Dr David Whitehouse is an astronomer and author of ‘The Sun: A Biography’ (John Wiley, 2004). He has written an article for The Independent, normally the home of hype and alarmism about the small, diminishing logarithmic effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on our ever changing climate, entitled ‘Ray of hope: Can the sun save us from global warming?’
Something is happening to our Sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc. We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a while now with no sign it’s on its way any time soon.
Read the rest of the article from The Independent, 5th December, here.
Also, see SolarCycle24.com
Seasons of the Sun
Modern Solar Minimum
(2000-?)
Modern Climate Optimum
(1890–2000) – the world is getting warmer. Concentrations of greenhouse gas increase. Solar activity increases.
Dalton Solar Minimum
(1790–1820) – global temperatures are lower than average.
Maunder Solar Minimum
(1645–1715) – coincident with the ‘Little Ice Age’.
Spörer Solar Minimum
(1420-1530) – discovered by the analysis of radioactive carbon in tree rings that correlate with solar activity – colder weather. Greenland settlements abandoned.
Wolf Solar Minimum
(1280–1340) – climate deterioration begins. Life gets harder in Greenland.
Medieval Solar Maximum
(1075–1240) – coincides with Medieval Warm Period. Vikings from Norway and Iceland found settlements in Greenland and North America.
Oort Solar Minimum
(1010-1050) – temperature on Earth is colder than average.
There seem to have been 18 sunspot minima periods in the last 8,000 years; studies indicate that the Sun currently spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“It might even be the case that the Earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change.”
Indeed. If the low activity continues, the Earth’s response will be the acid test for AGW proponents and deniers alike.
Hello! Good site!
Thank you!
Thanks for this one Paul. History rules, okay?
Mark – well actually not all. What drives greenhouse – the Sun. Greenhouse does exist without the Sun – the mechanism is a recycling of longwave radiation.
So if you have less solar input, the primary energy supplier to greenhouse would be less. So warming would be less.
It depends on what the numbers multiply out to (solar effect x greenhouse levels) as to the final answer. Maybe a slowing or even statis.
The thinking on all this is very poor. Do people somehow see the greenhouse effect as separate and unrelated to solar?
So what happens when the Sun revs up again – you get massive rapid warming with a vengeance.
If we are dealing with a manevolent God he would give us just this scenario to test us. Sun quietens – denialists have a field day – CO2 growth goes berserk – research effort dissipated and then in a few decades “it’s baaaaacckkk”….
“does not exist without the Sun ”
“alarmism about the small, diminishing logarithmic effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on our ever changing climate”
Haven’t you read up on the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect”. Ender provided some excellent links on why it’s not that simple.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455
Now, I understand it’s a little complex to understand, but I think that if you are going to make such statements on a public forum on such an important topic, you should try to understand what you are saying.
Add positive feedback effects on top of that, and you end up with a problem.
Davey
What if the sun is varying considerably, but the temperature is? History isn’t going to be much use to you then.
Would that have been the same “Evelyn,J. Sylva, or a discourse on forest trees, 1664”?
“So what happens when the Sun revs up again – you get massive rapid warming with a vengeance.”
Luke is not able to accept any possibility other than that most, if not all, the presumed global temperature rise since, say 1940, is mostly due to human activity.
As a result, any suggestion that it may be mostly due to solar activity as in the past (or something else for that matter), does not penetrate.
Sure chrisgo, just demonstrate the solar activity causing the warming, and it’ll be settled.
Well chrisgo it’s this simple – (1) do you think there is any greenhouse effect at all (2) do you think that more greenhouse gases might add to it?
At this point you do have a considerable literature of the physics involved. Where is it wrong?
We do not seem to have an appreciable increase in solar insolation.
Just because you may discover new factor A does not mean factor B suddenly disappears. That’s fundamentally illogical.
It is plainfully insufficient to simply propose an alternative and say “oh well that’s it then”. All go home.
Correlations are not cause and effect – you need mechanisms or maybe it’s bogus and actually related to something else?
Do you ever think that maybe there might be – and wait for it – what we call “multiple” effects going on? I know it’s hard for you …
So do have ham and eggs or just ham or just eggs. The existence of ham disproves that eggs could ever exist. But then someone proposes a cup of tea and all prior knowledge of ham and eggs is discarded.
So chrisgo propose an hypothesis, with a good physical mechanism that models the problem, and then find why the other science is wrong.
Wow, ham and eggs now.
I’ll stick with oatmeal – much healthier.
I was not suggesting ‘this’ or ‘that’, but a bit of ‘this’ and a bit of ‘that’.
The apparent warming last century could be 90% due to increased solar activity and 10% due to human induced increased CO₂ (or other greenhouse gas[es]) ,or vice versa, or somewhere in between – who knows for sure?
I have an open mind, but to drastically curtail the future economic development of billions of humans on the basis of an unproven hypothesis (which seems to be designed to pander to the moral superiority of the pampered western left) is, it seems to me, criminal.
SJT – the enhanced greenhouse effect is small, and no-one has demonstrated otherwise, including RC. You’re ignoring negative feedbacks.
Chrisgo – well it’s a grand pity that solar hasn’t gone up then isn’t it?
No Paul you can’t say it’s small – why? That’s just your fervent hope. And this blog is not known for it’s objective discussions?
I don’t consider this has anything to do with “moral superiority of the pampered western left” – it’s either right or wrong. Portraying this as a leftist issue is classic denialist ruse stuff. “Criminal” – what a try-on. Indeed.
There seems to be agreement that 2xCO2=1C. Any higher is undemonstrated and relies on computer models, and most or all feedbacks being positive.
The challenge of a full exposition for 2xCO2=2.5C remains open. Crickets chirping.
“I don’t consider this has anything to do with ‘moral superiority of the pampered western left'”
I can agree with you there.
What I should have written is: the self-assessed moral superiority of the western Left.
On what basis do you get 1C ?
Chrisgo – is it their fault that rednecks are thick?
Around 1C is the ‘consensus’ without feedbacks. IPCC range for scenarios is 1.1C to 6.4C.
By who?
‘Consensus’ requires no definition or qualification – it must be blindly accepted.
Did you read the link I have provided to the science behind the enhanced greenhouse effect, that was what Ender had already provided?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
You really should read it, Paul, and the rest. It explains in great detail the theory.
