I’ve mentioned before that the flawed ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction is used to reduce the role of the sun in climate change. Little pre-industrial temperature variability would help support the claim that 20th century warming is mainly anthropogenic in origin. Scafetta and West have recently published a continuation of their phenomenological approach to estimating the role of total solar irradiance (TSI) in climate change, which compares TSI reconstructions with temperature reconstructions.
Interestingly, Scafetta and West conclude that: “if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 years. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.”
I should point out that solar irradiance is only one potential solar effect on climate and the IPCC rate the ‘level of scientific understanding’ (LOSU) of ‘solar irradiance’ as ‘low.’ Even the contrived Lockwood and Frohlich (2007) paper pointed to the possibility of an unknown ‘solar amplifier’ and the expected fall in future solar activity. Furthermore, it is possible that equivalent solar forcing is ‘different’ to greenhouse gas forcing.
Anyway, the JGR paper entitled: ‘Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by N. Scafetta and B. J. West can be found here. It’s a good read, so enjoy!
RC shredded it.
Paul Biggs says
I don’t think so! Predicatble RC – defenders of the shredded hockey stick.
Nexus 6 says
Totally pwned by RC.
“I’ve mentioned before that the flawed ‘hockey stick’ temperature reconstruction is used to reduce the role of the sun in climate change.”
jennifer marohasy says
It would be nice if Nexus or Luke explained in their own words why they disagree with the findings of Scaffeta and West.
Do you disagree with RC’s assessment then Jen. Where do you think they’re wrong?
Nexus 6 says
Two words, Jen. Cherry. Picking.
Ian Mott says
Not so fast, Boy Wonder. So how, exactly, did they “shred” it, Luke? You need to do a lot more than post a link to something you hope is sufficient.
We have an estimate that 50% of the past century of warming is due to solar influence and an IPCC that would have us believe all the previous solar influences magically switched off the moment human emissions kicked in.
Given that the NASA temp records are so suspect to begin with and the tree ring proxies are complete bollocks then 50% solar influence is probably conservative.
But tell us Luke, do the intellectual giants at RC still claim solar influences have been zero?
If they came up with a solid case that it was only 20% or even 10% they might have some credibility but this absolute zero line is pure bunkumatosis.
Nexus 6 says
The IPCC don’t claim solar influence in recent temperature increase is zero. Presumably the climate scientists at RC don’t either.
James Mayeau says
I thought it was pretty interesting when Scaffeta and West mentioned that in climate regressions based on the hockeystick, the sun actually became a negative feedback. – Something hokey about that.
Gee Ian you’re such an intellect. Try at least understanding what the IPCC have done in terms of forcing attribution and the data sets for such before you do your normal tedious presumptions.
And is this an example of Mottsian logic – I don’t like data sets (a) or (b) therefore this proves my hypothesis – WTF ?? Inciteful analysis Ian. Devastating.
Perhaps Ian you’d like to give us your assessment of the paleo forcing proxies?
Paul Biggs says
True James M.
I see RC are still defending the ‘flawless’ Mann & Jones 2003!
James Mayeau says
In Iowa from a phone survey of democratic party voters asked the question “What is the single most important issue in your choice for the Democratic candidate for president?”
Less then .5% thought Global warming was important.
It’s all good guys. I enjoy your company anyhow.
Paul Biggs says
Using the Loehle climate reconstruction would have increased the solar effect. That reminds me, the crickets are still chirping over at RC on a rebuttal of Loehle 2007.
I thought peer-reviewed papers trumped blog posts? And whatever happened to the requirement that criticisms of peer-reviewed papers which appear in blog posts more appropriately appearing in a peer-reviewed journal?
The paper is more or less uncontroversial in terms of the ‘consensus’. Their approach has it limitations as do the others. Their only mistake is to prefer Moberg 2005 to Mann 2003. And now the sharks are circling.
Paul – “Furthermore, it is possible that equivalent solar forcing is ‘different’ to greenhouse gas forcing.”
How?? Radiation is radiation. Are you trying to conjure up an unknown different forcing to so that humans can be let off the hook?
Very scientific of you Paul.
that was an excellent loaded question. It asked “What is the single most important issue”. One of the reasons John Howard lost power was not because global warming was the the single most important issue, but because he did everything he could to ignore it when the majority of Australians think it is a very important issue.
Your source please for your claim that:-
“the majority of Australians think it is a very important issue.”
I said it once but I will say it again; the carbon ring thing is a poor temperature instrument, so is the ice core. Any global temp series must be calibrated to something other than our modern records i.e. sea level. Somebody please tell me how else these systems can be properly ranged.
On the general question of our “Phenomenological Approach to Climate”, readers may wish to see this
“Vulnerabilities in the carbon cycle: a simple model”
“Understanding Climate Variability to Improve Agricultural Decision Making”
Hey, a guy on ABC radio said we have some 300,000 feral horses, it’s the largest herd on the planet. Must be worth a post, download the discussion paper?
Jen wonders why this sort of paper get a bolshy reception and you don’t get a better argument.
Firstly lead post is contrived and framed in itself.
“Even the contrived Lockwood and Frohlich (2007) paper pointed to the possibility of an unknown ‘solar amplifier’ ” what Lockwood and Frolich ACTUALLY conclude is:
“There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.”
This is a light year away from what has been written.
“scientific understanding’ (LOSU) of ‘solar irradiance’ as ‘low.’” – yes and for what part of history? carefully not included. Surely we are now much better served by the satellite era.
A glib comment like: “Furthermore, it is possible that equivalent solar forcing is ‘different’ to greenhouse gas forcing.” implies some less than expected virility by greenhouse forcing. Again a try-on without any introductory discussion.
What does this mean? – a watt of shortwave is different to a watt of longwave re-radiated longwave. Of course the effects are different – greenhouse gas forcing is more globally uniform but solar is much more heterogeneous in effect – affected by seasons, clouds, geography and impacts regionally on circulation systems and temperature gradients.
Do we do we have fundamental discussion of the literature of early 20th century forcing and temperature change compared to present. No we have a trivialisation of the whole topic.
We stuck in Neanderthalian x-y data plot discussion with luminaries like Mottsa.
We’re not even at first base building up a layered argument of what science has been looked at an what has been done in teasing apart the interactions.
