Earlier today someone mentioned to me that a Guardian article confirmed the remarkable claim that climate models correctly predicted the evolution of this century’s temperatures. By implication, either they predicted the hiatus or the hiatus hasn’t occurred. I was intrigued.
It turns out the article came from a paper (actually a letter), Test of a decadal climate forecast, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, published online by Nature Geoscience on 27 March.
All I can access at present is the abstract and a single page (through ReadCube) but I can see some things to question, and I’d like to ask readers to help give some understanding of it.
The hiatus could falsify the DAGW hypothesis, so weakening the hiatus strengthens DAGW. It’s important we understand it correctly.
UPDATE 13 Apr 2013 11:55 am
Professor Mike Kelly, of Cambridge University, has kindly sent me a copy of the paper, saying he would review it for us. Reading through the extra page (two pages that change everything!), I find it packed with questions and comments.
Abstract
To the Editor — Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming. However, their evaluation is challenging for two reasons. First, only a small number of independent forecasts have been made. And second, an independent test of a forecast of the decadal response to external climate forcing requires observations taken over at least one and a half decades from the last observations used to make the forecast, because internally generated climate fluctuations can persist for several years. Here we assess one of the first probabilistic climate forecasts with a full uncertainty assessment2 that was based on climate models and data up to 1996. Using observations of global temperature over the ensuing 16 years, we find that the original forecast is performing significantly better than a hypothetical alternative based on the assumption that decade-to decade temperature fluctuations consist of a random walk, that is, a sequence of random fluctuations with no externally driven warming trend. The original climate forecast also outperforms a very simple interpretation of the climate models used for the latest Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), supporting the conclusions of previous assessments that the spread of such an ensemble is not, on its own, an adequate measure of forecast uncertainty.
An evaluation of early predictions of the IPCC noted that although these predictions provide support for the contention that climate is responding to enhanced greenhouse gas levels in accordance with historical expectations, formal evaluation is difficult because these early forecasts were framed as responses to idealized, CO2-only scenarios and were not couched in unambiguous probabilistic terms.
A climate forecast can only be evaluated and potentially falsified if it provides a quantitative range of uncertainty. For example, if, at verification time, observations lie outside the 5–95% forecast uncertainty range, a forecast can be said to have been falsified at the 10% level. This could indicate an error in initial conditions, forcing or response, or it could occur simply by chance. Hence forecasters must be clear what it is they are forecasting (including uncertainties), and at the same time, evaluators must focus on what has actually been forecast. For example, the disagreement (if any) between recent model simulations and observed climate evolution within the period 1998–2012 would be more significant if the scientific community had previously claimed that these models provided a complete forecast of uncertainty in the distribution of trends over this period — which it did not. One of the first climate forecasts to provide a formal estimate of the range of uncertainty was a prediction of global mean surface temperature made in 1999 using simulations with the HadCM2.
Discussion
Which forecast is considered by the sceptics to have been falsified by the stasis for “the last 18 years (hadCRUt4), 19 years (hadCRUt3) or 23 years (RSS satellite dataset)” as Lord Monckton put it in his presentations in Auckland last week? Is it the same forecast the Allen, et al. paper compares with observations? Is it correct to say a stasis in temperature rise is consistent with that model forecast?
The caption to the graphs above begins:
Evaluation of decadal climate forecasts (updated from Fig. 3 of ref.2).
To ensure a valid comparison we should try to establish why the forecasts were “updated” — does it mean they were changed and if so, why? Ref.2 is attached to:
Here we assess one of the first probabilistic climate forecasts with a full uncertainty assessment2
It cites Myles R. Allen, Peter A. Stott, John F. B. Mitchell, Reiner Schnur, and Thomas L. Delworth. (2000). Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature. doi:10.1038/35036559
Is that the forecast in this comparison?
Or is this paper hopelessly off the mark and (crucially) precisely why?
According to Wikipedia, “Professor Myles R. Allen is head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford’s Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department. He is the Principal Investigator of the distributed computing project Climateprediction.net (which makes use of computing resources provided voluntarily by the general public), and was principally responsible for starting this project. He is Professor of Geosystem Science in the School of Geography and the Environment, and a Fellow of Linacre College, Oxford… He contributed to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a Lead Author of the Chapter on detection of change and attribution of causes, and was a Review Editor for the chapter on predictions of global climate change for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. His research focuses on the attribution of recent climate change and assessing what these changes mean for global climate simulations of the future. He provided the technical expertise for the game Fate of the World, which is ‘a PC strategy game that simulates the real social and environmental impact of global climate change over the next 200 years.'”
Views: 286
Figure 1 | Evaluation of decadal climate forecasts (updated from Fig. 3 of ref.2). a,
“The red line is a running decadal mean through the updated observations.”
Figure 1. a, from The Guardian article on the Letter:-
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2013/3/27/1364398212810/-Climate-forecast-and-obs-001.jpg
Abstract says the period is “1998–2012”. Therefore their running decadal mean is centred (science and engineering normal) because the red line ends prior to 2010.
A simple moving average (SMA and financial normal) is the mean of the previous n datum points and the same HadCRUt4 data to February 2013 gives this 10 yr SMA (by Paul Homewood):-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image_thumb16.png?w=1008&h=596
Cooling since December 2010 and the SMA is diverging radically away from the steeply rising “original ensemble mean” (solid black line) and the “best fit” after “scaling” (dashed line) trajectories, the same problem is evident from 1950 – 1970. This time however (2011 onwards) there wont be a repeat of the resumed warming from 1970 because there’s no longer a solar forcing to drive temperatures higher now that the sun is going into recession for 30 – 40 years.
John Christy demonstrated the later state-of-the-art CMIP5 models/obs divergence with a 7 yr SMA here:-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/clip_image0042.jpg
Basically, the models are not replicating the ~60-year periodicity in global temperature and they certainly wont replicate the ~200-year periodicity either given the models are parameterized with the peak solar level of the last 400 years (as of early 2000s – Lean recommendation) out to 2100.
>”To ensure a valid comparison we should try to establish why the forecasts were “updated” — does it mean they were changed and if so, why?”
It would only be the observations that were updated with the latest data surely.
>”Which forecast is considered by the sceptics to have been falsified by the stasis for “the last 18 years (hadCRUt4), 19 years (hadCRUt3) or 23 years (RSS satellite dataset)” as Lord Monckton put it in his presentations in Auckland last week?”
Every CMIP model ensemble mean appearing in each respective Assessment Report e.g. 2012 CMIP5 for 2014 AR5 which is graphed above but as compared to the linear trend of unsmoothed observation data – not a 10 yr centred running mean. The uncertainty range differs for each AR so for example, CMIP3/AR4 has wider error bars which makes the simulations look better but the observations are about to crash out of the latest CMIP5/AR5 uncertainty range because the uncertainty range is tighter:-
http://www.trapp-online.org/trapp_media/images/news/trapp_0345.jpg
The Letter however, refers to “One of the first climate forecasts to provide a formal estimate of the range of uncertainty was a prediction of global mean surface temperature made in 1999 using simulations with the HadCM2” therefore the “update” must be model forecasts for 2012/14 CMIP5/AR5 as well as the observations (this then in my previous comment is incorrect – “It would only be the observations that were updated with the latest data surely”).
>”Is it the same forecast the Allen, et al. paper compares with observations?”
The model “update” seems to be the CMIP5 ensemble going by Figure 1 and for “IS92a scenario of relatively high greenhouse gas and anthropogenic sulphate forcing”. John Christy’s comparison is with RCP45, whether that’s the same scenario as IS92a I don’t know. Given Ref.2 is a 2000 paper documenting (I assume) “a prediction of global mean surface temperature made in 1999 using simulations with the HadCM2” and CMIP5 is a 2012 ensemble, the 1999 forecast is not the same as the 2012 CMIP5 “update” forecasts but those latest 2012 forecasts are the same as in the Allen, et al. Figure 1.
>”Is it correct to say a stasis in temperature rise is consistent with that model forecast?”
Not if the model ensemble mean doesn’t replicate cyclicity (both 60 and 200 yr) it isn’t, There are 2 or 3 individual CMIP5 models that actually mimiced the 21st century hiatus though (see Christy graph) so they are the only ones worth consideration anyway, as Judith Curry among many others point out (including me but who am I?).
Dang, missed the edit cutoff time. Should be as follows:-
“……1999 using simulations with the HadCM2″ [(Fig 1,b)] therefore the “update” must be model forecasts for 2012/14 CMIP5/AR5 [(Fig 1,a)]”
“The model “update” seems to be the CMIP5 ensemble going by Figure 1[,a]”
“Given Ref.2 is a 2000 paper documenting (I assume) “a prediction of global mean surface temperature made in 1999 using simulations with the HadCM2″ [Fig 1,b] and CMIP5 is a 2012 ensemble [Fig 1,a], the 1999 forecast is not the same as the 2012 CMIP5 “update” forecasts [Fig 1, a vs b] but those latest 2012 forecasts are the same as in the Allen, et al. Figure 1[,a].”
>”…is this paper hopelessly off the mark and (crucially) precisely why?”
The last red dot (observations) is at 2008 on Fig 1,b (the 1999 forecast), so another 4 yrs of data (10 yr SMA) would be on the way out of the grey shaded region indicating the 5–95% uncertainty interval.
That trajectory is consistent with their own falsification (from the Abstract) – “A climate forecast can only be evaluated and potentially falsified if it provides a quantitative range of uncertainty. For example, if, at verification time, observations lie outside the 5–95% forecast uncertainty range, a forecast can be said to have been falsified at the 10% level.”
Same for Fig 1,a (2012 forecast) except the rationale is:-
The last red dot (observations) is early 2008 on Fig 1,a (the 2012 forecast), so another 5 yrs of data (10 yr SMA instead of centred mean) would be on the way out of the grey shaded region indicating the 5–95% uncertainty interval. That trajectory is consistent with their own falsification.
The difference between the 1999 forecast (b) and the 2012 forecast (a) being that the latest observations (SMA) are at the edge of the (b) grey area but still well within the (a) grey area.
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/test-of-decadal-climate-forecast-993.png
Note 3 things however:
1) the (b) forecast begins at 1990 and the (a) forecast begins at 1950.
2) the 95% grey uncertainty area in (a) is MUCH wider than (b). At 2013 the (a) range is about 0.6K but only about 0.25K in (b).
3) the 95% grey uncertainty area in (a) is also considerably wider than in this scenario of IPCC estimates from David Rose, Mail on Line, and there is far greater certainty indicated by the profile of the uncertainty bounds in the latter:-
http://www.trapp-online.org/trapp_media/images/news/trapp_0345.jpg
Both (a) and Mail on Line graphs begin at 1950 and both are from CMIP5 but the relatively unsmoothed observations in the Mail on Line graph are at the edge of the 95% uncertainty bound and therefore the prediction can be said to have been falsified at the 10% level once that bound is crossed.
I’m inclined to think the Letter ‘Test of a decadal climate forecast’, by Myles R. Allen, John F.B. Mitchell and Peter A. Stott, is just an unscrupulous attempt to counter the David Rose, Mail on Line article and graph, by use of some highly misleading information presentation.
Should be for the comment referring to Fig 1,b – “…so another [5] yrs of data (10 yr SMA [instead of centred mean])”
There is a Guardian article about Allen’s paper here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
>”Climate forecasts fulfilled or what?”
Pacific Ocean SST model forecast appears to have overshot:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/figure-2.png?w=867&h=396
Taken from ‘A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “The Pause” Update’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/14/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-the-pause-update/
In regard to the atmosphere, the 2008/9 thermosphere collapse is a development that will probably reoccur given solar activity is predicted to go progressively lower over the next 20 yrs or so (quoting):-
Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009″ “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”
More to learn about the solar driver apparently.
From the ‘Big Picture Look’ article
[O]n “July 15, 2010″ “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”
“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”
The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.”
NASA reference:-
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
One possible explanation is carbon dioxide (CO2).
When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth’s atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.
“But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.
In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.
“The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached.”
Or not.