“‘Consensus’ requires no definition or qualification – it must be blindly accepted.”
Good grief.
Paul
maybe you should read what ABARE has to say. They have been the free market insiders in the federal government up till now, doing everything they can to run the denier line, all of a sudden they have done a massive backflip.
“AUSTRALIA could suffer a massive decline in farm production and agricultural export earnings in coming decades unless it can halt climate change or adapt to it, a report to the Federal Government has warned.
In a stark assessment of Australia’s vulnerability to a heating planet, a key research agency has predicted that production of wheat, beef, dairy items and sugar will fall by about 10% by 2020 as temperatures rise and rainfall declines.
By 2050, it warns the nation’s total economic output could have been shaved by as much as 5% as key agricultural exports are slashed by between 15% and 79% — placing Australia among the nations worst affected by climate change.
The warning from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday distanced himself from suggestions at the Bali climate change conference that Australia would back an agreement on making deep cuts to greenhouse emissions by 2020.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/farms-face-climate-devastation/2007/12/06/1196812922296.html
SJT – Find an objective source for once.
Give up whinging and hand-wringing – climate changes and there is nothing we can do to stop it, least of all by trying to manipulate atmospheric CO2 without help from the developing world. Forget aerial plant food – adapt and develop secure energy sources. Where Oz needs water, transport it, and build desalination plants powered by TRIGA reactors.
Or just wait around, moaning about the climate and CO2 emissions.
And on the same theme SJT the blog gimps and ning nongs I’m sure will rushing out to get their copy of
TWISTED by Ian Enting.
THE DISTORTED MATHEMATICS OF GREENHOUSE DENIAL.
http://www.amsi.org.au/twisted
Ian Enting is a Professorial Fellow in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems based at The University of Melbourne. From 1980 to 2004 he worked in CSIRO Atmospheric Research, primarily on modelling the global carbon cycle. He was one of the lead authors of the chapter CO2 and the Carbon Cycle in the 1994 IPCC report on Radiative Forcing of Climate. Prof. Enting has published numerous scientific papers, mainly on mathematical physics and carbon cycle modelling, and a monograph on mathematical techniques for interpreting observations of CO2 and other trace gases.
Classic chapters – including ROTFL and LMAO – my faves.
But also how to smack out a redneck, plausible deniability, smear and innuendo, what to do if an opinionated denialist wanker calls you a “turd”, what to do if your date turns out to be a filthy denialist, stalking contrarians, why Realclimate is never wrong, how to infiltrate the IPA, rebutting a stinky op-ed piece in the Australian, denialism and bizarre rituals with goats, and how to publish bogus science in E&E.
Chapter 6 – lies, bait & switch, guilt-by-association, ignoring qualifiers and irrelevant factoids.
6.3 Geologists (ROTFL)
8 Alleged motivations – ranging from half-truths to downright weird
8.2 Gagging
8.3 Why proposing that characterising climate as a left versus right issue is mis-direction.
9 The cost of denial.
Woo hoo !
Paul – “Give up whinging and hand-wringing – climate changes and there is nothing we can do to stop it, least of all by trying to manipulate atmospheric CO2 without help from the developing world. Forget aerial plant food – adapt and develop secure energy sources. Where Oz needs water, transport it, and build desalination plants powered by TRIGA reactors.”
You really are a uber denialist aren’t you? So the climate changes and there is nothing we can do – really Paul? So far you have not supplied even one link to a peer reviewed paper that supports your argument, that you seem to have pulled from your anus, that climate sensitivity is 1°. The climate does change and it has many different triggers one of which we are supplying.
So how do we transport the water Paul or is the oil going to last forever in this denialist fantasy world that you live in. A TRIGA reactor, which is a research reactor BTW and is not designed to produce electricity, needs fuel – where do you get this fuel from? Unless we start enriching uranium you would like to place the future of Australia’s water supply in the hands of whatever country we can get to make our nuclear fuel – good plan so far. Worse that this you would build this reactor in an area bathed in some of the best solar conditions in the world. A high temperature solar thermal plant can boil and distill water with the waste heat from producing electricity. This way you get power and water from the sun.
http://www.trec.net.au/000-CSP-Desalination-TREC.html
China and India will have more than enough problems with their own environment to stay out of the climate change mitigation solution for too long.
Why not take the time to understand the links I supplied rather than demonstrating your ignorance in this public and rather embarrassing manner.
Luke “Sun quietens – denialists have a field day – CO2 growth goes berserk – research effort dissipated and then in a few decades “it’s baaaaacckkk”
Yep “denialists” ( who’s going to be the first to use the term “heretic” – c’mon you blokes? )would have a field day and deservedly so because such an event would clearly demonstrate those who now claim;
1. the science is settled and
2. only massive cuts to CO2 emissions will “save” us
are dishonest hysterics and propogandists.
I like the article – sober and non-sensationalist ; NOT disputing the existing scientific concensus on AGW but urging caution and an open mind – what a breath of fresh air here!
We don’t hear enough of acknowledgements like – “Many computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years.”
Wonder why?
“It might even be the case that the Earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. We don’t know.”
Still some honesty and rationality out there – pity it doesn’t get the air time/print space it deserves.
Luke
looks like a good read, I’ll order myself a copy.
Hang on Jim – That’s “if” that happens. Evidence so far in conjecture.
“It might even be the case that the Earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. We don’t know.”…….
is some speculation. Maybe we’ll also be hit be a comet? Don’t mistake an op-ed for a science review.
As for “We don’t hear enough of acknowledgements like – “Many computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years.” ” – well yes you have Smith et al http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm
Agreed Luke – “if” solar activity ( or lack of ) causes temperatures to decline….
“if” the climate models are correct….
“if” AGW theory is one day proven…..
Plenty of “if’s” to go around.
As for Smith et al – didn’y say there were none , just not enough.
And there’s plenty of science to back up this “op-ed” piece isn’t there?
errr nope. Which of 100 solar theories would like?
The question you need to ask yourself – is there any greenhouse effect at all; if so why do you think you couldn’t increase it?
No – don’t have to ask that at all Luke ; there is a greenhouse effect ,CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing CO2 ( all other factors being equal ) will lead to an increased greenhouse effect.
See?
Now back to the main game and away from the diversion.
You’ve suggested that there’s no ( or little ) science to back up the theory that fluctuations in solar activity affect temperature?
