Northern Hemisphere Warm or Cool Summer 2009?

[glc]

Those are of limited usefulness since both are European series that could easily both be affected by the same regional ocean current oscillation.

And your "reconstructions" come from where exactly?

[icefisher]

Jul 3, 2009 18:53:21 GMT glc said:

Those are of limited usefulness since both are European series that could easily both be affected by the same regional ocean current oscillation.

And your "reconstructions" come from where exactly?

I would have to do some research as I was relying on recollections from last year discussions of the Dalton Minimum. But here is an interesting chart that shows some data that might dispute your European sources somewhat.

[glc]

I would have to do some research as I was relying on recollections from last year discussions of the Dalton Minimum. But here is an interesting chart that shows some data that might dispute your European sources somewhat

I don't thinks so.

1. Your graphic shows 3 European stations - one (CET) of which I mentioned in my earlier post
2. All 3 show a sharp decline in ~1780 which is nearly 20 years before the start of SC5 and ~4 years before SC4. This supports my original statement that the cooling began long before the Dalton Minimum started - and at a time when "solar activity" was high.
3. The graphic you use is from David Archibald's 'paper'. I've raised the same points with him - and got no answer.
4. The graph only extends up to 1840. Many European stations showed a temperature dip in the 1850s. In fact the longer records show there is nothing unusual about the Dalton Minimum period.
5. Oberlach temperatures do appear to dip during the DM, but this appears to be related the Tombura eruption in 1815. Apart from that it appears just as cold in the late ~1780s as it does during the DM.

[socold]

There was also the Laki eruption in 1783-1784
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki#Consequences_in_Europe

[icefisher]

Jul 3, 2009 23:30:56 GMT glc said:

I would have to do some research as I was relying on recollections from last year discussions of the Dalton Minimum. But here is an interesting chart that shows some data that might dispute your European sources somewhat

I don't thinks so.

1. Your graphic shows 3 European stations - one (CET) of which I mentioned in my earlier post
2. All 3 show a sharp decline in ~1780 which is nearly 20 years before the start of SC5 and ~4 years before SC4. This supports my original statement that the cooling began long before the Dalton Minimum started - and at a time when "solar activity" was high.

That could easily be attributable to ocean oscillations. Ocean oscillations have various affects on regional weather. They have global effects but much stronger regional effects. As I was saying

1) You need more than european sources.
2) 1800 wasn't where most of the cooling had occured by during the Dalton Minimum

Jul 3, 2009 23:30:56 GMT glc said:

3. The graphic you use is from David Archibald's 'paper'. I've raised the same points with him - and got no answer.
4. The graph only extends up to 1840. Many European stations showed a temperature dip in the 1850s. In fact the longer records show there is nothing unusual about the Dalton Minimum period.
5. Oberlach temperatures do appear to dip during the DM, but this appears to be related the Tombura eruption in 1815. Apart from that it appears just as cold in the late ~1780s as it does during the DM.

LOL! its clearly going back up by 1815 according to this chart. Are you suggesting the Oberlach temperatures dropped in anticipation of the Tombura eruption?

[glc]

1) You need more than european sources.

You provided the graph of the european sources. David Archibald uses european sources to conclude that the temeprature decline over the next few years will be 2 deg C.

2) 1800 wasn't where most of the cooling had occured by during the Dalton Minimum

So where did it occur?

LOL! its clearly going back up by 1815 according to this chart. Are you suggesting the Oberlach temperatures dropped in anticipation of the Tombura eruption?

There is a downward spike in ~1815. But it's interesting you note that temperatures actually began to rise DURING the Dalton Minimum. This completely demolishes the solar link as there is supposed to be a 8-10 year lag.

You need to make up your mind. Do temperatures respond immediately to solar changes or is there a delay. If they respond immediately then why aren't current temperatures the same as they were in ~1900. If there's a delay/lag how come temperatures have recovered before the end of the Dalton minimum.

There is no evidence that a global solar/climate link exists on decadal timescales.

[icefisher]

Jul 4, 2009 9:08:31 GMT glc said:

1) You need more than european sources.

You provided the graph of the european sources. David Archibald uses european sources to conclude that the temeprature decline over the next few years will be 2 deg C.