Simply cherry-picking the latest bolshy paper as if this sweeps all away before it.
Good enough for chumps though.
Ian Mott says
What a classic, “Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.”
What it should say is, “the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen (insert BETWEEN 1985 and 1998) cannot be (entirely) ascribed to solar variability”.
So it is OK for Luke and the RC goons to extrapolate from a 13 year interval but the 9 years of stable temperatures since then are classed as cherry picking? Give us a break.
And Luke’s claim that we are not beyond first base is the only truthful thing he has said here. Put simply, if we don’t have credible base line data then any step beyond “first base” is nothing but speculation and political spin.
The simple facts are that the GCMs cannot explain why the past decade of CO2 emissions have not produced commensurate increases in temperature. And everyone but RC and the climate cretins understand that this is because the GCMs are not up to the task.
So why should we accept an argument that because the same GCMs cannot ascribe a solar influence to the temperature rise over the preceeding 13 years then the GCMs are spot on and solar influences played no part? It may be good enough for Boy Wonder but the rest of us have legitimate doubts.
You’re not very smart are you Ian. I can see you haven’t progressed past x-y plots and single dimensions. I assume you also believe in magic. Ian believes in BIG hikes in temperatures because it’s natural. It’s Gaia man !
Actually here’s the reference.
I assume you also believe a cooling upper stratosphere is also what you’d expect with a solar warming.
Have another big whiff of the Nimbin gold.
James Mayeau says
I have found studies of tree ring data that show California was an average 3 C degrees warmer in the MWP then now. I have also seen studies that show solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia, 279 times greater than that of the air’s CO2 concentration.
Since the sun is at an 8000 year high cycle we should be trying to figure out why temperatures today are 3C too cool.
CO2 might be artifically cooling us down or it might be inconsequential – those are the two possibilities.
Your head must be in the sand Luke (or other places). When the cooling impacts of El Chichon through the mid 80’s and Pinatubo through the mid 90’s are taken into account, there has been little or no warming for the last 25 years. Once these volcanic influences are accounted for, the reality is that there was a quick increase in global temperature in the late 1970’s due to positive swings in the PDO and AMO and increased solar activity following on the weak solar cycle 19. The manner of this warming is totally inconsistent with the gradual increase you’d expect from CO2 driven warming.
Want something more current? Look at HADCRUT3 for the southern hemisphere. That’s quite the drop-off in temperature over the last few years! Hardly consistent with a catastrophic, planetary green house effect. Bad news for the alarmists there! It’ll get even better (from a climate rationalist’s perspective at least) as temperatures continue to plummet over the next few years as solar activity continues to drop and the PDO slips into a cool mode. Expect global temperatures to soon drop below the peaks experienced in the 1940’s warm period. But then the media will just stop reporting temperatures then won’t they?
Catastrophic man-made global warming – such rubbish!!!
James Mayeau says
“Do you disagree with RC’s assessment then Jen.
Where do you think they’re wrong?”
Luke, RC has let their habit of cutting off decenting opinion bleed out of the comment section and infect even their analysis. They’re so confident of their position that they couldn’t even link the actual report they are criticizing.
Hang on a second are we not agreed that solar activity is decreasing leading to cooling?
“Senior Research Associate Tom Woods of CU-Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics said the brightening of the sun as it approaches its next solar cycle maximum will have regional climatic impacts on Earth. While some scientists predict the next solar cycle — expected to start in 2008 — will be significantly weaker than the present one, others are forecasting an increase of up to 40 percent in the sun’s activity, said Woods.”
This is pretty interesting:
“Solar cycles, which span an average of 11 years, are driven by the amount and size of sunspots present on the sun’s surface, which modulate brightness from the X-ray to infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The current solar cycle peaked in 2002.
Solar activity alters interactions between Earth’s surface and its atmosphere, which drive global circulation patterns, said Woods. While warming on Earth from increased solar brightness is modest compared to the natural effects of volcanic eruptions, cyclical weather patterns like El Nino or human emissions of greenhouse gases, regional temperature changes can vary by a factor of eight.
During the most recent solar maximum, for example, the global mean temperature rise on Earth due to solar-brightness increases was only about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, said Woods. But parts of the central United States warmed by 0.7 degrees F, and a region off the coast of California even cooled slightly. A paper on the coming decade of solar activity by Woods and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., was published online Oct. 30 in the scientific newsletter, Eos.
“It was very important to the climate change community that SORCE was extended, because it allows us to continue charting the solar irradiance record in a number of wavelengths without interruption,” Woods said. “Even relatively small changes in solar output can significantly affect Earth because of the amplifying affect in how the atmosphere responds to solar changes.”‘
James – “Since the sun is at an 8000 year high cycle we should be trying to figure out why temperatures today are 3C too cool. ”
OR the tree ring data is reflecting temps from a region OR the data is crap OR just about anything if you are thinking of basing your analysis on one data set.
James Mayeau says
It might be that solar proxies extrapolated to a single “worldwide” temperature guess is part of the problem. I’ll grant you that.
Ian Mott says
So that is zero input of any substance from Luke, again. The real Luke must be on leave with the work experience guy filling in.
Oh for heavens sake – where do we suddenly get this “instant” global warming catastrophe business from? This is just alarmism ruse stuff. If we not incinerated instantly all AGW must be wrong. How disengenuous can you get.
And WTF – volcanoes are now masking the warming – increasing the warming? Your paper is?
So you have confirmed extra downward longwave flux which is mysteriously “disappearing” ! “oooooo” to a ghostly sound. So all this energy just “disappears”.
If we’re going to global temperatures get back to 1940s levels – well gee we’re waiting. 2007 possibly 2nd warmest on record.
Upper stratospheric cooling from a solar driver eh?
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Add another point up near 1998. You’re saying this is a cooling trend? Statistical bunk.
Frankly if you look at changes in southern hemisphere circulation and the Indian Ocean you conclude heavily in favour of anthropogenic changes.
Despite all the contrarian blather we do not have a single scientific paper that models the development of the last 120 years of global climate evolution. Contrarians wallowing in the sheer moral bankruptcy of their pseudo-science. Mottsa with his enevelope… spare us.