Don’t I feel like a dill!
Still , look on the bright side ; maybe I’ll quote you when I post my edit to Wiki!
I get so sick of this crap from Luke, SJT & others, demanding proof from those who don’t agree with them.
You lot have the boot on the wrong foot there. You’re the ones wanting us to undertake changes in our life, to suit your wacky ideas. You have no proof, & some pretty doubtful “evidence” which you claim confirms your theory. So if you want others to act with you, YOU MUST OROVIDE THE PROOF.
Its all very much Y2K all over again. All very iffy, & getting more so, as more information reaches the surface,
Is that the reason for the rush to action Luke? If if doesn’t happen in the next couple of years, it’ll all be over, & the truth will be known.
Even idiots like Rudd will drop you like a hot potato, when the public wakes up.
If they took the words could, may be, perhaps, up to, possibly, & chance of, out of all these “REPORTS”, there would be nothing left to read.
If ever there were 2 things that went together its got to be UN, & Lying. Then again, academia, the public sector, & self-serving, are damn near an equal fit.
Hasbeen – “I get so sick of this crap from Luke, SJT & others, demanding proof from those who don’t agree with them.”
I agree – we should pollute and continue to drive our Prados until someone conclusively proves that what we are doing is wrong.
Stuff the science I say and shame on them for suggesting that maybe the 3rd plasma TV for the second guest room is extravagant.
Why do we need proof I am OK and that is all that matters. All these “problems” dreamed up by lying UN Nazis will all go away if we ignore them enough just like DDT.
What is another crap issue I can insert? I was trying to beat Schiller.
So Hasbeen – exactly what have I ever advocated numb nuts? Doing something about CO2 use is very difficult. I’m argued the climate change science. IMO nothing will be done about CO2 growth.
The truth won’t be known in the next couple of years Hasbo – I’ve seen EVERY single AGW issue blocked by denialist bullshit. If the sun rising the east was part of AGW, denialist liers would arrange it to rise in the west.
(Y2K wasn’t an issue as the mods WERE made in good time).
You comments on all these scientists as liars is deeply offensive so go fuck yourself you old codger.
Hasbeen,
I worked on remedying essential systems for a major manufacturer for Y2K. It wasn’t that much work, but it had to be done, and nothing went wrong. I didn’t buy the hype for a second, in the sense that I knew that if everyone just went about and did what had to be done, there wouldn’t be a problem. Sure enough, the work was done, the systems functioned correctly, no end of world scenario. I laughed at the thought of those poor sods standing out in the street with torches and bottles of water. A lot of money was spent, but it was worth it, (if you avoided the usual scammers who take advantage of any similar situation).
There was a net benefit for many companies. They reviewed their infrastructure, caught up with many deficiencies in documentation and procudures, updated to modern software, tossed out a lot of obosolete rubbish.
We have a similar situation with AGW. If we just do what has to be done, there won’t be a problem. Like the Y2K work, it will cost money, but it won’t be wasted. The world will reduce it’s reliance of oil, not a bad things considering the strife it is now causing, modern technologies will be implemented, old crud will be tossed out when it should have been done years ago, companies will have state of the art equipment.
When it’s done, people will once again complain, wondering what the fuss was all about.
Does this site have a moderator?
I enjoy reading the links supplied by Jennifer, Paul and Co. and am quite capable of making up my own mind about the issues under consideration here. I am also quite capable of finding other sites and links for alternative views. There is nothing better than a robust exchange of views and ideas. However the level of “noise” generated in the comments is becoming increasingly annoying – often degenerating into childish abuse, insult and name-calling. There also seems to be a number of posters whose chief motivation is to undermining the blog’s purpose – which I understand is to provide a perspective on environmental issues that does not get much airtime in mainstream media.
I have to single out Luke in this regard. Though he is not the sole offender, he is certainly the most over-the-top, effusive stirrer here, churning out literally hundreds of comments and wiki links each month. I don’t know what he does for a crust but he sure gives the impression that he has little better to do with his time than come here daily to shout “Na! Na! Na!” at those with whom he disagrees.
Please guys, lift your game. Any entertainment value from all this carry-on is wearing thin. Shouting down one’s opponents is not the mark of mature, rational and respectful discourse.
Let me just add that I always find Jennifer stands out starkly as a model of blog decorum in a sea of “F*ck yous”, “Liar ,liar, pants on fire” and “Redneck Morons!”…
The big difference with Y2K was that it was clear that it WOULD have been a problem if not addressed. There is no such certainty with the impact of increased CO2 levels. A slightly warmer world is not necessarily a problem. Despite the Alarmists attempts at Mannian type coverups, mankind has thrived through earlier warmer periods in its history.
As to updating and renewing stuff, that will happen anyway but let economics and technology drive that rather than a scaremongering agenda. It works better that way. If there is any extra money to throw around, there are far better things to concentrate on such as third world development (even if it means more CO2 emissions!).
Thanks Tertius – I appreciate your comments. We do occasionally delete comments and I sometimes censor the language. Maybe we should delete pointless comments more often, but we don’t have a delay while comments are approved, like some other blogs.
“I have to single out Luke in this regard. Though he is not the sole offender, he is certainly the most over-the-top, effusive stirrer here, churning out literally hundreds of comments and wiki links each month. I don’t know what he does for a crust but he sure gives the impression that he has little better to do with his time than come here daily to shout “Na! Na! Na!” at those with whom he disagrees.”
I disagree strongly. Luke presents the highest quality content on this site. If you look at the scientific references he provides, along with posters like Ender, you will get the actual science as presented by scientists, rather than the farrago of strawman misrepresentations the deniers create.
In response to that work you will see endless, vindictive and personal attacks, with nothing to do with science, and the usual conspiracy theorist attacks on scientists instead actual responses to the science.
I know a research scientist for the CSIRO, and I believe Luke knows several as well. The callous remarks that are repeatedly made about them being in the research area purely to line their own pockets and further a left wing agenda are disgusting.
As for Jennifer remaining aloof from it all. She does, but what does that achieve, when it means that the points she raises are rarely defended.
Tertius sediment, so you come here for mature, rational, and respectful discourse do you? You must be desperate. This is just an astro-turfing operation for a certain POV. Obviously you’re just another right wing gimp that thinks they can walk over environmental values with spurious arguments and insults.