Important clues may be found in the way the thermosphere rebounds. Solar minimum is now coming to an end, EUV radiation is on the rise, and the thermosphere is puffing up again. Exactly how the recovery proceeds could unravel the contributions of solar vs. terrestrial sources.
“We will continue to monitor the situation,” says Emmert.
# # #
The temperature hiatus is not the only atmospheric phenomena that is “puzzling” scientists right now apparently. They might ponder the de Vries cycle in both cases though.
From: ‘The Next Scientific Frontier: Sun-Earth Interactions’
By Washington’s Blog, August 25, 2011
What is certain is that the science of the affect of space events on Earth is in its infancy, and that there are many fascinating discoveries in our future. And I wrote in May:
Mitch Battros theorized in 1998 that large solar flares affect Earth’s magnetic field, which in turn shifts the oceanic and atmospheric currents, which can cause earthquakes and extreme weather. As Battros summarizes his formula:
Sunspots => Solar Flares (charged particles) => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather and Human Disruption
While this may sound crazy, Battros’ theories have been endorsed to one degree or another by:
* Dr. Ernest Hildner, Director NOAA Space Weather Center
* Dr. Tom Van Flandern, former US Naval Observatory Chief of Celestial Mechanics
* Dr. Stefaan Poedts: Lead Scientist University of Leuven Center for Plasma Astrophysics
* Dr. Ronald van der Linden, Director of Solar Physics Department of the Royal Observatory
* Dr. Pål Brekke, Deputy Director of SOHO project- European Space Agency
When scientists understand all of the ways that the Sun and Earth interact, we will know a lot more about the Earth and our place in the universe than we do today.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-next-scientific-frontier-sun-earth-interactions/26199
# # #
Huh, “extreme weather”. How ’bout that?
Re the de Vries cycle (Suess cycle):-
tallbloke says:
October 27, 2012 at 10:32 am
Some time ago, Tim C [Tim Channon] ran the Steinhilber TSI reconstruction through his amazing cycles analysis software and produced this curve.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sbf-tsi-a.png
This analysis matches what is being said by Steinhilber in the above papers. A strong modulation at the length of the De Vries cycle (207 years) and another at around the millennial timescale (974 years) which matches Semi’s calculation of the cycle of angular momentum exchange in the solar system.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/de-vries-cycle-links-warming-rate-peaks-to-solar-system-frequencies/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/comment-page-1/#comment-33817
Not a new discovery though as Scafetta points out in comments.
Also,
‘Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum’
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/archibald_corrected_figure6.png
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum [about 1790 to 1830]. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it.
http://openyoureyesnews.com/2012/03/23/climate-fact-of-the-day-solar-cycle-24-sunspot-number-compared-to-the-dalton-minimum/
# # #
In the Talkshop post thread there’s a remarkable exchange between Tallbloke and Scafetta re peer-review of a Scafetta paper in which Svalgaard was involved as a reviewer.
‘The influence of the de Vries (∼200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link’
O.M. Raspopov a,⁎, V.A. Dergachev b, J. Esper c, O.V. Kozyreva d, D. Frank c,
M. Ogurtsov b, T. Kolström e, X. Shao f
(2008)
Abstract
Long-term climatic changes related to solar forcing were examined using millennium-scale palaeoclimatic reconstructions from the Central Asian mountain region, i.e. summer temperature records for the Tien Shan mountains and precipitation records for the Tibetan Plateau. The reconstructions were based on juniper tree-ring width records, i.e. Juniperus turkestanica for the Tien Shan and Sabina przewalskii for the Tibetan Plateau. The data were processed using spectral and wavelet analysis and filtered in the frequency range related to major solar activity periodicities. The results obtained for various tree-ring chronologies indicate palaeoclimatic oscillations in the range of the de Vries (∼210-year) solar cycles through the last millennium.
The quasi-200-year variations revealed in the palaeoclimatic reconstructions correlate well (R2=0.58–0.94) with solar activity variations (Δ14C variations). The quasi-200-year climatic variations have also been detected in climate-linked processes in Asia, Europe, North and South America, Australia, and the Arctic and Antarctica. The results obtained point to a pronounced influence of solar activity on global climatic processes.
Analysis has shown that climate response to the long-term global solar forcing has a regional character. An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can differ from the solar signal sign. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation. The climate response to the de Vries cycle has been found to occur not only during the last millennia but also in earlier epochs, up to hundreds of millions years ago.
http://www.slf.ch/info/mitarbeitende/frank/Raspopov_etal_PPP_2008.pdf
‘9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings’
1. Friedhelm Steinhilber a,1,
2. Jose A. Abreu a,2,
3. Jürg Beer a,
4. Irene Brunner a,
5. Marcus Christl b,
6. Hubertus Fischer c,
7. Ulla Heikkilä d,
8. Peter W. Kubik b,
9. Mathias Mann a,
10. Ken G. McCracken e,
11. Heinrich Miller f,
12. Hiroko Miyahara g,
13. Hans Oerter f, and
14. Frank Wilhelms f
(2012)
Fig. 4.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967/F4.large.jpg
Comparison of solar activity (total solar irradiance [TSI]) in blue and δ18O from Dongge cave, China, in green representing changes of the Asian climate. possibly the Asian monsoon (AM) (low δ18O corresponds to strong AM monsoon and vice versa). TSI has been reconstructed from the cosmic ray intensity reconstruction (SI Appendix, Section S10). Both records have been normalized (subtraction of mean value and division by the standard deviation), linearly detrended and high-pass filtered with 2,000 y. (A) Time series of solar activity (TSI) and δ18O. Solar activity (TSI) is plotted on a reversed scale. (B) Wavelet of solar activity (TSI). De Vries cycle at approximately 210 y and Eddy cycle at approximately 1,000 y are marked with horizontal, gray dashed lines. Black boundaries mark 95% significance level. (C) Wavelet coherence of solar activity (TSI) and δ18O. De Vries cycle at approximately 210 y and Eddy cycle at approximately 1,000 y are marked with horizontal, gray dashed lines. Arrows pointing to the right indicate that the records are in phase. Black boundaries mark the 95% significance level.
http://ateson.com/ws/r/www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Citation from AR5 SOD Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
‘What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?’
Gareth S. Jones,1 Mike Lockwood,2 and Peter A. Stott1
1Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK.
2Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
March 2012.
[1] During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming.
However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
From the 2010 Anniversary Series: a collection of reviews celebrating the Royal Society’s 350th Anniversary.
‘Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum’
Mike Lockwood1,2,, © 2009 The Royal Society
1
Department of Meteorology
, University of Reading,
Reading, Berkshire
, UK
2
Space Science and Technology Department
, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire
, UK
Abstract
Solar outputs during the current solar minimum are setting record low values for the space age. Evidence is here reviewed that this is part of a decline in solar activity from a grand solar maximum and that the Sun has returned to a state that last prevailed in 1924. Recent research into what this means, and does not mean, for climate change is reviewed.
8. The current solar minimum in context and the future
[…] From the plot shown in figure 4, Lockwood et al. (2009) argue that the current low solar cycle minimum is part of the fall from the grand solar maximum (Usoskin et al. 2007) that has persisted during the space age. From the linear extrapolations (over short intervals) shown in figure 4, these authors predicted that the Sun will fall out of the maximum (defined by the mean level exceeded in 1920) within the interval 2011–2027. This agrees with the independent predictions for a consistent threshold by Abreu et al. (2008), […]
[…] Predicting the behaviour of the solar dynamo is not currently possible (de Jager 2008); however, we can look at the range of past behaviours. A superposed-epoch composite of the variations in ϕ is shown in figure 6, where time t=0 is when ϕ falls through the 600 MV level (the vertical dashed lines in figure 5). From figure 5, we can see that during the MM, ϕ is near 150 MV and there are a number of minima where ϕ reaches similar values and several where ϕ is lower. We here adopt ϕ=175 MV as a threshold, which defines a grand solar minimum that encompasses the MM. In figure 6, two traces show a fall to below this level within t=40 yr. This means that past experience tells us that there is an 8 per cent chance that within 40 years from the predicted end of the current grand solar maximum (i.e. by 2060), the Sun will have returned to MM conditions. In contrast, there is also an 8 per cent chance that ϕ will only have fallen to 550 MV by this time. The probability of at least one grand minimum (ϕ<175 MV) having occurred within an interval of duration t of the end of a grand maximum is shown in figure 7 for t between 1000 and +1000 years. The fact that the distribution is asymmetric is not surprising because t=0 is at the end (rather than the centre) of the grand maximum, and there is also a tendency for the declines to be more rapid than the rises. Hence, although there is a chance that the current solar minimum heralds a rapid return to MM conditions in the next century, a smaller fall is actually more likely and MM-like conditions are most likely to be 100–200 years into the future. […]
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full
# # #
Note "a tendency for the declines to be more rapid than the rises" in view of Tim Channon's de Vries (207 yr) and Eddy (974 yr) cycles:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sbf-tsi-a.png
Logic has it then, in view of both the de Vries and Eddy cycles both going into negative phase at this juncture in time, that the progression (ignoring posited GHG forcing offset) would be:
firstly, an immediate drop in climate regime back to early 20th century levels (pre 1924) of 103/4 yrs ago by 2116/7;
then secondly, a climate regime similar to the last de Vries event (Dalton Minimum, 1800) 207 years ago by 2220;
then thirdly, a climate regime similar to 310 years ago between the end of the Maunder Minimum (1700) and the beginning of the IPCC's forcing methodology (1750) by 2323; and,
fourthly, a climate regime similar to 487 years ago (Maunder Minimum, 1600 – 1700) by 2500.
However, the tendency is for "declines to be more rapid than the rises" so in climate terms, the 487 year span of the actual half-cycle becomes irrelevant because the climate of the 487 yr span of the four logical stages above (negative phase and half of the 957 yr Eddy cycle period) is compressed into either 100 – 200 yrs (Lockwood) or even 45 years (Abdussamatov, see graph):-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EAKAvpnnFqM/Tkbk2aBl1MI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2dWg-fgn7pw/s1600/Two+century+cyclic+variation+of+the+TSI%28Total+Solar+irradiance%29.jpg
Note too, that in Jones, Lockwood and Stott Figure 1 (page 3), the TSI forcing is significantly less than TSI change from MM to present after application of the forcing factors for use in the model simulations. The temperature result being that Jones, Lockwood and Stott's GHG-forced scenario returns just that a "likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K". The Maunder Minimum prediction of Abdussamatov is about 1.3 K reduction by 2058 and the Dalton Minimum prediction of De Jager and Duhau would be somewhere between the two extremes.
The important point being that the IPCC's cited GHG-forced model-based solar scenario of only 0.06 to 0.1 K less warming by 2100 from Jones, Lockwood and Stott will be immediately invalidated if temperature levels fall below current levels by more than that amount over even the next 1 or 2 years all other factors remaining constant i.e. ENSO-neutral conditions, no major volcanic eruptions etc. They have no leeway whatsoever.
Even their "However" caveat wont save them in that case either.
Steinhilber and Beer (2013) predict a scenario much closer to Abdussamatov in terms of time (a minimum occurring 40 – 90 yrs from now) than to Lockwood but not in terms of magnitude. Article down-thread here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/?replytocom=190773#respond
The implication in terms of climate regime by 2050 – 2100 (neglecting posited offsetting GHG forcing) being either similar to early 1900s or the early 1800s Dalton Minimum.
HadCRUt4 from 1850 showing early 1900s temperature level (0.8 C reduction from present):-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1800
Wow Richard C has massively hijacked this thread, which is a pity because I thought the original point raised was worthy of discussion.
Can Richard C’s various meanderings be moved to somewhere more appropriate? It is not particularly clear what he is even going on about.
>”Wow Richard C has massively hijacked this thread, which is a pity because I thought the original point raised was worthy of discussion”
Blog post: April 12. Nick says: April 17. Only 5 days late Nick, where have you been?
>”Can Richard C’s various meanderings be moved to somewhere more appropriate? It is not particularly clear what he is even going on about.”