James – oh boo hoo – I said where are they wrong in their analysis not what you don’t like about their editorial policy. Frankly I see lots of comments of disagreement – many more than denialist central and “trial by blog”. So stop dribbling on eh.
James Mayeau says
I see lots of comments at RC in the vein of “please oh please great and wonderful climate guru, favor me, one of your undeserving and loathsome readers by explaining such and such”.
The rest just get tossed out, or beaten down with the Gavin voice over.
Can I get an Amen?
Is polar ice melting? Are sea levels rising? Is there any relavent statistics on these?
As much as following GW discussions are enjoyable, they are becoming more and more confusing!!
James Mayeau says
OK So maybe I better go look. It’s possible RealClimate has had an abrupt climate change since last winter.
Paul Biggs says
Ender – what else reaches the earth from the sun other than TSI? CO2 is assumed to have a positive feedback via water vapour, but the sun is asssumed not to have an ‘amplifier.’ The assumption here is that the sun drove climate variability in pre-industrial times, therefore we need a more accurate paleoclimate reconstruction, than the ‘hockey stick.’
SJT – I think it is extremely unlikely that Howard lost the election because of ‘global warming.’ The longer a government is in power, the harder it falls. We had a Conservative govt in the UK from 1979 to 1997. Then there was a landslide to ‘New Labour.’ 10 years later New Labour are 13 points behind in the polls.
Paul Biggs says
S & W talk about a ‘time constant’ of 6 – 12 years. A paper by Waple, Mann and Bradley (Climate Dynamics vol 18, 563 ; 2002) identified a lag between solar irradiance and global mean surface temperature of about 10-15 years.
Paul – “CO2 is assumed to have a positive feedback via water vapour, but the sun is asssumed not to have an ‘amplifier.'”
It seems that you have only a tenuous grasp on how the various forcings work. CO2 is not a feedback it is a forcing. Water Vapor is not a forcing but a feedback. I suggest that you read this:
If the sun irradiance increases then the Earth will warm. This will lead to an increase, I guess, in water vapor which would increase warming. So the sun would have an ‘amplifier’. The problem is that the sun stubbornly fails to increase in irradience.
Paul Biggs says
I realise the IPCC regard water vapour as a feedback rather than a forcing, and a positive feedback at that. I beg to differ.
And a measured feedback too – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL023624.shtml
James Mayeau says
What do you call it when the water vapor reaches critical mass and starts floating around up there causing those big white shady things? Or worse starts weeping that wet stuff all over the ground?
Or even worser starts coating the mountains with that really cold white stuff?
I was really hoping a paper titled phenominological approach would discuss, changing albedo, stratospheric coupling to weather patterns, energy transfer through precipitation – that sort of thing.
Although I did appreciate the addition of UV as part of the overall TSI budget. I mean since we have more of it hitting the Earth and all.
Luke are you ever going to work us up a post on the stratosphere?
No James – I gave you heaps of stuff against my best intuition and your response hasn’t disappointed me.
So here’s some more wasted advice.
Paul Biggs says
Luke – you are welcome to supply a post on the stratosphere.
What about negative feedback as a planetary thermostat?
Measured feedback? – LOL!
The Phenomenological Approach tries to estimate the total effect of the sun, but is dependent on the accuracy of the climate and TSI reconstructions.
Leif Svalgaard is interesting:
he says there is evidence that solar activity hasn’t increased.
Paul Biggs says
Our analysis contrasts with the 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers that claims
that “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the
1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly
consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.”
This study suggests that real world atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the relationship of near constant relative humidity that is produced in the IPCC models, whose water response to temperature increase might be questionable. Our approach indicates that the multi-decadal trends in water vapor content are not yet well understood; a conclusion was also reached in Spencer . We thus urge further evaluations of lower-tropospheric temperature and water vapor trends for other regions of the globe using the outlined statistical analysis methodology, as well as more examination of cloud-precipitation feedbacks in global and regional climate models.
And so why isn’t it “measured”?
Ian Mott says
Never mind the exaggeration to the absurd, Luke, what about this bull$hit 13 year interval that the whole AGW theory now hangs on?
And didn’t Church have something (selective) to say about the function of Pinatubo in relation to the 1998 El Nino? He did say that without Pinatubo the temperature would have been warmer.
But we don’t need a “ponce reviewed” paper to tell us that if there had been no Pinatubo eruption then the extent of the current temperature plateau would be even longer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
Note that this eruption took 0.5C off global temperatures which means the so called rapid rise in temperature from 1985 would have lasted only six or seven years.
And when we look at HadCRUT3 it becomes clear that the addition of 0.5C to the 1991 to 1996 data would lift the temperatures through the mid-1990s to that of the 1998 peak. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
And that would obviously mean that the current temperature plateau would have been present from 1992 to present, some 15 of the 22 years since 1985.
So without Pinatubo, we would have had no significant change in global temperature despite an increase in CO2 of 27ppm (7.65%). And this has important implications in the calculation of CO2 sensitivity.
It is a simple observation of fact, Luke, that no amount of spin can change. But if you must wallow in denial then be my guest.
Golly gee Ian – I’m speechless – that’s a brilliant analysis. The climate guys won’t have thought of that. They’ve left volcanism out as you’ve said. I’m stumped for words. I think you may have finally done us in. My congratulations.
If you seriously believe this “And that would obviously mean that the current temperature plateau would have been present from 1992 to present, some 15 of the 22 years since 1985. ” – try to get it published.
Actually I have a brilliant idea – why don’t you get together with the blog’s trained monkeys and publish it in E&E – so you won’t have to run up against the vested interests that has corrupted climate science – then you would have good street creds as having a serious publication in the area.
Of course if you’re not even able to equal David Archibald in getting your ideas published well I can understand. Writing logical ideas can be testing.
But don’t you think such a quality publication with your ideas would go down in history as something that students of climate could refer back to. They could back to it again and again as an object lesson.
Paul – “I realise the IPCC regard water vapour as a feedback rather than a forcing, and a positive feedback at that. I beg to differ.”
So differ but who are you??? How many years research have you done to come to this conclusion??? What qualifications gives you the knowledge to differ with the professional opinions of climate scientists?
Ian Mott says
Sarcasm will get you no-where, Luke. But it does confirm that you have no substantive counter argument. You suggest that I might be implying that the science community didn’t factor in Pinatubo but the fact is, they did, but only when it was convenient to show a nice rise in the old Hockey Stick.
