in the next decade. Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard. The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool.
–Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University, 16 September 2006
Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’ s report says.
–MosNews, 25 August 2006
The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times. The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol.
–Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 25 August 2006
Nevertheless, it is possible that the decline seen since 1985 marks the beginning of the end of the recent grand maximum in solar activity and the cosmogenic isotope record suggests that even if the present decline is interrupted in the near future, mean values will decline over the next century. This would reduce the solar forcing of climate, but to what extent this might counteract the effect of anthropogenic warming, if at all, is certainly not yet known.
Lockwood and Frohlich 2007
Another cooling prediction:
Major climate shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, and 2072 according to the authors of this recent paper, who also predict a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 which should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so – then cooling for the rest of the 21st century.
Tsonis, Anastasios A.; Swanson, Kyle; Kravtsov, Sergey:
‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’
Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 13, 12 July 2007
http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
The timing of the shifts is interesting – as one is similar to the 179 year cycle of solar inertial motion (Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987) – the next deep solar minimum has been predicted to be around 2030, which coincides closely with the Tsonis shift of 2033. I, of course, realise that it could be a coincidence.
So the effect of a star approx. 91 million miles from earth is a perfectly acceptable, nay probable explanation for climate change but the human forcing of pumping tons of pollutants into the immediate atmosphere every year isn’t?…
There is also the point that if a human forcing is actually beneficial in counteracting a cooler background shift, then what happens when the temperature goes up again?….you cannot have it both ways and the counteraction argument accepts a human forcing….
Luke, hard facts are now coming out:
“The UK’s Metereological Office research centre has now had to confirm a fall in average global temperatures since 1998 (The Guardian, 10 August 2007, pp1/2).
This clearly opens to challenge the widely-held view that it is primarily the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, released by mankind’s use of carbon fuels, that cause global warming.
Indeed, since 1998 there has been a record near-25% increase in the production and use of coal, oil and natural gas – totalling an additional 2000 million tons of oil equivalent over the nine year period. Two-fifths of this has been coal, the most polluting of the three carbon fuels, so generating voluminous additional carbon dioxide for the atmosphere.
Yet, in spite of an all-time peak period of carbon fuels’ use, it seems that no overall global warming phenomenon has been generated!
Thus, instead of the Met Office’s think-tank apparent acceptance of the concept of a demonstrable relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions for its future forecasts, should it not first be held responsible for an explanation as to why this has not happened over the past nine years – and why it will not happen for at least the next three years?”
So thre we have it folks, a massive increase in CO2 which under no stretch of the imagination could be described a pollutant, and UK Met office finaly admits no warming.
AGW is a totally falsiefied theory!
Luke, my understanding is that the IPCC accepts the Hansen scenarios (A,B and C) which all show a continual increase in temperature (at different rates) in the short-medium term. Are you suggesting the IPCC has no idea whether there will be an increase or decrease in temperatures in the short-medium term?
Louis you naughty boy – we’re going to have to give you a little smack. You did check your story at source didn’t you.
This is the actual report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/10/weather.uknews#related-info
based on these two reports listed here
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5839/746
I hope you didn’t just uncritically go to that fruit loop’s rantings at Greenie Watch and just do a cut and paste of the 21/8/07 feature did you. Surely not ! 😮
You wouldn’t have actually uncritically accepted their perverted misinterpretation of the story without checking for yourself would you?
OK I’m sure you didn’t. ROTFL and LMAO.
Oh Louis you must learn to check with Biggsy first and not go off alone. You might fall over and not be able to get up again.
Now off you go Louis – watch the step – and we’ll see you in another 3 months or so.
Jen – well yep – I don’t reckon the IPCC would not have a clue what the temperatures would be next year or at any specific year. The projections are only longer term trends. Hansen has been right on the trend but in detail ? But the trend is the issue long term.
To date the temperature growth has not been monotonically increasing over the last 30 years but overall has bobbed around. But the striking trend is the issue not each year.
The BIG development at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5839/746 is that the Hadley Centre (not the IPCC) are doing a long range prediction now saying that internal variability (El Nino, IPO, AMO etc) can also knock the temperature pattern around (somewhat) and have made a multi-year prediction on such (bravely for them).
As Big Mal said “life wasn’t meant to be easy”.
If the solar theorists are right – which we’re still waiting for – dum te dum te dum – and the Sun produces less radiation then that will knock the growth off the temperatures too. CO2 only recycles radiation – it doesn’t do anything by itself.
If anyone thinks that the temperature should increase year after year non-stop – dare I suggest they don’t get it !!
Luke,
You really are a tease!
I write short-medium term in a climate change context thinking the next 10 or so years and you write “next year or any specific year”.
Now who is confusing climate change with the weather?
Deliberate as you are also a tease not specifying. Short-medium ?? meaning 1-40 years ?? You would expect in a 10 year period for the temperature to trend up on a moving average if solar doesn’t decrease and CO2 increases. How’s that. 20 years – much higher. Internal variability will make the years jiggle around.
Now you tell me that’s not going to happen.
Anyway we don’t have to worry as we’re already at the peak – January this year had the largest positive temperature anomaly every observed for the globe. That is, “global” warming peaked this year (for now).
And keep watching that ol’ Murray River too – still not a lot of water and how’s those salt levels going BTW?
‘CO2 which under no stretch of the imagination could be described a pollutant’ – Louis
Ozone in the lower part of the stratosphere is not a pollutant, ozone at street level is a pollutant… CO2 is not the only gas impacting on climate and excessive CO2, Methane or indeed any gas can make them pollutants, my comment stands…. Hissink has spent too long in the mines of Moria precioussssss..