LOL! So you agree good! I just provided some data to dispute your erroneous claims of your European sources allegedly near bottoming in 1800.

Jul 4, 2009 9:08:31 GMT glc said:

2) 1800 wasn't where most of the cooling had occured by during the Dalton Minimum

So where did it occur?

LOL! its clearly going back up by 1815 according to this chart. Are you suggesting the Oberlach temperatures dropped in anticipation of the Tombura eruption?

There is a downward spike in ~1815. But it's interesting you note that temperatures actually began to rise DURING the Dalton Minimum. This completely demolishes the solar link as there is supposed to be a 8-10 year lag.

Not according to these charts GLC! I straight edged the chart and the bottom of the spike is in 1814. The Tambora effect in the NH was in 1816.

Jul 4, 2009 9:08:31 GMT glc said:

You need to make up your mind. Do temperatures respond immediately to solar changes or is there a delay. If they respond immediately then why aren't current temperatures the same as they were in ~1900. If there's a delay/lag how come temperatures have recovered before the end of the Dalton minimum.

This is going to kill you GLC! Your 8 year theory is completely intact for the Dalton minimum. The temperature plunge started in 1797 with the extended minimum of solar cycle 4 that ran 13.6 years, for 10.2 years after the maximum in 1788.

Further that cooling plunge followed what I will call a "rollover" from a minimum to the precipice of 10 years from 1787 to 1797 similar to the "rollover" from the minimum of 2000 to 2008. Only difference was the absence of a freak peak in 1787 which was still being perturbed by the European 3 year effect of the Laki eruption.

Then it proceeded to get colder for another 17 years.

So if we continue as with the Dalton minimum we will hit bottom in 2025 with an anomaly somewhere between -.3 and -1.5 depending upon which of those European temp records, if any, proves to be the precursor.

Now where you are going wrong is you are confounding the Dalton minimum with the concurrent temperature minimum. The Dalton minimum is a sunspot count minimum.

The Dalton minimum also includes cycle 7, but cycle 7 is a full 50% stronger than cycle 6, which could explain the early rise.

But you also need to factor in other stuff too like ocean oscillations. Its easy to argue that the affect of the 1957 record solar cycle was heavily damped by a negative PDO. . . .in fact is if solar variability is a major driver they damped each other.

Jul 4, 2009 9:08:31 GMT glc said:

There is no evidence that a global solar/climate link exists on decadal timescales.

You are wrong about that. Absolutely wrong. Its already been proven. Not only is your 8 year delay playing out consistently but the CERN project has already established a physical connection.

Phase II of the project Cloud 9 is being designed to estimate the intensity of the forcing. You can add to that some minor TSI forcing that is already widely recognized by just about everybody but yourself, and more than likely there is a magnetic forcing as well.

Its my view we are quite a few years away from substantially understanding the affect the cosmos has on our atmosphere and probably just as far away from understanding the mechanisms within in our own atmosphere that may affect temperatures.

Its a problem that physicists that have been put to work on this issue have to grope with.

Usually what they build are gadgets nice orderly little things that do exactly what told to do. Natural sciences is a whole different ballgame.

Climate science has to drive a physicist batty. I think thats Hansen's problem. He was looking like a zombie in that photo with law enforcement leading him to jail from the anti-coal protest. Gee, I remember those days . . . .drugs and protests.

[socold]

Jul 4, 2009 13:06:50 GMT icefisher said:

Jul 4, 2009 9:08:31 GMT glc said:

There is no evidence that a global solar/climate link exists on decadal timescales.

You are wrong about that. Absolutely wrong. Its already been proven. Not only is your 8 year delay playing out consistently but the CERN project has already established a physical connection.

Nothing of the sort has been proven. The current evidence is that solar varation is too small to anything but mildly impact the temperature record. It's just one minor forcing among many other minor forcings like black carbon, stratospheric ozone, etc.

In basic terms, the Sun is very hot, but it stays pretty much the same temperature.

[icefisher]

Jul 4, 2009 13:27:48 GMT socold said:

Jul 4, 2009 13:06:50 GMT icefisher said:

You are wrong about that. Absolutely wrong. Its already been proven. Not only is your 8 year delay playing out consistently but the CERN project has already established a physical connection.