This is the classic sidestep of the shonkademia. The research is done to confirm the cooling from Pinatubo and all the peers line up to confirm the view but when the GCMs are run they use the raw data instead of corrected data. It seems that “smoothing”, and all the manipulation that is lumped under that label, only applies to convenient information.
What a properly revised global data set would reveal is a sequence of sudden adjustments to new plateaux, as has been the case throughout the temperature record.
More importantly, if it was quite appropriate to extrapolate from the mistaken 13 year interval from 1985 to 1998, as has been done by the IPCC cronies, then the adjusted 15 year interval from 1992 to 2007 is even more valid.
And as for your disingenuous suggestion that I publish the work, you know perfectly well that all sorts of goons would come out of the woodwork to claim that they had already published on the topic but it was burried in waffle.
Well Ian if you’re not confident to publish in something as easy as E&E because you’re full of shit, well that’s your perogative. I’m sure mates Archibald and McLean would have helped you.
“It seems ” does it – you uniformed boofhead. “It seems”….
At this point you are just frothing and hand waving. Publish or perish.
Ian Mott says
Readers will be interested to note how Luke feels the need to be seen to be arguing against the implications of Pinatubo on the length of the current global temperature plateau while not actually making any substantive argument towards his case.
This is a fairly common response. He has probably sent a broadcast email to the shonk network pleading for some help. And he must now give an appearance of responding while he waits for some departmental minion to furnish a cut and paste.
It will need to be a very, very, big cut and paste job to dodge this one, Dopi Wan.
Ian Mott says
Just a reminder of the numbers again. Thats 15 years of temperature plateau, despite 27ppm of atmospheric CO2. And that 27ppm amounts to 141Gt or 20 years worth of total anthropogenic emissions, for a zero warming result.
I guess we won’t be seeing that incorporated into a GCM too soon.
Yawn. Well actually it has was posted – you ignored it at the time. ROTFL. Smith et al – you go find it as an exercise.
So now we have Mottsa doodling with x-y plots expecting linearity – take the temperature data evolution which is unambiguously up since 1985 – look how it’s wiggled around – but it’s kept going up. One datum point that’s warmer than 1998 and your argument cooks. And then if we get a lower point later you’ll be back blathering.
You tell us your explanation for what we’re seeing – give a few paras on your “mental model”.
You may also like to bone up on the 4AR and inform us how the attribution studies look at much more fingerprinting than this graph. This global temperature graph is one instance.
Also why do you think the upper stratosphere has cooled?
Ian Mott says
Luke said, “One datum point that’s warmer than 1998 and your argument cooks”. Bollocks. It depends on the how much warmer it might be. But at the moment we have 15 years of very minor fluctuations and a revised 5 year or 10 year moving average that is flat, flat, flat.
Guess the boys will switch to the 30 year average so they can maintain the myth, eh?
“So now we have Mottsa doodling with x-y plots expecting linearity”. Well, no more linearity than the IPCC asked us to believe between 1985 and 1998.
It is very clear, Luke, that you guys wanted a close correlation between CO2 and temperature (Al Gore’s crap is a case in point) and you were willing to ignore important considerations to get what you wanted.
No – we expect a close correlation between multiple forcings as measured and how modelled climate outcomes match actual climate.
The only way you will be convinced is to wait 10 years and see. One of us with be sorely embarrassed.
As a risk manager or concerned citizen you have to critically evaluate the cumulative information you have in front of you TODAY. You will never get a perfect 1 to 1 fit on short time periods.
Smith et al will tell you the system has significant internal variability. Even the last 100 years tells us that. You have El Nino, La Nina, IPO, AMO, NAO, AO and SAM all mooching around out there. None of this goes away because of AGW.
An evaluation of DIVERSE lines of evidence leads me to assess it as 90% certain. But we’ve all subject to confirmation bias hey? (serious comment).
But anyway you’re stuck on X-Y plots ….
Give us your view on.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar.pdf needs a ponder.
So if you accept the longwave has been measured and is close to theory – where is the energy going?
Does it “vanish”?
Why is the outgoing longwave changing
And why is that stratosphere cooling? And don’t just say ozone.
Why is the tropopause going up?
Science 25 July 2003:
Vol. 301. no. 5632, pp. 479 – 483
Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes
B. D. Santer,1* M. F. Wehner,2 T. M. L. Wigley,3 R. Sausen,4 G. A. Meehl,3 K. E. Taylor,1 C. Ammann,3 J. Arblaster,3 W. M. Washington,3 J. S. Boyle,1 W. Brüggemann5
Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause—the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere—has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. Comparable increases are evident in climate model experiments. The latter show that human-induced changes in ozone and well-mixed greenhouse gases account for 80% of the simulated rise in tropopause height over 1979–1999. Their primary contributions are through cooling of the stratosphere (caused by ozone) and warming of the troposphere (caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases). A model-predicted fingerprint of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) data sets. This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating.
Science 24 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5764, pp. 1138 – 1141
Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling
V. Ramaswamy,1 M. D. Schwarzkopf,1 W. J. Randel,2 B. D. Santer,3 B. J. Soden,4 G. L. Stenchikov5
Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the global lower stratosphere over 1979–2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, with each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures. Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling.
Paul Biggs says
Ender – I aspire to have as much knowledge as Al Gore, who doesn’t even have a science degree. Water vapour has about 14 times the radiative forcing of CO2 and behaves as a ghg, as well as both a positive and a negative feedback. If nearly all feedbacks were positive, as is claimed, we wouldn’t be here now, which is why a ‘planetary thermostat’ is postulated by the likes of Roy Spencer in peer reviewed science.
Paul – “Water vapour has about 14 times the radiative forcing of CO2 and behaves as a ghg, as well as both a positive and a negative feedback. If nearly all feedbacks were positive, as is claimed, we wouldn’t be here now, which is why a ‘planetary thermostat’ is postulated by the likes of Roy Spencer in peer reviewed science.”
Yes but water vapour condensed out to water whereupon it ceases to be a greenhouse gas. That is why it is a feedback not a forcing. CO2 once released into the air is resident for approx 100 years and that is why it is considered a forcing.
