|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2010 4:11:14 GMT
Leif Svalgaard can't explain this, although he asked WUWT readers to spot the error, but it was actually Leif that was in error. This has been presented to you on at least two other occasions, perhaps you just didn't see it or hoped it would just fade away. Let's guess: the hydrological cycle doesn't affect climate either Solar Activity and Regional StreamflowHow long has Leif been studying climate issues, two years or so? Ah, he must be much more knowledgeable than the likes of Will Alexander after 40+ years of studying South African climate right? anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/The truth is Leif has boxed himself in a corner and most of what he says is opinion. He has no idea how much the sun must change to affect climate, as do you or most others. Magellan Leif might have jumped in a bit too quickly on the Alexander study, but he is right on the relative energy output of the various solar parameters. As a point of interest could you tell us what relevance the mississippi river flow has to do with global climate - assuming that there is a genuine correlation between solar activity and streamflow. I'm not sure there is. GLC: This study actually started in South America, or another was done in South America showing exactly the same correlation. Unless it is just a western hemisphere phenomenon, which I doubt very much, the stream flow of major rivers deff shows climate fluctuations.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Apr 11, 2010 5:02:33 GMT
is that geomagnetic against a weather proxy, sort off. Snow feed or rain in catchment? There does seam to be a bit of sticking together of the lines.
Are there any reasons that this supports the AGW story, I can think of none.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 11, 2010 7:28:46 GMT
GLC: This study actually started in South America, or another was done in South America showing exactly the same correlation. Unless it is just a western hemisphere phenomenon, which I doubt very much, the stream flow of major rivers deff shows climate fluctuations.
The south american study shows a change in river flow which appears to correlate to the reversal of the solar magnetic pole every 22 years or so. The mississippi correlation seems to have a problem in that it appears to be using old magnetic flux data, i.e. the data that suggested that the magnetic flux had doubled over the past 100 years. This is now known to be rubbish. Another problem is that with noisy data like in the plot you can pretty much draw any conclusion you like. There are times when the data are in phase, out of phase, half a cycle in advance or behind. In ~1970 the mississippi appears to be driving the AA index - as it does in the 1950s.
If you take 2 sets of random noisy data, normalise each so that they have the same mean and SD, then plot them you can dream up all sorts of weird and wonderful correlations.
UPDATE: I was forgetting that the mississippi plot is the one where streamflow has a 34 year lag, i.e. Streamflow has been lagged 34 years after the Geomagnetic data. To a casual onlooker, it seems like they've just slid one plot along against the other until they get something which looks like it fits.
Does anyone know why streamflow should respond to the geomagnetic flux from ~3 solar cycles earlier?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 11, 2010 8:17:15 GMT
Can I just say that I think many of you are still confusing 'natural ' weather cycles with the continuing increase in global temperatures. ENSO, PDO, NAO - they are real phenomena - but they don't appear to explain the warming we've seen over the past 30 odd years. As I said earlier cycles should eventually return to an original state. The temperature doesn't appear to be.