Hey Mark – how do you think those enduring massive MWP droughts in the Americas, Africa and South China thrived. Ask the Maya ! Try to take a non-romantic objective view.
Luke,
So you obviously agree then that Mann’s work was a piece of crap and that Alarmist’s use of that work was one big charade!
Luke,
So you obviously agree then that Mann’s work was a piece of crap and that Alarmist’s use of that work was one big charade!
Which “alarmists” made Mannian coverups Mark? Sounds like you’re a conspiracy nutter.
I’d say the lot of them.
And they might be who exactly ?
Let’s try the IPCC, Al Gore, Government of Canada, and so on and so on. Let’s pretend the MWP and Little Ice Age never existed because it contradicts the scaremonger story! And when the stench from Mann’s work became apparent, they blindly kept using this tripe or pretend they never went near it. N’er an apology.
And what was the scaremonger story? that where we are TODAY is dangerous or where we could the atmosphere is heading is dangerous. The reality now is that our understanding of climatic extent and nature of these phenomena is probably worse off – was the LIA mainly a European event in impact. The MWP was actually devastating in droughts in major parts of the globe. You could actually be more alarmist about the MWP with today’s much larger populations. Maybe we should start running that flat tack.
MWP dangerous !
So why do you guys bang on about the growing of grapes in southern England and not the collapse of the Maya.
Now I’m not saying there is no global evidence for the existence of these phenomena – but their magnitude and the extent of their impact could be better or worse, more or less. Do we really know?
So you’re simply focussing on one piece of science that took a pummelling (which incidentally is hardly new – have the guys with the wrong solar theories apologised?) – so we have a contested stats analysis and set of proxies. Gee in the history of science this never happens (NOT!). Never before has a published bit of science been criticised. This is extraordinary.
After applying the reviewers blow torch at the same intensity – you now virtually have nothing left in useful proxies. Loehle’s stuff is equally dodgy and statistically iffy?
Leaves us totally uncertain about the true nature of the MWP and LIA. Incidentally did you notice the error bounds on your posted graphic?
Poor Maya! But you know, climate shit happens! Temperatures go up, temperatures come down. Droughts come and go. But the Alarmists would falsify history and pretend this wasn’t so! Only mankind can bring forth climate Armageddon! Yeh right! In the future, temperatures will continue to go up and go down. Droughts will continue to come and go and there is SDA that mankind can do about it other than best prepare himself via economic development! Economic development that Alarmists would stifle if they had their way! Is mankind having any significant effect on the global climate, good, bad or indifferent? Have yet to see any definitive proof that this is so!
Oh and about the apology thing? It’s not the Climate rationalists who are screaming “The debate is over!” and “The science is settled!”. Or looking to waste trillions of dollars chasing a phantom menace!
Mark – the reality is that we don’t prepare or adapt well for climate variability now. In the first world we see hurricanes coming via satellite and transport people away. In Bangladesh you get clobbered, but worldwide everyone gets clobbered in terms of infrastructure. Same with drought – in Australia transport allows us to move livestock long distances, transport brings in food and a social security system can prop up any family without an income. But economically most people simply get clobbered. In the third world it’s typically a humanitarian disaster.
So we don’t adapt that well to current climate variability – we simply take the hit and wait it out.
And we have not had a major food shortage with 6 billion on the planet and 30 days food supply. The Chinese will start to really ponder AGW when some of the predictions start to bite.
Can the planet support a future 9 billion humans aspiring to the level of resource ownership and consumption of the average Australian or American. Cetrainly we’re going to give it a shot.
But unless you beleieve in Jack’s Beanstalk I fail to see how this all adds up.
As for your “phantom menace” etc – well that’s really just your fervent opinion. A vast number of scientists would disagree. Many indeed are upset that the 4AR is watered down more than sexed up.
You ought to be concerned about humanity’s current lack of adaptation climate variation and extreme weather now. If any of the monies being expended ends up in better climate understanding – I would thought like a satellite picture of an impending hurricane – it would be most valuable.
So in terms of apologies – it will be very interesting too if denialists successfully derail the climate change debate, dissipate the research effort, and predictions do play out long term. And do play out to the extent that it’s too late to act.
People won’t be then after an apology – there will be lynching parties.
You so called Climate rationalists are indulging anything under the Sun as an idea. Any old iron. Any crap argument will do. No internal quality control of their own membership. It has actually been refreshing to see Svalgaard swat some of the gimps running silly ideas at climateaudit.
e.g. why hasn’t McIntyre done a systems analysis on most important issues and done a full ream out on the satellite and ocean data ? No we’ll waste vast amounts of time on the paleo record and reviewing the temperature record to make a rounding error adjustment. McKitrick being an economist should lecture him on optimum resource allocation.
So all that aside Mark – why do you actually think the CO2 hypothesis is wrong. A science view of the mechanisms, current observations, or you just think it’s a commie/greenie plot.
Mark – “Only mankind can bring forth climate Armageddon! Yeh right! In the future, temperatures will continue to go up and go down. Droughts will continue to come and go and there is SDA that mankind can do about it other than best prepare himself via economic development!”
Obviously you are very badly informed – perhaps you should try reading the links we post. NO-ONE, not one scientist that I have ever read of or heard of has said that mankind is the only force to bring about climate change. The mere fact that groups of dedicated scientists spent years in hellish condition to drill thousands of meters into ice to learn about the past climate totally disproves such a notion. The past ice cores clearly show past climate change when there was no human society and/or pre humans.
What they did learn is the things that can cause climate change. One of them is changes in greenhouse gas levels which we are changing right now.
“So in terms of apologies – it will be very interesting too if denialists successfully derail the climate change debate, dissipate the research effort, and predictions do play out long term.”
Derail the climate change debate? What debate? The Alarmists claim “The debate is over!”. Hell the debate never even started!
I think you will find many “deniers” (and yes I find that use of that term with its holocaust implications particularly ignorant) would love nothing more than a good debate over the science looking at all the angles including the impact from CO2.
So Luke, I’ll give you a bit of background in terms of what I think:
I started out like most people, having somewhat of a concern about the potential impact of CO2 on the climate based on what the general media was saying. Things then really “heated” up towards the end of last year with the El Nino and the release of AIT. So I watched Al’s movie and I must say it convinced me! Convinced me that something was up! Specifically, the part of the movie where Al looks at the ice core records and states “One thing is for certain, when the carbon dioxide increases, the temperature goes up”. Well that may be blindly accepted by many people but I’m trained as an engineer and I asked the question “But what caused the CO2 to go up in the first place?”. Al never talked to this.