Don’t try to confuse the issue with Al Gore. He is presenting the work of others, not claiming the work as his own or disputing it. To dispute the work of any professional you must have equal or better qualifications.
As you clearly do not have such qualifications such criticism of their work is entirely meaningless. You can present the work or reference other work that disputes it but you as an individual cannot dispute the work as you are not qualified to do so.
Roy Spencer has published such work however others with similar qualifications have strongly rebutted most of it.
Paul – “If nearly all feedbacks were positive, as is claimed, we wouldn’t be here now,”
BTW we very nearly weren’t. Read about the Permian extinction that wiped out 95% of Earths species for instance. Or when the human population of the time went down to 20 000 individuals. There are times when positive feedbacks do gang up together and make the Earth almost uninhabitable.
Ian Mott says
Thats 15 years and counting, Luke. Thats 27ppm CO2 and no change, Luke. Thats 141Gt CO2 and all we got is a tiny sideways wibble.
All the rest is nothing but elaborate smoke and mirrors to distract the punters. See you in ten years.
15 years – try to stop playing with youself. Mottsa volcanism adjustment extracted sans arse. Measurements = zero. Fantasy = max.
Like you I don’t think mug punters understand “smoke and mirrors” – haven’t got the intellectual ability.
The patient’s blood chemistry has totally changed but Doc Mottsa isn’t worried.
Ian Mott says
Luke, nothing you can say will alter the fact that contrary to the image flogged by the climate mafia of a soaring temperature trajectory, the reality is nothing more alarming than a short (six year) jump followed by 15 years of minimal change. (a flatline)
It is a totally different picture. In analytical terms it is an unambiguously inelastic curve. And that means there is neither a causal relationship nor even an association with CO2.
But what does the clown come up with? Stupid medical analogies, pathetic.
The most likely explanation for the small jump from 1985 to 1991 is the reduction in sulfur emissions as industry cleaned up its act. At least the timing is consistent.
Paul Biggs says
This paper suggests geomagnetic activity is a better measure of solar activity:
No they are not stupid medical analogies. You have all this other corroborating evidence that an enhanced greenhouse effect is in operation. So you tell me where the energy involved in that is going. Your answer “oh it just vanishes”. Hmmmm very scientific.
And what’s your reference for the extent of the forcing involved with sulfur emissions. So you now want to hypothesise forcings but nobody else is allowed to.
Don’t just play all sciencey when you want to and drop back to straight line correlation – cause and effect in an attempt to ram raid your political (non scientific point).
Bait and switch.
15 years indeed – do go on.
Had a look at global temperatures lately? They’re going down! Best reference is HADSST2 as it avoids any issues with UHI and besides, ocean temperatures are the truest indicator of the earth’s thermodynamic state. They have now reached levels below peak temperatures reached back in the early 40’s and chances are they are going down ever further! Go figure!
So you might want to cook up a nice bunch of crow and put it in the freezer ready for you to eat when you’ve finally taken your head out of that other place I mentioned earlier.
Ian Mott says
So now Luke is inventing arguments to attribute to me. The recorded jump in global mean temperature that was obscured by the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 is likely to have been caused by a reduction in anthropogenic sulfur emissions in response to the acid rain concerns of the late 1970s and 1980s.
It was not so much a forcing but the removal of a negative feedback that was holding back a cyclical change.
But there is one further correction that should be made to our understanding of the global temperature series. I had stated the common belief that the warming surge up to 1998 began in 1985. And with the inclusion of the cooling from Pinatubo this appeared to be a shortened warming period of six years from 1985 to 1991.
But, as an examination of the temperatures from 1981 to 1991 reveals, this is wrong. The global means in degrees C were;
1982 13.99 (cooled about -0.12 by El Chichon)
This data shows that the 1985 year was a low point but the results in the following years do not represent a warming trend because there is only 0.01C difference between the 14.14 of 1983 (and an adjusted 1992) and the 14.15 recorded in both 1987 and 1988. Indeed, it is likely that the cooling from El Chichon would have lingered into 1983 suffiently to produce an adjusted reading of 14.15 or more.
So the actual warming trend did not start until the more significant rise to 14.22 in 1990. And that means that the warming trend from which so much spin and extrapolation has taken place is nothing more than a spike that took place over only three years from 1990 to 1992. After then there has been some fluctuations above and below this new plateau of 14.40C.
So the question for credible science is, which is the more relevant event? A three year spike, of a kind that has taken place on numerous occasions throughout the temperature record, or a 15 year plateau that clearly indicates zero elasticity, and zero link between increased CO2 and global temperature?
Never mind the Hockey Stick, this is a recliner lounge, a dentists chair, a dogs hind leg.
Oh what a big “duh” – there’s more to climate than simply CO2 alone. And I thought you had matured to multiple variables. OK back to uni-variable linearity. About what accountants are capable of.
Some how I don’t think you work out the effect of forcings on your envelope. What a load of shit – “I suspect this; I hypothesise that …”.
Give us the impact of the optical depth measurements or trundle back to your rocking chair.
You don’t get a global temperature anomaly growth of the size we’ve seen from wiggly woggles. And where’s your El Nino /La Nina adjustments if you want to play the game fairly – you’ll have to knock 1998 back for the size of the El Nino SST anomaly.
If you were any good you’d give us a guest post with all your adjustments and theories. Go on if you’re any good. But you’re probably not up to it.
As for Mark – well give us the exact HADSST2 reference – don’t leave us hanging. And seen the 1940s error bars on these data??
Ian Mott says
El Nino is not a random externality like a volcanic eruption. It plays an important part in the natural global temperature variation so it should remain.
There is no avoiding the fact that adjusted global mean temperature has only gone up by 0.26C in the 26 years since 1982 and only 0.31C over the 63 years since 1944. And more importantly, the 15 year plateau means there is absolutely zero evidence of acceleration.
Luke rabbits on about the newly claimed evils of linearity but the simple facts are the ones against which all modells and simulations must be grounded.
And after adjusting for major random events like volcanic eruptions, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ACCELLERATING TEMPERATURE INCREASE. A fifteen year temperature plateau cannot, under any reasonable assessment, be classed as an accelerating phenomenon.
The widely claimed acceleration of global mean temperature towards some cataclysmic level, and at a rate that species would not be able to adjust to, has no basis in fact.