Let me help you comprehend Nick.
In respect to the RT’s specific post questions on the Allen paper of which there are several, I’ve addressed all that I reasonably could (but you haven’t addressed any Nick) in this sub-thread:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-189927
in respect to the general post headline question >”Climate forecasts fulfilled or what?”, I’ve addressed that in this sub-thread:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-190434
>”Can Richard C’s various meanderings be moved to somewhere more appropriate?”
Both of the above sub-thread “meanderings” (in the absence of any other contributors except Andy) address either the post questions specifically or generally so this comment thread seems most appropriate to me Nick. Where else do you suggest moving the comments to that would be “more appropriate”?
New paper finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice mass over past 150 years
A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.” Furthermore, the paper notes, “Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/new-paper-finds-antarctica-has-been.html
The Cryosphere, 7, 303-319, 2013
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/
doi:10.5194/tc-7-303-2013
A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last 800 yr
M. Frezzotti1, C. Scarchilli1, S. Becagli2, M. Proposito1, and S. Urbini3
1ENEA, Agenzia Nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo sostenibile, Rome, Italy
2Department of Chemistry, University of Florence, Sesto F.no, Italy
3INGV, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia,, Rome, Italy
Abstract. Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level. Several processes affect surface mass balance (SMB), introducing large uncertainties in past, present and future ice sheet mass balance. To provide an extended perspective on the past SMB of Antarctica, we used 67 firn/ice core records to reconstruct the temporal variability in the SMB over the past 800 yr and, in greater detail, over the last 200 yr.
Our SMB reconstructions indicate that the SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and that the current SMB is not exceptionally high compared to the last 800 yr. High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s. To explain the differences in behaviour between the coastal/ice divide sites and the rest of Antarctica, we suggest that a higher frequency of blocking anticyclones increases the precipitation at coastal sites, leading to the advection of moist air in the highest areas, whereas blowing snow and/or erosion have significant negative impacts on the SMB at windy sites. Eight hundred years of stacked records of the SMB mimic the total solar irradiance during the 13th and 18th centuries. The link between those two variables is probably indirect and linked to a teleconnection in atmospheric circulation that forces complex feedback between the tropical Pacific and Antarctica via the generation and propagation of a large-scale atmospheric wave train.
Antarctica gaining Ice Mass — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data
Note the correlation of the smoothed average of the SMB (orange line) with Total Solar Irradiance (green line). [Figure 5]
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/antarctic/Antarctic-ice-balance-A.gif
Antarctic Ice has been increasing for the last half century, and over 800 years it correlates with solar radiation. TSI: Total Solar Irradiance (Click to enlarge) Fig. 5. (A) Mean normalised stacked SMB anomaly time series at the continental scale, calculated as described in the text (black line with positive and negative values filled in with red and blue contours, respectively) and the 40-yr central running average smoothing (orange line). The green line represents the normalised TSI anomalies, and the corresponding ±1 uncertainties are indicated by the green vertical bars.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-and-is-not-extraordinary-compared-to-800-years-of-data/
Solar irradiance seems to matter to Antarctica
How curious:
“Eight hundred years of stacked records of the SMB mimic the total solar irradiance during the 13th and 18th centuries. The link between those two variables is probably indirect and linked to a teleconnection in atmospheric circulation that forces complex feedback between the tropical Pacific and Antarctica via the generation and propagation of a large-scale atmospheric wave train.”
Settled science: New paper finds climate models have a 50% consensus on Arctic sea ice
A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, “Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase.” The paper adds to many others demonstrating that climate models are unable to model the known climate of the past, much less the future.
Clim. Past, 9, 969-982, 2013
http://www.clim-past.net/9/969/2013/
doi:10.5194/cp-9-969-2013
The sensitivity of the Arctic sea ice to orbitally induced insolation changes: a study of the mid-Holocene Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project 2 and 3 simulations
M. Berger1,2, J. Brandefelt1,2, and J. Nilsson2,3
1Linné Flow Centre, Dept. of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
2Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
3Dept. of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract. In the present work the Arctic sea ice in the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial climates are analysed and compared on the basis of climate-model results from the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project phase 2 (PMIP2) and phase 3 (PMIP3). The PMIP3 models generally simulate smaller and thinner sea-ice extents than the PMIP2 models both for the pre-industrial and the mid-Holocene climate. Further, the PMIP2 and PMIP3 models all simulate a smaller and thinner Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the mid-Holocene than in the pre-industrial control climate. The PMIP3 models also simulate thinner winter sea ice than the PMIP2 models. The winter sea-ice extent response, i.e. the difference between the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial climate, varies among both PMIP2 and PMIP3 models. Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase. The model-mean summer sea-ice extent is 11 % (21 %) smaller in the mid-Holocene than in the pre-industrial climate simulations in the PMIP2 (PMIP3). In accordance with the simple model of Thorndike (1992), the sea-ice thickness response to the insolation change from the pre-industrial to the mid-Holocene is stronger in models with thicker ice in the pre-industrial climate simulation. Further, the analyses show that climate models for which the Arctic sea-ice responses to increasing atmospheric CO2concentrations are similar may simulate rather different sea-ice responses to the change in solar forcing between the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial. For two specific models, which are analysed in detail, this difference is found to be associated with differences in the simulated cloud fractions in the summer Arctic; in the model with a larger cloud fraction the effect of insolation change is muted. A sub-set of the mid-Holocene simulations in the PMIP ensemble exhibit open water off the north-eastern coast of Greenland in summer, which can provide a fetch for surface waves. This is in broad agreement with recent analyses of sea-ice proxies, indicating that beach-ridges formed on the north-eastern coast of Greenland during the early- to mid-Holocene.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/settled-science-new-paper-finds.html
New paper predicts a sharp decline in solar activity until 2100
A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Research shows solar activity peaked at the end of the 20th century, but predicts a strong decrease in solar activity until around 2100 AD to low levels similar to the Dalton Minimum. [Figure 4]
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mar6.gif
Figure 4 from Steinhilber and Beer shows solar activity peaked at the end of the 20th century, but is predicted to decline to levels similar to the Dalton Minimum during the 21st century. The two different shades of gray correspond to two different models. The Dalton Minimum “D” and Maunder Minimum “M” are notated.
‘Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years’
Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jürg Beer
Abstract: Recently a new low-noise record of solar activity has been reconstructed for the past 9.400 years by combining two 10 Be records from Greenland and Antarctica with 14 C from tree rings [F. Steinhilber et al., 2012]. This record confirms earlier results, namely that the Sun has varied with distinct periodicities in the past. We present a prediction of mean solar magnetic activity averaged over 22 years for the next 500 years mainly based on the spectral information derived from the record of the past solar activity. Assuming that the Sun will continue varying with the same periodicities for the next centuries we extract the spectral information from the past and apply it in two different methods to predict the future of solar magnetic activity. First, the two methods are tested by predicting past changes. Our methods are able to predict periods of high and low solar activity for a few centuries in the past. However, they are less successful in predicting the correct amplitude. Then, the methods were used to predict the period 2000-2500. Both methods predict a period of low activity around 2100 AD. Between 2100 AD and 2350 AD the results are inconsistent regarding the duration of the low activity state in 2100 AD and the level of activity until 2250 AD. Around 2250 AD both methods predict a period of moderate activity. After 2350 AD both methods point to a period of high activity. The period of high activity will end around 2400 AD and will be followed by a period of moderate activity.
[HS]
However, as shown by the graph below, the current solar cycle [SC 24, red] is already closely tracking the first solar cycle [SC 5, pink] of the Dalton Minimum, and both are quite weak in comparison to the average of solar cycles 1 through 23 [blue].
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mar1.gif
Compared to the solar cycles since 1749, it is clear that solar activity has significantly weakened since the start of the strongest solar cycle [SC 19] in 1954:
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/mar2.gif
>>>>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-paper-predicts-sharp-decline-in.html
The Steinhilber and Beer (2013) implication in terms of climate regime by 2050 – 2100 (neglecting posited offsetting GHG forcing) being either similar to early 1900s or the early 1800s Dalton Minimum.
HadCRUt4 from 1850 showing early 1900s temperature level (0.8 C reduction from present):-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1800
This prediction is similar to the De Jager and Duhau (2012) paper.
Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space
April 16th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Since the slowdown in surface warming over the last 15 years has been a popular topic recently, I thought I would show results for the lower tropospheric temperature (LT) compared to climate models calculated over the same atmospheric layers the satellites sense.
Courtesy of John Christy, and based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, below is a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 – 2025 for the models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models. The reasons for the disagreement are not obvious, since there are at least a few possibilities:
1) the real climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as the models are programmed to be (my preferred explanation)
2) the extra surface heating from more CO2 has been diluted more than expected by increased mixing with cooler, deeper ocean waters (Trenberth’s explanation)
3) increased manmade aerosol pollution is causing a cooling influence, partly mitigating the manmade CO2 warming
If I am correct (explanation #1), then we will continue to see little warming into the future. Additional evidence for lower climate sensitivity in the above plot is the observed response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: the temporary temperature dip in 1992-93, and subsequent recovery, is weaker in the observations than in the models. This is exactly what would be predicted with lower climate sensitivity.
On the other hand, if Trenberth is correct (explanation #2), then there should be a period of rapid surface warming that resumes at some point, since the climate system must eventually try to achieve radiative energy equilibrium. Of course, exactly when that might be is unknown.
Explanation #3 (anthropogenic aerosol cooling), while theoretically possible, has always seemed like cheating to me since the magnitude of aerosol cooling is so uncertain it can be invoked in any amount desired to explain the observations. Besides, blaming a lack of warming on humans just seems a little bizarre.
The dark line in the above plot is the 44-model average, and it approximately represents what the IPCC uses for its official best estimate of projected warming. Obviously, there is a substantial disconnect between the models and observations for this statistic.
I find it disingenuous for those who claim that, because not ALL of individual the models disagree with the observations, the models are somehow vindicated. What those pundits fail to mention is that the few models which support weaker warming through 2012 are usually those with lower climate sensitivity.
So, if you are going to claim that the observations support some of the models, and least be honest and admit they support the models that are NOT consistent with the IPCC best estimates of warming
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
HS re Spencer post:-
There are at least four reasons why the Trenberth explanation (#2) is incorrect:
1. Longwave infrared from greenhouse gases only penetrates a few microns into water to cause evaporative cooling of the ocean surface, not heating
2. If the “missing heat” has gone to the deep oceans, it should have been picked up first in the upper oceans by ARGO, but wasn’t
3. Heat rises, an overwhelming negative feedback to any alleged “increased mixing”
4. The heat capacity of the ocean is over 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature changes [and CO2] follow ocean temperature changes. The oceans control the atmospheric temperature, and the tail doesn’t wag the dog.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/why-trenberth-is-wrong-about-missing.html
My case:-
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?
Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing
Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing
Not sure what this “44 model” graph is of in terms of RCP because it doesn’t seem to reconcile with the earlier 38 and 34 model RCP4.5 graphs i.e. there are 2 models on the UAH/RSS trajectory at 2012 in the 38 model plot but none in the 44 model plot.
44 models
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
38 models
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/clip_image0042.jpg
34 models
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622
The model forecasts certainly haven’t been fulfilled in the 44 model vs reality comparison.
Ah, clue at Andy’s BH article link down-thread. The earlier 34 and 38 model vs reality comparison must be near surface. The latest Christy/Spencer 44 model vs reality comparison must be for higher up in the troposphere, the graph title is “Lower Atmosphere” which I take to mean lower troposphere but above near surface.
It would have been helpful to have the respective altitudes specified for each graph.
Paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
A lecture by professor Hiroko Miyahara of the University of Tokyo provides additional support to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, finding that both solar geomagnetic activity and the polarity of geomagnetic activity have significant effects upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The polarity of solar geomagnetic activity flips with a 22-year cycle, with periods of negative polarity [such as the current solar cycle] having a greater effect upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The authors find a remarkable correlation between solar magnetic polarity, cloud height, and the Madden-Julian Oscillation [third figure below], which may represent yet another mechanism by which small changes in solar activity can be amplified to large changes in climate. Other amplification mechanisms include via ocean oscillations, ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds. [third figure]
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ex55BSvxQ8Q/UWWqWo31ioI/AAAAAAAAFGw/5ufXHqqXB6c/s1600/ScreenShot3388.jpg
‘Solar Activity and Climate’
Hiroko Miyahara, The University of Tokyo
Abstract:
1. Introduction
Instrumentally measured or reconstructed past climate changes often show positive correlation with solar activity at the wide range of time scales, such as from monthly (Takahashi et al., 2010) to millennial (Bond et al., 2001). However, the mechanisms of their linkage have not been well understood. The possible solar-related parameters that can drive climate change are; total solar irradiance (TSI), solar ultra violet (UV), solar wind (SW) and the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). The galactic cosmic rays are attenuated by changing solar magnetic field in the heliosphere; the region where the wind of solar plasma and magnetic filed expend. The observed flux of GCRs shows inverse correlation to solar activity. It is known that the change in the cosmic ray flux results in the change in the ionization rate in the atmosphere. It is suggested that it may cause the change in cloud amount.
2. Variation of Galactic Cosmic Rays during the Maunder Minimum
It is difficult to evaluate the exact role of each of solar-related parameters above, since most of them are more or less synchronized for the instrumental period. However, the variation of solar radiation and GCRs may be different at the Maunder Minimum (AD1645-1715). The Maunder Minimum is a period of sunspot absence lasted about 70 years. The Sun has shown periodic variation with ~11-year period since the beginning of the 18th century. However, the sunspots had almost disappeared and apparent ~11-year cycles had been lost during the Maunder Minimum. It means that solar activity had been extraordinarily weak and that the environment of heliosphere had been different from today. We found that the variation of GCRs was very unique during the time. The variation of GCRs has been revealed by the measurements of cosmic-ray induced radio isotopes such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings or ice cores. The content of radio isotopes have shown that solar cycle had been kept during the long-lasting sunspot absence, but with ~14-year period. It has been also revealed that the 22-year cycle; the cycle of periodic reversal of solar dipole magnetic field, had been also kept but with ~28-year period and had been amplified during the time. The polarity of the Sun reverses at the maxima of solar cycles, and thus holds ~22-year period. The ~22-year cycle is not observed in the changes in solar radiations; however it appears in the variation of GCRs consisting of mainly changed particles. The changes in the environment of heliosphere had probably resulted in the amplification of the 22-year cycle in GCRs.
3. Variation of climate and its relation to Galactic Cosmic Rays
We have found that reconstructed climate data show unique variations similar to that of GCRs during the Maunder Minimum. For example, the northern hemispheric temperatures are significantly dependent on the direction of solar dipole magnetic field. At the phases of negative polarity of dipole magnetic field, when GCRs show anomalous increase, we observe colder climate. The dependence of climate change on solar dipole magnetic field results in the manifestation of 22-year cycle in climate change. The cause of decadal to multi-decadal climate changes had not been well understood, however, our study suggests that GCRs may be the playing important role in climate change at those time scales.
Conclusion
More detailed studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms of solar influence on climate change; however, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs. The mechanisms how the cosmic rays change the cloud property should be clarified in the future studies.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/paper-finds-another-amplification.html
New paper finds large changes in solar UV influence climate change
A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics reviews recent satellite data finding that variations in solar UV within solar cycles are up to 6 times greater than previously believed, and that these variations have a significant influence upon the atmosphere and regional climate change. The authors also find that current models don’t reproduce these observations. The IPCC dismisses the role of the Sun in climate change by only considering small changes in total solar irradiance [TSI], while ignoring amplification mechanisms such as the large changes in solar UV within and between solar cycles.
According to the authors, “recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth’s atmosphere.” Solar spectral irradiance “changes influence the Earth’s atmosphere, both directly, through changes in shortwave (SW) heating and therefore, temperature and ozone distributions in the stratosphere, and indirectly, through dynamical feedbacks.”
‘Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling’
I. Ermolli1, K. Matthes2, T. Dudok de Wit3, N. A. Krivova4, K. Tourpali5, M. Weber6, Y. C. Unruh7, L. Gray8, U. Langematz9, P. Pilewskie10, E. Rozanov11,12, W. Schmutz11, A. Shapiro11, S. K. Solanki4,13, and T. N. Woods10
1INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Monte Porzio Catone, Italy
2GEOMAR I Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel, Kiel, Germany
3LPC2E, CNRS and University of Orléans, Orléans, France
4Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
5Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
6Institut für Umweltphysik, Universität Bremen FB1, Bremen, Germany
7Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK
8Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Dept. of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, UK
9Institut für Meteorologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
10University of Colorado, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Boulder, CO, USA
11Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
12IAC ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
13School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi 46-701, Republic of Korea
Abstract. The lack of long and reliable time series of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) measurements makes an accurate quantification of solar contributions to recent climate change difficult. Whereas earlier SSI observations and models provided a qualitatively consistent picture of the SSI variability, recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth’s atmosphere. Motivated by these results, we summarize here our current knowledge of SSI variability and its impact on Earth’s climate
>>>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-paper-finds-large-changes-in-solar.html
Spinning the climate model – observation comparison
Posted on February 22, 2013 | 1,221 Comments
by Judith Curry
In the past 6 months or so, we have seen numerous different plots of the CMIP5 climate model simulations versus observations.
The first such plot that I saw was produced by John Christy in his Congressional Testimony last August: [see plot]
The next time I encountered a similar diagram was in the leaked IPCC AR5 SOD, chapter 1, Figure 1.4. I am not going to reproduce that figure here since I am not sure about the legal status of this situation in context of my agreement with wordpress.com, but you can find the link [here]. In short, the diagram shows, for the period 1990-2015, the spread of FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4 and AR5 climate model simulations against the three main global surface temperature analyses. The also include a gray shading that corresponds to observational uncertainty and internal variability (although I have no idea how ‘internal variability’ is taken into account).
>>>>>>
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/
“I next encountered a version of this diagram at RealClimate [links to post], in a post dated 7 February 2013:”
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/afig5.jpg?w=808&h=624
“Oops, the first time I glanced at this I had assumed that this was CMIP5, looks like it is CMIP3 instead.”
[RC incurs JC’s understated cynicism]
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi
Arrogance that lead to assumption that co2 was causing warming rather than natural cycles is same arrogance that prevents seeing truth
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/324163590078742528
Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response
David C. Archibald
Abstract
Projections of weak solar maxima for solar cycles 24 and 25 are correlated with
the terrestrial climate response to solar cycles over the last three hundred years,
derived from a review of the literature . Based on solar maxima of approximately
50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted
to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum. To provide a
baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25,
data from five rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was
averaged and smoothed. The profile indicates that temperatures remain below
the average over the first half of the twentieth century.
Forecast of Solar Cycles 24 and 25
A longer range prediction is provided by Schatten and Tobiska (2003) who predicted “a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced
levels of solar activity.” Landscheidt (2003) comes to a similar conclusion based on
the variable torque applied to the Sun by the movements of the giant planets and their
impact on solar eruptive activity.
Figure 2: Annual Average Temperatures for Three European Stations 1770 – 1840
Three European stations with a continuous record through the Dalton Minimum
illustrate the temperature response expected with the low in solar activity from Solar
Cycles 24 and 25. The Oberlach Station in Germany experienced a 2.0° C decline
over 20 years.
Conclusion
A number of solar cycle prediction models are forecasting weak solar cycles 24 and
25 equating to a Dalton Minimum, and possibly the beginning of a prolonged period
of weak activity equating to a Maunder Minimum. In the former case, a temperature
decline of the order of 1.5°C can be expected based on the temperature response to
solar cycles 5 and 6. A rural US temperature data set shows that recent and current
temperatures remain below the average of the first half of the 20th century.
Landscheidt, T. 2003, New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?, Energy &
Environment, 14 (2), 327-350.
Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder
Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany
Abstract:
Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8� C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.
6. Forecasts of solar activity and climate confirm validity of solar motion cycles
These theoretical considerations have been corroborated by practical results. Predictions based on cycles in the sun’s motion turned out to be correct. My long-range forecasts of precisely defined classes of energetic X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms, covering the period 1979 � 1985, reached an overall hit rate of 90 percent though such events show a very irregular distribution. These forecasts were checked by the Space Environment Center, Boulder, and the astronomers Gleissberg, Wöhl and Pfleiderer (Landscheidt, 1986; Landscheidt and Wöhl, 1986). Accumulations of strong geomagnetic storms around 1982 and 1990 were also correctly forecast several years before the events. I predicted, too, in 1984 (Landscheidt, 1986, 1987) that the sun’s activity would diminish past 1990. Just this happened. Though a panel of experts (Joselyn, 1997) had predicted in 1996 and even two years later that sunspot cycle 23 would have a large amplitude similar to the preceding cycles (highest smoothed monthly sunspot number R = 160), the observed activity was much weaker (R = 120).
My climate forecasts based on solar motion cycles stood the test as well. I correctly forecast the end of the Sahelian drought three years before the event, the last four extrema in global temperature anomalies, the maximum in the Palmer drought index for U.S.A. around 1999, extreme river Po discharges around the beginning of 2001, and the last three El Niños as well as the course of the last La Niña (Landscheidt, 1983-2002). This forecast skill, solely based on cycles of solar activity, is irreconcilable with the IPCC’s allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.
9. Forecast of deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate around 2030 and 2200
Fig. 11 shows that solar activity of outstanding intensity and corresponding warm periods on Earth, too, are indicated by the extrema of dT/dt. As an example, the Medieval Optimum is marked by an arrow. It should be noted that the outstanding positive amplitude around 1120 is greater than the amplitudes around 1952 and 1984 indicating the modern Gleissberg maxima linked to warming not as high as around 1120 (Schönwiese, 1979). More details of this relationship will be presented elsewhere.
Without exception, the outstanding negative extrema coincide with periods of exceptionally weak solar activity and vice versa. So there are good reasons to expect that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one. As there are three consecutive extrema below the quantitative threshold, there is a high probability that the event will be of the Maunder minimum type. This is also true as to the minimum around 2201, whereas the minimum around 2122 should be of the regular type, as can be seen in Fig. 11.
It has been shown that there is a close relationship between deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate. So the probability is high that the outstanding Gleissberg minima around 2030 and 2201 will go along with periods of cold climate comparable to the nadir of the Little Ice Age. As to the minimum around 2030, there are additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt, 2001), and La Niñas will be more frequent and stronger than El Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000).
11. Outlook
We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong. The outcome of this further long-range climate forecast solely based on solar activity may be considered to be a touchstone of the IPCC’s hypothesis of man-made global warming.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
RC, Your endless quoting of stale old denier memes from flawed papers by bogus researchers like Archibald and Idso has become boring and tiresome, which is why no-one reads your posts anymore.
FYI, here is Archibald’s M.O, which is why no-one but yourself takes him seriously:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/
“flawed papers” that actually have proven predictive skill:-
6. Forecasts of solar activity and climate confirm validity of solar motion cycles
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-191182
The IPCC’s forecasts to 2100 on the other hand, being on the cusp of invalidation in 2013.
As for RealClimate:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/climate-forecasts-fulfilled-or-what/#comment-191079
Links to links that link back to themselves. Richard C is correct, the climate is cyclical.
Hullo, the cyclicity denier has turned up too. Better late (and irrelevant) than never.
Simon the cyclicity denier.
Simon says:
April 14, 2013 at 1:46 pm
“Chaotic systems can exhibit cyclic variation but these are not guaranteed to continue and some people see patterns where none exist. There are no semi-mystical 60 and 200 year cycles.”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/lord-monckton-complains-to-vuw/#comment-190138
Apparently, according to Simon the cyclicity denier, the implication of his statement is that the power of human CO2 emissions (natural carbon cycle produces 2960000m tonnes CO2, man’s contributes 33500m tonnes which equates to 1.13%.) will overturn all known planetary climate cycles including the PDO and ENSO,
And the pile of literature detailing centennial scale climate cycles up-thread and accessible by Google Scholar and the ‘Web of Science’ database is by numerous scientists who “see patterns where none exist”, according to Simon the cyclicity denier’s proclamation.