Nothing of the sort has been proven. The current evidence is that solar varation is too small to anything but mildly impact the temperature record. It's just one minor forcing among many other minor forcings like black carbon, stratospheric ozone, etc.

In basic terms, the Sun is very hot, but it stays pretty much the same temperature.

Sorry Socold but your own statement above is contradictory. You admit that TSI has an effect. Well TSI is just one proven effect. Cloud 6 established that particles do build cloud nuclei so now all that is left is to establish the intensity of the effect.

And we still need to learn a lot more about the effects of the magnetic field of the sun on the earth, that may well turn out to be the biggest of them all.

Unlike the rubes over at RC, at least the solar physicists are moving ahead based upon actual experimentation and observed effects. . . .

They are not going into ivory towers, consulting the Gods of the Preservationists and coming out with a pronouncement and a working model of how it all works locked up inside of a wooden ark guarded by a 6,000 eunuchs, like yourself, where the viewing of the actual models are only allowed for the high priests of the Green Movement.

I would be ROTFLMAO if it weren't so true.

[socold]

I "admitted" TSI has an effect, but only a small one. About 0.1C global surface temperatue influence between cycle max and min. Perhaps the current cycle that has been long and deep has seen as much as 0.15C cooling from peak. This is hardly good news for skeptics though, because the consequence of that will be that there is an increase in the surface temperature records of about 0.15C going to happen in the next few years from the Sun alone.

Also the models already contain uncertainty due to aerosol and cloud formation. GCRs would be just another uncertainty in this area. The models already contain a wide error range (but nothing comforting to skeptics as the range is about a 2.5 to 4.5C sensitivity) and scientists are actively trying to narrow that down with observations and experiments. GCR-cloud experiments can just been seen as one of the many attempts to narrow it down.

As better satellites go up able to measure aerosols and clouds better we will have more and more precise forcing estimates for aersols and clouds over coming years.

I find it unlikely that the answers will all be on the cooling end. Just as unlikely that they will all be on the warming end. The end point will probably be somewhere between.

But somewhere between is not what the skeptics need. You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span.

I just don't buy such optimism.

[icefisher]

Jul 4, 2009 14:29:49 GMT socold said:

But somewhere between is not what the skeptics need. You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span.

I just don't buy such optimism.

That just demonstrates a lack of circumspection on your part. I think if we are going to look at where the baseline is the most accurate depiction of that is Akasofu's graphic and the stuff in dispute is the LIA recovery line.

Akasofu pegs that about about .7C per century, some of it already TSI driven, another piece is going to be GCR driven.

Now those are scientifically "observed" pieces. CO2 still sits in the realm of untested theory and currently has no evidence to show. In fact the alleged heat from CO2 is at least missing if not negative.

Its erroneous to say the burden of proof is on the skeptics. Its only that way to the extent that warmologists have been and will remain successful in their exaggeration campaign on the state of the science.

[socold]

Jul 4, 2009 15:38:48 GMT icefisher said:

Jul 4, 2009 14:29:49 GMT socold said:

But somewhere between is not what the skeptics need. You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span.

I just don't buy such optimism.

That just demonstrates a lack of circumspection on your part. I think if we are going to look at where the baseline is the most accurate depiction of that is Akasofu's graphic and the stuff in dispute is the LIA recovery line.

You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span. Has nothing to do with any baseline, this is just what you are banking on.

Remind me why we are looking at "where the baseline is"? I was talking about the physics of the climate. Climate sensitivity has an uncertainty range and skeptics are banking on that turning out to be at the lower end, or even lower.

As for "Akasofu's graphic", it's worthless in any discussion of climate. It's childish to simply draw a line of best fit through the temperature record and label it with essentially nothing more descriptive than "warming".

Akasofu pegs that about about .7C per century

Thanks goes to Akasofu for pointing out what the trend of 20th century warming was. Without him no doubt we wouldn't possibly know. Noone else has the ability to draw a line of best fit through the temperature record afterall.

some of it already TSI driven, another piece is going to be GCR driven. Now those are scientifically "observed" pieces. CO2 still sits in the realm of untested theory and currently has no evidence to show. In fact the alleged heat from CO2 is at least missing if not negative.

co2 was tested long ago along the lines that the GCR-cloud experiment is only just doing. The co2 forcing is pinned down well. You've already admitted the GCR forcing is still being determined. Yet you come to the conclusion that co2 is "untested" and GCR is "proven". I suspect in fact that the GCR forcing is low. Why? Because if it was high the 11 year solar cycle would show a greater signal in the temperature record than it does.