This absence of supporting evidence is made even more damning when there remains major questions over the validity of much of the temperature records that make up the global mean series. These issues invariably relate to overstatement of the extent of warming.
15 year plateau – ROTFL.
Mark – totally unconvincing. I asked you to confirm what you’d been looking at as I hadn’t seen anything like what you’re implying. All you have is a wiggle downwards as you’ve had in the past. Not even near a long term downward trend. I think you’re getting VERY hopeful that the wiggle trend will continue. And also there is also the issues with ARGO floats etc being worked through.
Whoops last link should be:
Let’s look at something much more robust than SST time series. (Unless of course you’re an inflexible Mottsian linearist).
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans
Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 – 287
Tim P. Barnett,1* David W. Pierce,1 Krishna M. AchutaRao,2 Peter J. Gleckler,2 Benjamin D. Santer,2 Jonathan M. Gregory,3 Warren M. Washington4
A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.
1 Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 0224, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
2 Program for Climate Model Diagnoses and Intercomparison/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
3 UK Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK.
4 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Post Office Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
Gee, the Hadley series seemed to be good enough proof for Alarmists when it showed a warming trend but when it suggests something different it’s really not the thing to watch. Funny that!
So the proof that a warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans is some simulations in climate models? We all know that’s just Playstation 4 stuff!
Besides, if that was really true it would just mean that the current cooling trend is even stronger to offset any impact from this. No trend you say? Well a trend is a trend until its end and any warming trend certainly ended 15 years ago after accounting for Pinatubo and a cooling trend is clearly establishing itself. Look at your own link to the SH temperatures. It clearly shows that temperatures have significantly dropped over a period of several years. This trend is now also starting to appear in the NH records. You can go ahead and berate me should this reverse itself and we begin to see record temperatures again. Until then, put a sock in it! What we are witnessing is NATURAL climate variability giving us temperatures below those experienced over 60 years ago!
Oh bulldust – you wanted to look at HADSST2 and that’s what we’re looking at. There is no long term trend except up. You’d be very brave to tell Tim Barnett he’s using Playstation 4 stuff. Do you know Tim BTW? This is a state of the art analysis of the obs and amount of heat being sunk to depth. Unless you believe in Jack’s Beanstalk you might try to work out where all these massive terajoules of energy has just materialised from ?? I know “it’s nature”.
And just what does “natural variability” mean. Barnett asserts you’re well outside any “internal variability”, solar or volcanic influence.
I’m really stunned at you guys and your level of science understanding. You have massive amounts of energy being sunk to depth and this can “just happen”.
And you’re now convinced about a wiggle that’s waggled before in a noisy time series. Draw you finger over the time series – how many wiggles have just been a woggle and not a trend.
I like your science analysis too – I think I have a datum (that’s singular) point 60 years ago and therefore I decree the present is just like that. Well gee that’s heavy level science. And absolutely extraordinary analysis of the variables.
15 years ROTFL.
This sort of stupidity will just on for decades. We’ll get a warmer number soon enough and suddenly you’ll all decree it’s just a short term trend – then it will go down again but that will then count as a long term trend.
Little linearists with no science deriving insight through studying short term wiggles and woggles.
I mean really. Try to not to jerk too hard.
And indeed this has been analysed, strange that the sea level rise running ahead of expectations http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5825/709 and we’re supposedly cooling. Thermal expansion must be denying the laws of physics again:
But back to volcanic signals and Playstation 5’s.
Nature 439, 675 (9 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439675a; Published online 8 February 2006
Volcanoes and climate: Krakatoa’s signature persists in the ocean
P. J. Gleckler1, T. M. L. Wigley2, B. D. Santer1, J. M. Gregory3,4, K. AchutaRao1 and K. E. Taylor1
This huge eruption slowed sea-level rise and ocean warming well into the following century.
We have analysed a suite of 12 state-of-the-art climate models and show that ocean warming and sea-level rise in the twentieth century were substantially reduced by the colossal eruption in 1883 of the volcano Krakatoa in the Sunda strait, Indonesia. Volcanically induced cooling of the ocean surface penetrated into deeper layers, where it persisted for decades after the event. This remarkable effect on oceanic thermal structure is longer lasting than has previously been suspected1 and is sufficient to offset a large fraction of ocean warming and sea-level rise caused by anthropogenic influences.
An oceanic response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, which was comparable to Krakatoa in terms of its radiative forcing, has been identified in satellite altimetry data1. The simulated heat-content recovery after Pinatubo seems to occur much more rapidly than for Krakatoa (Fig. 1a). This disparity arises because the Pinatubo response is superimposed on a non-stationary background of large and increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. The heat-content effects of Pinatubo and other eruptions in the late twentieth century are offset by the observed warming of the upper ocean, which is primarily due to anthropogenic influences6.
Nature 438, 74-77 (3 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04237
Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content
John A. Church1,2, Neil J. White1,2 and Julie M. Arblaster3,4
Ocean thermal expansion contributes significantly to sea-level variability and rise1. However, observed decadal variability in ocean heat content2, 3 and sea level4 has not been reproduced well in climate models5. Aerosols injected into the stratosphere during volcanic eruptions scatter incoming solar radiation, and cause a rapid cooling of the atmosphere6, 7 and a reduction in rainfall6, 8, 9, as well as other changes in the climate system7. Here we use observations of ocean heat content2, 3 and a set of climate simulations to show that large volcanic eruptions result in rapid reductions in ocean heat content and global mean sea level. For the Mt Pinatubo eruption, we estimate a reduction in ocean heat content of about 3 1022 J and a global sea-level fall of about 5 mm. Over the three years following such an eruption, we estimate a decrease in evaporation of up to 0.1 mm d-1, comparable to observed changes in mean land precipitation6, 8, 9. The recovery of sea level following the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 explains about half of the difference between the long-term rate of sea-level rise4 of 1.8 mm yr-1 (for 1950–2000), and the higher rate estimated for the more recent period where satellite altimeter data are available (1993–2000)4, 10.
Ian Mott says
Of course these things can ‘just happen’ Luke. All it takes is a variation in cloud cover (of which the model wankers know very little) and you have a significant change in radiative forcing.
You guys insist on leaving cloud cover in the GCMs as a constant and from then on it is ‘garbage out’.