This individual must be someone that knows a lot more than literally hundreds of scientists and multitudes of laymen and should be taken at his word.
Either that or he should be ignored completely
You misrepresent what I wrote RC, which is your standard tactic for spreading confusion and doubt. I didn’t say that there are no cycles in nature; tides and Milankovitch cycles are real and reasonably predictable through calculus. However, anything that is an output from a chaotic system may follow patterns but the “cycles” are irregular, the Schwabe sunspot cycle can vary between 9 and 12 years.
My comment about people seeing patterns where none exist was mostly directed at the Ken Rings of the world but trying to link climate solely to solar cycles qualifies as well.
>”…trying to link climate solely to solar cycles qualifies as well.”
So you’re still denying the papers up-thread that do exactly that?
In case you haven’t noticed Simon, there’s considerable debate going on over the GMST “standstill” (actually now a falling trend this century). That standstill is inconsistent with rising GHG levels but entirely consistent with falling solar output.
There is now no driver to push temperatures higher than their peak earlier this century, CO2 is evidently ineffective and so is solar now. So the expected climate regime over the next 30 yrs will be that of lower solar output, the first level of which will correspond to early 1900s conditions but much sooner down than the 100 yrs lead up (see the IPCC’s own Mike Lockwood up-thread for that).
And I repeat my reply to Richard T:-
RT, I think what is more revealing is that 10 year smoothing with a simple moving average (SMA) shows not only flat but a fall from the end of 2010:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image_thumb16.png?w=1008&h=596
This from Paul Homewood’s post:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/latest-uah-rss-numbers/
The argument from the standstill deniers is that we are just looking at “noise” in the raw data and that “exogenous” factors (e.g. ENSO) should be “taken out” (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). But when the data is smoothed over 10 years the standstill is evident albeit lagged 8 years in the smoothed series.
Sure the fall in the 10 yr smoothed series is minute but Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) (AR5 SOD Chap 10: Radiative forcing, linked up-thread) say the solar recession will only mitigate 0.1 – 0.6 K of warming over the 21st century but already since the beginning of 2011 a little over 0.0075 K has been whittled away from the 10 yr smoothed warming peak at end of 2010 – let alone non-existent continued warming 2011 – 2013. Given that the effects of lower solar output are not expected to become readily apparent until at least 2014, Jones, Lockwood and Stott (and the IPCC vicariously) have a problem.
Sounds like recursion to me. Someone call Lewandowsky – there’s some conspiracy ideation to get published in The Journal of Junk Psychology
>”The IPCC’s forecasts to 2100 on the other hand, being on the cusp of invalidation in 2013″
THE GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL
Dr David Whitehouse
Conclusions
182. Whether the global temperature standstill of the past 15-16 years continues, or is replaced by warming, as the IPCC predicts, only future data will tell. Meanwhile, the length of the standstill implies that the challenge it offers for models of future climate prediction, and explanations for past warming, cannot be ignored. We are on the cusp of climate model vulnerability.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
Santer et al (2011):-
‘Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale’
“Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multimodel ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
Article first published online: 18 NOV 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract
http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-lulz-rings-around-antarctica/#comment-37450
Unfortunately, for our deluded eco-fachist Macro, projection is the name of the game. Hansen quite clearly referred to the pause or hiatus in warming in his recent paper on temperatures.
These semi-literate cretins at Hot Topic and elsewhere seem to think they can continue lying and making stuff up to support their apocalyptic death cult.
>”Hansen quite clearly referred to the pause or hiatus in warming in his recent paper on temperatures”
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
“Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
Thanks for the reference, RC. I was just reaching for my email pen.
They understate the period of flatness. It’s hard to tell at that resolution, but their data show flatness probably from about 1997, which would be about 15 years, not merely “a decade.”
RT, I think what is more revealing is that 10 year smoothing with a simple moving average (SMA) shows not only flat but a fall from the end of 2010:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image_thumb16.png?w=1008&h=596
This from Paul Homewood’s post:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/latest-uah-rss-numbers/
The argument from the standstill deniers is that we are just looking at “noise” in the raw data and that “exogenous” factors (e.g. ENSO) should be “taken out” (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). But when the data is smoothed over 10 years the standstill is evident albeit lagged 8 years in the smoothed series.
Sure the fall in the 10 yr smoothed series is minute but Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) (AR5 SOD Chap 10: Radiative forcing, linked up-thread) say the solar recession will only mitigate 0.1 – 0.6 K of warming over the 21st century but already since the beginning of 2011 a little over 0.0075 K has been whittled away from the 10 yr smoothed warming peak at end of 2010 – let alone non-existent continued warming 2011 – 2013. Given that the effects of lower solar output are not expected to become readily apparent until at least 2014, Jones, Lockwood and Stott (and the IPCC vicariously) have a problem.
Although you wouldn’t conclude a significant trend from two years’ of data, right?
>”Although you wouldn’t conclude a significant trend from two years’ of data, right?”
Not even just a trend from 2 yrs raw data but the inflexion in the 10 yr SMA is certainly significant in terms of trajectory. What caused the radical change in the underlying trajectory if we are not looking at noise? And what factor(s) is(are) driving the new underlying trajectory – a significant and negative departure from positive (even from y = 0) pre-2011? Certainly not aCO2.
I would add too that the 10 yr SMA GMST is in almost perfect sync with the OHC global aggregates down to 700m and to 2000m so both atmosphere and ocean have peaked when noise is eliminated from atmosphere.
As I asked RRO – “Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) end their analysis at 2009 (why?) and only look at the global aggregate (why?). If they had carried out a basin-by-basin analysis to end of 2012 that anyone with an internet connection can do they would have discovered that the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling (Pacific) or flat (Atlantic) in the ARGO era and the Indian has recently stabilized (now flat for the last 4 yrs or so)”
I don’t understand what makes an average of insignificant data significant.
If by change you mean flattening out after a rise, what makes it radical? The cause of the recent two-year dip hardly matters if we agree it’s not even a trend, but it’s probably natural variation “noise”).
>”I don’t understand what makes an average of insignificant data significant.”
Each monthly datapoint on Paul Homewoood’s 10 yr SMA carries the average of the previous 10 yrs of data with it and so on to the next datapoint so each monthly datapoint contains 10 yrs of significance – not just the instantaneous level at that month. The effect of any “noise” is no longer an issue (e.g. an El Nino or La Nina effect is averaged out over 10 yrs as it should be – not “taken out” as Foster & Rahmstorf suggest).
>”If by change you mean flattening out after a rise, what makes it radical?”
The fact that is so apparent in the 10 yr SMA and the significance of each monthly 10 yr SMA datapoint as above. Again, think of the cause if ENSO has been eliminated from contention.
>”The cause of the recent two-year dip hardly matters if we agree it’s not even a trend, but it’s probably natural variation “noise”).”
Again, it’s not a “two-year dip” (it’s a 10 yr dip) neither is it “noise” (10 yr SMA eliminates noise) – this matters a lot. The new trajectory (from the 2010/11 inflexion/peak) has been established on the basis of 10 yr smoothing.
John Christy used a 7 yr SMA in order to compare GMST to the models because the models do not mimic ENSO events but they do carry the energy of the event over 7 yrs smoothing (near enough):-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/clip_image0042.jpg
If each of the 7 yr smoothed UAH and RSS datasets was updated to 2013 the dip would be just perceptible at the end of each series. UAH and RSS have 1 yr smoothing in the following comparison but imagine both series with 10 yr smoothing:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
The effect of the 2008 La Nina and 2010 El Nino would be eliminated and the lower levels of 2011 and 2012 (relative to early 2000s) would be evident as a downward inflexion.
[BTW those two graphs are for different altitudes from what I can gather so not directly comparable but I’m just communicating concepts here.]
Should be – “it’s not a “two-year dip” (it’s a [12] yr dip)”
>”If by change you mean flattening out after a rise, what makes it radical?”
Here’s the 10 yr SMA from 1990:-
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/image_thumb15.png?w=1008&h=616
Rising continually except for small downturns when strong La Ninas pulled down the average after strong El Ninos pushed it up. But the latest 2 yr+ downturn has no such strong preceding El Nino-to-La Nina transition that occurred 1998-99 or 2007-8 for example i.e. there is some other driver operating in the 2010/11 inflexion and the forcing direction of that driver that was pushing the lagged SMA (lagged about 8 yrs from raw) up since 1990 and before that has now reversed.
In solar terms, the 10 yr SMA lag must be added to the thermal lag of planetary inertia evident in unsmoothed data i.e. a range of 10 + 8 yrs = 18 yrs to 10 + 20 yrs = 30 yrs (using Abdussamatovs inertia calcs). This total lag starts 1986 or thereabouts when solar output reached Grand Maximum giving 1986 + 18 = 2004 and 1986 + 30 = 2016. Therefore a 10 yr SMA solar-driven inflexion at 2010/11 (if that is what it is) falls exactly in the middle of the range 2004 to 2016 when all the lags are accounted for.
As I keep saying, the next 1 or 2 yrs are the acid test not just for the IPCC’s GHG-centric solar scenario but for the non-IPCC, non-GHG solar-centric scenario too. Both will be tested conclusively depending on what plays out. If the 10 yr SMA in HadCRUt4 continues on its current trajectory the latter scenario is the winner barring ENSO events because not only will the models be falsified by the modelers own criteria (uncertainty bounds and time without warming) but Jones, Lockwood and Stott’s GHG-centric solar modeling (only 0.06 – 0.1 K solar mitigation of warming) will be rapidly disproved too.
>”But the latest 2 yr+ downturn has no such strong preceding El Nino-to-La Nina transition that occurred 1998-99 or 2007-8 for example”
The 2010 El Nino was strong but the following La Nina wasn’t.
On reflection a 10 yr SMA eliminates not just ENSO events but also about one 3rd (about 10 yrs) of the current 30 yr negative phase of the 60 yr climate cycle (what Simon denies).
Given that then, rather than a solar-driven inflexion at 2010/11, what we are actually seeing in the 10 yr SMA is the 10 yr lagged equivalent of the early 2000s inflexion in the raw data that began the now decade(+) long standstill. There is actually a falling trend in raw SST and GMST since the early 2000s but not statistically significant. That trend is comparable to the current SMA trajectory.
From what I can gather, solar-recession-driven climate effects of any measurable significance are not expected to show up in the GMST until 2014 and later i.e. after the current SC 24 peak even though it is abnormally weak. Or maybe late this year depending on what happens with the SC 24 peak.
>”There is actually a falling trend in raw SST and GMST since the early 2000s but not statistically significant”
RSS near-sfc from 2001 Trend: -0.053 ±0.294 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS near-sfc from 2002 Trend: -0.072 ±0.341 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS near-sfc from 2003 Trend: -0.052 ±0.405 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUt4 from 2001 Trend: -0.024 ±0.164 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUt4 from 2002 Trend: -0.050 ±0.189 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUt4 from 2003 Trend: -0.053 ±0.215 °C/decade (2σ)
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
HadSST2 SH (70% of ocean) from 2002:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2sh/from:2002/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2002/trend
Approx (by eye) Trend: -0.07 °C/decade
Correction – “HadSST2 SH ([57]% of ocean)”
>”They understate the period of flatness. It’s hard to tell at that resolution, but their data show flatness probably from about 1997, which would be about 15 years, not merely “a decade.” ”
Thanks to Magoo’s link to the handy SkS trend App http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
GISTEMP from 1996 (17 yrs): Trend: 0.111 ±0.122 °C/decade (2σ) – statistically insignificant warming.
GISTEMP from 2000 (13 yrs): Trend: 0.069 ±0.171 °C/decade (2σ) – statistically insignificant warming/flat.