And the strength of the GCR forcing is of course irrelevant to recent warming if the GCR trends diverge from temperature trends since the 1970s.

Its erroneous to say the burden of proof is on the skeptics. Its only that way to the extent that warmologists have been and will remain successful in their exaggeration campaign on the state of the science.

I haven't said the burden of proof is on the skeptics. However now that you mention it those who dismiss the range of likely climate sensitivity and instead opt for something much lower do have a burden of proof to convince the rest of the scientific community. The science as it stands today is conclusively showing strong warming from a doubling of co2 and has done for the last 30 years. For that to change someone has to show something solid, not just blow hot air with graphs labelled "recovery from little ice age".

As an objective observer I find it unlikely that all the discovered cards over the next few decades will all reduce the high end of climate sensitivity. More likely some will increase the lower end too.

[sigurdur]

SoCold:
I think you miss the point. No one denies that co2 is a greenhouse type of gas. And 30 years doesn't mean squat in climate unless you are talking about the quick changes that the Greenland ice core data shows.
There have been numerous times in the past that the temp went up 2C in less than 30 years, and fell 2C in less than 30 years. And it can't be blamed on volcanoes etc. No one seems to really know the causes of those rapid swings.

The question today is what does cause the increase/decrease in global temps. And the underlying data, that shows either of those, how good is it?

TSI changes seem to be but a small driver of climate in my humble opinion. Just as co2 seems to be a small driver of climate. From what I have read, it would seem co2 rises and falls are the result of heating and cooling, not the main drivers of heating and cooling. Co2 may have a temporal effect on temps, short term weather etc, but doesn't seem to have a long term effect on climate.

I refer you to this link:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

[poitsplace]

Jul 4, 2009 14:29:49 GMT socold said:

I "admitted" TSI has an effect, but only a small one. About 0.1C global surface temperatue influence between cycle max and min. Perhaps the current cycle that has been long and deep has seen as much as 0.15C cooling from peak. This is hardly good news for skeptics though, because the consequence of that will be that there is an increase in the surface temperature records of about 0.15C going to happen in the next few years from the Sun alone.

Also the models already contain uncertainty due to aerosol and cloud formation. GCRs would be just another uncertainty in this area. The models already contain a wide error range (but nothing comforting to skeptics as the range is about a 2.5 to 4.5C sensitivity) and scientists are actively trying to narrow that down with observations and experiments. GCR-cloud experiments can just been seen as one of the many attempts to narrow it down.

Lol, I know what you mean but it's still an amusing term "certain uncertainty".

As better satellites go up able to measure aerosols and clouds better we will have more and more precise forcing estimates for aersols and clouds over coming years.

I find it unlikely that the answers will all be on the cooling end. Just as unlikely that they will all be on the warming end. The end point will probably be somewhere between.

Well considering aerosols are VISUALLY darker in the arctic and would therefore be partly responsible for arctic warming (which makes perfect sense considering the antarctic...which has had no warming. (I won't bo

But even aerosols in other regions may provide significantly lower cooling and likely even some warming.

global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/06/combined_particulate_pollution_1.html

Without the supposed cooling of aerosols...all we're stuck with is the rather mundane warming we find in observations.

But somewhere between is not what the skeptics need. You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span.

I just don't buy such optimism.

No, many of us rely on things simply turning out the way observations seem to indicate. We're crazy like this... but we believe that science should be based on observations, not some models made before the processes are even understood. YOU should also be assuming that the observed warming (or somewhere near it) is what we should expect. I mean...c'mon you're honestly suggesting "skeptics" should believe something that has NEVER been observed to be the case, are you???

Can you be so naive as to believe these high end guestimates when currently the warming rate would have to go so high to meet them it's absurd? We shouldn't have even seen a leveling off since reaching 3C would require that the COOLING PHASE warm faster than the 1980-2000's warming phase. Here, let me show you how stupid it looks.