And once again, you have tried to imply that we contest the existence of any warming. What we contest is the claimed extent and significance of that warming. This post on oceanic temperatures is nothing new and does not alter the picture one bit.
And with the onset of what looks like a strong la Nina next year, the prospects for a continuation of the temperature plateau, and even a downturn, are very likely. Ergo, a 16 or 17 year plateau.
Once again, Boy Wonder, where is the evidence of an accelerating temperature increase.
No numb nuts – cloud representation is in GCMs – you’re a mile off in your description. You may argue about the adequacy of that simulation.
Calling the modellers wankers is fascinating as from a science point of view you are yet to wake up that you can’t explain the relative contribution of the forcings from staring at the observations. Think about it ! The day you demonstrate any science insight will be amazing.
As for clouds – you don’t have a good cloud story at all. Try this enlightening seminar http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/12469 (needs Realplayer but video but runs very well)
And of course La Nina is knocking down the global temperature – it’s called “short term” variation. Sheeesh ! But speaking of HADSST2 – it ain’t cooling everywhere either. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/charts.html
You just can’t wave some cloud notion you pulled out of your bum and claim it invalidates all the published science. That’s called “hand waving”.
Your whinging does not explain the terajoules sunk. The models do make a good job of it i.e. solar, volcanism and greenhouse – and that is the SCIENCE point.
All you have to have is 2009 to go warm big time and all this frenetic discussion will be left in the dust. Getting too excited about small wiggles, waggles and woggles given the complexity of the climate systems is courageous stuff.
All this comes down to your own personal assessment of risk and your confirmation bias – you’ve decided a priori that this is some commie left liberal greenie plot – yes of course they’re in the debate now – but that’s not important – we want to know if the science is highly likely (as much as anything can be certain) to be correct. Frankly it would be a whole bunch more convenient for everyone if AGW was a crock. Wouldn’t it be nice.
Your continual slagging off of the scientists in general is really pathetic. From someone in a possible industry leadership position really a disgrace and self-indulgent to the max. And you really have to smile that the class of scientists you slag off are often instrumental in getting those few scientists you laud with affection funded and published.
Anyway you guys will just have to wait for long term data to come in. Meanwhile we can enjoy ourselves by ritually insulting each other. Which is fun.
You want to talk to terajoules sunk? The earth’s ocean’s absorb 285 billion terajoules each year from solar insolence. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that even a fractional % reduction in the level of the earth’s cloud cover can easily account for these ‘extra’ terajoules. Yet the climate modellers don’t factor this in. Mind you, I can’t blame them as it would spell the end of the publicly funded feed trough for them if it turns out that AGW is finally verified as the phantom menace it really is. I’m sure you’re already frothing at the mouth and preparing some snappy retort. Well Henrik Svensmark to you! (Sorry, didn’t mean to make you wet yourself!)
As to wibbles and wobbles, I’m still waiting for that SIGNIFICANT wibble upward that we really haven’t seen for 25 years after accounting for volcanic impacts and even then, the significant jump in temperatures coming out of the late 70’s is attributable to the Great Pacific Climate Shift and the end of a weak solar cycle 19!
So let’s see where we stand in 2009 – if global temperatures are back at record levels, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!
Well boo hoo – you don’t have a cloud story so it’s all VERY speculative. If anything net effect of clouds is cooling.
You do have VERY good evidence for extra radiation being sunk into the atmosphere – so where’s it going? Up Jack’s beanstalk? The fact that you guys just continually write this off is astounding !!!
As for Great Pacific Wanks and solar cycles – well yes you’re obviously a true denialist – all the latest theories and so many of them too. Which is it this week. I thought it was all cosmic rays. Does the “Great Pacific Shift” have any predictability – does it even exist – maybe it’s red noise. And pity the solar flux doesn’t show any major change eh?
As for publicly funded troughs well you’d have to be friggin mad to do climate science – there’s bugger all personal money in it and it’s very hard yards. I’m sure they’re all just making up all this elaborate physics for the moolah. Try to lay straight in bed and not parrot that usual denialist shit eh?
Easier to be a slick willy accountant or head hunter.
Well would love to stay and chat but have to clean up the 20cm of snow that fell overnight. Oh for some of that warming you keep fucking promising is just around the corner!
Ian Mott says
So do we take it that you have no evidence of temperature acceleration, Luke?
That, of course, was John Daly’s simple message, “Still waiting for greenhouse”. When you have some evidence, please, let us know. But we all know that climate cretins make no distinction between an imaginary outcome and an actual one. They both have the same value in the brave new green utopia.
James Mayeau says
There is surely more to the climate then co2, but there is nothing to co2 without the climate.
“In 2006 less CO2 was added to the atmosphere than in 1983. In 1980 more CO2 was added to the atmosphere than in 2004. Why is that? I’m sure that the world’s human population has increased its output of CO2 significantly since the 1980s. Where did it go? Why does the growth rate change from year to year? Biology? Algae in the sea? I don’t know, just asking. And why does nobody else ask this?” – Leif Svalgard
Here’s a graph. http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2lt_2007.gif
In addition the graph displays the decoupling of temperature from co2 – and the strong coupling of co2 levels to temperature.
Pity – but maybe you’ll relent after shovelling.
On the Great Pacific Climate Shift some fascinating state of the art work on such things by Meehl, but firstly some preceding work by Baines & Folland.
But onto the Great Pacific Thingy –
The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability
Gerald A. Meehl, NCAR, Boulder, CO; and A. Hu and B. D. Santer
A significant shift of Pacific climate occurred in the mid-1970s with effects that extended globally. One view is that this change was entirely natural and a product of internally-generated decadal variability of the Pacific climate system. However, during the mid-1970s there was also a significant increase of global temperature and changes to a number of other quantities that have been associated with changes of external forcings, particularly increases of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. We analyze an un-forced control run from a global coupled climate model as well as 20th century simulations with changes in external forcings to show that the 1970s climate shift had a contribution from changes in external forcing superimposed on what was likely an inherent decadal fluctuation of the Pacific climate system. Thus this inherent decadal variability delayed to the 1970s what would have been a forced climate shift in the 1960s.
“There is surely more to the climate then co2” – errr yes …. so ??