GISTEMP from 2001 (12 yrs): Trend: 0.013 ±0.181 °C/decade (2σ) – flat
GISTEMP from 2002 (11 yrs): Trend: -0.015 ±0.209 °C/decade (2σ) – flat
GISTEMP from 2003 (10 yrs): Trend: -0.004 ±0.240 °C/decade (2σ) – flat
GISTEMP from 2004 (9 yrs): Trend: 0.004 ±0.287 °C/decade (2σ) – flat
Tracked down the offending comments but can’t link directly. I can see however, how you’ve upset the standstill deniers:-
“The world has warmed by 0.0 degrees C in the last 15 years, and we don’t know why.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/8553473/Editorial-Warmest-regards
That was an impolite thing to say among “civil society” Andy.
Andy. If they want to start quoting sceptical science about the temperatures continuing to rise quote them this:
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
No statistically significant warming for between 16-23 yrs. They can’t argue with a website they claim is trustworthy, and the data sources are: GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS, UAH, BEST. Just to rub salt into the wound the equations are from Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011 – hehe.
It’ll drive them into a frenzy. I’d do it myself but I just can’t be bothered signing up to stuff.co.nz & wasting my time with those ignoramuses anymore.
Right, Andy, the existence of mythical “oceans” that somehow “absorb heat” is just a figment of the fevered imaginations of warmist apocalyptic death cult nutters.
Thank Heavens for calm and rational observers such as yourself, who can see through such desperate nonsense.
A grateful world will surely, one day, give you the recognition you deserve.
RROK, I will make this clearer for you
I was referring to the “surface temperature record”. You know, the one that HADCrut3/4 etc refer to. The “pause” in these series is well documented, as you and everyone else knows.
However, of course when this failed to make much of a change, some of the more honest scientists stated this unambiguously (including Hansen). The less scrupulous activist types that hover around junk science sites like Skeptical Science moved the goalposts and claimed that the oceans were absorbing all the heat
When I refer to the “AGW death cult”, I am specifically referring to the guys who comment at Hot Topic; in this case taking my name in vain.
I was banned from that site for referring to them by this name (on this site), so I like to repeat it as often as I can, to reinforce the point. Clearly banning me is ineffective, and I can still comment on the “Daily Blog” where the death cultists are even more extreme
>”…. the existence of mythical “oceans” that somehow “absorb heat” is just a figment of the fevered imaginations of warmist apocalyptic death cult nutters”
Conspiracy ideation RRO?
I don’t think there’s much contention that the oceans absorb solar radiation that is converted to heat in the process but perhaps you could enlighten us RRO as to the anthropogenic-based mechanism by which atmospheric heat is absorbed by the ocean?
I’ll be very interested in the process you describe because even the IPCC after 25 years of existence has not been able to come up with anything definitive. AR5 SOD only “expects” air-sea fluxes, nothing more than that. And it is all highly problematic whichever way you look at it as documented here:-
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?
Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing
Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing
BTW RRO, my first question re your process is that you will be tracking the (unconventional but not impossible) flow of heat from air to sea but that heat originated in the sea as a result of solar heating and left the ocean unrestricted. Why is it restricted from leaving and accumulating the second time round as a result of the anthropogenic mechanism?
Some more on the slowdown or hiatus or whatever from Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
RC, why don’t you publish your novel theories in a scientific journal, where they can garner the respect they deserve?
(Oh, I see, you tried that but the Illuminati intervened…)
Anyway, back in the real world, here is how it works:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
>”…back in the real world, here is how it works”
In Warmer World maybe but the real world is a little different.
Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) end their analysis at 2009 (why?) and only look at the global aggregate (why?). If they had carried out a basin-by-basin analysis to end of 2012 that anyone with an internet connection can do they would have discovered that the upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling (Pacific) or flat (Atlantic) in the ARGO era and the Indian has recently stabilized (now flat for the last 4 yrs or so).
I’ve already gone round and round with JoNova’s resident troll Nice One on this and have ready access to more than a couple of SkS posts can answer so if you want to go on with this you better have the goods RRO.
Tisdale – ‘On Guemas et al (2013) “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade” ‘:-
“The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/on-guemas-et-al-2013-retrospective-prediction-of-the-global-warming-slowdown-in-the-past-decade/
Neither of those two papers document an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism or advance the IPCC’s 25 year quest to find one.
BTW, no clues as to an anthro ocean heating mechanism you can elucidate in your own wards RRO?
Rob (“RRO”), how does the warmth get through the top layer without detection? I missed that part.
Gosh, RT, might it just possibly have something to do with the physics and chemistry of the oceans?
You know, you could educate yourself… just crack open your geophysics textbooks (you do have some, don’t you?) and turn to the chapters on thermohaline circulation, upwelling and gyres; or, you could take the easy way out and listen to Kim Hill’s “Thin Ice” interview here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20130406
Of course, education can free the mind, so be very, very careful what you let in, lest it make a “warmist” of you.
The warmth goes down from sfc to below 700m by “upwelling”? Hmmm…..
And without detection in the 700m layer either – that’s smart water RRO.
RRO,
In your own words, please, Rob, not the slick links. This is a conversation, not a year book. And leave out the gratuitous insults or you’ll be banned again, mate.
In that case, Richard, as you are clearly unwilling – or unable – to learn anything new about the nominal topic of your own blog, I will leave you to enjoy the turgid effluvia of such rebarbative luminaries as RC and Andy.
Charmed, as always.
But in your case RRO, reading a review of a CC alarm film (5 yrs in the making i.e. already out of date) and vague allusion to natural ocean phenomena references is “learning”?
There’s plenty of investigation in this thread to keep anyone probing AGW issues busy for some time if they are of a mind to. Or they could, as Simon does of course, deny any possibility that there are perfectly natural explanations for the current state of the global climate and that aGHG forcing may not offset the climatic change evident as a result of natural cycles after all contrary to what the IPCC would have everyone believe.
The IPCC climate scientists being those that are “puzzled” by the current standstill – not those deferring to historical evidence of the cyclical nature of climate.
ARGO-era OHC 0-700m, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian Ocean basins:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
So rather than just pointing to “thermohaline circulation, upwelling and gyres” a more complete explanation is that the solar driver is no longer of sufficient strength to maintain Pacific and Atlantic 0-700m OHC (both cooling) once circulation currents have moved warm water from the upper layers of both (mainly the Pacific going by the currents) to the Indian Ocean and to below 700m (mainly the Atlantic going by the source data).
But note the upper Indian ocean has stabilized since 4Q2010 so that the aggregate of all 3 basins has been flat since then.
And if the upper layer of the largest ocean basin (Pacific) has been cooling since 2003 there’s certainly no anthropogenic or solar ocean heat forcing going on.
IPCC Co-Chair Thomas Stocker Flunks Major Swiss Interview – IPCC Science Hanging From Its Last Thread
By P Gosselin on 17. April 2013
Last week hard-hitting Swiss weekly Weltwoche published a revealing interview with IPCC WG-1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. The interview was conducted by Markus Schär.
Dr. Sebastian Lüning was given permission to republish the interview at the Die kalte Sonne site here, adding his rebuttals and corrections. Lüning writes: “Thomas Stocker showed a number of memory lapses in the Weltwoche-Interview.”
What follows is the interview along with Lüning’s rebuttals in English. Because of the interview’s length, it will appear in 3 or 4 parts over the next few days. Some parts have been slightly shortened and edited.
The Stocker interview not only exposes misleading science, but also provides good hints as to how the IPCC intends to approach its 5th report.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/17/ipcc-co-chair-thomas-stocker-flunks-major-swiss-interview-ipcc-science-hanging-from-its-last-thread/
WELTWOCHE: IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently admitted that there has not been any global warming for 17 years.
STOCKER: I can’t tell other colleagues what to say.
Lüning: What is he saying? Isn’t Stocker aware of the real measured temperature curve? The stop in warming is a fact. Even Pachauri admits it. Does Stocker seriously believe Pachauri made a mistake here? Weltwoche:
WELTWOCHE: He’s your boss.
STOCKER: My function together with the international team of authors is to summarize the science; that’s what we are doing right now. From the studies we are addressing the following: a) is such a stagnation usual, b) are we going to see such phases also in the future, and c) this is the most important point, there are in the meantime over 100 simulations of climate development using the latest models. The question is: Do we see simulations that show no warming between 1998 and 2012? We do find such simulations, not many, but one or two. We are simply living in a realisation of a climate system with its chaos of natural variability – in the single one observed of many possible physical ones.
Lüning: Here Stocker is spreading the full superbness of the IPCC. Using lots of impressive words, he’s trying to come up with reasons for the warming stop, but is sadly unable to come up with anything convincing. As expected, Stocker pulls out the old chaos models from his hat. He’s hoping that of the hundreds of simulations carried out, a few will be able to show a warming stop over the last 15 years. This would then be the proof that the models are “extremely good”. Is Stocker really so naive to think that this would actually serve as proof? This would be like someone picking all 49 numbers of a lottery and then later claiming he picked the 6 correct numbers!
Hansen backpeddling:-
“At least one sentence in “Storms” will need to be corrected in the next edition: even with burning of all fossil fuels the tropical ocean does not “boil” ”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/the-madness-of-james-hansen-trace.html
I’m glad he’s cleared that up,……I was beginning to think he was exaggerating a bit there.
Science vs. Sensationalism: Is the Earth absorbing the energy from 400,000 Hiroshima bombs every day, as Hansen claims?
Posted on April 20, 2013 by Steve Milloy
[…] The Earth surface is about 197 million square miles in size. Dividing that area by 400,000 Hiroshima blasts works out to about 493 square-miles per bomb blast.
So Hansen’s claim is that every New York City-sized surface area (land and water) is absorbing a Hiroshima blast’s worth of energy every day.
Plausible?
http://junkscience.com/2013/04/20/science-vs-sensationalism-is-the-earth-absorbing-the-energy-from-400000-hiroshima-bombs-every-day-as-hansen-claims/
chris y | April 20, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Reply
Its worse than you thought.
Hansen blathers about the modeled energy imbalance of a Watt per square meter. He of course neglects the all important context that the top of atmosphere receives an average of about 340 W/m^2 from the sun. That is the ‘equivalent’ of 136,000,000 Hiroshima bombs every day!
The Hiroshima analogy works because the press and politicians are science illiterates.
Brad R | April 20, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
I went through the numbers here http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.5217 and decided that normal sunlight is 175 million “Hiroshimas” of energy each day. Hansen’s talking about an increase of one quarter of one percent. (Assuming his numbers are correct.)
Judith Curry gives us an article on Meta Uncertainty in climate sensitivity
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/17/meta-uncertainty-in-the-determination-of-climate-sensitivity/
Concluding that the higher end values are looking increasingly unlikely
Whew! SkS can’t whine about “single study syndrome”. This is sure to ruffle feathers though:-
“And finally, it is a major coup for the freelance/citizen climate scientist movement to see Nic Lewis and Troy masters publish influential papers on this topic in leading journals.”
Makes a refreshing change from Retired Financier or whatever.
Nice to see Dr Curry giving credit where it is due.
>”Whew! SkS can’t whine about “single study syndrome”.”
Spoke too soon about that, but wrong about this re Lewis publishing – “This is sure to ruffle feathers”:-
‘Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition’
Posted on 18 April 2013 by dana1981
Nic Lewis has written a paper on the subject of the Earth’s climate sensitivity (how much surface temperatures will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) which has been accepted by the Journal of Climate. First of all, we would like to offer kudos to Lewis for subjecting his analysis to the peer review process, which is something few climate contrarians are willing to do.
The paper is an outlier, finding a lower climate sensitivity than most other studies, and outside the likely range cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. It’s most important not to fall into the trap of thinking that any single study will overturn a vast body of scientific evidence, derived from many different sources of data (or as Andrew Revkin calls this, single-study syndrome). This was also recently an issue with regards to a similar and unpublished Norwegian study.
Lewis’ is just one paper using one of many possible methods to estimate climate sensitivity. The overall body of evidence indicates that the Earth’s surface temperatures will warm 2–4.5°C in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html
An outlier among an increasing number of outliers; the “overall body of evidence” and “a vast body of scientific evidence” looking more and more doubtful each year passing.