So I started doing a bit more research via the Internet and what I found out surprised me in terms of the fact that there were other viewpoints out there and the vigour that the Alarmist side had in trying to stomp any differing opinions out of existence. I found this last aspect particularly troubling and made me particularly cynical of the Alarmist viewpoint. After all, if they were so sure of the science, surely there should be no need to resort to such tactics.
At that time, Svensmark’s latest work was coming to the forefront and I read with interest his theories anticipating the release of his book “The Chilling Stars” which I read once available (I would recommend as a good read to anyone).
Now I was fully aware of some of the criticisms of his theory in terms of what the temperature has done over the last few decades vs. what his theory would suggest. That’s where the volcanic influence comes in. Looking at the temperature records, it was obvious that something was knocking the temperature down earlier through this period and I was well aware of the Pinatubo eruption (less so of El Chichon). Now most Alarmists would point to the apparent rise in temperatures through the 80’s and 90’s as an indication of AGW. But that’s disingenuous because they don’t mention these volcanic influences. Now I looked for an adjusted set of temperature records to account for this impact but didn’t come across any in my research which I found surprising. However, there was information on the projected temperature reduction impact and it was easy enough to reverse these out of the temperature record. Lo and behold that is where we get more of a temperature plateau over the last few decades which matches Svensmark’s theory in terms of what solar activity has done.
(to be continued)
As to the role of CO2, I fully accept its role as a greenhouse gas. However, I have a hard time buying into the projected doomsday scenarios. To get to these scenarios assumes the existence of positive feedback mechanisms but these have never been proven to exist. Besides, my training in control systems makes me highly suspicious of such claims as such systems are inherently unstable and prone to runaway situations which have never happened with the climate even when temperatures were a number of degrees higher in past periods of earth’s history. Most natural systems are inherently negative in terms of feedback and climate is much more likely to follow in this way.
So will elevated CO2 levels warm the planet? Well maybe a bit but it’s hard to say whether there will be any net heating impactg after accounting for other anthropogenic factors such as land use change and particulate emissions. Given the forecasts for the next few solar cycles, a little bit of warming may turn out to be a very good thing regardless.
So should we just keep on burning fossil fuels with abandon? Probably not. While oil and gas won’t run out any time soon they will become more scarce and costly. Improvements to portable electric storage will eventually spell the end of the ICE anyway (forget hydrogen, it’s a non-starter). Still have to generate the electricity though. Cheaper power storage will help with the use of renewables (including V2G concepts) but the overall economics must improve further to displace coal which is an extremely effective but not necessarily nice way to generate power. However, all governments should insist of full pollution control on coal plants (short of CO2 capture) to truely balance the evaluation of coal vs. other alternatives). (to be continued)
(last one I promise)
So we should continue to research ALL aspects of climate in a balanced fashion. But get the politicians the hell out of there. Like most things, they tend just to fuck things up!
And Luke, don’t mind the jabs. It’s just sport and like you said earlier quite a bit of fun.
To your credit you will debate and base your debate on actual information (right or wrong) and not just rhetoric!
Cheers!
My God – a considered view. And on this blog too. Sheeeeit ! Deserves a decent response.
“As to the role of CO2, I fully accept its role as a greenhouse gas. However, I have a hard time buying into the projected doomsday scenarios. To get to these scenarios assumes the existence of positive feedback mechanisms but these have never been proven to exist. Besides, my training in control systems makes me highly suspicious of such claims as such systems are inherently unstable and prone to runaway situations which have never happened with the climate even when temperatures were a number of degrees higher in past periods of earth’s history. Most natural systems are inherently negative in terms of feedback and climate is much more likely to follow in this way.”
Which is why the climate, if no forcings are changing anything, has been quite stable for thousands of years now.
The limit to a runaway scenario is the amount of heat that can be trapped.
Positive feedback mechanisms such as albedo have been identified are in play right now. Melting glaciers and sea ice cause the earth to absorb more heat.
Mark – great post(s).
I’m on the same page as you. Would you believe that I thought “global warming” caused by CO2 was a completely logical and rational expectation. I first came across it via Isaac Asimov in the early seventies and was surprised that it took so long to raise its head and manifest.
Enter TAR – and the re-writing of history through the elimination of the MWP and LIA via Mike Mann’s hockey stick.
Looked into it and found that not-only is history re-written, any criticics of the AGW paradigm are vilified and marginalised. So I dug deeper – and for me the house of cards is falling apart.
Without a doubt CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are contributing to the warming over the last century – but as presented now, they are not the main cause. If somebody shows me that increased CO2 + other anthropogenic GHGs decrease clouds and this Earth’s albedo – I’ll shut up. But until such time, the amount of CO2 increase conseqent of human action is just pissing into the ocean and is not sufficient to cause the temp increase.
So – two questions to all – is there a significant cloud change occuring, and are we responsible?
cheers
Arnost
“So why do you guys bang on about the growing of grapes in southern England and not the collapse of the Maya.”
The Maya did not “collapse” during the peak of the MWP in Europe (Loehle 800 – 1100) when the highland city of Teotihuacán was destroyed and the sites of the central lowlands were abandoned for reasons that are not well understood, but Maya civilization survived in Yucatan until the Spanish Conquest and beyond.
But if the abandonment of the lowland settlements was due to climate change, it adds weight that the claim that the MWP was not confined to Europe.
“peak in Europe” – you see exactly when was the MWP. Another problem.
And I don’t think we’ll be quoting Loehle as a reference of certainty for comparison at this juncture. His proxies just got pooned.
“the amount of CO2 increase conseqent of human action is just pissing into the ocean and is not sufficient to cause the temp increase”
come on Arnost this is hardly scientific.
Let’s now quote this as definitive source Arnost, Jen’s Blog 2007 E&E.
And so the trend in clouds is exactly what ?? and careful coz there are different type – some will increase GHG some will influence albedo – what’s the balance.
And what’s your estimate for “internal variation”
I think you’re really saying – I don’t like the policy implications so the science must be wrong.
Luke,
“I don’t like the policy implications so the science must be wrong”: Not quite, I don’t like the policy implications REGARDLESS whether the science is wrong or right.
and
[Loehle] “His proxies just got pooned”: I guess that we can therefore junk Moberg – since they were mostly the same proxies.