Hmmm…
Without the heat of the Sun, Earth would be an iceball planet.
But the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere has nothing to do with the Sun.
Thanks, Luke, this makes lots of sense.
Schiller strikes back with a beaten up strawman. Luke didn’t say that at all. The paper is a piece of interminable waffle that no serious journal would allow to soil it’s pages.
The issue, what is changing? Currently, the sun isn’t, but CO2 is.
SJT,
I can also correlate global warming with an upsurge in Leftist ideology. Do you want to buy that correlationist argument, too?
You and your buddies need to think about the notion of ‘causation.’ It might be rather antique in your world view, but you may well find it instructive if you comprehend it properly.
SJT – You left something out:
The issue, what’s changing? Currently, the sun AND TEMPERATURE isn’t, but CO2 is.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
March 19, 2007
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
… a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth’s longest river.
Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. ———
“Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt,” she said. “These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time.” …
Peace out Jim
Schiller
the simple fact of the matter is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it warms up the earth. Without it, the planet would be cooler than it is.
More of it warms up the earth, which is what is happening now. The only question is, to what extent do the feedback effects such as change in albedo leverage that warming.
Luke,
Thanks for the Guardian reference. It shows a dam in Yorkshire nearly dry in summer 2003. Later it mentions ‘serious flooding’ in parts of Yorkshire, presumably this year. So is Yorkshire suffering drought or flood? Which is worse? Is either unprecedented in the records? (Careful now…)
I don’t know which is worse for them. Why does it have to be unprecedented Davey? (Careful now…)
Richard Mackey’s paper reads more like an obituary. Too long, and no time to wade through it.
Hopefully the warming we’ve seen in Oz over the last 10 years is due to solar activity. The measurement data ( http://www.acrim.com/ ) shows that a warm phase of solar activity started in the mid-nineties. We should be cooling off from now.
SJT,
Co2 has negligible effect on the earth’s surface temperature.
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas – water exists in the physical phase as suspended droplets of liquid and it is the physical presence of this suspended liquid phase that stops heat leaving the surface of the earth into space.
Just like a greenhouse.
So get the science right please.
Louis
what is the mechanism that CO2 causes the ‘negligable’ warming of the earth by?
re: Louis Hissink: Just to prove I am an equal opportunity skeptic, the science — radiative transfer theory, compliments of the USAF — says that OCO intercepts, on average, 20watts/sq.m. and shuttles it from the surface-to-space radiation field into the kinetic energy of the other gases, and that doubling OCO will add another 3(+/-) watts/sq.m. to the conversion. I do not think 3 will have a profound effect, but neither is negligible.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
SJT
There is no mechanism by which CO2 warms the earth. It is a gas at earth surface temperatures, as well as a gas at Martian surface temperatures, including Venus that is at a somewhat higher temperature.
All CO2 indicates is a proliferation of life, whether vegetable or otherwise.
You and your fellow travellers want to extinguish life, don’t you?
Just realised I shot myself in the foot. If CO2 means the presence of life then, logically, there must be Venusians and Martians.
Sigh – the price one has to pay for debating the mob.
Allan Ames
The idea that CO2 intercepts heat is an hypothesis that cannot be tested since it assumes processes at the molecular level in the earth’s atmosphere.
The earth’s atmosphere is made up of three (3) components – gas (nitrogen, oxygen, plus minor amounts of hydrogen, argon and CO2) – solid – suspended particles and liquid – water vapour, or clouds.
Modtran, the computer program you linked above, is quite accurate in terms of its assumptions.
But what if the assumptions are wrong?
Louis Hissink: Modtran and its successors
http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/view_pdf.asp?id=DothH04.pdf
have been exhaustively experimentally tested. Yes. Exhaustively. Radiative transfer (RT) is a well validated science. The USAF does not want have to evaluate everything experimentally. I should have qualified what I said with “in the clear sky LTE domain”, since that is what the MODTRAN calculator describes. Note I say RT, not “heat interception”.
There are many, many other domains where RT is different, and many, many other problems with GCM’s but clear sky LTE radiation transfer is not one of them. Matching the characteristics of RT theory in a GCM is a problem, but not one of the bigger ones. If you want some big ones, check out– http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf
Louis
the absorption of radiation by CO2 can be tested in the laboratory. CO2 is not going to behave any differently in the atmosphere.
Hi
I’m highly surprised by this blog. It’s citing one of my papers (Abarca del Rio et al., 2003) where it is said exactly the inverse of what is said herein. In fact we showed that there was not a true relationship between solar activity, atmospheric angular momentum and length of the day, at these time scales (interannual time scales) …Not a sole one. Even the one which was the more believed, the one related with the decadal time scales, is only coincidental. I do not know if at longer time scales it is true, but at least in the cases which we investigated, the linear relationship investigated over more than a century, was coincidental.
regards
rodrigo
Hi
I’m highly surprised by this blog. It’s citing one of my papers (Abarca del Rio et al., 2003) where it is said exactly the inverse of what is said herein. In fact we showed that there was not a true relationship between solar activity, atmospheric angular momentum and length of the day, at these time scales (interannual time scales) …Not a sole one. Even the one which was the more believed, the one related with the decadal time scales, is only coincidental. I do not know if at longer time scales it is true, but at least in the cases which we investigated, the linear relationship investigated over more than a century, was coincidental.
regards
rodrigo
We need to put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis. Everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, “What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks – with steepening declines forecast? Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?” Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not AGW. The real problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of Peak Oil.