But I suppose that article had to be written at SkS.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/18/an-evening-with-his-lordship/
An Evening with His Lordship
Posted on April 18, 2013 by Guest Blogger
Guest post by WUWT volunteer moderator Andi Cockroft
I was fortunate the other night to attend a presentation by Christopher Monckton as part of his Climate of Freedom Tour of New Zealand.
Part 2 Thomas Stocker Interview…Lüning: “IPCC Increasingly Unable To Maneuver, Detached From Reality”
WELTWOCHE: So you would never say that we are observing 17 years of climate warming stagnation?
STOCKER: No, already the association of ‘seventeen years’ and ‘climate warming’ is false. When we talk about a climate warming we mean the long-term trend, the one we see in the second half of the 20th century.
Lüning: That’s a bit mysterious. In a paper appearing in 2011, Stocker’s former IPCC colleague Ben Santer and 16 other co-authors determined that 17 years are enough to detect a climate trend. Now it has been 17 years since the end of warming began and suddenly many more years are required. What doesn’t fit is made to fit. Real science looks completely different.
[…]
WELTWOCHE: Then we’ll have to wait until 2035 to check to see if you’re right?
STOCKER: No. As I’ve said, we have been assessing climate projections at the IPCC since 1990 and they have been measurably right up to today. If you ask me, if I’m still in good health in 2035, I’ll be looking back at a short phase of temperature stagnation that resulted from a combination of various effects – that is if a large volcano doesn’t erupt.
[see accompanying graph – models vs reality lower troposphere]
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Temperature_CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS_WUWT_18Apr13.png
Lüning: Professor Stocker, we’ve already been through all that. Die IPCC temperature prognoses since 1990 have not been “measurably right“, rather they have been poor to outright useless. Is this perhaps the IPCC’s last thread that is keeping it from going under? Is this what modern, robust science looks like? To be more specific, ocean cycles specialist Professor Mojib Latif warned not long ago that a warming cannot be expected over the next decade due to cooling Atlantic and Pacific cycles. This is completely plausible and is in agreement with the empirical findings of the last century. Thus it is only a question of a few years before the real temperatures drift below the lower boundaries of the IPCC simulated temperature range, which once was considered an impossibility. When that happens, the last thread breaks and it all goes down. The 54-year old Stocker will likely experience this inconvenience long before he reaches retirement. It remains open whether or not he will have the courage to openly discuss the errors of the IPCC simulations. But why wait until then? Already today it would be high time to take a hard look at reality and to start taking the natural factors of climate change into account.
[…]
WELTWOCHE: Couldn’t we better explain the climate cycles with the sun’s influence?
STOCKER: That’s valid for pre-industrial times when CO2 was more or less 30% below today’s levels. We still need the sun as part of the explanation – here we have no differences. But for the last 50 to 70 years, and especially concerning the extent of the warming, it is not possible to conclusively explain it without the man-made factors. Why did the temperature increase 0.8°C during the 20th century? This cannot be explained without CO2.
Lüning: Precisely. Why did the temperature increase 0.8°C during the 20th century? Is CO2 really needed? If so, then how much? Have we seen such temperature increases in the past? Stocker here remains silent as the scientific facts on this point are inconvenient and clear. Over the last 10,000 there have been such warming phases on multiple occasions occurring in 1000 year cycles. And yet another surprise: The main drive behind these changes was solar activity fluctuation, as is impressively confirmed by numerous studies. As one may suspect, the second half of the 20th century was one of the most solar-active over the last 10,000 years. What a huge coincidence! Unfortunately, the IPCC has elected to ignore this massive body of science. This is yet another huge defect in the IPCC house in addition to the PDO lapse.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/18/part-2-thomas-stocker-interview-luning-ipcc-increasingly-unable-to-maneuver-detached-from-reality/
From Part 1:-
WELTWOCHE: The very uncertain uncertainties
STOCKER: This is precisely why we specify uncertainties. But we also have to look back: Were there earlier periods where the global mean temperature stagnated over 10 or 15 years? Indeed we find several such windows in the last 100 years. So it’s nothing really unusual.
Lüning: Of course there have been cold phases in the past. And we noticed that the cold was always in sync with the cold Pacific and Atlantic Ocean cycles. The IPCC just doesn’t want to acknowledge this relationship and stubbornly claims the cold would never follow any system and would just disappear. This is the only way that the IPCC could so grandly fail with the temperature development of the last one and a half decades. At about 2000 the PDO began its downward phase. So it was clear from the start that we should expect cooling for the coming decades. If the IPCC had accepted this empirical forecasting tool earlier, it would have one less problem to deal with today. However, there’s a good reason why the IPCC refused to acknowledge the PDO’s obvious impact on the global temperature development: During the main warming phase of 1977-2000 the PDO climbed and remained at a warm plateau, taking the global temperature up a few tenths of a degree with it. These were a few tenths of a degree that the IPCC had already chalked up to CO2.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/17/ipcc-co-chair-thomas-stocker-flunks-major-swiss-interview-ipcc-science-hanging-from-its-last-thread/
From review – ‘Die kalte Sonne: Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet’
Vahrenholt and Lüning believe that the rapid warming up through the year 2000 and was due to several coincident factors, most importantly having to do with sun cycles. It has long been known that solar radiation varies over time in a predictable fashion. There are solar cycles of 11, 22, 87, 210, 1000 and 2300 year durations. When they overlap, it can result in appreciable variation.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3455502504/ref=as_li_tf_il?ie=UTF8&tag=notr-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=3455502504
The quasi 210 and 1000 cycles are both changing phase from positive to negative right now i.e. an “overlap” as above (see Tim Channon’s analysis from Tallblokes Talkshop way up-thread)
Also an overlap with the 87 yr Gleissberg cycle going negative:-
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new/Fig11L.jpg
9. Forecast of deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate around 2030 and 2200
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
That’s 3 major overlapping cycles – 87, 210, 1000.
Make that 4 major overlapping cycles – 60, 87, 210, 1000.
60 yr already negative since 2000:-
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle_files/image019.jpg
From Part 3,
Weltwoche: Don’t you feel a little queasy when astrophysicists say the sun is currently weakening as much as it did during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century?
STOCKER: No, today it is impossible to forecast solar activity because unfortunately we are missing precise data and models. But we cannot exclude that such a phase may have already begun. However, it’ll eventually end – and in the meantime the CO2 concentration continues to rise and this will lead to even greater warming.
Lüning: Oh dear, this is not good, Professor Stocker. Today we can almost say there’s a consensus among astrophysicists that the sun will be very inactive over the coming decades. A Swiss paper on this topic by Steinhilber and Beer (see the last paragraph of our blog article”Wer ist Schuld am Kältewinter? MPI-Studie weist eher auf die schwache Sonne anstatt des arktischen Meereises hin. Die Sonne im März 2013“) appeared recently. Currently there is hardly a single paper out there that contradicts this. It’s no use playing dumb on this point and, as is the case with the pauses in warming, to act like nothing is really known and that everything is just chaos. The reconstructions of solar activity of the past thousands of years are very regular in nature and the pattern cannot be ignored. What’s even worse is that Stocker mixes-up the solar internal cycles with the Milankovitch cycles. The two have nothing to do with each other. The solar internal cycles involve changes in the intensity of the sun’s hydrogen reactors. Stocker’s reference to CO2 changes in sync with the Milankovitch cycles that are 20,000 years and more completely misses the barn. Could it be that Stocker is not familiar with the subject and is thus incapable of keeping the mechanisms apart? Or is it just another attempt to mislead the reader?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/19/interview-part-3-wg1-co-chair-stocker-exposes-his-rank-non-objectivity-activism/
This confuses me. Where does Lüning’s quote end and your comments begin? Please clarify.
>”Where does Lüning’s quote end and your comments begin? Please clarify.”
None of that is my commentary RT. It is a Weltwoche – Stocker interview with Lüning comments.
Also symptomatic of increasing scepticism in German main-stream media IMO.
Oh, ok. So where does the Lüning quote end and someone’s comment begin? For at the beginning Lüning seems to be addressing Stocker directly.
“…where does the Lüning quote end and someone’s comment begin?”
Lüning was not present at the Weltwoche – STOCKER interview, he is commenting on Stocker’s answers retrospectively.
Weltwoche asks the question:-
“Don’t you feel a little queasy when astrophysicists say the sun is currently weakening as much as it did during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century?”
STOCKER answers the question:-
“No, today it is impossible to forecast solar activity because unfortunately we are missing precise data and models. But we cannot exclude that such a phase may have already begun. However, it’ll eventually end – and in the meantime the CO2 concentration continues to rise and this will lead to even greater warming.”
Lüning comments on Stocker’s answer:-
“Oh dear, this is not good, Professor Stocker. Today we can almost say there’s a consensus among astrophysicists that the sun will be very inactive over the coming decades. A Swiss paper on this topic by Steinhilber and Beer (see the last paragraph of our blog article”Wer ist Schuld am Kältewinter? MPI-Studie weist eher auf die schwache Sonne anstatt des arktischen Meereises hin. Die Sonne im März 2013“) appeared recently. Currently there is hardly a single paper out there that contradicts this. It’s no use playing dumb on this point and, as is the case with the pauses in warming, to act like nothing is really known and that everything is just chaos. The reconstructions of solar activity of the past thousands of years are very regular in nature and the pattern cannot be ignored. What’s even worse is that Stocker mixes-up the solar internal cycles with the Milankovitch cycles. The two have nothing to do with each other. The solar internal cycles involve changes in the intensity of the sun’s hydrogen reactors. Stocker’s reference to CO2 changes in sync with the Milankovitch cycles that are 20,000 years and more completely misses the barn. Could it be that Stocker is not familiar with the subject and is thus incapable of keeping the mechanisms apart? Or is it just another attempt to mislead the reader?”
Thanks Richard. That’s clear now.
New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative
Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, “All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?”
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png
Fig1: Total precipitative H2O (running 30 day average) compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data in red. The central black curve is a running 365 day average.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html
No water vapour = no AGW. The AGW hypothesis is a dud without it.
Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
Posted on April 20, 2013 by Bob Tisdale
We’ve shown in numerous posts how poorly climate models simulate observed changes in temperature and precipitation. The models prepared for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) can’t simulate observed trends in:
1. satellite-era sea surface temperatures globally or on ocean-basin bases,
2. global satellite-era precipitation,
3. global, hemispheric and regional land surface air temperatures, and
4. global land plus sea surface temperatures when the data is divided into multidecadal warming and cooling periods.
In this post, we’ll compare the multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP5-archived models, which were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming AR5, and the new GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. As you’ll recall, GISS recently switched sea surface temperature datasets for their LOTI product.
[…]
A MAJOR FLAW IN THE HYPOTHESIS ON HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING
The observed warming rate during the early warming period is comparable to the trend during the recent warming period. See Figure 11.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-111.png?w=960&h=597
But according to the models, Figure 12, if global temperatures were warmed by greenhouse gases, global surface temperatures during the recent warming period should have warmed at a rate that’s more than 4 times faster than the early warming period—or, more realistically, the early warming period should have warmed at a rate that’s 22% of the rate of the late warming period—yet the observed warming rates are comparable.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-121.png?w=960&h=597
That’s one of the inconsistencies with the hypothesis that anthropogenic forcings are the dominant cause of the warming of global surface temperatures over the 20th Century. The failure of the models to hindcast the early rise in global surface temperatures illustrates that global surface temperatures are capable of warming without the natural and anthropogenic forcings used as inputs to the climate models.
Another way to look at it: the data also indicate that the much higher anthropogenic forcings during the latter later warming period compared to the early warming period had little to no impact on the rate at which observed temperatures warmed. In other words, the climate models do not support the hypothesis of anthropogenic forcing-driven global warming; they contradict it.
>>>>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/20/model-data-comparison-with-trend-maps-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-vs-new-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index/
“After several decades of development, models continue to show no skill at establishing that global warming is a response to increasing greenhouse gases. No skill whatsoever.”