OK cloudy Arnost devour this and report back:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/
worth watching to get booted into the sheer complexity http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/12469
So when it comes to the globally integrated, all factors considered, no other bids, outcome the answer is ?
Maybe you should just email him and get the latest opinion?
“Melting glaciers and sea ice cause the earth to absorb more heat.”
Like the sea ice around Antarctica which just hit record levels this year.
Oh, and do the math. The arctic and antarctic regions are only subject to 2.8% of the incident solar radiation of the earth. Some feedback!
Mark – “Well that may be blindly accepted by many people but I’m trained as an engineer and I asked the question “But what caused the CO2 to go up in the first place?”. Al never talked to this.”
I am pretty sure that he did however the past climate events were most likely caused by Milankovich cycles that I am sure that your research would have touched on. If the ice cores time constants are correct, and that is not a given yet, changes in the Earths orbit lead to warming or cooling that then produced the secondary positive feedbacks of greenhouse emissions. However that is what happened then. THIS time we are emitting a greenhouse gas and changing the landscape that is doing what the orbital changes did back then. If we are not careful we can trigger the same rapid climate changes that are written in the ice core records.
“I found this last aspect particularly troubling and made me particularly cynical of the Alarmist viewpoint. After all, if they were so sure of the science, surely there should be no need to resort to such tactics.”
Which does not make the denialist ‘science’ true. There has been very vigorous defense of climate science because there is so much really wrong shit being put out by denialists in the guise of science. The the ill informed public this appears authorative. Without public support there will never be any action on climate change. For what it is worth I do not agree with most of the extreme alarmist positions however I also do not know. Extreme climate change has happened in the past and we do not know for sure that our actions will trigger something similar.
“Looking at the temperature records, it was obvious that something was knocking the temperature down earlier through this period and I was well aware of the Pinatubo eruption (less so of El Chichon). Now most Alarmists would point to the apparent rise in temperatures through the 80’s and 90’s as an indication of AGW. But that’s disingenuous because they don’t mention these volcanic influences.”
I am not sure what you are talking about here as aerosols from burning coal is far more likely to be the culprit here.
“Besides, my training in control systems makes me highly suspicious of such claims as such systems are inherently unstable and prone to runaway situations which have never happened with the climate even when temperatures were a number of degrees higher in past periods of earth’s history.”
That is not even close to being true. Google the Permian extinction or the Younger Dryas. There are no Kalmann Filters on the climate. The climate is more usually thought of as being in a chaotic state that can flip between a number of stable states. One of the stable states is ‘Snowball Earth’. We are not sure that our changes in greenhouse gases will not flip the Earths climate from one to the other. Your training in control theory is leading you astray here as the Earth is not a linear control problem. Small changes in input can result in very non-linear responses, characteristic of chaotic systems.
“So should we just keep on burning fossil fuels with abandon? Probably not. While oil and gas won’t run out any time soon they will become more scarce and costly”
I completely agree with you about oil and hope that we can replace our fossil fuel based economy with a solar based economy that will not run out anytime soon.
How inconsiderate of those damned dinosaurs, the ones living at times that could refine our crude temperature records of the very distant past!
On earlier comments in the thread though the bitchiness does annoy at times this blog would be a lot less without Luke and I for one encourage him as he is one of the only ones from the pro agw side of the debate that actually makes an attempt to stick to the facts.
Having said that I do disagree with his POV.
This is an emotional topic and there is no surprise there is often a bit of nastiness, probably unavoidable.
But I disagree with singleling out Mr Walker.
oops..add SJT to the above sentiment.
well done guys
Just on the sun can I ask Luke and SJT what they think of the following point.
How can we say the sun has less effect on climate variability when we have the evidence of less sunlight = colder temperature.
Regionally the earth gets much colder or hotter depending on your proximity to the sun – best illustrated by the seasons.
With this ‘bleedin obvious’ type evidence how can we then say the sun does not play as big a role in climate as does co2?
Yes obviously the Sun is the major driver. Have we ever said otherwise. No Sun – no radiation – cold of space – nothing. Life dies.
So – like “a duh”.
All CO2 does is recycle radiation according to basic physics.
So do you agree that without a greenhouse effect from water vapour, clouds, CO2 and othe greeenhouse gases the Earth would be about minus 18C not a pleasant 15C. A whole 150 watts of forcing. Of course the greenhouse effect numbers are down near a few watts. But watts are watts what?
So wouldn’t it make at least a basic case that more greenhouse gases might have an effect.
And then we progress to arguing about cloud feedbacks and so on to sensitivity.
But surely a basic case clearly exists to be examined.
However is all climate variability from the Sun – can quasi-periodic behaviour like El Nino occur without external forcing or is it just ongoing in-built semi-periodic behaviour. Strange attractors etc etc. Rossby and Kelvin waves sloshing around.
And furthermore, we ought to be able to see differences in the warming from greenhouse gases versus solar. Greenhouse should give a stratospheric difference. Solar increases might manifest in increased tropical precipitation. Which we indeed see in the first half of the 20th century.
Paul Borg – on bitchiness – you might find that I’m usually responding to stimuli. Treat me nice and I’ll be nice. Call me a turd enough and I won’t be nice. Pretty basic. So if you’re anti-AGW inclined your colleagues’ bitchiness is downgraded and overlooked and mine upgraded. It’s called confirmation bias. I aspire to do better.
Just a quick driveby comment since were backslapping and high fiveing the opposition 🙂
“Which does not make the denialist ‘science’ true. There has been very vigorous defense of climate science because there is so much really wrong shit being put out by denialists in the guise of science.”
I think this is one of the misconceptions that gets a lot of people steamed up. Look, the “denialists” typically don’t have a “science”. They are simply falsifying. You can’t prove a theory right. But you can falsify it – show it lacking something or being wrong.
Basic science.
The pro-AGW side should not get steamed up if somebody says “hold on – you can’t explain this”. They should explain if they can or acknowledge that the point is a “good question” and examine it on merits from there. If they instead “vigorously defend” their POV through other means – i.e. the derogatory ad hom… then it is inevitable the other anti side gets steamed up when they get accused of being a heretical denialist or worse.