Even if these cycles are driven by the sun it makes no difference. There is a strong correlation between the moon's orbit and the tides on earth, but the moon isn't responsible for 30 years of warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 11, 2010 13:06:01 GMT
Can I just say that I think many of you are still confusing 'natural ' weather cycles with the continuing increase in global temperatures. ENSO, PDO, NAO - they are real phenomena - but they don't appear to explain the warming we've seen over the past 30 odd years. As I said earlier cycles should eventually return to an original state. The temperature doesn't appear to be. Even if these cycles are driven by the sun it makes no difference. There is a strong correlation between the moon's orbit and the tides on earth, but the moon isn't responsible for 30 years of warming. The point is that the earth does not respond to astrological forcings in perfect sync and that is likely because ocean currents for whatever reason are not singing in harmony. We are dealing with a complex system. But there needs to be empirical validation of the CO2 theory as well. Can you explain why in the early 20th century you get 33 years of warming from 1911 to 1944 that exceeds the most recent 33 years even though both starting dates start on a low temperature point in the surface record (1911 and 1976)? And this is despite a 7 to 10 fold increase in CO2 emissions between the two starting dates. That seems terribly inconsistent with a theory of a CO2 caused forcing trend. One would expect warming trends to be both longer and more robust, yet the only way to achieve a tenth of a degree more robustness (all of 15%) is to shorten the time span and put a certain date at the end of the series (1998). It also seems terribly inconsistent of you to acknowledge the cooling effects of solar minimums and not acknowledge the warming effect of a solar grand maximum. I think we tend to get our thinking locked into the bounds of the box. The fact is the data above tells an important story at its core. I tend to think the global budget diagrams like what most of what the "club" produces is shifted in the desired direction, but if for a moment you accept the global budget figures and look at the budget item for latent heat transport. It is at 78w/m2. Compared to the alleged 3w/m2 for a doubling of CO2 that is huge. A 2% shift in that figure driven by solar variation is considerably more forcing than we allegedly are experiencing from CO2 from the beginning of the industrial age. And it now appears, and you acknowledge the effect of which (including feedbacks), to be about double what is necessary to explain where we are at now. Then to further muck up the issue, that figure is the least understood because of the role of clouds and the feedback they can exert to potentially increase the effects of any forcing including latent heat transport that is implied above. Then add in that 1,000 year ocean moderation concept, if true, that even the AGW advocates are now being forced to seek refuge in (the heat disappearing below the sensors problem) because of the divergence problem and other matters and what you have is the state of science strongly supports the skeptics position (distinguished from the solar theorist position, though the AGW folks like to lump them all in the same box). . . .something that the father of global warming maintained throughout his lifetime. . . .because he was a damned good scientist.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2010 13:08:38 GMT
Can I just say that I think many of you are still confusing 'natural ' weather cycles with the continuing increase in global temperatures. ENSO, PDO, NAO - they are real phenomena - but they don't appear to explain the warming we've seen over the past 30 odd years. As I said earlier cycles should eventually return to an original state. The temperature doesn't appear to be. Even if these cycles are driven by the sun it makes no difference. There is a strong correlation between the moon's orbit and the tides on earth, but the moon isn't responsible for 30 years of warming. The continueing increase in global temps is not something that is surprising. A small fraction must be the result of increased co2. When one looks at temp flucuations prior to 1970, which seems the AGWs crowd magical starting pont, verses the past 30 years, it could be ascertained that co2 "might' have added .1C to the warming trend. When one can predict a sudden stratospheric warming from changes in the iron ore magnetism in Minn, it is quit evident that the sun does have quit a bit of influence, even without the TSI influence. The main thing is to keep an open mind to all possibilities. TSI does not seem to be responsable for the MWP nor the Roman Warm Period. As to the Maudner Minn, the thing to look at climate wise is Ag production. There is no better metric of climate than Ag production. One thing for sure, warmer temps produce increased yields worldwide. Note I said, worldwide. This is very benificial for mankind and MUST be taken into the AGW equation as a huge plus.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2010 13:12:19 GMT
Can I just say that I think many of you are still confusing 'natural ' weather cycles with the continuing increase in global temperatures. ENSO, PDO, NAO - they are real phenomena - but they don't appear to explain the warming we've seen over the past 30 odd years. As I said earlier cycles should eventually return to an original state. The temperature doesn't appear to be. Even if these cycles are driven by the sun it makes no difference. There is a strong correlation between the moon's orbit and the tides on earth, but the moon isn't responsible for 30 years of warming. GLC: Another question. What is the original state? With a chaotic climate, I have discerned that that original state doesn't make much diff. It was the state of climate at a certain time, but doesn't mean that the climate will return to that as the "state" of climate, with all the forces driving it, really has no "original state".
|
|