Analysis finds planetary harmonics control solar activity and subsequent climate change
A new post at ClimateMonitor.it by Carlo Tosti demonstrates that the global temperature record since 1880 is highly correlated to solar activity, and that solar activity is in turn highly correlated to the harmonics of planetary motion. These correlations and accumulating evidence of an amplified solar effect on Earth’s climate would tend to suggest a “unified theory” of climate change, whereby gravitational effects from planetary motions cause small changes in solar activity, which are then amplified via cosmic rays/clouds [Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology], ozone, and ocean oscillations to cause large changes in Earth’s climate.
>>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/analysis-finds-planetary-harmonics.html
New paper finds another potential solar amplification mechanism
A paper published today in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds the 11-year solar cycle is correlated to the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a wind reversal that “dominates” variability of the lower stratosphere and in turn “affects a variety of extratropical phenomena including the strength and stability of the winter polar vortex.” The IPCC AR4 states that the IPCC climate models do not include the quasi-biennial oscillation due to inadequate understanding of the causes, and “Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere.” The paper adds to many others finding solar amplification mechanisms that are not included in the climate models the IPCC uses to dismiss the role of the Sun.
>>>>>>>>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-paper-finds-another-potential-solar.html
The UK Met Office/Univ. of Reading/IPCC’s solar scenario – climate outlook position:-
‘Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming’
23 January 2012 – New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.
Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun’s activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).
[…]
“It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”
[…]
Professor Lockwood said: “The 11-year solar cycle of waxing and waning sunspot numbers is perhaps the best known way the Sun changes, but longer term changes in its brightness are more important for possible influences on climate.
“The most likely scenario is that we’ll see an overall reduction of the Sun’s activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum – or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century – is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun’s past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
# # #
The paper is Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) cited in AR5 SOD Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing and represents the IPCC’s solar scenario – climate outlook position. Note:-
1) The UKMO/UofReading/IPCC assume solar-earth climate cyclicity – “…the assumption that the Sun’s past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.”
2) The UKMO/UofReading/IPCC “most likely solar scenario” is “Dalton Minimum”
3) The UKMO/UofReading/IPCC climate scenario – in the face of the 21st century standstill in global warming – is “expected” warming of about “2.5 °C by 2100”.
4) The UKMO/UofReading/IPCC climate scenario alternative (1820 Dalton Minimum repeat) to their “most likely outcome” (only 0.08 °C reduction of 2.5 °C warming by 2100) is “unlikely” but the inference of the uncertainty is that the alternative is not out of the question i.e. beyond consideration; unthinkable or impossible.
Thus Judith Curry’s Uncertainty Monster looms large over the IPCC’s solar scenario – climate outlook
Jones, G. S., M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott (2012), What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05103,doi:10.1029/2011JD017013.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Note 1: Uses HadCM3 (EBM configuration) that UKMO superseded with HadGEM3 for its decadal forecast revision at the end of 2012.
Note 2: Like all Models vs Reality comparisons, their EBM simulations were already well above observations at end of obs series, 2010 El Nino year (Figures 5 and 6, pages 8 and 10). Extending obs to 2013 would look even worse.
Note 3: How certain are the historic TSI reconstructions? Not very. Quoting 4. Discussion and Conclusions (page 11):-
[25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is
still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces
a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the
Maunder Minimum of 6 W m2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over
twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while
another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is
characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum
[Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in
K07 and L09.
L00 TSI is Jones et al’s largest of 3 – 0.98 (L09), 1.26 (L07) and 2.55 W.m2 (L00), see Figure 1, page 3. The Shapiro et al., (2011) figure of 6 W m.2 is comparable to 5.75 W m.2 from Abdussamatov (2012).
Shapiro, A. I., et al. (2011), A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing, Astron. Astrophys., in press.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4763.pdf
ABSTRACT
Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with solar activity. During the past 10000 years, the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years—all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity—there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing.
Aims. We present a reconstruction of the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance covering 130 nm–10 μm from 1610 to the present with annual resolution and for the Holocene with 22-year resolution. Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the longterm trend in the solar variability which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.
Results. We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects climate is also found to exceed previous estimates. We discuss in details the assumptions which leaded us to this conclusion.
So here we are, viewers, deep in Treadgold Swamp, listening to the plaintive cry of the male Right-winged Loon searching for a mate.
A call that is, alas, only answered by that of the Lesser Magoo – again, the last male of an endangered species…
Sounds like the squarks of a lesser spotted Taylor to me. unfortunately, not endangered.
Poor Rob, he thinks insults are empirical evidence.
He seems to have some interesting views on my dress sense
Intrepid reporter stumbles on graph:-
Temperature at Hilo (nearest station to Mauna Loa) since 1970 (blue),
Solar irradiance (lagged by 3 years) (green / magenta),
CO2 from Mauna Loa (black) .
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image045.gif
Momentarily disoriented, intrepid reporter moves on, nothing to see there. Proving:-
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened” – Winston Churchill
If climate science acted like business……….
Scenario Planning
Traditional forecasting techniques often fail to predict significant changes in the firm’s external environment, especially when the change is rapid and turbulent or when information is limited. Consequently, important opportunities and serious threats may be overlooked and the very survival of the firm may be at stake. Scenario planning is a tool specifically designed to deal with major, uncertain shifts in the firm’s environment.
Scenario planning has its roots in military strategy studies. Herman Kahn was an early founder of scenario-based planning in his work related to the possible scenarios associated with thermonuclear war (“thinking the unthinkable”). Scenario planning was transformed into a business tool in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, most notably by Pierre Wack who developed the scenario planning system used by Royal Dutch/Shell. As a result of these efforts, Shell was prepared to deal with the oil shock that occurred in late 1973 and greatly improved its competitive position in the industry during the oil crisis and the oil glut that followed.
Scenario planning is not about predicting the future. Rather, it attempts to describe what is possible. The result of a scenario analysis is a group of distinct futures, all of which are plausible. The challenge then is how to deal with each of the possible scenarios.
[…]
Some of the benefits of scenario planning include:
* Managers are forced to break out of their standard world view, exposing blind spots that might otherwise be overlooked in the generally accepted forecast.
* Decision-makers are better able to recognize a scenario in its early stages, should it actually be the one that unfolds.
[…]
The Scenario Planning Process [1 – 9]
An additional step might be to assign a probability to each scenario. Opinions differ on whether one should attempt to assign probabilities when there may be little basis for determining them.
Business unit managers may not take scenarios seriously if they deviate too much from their preconceived view of the world. Many will prefer to rely on forecasts and their judgement, even if they realize that they may miss important changes in the firm’s environment. To overcome this reluctance to broaden their thinking, it is useful to create “phantom” scenarios that show the adverse results if the firm were to base its decisions on the mainstream view while the reality turned out to be one of the other scenarios.
http://www.netmba.com/strategy/scenario/
‘Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales’
* Willie Soon a,
* David R. Legates b,
* a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
* b College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 93, February 2013,
Abstract
Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are discussed with respect to their connections with large-scale climate dynamics, especially a critical relationship with the total meridional poleward energy transport. Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s, resulting in a reduced temperature gradient between the Equator and the Arctic. We suggest that this new interpretative framework, which involves the extrinsic modulation of the total meridional energy flux beyond the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes Compensation rule, may lead to a better understanding of how global and regional climate has varied through the Holocene and even the Quaternary (the most recent 2.6 million years of Earth’s history). Similarly, a reassessment is now required of the underlying mechanisms that may have governed the equable climate dynamics of the Eocene (35–55 million years ago) and late Cretaceous (65–100 million years ago), both of which were warm geological epochs. This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the “missing link” that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.
Highlights
► The Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient is linked to total solar irradiance. ► View presented of how poleward energy transport operates beyond the Bjerknes rule. ► Most convincing evidence for a Sun–climate connection during the Holocene.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S136468261200288X-gr1.jpg
Fig. 1. Annual-mean EPTG over the entire Northern Hemisphere (°C/degree latitude; dotted blue line) and smoothed 10-year running mean (dashed blue line) versus the estimated total solar irradiance TSI (W m−2; solid red line) of Hoyt and Schatten (1993; with updates by N. Scafetta) from 1850 to 2010. We emphasize the relationship especially on multi-decadal timescales and report the TSI correlations only with the smoothed EPTG series with 10-year running means (since 1880) in Table 1. Increased TSI is related to decreased temperature gradients between the Equator and the Arctic (i.e., more positive EPTG values) and vice versa.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136468261200288X
# # #
No mention of GHGs so probably wont see the light of day in AR5. That and the fact that Soon and Legates are “deniers” in the pay of big evil oil, apparently.
Changing sun, changing climate
by Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs
March 8, 2013
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5000 years.Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records, and noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, celebrated astronomer William Herschel, the first to observe Uranus, noted that when there were fewer spots the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less “light and heat” from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
It is therefore perhaps surprising that Professor Richard Muller (University of California, Berkeley) recently claimed that “no component that matches solar activity” could be identified in his newly reconstructed BEST global land temperature record. Instead, Professor Muller said, carbon dioxide controls our changing temperature.
Can it really be true that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our weather and climate – and which, when it varied in the past, is known to have caused major climate shifts – is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the charts that accompany this article. In locations as widely separated as US, the Arctic and China, they show a strong and direct relationship between temperature and incoming solar radiation — the data for the US coming directly from Professor Muller’s own BEST data! That such a tight relationship between temperature and solar radiation holds for many disparate geographical areas indicates that the US result cannot be dismissed as just a local aberration.
A strong sun-climate relationship requires mechanisms to exist whereby our sun can both cool and warm the Earth. One such mechanism is fluctuations in the total amount of incoming solar energy, but measurements suggest that this is not a dominant effect. Another cause, and probably a more substantial one, is modulation of the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth’s surface by changes in total cloud cover.
Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set, and has therefore been used in plotting the accompanying graph below. [Contigious USA]
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate
The reason why many previous studies have failed to identify a strong sun-temperature link may be that they have used the daily average temperature to represent the temperature component of the relationship. This can easily introduce erroneous complications related to the part of each day when the sun shines on the other hemisphere and darkness prevails at any particular site being studied.
Nevertheless, recent analyses indicate that even small changes in incoming solar radiation can have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, research by one of us (Soon) demonstrated the existence of a strong correlation between solar radiation and the anomalies in average temperature for the Arctic over the past 130 years (below).
http://www.quadrant.org.au/carter-%20arctic.JPG
Since then, we have demonstrated that similar correlations exist for all of the regions that surround the Arctic, including the US mainland and China (below).
http://www.quadrant.org.au/carter%20-%20china.JPG
The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and similar changes in temperature that we have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic region. This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale.
Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration. In particular, there is no coincidence between the measured steady rise in global atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic multi-decadal (and shorter) ups and downs of surface temperature that occur all around the world.
Ongoing research in collaboration with Professor David R. Legates of the University of Delaware, provides a self-consistent explanation for these apparent sun-climate correlations. Our hypothesis involves exchanges of heat and moisture between the equator and the Arctic region. [Soon & Legates (2013), linked previous comment]
Direct evidence now exists that changes in solar activity have influenced what is called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. Interestingly, it transpires that solar-driven changes in temperature, and consequential changes in the volume of freshwater released from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later. That this time lag was not taken into account in earlier sun-climate relationship studies is another reason for their comparative lack of success.
The new peer-reviewed scientific results about sun-climate relationships summarized above are of disparate nature and are obtained with independent datasets stem from several different research groups. Considered together, this new research renders implausible the prevailing assumption that changes in solar activity play no (or only an insignificant) role in climate change.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of plausible hypotheses that are then supported or rejected by evidence gathered from either observation or experiment. The evidence from BEST’s newly analysed data, and from our own and other published studies, is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that solar factors are the major cause of multidecadal climate change, especially in the northern hemisphere circum-Arctic regions.
Incidentally, but importantly, BEST’s own data also clearly invalidate the alternative hypothesis that CO2 is the most important cause of observed temperature changes across the USA.
>>>>>>>>
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/changing-sun-changing-climate