Do youself a favour James and graph anything else against that data including kichen sink sales.
acceleration – hmmm – well Mark like oceans as inegrators so sea level rise is trending beyond expectations.
and from you own insistence that more snow is falling than melting we’re measuring thermal expansion are we not.
Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,1 Anny Cazenave,2 John A. Church,3 James E. Hansen,4 Ralph F. Keeling,5 David E. Parker,6 Richard C. J. Somerville5
Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models, as shown both by a reconstruction using primarily tide gauge data (2) and, since 1993, by satellite altimeter data (3) (both series are corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment). The satellite data show a linear trend of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (1993–2006) and the tide gauge reconstruction trend is slightly less, whereas the IPCC projected a best-estimate rise of less than 2 mm/year. Sea level closely follows the upper gray dashed line, the upper limit referred to by IPCC as “including land-ice uncertainty.” The rate of rise for the past 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25% faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period in the preceding 115 years.
Ian Mott says
Luke, you know perfectly well that the satellite data will take many more decades to be properly calibrated. And the earlier pacific tide gauge data is totally unreliable with some of the limited number of stations in close proximity while vast areas are not measured at all. They are also located on coral atolls that may or may not be sinking and may or may not be subject to tectonic uplift. And meanwhile, the sampling has, for some extraordinary reason, left out tidal readings from all the continental records that form the perimeter of that ocean. As if the only valid sample must come from islands within the ocean, and not from continental stations on the edge of the same f#@$%&g body of water!
And of course, for all the talk about past sea level rise, no one asks, exactly where did this extra water come from. On the balance of probability, most of it must have come from Antarctica. But where is the evidence of a past century of decline in the Antarctic ice volume on a scale that could produce the claimed sea level rises? Nowhere.
No the satellite data will not need decades to become properly calibrated.
I’m going with John Churchs’ expert assessment with error bars. You can write a detailed critique of his recent publications if you’re confident. Will only take a few paras to Nature.
And yes you have can have no ice mass loss – your argument – so it’s all thermal expansion.
It’s very interesting Ian as to what you reject and what you accept. The thermal expansion of the ocean is unambiguous.
Tell me when it trends downwards.
Ian Mott says
But gosh, Luke, wasn’t every man jack wanking on about melting ice? Now you claim it is all just thermal expansion?
No you convinced me for the sake of this argument. Unless of course you wish to recant. Can’t have it both ways can you? Think before answering.
Ian Mott says
You seem to forget, Luke, that we thrashed out the actual potential for thermal expansion some time ago on this blog. And I don’t believe anyone associated with the climate mafia has ever apologised for their mistake of multiplying the surface temperature heat expansion coefficient by the entire ocean water column, including deep ocean that has not changed at all.
And when we apply this coefficient in proper proportion to the actual variation through the thermocline we get numbers that would scare no-one.
But your admission that you are more than willing to be selective with the facts to score a point has been noted by all readers, I’m sure.
Oh come – stop wiggling – it’s expanded and that’s that. Don’t bung on all your tired old mixing ruses – we’ve been over that. It’s been measured empirically so bugger off.
If you’re confident, which you are not, you big girl, you’d send a letter to Nature showing where Church is wrong. You won’t – so drone on. Obfuscating ducking and weaving. All science is wrong except for Ian’s envelope & Bill Burrows. What a crock.
Anyway get back and read the stuff I left for you on 150 watts. You sorely need educating.
What if we looked at tree ring data differently? Could it be possible that natuaral cycles of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually affect the growth rate of plants? Could it be that thicker rings might also reflect a greater carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere? Many things effect plant growth, but all the carbon in the tree is from the carbon dioxide in the air.
As far as Volcanoes go, there is a coralation to Volcanoes errupting and flooding of various areas. After Pinatubo there was a huge flood in the midwest. If this can correlated, and time line wise it seems to be, this would show yet another item that is not accounted for in the climate models.
arthur c.wolff says
Solar emissions have not changed the surface temp.
of earth in such a radical way since the triasic
(200m.y.) the planet’s been cooling since?
phoney pesudo science thinks it can ignore facts
present in geological evidence,atmospheric,and
weather records,many other scientists are calling
the conditions we’r seeing evidence of long term man induced modifacations in climate? i sugest
they’r correct.. i’ve examined the “evidence” offered by these nay-sayers , they’r nothing
but liers.. get a job you crooks?(your not even
Everybody on both sides is so sure that their analyses are correct. But both sides rely on extremely complex models in their attempts to explain the warming oceans. But in the end, it comes to something very simple: The Earth is getting more energy input, or there’s more heat retention. Or both.
In 20 or so years, the solar cycle will be more clearly in decline, and then if there is still warming, we’ll be able to discount the sun as the cause (maybe 30 years if there is a delayed effect of some kind). And then we’ll be arguing about what the mechanism of heat retention really is.
The important question to ask at this stage is not “how good is the evidence that the cause of the warming is GHGs”, but rather: “how good is the evidence that we have less than 20-30 years to avert disaster?”
Even if we were to grant that the evidence is strong that the cause is GHGs, we are still left with the question of “urgency”. How dependent on computer modelling is the conclusion of urgency?
How valid are the assumptions that led to the conclusion of urgency?
If the urgency bit is on shakier ground, then why not just wait until the current solar cycle ends, and then we’ll know for sure if the sun is the cause?
In the meantime, we can focus anti-air-pollution efforts on health-based goals like reducing particulates, sulphur, mercury, etc., and thus any reduction in carbon emissions that comes from such an effort would be a side-benefit if the data pans out, and a harmless side-effect if it doesn’t.
TO: Paul Biggs;
You objected to Luke’s criticism of Al Gore (who has no science or engineering background) with these comments:
“Don’t try to confuse the issue with Al Gore. He is presenting the work of others, not claiming the work as his own or disputing it. To dispute the work of any professional you must have equal or better qualifications. As you clearly do not have such qualifications such criticism of their work is entirely meaningless.”
Well, that’s the problem with Al Gore. He possesses no qualifications in climate change, yet he criticizes qualified Scientists who disagree with his global warming rants by comparing them to Holocaust deniers.
What a crock!! Al Gore should practice what he preaches. Of course, if he didn’t fly all over the world in private jets hyping global warming, then he would lose the major source of his income.