[icefisher]

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

You guys need the low chance event of aerosol and clouds providing as much cooling as they can. You rely on everything turning out to be in the lower end of the uncertainty span. Has nothing to do with any baseline, this is just what you are banking on.

Thats incorrect. You forget the LIA. For there to be a LIA there had to be a warmer Halocene, both well accepted principles. Fact is its been this warm before and over a few centuries it descended into a cold spell. Thats well accepted.

Obviously it will probably take a few centuries to recover just like a took a few centuries to develop. Thats just purely logical.

Your entire argument that you need an explanation like CO2 to explain the LIA recovery is pure bunk. Thats simple science the common man can understand.

If heat, as its believed to, is 85% absorbed by the oceans and it takes centuries for the pipeline to empty thats an argument for the extended LIA recovery. The CO2 theory was based upon the idea we had already recovered from the LIA and the recovery was over. And the arguments used for that were modeled with low ocean heat content due to a lack of deep ocean exchange so that the CO2 theory could stand alone, explain rapid warming (rather than losing the heat to the oceans) and only having it emerge down the line.

But dang it!!! The heat disappeared!!!! And the only possible explanation for that is an extended much longer process of warming where the oceans do accumulate the heat only to let it out later. . . .just like in a LIA recovery process that takes a few centuries to play out.

What did Hansen argue for the missing CO2 heat? Up to a millenia?

Only thing left for the warmistas is to feed the 6,000 eunuchs guarding the models in the wooden ark containing the holy models which can only be seen by the high priests lest it strike you dead and to keep the donations coming in.

Its no longer science its pure religion.

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

As for "Akasofu's graphic", it's worthless in any discussion of climate. It's childish to simply draw a line of best fit through the temperature record and label it with essentially nothing more descriptive than "warming".

I would say thats just an ego problem on your part. It must be tough for egotists to admit they are unclear about how stuff works.

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

co2 was tested long ago along the lines that the GCR-cloud experiment is only just doing. The co2 forcing is pinned down well.

Thats bull! Magellan and others have been challenging you to come up with such evidence for months and all you come up with are theoretical mathematical models. Nobody has even warmed the inside of a box with back radiation.

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

You've already admitted the GCR forcing is still being determined.

Yet you come to the conclusion that co2 is "untested" and GCR is "proven". I suspect in fact that the GCR forcing is low. Why? Because if it was high the 11 year solar cycle would show a greater signal in the temperature record than it does.

The reason that the 11 year solar cycle does not show a lot of cooling at minimums is their length. With about 5 to 7 years being typical of a fall to a minimum folks here have conceded a .1C degree effect. So what does 70 years get you? Well thats 1C or about 1.5C per century. Well we observed the tailender of that minimum for about 70 years so it does happen. Its not unreasonable that the last 2 centuries have averaged half that recovery rate, and in a grand maximum over the past 50 years and you get a little boost of say another .2 or .3 C.

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

I haven't said the burden of proof is on the skeptics. However now that you mention it those who dismiss the range of likely climate sensitivity and instead opt for something much lower do have a burden of proof to convince the rest of the scientific community. The science as it stands today is conclusively showing strong warming from a doubling of co2 and has done for the last 30 years. For that to change someone has to show something solid, not just blow hot air with graphs labelled "recovery from little ice age".

Look more closely. He labeled the warming of the most recent 30 years. "multi-decadal oscillation".

Probably the PDO more than anything else but obviously affected by oscillations seen in all the oceans. You need to study the graph a little more closely.

Jul 4, 2009 16:06:54 GMT socold said:

As an objective observer I find it unlikely that all the discovered cards over the next few decades will all reduce the high end of climate sensitivity. More likely some will increase the lower end too.

I will agree on that, but its really CO2 that needs more than anybody, especially this month where zero sign of warming has been sighted. That graph of the little blue bullet of where we are on Akasofu's graph is falling well behind along its path. Meanwhile the IPCC hasn't won any observational evidence for a long time.

And keep in mind every day you pooh pooh that as being noise in the data, sets back a matching day before you can claim observational evidence for your theory again.

Whats it now? 11 years? Wow! its already going to be 2020 before you can again make a claim about warming temperatures being evidence of CO2 forcing and thats only if it starts warming tomorrow.