By the way – did anyone watch Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri on BBC’s “Hard Talk” tonight? That Al is a slick operator… beautifully deflected a couple of probing questions that would have been intersting for him to take a stand on.
cheers
Arnost
Yea – fair point but jeez Arnost have a look at the vitriolic soup in which many questions are asked Look at your typical anti-AGW op-eds. Read Andrew Bolt. Go over to CA and say “Hi I’m a big warmer” and watch how you’re welcomed with open arms. Ad homs are rampant on all sides. I note I’ve been banned retrospectively on Warwick Hughes again after making a few points and after being “fairly polite”. So fugh them. Mofos.
The true scientist here would neither care nor uncare about the outcome.
It’s all just physics. But it ain’t – it’s policy and all our lives.
Luke -“you might find that I’m usually responding to stimuli.”
No Doubt.
Lets not pretend though that you poke first many times – I dont blame you though – you are the biggest target here and I dont think it is up to you to ‘lead by example’. It is up to you to continue to do as you do.
I certainly dont want a ‘single view’ blog.
“However is all climate variability from the Sun”
This is the point isnt it.
To me it is very clear the sun has the most influence on climate and any slight variation will have an effect.
And my question was specific to its influence in comparison to CO2.
Accumulated rage Paul and the strategic value of a pre-emptive strike. “Mottsian post-encounter trauma syndrome” (MPETS) – also identified in Gulf War veterans. Symptoms are waking up in the middle of the night stabbing voodoo dolls and killing rabbits.
Back to climate “any slight variation will have an effect” – let’s not get sloppy and emotional here. Any variation will have a calculable effect on forcing. Same with CO2. But it’s one driving the other that give you the total forcing effect. They don’t operate separately. That’s the very important point I suspect you don’t get !!!!
Arnost – “They should explain if they can or acknowledge that the point is a “good question” and examine it on merits from there.”
Which is exactly what RC does. The problem is that no matter how many times it is explained with solid peer reviewed science to back up the explanations, denialists keep on recycling the same disproved arguments over and over again as if the science did not exist.
The scientists that are skeptical of AGW and that have real qualifications and publish in the peer reviewed literature, like Christie and Von Storch, are treated with the utmost respect that is in line with the professional ethics that the majority of scientists live by. However you will notice that they do not indulge in the sort of unpublishable material that McIntyre spews out.
Paul Borg – “To me it is very clear the sun has the most influence on climate and any slight variation will have an effect.
And my question was specific to its influence in comparison to CO2.”
No you are absolutely correct. The sun obviously has the most influence on climate. The problem is that at the moment the sun is actually quite stable and the variation is quite small.
Climate scientists to try and make sense of the influences on the climate try to reduce the various factors to what is called “forcings”. In this way different factors can be compared.
The best research at the moment says that the solar variation forcing is quite small compared to the CO2 forcing. This may not be correct however it is what we think at the moment. None of these forcing are completely certain and all are the subject of current research and any of them can change as new information is brought to light.
The problem is that this is where skeptics should be active in, not nit-picking statistics. If Climate Audit was doing serious science this is where the papers would be – quantifying the various forcings.
This is what is currently accepted as the magnitude of the forcings.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/
Paul Borg – This is also a really good discussion on the state of climate forcings:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=186
Paul – even a reasonable tweak in solar forcing does explain the warming trend.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713
Finally getting a chance to reply to Ender’s bender from a couple of days ago. Stumbled upon on a long lost stash did we?
“I am pretty sure that he did”
Pretty sure? Then state the specific words where he refers to what increases the CO2. He just doesn’t go there either because he’s stupid or a scheming slimeball. It’s a 50/50 toss-up.
“the secondary positive feedbacks of greenhouse emissions.”
Granted the impact of CO2 on warming will be greater starting at a floor of 200 ppm rather than the 380 ppm we are at now. Totally different situation. Largest feedback? Increased albedo from the melting of ice. Again totally different situation then than now with ice sheets stretching down below the 45th parallel where the solar insolence is much more consequential.
“There has been very vigorous defense of climate science because there is so much really wrong shit being put out by denialists in the guise of science. The the ill informed public this appears authorative.”
Read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html
“I am not sure what you are talking about here as aerosols from burning coal is far more likely to be the culprit here.”
WTF? So they starting burning more coal in 1982 and then stopped in 1986 only to restart again in 1991 and then stop again in 1995? Makes sense to me! Why don’t you do some research on this before opening you pie hole. Cripes, even wikipravda states ”Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F)”
“That is not even close to being true. Google the Permian extinction or the Younger Dryas.” . . . Small changes in input can result in very non-linear responses, characteristic of chaotic systems.
I did. Notable small changes as possible causes:
– A MF of a meteor hitting the earth
– A massive basaltic eruption
– A giant glacial meltwater lake covering half of North America suddenly discharging into the Atlantic ocean
– The existence of a single supercontinent resulting in a stagnant ocean and a major anoxia event.
Well if any small events such as these happen I think there is SDA we can do about it anyway!
Gee Mark I wonder if the modellers have any aerosol measurements. “Oh gee we didn’t think of that – IPCC packs up and goes home”. Sheeeshh – do we really have to even do this discussion.
Mark – “Pretty sure? Then state the specific words where he refers to what increases the CO2. He just doesn’t go there either because he’s stupid or a scheming slimeball. It’s a 50/50 toss-up.”
OK so in your world ommission means conspiracy. Al Gore is not the sum total of climate research.
“Granted the impact of CO2 on warming will be greater starting at a floor of 200 ppm rather than the 380 ppm we are at now. Totally different situation. Largest feedback? Increased albedo from the melting of ice. Again totally different situation then than now with ice sheets stretching down below the 45th parallel where the solar insolence is much more consequential.”
And the ice just started melting because ……?
“WTF? So they starting burning more coal in 1982 and then stopped in 1986 only to restart again in 1991 and then stop again in 1995? Makes sense to me! Why don’t you do some research on this before opening you pie hole. Cripes, even wikipravda states ”Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F)””
Now I am sure that you are running out of information as the abuse is starting. I did not know WTF you were talking about. Two volcanoes are significant however unless it is sustained for a large amount of time the aerosols get scrubbed out pretty quickly. Unlike aerosols from burning coal that increased steadily until pollution controls on sulphur emissions started really working in the battle against acid rain.
“I did. Notable small changes as possible causes:
– A MF of a meteor hitting the earth
– A massive basaltic eruption
– A giant glacial meltwater lake covering half of North America suddenly discharging into the Atlantic ocean
– The existence of a single supercontinent resulting in a stagnant ocean and a major anoxia event.
Well if any small events such as these happen I think there is SDA we can do about it anyway!”
Right mate – so it takes a meteor to make you sit up and listen. Looking back on the 20th and 21st century from a thousand years in the future don’t you think the massive rise in greenhouse gases will be viewed in the same light as a massive release of fresh water or even a meteor hit. True the frog in the pot will be boiled slowly by increasing water temperature rather than crushed however the result, a dead frog, will be the same no matter what.
Try again and leave out the abuse.
“Gee Mark I wonder if the modellers have any aerosol measurements. “Oh gee we didn’t think of that – IPCC packs up and goes home”. Sheeeshh – do we really have to even do this discussion.”
That’s not what I’m implying. Of course they know about volcanic aerosol impacts but they don’t get very public about them. Let’s see an “adjusted” temperature record that takes them into account. But they wouldn’t want to do that would they – because it would show a temperature “plateau” through the 80’s, 90’s and early 00’s rather than apparent “constant” increase you see in the unadjusted record.
“Right mate – so it takes a meteor to make you sit up and listen.”
Yep. Not some mindless speculation about the impact of increasing a trace gas in the atmosphere. Let’s all take a deep breath and wait for 5 years. If the temperature goes done or holds steady we can pack up and go home. If we’re back in record territory for more than a year, then you can kick me in the arse!
Like a said in an earlier post, my buttocks are feeling kind of safe.
Bo “they” whoever “they” are don’t publicise it very much. Just pages and pages of the stuff in the 4AR. All “hidden” from view. Quite “mindless” really.
This is really very perverse logic – you want the science effort to run a GCM in reverse to investigate a plateau – holy cow and WTF – to see some linearist bunk. Why don’t you just plot out the forcing watts versus time of the various factors.
If you had looked at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713 Figures 1 and 3C – look somone has already had a go – where’s your calculations?
“Not some mindless speculation about the impact of increasing a trace gas in the atmosphere” – well on that – I wouldn’t bother any further discussion with us – why bother you have made your mind up from first principles. As an exercise when you’re bored one day you might check out how watts between the last ice age and now and what the current increasing CO2 watts might be worth. But why bother – I mean it’s just “mindless” speculation –
Ender – I’d give it away at this point. It’s mindless speculation.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713
More playstation! Where’s the forcing from changes in clous cover?
No that’s an utter silly comment from someone who’s just pulling numbers out of the air – you guys want to be treated seriously make a formal calculation of the forcings or just play with tea leaves which is all you’re doing.
It would not have taken you too long to work out that the CSM includes modelling of cloud processes.
The reality is that the greenhouse forcing is heaps bigger than any recent volcanic or solar effects. So where’s your numbers that say otherwise?
The sheer moral bankruptcy of the alternative position here is outstanding – no formal calculation of what any of these forcing factors are worth – zippo !
It’s a waste of your time really even engaging in the discussion – you’ve closed your mind long ago and there are no papers or outputs from any modelling process that you would find acceptable – ARE THERE? Even if the temperature went up straight for the next ten years you’d still argue it was something else. CORRECT?
So why bother ? See ya.
“SJT – Find an objective source for once.”
Sure Paul, it’s a site made by scientists to let explain what is going on in layman terms. So, you think they have a bias, fine, read what the science is and tell me where it is wrong.
Mark – “Yep. Not some mindless speculation about the impact of increasing a trace gas in the atmosphere. Let’s all take a deep breath and wait for 5 years.”
Thats a good plan. At the end of the 5 years we can just rewind back to the beginning and implement the greenhouse abatement measures. No hang on we can’t do that can we – bugger.
As always a good plan meets reality.
Mark, notice how Skywanker leaves the field in frustration at being unable to reconcile his claims of accelerating temperature rise with a longer and longer temperature plateau?
Obviously, if a real temperature rise would have taken place much earlier but was masked by a random variable like volcanic activity, then clearly, more and more of the CO2 emissions have taken place AFTER THE FACT not before.
And the further back the real rise is placed, the more likely it is that it was part of an earlier trend, like the reduction of Sulfur aerosols to combat acid rain. For this phenomenon, the evidence is clear that their presence reduces temperature and their removal increases it.
And it is entirely consistent with the complexity of climate influences that a warming caused by a reduction in man made aerosols could be masked by a random increase in aerosols from natural sources.
Yay, we won! Lukes gone back to sulk in his virtual reality world. I’ll take the real world and empirical measures and observations any day over simulations.
But seriously, I agree that an adjusted temperature record showing the temperature profile minus these transient volcanic impacts paints a very different picture and more people need to be aware of it. I built my own graphs based on HADCRUT3 minus the volcanic transients:
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/Charts.html?1197437190605
The first shows both the original record (HADCRUT3)plus the adjusted sections. The second removes the original record where there is an adjustement. I also added indicators of LaNina and El Nino conditions.
I always state that there has been LITTLE or no warming for 25 years as the peak in the early 80’s was pumped by an El Nino so the real peak at that time is probably an anomaly more in the 0.3 C range so there was likely some continued warming up to the true peak in the early 90’s when solar cycle 22 maxed out. This warming trend is likely due to the ramp up of the ADO to positive mode during this time and/or the result of aerosol reduction due to pollution controls.
By the way, have you ever seen this information on earthshine studies which supports the notion of the key role played by changing earth albedo over time?
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html
Anyway, better stop now. I’m sure Like is grunting and groaning trying to restration himself from jumping in. Wouldn’t want him to herniate himself!
Look I’m encouraging you guys to publish. You’re having no effect on the debate arguing with me. You should be bashing RC, into the daily newspapers, publishing in E&E. Coz you’re having no effect on the global debate hiding out here at backwater central.
But of course if you’re not confident I can understand.
How did you do your adjustments Mark – hehehehe oh it’s too much. ROTFL.
Heeee’s baccckkkk!!!! Knew he couldn’t stay away!
And of course, things can’t be complete without the old “WiggleWatcher’s Chart”. The red line represents the latest monthly reading.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/WiggleWatcher.html?1197470406093
The Pope tells it like it is!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490
Does this mean all the Alarmists are destined to end up in hell if they don’t repent?